Jump to content


legacy participant
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MatthewB

  1. Or perhaps the "acid-based" Milk Punches were syllabubs--and, thus perhaps, the forerunners of eggnog. Which is a different beast than the original receipt that started this thread. Edit: added bold emphasis
  2. Harrington notes the research of Caroline Moore who attributes the drink to Aphra Behn (1640-1689). Obviously that's earlier than Baker's experience in 1931. I was conjuring that it might have been difficult for a Behn recipe to end up in early 20th century Peking. But I've no idea. jackal10, I wonder if the punches that you've noted (and thanks, BTW!) might be a different animal? Or, perhaps, the later recipes--without the acid--were fashioned to provide easier creation in early 20th century bars? Duffy's "Milk Punch No. 1" is closer to the "acid-based recipes" as it includes lemon juice, lemon rinds, & a pineapple.
  3. First off, Harrington's receipt does call for milk, not half & half. But you know that. Albert S. Crockett in The Old Waldorf-Astoria Bar Book (publication date: 1934) includes a receipt for Milk Punch, as follows: Patrick Gavin Duffy (The Official Mixer's Manual, 1934) provides a generic Milk Punch recipe that covers the following Milk Punches: Applejack, Bacardi Rum, Bourbon, Brandy, Grenadine, Jamaica Rum, Rye, Scotch, & "any other liquor with milk": Duffy also includes "Milk Punch No. 1" but that's going in a bit different direction. Now comes the twist. Harrington traces the drink to New Orleans. But the vernerable Charles Baker (The Gentlemen's Companion, 1939) offers a receipt "Dated from Peking, April 1931" for "Tiger's Milk"--three different recipes, No. 1, No. 2, & No. 3 of which he claims preference for No. 1. He notes, "This we consider the most amazing milk drink we ever tasted." A very very quick look (I may have missed something) in The Savoy Cocktail Book & Schumann's American Bar turned up nothing concerning Milk Punch.
  4. Well, I guess it's MatthewB's eGullet research day. I'm off to reshelve the books I pulled for cdh on the lamb thing. And to pull some cocktail books to find out about Milk Punch . . .
  5. I wish. I truly do! More seriously, do you have a Thermapen? I'd think that might be the best way to get an accurate temp when grilling. Use the remote probe when BBQ'ing. My hunch--just a hunch--is that the probe moving whilst grilling and the tip (the tip is where the temp is read) touched bone.
  6. I suggest that cdh go "Steingarten" on us . . . Go buy about 30 different thermometers (do your research first). Then, buy about 20 different racks of lamb. Do your work. Report your findings.
  7. Did you use a Bic lighter? "A friend of mine" has been using Bic's to open beer bottle for quite a while.
  8. Here's what I found . . . McGee (p. 87) in On Food & Cooking: Beef: 60% water / 18% protein / 22% fat Lamb: 56% water / 16% protein / 28% fat Aidells & Kelly (p. 481) in The Complete Meat Cookbook: Rack of Lamb Doneness . . . Blood-rare 115*F to 125*F Rare 125*F to 130*F Medium-rare 130*F to 140*F Medium 140*F to 150*F Edit: removed unneeded apostrophe
  9. Hmmm, I don't doubt that Dave the Cook is right, but I'm going to go dig out Aidell's Meat Book & report my findings.
  10. It's been quite a while since I've made that drink. When I did make it, it was Paul's receipt. FWIW, my favorite three cocktails are negronis, martinis, & manhattans. Our cocktail tastes are on par. I don't remember my Milk Punch as being oddly thick but I do remember that I had little interest in ever making it again. Obviously, I haven't made it again. Want me to check the old chestnuts (Waldorf-Astoria Barbook, etc.) to see if Paul tinkered with the receipt?
  11. cdh, Are you positive that you didn't make honest mistake like measuring bone temp rather than meat temp? (I'm assuming this was a bone-in rack.)
  12. Anyone tried either Vya or King Eider vermouth in a martini? I usually prepare these martinis with a 5:1 gin/vermouth ratio. (Stirred, never shaken.) If I use Noilly Prat, I keep the same ratio but add 2 or 3 drops of Fee's Orange Bitters along the lines of what cdh mentioned.
  13. Let's not forget what Dorothy Parker had to say about martinis . . . As far as recipes, I stick by Mr. Lucky's The Secrets of a Dry Martini.
  14. The Maverick probes are worth checking out. I have the ET-7 (dual wireless probes).
  15. My abilities at the Korean language are non-existent so I won't even try. BBQ thin-sliced beef Grilled beef short ribs
  16. FG, I wasn’t too clear in what I was asking yesterday, so I’ll go quite a bit further while moving in a different direction. I especially liked your earlier post as it succinctly laid out a fundamental issue surrounding a number of discussions on eGullet. The issue, as I see it, centers on this question: Why do we feel that we can make judgments about food that are more than mere exercises in solipsism or subjectivism? Your invocation of an “anti-intellectualism/anti-hedonism” dichotomy evokes several dichotomies or dualisms bequeathed to us by Platonic philosophy: mind/body, fact/value, subject/object, etc. I think we’d all agree—at least to some extend—that when Athens & Jerusalem collided and produced Christianity that these bewitching dualisms found their way out of rarified philosophical discussions and into the very fabric of Western culture. Unlike Hebraic monism, the dualism of Pauline Christianity could not account for the value of the “flesh” & the “world” other than as a “stage” for life after death. And, yet, how does this matter for a forum such as eGullet? I put forward—tentatively & in interest of promoting dialogue—that it matters because we do wish to make judgments about food, food judgments that can find agreement with others. In other words, we desire mutual understanding even in this “foodie” area of our lives. Ultimately, I’m saying that we might have something to learn from currents within philosophical aesthetics that eschew ill-fated dichotomies such as mind/body, fact/value, & subject/object. I’d argue that these dichotomies must be dispensed with if we are to ever have a “rational” foundation for our gustatory experiences. Some of this work has been done. For instance, Glenn Kuehn produced a dissertation entitled “Tasting the World: An Aesthetics of Food” in 2001 for the Ph.D. in Philosophy at the Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Two chapters of that dissertation—“How Can Food Be Art?” and “Tasting the World” can be found at: http://www.grafics.com/glenn/Aesthetics/ha...ts/handouts.htm Toward the end of his dissertation, Kuehn sums up his final conclusions concerning the intersection of philosophical aesthetics & food. He writes, I find Kuehn’s “stomach-oriented” arguments pertinent to a discussion concerning “The American Way of Eating.” Not only because he engages deeply with the work of an American philosopher—John Dewey—but also because Kuehn establishes a philosophical foundation for the enjoyment of food as well as a basis by which we can reach agreement with others concerning our judgments about food. Furthermore, this “stomach-oriented philosophy” avoids the pitfalls of unnecessary dualisms that pull us away from everyday experiences. So am I stating that the weaknesses of an “American Way of Eating” are simply philosophical problems? No. Rather these weaknesses—as they display themselves via “intellectual/hedonism” & “mind/body” dualisms, etc.—are deeply embedded in ways of life that cut across all, or nearly all, of our American culture. On the one hand, I believe that American anti-intellectualism has roots not only in Christianity—especially in many of its current evangelical forms—but also in the strong desire for egalitarianism. Taken to an extreme, egalitarianism leads to weak democratic impulses, impulses that generate sentiments such as “I don’t know much about philosophy, art, or haute cuisine [choose one] but I know what food I like.” Or to put it another way, “I like the food that I like because I like it.” Hardly the stuff by which to generate agreement—whether it is political, moral, or culinary agreement. On the other hand, I believe that American anti-hedonism has roots not only in Christianity—especially in many of its current evangelical forms—but also in an acquisitive consumer culture (“he who dies with the most toys wins”) that attempts to avoid the mortality & finitude of one’s own life. The upshot of this acquisitive lie is that we all too often reject our immediate experience. Yet to truly enjoy food we must savor & ingest decay in order to lengthen the timeline of our own bodily decline. This is the immediate experience of eating. Yet again, how does this matter for a forum such as eGullet, especially in a discussion about “The American Way of Eating”? First, the tremendous amount of money that Americans spend on food is not necessarily a good sign nor is it necessarily a bad sign. The question to ask might be, “When we spend money on food are we doing it in order to have a singular & heightened experience (as well as sustain our bodies) or are we doing it for some other reason?” One would hope that our economic power—as it compares to the rest of the world—would also allow for greater reflection in the midst of our consumption. Second, we might ask ourselves why we are so recalcitrant to adopt something akin to the American culinary tradition that John & Karen Hess called for in The Taste of America? For instance, why are the traditions that we adopt so often tied to the Mediterranean as Bux pointed out? Third, why do we avoid our finitude—and, thus, avoid our bodies—with such alarming regularity? Fourth, why do we tend to value epistemological egalitarianism over mutual understanding & agreement (and—ultimately—connection to others)? Fifth, what do the rest of you think?
  17. CWS, Please do not stop the dialogue because of me. If I've caused that then I'm the one to extend an even bigger mea culpa. For me, I think Grant is on to something concerning *smell* as a crucial component of a dining experience that is soulfully satisfying. That's why I jumped in earlier to give a different take on the "pine" thing.
  18. To riff off Chevy Chase's "Be the ball, Danny" in Caddyshack . . . "Be the food, Spence. Be the food." In other words, to continue to so ferociously criticize Grant's cooking without having had an experience with it . . . Well, it makes feel like someone's blasting a 900 page book with which their only familiarity derives from reading the NYT Book Review.
  19. CWS, Keep it coming. Contrary to some, I (mostly) enjoy your postings. For sake of discussion, let's assume that Grant is a good crip. From there . . . Let me try to make bourdain's "blood/crip" metaphorical dichotomy a bit less hard & fast. For example, the "pine" thing. Might we agree that smell is essential to taste? Then, might we also agree that smell is essential to (food) memories? If we taste via smell & if smell is crucial to our memories, why not highlight smell during a dining experience? In fact, smell is always already present during the enjoyment of food! (Note: I said enjoyment. I'll stick with the opinion that those who cannot smell cannot enjoy food, per se. But that's not the crux of what I'm attempting to say here.) To make my point a bit more bluntly, I don't think that Grant's cooking is that far off from the tradition. In fact, I would argue that his cooking is an extension of the tradition that we commonly associate with Escoffier. To be even more blunt, I don't think "postmodernism"--if one feels the need to use that term--is anything but another variation of "modernism"--albeit with a new name. It seems, IMHO, that the use of the term "avant garde" is always overblown, overblown by either its proponents or its opponents. So, perhaps the thing to do is this: experience Grant's food for what it is rather than the categories into which we try to force his food. Categories are great for marketers. Categories always fall short of honest experiences.
  20. FG, I'm wondering if you might agree that you've presented a bit of a strawman by lining up American intellectualism with the American academy? I don't really disagree with the poles of intellectualism & hedonism--though it would be interesting to see this proceed in a dialectical manner. Rather I'm wondering if Petits Propos Culinaires might not be a better benchmark for "intellectualism" in the food world? If one agrees, this conversation might take a quite different path.
  21. Looks like you guys are already making an impact. Today's NYT: Foundations Roiled by Measure to Spur Increase in Charity
  22. I tend to give both or one of the following: Mark Bittman's How to Cook Everything Sally Schneider's A New Way to Cook If there's been an expression of strong interest in vegetables: Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone (I need to check out Dragonwagon's Passionate Vegetarian) Over the weekend I picked up Mary Risley's The Tante Marie's Cooking School Cookbook. I've made a first pass through it & I'll start cooking from it this week. My hunch is that I'll end up giving this book as a gift.
  23. MatthewB

    Dinner! 2003

    Saturday evening: Grilled lobster w/ toasted garlic, avocodo, grilled scallions, & chipotle chile sauce Cactus (nopalito) salad Grilled ripe plantains Sunday evening: Grilled littleneck clams Malaysian grilled lamb satay w/ sweet & hot apriocot relish Sweet potato salad Chocolate peanut butter pie (thanks to the SO!)
  24. MatthewB


    The grilled lobster turned out great. More or less glad that I didn't try to smoke it in the Weber Smokey Mountain. The White/Bayless recipe is definitely worth doing again. The olive oil, toasted garlic, avocado, chipotle chile, & grilled scallion sauce rocks. For your amusement, I did have a couple of minor problems. First, I had not killed lobsters with a knife before. Using a 10 inch chef's knive, the first lobster was halved perfectly--after a deep breath & "thank you" to the lobster. I didn't halve the second lobster too well. Missed the spinal cord on the halving & I had to make another pass to get the spinal cord. Kind of fun though as the SO kept up a hushed mantra of "It's not dead, it's not dead, it's not dead." Second, I had a great lump charcoal fire on the grill when I finished grilling the scallions to add to the sauce. Figured 10 minutes & the lobster will be on. 10 minutes was about right--as far as the lobsters being ready. SO & I headed to the grill. I look & no fire. Stupid me didn't use enough fuel & left the bottom vents open. Very embarrassing as I turned to the SO & told her, "Ummm, no fire. I'll start another one real quick." But, as I noted above, it all turned out well. Set up another fire, the lobsters were done in about 3-4 minutes, & we ate well--just a bit later than planned. Edit: forgot the chile in the sauce
  25. Old? Nah, Suzanne, you're just more years younger! The meal at Zuni was *the* meal for the value when we were in SF (less than six months ago). As far as hard to get into, we didn't find that at all. We called at 4 PM the same day, stated our intentions, and the response was "We'd love to have you. We always hold a few spots for walk-ins. You said 7? How about you show up around 7 or so & we'll seat you in approximately 25-40 minutes?" Which we did. Hung out at the beautiful zinc bar, chatted with the very personable bartender, had a drink & munched on grilled fresh sardines. And had a table in 35 minutes. Next time I'm in SF, one of the first places I'm headed is Zuni.
  • Create New...