slkinsey

Having a beer that's alive can make a big difference as to its potential for beneficial aging. Also, like many things that age well, it helps if it's got some outsized characteristics (e.g., serious hop bitterness) that can benefit from the mellowing that comes with age.

The "poaching cups" seem more like "steaming cups" to me. Does the egg actually make contact with any water? Maybe if some water got in there, it wouldn't be so sticky.

Brunch in most restaurants is a horrible affair that involves getting rid of the leftover crap that's this close to going off. In some places (see Brooks's examples) it can be great. Brunch has been around for a long time, by the way. It's by no means a modern invention, and the word, at least, seems to have been coined by British students. The first mention in print was an 1896 edition of "Punch."

As far as I've heard (think this comes from Dave Wondrich) the only cocktail we know for sure was invented by JT was the Japanese Cocktail.

Snake root is toxic.

That makes sense only if you want to store, then reheat the food. If you are planning on taking the food out of the bag and serving it immediately, there is no reason to cool it at all. I don't understand the idea of multistage cooling. What you want to do is get it from the cooking temperature through the "danger zone" and into storage temperature as rapidly as possible. This argues for cooling in ice water right out of the water bath.

In further ansinthe-related news, Pernod's absinthe should be coming to the States in a few months. This is, IMO, one of the very best.

You want to get as much of the foam out of the shaker as possible, so that it goes into the glass.

27 C.F.R. § 5.22 The standards of identity. (b) Class 2; whisky. “Whisky” is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed. (1)(i) “Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type. (ii) “Corn whisky” is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn grain, and if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125° proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood; and also includes mixtures of such whisky. (iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as “straight”; for example, “straight bourbon whisky”, “straight corn whisky”, and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as “straight whisky”. No other whiskies may be designated “straight”. “Straight whisky” includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State. (2) “Whisky distilled from bourbon (rye, wheat, malt, or rye malt) mash” is whisky produced in the United States at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored in used oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type. Whisky conforming to the standard of identity for corn whisky must be designated corn whisky. (3) “Light whisky” is whisky produced in the United States at more than 160° proof, on or after January 26, 1968, and stored in used or uncharred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies. If “light whisky” is mixed with less than 20 percent of straight whisky on a proof gallon basis, the mixture shall be designated “blended light whisky” (light whisky—a blend). (4) “Blended whisky” (whisky—a blend) is a mixture which contains straight whisky or a blend of straight whiskies at not less than 20 percent on a proof gallon basis, excluding alcohol derived from added harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials, and, separately, or in combination, whisky or neutral spirits. A blended whisky containing not less than 51 percent on a proof gallon basis of one of the types of straight whisky shall be further designated by that specific type of straight whisky; for example, “blended rye whisky” (rye whisky—a blend). (5)(i) “A blend of straight whiskies” (blended straight whiskies) is a mixture of straight whiskies which does not conform to the standard of identify for “straight whisky.” Products so designated may contain harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as set forth in 27 CFR 5.23(a). (ii) “A blend of straight whiskies” (blended straight whiskies) consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky, and not conforming to the standard for straight whisky, shall be further designated by that specific type of straight whisky; for example, “a blend of straight rye whiskies” (blended straight rye whiskies). “A blend of straight whiskies” consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky shall include straight whisky of the same type which was produced in the same State or by the same proprietor within the same State, provided that such whisky contains harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as stated in 27 CFR 5.23(a). (iii) The harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials allowed under this section shall not include neutral spirits or alcohol in their original state. Neutral spirits or alcohol may only appear in a “blend of straight whiskies” or in a “blend of straight whiskies consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky” as a vehicle for recognized flavoring of blending material. (6) “Spirit whisky” is a mixture of neutral spirits and not less than 5 percent on a proof gallon basis of whisky, or straight whisky, or straight whisky and whisky, if the straight whisky component is less than 20 percent on a proof gallon basis. (7) “Scotch whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Scotland, manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom regulating the manufacture of Scotch whisky for consumption in the United Kingdom: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Scotch whisky” (Scotch whisky—a blend). (8) “Irish whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Ireland, manufactured either in the Republic of Ireland or in Northern Ireland, in compliance with their laws regulating the manufacture of Irish whisky for home consumption: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Irish whisky” (Irish whisky—a blend). (9) “Canadian whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Canada, manufactured in Canada in compliance with the laws of Canada regulating the manufacture of Canadian whisky for consumption in Canada: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Canadian whisky” (Canadian whisky—a blend).

I think that's too much citrus, which can sometimes curdle both cream and egg white. See my recipe in post #2. What kind of shaker are you using? How much head space does it have? How much ice are you using? What kind? How cold? The sad reality is that sometimes it just won't work out. Try, try again.

Steven's points are well made. Pete may be a great barman, but hardly seems like an authority on mixology. To solve the mystery, this page indicates that he works at Two Chefs Too in Miami Beach.

Do you suppose this is a misspelling of the Tups Indispensable Dry Fly? Perhaps a customer at one point was a fly fishing enthusiast? [...] Interesting idea! I don't find it spelled that way in any other sources. Irv Kupcinet was a sports writer, so perhaps his, or someone else's, idea of a jokey pun on his name and the name of the lure? Wouldn't ole Irv have been about 18 years old when the Savoy Book published? Seems unlikely his name would have made it across the water and into the Savoy book at that tender age.

Do you suppose this is a misspelling of the Tups Indispensable Dry Fly? Perhaps a customer at one point was a fly fishing enthusiast? The linked page says:

WRT Büchner funnel filters: The size of your batch is mostly limited by the size of your Erlenmeyer filter flask. Get a large one for large batches. It's also a lot easier to get a vacuum aspirator that you attach to the water faucet than using one of those hand pump things. I imagine it might also be possible to hook the filter flask up to a modified vacuum hose from a FoodSaver-type machine.

I've tried it a few times something like this: 2 oz : Famous Grouse (or other blended scotch) 3/4 oz : lemon juice 3/4 oz : honey syrup Rinse : Lagavullin (or other peaty scotch) Fresh ginger slices Muddle few pieces fresh ginger; add liquids and ice; shake; double strain into glass rinsed with peaty scotch. I've also had this one strained onto the rocks with a spritzed-on "float" of the peaty scotch.

t's been $12 for regular cocktails and $16 for champagne cocktails since the day the doors opened. And I don't think that's particularly expensive for a Manhattan cocktail lounge of Pegu's caliber. As far as I know, this is what they're all charging. I think Milk & Honey is now charging $15 across the board! If you were charged $18 for a "regular" Margarita, I have to believe this was a mistake. If it involved some kind of extremely expensive tequila or mezal, it might maybe get up to 18 bucks... but I have a hard time seeing that happening, especially if you didn't ask for it. The thing to do, by the way, would have been to ask for an explanation of the charge before going out on the internet to imply that they were jacking up the price on you.

Phil, I think we're more or less in agreement.

They have all the drinks on the menu memorized. These guys all know a lot more than 74 drinks from memory. Actually, it's easier than it sounds. All you have to do is think: "A 'Final Ward' is a 'Last Word' with rye and lemon" or "a 'Silver Lining' is a rye sour with Cuarenta y Tres as the sweet."

Perhaps it means "under pressure" as the opposite of "over pressure"?

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having the huge menu. I'm just pointing out one of its effects. I don't think there's anything wrong with having classics on the menu, of having a section of the menu devoted to classics. This is actually fairly commonplace among the better cocktail lounges. I'm just saying that I can see a potential situation where a gigantic menu is filled with a large percentage of cocktails that really represent minor tweaks.

Rittenhouse has actually never been out (yet!) at any of my usual retail places (Astor, Park Avenue, Warehouse).

I doubt it. Ultimately, most of these guys have far more cocktails than 74 rattling around in their noggins. My concern would be that a 74 cocktail menu as a whole might not have the same level of originality and inventiveness as it might if the same menu were whittled down to the 15 most original and inventive cocktails. Now, I air this "concern" not having seen or tasted the cocktails on D&C's new menu, so it's really speaking to large menus in general rather than D&C in particular. This may or may not be reflective of the situation with respect to their new menu. One thing I can say for sure is that every drink I've had there, and from the hands of D&C's mixologists, has been excellent. So I don't think there's any need to fear in that regard. Across-the-board inventiveness and originality on the menu may be another story, and here again as an example I can reference D&C, which has always been known for having a large menu. I remember from an older menu their "6th Street Swizzle" consisting of an admixture of La Favorite rhum agricole, lime, cane sugar and Angostura bitters. It was delicious, but not exactly highly original or inventive. Just a nice iteration of a standard swizzle. I'm guessing this drink would not have been likely to make it onto the list if their menu had consisted of only 15 cocktails, simply by virtue of the fact that there were at least that number of highly original and inventive cocktails (and punches!) on the list. Rather, this is the sort of drink that other cocktail bars with a different menu philosophy would have been likely to have on a rolodex or database of "house" recipes behind the bar, rather than on the menu. But, I should point out that this really only affects the originality and inventiveness of the menu. The number of cocktails and the overall inventiveness and originality might be more or less the same at both places. The difference, then, would be that many house iterations or minor variations are on the menu at one place whereas they are in a book behind the bar at the other place. Ultimately, I think that having the huge menu at D&C is a good idea for their situation. The bar area is relatively small, and having the 74 drink repertoire on a menu provides customers who are not able to directly interact with the bartenders with a greatly expanded ability to take advantage of the bar's total offerings and abilities, which would only be possible with a seat at the bar if the menu were only 20 drinks. I think it's also a good idea in that it standardizes their offerings. Cocktail bars with a number of talented bartenders who can go "off menu" are always trying to get their guys to put their favorite and successful explorations into the bar's database so that everyone at the bar can make that drink if a customer requests it. But it often doesn't work that way, and you find yourself really in the mood for a Flaming Mo only to find that the guy who usually makes it for you has the night off that evening, and the recipe isn't in the book. With a menu of 74 cocktails, that shouldn't happen at D&C. Sounds like fun!

That's really too bad. We loved that place when were in NO last Fall.

The Weeski is one of my favorites among the Wondrich original cocktails in my repertoire. Especially nice with Red Breast.

I'm with you, Irving.