-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Everything posted by slkinsey
-
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.
-
This is more of a historical piece than a "how to make cocktails" piece, of course. And it rambles a bit. And I can't figure out whether Lu is in the studio or in another studio communicating by voice only. I'd say it's a good, but not great piece. Still, it's a lot better than Bittman's video. What makes the NPR piece so much better is that the producers clearly thought something like: "New Orleans just made the Sazerac the official cocktail of the city. Let's do a piece on it. Okay... We should get a bartender on the show to tell us about it and walk us through making it. Probably ought to be one from New Orleans. Lu Brow is one the top cocktailian bartenders in New Orleans. Let's get her." I think that Chris McMillan might have been a slightly better choice, simply because of his pleasant loquacity. But it's hard to argue with picking Lu, and I'm happy they didn't ask Michael Lomonoco.
-
But they aren't! The Margarita and the Manhattan are not variations on the same theme. We still call them on it every day in these forums. Yes, I agree that the written piece is better than the video... although I wouldn't necessarily say it rises to the level of "good." The video suffers considerably compared to his other videos where he speaks quasi-extemporaneously because he doesn't have any meaningful background in this area, and because he didn't do the video with someone who does. So, what we have instead is a situation similar to a bartender from London shooting a video about East North Carolina barbecue with... well, Michael Lomonoco.
-
Is it 30%, 90%? Who knows and who cares? How would you ever determine such a thing (80% of drinks ordered this year? Ordered ever? 80% of the drinks listed in some book?) He's clearly making the point that many drinks have sweet and sour components. If you don't know, then don't say. He was clearly implying "the majority." But, again, this goes back to my main point, which is: don't "speak from authority" on a subject in which you are materially in the dark. It should be clear that he is saying there isn't much different in the method of alcohol, sweet, and sour. He clearly isn't saying that there isn't much difference between a Margarita and a Manhattan. Pancakes and biscuits both contain flour, milk, fat and baking powder. That's my point. In fact, pancakes and biscuits are more closely related than a Margarita and a Manhattan. And yet, I'm guessing we'd be saying it was kind of dumb if a guy did a show saying "I looked around at a bunch of bread-like recipes and noticed that about 80% of them are made with flour, milk, fat and baking powder" then did a show on pancakes and then, at the conclusion, made biscuits saying, "I'm not seeing a lot of differences here." How about this? How about, there is a big difference between simple syrup and vermouth? How about, there's an even bigger difference between lime juice and bitters?! To be fair, if his point was "cocktails are made out of liquor and other stuff" then it's all spot on! But that's hardly helpful.
-
Bittman sayd, "Why not treat the margarita like a dish of pasta with tomatoes, assuming a few given ingredients but varying them according to your taste?" Why not, indeed? But one might hope that (1) Bittman would suggest that someone actually make a fairly orthodox pasta sauce or two before thinking outside the box; (2) he would provide readers with some understanding of how good pasta sauces work and why they are typically structured the way they are; and (3) he wouldn't use as his demonstration example a pasta sauce consisting of a cup of ground tomato, 1/4 clove of garlic and a tablespoon of red pepper. Here is his "master recipe" for cocktails: "For me, most cocktails look like this: A stiff pour of alcohol, say a quarter cup, over ice; very little sweetener, a teaspoon or at the most two; a tablespoon or more of lime juice." That scales to 2 ounces of spirit, 1/6 - 1/3 ounce of sweet and 1/2 ounce or more of lime juice. This is hardly an example of good mixology. Then, he has the audacity to write that the idea of making your "cocktails from scratch, ignoring the names and acknowledging your preferences" is one that "clearly comes from the perspective of cook, not bartender." Like there's a single cocktailian bartender out there who doesn't know how to adjust Margarita or Sidecar ratios in dozens of ways to accommodate ingredients as well as individual tastes. ETA: He also misses the boat on a golden opportunity to talk about balance in a sour cocktail. How to figure your way towards making a cocktail that is neither sour nor sweet, but both and neither.
-
The large size tin is exactly what is traditionally used in a glass-and-metal Boston shaker. What you're doing is replacing the glass part with a cheater tin. I'm not sure if 15 ounces would be big enough. I prefer the 18 ounce ones.
-
Lots of places. Try here: http://www.barsupplies.com/cocktail-shaker...ns-c-33_34.html What you want is a 16 or 18 ounce weighted tin and a 28 or 30 ounce weighted tin. You buy the two pieces separately.
-
I didn't want this to turn into a bitter bout of Bittman bashing! Overall, I like his work. I just think this represented him at his very worst, primarily because he doesn't seem to have much background in cocktails. Unfortunately, I don't think that cocktails are a particularly good fit for his extreme reductive approach. We're not talking about reducing a restaurant recipe with 22 ingredients and 13 individual steps into something equally delicious, if less refined, that contains many of the same ideas and can be accomplished with 5 ingredients and 3 steps. Ultimately, making cocktails is very simple once you have a recipe or even a basic ratio. You want to make a Margarita? Fine. It's got three ingredients: tequila, Cointreau and fresh lime juice. Let's say you're using 2 ounces of tequila. There are a few ways you can make it. An ounce each of lime juice and Cointreau will give you a bracing tart drink. A half-ounce of each will give you a more spirit-centric drink. 3/4 ounce of each is in the middle somewhere. Want something that focuses more on the liqueur? Use 1.5 ounces of tequila, 1 ounce of Cointreau and a half ounce of lime. Or go further in that direction with 1.5 ounces each of tequila and Cointreau and 3/4 ounce of lime. Now we have more or less outlined all the usual variations of the Margarita. This would then be an opportunity for a reductive approach to say: "See, they're all just ratios. 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 or 3:2:1 or 2:2:1 and so on. All you need to do is think about how you like your 'New Orleans Sours' and you can make a million of them using these ratios. Switch up the spirit and the sour as much as you like. Cognac and lemon? You got yourself a Sidecar. Citrus vodka, lime and a splash of cranberry? A Cosmopolitan. Spend the summer sipping your way through a bottle of Cointreau and trying different ratios and different spirits. Then, think about this: there are lotws of other liqueurs you can use instead of Cointreau? There's..." It's all very simple, really. Much easier than, say, making your own pizza from scratch. But, of course, you need to have at least a basic understanding of cocktails to explain this to someone -- and that's apparently something Mark Bittman doesn't have. Step #2 would have been going to someone else who has some expertise in cocktails. Instead we got Lomonaco and his sidekick Brad. And, unfortunately, since he didn't have the background to apply his reductive approach in the right direction (ratios), he ended up just dumbing down what is already pretty simple.
-
I also confess that I don't see how you could possibly have spend >80 dollars on a "snack" of vegetables, pizza and wine unless you bought an expensive bottle of wine. Let's construct an expensive snack at Franny's. I'll choose the big-ticket items... Sugar Snap Peas with Sheep’s Milk Ricotta, Mint and Lemon for $11 Red Rice Salad with Asparagus, Peas and Provolone Dolce for $13 Pizza with Clams, Chilies and Parsley for $17 Glass of 2006 Sono Montenodoli Canaiuolo Toscana (organic, biodynamic, sustainable) for $14 That's a pretty hefty "snack." Most people would call that "dinner." I don't know that I could eat that much by myself. The subtotal is $55. Sales tax brings it to $59.55. Tip brings it to around $71. This is not nothing, but it falls significantly short of $80 for a heavy-meal-sized "snack" in which I chose the most expensive items.
-
Let's reframe this... I once stopped by Momofuku Ssäm Bar for a snack of some offal dishes, a clay pot and wine and ended up spending more than 80 dollars. That was a pretty expensive snack. So?
-
I don't quite understand if the Mud Puddle books are ready for sale now, or not.