slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Sorry. No way am I giving up my source.
-
Can you explain the benefits of a straight gauge fry pan over a disc one? If you're frying, the heat will be at the bottom, touching the food (ie fish). Why would you care if the sides have even heat as well?
You are correct, so long as the food being cooked is in the center of the pan and 100% over the disk.
Straight gauge is usually more convenient because you would like to take advantage of as much of the pan's surface area as possible. Since the sides of a frypan should be quite low and widely angled, you would like for the thermal material to cover every inch of the cooking surface. You don't want a situation where most of your chicken cutlet next to the side of the pan (or perhaps touching the side of the pan) is over thermal material but part of it is over "raw" stainless. In addition, since true frying involves letting the food sit without moving it around all that much, any uneven coverage of thermal material would be magnified. Finally, it's my experience that disk-bottom frypans don't have sides that are as low and angled as I would like. This may have something to do with limitations imposed by that design.
-
Yes. An 11 inch lid would probably fit most 11 inch pans.
For example, my 9.5" pans are equally covered by my stainless Paderno Grand Gourmet lid and my glass Calphalon lid.
Here is a source for lids (more sizes here and elsewhere about the site).
-
No worries, sygyzy.
My recommendations were only examples of the kinds of things that could be found. I recommended certain brands and retailers because they were the ones with which I had personal experience. Most of my cookware -- which includes a smattering of Falk Culinair, Mauviel, Bourgat, De Buyer, Paderno, Sitram, All-Clad, Calphalon, Le Creuset, Staub, vintage Griswold, etc. -- was purchased back when prices were a lot lower. And a lot of it was picked up on occasional deep discount sales (e.g., "scratch and dent," closeout, loss leader, etc.) or, in the case of the Griswold, inherited. But it was always possible to get other brands that were just as good, and perhaps at a lower price too. There are great disk bottom stock pots for sale at places like Target at ridiculously low prices. I would always advise cookware hunters to have patience, to acquire their cookware piece-by-piece, to always be alert for a sale, and to have a willingness to compromise to take advantage of a sale (for example: I prefer MasterChef over the other All-Clad lines, but still didn't hesitate to pick up some 1 quart Stainless saucepans when they came up on a huge Amazon sale).
Since the time when I purchased most of my stuff, the cookware landscape has changed a lot. There have even been some very interesting brands that have come and gone in the few years since 2003 (e.g., ScanPan Steel). So I'm less able to say to people: "Go out and buy brand XYZ. It has the best specifications for the lowest price." That's legwork I'm not prepared to do right now. On the other hand, as I said: the principles are all right there. For disk-bottom pans, for example, commercial stuff like this saucepan at Big Tray look pretty inviting. I couldn't say just what the composition of the base is, but it looks pretty thick and it looks like it covers the whole base. An email correspondence with either Big Tray or the manufacturer should enable someone looking for a disk bottom saucepan to get that information. If it is a heavy gauge stainless steel body with an encapsulated aluminum base that goes all the way to the edge and is 3 mm or more thick, I'd say it's a pretty good pan -- especially at 33 bucks for 4 quarts and a lid.
It took me around 5 minutes of poking around on the internet to find that out and, applying the ideas from the class, decide that it looked good enough and was priced cheaply enough to warrant further investigation. If I was on the market for a disk bottom saucepan or stock pot, I would absolutely buy one of these if the specs checked out.
In general, I wouldn't say that anything has become less expensive, and the technology is more or less the same. Indeed, the price of copper has made heavy copper cookware and cookware employing any copper as a thermal material rise in price quite a bit more relative to cookware overall. With the American economy and the weak Dollar, I would expect that it might be better to buy domestic cookware -- but I have no actual data to back that up.
As for the eleven-inch pan... that is a size that is still quite common in imported professional cookware. This is because it's not really 11 inches -- it's 28 centimeters, which is a standard size. As you point out, American-made cookware (especially American cookware produced primarily for home cooks), is likely to be either 10 inches or 12 inches.
-
I've been reading the course too and it's very informative, but overwhelming. I understand the goal of trying to get everyone to figure out things for themselves but it seems to me that there is a "right" answer for various tasks that people might want to accomplish. Using the example the author gave, if someone was looking for a saute pan, he/she should get aluminum disk bottom with the thickest base he/she can afford. Why not just say that?
Is there a chart out there that basically summarizes this information in an easy to read fashion? I realize someone might have lots of money to blow and may get a sautee pan that heats up to the sides, but cmon, 99% of us won't.
The reason the class can't be summarized in a chart is that different people cook in different ways, have different needs and different budgets. Just to make an example, if one really is using a saute pan just for true sauteing, why not get a heavy gauge carbon steel saute pan? Other people may not use the pan for true sauteing, but want to use a low wide pan for cooking things involving thick liquids. In this case, high heat capacity isn't needed but straight gauge design would help to prevent scorching at the sides. Someone who wants to be able to do true sauteing but also wants to be able to make quick sauces and finish pasta in the saute pan would do well with a thick disk-bottom design. Depending on the division of uses and the nature of the sauces, it may be worth the extra money to get a disk bottom that goes all the way to the sides. Someone else may have different needs and practices.
The whole point of the class is to get you to think about what your needs really are. How do you cook? What is your budget? How important and how meaningful to you are the properties that come along with the different designs in the context of the things you cook, the way you like to cook, your stove, etc? Do you even need a saute pan? You'd be surprized how many people set their minds on a certain kind of pan for which they actually have no practical use (or suppose that they will suddenly start using a saute pan once they buy one). Once you think about these things, it shouldn't be rocket science to figure out what design would work best for you. After that, it's purely a matter ot budget.
Of course, you could always be like me and have a stainless-lined heavy copper sauteuse, a heavy stainless body/aluminum disk bottom saute pan, and a heavy gauge carbon steel curved saute pan. Because... you know... I really need all of them.
-
I don't have the time to do an exhaustive search, but can probably make some examples. The principles outlined in the class still work, but many things have changed since 2003 that have changed the cookware market. Most important are inflation, the economic downturn in the United States, the Dollar's precipitous fall against the Euro (on February 19, 1993 $1 = €0.94; today $1 = €0.68) and the huge increase in the price of copper.
So... looking at my suggested pieces and making a few examples:
1 to 1.5 quart straight gauge saucepan, sauteuse evasee or curved sauteuse evasee
- I see an All-Clad MasterChef 2 1-quart "Saucier " at cookware and More or at Amazon for 45 bucks. My original recommendation in 2003 was for the same pan at $35, so the price has increased by ten dollars. That's roughly a 5% increase per year since 2003 for a total of 28.6%.
3.5 to 4.5 quart disk bottom tall saucepan
- My original recommendation was for the 4.4 quart Paderno Grand Gourmet tall saucepan at Bridge Kitchenware which they were then selling for for 78 bucks. The same pan is now selling for 96, an increase of 18 dollars. That's roughly a 4.4% increase per year since 2003 for a total of 23.5%.
- On the other hand, this 4 quart stainless saucepan at Big Tray looks like it has a reasonably thick disk bottom, and it only costs 32 bucks.
11" disk bottom saute pan
- I originally recommended an has an 11" Sitram Profisserie saute pan that Bridge Kitchenware was selling for for 68 bucks. Bridge doesn't carry Profisserie any more, but the same pan can be found on Amazon for 90 -- 22 dollars more. That's an increase of around 6% per year since 2003 for a total of 32.5%.
. . . I could go on, but it looks like the general trend is price increases of around 28%. These increases have outpaced inflation (15.59% from January 2003 to January 2008), but many of the products I recommended back in 2003 were imported and so additionally reflect a 27.6% decline of the Dollar against the Euro during the same time period. So, for example, Bridge was selling an 11" Sitram Profisserie saute pan for 68 dollars. Converting back to Euros, that gives us €63.92 in 2003. Now let's apply 15.59% inflation, which gives us €73.88 in 2008. Now, if we bring that pan back over to the States at the 2008 exchange rate, we get a price of $108.32. The pan at $90 from Amazon is actually 18 dollars cheaper than we might expect.
The end result is that imported cookware is probably not a great deal right now, and the increase in materials is driving the price of certain cookware even higher compared to 2003. Good pieces are still to be found at good prices. But other sources should be explored. Amazon often has good deals. Big Tray and other restaurant supply businesses are also good sources.
-
If you think that an Italian amaro maker would cavalierly change the 140 year old formula of its product, it suggests that you're not sufficiently familiar with Italian culture. Changing the formula of Campari would create a blowback that would make the reaction to New Coke look like a few disgruntled fanatics. It took decades and decades for Southern Italians to adopt modern winemaking techniques, despite the fact that it was widely understood that certain traditional practices were responsible for an inferior product with low value. In contrast, Campari is the established worldwide leader in this category, with increasing sales.
Exchanging one flavorless chemical coloring agent that happens to be derived from beetles and is a known allergen to some people for a manufactured flavorless chemical coloring agent is hardly the same as "meaningfully changing the formula of Campari." Considering that Campari, as it was already formulated, was hugely popular and succesful (and growing in popularity), the fact that there are numerous examples of herbal liqueurs and aromatized wines with formulae unchanged over centuries, and the fact that Campari and other amari derive a gret deal of their appeal and marketing through the maintenance of tradition, I have very hard time believing that Campari changed anything in their formula at all other than the substitution of artificial red coloring for natural carmine. If Campari were to make such a change, I have an equally hard time believing that (a) Campari would try to sneak this change under the table rather than announcing the "new Campari for the new millennium" (a la New Coke) and, (b) there wouldn't be huge public outcry in Italy or at least that the media would take note. On the other hand, the Campari in Italy is a lot "fresher" than the Campari in the US (more on this below).
What I am suggesting is that if there truly is a notable difference between bottles of "natural carmine" Campari and botles of "artificial coloring" Campari sourced in America, and if that difference holds up in blind tasting, it's entirely possible (and indeed I assume this is the case) that a bottle of "old formula" Campari which was imported in 2000 and spent eight years sitting in a warehouse, basement and in the sun on the liquor store's shelves, has undergone certain changes. Therefore what differences may exist would not be attributable to the change in coloring agent or larger change in formula, but rather due to the effects of age. There is simply no telling how old a bottle of "old formula" Campari might be, especially depending on where it was bought. Considering that I am aware of liquor stores in Manhattan that still have bottles of Malacca Gin on the shelves, it doesn't strike me as unlikely that a bottle of "old Campari" purchased in Providence might have been bottled 8-10 years ago.
ETA: The Gruppo Campari page for Campari says: "Campari is a contemporary classic. The recipe, which has remained unchanged, originated in Novara in 1860 and is the base for some of the most famous cocktails around the world." It seems fairly clear that they don't consider the coloring agent "part of the formula."
-
ghostrider, I believe you're thinking of a moka, which isn't exactly what I'd call an "Italian percolator."
In a moka, as the temperature of the water in the bottom chamber rises, the increase in pressure forces water up a central tube, directly through the coffee grounds under pressure and then into an upper chamber where it is collected and consumed more or less immediately. The ratio of coffee grounds to water is quite high, somewhere in the same range as it is for espresso.
In a percolator, the increase in temperature/pressure at the bottom of the put forces water up the tube where it sprays into the top and is distributed over a perforated basket of coffee grounds. At this point, there is very little difference between percolated coffee and drip coffee, considering that the coffee drips through the bottom of the perforated basket by gravity just as with drip coffee. What makes a percolator different is that the coffee grounds are continuously re-infused: As the coffee drips out of the bottom of the basket, it re-collects in the bottom of the percolator together with whatever liquid hasn't yet gone up the pipe. Since the percolator's heating element is still on, the already-brewed coffee is forced up the tube again where it is sprayed into the little clear cap, is distributed back over the perforated basket of coffee grounds, seeps through the basket and finds its way back to the bottom of the percolator. Repeat this continuous re-infusion cycle again and again and again, with the overall temperature of the liquid continuously rising towards the boiling point until it reaches a temperature near boiling and the percolator stops bubbling. At this point, the thirty-times-infused acidic brew is "ready" for drinking. One could, I suppose, mimic this process with a drip coffee machine by pouring the brewed coffee back in to the water reservoir and running it back through the same coffee grounds 20-30 times.
If I want a super-rich cup of traditional coffee, I'll use a high ratio of coffee-to-water in my French press and have a rish cup of coffee that doesn't taste like I could use it to clean the tarnish off of copper.
-
All we know for sure is that Campari no longer uses carmine as a coloring agent, yes? We are not aware that any other change has been made to Campari? Considering the huge worldwide popularity of Campari and the fact that Italian's aren't exactly eager to change the formulae of their amari, I have my doubts as to whether there has been a substantive change in the formula for Campari.
As far as I am aware, carmine does not have a flavor.
So what we know is that, under relatively unscientifically controlled side-by-side tasting, recently-imported Campari seems to have a different flavor from multiple-years-old Campari. There could be any number of reasons for this observation that are entirely unrelated to a change in formula.
-
57C (135F) seems a bit low for tender pork, although I suppose it might do well depending on the quality of the pork. I've generally been very happy with 60C. Not sure there is any advantage to longer cooking times once the pork chops come up to temperature.
-
Daniel: As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that you don't want to cook-and-store fish (or anything, really) that you've cooked at such a low temperature. It's not safe. What you want to do is cook it for the shortest period of time possible for it to come up to your desired temperature (for this, Nathan's charts are invaluable) and then serve it immediately.
-
Actually, Dave, that's what I'd call an American-style "latte art" latte -- a thing unto itself.
In Italy, if you order latte macchiato you're usually going to get a tallish glass filled with not-particularly-hot steamed milk into which a dab of espresso has been poured at the end, making the whole thing vaguely tan.
I don't disagree with you, but cafes in the states serve American style lattes. The Italian latte macchiato isn't nearly as popular in Italian cafes as American style lattes are in American cafes.
Right. But I figure that, in Amsterdam, she's getting an Italian-style treatment.
and this American style latte is supposed to be lukewarm? or is there a way to make a steaming hot latte with milk that has not been heated over 160F?70C is pretty warm, I'd say. If you're getting latte that seems lukewarm to me, I have to believe that it's significantly cooler than that.
-
Actually, Dave, that's what I'd call an American-style "latte art" latte -- a thing unto itself.
In Italy, if you order latte macchiato you're usually going to get a tallish glass filled with not-particularly-hot steamed milk into which a dab of espresso has been poured at the end, making the whole thing vaguely tan.
-
I don't know that it's scientifically possible to explain how bitters accentuates a cocktail the way we can with, e.g., salt added to a bowl of chicken broth.
You're adding (usually) very small amounts of a liquid that is highly concentrated with millions of taste and aroma compounds. These taste and aroma compounds, some of which are fairly apparent and others of which are present on a more subliminal level, influence the taster's perception of the drink as a whole. As others have observed, they tend to round out rough edges, marry flavors and add an extra "special" dimension to the drink. One reason may be that these intense compounds in some ways make up for the "loss" of certain of the spirits' tastes and aromas that are inhibited by cold temperatures.
But, again, since I think it's far too complex to say what they do in any way scientific way, poetry, metaphor and allusion may be more useful. jmfangio's "umami" comparison might be a good start. I'd suggest that bitters often work the same way that veal stock works when added to a sauce: There is some contribution of flavor that is noticable, but mostly one notices that the sauce seems to be more tied together, unified, fuller in flavor and satisfying while seeming, in some ways, to taste more of what it was supposed to be before.
-
I would say that Amernick is not using the term levain in any way I've ever seen it used. . .
As far as I can tell, the warm water simply acted as a warm-temperature incubator to accelerate the activity of the yeast. I'd imagine you would get better results by pre-fermenting the baseball-shaped piece of dough at room temperature for around 12 hours, or even retarding it in the refrigerator overnight.
-
I've never heard this usage of "levain" before -- and I'm not quite sure what you're describing.
You say you took a "yeast starter" and dropped it in warm water. What is your meaning of "yeast starter"? Is this (1) some kind of sourdough starter (aka natural leaven inoculum); (2) a pre-fermented batter of flour, water and commercial yeast; (3) a pre-fermented hunk of dough comprised of flour, water and commercial yeast; or (4) just some dry or fresh yeast that you are dumping into the warm water?
Anyway, this sounds a lot more like the poolish method than the levain method. "Levain" usually describes a natural leaven of a dough consistency that is built up over several stages before being used as the leavening agent for a larger amount of dough. I have heard of putting a small piece of the earliest levain stage into water in order to gauge when it is fully mature and ready for the next stage (when it floats to the top of the water), but nothing like what you describe.
-
Barbecue is an interesting one, with many people insisting that it properly consists of x, y and z and can't be a, b or c.
Interestingly, "barbecue" has been used to describe an open-air gathering where one enjoys grilled (note: not long-smoked, sauced, etc.) meats since the early years of the 18th century.
-
To echo Toby, I believe the thing with the blades is actually an ice crusher and not a cocktail shaker/mixer.
-
Duffy doesn't claim to have invented the cocktail, just that he brought it to America. From the "Foreward" to his "The Official Mixer's Manual".It is one of my fondest hopes that the highball will again take its place as the leading American Drink. I admit to being prejudiced about this--it was I who first brought the highball to America, in 1895. Although the distinction is claimed by the Parker House in Boston, I was finally given due credit for this innovation in the New York Times of not many years ago.
This sounds an awful lot to me like he's saying he invented/coined it (unless there's more context suggesting otherwise).
-
Yea. I think Rum and Cokes, Cuba Libres andGin and Tonics are absolutely Highballs. What's the fundamental difference between a Rye and Ginger or a 7&7 and a Rum and Coke?
-
The OED gives three meanings for "highball." They are:
1. A game, a species of poker, played with balls and a bottle-shaped receptacle (1882, Editor's Run in New Mexico).
2. (In full highball signal.) A signal to proceed given to a locomotive driver, formerly by hoisting a ball aloft (1897, Chicago Record).
3. A drink of whiskey and soda or other mineral water served with ice in a tall glass. Also attrib. U.S. (1898, N.Y. Jrnl.).
Since the appearance of the latter two meanings seems roughly contemporaneous, I have my doubts as to whether the third is derived from the second somehow.
-
Nice! Nothing like putting your name on something completely different from what you wrote.
-
None of you are purists unless you refuse to eat the evil variations on the any things even though they taste good.
Hmm. That's a tough one. I guess I feel like the things beyond the scope of some of my quasi-purist tendeicies don't taste good. Honestly, I couldn't imagine drinking a vodka "martini" and I'd rather have nothing than a Domino's pizza. Is there anyone who really won't eat something that tastes good to them because of some kind of foodie purism?
-
Zardetto makes a pretty good grappa di prosecco that's reasonably priced.
The Nardini products are very reliable.
The Nonino products are very good. There is a grappa di chardonnay that is nice.
Zenato makes a grappa di amarone that I like.
Most people like grappa di moscato.
Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware
in The eGullet Culinary Institute (eGCI)
Posted
That's something I can't answer for you. It depends on how much food you cook, the power of your stove, etc.