slkinsey

Erik, that is assuming that the historical Kola Tonic is identical (or similarly sweet) to the Rose's product today, yes? If it were more similar to what Doc describes as perhaps "an aperitif beverage" it wouldn't be so sweet, no? More like a sweet vermouth? I'm not really sure what the deal is with respect to the Filmograph. Just speculating. Doc's update for modern tastes and ingredients is 2 oz : brandy 3/4 oz : lemon juice 1/2 oz : kola tonic

Hmm. Is the Savoy version the first in print? It seems unlikely to me that there would be a drink from that era calling for equal parts brandy and flavored syrup.

See, that stuff of Eben's seems whimsical and fun. I think "molecular mixology" has got to get past the becoming-tired-cliché of spherification tricks.

The Filmograph is one of the drinks featured in Vintage Spirits and Forgotten Cocktails. I believe Doc says something like "substitute lemon juice for the lemon syrup unless you enjoy drinking maple syrup straight from the bottle." In cases like this, it's never quite clear what was meant by "lemon syrup." It could mean a lemon-infused simple syrup, or simply fresh lemon juice with some sweetener added. Interestingly, cocotailDB has it with sirop de citron and cola (rather than kola tonic). And also interestingly, back in 2002 Doc said that "as I reckon, Kola Tonic (a brand name being Toni-Cola, made by the Secrestat Bitters folks) was kind of an aperitif beverage marketed similarly to Lillet or Dubonnet, or any of the aperitif spirits of the time." Since he (presumably) calls for the Rose's stuff in Forgotten Cocktails, perhaps he discovered new information?

1:1 simple syrup can be made without heating. I'm not so sure about 2:1 demerara simple syrup.

Here is one pound of organic dried orange peel for less than ten bucks. How much money do you figure you'd have to spend on organic oranges to get a pound of dried peel?

A number of cocktail spots in NYC use the Libbey Embassy coupes. They look good, they are nearly indestructible and they are available in sizes of 3 1/2 ounces, 4 1/2 ounces and 5 1/2 ounces. A case of three dozen will run you around a hundred bucks ($2.77 a stem) from someplace like here. Split a case with some friends, or just keep the rest of the case in the back of a closet somewhere to restock after the inevitable breakage. The nice thing about having a big box of inexpensive cocktail glasses is that you don't have to treat them with kid gloves. Just treat them like regular glassware and when one breaks... oh well! It's only costing you three bucks.

Here's the post I was thinking of:

Sure you could make it yourself. But there are some difficulties: First, it's somewhat likely that your oranges are coated. Second, they might not be quite the right kind of orange peel. Third, it could be prohibitively expensive to do it yourself. Fourth, it seems likely that the end result won't be as good as store-bought.

I don't quite recall where it was posted (not in this thread), but at least one person using the Auber/rice cooker combination reported very good stability throughout the water bath when nothing was in there, but once the food was added and various parts of the bath were sampled with a separate thermometer, there was temperature variation on the order of several degrees. Whether or not this is important to someone is a matter of personal preference. Fundamentally we're talking about (usually) wrapping food in an impermeable covering of some kind, sucking (some/most of) the air out of the covering and then cooking it at a (reasonably) precise temperature. Each one of these variables is associated with a certain cost, and also with a certain range of possible effects. It is, of course, possible to make "sous vide-style" (I would argue that it's not properly called "sous vide" without any "vide") using a stock pot over a conventional gas burner, lots of plastic wrap and a thermometer. One can, and plenty of people have, obtain very tasty results this way. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of control, and a range of effects that are available to the cook using a precision recirculating water bath and a chamber vacuum that are not available to the guy using the stock pot and thermometer. In between those two extremes there exists a variety of different price points and associated ranges of possible effects. One simply has to choose. Fundamentally this is not that different from choosing conventional cookware: It is perfectly possible to create an amazing dish using a $10 thin stainless steel pan. You don't need a $200 stainless-lined heavy copper pan. But the $200 pan is capable of doing some things that the $10 pan cannot do, and it offers greater reliability and predictability. I think the Auber PID/rice cooker combination is a great solution for those who don't mind spending $150 on a setup but aren't comfortable with snagging a circulator off eBay for $400 or more. It's ridiculous to say that sous vide cooking isn't possible with this setup. At the same time, it's not correct to say that the PID/rice cooker setup offers the same range of effects, reliability, predictability and flexibility as using a precision recirculating water bath heater. But, so long as the rig you have allows you to do all the things you want to do within your price point, and you're happy with it -- who cares?

I believe Gary's recipe calls for purchased dried (bitter?) orange peel, not homemade. I don't believe it's quite the same thing to use homemade citrus zest.

Right. I'm with Paul on this one. Mercury is a cumulative poison. It's not like eating donuts or porterhouse steak where you can largely mitigate any potential negative health impact with a few days of low-fat salads. Furthermore, not all that many people are eating fried chicken for dinner 3 times a week, and most everyone understands that it's unhealthy. Plenty of people eat bluefin tuna 3-5 times a week -- in significant part, because it is perceived as healthy. I certainly wouldn't want to be eating 5 pieces of Japonica's tuna sushi every Monday, Wednesday and Friday -- and I am quite sure there are people who do just that.

That's probably true of any place associated with Batali -- except, interestingly, Esca (which I think is one of the top 2-3 fish places in the city).

Um... did you read the article? Some of this fish had mercury levels high enough that the government could take it off the market. One of the sushi places had fish with enough mercury (and pieces large enough) that the RfD would be exceeded by eating only two pieces of sushi. Would you care if it were lead instead or mercury? Mercury isn't something that is "connected to health problems" like eating lots of saturated fat. Mercury is a cumulative heavy metal poison that has a well-understood affect on the body, and eating a dozen pieces of high mercury tuna sushi three times a week would definitely be dangerous.

Not Mr. Wondrich (I assume that is the "Dave" yer referring to...) but I can quote from his book, "Imbibe": In my copy this is from page 61, in the section discussing ingredients. I believe the recommendation for intense single malts is primarily with an eye for Toddies (more on this below). In any event, the Rob Roy dates to circa 1895, which would put it in the "blended era" for Scotch in America according to the passage you quoted above. Having looked over my copy, I think this passage from the section on the Rob Roy is more apropos: Considering the paucity of Scotch cocktails, it would seem that the non-Toddy types were designed post-1890 and therefore call for blended scotch. Like Dave, I love an intense (and hopefully high proof) Islay malt for my Toddies, but I have to wonder whether this was particularly common given what is presumed to be rather scarse availability of Scotch whisky in America prior to the introduction of blended Scotch whiskies. Needless to say, Dave will have better data on this than I. Interesting to see that Scotch's popularity in America was driven by the popularity of golf. I've always considered myself a strict traditionalist when it comes to golf, and I insist on only playing golf in its original form: tanked out of my gourd on Scotch and wearing a kilt. I haven't been alive for 50 years, but coming from a Scotch-drinking American family of Scottish extraction, I've never noticed that it was any trouble getting brands like Famous Grouse (the top-seller in Scotland), Dewar's, Cutty Sark, etc.

Maraska is a good maraschino, but it's a bit mild compared to Luxardo. This explains why the CdV was taking over the drink.

Well, there's your trouble right there. Maraska doesn't have the same funky intensity as Luxardo. More to the point, Rangpur is a an unusual citrus-forward/juniper-in-the-back gin that I wouldn't think works well for an all-around mixing gin as regular Tanqueray does.

"New fiesta ware" resulted in plenty of hits on eBay.

Good point... That said, I think one could make the argument that tiki drinks belong to a separate category with a unique aesthetic. One could also argue that all of the combining of multiple rums in tiki drinks is intended to create the impression of a single rum. And, of course, one could argue that tiki drinks don't represent the pinnacle of the cocktailian craft.

What about eBay?

I think most cocktailians would agree that the three- or four-ingredient cocktail is the pinnacle of the craft. In fact, most of the very best more-than-four-ingredient cocktails can be understood as blending two spirits (e.g., calvados and cognac) to make a single "new" ingredient (e.g., "apple cognac").

As far as I know, the Rob Roy is a blended whisky cocktail. It's not too surprising that it doesn't work well with an assertive, peaty, smoky, briny Islay single malt like Bowmore. I assume Chris used Bowmore Legend, which is an 8 year whisky. At this young age especially, it won't have the smoothess to cooperate with other ingredients in a cocktail like the Rob Roy. Personally, I think that Famous Grouse is an excellent choice for a Rob Roy, not to mention being an oustanding product. Compass Box's Asyla is a great choice as well. I'm not sure that Islay whiskies are a good choice for something like a Rob Roy in any substantial amount. I note that Toby's examples include only a mere rinse of Peat Monster (a Compass Box blend including both Islay whiskies and highland whiskies which is less assertive than a full-on Islay single malt) in the first version and a 50/50 blend of Famous Grouse and The Macallan 12 (a smooth, malty Highlands malt that does not have much in the way of peat and smoke) in the second version. Neither of these will even approach the rough-and-tumble assertiveness of a young Islay single malt. In general -- and someone like Dave is undoubtedly better informed on this than I -- I believe that most historical cocktails calling for "scotch" are calling for blended scotch. Even today, something like 90% of scotch is used for blends, and single malts have exploded in popularity only in the last 20 years or so. Single malts can be so distinctive and different that I note that the few modern cocktails employing a single malt whisky always specifies the brand and age.

I have some 304 stainless that is capable. I have also seen 18/10 that is induction compatible-to my understanding it has to do with a layer of ferritic steel(which has more carbon) in the bottom layer. It's not the 304 stainless that is magnetic but, as you say, a layer of a different (series 400) magnetic steel that makes this possible. Meh. I don't believe this is true. Perhaps 18/0 steel?

I believe magnetic stainless steel is Series 400, not Series 300.

My understanding is that there is no real difference between 18/8 and 18/10, and that the two designations are only meaningful for marketing purposes. All this stuff is actually made from Type 304 stainless steel -- which is technically supposed to be 18/8, but in fact comes in between 18-20% chromium and between 8-10% nickel. My understanding is that a common trick by manufacturers is to include a touch over 8% nickel (say, 8.3%) in their Type 304, which allows them to legally call it 18/10. Why anyone would care is beyond me. Perhaps people have the idea that 10 ie better than 8? Anyway, ignore these designations.