slkinsey

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.

Chris says its his last day at the Library Lounge? Say it isn't so! Anyone have the scoop on this?

Hmmm. If we're talking about stirred drinks and not shaken drinks (which have different requirements when it comes to ice), I'm not sure I entirely agree with Toby as to these effects. The four most important considerations when chilling a drink are: 1. Chilling technique (i.g., shaking, stirring, julep, old fashioned, rocks, etc.) 2. The composition and temperature of the hardware. 3. The ratio of ice to liquid. 4. The size and shape of the ice. 5. The temperature of the ice. For the purposes of this particular fork in the discussion, we are pulling out considerations 1 and 2: the chilling technique is stirring/straining and, for the purpose of considering the effect of ice alone, we should make the assumption that the composition and temperature of the shaker and glass are constant (we can consider their effects separately). Consideration #5 is very important in an absolute sense, but in the vast majority of situations it is also removed from consideration. Most home cocktailians have ice at one temperature from their freezer (usually -18C/0F, which is much colder than the ice at most any bar); and very few bars have a freezer reserved for special "extra cold" ice. One possibility would be for bars to maintain a slurry of dry ice and high proof grain alcohol, which can get as low as -70C. Water ice cubes could be stored or tempered in the slurry for extra-cold ice. Anyway... fundamentally what we're concerned with is the ratio of ice to liquid and the size/shape of the ice. As a general rule of thumb, we would like to have a lot of ice and a small amount of liquid. This creates the largest thermal disequilibrium and will result in liquid that is closest to the temperature of the ice. Assuming a reasonably good ratio of ice to liquid, most important is the size and the shape of the ice -- although size and shape of ice has an effect on the ratio of ice to liquid because it is possible to pack a greater volume of ice into a given container if the ice is in smaller pieces and shapes that fit together relatively well. Again, as a general rule of thumb, pieces of ice with a greater surface area to volume ratio will have more efficient thermal transfer, resulting in faster/lower chilling and, to a lesser extent, also faster dilution. It we are talking about chunk-shaped ice, a greater surface to volume ratio is associated with a smaller size (eight 1x1 ice cubes have double the surface area available for thermal transfer compared to one 2x2 ice cube). It is quite possible to make a properly chilled and diluted stirred drink using crushed ice: you just have to use very cold crushed ice (most crushed ice at bars is wet and warm), you have to use a lot of crushed ice, and you have to get the liquid on and off the ice very quickly -- stir it once and strain it immediately. Of course this is not a particularly easy technique, and not one that is well suited to the environment of a professional bar. Large chunks of ice are not so great for stirred drinks. They have a large thermal capacity, but ultimately they do not have a particularly good surface area to volume ratio which means that they do not conduct thermal energy particularly efficiently. This is actually good when you want to be able to shake the drink for a long time without overly diluting the drink. It's also good for a drink where you want the ice to sit in the glass for a long time without melting very much, in which case it is a good idea to "pre-chill" and strain the drink into the glass over the large chunk of ice (spherical ice, which has the lowest surface area to volume ratio, is the best for this). But, if you're doing a straight stirred drink, by the time the drink is stirred long enough to be sufficiently diluted, it won't be as cold as it would be using smaller pieces of ice at the same temperature and a shorter stirring time. This is further complicated because their large size makes it difficult to pack the mixing vessel and get a high ratio of ice to liquid. Of course, if Toby's big chunk ice is at a special lower temperature, this can make a difference. But the difference would be even greater if he were to keep medium cracked ice in the same freezer with the big chunk ice (or if he hand-cracked the special cold chunk ice for stirring). As a number of people have demonstrated (myself and Dave Wondrich among them, although it's an easy experiment to do for yourself), the best and most practical size/shape for optimal chilling with between 20%-25% dilution in a stirred/strained drink, assuming ice at a given temperature, is medium cracked ice of approximately the size obtained by hand-cracking Kold Draft or standard home freezer ice tray cubes. This is assuming that one is in a situation in which is is possible to give full attention to the preparation of that drink. In circumstances where the drink will "cook" while the bartender turns his/her attention to the multitasking preparation of other libations, it makes sense to adjust the size of the ice (or, rather, the particular mixture of sizes of ice) in the mixing vessel so that the drink is not overly diluted by the wait. This will come down to experience, preferences and familiarity with the materials employed (temperature/quality/sizes the ice available, etc.). An experienced cocktailian bartender like Toby knows exactly how to mix his various ice sizes to obtain a consistent effect in a variety of circumstances. There is little reason to "cook" the cockail on the ice in a home context, unless one is also multitasking. This is a compromise technique -- stirring with plenty of cold ice and straining directly will always obtain the coldest drink with the most control.

What makes you think that mushrooms/garlic/onions/etc. don't contain proteins? Almost everything contains proteins, and there are certainly plenty of people who are allergic to, e.g., mushrooms. I'm also not sure I buy the idea that "a food allergy is an immunologic response to a food protein" and only a protein. All that is required is for the food to contain an something that produces an allergic response (I believe, e.g., some polysaccharides can act as antigens). If one were eating a dish dusted with ragweed pollen, that could produce an allergic response and would therefore constitute a food allergy.

I've thought about this a bit with my setup, and decided against putting food directly into the waterbath. Ultimately I was swayed by two factors: 1. I didn't want to get potato starch (or any other bits of organic material) on my circulator. This seems like asking for trouble and a maintenance hassle. 2. It's perfectly easy to dump a bunch of sliced potatoes (or whatever) and water into an open bag or a rigid container, and then clip the bag or container to the side of the water bath. There is no need to seal the bag or the container in this context.

Right. Dash technique makes a difference, as does the fullness of the bottle. It's also the case that different dasher bottles have a different dash volume. I've found my Hazel Atlas bitters bottles have a consistent dash volume so long as the bottle is not filled into the neck. Angostura, in my experience, can have an especially large dash volume if it is aggressively dashed "ketchup bottle style" (as opposed to the "quick tip" dashing technique).

I have found that chicken breasts work best for my family at 153F for 2 hrs (wrapped individually), but you can certainly go down to 140F if you want to. 67C for chicken breast? That's too high for me. I mean, it's good at that temperature compared to the usual dried-out cottony whole chicken breast cooked by conventional means (which is why I only do scallopini if cooking chicken breast conventionally), but I vastly prefer 60C. I just follow the timetables and cook to sterilization.

Katie, iirc, there is an Improved [spirit] Cocktail "master recipe" in Imbibe!

I love parsley! It's my favorite herb. One great use of parsley is a variation of spaghetti aglio e olio. Just add a fistful of finely minced parsley at the end (and, if you're me, a hefty pinch of crushed red pepper).

I probably wasn't clear: It goes something like this: You start off with cracked ice, a mixing glass and a cocktail glass, all at -18C. You have spirits at 21C. You introduce the ice and spirits into the mixing glass and stir. Thermal transfer ensues, and the temperature of the liquid goes to, say, -3C. At this point, the liquid inside the mixing glass isn't getting any colder. Ideed, if you left the spirits sitting on the ice until the mixture reached thermal equilibrium, the temperature wouild likely be higher than the current temperature. At this point, you strain the liquid out of the mixing glass into your -18C cocktail glass. Thermal transfer once again ensues -- this time between the (already cold) liquid and the (even colder) glass -- further reducing the temperature of the liquid an aditional 1 - 1.5 degrees C.

WRT measuring the liquid, the best thing would be to get a high accuracy plug-mount Thermapen and put in the thinnest probe. This would be able to read the temperature of the liquid in the mixing glass well and quickly without too much worry about influence from pieces of ice and the sides of the mixing vessel. I would suggest inserting a spoon into the mixing vessel, "holding back" the ice to create a void space between the ice and the side of the mixing vessel where there is only liquid, and inserting the tip of the probe into the void space. A Thermapen gives an acurate reading in around 1 second or less.

It makes perfect sense that a frozen glass would make the drink even colder. The same thermodynamics work in that context that work when you mix a drink in a chilled mixing glass: Assuming that the glass is colder than the drink being poured into it, there will be some transfer of thermal energy from the drink to the glass. We generally chill glasses to make sure that there is no thermal transfer in the opposite direction (from the glass to the drink) but any time the glass and the drink are at different temperatures, there will be some transfer of thermal energy. Note that the effect Toby is describing works only with a frozen glass, which will be at around -18C -- when the glass is chilled using the traditional ice and water method, it's unlikely it even reaches 0C (in this case you are simply mitigating the warming effect of thermal transfer from the glass to the drink to the greatest extent possible when starting with a room temperature glass).

If you look at the OP you will see that he says: "22 F, after being stirred with cracked ice. As an experiment, I used freezer-chilled gin and refrigerated Cocchi Aperitivo Americano and diluted with fridge-temp water instead using room-temperature spirits and allowing to sit." It's not clear to me that the gin was entirely freezer temperature or not. But 22F certainly doesn't strike me as being too cold. Different temperatures may be better or worse for certain drinks. I remember Audrey's Falling Leaves cocktail is one we have observed to be better after it has a chance to warm up a bit. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine a stiff Martini that's "too cold" -- "not sufficiently diluted" (which is a common problem when the gin is from the freezer), yes, but that's a different aspect of the drink. Here's the thing about temperature and cocktails -- It's a bit like salt: You can always "add" a little heat after the cocktail is mixed just by waiting, but it's never going to get any colder than it is when it's poured into your glass.

We had several batched cocktails at our wedding party in November, so I have given this some thought. It's a great way to get a top quality cocktail at a place that may not be known for its mixilogical acumen. If you don't mind shaking them out to order, you can batch just about any cocktail. Just make sure that, if it includes fresh herbs or juices, you don't incorporate those ingredients until just before your party begins. Also, don't forget about punch, which is making a huge comeback. We had a punch at the wedding party, among several other batched cocktails, and it was a huge hit. If you don't want to go with overly familiar things like a Manhattan, but don't want to stray too far from what people know, I'd suggest something like the Vieux Carré Cocktail (1 oz each good rye whiskey, cognac, and sweet vermouth with a teaspoon of Bénédictine D.O.M. and two dashes each of Angostura and Peuchaud's). It batches well, and goes well over ice in a small rocks glass. If you splurge on a great rye, a VSOP cognac and a great vermouth like Carpano Antica Formula, this can be a decadent drink (we did this one at our wedding party, but were paying enough just to get the room that we could specify tip-top shelf spirits without increasing the bottom line). Audrey's Tantris Sidecar batches well, and is another drink that's novel enough to be exciting but familiar enough that it's not challenging for non-cocktailians. It's a delicious drink that's widely known for a reason. The Last Word also batches well, and since it's an "equal parts" cocktail, it's very easy to measure out. What about a champagne cocktail? A French 75, a Prince of Wales, a Ritz, a Champino, an Old Cuban or a Champagne Apricato are among many champagne cocktails that are easy to make. Just batch and chill the base, then pour into a cocktail (or champagne) glass and top with cold champagne.

This is exactly what I do. I bring the water bath up to within 1C of the target temperature on the stove. I've also considered leaving the burner on low -- too low to maintain the temperature, but high enough that the circulator's heater has a very reduced workload and is mostly for accuracy.

Rob, those seem like very high temperatures (right around 88C and 64C, respectively). The higher/shorter temperature in particular seems quite high. Medium rare being around 54C, I have to assume you were going for a well-done texture? How would you describe the differences between the two examples? In particular, I'd be interested in your thoughts and observations on how the 48 hour brisket differed from a skillfully done brisket cooked in the traditional manner. Was it falling apart?