slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
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.
-
I am wondering when using an immersion heater, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to bring the water close to the target temperature on the stove and then turn the stove off and let the immersion heater/PID combo maintain the temperature.
If one has a gas stove, it is probably more energy efficient as well to do that since a gas stove is a more energy efficient heat source than an electric immersion heater.
Have you tried that?
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.
-
I did a small experiment this week with beef brisket. I divided the brisket in half and cooked the halves at different times and termperatures.
Both halves were trimmed of fat, salted and peppered and browned, then rubbed with a little liquid smoke and sealed.
One brisket was cooked at 190° for 24 hours. It was very good.
The other brisket was cooked at 147° for 48 hours, which is apparently the procedure used at The French Laundry according to an NPR story a couple of years ago. The result was outstanding--juicy, tender, and so tasty it could make a blind man see.
Both worked out well, but my vote goes to the longer cooking time and lower temperature.
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?
-
If you're thinking of purchasing a FoodSaver, you really should consider one of these. I eventually bought one to replace my FoodSaver. Much stronger vacuum & easier to use.
-
Sam,
Where are all of these New York City supplier of Veal bones??? Melissa needs your help.
Tim
Off the top of my head, I'd try one of the Western Beef outlets; perhaps Big Apple Meats; any one of a dozen Chinese meat shops in Chinatown (these often sell bags of chicken bones for making stock); or any one of the dozen or so full-service butchers (my local is Oppenheimer Prime Meats). Might not hurt to check with Whole Foods either.
-
All depends on how much booze you put in the glass, how much ice you add to the glass and the size of the ice. But here's the thing: You can always stir a little longer to get the proper dilution, but if you start out with too much thermal energy there is only so cold the drink can ever be. (Similarly, if the drink is too cold for your liking, you can always let it warm up, but it doesn't work in the other direction.)
-
Maybe, yea. Although Erlenmeyers are usually too narrow at the top. I see you linked to "wide mouth" flasks -- I wonder how wide they are at the opening? If the opening fit a Hawthorne (and especially if it had a pouring channel) it might do in a pinch. Ideally, I'd prefer something curved in such a way that the widest part of the mixing vessel was in the center rather than down at the bottom.
-
2) What is the optimal vessel for these clamp-on circulation units? I have a 12-quart stock pot, though it doesn't leave much room for bags. Are there other vessels people are using besides larger stockpots (my small NYC apartment is at maximum stockpot capacity).
I use a 5 gallon stainless stock pot. But I live in a small NYC apartment and have to multitask with equipment. If you have the ability to store your sous vide vessel somewhere out of the way when it's not being used, I'd recommend modifying a large insulated cooler. This will be much more energy efficient, and will have a lid.
-
A silver stirring spoon isn't too hard to keep clean by hand, so I wouldn't worry about it. I have an ancestral silver stirring spoon, and use it every time I make a stirred cocktail.
As for shakers... Good luck finding an affordable solid silver shaker (which is what is generally meant when one says "sterling silver" instead of "silver plated") with a decent design for shaking.
Anyway... a few things about silver shakers, which as chance would have it is an area in which I have some experience:
1. Silver has extremely good thermal conductivity -- better even than copper. A solid silver shaker is going to have some weight to it, which means that the thermal capacity of the shaker will be at least as high as the thermal capacity of a glass-and-metal Boston shaker, and most likely a good bit higher.
This means that it is the worst possible material to use if your shaker is at room temperature. The shaker will have a high thermal capacity to conduct into the liquid, and due to having excellent conductivity, will be very efficient in conducting that thermal energy into the liquid.
This also means that a heavy solid silver shaker is an excellent choice if the shaker will be pre-chilled by being frozen in the freezer. In this case, the good thermal conductivity and large thermal capacity are working in your favor by efficiently conducting plenty of thermal energy out of the liquid instead of into the liquid as it would with a room temperature shaker.
2. My experience is that running silver through the dishwasher (especially using standard dishwasher detergent and especially if there are other metals in the dishwasher) will at best dull the silver after a few washes and at worst will severely tarnish the silver. The effect will depend on the composition of the silver ("sterling silver" is an alloy). Better to simply wipe down the silver with a bar towel and give it a light swipe with a silver polishing cloth at the end of the evening.
-
That's the general idea. Of course, that particular mixing vessel is too small (and the bartender uses only a single large piece of ice) to be particularly efficient. But something with a similarly curved shape and a volume closer to 30 ounces, capable of accommodating at least ten cubes worth of cracked ice, would work nicely. In my mind's eye, it would be taller and narrower than a snifter, which would make it easier to pour out of.
-
hmm. i've never really been exposed to caraway and didn't realize it was an anise...
I wouldn't necessarily say that caroway is "an anise" -- which carries the implication that it is a type of anise, which it isn't.
Caroway and aniseed are in the same family (Apiaceae -- hollow stemmed plants including parsley, fennel, carrot, etc.) but not in the same genus. Caraway is in the genus Carum (species: C. carvi) and aniseed is in the genus Pimpinella (species: P. anisum).
Personally, I can't say that I think caraway has a particularly liquorice-like flavor and aroma. I think it's pretty uniquely "caraway-like" in flavor (think of the seeds in traditional caraway rye bread).
Anyway... if you want to expose yourself to caraway, pick up a bottle of akvavit. If you can still find any Aalborg brand in the US (they have apparently stopped importing it), it has a particularly notable caraway flavor.
-
My worry would be that the cold meat wouldn't sear as good a warm, since the cold meat would cool the pan. Thoughts?
Given the area of contact for thermal transfer, and presuming a very hot pan with a decent heat capacity and a reasonably powerful burner, this is not a concern. I've had no troubles browning off completely frozen lamb shanks that I was later going to braise overnight.
Just tried pre-soaking dried udon noodles.It wasn't pretty, ended up looking like a bowl of porridge.
Considering that udon noodles are quite soft, this isn't a surprise. I'd think that chewy strong pasta made with high gluten flour would be necessary for this technique.
In regards to pasta, I was curious and wrote him to see if he had any more specific recommendations. This is what he replied:About pasta soaking: it depends so much on the pasta itself, which can be thick or thin, long or short. No general rules, I think--you try it and see. Fettucine profit from 3-4 hours, and I bet farfalle or penne could use even more.Nicely done, Doc. It's still not clear, howwever, whether he's talking about reducing cooking time or actually gaining some kind of culinary benefit. I suspect the former and have my doubts as to the latter.
-
The only reasons to use glass are (a) it's easier to see the dilution, and (b) if the glass is pre-chilled, there are some thermal benefits. Needless to say, if the mixing vessel is not pre-chilled, it is disadvantageous from a thermal perspective to use glass. Most home users can spare a little extra room in the freezer for a mixing glass or two. Most bars use room-temperature equipment, which means it would be more advantageous to use a metal mixing vessel. Bars like Pegu Club that are able to freeze their glass mixing vessels are generally able to produce the coldest stirred drinks.
All of which leads to the general rule of thumb:
room temperature equipment = use metal
frozen equipment = use glass
It's up to the individual home or professional mixologist as to whether it's worth the trouble to freeze the equipment. There is no reason to freeze the typical thin metal mixing cup, because the thermal capacity is too low to make a difference.
-
I like the Marchegiano dish pollo in friccò
This more or less consists of one cut-up chicken which is browned in olive oil, then braised in white wine with fresh rosemary, garlic and juniper berries. The way I was taught to make it, you keep only a shallow layer of white wine boiling furiously over high heat, and replenish as necessary. When a bottle of wine is boiled away, the chicken is ready.
Here is a dish made using a similar technique, with black olives and thyme instead of rosemary and juniper:
-
Timing is all dependent on the variables I posted upthread. If you have very cold ice in big pieces, it can sit for quite some time without diluting. On the other hand, if you have 100% finely cracked ice, you want to get the spirits on and off the ice rather quickly. In general, you're looking for something between 20% and 25% dilution, depending on the spirits (proof, intensity, etc.) and the desired effect. It's up to each person to work with the materials they have and arrive at an optimal strategy.
I personally find that hand-cracked ice straight out of the freezer works best (I've experimented with machine-cracked ice, but this is a bit too small and results in more dilution than I want). I fill a frozen glass mixing vessel as full of ice as it can possibly be packed. Given this arrangement, I find that it can sit for a minute or two with no ill effect. The more coldness you bring to the game, the slower the ice will melt. You'll always get a more watered drink if you stir with 3 ice cubes instead of 23 ice cubes.
Of course, the longer the booze sits on the ice, the more dilution you're going to get. And the more chilling you're going to get (up to a point). The trick is matching up optimal chilling with the proper amount of dilution. One way to play with this on a more scientific basis would be to pick up a jug of cheap vodka, a Thermopen and some finely calibrated measuring flasks. But the results you get at home with your ice and your equipment won't necessarily hold true at someone else's home, never mind a bar like PDT (in general, the Kold Draft ice at top cocktail bars starts out better in terms of purity/density, but ends up warmer than home ice by the time it's used -- this is one reason they can't use as much cracked ice as I can use at home and generally go with a mixture of cracked and whole ice for stirring).
-
Makes sense. Stirring accelerates the thermal transfer between the ice and the spirits. There is some thermal transfer going on while the booze is just sitting on the ice, but not nearly as much. This is why the spirits can sit on the ice while you build the shaken drinks without overly diluting the cocktail (and, as you observe, you usually end up having to stir at the end for even a little more dilution). This is somewhat dependent on the size of the ice, of course.
-
I'd like to have a "swirling pitcher" with a curved/rounded interior capable of making from 1 to 3 drinks at a time. It would have a pouring spout but the top would be sized so that the opening is approximately the same as a bar-standard mixing tin. This would facilitate easy addition of ice to the mixing vessel and would also fit a standard Hawthorne strainer.
-
I'm with Paul on this one. I have to say that all the reports I've heard as to the "nonstick-ness" of various non-PTFE surfaces are greatly exaggerated. Now, in certain circumstances, most any properly clean and cared-for surface can have nonstick-like properties. My French steel crêpe pan, for example, can have batter sliding all over the place when it's at the right temperature. But, "the right temperature" is pretty hot, and there is definitely browning (luckily, this is desired for crêpes). My French steel omelet pan, while sufficiently nonstick-like, is nowhere near as nonstick as my PTFE-coated thick aluminum pan of approximately the same size. For one, you have to be much more careful as to temperature with the French steel pan, and it's extremely tricky to make an omelet with no browning. It is possible to "slide an omelet" around in a French steel pan, but it's nowhere near as easy or as slippery as a PTFE-coated pan.
As to the OP's original question: Why not get a dedicated French steel omelet pan? The beauty of carbon steel is that it's cheap, so it's no big deal to get specialty and "dedicated" pans in carbon steel.
-
Anyway, as to how this has bearing on pre-oaking dry pasta... why would anyone want to do this? Let's say it reduces cooking time by 75%. So what? So, it takes me 3 minutes to boil penne instead of 12? But the real time savings isn't anywhere neat 75%. Considering that it takes me 30 minutes to heat up enough water to properly cook a pound of pasta, the 9 minute time savings is only around 20%.
30 minutes to boil 4 litres or so of water? Really?
Um, I'm cooking a pound of dry pasta in something more like ten liters of water. Four liters for a pound I would consider entirely too little -- more the volume of a saucepan than a stock/pasta pot. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have a four-liter "tall saucepan," and I wouldn't consider cooking pasta in it.
-
A fair amount of the article had to do with ways that one can conserve energy (both thermal energy and the ConEd bill) -- not necessarily the better way to do things.
For example, McGee correctly points out that electric burners are much more energy-efficient than gas burners. But gas burners have a whole range of advantages over electric burners (not to mention that natural gas is cheap) that makes them preferable over electric. I don't think I know too many people who would prefer electric burners over gas.
Anyway, as to how this has bearing on pre-oaking dry pasta... why would anyone want to do this? Let's say it reduces cooking time by 75%. So what? So, it takes me 3 minutes to boil penne instead of 12? But the real time savings isn't anywhere neat 75%. Considering that it takes me 30 minutes to heat up enough water to properly cook a pound of pasta, the 9 minute time savings is only around 20%. I can't believe the energy savings is all that much either. More to the point, I think it would considerably complicate timing, etc. I've experimented with par-cooking pasta a time or two when I needed to have as short a time as possible between firing up the burners and having food in front of 30+ people. It's never been as good as starting with fully "raw" pasta. I have to assume he mentioned it only to make a point.
-
It's interesting to me that no one has designed a better stirring vessel. I'd think that something with a convex curved shape, perhaps also with a gently rounded inner surface at the bottom of the glass, would better facilitate graceful and easy stirring than the straight-sided or gently sloped, narrow-at-the bottom mixing glasses we use today. In fact, a properly curved "stirring glass" could easily be employed as a "swirling glass" where the contents are mixed around without even needing the intervention of a spoon (the bartender would gently move the glass around in a circular motion, thereby using our old friend centripetal force to create a minor vortex inside the glass without the use of a spoon).
-
Had some fine stirred drinks at PDT and Death & Co a few days ago. I noted varying rest times for stirred drinks. What's the guideline?
Stirring and resting time will depend on a number of unique factors, most prominently among them: temperature of mixing vessel, composition of mixing vessel, temperature of ice, size and shape of ice, amount of ice relative to volume of spirits. By and large, what you want to look for when stirring a drink is dilution.
Some bartenders stir only in one direction, using the spoon to create a vortex of ice and liquid and therefore not jostling the ice much. Others place the spoon in the middle and stir by rotating the spoon back-and-forth, using the twisted edge on the spoon, and therfore jostling the ice far more. Thoughts?As a general rule of thumb, I find that bartenders who are violent with the ice when stirring a drink are not particularly invested in high-calibre mixology. This would include those who like to "stir" by twisting the spoon between thumb and forefinger while plunging it up and down in the ice. This is likely to result in a drink that is perhaps not as cloudy and aerated as a shaken drink, but not as clear and silky as a slowly stirred drink either. "Half-cloudy" I'd call these drinks.
If one is going to take the trouble to stir a drink, why not do it with the proper affect? As Dave Wondrich points out in Imbibe!, the vogue for stirring developed as the result a desire on the part of bartenders to showcase their sprezzatura (from Castiglione's Il Cortegiano: the art of doing something difficult and/or complex with apparent ease and nonchalance) -- hence the masterful intermingling of spirits with nothing more than a languid turn of the wrist.
Proper Chilled Cocktail Temperatures
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
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.