slkinsey

mbanu's examples both come down to, for lack of a better way of putting it, narrow-mindedness and a sense of entitlement. To look at the last example, I don't think the discussion we're having in this thread is so much like going in to a Chinese restaurant and expecting French fries, or going into a biker bar and asking for a Pousse Caffe -- those are perhaps inappropriate expectations as to availability of certain dishes or skills, but not exactly inappropriate behaviors. Rather, I would say it's like going into Otto and behaving as thought you were at Chuck E. Cheese -- or, for the "hooting and hollering" boys at Milk & Honey, it's like going into Jean-Georges and behaving as though you were at a roadside honky-tonk barbecue.

Perhaps I misconstrued the thrust of your post. I guess I don't understand why else you would make a point of saying that "variety [is] the spice of life" and "isn't a boilermaker in a dive just the thing now and then" in a thread about rules of etiquette and behavior in upscale cocktail bars unless you were implying that the counter-argument had been implied by this discussion. It seems self-evident that different genres of bar can be valued for different reasons, and that different behaviors are commonly understood to be acceptable and correct in different genres of bar. One reason upscale cocktail bars have had the need to resort to actual rules as opposed to the commonly understood "rules" at, e.g., your example of a biker bar, is because the behaviors which are acceptable and correct in the upscale cocktail genre of bar are not sufficiently commonly understood and appreciated. I would also assert that, in most genres of bar, the commonly understood modes of behavior are significantly more rowdy and "lower brow" than what is desired in upscale cocktail bars (the exceptions being things like upscale restaurant bars and upscale hotel bars, where the expectations as to behavior carry over from the superordinate entity).

I don't think anyone is arguing that beer-and-shot neighborhood bars or even frat bars don't have their place. I think it's rather that most cocktailians aren't likely to demand quiet and order a Pousse Caffe at a Red Bull and Vodka-serving pickup bar full of frat boys, whereas the converse is often not true.

I'm on my way right now. I'll bring the grappling hook and lock picks if you can lay in an appropriate supply of ski masks and black jumpsuits.

I would hardly use Clement's Creole Shrubb as the defining standard of "shrub." The Martingue tradition of "shrubb" (note the two Bs) appears to be quite different from the tradition handed down from the Colonial era, as it consists of orange peels, sugar and rum (sometimes including spices). Shrubb from Martinique would then appear to belong in the family of curaçao liqueur. To the best of my (admittedly not definitive) knowledge, the defining characteristic of a shrub is that the fruit juice is preserved with acid (and sugar). My understanding is that shrub was probably already out of style by the time JT's book was published, but if you look at the JT four recipes for shrubs you will note that they are of two kinds: The first kind, represented by the currant shrub and raspberry shrub, conforms fairly closely to the old tradition. The currant shrub will be quite tart and may go through some acetic fermentation, and the raspberry shrub uses vinegar. The second kind, represented by the brandy and rum shrubs, constitutes approximations of the result that would have been obtained by mixing a traditional acid-preserved shrub with some booze. It is likely that, back in those days especially, there would have been some acetic fermentation during the three-day infusion period of the brandy shrub, and I believe it is also likely that the whole business of adding boiled milk to the rum shrub was done to approximate the effect of vinegar's acetic acid by substituting milk's lactic acid. I believe these are the shrub version of the bottled cocktail rather than a category of spirit.

spiced bourbon or spiced cognac is a negligible difference. i use what i have on hand most of the time just like they probably did. this method is potentially less trouble and mainly just do to the fact that for many people, they can predict the outcome because the system for the batter is more popular in present times... so if you read JT's recipe but think its weird i give you can option you may be better able to relate to with hopefully the same outcome. I still don't understand this. Your proposed process involves making a zabaglione, which means performing the time- and attention-consuming process of whipping egg yolks over heat, making sure they are areated properly but do not get hot enough to curdle. Then you have to figure out something else to do with the egg whites. Then you have to make a spice infusion into some liquor, which will be a matter of trial-and-error until the proper spice mix, base liquor and infusion time is determined (otherwise, spice infusions are quite hit-and-miss). This is somehow more predictable and easier to do than cracking a dozen egg yolks into a Cuisinart (or 10 dozen egg yolks in to a Hobart) along with the spices and whipping that into a froth, whipping the whites seperately and combining the two? Again: Your process not only sounds more difficult, but doesn't really sound as good. Here's Audrey's recipe that was published in the NY Times Style magazine some while ago (via): I've seen Audrey make a recipe of this batter, and nothing could be more simple and easy. With all due respect to the pastry chef at your place, beating eggs/whites separately with flavorings and sugar and recombining them is a pretty elementary technique that is used extensively today -- I'd hardly call it a technique crying out for "modernization." Perhaps he has reasons for wanting to tinker with recipes, but sometimes complicating a classic in the name of "updating" it is a step backwards and we should hew closely to what we have inherited lest we find ourselves with a different (and oftentimes inferior) product. See? Now this is part of what I'm talking about. Why call every single hot drink made with eggs and spices a "Tom and Jerry"? Chambord and pine liqueur just don't belong in a Tom and Jerry, or we start to lose track of what it is that we're drinking. Call it a Hot Chambord Flip, if you must.

Dude. How many cases of Malacca do you have back there? You bastard!

Host note: split from the Post Your New Cocktail Creations Here topic. How is this a shrub? It doesn't seem to contain any vinegar.

Sweet! I wouldn't mind giving it a try with my espresso blend.

I was excited to read about the larger capacity and smoke-handling capability. But I read that it's not good for dark roasting, and I roast almost exclusively for espresso.

Yes. This is crucial.

Steven: I'd call the beginning of the frying process of any fatty food that is expected to cook in its own fat "rendering" followed by "frying in its own fat." This is fundamentally different from what happens when one dry-frys mushrooms or scallops, which give off water but no fat. To me, anyway, "dry frying" involves cooking a food that does not render its own fat.

I think it works well, but only with certain foods -- those being ones that have a pronounced tendency to weep liquid. Mushrooms and scallops come immediately to mind as candidates. The technique works especially well with mushrooms because it concentrates the mushroom liquid directly back into the mushrooms. Not so sure there are that many other candidates for dry-frying, though. ETA: I think what makes dry-frying work for mushrooms is that it actually reduces the amount of thermal transfer to the mushrooms. So, since the mushrooms aren't getting hit with a ton of heat, the liquid exuding from them evaporates more or less immediately (that's the squeaking noise) and they slowly dehydrate and Maillardize.

Good point, Steven. I have also never once had a single dish prepared with dragon, lucky or otherwise.

Today's NY Times ran an Op-Ed by Eric Schlosser entitled Penny Foolish: Like I needed any more reasons to avoid eating there.

Great NY Noodletown is best known for non-noodle dishes. Although it is not in the name, I would argue that Otto is ostensibly a pizzeria and yet pizza is the weakest thing on the menu (I'd be happy to go there for a meal that didn't involve any pizza).

Special salts really only have an effect on flavor when they are used as "finishing salts" and find their way into the taster's mouth undissolved. Kosher salt is simply regular mined salt milled to a larger grain size, and sea salts are by law something like 99% sodium chloride. The unique sensations of eating different sea salts come primarily from the size and shape rather than the chemical composition of the salts.

Smoking and alcohol consumption does dull one's sense of salinity... I'd be curious to know which NYC chefs smoke (or their line cooks) and whether it correlates with the levels of saltiness in their food. Do you have any scientific support for this? I ask because the last time I did some poking around as to the effect of smoking on flavor perceptions (flavor being the combined impression of taste, smell, temperature, mouthfeel, common chemical sense, etc.) the indications were that smoking does not particularly affect taste. Here's what I wrote: Since salt is one of the five tastes detected by the taste receptors, I don't think smoking should affect sensitivity to salinity. With respect to alcohol, I don't think I've ever read anything scientific demonstrating that habitual alcohol consumption affects the sensitivity of taste receptors. Exposing the tongue to high proof spirits can have a temporary anesthetizing effect on the taste receptors, but this is relatively short lived (very cold temperatures have a similar and similarly short-lived effect).

I think of Pink Gin somewhat the same way I think of Death in the Gulf Stream (although DITGS is a longer and more intensely flavored drink): as a digestive or perhaps as a short, bracing stimulant for the appetite.

Nice! I've been meaning to post about this place as well. I've been there three times, and I think there's a good chance that Eric's been there... oh, I don't know... maybe 25 times since his first post to the thread. It's all outstanding. I can confirm that the razor clams are off the hook delicious, and also remarked to Eric that I thought the dumplings were unusually tender and juicy. Another must-have in my experience is the ox tongue and tripe with roasted chili/crushed peanut vinaigrette cold appetizer. Even people who would ordinarily not like either tongue or tripe loved this dish. Eric's beloved diced rabbit and peanuts with chili garlic black bean jam is also a must-try appetizer. In the main dishes, I've had the lamb iteration of the fish fillet dish Steven describes above. It's more or less the same as GSIM's braised beef fillets with chili sauce, only it's possible to get it with beef, pork, lamb or fish. Eric, like Steven, has also had the fish version and reports it as outstanding. Don't miss out on the braised whole bass with spicy hot chili and scallions. I saw several other tables eating this and couldn't resist. It's rewarding. They have another, less spicy version of the dish with Sichuan chili miso that sounds interesting. I've also had what I think was stir fried fresh pork belly with chili leeks. It could have been double cooked sliced pork belly with chili leeks. . . or at least it was similar to other "double cooked" pork belly dishes I've had. In any event, their preparation is outstanding. Definitely more savory and delicious than the iteration at GSIM. I do miss the gigantic menu and some of the more poetic dishes at GSMI, and Szechuan Gourmet doesn't have (or at least doesn't advertise) fresh killed poultry. But so far everything I've tried there has been at least comparable to GSIM, and several items have been better. I expect I'll be back many more times.

I don't think these are "speakeasies" in any sense other than (usually) being small and not copiously signed/advertised. And I think the "modern speakeasy" meme is one picked up by the press more than deliberately promulgated by cocktail bar owners. Dave Kaplan of D&C touches on this when he explains that some places have rules "because speak-easies had them and speak-easies are in vogue " on the one hand or because they're "simple guidelines of etiquette" on the other hand. -- the implication I take from this is that the former is silly and the latter is useful. Of course speakeasies (which is to say, places to get illegal booze during the Volstead Act from 1920 to 1933) were likely horrible places to get a drink after stocks of pre-Prohibition booze ran out. But I'm not sure that modern cocktail spots are trying to emulate them so much as some of them are trying to evoke a time still associated with quality mixology in America. This is mistakenly thought to be the Jazz Age, but more often than not the actual iconography comes from the post-Prohibition period (e.g., the Thin Man movies) or from the (Nineteen) Teens. As to your larger point, I'm sure that many a saloon was a rough and ready place back to whichever day one would like to harken. But I don't get the impression that anyone is furthering the belief that cocktail bars during the previous great cocktail ages were like monastaries. Sam Ross at M&H/Little Branch does say, "Everything we do is a throwback to the early 20th century . . . The bartenders are inspired to bar-tend at a different level . . . We're seen as a draw for the place." But I don't see that as quite the same thing as creating a false mythology. I assume you are thinking of this: I think you may be misreading this part. They're not talking about a doorman making arbitrary choices based on appearance to keep out the Red Bull and Vodka drinkers. They're talking about keeping out the Red Bull and Vodka drinkers by not offering any vodka and not offering any Red Bull (among other things). I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that they are regulating shirts and pants and things like that (one customer at PDT made a joke about Oxford shirts). All I see is that some places ask men to take off their hats or disallow baseball hats. kiliki, no cocktail bar of which I am aware has group size limits that are arbitrary or capricious. Rather, they are simply not willing to cram too many people into the space in order to accommodate requests that they accept parties larger than they can handle. I understand that this is somewhat different from most bars that adopt a "cram as many people in there as possible" approach -- but I, for one, am grateful for the limitations. I guess I don't quite understand what your example is supposed to be showing. Are you saying that the larger of your two preferred cocktail bars will seat a table of 5 but won't seat a table of 6? If so, this may simply come down to a difference of opinion -- you may think the table can accommodate 6 but they may not agree that it can accommodate a party that large at their standards. Certainly at good restaurants, there is a limit to how many people they are willing to cram in around a table.

Honestly, these standards aren't generally particularly high. They're only considered high compared to the deplorably low bar set by behavior in most bars. Compared to generally-accepted standards for behavior at any restaurant operating at a similar price point or luxury point (or really anything North of a roadside oil-barrel barbecue pit) the expectations at these cocktail bars are quite reasonable and not particularly stringent.

Audrey Saunders has been known as the Queen of the Tom & Jerry around here for some years. I've seen her make up the batter a time or two, which she does quite nicely using a food processor. Her adaptation can be found in Dave Wondrich's amazing new book, Imbibe! As I recall (I don't have the book in front of me) the yolks are beaten up with sugar, spices, etc. and the whites are beaten up separately. The two are then combined to constitute the batter. Nothing is cooked. Individual portions are made by putting some batter in a cup with the booze, and then adding boiling milk. bostonapothecary: Thinking of your zabaglione/spiced rum concoction (and leaving aside the fact that I believe the main spirit in a T&J is cognac), it seems like a lot more trouble than Audrey's method, and sounds like it wouldn't be as good. Perhaps this is for long-term stability purposes that you propose this method? I think the method I have described is stable for as long as a day.

I think there are a number of reasons why these rules exist in cocktail spots. These are the most important two: First and foremost would be the society-wide decline in mannerly behavior and understanding of how to conduct one's self appropriately in different settings. It's sad that a cocktail bar striving for a refined and civilized atmosphere has to caution customers against "hooting and hollering" and hitting on women at the other tables, but it's also a fact that they do have to caution customers against these behaviors. This brings me directly to the second major factor, which is that for most people a bar is not thought of as a place for a culinary experience so much as it is thought of as a place to get intoxicated, and it is valued more for its ancillary accoutrements (great jukebox/DJ/live music, pool tables, pickup scene, scantily clad women dancing on the bar) than the quality and variety of the libations it provides. This inclines some customers towards certain behaviors that they would never practice in a restaurant (see above-mentioned hooting, hollering and inter-table wooing). When these two issues are combined, the proprietor of a "really great, comfortable, inviting place to get a very well made cocktail" is inevitably confronted with prospective patrons who are not there for the right reasons and who aren't able or willing to conduct themselves in a way that allows the other patrons to enjoy the space and have a very well made cocktail. Sadly, many such individuals are neither aware that they should behave differently nor even conversant in how to conduct themselves appropriately in such a setting. To respond briefly and generally to other points raised in the thread: These expectations, either explicitly stated or understood and "enforced" as needed, have nothing to do with the "velvet rope" practices of certain nightclubs. A serious cocktail bar may not admit a bunch of half-in-the-bag girls in cutoffs and bikini tops, but they're not going to admit people based on how attractive they are, or the brand of a man's jacket. I should also point out that some of the cocktail bars that have limitations on the size of a party they will accept are the size of a postage stamp and simply cannot accommodate a larger party.

Considering the thread we had recently on a customer who was asked to stop using a laptop in a cocktail spot, this recent LA Times article on "rules" in cocktail spots strikes me as timely and interesting: The new rules of cocktails -- If you want a brilliant drink in a civilized bar, you can't stand up, drop names or wear a hat.