[Bad Behavior at a Restaurant Bar?]

I should point out that I don't think Chris was out of line for giving it a go, nor do I think he should have asked permission. It was probably 50/50 that it would have been okay. As far as I can tell, it went just as it should have gone.

[Bad Behavior at a Restaurant Bar?]

Right. But we're just not talking about a "cool cocktail spot" here. We're talking about a local hot spot that has been alleged, though not proven, to offer good cocktails. The jury's still out on that one, though: I originally asked for a Last Word, and the barkeep looked at me as if to say, "Sure, go ahead. You can have the last word."

We're presumably talking about a place that wants to be a cool cocktail spot.

And, you know... let's not get ahead of ourselves here. There are maybe 25 bars in America where you can expect that the bartenders will be recognize and be able to make you a Last Word, and you're in Providence.

[Bad Behavior at a Restaurant Bar?]

I went to the bar in a restaurant, ordered a drink, sat down to drink the drink, and prepared to enjoy the drink, the bar, and the people there -- while writing on a laptop. I didn't go into the bar and ask for an oil change.

How about: I went into the bar, ordered a drink, sat down to drink the drink and prepared to enjoy the drink, the bar, and the people there -- while painting a watercolor landscape on a small canvass. Or: -- while knitting a blanket. Or: -- while taking out some supplies and working on my "ship in a bottle." Or: -- while wearing my "wifebeater" undershirt after removing my shirt. Or: -- while snorting a few rails of coke off the tabletop.

These are all things that would be acceptable in certain mileux, from a university pub to a hippy wannabe fern bar to a biker bar, but not in a cool cocktail spot.

Is this just Victorian-era predilection for the writerly arts and era-appropriate technology? Or are laptops fundamentally, like, a total bummer in ways I don't comprehend?

Hard to say. But for myself, I find the idea of a guy scribbling a few things on a legal pad a whole lot more vibe-appropriate -- especially in a darkened bar -- than the glow from a laptop and some guy tapping away. Pecking away on a laptop in a bar is just too reminiscent of middle managers on business trips sending emails from the lounge at Holiday Inn.

[Bad Behavior at a Restaurant Bar?]

I don't see why there's even a question here: The guy doesn't want people working on laptops in his restaurant bar. Presumably he has good reasons for this, and I can think of several. Open laptops bring to mind Starbuck's, not a cool cocktail spot. And clearly what this guy wants is a cool cocktail spot, not some combination of airport lounge and cocktail bar.

Part of what you pay for when you go into a bar or restaurant is the atmosphere provided not only by the bar or restaurant itself, but also by the patrons who are in there with you. This is why, for example, certain restaurants have dress requirements. It's also why bars like Milk & Honey have strict behavior rules. You're not paying to go into Milk & Honey to be seated next to a bunck of Yaeger-shot taking, whooping and hollering frat boys trying to hit on your date. That's an extreme example, but I'm also not paying to go into a cool cocktail spot to hang out with three or four guys nursing a beer and tapping away on their laptops, reading the newspaper or playing a game of Bridge. Bars, in particular, are highly dependent upon image and "vibe."

Don't be so sure, by the way, that the other bars and restaurants mentioned wouldn't ask someone to close their laptop or stop playing cards.

Chris: Perhaps if you had been there at 4:30 instead of during the traditional cocktailing hour, you wouldn't have hadf any troubles. Perhaps if you had decided to write out your work longhand on a legal pad, you wouldn't have had any troubles. On the other hand, if you had a big folder of research and papers spread out over the table, you probably would have. That's the kind of thing for the coffee shop or perhaps the English model of the country pub -- but not for the urbane, sophisticated cocktail spot this place is trying to be. And I don't see that the fullness or emptiness of the room has anything to do with it whatsoever. If they don't want people opening laptops and/or working in there, they don't want people opening laptops and/or working in there.

I think the guy handled it as well as he could have. It's never easy to tell people they can't do something in your establishment that they clearly think is or should be okay (my first reaction upon being approached would have been to immediately close my laptop and apologize). And, of course, no one likes being told those things. Among my cocktail-world friends, I've known some who have had to ask customers to close laptops or put away work, stop playing cards, and even to either start ordering drinks or free up the seats for the long line of waiting customers.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

My point was that "worth visiting" (in the colloquial sense) is much different than "able to overcome the opportunity cost." I think that you're actually implying two theses in this thread: (1) That NJ has plenty of establishments that are amazing and worth the visit for a serious foodie (which point I think is nigh-unassailably valid) and (2) that New Yorkers who don't make the trip are missing out on a fundamental and must-go food experience. Those are two different points, and I think the second one isn't as obvious as you're implying.

Here's an interesting take that recently occurred to me, and it reflects some of my thinking with respect to this subject:

It's increasingly clear that the cocktail revival is one of the major culinary trends of the last five years, and it is only increasing in importance, influence and reach. New York City is the epicenter of that revival. If one is interested in covering the interesting culinary ground in metro-NYC, I would argue that visits to Flatiron, Pegu, Milk & Honey, PDT, Death & Company and Tailor are more fundamentally must-go culinary experiences than getting really good sliders or visiting a Japanese market in New Jersey -- not only in terms of the metro-NYC culinary scene, but also with respect to nationwide culinary trends. . . . If you don't care about that sort of thing, of course you shouldn't go. But in my opinion there is a much larger gap in someone's metro-NYC culinary experience for not visiting these 6 places than there is for not visiting Mitsuwa, Ironbound, White Manna, Cucharamama, Moksha and Rutt's. One can say, "but it's only cocktails -- it should be enough to go to just one." But we wouldn't say that if it were "haute cuisine" instead of "cocktails," and I'll argue that those six places are just as important in the general scheme of things as the last six 3 star-level places to open in the City.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

If there were an amazing categorically superior Italian culinary community/market in Jersey, I might try to get out there to stock up once a year (or more, if I had a car).  There is such a place, although not in New Jersey: Arthur Avenue.

i would recommend that you consider integrating a trip to Ridgewood's A Amano into your calculus. not for shopping, but for Neapolitan-style pizza.

Definitely the sort of place I'd want to know about if I were going to be in Jersey. Not sure it seems that much better than or uniquely different from Una Pizza Napoletana/Franny's/Fornino/etc. to be worth a special trip (although I remain open to such an argument) -- but for sure the kind of place I'd incorporate into a trip in the area.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

I think it's clear that there is a pain-in-the ass calculus that everyone has to do with respect to how far they are willing to travel for certain experiences, and how big the payoff has to be to make it "worth it."

This true with respect to food as it is anything else. I have friends who travel to Cooperstown to see opera in Glimmerglass's intimate small theater. Some of them will fly to Chicago or even to Europe specifically to see a certain opera or a certain cast. For them, it's clearly worth the trip. For me, despite the fact that this is my field, I have a hard time imagining an opera that would be worth a weekend'w worth of travel and expense to me (maybe the reincarnation of Jussi Björling?). But that's fine for both of us. It doesn't mean that they're more devoted to opera than I am. It simply means that the calculus is different.

For Nathan, it may be the case that the payoff already has to be very high to travel to the Upper East Side. This is not unfamiliar to me. It took me almost a year to convince my wife that it really was worth going a little bit out of her way (i.e., going downtown after work instead of finding someplate on the work-to-home trajectory) to visit what are reckoned among the very best bars in the world -- and she has a strong interest in cocktails, so the payoff was already high.

For other people -- for Steven, Eric and others -- the calculus is different. First off, the "cost" of making the trip is probably quite a bit lower. My friend Eric, for example, simply doesn't mind spending hours on the bus or train to go somewhere that interests him. Steven has a job and lifestyle that allows him to take advantage of travel times that are not available to most other people, and he drives his car a lot whereas many other people who own cars reserve them for only occasional lengthier trips (e.g., a house upstate). These are the kinds of things that make the cost lower for some people than for others. And, of course, in traveling for culinary experiences it makes a difference how much the particular culinary experience interests you. Hot dogs and Indian pastries aren't going to do it for me, but truly oustanding pizza might. For other people, it may very well be the opposite.

For some people -- and I include myself mostly, but not entirely in this group -- the calculus will rarely be enough to motivate them to explore New Jersey culinary options over the myriad culinary options available in New York City. That's reasonable, although it is just as reasonable for others to make their own calculus and choose differently. Clearly for most people, the cost is higher and the payoff must be significantly higher before they will make the choice to travel to New Jersey for food.

For myself, I simply don't have a strong enough interest in Japanese culinary culture to make a trip to Mitsuwa by bus remotely worth the experience in and of itself. Similarly, while I have a passing interest in Portugese and Brazilian culinary culture, I have not found trips to the Ironbound worth the trip in and of itself. So far, no one has mentioned anything that interests me enough that I'd devote the time, expense and trouble of bringing myself to Jersey to experience. On the other hand, I am a huge Italophile. If there were an amazing categorically superior Italian culinary community/market in Jersey, I might try to get out there to stock up once a year (or more, if I had a car). There is such a place, although not in New Jersey: Arthur Avenue. But even Arthur Avenue I only visit when friends feel like taking me along in their cars. For me, the payoff isn't enough to justify the hassle of travel by public transportation or the cost of renting a Zipcar.

Note that I said "worth the experience in and of itself." There are plenty of other things that might alter my own personal calculus. If I were traveling to Jersey anyway on other business, or if I were already paying for a rental car and had several hours of rental time "left over" that I wanted to put to good use. That could easily put me in front of a plate of South Indian food or, if time were shorter, a half dozen sliders. And, of course, if a friend like Steven calls and wonders if I might like to drive out to Mitsuwa with him one Sunday afternoon when I had the free time, I'd almost certainly say yes because the benefit of spending a fun afternoon with Steven and being driven in the car of someone who knows how to get there would eliminate almost all of the "cost" from my calculus.

So... as I have tried to say all along, for sure there are some nice culinary experiences to be had in New Jersey. When travel to these experiences falls within anyone's personal calculus, they should definitely try to check some of them out. I am also mindful of the fact that New York City is crammed full of high quality culinary experiences -- so many that it is literally impossible to experience them all. This can be a strong factor in someone's personal calculus against travel to Jersey. But ultimately the rest of the debate comes down to whether traveling to New Jersey for certain culinary experiences are, or should be within each person's personal calculus. For me, I don't see that there's anything over there that is so interesting to me that I'd plan a special trip out there myself -- but there are plenty of things I'd take advantage of if I found myself over there or received an invitation to tag along.

[Veal Stock -- a personal reflection]

Janet, I think the difference is that veal stock has more gelatin and an inherently richer texture than chicken stock, but it doesn't have as distinctive a flavor as beef stock. For example, whereas a mushroom sauce enrichened with veal stock works for fish, I wouldn't say the same of beef stock.

[Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 3)]

Anyone aware of any temperature-related tricks with the cabbage family? I was thinking it might be fun to do something like "Brussels sprouts confit" sous vide so they'd be nice and green. Ultimately I'd like for them to be somewhat tender but not skunky.

[Interesting Turkey Cooking Ideas]

I have for the past 5 years or so done my version of Turkey Two Ways in which the leg meat is braised in red wine and the breasts cooked separately to temperature a la minute. Several other eGers have tried this method with great results.

This year, I am continuing the evolution of the recipe. I'm going to butterfly and pound out one turkey breast and make a forcemeat out of part of the other breast together with some foie gras and black truffle, etc. That will be rolled into the turkey breast and cooked sous vide. The braised leg meat will be combined with wilted Savoy cabbage, perhaps bound with a little methocel, rolled up in reserved turkey skin, cooked sous vide to set it and browned for service. The dressing will be rolled up in a sheet of bacon made by overlapping extra-thin slices into a sheet. That will also be cooked sous vide to set it up and then browned for service. In the end, I'll have three cylinders of each ingredient (white meat, dark meat, dressing) which I can cut into coins for plating with a little reduction sauce and a tadpole of parsley puree.

[Crust-o-phobic nation]

Yea, crust rules. I'm not sure it has to be baked especially dark to provide a great crust experience (the baguette being a good example -- it is designed to be almost entirely crust), but for most loaves a nice dark crust is requisite.

Some people don't like it, though... Not so much because of the flavor, but because they don't like the chewiness and, sometimes, because the crust hurts their teeth when the bread is cut into slices (this is my wife's constant complaint about the Sullivan Street Bakery pane pugliese that is ubiquitous in NYC restaurants). Personally, I don't mind cutting the roof of my mouth a little to get an awesome crust.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

please correct me if I am mistaken, because it would make much of what I have written entirely moot

You most certainly are mistaken. Here's what I said in post number one:

I submit that anybody who hasn't done at least a highlights tour of New Jersey Indian, Chinese and hot dogs, plus Japanese and Korean food-shopping, lacks a fundamental element of cultural literacy about food in the New York metro area.

Well, that's certainly a far cry from it being incumbent upon NYC foodies to travel to Jersey for food -- which seems to be the point you've been arguing throughout this .thread. Would you say that this is not your argument? There are, as I have also said, certainly reasons to travel for food in Jersey if one is interested in that sort of thing.

And Sam, when I referenced an inability or unwillingness to relate to someone else's priorities, I was noting that, because you seem unable to relate to the priorities of someone who would travel that extensively for food, you've chosen to accuse me of disingenuousness.

I don't know where you are getting that impression. I have made a point several times of mentioning that culinary travel to Jersey makes sense for people who enjoy traveling for food (or at least that it doesn't make sense for someone who doesn't have those priorities).

But, if I were a marathoner and said to you that "A transportation lockdown is a red herring and shouldn't affect your ability to get to White Manna. You can jog. We've been writing down the running, biking, rollerblading and skateboarding paths" -- that would be... well, a little disingenuous (again, hardly the worst thing in the world, for goodness' sake).

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

If I understand it correctly, Sam's position is that even if there are X number of restaurants in New Jersey that are categorically superior to their New York City equivalents, it's still not worth going to them because New York City "is so rich in culinary possibilities that it is inexhaustible to any other than the very most dedicated epicure."

No, this is a mischaracterization of my positions.

How so? You've casually accused me of mischaracterizing your positions and of disingenuousness, but haven't justified either allegation. Indeed, after claiming I mischaracterized your position, you went on to state the same position!

The mischaracterization is that you imply that my argument would be the same if Jersey had 50 "categorically superior" restaurants instead of a handful or less. But, of course, it doesn't.

As I understand it -- and please correct me if I am mistaken, because it would make much of what I have written entirely moot -- your argument is, more or less, that Jersey is so rich in oustanding "categorically superior to NYC" restaurants that it is incumbent upon Manhattan-dwelling foodies to make a trip to Jersey to experience these restaurants, indeed even going so far as to devote and entire day to such a trip and possibly traveling by public transportation. Surely you're not suggesting that someone should take some combination of train/bus/foot travel for a round trip time of several hours to visit Jersey restaurants that are only a little better than their Manhattan or near-Manhattan equivalents. Presumably there is a trade-off between excellence and the travel time/pain in the ass factor, right?

So, that to me is the rub. It's one thing to say that there are lots of good and some great restaurants in Jersey, and that people should visit them if they are presented with a good chance. I'd agree with you 100% if that were the case. It's another thing to suggest that the Jersey offerings are so outstanding relative to Manhattan offerings that NYC foodies are missing out overall by not engaging in planned food travel across the river. Leaving aside the obvious fact that the perceived quality and interest of the food offerings in Jersey, the perceived nuisance/inconvenience/expense of travel to Jersey, and the trade-off between the two are entirely a matter of opinion, preference and constitution -- it still strikes me as a highly tenuous argument.

Manhattan has at least 200 restaurants that are better than any restaurant in Jersey. What Jersey has going for it is a handful of restaurants offering a higer level in a few specific categories. But even then, there are still 200 NYC restaurants better than the best restaurant in Jersey, and that includes these standouts. You still can't tell me that the Bombay-Chinese restaurant you like in Jersey is better than Momofuku or any one of a zillion other restaurants I could name in the City. All it has going for it in comparison to Manhattan restaurants is that it's perhaps better than the Bombay-Chinese restaurants in Manhattan. Okay, fine. But I wouldn't say that I'm "missing out" by choosing to go to Momofuku Ssam Bar instead, and to spend the hours I'd spend traveling to Jersey sharing a cold bowl of punch in Death & Company instead. And I'm not convinced that I'm "missing out" by having the Chang Dog at PDT instead of going to Rutt's Hutt in Jersey.

None of this is to say that the Bombay-Chinese place and Rutt's aren't good places. But there is no convincing argument you can make that it's incumbent upon me to visit them or that I'm culinarily deprived by choosing to spend my time and dollar exploring the multitudinous NYC possibilities.

On the Manhattan side of the scale we have hundreds of outstanding restaurants within 45 minutes of my door. On the Jersey side of the scale we have at most a dozen oustanding restaurants an hour and a half or more from my door. It's pretty simple to see which side way the scale is going to tip. This huge imbalance means that, while one might make the argument that it is incumbent upon a metro-NYC foodie living in Jersey to visit NYC for food, the opposite argument fails.

You have some points. There are good places in Jersey. It can be fun and rewarding to visit them if you're over there. But you overreached in suggesting that it's incumbent upon NYC foodies to make culinary trips to Jersey and that NYC foodies are materially depriving themselves overall culinarily by not doing so. It's as simple as that.

If this is not reflective of your argument, and we're more or less saying the same things as I about being amply rewarded for visiting Jersey places as you find yourself there or feel like making a trip anyway for the fun of it, then I take it all back.

I mean, I'm a serious cocktailian and haven't even been able to find the time to visit all the bars on my list, never mind all the restaurants. For example, Eben Freeman is supposed to be doing amazing things at Tailor, and I haven't been there yet. I'm certainly going to have a drink at Tailor before I spend half a day driving over to Jersey to eat South Indian food. And that's the point I'm making about Manhattan's inexhaustible culinary possibilities.

Nor is your example on point. You've tried to prop up the argument about "inexhaustible culinary possibilities" by pointing to one of many cocktail places, which only a die-hard fan of the cocktail niche would consider essential. What I said was that New York has a small number of best-in-category places -- that the description "inexhaustible culinary possibilities" ignores the reality that once you cut the list down to the very best then New York City is a very small town.

What New York City does have is an inexhaustible supply of "extremely good" and "better than you can get in New Jersey" restaurants. Of course NYC is a "very small town" if you limit yourself to only best-in-category places. There can only be one in each category. But why on earth would you want to limit it that way? If we say that Per Se is the "best-in-category of fancy fine dining places," does that mean that we should no longer consider Daniel, Le Bernardin, Jean-Georges, etc? If we say that Una Pizza Napoletana is the "best-in-category" pizzeria, where does that leave Franny's, Patsy's, Grimaldi's, Fornino and Di Fara? If we say that Tabla is the "best-in-category of fusion dining," does that mean we aren't allowed to "count" Momofuku Ssam Bar? Or, rather, does that mean that NYC has an unusually large number of great restaurants in these categories (among many other categories, of course)? Whereas your outlook seems to adopt the former viewpoint, mine adopts the latter. And from where I'm standing, New York City is a very large town indeed.

My example was intended to highlight the incredible density of high quality places in a huge number of categories that we have in NYC. Jersey simply doesn't have that. Period. Yes, I guess I have to travel to Jersey if I want top notch South Indian food. But it doesn't follow that I am "depriving myself" if I choose to stay in NYC and go to a restaurant that is equally excellent, or better in its own way than the South Indian place in Jersey. What I am doing is choosing to enrichen myself in a different way -- and in a way that doesn't involve considerable travel time and/or expense.

My example was also intended to demonstrate why I don't understand the argument that says "it's incumbent upon you to explore Jersey restaurants" when the bottom of the barrel of NYC restaurants I want to try is nowhere in sight, and the water keeps on rising. If I was getting around to so many NYC restaurants that I found myself casting about for new culinary experiences, sure I'd look in Jersey. That situation probably comprises no more than 50 residents of Manhattan.

...if you add a few New Jersey places to the places in Queens and Brooklyn then they're just as essential for at least one visit as Sripraphai or Di Fara's

I would only consider Di Fara worth the trip for a Manhattan dweller who is a serious pizzaphile and who, on top of that, enjoys a certain amount of culinary adventure travel. Plenty of people I know who have gone to Di Fara have come back feeling like it wasn't worth the trip. If I took my wife to Di Fara on the train, I'd be sleeping on the couch for a month. As for Sripraphai, I can walk out of my day job, hop the #7 express train at Grand Central and be sitting down at a table at Sripraphai within 30 minutes -- faster than it takes for me to get home. I doubt you can name one place in Jersey operating near Sripraphai's level of excellence or with its huge lead over its peers that's as easily reached by public transportation.

Now, if one is the sort of person who doesn't mind lengthy travel by public transportation or to someplace like Di Fara and there are certain outstanding culinary destinations in Jersey at least as convenient via public transportation or car (respectively), then your argument makes more sense to me and I would agree with you. But, really, plenty of NYC foodies are not interested in being the culinary version of Indiana Jones.

Since you are a die-hard lover of cocktails, however, you might want to check out SM23 in Morristown, also Mehtani-owned, with its Grant Collins-trained staff and Asian-influenced cocktails (e.g., giant Japanese-style ice spheres, apple-and-thyme martini, etc.). Probably not worth a trip for the average person, but maybe worth it for someone who really wants to cover all the interesting cocktail ground in the region.

Grant Collins is a cocktail consultant from Australia who, as far as I can tell, designs "themed" corporate restaurant cocktail lists. And I've seen too many "trained by so-and-so" places that suck (including some supposedly trained/designed by the King himself, Dale DeGroff) that that sort of thing doesn't hold much water with me. Looking at the menu, it appears to be "Asian themed" suburban alcopop.

But, you are right that, if by some miracle Dave Wondrich were to open a little bar in Jersey, I'd make it a point to visit there. On the other hand, I am a serious cocktail enthusiast. I wouldn't consider all of Manhattan to be "missing out" by not making a similar trip. Similarly, a South Indian hungry for the taste of home or a hot dog fanatic seems to have good reasons to make a culinary trip to Jersey. But Jersey's culinary excellence and culinary competitiveness with NYC is not broad enough to make Jersey an overall culinary destination for those who don't have specific and narrow areas of interest. I mean, I like Indian food as much as the next guy, but I just can't get "4 hour trip excited" about that restaurant.

The disingenuousness claim is particularly bizarre given that 1- you haven't evidenced a sufficient factual basis to engage in a discussion of public transportation to New Jersey, 2- I've taken public transportation to New Jersey to eat many times and for combined eating-shopping-visiting day trips probably on the order of 50+ times, and 3- I did so plenty of times while working 3,000 hours a year as a lawyer.

1. My wife lived in Jersey for 10 years, I have several friends over there who I visit from time to time, I've done something like a half-dozen opera and classical singing gigs in Jersey which required weeks of commuting by train and/or bus for rehearsals, and I have taken at least a dozen public-tranportation trips and another two dozen by car to Jersey with friends specifically for food, which trips I was given to understand were not in any way extraordinary or unusual in the time/trouble involved. Is that sufficient factual basis?

2. Of course, I could also say that I've been out there 50+ times on public transportation (which, now that I add it up, is probably true), but so what? You'd have to take my word for it. You know whose word I like to take? The people who live in Jersey and say it's not worth it.

3. I think it's pretty clear, considering that you left your high earning career as a lawyer to pursue a low-earning career as a professional foodie demonstrates that you have priorities that are not the same as most people working a 9 to 5 (or 9 to 9 as the case often is). If it's really true that you took multiple-hour 100% public transportation culinary trips to Jersey while working 60 hour weeks as a lawyer, I think most people would characterize this as ardor bordering on fanaticism and would consider it "unusual" -- on a factual basis it is ususual. Not that there's anything wrong with that! After all, you found your calling. But I don't think it's reasonable to hold others to this standard. Similarly, I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to expect that NYC "foodies" should share your own enthusiasm and interest in "covering all the interesting ground in the region." Several of the greatest epicures I know, whom I am privileged to call my friends do not share these priorities and would be highly unlikely to travel to Jersey to visit a South Indian restaurant or shop at an Asian megamarket. On the other hand, some of these friends regularly do things that you aren't likely to do, like making long trips to procure produce from a specially favored grower upstate or contracting for a whole baby lamb. Some of them do all of those things. But I don't think I could say that it's incumbent upon all NYC foodies to help a Long Island farmer slaughter heritage turkeys so you can get a really fresh one, or buy a case of $6 peaches instead of availing yourself of the inexhaustible supply of excellent products that can be found right her in NYC.

An inability or unwillingness to relate to someone else's priorities doesn't establish disingenuousness.

We know you're not unable, so what you mean is unwilling. If you're going to make arguments that apply to all people, then you should be willing to relate to their priorities. Note that I said relate, not agree. But, really, we already know that 2.4 million Steven Shaws living in Manhattan would be driving their cars all over the city and metro-New York, including Jersey. The fact that they are not means that they don't share your priorities and the lifestyle that makes these priorities possible. If you understand but are unwilling to relate to someone else's priorities, and make statements blithely implying that these priorities don't exist or are not valid -- that they're "red herrings" and "that excuse just doesn't work" because "plenty of public transportation is available -- that strikes me as disingenuous (which some people seem think is the worst thing in the world, but please... everyone does it all the time -- it's not meant as an insult). To be disingenuous is to assume a pose of naivete or give a false appearance of simple frankness. Like, for example, suggesting that the time commitment and other inconveniences and obstacles associated with taking public transportation to New Jersey constitute a "red herring" because the priorities that place a higher value than yours on those commitments, inconveniences and obstacles don't exist or are not valid.

I don't consider, nor do I think most people would consider, a multiple-hour time commitment during a precious weekend day on unfamiliar public transportation with uncertain and expensive remedies should the public transportation prove to be less than optimal a "red herring" -- and I can't believe you truly believe it's nothing for most NYC residents either. It may not be a big factor for you, but I trust your intelligence and understanding of others enough that I can't believe you don't know that you are somewhat extraordinary in this respect. My friend Eric, for example, thinks nothing of traveling several hours for a great bowl of noodles. But he understands that, for most people, the trip carries a much higher cost than it does for him.

A four hour round trip to the Ironbound on the train (which I have done), is not a trip undertaken lightly for most people in the City, and I don't believe it is unreasonable to expect that the payoff be commensurate (it wasn't). On the other hand, Eric thinks it's no big deal and makes the trip all the time -- sometimes by himself.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

Grazie, Tommy. That's what I thought.

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

If I understand it correctly, Sam's position is that even if there are X number of restaurants in New Jersey that are categorically superior to their New York City equivalents, it's still not worth going to them because New York City "is so rich in culinary possibilities that it is inexhaustible to any other than the very most dedicated epicure."

No, this is a mischaracterization of my positions. Perhaps it's easier if I put them this way:

As I said before, there are plenty of good restaurants in Jersey. Plenty of "categorically superior" restaurants? I don't think so. I haven't seen any convincing, credible arguments that New Jersey is particularly rich in restaurants that are "categorically superior to their New York City equivalents." So far, you have made one convincing argument: Moksha. If one has a particularly keen interest in South Indian food, I can see a compelling reason to make a special trip out to Moksha in Jersey. If one's interest in South Indian food is no more keen than, say, one's interest in several dozen other culinary styles -- and I easily could name at least 30 Manhattan restaurants I'd like to visit or revisit more than I'd take extra trouble to visit a South Indian restaurant -- I do not see a compelling reason to make a special trip out to Jersey for food.

Furthermore, while I stipulate that it may be a shame that I haven't been exposed to the pinnacle of South Indian food, it's also an equal shame that I haven't been exposed to tons of restaurants and culinary styles that are available right here in Manhattan. I mean, I'm a serious cocktailian and haven't even been able to find the time to visit all the bars on my list, never mind all the restaurants. For example, Eben Freeman is supposed to be doing amazing things at Tailor, and I haven't been there yet. I'm certainly going to have a drink at Tailor before I spend half a day driving over to Jersey to eat South Indian food. And that's the point I'm making about Manhattan's inexhaustible culinary possibilities.

So, what I'm saying is that I think there are a few specific Jersey standouts that are worth the trip for people who have certain specific interests, but as an overall culinary destination I don't see any compelling reason for a NYC resident to make special trips out there. In order for the trip to be worth the bother, the culinary destination has to be extraordinary -- as you say, "categorically superior to their New York City equivalents." What do we have in Jersey that is head-and-shoulders "categorically superior to their New York City equivalents"? A South Indian restaurant? Okay, that's one. A bunch of hot dog places? Um... maybe? I guess, if you're really into hot dogs. White Manna? No, not really. It's a fun experience and the sliders are great -- I'll even say better than any NYC sliders. But I wouldn't say that the sliders there are so much better than anything available in NYC that it would be worth making a special trip across the river for them. What else? Some Asian megamarkets? I barely have enough room in my apartment to contain the Asian foods I buy in Chinatown.

1- The car issue is a red herring because plenty of public transportation is available. We've been mapping out the train, bus and walking routes. That excuse just doesn't work.

To suggest that public transportation is a viable alternative to transportation by car is disingenuous at best. I've taken public transportation to some Jersey spots, and it was never worth the hassle. Not once. If you're Jim Leff and you're willing to ride the bus for 4 hours to get a really great taco, maybe it's worth it -- otherwise not. There is no Jersey spot of which I am aware that is not more hassle (and expense) to visit via public transportation than, say, Di Fara pizzeria -- and less than a handfull that are as far above their respective baselines as Di Fara. And, I should point out that Di Fara is a major hassle to visit via public transportation in my book, and as a result I haven't been there in over two years and am unlikely to revisit it unless I am in the neighborhood on other business.

2- Making a day of it is a great idea and something I've advocated all along.

The fact that you have to make a day trip of it is precisely why most people don't and won't bother. With all sincere respect, as a family of work-at-home, set-your-own-schedule, food-focused writers who drive their car a lot, I think your threshold for "restaurant worth taking a day trip to visit" is significantly lower than it is for 40-hours-a-week office workers, never mind 70-hours-a-week lawyers and bankers or people like myself who have a 40-hours-a-week dayjob plus perhaps another 25 hours of real-career work.

If you're suggesting that New Jersey across the river is a great place to visit with many things to offer to the day-tripper in and of itself, I would agree. People inclined towards that sort of thing can have a great time in Jersey and, while they're there, they should certainly take advantage of some of the restaurants Jersey has to offer. But that's not quite the same thing as "taking a trip to Jersey to go to a restaurant." That's more along the lines of "since you're in Jersey anyway, why not visit one of the better restaurants." I've done this myself and dropped in on White Manna when I've been in Jersey on other business. But I'm sure not planning a 4 hour round trip around White Manna. And I don't know about too many other people, but spending a precious weekend day in Jersey going to a South Indian restaurant, visiting an Asian megastore and having some hot dogs isn't too appealing to me. I'm not saying I'd never do it (if I had a free Saturday and you suggested we go on a hot dog tour of Jersey I might be enticed for the fun of it, and no more so than if you suggested something like an afternoon of kite-flying with the kids in Jersey), but I'm unlikely to do it very often -- and certainly I'd never in a million years do it by public transportation. The payoff is simply not worth the time investment and hassle. This is why I never went to China 46 unless someone else was driving and invited me along. It was a great place... just not worth renting a car and sure not worth taking the bus (or whatever it would have taken to get there by public transportation, if it was even possible). Clearly I am not in the minority in this respect.

3- It should be evident by now that the "there are only two places" argument is an inaccurate representation of the discussion we've been having. For one thing, the most pared-down list is eight places so far. For another thing, we are at the very beginning of generating the list. And for still another thing, even if there were only two places then they would be two places well worth visiting.

"Well worth visiting" does not necessarily equal "well worth a 2 hour roundtrip car ride, plus associated expenses, versus availing yourself of a Manhatan restaurant."

As for "the list" -- perhaps it might make sense to restate it. I don't think I've seen anywhere near eight places in the "categorically better than NYC" category, never mind "categorically better than NYC to such an extent that it's definitely worth the trip." But, you know... let's say the "list" comprises 20 such restaurants. Does that make it incumbent upon NYC foodies to rent a car or take the train in order to devote a day exploring "culinary New Jersey" when there are easily well over 200 such restaurants in Manhattan alone? Not to me, it doesn't. What it says to me can be summed up thusly:

There are lots of good restaurants in New Jersey. A couple of them are better than anything you can get in New York City. If you find yourself in New Jersey for any reason, you would be well served to visit one of these restaurants. However, unless your culinary proclivities are especially aligned with New Jersey's strengths, or you are the kind of person who enjoys non-haute culinary travel just for the adventure, the culinary payoff is unlikely to be worth the trouble and expense of the trip.

I'm curious: Is there a single metro-NYC Jersey resident who has good familiarity with both NYC and Jersey dining who, were he or she to relocate to Manhattan, would still travel to Jersey for food? Possibly via public transportation?

[The Aviation]

Which do you think best reflects the product used in classic cocktails?

[NYC Foodies, Get Thee to New Jersey]

This is a silly discussion.  NYC is the food capital of the world.  Especially if you are including all 5 boroughs, there is NO restaurant in NJ that is better than one in NYC. . . .

. . .  Come for a day trip and enjoy the experience.  At least you could say you've been to Rutt's Hutt.  I went to Chicago and ate a Superdawg and Gino's East Pizza.  Went to New Haven for Pepe's pizza.  Sorry, bad example.  Pepe's is worth a trip from anywhere.

I've resisted weighing in on this thread up until now, but something about this resonates with me. I've gone over to NJ on foodie trips any number of times, usually with Fat Guy but also with a number of other friends (even took the train to the Ironbound). There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that NJ is full of excellent restaurants. There are a few, in particular, that have for me been best-in-class (White Manna and China 46).

That said, while one can make the argument that NYC people are missing out on a few specific restaurants and markets by not traveling across to Jersey, I'm not sure it follows that they are missing out in general or that it's incumbent upon any serious NYC foodie to explore New Jersey.

First of all, it's a simple fact that just the island of Manhattan and short-time travel off the island to subway-convenient places -- never mind the whole five boroughs -- is so rich in culinary possibilities that it is inexhaustible to any other than the very most dedicated epicure. Yes, there may be a best-in-region South Indian place or a plethora of hot dog standouts in Jersey. Honestly, considering that I am not South Indian myself and don't have a burning desire to experience every single cuisine of South India, nor am I a serious hotdogophile, I am not too terribly motivated to plan a trip outside of the city to try these things. Not when there are probably 50 places on my Manhattan list I haven't been able to try yet.

Now, this is not to say that I don't like to say "yes" when Fat Guy calls and asks if I'd like to go to brunch at China 46 or says he's running an errand in Jersey and might I like to tag along for some amazing South Indian food. Heck, I've even accompanied him to Bridgeport just because we could swing by Super Duper Weenie on the way. The point here, however, is that these were opportunities I capitalized on, involving little or no effort on my part -- and the real game anyway was having fun with my friends. I wouldn't have made those plans myself unless there was some other reason for me to be in Jersey. Certainly I wouldn't spend Zipcar money just to eat at China 46. Since I have storage capibilities typical of a Manhattan apartment, the ability to shop at Costco and other big box stores hasn't found me taking too many Zipcar rides across the river. This doesn't necessarily make me lazy, although I am lazy, but just means that I have limited time and resources and choose to spend them pursuing food closer to home. It helps to influence my thinking that most of the NYC oppoertunities are at least as good as what New Jersey has to offer, and usually better. In fact, there are very few unavailable-in-NYC categories that would possibly interest me (I don't have the storage or the cooking chops to take advantage of, e.g., an Asian megastore and major travel for cheap eats is not my bag). I can't imagine my situation or thinking about these things is particularly unusual.

It's also perhaps worthy of note that the Fat Guy family uses their car far, far more than any other NYC car owners I know -- most of whom garage their cars and use them for occasional trips upstate, to the Hamptons, etc. People who are in the habit of driving the car several times a week, and who have the kind of flexibility in work hours that allow them to get over to Jersey and back in between rush hours on a weekday are much better positioned to take advantage of the markets and restaurants Jersey has to offer. I, too, might find myself in Jersey more often if it didn't mean renting a car or scrounging a ride and sacrificing the better part of a precious weekend day to do it.

Coming back around to eyedoc's point, I just don't see that anyone has made the case that there is all that much to be missed by not making special culinary trips out to Jersey several times a year for anyone other than, e.g., a hot dog or South Indian food fanatic. And, in the case of many of these claimed can't miss places, it doesn't seem to be so much "better than NYC" as it is "largely unavailable in NYC." I don't really see the argument yet that there is any place in New Jersey that is so good, that is operating at such a high level, that it's incumbent upon NYC foodies to experience it. A good example of what I'm talking about is at the end of eyedoc's post: New Haven Pizza. Anyone who lives in the greater NYC area who has a real interest in pizza really, truly is missing out of they don't figure out some way to get to New Haven for pizza. If Sally's and Pepe's were in Edgewater, there would be a real argument that NYC foodies were missing out by not traveling across the river, and foolish for not doing so. But I don't see anyone making a credible argument that there's a restaurant of that level just across the river, never mind several. It's worthy of note that several NJ residents who are familiar with the NJ and NYC dining scenes have weighed in on exactly the other side.

So, I guess I weigh in on the side that says: There are some rewarding places in NJ worth checking out if you happen to find yourself over there for whatever reason, but unless you're a hot dog or South Indian cuisine fanatic, or someone who frequently travels long distances for food, there aren't too many compelling reasons to plan a food-focused trip to Jersey.

[Swiss Chard Stalks: Best way to cook?]

I second the suggestion to blanch them and make a gratin (this is also wonderful with both the leaves and the stems, wilted separately). I do mine with parmesan and bechamel, then a sprinkling of fresh bread crumbs over the top.

They're also good pickled.

[The Aviation]

Maraska is a great product, and some people prefer it over Luxardo (I am not one). It's overall sweeter and less "funky."

[Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 3)]

If you think about it (and I think nathanm says something to this effect upthread) there is no faster/better way to defrost your meat than in the circulating waterbath. So, if the meat is frozen, the best thing you can do with it is to toss it into the waterbath frozen. This means that you should season/portion/flavor your meat before it is frozen. As nathanm says, it may not be the best option for something delicate where timing is an issue.

Just as a note: This is a long thread, but there's lots of great information in here. Don't forget the "search topic" function down at the bottom of the page. If you put "frozen" in there and search the thread, it returns around 25 posts.

[Is Sous Vide "Real Cooking"?]

When you cook a product containing mostly water (meat), in a water bath, the water is able to transfer alot of energy to the meat, and heat it up to a specific temperature rather quickly.  However when you cook meat in an air environment, the differences in specific heat capacity means that the air temperature has to be much higher to provide the same amount of thermal energy to the meat.

I believe the part I highlighted above is the point of contention. You are obviously saying that you are cooking with temperatures much higher than the desired final temperature. For example, if you have a 2 inch thick steak and throw it into a 130F sous vide bath for a while you'll get a 130F steak. If you take that steak and instead throw it into a 500F oven, how do you get the center to 130F without the layers outside of the center being at a much higher temperature?

If you have a non-sous vide technique for doing such a thing with a steak I would surely like to hear how you do it. Because I don't know any way to do it.

Because of a steak's high heat capacity (since it's mostly water, not to mention organic compounds naturally have high heat capacities), it's slow to warm up relative to the environment.

Mike, here's the thing: you are forgetting thermal conductivity. Water not only has a high heat capacity, but it also has low thermal conductivity (0.609 W/m/K compared to, say, 401 W/m/K for copper). So... you have a piece of 21C (room temperature) beef you want to bring to 54C (medium rare) in a 260C oven. Thermal conductivity says that the outside of that roast is going to be at a much higher temperature than 54C by the time the inside reaches the target temperature, and that there will be a fairly pronounced temperature gradient all the way into the center of the roast. We try to mitigate this temperature disequilibrium somewhat by pulling the roast out of the oven before the inside reaches 54C. When we rest the steak, thermal energy is conducted from the higher temperature outer areas of the steak to the lower temperature inner areas of the steak, and when the temperature equilibrates we hope to have an overall temperature of around 54C. The fact that oven cooking, which transfers heat by a combination of convection and radiation, is extremely inefficient only magnifies this effect. But the bigger the roast and the hotter the oven, the more the outside of the roast will be at a higher temperature than the center of the roast and the more variability in "doneness" throughout the roast will be apparent. This is simple physics.

All explained wonderfully by Hervé This in his english book (and I'm sure theres plenty of other sources explaining this).  Of course, this requires timing, taking the steak out at the right time, and doing stuff like first raising the temperature of the steak at room temperature.

I think you may find that Hervé This was talking about cooking in a low-temperature oven, in which case what he was saying would be correct. Convection/radiation is an extremely gentle cooking method at low temperatures. Not so much at higher temperatures.

Anyhow, there is nothing mystical about cooking, the application of heat is nothing but physics, the reaction of the food to the heat is chemistry, biology and physics.  I'm really not too interested in explaining anything more about basic thermodynamics.

I'm not quite sure what you have explained about "basic thermodynamics" -- except that you seem to have forgotten to account for thermal conductivity, which explains the commonly observed result that the outside of a roast cooked by conventional means (i.e., with a pan, oven or broiler at a significantly higher temperature than the desired end result) is more "done" than the inside of a roast. Again, I say that it is impossible as a matter of basic thermodynamics that it will be any other way.

[Is Sous Vide "Real Cooking"?]

Things like pork loin and pork tenderloin, especially nowadays when pork is so low in fat, are extremely temperature sensitive. One degree C can make a difference. This is one reason these particular cuts of meat lend themselves so well to sous vide treatment.

[Is Sous Vide "Real Cooking"?]

I'm afraid I'm with Bryan on this one.  What you suggest is an impossibility as a simple matter of physics (unless you were to cook the meat in a pan heated to, say, 60C -- which I hope we can agree is not likely to happen).

Just last night I enjoyed a striploin steak. It had a nice uniform texture and colour throughout the entire piece of meat (minus the seared crust) - just like that picture of the sous-vide cooked lamb. I cooked it under a broiler. It's not impossible - it's just that it takes care to PROPERLY cook a piece of meat using conventional cooking.

Conventional cooking will never be able to replicate the EXACT product that sous-vide can (and vice versa), but you can certainly get a piece of meat that has the same colour (which most people use as the benchmark for 'doneness') throughout, which was the original point I refuted. If you can't get that result, you're not cooking properly.

If you can show me a picture of a two-inch thick piece of meat that is uniformly medium rare with no gradations of color/doneness and a mailliardized outside with "more than medium rare" penetration of less than 1/8th of an inch (preferably less than 1/16th of an inch) cooked using conventional techniques, I'll believe you. But I've never seen it. This would be easy to do (and I have done it many times) using sous vide and a blowtorch. It this is possible to do under a broiler, I assume it wouldn't be difficult for you to take a picture and post it to this thread.

I also take exception with the idea that anyone who can't achieve dead-on perfect medium rare with extremely temperature sensitive proteins "isn't cooking properly." We're talking about situations in which sometimes a single degree can have an appreciable difference, and even experts using first rate equipment and cooking thousands of iterations of the same dish using the very best and most consistent ingredients available (e.g., the broiler guys at Peter Luger) don't get it just right with anywhere near 100% consistency.

Now, like I said, I think there are plenty of reasons to go for the standard preparations. I'd rather have a Peter Luger-style porterhouse that's blasted under a power-of-the-sun broiler and has gradations of doneness. But I still say that, as a matter of simple physics, it is impossible to get the same uniformity of doneness using a broiler, grill, conventional oven or pan as one can do using sous vide.

It's not clear to me that there is any "redistribution" of juices when meat is rested. Rather, the rest serves for the temperature to equilibrate throughout the piece of meat and for there to be an overall reduction in temperature. Also, once meat proteins contract and squeeze out liquid, there's no putting the liquid back in to "reabsorb." You can inject juices into a cooked piece of meat, but it's just going to come running out when you cut into it.

Well, a scientist which much more experience in this matter than either of us (or anyone else alive for that matter) - Hervé This, disagrees with you. As do many chefs, barbeque enthusiasts, etc..., people who have observed that there is indeed a redistribution of water in the cooked product (myself included).

Try this - take a roast out of the oven and slice it right away. Take a second identical roast, let it rest an hour wrapped in foil and a towel - there will be a difference, and I'm not just talking about the temperature difference...

I'll say these things about that:

1. That any "redistribution of juices" is a secondary effect of temperature equilibration, as food that is hotter on the outside than it is on the inside will have liquids behaving in different ways.

2. I'm not quite sure how it follows that the juices running out of unrested meat proves that the meat juices have "redistributed" (i.e., moved out of some areas of the meat and into other areas of the meat). The effect of more juices running out of a roast that is cut straight out of the oven compared to rested does not necessarily "prove" that "juices have redistrubuted." What it proves is that a roast that is rested has had temperature equilibration and has had an overall reduction in temperature, both of which are condusive to retention of liquids.

3. If, indeed, liquids "redistributed" throughout a piece of meat as it was resting, one would expect that liquid would "redistribute" from the relatively moist center of the meat to those areas of the meat that are dry immediately following cooking (e.g., the well-done areas right below the surface of the meat). This would result in those areas meing moist and juicy instead of dry. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. Try cutting off that outer bit of meat just under the crust and see for yourself whether or not it's dry or juicy.

4. Now, that said, I do think that there is some movement of liquids within a piece of meat as it rests. I just think that this movement doesn't happen on a particularly large scale and that it may be largely attributable to temperature equilibriation. For what it's worth, proteins cooked to temperature sous vide do not need to be rested.

[Is Sous Vide "Real Cooking"?]

If you cook your meat properly in a pan/oven or even on the grill, and give it a proper rest, you can achieve the same result (the same degree of doneness throughout the entire piece of meat).

I'm afraid I'm with Bryan on this one. What you suggest is an impossibility as a simple matter of physics (unless you were to cook the meat in a pan heated to, say, 60C -- which I hope we can agree is not likely to happen).

...after you take the meat out of the oven, inject some juice (cooking juice, or a flavoured finishing sauce) into your meat just before you rest it, the protein will absorb the juice as it rests (same concept as the juices being re-dispersed throughout the meat as a result of resting).

It's not clear to me that there is any "redistribution" of juices when meat is rested. Rather, the rest serves for the temperature to equilibrate throughout the piece of meat and for there to be an overall reduction in temperature. Also, once meat proteins contract and squeeze out liquid, there's no putting the liquid back in to "reabsorb." You can inject juices into a cooked piece of meat, but it's just going to come running out when you cut into it. Regardless, there is no way that a dry heat method (e.g., cooking in the oven or in a pan) can retain as much moisture as sous vide, or can have as even a level of "doneness." This is somewhat mitigated with LT/LT oven cooking techniques (often employing a steam oven).

As a chef, my biggest concern with sous vide cookings is evaporation. When I cook, I count on evaporation to remove the flavorless water from my food as it cooks, concentrating the flavor of whatever I am cooking. Although sous vide may be a more economical approach to cooking and also a better way of retaining moisture and temperature, I am worried that the water that should be leaving the product is actually staying, and (for lack of a better word) diluting the product. What seems like a great way of controlling temperature, seems to me, like a new fangled way of steaming food. And personally, no matter how I try, steaming never really imparts to much flavor into food. But that's just one person's perspective.

I suppose it depends on what you are cooking and how you are cooking it. Certainly sous vide isn't a technique that works for every single food (there are only a few specific applications for vegetables). For example, some foods are improved by being dried out a little, and sometimes it's nice to have a piece of food that has wide variations in the "doneness" throughout.

However, I've never felt that any foods I've cooked using that method has suffered from "dilution of flavor." Quite to the contrary, actually. When you cook foods in an open container and smell all those wonderful cooking aromas, those are simply flavor molecules that are flying off into the air. Ultimately, that represents lost flavor. When you cook sous vide, those molecules (many of them quite volatile) are trapped in the bag and remain in the finished dish. Cooking sous vide, one actually has to be quite careful about aromatic herbs and spices, or the added flavor can wind up too intense (one short sprig of fresh rosemary in a big bag of 48 hour short ribs will flavor the meat all the way to the bone).

I agree that steaming can often (but not always!) provide a less-than-interesting result, but this is more often than not due to the fact that steaming doesn't produce any maillardization, etc. When one is cooking sous vide, these external flavors are created (either before cooking, after cooking or both) by using a blowtorch, superhot pan or some other method that will quickly cook the outside of the food to the desided degree without having the temperature penetrate too deeply.

[The Aviation]

I like my Aviation at 2 ounces of Tanqueray to a half-ounce each of lemon juice and Luxardo maraschino. If I'm using R&W violette, I'll dial back the Luxardo to 2 teaspoons and drizzle in around a quarter ounce of violette after the drink is poured.