slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Yea, I think it was the case that in the early days of the "heirloom tomato phenomenon" not that many people were growing them, and those that were growing them were doing so with care. So, in those days, pretty much any time you got your hands on an heirloom tomato variety, it was going to be delicious.
Now that bigger businesses have figured out that there is money to be made selling these varieties, you find more and more heirloom tomatoes in places where you previously wouldn't expect them... places like Whole Foods and middlebrow restaurants not known for using slocal produce. The result is that an heirloom tomato is no longer the virtual guarantee of quality it used to be. I don't expect a Brandywine from Whole Foods to be particularly good. On the other hand, the heirloom tomatoes I get from my guys down in the Union Square Greenmarket, the same guys I bought from back when heirloom tomatoes were a relative rarity, are still just as good as they always were.
-
To the extent people are saying those pies are modeled after traditional Neapolitan pizza, sure, they're wrong. But if Bruni, the New York Times critic, was going to opine on pizza, he should have familiarized himself with the top few New York places regardless of category. His fundamental lack of knowledge has made him seem out of touch, regardless of the comparability of the styles.
Honestly, I don't understand this at all. If Bruni had been writing an article about NYC pizza or a NYC pizzeria, or even about a style of pizza made elsewhere that is comparable to or within the frame of reference of classic NYC pizza, then I would agree with you. But not only was the article about a pizzeria on the other side of the country, but the correct frame of reference for that pizzeria is nationwide rather than local. Indeed, Bruni makes a point of this by writing "it reflects the spread of a certain kind of haute pizza culture across the country."
Had Bruni devoted significant column space to comparisons between Mozza and NYC pizza or NYC pizzerie, that would have demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge -- not to mention that he would have had to shoehorn it into an article where it really doesn't belong. Instead, he mentions that the aesthetic at Mozza is part of a nationwide trend and names examples of pizzerie that share this aesthetic in three cities (NYC, Chicago and Phoenix). Other than passing mentions of the more robust pizza served in the Campo de' Fiori in Rome (an appropriate reference because it reflects an influence of Silverton's) and Spago (again, appropriate because Spago was a "gourmet pizza" pioneer in the US, and was also in Los Angeles) he doesn't talk about any other pizza or any other pizzerie. And why should he? It's not a comparison piece. I don't really see that it is incumbent upon him to relate the article closely to NYC and NYC pizza simply because he is writing for the New York Times where he has a gig as a food critic. If he were writing an article about a pizzeria in Napoli, would he have to give three paragraphs to Patsy's and Franny's?
-
Not to flog this too much, but my opinion of pizza has been considered highly enough to be featured in several newspaper articles...
What Bruni wrote was:
And it reflects the spread of a certain kind of haute pizza culture across the country. In growing numbers, serious chefs and bakers are making — and the food cognoscenti are devouring — exemplary pies inspired at least loosely by the thin-crust pizza of Naples.You can find them in Manhattan at Una Pizza Napoletana, in Chicago at . . .
I don't have any quibble with that. If there are people who made the argument that he should have been more conversant with the likes of Di Fara, Patsy's and Grimaldi's, they're wrong. Those pizzerie are in an entirely different category and not relevant to an article on Mozza or the point he was making. I, personally, might have suggested Franny's or Fornino as better NYC places to put up for comparison, but Una Pizza Napoletana is reasonably-enouth relevant in the context in which it was used in the article. The people who emailed Bruni or posted in blogs things like "You obviously don't get around to all of Manhattan. You want real Napoletana pizza, go to Patsy's on First Avenue between 117th and 118th streets on the west side of the street" -- well, they simply do not understand what Neapolitan pizza is, and as a result are talking out their asses.
-
Sigh. If only Lillet would come out with an "antica formula" kind of deal.
-
Although this horse has already been flogged, NYC does have pizza roughly in the style category and aesthetic as Mozza. They have it at Franny's, Una Pizza Napoletana, Fornino, Otto, etc. But those places aren't serving "NYC pizza." They are, by and large, serving what one might call "nuova pizza Napoletana."
-
No reason not to call it "Carpano Antica." Some people just call it "Antica" and everyone around here seems to know what they're talking about.
-
Well, I don't disagree with that. But what we think the NY Times critic job is and what the NY Times thinks that job is are two different things.
-
However, it is of course possible that Oakapple isn't remembering the article correctly. Or... If Esnault did say that in the interview, it is possible that he misspoke, misremembered or deliberately misrepresented. There is some possibility that Bruni did get in there and it was not reported to Esnault. There is the possibility that someone said something like "I think that might be Bruni at table 42," but the kitchen was in the middle of some kind of clusterfuck and he didn't take notice. There is the possibility that several of Bruni's trusted friends and acquaintances dined at ADNY and gave him the impression that the things he didn't like hadn't changed all that much.
I'm just saying that we're predicating an awful lot of argument on the premise that he was never there, based on a recollection of a comment from an interview that appeared some time ago, and comment that Esnault may have made in that interview without giving it a great deal of thought.
On review: Steven, I'd be interested to see the quote if you have it, in context.
-
I should point out that we're basing this whole idea that "Bruni never ate there once after Esnault became chef" on this one line from Oakapple: "I recall reading an interview in which Esnault mentioned that Bruni had not yet even paid a visit, to the best of Esnault's knowledge." With all due respect to everyone, that hardly seems definitive.
-
I was not clear. I was saying "Diner's Journal," as in the informal reports, based usually on a single meal, that often precede full reviews. I'd expect that 3-6 months after the chef change. Then, with a year of that, I'd expect a full review if warranted. If there's nothing new to say, there's no need for a full review at all. But if the cuisine has totally changed (as it had in this case), I'd expect the full review within a year of the "Diner's Journal" report.
Assuming he did a Diner's Journal look in 6 months (and he may have thought, or had reasons to believe that not enough had changed in 3-6 months for that -- or may have been turning his attentions in other directions), a year after that would have been exactly when people were hearing that ADNY would close. So, even under your schedule, there never would have been a full follow-up review.
-
We are, of course, taking the "no visits" thing on faith. It's entirely possible that he did eat at ADNY at some time during Esnault's tenure. Or, failing that, it's possible that he heard from his various sources that ADNY hadn't made such huge changes to be worth such an immediate re-review.
I wonder what he would say if he were asked why he didn't re-review ADNY. I think we might be surprised at the response.
-
What I'd expect is a "Diner's Journal" report in the 3-6 months time frame, followed by a review if necessary. In other words, if the "Diner's Journal" report indicated that there was no reason for a re-evaluation, I'd expect no new review, or at least not one for several years. If, however, there were major changes in the cuisine, I'd expect a review within a year.
3-6 months? Wow, that's very fast. Is there any precedent for a re-review of a demoted restaurant on anything approaching this timetable? I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong in suggesting that ADNY should have had a re-review, but it does seem a bit like you're saying they should completely change their established way of doing these things.
I'm also curious as to what other restaurant things were going on in NYC during that timeframe that might have been Bruni's plate (so to speak).
-
...Carpano Antica, Punt Y Mes (both sounds odd to me now, but I'm pretty sure that's right)...
It's Carpano Antica Formula, meaning "Carpano (the manufacturer) ancient formula." This is supposedly Carpano's old formula for vermouth. (Antonio Benedetto Carpano is the inventor of vermouth.)
The other one is Punt e Mes -- Italian, not Spanish, meaning "point and a half" (actually, to be technical, it's Piemontese dialect... Italian would be punto e mezzo or punt'e mezzo). This is a stronger version of vermouth (more herbal, more bitter, more intensely flavored) also made by Carpano. For some reason, it's somewhat common for people over here to say "Y" instead of "E" in the middle, I guess because we're more used to Spanish.
-
It seems clear to me that ADNY would have been re-reviewed by now if it had not closed. But I still don't see any persuasive argument that it automatically had to be re-reviewed in less than 1.5 years (the period of time between Esnault's hiring and media reports of ADNY's imminent closing). From what Leonard has said, I gather re-reviewing even one of the City's most important restaurants after a demotion would be unprecedented during a timeframe this short. It's too bad that it didn't get an opportunity for a re-review before it closed, but it seems to me that a change of chef and reconfiguration of the restaurant shouldn't necessarily mandate an immediate re-review within a short period of time or the Times will run into exactly the same problem mentioned upthread: restaurants that are demoted or feel like they were reviewed under their goals will feel as though they "deserve" a short-time re-review if they fire the chef and make changes. If we go down that path: It's no secret Batali and Bastianich were going for four stars with Del Posto. And Batali is certainly in the same stratosphere as Ducasse, Jean-Georges, etc. in terms of name recognition and industry power. If they had fired Ladner following the three star review and reworked the restaurant, does that mean Del Posto should reasonably have expected a re-review within 12 months of the change?
Steven, when do you think would have been a reasonable time to do this re-review? After six months? A year? I'm interested... if ADNY had been re-reviewed in January 2007, would we feel that the re-review had been unreasonbably delayed? What about a re-review in September 2006?
-
Between 100th and 110:
Thai Market is good for Thai
Awash has very good Ethipopan
Carne is good burgers, steaks, etc.
Henry's has plenty of good things.
Rack & Soul has already been mentioned
I like Flor de Mayo for delivery roast chicken and cilantro rice
El Malecon is also no slouch in the roast chicken department
A, up on columbus and 107th is interesting and eclectic
Tokyo Pop is good for "fusion sushi" rolls.
Taqueria y Fonda la Mexicana is one of the two best Mexican places on the UWS
Between 90th and 100th:
Regional is good Italian
Noche Mexicana is the other best Mexican place on the UWS (Sundays they have posole!)
Interestingly, it would appear that the West 90s comprise the most desolate stretch with respect to good restaurants on the UWS.
-
As far as I know, the main difference between Gordon's in the US and Gordon's in the UK is that the former is 40% abv and the latter is only 37.5% abv. All that means is that there is more water in the UK bottle than the US bottle. I doubt there is any other difference.
I'm not sure that I think any brand of gin varies the formula by geographical location. The proof may vary, but that is not the same thing as the formula. Gordon's does appear to be manufactured in multiple geographical locations (all apparently former British territories), but from one recipe. I'm not sure that brands like Tanqueray, Plymouth, Beefeater, Boodles, etc. are substantially produced in multiple locations. In any event, the US versions are all "imported from the UK" (although, interestingly, they are often bottled in the US -- which means that giant tankers of gin must cross the ocean).
Anyway, in order for the gin to be responsible for the cloying sweetness you find in a US Gin and Tonic, the US version of Gordon's would have to be practically syrup coming out of the bottle. It's much more likely that the tonic water is responsible (and, indeed, most tonic water available over here is disgustingly sweet -- which has opened the door for specialty products like Q Tonic and Fever Tree).
-
US gin is in any case sweeter.
I don't quite understand this comment? Are you saying US sloe gin is sweeter than UK sloe gin? Because that is certainly true, as there is no real sloe gin currently available in the US. Until Plymouth becomes available, we have only disgusting "sloe gin liqueurs" that bear about as much resemblance to the real thing as mass-market "grenadine" does to real pomegranate grenadine. If you're saying that "London" dry gin -- as exemplified by Tanqueray, Beefeater, Junìpero, etc. -- sold and/or manufactured in the US is sweeter than "London" dry gin sold and/or manufactured in the UK, that's nonsense.
-
My understanding is that you cannot legally take liquor purchased on one state and sell it in another. This is exactly why it was not possible, before Laird's bonded was available in NY State, for NYC bars to simply purchase the spirit in NJ and sell it in their bars.
To continue examining your scenario... if the Montecristo rum were legally sold in the both states, it would be fairly difficult for the liquor authorities to figure out what you had done. But, if you were found out, you'd be in big trouble.
-
Bubbles in ice form because, as water freezes, the dissolved air comes out of solution. Since the top part of the ice -- the air's usual route of escape -- is usually already frozen, the released air has nowhere to go. The air is trapped and freezes in place as a bubble in the ice. If, on the other hand, the water is flowing and the ice forms more or less one tiny layer at a time, the air is able to escape into the flowing water and does not freeze in place as a bubble. Thus, less air in the ice, resulting in denser ice with better clarity.
Kold-Draft, in effect, miniaturizes the moving water freezing process used to make large blocks of clear ice for ice carving, etc.
-
The only real commercial sloe gin (which is to say, lightly sweetened gin infused with sloe berries) of which I am aware is made by Plymouth. It is not available in the US yet, although they are working on bringing it in (red tape abounds).
-
Pecten maximus
-
By the way, if anyone wants to know how Kold Draft machines make such high quality cubes, their special technology is explained here: http://www.kold-draft.com/why/technology/
-
Jesikka, those just look like whole (i.e., uncleaned) scallops with the roe attached.
Further on the St. Jacques thing... it appears that the scallop shell is the symbol of Saint James the Greater.
-
You know... Kold Draft makes an under-counter sized machine suitable for residential use. Just saying.
Molecular Cocktails
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted · Edited by slkinsey (log)
I am hoping to have someone either design for me or adapt from available equipment a special shaker. It would need to be insulated and capable of withstanding a fair amount of internal pressure, and will need some kind of pressure release valve to let off gas before the shaker is opened and the drink is poured.
My idea is that one would build a cocktail as usual, including putting the usual amount of water ice into the shaker, but would then add an approximately marble-sized piece of dry ice into the shaker. Seal, shake (this is why the shaker would need to be pressure-tight), release the pressure valve, open the shaker, strain. I think this would result in a cocktail that is not only extremely cold, but also hopefully smoking and lightly carbonated.