slkinsey

I doubt there is any meaningful difference between the UK and USA iterations of Rose's, other than the use of HFCS versus sucrose. There is a difference, however, between Rose's Lime Juice (the flagship product) and Rose's Lime Cordial, which has alcohol added so that it may be sold in liquor stores. I'll be interested to hear how the yuzu cordial turns out if you incorporate the yuzu juice as well as the zest -- both in terms of shelf-stability and in terms of flavor. I have to believe it will have some of that funkiness that some people hate and others love about Rose's. A gastrique is a sweet reduction of vinegar, sugar and (usually) fruit? In older days, something like this would have been called a "shrub." This is actually a very old tradition. Wayne Curtis talks about it in his excellent book, And a Bottle of Rum: A History of the New World in Ten Cocktails (brief eG Forums thread here). Sounds like a very interesting direction for experimentation.

I think I might have been me who posted about that (I don't find it under her profile). There's really nothing to it: Start with a cup of 1:1 simple syrup, add the microplaned zest of one large lime, refrigerate for 24 hours or until it reaches the strength you would like, filter out the lime zest, bottle and use. I have several modifications when I do this at home: First, I use more than one lime's worth of zest per cup of simple. Second, I briefly (ca. 10 minutes) infuse the zest into an ounce or so of vodka before adding the vodka and zest to the cold syrup for further infusion. This creates a more pungent extraction that I might call "muddled lime syrup." Third, I do a 2:1 simple syrup for better shelf stability. Meh. The best way to preserve your homemade grenadine is to increase the saturation. Sugar is a good preservative, and likely better than any amount of ascorbic acid you could add. Well, for me it's because I don't want to have to mix up a batch of simple syrup every single time I want to make a drink. Therefore, there is some advantage to having a simple syrup that won't go off in the refrigerator (I actually have several: white gomme, demerara gomme, 1:1 simple, 2:1 demerara, 4:1 cane, 2:1 lime, 4:1 homemade pomegranate grenadine). This is especially true for things like gomme syrup and grenadine that involve a fair amount of work to make. As I said above, increasing the sugar content is probably the best way to preserve your simple syrup -- especially if you are keeping it in the refrigerator. I've never been convinced that adding a few tablespoons of vodka to a pint of simple syrup would have any meaningful preservative effect on the syrup, as I don't see how it could possibly raise the alcoholic strength of the syrup enough to make a difference. I do, however, usually float a half-ounce or so of high proof spirits on the top of bottles of syrup that are going to be stored for a long time before I use them (for example, if I have two pint bottles of homemade grenadine). If the syrup is sufficiently concentrated, the spirits actually remain in a layer floating on top of the syrup rather than mixing in. You know that sugar is a preservative, right? As are salt, oil, and alcohol? The problem with 1:1 syrup is that it is not very shelf-stable. This makes it a bad idea, IMO, if you are doing any kind of infusion. Of course some infusions (citrus zest, certain spices) seem to keep relatively good flavor for quite some time on the shelf whereas others (ginger) don't last very long and still others (mint) never taste quite right for my palate.

Part of the reason has to be because the Consorzio Parmigiano Reggiano inspects every single cheese, and there are Italian governmental regulations that have to be followed for the cheese to call itself Parmigiano Reggiano. For example, the cows may only be fed grass or hey, there may be requirements as to breed of cow, the cheese is made on a daily basis with the whole milk from the morning and skimmed milk from the evening, the milk is not pasteurized, the only additives allowed are salt (from soaking the formed cheese in brine for 20 days), natural whey starter and natural calf rennet, the cheese must be aged a minimum of 12 months, etc. Other manufacturers take various shortcuts: The curds are not cut to the same small size (which affects texture as well as facilitating faster drainage of whey) and is mechanically pressed to expell whey. The cheese is aged for a shorter time period. The cows are fed silage and/or grain. Milk from several days is combined in one batch of cheese. The milk is pasteurized. A commercial laboratory starter is used rather than a natural culture. The size of the cheese may be smaller, which results in a saltier overall product. Etc, etc, etc. The fact is that it takes a large dedicated setup to make cheese that can compete with Parmigiano Reggiano. It's not impossible, but the economics of competing with the Italian makers mean that most people will cut corners. It's not something you can do with a small farm and a handful of cows.

I'm not surprised you found a difference between muddling and shaking, considering the nature and amount of muddled product. I'd suggest that shaking without muddling only makes sense when you are using tender herbs, and the herbs are the only solid ingredient in the shaker besides the ice. Things like cucumber and strawberry, due to their structure, need muddling to fully express their flavors (also, one is generally not concerned about potential negative effects of over-muddling, as one often is with respect to tender herbs). Also, considering that the tin presumably contains mint, strawberry and cucumber, it's likely that the it's a little crowded in there for shaking alone to get the job done.

I don't really understand that. I've been muddling mint in 6+ oz of liquid for these French Pearls without difficulty or mess. My experience is that the liquid has a tendency to splash around, especially if you want to muddle vigorously (e.g., if you're using thyme). It makes it difficult to "tap" the mint lightly with the muddler if you're going for a "gently bruised" effect. It makes it difficult to see exactly what you're doing to the herbs. I typically never muddle in any more than an ounce of liquid, and usually more like a half-ounce. Again, I don't think it makes much sense to muddle tender herbs like mint if you're going to be shaking the mint with ice. What do you mean by "screw something up"? I'm not sure what could happen in this situation. Maybe you overpour something. Maybe you realize you used regular basil when you meant to use Thai basil. Maybe you just noticed that the mint leaves aren't in such great condition. Whatever. This may be more applicable to a professional setting, but I noticed a long time ago that when Audrey would give me recipes she'd say things like "half-half-two" for a drink I thought of as "two-half-half." She said the reason is that you want to make the drink using the cheapest ingredients first, so that if you catch a mistake you can dump the drink before pouring the base, which is typically the most expensive part of the drink. Interesting question. Perhaps I need to return to the lab.... I always muddle tough herbs like thyme. Results may vary with tender herbs depending on technique, equipment and ingredients. I have all-metal Boston shakers, do only one serving per shaker, use "Kold-Draft style at home" ice cubes, use only the mint leaves (not the stems) and I have strong hands and arms so I can shake very violently. When I double-strain, the strainer catches maybe 1.5 teaspoons worth of fine ice and mint particle slush.

I suppose it depends on what you are muddling and what effect you are going for. Most everyone muddles herbs together with a small amount of liquid. Usually this is a liquid ingredient that is present in only small amounts (1/2 to 1 ounce) in the recipe, such as simple syrup or citrus juice. This is for several reasons: First, it is messy and difficult to muddle herbs in several ounces of liquid. Second, if you screw something up, you can always dump the drink and start over without having to waste a few ounces of expensive liquor. Third, it is useful when muddling herbs to have something to muddle the flavor into, otherwise you're mostly just bruising the herbs. Lime quarters and lemon quarters make their own liquid when they are muddled, so there would seem to be little advantage in adding liquid during the muddling process. Sometimes it's nice to muddle a lemon peel together with a bitters-soaked sugar cube to "abrade" the surface of the peel and extract extra oils. This is a trick I picked up from Gary, I think. Needless to say, liquid isn't necessarily useful in this scenario. I'm not so sure I think there is any advantage to be gained from muddling tender herbs like mint when the drink will be shaken with ice and strained. I suppose this depends on the ice you're using, but when I shake mint with ice in the shaker, I use big pieces of ice and I shake hard. The mint is pulverised into such tiny little bits that I have to double-strain into the glass. I'm not sure how much more muddled the mint could possibly be, or whether that would possibly be a good thing. For muddled citrus that is shaken with ice, it's getting plenty of contact with alcohol during the shake and I am not so sure there is any advantage to be gained by using a full measure of spirit together with the citrus while it is being muddled. I'm also not so sure I think temperature should make such a big difference in the range of temperatures and contact times we're talking about. However, in a home setting, there's nothing wrong with muddling, pouring in the spirits and then letting the shaker sit for several minutes so the flavors from the herbs or citrus can infuse into the alcohol. In a professional setting, I don't think there's time for that sort of thing.

My main observation on doubling up is that, if one of the franchises has any further to sink, the doubled-up version will inevitably plumb new depths of suckiness. For instance, it is still possible in certain parts of the country to find a Pizza Hut that makes a palatable product. On the other hand, the drek they turn out at the Pizza Hut/KFC outposts in the name of "pizza" is invariably execrable. I firet noticed this in airports, where the versions of chain foods are usually a notch or two below par already. In NYC, I first noticed doubling up in neighborhoods that are predominately African American, then in tourist areas.

Well... To compare specific heat: aluminum is around 0.89 J/g/K, glass is around 0.84, stainless steel is around 0.50, copper is around 0.38 and silver is around 0.23. The most relevant would be stainless steel, I suppose. Of course, most metals are a lot more dense than glass. Stainless steel is around 7.9 g/cm^3 compared to around 2.6 for common glass (there's not a tremendous range in density when it comes to glassware glass -- the range is perhaps from 2.4 - 2.8). Most of the time, metal cups and glasses are thinner and lighter than their glass counterparts, which means that they are likely to have a smaller thermal mass. This is why it's okay to shake or stir a cocktail with a room-temperature shaker if it's thin metal, but if it's thick glass you would like for it to be chilled. For rocks drinks, or drinks like juleps and swizzles where the ice and spirit are reaching thermal equilibrium, I think the thermal mass of the glass is not so important relative to what's going on between the liquid and the ice. You don't want the glass to be warm, but there's not too terribly much to be gained from using a pre-chilled glass.

Yea, I like the Libbey glasses as well. Got a case for home use, and have been gradually breaking my way through them over the course of a few years. I think mine are 4.5 ounces, but could be mistaken -- they come in a variety of sizes. As for the effect of glassware on the temperature of the drink, it's a simple matter of physics. If the glass is cold, you benefit from having a glass with a larger thermal mass. If the glass is room temperature, you benefit from having a glass with a smaller thermal mass.

What is up with measurements like that? They pop up all the time but why be so precise when there's no common measuring device calibrated to this amount. Why not say something like "Scant 3/4 oz" or something? Weird. I'm with you, Andy. That's ridiculous. Anything less than a teaspoon (1/6 oz) of spirit, modifier or juice is unlikely to make a difference that can be detected, and the threshold is more likely to be a 1/4 ounce with most things. This is especially true with something like lemon or lime juice, that can be fairly variable as to acidity such that a 1/4 ounce will make a different impact depending on the lemon. At least the recipe is very specific as to spirits. It's even more ridiculous when a recipe has a level of specificity less than a teaspoon or 1/4 ounce but does not specify spirits. You want a 2 : 1 : 7/8ths Sidecar? What if it's a sweet cognac? What if it's a dry one? You'll have to adjust the lemon juice. On the other hand, I do know what they're trying to say in that recipe -- they're just not saying it in a very helpful way. They're trying to say: "2 ounces Aviation gin, 3/4 ounce Maraska maraschino and a little less than 3/4 ounce of fresh lemon juice." But, instead of saying that, they decided to break it down beyond a 1/4 ounce -- so the person reading the recipe has to do a little math and decipher what they actually mean to say (clearly, no one is actually measuring our 5/8ths of an ounce). The other place one sees fractions like this are in modern recipes that go by "parts" -- as in: "2/10 gin, 2/10 Midori, 1/10 limoncello, 5/10 mango juice." I have to believe that these recipes are specified by bartenders who "free pour" rather than use jiggers, since they work okay with the "count system" but not so well with actual measuring tools.

There is Michter's US 1 Straight Rye Whiskey and Michter's US 1 American Whiskey. I'm not sure what the grain bill is for the American Whiskey, but am led to believe it might be considered a rye whiskey mash and is called "American whiskey" because it is aged in used bourbon barrels and not charred new oak barrels.

Different flavor (and color, etc.) compounds are soluble in alcohol and some are soluble in water -- or some are more soluble in alcohol or water than the other. As bostonapothecary points out, some compounds are more soluble in fat than anything else. But that doesn't really help us, since we are in general not using fat in our cocktails (except for things like cream). So, for an infusion there's not much difference in a 100 proof spirit's and an 80 proof spirit's ability to extract flavors. Both proofs have plenty of alcohol and plenty of water to extract whatever is extractable. And, if you're making an infusion for drinking purposes rather than a bitters or tincture there's no reason to go to a higher proof, and some good reasons (primarily harshness) not to. On the other hand, this consideration is mostly important with respect to making infusions into neutral spirits (aka vodka). Plenty of people use 100 proof Rittenhouse as the spirit base for bitters, and it works just fine. There is also another possible infusion choice: Go with a 100% water solvent and infuse into simple syrup, or go with a 95.5% alcohol solvent and infuse into neutral spirits. These two solvents will extract different compounds. I'm not particularly find of 95.5% alcohol infusions, because of the aforementioned element of "harshness." But a simple syrup (water) infusion can produce a nicely mild result. Heat also makes a difference. Some bitters recipes, for example, call for infusing herbs and spices into alcohol (actually alcohol + water) for a period of time, then straining the solids, simmering them in water and combining that liquid with the cold infusion. In this case, it might make some sense to infuse into a higher-proof spirit so that the final proof of the bitters is sufficiently high to prevent spoilage.

I believe Jim Meehan uses barolo chinato (albeit a substantially more expensive brand) in his Van Brunt cocktail: 3 oz : rye whiskey (Michter's US1 specified, but I've used Rittenhouse to good effect) 1 oz : dry vermouth (Noilly Prat) 0.5 oz : Barolo Chinato (Cappellano) 0.5 oz: Maraschino liqueur (Luxardo) Stir/strain into an Old Fashioned glass. Garnish with cherries (I think Jim used kirsch-soaked cherries -- I've had good results with Luxardo cherries). This is a big drink. I usually use the same formula and split it into two servings in small coupes.

You'd evaporate off most of the alcohol and ruin most of the aromatics. The thing to do would be to take out the water by fractional freezing. Stick it in an extra cold freezer for a few days and then chuck in a few grains of ice. If the freezer is cold enough, the ice grains should grow as additional water freezes to them.

Regardless of what the web site says, I have seen it at Park Avenue Liquors with some frequency. So it might be worth sticking your head in.

I've had the opportunity to try Lucid a few times. Not particularly impressed. I felt like it had a certain dominant "dried mushroom" aroma component that I did not particularly appreciate.

IMO, if people are shaking all-spirit drinks like Martinis and Manhattans, this is a sign of one of three things (or a combination): 1. Either they can't be bothered to take the extra time to stir; 2. just like the bartenders who don't bother using any vermouth in a vodka Martini, experience has shown them that most of the customers in their demographic prefer all their cocktails shaken (for many, shaking -- along with the "V glass" -- is part of the image that attracts them to "cocktails"); or 3. they don't know the difference, and probably don't care.

Well, cashew fruit gives an indelible dye without any processing other than, I suppose, juicing. Fresh turmeric can be simply pounded with a mortar and pestle to give a yellow dye. Anyway, so what if there's "processing"? Any type of cooking is also "processing," in that case, isn't it? The point is that, if you juice a cashew fruit and use the juice as a coloring agent you also get cashew fruit juice flavor, etc. If you only want the color, you must take more intensive steps. The end result is that you end up with something "artificial" because you have extracted and refined the coloring agent. Is there any difference between a coloring agent extracted from cashew fruit and a coloring agent with the same molecular composition made by chemical synthesis? I agree that processing isn't always a big deal. But, then again, I also think that making something out of "chemicals" (as if everything weren't made out of chemicals anyway) isn't always a big deal either.

I've never seen the MB orange curaçao at Warehouse -- and I look for it every time I'm there.

Right. And the reasons seem simple enough: First and foremost is the terrible economic situation. This means that residents have less money to spend on restaurant eating and there are fewer business visitors. Related but not entirely consequent to the first reason is the decimation of the city and largescale flight of the middle and upper classes from the city to outer suburbs, exurbs and even nearby cities. This, combined with the economics and lifestyle that go along with suburban living, makes it difficult for there to be any kind of critical mass and density necessary for a vibrant culinary scene -- all the moreso due to the fact that many metro-Detroit suburban and exurban dwellers don't even commute to the city for work. The economic and infrastructural collapse of the city has made it even more undesirable to business travelers who might be dining out on the company dime. The two elements above have contributed to a situation where it would appear, based on the reports of metro-Detroit dwellers as well as the evidence of metro-Detroit restaurant menus, that there isn't much of a restaurant culture in metro-Detroit. This means both that the residents do not in general prioritize access to great restaurants in their lifestyles, nor do they have the same basis for understanding what constitites a great restaurant compared to the average citizens of, say, Chicago. This is, of course, not reflective of metro-Detroit eGulleters in general. But that level of interest in food and restaurant culture seems rare in Detroit whereas it seems fairly common for, say, people who live in New Orleans or San Francisco or New York. Finally, it's not clear to me that Detroit has any built-in culinary specialties or attractions (e.g., pizza, cheese-steak, seafood, Cajun and Creole cooking, German and Polish cooking, barbecue, Tex-Mex and Southwestern, etc.) that would at least potentially make the city an attractive one-trick pony and eventually help it grow a vibrant restaurant culture and turn into a great restaurant city and culinary destination.

I'll accept that it's probably an okay fish & chips joint, but it doesn't sound as though places like it are likely to cement Detroit's "restaurant city" reputation. Anyway... the highest rated restaurant on Gayot for Detroit is Tribute, with 16/20. After that are Coach Insignia, The Grill Room, Hong Hua, Il Posto and The Lark at 15/20. In contrast, NYC has 15 restaurants rated higher than any restaurant in Detroit; Philadelphia has 3; Chicago has 7; San Francisco has 6; Seattle has 1. They all have comparably (and increasingly) larger numbers of restaurants in the other higher ranked categories.

I certainly would not call Detroit a "great restaurant city". But having said that, Detroit is very different in an important respect from most of the other cities that have been thrown around: there has been a flight of wealth out of Detroit proper and into the suburbs to a much greater extent than in most other cities. Thus, if/when greater demand for higher-end restaurants develops in Detroit, I'd predict that a greater fraction of the leading restaurants will be in suburbs. Unfortunately, those are exactly some of the factors working against Detroit becoming a great restaurant city. Never mind that you need people who go out to good restaurants and have an interest in good restaurants. You need people who can afford good restaurants. You need people who go out to restaurants for business (necessitating successful business economics), who are going to want conveniently nearby restaurants. Etc, etc, etc. But you also need to have some basis for creating excitement, creating buzz, creating a vibrant restaurant culture for the city. I don't see how that can happen when restaurants are spread around the outskirts of a 2,000 square mile tri-county area. It's also generally the case that suburban residents have kids, a family life including activities such as soccer practice and church choir rehearsal, a home with a mortgage and yard work that needs doing, a middle-income job and all those things. They're generally willing to trade restaurant greatness for convenience, big portions at reasonable prices and kid-friendly rooms. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with any of these things (I grew up in a suburb of Boston and wouldn't trade that for anything). But these aren't exactly things that lend themselves to a vibrant culture of exciting, high-quality restaurants. Rather, these things tend to go along with higher incomes (including expense accounts) and childless people with disposable income. Not for nothing do great restaurants, bars, coffee houses and bookstores (etc) tend to spring up where middle class gays and lesbians set down roots in any density. I think it's interesting to notice the difference between what Rattlesnake is doing in Detroit and what Rattlesnake is doing in Palm Springs. The cooking at the California location (granted, it appears to be a special menu) is substantially more sophisticated. More to the point, the Detroit menu doesn't seem all that much more special than what they're doing at Henry's, my neighborhood local (which is a great place, but I wouldn't drive an hour to go there and it's by no means in the top 100 for NYC).

Huh? By the definition you're stating here, if a city has great restaurants in the suburbs, then it automatically is NOT a "great restaurant city". And I couldn't disagree more. People in many suburbs of Chicago can find great restaurant experiences in the suburbs, where there are quite a few R4 good restaurants. (Sure, many go into the city too, but many others don't.) We have some world-class restaurants in our suburbs, and have for a long time, going back at least to when Jean Banchet first opened Le Francais in Wheeling in the early 1970s. I should have qualified that by saying "in general." Of course many of these places have great restaurants that are in outer areas. But the point is that these are not the restaurant that made these places "great restaurant cities." Chicago didn't need Le Français to be a great restaurant city, and San Francisco certainly doesn't need The French Laundry to be a great restaurant city. Rather, these are icing on the cake. So, while people in many of these areas perhaps don't have to go into the city for a great restaurant experience, in the large part that is what they usually do because that is where most of the best restaurants are located. I would argue that, for any great restaurant city, one could exclude all of the suburban and exurban restaurants from consideration and the city would still be considered a "great restaurant city." On the other hand, I can think of no great restaurant city that could be considered such on the merits of its suburban and exurban restaurants alone, excluding the restaurants in the city. I realize that some Detroiters are making that argument here, but I have yet to see so much as a handful of examples of "really great restaurants" in the greater Detroit area (are menus like this and this really among the best metro Detroit has to offer?). But, let's say for the sake of argument that there are 20 "really great restaurants" in the Detroit suburbs. That's just not enough for 2,000 square miles. And, again, it's thus far not been made clear by anyone that any of the restaurants there are so great that they inspire excitement beyond the level of a "good but not inspiring" restaurant at an acknowledged great restaurant city. I'm curious: What are the 20 best restaurants in metro Detroit? Or, better yet, what are 20 restaurants that can compete with the restaurants from great restaurant cities like NYC, SF, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. Can someone provide a representative list with links to menus? There are, of course, other ways I suppose a city can qualify for "restaurant attraction" status. Primary among them would be having a reasonable number of outstanding restaurants serving food in a particular regional style that is not available at similar quality (or perhaps at all) in other places in the country. Some of the barbecue cities in the US might qualify under that definition -- which is to say that one would be excited to be there just for the food. But I'm still not sure that makes them "great restaurant cities" as opposed to regional attractions or one-trick-ponies.

That's ridiculous; of course it is! Heck, Stamford and Greenwich and much of Fairfield County are suburbs of New York, towns in which large numbers of commuters drive or take the train into the city every day. There is a difference between a commuter town and a suburb. One might call suburbs "residential areas on the outskirts of, and contiguous to a city or large town." If they weren't officially part of NYC, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island could be considered "suburbs of Manhattan." A classic suburb, in my opinion, would be one that is largely dependent on the city which it "subs" for most things other than residential space, grocery stores and the like. It shouldn't take an hour on the train to get from a "sub" to an "urb" to work at your job or go to a restaurant. If it does, you're in a commuter town. Au contraire. If you live in a "great restaurant city" I would argue that it absolutelyis unusual for someone to need to travel 35-40 minutes if they want to try an R4 restaurant. The issue is one of density, as I said before. If you have to expand your area to more than 2,000 square miles to not even equal the number of great restaurants in cities less than 1/4 the size, you're not a "great restaurant city." Heck, if we applied those same criteria to New York, we'd have all the way to Newark (which is, by the way, not a suburb of NYC) or even Philadelphia and New Haven (also not suburbs of NYC). Take a moment and consider all the cities I listed in my previous post. Most of them have more great restaurants than all of Michigan, never mind just metro Detroit, and their best restaurants are better than the most of the best Michigan has to offer. This is to say that at best one might consider the Detroit–Warren–Livonia Metropolitan Statistical Area an "okay restaurant MSA." But that's a long way away from "great restaurant city." But Lockport and Gurnee are not, in fact, parts of Chicago. And Chicago's status as a great restaurant city does not rely upon stretching the concept of "city" to include them. Here's the thing: If a city is going to be a "great restaurant city" then that means that the people from the suburbs who are in search of a great restaurant experience go into the city to have that experience. If they have to take the highway all the way around to the ass end of nowhere on the other side of the city to find a great restaurant, I say that place is disqualified from being a great restaurant city. Especially since a place so described is unlikely to have a sufficient number of good restaurants, and certainly good restaurants of which most anyone would be reasonable aware, for one to say: "Great! We're going to [name of city]! They have awesome food and great restaurants there!"

You can't have as much meat in the pan compared to a frypan, because the taller sides inhibit evaporation. But so long as you don't overcrowd the pan, they work just fine. As you have observed, due to the shape, an 11-inch curved sauteuse evasee has a smaller cooking surface than an 11-inch frypan or saute pan.