slkinsey

Hmm. I've got several 10-inchers and one that's around 12. Part of the edge does stick out, but I never thought of this as dangerous (certainly no more dangerous than a knife magnet where the entire edge is exposed).

My favorite: Simmer in water until barely tender, drain and set aside. Warm up an ungodly anount of good quality extra virgin olive oil in a pan with some thinly sliced fresh garlic and a nice pinch of crushed red pepper. Add the beans to the oil and warm everything up. Throw in a fistfull of chopped parsley. Season with coarse sea salt. This preparation works with any kind of bean, and really allows you to taste the differences between different the different kinds.

None of these pans is worth spending big bucks for copper. The "Pommes Anna pan" is good for making Pommes Anna. If what you really want is a pan for gratins, etc. -- then I suggest a gratin pan. Tarte Tatin is reliably (and perhaps best) made in regular, cheap cast iron. The potato steamer: Not useful to have unless you steam potatoes... a lot. Copper does not confer any special advantages when it comes to steaming. Rectangular braiser: I can't think of anything I'd use something like this for. Poaching whole beef tenderloins? Confiture pan: This is an unlined copper pan for making jams and jellies. Not really useful (and actually dangerous) to use for anything other than sugar. Paella pan: A real paella pan is made of carbon steel and costs very little money. If you want a fancy paella pan, I'd suggest one of the Paderno Grand Gourmet stainless steel paella pans with a 7 mm aluminum base. These will outperform the Mauviel pan. With all of these, there is also some question in my mind as to the thickness of the copper and the metal used for the lining. I am a hige proponent of stainless lined heavy copper, but the fact is that it is not always the best solution for the job. It's also expensive and somewhat difficult to maintain.

I have a large and eclectic collection of knives, and recommend the Kapoosh Universal Cutlery Block. It accomodates any size of knife in any combination, and due to the design it's not hard on the edges like wood slot blocks can be.

News flash: starting this Sunday (July 15) PDT is open on Sundays!

Good points, Mike. Having many friends in the business, my observation has been that fulltime shaking is a young person's game. At some point you either move up the ladder to designing cocktails and being the head bartender to eventually managing staff, mentoring younger up-and-coming talent, consulting and/or owning your own place (where you might, e.g., shake on Sunday evenings to keep your hand in but that's about it)... or you get out of the game. I don't know too many people in their 40s making a living shaking on Friday and Saturday nights for tip money.

Here's something that perplexes: Why is it that premade sandwiches in the US are so horrible, and yet most panini and tramezzini in Italy are made ahead of time and are generally very good?

My most unwavering culinary rule is that I don't partake of foods or drinks that may be described, in part or whole, as "mucilaginous." For people who like this sort of thing: make at home! All you need is boiled okra slime and sugar!

I can't think of any reason it would make any meaningful difference to add the salt only after the water is boiling. Salt can cause pitting in stainless steel, which might argue for minimizing the amount of time salt contacts the interior of a stainless steel pot, but I can't imagine that this becomes a problem before one has got his/her money's worth out of the cooking vessel (it also doesn't explain why this advice is given with respect to boiling water but yet we still long-simmer stews, sauces, etc. that include salt).

This seems like an odd situation. Based on what, other than the name, is the current LES Guss' Pickles something to save? As I read the article, Izzy Guss sold the shop to Harold Baker, who then presumably turned the shop over to his son Tim Baker, who is now leasing that shop to one Patricia Fairhurst. The current Orchard Street storefront is not the original location, the store having changed locations at least twice previously. Also as I read the article, Guss' doesn't actually make the pickles, and hasn't made them for quite some time. For a long time, they apparently purchased pickles from United Pickle, but Fairhurst has recently changed suppliers. According to the article, Baker at some point sold the rights to the Guss' name to the Leibowitz family, which owns United Pickle. They were apparently willing to allow the store to call itself "Guss' Pickles" so long as they sold the United Pickle Guss' Pickles. Now that Fairhurst has changed suppliers, they are less willing. This would all seem to hinge on the question of whether Baker sold the rights to the name or not. If he did, I'd think Fairhurst is SOL. If not, then United Pickle is SOL. Or, perhaps they can both use the name? I know that the original Patsy's Pizzeria licensed their name to a NYC chain that is not under the same management (and not nearly as good) but they didn't give up their right to continue using the name in doing so. Really, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Fairhurst if she were making the pickles herself, or even if the current storefront had been in the same location since 1920, etc. Or am I missing something here?

FOr an optimal experience, see if you can get ahold of one of the boutique tonics like Fever Tree Tonic or Q Tonic. These have a more complex flavor, and won't overwhelm with sweetness.

on a tangent to water boiling, adding salt will raise the boiling temperature of the water so it will take longer for the water to reach a boil but the temperature would be higher and take less time for the substance to cook. no? Adding salt to water will raise the boiling point less than 0.1 degrees and, in the amounts one is likely to add in the kitchen, shouldn't meaningfully affect the length of time it takes for the water to come to a full boil. Depending on when you add the salt it may, however, help to create the impression that it is taking longer. This is because the salt crystals act as nucleation points and can release a fair amount of dissolved gas if the salt is added at just the right temperature. The result is that it takes longer for bubbles to appear, but the length of time it takes for the water to come up to 100C is not meaningfully changed.

Pink Gins and Martinis are just right, of course. My suggestion is that you hoard the bottle of Malacca and use it only in drinks like these that highlight its unique qualities. I've got around a half-bottle left myself, and wouldn't use it for anything but Martinis. This is not to say that it wouldn't be good in a G&T. In fact, it's more emphatic flavors work very well with tonic water. So, if Tanqueray were still making Malacca I'd certainly suggest trying it with tonic water if you are a G&T lover. But considering that you may never come across another bottle of Malacca again, using it in drinks that don't highlight its "specialness" seems like a shame.

Gin & Tonics with Malacca?! That's a real waste of this gin. Once it's gone, there won't be any more to be had. Why not make it with something where you can really taste the gin?

Yea, that's what the Standard of Identity for vodka seems to indicate. If "neutral spirits" has to be distilled to 190 proof and "vodka" has to be made from "neutral spirits," then logic tells us that "vodka" has to be distilled to 190 proof. If you have any examples of spirits sold as "vodka" in the United States that are distilled to less than 190 proof, I'd be interested to know about it. Presumably, it shouldn't be too difficult to find such examples if there are dozens of vodkas distilled to lower proofs. I suppose it's possible, even probable, that there does exist a small percentage of spirits distilled to lower-than-190-proof and traditionally called "vodka" in their place of origin, but that are not sold in the United States as "vodka". However, I have to wonder whether such spirits are called "vodka" under a local custom that calls all distilled spirits "vodka" (i.e., it's their word for "spirits"). Two things here: 1. Although I can understand your philosophical and etymological reasons for calling any spirit "whiskey," it strikes me that it's not a particularly useful practice when engaging in discussions about spirits. This is because the commonly-accepted meaning of "whiskey" is "spirit distilled to medium-proof and not highly rectified from the fermented mash of grains and (almost always) aged in wood." So, if based on this commonly-accepted meaning people are having a discussion about whiskey, as they are wont to do, and you join the discussion making points having to do with products distilled from molasses, based on your personal expanded definition of "whiskey" meaning "all distilled spirits = uisge = whiskey"... well, confusion and misunderstanding are bound to follow. I could say similar things about making points based on a personal definition of vodka that means "all unaged spirits." 2. I would agree with you that any unaged spirit that has been highly rectified can be called "vodka." The important part of that definition would be the "highly rectified" part, and part and parcel of "highly rectified" is the aforementioned "selective reduction of organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials" (aka, making the spirit, to the greatest extent possible, without "distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color"). Edited: Spelling.

I, too, decided to move away from the KA grinder attachment. But, since I needed to grind up whole chickens, including the bones, to make food for my ferrets, I went for horsepower rather than hand cranking. Here's mine:

Thanks for the clarification! That makes much more sense.

I believe that the current EU proposal is to limit the raw materials that may be used in "vodka" to potatoes and grains. This is, IMO, kind of silly considering that vodka is a spirit that is better defined by its production methods and aesthetic goals (i.e., the "selective reduction of organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials" mentioned above) than the raw materials. In my opinion, if you distill fermented molasses to 190 proof, rectify it 3 times and filter it through activated charcoal, you end up with vodka, not rum. Bison grass vodka is simply vodka that has been flavored with an infusion of bison grass. Bison grass, and thus bison grass vodka, contains coumarin, which is a blood-thinning compound that is banned by the FDA. Any "bison grass vodka" sold in the United States is artificially flavored and colored, and contains a "neutralized" blade of bison grass in the bottle.

Lindacakes, keep in mind that the buttermilk produced from home butter-making is real buttermilk, and not necessarily all that similar to the cultured "buttermilk" one finds in grocery stores.

I've been thinking about doing this myself. Have also been wondering how it would turn out if I "soured" the cream first. Wouldn't that give me "cultured butter" and tangy-er buttermilk?

This is something that has come up a number of times over the years in various vodka-related discussions, and I was recently reminded of it by mickblueeyes in a thread about bourbon where we were discussing the Code of Federal Regulations governing the Standard of Identity for bourbon and how it related to a new bottling by Woodford Reserve that is "finished" in used chardonnay casks (that fork in the discussion starts here, if you're curious). So, in that discussion, mick said the following: As you can see from reading this thread, there has historically been some disagreement over the description of vodka as "colorless, tasteless and odorless." Some vodkaphiles have asserted that there are many examples of Eastern European vodkas that are anything but colorless, tasteless and odorless. This line of argument asserts, more or less, that "vodka" can be interpreted as an Eastern European catch-all term for any and all (unaged?) distilled spirits. Many of us have observed that this usage is not particularly useful insofar as the word "vodka" is commonly used and understood in Western Europe and America, where it describes a significantly narrower range of distilled spirits. Indeed, the spirit called "vodka" in Western Europe and America (not to mention most Eastern European examples) seems to conform fairly closely to the aforementioned "colorless, tasteless and odorless" definition. Now we come to the concept of the Standard of Identity. In the United States, a Standard of Identity is a government regulation which establishes certain criteria which must be met before foods can be labeled in a certain way. For example, the Standard of Identity for bourbon states, among other requirements, that it must be made from a mash bill of not less than 51% corn or it may not be labeled "bourbon." 27 CFR 5.22(a), the Standard of Identity for Neutral Spirits, defines "neutral spirits" as being "produced from any material at or above 190 deg. proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80 deg. proof." 27 CFR 5.22(a)(1), the Standard of Identity for Vodka (which is a subset of Neutral Spirits), defines "vodka" as "neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color." This Standard of Identity is not, as has been suggested, only applicable to spirits manufactured in the United States. Rather, it applies to any spirits sold in the United States and labeled as "vodka." Spirits not conforming to this standard may not be labeled "vodka." I was just reading the wikipedia entry for Stolichnaya, which is probably the most influential brand with respect to the international image of vodka, which seems to describe a process and aesthetic remarkably similar to what is specified by the US Standard of Identity for vodka: Having traveled fairly extensively throughout Western Europe, my experience is that this definition accords well with the commonly understood meaning of "vodka" there as well. Part of the (somewhat controversial as to allowed ingredients) EU definition of vodka states that it is produced (rectified, filtered, etc.) "so that the organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials used are selectively reduced." And here is an interesting letter from the European Vodka Alliance protesting the then-proposed restriction of base ingredients allowed in making vodka to grains and potatoes, which says: "...vodka is a neutral spirit. The purpose of its distillation process is the removal of taste (cf Encyclopaedia Britannica definition above). Indeed the current definition of vodka in Regulation 1576/89 recognises this historic fact of production when it refers to vodka's distillation process 'so that the organoleptic characteristics of the raw materials are selectively reduced.'"

It really depends on how tough the stuff is that you are grinding, the size of the disk you're using and how you are going to cook the ground meat. If you're grinding something like chuck steak, which has plenty of connective tissue and large pockets of hard fat, single-grinding on the coarse disk will often result in a tough gristly hamburger. If you're making a long-cooked ragu or something like that, you're not likely to notice as much of a difference. If, on the other hand, you're grinding something with practically no tough connective tissue, like chicken or rabbit, or something with relatively small amounts, like Melkor's short rib and hanger steak hamburger blend, it may not make as much of a difference and you may appreciate the coarser texture of single-ground meat. Personally, I almost always double grind on a very coarse disk.

"Bourbon whiskey aged in Sonoma-Cutrer chardonnay casks" seems appropriate to me (although I would suggest "finished" instead of "aged"). However, that still makes it "bourbon" and not "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" as in 27 CFR 5.22(b)(2). It will be interesting to see how they label it, I agree. Certainly in their PR materials they're calling it "bourbon." This much we can see. So whatever they actually put on the bottle may or may not be reflective of what they might be allowed to put on the bottle. Clearly the chardonnay finishing is the main selling point (as would be any unique or unusual treatment by Jim Beam or Buffalo Trace) and one would expect this to be emphasized in their marketing and labeling. I don't see why they would want to label it simply "Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey," even if they might be allowed to do so. We should also consider that companies like Jim Beam and Woodford Reserve may feel that their brands are so firmly established as "bourbon" that there is little need to make this a point of emphasis in marketing "special bourbons," preferring to play up the "special" part instead. It's worthy of note that the word "bourbon" is not displayed prominently on bottles of Woodford Reserve's regular bottling (the main logo says "Labrot & Graham / Woodford Reserve / Distiller's Select" and the words "Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey" are on a small paper label near the bottom of the bottle).

I should start by pointing out that I am not arguing for or against the use of "finishing" barrels for bourbon or rye, etc. Mick, your hierarchy makes some logical sense to me as a lover of American spirits. Although, I do have to disagree with your characterization of used barrels as an "inferior trait" to using charred new oak barrels (I have the feeling there are quite a few over in Scotland who would agree with me on that count). I also don't see where, in your logic, one finds the notion of "exclusively aged in..." I think the code is clear that a spirit that is exclusively aged in used barrels may not be called "bourbon" -- the question is whether the code or some official interpretation of the code specifically disallows the name "bourbon" for a spirit primarily aged in charred new oak and then finished in a used barrel (I suspect this is the case, but I'd like to see where it is the case). So, while your logic makes some intuitive sense to me, I am not convinced that your logic and the logic of the code are the same logic unless I can see an official legal ruling or qualified legal opinion to that effect. I'm actually fine with the idea that bourbon can only be aged in charred new oak and never finished in used barrels. I'm just not entirely satisfied that that's what the law says. I have some lawyer friends who work with spirits companies. I'll see what they have to say. Edited to add: According to this press release "Bourbon, by definition, must be matured in charred oak barrels, but the distiller is free to 'finish' the bourbon in a second barrel type once it has met its maturation requirements."

The language in 27 CFR 5.22(b)(1)(i) does not, by itself, appear sufficient to say that something aged in charred new oak barrels and then transferred to used oak barrels is not "bourbon." It only specifies that bourbon is aged in charred new oak barrels for some period of time. I don't see anything in the code that specifically says that bourbon is aged only in charred new oak barrels. 27 CFR 5.22(b)(2) says anything that would ordinarily be considered bourbon (i.e., >51% corn, distilled to <160 proof, etc.) that is aged in used barrels is not bourbon but, instead, is called "whisky distilled from bourbon mash." So far, so good. I'm with the program insofar as a spirit aged in used barrels instead of charred new oak barrels is not bourbon. There is still an problem, as I see it, in that the code seems to assume that each of the two kinds of spirit are aged exclusively in one kind of barrel: bourbon being aged in charred new oak and "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" being aged in used wood. The code does not seem to consider whiskies that are aged in one kind of barrel and then further aged in a different kind of barrel. You are suggesting that a bourbon aged, say, 8 years in charred new oak and then 6 months in a used wine barrel is, by definition, no longer "bourbon" but must now be considered "whisky distilled from bourbon mash." I assume, for the sake of furthering the discussion, that you would also argue that a spirit that is aged 8 years in used barrels and 6 months in charred new oak would not be considered "bourbon." So, you're suggesting that it's an entirely one-way proposition: anything that deviates from 100% charred new oak is not bourbon. I'm saying that there is nothing in the code, as I read it, suggesting that such an automatic one-way exclusion exists. If "finishing with used wood" makes a spirit that was previously "bourbon" into "whisky distilled from bourbon mash," then the opposite should also be true and "finishing with charred new oak" should make a spirit that was previously "whisky distilled from bourbon mash" into "bourbon." Unless I'm missing something and there's something explicit in the code that says this isn't so. Most likely, this is simply a situation that is not contemplated by the code. It strikes me that there could/should be reasonable modifications or additions to the code to provide for reasonable "finishing" of bourbon (etc.) in used barrels, provided it falls within certain ratios of aging (e.g., 10:1 new oak to used oak). Question: rye whiskey is subject to the same code. Do you think that a rye finished in a used wine barrel should not be called "rye whiskey"? Second question: Isn't Old Potrero 18th Century Style Whiskey aged in toasted new oak barrels as opposed to charred new oak barrels? And this is why they call it "Single Malt 18th Century Style Whiskey" (leaving out the "rye" part) as opposed to "rye whiskey" as they do Old Potrero Single Malt Straight Rye Whiskey 19th Century Style?