slkinsey

regenbauma, I have a few questions and concerns perhaps you can address. With respect to the warranty -- Your web site says: "Swiss Diamond USA Inc (we are not Swiss Diamond, we are a retailer of their products) will repair or replace, at their discretion, any item found to be defective, to the original purchaser. The decision whether an item is considered defective under this warranty rests solely with them. " What does this mean, exactly? There are plenty of things that ordinarily happen to degrade the coating on nonstick-coated cookware that would not be considered "defective." Where can we see a list of "defects" allowable under the warranty? And, where are defective pans sent for warranty claims? To the manufacturer in Switzerland? Or somewhere in the US? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss most of the criticisms on the NewsTarget.com web site. Most of them are absolutely correct from a scientific basis. For example: As to the claim that the pans have "outstanding heat distribution with no hot spots" due to the use of diamond dust: This assertion is ridiculous on its face to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of thermal physics and heat transfer. The only way the diamonds could meaningfully contribute to the overall thermal conductivity of the pan would be if diamond constituted a meaningful percentage of the material from which the pan is constructed. Aluminum with a microfine dusting of diamond dust on the outside will have the thermal conductivity characteristics of aluminum, not diamond. A reading of Swiss Diamond publicity materials reveals that these are aluminum pans coated with Polytetrafluoroethylene (aka PTFE) and diamond dust. There are several ways the publicity materials are misleading as to the coating. First, the claim that the pans are not coated with "Teflon" is only true insofar as "Teflon" is a registered trademark of DuPont. In fact, PTFE and "Teflon" are the same substance and so it is untrue to claim that Swiss Diamond's coating is meaningfully different from "Teflon" as to safety or any other characteristics attributable to "Teflon." Second, the Swiss Diamond publicity materials make a big deal out of saying that their coating does not contain any Perfluorooctanoic acid (aka C-8 or PFOA). PFOA is considered a carciniogen and it is used in the manufacture of PTFE. However, PTFE does not contain PFOA, and Swiss Diamond's PTFE is no different from anyone else's PTFE in that respect. Ironically, the publicity materials claim that one reason this is so is because Swiss Diamond pans "use far less PTFE . . . than any other non-stick pan." I would hardly call this an advantage, and it is likely that these pans are able to use less PFTE because the diamond dust creates a "sacrifice layer" (more on this later). Third, the claim that the coating is a "nano-composite" is misleading at best. Yes, one may call anything with parts that are smaller than one micrometer (i.e., something that would be measured in nanometers) "nano-whatever." However, it's not as though Swiss Diamond's coating incorporates nanotubes or buckminsterfullerene, or was assembled on an atomic level. Rather, the coating is made of PTFE with really small pieces of diamond mixed into it. Fourth, the claim that the coating derives any meaningful advantages from the supposed non-stick characteristics of the diamond dust is of dubious legitimacy. Swiss Diamond claims that "there are over 200,000 diamond crystals in each Swiss Diamond pan." Let's examine that. Let's assume that each crystal has a surface area of 1 square micrometer (in reality they would have to be smaller to be considered "nano"). Okay, 200,000 square micrometers is equal to 20 square centimeters. Let's be generous and double that amount. Let's say each pan has 40 square centimeters of diamond dust surface area. Now let's think about a small 9.5 inch (24 centimeter) frypan. A little math tells us that the cooking surface of that pan will be 452 square centimeters. So, at a generous doubling of Swiss Diamond's marketing claim diamond dust still only comprises a maximum of 9% of the surface area of the pan. The rest of the pan is good old regular PTFE, just like every other non-stick coated pan. Even assuming that diamond really is super-non-stick, it's hard to imagine that an 9% diamond dust surface area will contribute meaninfully to a non-stick coating's non-stickness or durability. If the diamond bits have any effect whatsoever, it is likely that they create "microbumps" above the main surface of the PTFE coating, which reduces wear on the main body of the coating and facilitates even oil dispersion in the pan (variations of this process are employed on most modern PTFE coated cookware). I find the scratch test done by the NewsTarget guy to be quite compelling as to the durability of Swiss Diamond's coating. I'm not saying that I would expect better durability from any other PTFE coating. But it does demonstrate that Swiss Diamond's coating is no more durable than most any other PTFE coating. I also think you're off base in suggesting that the NewsTarget report is overly sensationalistic and "against" Swiss Diamond in an effort to profit from Google ads. I don't see any evidence of Google ads on the site, and the About NewsTarget page says: The one area where I take exception to the NewsTarget report is where the writer engages in scare tactics with respect to the possibility of eating particles of PTFE. In fact, PTFE is one of the most benigh substances in the human body, and has great biocompatibility with humans. This is why PTFE has been used in artificial tendons and other sorts of things that stay in the body for years and years. The main danger of PTFE is that is sheds microfine particles when it is exposed to excessive (>660F) temperatures, which can clog the breathing apparatus of birds and potentially some very small animals. So, in sum, I don't see how Swiss Diamond cookware is in any way worth a huge markup over buying something like Calphalon nonstick on one of the occasional Amazon.com supersales, or simply buying and discarding a $20 commercial pan every few years. I have friends who have owned (and diswasher-washed) Calphalon Commercial Nonstick pans for around 10 years, and the pans are still performing quite well. But no pan that has been subjected to regular use and cleaning over this time period is quite as nonstick as a brand new PTFE-coated pan.

MSG is a specific, refined product. Monosodium glutamate is a sodium salt of glutamate (meaning that it is glutamate plus a sodium atom), which is the commonly occurring anion (negatively charged ion) of glutamic acid, which is a common and important amino acid having the chemical formula C5H9NO4. Under FDA rules, when MSG is added to a food in its refined form, it must be listed on the ingredient list as "monosodium glutamate." All these other so-called "sneaky ways to get MSG into the food" are, in fact, not additions of monosodium glutamate (the sodium salt of glutamate). Rather these are ingredients that are high in free glutamates. That said, many of the things listed by Athena1963 are added to processed foods precisely because they contain lots of free glutamates, and they don't particularly contribute other flavors (of course, the same might be said about the kombu kelp traditionally used in making dashi). But it would not be accurate or appropriate to characterize them as "adding MSG." When monosodium glutamate is dissolved in water, it dissociates into free sodium and glutamate ions, much the same way that table salt dissociates into free sodium and chlorine ions. There is, then, no difference between the glutamate ions that come into your body from monosodium glutamate and the glutamate ions that come into your body from other sources of free glutamate. You can increase the concentration of glutamate ions in a food by adding traditional ingredients that are high in free glutamtes (soy sauce, kombu, parmesan and other aged cheeses, tomato concentrate, etc.), or by adding nontraditional ingredients (hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed yeast, etc.) or by adding refined monosodium glutamate. The fact remains, however, that unless you are someone who has a bad reaction from foods that are naturally high in free glutamates like dashi, soy sauce, parmesan cheese, and so on, you are not going to have as bad reaction from eating foods that contain either the nontraditional ingredient sources of free glutamate or simply straight MSG.

From the DOH Website:

Interesting stuff, Owen. Taking this information into consideration, the gloves issue for Dom DeMarco is that he a) removes the pizza from the oven using his bare hands and b) garnishes the pizza afterwards (with basil, etc.) using his bare hands. This is, of course, not the only issue the DOH has with the way things are being done at DiFara. Part of the problem, I have to believe, is that Dom seems to be someone who has a bit of a stubborn streak and "won't be told" anything about his pizzeria (he doesn't let his own children make pizza and refused to visit their now-failed Manhattan pizzeria, for goodness' sake!). Unfortunately for him, as Steven points out, he's got no choices now other than slavishly obeying the DOH's every little whim or closing his doors. There's no playing games at this point. One thing I have to admit I hadn't considered about wearing gloves is the spread of human-carried illness through contact with food. I've always thought of gloves as a way of (supposedly) ensuring that the cook's hands were clean to prevent the spread of bacteria from touching contaminated surfaces. Of course, gloves are actually not very effective at this, and may even increase the spread of contamination if workers are not diligent about changing them frequently. In general, I believe that washed hands are better because the worker should be more aware of when his hands are dirty. However, no amount of hand washing will prevent the spread of Hepatitis A.

Interesting timeline of DiFara's recent DOH involvement on Eater: 6/04/07 - Failed inspection with 51 points - Closed 5/30/07 - Failed inspection, 77 points 4/02/07 - Passed re-opening inspection 3/23/07 - Failed re-opening inspection 3/23/07 - Failed re-opening inspection 3/15/07 - Failed inspection 89 points - Closed 4/18/06 - Passed inspection with 21 points 2/23/06 - Failed inspection 1/06/06 - Failed inspection 7 failed inspections in 5 months is pretty bad. And the first two failed inspections came before the current DOH crackdown (the "KFC rats" video was posted on youtube on February 23).

In what way wouldn't they be "safe"? They might not be good, but something kept at 5 degrees F should be "safe" pretty much until the end of time, I'd think. Most sources I've seen (like this one say something like "Frozen foods remain safe indefinitely; storage recommendations are for quality only." Clearly, after 4 years there is likely to be some decline in quality (although at "deep freeze" temperatures, I'm not sure this would be true).

I'll be interested to see how it compares. One thing that I have to believe is integral to the Lockhart style is the use of open pits. This is simply not possible for a NYC restaurant (Hill Country uses Ole Hickory closed pits).

One thing I've heard from friends who have designed cocktail lists, sometimes along with staff training, on a consultant basis (which is to say: fixed-duration gig for a fee, and they don't stick around to supervise long-term) is that it can be a real challenge for these places to maintain quality down the road, even when the designed cocktails are real winners. This is because once the consultant walks out the door, the cocktails and the bar progran are pretty much at the mercy of the bar management and bartenders actually caring and the bar management having a basis for knowing what's right and not right along with an interest and willingness to make corrections and insist on high standards. Most of the time none of these things are true, the staff turns over without any meaningful training for newcomers, and before too long the bartenders are back to free pouring, etc. and quality goes down. This is why "such-and-such place has a list designed by [insert name of cocktail world bigshot here], who also trained the staff" doesn't mean all that much -- the bartenders almost certainly won't know a wide repertoire of classics, and even the menu cocktails may not be done to spec. Gin Lane is a good example of this phenomenon at work. 5 Ninth's cocktail menu still reflects Dave's work there. I've had just about all of these cocktails (the Weeski is a particular favorite -- I like mine with a short dash of peach bitters). But I'm not likely to ask the bartenders there for an Aviation or Martinez. Anyone know if the house drinks at 5 Ninth are still made well?

One of the things I've noticed in this "raising of the bar" we're all observing is that, in many of these places you really need to order the house cocktails off the menu if you want to have something good. I really doubt, for example, that Grayz is going to be like "Milk & Honey with awesome food" where you can order any drink under the moon and get something spectacular. More than likely, it will be the case that you can get a really nice "Grayz Elderflower Fizz" (or whatever) from a bartender who won't know how to make an Aviation. There simply aren't enough bartenders -- which is to say, people who actually stand behind the bar and shake out your cocktails -- around with that level of knowledge and expertise. Custom-designed cocktail lists are, of course, not all that terribly new. Dave Wondrich was doing lists for places like 5 Ninth going back 5 years or more, and of course many of Danny Meyer's restaurants have had custom-designed themed cocktail lists.

This is going astray from the topic of this thread, but I have the feeling that most classic cocktails originating in countries that don't have much of a cocktail culture were developed to serve globetrotting Americans (indeed, most of Italy's restaurant culture was geared towards foreigners until after WW II).

Hmm. Grayz seems more food-driven than cocktail-driven, and my experience is that this leads to some pretty lame cocktails -- especially given Kunz's high-end cuisine roots (e.g., things like the vodka-and-pineau "Per Se Cocktail").

Interesting. That's the opposite of the way they're listed in cocktailDB, which has the Tailspin at more or less equal parts (1 gin, 3/4 each sweet vermouth and Chartreuse) and Bijou drier and more gincentric (1.5 gin and 1/2 each sweet vermouth and Chartreuse). This is the rub, I think. Especially drinks that feature strong herbal flavors change dramatically when the proportions change. Equal parts of of gin, vermouth and Campari is simply not the same as a drink with 2 ounces of gin and a half ounce each of the other ingredients. I'm not so sure it makes any difference how Italian bartenders are making this drink these days, since Italy is hardly a cocktail culture -- and, of course, even back here in the birthplace of the cocktail, there are plenty of drinks made with what most of us would agree are incorrect proportions or formulae. I do agree with your general premise that the proportions can and do change somewhat in order to balance the drink properly for the ingredients used. One shouldn't slavishly adhere to an "equal parts Negroni" simply because that's the formula. Nevertheless, the idea is to balance the drink in such a way that it still retains its "Negroni character." Even using Carpano Antica Formula, IMO a 4:1:1 ratio would result in a drink that wouldn't have the right character.

Oh, there's no doubt that in a properly "authentic" regional Chinese restaurant there are healthy things to order. But, to follow up on your example, I think it very likely that the vast majority of Chinese restaurants across America are not offering any Cantonese steamed whole fish dishes (or certainly none you'd want to have) and, for those that do, in most of them the majority of customers aren't ordering it.

Yea, I think it really is taking off. One thing I've been thinking about... So many new places have opened in NYC lately (don't forget Gold Bar, Double Seven, and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting) that I wonder if we aren't experiencing a momentary dropoff in average bar experience/expertise across the board as the talent is spread much more thinly than it was two years ago. This should ultimately be a good thing, as new bar talent is found, trained, encouraged and developed. But I'm beginning to feel like there is some dilution these days. It used to be that there were one or two places in town where I could go Isecure in the knowledge that every single night of the week every single person behind the bar was a cocktail expert with a thorough knowledge of the classics in memory and the ability to create new and interesting drinks for knowledgable and familiar customers all'improvviso. Those 'tenders are still around, but are now spread out among a double handfull of other bars. Now, I can't think of a single bar with that level of universal 7-days-a-week bar talent -- I've even had some not-so-great cocktails at exclusive single-bartender outfits -- which means that I have to try to go when so-and-so is there if I want to get a top experience. On more than one occasion in the past 6 months, I've had to explain a Martinez to a bartender in bars where this would previously have been unthinkable. Of course one hopes and assumes that with proper training, dedication and mentoring, a year's experience and mentoring will have changed that. Certainly I can remember when some of today's acknowledged experts were the "enthusiastic new guy" -- and it wasn't that long ago. Luckily, the cocktail designing talent is as strong as ever at most of the stalwarts (Bemelmans has fallen way off since Audrey left, and Angel's Share hasn't been good for quite some time). So you can always get something great from the menu.

Heh. No kidding. Me too. A recent "light" dinner at New Green Bo: - 1 cup of chicken broth with vegetables - 6 fried pork dumplings - 4 boiled pork and leek dumplings - 1.5 wedges of scallion pancake - 1.5 cups rice cakes with chicken - 1 piece fish fillet in wine sauce (hold the fungus) I feel like I must be forgetting something. The ironic thing is that this dinner was actually fairly light compared to other forays to NGB.

I'm curious as to what we think constitutes a "normal" Chinese restaurant meal in America. I'd hypothesize that a typical individual eating "family style" at a Chinese restaurant has something like this: - 2 fried pork dumplings - 1 egg roll - 1 wedge scallion pancake - 1/2 cup hot and sour soup - 1/2 cup deep fried chicken in thick sweet sauce - 1/2 cup moo shu pork - 1/2 cup beef with broccoli and garlic - 1/2 cup white rice That is a lot of fat right there.

Still, Chinese food dinners are usually full of oil. I think it would be hard to think of a typical Chinese restaurant dinner that could be considered "light on the fat." Yea, you can have the steamed broccoli and scallops, but most people are ordering moo shu pork and General Tso's chicken. And clearly many of them do so thinking it's "healthy because it's Chinese food." Someting like the (delicious) "stir-fried watercress with crispy pork" I had at Sripraphai the other day sounds superficialy "light and healthy" -- but the reality is that it was full of fat.

I think there is a thread around here somewhere about the ridiculousness of the current DOH crackdown. That said, I have to wonder whether the continued scrutiny of DiFara is due to perceived "defiance" on the part of the owner, who has been quoted saying things like, "they say I've gotta wear gloves now—and a hat . . . I'd only wear a hat if I were bald. I'd rather pay the fine than wear the hat."

Just ask Zachary Taylor.

I think it very much depends on one's experience, expertise and knowledge in knowing how distilling works, not to mention working with metals and what metals are appropriate to use, how to ventilate properly, etc. It's not nothing.

Eater reports that the DOH has shuttered DiFara again.

One of the reasons most recipe books for homemade gelato include eggs is that the equipment is not optimal for making real gelato. Ice cream/gelato is technology-driven in much the same way as espresso. You can't make espresso without an espresso machine, and you can't make gelato without proper gelato machinery. Similarly, just as the quality of espresso is largely dependent on the quality of the machine, so is gelato dependent on the quality of the machinery. Similarly again, there is a fairly steep entry price point for the machinery required to make acceptable espresso and gelato. And still similarly, in their home country, both of these products are largely a professional's game. So... if you're going to be making and storing your "gelato" at home with technology in the sub-$1k price range, you're going to have to make nontraditional compromises and adjustments in order to approximate the real thing. paulraphael points out some storage temperature-based reasons for using egg yolks and other stabilizers. I'd also argue that, for the home enthusiast, egg yolks can be a way of getting something similar to the texture, density and mouthfeel of real gelato. If you can slow down the the speed of your home machine and raise the temperature a bit, that's probably a pretty good idea as well. I would also recommend eating it the same day it's made after only limited freezer hardening. A little booze might help in keeping a softer texture.

Well, the thing is that orange bitters are fairly subtle. They don't tend to make a huge difference in the taste of a drink the way, e.g., Angostura bitters do -- and if they do, it often means you used too much. If you really want to showcase the difference orange bitters can make, I'd suggest a Martini. Get a freshly-opened bottle of Noilly Prat and stir it with Tanqueray in equal parts, adding a few short dashes of orange bitters.

From what I understand, Pernod and Ricard tweaked the formula when they transitioned from absinthe to pastis. Pastis is sweeter, lower in proof and more anise-forward than the absinthes I've tried. So, yea, it's not the same thing as "absinthe without the wormwood" but it was developed as a replacement product after the ban. I was mostly responding to your questions as to whether Pernod currently makes absinthe and whether Pernod's (now) signature product is a pastis. The answer to both is "yes." I guess you must be talking about redistilling spirits in one of those little glass rigs you get in catalogs? Yes, I suppose it's true that there is less danger of things like methanol-induced blindness if one is redistilling a product that has already been distilled. I'd have to be convinced that the end product was worth all the cost and trouble, though. For entirely homemade rigs, there is always some risk that materials or contruction will lead to a dangerous result through contamination or fire hazard. I think it depends a lot on how much you're making, where you're making it and whether any of your neighbors decide to complain. Don't be so sure that the law doesn't care. Years ago my family was spending time in our house in the mountains of Western North Carolina and were burning a fire from logs that happened to be a little too wet. Marshals showed up to make sure we weren't 'shining. Also, you may think it's silly to suppose that the "kid" might get busted, but don't be so sure it won't happen. All it takes is for one person to get a stomach bug, decide that it was the cook's fault and complain to the wrong person. Or, all it takes is an environment with a reactionary and hypervigilant DOH -- like we have in New York City right now -- to get wind of it. There are plenty of things that seem like they're "no big deal -- the police can't be bothered" right up to the point where the police decide they can be bothered. For example, people have been smoking cannabis on the street in NYC for decades and the police largely couldnt' care less so long as the smokers are discreet (although I wouldn't recommend doing it if a copp is standing next to you). Nevertheless, I have a friend who spent the night in jail for doing it.

There's more to it than that. In order to cook effetively in a wok, you need a specialized burner. Cooking in a sauté pan, on the other hand, is done over a regular Western-style burner. In my opinion, if you want to "stir fry" on a regular home stove, you're better off with a sauté pan. Note, for example, that Ah Leung uses a sauté pan in his Chinese cooking pictorials. The two pans both work for more-or-less the same kind of cooking because of the differnet burners. In general, woks suck over traditional Western burners. I've done side-by side tests, and a heavy sauté pan always performed better. If you're unsure about what you want, I think the best way to approach it is to ask the question: what is it that I want to do on the stove that I can't do well enough right now? Then, once you know what you would like to do better/easier, you have a basis for choosing a cookware shape, design and material.