slkinsey

I'm not sure about the wine glass part at all. Go to the cocktailDB recipe search page and search for "cooler." It will bring up over 100 recipes, just about all of which are served in a large (14 oz) "tall glass." This accords with Erik's idea that "cooler" is just a generic name for an oversized, sweeter highball. For example, this Brandy Hiball calls for 1.5 ounces of brandy, ice, a lemon twist and a fill of soda water or ginger ale in a 9 ounce highball glass. This recipe for a Brandy Cooler calls for 2.5 ounces of brandy, ice, a lemon twist and a fill or ginger ale in a 14 ounce tall glass. In comparing highballs to coolers at cocktailDB, it also seems that the coolers are more likely to have multiple ingredients. For example, This recipe for an Applejack Hiball is much the same as the Brandy Hiball: 1.5 ounces of applejack, ice, a lemon twist and a fill of soda water or ginger ale in a 9 ounce highball glass. The Applejack Cooler, on the other hand, in addition to being served in the 14 ounce tall glass, includes lemon juice, sugar and floats of brandy and grenadine.

Julep makers: Do you find, as I do, that the crush of the ice has a tremendous effect on the quality of the Julep? I've often made them with ice crushed on the finest setting of my Ice-o-Matic electric ice crusher. This gets the ice pretty fine -- right around what I've seen in most pictures and what I get in my favorite bars around town. But I got to thinking that ice rasped off of a big block would be a lot more fine than that. So, I've experimented with pouring my crushed ice into a tea towel and having at it for a minute or so with a meat mallet, which produces something a lot closer to snow. The result was a lot better, IMO.

Interesting. I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I suspected that might be true. Either way, it seems that the crushed product is going to be comprised of the "too ripe for whole" and also "not ripe enough or otherwise damaged/inappropriate for whole" tomatoes. Question: What information do you have that says tomato puree can't be made from paste? 21 CFR 155.191 says: This seems to say "cooked for concentration" (as you say) and also seems to leave open the possibility of making it by thinning out paste. Or would using paste be disallowed because it's made from tomatoes and not "juice"? Given the fact that crushed tomatoes are not thin and watery, I have to believe that they're supplemented with high percentage tomato puree (low percentage would actually produce a thinner product than 100% ground tomatoes), which would suggest quite a bit of concentration.

Russ, I agree that a lot of what gets sorted out must be the softer/riper (and therefore better-flavored) tomatoes. But, of course, a lot of what gets sorted out must also be the not-ripe-enough tomatoes that aren't good enough for sale as fresh, etc. I have to believe that the average quality of tomatoes used for crushed tomatoes is lower than those used for whole by the same canner. But this may not be true 100% of the time or for 100% of tomato canners. I'd probably be a lot more up on using crushed tomatoes if they were actually mostly crushed tomato and didn't include a significant addition of tomato paste, which only serves to further lower the average quality of the tomatoes in the can.

Hah! That's awesome. Not a bad buy at 70 bucks. That would be something like a 10 year supply of Grand Marnier for me.

There are several factors here: First, when you start with whole tomatoes, you can determine the texture of the finished product depending on how you want to treat the tomatoes. Significantly, you have the option of keeping out the seeds (just cut the tomatoes in half and squeeze out into a fine strainer). Second, when you are in the business of making canned tomato products, you go through a selection process. It's not like the same tomatoes are going into the canned whole tomatoes and tomato paste. The best tomatoes are going to be kept whole, and the lesser-quality ones are going to find their way into the other products. I've never found a crushed tomato product that is comparable in quality to whole tomatoes I run through the coarse disk of my food mill (although, as I wrote above, this difference can be masked by the use of other strong flavors such as garlic, onion, herbs, sausage, etc.). Third, it's not like canned crushed tomatoes are nothing more than whole tomatoes that are crushed. Rather, they take some ground tomato pulp and mix it into a base made of tomato paste. This is something I'd rather do myself.

Yea, happens pretty much every year right around this time. Not sure why the recipe calls for "powdered sugar" since I can't imagine the recipe is meant to be made with modern-day powdered sugar (surely it's supposed to be superfine sugar).

I wish some of these new companies would come out with mixing-appropriate (in terms of price point and flavor profile) whiskies, but they all seem to try for the superpremium sipping whiskey niche. Assuming small Manhattans with 2 ounces of rye and 1 ounce of vermouth, each one made with Hudson Manhattan Rye would have around six bucks worth of whiskey in it. By volume, it's more espensive than Michter's 10 year.

Satan's Whiskers (Straight) is a good one. I've seen it as equal parts gin, white vermouth, red vermouth, orange juice and Grand Marnier (use regular orange curaçao instead of Grand Marnier and it's "curled") plus a few dashes of orange bitters. Some people like to dial back a bit on the orange juice and Grand Marnier. cocktailDB has many recipes with Grand Marnier that might interest you.

That stuff is awfully expensive for mixing, even in something as elemental as a Manhattan. I've seen it around for something like 35 bucks a bottle -- a 375 ml bottle!

Yikes! You're not kidding! The Monkey Gland video has gin, orange juice and grenadine (no absinthe or absinthe-substitute) with ice in a highball glass!

I tend to buy Le Valle DOP San Marzano tomatoes at Fairway, where I can get them fairly inexpensively. I find these to be sweeter and less acidic than most other brands. I like to buy whole tomatoes rather than crushed. It gives me the option to decide what texture I would like, and I think they're higher quality than the tomatoes that go into the crushed product (which afaik is usually thickened with tomato paste). How much difference the quality and nature of the tomatoes make depends tremendously on what you do with them. Using tomato sauce as an example, it makes a big difference in a simple sauce of tomato and butter but not so much differnce in a sauce that includes softened garlic, onion, carrot and celery plus some herbs.

Here's a link to the NYT article. It's mostly a description of the Julep as made by Chris McMillian at the Ritz-Carlton hotel's Library Lounge in New Orleans. In fact, I'd say the article is really more about McMillian than it is about the Julep, per se. He is a bartender of the (good) old school, and apparently given to reciting J. Soule Smith's ode when preparing a Julep at a leisurely pace. His Julep recipe is for a peach bourbon Julep: <blockquote>12 to 15 leaves : fresh mint, 1 oz : peach syrup (Monin is recommended) 2.5 oz : bourbon Superfine sugar and mint sprig for garnish Gently muddle mint leaves and 1/4 ounce peach syrup in a julep cup or old-fashioned glass, working the leaves up the sides of glass. Pack the cup or glass with finely crushed ice, add bourbon, drizzle with remaining peach syrup and garnish with mint sprig lightly dusted with sugar.</blockquote> There's also a mint Julep recipe in the current issue of New York Magazine, featuring a recipe from LeNell Smothers. LeNell's Julep is also a whiskey Julep, but strays quite a bit further from the accepted Julep orthodoxy with the inclusion of bitters and an unusual sweetener. <blockquote>LeNell Smothers's Granny's Whiskey Julep 1 tsp: Granny's Not So Simple Syrup* or Pedro Ximénez cream sherry 2 dashes : Fee Brothers whiskey barrel-aged bitters 5 leaves : fresh mint 2 oz : 100-proof bourbon or rye Splash : Prichard's Tennessee rum * Add pound of golden raisins to a quart jar, cover with gin and wait two weeks. Gently muddle the mint leaves together with the syrup and bitters in a julep cup or old-fashioned glass, then remove and discard the mint. Fill most of the way with crushed ice and add the whiskey, stirring until frost appears on the outside of the glass. Fill up with crushed ice and top with a splash of rum, then garnish with sprigs of mint. Optionally, dust with powdered sugar.</blockquote> This sounds interesting. I like bitters in a Julep. I wonder if her "Granny's Not So Simple Syrup" is missing an addition of sugar, however. Unless the raisins give off a lot of sugar (anyone?) it doesn't seem like it would be very syrup-like to me.

That's for two big slushy drinks. Not so much, when you consider that low temperatures inhibit perceptions of sweetness.

FWIW, Lucy Brennan is no slouch. Here is her bio and here is the drink menu from her place in Oregon.

I have to assume she calls it a Daiquiri because it includes rum and is a slushy ice drink (which is what 99% of America thinks a Daiquiri is).

The hidden gems in Manhattan, if there are any, are all above 96th Street. And they're hidden precisely because blogs like Eater (and most of eGullet, I should hasten to add) aren't paying attention to what's going on up there. Granted, there are good reasons for this (like the fact that there is much less of interest).

Yea, a number of weird things there. What's the deal with lemon-lime juice? Is it her version of "fresh sour mix" once combined in equal parts with simple syrup? (This is, by the way, a good fresh substitute for sour mix should you come across a recipe that calls for it.) Why not use lime juice for the Margarita and lemon juice for the Sidecar? I agree with Nathan that lemon in a Margarita probably wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but lime in a Sidecar? Bleah. What I don't understand is why she minimizes the role of orange liqueur in those cockails. Orange liqueur is an important part of both. One way to think about these recipes is to combine the triple sec and simple syrup into what would be an ounce and a quarter of low intensity, low alcoholic strength, shitty quality "triple sec." If you think of it that way, the ratios aren't horrible. They're both just a bit sweeter than 2:1:1. THe problem is that they're both missing out on the orange. Do you suppose this is the author's attempt to "focus the drink on the base spirit"?

Great article! And great to see that they actually tasted a spirit intended for chilling and mixing, well... chilled and mixed. I'll have more to say on this once I have a few more minutes, but there's one thing that puzzles me. The author makes a point of mentioning the higher proof gins, noting that Old Raj comes in at 110 proof and then saying that "Tanqueray and Tanqueray No. 10 at 94.6 proof were the next highest." Except he forgot Junípero, which is 98.6 proof. This must be an error in his notes, because the ratings section has it at only 86 proof. I was happy to see Plymouth and Junípero rated so highly, although I was surprised that Tanqueray wasn't more appealing. I was also quite surprised to see Old Raj rating so highly. I may have to try that one again.

The Webtender Wiki entry I linked to gives a recipe from 1895 for the drink with simple syrup instead of either maraschino or curaçao (but calls for orange bitters), and another 1895 recipe that specifies curaçao. I'm not disagreeing that we know of this mostly as a drink with maraschino, I'm just pointing out that the versions with curaçao instead of maraschino predate the 20th century. I wouldn't assume that the cocktailDB recipe dates from a time when maraschino was scarse in US bars (indeed, I assume quite the opposite). And I don't think the option was added editorially by them. To the best of my knowledge, they indicate substitutions and options only where they are found in the source recipes (they unfortunately don't give source information in their entries). If you would like to make a substitution in a recipe where none was indicated in the source material, you have to click the link for that spirit and read the entry to see their suggestions. With respect to maraschino, I think it's worthy of note that the best they can do is an "imperfect substitute."

Peas, mint, butter lettuce, chicken stock. Cook peas in just enough chicken stock to cook them through (fresh peas take a lot more cooking), reduce chicken stock until it is almost a glaze, add mint and lettuce, wilt, eat. Spring on a plate. Peas with béchamel, the meat of your choice, a little grating cheese and some undercooked ziti baked together in the oven is very nice.

Oh, it's an even larger difference than that, IMO. Several years ago, Fat Guy and I did a hamburger experiment where we were trying out different fat contents and different mixtures of beef cuts. We ground everything to order in my meat grinder. We also had bought one package of high-quality preground beef that had recently come out of the grinder as a "control." When we tried a bite of that burger, after having tried small bites of maybe a dozen different burger iterations we had ground to order, we both immediately spit it out and started laughing. Once we were used to the flavor of the fresh ground beef, something tasted horribly off about the preground stuff. It was a familiar taste (the taste of oxidation) that ordinarily wouldn't have bothered us. But the contrast was striking.

Actually, I think some of the oldest recipes don't call for maraschino, and some of them do call for curaçao. JT's recipe calls for 2 ounces of (red) vermouth, one of Old Tom gin, 2 dashes of maraschino (let's call that a teaspoon) and a dash Boker's -- this is interesting because it is a vermouth drink, not a gin drink. Other recipes (see here for some historical examples) call for equal parts of (London dry?) gin and vermouth, a few dashes of bitters and either simple syrup or, you guessed it, curaçao. In some recipes (like this one) it's maraschino that's given as the optional liqueur, and curaçao that's given as standard.

Not exactly. It's not the temperature control that makes it sous vide. You could cook a piece of beef at 54.4C for by simply having it sit in the water bath. This would not be sous vide. What makes it sous vide is that the food is cooked in a sealed container usually a plastic bag) from which all the air has been evacuated. It just so happens that precise temperature control is one of the things that makes sous vide cooking so interesting, but it's not required. You could vacuum-seal food into a bag and cook it in simmering water on the stove if you wanted to. This would be sous vide cooking. There are other things we may sometimes do with our sous vide equipment that are technically not sous vide cooking (for example, pre-cooking vegetables in an open container at a precice temperature to deactivate a certain enzyme). The big difference is that the contents of the crock pot are not under vacuum. This means that certain flavors will be created/eliminated/not retained due to the exposure to oxygen and relative open-ness to the air. In practical terms, crock pots simply do not have the temperature stability, precision and range of temperatures that we would like to have to do the most interesting things with sous vide. There is no cooking tough cuts of beef for 48 hours at 55C in a crock pot. With respect to heat-transfer, if the food is in a container, then heat is only being transferred into one part of the food item. Relatively little heat is conducted into the part that is not touching a surface of the container. When the food is vacuum-sealed in a pouch, heat is conducted into all parts of the food item.

Yea, that's what I'd be likely to do with a thicker cut of beef. Skirt steaks are so thin and cook so fast that there wouldn't be any time for basting (they probably spend 2 minutes in the pan).