slkinsey

I'm not sure I agree that it changes with the times. Fundamentally you have two parts of the animal: muscle meat and other stuff. The other stuff is offal. So, for example, there was a time when skirt steak wasn't eaten much in America. Then, as America discovered fajitas, and now it's very popular. But it was always meat. An expanded definition of offal might also include "little greasy bits of muscle meat that are hard to get out in one appetizingly large piece." To make a few examples: Tongue? Not offal. Beef and pork cheeks? Not offal. Trotters? Not offal. Marrow? Offal. Sweetbreads? Offal. Liver? Offal. Mousse de foie gras? Offal. Here are some things I've written in other threads that are pertinent to this discussion: <blockquote>I'd say that the easiest definition of offal would be the "fifth quarter" -- which is to say, all the stuff that's left over after the animal is separated into the four primary quarters of muscle meat. This would include the organs and glands, of course, but would also include things like tendons, blood, ears, nervous tissue, etc. -- and, of course, the products made from them, like scrapple, blood sausage, haggis, pate, pölsa, etc.</blockquote> I had originally included feet and head in the above, but I'm not sure I agree with that anymore. The meat that comes from feet and heads is all just meat, and not offal. I wouldn't consider a boiled pig's trotter to be offal. Products made by boiling whole feet or a whole head, known by names like testa, head cheese, souse meat, etc., might be considered offal under the expended definition. <blockquote>The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines offal as: "Waste meat; the parts of an animal butchered which are unfit for use or rejected." The current (10th) edition of Webster's has it as: "1 : the waste or by-product of a process: as a : trimmings of a hide b : the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds c : the viscera and trimmings of a butchered animal removed in dressing : VARIETY MEAT" The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the word origins as: "1398, "waste parts, refuse," from off + fall; the notion being that which "falls off" the butcher's block; perhaps a translation of M.Du. afval."</blockquote> I think it's entirely possible for a food to be both offal and an expensive luxury ingredient.

The 1828 Webster's dictionary defines offal as: "Waste meat; the parts of an animal butchered which are unfit for use or rejected." The current (10th) edition of Webster's has it as: "1 : the waste or by-product of a process: as a : trimmings of a hide b : the by-products of milling used especially for stock feeds c : the viscera and trimmings of a butchered animal removed in dressing : VARIETY MEAT" The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the word origins as: "1398, "waste parts, refuse," from off + fall; the notion being that which "falls off" the butcher's block; perhaps a translation of M.Du. afval."

Yea, maybe. That's what I'd like to see. We all know that if we leave a glass of wine or bourbon out overnight, it ends up plenty oxygenated. I can definitely see how freezing and re-freezing would result in less dissolved gas than using water that had just come out of the tap (especially one with an aerator). But I'm less certain it will work better than using boiled water, and I'd like to experiment with taking boiling water directly to the freezer.

Vewry cool, Angus! Some observations and questions: It took that guy almost 5 minutes just to make the ice ball, and that's before he started making the drink. How many cusomers does a bar like that serve? Also, how much would he charged for a drink at that bar? Is the ice-ball drink more expensive? I could see something like this working at a very small, expensive bar like Milk & Honey here in Chinatown (indeed, I once had a great Old Fashioned there where the bartender took a big lump of ice and chipped it down to barely fit into the glass). But I can't see how it would work in a bigger place that did any more volume. I suppose you could pre-carve and store the ice balls in the freezer (which would actually make for higher quality ice), but clearly the making of the ice ball is part of what you pay for. Angus: The bartender didn't seem to be going to any particular trouble to make sure the customer could see him working on the ice ball (doing some of it hunched over a bar sink, for example). Isn't this supposed to be part of the show? Hmm. I guess I have a hard time understanding why the water wouldn't simply reabsorb gas once it went back into liquid form. And since cold water can hold more dissolved gas than warm water, this seems almost counterproductive. And yet, I guess people wouldn't do it if it didn't have some effect. I'm going to have to do some experimentation.

Hmm. Yea, spreading tomato pulp out onto a silpat on a halfsheet pan in a low oven might be the way to go.

I don't think they work without the lid on (although others may have better data ant I on that).

Amato Opera, bless them all, would be the equivalent of Fried Dumpling. All the major NYC schools put on full staged operas that are reviewed. Adam Rapp may be a good example. But, still, I have to believe he's getting at least 6 weeks of full day rehearsals, and several days of previews before they open. By the time that's happened, the director and playright will have made most of the necessary adjustments and the performers will have had plenty of practice. In terms of "being ready for a review" I still assert that they're miles ahead of a restaurant. And, of course, there are plenty of other reasons (a limited run being primary) why it makes sense to review the opening performance. Sneakeater: Not sure I agree about contemporary opera. I think if you look you'll see that both the Met and especially City Opera have done plenty of opera composed in the last 20 years.

I've done it before, with a long-cooked Italian-American style tomato sauce. Here's the thing: If you crock-cook the tomato sauce for 12+ hours, the sugars are going to caramelize and the sauce will turn a kind of "brick red/brown" and will take on a distinctive flavor. This is good for that style of sauce, but not something I'd want to have for everyday use. I don't think you'd have much luck making tomato paste out of tomatoes this way, primarily because slow cookers aren't designed to allow for evaporation. Also, commercial tomato paste is made with evaporators and doesn't heat the tomato enough to meaningfully cook it. So even if you were to cook the tomato pulp down to sonething that was as concentrated as tomato paste, it would be completely different.

Agreed as well. But, similarly, we should point out that most theatrical productions do not get a featured review in the New York Times. Nor do most restaurants. So the comparison, I would think, would be between those that do.

I hadn't intended to respond to your earlier counterarguments, because I thought it might draw the conversation off-topic, but I might as well revisit to point out that I disagree and why... I suppose it depends on the level of the professional theatrical production ,and of course the vast majority of professional theatrical productions are not reviewed in the pages of the New York Times. I'd say that a Broadway-level play likely to get a significant Times review (something like, say, "Copenhagen" or "Wicked" or "Frost/Nixon" or "Denial") was very likely workshopped and revised as it was written, possibly pre-run in some other city depending on budget, and had a rehearsal period far more extensive than 3 days of previews with the paint still drying on the set. Fairly commonplace for a staged play would be something like a "short" four to six weeks of rehearsal and perhaps as many as ten previews before exposing the play to the press. Musicals, because they cost so much more, are likely to have a more involved process. Yes, I know. I've done many, many, many performances of comedic works. I've also seen plenty of restaurants go into operating with paying customers. And I can tell you that the adjustments that must be made to account for audience response in a staged comedy are so trifling in comparison as to be hardly worth mention. In a restaurant, the customers are almost like a part of the cast. Ultimately these are all just examples. The larger point is that there are lots of huge differences between what goes into putting together a theatrical performance or art show or whatever, and opening a restaurant. Those things make it more appropriate, and often necessary, to review the theatrical production on opening night, whereas with restaurants there are many factors which argue in favor of waiting. With restaurants it might be ideal to run a brief "early look" shortly after opening and then reserve a full review until 4-6 months down the road.

What you'll be missing is the recirculating part of the deal, which serves to make sure that all the water in the vessel is at the same temperature. Depending on where the heat is coming from, it's possible that there could be fluctuations of several degrees depending on where you place the probe. Also, it's not clear to me that you're saving too terribly much money. How much are you going to spend on the roaster? You say your spent 20 bucks on the roaster, then there's another 45 bucks for the PID controller and probe, assuming those are reasonably accurate prices. For ten more dollars you could buy that Lauda B-1 recirculating heater and use it with a large stock pot you already own (or even a large plastic bus bin or pickle barrel). It's not clear from your earlier post whether you spent as much as $170 refurbishing the roaster. If you did, you're spending more money to have something that at best I think would be not quite as good as using a real recirculating water bath heater. To compare: If you spent, say, 100 bucks on a recirculating water bath heater and 30 bucks on a 16 quart stainless stockpot at Target, you'd have spend less money, you'd have something that works better, and you'd have a kickass stockpot that could be used for many other things. To the best of my knowledge, ths Lauda B-1 recirculating water bath heater controls to within less than 0.5 degrees C. If one is patient, deals on even more recent model recirculating water bath heaters come up on eBay and elsewhere.

Using a metal spoon shouln't make any difference. After, the screen and plunger are made out of metal.

There's some discussion of this here in the Q&A thread to my eGCI class on cookware. My opinion can be summed up in two points: First, it's definitely not worth paying the markup over regular cast iron. Second, nickel isn't something I'd particularly care to ingest in extra amounts.

Andie, I'm not saying that these roasters have no usefulness at all. I am simply saying that they have very limited usefulness for someone who would like to do real sous vide cooking, especially if they want to take advantage of the full range of things that make sous vide and interesting and unique. That's simply a fact. This is, after all, a thread about laboratory water baths for use in sous vide cooking.

Unfortunately, 150F/65C is not particularly useful for extended sous vide cooking, and for shorter cooking times (e.g., for fish) it's unclear that these roasters offer any advantages over simply heating a large stock pot of water to temperature on the stove. It's unclear to me that there is a reasonably unflawed solution for sous vide temperature control that exists between simply heating up a big stockpot of water to temperature and doing short-duration and waiting around for a decent recirculating water bath heater to come up on eBay for around 75 bucks (like this one). The problem with the other solutions is that the temperature regulation is too imprecise, or doesn't offer the desired range of temperatures, or is likely to have some spots hotter than others, or is likely to cycle up and down, etc. For most long duration sous vide cooking, these are all important considerations. For short duration sous vide cooking, a big stockpot and a thermometer will do just as well as anything short of a laboratory recirculating water bath heater.

Fiasco in Italian has the primary meaning of "flask." It also has a secondary meaning carrying the same meaning as the English word, that being a spectacular failure. Rossini was known to send letters to friends with a drawing of a bottle to indicate that one of his operas had failed upon opening. I've read that the secondary connotation derives from the practice of disgruntled Italian opera patrons expressing their displeasure by blowing across the tops of wine bottles to make a hooting noise (similar to booing), but I have no idea whether this has any real support (I've heard several other seemingly plausible explanations as well).

Jeff, I'd suggest it's possible that, since you made the drink with a paste of mint and used regular ice, it's not surprizing you were underwhelmed. IMO, aggressive muddling of the mint extracts bitter flavors and, as you observed, leads to little bits of mint floating around in the drink. Better to lightly bruise the mint and use a lot of mint sprigs as a garnish. As for using straight ice cubes instead of crushed, it seems to me that it isn't a julep without crushed ice and you're missing a crucial part of the game if the ice isn't crushed. This isn't difficult to do, by the way. No special tools are required. Just wrap a whole bunch of ice in a tea towel and whack it with a hammer, meat mallet, muddler, or even a cast iron skillet, until the ice is pulverised. Voila! Crushed ice.

Just to clear a few things up... Rye and bourbon are two different kinds of whiskey, the former being (mostly) rye-based and the latter being (mostly) corn-based. Rittenhouse is a rye whiskey brand which is sold at several ages and alcoholic strengths (and prices!). The most popular Rittenhouse bottling among cocktailians is "bottled in bond" (see note) -- also called "bonded" -- which is 100 proof. One of the things we're talking about in this thread is that any base spirit may be used in a julep. At some point in time an orthodoxy and mythology grew up around bourbon and Kentucky with respect to the julep, although per some of the posts above, neither of these things appear to be true from a historical standpoint. I've been drinking rye juleps lately, made with Rittenhouse bonded or Wild Turkey rye, and have liked them very much. Both are 100 proof spirits, and I have found that higher proof spirits work well in a julep. Wild Turkey 101 bourbon would also make a nice "traditional" julep. On the other hand, Dave recommends a julep made with cognac and a float of 151 proof rum. I've had that one as well, and it is very nice indeed. Laird's bonded applejack is good too. If you're in a mind to explore the julep further and step away from brown spirits, I am very fond of gin juleps (again, using something higher proof like Tanqueray or Junipero), and a genever julep is a great change of pace. Er... I wouldn't recommend a vodka julep, but most everything else is fair game. Note: "Bottled in Bond" refers to American spirits produced according to the Bottled Bond Act of 1894. This is a way to avoid paying excise tax until the spirits are aged and ready for sale, and was also originally indended to ensure that the spirit was actually what it claimed to be (adulteration and faking being a common problem at that time). Bonded spirits are aged no less than four years in a government bonded warehouse and must be bottled at proof (50% abv).

It seems like the effect of this change is: more Bruni, less anyone else.

I want it to do twists, sometimes long twists for Vesper Cocktails. If I slip with a pairing knife, I need another lemon (or a bandaid). If you have a sharp knife and fresh lemons, it's a cinch. Just saying.

DemeraraDrinker: why do you want to cut narrow strips of peel, such that you would need a channel knife? I've frankly never found a channel knife or peeler that does as good a job as using a nice sharp paring knife and tripping the pith off the backside. I'd only use a channel knife to make a horse's neck garnish.

http://kalustyans.com/

Brilliant. Can you explain in what sense it's "fair" for one to be reviewed on its opening night, and not the other? It's appropriate to review different things in different ways. Plays, for example, are usually extensively workshopped and previewed. So, by the time they open, they should be largely worked out. It is, of course, possible to rehearse and refine a piece of staged theater without the need of having customers (aka, an audience). Therefore, it's more appropriate to review the opening night performance of a play. In practice, whether a play's opening night is the reviewed performance will depend on the length of the run. If it's a scheduled run of 40 performances of Macbeth with Liev Schreiber at Shakespeare in the Park, the reviewers may choose to wait a while and may not review the opening performance. If, on the other hand, it's a scheduled run of 6 performances of Verdi's Macbeth at the Met, the opening performance will be reviewed. If the opening performance weren't reviewed, the run might be almost over by the time the review found its way into print. Restaurants, on the other hand, aren't set up to have a limited run. They also don't have the luxury of 3 months of workshopping, previews and a "pre-run" in Toronto. They also are not working within a known, extensively interpreted repertoire and tradition like opera performers. They also work in a milieu in which having an audience changes everything, and they have a limited opportunity to work with a "practice audience" (3 days of F&F doesn't cut it). This makes it more appropriate, IMO, to wait a while before reviewing a restaurant. Give them a chance to rehearse. Reviewing a restaurant on opening night (or very early on) is like going to see a performance of a newly-composed opera that's only had one rehearsal. The perormers are going to settle in and get better, the composer might make some changes (Madama Butterfly was extensively revised three times after its premiere), and so on. So, to review the opera, the performers, etc. on the second rehearsal isn't meaninfgul. One could say the same thing about reviewing a restaurant in the first month.

I agree with respect to Marc's blog 100%. And yet, it sounds like Marc would agree that Bruni's word holds more weight and has more influence, and that Bruni is able to accumulate vastly more experience. More to the point, there's no restaurant in the City that would trade a single positive review from Bruni for a dozen great reviews from people like Marc. Or perhaps even more to the point, it may not be good to use Bruni as an example, since most of us agree that we don't particularly value his opinions. Maybe he does. IMO he's the textbook example of high knowledge and expertise that's unfortunately greatly devalued by axes to grind and other factors. One thing that having a professional gig in the print media brings along with it is editorial oversight and supervision. No publication would employ a restaurant reviewer with Steve Plotnicki's intractable biases (unless, for example, they never intended to review Italian restaurants). None of these are amateurs. The Strong Buzz, Restaurant Girl and Snack are all written as part of a strategy for developing the respective bloggers' professional writing careers. And again, I'm not saying it's "right," but I think the general perception from the public is that, for example, an article Jennifer Leuzzi has written for the Sun has more cred than one that is only published on Snack And, of course, everything on her site benefits from the cred she brings to the table by being a writer in the print media.

Seriously, though, isn't the "investment banker/food blogger" guy, who eats out at a different restaurant five nights a week and then has the time to sit down at his computer writing them up for his high quality, frequently updated blog a bit of a strawman? There's what, maybe two of these guys in NYC? How about well-adjusted? With a balanced opinion and something interesting to say? Maybe I'm wrong and there are dozens of these guys. And I've certainly seen some interesting writing in blogs, but they are generally along the lines of "here's what my friends and I had the one time we went there." Edited to add: Do we have any actual examples? Broadly experienced; psychologically well-balanced with no obvious axes to grind; deep knowledge of the NYC restaurant scene, well versed in restaurant culture and cuisine; hits all the major NYC restaurants and important openings, etc. to the tune of 5 nights a week; and writes a frequently-updated amateur food blog? I'm curious.