slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
We don't give multiple warnings. We give one warning and if ignored, we act swiftly.
Great job, dude. What I find is often the case is that tha parents simply aren't willing to give up that dinner you gave up in order to take the kid home in the car for acting up at a restaurant. Indeed, they'll tolerate a certain amount (sometimes a lot!) of misbehavior in order to have that restaurant meal. And once the kids learn that there aren't any meaningful consequences... Well, at that age kids are nothing if not little manipulation machines (which, I should hasten to point out to any potentially horrified parents, is exactly what they should be at that age of psychological development).
-
5 - Bruni either knew what "grower Champagne" meant or didn't. (Here we're talking about before he read about it at Varietal; needless to say, he now knows what it means.)
a. If he was already familiar with "grower Champagne," why did he imply that he learned about it at the restaurant?
b. If he didn't know about "grower Champagne," he should have. Or, at least, he should have sought to educate himself and establish the term's usage and relevance before ridiculing it.
c. Again, what he wrote was:
Learn its elevated argot. What servers promote at the start of dinner isn’t just Champagne. It’s “grower Champagne,” identified that way on a special matte card, which conveys the odd impression that sparkling wine is a crop, like soybeans. The phrase in fact refers to small producers making wines from their own grapes, and if you read the text accompanying the selection of a half dozen glasses, you’ll learn that.d. I suppose it's possible the he was just really sloppy about conveying his reality, however given that his intent was clearly to demean Varietal he should have taken at least some care to be clear and correct.
I thought he wrote it to convey the impression that he thought this was a fussy and pretentious practice. This is right in line with his smirking description of Varietal's listing of various producers and growers on their menu (something that has been going on for so long that even likeminded middlebrow restaurants like Franny's do it, and including some mention of the purview of certain ingredients is almost standard in higher cuisine these days).
-
If I'm reading various sources correctly, the way the "zero waste" systems accomplish their "100% efficiency" is by running the waste water into the hot water line.
Right. So it's not 100% efficiency. They're just using the waste water for something else. The chance that restaurants are doing this is, I have to think, infinitesimal.
One way restaurants might make their own "mineral water" would be to get ahold of an analysis for their filtered local tap water and then add measured amounts of various minerals to get the profile they want.
-
Barkeeper's Friend and elbow grease, I'm afraid. I'd ordinarily recommend oven cleaner, but that's not good for anodized aluminum.
-
I don't think that's correct, Nathan. I'd like to see any manufacturer claims of the efficiency you're asserting (which would be something like 1 gallon of waste water per 33 gallons of treated water). For example, these guys say that their home system is "incredibly water efficient" because it "rejects only 1 gallon of water for every 1 gallon of drinking water that is produced." I've never seen any claims of waste water production better than 1:1 for reverse osmosis.
To be clear, reverse osmosis only works by producing waste water. There is no such thing as a reverse osmosis system that doesn't produce waste water.
To bring it back on topic, the reason I don't like the use of reverse osmosis when a restaurant is going to represent itself as using filtered municipal water instead of bottled water out of altruism and concern for the environment, is that I think it's inappropriate to use such a wasteful technology.
-
i know most of you are way too young to remember, but there was a time when there was a LOT of bad wine on the market
True, but at the same time the good wine was cheap. According to William Sokolin's investing book, Liquid Assets, 1961 Petrus came on the market at $10 a bottle ($120 a case).
Exactly! Not for nothing am I drinking a botle of Château Haut-Brion in my avatar picture taken back in 19mumblemumble. This was a wine my parents and their friends were drinking at a picnic! Among my family pictures of dinners back in the old days, one often sees bottles of Château Latour, Château Lafite Rothschild, Château Margaux, etc. on the table. These were not exactly cheap back then, but they were affordable for young college professors. Nowadays they're too expensive for most college presidents.
-
Not only is reverse osmosis filtration entirely un-needed for New York City tap water (it's something you'd generally only need to use if you have reason to be afraid of things like mercury in the water, which is not a concern in NYC) but it's also very wasteful considering that each gallon of treated water produces between 2 and 8 gallons of waste water.
Sam, are you sure this isn't a figure for treated sea water? I think the reverse osmosis filters sold for light-duty purification of tap water essentially produce 1:1.
Well, even a 1-to-1 ratio of treated water to waste water seems egregiously wasteful when it's not needed. It's true that low-volume home units can be more efficient than larger and undustrial units. It's also a fact that those units can hardly process enough water fast enough for commercial use in a restaurant. But, more to the point, it's simply not needed in New York City, and even a best-case scenario of 50% efficiency is horribly wasteful.
-
I know of at least two places that serve tap water that is filtered by reverse osmosis (whatever that means). But it's still, not sparkling.
This is too bad. Not only is reverse osmosis filtration entirely un-needed for New York City tap water (it's something you'd generally only need to use if you have reason to be afraid of things like mercury in the water, which is not a concern in NYC) but it's also very wasteful considering that each gallon of treated water produces between 2 and 8 gallons of waste water.
All that would really be needed in NYC is a ceramic sediment filter, which would remove anything down to 0.9 microns (this would filter out things like giardia, toxoplasma, cryptosporidium and entamoeba cysts as well as rust sediment from old pipes, etc.) and a big-ass activated charcoal filter to strip out water treatment chemicals like chlorine. This can be set up for very little money (I have this at home) and doesn't waste any water.
-
eanwhile, am I the only owner of a vintage Rival Ice-O-Matic ice crusher?
I've got a couple of 'em. They rawk.
-
My solution is to add a pinch of salt every time I make simple syrup.
Interesting idea. I'm getting ready to do some simple syrup versus gomme syrup testing. Maybe I should throw salted simple into the mix as well.
-
It seems to me that a few flakes of fleur de sel in a cocktail are doing what salt is usually supposed to do: heighten flavors.
Yea, I imagine that's true. I wonder what would happen if we experimented with an eyedropper of salt water for cocktails.
It's worth pointing out, while on the subject, that it's a bit of a waste to use fancy expensive sea salt in a cocktail. Once it's dissolved into the liquid, fleur de sel won't taste any different than any other kind of salt. Probably best, if one is going to use salt crystals rather than salt water, would be the finest grained salt you can find.
-
I'm pretty sure the Wells WB-2 is a regular waffle maker. In any event, there are regular waffle makers out there that conform to commercial specs and cost hundreds of dollars, e.g. this one from BigTray. I just wonder if they're any good.
Yea, I wonder if they're good as well. My experience is that, to my taste, modern waffle makers produce a waffle with pockets that aren't deep enough, and as a result the waffle isn't as fluffy and light as it could be. Then again, I grew up with the old Sunbeam, so that's what seems "right" to me for a standard (i.e., not Belgian-style) waffle. I'm sure the Sumbeam couldn't keep up with the commercial units in terms of volume, but on a single waffle-to-single waffle comparison, I wouldn't be shocked if the Sunbeam came out on top.
-
"Midtown" is a pretty big area to cover, more or less covering everything between 34th and 59th Streets. Can you be more specific? What price range are you looking for?
-
It should be pointed out thast these are all commercial-style Belgian waffle bakers, which is another thing entirely.
-
1. Know the properties of the wine you're going to be cooking with (e.g., sweet vs dry, tannic vs soft, etc.) and make sure you're using one with the appropriate characteristics for the effect you want.
2. Don't cook with any wine you couldn't at least choke down if someone had a gun pointed at your head. This primarily means spoiled (corked, etc.) wines and wines with serious off-flavors.
...we have to add the cardinal rule though
3. Don't cook with 'cooking wine'
Isn't that covered by #2 above? Cooking wine is in no way drinkable.
-
The thing that's so befuddling is that, in a rational world, every manufactured product would improve over time or, at worst, stay the same.
The companies want to make more profits. That means two things: spending less money on materials/construction and driving repeat sales via planned obsolesence.
If you look at the Sunbeam waffle iron, for example, that thing is built like a tank. My parents have one that has been in weekly use for over 50 years, and it's still going strong. It makes 4 waffles at a time. It has heavy, deep, thick plates for making waffles and completely separate plates for making pancakes or use as a sandwich press. There's just no way any modern company is going to put that kind of craftsmanship and materials into a waffle iron unless they plan to sell it for over 100 bucks (average for a waffle iron seems to be around 30 bucks, with a top price of maybe $70).
-
Pomeranian - cross between a Salty Dog and a gimlet
D'oh! I think JAZ beat you to the name.
Although I'm sure plenty of people are discovering that name, with the popularity of pomegranate juices, infusions and liqueurs. -
Many people prefer the old KitchenAid mixers, which had stronger motors and all metal gearing.
-
I think the rules of thumb should be:
1. Know the properties of the wine you're going to be cooking with (e.g., sweet vs dry, tannic vs soft, etc.) and make sure you're using one with the appropriate characteristics for the effect you want.
2. Don't cook with any wine you couldn't at least choke down if someone had a gun pointed at your head. This primarily means spoiled (corked, etc.) wines and wines with serious off-flavors.
I've always meant to find a decent red and a decent white wine-in-a-box I could keep around for cooking purposes. The thing that's great about the wine-in-a-box delivery system is that the wine is actually inside a bag inside the box. The bag just shrinks in size as wine is poured out the spigot, which means that no air is actually going into the bag -- which means no oxidation, which means you can keep the box around for months and use a bit of wine here and there for cooking as you need it.
-
P.S. - After the sear, add lots of butter, thyme, and crushed garlic cloves and baaaaaaste away!
Hmm. If I'm laying out substantial coin for a great steak, the last thing I want to do is obscure the beef flavor with garlic or herbs.
I imagine the sous-vide approach would yield slightly different, and possibly better, results. If the idea is that the whole steak gets brought up to 130 degrees or whatever, you're going to have uniform color and texture throughout, save for the bit of the surface that you pan-sear (or broil, or torch) at the end. Whereas, when you sear then roast, you get more gradations of doneness from center to exterior. The reason the sous-vide approach may be better is that, in my experience at least, most other methods of cooking steak result in an overcooked, dried-out layer just under the exterior char.Another way to do it would be to bring the steak up to, say, 54C (medium-rare is 52–55C, aka 125–130F) for a few hours and then let it go back down to around 50C and hold there until it's ready to be seared and served. Then, when the meat is quickly seared in a very hot pan to form a crust, the interior will heat back up to 54C but the searing time will be long enough for there to be a desirable degree of gradation of doneness without going so far as to get the overcooked layer you describe.
Also, if you use the water bath or steam oven to hold the meat at temperature for several hours, it may change its texture. I wonder if this would be particularly beneficial for lower-quality steaks.This did seem to be the case in Vadouvan's experiments, if I'm reading correctly. Collagen converts to gelatin at 55C, so in order to have any tenderizing effect on a less-than-perfect porterhouse or strip steak, I think you'd need to take it up to that temperature. The good news is that these are naturally tender cuts of meat with little collagen, so even a not-so-good porterhouse or strip steak should be somewhat tenderized by spending a couple of hours at 55C. I'd hesitate to keep it at that temperature much longer, though, or I think the texture would become insipid and mealy.
While we're talking about such things, it should be noted that most home broiling apparatus is a very pale shadow of restaurant equipment.I think this is also often true with respect to a home grill: Either the grill isn't that good to begin with, or it's not loaded/fired/preheated/managed properly, or the fuel isn't very good, etc. It's possible, I know, to get a great grilled steak on a Webber grill with Kingsford charcoal, just like it's possible to get a great omelet out of a thin stainless steel pan on an electric stove -- but both of those things take a good bit of knowledge, experience and expertise. This is another reason I think a lot of home steak grillers reach for the seasoned salt, garlic rub, etc.
-
Fee Brothers now has a limited edition barrel aged bitters out. It's outstanding. Get it while you can.
-
Thanks for the link, guzzirider. It would seem that, unless you want to add the smokey flavor from charcoal grilling (and also, unless you have a konro with bincho-tan charcoal), sous vide followed by searing for crust would be the best technique. Interestingly, that's more or less idea of Fat Guy's "French method" (sear with butter to create a crust and then gently cook to temperature) only in reverse (gently cook to temperature and then sear with butter to create a crust)..
-
According to the NY Post, DeMarco's is probably going to close for good:
The West Houston Street restaurant closed after the March 14 massacre in which employee Alfredo Romero Morales, 33, was shot in the back 15 times."I don't think my daughter is going to reopen the restaurant," said Dom De Marco, owner of Di Fara Pizzeria in Brooklyn.
Apparently the restaurant had been on the brink of closure for some time anyway, which doesn't come as too big a surprise to those of us who had followed the place since it's opening. The pizza simply wasn't ever very good, and there was little reason not to walk a few blocks East to Arturos for a better (and cheaper, I'd guess) pizza.
-
When you broil, the melted fat just runs off the meat into the platter on which the steak is resting. When you grill, the melted fat runs off the meat into the flames and burns.
If I'm paying 35 bucks for a dry-aged prime-of-the-prime porterhouse, I want a deeply maillardized, crusted steak -- I don't want any burnt, carbonized flavors. This would tend to favor broiling. Broiling also has the advantage of retaining the melted steak fat, which can then be spooned over the steak and sopped up with bread. A trip to Peter Luger really demonstrates, among other things, how much of beef's flavor comes from the fat.
If I'm going to be eating a cheapo strip steak or something like a marinated flank steak or garlic-rubbed skirt steak, then grilling might be my choice. The char and burnt flavors in this context are adding to the overall flavor profile and aren't muddying expensively dry aged flavors. I have a theory that many people who think paying extra for expensive dry aged prime beef is silly are largely taking their steaks off the grill (often with the addition of a spice rub or seasoned salt). I'm not surprised it's difficult to tell the difference in this context.
There are, of course, methods that split the difference. Bistecca alla Fiorentina, a thick porterhouse of chianina beef grilled over vine cuttings, is somehow done in a way that the exterior is not burned -- and although the beef fat is lost to the fire, this is more than compensated by a generous drizzle of top quality Tuscan extra virgin olive oil.
Q&A -- Understanding Stovetop Cookware
in The eGullet Culinary Institute (eGCI)
Posted
2 mm of carbon steel is quite a bit. Carbon steel is conductive enough that I wouldn't expect hot spots to be a problem the way they are on thin stainless steel or thin enameled carbon steel. And keep in mind that, at 0.51 w/cm K carbon steel may have so-so thermal conductivity compared to aluminum alloy at 1.63 or cast aluminum at 1.21, but at it's still way better than stainless steel at 0.16, and not that far from cast iron at 0.80. I'd expect these pans to perform over standard heat somewhat similar to cast iron.