slkinsey

Steeping/boiling tobacco tends to kill the people who drink the water due to nicotine poisoning. Eating tobacco tends to produce a very upset stomach, and can also kill you in fairly small amounts. With either way, its pretty easy to take in enough nicotine to make you very sick.

Heh. I can remember hearing about some friends of the family who returned from a trip in Italy and remarked, "it was a good time, but the Italian food was unrelenting."

Hmm. That's true, I guess. Although I'd argue that rye and cognac have much wider applicability in cocktails compared to cachaca. I also don't think it makes much sense to make a Manhattan or Sazerac with, e.g., Rittenhouse 21 except as a "once in a blue moon" special treat. They're awesome, but not that much better than the same drink made with the regular bonded version. If you're interested, you can get a bottle or Busnel, which is the calvados with which Audrey created the drink, for around 25 bucks. Hmm. I think it has a whole lot more "applejack flavor," which I suppose isn't quite the same thing as "apple flavor." But there is unquestionably a huge difference in intensity of flavor between the two. Anyway, I'd be interested to see how you think the bonded applejack shows in your typical blended applejack cocktails if you make your own "blended" by using half bonded applejack and half vodka. Yea. Most of those ones, if I am not mistaken, were formulated back in the days when you could only get the blended version. They work great, so no reason to reformulate. But I wonder how many people with access to both are developing new recipes with the blended stuff. I know that back when I was playing "Johnny Bonded Applejack-Seed" and giving out bottles of the then-unavailable bonded stuff to my NYC 'tender friends, they tended to disappear in very short order. This is not to say, of course, that there aren't any possible applications where the milder blended stuff isn't better. Similarly, I prefer the less emphatic profile of Old Overholt over Rittenhouse bonded in certain cocktails. But I guess I just love bonded applejack so much I've never had a cocktail with blended that I wouldn't prefer with bonded.

I've tried the Bitter Truth OFW at Pegu, and the general consensus seemed to be that it tasted like soap. Or was it bath beads? Bathroom cleaner? I can't remember. Something having to do with the bathroom, I think. Anyway, "this tastes good" or "I'll start using this over Monteux" was never heard. I know that. Besides, I'm not sure why you'd want to move away from Monteux, which is a great product that kind of defines the standard.

Having made many of these in my time, I'd have to disagree. A caipirinha made with Fazenda Mae de Ouro is about fifty times better than one made with Pitu (and for not that much more money per bottle either, in absolute terms). Not that much more money per bottle? Pitu is something like 13 bucks for a liter. Fazenda Mae de Ouro is something like 28 bucks a liter. That's a pretty big difference in my book. Now, I do agree that MdO is far superior, and that Pitu is pretty rank. I'd love to do a side-by-side tasting of caipirinhas made with $28/liter MdO and $15/liter Velho Barreiro to see if there really is a 13 dollar difference. In my book, anything up to 5 bucks a liter is a small enough difference that it really doesn't make sense not to spend more money if the more expensive spirit is higher in quality. Anything over a $10/liter price difference, and I'll do some serious thinking about whether the difference in quality is worth the difference in price in the context of the cocktails I am likely to make. This consideration is, obviously, also affected by absolute price below a certain price point. I am not likely to think twice about buying a 17 dollar bottle of whiskey over a 6 dollar bottle of whiskey. But I am likely to think twice about buying a 28 dollar bottle of whiskey over a 17 dollar bottle of whiskey, if the 17 dollar bottle is already pretty good. I might have to disagree with that too. (Contrarian I am today!) I keep both around for drinks, because I actually tend to think the bonded packs a bit too much oomph for certain cocktails. The Jack Rose? No question; the bonded's edge is practically required to balance the drink correctly, and its assertiveness is nicely showcased. For various other cocktails (especially for substituting applejack for VSOP calvados in, say, a Tantris sidecar) I find that the regular bottling works better. Hmm. I can think of very few applications for which I would prefer the blended Laird's, and fewer still I couldn't do a little better than blended by tempering some bonded applejack with vodka. As for your Tantris Sidecar example, that makes some sense to me. But that's because this particular cocktail really needs the suave cognac-like smoothness of calvados instead of the rough whiskey-like bite of applejack. By going with the blended Laird's, you're dialing way back on applejack's whiskey tendencies. So it's a better fit in that regard. But, you're also losing out on a lot of apple flavor. Neither one is a very good solution, IMO. To my mind, it's use calvados or just don't make the Tantris Sidecar. I'm curious as to what other cocktails you like better with blended Lairds?

A common problem in America is confusing real Italian (or Chinese, Mexican, etc.) food with Italian-American (or American Chinese or Tex-Mex, etc.) food. When one goes to an "Italian" restaurant in America, the chances are around 99.9% that it is actually an Italian-American restaurant. Since so many Americans have come to associate "red sauce Italian-American" cooking with "Italian food," it's understandable how they wouldn't appreciate Tuscan cooking as "Italian food." Italian-American food is no more Italian cooking than Cajun food is French country cooking. They have evolved into something else. Something good, but something different.

A lot of this, I believe, stems from the vodka marketing campaigns that associate price and a fancy bottle with prestige and quality. But, if this thread is about anything, it's about the fact that price doesn't always equal the best quality when it comes to cocktails. Rather, it's about determining the right price point for cocktails. I wouldn't use Rittenhouse 21 (at $150 a bottle) in making a Brooklyn Cocktail. On the other hand, the dramatic quality difference between using Rittenhouse Bonded and Jim Beam Rye more than makes up for the trifling $3-per-bottle price difference. Then again, as I mention upthread, the quality difference between Laird's Applejack (80 proof and blended with only around 30% apple brandy) and Laird's Bonded (100 proof and 100% apple brandy) is so striking and obvious that it makes the roughly $4-per-bottle price difference a no-brainer. This is perhaps the largest four dollar jump in quality in spirits.

This is, I think, an instance where the instructions don't quite tell you how to make the drink the right way. The whole point of the Crusta is that it has a) a sugared rim, and b) that the spiral cut of lemon peel goes all the way around the inside rim of the glass. Here is a picture of a modern Brandy Crusta from the good folks at the Museum of the American Cocktail. I think it shows how the lemon peel should be deployed. Over here is a good look at the image of the Brandy Crusta from JT's book. eG has a thread on the Crusta here. Not sure when people started adding Maraschino to the Crusta. It isn't in the recipe JT gives.

In what world are Gordon's and Old Overholt considered bad, unbalanced spirits? In my circles, they are considered absolutely first-rate spirits. If they made higher proof versions (say, 95 proof Gordon's and 100 proof Old Overholt), I'd probably use them both as my primary brands -- and I wouldn't be alone. I'm not really aware of any truly deplorable rye bottling. Probably Jim Beam rye occupies the lowest rung of that ladder, but even that is pretty good. As for gin, you've got to go a long way down from Gordon's before you get near the bottom. I'd like to see you make an outstanding Martini or Aviation with, say, Llord's Gin.

No, no, no! The Bitter Truth orange flower water is terrible! Stick with the Monteux brand. It is by far the best. For those of you who don't have any, the bottle looks like this. The French style is stronger, IMO (1.5 ounces seems like a lot -- 2 drops is normally enough for a Ramos Fizz). And the flavors are also somewhat different.

How do you mean "nonskillet" pans? Do you mean nonstick pans, or regular uncoated pans that are in a frypan shape instead of a straight-sided shape like a cast iron skillet? As for the second part of the question, sure there are times when using more oil is good. These days, however, we're more likely looking to reduce our consumption of fat rather than increasing it. Also, there are instances where having less fat seems to produce a more crisp result.

This seems to be getting awfully far afield. Regardless what some members of academia may have to say on the matter, a critic is one who offers criticism or, as Merriam-Webster puts it: "one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances" and criticism as "the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis." I would suggest that the "art" part of this definition is a bit old-fashioned, as someone these days could certainly be a "sitcom critic," and I don't imagine too many of us think of "Joey" as "Art." Yes, there may be certain areas of academia in which "criticism" has a different and more refined meaning. There are certain areas of academia in which all kinds of words have different and more refined meanings.

Oh, come on! How can you say that a day of early-afternoon mirth is a non-event? I'm sure this will be the talk of the town for at least another sev-- oh, look! Something shiny!

I think the idea of tracing the evolution of a recipe from its Italian roots to its eventual Italian-American incarnation, and documenting the various influences that may have guided its transformation is an interesting one. But in many cases, it seems like an impossible one.

Heh. Well, yea. That goes without saying, although -- what the heck? -- let's say it anyway.

I didn't say it was read by more people than Chodorow's ad in the Times. The implication above was that nobody has publicly made these arguments before. That is certainly incorrect. Well, yea. The arguments have been made before, but I would argue that they haven't been made before on anywhere near this kind of stage and to anywhere near this volume of readership. So, for whatever it's worth, by virtue of the circulation and iconic status of the NY Times, and the fact that it's literally happening in their own backyard, this does seem like the "calling out" of Bruni and the Times that's likely to make the biggest splash thus far.

This piece? In the St. Petersburg Times? I hardly think that would be read by more people than Chodorow's ad in the New York Times. It's also by no means the scathing and direct open criticism of Bruni's qualifications that Chodorow presents. Or they're being read by the same 2,500 people again and again on various different web sites.

It's not that the high proof alcohol will do something nasty to the fruit. Rather, it's the case that the high proof alcohol is already pretty nasty. The problem with using something like 151 proof Everclear, or any other grain alcohol, is that they are not highly refined. A big part of the vodka-making process is repeated re-distillation (rectification) and filtration to ensure that the result is, to the greatest extent possible, an azeotropic solution of ethanol and water at 96% abv. This is one of the things that makes vodka so smooth. Everclear and other high proof grain alcohols, on the other hand, do not seem to receive this treatment. (Companies that use high proof alcohol, such as the Italian limoncello makers, seem to do some degree of refinement to smooth out the end product, but this does not seem to be available at retail.) Try this experiment: pour yourself an ounce of 100 proof Smirnoff, and then make yourself an ounce of "100 proof Everclear" by mixing 2/3 ounce of Everclear 151 and 1/3 ounce of neutral-tasting spring water. Chill both in the freezer for an hour and then taste them. Taste them again at room temperature. The "100 proof Everclear" will be very rough compared to the 100 proof Smirnoff. As for the infusion time, that's hard to say. Just try a tiny bit of it every day until you get a flavor you like.

Points that haven't been made a thousand times before where, exactly? Here? In other internet discussion forums, on blogs and on internet sites? Although this may not be true for us -- we're here reading this, after all -- posting things on the internet hardly constitutes "public" for most of the public. A full page ad in the New York Times directly across from the restaurant reviews, on the other hand...

I don't necessarily disagree. But, then again, I'm not comparing him to reviewers like David Rosengarten and Ruth Reichl either.

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree that Grimes has paramount importance as a cocktail historian -- unless there's something beyond that one book of which I am unaware. And whether or not he wrote about food off and on for 20 years, according to Chodorow's summary of his conversations with Mrs. Grimes, they almost never went out to dinner before he became the food critic for the Times.

I wouldn't call a peach- or melon-infused vodka a "-cello" since that's something I think is probably most appropriate for citrus zest-infused, sweetened alcohol. Anyway, for what you want to do, I'd simply chop up some fruit, cover it with 100 proof vodka and infuse until you get the intensity of flavor you're after. Then strain out the fruit and sweeten with rich simple syrup to taste, if desired.

One could argue that Chodorow's many years of experience in the restaurant business gives him as much or more cred than Bruni, Platt, Grimes, etc.

I don't think the Bo Ssam was mentioned in a way that will make review-readers order it any more than people had been in the past. It's not even clear that Bruni tried the Bo Ssam, or even the baby one, since he doesn't say anyhing about it other than that it exists (I have to believe that anyone who tried it would rave).

What I think is interesting is that he's planning on starting a blog called "Following Frank and After Adam" where he plans to visit the restauraunts reviewed by the aforementioned critics and then post a review of the review. It will be at: http://chinagrillmgt.com/blog Edited: to fix URL