slkinsey

I've always figured that "bruising the gin" was a metaphor for the cloudy appearance of a shaken Martini as opposed to one that is stirred. As for the aromatics, I would assume that the areation/oxidation of shaking would increase volatile aromatics rather than reducing them.

You realize, of course, this means war. My home ice is approxiomately the same as the Kold-Draft ice: Around 1.5 inches a cube. If I'm shaking, I think this hits a nice sweet spot where there is enough movement in the shaker and enough shaking time to churn and aerate the liquid, and the drink cools down nicely with right around 20% dilution. When the cubes get much larger, I find that one ends up click-clacking one gigantic chunk of ice back and forth in the shaker. In terms of aeration, this is like using a spoon instead of a whisk. You can eventually whip air into cream using a spoon, but it takes a lot longer. I feel similarly about efficiency of cooling and dilution. The surface area to volume ratio is smaller with one big 3 inch cube of ice compared to eight 1.5 inch cube of ice. This means that transfer of thermal energy is less efficient. Sometimes we want it to be less efficient. Eight 1.5 inch cubes is vastly preferable to 216 half-inch cubes, which would tend to melt too fast. But at some size we reach a point of diminishing returns. In order to get the same cooling and dilution with that one 3 inch cube of ice that we get from 8 1.5 inch cubes of ice, we will have to shake a lot longer. Sometimes this may be good (e.g., a Ramos Fizz -- although there is still the issue of less efficient areation). But it's unclear to me that, say, a Blinker is improved by being shaken for 2 minutes with a huge piece of ice versus 30 seconds with somewhat smaller pieces. It also may be the case that the drink shaken with the one large piece will never be quite as cold as the drink shaken with eight smaller pieces. We should do some expermiments and check. All this is to say that, when it comes to ice for shaking, we would like a size and a shape that allows us to properly areate, chill and dilute the drink. Once we hit a large enough size to do that (and the Kold-Draft size strikes me as just about right) it's not clear that we add much value by going larger. Operating on the same principles, but with different parameters, we discover that smaller than Kold-Draft ice is best for stirred drinks. Now... as I said, that doesn't mean that huge ice doesn't still have advantages. I think it's #1 for drinks like an Old Fashioned.

Yea, I've got those ice cube trays (or something very similar). I got mine at Bed, Bath & Beyond. It's annoying that they aren't the same length as a regular ice cube tray. You either have to freeze less ice, or you have to double up and you end up with part of one tray sticking out of the ice compartment in the freezer. For what it's worth, I'd say that donbert's ice cubes are around 3 times bigger than the ones we have, maybe more. They're really cool for an Old Fashioned or something like that. I love them a little less (sorry Don!) for shaking in a standard metal/metal Boston shaker.

varicose veins, I'm not sure I buy your "alcohol bonding" theory, and I'll tell you why: The spirits used to make cocktails are almost always at least 50% water by volume (i.e., 100 proof or lower) before any additional water in the form of melting ice comes into play. Therefore, logic tells us that any such bonding would already have occured long before any ice was introduced to the spirits (indeed, the hydroxyl group is what makes ethanol miscible with water). We should also understand that we're talking about relatively weak hydrogen bonds which are continuously being formed, broken, formed again, etc. Water also forms plenty of hydrogen bonds with itself. As for whether shaking a drink can "separate the flavors" or "bruise the gin" and that sort of thing, I think it's purely mythology. Of course shaking aerates the drink, which can have an effect on texture and flavor that may work better with some spirits and some cocktails than others. But if a drink is good when shaken, shaking it "too hard" isn't going to hurt it (unless this results in excess dilution or ice shards or some other obvious defect).

Nope. Not in any bar I have worked in, nor in anyones house. You need to hang around in a better class of bar, or make better friends. :smile:' They have been freezing the stirring glasses at Pegu Club since the day they opened. There are many things that can effect dilution. The most important would be the temperature of the ice, the surface area to volume ratio of the ice (i.e., shape and size) the temperature of the spirits and the contact time with the ice. I would be happy to delve into this in (significantly) greater detail, but suffice it to say that it is possible to have a Martini that is both extremely cold and properly diluted. The point of freezing the mixing glass is simply that a glass mixing glass has a fairly large thermal capacity in this context. When ice and liquid are introduced into a room temperature mixing glass, this creates a thermal disequilibrium. Thermal energy is therefore conducted from the mixing glass into the contents of the glass, resulting in a higher overall temperature. This is the reason shaking in all metal will produce a colder drink when the equipment is at room temperature -- the thermal capacity of as thin metal cup is much lower than the thermal capacity of a thick pint glass, and therefore less thermal energy is conducted into the liquid. If the glass is cold, there is no disequilibrium, and no thermal energy is conducted into the liquid. In practice, what we would like to have is a disequilibrium that goes in the other direction, so that thermal energy is conducted from the liquid into the glass, resulting in a lower overall temperature. Given the temperature of the ice, this particular effect may be minimal. Mainly what we want is for the mixing glass to not donate thermal energy to the liquid and for the only meaningful exchange of thermal energy to take place between the ice and the liquid. So... inside the mixing glass thermal energy is still being conducted from the liquid into the ice. This has two results. First, the temperature of the liquid is lowered as thermal energy is transferred to the ice. Second, the transfer of thermal energy from the liquid to the ice creates a phase change and there is some melting of ice into the liquid. The colder the ice, the colder the liquid can be. The greater the surface area to volume ratio of the ice, the more efficient and rapid the exchange of thermal energy can be. This can also result in a colder drink and, if the ratio is too large, excess dilution. Regardless, so long as the liquid is at room temperature, there will be sufficient exchange of thermal energy to create the proper amount of dilution. Want more dilution? Crack the ice into smaller pieces. So, what do we learn from this? We learn that freezing the mixing glass is good, resulting in a colder drink that can still have sufficient dilution. We also learn that freezing the gin is bad, resulting in a cold drink but one that is unlikely to have sufficient dilution.

These proportions seem extremely untraditional for a B&S... so much so that I'd hesitate to call it a Blood and Sand at all. I do equal parts of all four, which is the most commonly-seen recipe for a B&S, although Doc's recipe features a touch more scotch and orange against the vermouth and cherry brandy. I sometimes like to throw in a dash of Lagavullin to punch up the smoke, but I consider this a step away from the real thing -- although I suppose I could consider it the same as using a really smoky blended. As discussed here in another thread, I think the choice of cherry brandy (I recommend either Cherry Heering or Cherry Marnier) makes a big difference. Phil Ward, now at Death & Company in NYC, has always had a nice touch with scotch. There's a good one of his at Pegu Club blending scotch and applejack. He also once made me an unnamed "scotchtail" that was more or less a Sidecar using blended scotch and Drambuie in place of Cognac and Cointreau, along with a dash of Angostura at the end.

This is as true with cocktails as it is with anything else. I guess I feel that most people for whom this is the case aren't shy about speaking up. If I have a friend who really only enjoys a Martini and I suggest a Twentieth Century, they're generally not shy about saying, "I really only like Martinis." In that case, I'm not put out in the least by making that person a Martini and making something else for the other drinkers (when entertaining at home, I typically make everyone the same cocktail rather than making six different cocktails to order). And, in fact, I do this exact thing regularly for a friend with very narrow cocktail preferences. But I would hesitate to call this "a whole lot of folks." It's definitely the exception rather than the rule, and by a fairly wide margin. Even though I am ultimately unlikely to influence my (different) friend away from (shudder) vodka sodas, she's always interested and happy to try something new at my house. I should hasten to add that part of the deal, especially with respect to someone who may be suspicious of trying something new, is that it has to come with the caveat "if you don't like it, I'm happy to make you something else."

Interesting, although Audrey's version contains the critical addition of a dash of pastis. What is the provenance of this cocktail? Who/when/where?

Todd, I'd recommend you get yourself a copy of Dave's Killer Cocktails. It has most of the drinks here, plus plenty of others deserving attention. What I like about it is that the number of cocktails is manageably small.

We really like the Blood & Sand at Casa slkinsey, although I typically modify it a bit to get a bit moree scotch smoke. I like something like this: Modified Blood and Sand 0.75 oz : Famous Grouse 0.75 oz : Cherry Heering (I thougt this was standard for the B&S?) 0.75 oz : Carpano Formula Antica 0.75 oz : freshly-squeezed orange juice 0.25 oz : Lagavullin For us, the smokey single malt seems to be just the bump this cocktail needs to go from interesting to delicious. Eric, part of what may have been screwing up your B&S was the use of a creme liqueur in place of cherry brandy. Something like Cherry Heering or Cherry Marnier is going to have a different flavor than a creme liqueur, and should bring a lot less sweetness to the game.

From that thread: Mardee chimes in and suggests a Stinger, which I'd support. It goes up in the same class of drinks with the Godfather/Rusty Nail (spirit modified with a liqueur). Personally, I'd also: Corpse Reviver #2: an interesting and classic "equal parts cocktail" Last Word: a cocktail that features Chartreuse. In addition, I'd suggest exploring variations of the above ideas. For example, rye whiskey is often an unexpectedly good substitute for gin in a cocktail. If you make a Last Word with rye and lemon juice instead of gin and lime, you've got a Final Ward. Great drink. Similarly, a Twentieth Century with rye and Lillet Rouge instead of gin and Blanc gives you a Nineteenth Century. Also a good one. Or try it with dark Jamaican rum for an Eighteenth Century (and so on).

I think it must be true that a riveted handle is more securely fastened to the pan than a welded handle. Demeyere can use welded handles because the pans are made of relatively light aluminum. For heavy copper pans that are designed get heavy commercial use slammed around on a stove, the stronger rivets must make a difference. It also may be the case that it would be difficult or impossible to securely weld a solid iron handle to relatively soft copper, and this may also be an issue with respect to aluminum, which is also fairly soft. I note that many of the best professional stainless steel lines (e.g., Sitram) have welded handles. I note also that Mauviel and Bourgeat use riveted handles on their copper and aluminum lines, but use welding on their stainless steel lines. As for why makers like All-Clad use rivets even on fully clad lines that seem like they could support welding, I think there are two reasons: First, it may not make any sense to use different technology to attach the handles on the different lines. If All-Clad and Calphalon must use rivets for their pans with an aluminum exterior, it's a lot simpler and easier to just use rivets for every pan. Second, manufacturers like All-Clad and Calphalon derive more than half their value from their looks. In particular, they have determined that a "professional looking" appearance is a real selling point. All-Clad has decided that rivets, even when not needed (e.g., in a mixing cup) contribute to the image that incents people to believe that their huge markups are worth it. As for cleaning aroung the rivets, I find that a squirt of oven cleaner is all that's needed.

My idea of an after dinner cocktail would be something more in the herbal/digestive family of flavors. I've never enjoyed "dessert cocktails."

Hmm. I don't know about that. What I do know is that the taller, straighter sides will make it more difficult to get a spatula in there. You don't want to be trying to flip a fish fillet in a saute pan. What saute pans are designed to do is contain the food items and bounce them back into the pan when you shake the pan back and forth. They can also be useful for doing dishes that are going to be started at a fry and then finished covered with liquid, and for quick sauces that you would like to toss with pasta in the pan. The things you describe wanting to do are things for which I, personally, would reach for a frypan.

Why wouldn't you want a frypan for this?

Laguiole is a city in France. The "Laguiole knife" is a style of folding pocket knife that originated in that city. There is no single company of manufacture nor any legal definition of what constitutes a Laguiole knife. Therefore "Laguiole knife" has no more meaning than, say, "Bowie knife" -- which is to say that it is a rough designation of style and that anyone, anywhere can make a knife of any quality out of anything they want and call it a "Laguiole knife." This is also true of non-folding ""Laguiole knives." Traditionally speaking, there is no such thing as a "Laguiole carving knife." That would be like saying you have a "folding Bowie knife."

Question: Why do you want a saute pan? What do you envision doing with it?

Yea, he really looks like he doesn't want to be there. Sloppy free-pouring. Bottled juice. Not nearly enough ice in the shaker. Lackadaisical shaking. Perfunctory slosh of the drink into the glass, which is plopped on the counter. At least the other guy seems to have a better attitude. Still, though... both of them use what, to me, is not nearly enough ice in the shaker. Why not fill the glass completely? They also both have a fairly lazy shake, and the second guy uses a peculiar shaking technique: he appears to be holding glass portion of the shaker in a fixed position with one hand while pivoting the metal end of the shaker up and down in an arc with the other. Is this an actual codified shaking technique he's using, or just something odd?

I can't imagine that the restaurants are happy about this. Is it even legal? If I were a high end restaurant and saw someone selling my reservations for $45 a pop, I might consider litigation.

Yea, yea, yea. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: none of us really pays attention to anything Dave says.

And the flamed oils also make a nice garnish for certain drinks.

I find that I get flimsy twists if I use a vegetable peeler compared to using a paring knife and trimming off the pith.

Like what? I don't necessarily need somehing from Champagne. I just don't want something that's going to be a lot sweeter, for example, or something lighter and more acidic. "Reasonably Champagne-like" would be fine.

The freshness of the fruit does seem to make a difference. Take a lemon. Take a very sharp paring knife. Cut a strip of peel down the long axis of the lemon, maybe as wide as your little finger. If you like, and I usually do, flip the peel over and trim off the pith from the underside (needless to say, you don't need to bother with this last bit if you're not dropping the twist into the drink). When you flex the peel over the surface of the drink, you should be able to notice citrus oils spraying out from the peel. The oils should be apparent on the surface of the drink, unless there is foam on the surface.

I like the occasional cocktail topped with champagne, but each cocktail only takes a few ounces and when making cocktails at home I rarely want so many that it would be worthwhile to open a whole bottle of champagne. So, I'd love to pick up a case or two of decently-priced, good quality in the context of cocktails champagne in half-bottles or, better yet, splits (quarter-bottles). That way I could have a few in the refrigerator ready to be used, and it wouldn't be such a big investment to crack one open for 3-4 cocktails. Any recommendations? I'm thinking I really want to stick with champagne or very champagne-like. I tend to prefer prosecco if I'm drinking it on its own, but it doesn't have quite the richness of champagne for cocktails.