slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I'd say that "crushed ice" is comprised of fairly uniform pieces that are no larger than the size of a pencil eraser. "Cracked ice" is comprised of pieces of differing sizes, with most not being larger than the last joint on one's thumb and the rest being smaller. Crushed ice must be produced with an ice crushing machine or by repeatedly whacking a bag of ice with a heavy implement until it is uniformly pulverized. Cracked ice is best produced one cube at a time by holding a cube in one's hand and striking it sharply with the back of a spoon. This will usually produce three large irregular pieces and several smaller pieces.
-
The Champion is a great machine. Easy to clean and built like a tank.
BUT.
It's very large, and not cheap. You'll spend all of that 200 bucks, and that's if you get a good price.
-
Well, it's not clear to me that a vacuum cannister has any particular advantages ("vacuum marinading" has been debunked a number of times). The advanage of using a vacuum bag is that, once all the air is removed from the bag, the marinade fills in all the spaces and completely surrounds the food item on all sides. This means that you can use a much smaller amount of marinade, and you don't have to worry so much about turning it around to get marinade on all sides.
For home models (e.g., the Tilia FoodSaver) it is best to freeze the marinade, vacuum bag the frozen marinade together with the food item, and then allow the marinade to thaw. This way you can evacuate most of the air from the bag without getting liquid in the machine.
-
How would this machine work any better than sealing the marinade and food item in a vacuum bag, which also has the effect of covering the enture surface of the food item with marinade? A vacuum sealer, of course, has a multitide of uses, unlike this contraption.
-
Are you confusing aroma and flavour as two distinct things. Aroma is flavour whether it is experienced through the nose or the mouth.
Ths misunderstanding is between flavor and taste. I think mbanu was using the word "flavor" when perhaps "taste" would have been more apropos. I have posted this information elsewhere on the site, but perhaps it makes sense to repeat it here...
Flavor and taste are not quite the same thing. Taste is the sensation produced by the activation of taste buds in the mouth and throat area by certain chemicals. Smell is the sensation produced by the activation of olfactory receptors by certain chemicals. There is another chemosensory mechanism called the "common chemical sense" through which various nerve endings (especially prevalent in the naturally moist areas of the body) react to certain chemicals to create sensations such as the burn of capsaicin, the sting of ammonia, etc. These senses combine with other sensed elements such as texture and temperature to produce the impression that we call "flavor." As many people understand, smell is perhaps the most important contributor to the perception of flavor.
The new edition of McGee's On Food and Cooking has this to say:
(Page 387) Flavor is a composite quality, a combination of sensations from the taste buds in our mouth and the odor receptors in the upper reaches of our nose. . . There are only a handful of different tastes -- sweet, sour, salty, bitter and savory or umami, while there are many thousands of different odors. It's odor molecules that make an apple "taste" like an apple, not like a pear or radish. . . So most of what we experience as flavor is odor, or aroma.(Page 591) . . . Recent research has shown that taste sensations affect our smell sensations. In a sweet food, the presence of sugar enhances our perception of aromas, and in savory foods, the presence of salt has the same effect.
It is true, however, that there are certain additions made to drinks that are there primarily for their aromatic (smell) contributions rather than their taste contributions. One could make the argument that the minute quantities of vermouth added to the modern "super-extra-dry Martini" are there for their aromatic qualities. I would argue that they're there simply for the sake of tradition and make little if any meaningful contribution.
I'm not sure of the science but in my experience alcohol carries flavour better than water... ie higher strength spirits seem to have a more intense flavouor so I think that there will probably be an optmum ABV that will carry the maximum flavour but be just soft enough so as to be burn free on the palate.Higher abv spirits tend to have a more intense flavor than their lower abv cousins, this is true. Rittenhouse 100 proof has more flavor than Rittenhouse 80 proof. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that this is because "alcohol carries flavour better than water." Rather, it is the case that the lower proof spirit was diluted with more water to bring it down to bottle proof. Take straight whiskey, for example. Assuming that the whiskey comes out of the barrel at 125 proof, a liter of 100 proof whiskey would be comprised of 800 ml of barrel-proof whiskey cut with 200 ml of water. A liter of 80 proof whiskey, on the other hand, would be comprised of 640 ml of barrel-proof whiskey cut with 360 ml of water. That means that there would be 160 ml more of barrel-proof whiskey in the 100 proof liter, for an increase of 25%. Considering this, it's no surprise that Rittenhouse 100 proof has a more intense flavor than Rittenhouse 80 proof. The effect is magnified when we are talking about products like gin, that start out at a much higher abv before being diluted to bottle proof.
-
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).
-
Does anyone else keep mixing glasses in the freezer?
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.
-
Blood & Sand
3/4 oz Scotch whisky
3/4 oz rosso vermouth
1/4 oz cherry brandy
1 1/2 oz orange juice
Shake over ice cubes, strain into a chilled cocktail glass, and serve.
I'm not a big fan of scotch and I even like these.
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.
-
There are a whole lot of folks out there who aren't particularly interested in "being shown something new." They'll politely consume a superior cocktail, and they'll offer genuine-sounding praise, and then they'll get on the phone afterwards with the other guests and say "Why can't he just give me a damn martini?"
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."
-
Re: Dreamy Dorini Smokin' Martini
Quite frankly I am suprised at the members of Egullet, usually so stalwart in their disappreciation of Vodka, passing up the opportunity to champion the original gin version of this drink.
The Smoky Martini. Gin, Laphroaig, and lemon twist. Prepared in the same why as the Audrey Saunders version.
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:
One often hears it said that there are certain dishes that every cook who aspires to a certain proficiency should master as a fundamental (the classic French omelette, for example). For someone who admires cocktails, would like to have a well-rounded knowledge about properly formulating and presenting them, and would like to create his/her own in the future, is there a certain repertoire of cocktails that you think every mixologist should master? Again, I'd be interested in hearing from both of you, and why.Okay, I've been mulling this question, and although I'll probably never be satified with my answer, here's a stab at it.In Joy of Mixology I divide most drinks into families--some of them already established, some of my own making. I went through each family, and selected one or two drinks from the families that I think are important. I have a family of Jelly Shots (fresh ingredients and unflavored gelatin) for instance, but I don't think it's necessary for a bartender to know how to make them, so I didn't list any from that family. Here's what I came up with, along with short explanations as to why I chose them:
The Champagne Cocktail. No explanation needed (I hope)
Godfather/Rusty Nail: Examples of drinks with a spirit modified with a liqueur
Black Russian/White Russian/Mudslide: White Russian being a Black Russian with cream, and a Mudslide is a Black Russian with Irish Cream liqueur. I find the relationship between these drinks interesting, and it points out how to vary one cocktail to come up with a new one.
Dry Gin Martini: spirit modified with dry vermoutrh.
Manhattan: spirit modified with sweet vermouth (and bitters, I hope)
Blood & Sand: scotch, sweet vermouth, orange juice, and cherry brandy (usually equal amounts). A great example of odd flavors that work well together. Just threw that one in since we made one for a friend on Sunday night, and since we had a bottle opened, we used Johnnie Walker Blue. Delicious. Mardee immediately gave it a new name: The Blue Blood and Sand.
Mint Julep: Obvious.
Mojito: Obvious*
Caipirinha: Obvious*
*In both these drinks I prefer to use granulated sugar instead of simple syrup. The sugar abrades the zest of the limes as you muddle, and adds a freshness to the drink.
Negroni: A classic that everyone should be able to make.
Old-Fashioned: I prefer Old-Fashioneds with muddled fruit, though some purists insist on no fruit. Here's a drink that makes you muddle, and points up why bitters are so important. It's also interesting to vary the fruit--try overripe peaches, for instance.
Bloody Mary. I know--I hate Bloody Marys! I never had any complaints about them when I worked behind the bar, though--I simply listened to my customers and made them accordingly.
Whiskey Sour: Bartenders should grasp the concept of sours--spirit, citrus, and sugar (usually simple syrup)--and be able to balance same.
Daiquiri: as above.
Aviation: A sour that utilizes a liqueur instead of sugar.
Twentieth Century Cocktail: as above.
Margarita/Sidecar/Cosmo: Sours that utilize triple sec as a sweetener.
Tom Collins: A carbonated Sour.
Singapore Sling: A complicated carbonated Sour!
Pina Colada: Just because . . .
Bartenders should probably have a few more tropical drinks under their belts, too, but it's a category that I need to learn more about, so I'll leave it at that.
Comments/questions welcome. What did I leave out?
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."
-
I'm in the market for a saute pan...
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.
Cocktail science
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
I crack ice at home this way all the time. Doesn't bother me at all. FWIW, places like Pegu have extra-heavy bar spoons that one us unlikely to find at the local supply store. For home use, I find that a decently heavy soup spoon is best. Just hold the ice in the palm of your hand, give it a sharp smack with the spoon, dump the cracked ice into the shaker, and shake out your hand once over the sink (this last bit keeps your left hand from freezing). I find that the cracking blow from the spoon should be fast, but can be relatively light. It doesn't take much pressure to crack an ice cube into three pieces or so. Experiment with your ice to figure out the best location for an effective cracking strike with the spoon (generally, in the center of a flat face of the cube).