slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
FWIW, a "true fifth" bottle and a 750 ml bottle are close enough to be indistinguishable for all practical purposes. A "true fifth" is 757 ml, which works out to somewhat less than one-quarter ounce more than 750 ml. Not enough difference to get worked up about.
-
IMO, anything made with any base spirit but cognac or rye whiskey is "Sazerac-like" but isn't quite a Sazerac.
I personally like mine with rye, two big dashes of Peychaud's, a rinse of absinthe, a little sugar and a fat lemon peel twisted and dropped into the glass.
In the Sazerac-like category, I've enjoyed a similar drink made with Laird's 12 year old apple brandy -- first introduced to me by Phil and Chad at Flatiron Lounge.
-
. . . does anyone know if the Duckhorn King Eider vermouth is still made?
Last information I had, the answer was "no."
RE: Vya dryProbably up to a 1:1 Plymouth/Noilly Martini would still be recognized as a Plymouth Martini.
With the Vya, I find, if you aren't careful, a Martini made with it, very quickly becomes a Vya Martini instead of a gin Martini.
Vya is so strongly flavored that it usually doesn't work so well at 1:1. You're right that is would come out as a Vya Martini. I've made a 1:1 Martini with Vya and Malacca that worked pretty well, but Malacca is a very strongly flavored gin and even then I would have wanted a little bit more gin to come through. At 1:1 Vya would completely obscure something soft like Plymouth. 2:1 would probably be the way to go.
On the other hand, reverse Martinis at 1:2 with Vya and something like Tanqueray work great.
-
Note: I split off the discussion about buying maraschino in Pennsylvania into that forum.
-
The soup with chicken, oyster mushrooms, coconut milk and galangal at Sripraphai is amazing.
-
As others have pointed out, there may be good reasons why the restaurant had to see your ID. That said, they handled it extremely poorly. Since it is obvious that you are not under the age of 21, the least they could have done is said something like: "Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm sure you're over 21, but the inspectors have told us (or the new law says, or whatever) that they want to see us check ID from every customer who will be drinking alcohol." This would have done two things. First, it would have explained that they weren't just doing it to break your balls and would have given you a reasonable motivation to comply cheerfully. Second, it would have given you the opportunity to say that you weren't going to be drinking alcohol anyway.
-
It depends on how long you let it burn. More burn = less alcohol content. In the grand scheme of things, you're unlikely to significantly reduce the alcohol content of a glass of sambuca by flaming it for a few seconds.
The bottom line, though, is whether you like it. As long as you like it, what difference does it make what the alcohol content is?
-
Most of the time, if the recipe calls for "cherry brandy" it's asking for something like Cherry Heering. If the recipe wants kirsch or kirschwasser (they are the same thing, by the way) it will ask for kirsch(wasser).
-
I'm going to still . . . abstain from urine.
You are living on the edge, dude.
-
The EPA has requested a 95% reduction in the use of this chemical by 2010 and a complete end to it's use by 2015.
This isn't exactly what they're saying. From the EPA site:
Participating companies will commit to reduce by 95 percent facility emissions and product content levels of PFOA, PFOA precursors, and higher homologue chemicals, by no later than 2010, with the year 2000 as the baseline for measuring reductions. The program also calls for companies to commit to work toward eliminating these sources of PFOA exposure five years after attaining the 95 percent reduction but no later than 2015. Companies are being asked to meet these commitments in the United States as well as in their global operations. (Emphasis mine.)This is not quite the same thing as saying "you can't use this stuff any more." It's saying, "you have to figure out ways to radically reduce emissions of and exposure to this stuff." Very, very different.
The bad news is that it's present in ALL non-stick cookware currently in use.I should point out, per my posts above, that the toxicity of PFOA doesn't really have anything to do with the toxicity of PTFE. Cooking on a PTFE surface won't expose you to lots of PFOA.
-
Glad to see this thread coming back to the top. Looking at my original premise for the thread -- "cocktails made with a mixture of liquors and then lightened with champagne rather than drinks that are fundamentally champagne with stuff added in (Bellinis, etc.)" -- I guess these would all be some kind of "Imperial Daisy." The "Daisy" part signifying that the drink is ligntened with a relatively small anount of carbonated liquid and the "Imperial" part signifying champagne as the carbonated liquid. Or does a Daisy also have to include sour?
-
Many of the cocktails call for gum syrup.
-
Salumeria Biellese.
-
Well, you have a point about the beer thing. Aeration and carbonation aren't the same thing, and of course I wouldn't want nitpicking of the beer example the obscure the main point I am making about cocktails. I was just trying to find a common and easy to understand example, but the beer one perhaps isn't best. With respect to perceived viscosity, however, I think it's perfectly easy to tell that a stirred Manhattan is more viscous than a shaken one.
It also seems to be a widely accepted fact, for example, that lubricants that are aerated have reduced viscosity. So I'm not sure how one can disagree with the premise that an aerated drink is less viscous than a non-aerated drink (assuming a drink without eggs, cream, etc.). But if you have information to the contrary, or a better explanation of the OP's observed phenomenon, by all means offer it.
-
Doesn't the presence of the bubbles contribute to a sensation of viscosity, due to the interuption of the flow of the liquid, rather than detract from it?
No... I would say that, everything else being equal, bubbles detract from perceived and actual viscosity (the two being related, but not exactly the same thing). Try this: Open a nice heavy ale and remove the carbonation to the greatest extent possible. You want a flat beer. Then open a fresh bottle of the same beer. Sample them side by side for mouthfeel. The flat beer is more viscous. Or, again... try making two identical Manhattans, one stirred and the other shaken. Sample them immediately. The stirred drink is more viscous. All other things being equal, a liquid full of bubbles should pour faster than the same liquid without bubbles. This means it is less viscous.
When one shakes a drink, especially one containing fruit juice, the texture is noticably more mouth coating than the same drink built or stirred. Indeed we have recently listed a creamless pina colada on the very principle that a creamy texture can be achieved by shaking both chunks of fresh pinepple and commercially produced pineapple juice.There are many things that shaking can do to affect the texture of a drink, depending on the ingredients. Emulsification is certainly one, which is why shaking a drink with egg white or cream will often increase the viscosity. That said, I am not sure that I would always equate "creamy" with perceived viscosity.
I also don't have a hard time believing that shaking drinks with fruit juice improves the mouthfeel. Indeed, this is standard practice. But, again... I wouldn't say that too many drinks with fruit juice have a mouthfeel I would describe as "viscous." Experimental results have shown that acidity acts to suppress perceived viscosity, so this only makes sense. In general, fruit juice drinks go for "lively" rather than "silky."
On another point... Could the impression of relative smoothness of a martini vs a manhattan also be attributed to the human perception of the flavours in the spirit.Yes, that could have something to do with it in terms of perceived viscosity. But I also believe whiskey is higher than gin in terms of real viscosity to begin with.
Mouthfeel is a complex perception, so I believe it is important not to mix descriptors too much. Viscosity, both real and perceived, is one discrete element of mouthfeel. Viscosity can be related to some of the other qualities you have used here (creamyness, smoothness, mouth-coating, etc.) but I think it's important to understand that it is not the same thing. A drink can be more smooth, creamy, mouth-coating, etc. and yet less viscous compared to another drink (for example, a Ramos Fizz is more creamy and mouth-coating compared to a stirred Manhattan, but less viscous)
-
I don't know how big the the jiggers y'all used are, but mine came out to just about 2 tablespoons. That's certainly not two ounces, or even 1 1/2 ounce, is it?
Indeed, that comes out to just about an ounce. One reason that specifying amounts by "jiggers and ponies" isn't particularly useful unless you define the size of your jigger. This is one reason, among many, that a lot of the drinks in the earliest cocktail books are difficult to puzzle out.
-
It seems that in the olden days it was common practice to change recipes. . .
Can you give any examples of this?
Contrary to your assertion, other than some changes in proportions as tastes change, I have found a remarkable conformity in the ingredients for most classic cocktails from book to book through history. The only instances in which this has tended to not be true is when there never seems to have been any general agreement on the constituents of a certain drink -- perhaps because the original recipe was "lost" or because there were two different ingredient lists from the very beginning.
-
This is made by Noilly Prat, although it does not seem to be widely distributed. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much information on Noilly Prat's web site, which doesn't even have a listing of all the products made by the company.
As for the wine aging in barrels outside for a year, this is correct. But it is the same process that is used for all the Noilly Prat vermouth.
-
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree that the recipes in Gary's book would compare to an adaptation such as the one cited above with respect to the Alaska. I may not recall correctly, but I don't think any of Gary's recipes include nontraditional extra ingredients in a classic cocktail. I think it's always a given that a modern recipe book will give the author's preferred tweak of a classic cocktail, within certain parameters. So, if Gary's book specifies a 3:2:1 Sidecar instead of the 2:1:1 Sidecar that appears in so-and-so's book, I still think that's appropriately called a Sidecar (I'm just making up this example, but FWIW I believe Gary's book contains some discussion about tailoring the proportions to your taste and the properties of the cognac). If, on the other hand, Gary's book gave a recipe for a drink made with cognac, Cointreau, lemon juice and a splash of Benedictine and still called it a Sidecar... that would be a problem. Because a "Sidecar" with a splash of Benedictine would have an entirely different flavor profile from the classic, and therefore should really have a different name as it is a completely different cocktail.
All that said, I do agree with what George and Audrey are saying. If the recipe is tweaked to the extent that the flavor profile really changes -- either by radically changing the proportions or, more commonly, by adding, subtracting or changing an ingredient -- it should have a different name.
-
Not True.
The term "SAUTE" can be used to describe fish being cooked at high heat.
The "shaking" has nothing to do with sauteeing other than being a functional way to move the meat around. In most cases with meat. you need to use long tongs to turn the meat so you can brown it evenly.
FRYING : can be deep or shallow.
Even shallow frying requires 5 to 10 times more oil than sauteeing.
Um, sorry... but you are incorrect on this. "Sauté" does not mean "cooked at high heat" or "cooked in a limited amount of fat" -- although both of these things are likely to be true of sautéing. The most important factor you have missed, however, is that sauté necessarily implies motion. In fact, it necessarily implies tumbling motion. I will explain:
The word sauté is the past tense form (passé composé) of the French verb sauter. Sauter means "to jump." Sauté, then, means "jumped." Thus, a literal translation of poisson sauté would be "jumped fish." Jumped where, you ask? Jumped around in the pan. Similarly, the French compound form for the Frenglish verb "to sauté" is faire sauter or, "to make jump." Make it jump where? Jump around in the pan. This is mirrored in other romance languages such as Italian, where the term for sauteed bitter greens would be something like rape saltate in padella. The "saltate in padella part means "jumped (around) in a pan." To sum up: sauté equals jump. If you don't shake the pan and jump the food around, it ain't sautéing.
Frying, on the other hand, simply means to cook something in a pan using some fat and without moving it around very much. It's not a question of the amount of fat. You can fry an egg in a thin film of fat, or you can fry an egg in an centimeter of fat. They're both fried. According to your usage, an egg cooked in a hot pan using a thin film of fat would be called a "sautéed egg." Actually, use of the word "fry" to describe submerging piece of food in hot fat is not particularly useful. "Deep fried" food is really "boiled in oil" and not fried at all. I suppose we call it "fried" because the exterior comes out crisp. But, I digress...
People like to say things like "sautéed fish" for several reasons, among which are the perception that "sauté" sounds "fancy" and "culinary," a desire to avoid the negative connotations that come with the perception that frying required a lot of fat, and of course a basic misunderstanding of the word "sauté."
-
I like Shalmanese's technique of drawing a knife across the skin to get out the last bit of moisture. A minute dusting of Wondra just prior to taking the fish to the pan is okay, but not always necessary. I'm more likely to do it with whole fish, which is harder to get completely dry using the knife trick compared to a fillet because it is not flat.
I'll usually go with high heat and very little grapeseed oil in a nonstick skillet. I've done it over extra-high heat using stainless lined heavy copper as well, but you have to be much more careful about crowding the pan and you have to use more fat. Cast iron... if I'm going for crispy skin, I don't like to use a cast iron skillet because the tall straight sides don't allow the steam to escape with the same efficiency as the short sloped sides of a frypan. It also makes it much more difficult to get a spatula in there to turn the fish.
My usual technique for something like a crispy skin salmon fillet is skin side down until it's cooked 80% of the way through. Then a gentle flip over, turn the heat off and plate it skin side up.
I should probably point out, for the sake of clarity, that we are not talking about sautéed fish. One does not usually sauté fish. Sautéing is when you put chunks of food in a hot sauté pan and then shake the pan back and forth to tumble the chunks of food around and brown them on all sides. If you do this with fish, it will fall apart. We're talking about frying here.
-
Some people aren't fond of the Fee aromatic bitters, but I like them a lot. To me, they seem to have more of a clove top note as opposed to Angostura's cinnamon top note. I think the Fee's is a perfect match with Laird's bonded.
-
What are the components of a Silver Gin Sour? White Lady type thing?
Gin sour is just gin plus sugar plus lemon juice.
"Silver" means that it has egg white.
-
It is too bad Plymouth doesn't export these products to the US (or their Fruit Cup or Navy Strength gin).
Oh, believe me... it's not because they don't want to, or for lack of trying. It's astounding how long it takes to bring a product into the US.
Oh... and while you're making a wish list, don't forget Plymouth's damson gin. One of my favorite cocktologists made me some silver gin sours with a garnish of bitters and a float of this damson gin. Delightful.
When is a Collins not a Collins?
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
I've always felt that Gary's columns more or less served to highlight and, to a certain extent, cheerlead for bartenders he thought were doing something interesting. To the extent that this is accurate -- and I don't know if it is or not -- I wouldn't think that these columns are the place to inveigh against naming conventions.
That said, and perhaps this reflects my profession as a classical musician, I don't agree with Gary's premise that Bach would have been pleased to see Air on a G String turned into A Whiter Shade of Pale. But for whatever it's worth, at least Procol Harum changed the name of the piece, and that's more germane to this discussion. It perhaps is a bit ironic to read at the beginning of the article that "a firm grasp on the structure of classic cocktails is essential for today’s bartenders if they want to create new drinks for their customers" -- something with which I absolutely agree -- and then to see recipes for a "collins" in a V-glass with no ice and no soda, and a "julep" with no crushed ice, both of which practices I'd say do not demonstrate a healthy respect for classicism when it comes to cocktails. But that kind of classisism (respecting certain naming conventions) and having "a firm grasp of the structure" of the classics aren't the same thing. It's possible to have one and not the other.
Several of the drinks featured in the article do strike me as relatively interesting -- the main point of the article, in my view -- and most of them seem to have respect for their forebears.