slkinsey

Erik, I assume that the "Jamaica flowers" of which you write are the same thing that is more commonly called (by Jamaicans anyway) "sorrel?"

I noticed in the NY Times magazine article about nathanm's amazing kitchen that, when he made lamb chops, he did individual (Frenched) chops rather than the whole rack. Remember to blowtorch the outside of the rack and the rib bones. Otherwise they can look kind of raw. Be careful with the juniper. I love juniper with venison, but sous vide cooking will amplify the impact of the juniper 10 times what it would normally be. Even one juniper berry per individually wrapped chop might be overkill.

Well, I'd guess it's because the "sours in a rocks glass or a cocktail glass" question is such a no-brainer. If that's the only choice, clearly it's the cocktail glass. A rocks glass implies, well. . . rocks. It's like asking "do Martinis go in a rocks glass or a cocktail glass." There are, of course, large parts of North America in which an order for a Martini will most often get you something with ice in a rocks glass. Heck, an order for a Margarita in just about anywhere in the world will get you a choice between a cup of slush or a drink on the rocks, even though this drink belongs shaken and strained into a cocktail glass. And don't even get me started on the Daiquiri -- both form and pronunciation. So I can see how someone could come to think of a Sour as a drink on the rocks. My remarks earlier about "straight" Sours as opposed to New Orleans Sours and other kinds of Sours that are sweetened with liqueur was to say that I don't necessarily feel that the "expanded" Sours go in the same kind of glass. Just to think of the New Orleans Sours, for example, the Sidecar, Margarita, Crusta, Cosmopolitan, etc. do not go in a sour glass IMO. In fact, they don't all go in the same kind of glass at all. I like the Sidecar and Margarita in a cocktail glass, I like the Crusta in a fancy goblet because it displays the lemon rind better -- and, of course, the Cosmopolitan has to go in a 1980s period cocktail glass with a fluorescent pink stem in the shape of a lightning bolt (preferably plastic).

Kirkland Signature is Costco's store brand. I assume it is made for them on contract.

There is also the Caipirvinho, which is a light drink made in the style of a Caipirinha but using red wine instead of cachaça.

Crushed is traditional, no? The small pieces? Depending on how fine the crack is (to me, "cracked ice" is big cubes of ice broken apart into two or three pieces, none smaller than a marble), I'm not sure how well the frosting of the glass would go.

It's mostly a durability issue. This is not to say that the stuff you find in Target isn't durable in the context of occasional use in a home kitchen. It's just that the Sitram is designed for constant use in a professional kitchen.

Sitram is top-quality. If it's the right size, it would be a god buy. On the other hand, you may be able to get a functionally similar stock pot (i.e., stainless body with aluminum base) for a lot less at someplace like Target. The stainless steel body probably won't be quite as heavy-duty, but otherwise they'd be similar.

It depends on how hard the stainless steel is and how hard the thing you're rubbing across the stainless steel is. In many cases, say a metal spoon or tongs, for example, the difference in hardness isn't likely to be all that great. Therefore the "scratching power" of the metal spoon or tongs won't be that great. If you're particularly concerned, you can always use wooden spoons. To be honest, though, I have to ask why you're so concerned about scratching your stainless steel pans. A few scratches here and there aren't going to change the cooking properties of your pans -- and pans are tools, not objets d'art. If you ever clean your pans with something like Bar Keeper's Friend and a Scotch Brite pad (and IMO this is often the only way to get them really clean) you're going to have microscopic scratches on the metal anyway. Just shaking a sauté pan on the grate or moving a sauce pan to the side of the burner is likely to make a few little scratches. Most of the time if you see gleaming mirror-finished cookware without a single scratch, it's a sure sign that it's never been used. So I say: relax and just use your pans.

Yea, they also sell -- sell, I tell you! -- simple syrup. Another not-very-good sign IMO. On the other hand, it could be that their tonic water really kicks ass.

Here is the web site of the company. Looks like they make a lot of "cocktail mixers" -- "Cosmopolitan mix,"Mojito mix" and things of that ilk (i.e., mixes for drinks that don't need a mix and are better made with fresh ingredients). As far as I can tell, their "sodas for cocktails" are expensive versions of club soda, tonic water and ginger ale in little bottles. I'm sure they're fine, but not so sure they're any better than products already widely available. I see they do make a "blood orange bitters" that I'd be interested to try, though. . .

If you're going ultra old-school, I'd serve sours in a champagne flute -- preferably one that does not curve back inwards. Click here to see a picture of a "sour glass." This is a lot closer to a champagne glass than a cocktail glass. If you're serving the Pisco Sour in a champagne flute, I'd stick with that for all the Sours.

I purchased a bottle of the Laphroaig 15 (being a fan of the 10). I poured a glass, and then gave the rest away. For my taste, I found it lacking character and not nearly as complex or interesting as the 10 for whatever reason. I feel the same way about Laphroaig. The 15 year "refines away" some of the unique funkiness and character that makes Laphroaig so special. This is not to say that I don't like aged spirits, but I do find that the longer spirits age the more they tend to sacrifice their uniqueness and gravitate towards an "aged" sameness. I feel the same way about Calvados, where I tend to find the younger specimens more evocative of apples whereas some of the older bottlings might as well have been made from grapes.

I think it very much depends on the Sour. Or perhaps it depends on what we are calling a Sour. In its most basic form, a Sour is simply base spirit, citrus juice and sugar. When we start branching out by using a liqueur in place of the sugar as a sweetener, I think it becomes more than "just" a Sour. Thus, for example, Gary Regan's classification of the formula base spirit, citrus juice and Cointreau as a "New Orleans Sour" and so on. In general, I don't care for straight Sours with ice in a rocks glass. I prefer them either in a cocktail glass or in a highball glass with no ice. Like Alchemist, I usually prefer straight Sours with egg white. If the sour is going to be fizzed, on the other hand, I'll take it straight up in a highball/fizz glass. I've never had a problem with cocktails in either style of glass getting cold, but then again I've never been known to hold a cocktail for 15 minutes either. The solution to that is to make the drink in an appropriate size.

I like Joy of Mixology very much. It's one of the several books to which I find myself returning again and again. I think it's especially useful the way that he highlights the various "families" of cocktails. There is no other book of which I am aware that points out the familial relationship between a Sidecar, a Margarita and a Cosmopolitan. This makes it easy to create your own drinks and also helps you to identify other drinks that will suit your palate. That said, every cocktail book will reflect the biases and tastes of the author, unless it is a strictly historical book. Even there, the author has some editorial choices to make (viz. Ted Haig's Pegu Club formula in "Forgotten Cocktails"). This is no more true of Gary's book than it is of Dave Wondrich's books or Dale DeGroff's book, etc. Whether your tastes accord with Gary's will, to a certain extent, determine how much you like the recipes in the book. I find some of Gary's and Dale's recipes to be a touch on the sweet side for me, just as I find some of Dave's recipes to be a touch on the sour side -- so I adjust accordingly. Untimately, this is what mixing cocktails is all about: using your palate and mixing the drinks according to your individial taste. One thing I think Gary's book does well is provide a background understanding of how each cocktail is structured so that you have a basis for tailoring the drink to your own preferences. In terms of the recipes, Joy of Mixology strikes me as being very much in the same tradition as books such as Dale's Craft of the Cocktail. . . some classic cocktails given with the author's customized formulae and an equal or greater number of the author's own personal creations. If you just want a library of classic cocktails in their most historical formulae, you should throw away your books and avail yourself of the excellent CocktailDB Internet Cocktail Database. I do agree that he might have been a little carried away adding the "squirrel sour" family, which is more or less an invention of his own and I'm not sure belongs alongside things like the "New Orleans sour" family. But they're interesting drinks nonetheless.

Those are my favorite, too.

"Juniper infused vodka?"

What makes stewed meat tender is a combination of things, I think. Certainly fat and gelatin make a difference. This is why "stew meat" is typically high in both fat and connective tissue. The other thing that makes stewed meat tender is technique. Cooking at low temperatures can make a difference. Meat that was cooked mostly at 70C and was then brought to 100C for 1 minute will have a different texture than meat that was cooked at 100C the whole time. Also, if more conventional cooking temperatures/techniques are used, I think the cook has to know when to check the meat so that it is served right when it reaches readiness. Overcooking can dry out a piece of stew meat just as much as it can a piece of fillet.

This would be fairly easy to do using a sous vide technique. I've cooked short ribs for around 30-36 hours sous vide at 60C. It's good, but nothing like a traditionally braised short rib. So I don't think a stew with tender, medium rare chunks of meat would be very "stew like." One trick might be to cook it LTLT and then, just before serving, take it quickly up to a simmer.

I agree with everyone: It's the meat and it's the technique. IMO, the chuck at Citarella is too lean and doesn't have enough connective tissue -- it's too pretty. I made a beef and cauliflower tagine using chuck I bought at Oppenheimer Prime Meats (and which was cut to order from a massive hunk of chuck) and the meat was one of the most tender I've ever had. I made the same exact tagine a month later using beef from Citarella and it was dry. Keeping below-the-simmer temperatures as recommended by McGee also makes a big difference (one reason why tagines can be so tender).

Although it may not be practical for a small amount, I think the best way is to lay the strips out on a cookie sheet (one with a rim all the way around!) and bake it in a 350 degree oven until crispy, flipping once. Convection ovens are best, but it works well with a regular oven too. This is hands-down the best way to cook large amounts of bacon, and I think it even beats frying on the stovetop or griddle for small amounts. For one, the strips always turn out flat when you bake them, with no curling or buckling. Of course, you can then pour the bacon fat out of the cookie sheet, through a paper towel or coffee filter and into a container. Keep the container in the freezer and dig out a teaspoon every so often when you want to give sautéed mushrooms or other foods just a little extra kick of flavor.

kjohn, just FYI: Alchemist is not "The Alchemist" -- aka Paul Harrington.

Last year our hosts served champagne with a dollop of pom wonderful pomegranate juice. Something about anti-oxidants which I thought was pretty lame. So very California. You've inspired me to serve cranberry champagne cocktails, except I'm going to use homemade Cranberry Liqueur instead of cranberry puree. There's still time to start your own! I'm actually going to make something similar this season using cranberry syrup (1 part cranberry extract from the health food store, 1 part water and 2 parts sugar) instead of cranberry puree. I'll put in the sugar cube, douse with orange bitters, fill with champagne and then pour in an ounce or so of the cranberry syrup, which I hope will make an interesting color effect.

I often try to expand the cocktail repertoires of my less cocktail-experienced friends, which is something I probably have in common with many people who frequent these forums. And, of course, a great technique for learning which directions to explore is simply to ask the other person what cocktails he/she likes, which creates a nice opportunity for me to suggest: If you like Cocktail A, I bet you'd really like Cocktail Z. So, for example: If you like a bourbon Manhattan, you'll probably like one with rye and bitters. And if you like a Manhattan with rye and bitters, you'll probably like the Tombstone (100 proof rye, demerara syrup and bitters). And if you like the Tombstone with rye, you'll probably love it with Laird's bonded applejack. And so on. I'd be interested in hearing other strategies like this. What's the best way to expand the cocktail palate of a devoted vodka tonic drinker? What about a Cosmo drinker?

For me, it's really impossible to say. There are so many that I like. I will say, however, that I haven't been to Pegu Club a single time when I haven't had the Fitty - Fitty Martini (1:1 Tanqueray and Noilly Prat, stirred, strained and garnished with a twist). But whether that's my favorite is hard to say. It's my favorite way to start a long night of imbibing, I'll say that!