slkinsey

You mean applejack and calvados together? I like the Apple Blow Fizz, but made with Laird's bonded instrad of calvados -- it seems a little less sweet and a little rougher than most cocktail-quality calvados.

Thanks. I really do think deconstruction/different treatment is the best way to get the most out of a turkey. It's just too much meat with too widely-divergent properties to cook in one piece with good success on both dark and white meats. This year I'm going to refine it a step further by stripping out the turkey tenderloins, making a mousse out of the tenderloins that I will use to "glue" the two breasts together, and doing the resulting more-or-less cylindrical result sous vide with black truffles. Should make dinner execution even more simple, as timing will be les critical on the turkey breasts and I'll free up oven time/space by not cooking any turkey in the oven.

Still having fun playing with genever. It really is amazing the way you open the bottle, smell the aroma, taste the spirit straight. . . everything says "juniper" and the malty quality is hardly noticable. Yet when mixed, the juniper quality largely retreats into the background and the malt character comes to the fore.

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, because it's all about the food as far as I am concerned. I come from a very small extended family. Both my parents are only children, I had only onre surviving granparent on each side for most of my childhood, and we lived very far away (Boston) from any relatives of the second cousin variety (Texas). So, when I was growing up, Thanksgiving dinner was always a group affair organized with other small families at our Episcopal church. Perhaps this is why I don't feel like Thanksgiving dinner "has" to include anything other than turkey and dressing -- and even with that, I have been known to play fast and loose with the format. I think it all started when I decided to make a turducken for Thanksgiving one year. After a while, it had turned into something else entirely. This is what we did last year: A detailed recounting and discussion of the design, planning and execution of this dinner may be found here.

I don't see too many people speaking of muddling the limes. Am I the only one?

I gather that most everyone is simply building their mojitos in the glass? I find that I get too many bits of stuff floating around that way, and I am not fond of straining lime pulp through my teeth. I like muddling lime halves; adding sugar, rum, and mint; shaking hard with a few big pieces of ice; double straining into the glass; adding a lime shell, fizz water and plenty of crushed ice; then sliding a few mint leaves down the sides, maybe adding a sprig on top.

Three things here: First, as interesting as the ethics of mouse trapping may be, let's keep this discussion about food, shall we? Which is to say, unless you're planning to eat the mouse. . . Second, I do think that it gives one an added appreciation that the meat you are about to eat was once a living animal if you hunt or attend/assist with the slaughter and breakdown of an animal at least once. That said, most people living in urban centers simply do not have that option. Third, don't for a moment think that the only way animals are killed for food is when they are raised and slaughtered for consumption. More animals probably lose their lives as a result of vegetable farming, they just aren't cute doe-eyed cows.

Boomsma Jonge has hit the City. I scored a couple of bottles this afternoon, and had to give the Improved Holland Gin Cock-Tail a try. Deliciously malty. I'll have to bring a bottle down to some friends who have a few bottled of Bols salted away for a direct comparison. One thing I noticed is that my IHGC was a good bit pinker in color than others I've had. Could it be that they're making it with Angostura instead of Peychaud's?

I don't know the specifics. What I've been told is that prices increased by various percentages, some more than 20%/some less than 20%. These increases might even be different from bottle to bottle or drink to drink. What I get out of this is that the whole "service charge" idea is a red herring. There is no service charge. They salaried their waitstaff, raised prices to account for this expense, and put the words "service included" on the menu to let patrons know that the waitstaff is not working for tips. The raise in prices was so that they could include these salaries in the budget, and while I think it's easier to explain to the public that way, I don't think it's accurate to call the price increase a "service charge." Let us assume for a moment that the ball boys at the US Open had historically been unpaid volunteers who this year had to be compensated. If the price of a US Open ticket were increased to account for this new expense, would it be useful to refer to it as a "ball boy charge?" Similarly, when the price of groceries goes up due to increased transportation costs associated with the rising price of gasoline, do we call that increase a "gasoline charge?" Based on how Per Se does their bookkeeping, it may very well be impossible to determine how much "extra" or "less" money they are bringing in through the various price increases under the new system balanced against the new salaries. More to the point, there may be little reason for them to do so. It will become only more complicated as time goes by and the overall compensation picture evolves due to raises, new hires, etc. I'm sure they will proceed to balance income from sales against their expenses -- including compensation, rent, raw materials, electricity, etc. -- to make a profit. Just like any other business. If they aren't making enough money, they will make adjustments somewhere (raise prices, cut staff or reduce salaries, change suppliers, reduce food costs, etc.). Just like any other business. Needless to say, a place like Per Se is more likely to raise prices in this scenario than resort to most other solutions. I have no idea, but I assume they get to keep these small amounts, as they are real gratuities.

I was lucky enough to be able to get some information directly from the source at Per Se, so I hopefully can clear some things up and contribute some new information. Althouth they call it a "service charge system," there is in fact no "service charge" per se at Per Se (pun inevitable). This is to say that there is no item on the menu saying that "prices are subject to a service charge of X%." Rather, prices have been raised -- some by more than 20%, some by less -- and the menu now indicates that service is included. The $175 menu is now being sold for $210, which is a 20% increase. Contrary to reports, there has not been greater-than-expected or greater-than-usual turnover at Per Se with the rollout of the new structure. In fact, turnover was much greater when the change was made at French Laundry, perhaps because there is a significantly smaller talent pool from which to draw at Yountville. Per Se is also not dividing up the "extra" take every night and doling it out to various members of the staff based on some formula. Under the new system, everyone in the house is paid an individual salary commensurate with his or her performance, experience, expertise, seniority and position -- just like a "real job." This means that some servers are making less than before, some are making more, and the kitchen all received a nice raise. There are several things worth expanding upon. Keller's team doesn't view the staff as divided between FOH and BOH, but rather as one unified team. As such, it is important to them that everyone have an opportunity to excel and advance. It is a sad fact that most four star restaurants don't pay the cooks a living wage. Whereas before servers were being paid equally out of a tip pool, they are now salaried according to performance and experience. This presumably means that servers will be rewarded solely for providing good service, as defined and determined by Per Se's management, and not for upselling and other tip-increasing gimmicks that are not necessarily related to good service. Servers who were "riding out the tip pool" or who resorted to tricks of the trade. . . yea, they are likely to see a reduction in compensation. But, on the other hand, if they get with the program and stick with Per Se, they have an opportunity to make a lot more. This strikes me as the kind of person they would rather have around at Per Se. It is also noteworthy that the new system gives Per Se's management much greater ability to manage service at the restaurant, and it was pointed out to me that French Laundry did not win the James Beard Service Award until after they changed to the new system.

Really Dirk shouldn't be calling it "anonymity," but rather "having no relationships or contact within the restaurant industry." Because that's what he's really promoting. It strains credulity to believe that any regular restaurant critic is ever substantially anonymous. It does make it look a bit different, though, when it reads: "all other things being equal, having no relationships or contact within the restaurant industry adds to the value of the review for everyone but the critic."

Just repeating this over and over is not going to alter the fact that, all other things being equal, anonymity adds to the value of the review for everyone but the critic. Er. . . neither is your repetition of this assertion.

As a real-life practical matter, I think this is impossible. Even involvement as a food writer, but anonymity as a restaurant reviewer? Put yourself in the shoes of a restaurateur. If "food writer Jerry McAngus" came to eat at your restaurant with several friends four or five times over the course of a few weeks and then never returned, and "restaurant critic Helen Hepplewhite" came out with a review a few weeks later. . . how long do you think it would take you and your colleagues to connect the dots? Given a situation where the writer doesn't write very many reviews and where there is a substantial lag time between the reviewer's visits to a restaurant and the appearance of the review, it might be possible. This would have to be something like a once-monthly review with a two to three month lag time to work for any length of time in a major restaurant city.

Oh, I agree. And that's the way I like them: on their own, icy cold. However, the OP is planning on using this for Margaritas. As a cocktail ingredient I find them too one-note and certainly not worth the trouble and expense versus using Cointreau -- especially since experience tells me that Cointreau is likely to be much better no matter what.

I simply don't believe this is true. Or rather it is only true of a certain kind of review that offers a certain kind of limited information. I believe that there is more and different information to be gained from a deeper level of involvement, and experience tells me that critics who have that deeper level of involvement tend to produce produce more informative reviews. I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to characterize all critic/industry interaction as "schmoozing" either, if you mean it in the pejorative sense of "to chat with someone in order to gain a personal advantage for one's self." As a real-life practical matter, I think this is impossible.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. What people are arguing is that there is a great deal of information to be gained by interacting with chefs and restaurateurs -- information that can inform the work of writers and reviewers and thus enrich what is passed on to readers. What people are further arguing is that these potential gains are lost to the "anonyous" writer or reviewer who maintains no relationships in the industry. And what people are yet further arguing is that many, albeit not all, of the justifications given for anonymity are complete bunk (e.g., that such writers are, in fact, actually anonymous and aren't receiving special treatment anyway). Here in New York we have the clear example that most of the very best criticism and most informative writing has been done by writers like David Rosengarten who are deeply involved in the business and have many relationships in the industry, and further that most of the worst criticism and least informative writing has been done by writers who were not involved in the business and didn't have relationships in the industry. So what people are saying is not that anonymity and good writing are mutually exclusive, but rather that anonymity and involvement with the industry are mutally exclusive and that involvement with the industry is highly coorelated with better, more informative, more informed food writing and criticism.

I have too, but I picked myself up from the sidewalk, wiped off the dirt and grease from my trousers and ate next door. You were lucky. I had to make bail.

At restaurants that know a review is coming, he is probably recognized every time. I doubt that Bruni truly ever had an "anonymous" meal at Perry St, The Modern, or Alto. At Le Bernardin, Daniel, and Jean-Georges, and a few other places of that ilk, he will be recognized instantly. But take another look at the range of places he visits. A fair number of them are non-high-end places that have no particular reason to expect him. . . You don't think that every single restaurant out there that has pretensions of getting a main review in the NY Times (especially if recently opened) doesn't know what Frank Bruni looks like? Maybe have a picture of him, along with other critics and notable food figures on file somewhere? I was in a bar recently when William and Nancy Grimes came in and took a seat at the bar. They were instantly recognized. I also think the kinds of questions one asks, and the kinds of things one orders, etc. will alert the FOH staff of just about any potentially star-rated restaurant (Sripraphai notwithstanding) to take a closer look at certain customers. I've been recognized and received special treatment at some restaurants because I'm on the eGullet Society staff, for Pete's sake. If this is happening to me 15% of the time, I am quite sure it's happening to Frank Bruni 95% of the time.

This is a great sweet-sour drink created by Jerri Banks. This is one drink where the brand of gin makes a big difference. There really is no substitute for Junipero in this one, although Tanqueray might do in a pinch.

You should definitely buy a copy of Charles Baker's The Gentleman's Companion, now reprinted under the title Jigger, Beaker, and Glass : Drinking Around the World. It is one of the great cocktail books of all time, not just for the recipes but also for Baker's inimitable writing style. It's not just a recipe book, but a series of stories involving cocktails. Here is a little taste of Baker's style: As you may well imagine, it does take some adjustment to turn this into a normal cocktail, as the original uses an entire split of Champagne!

Just looking at the menu, a vegetarian could construct a menu like this: Antipasto Three Goat Cheese Truffles with Peperonata Roasted Beet Salad with Ricotta Salata Acorn Squash "Sformato" Neci con Funghi Misti Braised Fennel Salad Pears, Goat Cheese and Cherry Vinaigrette or Baby Red Oak Leaf with Black Olive Blood Orange Citronette Primo Goat Cheese Tortelloni with Dried Orange and Wild Fennel Pollen Garganelli with Funghi Trifolati or Pumpkin "Lune" with Sage and Amaretti Secondo There are no vegetarian secondi (the secondo traditionally being the meat dish). A vegetarian could have a second pasta dish, or perhaps choose several contorni, which are: Roasted Beet Farotto Babbo Greens with Roasted Shallots Rapini with Roasted Garlic Roasted Potatoes with Rosemary Since your fiancée is apparently okay with butter, these should all be possible choices.

My experience has been that making flavored pasta is usually not worth the trouble unless the flavoring agent has a highly concentrated flavor, like a spice. Spinach pasta, for example, is pretty but doesn't particularly taste of spinach. This is especially problematic if you sauce the flavored pasta with anything more than a little butter and cheese, as a flavorful sauce will completely obliterate the subtle flavor of whatever you tried to work into the pasta dough. For something like squash, I think you're better off going for gnocchi.

Pam, what I said was: I personally cannot believe that Keller, et al. are selling this new program to the waitstaff as a cut in total compensation. Indeed, I cannot but believe that they are selling this new program to the waitstaff as an overall long term improvement over the old system -- and, of course, they have data from the French Laundry to back up what they are saying. The fact is that no one really knows whether the servers are going to make substantially more money or substantially less money under the new program. And if there are some servers who are so heavily invested in the "independent contractor" system that the mere fact that the system has changed and they think they might make less money is enough to make them jump ship. . . yea, I think Keller is better off without them and would be happy to see them go. Why? Because they may be excellent servers, but they're not team players. Not for this team anyway. Not if they're not even willing to give it a try. And the fact is that a place like Per Se will be able to attract other excellent servers who are team players and who want to play on that team. Since Per Se has been pooling tips since the day it opened, I have a hard time believing that total compensation will be significantly less under the service charge system. Let's look at the numbers and construct what would be a very bad result under the service charge system. Let us suppose a server is bringing in $75,000 a year at Per Se under the tip pooling system. Let us further suppose that total compensation goes down by five percent under the service charge system. These numbers should both be on the high side. So, with a 5% decrease in total compensation, the server would make $3,750 less on a yearly basis. Not an insignificant amount of money, but $5,937 a month instead of $6,250 shouldn't put too many of them in the poorhouse -- and it is a worst case scenario.

Two thoughts on this: 1. Knowing of a few servers who quit and hearing from these same disgruntled servers of more doesn't exactly constitute convincing evidence that there has been a wholesale or statistically meaningful exodus of talent from Per Se's FOH -- or, indeed, whether this turnover is meaningfully different from their usual tunover. 2. Were I in Keller's shoes and some servers quit because they had a hunch that their wages might be less over a year, I'd be glad to see them go.

Who says "so many FOH staff has recently quit?" I would also be interested to know if it is a mathematical fact that total compensation will be lower under the new system when averaged over, say, a year.