slkinsey

I've had a few experimental drinks at Flatiron Lounge with muddled cucumber. I think it's cool to get a strong cucumber taste in a drink. Very refreshing.

It is an odd choice of words. That said, I think I can deduce where he might be coming from in describing "aromas of bloody iron." Iron, especially iron that has had any weathering to it, has a certain earthy/metallic scent, I think we would all agree. But I think we also agree that the "iron" part isn't the puzzling part. Well, anyone who has been around a lot of blood can tell you it has a "coppery" odor that is quite distinct from the smell of iron. Perhaps this is what the author was trying to describe? Regardless, it does seem like a pointlessly florid way to describe the bouquet of a wine (not that this is unusual for wine writing).

Rich: Did you order it together with any other books? I've found that, unless you specifically say that you want your books to be shipped dseparately, one book that is temporarily unavailable can hold up the entire shipment. Amazon currently says "usually ships within 24 hours" for TTT.

Our Utah State Liquor Stores only carry Rittenhouse at about $12 or one may special order Van Winkle Family Reserve, 13 years old @ $29. No Wild Turkey Rye available. Any thoughts on either of these?If it's the Rittenhouse 100 proof, it's definitely the choice. Van Winkle's rye is very good, but I think it's best for drinks where it doesn't have to compete with too many other flavors (a Sazerac, for instance). Van Winkle only uses 51% rye in their grain bill (the minimum required by law), so it is not a very "rye like" rye and would be lost with something as powerful as Blenheim's.

Unlike the marination idea, this actually makes a lot of sense. Think about it. . . When you cook in the open air, a lot of volatile aromatics and such are cooked off, and a lot of flavor components are changed due to high temperatures and oxidation. Cooking sous vide changes the equation considerably. First, the volatile aromatics have nowhere to go, so they stick around. Second, the volatile aromatics, and other flavor components, are changed far less than they are with traditional cooking techniques because oxidation is minimized and because the temperature is (usually) far lower. Finally, due to the fact that sous vide cooking times are almost always far longer than traditional cooking times, the various ingredients are in contact with each other and reacting with each other for a much longer period of time. Consider a beef short rib braised in red wine with rosemary. In a traditional method, the wine, short rib and rosemary spend several hours together at a low simmer, there will be many oxidation reactions, the rosemary will have lost most of its "fresh" characteristics by the end, the braising liquid will not completely surround the meat, and there will be a relatively large amount of braising liquid compared to the amount of meat (which will usually have to be reduced in the end). If the short rib is "braised" sous vide, on the other hand, the various ingredients may spend 24 hours cooking together (or longer), there will be relatively few oxidation reactions, the rosemary is likely to retain many of its "fresh" characteristics, the braising liquid will completely suround the meat, the braising liquid may already be "pre-reduced" and therefore much more intense in flavor, etc.

While we're at it, I might as well point out that this commonly held belief is completely fallacious. Think about it: why would reducing the atmospheric pressure cause the marinating liquid to penetrate more deeply into the food item? If you reduce the atmospheric pressure around a piece of meat, liquid and air will come out of the food item in order to establish equilibrium. This is why vacuum pump "force marinators" don't actually work. In the case of sous vide involving a form-fitting plastic covering, the atmospheric pressure isn't so much reduced as all the extra air is removed from the package. There is some small advantage to the plastic covering technique with respect to marination because a very small amount of marinading liquid placed into the bag before the air is removed and the bag is sealed will coat every external surface of the meat with a very thin layer of the marinade. This means that you can use much less marinade than you would otherwise have to use, which is valuable in large-scale industrial setups. But it still doesn't make more of the marinade penetrate the meat compared to "regular" marinading. This is discussed in Robert Wolke's What Einstein Told His Cook 2: The Sequel: Further Adventures in Kitchen Science. He discusses a study in Poultry Science in which chicken breasts were marinaded either at regular atmospheric pressure or en vacuo for 30 minutes and then evaluated for "moisture absorption, cooked yield, pH change during marination, and shear values." The authors observed that vacuum marination "increased moisture absorption during marination, but after cooking, yields were similar" and concluded that "use of vacuum during marination appeared to offer no significant advantage over marination at atmospheric pressure." Young, L.L., Smith, D.P. 2004. Effect Of Vacuum On Moisture Absorption And Retention By Marinated Broiler Fillets. Poultry Science. 83:129-131. Wolke further explored the subject using a green marinating liquid and inspecting the meat with a microscope after vacuum marination. He observed "virtually no evidence of the green marinade inside the meat." If I recall correctly, chef Christian Delouvrier told you something similar when we asked him whether we should consider using vacuum or sous vide marination for the rooster we were preparing for coq au vin.

IMO, the real whiskey match is Rye. Most everyone can find Wild Turkey's 100 proof rye, which I am sure is awesome with Blenheim's.

I think the "20% on wine" issue is a bit of a red herring. Any restaurant that does significant business in wines costing North of a hundred bucks a bottle is doing business mostly with people who can afford whatever they want and won't care about the added 20% on the wine. Indeed, people who regularly spend North of 100 bucks on a bottle of wine in restaurants are fully aware and comfortable with the fact that the bottle of wine selling at Restaurant A for 200 bucks may sell at Restaurant B for only $150 due to a variety of factors too complicated to go into in this thread (but suffice it to say that it's not necessarily the case that Restaurant A is gouging customers and making a much higher profit on the wine compared to Restaurant B). All this is to say that, while an accross-the-board 20% service charge may make you and me less likely to buy a $200 bottle of wine, it won't affect their sales of $200 wines one bit. The fact is that the vast majority of the customer base at a place like Per Se or ADNY is comprised of people who do not have to save up for the visit. I might as well also mention that people who think they know "when the markup is out of control" usually have very little real understanding of the costs involved in acquiring wines and maintaining a wine program, and also have very little real understanding of the extent to which everything else they pay for in restaurants is marked up. You want to talk about a markup? How about Lupa's twelve dollar plate of spaghetti aglio a olio? That's about a 1200% markup. Apparently this has been a huge problem for Keller at The French Laundry -- what with the waitstaff and customers leaving in droves.

Ha! We must have been there at the same time. No concrete info on Pegu, but I hope to get in and take a look soon. If your wife likes Rob Roys, the next time you're in Flatiron Lounge and Phil is behind the bar, ask him to make the unnamed "Scotchtail" he made me a while back: blended scotch, Drambuie, fresh lemon juice and a dash of Angostura bitters. It's a keeper.

That's very interesting, Rich. I wonder if it's the case that >25 years ago -- more likely >35 years ago -- when the definition of fine dining in America was largely a French European one, if it was the case that many/most high-end fine dining establishments tended to be on a service charge or service compris system. This would make some sense, as it would more or less have mirrored the system in place in the restaurants in France that were being emulated (they were doing it with the food, FOH and BOH organization, and style of service, so why not this too?).

Interesting. I was at Flatiron Lounge yesterday too, at around 6:15 - 8:00. Had a Sidecar (interesting formula I've never tried 2:1:1 Henessey:Cointreau:fresh lemon juice) and a Wheeski. Chatted a few minutes about the Big Ice, as everyone seems to call it, and which has been the subject of much discussion among the NYC cocktails crowd of late. I understand that they only recently had their Kold-Draft icemaker installed, and are having to retrain everyone for longer shaking. I remember talking to Julie several months ago about her plans for Big Ice and her dissatisfaction with the ice they were using at that time. The old ice was just too small and not dense enough, which meant that the bartenders could only shake each drink for maybe 2-3 shakes or it would become watered down. It was a problem, and I've been served an overly diluted, and yet paradoxicaly also too warm cocktail there maybe once or twice in the past (but no more than that, as FL's bartenders are among the best-trained in the City). With the new Big Ice, they can really do some shaking, get the drinks nicely cold and aerated, and not worry about over dillution. The Double Seven and Pegu Club have similar icemakers, and Bemelman's has one making half-sized cubes.

Sweet! Also looking forward to the Moccow Mule to end all Moscow Mules. If only we knew some nice guy from the Carolinas . . . a lawyer maybe . . . someone with a big car . . . and a foodie, of course . . . who could load a whole bunch of cases into his car sometime and drive it up to NYC. He could go to Patsy's East Harlem for a pizza while he's here.

As reported in Off The Menu in today's New York Times, Tony Luke's is moving around the corner and will reopen in a few weeks as Tony Luke's Sports Bar and Lounge: 355 West 41st Street: (212) 967-3055 I've modified the title of this thread accordingly.

50 to 60 bucks a liter seems awfully steep for something I can do at home with a 19 dollar bottle of Luksusowa and two dollars worth of celery and peppercorns or 10 bucks worth of black summer truffles. At least with other products that are, in essence, complicated infused vodkas (e.g., gin, aquavit, etc.) the process would be impossible to substantially duplicate at home.

I wonder if it's simply the case that all the 97% alcohol available for sale is simply crap quality. Of course, even vodka of the very best quality starts out life as ~97% pure alcohol and is diluted to bottle proof. So it should theoretically be possible to make a "not harsh" 97% alcohol. Since all the commercial limoncello producers use 97% pure alcohol to do their infusions, and these aren't generally perceived as harsh, some pretty decent high proof neutral spirits must exist. Personally, I like the idea of using a high proof, relatively neutral grappa for limoncello.

Isn't that what I said two pages back. A good waiter gives exceptional service and gets better tips. Personally, I won't go below the 15% line unless it was truly bad service. But I will go to 25% for exceptional service (as I did at Per Se). But now it will never cost me more than 20% at Per Se. Who loses? There is only so often that a waiter can give "exceptional service" at a given level. And I doubt very much that it is frequently enough to meaningfully affect the bottom line over time. Also, I am quite sure that waiter at Per Se benefits more in the long run from the 20% service charge. Okay, on the individual case they might miss out on your extra 5%. But there are most likely going to be a lot more people tipping 15% compared to your 25%, so that the standard 20% service charge eventually averages out to more money. Remember, 20% may be "standard" in NYC (although a surprising number of NYCers still tip 15%) -- but it has got to be higher than the national average. Going from my own anecdocal experience, when I tip 20% our of town, the waiters usually seem very happy -- like they got a larger-than-expected tip.

So you're saying that, because your personal experiences and opinions do not accord with the studies, the studies are wrong and they should do more until they do agree with your personal experiences and opinions? I don't think I said that. I said they should do new studies because ten years of experience says this is not the case. I don't think they should do the studies until it agrees with my experiences, just do it again and get it right - whatever right is! I don't know where you read studies should be conducted until they agreed with mine. Perhaps I misread what you posted. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. It seems to me that, implied in your statement ". . . my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies . . ." is the argument that the studies showing otherwise are wrong. That still seems to be what you're saying. "Do it again and get it right" says that it was "done wrong" -- n'est-ce pas? My assumption, on the other hand, is that the studies have already been done right. It is often the case that studies which examine situations like these with control, rigor and statistical analysis reveal things which seem to be at odds with beliefs formed through anecdotal experience. There are many reasons it may have seemed to you that the "good waiters" were making higher percentage tips than the "bad waiters" when there was not a significant and meaningful difference over time. For example, a few notably large tips might create that impression but wouldn't make a meaningful difference over the course of a year, or the ability of the "good waiters" to generate higher bills might have created the impression that the higher tips were due to a higher percentage. And, of course, there might be reasons that the "good waiters" were making a higher percentage of tips that would be ruled out in a statistical analysis where one is attempting to make "quality of service" the only independent variable. For example, the "good waiters" might be preferentially offered better tables by management or might have longstanding relationships with certain generous customers. Of course, a more meaningful comparison -- especially at the high end -- is not between the "bad waiters" and the "good waiters" but rather between the "best waiters" and the "good waiters."

Indeed, there is a whole industry founded upon this basis. We call it "the performing arts." Large portions of my performing career could be described as "demeaning myself for relatively small amounts of money." So you're saying that, because your personal experiences and opinions do not accord with the studies, the studies are wrong and they should do more until they do agree with your personal experiences and opinions? That's not how science works. What the studies seem to say is that, if you figure out the average tip percentage for each waiter over the course of some reasonably lengthy period of time (say, a year), the percentages are very similar to within a few percentage points. This is not to say that some waiters don't make much more money than others, but it is to say that this disparity reflects the size of the checks rather than a meaningful difference in percentage tipped. Just look at this thread, or indeed around this whole site. I would hazard to say that the eGullet Society membership is, on a whole, more sophisticated and savvy about these things than the average restaurant customer. And yet, the vast majority of us would describe our typical tipping practice as: "I always tip X% unless the service is egregiously bad or beyond-the-call-of-duty exceptional." I know this is true for me. Is there anyone on this thread for whom it is not true? Can anyone here honestly say, "I regularly vary the tip between 10% and 30% based on my evaluation of the service I have received"? Do you find yourself thinking, "the service was pretty good, but just a touch below what I prefer -- tonight I'll tip 17% instead of 20"? I think a lot of people like the idea, but don't actually do it in practice. Unless a substantial number of people speak up and say that they don't tend to tip on a standard percentage unless the circumstances are exceptionally positive or negative, that puts the lie to the idea that "waiters are rewarded for good service with larger tips."

Lighting alcohol soaked sugar cubes and ladles of alcohol and orange/lemon shells filled with alcohol, and punchbowls, etc. is something that people have been doing for a long, long time in many cultures.

Here's the problem with that: 90% of the diners at a restaurant are entirely unqualified to determine what is and is not under the control of the waitstaff, and may often penalize (or reward, although this is far less likely) the waitstaff for something that is not their fault. I totally disagree Sam. If a diner has taken the time to get a reservation at Per Se or any other top-tier restaurant, then said diner knows how to tip and knows when a problem is the waiter's fault or not. Sadly, I think this is not true.

Let it be an anomaly; it is a gratuity, at the discretion of the diner. Here's the problem with that: 90% of the diners at a restaurant are entirely unqualified to determine what is and is not under the control of the waitstaff, and may often penalize (or reward, although this is far less likely) the waitstaff for something that is not their fault. And a not insignificant percentage of the diners at a restaurant (let's put it at a conservative 20%) use the "at my discretion based on the quality of the service" premise as an excuse to be cheap. In addition, some people simply don't know any better (I know a lawyer who regularly tips at around 6% despite the fact that the meals will be charged to the Firm). These things all add up to a terrible system. Er. . . unless you are at McDonald's, the charges at a restaurant are not up front. They come after the meal is consumed. If there is a substantial problem with the meal, such that the diner feels that the meal was significantly less valuable than the price charged, the diner has the ability to take it up with management before paying the bill. In the event that there has been a significant problem with service or food, I can't think of many restaurants that wouldn't reduce the bill (if they want to stay in business, that is). And the diner can always pay whatever he thinks the meal is worth and simply walk out. If the restaurant wants to pursue it, they can take him to court. Of course, taking it up with management is a lot less cowardly than simply stiffing the waiter and leaving.

OXO mango splitter

Sammy, it's a joke.

I understand that Blenheim Bottling was bought by Alan Schafer, the owner of South of the Border in Dillon, SC, who distributed and promoted Blenheim. Schaefer is now deceased, but you might try giving them a call at (843) 774-2411.

Hmm. Three days before your book is released. Coincidence?