slkinsey

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?

Interesting comment, Todd. I suppose it is true that technique is critical. But what baffles me is that the technique is also incredibly easy to master, at least up to the "doesn't suck" level, and even up to "damn good." It certainly didn't take me a lot of training to make better-than-I've-ever-had-in-America espresso on my Rancilio at home, and I don't exactly dedicate a great deal of energy to maintaining or refining my technique. So, what this tells me is that making good-to-very good espresso, assuming good raw materials, really comes down to three things: keeping the machines properly maintained and calibrated, giving the staff some kind of minimal training and, most important of all, making sure that the staff actually cares. I got an espresso recently at Regional that, while not as good as I make at home, was good enough to be in the top 1% of NYC restaurant espresso.

Andy's comment upthread reminded me to touch on this. I've really been getting into rum these days myself. I actually quite like the Barbancourt white rhum. It's got a bit of the rhum agricole flavor that I like quite a bit, but does make it different from regular white rum distilled from molasses (rhum agriole is distilled from sugar cane juice rather than molasses). If you're so inclined, you might try a real Daiquiri: 2 ounces of white rum, 1/2 ounce fresh lime juice, 1/2 teaspoon of superfine sugar; stir to dissolve the sugar then shake with ice and strain. Or, for a tall drink, I like a Rum Swizzle: 1.5 ounces white or light rum, 3/4 ounce fresh like juice, 1/2 ounce Falernum (or simple syrup or the infused simple syrup of your choice), 3 dashes Angostura bitters; serve over ice in a tall glass. On the simple side, there's always a Ti Punch, or if you like dark rum, try an "Eighteenth Century Cocktail." At least it doesn't have a doleful, needy expression on its face like the cod.

Nice looking fish. How are you baking it? Just open in the oven, or are you covering it with parchment or something like that? Also, did you leave the bones in or debone the fish? It's a little extra prep work, but ever since I read about it in one of Marcella Hazan's books, I've been all about baking whole stuffed fish that I've deboned "from the inside."

Actually, I would argue that the cuisine at Babbo is Italian. It's not the same as you would get in Italy, because Italy is highly regional/microregional not only in cuisine but in cultural outlook. The cooking at Babbo is no more different from "Italian food in Italy" than the cooking in Milano is different from the cooking in Napoli. What Batali has attempted to do is create a restaurant that treats New York City, including its people and its ingredients, like "another region of Italy" and to cook Italian food that reflects that regionality. This is exactly what an Italian chef might do who left Pisa to open up a restaurant in Modena. Unlike the Italian-American cooking at, say, Carmine's, I think most Italians who dine at Babbo would recognize the food as being "Italian" even though it does not attempt to slavishly duplicate dishes from Italy out of context. I am by no means an expert on Ethiopian culture, but I am given to understand that there is no longstanding tradition of "fine dining" as distinct from "regular people dining" (including more elaborate preparation and presentation, more expensive and perhaps unique or rare ingredients, more highly developed dining rituals, etc.) the way there is in, say, France. This is to say that the rich people in Ethiopia may have been eating better, more expensive versions of the dishes that "regular people" were eating, but fundamentaly they were still eating more or less the same dishes or the same kinds of dishes, and that the overall style was the same. But let's stay closer to home. Is there a longstanding, nonimported tradition of "Mexican fine dining" where rich people in Mexico are eating Mexican foods, including unique dishes, ingredients and styles of preparation and service, and otherwise dining in a context that is distinctly different from the way the "regular people" are eating? Looking at China, on the other hand, we have clear evidence that there was a distinctly different, nonimported traditional luxe dining culture for the aristocracy.

Any restaurants make an espresso that doesn't suck?

They sometimes have them at Citarella. And IIRC, I've seen them many times at Sea Breeze on Ninth Avenue.

I think one of the things that Stan is saying is that the characteristic elements that go into what is Filiipino food and food culture do not lend themselves to the classic "NYT 2 Star model" (whatever that may now mean, given the past year). And that a restaurant would have to give up a certain amount of Filipino-ness in order to comfortably fit that mold. There is no denying the fact that certain styles of dining and certain cuisines (notably French and neo-French) lend themselves to the "starred review" model than others. I have argued in the past that it would be somewhat difficult for a truly Italian restaurant to receive a four star rating in the NY Times. With respect to something like Filipino food is the likelihood that there is no well-understood native concept of "Filipino fine dining" as there is, say, "Chinese fine dining" (despite the dearth of restaurants actually exploring that in NYC). I can't say for sure whether there is a hairarchical dining structure with an identifiable native cuisine for wealthy people in the Philippine Islands, but I suspect that there is not one. This is similar to, say, Ethiopia, where there are not huge differences between "rich people food" and "regular people food" in terms of dishes prepared, etc. (obviously the rich people may tend to eat more food and more expensive foods like meats).

The soup dumplings are Joe's selling point, so they are must-try. Elsewhere people have recommended the braised bean curd over spinach and their eel with yellow chives. They also have a steamed chicken dish with a light sauce that Eric_Malson recommends highly.

Would that be Ayrshire bacon? The rolled/sliced one in the center at the bottom?

Soon, soon. . . I'll try to make sure to do some kind of writeup here when the opening comes. Im given to understand that it's in the "no one ever sleeps" end stage these days.

As far as I have been able to learn, falernum was invented by John D. Taylor in the late 19th century. The original name was "velvet falernum." Later, in the 1920s, the John D. Taylor company produced a variant called "white falernum" that was lighter and less distinctively flavored. As far as I know, it is no longer produced. Both contain alcohol. I would think that the original velvet falernum (which is anyway a clear "white" liqueur) would be the one to use in tropical drinks. There is also no need to make your own falernum. The original John D. Taylor velvet falernum is available for sale in the States (I have a bottle), and Fee Brothers makes a nonalcoholic "falernum syrup."

Great post, Dave. There is definitely something to said for the entire ritual that goes into making a cocktail, and the Old Fashioned is one where it comprises a signifncant part of the process. I had an OF sitting at the bar at Milk & Honey a few weeks ago -- stirred with one big lump of ice cut from the block, with the twist cut to order and trimmed of pith, sugar and bitters muddled, etc. It took a long time to make, and watching the process was just as good as enjoying the drink.

This is something that is covered in Gary Regan's book The Joy of Mixology : The Consummate Guide to the Bartender's Craft. He identifies a class of cocktails he calls "New Orleans Sour" consisting of base liquor, Cointreau and citrus. This includes the Sidecar and Cosmopolitan as well as the Margarita, Brandy Crusta, and many other popular drinks. In fact, this is one of the easiest formulae to use in creating drinks all'improviso. Think dark rum + Cointreau + lime or gin + Cointreau + lemon with a dash of bitters, etc. That said, not all New Orleans Sours are created equal. I don't think that anyone would argue that a Sidecar isn't substantially more complex than a Cosmopolitan. For starters, there is simply no way a citrus-flavored vodka can bring the same range and depth of flavor to the table as a Cognac. The whole "citrus vodka with citrus liqueur with citrus juice" thing is also a bit monochromatic and not particularly compelling. Then there is also the problem with the way the Cosmpolitan is usually mixed, which is to say heavy on the sweet. Some bartenders even use simple syrup to bump up the sweetness. So, in the end, you're often left drinking a pink glass of vaguely citrus flavored alcoholic candy. On the rare occasions that I have a diehard Cosmo drinker in my home, I've varied the formula by infusing some lemon or orange zest into a few ounces of either gin or aquavit for 5 minutes or so, and using that instead of citrus vodka. It makes a signirficantly more interesting drink, and most people won't even notice that it isn't vodka. They just notice that the drink is more complex and interesting.

El Diablo. Now I have to get cassis? Do you cocktail peeps have any idea what you've done to me? You should be able to pick up a little bottle of it, and you can just get rid of it when you go back home. And if you think the booze collection is getting out of hand, you should take a look in my apartment. I've got liquor bottles literally filling two cabinets and one full closet. . . and I still have a few cases salted away in the walk-in closet. The scary thing is that my collection is miniscule compared to Dave Wondrich's. I swear, if you pried up the floorboards in his house you'd find bottles under the floors. The even scarier thing is that Dave's collection is probably dwarfed by Ted Haigh's.