slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
- This bacon-basting , snot-coagulating, egg-frying method: has anyone tried it? I did, within hours of learning about it. Given a choice, I haven't had eggs any other way since.
I like frying eggs in bacon fat, but don't tend to do the basting thing. I find that basting with bacon fat inevitably leaves little speckles of bacon schmutz on the otherwise pristine white surface of the egg. I suppose I could filter the bacon fat through a paper towel, but it seems like too much trouble. I also like to fry eggs over medium-low heat in nonstick rather than over high heat in cast iron. Lower heat tends to produce a more tender, whiter, less greasy fried egg whereas high heat results in a crispy, slightly browned, much greasier egg. Nonstick also helps in this regard. I find the frypan shape much easier to get a spatula into, and I confess that I also favor a large frypan because it's easier to make two fried eggs instead of one. Anyway. . . my trick for making sure the surface of the egg is cooked through is simply to cover the pan for around 30-60 seconds.
I suppose it comes down, in some ways, to the difference between a "city fried egg" and a "country fried egg" -- if that makes any sense. The former is more tender, less greasy and more cosmetic whereas the latter is crispy, less cosmetic and more greasy, but perhaps with a stronger flavor due to the increased absorption of bacon fat.
While we're on the subject of bacon, eggs and toast. . . what about other starches? Nothing satisfies quite like a couple of fried eggs, bacon and grits -- although I like to have toast with this as well.
Anyway. . . I was inspired by the article, and did two eggs crispy this morning with bacon, toast and grits.
-
The only critic I've seen ever make a reasonable and believable defense of "quasi-anonymous" dining is Eric Asimov (here). I say "quasi-anonymous" because I think most well known reviewers are fools if they think they're dining unrecognized at top restaurants. What Eric defended is the shared pretense that the reviewer is anonymous, because it prevents awkward situations where the chef is sending out a zillion extra courses and the "maitre d's, owners, chefs, sommeliers and everybody else feels compelled to come over to greet you and chat and schmooze with you. Along with all the free and extra food comes free drinks, a tour of the kitchen, and god knows what else."
But as anyone who has been in show business can tell you, there is no way you can make the show "just a little bit better than the other nights" when you know the critic is in the audience. It just doesn't work that way. And, frankly, given that 90% of what makes a meal top notch happens before the diner even sets foot in the restaurant, I am skeptical that much can be done to create a food experience that is substantially better than what the other diners are getting -- especially over 4 or 5 meals. I suppose service can be improved, but even then the evidence is that places with service issues aren't able to correct them even when they know the critic is in the house.
-
I've never seen fresh straw mushrooms. It seems to me they're not being cultivated fresh in the USA; don't know why. (More research, more research.... mutters.)
This is most likely the case for a number of reasons.
First, Volvariella volvacea likes to grow on rice straw (hence the name "straw mushroom" or "paddy straw mushroom"). This is something that exists in abundance in China, but not so much in the US.
Second, as this mushroom is not commonly consumed fresh, it can likely be produced less expensively in China compared to the US.
Third, Volvariella volvacea likes high humidity and temperatures from 85 to 95F.
Finally, it is very difficult to distinguish Volvariella volvacea in the desirable bud stage from Amanita phalloides (aka the "Death Cap Mushroom"), one of the most poisonous mushrooms in North America.
-
Sabor Tropical, a great Brazilian restaurant in Astoria, recently opened up a Churrascaria a few doors down on 30th Ave.
Went there a few days ago, and Churrascaria Tropica isl now my go-to rodizio in the City. The salad bar isn't as lavish, but meat is every bit as good as at Plataforma (sometimes better) and it's less than half the price. I made a full post about it here.
-
This last weekend I spent a very enjoyable evening with friends at Churrascaria Tropical in Astoria.
For a while now the prices have been going up at Churrascaria Plataforma, long the gold standard of NYC rodizios. Right now, I believe Plataforma is charging 47 dollars for the rodizio dinner, drinks and dessert not included. And the price goes up considerably if you have a few of their absurdly overpriced caipirinhas. There were lower priced alternatives, of course, but they were always inconveniently difficult to reach and often served meat that was notably inferior in quality to what was being served at Plataforma. We've resorted to dreary subway rides out to Master Grill in Flushing and endured long train rides out to Newark to try to get a reasonably priced rodizio dinner, and I was always left feeling that it ultimately wasn't worth the effort (especially when you figure in the cost of taking the train to Newark).
Well, wait no more. If you want a reasonably priced rodizio experience with top quality meat, and you don't want to travel to the ends of the earth, just take the N/W train to Astoria Boulevard and walk a few short blocks to Churrascaria Tropical at 36-08 30th Avenue, between 36th and 37th Streets.
Michael Marich, the chef at Churrascaria Tropical, worked for many years at Plataforma. He uses the same meat suppliers, he uses the same equipment, and he uses the same techniques. In fact, in our opinion, several of the cuts of meat which are often dry and better skipped at Plataforma (pork loin, ham, lamb) were juicy and delicious at Tropical. The chef took me to the kitchen and showed me around. It is a remarkably simple procedure. The skewered meat is placed under a powerful broiler where it automatically rotates until charred on the outside, whereupon it is brought out for service, the outer layer is carved away and it is returned to the kitchen for another go under the broiler. There must have been 10 gallons of rendered fat in the catch basin below, just from one day's service!
Tropical's salad bar is quite modest compared to Plataforma's. They had hot dishes of mussels and shrimp, various greens, hearts of palm, some potato salad-like things, etc. Certainly nothing like the lavish spread at Plataforma, but I found that Tropical had most of the things I end up having when I go to Plataforma. It's always important at a rodizio not to fill up at the salad bar.
Once we finished out salad plates, we got the usual side dishes: black beans, white rice, fried plantains, fried yucca, a kind of tomato, onion and vinegar sauce, the absolutely addictive pao de queijo, and some farofa. The farofa at Tropical is fried with chorizo, which is the way I like it (it is available without for the porkophobes).
Then they had just about all the meats you get at Plataforma: chicken legs with sausage, turkey wraped in bacon, pork loin, lamb, brisket, ham, top sirloin (picanha), short ribs, flank steak, chicken hearts, etc. All the meats were comparable in quality to Plataforma at its best, and some of them (short ribs, pork loin, lamb) were better than I've had at Plataforma. What Tropical doesn't have are the occasional "extras" they bring around at Plataforma: the suckling pig, the whole salmon, etc.
Tropical also serves Brahma, a Brazilian beer. It's clean, crisp and slightly sweet. More or less the Brazilian equivalent of Miller. But, just as it is fun to have Tsingtao, the Chinese equivalent of Budweiser, when eating at a Chinese restaurant, it's nice to have a Brazilian beer at a rodizio. Tropical has a nice and reasonably priced wine list, but caipirinhas and beer are my drinks of perference at a rodizio. When you're trying to eat your weight in roasted meat, a heavy red wine just doesn't seem to fit the bill. Oh, and those caipirinhas? They're made with Velho Barreiro Cachaça -- still a relatively inexpensive cachaça but a lot better than the Pitu most places are using -- and they only cost six bucks.
And if the great food, relatively convenient location and friendly service aren't enough to get you there, there's this: the rodizio at Churrascaria Tropical is only 20 bucks!
-
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?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.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.
-
Where I do think sous vide methods amplify flavor is when you cook with flavorings in the bag. This is just my personal experience -- I've not studied it scientifically. Still, it does seem that a tablespoon of liquid and some very small quantities of herbs and such can give you a lot of bang for your buck.
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.
-
For example, in the article, we have the claim that "The atmospheric pressure created during the vacuum-packing process also promotes osmosis among the contents of the bag, so sous vide has become an important tool for marinating and curing foods and infusing oils with spices and herbs."
How is that, aside from use of words like "osmosis," "atmospheric pressure" and "sous vide" any different from (exact quote from FoodSaver) "Plus, order now and receive our special bonus package, including our best-selling FoodSaver Marinating Canister so you can marinate meats in just minutes instead of overnight"?
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.
-
Does anyone think that this policy will make some people think twice about ordering a more expensive bottle? there are many diners who are well aware of the retail cost of a wine, and understand that markups are part of the drill..but I know that when the markup is out of control, my husband will rebel. He always says he know's he's getting f*cked, but some markups are so insulting, he feels like he's pulled down his pants an bent over to make it easier for them.
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.
I want to be a fly on the wall the first time that $500 wine becomes an automatic $600 or that special bottle of champagne goes from $400 to $480; and then when the bill arrives and right there in black and white for the person to read is that $723.47 service charge.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.
-
I got married in 1979 and one night during our honeymoon week, we went to the Palace on 59th Street near the Queensborough Bridge. It was considered one of the finest and THE most expensive NYC restaurant at the time. The service charge was 23% - 15% waiter, 5% captian, 3% wine steward. I didn't leave anything extra. The final bill came to $385 in 1979 money.
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.
-
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."
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.
-
I can only go by experience working as a waiter, since I never read the tip studies you and Steve did. And in the ten years, my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies.
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."
-
Some are willing to demean themselves for relatively small amounts of money.
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."
I can only go by experience working as a waiter, since I never read the tip studies you and Steve did. And in the ten years, my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies. A bad waiter at a "good" table will get less of a tip (percentage wise) than a good waiter at a "bad" table. I've experienced it, but never wrote a study.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.
Pegu Club
in New York: Dining
Posted
NY Metro's article lets the cat out of the bag, and I can finally say what everyone wants to hear: after a few days of friends & family and press, Pegu Club should be opening next week.
As you can see from the photographs, it will be a beautiful spot. It's been very interesting for me to poke my head inside a few times during the construction process, and to see how everything came together. Even last Thursday, the place was nowhere near what you can see in the picture. It's a fairly large rectangular space featuring some banquettes right as you come in, and then a very large bar with a beautiful natural wood top.
There are many things they're doing at Pegu that seem unprecedented in recent Manhattan bar/lounge history. The setup behind the bar is most impressive. All the classes are chilled, each bartender has his/her own refrigeration setup, there are two Kold-Draft machines making gigantic cubes of ice, there is a full kitchen turning out interesting hot bar snacks, the bartenders have custom made cocobolo muddlers that feel like silk in your hand, there are special mixing pitchers with pour spouts for stirred drinks, etc. The selection of potables will be impressive, with more brands of gin than you can shake a stick at. There will also be an array of house-made single flavor tinctures, so bartenders can more or less create custom made bitters and spice accents on the fly. One very interesting touch is that every table will have a little box containing droppers of lemon juice, lime juice, bitters and simple syrup. That way, if their standard Sidecar is just a little bit too sour for your palate, you can add a drop or two of simple syrup to adjust the balance.
On top of all this will be some of Audrey's signature touches, such as decanting half of each martini into a small carafe nestled in a bowl of ice, and all the drinks that have made her such a favorite among the cocktails crowd. I love the fact that there will be no "V" glasses.
I'll have more to say, no doubt, after the weekend. But there is such a high degree of interest, I wanted to let everyone know that you'll soon be able to say it was worth every bit of the wait!
Pegu Club
77 West Houston Street (SoHo)
Between Wooster and West Broadway
212-473-PEGU