slkinsey

Boy do I ever agree with that. The better the ingredients, the better the final product. Of course, there is a law of diminishing returns, and I wouldn't use Porfidio's single-barrel Barrique at $500 a bottle, of course.We had a thread on this subject just a little while ago, where I offered my über-geek suitability-for-cocktails by price graph: I've been using a big bottle of Herradura silver I got on sale a while back. For Margaritas, I tend to just use the least expensive 100% agave silver tequila I can find. Most any 100% agave tequila is more than good enough for mixing (unless there are some real clunkers our members can warn me away from). I also tend to stay away from Cuervo products. I should add that regular Sausa Blanca, while not 100% agave, is a pretty good tequila if you're mixing for a crowd, especially if you're making drinks with a lot of flavors going on, and easier on the wallet than most 100% agave tequilas.

Keep in mind, however, that these are Americanized pronunciations. Take, for example, the French herbal liqueur Chartreuse. Merriam Webster would have you pronounce this word as "shar-troos" whereas I would argue for "shar-trœz." Merriam Webster would also like to have you pronounce liqueur as "lih-coo-er" instead of "lih-cœr." ("œ" is a French vowel sound one produces more or less by forming your mouth into an "o" position and trying to say "eh" through it.) This is not to say that I think English speakers should try to pronounce 100% correct French/Italian/whatever when referring to ingredients, and of course there are certain foreign words that have more or less become anglicized in pronunciation (e.g., absinthe). But I do think "shar-truz is preferable to "shar-troos."

People are learning to love the snoot, I see. I wish they could do their more usual dish, which is rib tips and snoot, but apparently there isn't enough room for them to have a fire (or, for some reason, the need for them to have fire for the rib tips means they can't do it).

mbanu, I think I understand what you're saying but it's more a matter of flavor for me than it is one of alcoholic strength (although that's important). Marie Brizard triple sec is sweeter and less "orangey" compared to Cointreau, and the drop off is fairly steep after Marie Brizard with most lesser brands of triple sec being substantially sweeter than Cointreau with substantially less orange flavor. Cointreau's refined orange flavor allows me to get good flavor from it in a 2:1:1 Margarita and its (relative) dryness lets it work okay in a 3:2:1 Margarita (personally, I think I would find an "equal parts" Margarita with Cointreau too sweet and limey with not enough tequila flavor). Marie Brizard is close enough to Cointreau that I don't think any big adjustments need to be made. If I were using some lesser-than-Marie-Brizard triple sec, on the other hand, I'd be inclined to use less triple sec in order to keep the drink from becoming overly sweet. I'd never consider a 3:2:1 Margarita, and even 2:1:1 would be sweeter than I'd like. I'd probably start off with 2:3/4:1 and maybe even use less triple sec than that. That, to me, is the problem with triple sec compared to Cointreau: much more sweetness, much less orange flavor. You naturally want to use less triple sec to avoid making the drink overly sweet, but at the same time you naturally want to use more triple sec because it has less orange flavor to begin with. It's impossible to do both, of course, so you have to decide what is more important to you. I'd rather have a dryer drink with less orange flavor if I'm forced to choose. Cointreau is 40%, and Marie Brizard (IMO the only triple sec worth buying other than Cointreau) is 30%. MB is 39%. Is it? I could be mistaken. I'm away from home, so I don't have any bottles around and I just googled it. These guys say it's 60 proof.

Cointreau is 40%, and Marie Brizard (IMO the only triple sec worth buying other than Cointreau) is 30%. Absolutely. Shake, strain, serve "up" in a cocktail glass. A Margarita, after all, belongs in the same family as the Sidecar (base liquor, Cointreau, citrus juice). IIRC, here in DC they are running 3 or 4 little suckers for $2.Highway robbery! Does DC have much of a Latino population?Huge - mostly central American, especially in certain suburbs.I would think you could get limes at a much better price in Latin markets. Here in Manhattan (and especially in my neighborhood) it may be the case that Latinos are intermixed with all the other various "types" that limes are always in high demand, and thus less expensive due do volume. I have noticed that limes are more expensive in upscale markets like Garden of Eden that tend to be patronized mostly by Anglos.

IIRC, here in DC they are running 3 or 4 little suckers for $2. Highway robbery! Does DC have much of a Latino population?

Are limes really that expensive? Around here, I can usually get them at something like 4 for a dollar all the way up to 10 for a dollar, depending on the season. Needless to say, you have to use fresh lime juice. Lemonade and orange juice aren't going to get you there. There seem to be two common formulations for a Margarita. One is the 3:2:1 formula, and the other is the 2:1:1 formula. This would translate to: 3:2:1 Margarita 1.5 oz : blanco tequila 1.0 oz : Cointreau 0.5 oz : fresh lime juice 2:1:1 Margarita 1.50 oz : blanco tequila 0.75 oz : Cointreau 0.75 oz : fresh lime juice Your formula is 4:2:1, which strikes me as too heavy on the tequila, and it uses triple sec instead of Cointreau, which strikes me as too sweet and without enough orange flavor (and what flavor there is, is less refined). Personally, I prefer the 2:1:1 formula. The 3:2:1 formula is too sweet for me, doesn't allow the flavor of the tequila to come through enough, and doesn't have that refreshing tartness from the lime. The 2:1:1 formula is tart, has just enough orange sweetness from the Cointreau and is balanced towards the base liquor enough to make it worthwhile to use a moderately priced 100% agave tequila. So I say: 2 oz : 100% agave blanco tequila 1 oz : Cointreau 1 oz : fresh lime juice Shake with cracked ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass (salt the rim lightly if you like, I don't). Here is another recipe calling for more lime juice than triple sec. Edited to change a lemon to a lime.

This may be heresy, but you could consider taking the shaker to a silversmith and getting them to put a little hole in the center of the cap. You would block this with your thumb when shaking and leave it open when pouring. If it's an antique, you may not want to do this of course.

You should also consider loosening the top cap when you pour. Some of the shakers I have with that design have a little hole in the cap on the opposite side of the pour spout. You have to cover this hole with your thumb when you shake, which I usually remember after I've already done a few shakes and sprayed booze out the little hole. Rather than simply being an annoyance, however, the hole serves an important function in this design: it serves as an air intake while you are pouring. Without this little hole, it would take twice as long to pour the drink. If your shaker doesn't have a hole like this, not only are you pouring through a narrow opening, but air has to enter the shaker through the same hole. This will inevitably produce the "glug glug glug" effect you get when you pour out a beer from too steep an angle -- and which, as we have all noted, actually makes the beer come out at a much slower rate. If you crack the lid open a bit, you'll let in some air and should pour more rapidly. The other way you could still get some good use out of this shaker (and it would be a shame not to use it) is to shake the drink in the shaker, remove the top, slap on a hawthorne strainer and pour out of the top.

According to an article in the NY Times magazine a few months ago, the original maraschino cherries were made by marinating Marasca cherries in maraschino liqueur. So, all you need to do is find some sour cherries, pour some maraschino liqueur over them, and wait however long you're inclined to wait. By the way, the evil red color of modern "maraschino cherries" has nothing to do with the real thing.

Unfortunately that design sort of sucks as a cocktail shaker. I know, I've got some just like it. The best advice I can offer you is to turn the shaker almost upside-down when you're pouring, which should float the ice up to the other end of the shaker, and to jiggle the shaker when you're pouring, which should move the ice away from the internal screen.

Here is a thread on the NYC and NYS smoking bans that touches on most of the important subjects. A few thoughts: 1. I have a number of friends in the bar/lounge/nightclub business. None of them are having any trouble with business -- and, indeed, business is booming. While it may be true that some bars that offered little more than a place to smoke while being served a stale beer and a watered down shot experienced economic difficulties or even closed as a result of the bans, this kind of business is typically very fragile anyway. All it takes is something like having the nearby factory or worksite move the exit over to the next block for this kind of bar will suffer and/or close. 2. scordelia, I don't know where you're getting the idea that NYC is covered with illegal "smoking bar speakeasies," but this is simply not the case. There are some illegal clubs and bars (most of which allow smoking) and there are some regular bars that allow smoking after hours, but this is not a widespread phenomenon and I don't sense that it's any more prevalent now than it was before the bans. 3. Brad is absolutely correct: this is a workplace safety issue, not a consumer freedom issue. It is reasonable to tell consumers that they can simply move on to the next bar if they don't like cigarette smoke, it is not reasonable to tell a bartenders and waitstaff that they have to choose another profession if they don't want to inhale secondhand smoke. The law is 100% clear that the government can enact laws to protect workers from undue hazards in the workplace, and it is without doubt that secondhand smoke is a significant workplace hazard. Tobacco smoke is no more a necessary component of the bar or restaurant workplace than it is in an office building or airplane -- both places from which smoking has been banned for years. This post from the NYC/NYS ban thread contains good information on the health issues, and you can read the whole study here (pdf). 4. Although it sounds like a nice compromise, air filtration systems of the type that are typically (and can economically be) installed in restaurants and bars simply don't do an adequate job of cleaning the air. It is pretty much impossible to protect workers from secondhand smoke with filtration.

The easiest and best thing I've come across is to surf eBay and pick up a Rival Ice-o-Matic electric ice crusher. These things date from the 50s and 60s, they have powerful motors and are adjustable from a rough crack to a fine crush. Just search for "ice crusher" at eBay and look for the big, heavy ones with fine-course adjustment. The ones you want have a curvy, vaguely art deco design. I don't see any for auction right now, but they are frequently for sale on eBay.

Well, whether alcoholic strength is important depends on the cocktail. There is definitely something to be said for a short, cold, strong drink. There's a very old fashioned cocktail that I like very much. Dave Wondrich's version, called the Tombstone, has two ounces of Wild Turkey 100 proof rye whiskey, a bar spoon of 2:1 demerara syrup and two dashes of Angostura bitters. Now, you could make this drink with Old Overholt, a very good rye at 80 proof, but it just wouldn't be the same. Part of the difference would be in the strength of the cocktail. A better example might be Audrey's Gin-Gin Mule. It's a tall drink with ice, 1.5 ounces of gin, .75 ounces of lime juice, 1 ounce of simple syrup, mint and 2 ounces of ginger beer. That's only 1.5 ounces of spirit to 3.75 ounces of nonalcoholic ingredients -- more once the ice starts melting. Make this with an 80 proof gin, and it might get a little weak. I think the idea of "numbing the palate with high proof spirits" is hogwash. That said, I agree that this is a drink that you might want to balance with a softer gin (I personally prefer only 0.5 of Lillet and lemon juice, but that's another topic). But gin proof and assertiveness of flavor do not always go hand in hand. It's more complicated because of the infusion technique thing. Exactly. You want an assertive gin with a French 75, and it wouldn't hurt to use a higher proof one as well (I think 4 ounces is the right amount). But with the higher proof Booker's you're given more opportunity. :) Well, it's true that you can always cut a higher proof spirit down in alcoholic strength and intensity of flavor simply by dilution. But it's sometimes nice to start with something softer. I guess if you could only use one bourbon, you'd want the higher proof one. Luckily we don't have to make that choice.

Interesting stuff, mbanu. I'm still not sure I entirely understand, however. Here's what Plymouth does to make their gin: Begins with neutral spirits and rectifies to >96% alcohol. Dilutes that alcohol down to approximately 69% alcohol. Puts the botanicals into that 69% alcohol wash and fires the still. Distills the flavored wash to produce gin at 85% alcohol. Dilutes the gin to 41.2% alcohol for their main bottling, 50% alcohol for Navy Strength. I assume this is a fairly standard technique. This is to say that, while a 10% infused wash distilled to 55% and diluted down to 40% might have more intensity of flavor, this would seem to be a largely theoretical construct and it's unclear to me that the 10/55/40 gin distillation you mention wouldn't result in some pretty harsh flavors and un-gin-like characteristics. IMO, a higher bottle proof almost always equals more intensity of flavor in rum and whiskey. With gin also it's often the case, but not always. All in all, it goes back to some of the things Audrey mentioned. Sometimes you might rather use 80 proof Old Overholt rye in a drink instead of 100 proof Wild Turkey because you're looking for a milder flavor. You're also very rarely going to want to mix with ~125 proof Booker's, because it will almost always overwhelm everything else in the drink. Sometimes you might want to use a higher proof gin like Junìpero because the drink you're making has a lot of nonalcoholic ingredients and you don't want to water down the alcohol content of the drink. Other times -- in a modern-style ultradry Martini at 10:1, for example -- you might prefer one of the lower proof gins.

Well not quite. Flavor strength is primarily related to distillation proof. If a spirit fresh off the still is 95% abv and is diluted to 50% (like some vodkas), it will have less flavor than a spirit distilled to 67% abv and diluted to 40% (like some bourbons); even though the second one is a lower proof, it has been diluted less. I think it depends on the spirit. What you are saying works for spirits that derive most of their flavor from the wash and from wood aging (e.g., whisk(e)y, brandy, rum). On the other hand, for an infused neutral spirit like gin or aquavit, flavor strength isn't particularly related to distillation proof. A general rule of thumb for distilled spirits is that a spirit of higher proof will have more intensity of flavor than a spirit of the same type at lower proof. In other words, a 100 proof white rum will tend to have more flavor than an 80 proof white rum, a 94 proof gin will tend to have more flavor than an 80 proof gin, a 100 proof bourbon or rye will tend to have more flavor than an 86 proof bourbon or rye. This isn't always the case, of course. For example, Junìpero gin is 98.6 proof and Gordon's is only 80. Yet, there are certain notes in Gordon's that come through more assertively. This might be because Gordon's is so much more aggressively flavored after infusion that these certain notes are still stronger even though it is diluted more than Junìpero.

Durian, what do you feel is wrong with the pan? If it is simply the case that it has been discolored, you can probably get rid of some of the discoloration with an application of oven cleaner followed by scrubbing with Bar Keeper's Friend. If the pan was heated hot enough, however, there isn't much you will be able to do. If the pan is starting to come delaminated or something like that, it's a total loss.

I'm not aware of any scientific data suggesting that eating PTFE that was once overheated is dangerous for your health. For sure we know that this is the case with respect to eating "regular" pieces of PTFE such as might come from scratches in the coating. PTFE is known to have very good biocompatibility and low tissue reactivity. That's why it is used in knee replacements, etc.

Broadway just North of 98th Street on the West side of the street.

Ten Cane is very good, and has some rhum agricole character (although, for my money, La Favorite is better and has a more assertive "agricole-ness" to it). Ten Cane makes a damn good drink, I know that. For the money, though, Favorite or Niesson are my choices -- higher proof and lower cost.

Yesterday evening I found myself at Regional for dinner with bergerka, ewindels and emmapeel. . . and what a delightful dinner it was. Finally there is a restaurant on the UUWS (that's Upper Upper West Side, for those if you who never venture North of 86th Street) I feel can become my neighborhood hangout. The restaurant itself is just like dozens of inexpensive, simple, informal osterie I've visited in Italy in decor and feel. The roughly rectangular space is divided in half with metal racks on either side supporting white barrels which are used to store bottles of wine. The front half of the room has a bar (wine and very simple drinks) and a few large high tables. The back half of the room has the regular seating consisting of four tops and two tops with plenty of room around them. The main thing that differentiates Regional from a small town osteria in Italy is that an osteria in the middle of, say, Umbria would only serve food from Umbria, more than likely would only serve food from the zone, and possibly would feature mostly a style of food particular to that town. Regional, on the other hand, features food from all the various regional styles of Italy: bagna caoda from Piemonte, bucatini alla gricia from Lazio, merluzzo alla ghiotta from Sicilia and so on. Everything on the menu sounds good, and if our visit is any indication, it is all executed very well. More to the point, it all sounds interesting and authentic, and it's not dishes you're likely to have seen around town very often. Take a look through these pasta dishes, and I think you'll see what I mean: casoncelli al burro e salvia (veal & parmigiano-reggiano ravioli in sage butter), garganelli al ragu' di vitello (rolled quill-shaped pasta in veal ragu), bucatini alla gricia (thick hollow spaghetti-like pasta red onion and pancetta sauce), spaghetti alla chitarra con ragu' d'agnello (square strand pasta with lamb ragu), sciallatielli ai frutti di mare (fat pasta with squid, shrimp and mussels), maccheroni con salsa di melanzane e pomodori (tubular long pasta with eggplant, tomato and ricotta salata), strangolopreti al pan grattato ("priest stranglers" - spinach and bread gnocchi in thyme butter), bigoli con l'anatra (whole wheat pasta with duck ragu), cavatelli con cime di rapa (little dumplings with turnip tops and dried red pepper), tagliolini di Campobasso thin flat pasta with cured ham, onion and parsley), pasta gratinana con porri e funghi (pasta gratin with leeks and mushrooms), culingionis al pomodoro (sheep cheese ravioli in tomato sauce). By the end of the summer, I plan to have tried every one of these. Our waiter and the chef are both from Sicilia, and I hope to see more Sicilian specialties on the menu in the future. One other thing I appreciated about our meal was the portion sizes. This was absolutely correct for an Italian meal. Even Mario Batali's restaurants tend to go too big in the portion size, so I was glad to see something reasonable. A half order of pasta (they gladly serve half-orders) and a full secondo with perhaps a shared contorno is just the right amount of food. So: our meal. . . We started by splitting two appetizers: code di gamberi in pancetta (shrimp with pancetta) and frittelle di fontina con spinaci saltati (fontina cheese fritters with wilted spinach). The shrimp were good, but the fontina fritters were great. Little crispy golf balls with melted fontina inside. What could be bad? For primi ewindels had garganelli al ragu' di vitello, I had bigoli con l'anatra, emmapeel had spaghetti alla chitarra con ragu' d'agnello and bergerka had strangolopreti al pan grattato. All were very good. I was particularly happy with my bigoli and duck ragu. The chewey, earthy bigoli worked very well with the rich ragu, which was full of duck meat. With our antipasti and primi our waiter recommended a pinot nero from the Alto Adige "Mazzon" from Kellerei-Cantina Tramin, which was nicely light with a bit of acid and not too tannic for the food. For secondi emmapeel and I had scallopine d'agnello gratinato (lamb scallopine gratin with artichokes) while bergerka and ewindels had involtini di vitello (veal rolled up around sausage and cheese). By this time we were done with the pinot nero and our waiter recommended Barbazzale Cottanero Rosso, made with 90% mascalese nero and 10% nero d'avola (both native Sicilian grapes). Very plummy and fruity with good intensity of flavor and just enough tannin for the meat course. The dishes were more or less as advertised. There's not a whole lot I can say about them other than they were simple, well executed and just the right size. This is the Italian aesthetic: take just a few ingredients and treat them with respect. Most of the time, if you hear the title of the dish you know what you are getting. Dessert was another high point. We split two. The first was a simple plate of Italian biscotti (meaning "cookies" in this case) with a caramel dipping sauce. The cookies spanned several regional styles, and were simple and delicious. That said, I am never going to have the cookies at Regional ever again. Why, you ask? Because the second dessert we tried consisted of ricotta fritters that were so light and delicious that I can't possibly think of ordering anything else there for dessert. Our water, with whom we had been chatting off and on for the evening, comped us a little moscato d'Asti. All said and done, we got out of there for 60 bucks apiece including a tip at around 22%. I doubt I'll spend that much there again, simply because it's so close to home that I won't feel like I have to try so many things (or drink two bottles of wine!) every time I go. Below are some pictures I took while we were there. Beware: they are very poor quality. The lighting was low and I didn't want to take flash pictures or make a spectacle of photographing the meal. They are heavily color corrected to make them visible. These were quick snapshots. If you have delicate eyes, do yourself a flavor and scroll right by these. I think these pictures do, at least, give an impression of the portion size and composition. code di gamberi in pancetta frittelle di fontina con spinaci saltati (hardly visible, I know) strangolopreti al pan grattato bigoli con l'anatra (photographed using my famous "shaking hand" technique) spaghetti alla chitarra con ragu' d'agnello garganelli al ragu' di vitello involtini di vitello scallopine d'agnello gratinato biscotti regionali frittelle di ricotta

Hey, if the establishment in Oregon won't provide the people with freedom of booze, I say stick it to the Man and order from out of state!

It's hard to say what the difference is, exactly, other than style of fermentation and distillation. Despite what importers and makers may want you to believe, cachaça, strictly speaking, is rum. After all, what is "rum?" Rum is a distilled spirit derived from sugar cane. It is most often made from molasses, a by-product of the sugar refining process, but is also made from sugar cane juice. The rum that is made from sugar cane juice in the French-speaking Caribbean islands is called "rhum agricole" (agricultural rum). The rum that is made from sugar cane juice in Brazil is called "Aguardiente." To my taste, cachaça and rhum agricole have different characteristic qualities that distinguish them, most likely due to different production methods and goals. Then again, Jamacian rum is different from Cuban rum -- but they're still both rum. Aguardiente is a little more complicated. The word means simply "firey water" and it is apparently made and understood differently depending on where it is made. In Mexico it can include agave, and in Columbia it is flavored with anise, etc. In the case where it is made from sugar cane, and possibly flavored, it would seem appropriate to call it rum or flavored rum. If the wash contains agave or other fermentables, I'm not sure it would be entirely accurate to call it rum. For sure there is no substituting aguardiente, cachaça and rhum agricole for one another. Strangely, I've found that the closest thing to cachaça in flavor is a rough pisco, which is made from an entirely different fermentable (grapes).

I think Ed's rhums are finding their way over to the West Coast, or to California at least. If you can't find any rhum agricole blanc, Barbancourt white from Haiti has many rhum agricole-like qualities and much better availability.

I like the Floridita Daquiri. It's a classic. The Papa Doble is another great daiquiri (more or less a double-size Floridita Daiquiri with shaved ice).