slkinsey

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).

I've had good success with a drink I've named the Eighteenth Century Cocktail. You also can't go wrong with a rum julep, and I like a good Rum Swizzle. My summer favorite so far has got to be the Ti Punch Ed Hamilton introduced me to.

Looking for something new? Try a Ti Punch. I'm sure Ed Hamilton will have something to add with respect to the history and provenance of this drink, but it couldn't be more simple or more delicious. All it takes is a quarter-sized puddle of sugar cane syrup*, a few ounces of white rhum agricole and a half-dollar sized slice of lime peel off the side of a lime (which will have a tiny bit of fruit on the back side). Mix in a rocks glass and fill with crushed ice. As the ice melts, the wonderful flavor of the rhum agricole, lime and cane syrup evolves, becoming more delicious and refreshing with every sip. * Sugar cane syrup is easily made by making a very rich simple syrup with dehydrated sugar cane juice from the health food store. A great rhum drink for the summer, and a lot less fuss than making a mojito. Here's a picture of some Ti Punch we made a few days ago. The rhum agricole is La Favorite, my favorite among the several Ed is bringing into the country from Martinique. It's 100 proof, full of flavor and a bargain at around $30 a liter.

I wonder if you could elaborate on this a bit more. What, exactly, is the "gin head," how is it being used and by whom? I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Jim Beam purchased Maker's Mark. What happened was that Fortune Brands, a consumer brands parent company that includes such liquor brands as Jim Beam, Vox and The Dalmore under its umbrella as well as brands such as Master Lock, Titleist and Swingline, received approval from the European Commission to acquire Maker's Mark, along with other brands such as Sauza, Courvoisier and Larios, from both Allied Domecq (Maker's Mark, Beefeater, Canadian Club, Stolichnaya, Perrier Jouët, Clos du Bois, Dunkin Donuts, Baskin Robbins, etc.) and Pernod Ricard (Wild Turkey, Jameson, Bushmills, Powers, Pernod and Ricard of course, Wyborowa, Martell, Dubonnet, etc.). So its not exactly like the people at Maker's Mark are suddenly going to be taking their orders from Jim Beam's management or running their whiskey out of Jim Beam stills. In fact, Jim Beam and Maker's Mark shouldn't have anything to do with each other whatsoever. Also, won't they have to change the laws before bourbon producers can monkey around with the distillation proofs and bottle proofs much more than they already have? As far as I know, "straight whiskey" must be distilled from at least 51% of one kind of grain to no more than 80% abv, aged for at least two years at no more than 62.5% abv in charred new oak barrels, and bottled at no less than 40% abv with no neutral grain spirits or any other substances added.

That's what I do as well. Seems to add a nice, mild garlic flavor. If the librarian is a garlic novice, this is what I would recommend. Definitely the easiest thing to do. Now I need at least one of these things! Garlic roasters? Eh. I used to have one but eventually got rid of it. There's nothing simpler than just plopping a head (or several heads, or a handful of peeled garlic) onto a sheet of heavy aluminum foil, drizzling on a little evoo and sea salt, bunching the whole thing up and tossing it in the oven for half an hour. Nothing to clean afterwards, scalable from one clove to several heads of garlic simultaneously, no storage issues.

For those who may be curious, Lisa is talking about this new product from Le Creuset. I don't have any experience in cooking with a doufeau, but the principle seems interesting. Needless to say, this will only work with stovetop cooking and isn't much use for oven braising. I have cooked with the Staub cocotte, which has "basting spikes" on the underside of the extra heavy lid that serve as condensation/dripping points. My somewhat unscientific observation is that foods braised in the Staub cocotte were more tender and moist than those braised in the equivalent Le Creuset. But the Staub design differs from the Le Creuset design in a number of ways (heavier, matte black interior, etc.) so it is impossible to say how much of this was due to the basting action of the lid. All that said, if you can get the 7 1/4 Le Creused doufeu at a great price, and if your kitchen could use a 7 1/4 oval enameled cast iron cooking vessel, I think you're crazy not to get it. At the very least, it will be just as good as a regular 7 1/4 oval Le Creuset. And it might be better. Let us know what you think if you end up buying it. Yes. Acetone (aka nail polish remover, but available for less money at your local hardware store) is best, but 93% rubbing alcohol from the drug store will do the trick as well.

Don't forget Flatiron Lounge, one of the top spots in the City for a drink. And there are also Sasha Petraske's two other places besides Milk & Honey. There's Little Branch on the West side, with the same meny as M&H but no reservations policy, and there's The East Side Company at Essex and Grand, also with no reservations policy plus a more informal setting and a uniquely different take on the cocktail lounge (all citrus is muddled, focus is on rocks drinks, there are usually several bowls of punch, etc.).

There are several ways that proof effects the flavor of a cocktail. You just have to understand a little bit about the way the liquor is made. When liquor is distilled, it comes out of the still at a certain percentage of alcohol by volume. The higher the % abv, the greater the percentage of straight ethanol and the smaller the percentage of fusel oils, aromatic compounds and all that sort of thing ("congeners"). These congeners are largely responsible for giving the unaged distillate flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, etc. On the other hand, not all of these flavors are very good and some congeners are actively bad for you. So, we know that an alcohol distilled to a lower % abv is likely to have more flavor/aroma/etc. compared to an alcohol distilled at higher % abv. We also know that the alcohol distilled to the lower % abv might have flavors and other substances in there that we would like to get rid of. One way of getting rid of these unwanted substances is by aging in wood, which absorbs certain undesirable substances and reacts with others to create desirable substances. The wood, of course, adds its own flavors to the distillate. Different distillers (and different spirits) will use different methods of distillation and distill their spirits to different percentages of alcohol. For aged spirits, a lower distillation % is often a good thing. But when we say "lower distillation %" we're still talking about something north of 50% abv. Some spirits (aka "neutral spirits") are distilled to more than 95% abv and retain very little flavor from the distillation process. This is why very few overproof proof spirits are particularly flavorful. Unless the overproof spirit spends a lot of time in wood, or is otherwise flavored, it doesn't bring much flavor or its own to the table. Even if it spends a lot of time in wood, it's fundamentally getting just about all of its flavor from the wood. People reasonably assert that vodka derrives more flavor from the water used to dillute it to bottle proof (more on this below) than it does from the actual raw ingredients. In the case of certain spirits (gin, aquavit, etc.) we start with high % abv neutral spirits and flavor them with various substances. Sometimes this will be a straight infusion, sometimes it will be infusion followed by redistillation, sometimes it will be by placing baskets of spices in the neck of the still so the rising vapors are infused with flavor, etc. But the point is that we're taking something that has little flavor and putting flavor into it. At this point, we have an overproof spirit with plenty of flavor. The final step is to dilute the spirit to bottle proof by adding water. Needless to say, adding water has the additional effect of diluting the flavor of the spirit. If we start off with freshly-infused gin at 97% alcohol and dilute it down to 80 proof (40% alcohol) we are adding a lot of water. In fact, we have diluted the spirit by more than 50%. That's going to "water down" the flavor of the gin quite a bit. As you may imagine, if we start off with freshly-infused gin at 97% alcohol and dilute it down to 92 proof (46% alcohol) we aren't watering the flavor down as much. In general, the 93 proof gin will have a more emphatic flavor than the 80 proof gin. Similarly, 100 proof whiskey will have more flavor than 80 proof whiskey. This is all verifiable by science, by the way. 101 proof Wild Turkey has a higher concentration of flavor components than 80 proof Wild Turkey. So, in general, we would like aged spirits like whiskey, brandy and rum to be distilled at low proof, we would like unaged spirits like white rum and silver tequilla to be distilled at medium proof and we would like unaged spirits like vodka and gin to be distilled at high proof. We would like for all of these to be bottled at high proof, because that means that they will have the most flavor (i.e., the least dilution by water). Since we're going to be diluting the spirit with water from melting ice and other nonalcoholic flavorings when making cocktails anyway, we would rather go for the maximum flavor. Also, if you use a higher proof base spirit, it can spend more time with the ice getting colder without watering down. I prefer base spirits at around 100 proof. One other thing that may not be clear: 50% abv is "proof" -- aka "100 proof." "High proof" generally means "near 100 proof." Spirits that are substantially above 100 proof (e.g., 151 proof) are often referred to as "overproof." While mixing with 151 proof gin might be interesting (keeping that it gets all its flavor by infusion at high proof), noninfused overproof liquors are typically not as flavorful because the most flavorful components have been distilled out of them.

"Plastic Lumps?"

Channel knives are useful for certain decorative garnishes, such as a horse's neck, but not very good for actual twists. One reason is that they generally take too much pith, but more importantly, they don't tend to carry much citrus oil, and even more importantly, they're almost impossible to actually twist over the cocktail. The twisting action is important to express the citrus oils. A twist of lemon or orange is more than just a visual adornment. The oils that are expressed onto the surface of the drink (and often also rubbed around the rim of the glass) can make a huge impact on the aroma and flavor of the drink. I used to use the channel cutter part of my zester to make cocktail garnishes, but ended up switching to a peeler because it not only results in a better twist but also is easier to use.

Think about it for a minute: You have two otherwise equal gallons of water sitting on the stove, one of them is 50 degrees F and the other is 100 degrees F. You turn on the fire below to bring them both up to the boil. Now, before the 50 degree water reaches the boiling point, it will also at some point along the way be 100 degrees F, right? So, how is the previously 50 degree and now 100 degree water any different from the water that started out at 100 degrees? The answer is that it they aren't different. They are equal. In order for the two volumes of 100 F water to be different there would have to be some kind of momentum effect in heat transfer whereby the colder water "builds up greater heat absorbing speed" compared to the warmer water. It's a nice idea, but thermal energy doesn't quite work that way. The same applies in reverse with respect to freezing although, as Patrick points out, there are certain conditions that can cause warmer water to freeze more rapidly. I think that the old saw about hot water freezing faster probably has its roots in two observations: Back in the days of metal ice trays freezers built up a thick layer of frost. If you filled the ice tray with hot water, it would melt through the frost, be closer to the cooling coil and therefore freeze more rapidly. Also, it's often the case in older buildings that uninsulated hot water pipes would be near a foundation wall and freeze in the winter whereas the cold water pipe, being further away from the frozen foundation, would not. This is what happened in our house when I was growing up in Boston. These are the kinds of things that made people think that hot water freezes faster, and I think that the notion that cold water boils faster just came about because it is the inverse.

What Steven is calling zest, the rest of us are calling a twist. You're probably right, but you can't make a twist with a zester (unless there is a zester/peeler confusion as well). This is a zester and this is a peeler. What you want is a peeler.

Hmm. I'm not sure where the idea came up that a zester is needed for cocktail making. By and large, what you want to use is a twist that contains mostly zest with minimal pith (my experience is that some amount of pith is really required for the twist to have any strength and not break apart when twisted). This is most easily obtained by running a vegetable peeler over the skin of a fresh lemon. Occasionally, you may want other shapes/kinds of citrus peel garnishes. A horse's neck spiral is most easily done with a channel knife, and if you want to flame the twist it's easier to have a smaller disk-shaped piece, which is easily done with a knife. The kind of whispy threads of zest that are produced with a zester, and the little shreds produced with a microplane grater aren't really useful in cocktail making (except for making infusions).

Tanqueray is pretty much the gold standard for a "ginny gin." I also think Gordon's does pretty well in this regard, and was susprised to see that you thought it had a less emphatic flavor than Bombay Sapphire. My impressions run entirely counter to yours, but that's why they play the game. I have two criteria for G&T gin: 1. emphatic juniper character that cuts through the tonic water; and, 2. not too expensive, as I don't think one can appreciate subtle distinctions between superpremium gins when mixing a proper G&T. This leads me directly to Gordon's. Whew. That's a big question. I don't have one favorite. Plymouth and Tanqueray strike me as the classics. I also appreciate Hendrick's (garnished with a paper thin slice of cucumber) and Boodle's. All depends on what you're looking for. These days I'm mixing my martinis at no more than 2:1 or 3:1. I wish we could get Plymouth Navy Strength. That would be my default Gimlet gin. For a variety of reasons, it's good to have a higher proof gin for Gimlets. Junipero is high proof, and a good gin. But it seems a bit of a waste to use something that costs that much in a Gimlet. These days I'm making "Gimlets" with lime zest-infused simple syrup and lime juice rather than Rose's (I use quotation marks because Rose's is a required ingredient for a real gimlet). I'm not sure that an Aviation has any requirements that especially lend it to one brand of gin or another -- although Kurt's comments make me want to try it with Broker's. Tanqueray or Gordon's would be my first thought, depending on how much money I felt like pouring into the glass and which was at the front of the liquor closet. But I'm just as likely to make it with Plymouth or Boodle's or any of the usual suspects. I'd probably stay away from the unusually flavored gins or more subtly flavored gins such as Hendrick's, Tanqueray 10, Bombay Sapphire, etc.

Absolutely. Dave Wondrich's experiments indicated that stirring with cracked ice results in the coldest drink.

Nope. It's the other way around: the glass cup is supposed to be smaller than the metal cup. You measure out your liquids into the mixing glass, fill the glass to the top with ice, place the larger metal cup over the top and give it a little slap to set the seal, shake, turn the whole works upside down so the large metal cup is on the bottom, give it a slap on the side to break the seal and remove the small mixing cup, put the hawthorne strainer over the top of the metal cup and pour from there (some people also like to pour back from the large cup into the small cup and pour from the small cup using a julep strainer). If I may suggest: why not try one glass mixing cup and one metal mixing cup? The hardest part of using a Boston shaker to learn is separating the two pieces. They can form a pretty tenacious seal, and it takes a little experience to learn how to separate them with ease and confidence (especially if you don't want to send the mixing glass flying across the room). Of course, you can just let the shaker sit for 30-60 seconds after you've finished shaking to loosen the seal, but then you are running the risk of overdiluting the drink and you also lose some of the desirable aeration. Needless to say, certain drinks, such as the Pisco Sour we've been discussing in another thread, need to be poured promptly after they have been shaken. If you have to wait for the seal to soften on your Boston shaker, your Pisco Sour won't really be right. Metal seems to separate much more easily than glass. You could easily get both a metal and a glass 16 ounce mixing cup, plus a 26 ounce metal cup from these guys and have the best of both worlds.