slkinsey

I've made Dave Wondrich's "rich simple syrup," which is a 2:1 syrup with demerara sugar. I like it quite a bit. It's not something I'd add to a gin cocktail, because I think it would add too much richness and color, but it's my first stop for "brown liquor" cocktails. Just last night I used some to make Dave's Tombstone cocktail (which is more or less Jerry Thomas' Whiskey Cocktail). As I made it, it's 3 ounces of Wild Turkey 101 proof rye whiskey, 1/4 ounce of 2:1 demerara simple syrup and 2 big dashes of aromatic bitters stirred with cracked ice, strained into a chilled class and garnished with a fat twist of lemon. I'm also interested in experimenting with different syrups, although to be honest I don't tend to use them a lot in mixing drinks. Right now I have the rich demerara syrup, a regular 1:1 simple syrup and a 1:1 lime syrup in the fridge. I've made the lime syrup before using Audrey's method of doing a cold infusion of lime zest into the syrup. I just made up another batch a few nights ago, and decided to try infusing the lime zest into around an ounce of vodka for 30 minutes of so before putting the whole works into the syrup for the rest of the infusion. I think I might like this way even better. The alcohol seemed to take some of the spicy, pungent oils out of the zest that must not be very soluble in just water. As a result, the finished lime syrup has the character of what I'd call a "muddled lime syrup." Those who are familiar with the characteristic difference between a drink made with muddled limes as opposed to the same drink made with just fresh lime juice will know what I'm talking about. Still thinking about a few other syrups to add. I tasted a Bee's Knees at Milk & Honey that was really delicious, so I am thinking of experimenting with honey syrup (honey thinned out with a little water to make it flow).

I found a recipe here at the Dallas News (registration required). Here is a rewrite of the recipe: 1 lb : peeled/deveined shrimp 6 tbsp : evoo 2 tbsp : vinegar 1 tbsp : paprika 0.5 tsp : salt 0.5 tsp : ground white pepper 4 tbsp : creole or whole grain spicy mustard 1 tbsp : finely diced celery 3.5 tbsp : finely diced onion 1 tbsp : minced parsley 1 head : chopped romaine lettuce Boil shrimp until just done (aprox 2 minutes), shock in ice water and refrigerate for one hour. Mix olive oil, vinegar, paprika, salt, pepper, mustard, celery, onion and parsley and chill. Dress shrimp with sauce and let stand. Place shrimp on lettuce.

It absolutely is! Good call. That's one we identified last night that I couldn't remember. It's also interesting to speculate about taking an existing "equal parts of three" cocktail and creating a new drink by adding a fourth equal part. For example, gin and Campari both go with orange juice really well. Adding another part of orange juice might make for an interesting and entirely different drink. Or maybe adding a fourth part of lemon juice.

Yesterday I was sipping a few at Flatiron Lounge and chatting with one of their talented mixologists, as I am wont to do, and somehow the discussion got around to the Corpse Reviver #2. The CR2 is a cocktail composed of equal parts gin, Cointreau, Lillet Blanc and lemon juice with a drop of absinthe. This got us to thinking about "equal parts" cocktails. Nowadays, the usual formula for a classic-inspired cocktail goes something like this: a lot of the base spirit plus a small amount of modifier, then either another small amount of sour citrus and/or a smaller amount of accent and maybe a dash of bitters. But there are a number of classics that are equal parts cocktails. Besides the aforementioned Corpse Reviver #2, there is a Sidecar formula calling for equal parts cognac, Cointreau and lemon juice. I'm sure there are others, but nothing comes to mind right now. Nowadays the equal parts formula seems largely ignored, but it strikes me as an interesting concept to build on -- especially "equal parts of four" like the CR2. There's the interesting Last Word, with equal parts gin, Green Chartreuse, maraschino and lime juice. And I had a "Carthusian Martini" at Landmarc a while back, that I think consisted of equal parts of gin, white vermouth, Cointreau and lime juice with a few dashes of Green Chartreuse. Any others? Anyone played around with this idea?

The short answer is to go to Katz's. As for the crumbly pastrami, it sounds like your meat wasn't quite fatty enough. That said, sliced hot pastrami strikes me as the sort of thing that is likely to decline substantially on what I have to assume was around a 45 minute drive home. I always eat in. I've always thought Carnegie Deli was a pretty good place, although I do find their meats a little on the dry side unless you can get them to give it to you from the fatty part of the meat. I find the same thing to be true at Second Avenue Deli.

<sputter sputter> You're just posting that here to taunt us, aren't you?! Good find, dude. I love that book.

Gary's most recent column in the SF Chron features two cocktails from NYC made with Germain-Robin Fine Alambic Brandy from California. They were created by Matthew Silverstein, head bartender at Zoe restaurant in New York. The Debonnaire and the Debutante are "sister cocktails," having the same formula but changing the quinquina (a fortified wine and herb aperitif with quinine) from a red variety to a white variety. They are also "reverse cocktails" where the weaker ingredient (normally the modifier) is used as the main ingredient. Reverse cocktails are discussed in these forums here. Debonnaire/Debutante 4 oz : Dubonnet Rouge (Debonnaire) or Dubonnet Blanc (Debutante) 1 oz : Germain-Robin Fine Alambic Brandy 0.25 oz : crème de cassis Garnish: 1/2 orange slice (Debonnaire) or lemon twist (Debutante) Shake with cracked ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Add garnish.

markk, if you like chicken livers in a ragu bolognese, you should really try the Marchegiano ragu for vincigrassi. Fundamentally it's got the regular ragu bolognese ingredients and technique, only the meats are chicken livers, chicken gizzards, chicken hearts (etc.), sometimes with other meats (I like pancetta) and wild mushrooms. Very rich, and very tasty.

Yes, exactly. The method and recipe that always struck me as "classic" is: sweat medium-fine dice of onion, carrot and celery in butter/evoo; add double-ground beef, pork, pancetta and maybe veal; cook until meats lose raw color; add white wine and cook to evaporate; add milk; cook on low several hours; mount with butter just prior to service. In terms of the standard variations of the "classic" I recall: Tomato goes in there at some point (but not always) -- sometimes in the form of paste, sometimes whole or chopped with or without liqid (canned, not fresh). Some people reverse the order of milk and wine, and do the milk first. Some people may use red wine. Some people cook Parmigiano-Reggiano rinds in the sauce. Some people may leave out the pork, pancetta and/or veal. Some people mayuse stock, but I've always been told that this is not traditional and have been encouraged to use milk (in fact, I think Marcella Hazan specifically says one shouldn't use stock). Maybe using stock is a restaurant thing? If any liquid is required to thin the sauce as it simmers, it is usually water -- sometimes milk. No chicken of any kind. No liver.

markk, I have to say. . . what you're talking about sounds delicious, but doesn't sound like the classic ragu Bolognese, which is traditionally made with beef and pork (and no chicken of which I am aware). I've spend time in Bologna with friends a number of times, and have never heard of this as a common accepted practice. I'm also not aware that adding stock to the sauce is traditional. I'm not saying that people aren't doing it -- because your experience is that they are. It's just interestingly radically different from my own experience.

Chicken livers aren't a traditional component of ragu Bolognese, and I wouldn't include them in a ragu Bolognese. That said, if you like chicken livers, chicken liver ragu can be delicious. I very much enjoy the Marchegiano dish vincigrassi, which is more or less a very rich lasagne al forno made with a chicken liver, chicken gizzard and mushroom ragu. As for your observation that it tastes livery. . . dude, it's made with liver!

I'll try them side-by-side this evening and see if I can post something. My memory is that there is a certain background flavor in Maraska that wasn't quite to my liking.

Both Maraska and Luxardo are significantly better than Stock. Stock is like the "triple sec" to Maraska/Luxardo's "Cointreau." Certainly worth at least 8 bucks more for a bottle, especially when you consider that you won't be using all that much of it. This isn't to say that Stock is bad, per se... just that it isn't in the same league as Luxardo and Maraska. Between Maraska and Luxardo, both of which I have, I prefer Luxardo. It's considerably more complex, flavorful and funky than Maraska.

I participated in a very interesting absinthe tasting on Sunday night, along with a number of Society members and friends of the Society. We tasted two absinthe substitutes Absente (55% abv) and Versinthe (45% abv), La Fée Parisian Absinthe (68% abv) Pernod Absinthe (68% abv), Jade's Nouvelle-Orléans Absinthe (68% abv), Jade's Absinthe Edouard (72% abv), Absinthe Kübler (53% abv), an experimental absinthe created by a boutique American distiller (at least 50% abv) and a vintage example of home infused "Absinthe Wondrich." We sampled them all diluted with water, but without sugar -- with the exception of the infused example, which we tried with much sugar. Very interesting, to say the least. I think we all agreed that the Jade products were head and shoulders above the others in terms of interest and complexity, and we all agreed that the infused "absinthe" was barely drinkable. I'll try to say more on this later, but for now will report that despite all the absinthe I consumed -- including the hefty dose of the presumably high-thujone infused version -- I did not experience any intoxication effects beyond what I would expect from alcohol. Not, I should add, that that is the point of drinking absinthe anyway. NulloMondo, if there are any absinthes that are infused with grand wormwood post-distillation... trust me, you don't want them. The infused example was "force yourself to drink it" quality, and I have to assume that it was better than most of the infused stuff out there.

Mike, what recipes are you using? Can you give an example? I have often thought that limes "back in the day" must have been substantially smaller than the limes we have today. So late 19th/early 20th century recipes that call for "the juice of half a lime" do often seem to produce a drink that is too sour (doubly odd, since most drinks from that era are too sweet for modern tastes). I suppose it also depends on your own expectations and your own taste. If you make a Margarita at 2:1:1 (tequila:Cointreau:fresh lime juice) you will have a fairly tart, dry drink. I happen to like this ratio quite a bit, and I enjoy the fact that it's not a sweet drink. If this isn't to your liking, you might try a 3:2:1 Margarita. This is too sweet for me, and features the Cointreau a bit too much for my taste, but a lot of people who know their cocktails prefer a 3:2:1 Margarita. The fact remains, however, that even a 3:2:1 Margarita is unlikely to be as sweet as what most people expect. There is, of course, some variation in the sourness of limes, lemons, etc. Key limes, of course, are significantly more sour than Persian limes. But even within Persian limes, I'm sure there is some variation. It's possible (although I don't know) that the sourness of limes decreases as they age off the tree. If this is true, and if you are getting fresh local limes (unlikely except for May - August), this might explain why your drinks are turning out too sour. Anyway... why don't you give us a few examples of the recipes you're finding too sour?

I suppose it matters a lot on the use to which the recipe is intended. A recipe that is part of a book or article for the home cocktail enthusiast might list the ingredients a certain way in order to highlight something interesting about the drink (as in my example above), or to highlight an ingredient (I'm sure a book of Brand X cocktails will list Brand X at the top of every list), etc. On the other hand, a recipe that is intended mostly for practical use, especially in a professional situation, will have entirely different considerations. For example, Audrey's point about switching jiggers is something that would never have occurred to me. Since speed isn't really a consideration for me at home, I use the two ounce angled measuring cups by Oxo rather than a jigger (I don't think many home users use a jigger). As a result, for me it really doesn't matter whether I go in volume order or not. In a bar, though, I can see how it would make a big difference.

I've always thought it made sense to list the ingredients in order of volume, then the garnish goes below, then below that go the instructions. Thus, a 3:2:1 Sidecar might be listed like this: <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" border="1"><tr><td>Sidecar 1.5 ounces Cognac 1 ounce Cointreau 0.5 ounce fresh lemon juice Lemon twist for garnish Superfine sugar for rim (optional) If using a sugared rim: moisten the outside rim of the glass with a piece of lemon and roll in superfine sugar. Shake with cracked ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with lemon twist.</td></tr></table> Any discussion about the drink would go above the recipe. In certain special cases it makes sense to deviate from volume order. This will usually be supported by the discussion of the drink prior to the recipe. For example, Audrey's Tantris Sidecar could go by strict volume order, like this: <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" border="1"><tr><td>Tantris Sidecar 1 ounce Courvoisier VS Cognac 0.5 ounce Busnel Calvados 0.5 ounce Cointreau 0.5 ounce fresh lemon juice 0.5 ounce simple syrup (1-1) 0.25 ounce pineapple juice 0.25 ounce Green Chartreuse Lemon twist for garnish If using a sugared rim: moisten one half of the outside rim of the glass with a piece of lemon and roll in superfine sugar. Shake with cracked ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with lemon twist.</td></tr></table> This is the way I would give the recipe if there were no discussion before. On the other hand, there is something interesting about the way this drink is structured. It is fundamentally a regular "three ingredient" Sidecar, as above, with the different liquors combined to create "new" ingredients: Instead of 1.5 ounces of regular Cognac, the Tantris combines Cognac and Calvados to make a kind of "apple Cognac"; instead of 1 ounce of regular Cointreau, the Tantris combines Cointreau with Green Chartreuse to make a kind of "herbed Cointreau"; instead of a half-ounce of lemon juice, the Tantris adds a little pineapple juice to make a new kind of juice. If I was giving the recipe after having made this description, I might list it more like this: <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" border="1"><tr><td>Tantris Sidecar 1 ounce Courvoisier VS Cognac 0.5 ounce Busnel Calvados 0.5 ounce Cointreau 0.25 ounce Green Chartreuse 0.5 ounce fresh lemon juice 0.25 ounce pineapple juice 0.5 ounce simple syrup (1:1) Lemon twist for garnish If using a sugared rim: moisten one half of the outside rim of the glass with a piece of lemon and roll in superfine sugar. Shake with cracked ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with lemon twist.</td></tr></table> This would be a pretty rare case, however. I would also break the strict volume order in the case of a tall drink where the mixer exceeds the base spirit in volume, putting the spirits in volume order at the top of the list, and the mixer (e.g., tonic water) last. As for capitalization, I only capitalize things that are brand names or specific designations. For example, I might write "Bacardi white rum" but if I were not specifying the brand, I would write only "white rum" or perhaps "Cuban-style white rum." I also capitalize when the product is named according to a specific location of origin, but not otherwise: thus "Cognac" and "brandy" (and "Calvados" and "apple brandy"). Cachaça is a somewhat interesting case. Fundamentally cachaça is a kind of rum the way Cognac is a kind of brandy. This would incline me towards "Cachaça." If, on the other hand, the idea is that cachaça is not a kind of rum, and represents a distinct category of spirit rather than a designation of origin/style within the category of rum, this would incline me towards "cachaça." That's my two cents, anyway.

The time I had a tasting there, we were asked if anyone at the table had any specific allergies, likes or dislikes. And, as one of our party did not eat red meat, they did different meat courses for the men and women (it was three couples).

Some interesting quotes from this NY Observer article by Tom Scocca:

I don't think boiling water is required. I think that was the boil in a bag meals in the 70s! However, the ingredients are vacuum sealed. I've not tried it myself; but, from everything I've read, a long slow cook using this method should make the meat more tender, not less. simmering water. Hmm. I'm not so sure I agree with that. "Sous vide" fundamentally means nothing more than "under vacuum" (generally in cryovac). Although it is most common to cook sous vide items in a water bath, this is by no means the only option. A steam oven works very well, I am told. In addition, although low temperatures (usually substantially below a simmer) are the most widely discussed for sous vide, the technique can be used with a variety of temperatures. Fundamentally, one major goal behing cooking meat sous vide for a long time at a low temperature is to benefit from long-cooking effects on tenderness while not giving up the flavor and texture benefits of medium-rare. With fish it's often used as a way to ensure that the flesh stays moist. The technique can help fruits and vegetables retain their vibrant colors even though cooked. And it's used along with herbs, fats and other flavors as a way of making sure the flavors are thoroughly infused into the food. It's not clear to me what advantages sous vide cooking would have for lobster. I'm not well versed in the various proteins and other elements of lobster meat, but I would be surprised to learn that low/slow lobster sous vide cooking had the same effect on tenderness as it can with beef, etc. Lobster tail meat, in particular, does have a tendency to get a bit tough if it is cooked for any length of time -- and it sounds as though Per Se is experiencing some problems in this respect. I have to say that I am a bit surprised they are sticking with this method of preparation if it is not resulting in tender lobster. One ought to be able to cut through a piece of lobster meat with a regular knife and fork. It sounds as though it is a variation on his "butter poached lobster," but perhaps this idea simply doesn't work very well sous vide. As I understand the butter puached lobster recipe, the lobster meat is poached in a butter emulsion at a relatively low temperature and then served when it is just done (it's not being held at the "just done" temperature for any length of time). It seems to me that it might be difficult to tell when "just done lobster" is achieved when using a sous vide setup, and it's also possible that holding the lobster at temperature for any length of time (as is typically done with sous vide cooking) may result in chewier meat.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to take this moment to remind us all of some key expectations we have about participation in the eG Forums. - We encourage debate, even strong disagreement. But we debate ideas, not people. Personal remarks of any kind will not be tolerated. We have seen far too many personal gibes in this thread, and members who continue to engage in this behavior will be asked to leave the discussion. - Points are always better made when they are made respectfully and dispassionately. - If and when it becomes apparent that several parties mutually disagree and cannot reconcile their views, that's when it is time to move on. - If and when certain points lead to interesting discussions that are not uniquely or fundamentally related to Per Se, please start a new thread. If you would like a few posts split out to seed the new thread, you can always ask a Host for assistance.

A recent article in the NY Times had some interesting things to say that touch on NYC Korean dining. I'll be interested to see if the food is also Korean-style. Looks like Kom Tang Soot Bul is the go-to Korean place for real charcoal now. It is named "Grace's" after owner Grace Lamb, who grew up in a Korean-American family in New York. Sounds like a place to check out.

Olie, since your product apparently is available for sale in the US, doesn't that mean that it isn't true Absinthe? (ie. no wormwood/thujone)That is correct. If we are saying that a "true absinthe" has to be made with grand wormwood and contain thujone, then Absinto Camargo is not a true absinthe. Olie says: (Emphasis added.) I would put this product (which I have tried, and it's interesting) in the same category of absinthe substitutes as Absente, etc.

What Christopher said. For home use, there is really no need to have a "sour mix." It's always preferable to make it up on a per-drink basis. A good rule of thumb is equal parts fresh sour citrus juice (lemon, lime or both) and 1:1 simple syrup. After a while you will figure out for yourself whether this formula is too sweet or too sour for your taste, and can adjust the ratios accordingly. Ultimately you're going for something that won't make your mouth pucker, but doesn't seem sweet either. That's balance. So, for example, if you like a drink for a Whisky Sour that calls for 1.5 ounces of whiskey and 0.5 ounces of sour mix, you could make a similar-but-better tasting drink substituting 1/4 ounce each of fresh lemon juice and simple syrup for the sour mix. (Ultimately I'd argue for a much more sour drink, but this is only an example.) The only time it makes sense to "home make" sour mix is for commercial establishments (or big home parties) were you know you're going to be going through a lot of it in a day. Fresh citrus juice just isn't the same after spending overnight in the refrigerator.

Good article on applejack and Laird's in the NY Times recently. I recently got my hands on some of the bonded stuff. It's amazing, with real apple flavor and still with that "whiskey-like" character. Interesting to read that they only started blending with neutral spirits in the 70s. Makes me think that the bonded stuff is a much better choice for the classic applejack drinks. The article also touches on some of the discussion areas upthread regarding distillation versus fractional freezing: