slkinsey

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:

Less than $15 for sure, I'd think. In fact, $12 might be pretty close.

A mint julep is a fairly labor-intensive drink unless the bar keeps finely crushed ice on hand (which most don't). You're unlikely to find one for under $10 (most cocktails are selling for $10 or more in NYC anyway).

Tried using the "Improved Holland Gin Cock-Tail" recipe with Linie Aquavit instead of genever. Worked very well. Everyone liked it.

I was treated to an "Improved Holland Gin Cock-Tail" at Flatiron Lounge just last night. Delicious, we all agreed.

Admin: Discussion on genever split from the thread on Dave Wondrich's book "Killer Cocktails." Wait... no longer imported into the country?! I thought the insanity was only limited to NY.

For a stock pot, you should do fine with one of the disk-bottom designs that includes a magnetic layer on the bottom of the thermal pad. As for cleaning Induc'Inox... afaik, there are Induc'Inox pans available with stainless handles. If all you can find are the brass handles, if you want them to stay pretty, my guess is that you'd better hand wash them.

How could anyone not like a book featuring a cocktail named "Jewish Absinthe" made with Old Williamsburg kosher bourbon?

I thought I'd just make a few comments about the places with which I am familiar. I wouldn't say that either M&H or Flatiron has a 1920s vibe going on. M&H uses the "sort of secret" phone number, reservations policy and all that as a way of limiting attendance to the number of people they can serve up to their standard and also as a way of hopefully limiting attendance to true cocktail enthusiasts rather than "in crowd" types and poseurs. Flatiron also doesn't strike me as a heavily nostalgic bar. There are some Art Deco touches, but there are also very modern elements. More to the point, however, is that Art-Deco's biggest time was the mid 1930s, as was the first explosion of the Wurlitzer jukebox and the popular era of what most of us would hear played as "vintage jazz" was the 1930s (Jazz was hardly what most people would recognize as "jazz" in the 1920s. Armstrong's "Hot Fives" and "Hot Sevens" -- which would be considered pretty raw stuff by most people today -- were recorded between something like 1925 and 1928. Anything you're likely to hear in a bar will come from a later era.) This all goes back to my earlier point about mistaking 1930s culture for 1920s culture.

Interesting. You're not the first person from those parts I've heard say that. Perhaps it's because of the whole tourist thing. Or because they're generally so poorly made in tourist situations. And it's a shame, because it's really a great drink. And it doesn't always have to be bourbon either (I know some people from Kentucky will gasp at hearing this, but from a historical standpoint it's true). And, of course, you don't have to stop with mint (basil is a nice addition from time to time). Rye whiskey is good, and I like Dave Wondrich's julep recipe using cognac and a float of high proof rum. Lately I've been enjoying "New Jersey Juleps" made with Laird's 100 proof bonded applejack. Believe it or not, a gin julep is pretty good, too.

I went to a very interesting cachaça tasting yesterday to sample the cachaças of Excalibur Enterprise. It certainly was an eye opener. I've always understood that most of the cachaça available in the United States is low quality. But it's hard to understand just how wide the difference is until you've had some of the good stuff. This was the good stuff. We started with their flagship product, Beleza Pura. This is an unaged cachaça, produced from selected lots of sugar cane, fermented with wild yeast, column distilled and blended by Excalibur owner Olie Berlic. This is a cachaça created by Excalibur. It has the clean, slightly sour flavor of cachaça, notably smoother than Pitu and that ilk, with a very interesting light smokiness. Next was one of their imports from Armazem Viera. These cachaças are also fermented with wild yeast, distilled in a pot still, aged in barrels made from local Aririba wood up to 20 years, and then blended by the master distiller using the "solera system." Excalibur is importing Armazem Viera cachaças at 4, 8 and 16 years. We tried the 4 year old. This was one of the most interesting. As described, it has a certain similarity with grappa or eau de vie. It also had a very distinctive nose somewhat reminiscent of a jar of cocktail olives. After that we tried Rochina, a single barrel cachaça from Rio de Janeiro. This is fermented and distilled with a similarly intensive method to those described above and aged in oak casks -- some of which, I am given to understand, were used to age scotch whisky once upon a time. It is being imported in 5 and 12 year bottlings. We tried the younger one. It had a little color from the wood, and definite hints of smoke. Very smooth, but overall I'm not sure I don't like Beleza Pura a little better. Last we tasted GRM, a "small batch" cachaça aged in oak. Lots of spice flavors and some vanilla from the wood. Without a doubt a "sipping cachaça." Currently these cachaças are available in NYC at Astor Wines, and Caviar & Banana Brasserio is featuring them on its cocktail list.

The Great Depression of the 20th Century "officially" started with the stock market crash of 1929. Its worst year was probably 1933, and perhaps not coincidentally prohibition was repealed at the end of 1933. Meanwhile, we had the beginning of the New Deal and things started slowly looking up. Before too long we were into World War II. I also think it's the case that many people who were lifting cocktails at places like the Waldorf=Astoria and the like weren't exactly characters out of Grapes of Wrath. There were still plenty of affluent people around in cities like NYC.

To continue a bit my point from above -- that a lot of what is often taken as 1920s style and culture is really 1930s style and culture -- although "bathtub gin" was certainly a feature of the prohibition years, real gin became the dominant drink of the years that immediately followed. Why? Because gin doesn't have to be aged. Due to prohibition, there simply wasn't very much aged spirit to go around, whereas there had been plenty before (all the supplies of aged spirits had been exhausted or disposed). And most "brown spirits" (whiskey, brandy, etc.) need to be aged in wood before they are palatable. One result is the almost complete death of good old American rye whiskey, probably the dominant spirit in the US right before prohibition. Another result is the popularization of blended brown spirits, where a small amount of aged spirit is stretched by diluting it with neutral spirits. So, the focus on gin, the focus on Art Deco, etc. is all a focus on the years after prohibition than it is the years during prohibition. For example, all the Thin Man movies save the first one were made post-prohibition.

No, I think mbanu is referring to the fact that the prohibition era is commonly associated with the cocktail revival. I speak of the years between January 16, 1920 (the enactment of the Volstead Act) and December 5, 1933 (ratification of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment). It certainly is the case that the 20s are often associated with cocktails in the modern imagination, and mbanu does have a point that these years were not by and large distinguished by quality cocktail culture in the United States. That said, it might be pointed out that what is commonly taken to be style and culture from the 20s is actually style and culture from the 30s or later (Lindy Hop, big band, swing, Art Deco, early radio, zoot suits, etc.).

If you want a "soup pot" for actually making soup, I would recommend a casserole. You could always get one of the largest sized enameled cast iron casseroles. That would be good for braising and stews as well as making soup. If you ever plan on making stock, though, and if you make pasta with any frequency, you are probably better off with the 12 quart stock pot. In this case, I'd go with a disk bottom design.