slkinsey

D'oh! There's already a Belmont Cocktail (1.5 oz gin, 1 oz cream, 0.25 oz raspberry syrup). One of the great dangers of naming a cocktail. Cool idea you have there, though. Kind of like a dry martini with Amontillado sherry filling in for dry vermouth. Maybe a Belmont Street Cocktail?

Kina Lillet is the old name for Lillet Blanc. I honestly doubt you'll taste a difference by using grain vodka. But if you want to try one, get a bottle of Smirnoff. It ranked #1 in a taste test recently.

Julia, can you still get OP? In NYC? Where?

Welcome to the eG Forums comic4879. I'm not sure you've fairly or accurately interpreted Janet's remarks about Alberta Straub. Janet is a cocktail aficionado with not a small amount of knowledge and appreciation of this craft. So I think I can categorically say that she's not interested in the "awful sugary factory made drinks" they're slinging at the local Applebee's. If you read her comments, I think you'll see that she characterizes Alberta's cocktails as "wonderful" but has some issues with respect to her efficiency and speed. This is a legitimate criticism, although I gather that it is not an element of her craft that bothers you. We'd love to hear more of what you have to say about Alberta Straub's craft and talent, but I don't think we need to imply that anyone who takes issue with her efficiency and speed is a philistine with pedestrian taste in cocktails.

Cool, one follow up question: I live in NYC and with the mountain of cookware I already have, multiple tagines is not a possibility. I am thinking of using it primarily on the stovetop. It seems that, if I were going to go for one all-purpose tagine, it might be better to have the heavier unglazed style? Would that be something like this? In re to the rounded bottom, is this something I could put over (low) direct heat on my gas stove, or would I still need to use a diffuser? Does the rounded bottom style really work with a diffuser, do you think? Also, is it just me, or does the thicker rounded style have a significantly smaller/shorter "chimney?" Does this make much of a difference? Okay... that's more than one question.

This is cool. I find myself wanting one. Paula: what style of tagine to you most recommend? I note that you say above that "Southern Moroccan tagines are rarely glazed inside or out but have a lot of mica inthe clay which makes them very strong and heavy. . . The Riffian one is light in weight; the local clay isn't as strong." I gather that unglazed is the way to go? Any suggestions?

Interesting. I've never seen it that way, with Vialone Nano supposedly last in quality. My impression has always been that Arborio and Vialone Nano were the traditional rices, and approximately equal in inherrent quality. Arborio is a softer rice more appropriate for the creamy Lombardia/Emilia-Romagna/Piemonte style of risotto while Vialone Nano is a toothier rice best suited for the soupy Veneto/Fruili style. They are completely different, and neither one is entirely satisfactory when used in the other's style. It is worth noting that the creamy style is by far the most common in the US, with the "sull' onda" style being virtually unknown over here (it's actually the style I prefer for seafood risotto). It people have the perception that Arborio is "better" than Vialone Nano, that may be part of the reason: they're not using the Vialone Nano correctly. Carnaroli is a hybrid of Vialone Nano and Japanese sushi rice. It was designed to be in the middle between Arborio and Vialone Nano: both creamy and al-dente at the same time. It's okay and easier to work with than Arborio. But if I am making a creamy risotto, I'd rather just use Arborio and pay attention. I should point out that these three rices are not the only kids on the block. There are other varieties suitable for risotto, like Superfino Baldo.

Gary Regan tells us of the Coco Cocktail, a drink created for Brasserie 8 1/2 by bar manager Cory Hill: Here's the recipe: 2 oz : Pisco brandy 1 oz : chocolate liqueur (Godiva, Mozart and Vermeer are mentioned) 1 oz : chilled espresso Shake well with cracked ice, strain into a chilled cocktail glass and garnish with a lemon twist. Sounds interesting. I'll have to give it a try, as I have a bottle of Godiva I've been wanting to get rid of for years.

Here is some of it. Not that interesting, unfortunately. The rest of it is all "original recipe" this and "old tradition" that.

It still depends on common perception. There are several parts to this question: 1. Has the quality of the steak at Peter Luger substantially declined? 2. If yes, is the common perception of the Peter Luger that the steak there is just as good as it was in the 70s? If no, then it is not over rated on this basis. If yes, then we are one step closer to over rated. I doubt this figures particularly highly, because very few people are in a position to make that comparison and few are making it. 3. Does Peter Luger serve, on average, the best steaks by far? 4. If no, is the common perception that they do? If yes, then we're closer to over rated. 5. Here is the tough part: you have to ask yourself whether it's just you. If it's just you, then you can really only say that it's over rated for you. At some point, though, if person after person and trusted critic after trusted critic says that it's still head and shoulders above the rest. . . then you have to start maybe accepting that you're just getting a different read on the place and chalk it up to personal preference. Well, that depends. It depends on whether Landmarc would keep its reputation with the general public (or whatever group you're looking at) were the prices to go up by roughly double. My strong suspicion is that it wouldn't. The only way Landmarc could be over rated according to your hypothetical is if a substantial portion of its reputation concerns low prices, and if it kept the reputation for low prices despite a substantial increase. It would be over rated with respect to the prices in that case. If, on the other hand, the reputation of Landmarc as a restaurant with a particularly felicitous pricing structure were to change with their increased prices but the reputation of the food served there remained the same, it's hard to see how this would constitute "over rated." By the very nature of the word "over rated," the only way something can be over rated is if it is rated higher than it deserves. For something to be over rated in the general sense means that it has to have a rating of X among a certain population (the general public, eGullet members, food critics, whatever) when it actually deserves a rating of X-y.

I think you can't go wrong with a DIY "interesting meats tasting menu." Babbo does some of the best in the City. Antipasti: Warm Tripe alla Parmigiana Pig Foot Milanese with Rice Beans and Arugula Warm Lamb's Tongue Vinaigrette with Hedgehogs, and a 3-Minute Egg Testa with Pickled Pearls and Thyme Vinaigrette Primi: Lamb's Brain "Francobolli" with Lemon and Sage Goose Liver Ravioli with Balsamic Vinegar and Brown Butter Beef Cheek Ravioli with Crushed Squab Liver and Black Truffles Mint Love Letters with Spicy Lamb Sausage Secondi: Barbecued Squab with Roasted Beet Farroto and Porcini Mustard Grilled Quail with “Scorzonero alla Romana” and Saba "Rabbit alla Triestina" with with Red Cabbage, Potatoes and Horseradish Fennel Dusted Sweetbreads with Quince Vinegar and Duck Bacon

I'm not quite sure everyone shares your definition of "over rated." I think the standard interpretation of "over rated" would be "significantly not as good as it is commonly held to be." In your Landmarc example, for example, it sounds like it would be over priced but perhaps not over rated. Similarly, if Tasting Room eliminated its wonderful wine list or if L'impero's food preparation slipped, these places would only be over rated if the generally accepted perception of their quality remained the same. This is the point that Steven makes upthread: Before you decide that a place is over rated, you have to have some understanding of where it is commonly understood to be "rated" in the first place. Further, ErinB makes a good point in that you should have an understanding of the population that is doing the "rating." Are we talking about places that are eGullet favorites or that are popular with tourists and businesspeople? Beyond that, I think you have to take personal preference into account, because there may be a restaurant that is not personally to your taste but which nevertheless achieves at a high level and deserves its good reputation.

I don't know of any fancy restaurant that pours anything near 5 ounces of vodka into a martini, there is very little vermouth. I think that would wipe out their customers, before they even start their meals. It would contain the alcohol equivalent of two thirds of a bottle of wine. The total volume of a martini, I don't know how large it is, contains some ice melt. I think that even 2.5 ounces of vodka plus vermouth would be generous. I'm sure that some of our bartenders could clarify this further. I do think that the economics will work out just fine. Marcus, who do you think I'm getting this information from? The average restaurant Martini glass runs to something like six or seven ounces. That means four to five ounces of spirit plus maybe an ounce and a half of water from melting ice at 25% dilution -- and believe me, plenty of places go bigger than that. This is actually a terrible way to serve a cocktail (it becomes warm long before it can be finished), but customers would feel "cheated" if they were handed a three ounce Martini so restaurants have to serve double-size drinks. At Bemelmans, Audrey Saunders served Martinis in a small glass with half of the drink decanted into a little glass carafe sitting in a bowl of ice on the side so at least the drink would stay cold. There is just no way a restaurant can get away with serving a 3 ounce Martini. You would be shocked, I think, at the size of the Martinis most restaurants are serving. Fat Guy and I had dinner at Ben Benson's steakhouse one night and were served what must have been ten ounce Martinis. Steven's glass had something like 5 olives in it, which wouldn't leave much room for booze in a reasonably sized cocktail glass -- yet they hardly made an impact in the birdbaths they were using as glasses. This is also why I think a lot of chefs tend to be somewhat anti-cocktail. Cocktails have become so large that you really do tend to get a little drunk before your meal. Back in the day, a cocktail was served in somethig like a three ounce glass. A Martini would have been an ounce of gin, an ounce of vermouth and a dash of orange bitters -- a bracingly cold aperitif that stimulated the appetite, not a palate-deadening, mind-fogging, lukewarm alcohol bomb. I love to have a cocktail before dinner, but rarely order them at restaurants for this very reason. To further illustrate the point. . . at home I use mostly the Libby 8454 "Citation" cocktail glass. It holds four and a half ounces. It would be considered ridiculously small for a Martini glass in most restaurants. I scale my recipes for three ounces of ingredients, and by the time I finish shaking/stirring the drink it fills the glass. So when I say that "2.5 ounces of vodka plus vermouth" doesn't even come close to describing the standard restaurant Martini, I know whereof I speak (most restaurant Martinis don't include enough vermouth to even consider figuring that amount into the formula). 2.5 ounces of liquor would equal about a 3.25 ounce cocktail pour. No way would a restaurant sell that. I wish the standard restaurant Martini had only 2.5 ounces of -- well, gin rather than vodka. I'm sorry if I was unclear. "Liquor cost" means the same thing as "food cost." It's the cost of the ingredients to the bar, aka the liquor. Just like with restaurants and food, however, when you buy a drink at a bar you're not just paying for the ingredients in the glass. You're paying for the guy who mixed the drink, the guy who hauled the bottles up from storage, the cost of the glassware, the cost of the napkins, the cost of the ice machine that makes the ice, etc., etc., etc. All these things necessarily figure in to the overall cost of the drink to the bar, and all these things have to be considered when the bar is figuring out what they will charge for the drink. I have a friend who is getting ready to open a bar, and is spending an incredible amount of time pouring over spreadsheets to figure all these things out. I am given to understand that it's fairly standard for bars that are making money to run at around 25% liquor cost (which is a genteel way of saying "400% markup") on average -- some drinks will be well below this, and some will be well above. But this doesn't mean that the bar is making a 400% profit on average. the ancillary costs are higher than the ingredient costs. Exactly, Bux. The ancillary costs are always going to be there. While I think it's likely true that many restaurants make more profit on alcohol than they do on food, it's not so simple. Especially with wines, there is the question of when/how/at what price certain wines were acquired, how they are maintained, what you're paying your wine staff, what kind of glassware you use, etc. -- just as you say. This is why I think, as I have remarked above, that it's easier for a restaurant in the middle range to adjust the cost model than it is for higher end restaurants to do the same. The percentage profit is likely much higher on the food for the middle range place, and they have no where near the same kinds of ancillary costs associated with the wine program.

Andrew Feinberg, pizzaiolo, chef and co-owner of Franny's, is featured in the latest series of The Chef in the NY Times' Food Section. This should be an good series, and I'll be interested to see if they discuss any of his pizza making thoughts and techniques. Francine Stephens, his wife and partner, is also a talented mixologist in her own right, and it would be a lot of fun if they ran a little something about her creations. We'll have to wait and see. . . Today's article is actually about one of the chef's other talents: pasta. Specifically, Meyer lemon-ricotta ravioli. Earlier in the article, Francine remarks that they had originally offered pasta on the menu at Franny's but ended up taking it off because they decided it was too much pressure for the kitchen to do pasta to their standards in addition to the pizza once they started getting busy. Although it's a shame we have to miss out on their excellent pasta offerings, I wish more restauranteurs made decisions like this.

Just to bring a little perspective. . . Most bars like to run at about 20% - 25% liquor cost on cocktails to maintain a reasonable profit margin. An expensive vodka like Cîroc runs a little over a dollar an ounce wholesale. So, if you buy a typical "fancy restaurant" vodka martini (around 5 ounces), the liquor cost is $5 to the house. That 5 dollars has to pay for the glass, the napkin, the bartender and barbacks, the glass washer, the ice machine, etc. If they sell this drink at the typical 15 bucks, they're running the drink at 33% liquor cost. My friends in the business tell me that this is ultimately a money loser for the house.

Here is the web site. I'll read through it and translate some good parts later today.

Sourdoughs International offers around 15 different cultures for something like 15 bucks a pop. Or you can get Carl's Starter.

Fundamentally sweating is a low temperature/low movement technique. You can start with a warm pan or a cold pan, never a hot pan. The vegetables are cooked in a limited amount of fat at low heat (often but not always covered with a parchment or wax paper "lid") until fully softened and cooked through but not colored. The vegetables are not moved around much. Sweating is a technique that applies to vegetables and fruits, not meats. Sautéing is a high temperature/high movement technique. You start with a very hot pan. Food items in "chunk" form are cooked in a limited amount of hot fat at high heat, and the pan is constantly agitated so the ingredients are "jumped around in the pan" (the French verb sauter means "to jump") and browned evenly on all sides. Sautéing is a technique that can be used for any "chunk" shaped food item. "Sauté" is commonly misused by people who mean to say "fry." You cannot really sauté a whole chicken breast, for example. If the ingredients are just sitting there and not bouncing around the pan you are frying, not sautéing.

Juanito, it's always interesting to talk with someone about all the things they have to figure in to the cost of a plate of food or a bottle of wine. Just to consider the costs that have to be covered for a plate of food: The price of the plate and the flatware, including replacement costs for breakage, theft, etc. The costs associated with the linens (napkins, tablecloth, etc.) The cost of the ingredients (the "food cost") Costs related to the premises (rent, electricity, heat, etc.) Labor (receptionist, wait staff, bus staff, cooks, dishwashers, cleaning staff, etc.) Costs related to the kitchen (purchase, maintenance and fueling of stoves, refrigeration, specialty equipment, etc. as well as cookware) All of these things, and more, have to be paid by that plate of food you order. I'm not in a position to say what kinds of profits these restaurants make. But, if they're charging a 500% markup on wine and still squeaking by with maybe an 8% profit margin, this strongly suggests to me that some places are not making any profit on the food side. This will no doubt vary according to the price point of the restaurant and whatever their associated costs may be. Of course, a lot of the really high end restaurants (typically associated with an expensive hotel) don't make any profit at all.

This is, I think, a big part of the problem. Much like with rent control, it's a system whereby some people pay more and cover costs associated with someone else. I'm not saying that it's a good system. I'd rather have a system like they have at Landmarc. But... there has to be a reason why the system is the way it is. Most likely it is because restaurants have found that it's easier to make the profits they need to make with this kind of price structure. This is to say that they have considered bumping up the price of the food and reducing the price of the wine, and have decided that it isn't the right choice. Think about it: don't you think it would hurt, e.g., Daniel's business if the five course prix fixe were $200 instead of $125? Most likely the answer is that people wouldn't be so willing to pay that kind of markup. Maybe it's because they're more used to paying high prices for wine, or maybe it's because people undervalue food because of the historical pricing practices. It's one thing for Landmarc to charge $18 for a plate of pasta instead of $15 so they can sell wine at low prices, but at the high end where you're talking about raising the food prices much higher in order to bring down the price of wine I think it wouldn't be so easy to do.

The point I was trying to make upthread, perhaps not very well and expanded upon by others more informed than I, is that a restaurant has to make a certain profit on average per diner to stay in business. So for example, it may be the case that the target price point is around $200 per person. Let's suppose that the food usually costs around $100 per person and the wine usually costs $100 per person. As we know, most of the profit from that $200 meal comes from the wine. The $100 of food, after various expenses (labor, linens, flatware, etc.) are added in, may cost close to $100. The wine may cost $25 at wholesale, with the real cost (including labor, storage, stemware, etc.) being closer to $45. So, the restaurant is theoretically making $55 bucks on the meal. People look at that and think, "they're making an obscene profit on the wine." The restaurant has to make its 55 bucks (a completely hypothetical number, of course -- it's probably lower). So, what to do? Well, one thing they can do is lower the price of the wine to 50 bucks (200% over wholesale) and increase the price of the food to 150 bucks. But this has its problems. One problem is that they might lose customers if they charge $150 for the food, because even though the cost of the meal would, on average, be the same, $150 "feels" like a lot more than $100. The second problem is that they lose flexibility in terms of the kinds of customers they can have. Most restaurants are fundamentally about the food, and they may be willing to serve some people who choose a 45 dollar bottle of wine with their $100 food at a loss, because they know they can make up the difference on the high rollers at the next table who are paying $300 for their wine.

Let's take your model of $100 for food and $150 for wine. Would it make you feel better about the experience if they charged $175 for the same food and $75 for the same wine? Or are you saying that you'd like to have the same experience for only $175 (same $100 price for the food and only $75 for the wine)?

Picked up a bottle of Belle de Brillet at Astor Wines and made a Pear Martini last night. We declared it delicious. Interesting about the lime... it doesn't really register as lime at all in the mix.

This is one of the great things about Landmarc. Their wines are priced so low that they occasionally beat retail prices. I wish more restaurants would do this. Of course, part of what that means is charging 18 dollars for that plate of pasta instead of 15 dollars. Because the restaurants still need to make their money. I don't believe any of these places are pulling in obscene profits due to their wine markups.

Here is a link to the review, and a short excerpt for posterity: Reviewer Bob Lape gave Devi two stars out of a possible four.