slkinsey

This is a great drink deserving of more attention. My first Pegu Club -- in what turned out to be a somewhat prophetic occasion for reasons that will become clear in the coming months -- was mixed up by Audrey at Bemelmans. I loved it and it has since become a regular at the slkinsey household. CocktailDB has two Pegu Club recipes. One is same formula you give, and their annotations indicate that they think it's 2 ounces of gin to one ounce of curaçao. The other one has 1 3/4 ounces of gin to 1/2 ounce of curaçao and 1/4 ounce of lime juice. The second recipe would be a much more tart drink, of course. It has more lime juice (1/4 ounce versus 1/6 ounce) and substantially less curaçao, which is the sweetening agent in the drink. I'll have to try both when I get home.

This is actually a different article about the same study referenced in the first post, but with some interesting additional information: Kind of takes the wind out of PETA's practice of demonstrating at the Maine Lobster Festival and giving out stickers saying: "Being Boiled Hurts. Let Lobsters Live."

For Lab 1, yes, all go in the oven. This is a vessel comparison, not a heating method comparison. In a later lab, we will do a heating method comparison between oven and stovetop. Right. But the vessel comparison in Lab 1 is only valid with respect to oven braising, yes? Because if Lab 1 shows that a certain vessel works best in the oven (or if, as I suspect, it shows that there are no meaningful differences between vessels used for oven braising), that doesn't mean that a different vessel won't prove to be best on top of the stove. Maybe you're planning on doing another vessel comparison on top of the stove, though.

Steven, forgive me if this question is already planned for the future or explained... As I understand it, for Lab 1 all the various braising vessels go into the oven? I'm asking because, as you know, one may also braise on the stovetop and what may result a "no difference" comparison in the oven might result in a "huge difference" comparison on the stove top.

This is, I assume, in response to Pan's mention of John Cage's (in)famous piece 4'33" It is unfortunately not an apt comparison. Music is all about the fundamental act of listening, although there are peripheral elements such as watching the musicians, eetc. Without listening there is no music. Music consists of periods of created sound and periods of not-created-sound. Cage's piece was designed to explode the whole concept of "what is music," to get people to "listen to the silence" and to get them to understand that silence isn't silent. What Cage did not do with 4'33" was take away the listening. I would argue, by the way, that although 4'33" is an interesting piece of conceptual art, it is not particularly interesting or successful as a piece of music. Dining, on the other hand, is all about the fundamental act of eating. It is impossible to make a "4'33" of food" because once you take away the eating it is no longer dining. It's like taking away the listening from music. Once you do that, it's not music. To directly address your point, I can very well see how art patrons would pay to go into ADNY where they would be served and consume a meal of nothing... if this "meal" were presented by a conceptual artist as a piece of performance art. But that is what it would be. Art, not dining. As dining, this "meal" would fail in much the same way that 4'33" fails as a piece of music.

Well... here's the deal, Liz: I think it's really hard for us to say what we would do if we were super rich. From my current perspective, I might think that I wold never own five homes. But, you know... people do. The concept of "value" can change a lot when $200 just doesn't seem that different from $500 to you. And for sure Masa is offering some special things in terms of service, product and prestige that can't be had for less money. Indeed, for some people, it's worth it to spend lots of money for something simply because people with less money can't afford it. Is any pair of shoes worth $500?

Sure it could work, especially with some of the Belgian ones. A true lambic of gueuze could be interesting, since it's so sour. And I could see something like Duvel working pretty well in a cocktail. There are, after all, a zillion cocktails topped with Champagne.

For me, it's hard to say what the biggest change over the last 10 years has been... but one of them has certainly been the fact that I now use way less garlic. I have a theory about a lot of American foodies: At some point, most of us who weren't lucky enough to grow up with a huge variety of intensely flavored foods "discover" garlic. And then for a while, it's "everything with a zillion cloves of garlic." Some people never leave this period, I guess. That's where all the "ooohs and aaahs" come from every time Emeril says "and then I throw in about a million cloves of garlic!" -- despite the fact that it is often a dish that doesn't require any garlic. After that, there is a slow awakening to the fact that there are other flavors out there besides garlic, that a lot of things are better without it, and that not everything has to punch you in the mouth in order to be good. Why spend big bucks on a prime strip steak only to crust it with minced garlic? These says I don't even include garlic in most of my tomato sauces. Ironically, I began this movement away from garlic in Italy where, believe it or not, they don't cook with all that much garlic.

Although I'm still not an expert on wok cooking, I thought I'd return to this subject a bit. This week's NY Times food section features an article entitled The Well-Tempered Wok by Julia Moskin. Here are some excerpts that I thought were salient to our discussion here: This is interesting, because apparently cast iron is a traditional wok material. Also, carbon steel, the other traditional material, has an even higher specific heat per cubic centimeter than iron (3.78 versus 3.53 W/cm^3 K). This means a greater heat capacity, but the poor thermal conductivity also means that the wok to be preheated for a long time before the heat evens out and the whole wok is at the correct temperature.

Eleven inches. Sure. If you were planning on, for example, making four and a half quarts of Hollandaise all at once. Or if you were cooking over an open fire. Other than things like that... not really. The tall saucepan is for things like warming/reheating sauces, soups, stews and other liquids in situations where additional reduction is not desired and as as a general-purpose pan for blanching/steaming vegetables, reheating liquids, etc. None of these things need a straight gauge design.

The definition of a "flip" has changed somewhat with the times. Back in the 17th and 19th centuries, it was a drink made by mixing sweetened ale with spices and maybe a dash of rum, and then plunging a red hot loggerhead into the cup warm the drink, thicken it and make it foamy. It's unclear to me, but I get the impression that eggs eventually began to find their way into this kind of flip at some point. As the ubiquity of ice changed the American cocktail forever into something approximating its current form, the original flip either metamorphosed into or was replaced by a cold drink made by shaking a base spirit, sugar or some other sweetening ingredient and egg with ice. As far as I can tell, the only thing these two drinks have in common is the foam and the sweetness.

I'm always interested to see the number of people who try gin for the first time -- and as often as not, are turned off -- with a Martini. This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it's introducing the taste buds to a somewhat acquired taste at full intensity with no familiar flavors to soften the impact. Second, the usual "modern ultradry" Martini is more or less straight chilled gin. No wonder the typical vodka drinker has a difficult time trying gin! If a Vodkatini drinker is going to try the real thing, I'd recommend an early 20th century Martini recipe: a three ounce drink with equal parts gin and white vermouth plus a short dask of orange bitters. But better yet, I'd recommend something like a Monkey Gland or a Corpse Reviver or Audrey's Gin Gin Mule.

Do outfits like Dekuyper and Hiram Walker make anything good?

Hmmm... interesting. I'm not sure I agree, Tengrain. I think of both Bombay Sapphire and Citadelle as being fairly lightly flavored/scented gins compared to, say, Junipero or Boodles or Tanqueray. Try tasting Bombay Sapphire alongside regular Bonbay. Even though Sapphire is made with a larger number of botanicals, I think you'll find Sapphire has a substantially less assertive aroma and flavor. There is a persistent rumor that Sapphire was specifically developed as a "less ginny gin" to appeal to vodka drinkers. I don't have a hard time believing that, and it's clear that Sapphire used the "Absolut model" in marketing their product (with great success). This is not to say that it isn't good (it is good), but simply to say that I don't think it has a particularly strong flavor or aroma. I wonder what brands we would describe as real "gin lovers' gins." The brands often to be found at my house are Boodles, Tanqueray, Hendrick's, Junipero, Plymouth and Gordon's. Of these, I'm likely to use Hendrick's and Plymouth only in martinis or other very gincentric drinks; I'm likely to use Junipero never in martinis but rather in drinks where I want the strong presence of gin to cut through other strong flavors; Tanqueray and Boodles I'll use for just about everything; and Gordon's I use for just about everything except martinis. I'm currently experimenting with a bottle of Beefeater Wet, which has a light pear flavor in the mix.

We've already got a zillion threads on martini ingredients/techniques and the whole "gin versus vodka martini" thing. Let's not go down that path here. I should hasten to point out that there are a multitude of wonderful gin cocktails besides the martini. Some of my favorites are the Aviation, the Twentieth Century, the Corpse Reviver #2 and the Pegu Club. Gin makes a much more interesting mixing liquor than vodka, in my opinion, because you're adding flavor instead of just adding alcohol. Try a Cosmopolitan with gin instead of vodka some time. 100% better.

asso = "ace"

Very interesting article, entitled No longer forgotten, this drink is gaining on vodka and rekindling interest in the cocktails of yesteryear and mostly focusing on the growing popularity of gin rather than the choice of base liquor in a martini. Here's a little excerpt: Gin has long been the white liquor of choice for most cocktail afficianados. And I welcome any increase in popularity that might bring with it an increase in interesting new selections and imports.

That sounds like a good way of proceeding. Let us know when the lab results are in? Tried a Reverse Manhattan last night. 2 ounces Vya sweet vermouth, 1 ounce Bookers, 3 dashes Fee bitters, stir with cracked ice. It was pretty good. Bookers is just assertive enough to make an impact in both flavor and alcoholic strength. Not likely to take the place of Audrey's Bookers/Punt e Mes Manhattan in my heart, though.

Interesting, I was just talking with some of the gang about this not too long ago. Raw egg whites have, of course, been used in cocktails for a long, long time. Some classics (the Pisco Sour comes immediately to mind) have raw egg white as an essential ingredient. CocktailDB has about a zillion recipes with raw whole egg or raw egg white or raw egg yolk as an ingredient. Anyway, I was given to understand that cocktails-with-flavored-foam (as opposed to a foamy cocktail such as the aforementioned Pisco Sour) is by no means a new thing. For example, we have the Apple Core served at First, which is made with apple vodka, Berentzen Apfelkorn apple schnapps, lemon juice, a splash of cider and a top of apple foam. In terms of a relatively stable foam of alcohol... that might be difficult. Here is the bit on cocktail foam from Harold McGee's Q&A. From what I hear, the big downside to using gelatin is that it tends to look like vomit when the foam breaks down.

Two things here: 1. I'd recommend you look at the curved sauteuse evasée rather than the straight sided one at this size. I think the curved design works better when you're looking for something that will function mostly as a souped-up sauté pan. This also allows you to go with the Falk pan instead of the Bourgeat pan, which us usually a fairly substantial savings. The rolled lip, IMO, does not make a significant difference in the usefulness of this kind of pan, but if it's important to you, it is worthy of note that Falk's curved sauteuse evasée does have a rolled lip. 2. I'm not sure a sauteuse evasée, whether curved or not, makes a good replacement for a fry pan. They have entirely different designs and entirely different uses. This, of course, assumes that you have been using your fry pans as fry pans and not mostly as sauté pans with sides that are too low and too curved. Disk bottom is the way to go for a tall sauce pan, with a heavy stainless body and a thick aluminum base. I think something like 4 - 4.5 quarts is a good size. I have this one and like it very much. No reason to get rid of your existing saucepans, though, unless they're taking up too much room. Scanpan is pretty decent stuff (I like their new Scanpan Steel line) and even the crappiest thin stainless pan is just fine for boiling water or steaming vegetables. Is the Scanpan 2001+ nonstick? That would be too bad, and a reason I'd think about getting rid of it. No, you really don't want to be working with one quart of liquid in a 4.4 quart pan. So your instincts are right there. It all depends on how much you are willing to spend. Amazon often has deals on All-Clad pans. You could get this 1 quart All-Clad LTD saucepan for 30 bucks. Or, if you're willing to go through one of the Amazon resellers, you could get this 1 quart All-Clad Stainless saucepan for as little as 18 bucks. Or you could get something bigger, like this 2.5 quart Calphalon Commercial Hard-Anodized saucepan for $20. Most likely, one of these pans will be good enough for your uses. After that, it's a big jump up to the big boys. It'll run you $115 or so for a 1.6 quart saucepan or a 105 for a 1 quart sauteuse evasée from Falk. Perhaps this graphic will help explain: Here we have two disk bottom designs and one straight gauge design. On the regular disk pan, as you can see, the layer of thermal material doesn't quite cover the entire bottom of the pan. The area where the stainless steel body curves up from the bottom of the pan to the sides of the pan is exposed. Now, normally this won't make much difference. All it means is that there is a small ring around the outside of the base that isn't quite as hot as the rest of the pan. No big deal -- it won't affect your cooking. However, when the flame is bigger than the pan, heat comes directly from the flame onto the exposed curved stainless steel area. This means there is a small ring around the outside of the base that is a lot hotter than the rest of the pan. Not good. This can mean scorching. The encapsulated disk pan attempts to solve this problem by making the disk as large as the diameter of the pan. As you can see, this leaves some voids underneath the curved part, and as a result these disks have to be encapsulated in a thin layer of stainless steel. There is still a a small ring around the outside of the base that isn't quite as hot as the rest of the pan, but because it protects the curved part, it eliminates the situation where there is a small ring around the outside of the base that is a lot hotter than the rest of the pan. This is a step up, but it is not without its troubles. If the flame is sufficiently large, it can travel up the thin sides of the pan to cause overheating and scorching there. In addition, encapsulated disk pans are significantly more expensive than regular disk pans. The straight gauge pan, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from any of these problems. No matter how large the flame is, the heat is always coming into the pan through an even layer of thermal material. No hot spots, no scorching. Straight gauge pans tend to be more expensive, but since we're talking about small pans a reasonably priced one can usually be found. This is one of those "how much is it worth it to you" questions that only you can answer. To my mind, the All-Clad pans I referenced are cheap enough that there is no reason not to get one (I have several). For melting butter and warming milk (two things that I almost always do in the microwave anyway), there is no reason to spend any more money. Now, I also have a 1.3 quart stainless lined heavy copper sauteuse evasée which I use to do things like making intense reductions and delicate emulsified sauces, and very dark caramels. If you don't do this sort of thing, there probably is no reason to spend that kind of money.

This whole "no pork" thing is really putting a damper on my potential recommendations. Here's a good one using chicken where I would normally use pork or lamb: make a sauce with crumbled chicken sausage, sautéed onions, lots of mushrooms and a touch of tomato paste (brown the sausage and reserve, get the onions good and brown, then add the tomato paste and get that kind of browned over on the side of the pan, add quartered mushrooms and get those going, add the sausage back in along with a touch of whatever wine you have around, put in some rosemary if you have any -- the sauce should be very thick). Get some good penne, get that to "not quite al dente" stage and cook it together with the ragù, thinning the sauce as needed with pasta water. Then, when you serve it at the table, put a knob of soft goat cheese on top of the pasta in every bowl. The hot savory pasta with the occasional bit of cold, creamy chevre is very cool.

Another easy one is just "in bianco." Simply pasta glazed with some reduced chicken stock and butter, with some grated parm-reg on top. It helps if you have really primo pasta for this, of course.

This is actually a staple of Italian sauce cookery: cooking something in the sauce for the flavor it imparts, but then taking it out. It's actually fairly rare, for example, that a sauce or a sauté of spinach will actually be full of little slivers of garlic. More likely than not, the garlic will be put in whole for the flavor and then fished out later. Same thing with celery. My mother told me that her family's cook when they were living in Rome would make a sauce that included whole stalks of celery that were removed and discarded once the sauce was finished. There are a lot of things you can do to teach yourself the minutiae of basic pasta sauces. Try the tomato and butter sauce. Then try one where you soften the onion in the butter first. Then try softening the onion in evoo instead of butter. Then try onion and celery. Then try onion, celery and carrot. It's very interesting to see how the flavor, depth and intensity of the sauce changes just due to these minute variations. I once tried splitting a can of San Marzano's in half, and did the cold pan tomato/onion sauce I described above using butter as the fat in one pan and evoo as the fat in the other pan. That was the only difference. Then I cooked up a big batch of spaghetti and tried the two different sauces side-by-side. The differences were huge. So huge that I've been meaning to write it up (haven't got around to it yet).

Very nice work, JJ! Here's a small excerpt for posterity:

My go-to quick pasta sauce is simply one large can of San Marzano tomatoes (or the best quality you can find); a medium onion, peeled and cut in half; and 4 nice tablespoons of butter. Start all the ingredients together in a cold pan, bring it up to temperature slowly over medium-low heat, barely simmer until the butter emulsifies into the tomato and the onion is soft. Toss out the onion (it has given its flavor to the sauce) and use the sauce. Good with dry pasta, amazing with fresh pasta, and mind blowing with gnocchi (I have a very quick/easy recipe for ricotta gnocchi, if you're interested). This is what it looks like when it's ready: Puttanesca is a quick and easy sauce for dry pasta: lots of evoo; slowly cook a whole lot of best quality anchovies until they liquify; toss in some onion and garlic to soften; throw in some good canned tomatoes and plenty of good capers; bring it up to a slow simmer; toss in some olives and you're ready to go. Another good one is smoked salmon and cream. Soften some onion. Add slivers of smoked salmon and the cream. Bring up to temp. Ready to go. Almost any seafood (scallops, clams, shrimp, calamari) is good just "bianco di scoglio" -- simply and quickly cooked at the last possible minute with a touch of garlic and tossed with the pasta together with chopped herbs and plenty of evoo.