slkinsey

I have GOT to try this one. I love Chartreuse (and have a gigantic bottle of it), but have had a hard time working it into cocktails (mostly Audrey's Tantris Sidecar these days).

To restate Daniel's sentiment in perhaps a less confrontational way: Why should the law force liquor stores to close one day a week when there is no law for grocery stores, drug stores, bodegas and korean delis, restaurants, etc? In my opinion, they kept in the "one day closed a week" provision to appease the religious types who believe liquor shouldn't be sold on the (Christian) sabbath, because if liquor stores have to pick one day a week to close, most of them will choose Sunday. Now that we have (mostly) knocked down that silly law, how about allowing liquor stores to sell beer?

You probably got them as a gift. It's the equivalent of that "waterless cooking system" crap that is shilled out for way too much money on a shaky premise today. Looks like it's tin lined, which I don't recommend.

Actually, I am talking about more water than is strictly needed for survival. Because I am a singer, I drink lots and lots of water to keep myself properly hydrated for singing. We're talking at least 2 liters between the hours of 10 and 6. My body is "used" to getting this much water, and I begin to experience tension headaches and irritability long before I cross the threshhold of "thirsty." This, I would call a withdrawal symptom.

I should point out that this study is not about caffeine being addictive but rather about habitual use of caffeine causing withdrawal symptoms. These are two entirely different phenomena, and while many addictions include withdrawal symptoms, one does not necessarily equal the other. Lots of things can cause withdrawal symptoms, from heroin to caffeine to aspirin to dietary fiber. I experience withdrawal symptoms if I don't drink enough water. Is water "addictive?" It is noteworthy that, while the newspaper article throws around the word "addiction," the journal article does not. The study is called: "A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features." In their conclusions, the authors write: ". . . there is sufficient empirical evidence to warrant inclusion of caffeine withdrawal as a disorder in the DSM . . ." Note that the word "addiction" is not used anywhere.

Jay Rayner holds forth in The Observer:

Yea. If you want to make any classic cocktails, triple sec is a must (and Cointreau is the best brand of triple sec -- although it is expensive). I got an interesting idea from Audrey Saunders: try using Branca Menta in place of crème de menthe.

As others have said, it depends on what kinds of drinks you like to make, etc. Here's what I would want to have in any home bar for mixing: Reasonably priced premium vodka (e.g., Skyy, Luksusowa, etc) Reasonably priced gin (e.g., Bombay, Gordon's) High end gin(s) for martinis and other special applications (e.g., Boodle's, Hendrick's, Junipero, Tanqueray Ten) Mixing bourbon (Maker's Mark, accept no substitutes) Rye (Old Overholt is good, Van Winkle and Sazerac are better but more expensive) Blended Scotch (e.g., Famous Grouse) Silver Tequilla (e.g., Cuervo - anything 100% blue agave being best) Silver Rum (e.g., Bacardi) White and Red Vermouth (Vya is best, but Noilly Pratt for white and Cinzano for red is good too) Brandy Absinthe Substitute (e.g., Pernod, Ricard, Herbsaint, etc.) Cointreau Grand Marniner Crème de Cacao A nut-flavored liqueur Maraschino (an ingredient in many classic cocktails, Luxardo is the best) Bitters: Angostura, Peychaud's, orange These will allow you to make a very large percentage of the drinks out there. As you refine your tastes and preferences and see other recipes you might like to try, some of these things may drop out of your personal liquor cabinet and you may add others. If you like herbal drinks, you may add things like Chartreuse, Bénédictine, Drambuie. If you like sweeter, fruiter drinks you may end up acquiring more flavored vodkas and liqueurs like Chambord, etc. You may want to add things like Calvados, Cachaça and Pisco. If you like bitter herbal flavors, you might add Campari, Carpano Punt e Mes, or even Branca Menta.

Exactly. Although I'm not sure how much difference this makes in a home kitchen and on a home stove. The oval pans, in my experience, are primarily useful for cooking one fish or fillet at a time. This is something that happens often in a restaurant kitchen, but rarely at home. A fish large enough for two (or more) is impractical to cook on the stovetop in a single pan, and a fillet large enough for two (or more) is easily portioned prior to cooking to fit in a round pan. This is not to say that an oval "fish pan" is completely useless in a home kitchen, but I think a large high-end nonstick skillet is a lot more functional.

Very interesting idea, Ian. Another thought on your temperature thought: You could do a flight of three 1 ounce portions of tequilla-cointreau-lime, one room temp, one shaken & "up" and one frozen & slushy.

Heh. Me too. Or is there another word for "straight from the bottle?"

Hi Greg. Sorry for the delay in my reply. It's been a busy time around here with the move to the eGullet Society, and I haven't had as much time as I would like to view the forums (plus, you posted on my birthday). Thanks to Moby for bumping this thread, too. Anyway... What you're talking about is more or less a "curved rondeau" (you can see my description of a rondeau in the class. Most everything I say in the class about the rondeaux would also apply to a curved rondeau, except that the cooking surface area would be smaller and thus not as good for searing, etc. Despite the fact that Falk calls it a "stew pot" I am not sure this is an ideal vessel for stewing, which is a "low and slow" undertaking. For long stewing, I tend to prefer enameled cast iron with heavy lid. Considering that Falk's 3 quart "stew pot" goes for $180 without a cover, it's hard to see why you'd want to buy one when a 5.5 quart enameled cast iron casserole from Le Creuset can be had for 185 bucks, and a 5 quart enameled cast iron casserole from Staub (the best, IMO) can be had for for $180 (both prices from Amazon.com and both pieces with covers). The one case I could make for acquiring this Falk pan would be if you plan to use it more or less like a large curved sauteuse evasee with two short handles instead of one long one. Since I think the single handle design works much better for a large curved sauteuse evasee, the only reason I would ever want one with two short handles would be because I needed to conserve stovetop real estate. If you're asking about Falk's "oval casserole," most of what I said about their "stew pot" also applies here. I just don't see why it's worth sprending the money for copper and would gravitate towards enameled cast iron, which has the added advantage of being much less expensive. If you're talking about gratin pans, it gets a little more complicated. The thing about a gratin pan is that looks do make a difference, because you will be bringing the pan to the table. Whether copper makes sense will largely depend on how you think you might use the pan. Strictly for making things "gratinée" (which is to say, cooked in the oven or under the broiler until brown and crispy on top), it probably doesn't add anything to use copper and you might as well use porcelain. Metal gratin pans can have added functionality, however, because they can be heated on the stove. You could use it as a "sizzle plate" to finish items in the oven. You could toss in some fat and garlic on the stovetop, start a whole fish in the pan, and take the whole thing to the oven. You could roast poultry in the gratin pan, use the same pan to make a pan sauce, return the poultry to the pan and take the whole thing to the table. There are a lot of things you could do with a metal gratin pan. For many of these extended applications, heavy copper could really come in handy. Keep in mind, however, that the 1.6 mm Mauviel line is called "table service." It is fine for the oven, but is too thin for stovetop cooking. The Mauviel copper paella pan is, afaik, only 1.6 mm. It is not useful for stovetop cooking.

Something can have calories and no carbohydrates. I think there may be a misunderstanding here: Yes, alcohol is often made from starches that have been reduced to sugars via enzymatic degradation. Yes, both starch and sugar are carbohydrates. But alcohol is not a carbohydrate. The fermentation process results in a different kind of molecule, and afaik it is not broken down into the same components by the body. It is theoretically possible to convert all the carbohydrates in a ingredient to alcohol via enzymatic degradation and fermentation. In this case, there would be no carbohydrates remaining. It is also possible, I am guessing, to remove any carbohydrates that are not fermented into alcohol via distillation/rectification/filtering techniques. Refining to this degree will remove most of the flavor components, but with vodka this is not a problem (indeed, it is a goal).

Sounds interesting, George. It also interested me to see the inclusion of apple juice. Seems like a number of bartenders I have talked with lately are experimenting with apple juice. Have you noticed this trend? What do you think it brings to the table? To be honest, it's something I would never have thought of using.

It strikes me as entirely possible to make a vodka that contains no carbohydrates. The question is, who cares?

I think a glass siphon is a must. And you have to make sure you keep it sparkling clean, including all the parts. I have one of the metal ISI siphons, and after a while all the water from it started to taste like water out of a musty old Boy Scout canteen, and nothing I did could get rid of that taste. So, I eventually threw it out. Of course, around here we go through seltzer like... er... well, like water. So having a bottle of the stuff go flat is never an issue.

Just another thought: It's quite easy to make a coffee-infused vodka... Something as simple as coffee-infused vodka, cold espresso and a tiny touch of coffee cordial (Kahlua, etc.) for sweetness should do the trick.

In recognition of the fact that we would at least like to appear to try to be responsible here -- I don't think we should be in the business of repeating unsubstantiated rumors about Bacardi or whoever.

That's a good point, bacchant036, and a good thing to hear. We're seeing a lot of that here in NYC as well. In recognition of the fact that I tend to go to a certain kind of bar or restaurant, I'm not sure if I can say "most new bars" all across the City -- but it's certainly something I've noticed as well. My impression is that this tends to be especially true for restaurant bars.

Well, I think one has to define "booming." The cocktail culture is "booming" in NYC as well, and famously so. But the fact is that while plenty of bars in both NYC and Edinburgh may make cocktails, most aren't "cocktail bars" and the cocktails made in the average bar aren't very good. If a higher percentage of the cocktail-making bars in Edinburgh (or wherever in Europe) are making quality cocktails, it is probably mostly reflective of the fact that "cocktails" are part of the culture of most every bar in the US whereas it is not for many (most) in Europe. It is quite easy to spend time in NYC primarily in bars like Bemelman's, Schiller's Liquor Bar, Milk & Honey, Flatiron Lounge, etc. That's what I try to do, in fact. But one does have the tendency to form the idea that the state of the craft is a lot better than it really is. I think when one says "cocktail bar" and speaks of bartenders like yourself, there is already the expectation that higher quality ingredients and a more culinary approach will be employed. It is significantly less likely, in my view, that a "cocktail bar" will use sour mix and flavored syrups in place of citrus juice and fresh fruit -- just as it is less likely that these bars will serve an overly sweet, unbalanced drink. All this is to say that I have a hard time believing that the average bar in Edinburgh or London is using fresh ingredients, etc. That said, it's been a few years so maybe I'm not current. But I don't get the impression you're an "average bartender" working in an "average bar." I'm not sure I get it. Where do you get the jackass part, and from who? It doesn't sound like they're being anything but good to their customer base, despite the fact that some of them had not-so-nice things to say about the state of the craft. I can say from personal experience that the NYC venues mentioned couldn't be more welcoming. Just for the record, the phone number thing at Milk & Honey is hardly exclusionary. This is even pointed out in the article: It's a small place and they also want to make sure they are able to give everyone the appropriate attention. In a way, it is taking a bar in the direction of a restaurant model, by taking reservations. It's hardly difficult to get the phone number for M&H, though.

It's a completely ridiculous statement on a variety of levels. First of all, it's a little simplistic to say that "rice has no natural sugars." Rice is mostly made out of starch. Starch is a "complex" polysaccharide carbohydrate. Polysaccharides can be broken down into monosaccharides by hydrolysis. Sugar, generally speaking, is a "simple" carbohydrate composed of one or two monosaccharides. So even if one can say that "rice has no natural sugars" it is a meaningless statement in this context, since there is ample starch that is reducible to sugar. It's like saying that scotch has almost no calories, due to the absence of natural sugars in barley. Second, if there's no sugar there's no alcohol. Alcohol is made out of sugar, in the sense that it is a byproduct of the fermentation of sugar by yeast. When sake is made, rice is inocculated with a mold called koji (Aspergillum oryzae). The koji mold converts the starch of the rice into... wait for it... sugar. This sugar is fermented by yeast and the result is sake. Third, hello? Alcohol has calories. Seven calories per gram, in fact (fat has 9 calories per gram).

There was a very interesting article in this week's food section, entitled So a Purist Goes in a Bar and Starts to Pour Art. In the article, Florence Fabricant discussed the growing trend among bartenders to take a more "culinary approach" towards mixology. The article, by the way, features an eGullet favorite and leading light in the cocktail revival, Audrey "Libation Goddess" Saunders. Here are a few excerpts I found interesting: Some interesting stuff there, and some provocative stuff too. I highly recommend this article and am interested to hear what we think of it.

I do think it's interesting that one of the major steps in developing a new brand of vodka is the design of the bottle. Bottle design has become important for many alcoholic beverages (viz. Bombay Sapphire's blue bottle), but it's much more important for vodka because there is so much less to differentiate beween brands. It's widely accepted that Absolut's bottle design had more to do with the success of that brand than anything else. This seems to be the major step towards becoming a trend leader like Katie suggests, so people will order fifteen dollar vodka tonics.

afaik, a "Frenched" chicken breast simply means a skin-on breast with the breastbone and first two joints of the wing removed -- sometimes with the meat scraped off of the remaining joint of the wing. When I am cooking drumsticks I always either cut off the knuckle (end joint) or, if I want it to look pretty, I run a sharp knife around the knuckle end of the bone to detatch the meat and tendons from that end. This results in a much more palatable and "thigh-like" texture. According to your description the latter process is "Frenching" the leg.

"If I am going to spend that kind of dough on pasta"!! Pun intended, I hope! Seriously, though, I think this outlook reflects a little bit of what Marcella Hazan weighs in against in her books: the idea that fresh pasta is better than dry pasta. Why does $2.50 a pound for good quality fresh pasta seem like a reasonable price, and not $2.50 a pound for the very best quality dry pasta? Taking the opposite view, I spend more money on the dry stuff because there is no way a store can make fresh pasta that's better than what I make myself at home for 1/10th the price, whereas I can't make dry pasta at home at all. But, I also think that the value one gets out of pasta, either fresh or dry, is also largely shaped by one's culinary practices and priorities. I tend to prefer my pasta dishes in the Italian style, which is to say fairly lightly sauced. This allows the pasta to play the starring role, and the sauce is just a condiment. Most Americans, on the other hand, tend to prefer their pasta dishes much more heavily sauced, such that the sauce is really the main event. This isn't necessarily an issue of one approach being inherrently better than the other (and I have no idea which style you prefer), but it is the case that the quality of the pasta will be much more apparent in the Italian style preparations. All this is to say that Barilla and De Cecco (etc.) are definitely quality products, but I have no trouble whatsoever immediately telling the difference between the better industrial dry pastas and artisanal dry pastas -- and I think this is true of most people who eat at my house. In fact, I remember the first time Fat Guy was over for dinner after I had started moving away from Barilla and De Cecco to brands like Setaro and Latini. He took one bite and said, "this is really good quality pasta."