slkinsey

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."

Dude, that's only $2.27 a pound. What's so expensive about that? It may seem expensive compared to 59 cent a pound Ronzoni, but the fact is that $2.27 a pound is still very inexpensive. I mean, you can feed 3-4 people on one pound of pasta. That's around 55 to 75 cents a person! If there is another primo ingredient that can be had this inexpensively, I don't know about it. Compared to, say, $2 a pound for red peppers, it's a bargain. And don't even get me started on what they're charging for fresh fava beans, etc. Well, I can't read the book as yet, because it won't be published until early October. But I am, naturally, intimately familiar with the rest of her work to-date. In the books I have read, she has often referred to dry pasta as "factory made" and has often made the case for valuing dry/factory-made pasta equally with fresh/homemade pasta. When I read, "this might shock you, but . . . Santa Marcella says that for some dishes, factory-made pasta is the only way to go" in a thread about dry pasta, I gathered you were interpreting Hazan as occasionally advocating industrial dry/factory-made pasta over artisanal dry/factory-made pasta. Otherwise, why would I be shocked, right? That I started a thread on favorite dry pasta brands strikes me as strong evidence of my fondness for dry pasta and the fact that I value it equally with fresh. But perhaps I misconstrued your post. I'll be surprised if she changes from her historical practice in this new book, but you're certainly in a better position to know than I. I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. It's not rocket science to find out this information, and I have found that it's not that hard to visit a pastificio if you're in the neighborhood. For the record, when I wrote as to "what makes Latini factory-made pasta different from Ronzoni factory-made pasta" was never intended as an implied commentary on your knowledge in this area, which I'm sure is quite advanced. What are the other elements you take into consideration? The only one I am not considering for the purposes of this thread is cost. Perhaps our difference of opinion is because for me there is no such thing as "just maccheroni." I don't think $5/kilo in NYC is an unreasonably high cost, and I don't find that it depletes the funds I have available for other quality foodstuffs such as produce, meat, fish, wine, etc. But, on the other hand... my cooking, culinary philosophy and everyday diet were largely formed in Italy. So I eat a lot of pasta, and it's important to me.

Interesting that you say that, Russ. I have to say that my experience is a little different. I can't say that I can immediately put my finger on a distinctive flavor, but artisinal dry pasta does taste different from the industrial stuff to me. Here is the example I had in mind when I started the referenced thread: I didn't have much in the pantry or much time, so I cooked up around a pound of Setaro ditali and dressed them with a half cup of chicken stock, some butter and some whole parsley leaves. Now, this is an "emergency" dish I have made before with other brands of dry pasta. It has never been much more than filling -- certainly never interesting. This time, however, I couldn't stop eating it. It was delicious! I'm sure it had more flavor than it would had I eaten the pasta completely unadorned, but I wouldn't say that it tasted of either butter or chicken stock and I'm not sure I would describe the pasta's function in this dish as primarily one of conveying flavor. So it tasted of something, and definitely something different (and better!) than the De Cecco I had normally used. Would I have discerned as large a difference in flavor between Setaro and Latini as I tasted between Setaro and De Cecco? That's harder to say.

I do a tasting menu every year for Thanksgiving dinner. It is a lot of work, but the key is planning ahead (especially concerning dinnertime logistics) and also making as many things ahead of time as you can. Making sure the portions are small enough is also important This is my Thanksgiving dinner from last year. Assorted Crudités Prosecco di Valdobbiadene Rustico, Viticoltori Nino Franco, NV – – – Kumamoto Oyster On The Half-Shell With Cucumber Granita Muscadet de Sevre et Maine sur Lies, Cuvee Vielles Vignes, Domaine Clos des Briords, 2002 – – – Cauliflower Soup With Seared Diver Scallop And Curry Oil Saumur Blanc “La Papareille,” Domaine Saint-Vincent, 2002 – – – Mixed Herb Salad With Shrimp Ceviche Saumur Blanc “La Papareille,” Domaine Saint-Vincent, 2002 – – – Toasted Corn And Stilton Soufflé Sautéed Brussels Sprouts With Guanciale and Chive/Oregano Vinaigrette Bourgogne Rouge, Domaine Alain Hudelot-Noellat, 2000 – – – Lemon-Thyme Sorbet Moscato d'Asti “Vigneto Biancospino,” Azienda Agricola Dante Rivetti, Piemonte, 2002 – – – Turkey Two Ways With Cornbread Dressing, Foie Gras And Black Truffle Carpaccio Coteaux du Languedoc Pic Saint-Loup “Le Rollier,” Domaine Mas Foulaquier, 2001 Sonoma Valley Red Wine “Albarello,” H. Coturri & Sons, 2001 – – – Bourbon Bread Pudding Cranberry Cheesecake Pecan Tart Coffee – – – Palmiers and Chocolate Truffles Grappa, Scotch, Bourbon, Etc.

All dry pasta is factory-made. What I think she's saying is that fresh pasta is not necessarily better than dry pasta, and on that point I agree. In "Essentials" she says, "the boxed, dry pasta one refers to as factory-made. . ." and also ". . .for many dishes, factory-made pasta is the better choice. . ." What makes Latini factory-made pasta different from Ronzoni factory-made pasta is that the Ronzoni factory, process and ingredients are different from the Latini factory, process and ingredients. De Cecco is, IMO, the best mass-production ("industrial") dry pasta -- so I totally agree with your tastes there. But also IMO, there is such a world of difference between De Cecco and e.g. Setaro that I'll never go back to De Cecco... not while I can get Setaro for five bucks a kilo. Seriously, go the Italian store at Chelsea Market some time and pick up a kilo of Setaro vermicelli. Serve it with some good butter and nothing else. I bet you'll never want to go back. Yea, but compared to what? And who is doing the testing? I bet if it was you and me doing the testing, it might not rate so high.

I'm not wondering what brand you tend to use the most because it's reasonably priced and available in your neighborhood, etc. I'm talking about the brand of dry pasta you like more than any other. Everyone I know, even those who aren't all that wild about pasta, can immediately taste the difference between industrial dry pasta and artisinal dry pasta. I also find it's true that many pasta dishes that would be uninteresting with industrial dry pasta (e.g., penne in bianco) are wonderful with artisinal dry pasta. So... my favorites are Setaro and Rustichella d'Abruzzo. I also like Latini, and I always have a soft spot for something from Le Marche. But I have to admit that I have some trouble with their strand pasta. Latini short/tubular pasta always cooks just right for me. But Latini long/strand pasta seems to take forever to become tender, and often ends up gummy and overly al dente at the same time. What are your favorites, and why? Are there any I'm missing that I should be sure to check out?

Sure. When braised for any appreciable length of time, the white meat will be dry and tough whereas the dark meat will be moist and tender.

Dark meat has so much more flavor, I can't imagine any context in which I wouldn't prefer it. I think it's especially true in the contect of most curry dishes, if you want to have any chicken flavor at all come out among the many other flavors. Also, since one may cook dark meat substantially longer than white meat chicken, this offers more of an opportunity for the flavors to marry. For me, I only tend to use white meat chicken when I am going for a quick cooking and want to play up its inherrent tenderness.