slkinsey

Interesting. How deep is the pan?

I don't see that there are meaningful points or straightforward questions you asked that it would be availing to answer. If you have something specific and germane to this discussion you would like me to respond to, ask straightforwardly and I will attempt to respond. Is there some reason you are not sharing this massive store of knowledge that enables you to fully understand all things gin-related? I'm not above changing my opinion if you can show me where it is legally incorrect or historically mistaken to suppose that gin as a category of spirit is defined by having a primary character of juniper. But you haven't offered any such thing, other than to assert that you know better. And to which definition of "London dry gin" do you refer? The 2008 EU definitions? Is there is some UK-specific legal definition or historical tradition you can use to elucidate this conversation? If so, then why not trot this evidence out instead of asserting that you know something I don't know, which makes you right and me wrong? While you're at it, I'd also be interested in knowing the date of such regulation or definition, and if it is of modern provenance, why we should care. Seriously. If you have this information, then by all means share. I like learning as much as the next guy, if not a good bit more. As for the 2008 EU definitions, they're pretty easy to track down: I note this significant text from above: "a juniper-flavoured spirit drink [distilled] . . . in the presence of juniper berries (Juniperus communis L.) and of other natural botanicals provided that the juniper taste is predominant." (Emphasis added.) Both of these items in the EU definition would seem to go directly to my points that a major qualifier as to the designation "gin" is having a primary flavoring of juniper. Now, whether or not a 2008 EU definition necessarily speaks to the overall tradition of gin or "London dry gin" is another question entirely. If you have some other knowledge or more authoritative and historical definition, I'm happy to see it. I'd certainly be interested at any evidence you have of the widespread historical common usage of "gin" to define a category of spirit that is not differentiated from other categories of spirit on the basis of having a primary character derived from juniper. Since you've brought it up, I'm curious... Do you know for a fact that Tanqueray Ten is legally prohibited from calling itself a "London dry gin." If so, on what basis? The only thing I can think of is that maybe they don't distill up to 70% abv, or maybe they add too much sugar? Or is it possible that they don't say "London dry" on the bottle simply to differentiate it further from their flagship product? I think it was pretty clear that I was only offering that as an example of a regulation. And in the context of asking what the UK regulations are.

This is a publicity gimmick, nothing more. I bet they haven't sold a single one of these, nor are they likely to have sold any of their $1,000 sundaes. The sundae they created exclusively for the publicity of having the "world's record most expensive sundae" and this "haute dog" is more of the same. Seriously, people, this is Serendipity 3. This is not an expensive restaurant taking db Bistro's (excellent) "high end burger" concept to a further extreme. It's a place that sells $13 sandwiches with annoyingly "whimsical" names like "The Virginia Slim Open" and has a signature dessert called "Frrrozen Hot Chocolate." It's the Upper East Side version of Bennigan's. On preview: what sneakeater said.

London Dry gin is a style of gin that is governed by strict laws and has a primary flavour of juniper. Some questions here: 1. What are the British laws governing what can be called a London dry gin? There are no such laws in effect in the United States. We have our own regulations in the United States, by the way. 27 C.F.R. § 5.22c says: " 'Gin' is a product obtained by original distillation from mash, or by redistillation of distilled spirits, or by mixing neutral spirits, with or over juniper berries and other aromatics, or with or over extracts derived from infusions, percolations, or maceration of such materials, and includes mixtures of gin and neutral spirits. It shall derive its main characteristic flavor from juniper berries and be bottled at not less than 80° proof. Gin produced exclusively by original distillation or by redistillation may be further designated as 'distilled.' 'Dry gin' (London dry gin), 'Geneva gin' (Hollands gin), and 'Old Tom gin' (Tom gin) are types of gin known under such designations." (Emphasis added.) 2. What is any example of gin in any style from, say, before 1980, that did not have a primary flavoring of juniper? 3. Can you find any history or historical definition of "gin" that does not say that it is a juniper-flavored spirit or that it derives its predominate flavor from juniper berries or some such similar language? 4. What would you say are the defining characteristics of gin?

Thanks for the info, Max. Could you describe a duck leg confit recipe that you think contains sufficient salting to make the product reasonably safe long-term in a refrigerator? And also, do you think such a product could be used the same way most of us are used to using confit (e.g., crisped in the oven with potatoes) without being horribly salty? For my sous vide confit, I've always liberally salted the duck legs for around 24 hours, then rinsed them off, patted dry, bagged and cooked.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your strident tone, but will attempt to address your points raised... I don't get what the problem is? If you don't like the bottlings being churned out by micro-distilleries because they're not as good as Tanqueray, don't buy them. I mean, if you're comparing every micro-distillery's gin to Tanqueray then you're looking for a particular style of gin (juniper-heavy) so you should only really compare those that are claiming to be juniper-led. That's not the problem at all. There are plenty of micros out there turning out quality products, and many of them are doing so at a decent price. I am simply stating the fact that the preponderance of them are turning out an inferior product at a higher price. More to the point, and as Erik points out, many of them are turning out product despite a clear insufficiency of knowledge and experience in the spirit categories which they propose to "interpret" or "improve." If you don't take exception to the practice of creating an "absinthe" without actually having tasted, yanno, absinthe -- then that's where you and I part ways. As I say above, however, there are plenty of good micros out there. I like what Redemption Rye is doing. Practically everything Anchor Distilling touches is gold. House Spirits' Krogstad aquavit is very good. I could go on, but hopefully you're catching my drift by now. Obviously we know that the larger and more established makers have advantages of scale, etc. Although I should point out that the local micros don't have to pay import tax and incur the cost of shipping their products across the ocean. The point is, however, that regardless of your size, if you're going to charge 35 bucks for a bottle of gin, it had damn well better compete with a $25 bottle of gin on a quality basis. This would seem to be eminently possible, as the quality and conception of the product are entirely in the hands of the maker. Nevertheless, far too many of them don't come close to meeting this bar. This doesn't make much sense. Rangpur gin came out in 2006, long after this trend was underway. Malacca came out in 2000, and has plenty of juniper character (I am in a position to know this, having a little less than a case stashed in my apartment). I'm not sure what makes Tanqueray 10 "not a London dry" other than the fact that it doesn't say that on the bottle. But, for whatever it's worth, it's not a gin I particularly like and I wouldn't pay 40 bucks for a bottle of it. But at least you can't accuse them of not knowing the traditions of gin. It's clearly a gin maker trying to make money in the "premium gin for vodka drinkers" market. Beefeater is doing the same thing. Not their flagship products, though. My guess at the bottling that started this trend would be Bombay Sapphire, which was the first gin of which I am aware that downplayed juniper and backed off the botanicals overall in order to create a "gin for vodka drinkers." This was back in 1987, and of course subsequent exploration in this direction makes Sapphire seem downright flavor-packed and juniper-forward in comparison to some modern examples. And yea, I think you will find that there are plenty of people who don't have lots of great things to say about Sapphire and will suggest that Bombay Dry is a better product that is more true to the style. Hendrick's, introduced in 1999, is my guess as the gin that really kicked off the trend of moving juniper to the background and bringing nontraditional flavors to the foreground. To be clear, although many of these spirits may not be interesting to me, I'm not necessarily saying that they aren't good spirits. There is just a question in my mind as to whether or not they are properly called "gin." Many of these could drop juniper altogether and it wouldn't change the fundamental character of the spirit and its mixing characteristics one iota. This, in my opinion, is a problem if you are going to call the product "gin." Consider that a large number of these products simply do not work -- do not "act like gin" -- in the vast catalog of gin cocktails that has grown up over the decades. This, in my opinion, is a problem if you are going to call the product "gin." It seems pretty simple to me: If it looks like a gin, smells like a gin, tastes like a gin, acts like a gin, mixes like a gin... then it's a gin. If not... then it's not. So, the fact that we're talking about the "issue regarding new-world gins not being juniper led" says everything, because gin by definition is juniper led. Having a primary flavor of juniper is not a "style" of gin, it is its defining characteristic. Now, of course there is room within that defining characteristic for some variability. But there are also limitations. The threshold being when the presence of juniper goes below what can at least reasonably be argued is "primary flavoring."

Except that aquavit is supposed to have the primary flavoring of caraway. Fundamentally, of course, gin and aquavit and absinthe, etc. are all infused-then-redistilled vodka. The difference between one of these largely juniper-free spirits and what one would generally call "infused vodka," is really just level of complexity. Most self-identified "infused vodkas" are one or perhaps two-flavor infusions, whereas the spirits we are talking about may have from a half-dozen to a dozen or more flavor constituents. I think you're right that a new vocabulary might be helpful. We wouldn't call a spirit that moved the anise and bitter flavors way to the background "absinthe," after all. In some ways, I wonder whether some of these "new generation gins" bother including juniper in the mix simply so that they can hold onto the notion that it's still "gin." It's interesting to note now often one reads a quote from a microdistiller making "gin" who says some version of, "I wanted to do something different, so I put juniper in the background and highlighted the flavors of [something that isn't juniper]." Nowaways, of course, it would really be "something different" to hear a microdistiller say he wanted to make a juniper bomb that tasted like being spanked in the mouth with a Christmas tree.

Shrimp cocktail Broiled Bacon Tomato and Onion Salad Lamb Chops Caesar Salad Iceberg Wedge with Roquefort Raw Oysters Steak Lobster Frites Baked Potato German Fried Potatoes Onion Rings Creamed Spinach Sautéed Mushrooms Something Green (usually Broccoli or Asparagus)

Another way to do it is like what Redemption Rye does: Release a young product and hold some back for more aging so that eventually you'll find the sweet spot. I should hasten to point out that they're selling it at a reasonable price and seem to know plenty about the tradition and history of rye whiskey, so that they're able to do something somewhat unusual (much higher percentage of rye grain in the mashbill) that still doesn't break them out of the category.

I think it speaks to micros in general. There are a zillion of them out there selling $35 bottles of gin or $40 bottles of "aged apple vodka" or $50 bottles of whiskey, but very few of them are turning out anything that approaches being as good as a $22 bottle of Tanqueray or a $19 bottle of Laird's bonded or a $23 bottle of Wild Turkey.

Anyone else feel like the vinegar pickle recipe (calls for 6 T sugar, 2 1/4 t kosher salt, 1 C water, 1/2 C rice vinegar) is too sweet?

Amen, brother.

There's a nice segment on this with chef Michael White on Ozersky.TV.

I wouldn't think that would work, Chris, unless you substantially changed the formula for the dough. The whole point of steaming tamales is that you make the dough with a ton of lard in it, and then when you steam them you melt out a lot of the fat and leave behind a somewhat spongy texture. Note how really good traditional tamales seem to have lots of tiny holes in them.

imo, Gordon's is the most juniper-forward of all the classic London dry gins. The full strength stuff is further in that direction.

afaik, Plymouth's flagship product is 41.2% abv everywhere. They also make a 57% abv "navy strength" product that is not available in the US.

Full strength Gordon's! Alas, not available in the US. But for the full on Christmas tree effect, it's hard to beat Gordon's. Even the weak sauce Gordon's we get here is one of the most juniper-y gins around. I'm actually in the market for a cold trap so I can freeze-distill the extra water out of Gordon's and Old Overholt up to around 50% ABV.

I don't quite get how not liking Bluecoat Gin, or indeed finding it execrable makes one a "pretentious blowhard." I wouldn't go so far as to say it's execrable myself, but also don't think it's particularly distinctive as a gin. I suppose I hang with Mr. Pacult in holding that the fundamental criterion for being a gin is having a primary flavor of juniper. Bluecoat, to me, hangs together with a number of self-proclaimed but-not-exactly-gin products having a primary character of citrus, with juniper somewhere in the background. Good products to introduce a citrus vodka drinker to juniper flavors, and not bad in a citrus drink (especially a long one) if you want to layer citrus on top of citrus. Combining like with like isn't really my thing, but some people like it and do it well. I think people who like gin sometimes have a difficulty using products like Bluecoat and Hamptons and Tanqueray Rangpur and No. 209 (etc.) because they try to use it like gin, or in drinks where gin is normally used. These citrus-forward-with-a-touch-of-juniper spirits frequently don't work that way. I can't imagine using one of these products in a Juniperotivo, for example, because what makes the drink work is the juniper shining through all the other flavors. Rather, I think it makes more sense to think of these products like citrus-flavored spirits with some added complexity that includes a whisper of juniper (the world's best citrus vodka, if you will). This category of spirit is not so interesting to me, but many of them are quality products at what they do. That said, and as Chris mentions, Bluecoat has had some distilling and quality control issues. Kohai was reporting as far back as February that he was seeing a significant percentage of bottles with a "synthetic, moldy ick going on." It seems likely, given Mr. Pacult's description, that he got one of these problem bottles (I should hasten to point out that it's not Mr. Pacult's obligation to search out alternative bottles to sample, but rather Bluecoat's obligation to have much, much better quality control). Given Bluecoat's lack of a distinctive juniper character, and the strong probability that he sampled some of their bad bottles, his judgment that it "doesn't in the least resemble gin at any level" doesn't seem out of line -- local pride notwithstanding.

One very convenient way to have grilled chicken ready to go whenever you want it is to spatchcock the chicken, salt/herb/spice/chili/citrus it however you like, bag it with a touch of your favorite fat, cook sous vide to around 62C, then chill it down and toss it in the freezer. The flatness of the spatchcocked chicken means that it stacks nicely in multiples. Then, when you want to grill, all you have to do is toss the bag in a sinkfull of warm water while the grill preheats, unbag the chicken and slap it on the grill long enough to crisp the skin. The flavor penetration from the seasoning is great, and you don't have to be so concerned about overcooking the breasts/undercooking the legs. Also, whereas I like the usual spatchcock that cuts out the backbone for broiling and pan-roasting, for grilling I think it's better to cut down through the breastbone and flatten it out with the backbone in the center. This seems sturdier for moving around on the grill, and seems to make it easier to nail the proper level of doneness for the legs and breast (probably because traditional spatchcocking seems to focus most of the heat into the breasts).

Any chance you might sell any signed copies? That would be fun.

What do you know about your municipal water? Is it hard or soft? How much is it chlorinated? I got an under-sink filter for our kitchen that includes a 0.5 micron ceramic sediment filter (not only things like rust and dirt particles, but also most bacterial cysts, etc.) and a massive charcoal filter. Makes a huge difference, even in NYC water which is supposed to be as good as it gets. If you have a lot of dissolved minerals, of course, this won't help. But you might be surprised how many particulates there are in your water. Whenever I clean the ceramic filter I'm amazed at how much it has caught (mostly rust).

The reality is that it is difficult-to-impossible to make bread that accords with modern aesthetics out of 100% whole wheat flour. What you can do is make 100% whole wheat breads that have a density similar to rye bread. This is what I assume was what Margaret describes above as "whole wheat boules, dense and tight." In all likelihood those boules also had a significant proportion of white flour in the mix. The thing is: Most people don't want this texture in a wheat bread. What they want is "wheatier-tasting bread with a white bread texture." People also often want to eat whole wheat bread because they believe it is healthier. It is healthier in the sense that it contains more fiber compared to white bread. And, if you look at the nutrient data, it appears to have more vitamins, etc. But whole wheat bread actually provides lesser amounts of these nutrients compared to white bread due to reduced bioavailability.

It's also true that mint barely needs to be bruised. "Muddling" is perhaps too strong a word for it. Gently pressed is better. Or even simply left to briefly soak in the spirit. I didn't always understand this, but a good experiment is to make something like a Martini and stir a single mint leaf (un-pressed, muddled or bruised) together with the spirits. The resulting drink will have plenty of mint flavor. When one is making a drink with a fair amount of mint in it, such as a Julep, the only point of gently pressing the mint is to make sure that it fully contacts all the booze and gives up its oils. Muddlng almost always creates vegetal flavors.

That's an interesting thought, docdix, but I'm afraid it's impossible. The vast majority of flavor is olfactory. The reason we perceive certain things as having "taste" that is distinct from "odor" is because human physiology allows us to enjoy what is called "retronasal olfaction" - meaning that, in addition to bringing scent molecules to our olfactory sensors through the front of our nose, we also send scent molecules "up the back way" to the olfactory sensors as we chew. Here's the interesting thing: when we sense an odor "orthonasally" (through the nose) it seems like it comes from without and is perceived as a "scent"; whereas when we sense an odor retronasally, we perceive that the sensation comes from within, as "flavor" arising from the mouth. All of which is to say that the motion that the rub is "tasted" and the smoke is "smelled" is a false dichotomy. They are both primarily smelled.

To my mind, the more interesting direction to go if one would like to branch out in the Julep category is to step away from the hegemony of bourbon and explore other base spirits. The Prescription Julep is always a winner, especially if you can get Louis Royer Force 53 (106 proof cognac). I have made and enjoyed Juleps with aged rum, tequila, London dry gin, Old Tom gin, and one of my favorites is a Julep with genever.