[New Generation Gins]

Not for nothing was it recently suggested to me that many of these were designed as spirits that don't particularly taste like gin by people who don't particularly like gin to be sold to to people who don't particularly like the taste of gin but for some reason want to drink something called "gin."

Honestly... if you don't like juniper, then why would you want to drink gin? And, again, I am in no way saying that any of these products is necessarily a bad quality product. The quality of the product is an entirely separate issue.

[New Generation Gins]

In the spirit of making a few replies here to see if the discussion can move forward...

You said - The threshold being when the presence of juniper goes below what can at least reasonably be argued is "primary flavoring."

To which I asked - Which is decided by who?

A valid point at the crux of the current debate...

I don't think the issue of who decides matters overly much to the general subject at debate. Clearly, whoever makes the regulatory determination has decided that some products with very little juniper character are allowed to call themselves "gin." Otherwise these products wouldn't be on the market. Whether this continues, who knows. I imagine that it will, so long as the big producers are able to make money selling a product labeled "gin" that doesn't particularly taste like gin. It's a bit like the SUV loophole that allowed these vehicles to be legally classified as trucks rather than cars, and therefore subject to lower emissions and efficiency standards. It still didn't make them actual trucks. But everyone was making money on them and no one was complaining, so on it went.

But this is quite separate from one's ability to debate or indeed complain about the prevalence of products out there calling themselves "gin" that don't seem to have the predominant flavor of juniper which is the single most important defining characteristic of the spirit. As to this point, naturally, people who agree that a defining characteristic of gin is having a predominant flavor of juniper may reasonably disagree as to whether a specific product does or does not have such predominant flavor. This is why we have these discussions. Suggesting that one shouldn't debate or complain about these things is a bit like saying that one isn't allowed to debate or complain about bitters that aren't bitter or transplantation of American rootstock onto European grape vines because that water has run under the bridge.

What you seem to be arguing -- and perhaps I have simply misunderstood you -- is that having a predominant flavor of juniper is not a defining characteristic of gin, but only a defining characteristic of London dry gin, and that the so-called "new western dry gins" simply exist as a different designation of gin that does not include having predominant flavor of juniper as a defining characteristic. If it is incorrect or mistaken, I would like to hear your position on this stated in a similarly clear manner. Or are you, rather, arguing that it's all a judgment call so we should stop debating/complaining because who can say one way or the other (more on which below)?

Anyway, what's unclear to me is what difference it could make one way or the other as to the "right" or propriety to criticize self-proclaimed gin products that do not appear to have a predominant flavor of juniper. All that means ultimately is that one disagrees with the judgment of some governmental panel. My strong suspicion, for whatever little it may be worth, is that so long as some amount of juniper can be detected, these products are all getting a pass. If one is arguing that predominance of juniper flavor is not important, that is a different story.

As I've already said, the issue isn't necessarily about them being called gin (because who is it that decides whether something tastes predominantly of juniper?), the problem is the designation.

It seems to me that both the United States and EU regulations as to what can be called a "gin" under any designation quite clearly specify that the spirit must have a predominant flavor of juniper. Would you agree that's true?

You seem to have argued (and again, please correct my misinterpretations of your arguments where they exist) that it's only "London dry gin" that needs to be "juniper led." Perhaps you could start by explaining what "juniper led" means? This is a term I have only heard used by you. How is this different from "having a predominant flavor of juniper"?

It also seems to me from reading the EU regulations, that many of the "juniper deprived" new gins out there should be able to qualify as London dry gins if they wanted to. The main difference between "distilled gin" and "London gin" as outlined by the EU regulations is that "London gin" has to be made exclusively by distilling high quality ethyl alcohol in the presence of natural plant materials to 70% abv, whereas "distilled gin" only has to distill juniper berries with a lower quality of ethyl alcohol, is allowed to use essences, etc. for the other flavorings and does not seem required to distill up to a specific percent abv. In fact, the EU regulations for London gin don't say anything about the presence of juniper flavor at all, except to say that it is "a type of distilled gin" which presumably means that it is subject to the same requirement that the "juniper taste is predominant." So, for example, if Hendrick's gin (which has already apparently passed the "predominant flavor of juniper" test) were flavored exclusively by distillation instead of adding cucumber and rose essences, there is nothing about the flavor profile that would prevent if from proclaiming itself a "London gin" despite not being "juniper led."

Genever, by the way, is not classified in the EU regulations as a "gin" but rather a "juniper flavored spirit drink," the requirements for which are simply that ethyl alcohol be flavored with juniper berries and possibly other flavorings, and that "the organoleptic characteristics of juniper must be discernible, even if they are sometimes attenuated." "Discernible, even if attenuated" strikes me as a significantly lower bar to clear than "juniper taste is predominant."

Again, whether or not these EU regulations are the absolute last word as to the traditional characteristics of these spirits is another matter. But, needless to say, I think part of the issue is absolutely about them being called gin if they barely taste of juniper, or if what juniper character there is is obscured behind a bunch of other flavors. Really, that's what it comes down to. I don't think it's a matter of debate that these new-generation gins are moving juniper character ever increasingly into the background. And, as I said earlier, one can disagree as to whether a particular gin does or does not have a predominant character of juniper. Personally, I'd say that a pretty decent bar is to nose a glass of it and if the first thing you notice is juniper, then it has a predominant character of juniper. If the first thing you notice is cucumber or citrus or something other than juniper, then it probably does not have a predominant character of juniper.

Of course, different people have different sensitivities to different scent molecules and interesting disagreements can arise. But I don't get the sense from the foregoing that you have argued that a lot of these "new breed gins" do have a predominant character of juniper. Rather you have seemed to argue something along the lines of "this is a vast gray area because who gets to decide if something tastes predominantly of juniper so stop complaining about it." I say, on the contrary, that this is the whole point of having conversations like these.

Now... on the other hand, I could get behind your argument that there needs to be a different designation for these "gin like" spirits that have other flavors which are stronger than juniper, so long as the designation makes this clear. "New breed gin" or "new western dry gin" don't satisfy this requirement for me, because they still lead to the expectation that the spirit will have the traditional juniper flavor that defines gin. And they are clearly presenting themselves as being more or less in the same category of spirit. But, for example, "infused gin" or "flavored gin" wouldn't particularly bother me. Both those designations would make it clear that the product was going to have some prominent flavor other than the traditional flavor profile of gin, but that the traditional juniper component would be in the background somewhere. And these kinds of designations would also make clear that it isn't really gin. One doesn't expect a whole lot of whiskey character in "flavored rye whiskey," and one also doesn't expect that "flavored rye whiskey" is going to behave like rye whiskey. Perhaps this is what you're getting at? It would be a bit like Orangerie calling itself a "Scotch whisky infusion."

The reason I've joined in with the discussion in this thread is that I've gotten extremely bored of the whole new western gin debate (specifically all the bashing); there's a grey area within the gin category as I've pointed out (who decides if something tastes predominantly of juniper?) and that's where the problem lies.

I see it as an evolution of the category, genever to Old Tom to London Dry and now the new breed. The great thing is that we can now get our hands on all of these styles of gin, some good, some bad, some great, some mind-blowing.

What I see through all of these traditions except for some of the "new breed" is juniper. And I would argue that it is juniper character that has enabled gin to work in such a vast repertoire of cocktails throughout the ages.

[Crystal Clear Ice]

Interesting. How deep is the pan?

[New Generation Gins]

You've yet to answer the questions I posed to you, or address the points I brought up, so I've no idea why you are asking me these questions? I am happy to answer them, but the reason they have been posed is to suit your agenda.

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.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't be massively opinionated on a subject if I didn't fully understand it. In this case, you don't seem to know what exactly defines 'London Dry gin'.

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:

Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 Annex II (Categories of Spirit Drinks at No. 20 says:

20. Gin

(a) Gin is a juniper-flavoured spirit drink produced by flavouring organoleptically suitable ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin with juniper berries (Juniperus communis L.).

(b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of gin shall be 37,5 %.

© Only natural and/or nature-identical flavouring substances as defined in Article 1(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of Directive 88/388/EEC and/or flavouring preparations as defined in Article 1(2)© of that Directive shall be used for the production of gin so that the taste is predominantly that of juniper.

21. Distilled gin

(a) Distilled gin is:

(i) a juniper-flavoured spirit drink produced exclusively by redistilling organoleptically suitable ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin of an appropriate quality with an initial alcoholic strength of at least 96 % vol. in stills traditionally used for gin, in the presence of juniper berries (Juniperus communis L.) and of other natural botanicals provided that the juniper taste is predominant, or

(ii) the mixture of the product of such distillation and ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin with the same composition, purity and alcoholic strength; natural and/or nature-identical flavouring substances and/or flavouring preparations as specified in category 20© may also be used to flavour distilled gin.

(b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of distilled gin shall be 37,5 %.

© Gin obtained simply by adding essences or flavourings to ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin is not distilled gin.

22. London gin

(a) London gin is a type of distilled gin:

(i) obtained exclusively from ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, with a maximum methanol content of 5 grams per hectolitre of 100 % vol. alcohol, whose flavour is introduced exclusively through the re-distillation in traditional stills of ethyl alcohol in the presence of all the natural plant materials used,

(ii) the resultant distillate of which contains at least 70 % alcohol by vol.,

(iii) where any further ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin is added it must be consistent with the characteristics listed in Annex I(1), but with a maximum methanol content of 5 grams per hectolitre of 100 % vol. alcohol,

(iv) which does not contain added sweetening exceeding 0,1 gram of sugars per litre of the final product nor colorants,

(v) which does not contain any other added ingredients other than water.

(b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of London gin shall be 37,5 %.

© The term London gin may be supplemented by the term "dry".

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?

And to talk about the history of gin and then bring US regulations into it. There is a mighty flaw in your logic there...

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.

[The $69 hot dog]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

The problem shouldn't be about them being called gin, the problem is the designation.

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.

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?

[Botulism concerns re infused oils and confit]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your strident tone, but will attempt to address your points raised...

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.

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.

Regarding the price 'issue' the overheads of micros will be significantly higher compared to the likes of Tanqueray, et al which goes a long way to explaining the price difference. The large corporates also churn out ridiculous amounts of pap giving them a tremendous advantage in the monetary stakes.

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.

As for this current issue regarding new-world gins not being juniper led, wasn't it Tanqueray who started the craze with Malacca and Rangpur? And their own Tanqueray 10 isn't even a London Dry, yet I don't hear anyone shouting them down...

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."

[New Generation Gins]

What would be an example of a new generation gin that isn't citrus-heavy, ie, one that tastes more distinctly of the herbaceous botanicals? (However, maybe such a thing would be closer to being an aquavit than a gin.)

Except that aquavit is supposed to have the primary flavoring of caraway.

What strikes me is the growing need for a term that describes some of these new, largely juniper-free gins. "Infused vodka" doesn't capture the thing. Lines seem to be blurring here.

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.

[The quintessential steakhouse]

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)

[New Generation Gins]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

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.

[Cooking with the Momofuku cookbook]

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?

[New Generation Gins]

If you're going to go as far outside of the box as some of the modern gins have, why even bother labeling it Gin?

Amen, brother.

[Spaghetti Aglio e Olio (garlic and oil)]

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

[Sous Vide: Recipes, Techniques & Equipment (Part 7)]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

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

[New Generation Gins]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

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.

[New Generation Gins]

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.

[Grilled Chicken: eG Cook-Off 53]

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).

["Modernist Cuisine" by Myhrvold, Young & Bilet (Part 1)]

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

[The Ice Topic: Crushed, Cracked, Cubes, Balls, Alternatives]

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).

[Half-wheat bread]

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.

[The Mint Julep]

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.