slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
Here's an example
I am quoting what I think is the pertinent info here from the site to which you linked:
Crema Coffee ... A word about pressure brewed coffee ... Fine espresso and "crema coffee" share the same principles of preparation. Grinding, tamping and brewing coffee under high pressure is considered the ideal process to extract coffee's maximum flavor and aroma by the majority of coffee experts.Based on the above, it would seem that they are using "crema coffee" to mean, "pressure brewed coffee that is not espresso." So, carswell's explanation seems correct to me. That said, I find that the coffee is overextracted and not to my taste if I go much beyond 1 ounce (maybe 1/25 ounce for a caffe lungo) in an espreso machine. In fact, running too much water through the coffee is, in my opinion, the single biggest contributing to the shitty espresso served in America. Personally, I'd rather have a caffe Americano or just use a press pot when I want a big cup of coffee.
Carswell, there is one comment I'd like to make about your post: I'd say that a regular espresso is 1 to 1.5 ounces (based on approximately 7 grams of coffee per shot). A 5 ounce "crema coffee" would be 5 times overextracted to my taste.
-
Let's use this definition: Vodka is the distillate of anything, typically, though not always, unaged and potentially flavored with any substance. That is the industry definition. For our purposes though, let's use the definition of "If it says vodka on the bottle, it's vodka".
Just reread through the thread and saw that I had skipped over the above. This answers a few of my questions and makes some of your positions understandable.
I would suggest that your definition of vodka, however correct it may be in a purely technical sense, is not a very useful one, and not particularly one that is shared by most people in the non-Slavic world. Your definition, in effect, says that all unaged distilled alcoholic beverages that choose to call themselves "vodka" are vodka. Your definition may be a "purist definition" based in the Slavic language meanings of the word, but I think it is very clear that people have something more specific in their minds when they think "vodka." I think it is reasonable to assert that vodka is not every kind of unaged distilled beverage, but a specific kind of unaged distilled beverage.
Clearly, there is something in the general conception of this category of distilled beverage other than the name that makes vodka different from other unaged distillates such as grappa, eau de vie, marc, silver rums, silver tequillas, gin, aquavit, etc. There is something that makes people taste an unaged silver tequilla and say, "this doesn't seem like vodka to me... this seems like tequilla." Similarly, there is something about things like gin and aquavit that makes them fudamentally distinct from vodka, even though they might technically be termed "flavored vodkas" (this makes me question the utility of "flavored vodka" as a distinct category more than it does gin or aquavit as distinct categories). Under your definition, a bottle of Patron Silver or Beefeater that said "vodka" on the bottle would, in fact, be vodka. I don't think this is a particularly useful way to think about vodka, I don't think it is the way most of the world thinks about vodka, and I surely don't think anyone in this thread besides you was thinking that way about vodka.
If one looks around at the distilled beverages called "vodka" one can reasonably conclude that there are certain characteristics which make these beverages coherent as a group and distinctly different from other unaged distilled beverages. It also seems reasonable to observe that the characteristics that make these unaged distilled beverages called "vodka" hang together as a group distinctly different from other unaged distilled beverages, regardless of country of origin, is that they are refined and otherwise treated in such a way so as to markedly reduce the presence and strength of flavor, color and odor in comparison with other unaged distilled beverages that might otherwise be similar.
-
Mick, a few things here:
1. First and foremost, let us keep the personal comments to ourselves. Please feel free to make whatever characterizations you like about my arguments, but not about me personally. I apologize to you if the incredulity of some remarks has made them seem directed towards you personally, and hope we can aspire to an exchange of ideas.
2. After reading your remarks, it is quite clear that we are operating under completely different definitions of "vodka." You seem to be operating under the definition that "vodka" includes any and all distilled beverages. That is clearly not the definition that most people outside of the Slavic countries use. It might be helpful in this discussion if you would answer the following questions:
2a. What criteria would you say are those that define vodka? What is your definition of "vodka"?
2b. What would you say is the difference between bourbon or grappa or scotch or rum straight from the still and vodka?
2c. Is there such a thing as aged vodka?
2d. If the answer to 2c is "yes" -- then what is the difference between, say, bourbon and aged vodka? Or are you saying that bourbon is an aged vodka?
I would suggest that we confine this discussion to the alcoholic beverage sold as and understood to be "vodka" in the US and Western Europe. This does not mean distilled here or produced according to US law, but it does mean sold here under the name "vodka." I assume that the non-US premium vodkas which you keep mentioning are at least available for sale in the US. Does that sound reasonable? Because, if we go from the Slavic definition of vodka, we have no way that I can see to differentiate vodka from any other distilled product and there is no basis for this discussion.
3. All I can say about the European countries you bring up is that I have spent not inconsiderable time in every single country in Western Europe. In my times there I have spent a fair amount of time drinking socially and in places where people gather to drink socially. It was never my observation that people were drinking a lot of what we in the US would call "vodka" and, in my observation, that goes for non-Slavic Europeans as well (note that I am specifically not making reference to vodka produced under US law). Furthermore, the few times I have noticed (mostly young) people drinking vodka, it was almost always in something like a "vodka and orange." In fact, I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone drinking straight vodka in Western Europe. (Keep in mind, that I am using the US understanding of vodka, which would not include things like aquavit, eau de vie, grappa, gin, whisky, etc. Given your seemingly wider definition of vodka, which I hope you will define in a way that we can all understand, these numbers may be higher and may include the aforementioned spirits.) All this is to say that your assertion that most people outside the US drink most of their vodka straight is strongly contradicted by my own personal and somewhat extensive experience. Perhaps someone in the bar or restaurant business in Europe might be able to offer a different view.
4. A "straw man argument" is when someone attacks an argument of his choosing which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's actual best argument. This is what you did by suggesting that my position was "we should all drink bourbon with coke in it to ascertain its true flavor" -- which is an argument I never made, and one much weaker than my actual argument. In fact, my argument was that tasting vodka at room temperature is not a meaningful way to evaluate vodka for people who will be drinking the vodka at freezer temperature. It is not "incorrect" to take the effects of temperature into account when evaluating a liquor. If you want to suggest that room temperature tastings are valid for tasters who drink vodka at room temperature, you won't find any argument from me. Furthermore, I might not argue if you suggested that "true vodka connoisseurs like to drink vodka at room temperature." However, you have still not answered my questions as to how room temperature tastings would be in any way useful or meaningful to someone who drinks vodka at freezer temperature.
5. You keep on coming back to an argument based on US laws for vodka produced in the US. Let us leave aside US-produced vodkas and the laws regulating their production. I think we all agree that the best vodkas are not manufactured in the USA, and indeed most premium vodkas that are available in the US are not manufactured here. Perhaps you could give an example of a highly flavorful premium non-US vodka that is available for sale in the US? I notice that you use Stolichnaya as an example... I have tried plenty of Stoli in my day, including American-bought, European-bought and Russian-bought examples, and I would still not say that it is particularly flavorful. Compared to Skyy, sure... but not compared to gin or grappa or eau de vie or rum or bourbon or scotch, etc. Maybe you have another example? If you can point me to a representative brand of flavorful vodka I can buy in NYC, I'd be more than happy to give it a try.
6. You say, "...compare Stoli to Glacier and you will get the vast difference you are looking for." Are you suggesting that the flavor difference between Stoli and Glacier is as wide as the difference between Bacardi Silver rum and Ron Zacapa? Or any of the other examples that I made? Even if Glacier has absolutely no flavor whatsoever, I hardly see how this could be possible. As I have pointed out earlier, I have a bottle of practically tasteless Brilliant at home right now. I'd be perfectly willing to get some Stoli and compare side-by-side tastings of Stoli versus Brilliant and Barardi Silver versus Ron Zacapa using whatever temperatures and methods you would suggest. But I don't think you're going to want to hear what I'd have to say. Who knows... maybe I'd be really shocked at how the difference between the vodkas was so much more than between the rums and how the vodkas had so much more flavor than the rums -- but somehow I really, really doubt it.
7. You say, "Vodkas produced everywhere else in the world contain as much as 2500 milligrams per liter of congeners." I would be interested to hear what vodkas there are out there (that we would define as "vodka") with 2500 mg/l of congeners.
8. Perhaps you will address this with your definition of what constitutes "vodka" -- but I am interested to hear you explain what, exactly, would make something distilled from grape must (i.e., grappa) not a vodka. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that raw scotch from the still is, in effect, vodka. What happens to it to make it scotch and different from vodka? Is it the aging in wood? Wouldn't this tend to suggest that aging vodka transforms it into something that is not vodka (i.e. that there is no such thing as "aged vodka")? Or would you suggest that aged scotch is vodka?
-
You would have to give me an example of the marketing copy before I could really answer your question on that. Once companys figure out that a certain term has become a buzzword, they'll use it in all kinds of inappropriate ways ("chicken bruschetta spaghetti," anyone?). Fundamentally, the words "crema coffee" put together in that order make no sense to me. I suppose they mean "espresso with crema." AFAIK, a lot of lower-end espresso machines employ various devices and whatnot that are supposed to be "crema enhancing" or somehow produce better/more crema. The fact of the matter is, though, that the only real way to get consistently good crema is to have a machine that maintains just the right temperature and applies just the right pressure, and combine that with fresh high-quality beans that have been ground such that you extract one double shot (2 ounces) in 20-25 seconds. No special crema devices required.
-
Have a look at our resident expert's take on ventilation: Maximum Suck, from The Daily Gullet.
Sigh... one of the few things I hate anout living in Manhattan is that we are not allowed to have hoods that vent to the outside, so we're stuck with those wussy things that just blow the smoke and vapors around the apartment.
Matthew, don't overlook Dynasty. They make excellent professional-style ranges for the home, and they have a wide variety of cooktop configurations available. I know several Dynasty owners, and all have been very happy with their choices -- so much so that I will probably try to get a Dynasty some day.
-
"Crema" is the term for the the dense froth that rises to the top of a properly extracted shot of espresso like the foam on a properly poured pint of Guinness.
This page has pretty good illustrations.
-
FG, I must have skipped over your comments of Jul 6 2003, 06:24 PM about not going OT more into health care before responding at 7:54. My apologies. It is difficult to keep a topic such as this on-topic, which I agree it should be if it is to havea meaning and focus appropriate to these boards.
-
Can't you just marry someone with a job?
Sigh... if only my SO wasn't also a musician (grumble).
-
FG, what I'm saying is that employers and employees should at least have the option of purchasing high deductible major medical insurance... a kind of insurance that has all but vanished.
Are you actively pursuing such insurance? There are several avenues you can investigate.
Believe me, I've looked. As has just about every other classical singer in NYC I know. The affordable options are just not out there. It's worth your life to get any medical insurance of any kind whatsoever when you are self employed in the arts and living in New York State. Most of us make enough on gigs and day jobs to put us over the hump for things like the "Healthy New York" program (not that $150/month is all that great anyway), but we have to spend a very high percentage of our income on continuing training. There is something special about New York State that makes the medical insurance rates so high. Singers I know in other states pay nowhere near the rates that are offered in NY. Every professional organization I know that offers reasonably-priced medical insurance to self employed people (like the National Association for the Self-Employed) offers such insurance in 49 states... all but New York.
You are correct, of course, in saying that medical care won't be denied in the US. But, that doesn't mean that uninsureds don't still get stuck with huge medical bills. I have a friend who stepped in a pothole in the crosswalk and broke her hip in a one-in-a-million kind of fall. She had to have surgery and is carrying a lot of debt because of it. Of course, she is suing the crap out of the City for not fixing the (very deep and almost impossible to see from the direction she was traveling) hole... but still, until Bloomberg cuts her a check, she's staring down a mountain of medical debt.
-
Right... basically what I get out of this is that people over there use the generic term "vodka" (or whatever) to stand for any strong distilled spirit. Needless to say, this usage is not the one we are employing in this discussion.
So, this is my question: We have two distilled spirits made from grape skins. One is a grappa (or marc, etc. depending on country of origin) and the other is a vodka. What makes them different? My understanding is that the one called vodka has 1. undergone further refinement and processing specifically to remove flavor and aroma, and 2. has also not been treated in any way that might contribute flavor or aroma (ageing in wood, etc.).
The point of this is that there must be something which, in our understanding, makes vodka different from rum, whisky, grappa, eau de vie, etc. -- and we can definitively say that is is not the raw ingredients, so it must be something else. Hmmmm... might it be the marked lack of color, flavor and aroma?
-
For aged vodka, check this out!
From the site:
Starka is a strong, 50% vodka, made from rye spirits and long aged in oak barrels. The oak essences leached from the wood give this drink a fine, unique bouquet.I am trying to understand why this is "aged vodka" and not straight rye whiskey.
-
FG, what I'm saying is that employers and employees should at least have the option of purchasing high deductible major medical insurance... a kind of insurance that has all but vanished.
For example, $50/month with a $5k deductible. Basically the employee would pay all his routine medical expenses (doctor visits, etc.) out of his own pocket and the insurance company would only pay out if the employee had major medical expenses (surgery, cancer, etc.). In any given year, most people would have zero insurance claims! The insurance company would pay out nothing for these people, and that's where they would make their money.
So, let's say that someone on my plan had a bad year and racked up $1000 in medical expenses. His medical expenses would be 1600 bucks. The insurance company would make 1000 bucks in pure profit. The way things are set up now, if the same guy was on one of those $250/month plans, his medical expenses for the year would be 3000 bucks, and the insurance company makes 2000 bucks in profit. But, of course, most healthy people only rack up 100-200 bucks a year in medical expenses. And this is where those "$250/month pays for everything" plans fail to be real insurance in my book. From the insurance company's standpoint, if you get two guys on the $50/month plan, you're making just as much money. And I have to believe that there are segments where they could do a lot of business with a plan like this. But maybe I'm wrong, because they sure aren't doing it. Personally, I think it should be federally mandated that any company in the medical insurance business must offer low monthly payment, high dedictible major medical insurance. Then we'd see the number of uninsureds in this country dramatically reduced.
You're not insuring yourself with today's plans, you're prepaying for medical care just like you prepay for minutes on your cellphone. Can you imagine auto insurance that cost $250/month and paid the mechanic every time you got your oil changed? Can you imagine homeowners insurance that cost $250/month and paid everytime you repainted the living room? Why should we pay for medical care like this?
If high dedictible major medical insurance were available at, let's say, $50/month, it would be quite easy for restaurants to pay half and emmployees to pay half without burning a hole in anyone's pocket. And, given the disturbingly large number of Americans with no medical insurance at all who wold avail themselves of such coverage, I cannot but imagine but that the insurance companies would coutinue to make plenty of money.
-
After combing the internet for definitions of vodka and articles detailing the defining characteristics of vodka, it is almost impossible to find anything that does not include the words "unaged" and "colorless" and "odorless" alongside "tasteless/flavorless" or "virtually tasteless/flavorless" or "with no defining or discernable characteristic taste/flavor" or other words to that effect. Representative examples would be something like this or this. I also found it quite interesting that virtually every vodka site I encountered (like this one) say that one should taste vodka out of the freezer.
Is vodka in fact completely flavorless? Of course not -- that is impossible. Even pure H2O produces taste sensations. But it seems utterly futile to argue that vodka is a particularly flavorful beverage when it is readily apparent that it is not -- nor does it show a particularly wide range of flavors. This is especially true when comparing it to most every other liquor available -- all readily provable with a gas chromatograph, I suppose, and I wonder if anyone has done this.
There's a reason there are a zillion kinds of flavored vodkas out there. It is because vodka has no real discernable characteristic flavor to interfere with the added flavoring. There is also a reason one does not see a zillion kinds of flavored rum, tequilla, bourbon, scotch, etc. It's because they have too much flavor.
-
Yes there is lots of crossover, but I assure you, most of Europe and Asia drink vodka straight.
Having been all over Europe and many other areas of the world (although not particularly much in Asia, I must admit) I feel I can definitively say that this is hogwash. I would say that most of Europe doesn't tend to drink much vodka... I never saw anyone doing it except young people, and they weren't drinking it straight.
2. So I guess we should all drink bourbon with coke in it to ascertain its true flavor? Or gin with tonic in it? Or tequila with margarita mix in it? Or any other ludicrous statement? An absolutely absurd argument.Mick... don't go making straw arguments and putting words in someone's mouth. No one has suggested this, so using it to support your position is meaningless. That said, I would agree that drinking bourbon with coke or gin with tonic would be the best way to test it if that is the only way the liquor will be consumed. I can only assume your example is in some way intended to counter my comments as to the relevance of tasting vodka at room temperature. If you plan on drinking a lot of room-temperature vodka, then test away by all means. This is the only case where room temperature tasting has any relevance. Just don't tell me that any of your room temperature judgments are valid at freezer temperatures or meaningful to someone who takes their vodka at that temperature.
Also... you never answered my question as to why you wouldn't want to heat the vodka up to 100 F to experience and evaluate the different flavor, aroma and mouthfeel effects at that temperature? If you feel that room temperature evaluations are meaningful to someone who drinks vodka at freezer temperature, please be so kind as to explain why 100 F tastings would not be equally relevant.
Premium vodkas have ten times the flavor that gut-rot vodkas do.This assertion has got to sound completely ridiculous to anyone who has tasted the two classes of vodka. You may be saying that premium vodkas have ten times the quality or complexity of flavor that rotgut vodkas have... but to suggest that the flavor is stronger is simply ludicrous.
No, we cannot agree that there is far less difference between premium vodkas and any other liquor. To assert so, is ridiculous. The flavor wheel for rum, cognac, tequila, bourbon, gin, armagnac, brandy, etc is pretty simple and occupy a simple range of flavors. However, with Scotch (due to water source and environmental differences) and vodka (due to plethora of options for mash) the flavor wheel is all over the place.Are you kidding? I mean, really, are you kidding?! Are you trying to tell me that premium vodkas have the same range of flavor and other characteristics as between Patron Silver tequila and Herradura Anejo, between Bacardi Silver rum and Ron Zacapa, between Maker's Mark bourbon and Bookers, between Beefeater gin and Hendricks, between an unaged grappa di prosecco and a grappa di barbera aged in wood, etc.? That's just crazy talk. I bet you can't name any two premium vodkas that exhibit the flavor and character differences as the examples I have made.
-
In the US we don't pay taxes for our personal health care coverage (though there is a massive government health care budget that is taxpayer funded, from which a young employed person doesn't really benefit) and so we have to buy it privately, someone (an employer) has to buy it on our behalf, or we have to share that cost with an employer. So in New York, for example, an individual would have to pay $255.18 per month for HIP coverage.
The health insurance thing is especially troublesome. For a variety of reasons, New York health insurance is often triple of what it is in other states. I personally do not have a single colleague (self-employed musicians) who can afford health insurance. I know there is no way I have an extra $250 burning a hole in my pocket every month (not to mention that HIP completely sucks, if the experiences of my friends are any indication). As a result, I have been without medical insurance for over 10 years.
One of the big problems is that it isn't really insurance, the way I understand it. Purchasing insurance should be to protect yourself against something really bad happening. Let's say $50 monthly payments and a $5,000 deductible. This way, you would pay all your regular medical expenses out of your pocket, but would be protected from the big bills you would rack up in the event that you came down with cancer or broke your hip. AFAIK, this was the way insurance used to work. Nowadays, they have this $250/month insurance and people actually think they're getting a deal because it "pays for everything." But, of course, one does not usually get 250 bucks worth of medical care every month and so the insurance companies make out like the bandits they are. Now, AFAIK, this is the only kind of medical insurance one can buy... and don't even get me started on buying medical insurance that you don't get through your employer or professional organization.
Sorry... I know it's a little OT, but the medical insurance situation is getting totally out of hand. And that has got to be a problem for restaurant workers and owners alike. I'm sure many restaurants would kick in to help insure their workers if it was a reasonably priced, high-dedictible major medical plan.
-
Good pizza I had in the US was Familgia in NYC (Wisconson dairy cheese was it?)...
Famiglia? No doubt pronounced fah-MIH-glee-uh? Feh!
Next time you're going to be in the City, drop a line back here and we'll send you someplace New Yorkers can be proud of.
-
pogophiles, as someone who grew up reading his mother's fairly complete archive of Pogo books, I have to ask you... haven't you ever wanted to try chicken foot perloo?
-
I realize this is an insane idea, but I am thinking about creating a chicken or turkey burger that tastes like larb...
ground chicken, with fish sauce, green chiles, lime juice and mint, with a lemongrass/galangal mayo with toasted ground rice in it? With the lettuce leaf under the burger patty on the bun?
Um... that sounds awesome! You must do it and report back the results!
-
Prepare to be shocked then, because we can. Vodka's point is not to be tasteless and odorless and those regulations only apply to vodka PRODUCED in the US. To the American palate, vodka is supposed to be tasteless and used in mixers, but I assure you that everywhere else in the world that is not the case.
Hmmm... I've been to a lot of places in the world, and the only places that seemed to take vodka really seriously as anything other than mixing alcohol (other than rare afficianados, of course) were the Slavic states. So maybe we should rethink "everywhere else in the world that is not the case."
Vodka should be tasted both at room temperature to grasp the true viscosity and aromatics of the spirit and then directly from the freezer to get a feel for the body and finish.As I mentioned before, what is the point of tasting a drink at a temperature at which is will not be consumed? Who cares what the aromatics and viscosity are at room temperature? Are you trying to tell me that a vodka that has delicate floral aroma and good viscosity is somehow "better" than one that has a less pleasant aroma and mouthfeel at room temperature when there is no basis for making this comparison at freezer temperature? That, in my mind, would be like a critic going to Peter Luger and insisting on trying a room temperature steak because certain flavors and aromas are less apparent at warmer temperatures. As I pointed out, flavors, aromas, mouthfeel and other sensory perceptions are greatly affected by temperature. This is a fact. So, in my book, it is silly to make judgments about a product by tasting it at a temperature in which it will never be consumed. Besides... why not heat it up to 100 degrees F and try it like that? I guarantee that there will be flavors, aromas and mouthfeel effects that will become apparent at 100F as opposed to 70F. I'd be interested to hear your explanation for why this wouldn't be an equally valid way to taste vodka.
There is a reason wine reviewers don't bother tasting champagnes flat at room temperature... it's because it doesn't matter.
This commonly perpetuated myth that vodka has no flavor and is colorless, is not only false, but absurd. If the point of vodka is to create tasteless spirit, then all vodkas would be distilled to neutrality (about 96% abv) and if that were the case, there would only be need for one vodka. However, I am sure the 1000+ distillers in Poland alone would disagree with you.It is quite apparent that there are taste differences between vodkas, however microscopic they may be. In my experience they all have to do with mouthfeel and finish at freezer temperatures (which, per the above, are the only temperatures that matter). That said, it is also quite clear that the goal of vodka distilling is to make the drink as colorless, tasteless and odorless as possible and that the characteristic differences that remain are due to inescapable impurities that remain due to the materials used and the way the vodka is distilled. However, I think we can all agree that premium vodkas have, on the whole, less taste, less odor and less color that the "lower" vodkas -- and furthermore that it is precisely the difference in the presence of the aforementioned three characteristics (as well as finish characteristics influenced by the presence of high alcohols) that determines the difference between these two classes of vodka.
I agree with the corpulent one that it is somewhat silly for vodka distillers to try as hard as they can to remove every last bit of color, flavor and odor from their product and then try to distinguish themselves based on the ministule amount of each that remains. But, of course, what are they to do? They have to do something to gain market share and move their products off the shelves.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that there is far less difference between brands of premium vodka than there is between premium brands of any other kind of liquor. So it seems silly to me to spend $35 on a bottle of Belvedere when I can spend $19 on a bottle of Brilliant. This is not like choosing a $45 bottle of Lagavullin over a $30 bottle of Glenlivet where your 15 bucks buys an obvious tangible difference. Similarly, it seems especially silly to buy anything beyond the cheapest premium brand of vodka for mixing -- I always get whatever is on sale.
-
AFAIK, Argentine beef has been allowed in the US since summer 1997. As with any import, this can change short or long term as the result of politics, cattle diseases, etc.
In William Grimes's June 20, 2003 "Diner's Journal," he writes:
For the time being, government health regulations bar imports of Argentine beef, so diners who hanker after grass-fed steaks will have to make a big detour.In addition, my understanding is that when beef from Argentina has been allowed into the country, only the boneless cuts have been permitted.
I think you're right about the boneless cuts. As for the rest of it, that is probably true for the time being due to hoof and mouth in Argentina. I do know that they were allowing it into the US in the late 90s, and hopefully will again when hoof and mouth is under control in Argentina.
-
Indeed. I would be shocked if a "vodka connoisseur" were able to distinguish in a blindfolded test between premium brands out of the freezer or in a martini.
-
Steve and Lesley, thanks. Very interesting.
-
Isn't the whole point of vodka for it to have no taste?
Exactly! In fact, AFAIK the definition of vodka is that it is supposed to be colorless, tasteless and odorless. Understanding this, I can see how tasting at room temperature might possibly help one identify flaws in the vodka (i.e, tastes and odors).
-
Does anyone know if the USDA currently allows Argentine beef (overwhelmingly grass-fed) to be imported into the US? I think this has gone back and forth over the years due to foot and mouth concerns.
AFAIK, Argentine beef has been allowed in the US since summer 1997. As with any import, this can change short or long term as the result of politics, cattle diseases, etc.
Pampa on Amsterdam and 98th serves Argentine beef.
Lemonade
in Cooking
Posted
How about the recipe that appeared in the NY Times recently for Roasted-Lemonade With Vanilla Bean?
To paraphrase for posterity: you take 5 halved lemons, a split vanilla bean, one cup of sugar and one cup of water; roast in oven 1.5 hours at 400F, turning and basting several times; let cool in syrup; scrape pulp from roasted lemons and puree together with syrup and one hollowed-out lemon half in a food processor untill smooth; pass through fine strainer and discard solids; add juice of two non-roasted lemons to puree. Assemble drink by placing 2-3 Tbsp of puree in tall glass and adding cold water and sugar to taste. Serve over ice.
(Mods, please delete paraphrasing above if it violates copyright.)