slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
I have to say, philadining... those pizza pictures you posted look amazing to me. All of them.
-
If you have any Laird's bonded, I'd be interested to hear your comparison.
WRT the whiskey connection... I just made a Red Hook with Laird's bonded instead of rye. It's different, of course, but still has all the bite that it does when made with whiskey. This drink is clearly a cousin of the same one made with rye. I couldn't say the same of this drink made with a suave cognac-style apple brandy.
-
Erik, what's your thinking behind using the G-R apple brandy instead of Laird's? I wouldn't think that the G-R product would have the "whiskey bite" of applejack.
Though, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "whiskey bite" of applejack.
I was under the impression that prior to Laird's adding neutral spirits to their "apple jack" product in the 1970s or 80s, that "apple jack" simply meant American-Style Apple Brandy.
Yes, but the American style was not the smooth, suave "cognac-style" as exemplified by calvados. It was, rather, a rougher spirit closer in spirit to whiskey than to cognac. This seems readily apparent in Laird's bonded product, which is rough around the edges rather than refined and suave. Laird's bonded can substitute for whiskey well in almost any whiskey cocktail. This is not true for European-style apple brandy.
The Germain-Robin Apple Brandy nicely qualifies as an American-Style apple brandy.A bit refined, admittedly, but it's not like I used Calvados or something...
I'd say that Germain-Robin qualifies as a French-style apple brandy that happens to be made in the United States. The G-R guys do go their own way, though. What would you say the character is like? Would you say it would seem like a cousin of Rittenhouse?
-
In the amounts likely to be present in something like bitters, you would very likely become sick from the alcohol before any such substance harmed you.
Consider nutmeg, for example: In order to get any effect from the myristicin in nutmeg, one typically has to eat as much as one to two tablespoons of ground nutmeg. That's enough to flavor what? A gallon of bitters?
Anyone who wants to sell products in the US also has to deal with our rules and regulations which can be quite strict for this sort of thing. The reason real Żubrówka cannot be sold in the US is because the US won't allow even a minute amount of coumarin in the spirit. Similarly, I have my doubts as to whether any amount of amygdalin (the potentially bad stuff in stone fruit kernels) would be allowed. But, just supposing it were allowed, one would also have to drink a lot of bitters to get a harmful dose (i.e., more than a whole bottle of Angostura in one sitting).
Your point is well made that some of these substances may be bad in large doses. But I think it's probably just as likely as it is to develop cinchonism from drinking too many G&Ts. Which is to say that I wouldn't recommend drinking two bottles of Angostura a day, 7 days a week. But even as much as an ounce of Angostura a day isn't likely to be bad for you.
-
How are the splash-related hazards of liquid nitrogen any more dangerous than they are for boiling oil in, e.g., a deep fryer?
If people in the kitchen simply think of LN2 as the "cold equivalent" of boiling oil, a lot of problems would be solved. Splashing boiling oil on your foot or in your eye is not such a great thing either, and yet every fast food restaurant in American has a fat fryer.
-
I doubt very much that there's anything in any commercially-available bitters formulations that would be dangerous even if you drank a whole bottle. Most of the "bad stuff" in home bitters formulations (e.g., tonka beans) won't make it into a commercial bitters.
-
Erik, what's your thinking behind using the G-R apple brandy instead of Laird's? I wouldn't think that the G-R product would have the "whiskey bite" of applejack.
-
I know a few people with Sub-Zero built-ins. The ice-machine ice has been the same half-moon ice all the other in-freezer ice makers make.
-
My experience is that if you're very diligent about opening the bag, taking out the amount you are going to use, immediately re-vacuum sealing, and returning it immediately to the freezer, you can get a fair amount of use out of it.
-
I'm guessing it refers to the classic three ingredient cocktail. The word usage is a bit strange, however, since a triptych is a single work composed of three separate, not combined parts.
-
The salads I've had there have all been excellent. I should hasten to add that, in Italy, when one dresses greens is is typically all about the olive oil and not so much about the vinegar (to the point that there often isn't any vinegar). So if you find the dressing insufficiently vinegary, this is likely why.
-
After all, fancy attractive advertising can only accomplish so much in terms of the public's perception of these things and All-Clad "skeptics-turned-loyalists" are aplenty out there online.
Here is where we part ways, turbocooker. I would argue that the evidence is unequivocal that fancy attractive advertising can achieve almost anything. For example: Do you know why we have the custom of giving a diamond engagement ring? This is not a particularly old practice or traditional custom. Why is it considered de rigueur today? It is all due to the advertising and promotional efforts of one company: De Beers. If you've ever shopped for a diamond engagement ring (something I have had occasion to within the past 3 years) you will note that the "conventional wisdom" is to spend the equivalent of two to three months' salary. Where did this "conventional wisdom" come from? De Beers. So, let's be real here. You can't tell me that if fancy advertising can convince plenty of people to drop ten thousand dollars or more on an engagement ring, it can't convince people to spend 200 bucks on a straight gauge saucepan when they could do just as well for 40 dollars.
I would also dispute that there are plenty of "All-Clad skeptics-turned-loyalists" out there, if they were ever indeed truly skeptics with any basis for being skeptical. And, I should hasten to point out, no one here has ever said that All-Clad cookware isn't very good cookware. Indeed, it is perfectly good cookware. I have some pieces of All-Clad that I got either for free or at a ridiculous loss-leader discount, and I use it on a regular basis. I used one of my 1-quart All-Clad stainless saucepans last night, in fact. The issue is not whether All-Clad cookware is good. The issue is whether it is worth the money. In my opinion, if you can get three equally-good saucepans from another manufacturer for the price of two All-Clad saucepans, then there is no way it's worth the money. For other people, the satisfaction they get out of buying into the marketing and believing that they have "the best" makes it worth more to have the two All-Clad pans. And for still other people, money is no object and they just like the look and feel. These are all legitimate reasons to make a purchasing decision. The bottom line is that you have to be happy with what you have.
Significant side-issues are whether and to what extent All-Clad's promotional claims are true, and for you personally, whether this new "Brushed Stainless" line would offer superior performance when used with induction. There are two ways to look at these issues, and you and I are taking opposing approaches. My approach is to be skeptical and look for ways All-Clad can "prove" that this design would be better. Your approach appears to be to believe All-Clad's claims and look for things that support this belief. Short of some kind of tightly-controlled scientific experiment, it's unlikely that this question can be resolved definitively. But we can look at the specifications and consider them in light of what we know about induction.
Induction works in a fundamentally different way from regular heat. Thermal conductivity is not nearly as much of an issue with induction. So, to make an example, if we have a carbon steel frypan on a gas burner, we can expect that there will be some hot spots due to the fact that carbon steel does not have very good thermal conductivity and the gas burner heats the pan much more in the middle than it does out at the sides. If we put that same pan on an induction burner, however, the heat will be perfectly even. Why? Because the whole surface of the pan is being acted upon by the magnetic field, and therefore the whole surface of the pan will heat up evenly.
In addition, heat capacity is less important for cookware used on induction as well. If the magnetic field is keeping the surface of the pan at 250 degrees and you throw in a bunch of chicken, you're not going to get the kind of temperature drop you would get with a gas burner because the magnetic field will continue to affect the metal to the same extent regardless.
This all suggests that there is a rather more limited need for thermal material (usually aluminum) to spread the heat around and provide heat capacity -- which is the exact opposite of what we would like to have when we use a standard conductive heat source. So, for example, that carbon steel frypan I mentioned above? Considering that the thermal material is entirely ferromagnetic, we would expect this pan to outperform a pan made with a thin layer of ferromagnetic material and a thick layer of thermal material. Of course, carbon steel is somewhat reactive. So perhaps we might like to have carbon steel clad in a thin layer of stainless steel. As I said above, Mauviel used to make exactly this. People loved it, but it never really caught on and they discontinued the line. If you have a chance to find some Mauviel Induc'Inox, I strongly suggest you acquire some.
The reason Induc'Inox didn't catch on is because the market for truly induction-optimized cookware isn't large enough for a manufacturer to devote the production, distribution and marketing costs associated with a line specifically designed with induction in mind. Perhaps as the induction market grows, demand will grow and we will see more of this sort of thing (and, as Steven points out, it is also likely that induction technology will evolve to the point where ferromagnetic metal is not a requirement). It is also true that "standard" fully-clad cookware with an external layer of ferromagnetic steel seems to work perfectly well with induction, if perhaps not quite as well as Induc'Inox did. The result of all this is that most manufacturers have taken to designing cookware with standard heat in mind, and have added a ferromagnetic external layer for compatibility with induction.
The reality for induction users, however, is that many of the things which distinguish better cookware with respect to standard conductive heat sources do not apply where induction is concerned. As I mentioned above, one would expect a carbon steel pan to outperform a clad aluminum pan on induction.
Might an extra internal layer of ferromagnetic stainless steel provide some kind of benefit on induction? Sure. Maybe. But whether or not these pans will meaningfully outperform something like Kitchenaid Gourmet Essentials Stainless on induction for a fraction of the price? Maybe. Probably? But it's unlikely the difference will be meaningful. The thing is, because of the way induction works, you don't need to spend nearly as much money on cookware as you do with standard conductive heat.
So, as I see it, you have three choices:
1. You can get "hybrid" cookware that is fundamentally designed to be used over standard heat, either spending big money on something with a minor extra bell and whistle for induction (this would be All-Clad Brushed Stainless) or something that is a fraction of the cost and should perform similarly (e.g., KitchenAid, etc.).
or
2. You can buy cookware specifically designed for use with induction, which at this point means scouring the Internet for Induc'Inox.
or
3. You can wait until you buy your induction cooktop and see (i) where the technology is at the time, and (ii) what cookware lines are available at the time.
But, you know... if you're convinced that All-Clad is the best and that their Brushed Stainless line is truly the superior choice for induction, and you believe the performance on induction will be superior to an extent that would justify paying the same price for a single frypan that you might pay for an entire 10-piece set of KitchenAid or some other similar induction-compatible line -- then that is what you should do. It's not what I would do, but all I do here is give advice. I always say that the most important thing is that you're happy with your cookware, and there are lots of different reasons to be happy.
-
In making pizzas (and other baked goods) for about 40 years from various recipes I didn't run into a dough as wet as those described here. (The long cold rising I cited earlier yields a relatively "soft," moist dough -- always as moist as possible! -- but dry enough to be handled in a blob, tossed if desired, etc. Often I do the final shaping with olive-oiled hands -- no fat in the dough itself -- leading to the pleasant effect of a pizza surface lightly brushed with oil.)
I think it depends somewhat on what stylistic space you're working in. I've been inside plenty of pizzerie in Italy, and also neo-Neapolitan pizzerie here in NYC. I've never seen one of these doughs sturdy enough that it could be handled in a blob or especially not tossed. This is something I associate with high-gluten American-style pizza doughs.
-
Thanks for the further comments, I understand now that it's not just about eliminating kneading per se....What you describe as your practice of "relatively little kneading" followed by "slow-rise in the refrigerator" is more or less analogous to my so-called "no-knead" prodedure. / Not sure what issues this technique adds, however...are there other issues you have in mind?
I referred only to points raised in this thread. E.g. current post numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 ("two sets of challenges" -- S. Shaw), 15 (Dutch oven for wet dough), 16 (your own "wet dough can be difficult to work with"), 20, 21. Handling of wet dough; special cooking methods (which launched the thread).
These are all issues that arise with respect to any wet dough, irrespective of whether it is kneaded or not (edited to add: or things that have to do with the crazyness of spreading the dough out directly on to the hot stone, which would be equally crazy with any other kind of dough and is not a necessary component of no-knead pizza dough). You say that "even if the no-knead method eliminates one issue, it adds others" which would seem to be incorrect in consideration of the fact that all these issues are associated with wet doughs and no-knead dough doesn't need to be wet.
I found this...We walked past the ovens, and Lahey showed me a long pizza bianca that was cooling (one of the only kneaded bread products he sells and, according to him, one of the oldest known bread products in history)He was also on the Martha Stewart Show, showcasing the same recipe you might have found on smittenkitchen.
Good catch. I don't have any trouble believing that certain effects aren't possible with a no-knead dough.
-
Maybe he does. All I can get via an internet search is variations of an already-edited (they thought it was too wet) recipe from smittenkitchen.com. He's using no-knead at Co. -- and I have to wonder if he's still using a knead recipe for the pizza bianca.
-
Gluten development via kneading is really only necessary for relatively short rising times.
It depends on what you mean by "relatively short" rising times. Roman-style pizza bianca, a really wet, slack dough, requires long (15-20 minutes) machine/mixer kneading, as well as a 4-6 hour rise. I've tried to do an overnight rise without kneading, but the resulting texture is all wrong for pizza bianca.
I would call 4 hours from mixer to oven a relatively short rising time.
I certainly wouldn't say that long-rise gluten development works for every style of bread product, any more than a natural leaven would. If pizza bianca requires extensive mechanical kneading and a 4 hour rise to have the correct texture, then that is what it requires. With something like a neo-Neapolitan pizza dough, gluten development via a long rise seems to work just fine.
What did you think was wrong with the texture of your no-knead pizza bianca? I should point out that Jim Lahey -- the pioneer of no-knead doughs at City Bakery and Co. -- makes a legendarily awesome pizza bianca.
-
I think the big advantage of the no-knead doughs, with their long fermentation times, is that they taste better.
This is about the long fermentation time, which isn't unique to no-knead recipes.
True. However, if you are going to do an extra-long fermentation, there is no need to extensively knead the dough as the gluten is developed chemically and by the mechanical action of the dough rising and falling. Gluten development via kneading is really only necessary for relatively short rising times.
-
Max, I think you misinterpret "no-knead." It doesn't really mean no kneading at all. Rather it means "minimal kneading (i.e., thorough mixing) followed by a long rise for gluten development."
What you describe as your practice of "relatively little kneading" followed by "slow-rise in the refrigerator" is more or less analogous to my so-called "no-knead" prodedure.
Not sure what issues this technique adds, however. Regardless of what technique I might be using for gluten development, I regard high hydration as a necessary component for a high quality pizza dough (or bread dough, for that matter). Different people have different goals and preferences, of course. But I don't see the challenges of working with a high hydration dough as being tied to the no-knead technique. Or are there other issues you have in mind?
-
Wetter doughs have several advantages for pizza. Primary among them are:
1. A wetter dough is more extensible with all other things being equal, meaning that it is easier to stretch it out to the size and thinness you want.
2. A wetter dough tends to have larger "air holes" and more of them. In bread, this leads to a more open and irregular crumb, in pizza it leads to a lighter, "puffier" and more open crust.
3. When the water cooks off in the heat of the oven, this creates steam. The steam contributes to the lightness, open-ness and tenderness of the crust.
4. More water in the dough means that the crust can still be soft and pliable (as opposed to dry and cracker-like or dense and bready) but still with a decent external char and with the top ingredients properly cooked.
-
My favorite, that will make perfect sense to many but no sense whatsoever to some: Chicken-fried chicken.
-
I always make my pizza dough no-knead. I do 70% hydration with AP flour (or "00 for pizza" when I can find it), perhaps 0.05% SAF yeast and no salt. Just enough mixing to get the lumps out. Then I ferment for around 12 hours and retard for several days (or, if I am going to use it right away, I ferment for around 24 hours).
Wet doughs can be difficult to work with.
One thing I've noticed is that most home pizza-makers like to maximize the size of their pizzas. I know I do this. Why make a 10 inch Neapolitan-style pizza when you can cover the whole pizza stone and make a pizza the size and shape of a quarter-sheet? Usually it's just more convenient for me to make one big pizza instead of two small ones. The problem is that, the larger the pizza, the more likely it is to stick to the peel, etc. This is not only due to the increased drag due to a larger wet surface area contacting the peel, but also because it takes longer to top the pizza and so it sits on the peel longer.
It was very interesting watching the pizzaiolo work at Keste a few days ago. Their dough seems quite wet. The pizzaiolo divided the dough, floured the surface and stretched the dough into a small circle. Then he topped the dough on the board (not on the peel) whith everything. These are Neapolitan-sized pizzas that finish at around 12 inches in diameter. But on the board, they are only perhaps 8 inches in diameter. So it takes no more than 60 seconds or so to get all the toppings onto the round of dough. He then slid the topped pizza laterally onto his peel. The peel at Keste is quite small, being more or less the same size as the eventual size of the pizza, and is made of thin metal perforated throughout with holes the size of a half dollar. The holes are a great idea, because they minimize drag. Yes, I want one. Anyway... once the 8 inch pizza round is transferred to the peel, the pizzaiolo stretched the dough out until it reached all sides of the peel and immediately slid it into the oven. This strikes me as best practice for a very wet dough like this, and Keste's is the softest in town.
The other workaround, and the only procedure I use for large "wet dough" pizza these days, is to cut a piece of parchment to size, spritz with oil, sprinkle with coarse cornmeal or semolina, transfer the stretched-out pizza dough to the parchment and build the pizza there. You still have to move with a certain amount of alacrity, however, because a wet dough can soak through the parchment and then you have a mess on your hands. Nevertheless, this usually allows one to transfer the pizza from the peel to the stone with a minimum of anxiety, and after a little while on the stone it is easy to slide the peel between the pizza and the parchment and withdraw the parchment.
Still... as soon as I can get a peel like they have at Keste, I'm not looking back.
-
This sort of thing tends to be associated with Autism spectrum disorders, and also with obsessive compulsive disorders.
I would think that anyone who eats nothing but french fries and grilled cheese sandwiches would be living a significantly impaired life. Anyone who eats nothing but baked skinless/boneless chicken breasts and lima beans, and is unwilling to eat anything else, has a disorder.
Most of us have certain foods we do not like which we could learn to like if sufficiently motivated. I, for example, don't like any member of the squash family. This is somewhat limiting, but I think the evidence is that I eat a wider variety of foods than most people. I'm quite certain I could learn to like squash. I just don't want to, and I don't have any real motivation to do so. The reality is, however, that avoiding squash doesn't materially inhibit my enjoyment of a wide variety of foods, nor does it force me to eat an extremely restrictive diet. If I were living in an area of the world where squash was a major everyday staple, I'd buckle down and learn to like it.
For most of these people, some sort of cognitive behavioral therapy should have some positive effect. But these are very severe cases, and I have my doubts as to whether they will ever have anything approaching a normal relationship with food.
-
It was All-Clad's Customer Service/Technical Service section that told me that the middle layer was "magnetic stainless steel". They did not specifically make any mention about that additional layer affecting the induction technology specifically, just that it is indeed magnetic stainless steel. They do specifically make a mention that this line is optimum for induction - so without spelling out all the additive effects of each material, they definitely do mention that.
Again, it's not clear to me that this design is "optimum for induction" any more than the designs are that have only the outer cladding made of ferromagnetic material. Mauviel used to make a line where the entire thermal core was made of ferromagnetic carbon steel, which would be even more "optimized for induction" if you look at it that way. This never really caught on, and as far as I know they don't make this line any more.
It was All-Clad's Customer My research so far suggests that the magnetic field from an induction stovetop will reach within the whole thickness of the pan so I'm thinking that two layers responding directly to that force are better than one however that is totally guesswork on my part.That's certainly what All-Clad wants you to think.
Whether the effect is partial, full, exponential, I cannot say at this time however I think that I can say, all other things equal, having the additional aluminum to transfer the heat is a positive performance enhancer on all cooktops.What we haven't determined is (1) whether there is any additional aluminum compared to All-Clad Stainless; and (2) the extent to which the addition of an internal layer of stainless steel negatively affects the thermal performance of the pan on traditional heat.
I'm sure just as with any successful advertising strategy they mention this as an attempt at enticing future purchases from people. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is truthful. Somewhere along the line there almost seems some animosity about All-Clad's success or perhaps how proud they are of their offerings, aka All-Clad's price.The question is whether and to what extent they are being truthful. All-Clad's marketing has been remarkably successful at convinging a large proportion of the "foodie" population in the US that their cookware is "the best" -- and a read though this thread as as well as other threads on these forums reveals plenty of discussions with people who have already made up their minds that "All-Clad is the best" and who are hoping that I and the other members here will ratify their decision to drop 225 bucks on a "Copper Core" frypan.
If my eGCI class does anything, it demonstrates on the facts that it is not the case that "All-Clad is the best." There exist any number of cookware brands and designs that outperform All-Clad and are objectively "better" on the specifications. Does this mean that no one should buy All-Clad? Of course not. Buy what's going to make you happy. That's the most important thing. But ultimately, unless one has unlimited financial means (in which case I would still suggest something like Mauviel's M'Cook over All-Clad), performance at a price is part of the discussion.
I'm trying to avoid all that in this discussion (other than that I do want to invest in a company that is successful and sound for future support/service as well as adding matchings to this present purchase) and stick strictly to the performance perspectives.Maybe I misrepresented when I was saying that I think I'll be using induction in thirty-plus years. Yes I think that this will be the way of the future then, and yes I think/hope I'll personally be using these terrific pans for thirty-plus, probably fifity-plus, more years but what I was trying to say is that our "next" stovetop will probably be induction. IOW within possibly a few to five years, we will have induction.
Stickling to the performance question only, here's the deal: If you are going to be switching to induction in 3-5 years, then you should just get by with what you have until you switch to the new technology. The reality is that induction works so differently from the way regular heat sources work that there is little point in paying for cookware that works on both. You can spend a zillion dollars on some All-Clad cookware that will work pretty well with both induction and standard heat, but you'd also be able to buy more induction-friendly cookware for a fraction of the price that will outperform the All-Clad on induction. So, instead of buying a bunch of 200 dollar frypans and 180 dollar saucepans now, wait until you get the induction rig and buy yourself some 25 dollar frypans and 20 dollar saucepans that work on induction. They'll outperform the All-Clad pans on induction anyway.
-
Apparently in this case the middle-most layer is also magnetic stainless steel (outermost to innermost = magnetic stainless, aluminum, magnetic stainless, aluminum, 18/10 stainless). Would that make for more "penetration" of magnetic field allowing for more "performance" from the pan on an induction stovetop??? Perhaps this is the reason for the additional advertisement of optimized for induction?
A few thoughts:
1. Says who that the middle-most layer is magnetic stainless steel? If All-Clad says that the middle-most layer is steel, are you sure they don't say carbon steel or magnetic steel and not stainless steel?
2. I am no expert on induction, but I'm not sure how much better I think this would work -- if at all.
3. I am quite sure that the reason they advertise it as "optimized" for anything at all is so that they can entice people into paying a lot more money for it.
The way the eye sees it is three thin layers of SS and two thick layers of Aluminum. I'd say though that the extra thickness of the Brushed Series is more than simply the sum of three SS layers; IOW, the two Aluminum layers laid together would also be thicker than the one Aluminum layer of the Regular Series ... those two thicker layers of Al plus the third layer of SS make up that .45 to .55 mm difference in thickness.The only way to find this out for sure is to get the manufacturer to give up the specs (fat chance of that), or use a high resolution photograph (cut one in half on a band saw?).
Given what we know about All-Clad's stainless layers on their other pieces -- i.e., that it tends to be around 0.45 mm in thickness -- it sounds reasonable that any extra thickness would be contributed by an extra internal layer of magnetic steel. This would, I should hasten to point out, increase the thermal capacity of the pan (good) but also decrease the overall thermal conductivity over a regular heat source (bad).
As I'm trying to imagine investing in something specifically setup for whatever future cooktops offer, I cannot imagine eliminating something able to use this incredibly improved induction technology; I think we will get to the day in the next thirty years (easily in the realistic realm of when I'll still be using these things) when induction is "the thing". So along with what I want to purchase to learn on and stay with I think I should specificly look for things that also allow this technology. Thoughts? Thanks.I think it's waste of time and money to buy super-expensive cookware on the premise that you might want to use an induction cooktop 20+ years from now. But to each his own.
A pox on the runny egg yolk
in Food Traditions & Culture
Posted
How do you like your steaks?