slkinsey

I think it depends on what you mean by "demerara rum." I am not an authority on this subject by any means, but I am given to understand by those who are that many of the rum-producing areas of the world are now producing rums which do not particularly accord with their traditional styles. So, for example, when one sees a recipe in Charles Baker calling for "Jamaica rum" he was not talking about something like Appleton V/X, but rather the funky darker rums that were the original characteristic style of that island (think W&N with some age). I don't know how this would apply to something like a modern, white rum from the demerara region -- but, again, I am given to understand that the QPS calls for something in the stylistic area of Lemon Hart. This is not to say that a sort of QPS can't be made with, say, Brugal white -- and I'm sure this drink would be delicious. But it wouldn't be the same. Likewise, you could make a sort of 'Ti Punch with Ron Zacapa instead of rhum agricole. Good, but not the same. Rum is tricky that way, because the stylistic range is so vast. Subbing one rum for another can change the fundamental character of a recipe in a way that changing brands of gin usually will not.

Tradition and showmanship certainly play a part. The other effect of swizzling is that the agitation rapidly chills the drink. Think of it as a kind of "shaking in the glass." There is no reason a bartender couldn't, for example, swizzle a Julep in the cup rather than stirring or shaking and dumping. But, as far as the drinker is concerned, I wouldn't say that swizzling is absolutely necessary. I think the same drink, and any desired visual effect could be achieved via other means if that's what the bartender wanted to do. But why not swizzle? Certainly swizzling can be useful if there is muddled mint or something in the bottom of the glass that the bartender would like to leave disturb, but as far as I can tell very few swizzles feature mint or any muddled material at all. If most what you know about the drink primarily comes from your exposure to Toby's carefully layered presentation, then it's no surprise that you might think this was a fundamental feature of the drink. That's just not my experience. If the heart of what you know about the drink tells you that Sasha is correct in saying that the primary usefulness of swizzling is to leave the muddled stuff in the bottom of the glass, and yet we are faced with the evidence that the majority of swizzles don't have any mint or other muddled stuff down there to stir up, then the conclusion is that this is a mistaken paradigm of the category of drinks. I think that the points I outlined above (in addition to being served in a tall-narrow glass) pretty well explain what can be called a swizzle. One could certainly make a layered drink, were that a substantial priority, without swizzling. In fact, most people who like to dash the bitters on the top to create a dark layer do so after they have finished swizzling the drink. Who doesn't like good presentation? I just hesitate to suggest that a certain presentation style of relatively recent popularity should be considered a defining characteristic of the drink. I, for example, like the visual effect created when I make an Aviation by sliding the creme de violette down into the bottom of the glass rather than shaking it together with the gin, lemon and maraschino. But if this presentation caught on in a certain family of cocktail bars, I wouldn't want the "blue sunrise effect" to be thought of as a necessary or defining component of the drink. More to the point, I wouldn't want bartenders to replace the lemon juice with lime juice because it made the "blue sunrise effect" stand out better visually. And I would suggest that this scenario is somewhat analogous to using white rum in a Queen's Park Swizzle because it makes a layering effect look better.

It can be difficult to do this sort of thing without relying extensively upon simple starches.

I would say that the kind of swizzle we see today (the non-pitcher variant) includes, in order of importance: 1. Swizzled 2. Crushed ice 3. Built in the glass 4. Base spirit 5. Sweetener (sugar, falernum, etc.) 6. Bitters (with some rare exceptions) ---- 7. Usually juice (most usually citrus juice) ---- 8. Sometimes herbage (usually mint), sometimes muddled I would say that 1-6 are de rigueur, 7 is probably true of 90% of swizzles, 8 is actually quite rare but is true of one of the most famous iterations.

As far as I can tell, the layering effect for swizzles (usually with bitters added on top) is a relatively recent affectation. I don't gather that it's part of the classic craft of this family of drinks. This isn't to say that it doesn't look cool, but I would hardly think of compromising on the flavor and character of the base spirit in order to make a visual effect, and I wouldn't consider layering necessary for making a well-crafted swizzle. It's no more necessary in making a swizzle than layering the stout over the ale is necessary in making a Black and Tan (this, too, is a relatively modern affectation). For that matter, I wouldn't take Sasha's suggestion that that the main utility of swizzling is as "a way of not disturbing the muddled stuff that's at the bottom" as gospel truth. Most swizzles don't feature muddled mint or indeed any muddled ingredients at all. In some instances, prioritizing a layered visual effect could lead to a lesser quality swizzle if bartenders defer to a Cuban-style white rum and overuse of bitters to make it happen. Six dashes of Angostura bitters to two ounces of white rum in Dutch Kills' version seems to be overdoing it a bit compared to three dashes of Angostura to thee ounces of demerara rum in the more traditional recipe.

Every time I make an egg-white cocktail, I drop the yolk into a container I keep in the freezer. When this container is full, I make egg yolk fresh pasta. My experience is that the texture is somewhat different, and overall the noodles are silkier and richer. But not to a huge extent, by any means.

Just so. It's the small diameter pans where this can't do much good.

This sounds like the Swizzle he was calling the Prince Parker Swizzle upthread in 2005. It's a riff on the QPS. That layered effect is cool, but I'm not sure it's a necessary part of the QPS. And the QPS calls for demerara rum, no two ways about it (it also has Angostura bitters, not Peychaud's -- so no red either). I'm not saying that all swizzles call for demerara rum. Just the QPS. Theoretically you could make a gin swizzle if you wanted to.

I don't know how Mauviel M'Cook is priced, but it's simply not true that Demeyere costs twice as much as All-Clad. If you compare All-Clad Copper Core with Demeyere's Sirocco line, you find that from the same retailer (Sur La Table, in this case) Demeyere is less expensive: the 2-qt. Copper Core is $235 and the 2.3-qt. Sirocco is $230; the 3-qt. Copper Core is $310 and the 3.2-qt. Sirocco is $245. In this case, you get a vastly superior Demeyere product for less money. One should point out, for the sake of completeness, that the All-Clad Copper Core saucepans are straight gauge (with the thermal aluminum and copper layer going all the way up the sides) whereas the Demeyere saucepans have a copper disk bottom (encapsulated and all the way to the edge). Meanwhile, if I were in the market for a 2 to 3 quart saucepan with an encapsulated disk bottom that goes to the edges, I'd probably get something like this for 25 bucks. (Fixed code)

Absolutely. For the smallest diameters where some significant direct heat conduction from the flame to the outer edges and sides of the pan will happen, straight gauge design is the way to go. In general, I find that pans of this diameter aren't particularly useful for boiling water and heating thin liquids, due to the size limitations -- which means that they are mostly useful for tasks where straight gauge construction is advantageous (reductions, saucemaking, etc.). If by "skillet" you mean "frypan" then I definitely agree. I like this also in straight gauge. That said, I mean this with respect to a traditional frypan design, which has sides that angle out widely from the base of the pan and are no more than around 2 inches tall or 20% as tall as the diameter of the pan (whichever is less). I find that a lot of so-called "frypans" have sides that are significantly taller and significantly more vertical -- such that they are closer to what I would call "curved saute pans" than "frypans." For these, in the larger diameters, I don't find that a disk-bottom design is all that bad. But it's a mistake to use them like frypans. Vollrath's information page says: "Induction ready. Three bonded layers: 18-8 stainless steel interior, 3004 aluminum core, and 18-0 stainless exterior." 18-0 is used in the exterior because it is ferritic, and this makes the cookware compatible with induction ranges. As far as I know, all the cookware that says it has an outer layer of "magnetic stainless steel" (which would include All-Clad Stainless) are talking about 18-0 stainless. (Fixed code)

Another major contender, in my book, that is easy to get into and where the drinks are significanly less expensive is Dutch Kills in Long Island City.

There's a nice article in today's NY Times entitled It’s Not So Mysterious: The Secret Is in the Swizzle, by Robert Simonson. Some discussion as to the actual effect of the swizzle process ensues: Dave Wondrich, as per usual, weighs in with the definitive answer. . . Er, or maybe not. . . The one thing I found odd about the article is that it features a recipe for the QPS made with white rum instead of demerara rum. I understand that not everyone can get their hands on demerara rum (indeed, I've rarely seen Lemon Hart at retail in NYC), but I would think that at least a funky amber rum would be de rigueur.

In other words, it looks like they've started marketing in earnest...sort of like, ummm, All-Clad. No, I doubt you'll be seeing any full page advertisements for Sitram in every cooking magazine in town. At its heart, Sitram is fundamentally a producer of cookware for professional kitchens. They have always had a copper-bottomed line (formerly "catering") and an aluminum-bottomed line (formerly "profisserie"), and when induction became something that was used in commercial kitchens, they produced an induction compatible version of the "catering" line. The various household lines are significantly different, and more "design-y" than the heavy-duty professional lines. I suspect that the cheap deals one can get on Sitram cookware at CostCo and other places actually buys you one of these lesser lines (I suggest this because, while I have never heard any complaints as to the performance or heavy-dutyness of the professional stuff bought from a commercial outlet such as Bridge, etc., I have heard complaints about the stuff from CostCo).

Those are some pretty tiny nits you're picking there. 18-8 versus 18-10? Satin finish versus polished finish? Really?! Meanwhile, for whatever it's worth, the Vollrath Tribute pans are made primarily for restaurant use, and seem to have a significantly sturdier construction -- not to mention better details such as the rolled lip on their saucepans, etc.

Holy crap that is the biggest load of hogwash I have seen in years.

Chris, not to toot my own horn, but I did write an entire eGCI class on this subject, and would humbly suggest that at least the beginnings to your answers can be found there -- if in nothing more than learning the right questions to ask.

I'm sure that the makers of Sitram, long considered one of the premiere professional cookware lines, would be amused to know that some people might think of them as an "alternative to All-Clad." In reality, Dave makes a good point, which is that there is really not a meaningful point of comparison. All-Clad is clad straight gauge cookware whereas the kind of Sitram we're talking about* are disk-bottom designs. Disk-bottom pans and clad straight gauge cookware have different advantages and limitations. For a larger saucepan, or a tall saucepan, for a rondeau, for a stock pot, for a sauté pan the disk-bottom design has many advantages. For frypans, smaller saucepans, reduction pans and sauteuses evasée, straight gauge has some advantages. All of which is to say that Sitram's disk-bottom pans aren't properly described as "alternatives" to All-Clad so much as they are simply different. An "alternative" to All-Clad would be one of the other clad straight gauge pans, such as Calphalon's Tri-Ply Stainless, certain Demeyere pans, Mauviel's M'Cook, Vollrath Tribute, Le Creuset Tri-Ply and countless other lines of stainless clad aluminum core straight gauge cookware. * It's not clear to me that "Catering" and "Profisserie" are really the applicable terms anymore, as Sitram has not listed these in their product materials for some time.

Well, exactly. It's perfectly clear that a bartender who has mastered the use of jiggers can work as fast as any freepouring bartender. We see this demonstrated every day in the best NYC cocktail lounges, all of which are jiggering bars. I would argue that all the work and discipline that goes into becoming a freepouring bartender who can pour with accuracy down to the 1/4 ounce level under heavy volume all the way to the end of a shift (assuming for the moment that such a person even exists) could just as easily be spent mastering the use of jiggers at high speed and volume. I would further argue that fast jiggering skills are more enduring (meaning that they don't have to be constantly reinforced once acquired) and more portable (meaning that fast jiggering skills acquired at one bar can easily translate to another bar with different bottles, pour tops, etc.) than freepouring skills. If a (largely hypothetical) superaccurate freepouring bartender spends a month on vacation or switches to another bar that uses different pourtops, he's going to have a not insignificant "breaking in" period to get his freepouring mojo going. The jiggering bartender can jump right in. Also, what about bartenders who tend at more than one bar? Again, not a problem for a jiggering bartender, but I don't believe there is a feepopuring bartender alive who could compensate for two bars with different pourtops and equipment and still pour with 1/4 ounce accuracy. I hesitate to say this out of fear that I will appear to besmirch the reputation of some excellent bars, but I must say. . . I guess I can believe that there is such a thing as a truly top-level cocktail bar that is exclusively a freepouring bar. But I've never been in one. If anything, I have found that the use of jiggers behind the bar is one of the surest indicators of quality. Yea. There are definitely certain drinks (highballs, mostly) that don't have to be jiggered. And when the rush is on, they probably won't be. But when there's time to jigger everything, it's good practice and discipline (not to mention helping the bar control costs due to overpours). I think that, when you know your bitters bottles and have a consistent dashing technique, you have a way of getting a reasonably consistent dash out of them. The point of a dasher top is to give a reasonable consistent per-dash volume. Few bitters are so strongly flavored that the taste of the cocktail will be meaningfully affected by the margin of error in a consistent and well-executed dash, whereas the different between a 1/4 ounce and a 1/2 ounce of Luxardo marqaschino will make a huge difference. The bartenders just have to know that they can't do a "ketchup bottle dash" with a half-full bottle of Angostura bitters. In my experience, it's really only the Angostura bottle that gives inconsistent dash volume depending on the technique and the fullness of the bottle. A way around this is to always "tip dash" the Angostura bottle. If you do that, you can get a consistent dash volume even with Angostura. Once you get into the realm of straw-testing and adjusting every cocktail as a way of compensating for the inherrent inaccuracies of freepouring, you completely remove any supposed advantage this technique might have as to speed and volume. I don't agree, by the way, that the flavor profile of the lemon juice of the nature of the ice is going to change dramatically on a drink-to-drink basis so long as the bar has a good program for their ice and juices -- which should be a given for a cocktail bar on this level. Sure, lemon juice that was juiced at 5:00 won't be the same at 10:00. How different it is will depend on what kind of care the bar management is taking with its juice program. If it's dramatically different such that the cocktail ratios that were working at 6:00 no longer work at 10:00, then something needs to change. Even understanding that a certain amount of change is certainly going to happen over the course of a shift, there shouldn't be such a dramatic change between a Sidecar made at 8:03 and another one made at 8:08 that both need to be tasted and adjusted. Furthermore, if the bartender is making accurate pours and the juice is being kept on ice in small bottles that are replenished from closed, full, refrigerated bottles as needed... any potential adjustments made by the bartender in the middle of a busy shift are going to be affected more by palate fatigue than any meaningful change in the actual balance of the drink. And furthermore, any such micro-adjustment by the bartender will be happening on a far smaller scale than the magnitude of difference between the bartender's palate and the customer's palate. As for the whole straw-testing thing... unless the bartender is in the process of riffing something up, it strikes me that the main function of this practice should not be for the purpose of making micro-adjustments to balance, but rather simply to see if the cocktail is "off" or not. If something tastes funny, you dump the drink and make another one (perhaps after checking your juice or syrup, depending on what you tasted). The idea that the bartender is going to spend the entire evening straw-testing each cocktail and then adjusting them by adding another microliter of juice or liqueur here or there not only strikes me as a monumental waste of time, but is founded upon a false premise -- or rather two false premises: 1. that the bartender's palate remains a constant throughout the shift, and 2. that the bartender's palate correlates with the customer's palate on a similar scale to such adjustments.

Luckily, even people in Western Kansas can use the interwebs.

It's definitely true that these are among the least-used gifts someone is likely to receive. This is because the entry price point for making decent espresso/cappuccino is quite high, and everything below that price point is worthless crap.

I have often thought with respect to 3- and 4-star retaurants that, if you can afford to become a "regular" there, comping becomes pretty meaningless as a perk. I mean, it's nice to get some extra courses at Per Se or whatever, but it's really more about the extra attention and improved access once you reach a level of affluence that lets you become a regular at these places. Or... how many times does one have to go to become a "regular" at these places? Once a month? Once a quarter?

I have a 2.25 quart handled saucepan; I use it all the time for low-and-slow cooking, esp southern style veggies. I can saute seasoning meat (andouille, tasso, bacon, pickled pork) over high heat to render the fat, then brown onions & aromatics deeply, then add the veggies directly to the pot with liquid...the cast iron allows me to achieve an even simmer over very low heat. Yes, you can do these things in an all-metal saucepan, but I find that the fond created in the inital browning is better in the enameled cast iron, and the subsequent simmer requires a much lower flame. Plus, I can make a roux in the saucepan & add baby green limas, or petits pois, and continue to cook over low heat with no scorching or uneven heating. My absolute favorite LC is the low, wide buffet pans (recently renamed "braisers" in the promo literature)...perfect for etouffee, chicken fricasee, etc. Interesting. I have found the opposite to be true for many of these things. For example, I find that enamel cooking surface is significantly worse at browning meats and creating fond compared to a stainless steel surface. I also find that the larger diameters of Le Creuset don't have a thick enough construction to provide truly even heat distribution (my tests show a definite "heat ring") and long-cooking performance is significantly improved in these diameters by the use of a thick aluminum "flame tamer." On the other hand, your 2.25 quart saucepan is so much smaller than their large casseroles that evenness of heat should be pretty good, as this diameter is within the tolerances of the thickness that they use. And, I absolutely agree that one of the main benefits of this construction is that it can maintain a nice, even, low simmer on the lowest possible heat setting. All of which goes to show the extent to which cooking style can make a big difference. For someone preparing fairly small amounts of long-cooked Southern-style vegetables, it sounds like a great choice. For making sauces... not so much.

Just goes to show how your style of cooking & general repertoire of favorite dishes can make a dramatic difference in your perception of utility: I have a LC handled saucepan that's one of the most-used pots in my kitchen. I'm curious: What size is the pan? What do you use it for? And what do you think is so good about it for this use?

Yes, I have found that at "middlebrow" neighborhood restaurants where I do most of my dining, getting the first available table is one of the most tangible benefits of being a regular. Other than that, it's likely to be a comped glass of wine or a comped dessert following a table visit from the owner or an FOH higher-up. These are not restaurant where an "extra course" or a "dish in development" is a viable option, simply because these are not restaurants where people do multi-course dining, and they're not set up for the kind of constant menu turnover/evolution that other, higher-end restaurants have. Some restaurants do this well. Henry's, our local up in the North end of the Upper West Side, treats us very well in this respect (nb. we had our wedding there, so they have pocketed multiple thousands of our dollars) -- although the extent of any special treatment will depend upon who is in the house, and all customers are treated very well there. In contrast, this is something that @SQC, another UWS middlebrow neighborhood restaurant, never did very well. @SQC is closed. Henry's was packed last night. You do the math.

I wonder if, with a more traditionally red grenadine, the color of the cocktail might have some out with a more traditional red pansy color.