slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
. . . I use a pasta cooker that has a perforated insert . . .
I have to say that, not only do think this is not a waste of money, but I think it's a necessity. I don't understand dumping out all the water into the sink, when you can use the starchy, salty water to adjust the tightness of the sauce and to provide liquid for cooking the sauce and the pasta together for the last minute or two.
-
That's what vaudevillians, silent film stars, and Danny Terrio thought, too.
That's what happened to plenty of people in all kinds of fields. The fact of the matter is that a career in the broad category of "entertainment" is risky at best, and usually extremely short lived at the top. It is only the precious few who are able to sustain super-celebrity status for a long period of time. That doesn't mean you can't keep on working. It just means that you won't always be a superstar celebrity in your field. It's not like Deney Terrio stopped working after Solid Gold went off the air.
-
The title of this topic is things that are a total waste of money. Cookware that I've bought 15 years ago, used on a daily basis, and is still in perfect condition, including some non-stick, is hardly a total waste of money.
I think there are a few points to make here. Clearly All-Clad is not crap quality cookware.
Clearly, that's where this argument should have ended.
I'm not surprised that some lovers of All-Clad are taking it hard that others have said it's a "waste of money."
After all, the reason we have the tradition of giving diamond engagement rings is almost entirely attributable to what has been called the "greatest promotional campaign of all time" by De Beers.
On that basis, All-Clad is a horrible value on the specifications, and on that basis it's not unreasonable to say that it's a "waste of money."
"Taking it hard" about one's cookware is one of life's great pleasures.
Clearly, when one has to bring out arguments about De Beers diamonds vs. a saucepan that might have cost $29 15 years ago...and one which is still in perfect condition today...I grow suspect about the anti All-Clad contingent.
Prices must have really gone up between 1994 and 1999, because my records indicate that a 3 quart All-Clad saucepan was selling for as much as $145 ten years ago. Today it retails for $160 and deep discount for an irregular will run you about about $108 for a one-third discount. Applying that discount to the 1999 price would make the best price you were likely to find on that pan at around 97 bucks -- a far cry from 29 dollars. You would be hard-pressed to find any piece of All-Clad that can be bought for less than about 50 bucks today (for the very smallest pieces) except for the rare loss-leader super-discount on amazon.com or someplace like that -- and it would be impossible to build a battery of cookware at those prices. All of which is to say that, even though you may have bought yours 15 years ago, I have serious doubts as to where it averaged any 29 dollars a piece. An average price of more like a hundred bucks a piece would be more like it. Or maybe yours fell off a truck?
-
The title of this topic is things that are a total waste of money. Cookware that I've bought 15 years ago, used on a daily basis, and is still in perfect condition, including some non-stick, is hardly a total waste of money.
I think there are a few points to make here. Clearly All-Clad is not crap quality cookware.
Clearly, that's where this argument should have ended.
I'm not surprised that some lovers of All-Clad are taking it hard that others have said it's a "waste of money." All-Clad is able to charge far more than other companies selling compatible cookware because it invests lots of money in engendering that kind of attachment. All-Clad owners tend to be passionate about their cookware, and often were passionate about All-Clad before they bought it. All-Clad was the first maker to market high-end, high-design cookware to foodies, and we shouldn't discount the extent to which All-Clad's promotional campaign has influenced public perception. After all, the reason we have the tradition of giving diamond engagement rings is almost entirely attributable to what has been called the "greatest promotional campaign of all time" by De Beers.
The fact is that, unless one has infinite financial resources, then value-for-dollar is a reasonable factor to consider. On that basis, All-Clad is a horrible value on the specifications, and on that basis it's not unreasonable to say that it's a "waste of money." To make another comparison, if one hamburger costs 20 bucks and another meaningfully identical hamburger costs 10 bucks, it's not unreasonable to say that the 20 dollar hamburger is a "waste of money" -- even if the people who buy the 20 dollar burger feel like they get their money's worth.
-
I guess there are reasons why anybody might buy anything, but when I walk into a rich dude's kitchen and see a gleaming set of All-Clad it screams ignorance to me. It means someone gave into marketing hype instead of actually buying the best, no less the best value. Whereas, if I see a gleaming set of Falk copper at least I think, hey, this guy may not cook much but he knows what's good and I wish I had it. A well-used set of Falk copper, now that's cool.
To say purchasing All-Clad screams ignorance is a ridiculous statement. Often times, All-Clad is an excellent value - I've accrued mine over the years, all at sales prices and great values.
The title of this topic is things that are a total waste of money. Cookware that I've bought 15 years ago, used on a daily basis, and is still in perfect condition, including some non-stick, is hardly a total waste of money.
I think there are a few points to make here. Clearly All-Clad is not crap quality cookware. On the other hand, it is not the pinnacle of cookware that many people hold it out to be. And it's tremendously overpriced on the specifications versus most other brands of cookware. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of mathematical fact. Of course, if you spend 200 bucks on an All-Clad stainless sauté pan and get ten years of use out of it, one cannot call it a "total waste of money" in that sense, because this averages out to only 20 bucks per year for this use. On the other hand, one can call it a "total waste of money" in comparison to what you might have had for that ten years for the same price. And for the same money, you could have spend those ten years using two sauté pans of equal or, usually, greater quality. Or, for ten dollars more a year over that decade, you could be flying the Cadillac of sauté pans using stainless-lined heavy copper. So, in the sense that All-Clad represents a horrible bargain versus the available competition, it is a "total waste of money." When the occasional super-discount sale comes around and you can pick up things such as an All-Clad Stainless 1-quart saucepan for 20 bucks (I got several at this price), the story changes dramatically. It's hard to think of a piece of cookware that would be a waste of money at 20 bucks.
Steven's other point is well made, but again only for some people and in certain circumstances. It is an inescapable fact that many people have fallen under the influence of All-Clad's extensive marketing campaign, have blindly assumed that "All-Clad is the best" and have accumulated vast troves of All-Clad cookware as a result. There is no bigger waste of money then someone who uses a 175 dollar All-Clad saucepan primarily for boiling water -- and there are plenty of people who do just this. This is no different than people who own a "full set" of Globals of Henkels or Le Creuset or whatever, or for that matter, it's not all that different from people who buy Bacardi rum or Stoli Elit believing that they're "getting the best."
. . . anyone who says that A-C (regardless of which line) doesn't warp is either inexperienced or lying.No warpage here. Not a liar, nor inexperienced either. But, what I will say is that when I worked in a restaurant, I was always told not to take a screaming hot pan and throw it into a sink or run it under cold water. THAT will warp it - whether it's AC, Calphalon, Lincoln Wearever, or whatever.
Calphalon is the most notorious warper, in my opinion. The stainless cladding of All-Clad and other clad aluminum products does significantly inhibit the tendency of aluminum to warp from high heat cooking. Nonstick is less likely to warp in general because it (hopefully) isn't used at anywhere near the superhot temperatures that regular cookware can be used. I can't say whether a large All-Clad frypan will warp at superhigh high temperature when you throw a chicken in the pan -- but I will say that I think anything worth 200 bucks had better not warp under any conditions.
As a general remark, I will say that this thread demonstrates what I would have said off the start: what is a total waste of money to one person will be indispensable to another.
-
An interesting post in the FCI Cooking Issues "Tech 'n Stuff" blog examines the effect of vacuum level on different meats. They vacuumed Tasmanian ocean trout, chicken breast and rib-eye steak at 90%, 98%, 99%, 99.9% and 99.9% vacuum plus an extra 15 seconds of air extraction; cooked them at the same time (fish to 48C, chicken to 63C and steak to 55.5C); and then compared them.
The interesting result was that the lower vacuum levels were universally preferred. They also tested with oil in the bag versus no oil in the bag, with the oil samples being preferred.
-
My understanding is that Falk makes the stainless lined copper sheet stock used by Mauviel and Bourgeat, but Mauviel is still making cookware in Villedieu, non, or maybe they are just making the tin lined pieces there?
Just the tin-lined pieces.
-
A Rondeau should clock in with a ratio of diameter-to-sides somewhere between fairly short sides at 4:1 (sauté) and fairly tall sides at 2:1 (casserole).
The Mauviel and Bourgeat sauté pans are more like 3:1 ... just like their rondeaux.
This does not appear to be the case.
Mauviel's 11 inch sauté pan has sides that are 3 inches tall. This makes them 27% as tall as the radius of the pan. So, a little bit more than 4:1, but reasonably chose.
Mauviel's 11 inch rondeau has sides that are 4 inches tall. This makes them 36% as tall as the radius of the pan. A bit more than 3:1, but reasonably close.
These are the same exact geometries that Falk Culinair uses, which I suppose isn't much of a surprise since both Mauviel's and Bourgeat's stainless-lined copper cookware are manufactured by Falk.
I can't find any measurements for Mauviel's casseroles, but Falk's 11 inch casserole has sides that are 5.4 inches tall. This makes them 49% as tall as the radius of the pan. A bit less than 2:1, but reasonably close.
Personally i prefer shorter sides on a sauté pan, but I can only seem to find them on pans i don't like.Good luck getting sides that are any shorter than 25% to 27% the size of the diameter. The only pans I know with shorter straight sides than this are large cast iron skillets, which can have sides between 14% and 20% of the diameter (1.5 inches to 2.2 inches on an 11-inch pan). But I find this far too short for real sautéing.
-
Right. I would say that the height of the sides is a distinguishing difference. A Rondeau should clock in with a ratio of diameter-to-sides somewhere between fairly short sides at 4:1 (sauté) and fairly tall sides at 2:1 (casserole). (Sitram's "rondeau casserole" is probably so named to distinguish it from straight-gauge implementations.)
It seems reasonable to say that a Le Creuset casserole is not a rondeau, and neither is a sauté pan with short handles instead of a long handle. What makes a real rondeau such a nice pan to have is that it's a "tweener." The sides should be short enough for browning meats and vegetables, etc. -- but also tall enough to use for poaching, braising, etc. The lack of a long handle means that it's not great for tasks where you need to shake the pan, but on the other hand it means that it is great when you want to put it in the oven or keep it out of the way on a back burner.
What I think of as "rondeau-ness" is that the sides have to be short enough in relation to the diameter that it has the overall appearance of a "wide pan" but not so short that one thinks of it as a "shallow pan."
-
They can be had. But for a zillion dollars.
-
Fairly large and metal. Avoid pewter.
You want to make sure that the handles are insulated from the cup, or made out of a non-thermal material such as wood. Otherwise, those handles get really hot really fast. This is the hard part. If you search eBay for "tankard" there are plenty of suitable metal vessels you could use, but they all have an integrated metal handle.
-
Depends on the cook and what you're cooking, I suppose. There are plenty of "pan fried" chicken I've seen that comes at two inches up the side of the pan once you've got all the chicken in there.
But let's say that it's starts off as a half inch of fat and comes one inch up the side of the pan once you have the chicken in there. 1.75 inches is a pretty small margin of error before you have to start worrying about sloshing some of that oil over the edge.
-
It depends on what you mean by "shallow frying." Frying in a small amount of hot fat somewhere between a film of fat and a quarter inch of hot fat is probably best done in a frypan. This way the food is easily turned, and the sloped sides help the food to crisp by facilitating the evaporation of steam. But this is just "frying" to most people. "Shallow frying" typically means somewhere between one and two inches of fat. It's "shallow" compared to "deep frying."
If you're frying in somewhere from a one to two inches of hot fat one of the main things you don't want is for the fat to boil over or splash over the sides of the pan. An eleven inch sauté pan would have sides that are around 2.75 inches tall. If you have one inch of fat in there, a 1.75 inch "collar" doesn't leave much room for error. On the other hand, an 11 inch rondeau would have sides at around 3.7 inches. That extra inch or so can make a big difference when it comes to safety, etc.
-
. . . . Very few home cooks actually sauté, and most of the things they would like to do are better executed in either a frypan, rondeau or large curved sauteuse evasée. Notwithstanding this fact . . .
Without for a second impugning the very valuable "Understanding Stovetop Cookware" course, this is not a fact; it's an opinion. I suspect the conjecture about true sauteeing is correct (my opinion), but the rest is questionable. It depends on what one cooks and how one cooks it. The rim-to-bottom ratio of a frypan is inefficient for shallow frying (I'd also assert that a frypan is a better vessel for sauteeing than a saute pan, anyway); the sides of a rondeau (likewise most sautee evassees) are too high for easy turning of fried items. Saute pans come with lids; frypans don't. To each his own.
That would be why I said "or." I did not mean to imply that the totality of typical home uses of a sauté pan could be duplicated or exceeded by only one of a frypan, rondeau or large curved sauteuse evasée -- but rather that for most of the uses that typical home cooks might do in a sauté pan, they would be better served by choosing one among those three pans. Indeed, I think that if the typical home cook owns a frypan (which is a no-brainer -- everyone has one of these) and rondeau, there would be little need for a sauté pan. To wit: shallow frying is better done in a rondeau than a sauté pan and fried items that need manual turning are better done in a frypan than a sauté pan.
-
I have an All-Clad 8qt "stock pot". The pot is about 12" wide by 6.5" tall. I always knew this wasn't a great pot for making stock, hence the quotes. I have a proper stock pot for making stock.
All-Clad has always gone their own way when it comes to naming their various pieces of cookware. Even within a given All-Clad category, the geometry of the pan can change.
-
I've been a huge champion of the rondeau since my eGCI class back in 2003:
QuoteRondeau (Braiser, Casserole, Low Casserole): This is a low, wide, double-handled pan. The sides are right around one-third as tall as the diameter of the pan. This can be a very versatile pan for tasks as diverse as browning bones to poaching delicate meats and fishes. The lack of a long handle means it won’t take up much stovetop real estate, and it goes easily from stovetop to oven. The two major variants (not that all manufacturers stick to the same nomenclature) are the Casserole and the Low Casserole, which have sides that tend to be higher or lower than those of a Rondeau. A Casserole is essentially a large saucepan with two loop handles instead of one long handle, while a Low Casserole is essentially a sauté pan with two loop handles instead of one long handle. Another variant on this theme is the high end Paella Pan, such as those manufactured by Sitram and Paderno, which has deep curved sides and a thick conductive base.
The "rondeau versus sauté pan" question is an interesting one. Very few home cooks actually sauté, and most of the things they would like to do are better executed in either a frypan, rondeau or large curved sauteuse evasée. Notwithstanding this fact, it is also the case that most home cooks purchase cookware based on looks rather than out of any meaningful matching of their cooking needs with the functional characteristics of individual pieces of cookware. What this means is that lots of home cooks have a sauté pan because they want a sauté pan. It's as simple as that. It's for the same reason that lots of home cooks have a gigantic Le Creuset enameled cast iron casserole. Most of these would be better served trading both the sauté pan and the enameled cast iron casserole for a large rondeau made out of heavy gauge stainless steel with a thick aluminum base. On the other hand, if you already have that sauté pan and big Le Creuset, there's probably not much need for a rondeau. -
What constitutes a 'real' bbq rib to you? I didn't have every example on offer, but it seemed to me that most styles were represented, with of course the exception:I'm also let down that the organizers have still not added a representative from Kansas City. That's always been a big hole in the lineup.
Agreed on both counts, though Blue Smoke does a very respectable version of KC ribs.
Right. They don't have anyone from KC, but they do have a representative. I'm actually not convinced that KC represents a style of barbecue, per se, so much as it represents a style of barbecue sauce and a characteristic way of using it. Including someone from KC would be good because there are great places there, but I'm not convinced that it leaves a stylistic hole in the BABBP lineup
To my mind, the glaring stylistic omission is Owensboro mutton barbecue.
-
Figure that Burma was under British control beginning around 1886, and the earliest known recipes for the cocktail give us reason to suspect it may have been developed in the early 1920s.
Rangoon (now Yangon), where the Pegu Club was situated, is a port city just up the Rangoon (Yangon) River from the Gulf of Martaban in the Indian Ocean. Presumably what gin there was that was finding its way into the Pegu Club itself would have been whatever the Navy was bringing in -- most likely Plymouth, I'd guess, but perhaps Navy Strength?
-
I have this unit and like it very much. It is a huge improvement over any of the FoodSaver machines, IMO. There are no idiosyncrasies of which I am aware. The one thing it will not do is automatically cut off when you are using canisters rather than bags. You have to hit the manual stop button.
One thing that's nice about the extra-large vacuum chamber and the clear top is that, when you are sealing bags that contain some liquid, you can look down into the chamber and hit the "manual seal" button just when you begin to see liquid bubbling out the end of the bag (although in my experience, this is right when the machine tends to go into sealing mode anyway). Using this technique and careful bag positioning, I have successfully removed all the air from bags containing mostly liquid.
-
It could just as easily be that the same number of people from our subculture are attending, but they feel there's less to discuss.
This is certainly part of it. Obviously overall interest is high. But I just don't get the same sense of ecstatic enthusiasm that the BABBP engendered in the foodie community in years 2, 3, and 4 when it was at fever pitch. But, then again, as I said before, barbecue of this quality was virtually unknown to most NYC-area foodies during those years.
Since the first BABBP, we have seen the opening of Dinosaur Barbecue (2004), R.U.B. (2005), Rack & Soul (2006) and Hill Country (2007), not to mention serious improvement at Blue Smoke. It's just not as exceptional anymore for New Yorkers. I mean, to put this in context, a lot of my foodie friends were pretty ecstatic when Virgil's opened however many years ago, and most wouldn't deign to eat there now.
A point of comparison might be the iPhone. Tons of people still buy them and tons of early-adopter types and Mac addicts still buy the latest models. But there just isn't the buzz that there was in 2007 when they came out.
-
Some of that's in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't say that anyplace in NYC does brisket that competes with Salt Lick's, and certainly no one does pulled shoulder that competes with Big Bob Gibson's or even approaches Ed Wilson's whole hog.
I think it's rather a reflection of the fact that it's become an increasingly huge pain in the ass, and that whereas few NYC-based foodies had even had good barbecue, nevermind excellent barbecue, that's no longer the case six years later. The result is less overall excitement and willingness to endure hours-long waits on line or devote an entire weekend to eating barbecue.
-
Interesting to look at the curve of foodie interest in this event. Here are the total posts in the BABBP threads from various years as of nighttime on the second day:
2003 (first year): 28
2004: 72
2005: 103
2006: 75
2007: 64
2008: 53
2009 (so far): 26
-
Yeah this has been covered elsewhere but Maraschino is not a sub for Heering or vice-versa. As far as uses go I'd place it closer to Cointreau.
i assume you mean "in general" it is not a sub for each other...
Both "in general" and "specifically with respect to the Blood & Sand," maraschino liqueur is not a substitute for cherry brandy. They taste nothing alike. Maraschino, to my palate, really doesn't taste all that much of cherries, rather it tastes of . . . well, maraschino liqueur. It has its own special flavor that is like nothing else.
or, specifically this drink? maybe then i did not experience a true B&S the other nite, but i did enjoy what i had none-the-less, so for me it worked here, but again maybe i would enjoy the real version more.I can see how this might be okay with maraschino, but it wouldn't be a Blood & Sand.
I think the bar manager or bartender simply is mistaken. Maraschino liqueur, I find, is one of the most frequently misunderstood spirits in the bar. Some people confuse it with maraschino cherry syrup, and others confuse it with sweet cherry-flavored brandy, and it's also sometimes confused with dry cherry brandy (aka kirschwasser). These things all taste very different, and really aren't interchangeable with eachother at all.
For cherry brandy, when you determine that it is the sweet kind that is called for (sometimes with older recipes it is hard to tell which kind they mean), the usual suspects of quality are Cherry Heering, Luxardo Sangue Morlacco and, if you can find it, Cherry Marnier. Any of these three would work well, albeit differently, in a Blood and Sand.
-
The highest temperature my oven can hold, directly on a piece of heavy slate, for 2 minutes or less usually.
Will Jiggers Kill the Bar Star?
in Spirits & Cocktails
Posted
The one area where freepouring makes some sense to me is when one is making a simple highball. Especially if you pour the liquor before adding the ice, if you know your glassware it is relatively simple to hit a consistent measure every time by just looking at the glass. And over/underpours aren't as critical in a highball anyway.