slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
-
Har. Well, it goes to show that there's no such thing as entirely accurate quoting.
-
I got a whole system worked out.
-
I just picked up a bottle of each, but I'll have to finish a few bottles in my refrigerator before I can crack these open...
-
The point, I think, is that it may take ten minutes for that drink to come -- but it doesn't have to take ten minutes for the drink to come. For sure, Phil, Brian and the rest of the bar staff at D&C (not to mention Pegu, Flatiron, etc.) are fully capable of getting an order taken and a drink into the hands of a customer just as fast as any similarly busy "beer and a shot" place.
But how many cocktails are we talking about having over the course of the evening?Well, I've been known to have as many as 15 to 17. But those were 8 hour nights.
-
Not sure. It's possible I've used as much as a half ounce of Regan's (which isn't that bitter) for a two-champagne-bottle batch.
-
I haven't been able to get any Seville oranges, so I've been including some orange bitters. That's about it.
-
Good point. Where can one get some?
-
My guess is that "funk" as we are using it here could be boiled down to the presence of a relatively small family of esters.
Say more. In reading up a bit on esters, I am sensing that they're primarily fruity. Do they provide a more yeasty, malty fruit character?
I think that esters can produce lots of different aromatic sensations. Many of the most commonly understood ones are thought to be "fruity." But plenty of them aren't. That said, it could be that it's a ketone or a fusel oil or some other relatively narrow group of chemical compounds that is responsible for this sensation. I'm thinking the best way to describe "funk" in this example might be "pleasantly musky."
could this be the umami of cocktails?Could be.
Eh... not really. Umami is a taste, whereas we are almost definitely speaking of aroma.
-
Mainly just a "hamed" up retort... But speaking from home cooking standpoint... to have a bain of water and butter for cooking lobster would be excessive... So lets say i have a dinner party of 10 comming and Everyone has a lobster tail... even if i cook 10 tails in the bath.... thats alot of waste in the end...
Wouldn't that be the benefit of cooking SV--you can use a ton less butter.
Exactly. If you use a bag -- even just a ziplock bag -- and a water bath, you can cook the ten lobster tails in less than one stick of butter.
-
I said Beefeater Sam.
I stand corrected. Both, it must be said, make an excellent Martini.
so i dont' think you can really have an antica formula. in my understanding the noilly production process is so elaborate that the only way they did deviate is the aging of the wine and one particularly bitter botanical...Interesting. What is your source for this information?
From what I have been able to gather from their web site, the aging process is somewhat complicated (separate aging of varietals first in gigantic barrels indoors for 8 months, then in smaller oak casks outdoors for 12 months, then another 6 months indoors, then they're blended together and aromatized) but by no means impenetrable. Regardless, I have my doubts as to whether any changes they may have made to this process were responsible for very many the differences I tasted. After the wines are blended, NP's site says that they add raspberry and lemon fruit liqueurs (!) and fortify the wine with various mistelles (partially fermented or unfermented grape juice with alcohol). The final step is infusing their botanicals for 3 weeks and resting the fortified and aromatized wine for 6 weeks before bottling. In consideration of the fact that the easily perceived differences all seem to be herbal in nature, I have to believe it would not be difficult for them to do parallel production of "old" and "new" NP starting with the same base stock of aged, blended wine.
-
The point is, I think, that the Per Se service model isn't the cocktail lounge service model. Which goes back to what I posted earlier saying that the "Per Se of bars" would completely miss the point.
I should also point out that, even in most Per Se-like restaurants, the standard is that someone checks in with you within seconds of you taking your seat, and you can have a drink in your hand and an amuse on the table within minutes.
-
Hey, those people pay the bills. Keep in mind, by the way, that a good percentage of the people eating at places like Babbo and Per Se don't have a real appreciation of what the kitchen is doing either.
-
I had a chance to try some of the new NP at Death & Company last night. It's actually a very nice product with a lot of interesting potential. That's not the issue -- which is nice, because it so often is the issue (cf. Zacapa 23 turning into the inferior Zacapa Solera). The problem is simply that we'll no longer be able to get the old formula, so all the drinks will not be different -- not necessarily bad, but different. As Phil said, and I agree: "Drinking a Tanqueray and Noilly Pratt Martini with a dash of orange bitters and a lemon twist is a pretty big and important part of my life, and now it doesn't taste the same anymore." What I honestly don't get is why they wouldn't make this new "throwback" formulation NP's version of "Antica Formula" and have both on the market. They're really quite different.
-
My guess is that "funk" as we are using it here could be boiled down to the presence of a relatively small family of esters.
-
(Mods: Perhaps this fork of the discussion could be split out?)
Among the things that have interested me about cocktails are the parallels with my work performing opera. For example, a large part of what we do with opera is go back to try to find out the true original score of the piece and try to form an understanding of the way opera was performed when it was composed -- and then, understanding that singing techniques and the aesthetics of opera have irrevocably changed, try to arrive at a way of performing the music that is at once respectful of the original and also compatible with modern techniques and audiences. This is a little like what we do in uncovering old cocktail recipes and figuring out how to make them work for modern palates.
Anyway, here is another parallel that recently struck me: Italian opera prior to the mid-19th century was designed by the composers to include certain improvisations and embelishments by the performers. What was written was not what was performed. As this tradition evolved away, the popular Italian operas came to be encrusted with late 19th century embelishments that more or less became "standardized." When musicians began re-examining and revitalizing this repertoire, one of the first things they did was strip away all the late 19C standard embelishments. Sometimes, an opera like Barber of Seville might be performed "come scritto" (strictly as-written with no embellishments). This was not as the music was meant to be performed any more than the late 19C altered versions were. But they were a necessary step in working back to a performing tradition that better respected the operas' contemporary performance practice. Perhaps there is a parallel evolution going on in cocktails where people are attracted to the idea of a quiet, respectful, "four star cocktail lounge." But I don't believe that an "Alain Ducasse at Essex House of cocktails" would reflect what cocktails are all about.
-
Hmm. It's hard to express all the various ways I disagree with the foregoing.
First and most obvious, I take serious exception with the premise that larger cocktail bars such as Flatiron, Pegu Club or Clover Club aren't "real Serious Cocktail Lounges." And they're certainly not "minority niche places" either. They're places where most anyone can get in and get a properly made cocktail at a level of inventiveness equal to just about anyplace you might care to go.
Second, I think Dale's quote from the NY Times article today (in which I and other eG habitués are quoted) is right to the point:
"It's to the point that it can be a little irritating," said Dale DeGroff, the former Rainbow Room bartender who is widely credited with starting the cocktail renaissance. Mr. DeGroff likened the situation to when he was hanging out at boisterous jazz clubs in the '60s and '70s. "Now, when I go to jazz clubs, I get shushed. When you turn the music into a religion, you blow the gig. That’s what's happening in some of these bar scenes — it’s getting a little too sacred."Don and I are later quoted in a similar vein:
On a recent evening at the East Village cocktailery Death & Co., Mr. Lee, exasperated by a discussion about the "Platonic ideal" of a bar, chided his tablemates: "You guys think about this stuff way too much."But Mr. Kinsey, the "cocktailian," struck a sanguine note. "I’ve been out dancing on tables at 5 a.m. and blowing balls of flame in the air," he said. "You know, it's booze."
Now, I'm sure that there are plenty of quotes around here from me about appreciating cocktail spots for the gustatory quality of the drinks rather than the "scene" and so forth. But at the end of the day, it's still booze. This was meant to be fun, folks! I have to believe that every revered bartender from Jerry Thomas and The Only William up to Dale DeGroff and Audrey Saunders would be dismayed at the idea that real Serious Cocktail Lounges must be 30-seater, hushed little out-of-the way spots with a scrupulously limited door where the cognoscenti gather reverently to Recieve Light from the Altar of Cocktailery and Devoutly Consume the Master's Gifts.
I am also with Phil is suggesting that it is establishments and organization that are largely responsible for long ticket times at cocktail bars. There is simply no reason, especially at some of these tiny bars with multiple 'tenders, why anyone should have to wait 15 minutes to have a drink in front of them. I'd call that unacceptable. Now... in a big cocktail bar during the after-work rush on Friday? I'd still expect to be able to get a drink on average as quickly as I might be able to get a shot and a beer at most any other similarly crowded bar.
IMO, Dale's gold standard is the gold standard. That's not to say that other people won't choose to have a different experience, to linger and discuss their choices, etc. But I don't see anything wong with setting the bar at, "you walk into a bar, you sit down, someone takes your drink order promptly, and within a very short time frame you have a well-made drink in your hand." I just disagree with the premise that freepouring is necessary to meet this bar.
-
It would be interesting to do a contest to prove freepouring skills. I'd suggest something like:
5 two ounce pours from a full Smirnoff bottle
5 3/4 ounce pours from a half-full Cointreau bottle
5 3/4 ounce pours from a 1/4 full juice bottle with a different pour top
5 1/4 ounce pours of rich demerara syrup
5 two ounce pours from a 1/4 Smirnoff bottle
5 3/4 ounce pours from a full Cointreau bottle
5 3/4 ounce pours from a 1/2 full juice bottle with a different pour top
All on the clock against a time previously establised by Phil Ward jiggering the same amounts. Needless to say, anything less than matching the test time would be considered a failure, since time is the presumed advantage of freepouring.
-
Having studied a fair amount of cognitive and perceptual psychology on the way to getting my psych degree, I think it's likely that a serious bartender could be trained to be extremely accurate with free pouring under optimal conditions. That said, I suspect that this would not be possible or realistic in amounts of 1/4 ounce or less using standard pour tops. Sub half-ounce accuracy with freepouring might be possible using pour tops that restrict the flow more than the standard ones, but this would not be practical and would eliminate many of the presumed efficiency advantages of free pouring.
Those are under optimal conditions, where the bartender is rested, alert, able to focus, not under a great deal of time pressure, etc. Needless to say, these conditions are not particularly found in a busy cocktail bar. There are times when near-optimal conditions are found in a cocktail bar, but these conditions also allow the bartender the time to use jiggers. Since the only reason to prefer freepouring over jiggers is the time efficiency advantage, it's not clear that there is any advantage to freepouring in contexts where the bartender would have sufficient time to use jiggers.
But the impact of "non-optimal conditions" extends beyond the pressure of maintaining discipline in frenetic and busy cocktail lounge during the rush. What technique is the bartender using to measure his free pours? If he is employing the usual "count" method, then optimal conditions would insist that all bottles be of a similar size and geometry, all are full to a similar extent and all have similar pour tops. If any of these things is different, the flow rates coming out of the bottles will be different. This means, for example, that a "4 count" which results in an ounce out of a 3/4 full Tanqueray bottle will not equal an ounce out of a 1/4 full Cointreau bottle. Avery makes good points with respect viscosity, etc. I suppose it's possible that a freepouring bartender could have skills of such high development that he could compensate for these variables, but I highly doubt it.
Now... I've seen some inaccuracy from jiggering bartenders during a rush. That 3/4 ounce jigger might be a little underfilled or have a little oversplash when the bartenders are seriously weeded. But I have a hard time believeing there is a freepouring bartender alive that could maintain anywhere near that level of accuracy under that kind of pressure.
What methods are freepouring bartenders using for accuracy other than the "count method"? I have serious doubts that anyone who is simply eyeballing the mixing glass will have accuracy suitable for anything more complicated than a highball.
-
Why on earth would they stop shipping the old one, which has been a cocktailian staple for years and years and years? I can see bringing out a different one in addition to the formerly standard formula. But this is just not good business sense. The "New Coke" of vermouth?
-
Wait. Are they introducing a new product alongside the old product? Or replacing the old product with a new formulation?
-
Here I was thinking, "wait a minute... that's my half hot/half cold grenadine method." And then I realized I had never posted my method to this thread. D'oh. Turns out more than one person can have a good idea.
Anyway, another variation on grenadine. From the applejack thread:
I use a supersaturated grenadine I made by doing a fourfold reduction of POM, melting in as much sugar as it would hold, allowing it to cool and then thinning it out with fresh POM.I also sometimes add a touch of orange flower water and vanilla. I make large batches, and have found this technique and formula keeps for as long as a year. For the "storage" bottles, I'll float a bit of vodka over the surface (the grenadine is thick enough that the vodka will stay in a separate layer until shaken in).
-
There is definitely some kind of pie quantum physics to be explored here. For example, Schrödinger's pie. This is where someone may have eaten the last piece of pie, but you won't know whether it has been eaten until you go into the kitchen in the middle of the night looking for pie. Until that moment, the pie is neither eaten nor not-eaten.
-
Sure you could have. But, for something like this, a regular heavy-duty ziplock bag that you suck the air out of would have worked just fine. The only improvement you would get from pulling out more air is that you can use less butter (if you pull out all the air, even a tiny amount of butter will coat the shrimp completely with a thin layer of buter -- and the shrimp doesn't know the difference between a thick layer or a thin layer of butter). Since conserving butter doesn't sound like an issue for you, it's probably not worth worrying about sucking out more air in this context.
Frozen Whole Chicken
in Cooking
Posted
Sure. That's because there's a little air pocket where the void is. For this reason, I like to spatchcock chickens before I vacuum pack them for freezing. Flatter = no voids.