Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

KD1191

Rogue (now beta) Cocktails

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else had a chance to take a look at this new book/manifesto published by Kirk Estopinal and Maks Pazuniak of Cure in New Orleans (Rogue Cocktails)?

I've paged through it a couple times this week, and have been intrigued. It contains two score of recipes that are aimed at being rule breaking. That conceit could come across as somewhat too precious or trite, to some, but there are interesting things going on here (to my estimation...but, maybe it's all been done).

The drinks are really only part of the book, though. They are used to bolster the philosophy they are espousing. On their blog, it's compared to the Chris Rock bit in which he tears into those who want to be congratulated for the very least of accomplishments (i.e. "I raise my kids." == "I stir my Manhattans."). The goal is to be somewhat of a kick in the pants to the community, to break free of the "How many times do you stir a Manhattan?" debate and continue to evolve as creators.

Their approach may raise some hackles, but they also take a very relaxed and open view, saying that there's no perfect way to make a drink, that the many various styles and methods of bar tending should be respected, and that, "ome people will love the recipes in this book, some will hate them. We are cool with this."

What do the rest of you think? Is this a fad, a glimpse into the future, or history repeating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only briefly glimpsed through it, but I know that the cocktails I've had from it are delicious, and that's enough for me. I'm not a professional, so I don't have much to say re the philosophy espoused, but I like the guys who wrote it, and they make good drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It contains two score of recipes that are aimed at being rule breaking. 

A Cuba Libre is rule breaking? I'm sure these guys are great bartenders, but this book is hardly earthshaking. It's a compilation of some drinks. Spare me the "philosophy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Janet, I haven't looked through the book thoroughly enough to notice the Cuba Libre, but my look was thorough enough to notice that most of the drinks included are a fair piece more creative than that.

Also, the "philosophy" behing the book seems more to be "there is no philosophy, and it isn't all about rules."

ETA: It would really surprise me if a standard Cuba Libre was included in this book, given that they explicitly decline to include recipes for drinks like daiquiris and negronis.


Edited by MikeHartnett (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On their blog, it's compared to the Chris Rock bit in which he tears into those who want to be congratulated for the very least of accomplishments (i.e. "I raise my kids." == "I stir my Manhattans.").  The goal is to be somewhat of a kick in the pants to the community, to break free of the "How many times do you stir a Manhattan?" debate and continue to evolve as creators.

Their approach may raise some hackles, but they also take a very relaxed and open view, saying that there's no perfect way to make a drink, that the many various styles and methods of bar tending should be respected, and that, "ome people will love the recipes in this book, some will hate them.  We are cool with this."

What do the rest of you think?  Is this a fad, a glimpse into the future, or history repeating?

I haven't read anything more than their few blog posts linked above, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

As they themselves acknowledge in their post about stirring, the basics are still very important. If they're blown away by a shaken Manhatten with no bitters, they should come to my town (Madison, WI) where if you're not careful, your "Manhattan" may very well be unbittered, shaken, served over rocks, and (here's the kicker) use brandy as the base spirit. That's right, a glass of watered down, shaken brandy with a dash of musty old vermouth called a Manhattan. And I'm not talking about a dive bar drink here either. Technique is very important and the idea of breaking the rules seems to have been around forever.

I don't think their project suggests leaving technique behind though or that "breaking the rules" is new. The project seems to want to be a kick in the pants to the tradition of writing bar books by beginning with the basics and assuming little to no technical proficiency with the craft. This is cool and valuable, but their rhetoric seems to me a bit overblown. Bar books have been evolving quite a bit, emphasizing history, understanding of drink structure, technique, etc., over a dizzying multitude of recipes.

Anyway, even if this book isn't Paine's Common Sense for the cocktail "revolution," I'm still interested in checking out some adventurous recipes. Philosophy or no, that's enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janet, I haven't looked through the book thoroughly enough to notice the Cuba Libre, but my look was thorough enough to notice that most of the drinks included are a fair piece more creative than that. 

Also, the "philosophy" behing the book seems more to be "there is no philosophy, and it isn't all about rules."

ETA: It would really surprise me if a standard Cuba Libre was included in this book, given that they explicitly decline to include recipes for drinks like daiquiris and negronis.

I'm wondering if the inclusion of the Cuba Libre was meant to remind people that a Cuba Libre is more than just a Rum & Coke.

It looks like an interesting book, if for no other reason than to add it to the collection, but I saw at least three drinks in the preview pages that look rather enticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Cuba Libre is rule breaking? I'm sure these guys are great bartenders, but this book is hardly earthshaking. It's a compilation of some drinks. Spare me the "philosophy."

That's the one recipe that caused me to do a double-take. It's not exactly your standard rum & coke, though. I quite enjoy the particular formulation, using dark rum and Mexican coke (just returned from lunch at a taqueria with a medio litro which will likely be put to this purpose tonight). It's probably the least 'earthshaking' drink of the 40 in the book, so I wouldn't damn the endeavor based on its inclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Cuba Libre is rule breaking? I'm sure these guys are great bartenders, but this book is hardly earthshaking. It's a compilation of some drinks. Spare me the "philosophy."

That's the one recipe that caused me to do a double-take. It's not exactly your standard rum & coke, though. I quite enjoy the particular formulation, using dark rum and Mexican coke (just returned from lunch at a taqueria with a medio litro which will likely be put to this purpose tonight). It's probably the least 'earthshaking' drink of the 40 in the book, so I wouldn't damn the endeavor based on its inclusion.

Even if all the drinks aren't completely revolutionary, they're pretty cool for their interesting combinations of ingredients. I might pick it up when I can--it looks like it's up my alley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that many of the cocktails look pretty good. What I don't get is the whole "rogue" and "breaking the rules" shtick. None of the drinks in there will seem in any way revolutionary, subversive of breaking of the rules to anyone who has spent time in top NYC cocktail bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it, it's not that they are aiming to break rules; it's kind of a "chill out about all these rules, and make things that taste good."

Where the "rogue" fits into that, I'm not sure. Maybe it just sounded cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is their premise that "the international cocktail renaissance is in danger of falling into a state of discontent and stagnation. It seems that many in the community are resting on their laurels, copngratulating themselves for bringing back fresh juices and for stirring Manhattans."

There is simply no evidence I can see that this is the case. Not to be cruel, but I suppose I can see how two New Orleans bartenders might get that impression, considering that this is a city which was decried in the cocktailian community as a place where you couldn't get a decent drink as recently as a few years ago. Which is to say that I don't think the state of cocktail books is reflective of cocktail culture, and they may not have had much opportunity to sample the fullness of revival cocktail culture. But anyone who thinks that "many in the community are resting on their laurels" and cranking out formulaic drinks hasn't met most of the bartenders I know. Richie Boccato, Alex Day, Damon Dyer, Giuseppe Gonzalez, Kenta Goto, Don Lee, Toby Maloney, Brian Miller, Del Pedro, Audrey Saunders, Phil Ward. . . none of these guys (and at least a dozen more who didn't happen to spring immediately to mind) are "resting on their laurels." More to the point, all of these people have come up with as many interesting and growing-the-tradition cocktails on an individual basis than are contained in the Rogue Cocktails book.

The other problem with their premise is the idea that cocktail books are meant for bartenders. They aren't, and haven't been primarily for bartenders since at least the start of Prohibition. Cocktail books nowadays are written with the home bartender in mind. As such, of course they all have to include a section on how to make garnishes and how to make a proper Manhattan (or the equivalent). To the best of my knowledge, there is no book currently in publication which approaches the cocktailian craft with the professional cocktailian bartender in mind, offering any ideas as to a way to approach mixology in a way that grows the tradition. The Rogue guys are perhaps correct that there is a need for such a book -- but this isn't it and, as good and well intentioned as they might be, it's not clear that they're the guys to write it either. Other than someone like Audrey Saunders (e.g., someone who has spent plenty of time growing the cockailian tradition, and also proactively mentored several generations of cocktailan bartenders who have gone on to grow the tradition, and who has clearly put a lot of critical thought into this particular subject), it's not clear that there is a clear choice for a book like this. More to the point, it's not clear that there is a clear choice other than someone like Audrey to write a book like this that will sell enough copies to interest a real publisher.

As for "throwing out the rules" -- the last point of the "manifesto" section says "The roots of this book lie within the 19th century culture of cocktails. The cocktails featured in this book utilize treatments and formulas that have been with us since the beginning: sours, fizzes, bitteres slings, juleps, etc. The ingredients may be different, but the techniques certainly are not." It's unclear to me that any of the drinks in the book are any more forward-looking than, say, the Jimmy Roosevelt. Which is fine... The Jimmy is a pretty forward-lookind drink! But let's not start saying that everyone in the business is resting on his laurels and needs a kick in the pants.


Edited by slkinsey (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But anyone who thinks that "many in the community are resting on their laurels" and cranking out formulaic drinks hasn't met most of the bartenders I know.  Richie Boccato, Alex Day, Damon Dyer, Giuseppe Gonzalez, Kenta Goto, Don Lee, Toby Maloney, Brian Miller, Del Pedro, Audrey Saunders, Phil Ward. . . none of these guys (and at least a dozen more who didn't happen to spring immediately to mind) are "resting on their laurels."

I don't think that comment is at all directed at the folks you mention. Evinced by the fact that at least one of them has recipes in the book.

Cocktail books nowadays are written with the home bartender in mind. As such, of course they all have to include a section on how to make garnishes and how to make a proper Manhattan (or the equivalent). To the best of my knowledge, there is no book currently in publication which approaches the cocktailian craft with the professional cocktailian bartender in mind, offering any ideas as to a way to approach mixology in a way that grows the tradition. The Rogue guys are perhaps correct that there is a need for such a book -- but this isn't it and, as good and well intentioned as they might be, it's not clear that they're the guys to write it either.

Have we reached the point in the revolution/revival/reformation where books that assume a certain level of knowledge would be useful? The middle ground between the professional bartender and novice does appear to be somewhat under served by the existing literature. Does this book solve all those problems? No, but it's a start. I would absolutely love to see a compilation of selected recipes, compiled by any of those you name above. Maybe this book motivates one of them to do so. Maybe from this humble beginning starts a tradition of cocktail compilations by all-stars of the industry...published with the experienced home bartender or the lonely professional in an exurban outpost in mind. Or, maybe they are already in the progress of doing so, and this first foray is but an intro to what awaits us. We can dream, I guess.


Edited by KD1191 (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But anyone who thinks that "many in the community are resting on their laurels" and cranking out formulaic drinks hasn't met most of the bartenders I know.  Richie Boccato, Alex Day, Damon Dyer, Giuseppe Gonzalez, Kenta Goto, Don Lee, Toby Maloney, Brian Miller, Del Pedro, Audrey Saunders, Phil Ward. . . none of these guys (and at least a dozen more who didn't happen to spring immediately to mind) are "resting on their laurels."

I don't think that comment is at all directed at the folks you mention. Evinced by the fact that at least one of them has recipes in the book.

Well, then I guess I'm wondering: what laurels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, then I guess I'm wondering: what laurels?

I'd guess perhaps the ones they were awarded for passing the "Manhattans must be stirred" exam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we reached the point in the revolution/revival/reformation where books that assume a certain level of knowledge would be useful? 

I think Imbibe! would fit this category: the book is indespensable for anyone who frequents a board like this, but no one is going to recommend it as a first cocktail book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is simply no evidence I can see that this is the case.  Not to be cruel, but I suppose I can see how two New Orleans bartenders might get that impression, considering that this is a city which was decried in the cocktailian community as a place where you couldn't get a decent drink as recently as a few years ago.  Which is to say that I don't think the state of cocktail books is reflective of cocktail culture, and they may not have had much opportunity to sample the fullness of revival cocktail culture.

Kirk Estopinal was on the opening crew at the Violet Hour and worked there two years before coming home to New Orleans. He also participated in the bartender exchange with Death and Co.

Maksym Pazuniak is a career changer. He was in commercial real estate in New York before deciding to take the B.A.R. course and become a bartender. Not sure if he worked anywhere in New York before moving to New Orleans, where he had gone to school.

Over the last year, the level of talent has increased dramatically in New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read this book yet so If I am incorrect about what I am about to say, I ask to be forgiven. And in full disclosure not only did Kirk work with me at The Violet Hour, & I think he is a fantastic guy all around.

The Cuba Libre, (Analyzed and Improved) specs are most probably from Charles H. Baker. For which his insurance carrier heartily disliked him. It was Bakers idea, to take a drink that was sloppy, and boring and try to make it interesting. I think that is what these gentlemen are getting at. Let's get beyond the rules that we at this point should take for granted. A Manhattan should be stirred, you need fresh lime/lemon. The newest generation of bartenders take these truths to be self evident.

Each “generation” of bartenders hopefully builds on the work of the last. We are so very, very lucky to have the work of some unbelievably talented people to have as our teachers. This group, I am not going to mention any so as to not forget any, taught us the fundamentals and then showed us where we could go from there.

Without Audrey’s’ Tantris Sidecar, Dales Whiskey Smash, & Gary’s Valintino (just to name a few) I think we (the new generation) would be making square wheels. They showed us the value of integrity and creativity in the art of the cocktail.

Back to the Rouge Cocktails. I believe that what Kirk and Maksym are saying is there must be some way to break the rules that we all have ingrained in our bones, while still creating something we love to drink. I know that Kirk mentioned the Cynar Flip as something that was a major AH-HA moment for him.

I think that this is iconoclastic in the best possible way. With out people trying to stretch themselves artistically we would still be drawing stick figures on cave walls.

Toby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's get beyond the rules that we at this point should take for granted.  A Manhattan should be stirred, you need fresh lime/lemon.  The newest generation of bartenders take these truths to be self evident.

I think as their blog post illustrates, the sad state of affairs outside of a few select enclaves is that these are in no way self-evident. Nobody expects the guy in a dive to stir a Manhattan, and frankly those ordering Manhattans in dives deserve what they get. However if every place with pretense to serve alcohol in a stemmed glass would just teach rules as simple as these, the state of drinking in this country would be far better than it is. The truth is that Mojitos are still state-of-the-art in most places (not that there is anything wrong with a properly made one), never mind an Aviation.

And I think it's fair to say most folks on this board don't even consider an Aviation to be a particularly exotic drink. Classic, sure. Indespensable maybe even. But 3 years ago it was the toast of the cocktail revival and now it's almost passe. And not one in a thousand people in the community I live and work in have heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having recently come back from Tales of the Cocktail I can give a little insight to this, as I went to cure and tried some of these drinks and Maks was an apprentice under me and donbert (and jeff) in which we batched all the cocktails for every seminar (over 220 of them).

I have seen the book and as I mentioned, tried some of the cocktails, including the gunshop fizz and that drink in particular is awesome. I think it is a bit of a loss leader as the pour cost is too high, but flavor and balance wise it is awesome.

I am not sure these guys are looking to be revolutionary in the sense they are doing something completely new, but having people look at ingredients and techniques in different ways.

The gunshop fizz as a drink that illustrates this, as well as their drink that has Cynar as its base (2 oz). I think it is great they came out with the book, and commend them for it.


Edited by johnder (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get the lineage of the Art of Choke that's mentioned above? That was a game-changer for me, and I'm interested to know who got propers for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle Davidson of the Violet Hour created the drink and got credit for it in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle Davidson does indeed get credit, but the book doesn't include anything about his working at the Violet Hour. (On the other hand, maybe there's a bio section in the back; I'm just going by the online preview.) In general, though, what the authors have chosen to write about the drinks they present is rather capricious and not helpful at all if one is interested in the provenance of the drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle has worked at the Violet Hour since just after it opened, and he still does.


Edited by MikeHartnett (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyle has worked at the Violet Hour since just after it opened, and he still does.

Indeed, last I knew he was also at The Publican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Tanya_Tarhan
      Would it be enough at the begging and for home parties?
      Barmen tools set included:
      – Cocktail Shaker
      – Mixing Spoon
      – Cork / Wine Opener
      – Stainer
      – Ice Tongs
      – Muddler
      – Bottle Opener
      – Two Double Jiggers
      – Two Pourer
       
      Waiting for your feedback and appreciate your opinion
      thanks

    • By boilsover
      It's bad enough correcting common zombie cookware misconceptions.  But when a legitimate food expert like Mark Bittman spouts complete nonsense about all tinned cookware containing lead, it's downright dismaying.  Likewise when salespeople and companies tell that eternal doozer:  "Cast iron heats evenly."
       
      The winner for 2019--so far--however, has to be Florence Fabricant, New York Times columnist and author of 12 cookbooks.  In her January 22, 2019 issue of her column "Front Burner", Ms. Fabricant gushes over the carbon steel skillet made by Made In.  Among other reasons to recommend it:
       
      "It’s a good conductor (it can be used on an induction cooktop) and has heft..."
       
      What?  Surely Fabricant knows carbon steel, like any steel, is not only *not* a good conductor, it's a *terrible* one.   In fact it's the worst metal pans are made of.  If she doesn't, she needs to take a remedial physics course.
       
      And perhaps she was under a deadline to push this out, but what gives with the non sequitur explanatory parenthetical?  Does she really believe that good conductivity and induction compatibility are the same or even closely related?
       
      Doubtless, someone, somewhere has already taken this nonsense for Gospel and spread it around.  "Oh, boy!  I can't wait for my new conductive steel skillet to be delivered!" 
      Do you see, Larry?  Do you see what happens when you make stuff up?
       
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/dining/made-in-carbon-steel-skillet.html
       
    • By boilsover
      I. Introduction
       
      This article reviews the 3500W all-metal commercial induction single-hob hotplate by Panasonic, which I believe is the first “all-metal” unit to hit the U.S. market. Where appropriate, it is also compared with another commercial single-hob, the 1800W Vollrath Mirage Pro Model 59500P.
       
      Some background is in order. Heretofore, induction appliances would only “work” with cookware which is ferromagnetic. Bare and enameled cast iron, carbon steel, enameled steel and some stainless steels were semi-dependable for choices, and the cookware industry has worked hard to make most of its lines induction compatible. But alas, not all cookware, past and present, has worked; copper and aluminum don’t, at least without a separate interface disk or it’s own ferromagnetic base layer.
       
      The reason why non-ferromagnetic cookware hasn’t worked on induction is technical, but it relates to the magnetic field and what’s called the “skin depth” of the pan’s outermost material. With copper or aluminum, the field will not excite the metals’ molecules to the extent that their friction will generate useful heat to cook food. And the way the appliances come equipped, unless the appliance detects something sufficiently large and ferromagnetic, they will not produce any field at all. Therefore, to the consternation of many cooks, pro and amateur, older (and in the opinion of some, better) cookware needs to be retired and replaced if/when they wish to switch to an induction appliance. Some cooks don’t mind, but others who, like me, have invested heavily in copper and are habituated to it and aluminum, would forego induction altogether rather than discard our cookware.
       
      But what we’ve really meant—all along--when we say or write that only ferromagnetic cookware will “work” on induction is that the frequency chosen for our appliances (20-24kHz) will not usefully excite other metals. If that frequency is increased to, say, 90-110kHz , then suddenly the impossible happens: aluminum and copper, with absolutely no ferromagnetic content, will heat in a way that is eminently useful in the kitchen.
      While Panasonic has made dual-frequency induction hotplates available in Japan for several years now, they didn’t make it available here until recently (My unit indicates it was manufactured in early 2016!). I speculate the reason for the delay relates to the detection circuitry and the switches that determine the frequency at which the field will operate.

      The introduction of all-metal induction in USA is especially interesting because it allows a direct comparison of cookware of all (metal) types. For instance, cookware nerds have long debated how copper cookware on a gas compares with disk-based stainless on induction. While the veil has not completely lifted (for that we would need extremely precise gas energy metering), we now have the ability to measure and compare copper, aluminum, clad and disk-based on the same induction hob.
       
      II. Dimensions, Weight & Clearances
       
      The Panasonic, being a true commercial appliance, is considerably larger than most consumer and crossover hotplates. It stands 6 inches tall overall, and on relatively tall (1.25”) feet, so that there is space for ample air circulation under the unit. It is 20.25 inches deep overall, including a standoff ventilation panel in back, and the angled control panel in front. It is 15” wide, and weighs in at a hefty 30.25 pounds. Suffice it to say, the Panasonic is not practically portable.

      The KY-MK3500’s Ceran pan surface is 14.25 inches wide by 14.5 inches deep, almost 43% larger in area than the VMP’s glass. Panasonic tells me they have no recommended maximum pan diameter or weight, but the tape tells me that a 15” diameter pan would not overhang the unit’s top (Compare the VMP, which can accept a maximum pan base of 10 7/8”). Common sense tells me that—unless the glass is well-braced underneath in many places, 25-30 pounds of total weight might be pushing it.
       
      For those who might consider outfitting their home kitchens with one or more of these units, in addition to having 20 amp 240v (NEMA #6-20R receptacles) electrical circuits for each appliance, 39 1/2 inches of overhead clearance is required to combustible material (31 ½” to incombustibles) and 2 inches to the back and sides (0” to incombustibles). The overhead clearance requirement and the tall 6” unit height call for no (or only very high) cabinetry and careful design of a “well” or lower countertop/table that will lower the Ceran surface to a comfortable cooking height. In other words, a tall pot on this unit on a regular-height counter might be a problem for a lot of cooks.
      III. Features

      A. Display
       
      The KY-Mk3500 has an angled 8-key spillproof keypad and red LED numerical display. The keys are large, raised and their markings are legible. All but the four Up/Down keys have their own inset indicator lights, which indicate power, mode and memory operation.
       
      The numerical display is large and bright. The numerical display area is divided between time (XX:XX) to the user’s left and power/temp to the user’s right. If the timer or program features are activated, the numerical display shows both the set time and the power/temperature. There is also a small “Hot Surface” LED icon on the panel.
      The Panasonic also actually uses the Ceran surface as a display of sorts. That is, there is a lighted circle just outside the faint positioning circle, which glows red whenever the unit is operating, awaiting a pan, or the Ceran is hot. Panasonic also claims that this display also changes brightness with the set power level, implying that the operator can judge the heat setting by a glance. Thus this display serves three purposes: (a) pan positioning; (b) burn safety; and (c) intensity.

      B. Safety Features
       
      As one would expect, there are a variety of safety features built into this appliance. In most cases, these features are controlled by detection circuits, some fixed, some defeatable/variable. This being a commercial unit, Panasonic has set the unit’s defaults with commercial users’ convenience in mind. If consumers want the full spectrum of safety settings, they need to vary these defaults. For instance, if a home cook wants to make sure the unit powers off if the pan is removed and not replaced within 3 minutes, they have to manually vary a default. Likewise if the operator wants the power to automatically shut off after 2 hours of no changes. But others, like the basic “Is there a pan there?” detection and overheat shutoff, are there no matter what and cannot be defeated.
      C. Settings & Programming

      The KY-MK3500 features both power and temperature settings. For “regular” induction, there are 20 power settings, which range from 50 watts to 3500 watts. For non-ferromagnetic pans, there are 18 power settings, which range from 60 watts to 2400 watts. The display shows these settings in numerals 1-20 and 1-18 respectively. When the power is toggled on, the unit defaults to Setting 14 in both frequencies.

      The temperature settings are the same in both modes, with 22 selectable temperatures from 285F (140C) to 500F (260C). Other than for the very lowest temperature setting, each setting increase results in a 10F temperature increase. Usefully, the display shows the set temperature, not 1-22; and until the set temperature is reached, the display indicates “Preheat”. The unit beeps when it reaches the set temperature. The Panasonic measures pan temperature using an IR sensor beneath the glass; this sensor sits about 1 inch outside the centerpoint of the painted positioning markings, yet inside of the induction coil.

      The timer operation is fast and intuitive. Once the power or temperature is set and operating, the operator merely keys the timer’s dedicated up/down buttons, and the timer display area activates. Timer settings are in any 30-second interval between 30 seconds and 9 ½ hours, and the display will show remaining time. The beeps at the end of cooking are loud.
       
      There are nine available memory programs, which can be set for either power or temperature, along with time. Programming entails pressing and holding the Program mode button, selecting the program (1-9), then picking and setting the power or temperature, then setting the timer, and finally pressing and holding the Program button again. After that, to use any of the entered programs, you simply press the Program button, select which program, and the unit will run that program within 3 seconds.
       
      In addition to Heat-Time programmability, the KY-MK3500 also provides the ability to vary 9 of the unit’s default settings: (1) Decreasing the power level granularity from 20 to 10; (2) Changing the temperature display to Celsius; (3) Enabling a long cook time shutoff safety feature; (4) Enabling the main power auto shutoff feature; (5) Disabling the glowing circle; (6) Lowering or disabling the auditory beep signals’ volume; (7) Customizing the timer finish beep; (8) Customizing the Preheat notification beep; and (9) Customizing the interval for filter cleanings.
       
      D. Maintenance
       
      The KY-MK3500 has a plastic air intake filter which can be removed and cleaned. This is not dishwashable. This filter is merely a plastic grate with ¼” square holes, so it is questionable what exactly —besides greasy dust bunnies—will be filtered. Panasonic recommends the filter be cleaned once a week. Besides that, the Ceran surface and stainless housing clean just like other appliances.
       
      IV. Acceptable Cookware
       
      Panasonic claims the unit will accept cast iron, enameled iron, stainless steel, copper, and aluminum with two provisos. First, very thin aluminum and copper may “move” on the appliance. And second, thin aluminum pans may “deform”. Panasonic does not address carbon steel pans, but I verified that they do indeed work. They also warn of the obvious fact that glass and ceramics will not work.
       
      Buyers are also warned against using cookware of specific cookware bottom shapes: round, footed, thin, and domed. Trying to use these, Panasonic warns, may disable safety features and reduce or eliminate pan heating.
       
      As far as minimum pan diameter goes, Panasonic claims the KY-MK3500 needs 5” diameter in ferromagnetic pans, and 6” in copper or aluminum ones. My own tests have shown that in fact the unit will function with a cast iron fondue pot, the base of which is only 4 1/8” in diameter, and also works with a copper saucepan, the base of which is almost exactly 5” in diameter. Obviously, the field will be most active at the very edges of such small pans, but they do function.
       
      V. Evaluation in Use

      I can say that not only does the Panasonic KY-MK3500 “work” with copper and aluminum pans, but that it works very well with them. Thermally, thick gauge conductive material pans perform in close emulation of the same pans on gas, even though there are no combustion gasses flowing up and around the pan. I found this startling.
       
      Nevertheless, a searching comparison between copper and ferromagnetic pans on this unit isn’t as straightforward as one might expect. The Panasonic is capable of dumping a full 3500 watts into ferromagnetic pans, but is limited to 2400 watts for aluminum and copper. Despite copper’s and aluminum’s superiorities in conductivity, that extra 1100 watts is going to win every speed-boil race.
       
      I initially thought I could handicap such a race simply by using the temperature setting and comparing the times required to achieve a “preheat” in a pans of cold water. Alas, no—the Panasonic’s IR function signified the copper pan was preheated to 350F before the water even reached 70F! Obviously, the entire thermal system of cold food in a cold pan needs to come to equilibrium before the Panasonic’s temperature readout becomes meaningful.

      A. Temperature Settings
       
      Unfortunately, with every pan I tried, the temperature settings were wildly inaccurate for measuring the temperature of the food. I heated 2 liters of peanut oil in a variety of pots, disk-base, enameled cast iron enameled steel, and copper. I thought it might be useful to see how close to 350F and 375F the settings were for deep frying. The oil in a Le Creuset 5.5Q Dutch oven set to 350F never made it past 285F, and it took 40:00 to get there. I kept bumping up the setting until I found that the setting for 420F will hold the oil at 346F. A disk-based pot didn’t hit 365F until the temperature setting was boosted to 400F. The only pan which came remotely close to being true to the settings was a 2mm silvered copper oven, which heated its oil to 327F when the Panasonic was set for 350F, and 380F when set for 410F.
       
      The temperature function was a lot closer to true when simply preheating an empty pan. With a setting of 350F, all the shiny stainless pans heated to just a few degrees higher (about 353-357F) and held there. This is useful for judging the Leidenfrost Point (which is the heat at which you can oil your SS and have it cook relatively nonstick) and potentially for “seasoning” carbon steel, SS and aluminum, but not much else, since it doesn’t translate to actual food temperature. There’s also the issue of the temperature settings *starting* at 285F, so holding a lower temperature for, e.g., tempering chocolate or a sous vide bath, or even a simmer would be by-guess-by-golly just like any other hob—your only resort is lots of experience with lower *power* settings.
       
      With heat-tarnished copper, a 350F setting resulted in a wide swinging between 353F and 365F, which I attribute to the copper shedding heat far faster than the other constructions, once the circuit stops the power at temperature. Then, when the circuit cycles the power back on, the copper is so responsive that it quickly overshoots the setting. Aluminum, on the other hand, *undershot*, the 350F setting, registering a cycle of 332-340F.

      I conclude that the IR sensor is set for some particular emissivity, probably for that of stainless steel. If true, the Panasonic, even though it automatically switches frequencies, does not compensate for the different emissivities of copper and aluminum. And even if Panasonic added dedicated aluminum and copper IR sensors, there is enough difference between dirty and polished that the added cost would be wasted. Bottom line here: the temperature setting mode is of extremely low utility, and should not be trusted.
       
      B. Power Mode – Pan Material Comparisons
       
      Given the differences in power setting granularity and maximum power between the two frequencies, it is difficult to assess what X watts into the pot means in, say, a copper-versus-clad or –disk showdown. What is clear, however, is that Setting X under disk and clad seems “hotter” than the same setting under copper and aluminum.

      I will need to precisely calibrate the Panasonic for wattage anyway for the hyperconductivity project, so I will obtain a higher-powered watt meter to determine the wattage of every power setting for both frequencies. Until then, however, the only way I can fairly handicap a race is to apply a reduction figure to the ferromagnetic setting (2400W being 69% of 3500W). Given that we know the wattage at the maximum settings, we can infer that Setting 14 (actually 13.8) on the 20-step ferromagnetic range iis approximately the same heat output as the maximum setting (18) for copper/aluminum.

      The boil times for 4 liters of 50F water in 10” diameter pots shocked me. The 10” x 3mm tinned copper pot’s water reached 211F in 36:41. Not an especially fast time at 2400 watts. The 10” disk-based pressure cooker bottom? Well, it didn’t make it—it took an hour to get to 208F and then hung there. So that left me wondering if the Panasonic engineers simply decided that 2400 watts was enough for copper and aluminum. I have a theory why the copper pot boiled and the SS one didn’t under the same power, but getting into that’s for another time.

      C. Evenness Comparisons
       
      The wires which generate the induction field are wound in a circular pattern; when energized, they create a torus-shaped magnetic field. The wound coil is constructed with an empty hole at its center. As matters of physics, the magnetic field’s intensity drops off extremely fast as a function of the distance from the coil; a few millimeters above the Ceran, the field is so weak no meaningful heat will be generated. This means that most induction cooktops heat *only* the very bottom of pans, and in a distinct 2-dimensional “doughnut” shape.

      All of the above can result in a pan having a cooler central spot, a hotter ring directly over the coil, and a cooler periphery outside the coil. It is left to the cookware to try to even out these thermal discontinuities when cooking. Some materials and pan constructions are better at this than others: the successful constructions utilize more highly-conductive metals such as aluminum and copper, but unless the material is very thick, there can be a ring-shaped hotspot that can scorch food.
      Until the Panasonic arrived to market, hotspot comparisons between ferromagnetic and aluminum/copper pans depended largely on comparing induction’s flat, more discrete heat ring with gas’s more diffuse, 3-dimensional one. Dodgeball-style debate ensued, with few clear conclusions. But now, for the first time, equally-powered flat heat rings in two different frequencies allow us to directly compare evenness in ferromagnetic and aluminum/copper cookware.

      The simplest and easiest way to assess cookware evenness is the “scorchprint”, which does not require infrared or other advanced thermal imaging equipment. I’ve posted on how to conduct scorchprinting elsewhere, but basically a pan is evenly dusted with flour; heat is applied to the pan bottom. As the flour is toasted, any hotspots visually emerge, giving the viewer a useful general idea of evenness.
       
      I will later post the photos of scorchprints I made of 4 different pans run using the Panasonic KY-MK3500: (1) a Demeyere 28cm Proline 5* clad frypan; (2) a Fissler Original Profi disk-base 28cm frypan; a 6mm aluminum omelet pan; and (4) a 32cm x 3.2mm Dehillerin sauté. To make it a fair race, I heated all the pans at 2400W until they reached 450F, and then backed off the power setting to maintain 450F. I did this in order not to compromise my saute’s tin lining. As you will see, both the clad Demeyere and the disk-based Fissler did print the typical brown doughnut, with a cooler center and periphery. By far the most even was the thick, all-aluminum pan, which actually was even over its entirety—even including the walls. The copper sauté was also quite even, although its larger size and mass really dissipated heat; once 450F was dialed in, no more browning happened, even after 30 minutes.
       
      I conclude that the straightgauge pans were far more effective at shunting heat to their peripheries and walls (and also to some extent into the air) than the clad and disk-based pans. The latter accumulated their heat with most of it staying in the center of the pans. Eventually, even the “doughnut hole” blended into the scorch ring because the walls were not bleeding sufficient heat away from the floor. This was especially pronounced in the Fissler, the high wall and rim areas of which never exceeded 125F. The aluminum pan, in contrast varied less than 30F everywhere on the pan.

      D. Other Considerations

      The Panasonic’s fan noise at the cook’s position was noticeable at 63 dBA, higher than with the VMP’s 57 dBA. These levels are characterized as “normal conversation” and “quiet street”, respectively. Interestingly, I found two other, potentially more important differences. First, the Panasonic’s fan stays on, even after the unit is powered off, whereas the VMP’s fan shuts off immediately when the hob is turned off. Second, the Panasonic’s fan steps down from the louder speed to a much quieter (47 dBA, characterized as “quiet home”) level until the Ceran is cool to sustained touch, at which point it shuts off completely. I think the Panasonic’s ability to continue to vent and cool itself is a great feature, especially since a cook could leave a large, full, hot pan on the glass.

      The glowing circle is useless for gauging heat setting or intensity. And while it works to indicate a hot surface, it remains lit long after you can hold your hand in place dead center.
       
      VI. Summary and Lessons
       
      The Panasonic KY-MK3500 is a solid unit, well-conceived and rugged. It is extremely easy to use. It works well with both the common 24kHz frequency used with ferromagnetic cookware, and the 90kHz frequency chosen here for copper and aluminum. It effectively and automatically switches between the two.

      In my opinion, it points the way to expanding the worldwide induction appliance market to include dual frequencies. It also obviates the need to: (a) junk otherwise excellent cookware merely to have induction; and (b) retrofit designs to bond on ferromagnetic outer layers. In fact, in my opinion, my tests indicate that, in a dual-frequency world, adding ferromagnetic bottoms may well be a drag on pans’ performance.
       
      I also consider the Panasonic Met-All to be ground-breaking in what it can tell us about *pans*, because all metallic pans are now commensurable on induction. Clearly (to me anyway), watt-for-watt, the copper and aluminum pans performed better than did the clad and disk-based pans on this unit. Boil times were faster, there was less propensity to scorch, and the conductive-sidewall pans definitely added more heat to the pans’ contents. We may ultimately find that 90kHz fields save energy compared to 24kHz fields, much as copper and aluminum require less heat on gas and electric coil.
      In terms of heat transfer, the copper and aluminum pans came close to emulating the same pans on gas. And at 2400W/3500W it has the power of a full size appliance in a relatively small tabletop package.
       
      The Panasonic is far from perfect, however. It can’t really be considered portable. There are far too few temperature settings, and what few it has are not accurate or consistent in terms of judging pan contents and attaining the same temperature in different pans (and even the same pan unless clean). The luminous ring could easily have been made a useful indicator of intensity, but wasn’t. And it lacks things that should be obvious, including a through-the-glass “button” contact thermocouple, more power granularity, an analog-style control knob, and capacity to accept an external thermocouple probe for PID control.
       
      Most importantly for me, the Panasonic KY-MK3500 portends more good things to come. Retail price remains $1,700-$2,400, but I jumped on it at $611, and I’ve seen it elsewhere for as low as $1,200.
       
      The manual can be found here: ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/commercialfoo...
       
      Photo Credit:  Panasonic Corporation

    • By umami5
      Has anyone come across a digital version of Practical Professional Cookery (revised 3rd edition) H.L. Cracknell & R.J. Kaufmann.
      I am using this as the textbook for my culinary arts students and a digital version would come in very handy for creating notes and handouts.
    • By Mullinix18
      I dont believe that any English translation of Carêmes works exist. An incomplete version was published in 1842 (I think) but even the that version seems lackluster for the few recipes it does cover. I think it's time the world looks to its past, but I don't speak great French and it's a huge task to undertake. I hopefully plan on publishing this work and anyone who helps me will get a very fair cut, and if we decide not to publish it, I'll put it out on the internet for free. I'm working in Google docs so we can collaborate. I'm first cataloging the index to cross reference the pre-existing incomplete English version to give us a reference of what yet needs to be done, and from there we will go down the list of recipies and Translate them one by one. Simple google translate goes only so far, as it is 1700s French culinary terms and phrases being used. I'd like to preserve as much of Carêmes beautiful and flowery language as possible. Who's with me? 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×