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.

beans

Cocktail Books: The Topic

Recommended Posts

Very well. As I am sure you know, I was referring to when cocktails became popular - during US prohibition where the American Bar had substantial influence. Regardless, it's not a book I'd recommend.

I disagree. It wouldn't be the book I use to start my library, but I would recommend it for an intermediate collection. It is useful to see cocktail recipes that are lost or changed. I sometimes get bored with my usuals and will seek out something new (which is old). I can go out to a bar to get the new creations, it is much harder to get the retro ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know Sam Kinsey does not agree with the recipe for the Pegu Club in this book. However, I don't think Sam has ever chewed up a copy of it in protest

No. But, on the bright side, when I ran into the estimable doctor at Pegu Club recently, I was able to give him shit about it in person. :smile:

So out of curiosity, what did the Doctor have to say in his defense? That particular recipe has always puzzled me.

Also, where has that guy gone to? He hasn't posted on this or any forum in months! What gives? I'm sad :-\

Hope he's writing another book or something.

-Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc's a busy, busy man. I was able to glean that a follow-up book may be in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again "cocktails became popular", once again early 1800s; cocktails were being drunk morning, noon, and night. If thats not popular (as well as dangerous) then I don't know what is. Prohibition was a reaction to the manic-popularity of cocktails and drinking in general in the US.

After Prohibition people were drinking worse stuff than they had before, and most of the distilleries had closed down. In addition, I am still looking for a certified Classic cocktail that came out of Prohibition. No luck yet, though the Last Word might be the one I am looking for.

Cheers!

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, I am still looking for a certified Classic cocktail that came out of Prohibition. No luck yet, though the Last Word might be the one I am looking for.

Sidecar doesn't fit the bill? Or do you mean something actually invented in America?

It's interesting to call the Last Word a classic, since it was only rediscovered as a drink worth making in the past few years. Before that it was no more classic than all the other weird drinks you see in books from the era. I must personally admit to not being the hugest fan of the drink (maraschino rarely does much for me, donno why), but I can see the merit of it regardless. However, did it really 'stand the test of time' the way even the lowly Alexander has? No contest, of course, as to which is the more interesting drink, but I think if you had entered a bar anywhere between 1927 (give or take) and 2007 and ordered an Alexander, you would have gotten something resembling an Alexander. Last word? of course not. Unfortunately Old Fashioneds and Manhattans usually fail this test of classic, but at least the bartender probably has heard of it.

Now the Sidecar, that's as classic as anything ever was.

-Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things about the Sidecar.

1. As far as I know, the first printed recipes for a Sidecar appeared in 1922. If we assume that the drink was invented perhaps a few years earlier (a reasonable assumption, I think) then that would put it outside of the Prohibition years (1920 - 1933).

2. Also as far as I know, the Sidecar was created in Europe, not the United States. This would not make it a "Prohibition cocktail." There are any number of good cocktails created in Europe during the Prohibition era (the Golden Dawn comes to mind).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot about the 1922 recipe.

Sidecar aside, what about the diaspora of American bartenders that Prohibition caused? It seems like it would be easy to argue that any drink created at an 'American Bar' in London, Paris, or whatever, was still a 'Prohibition Cocktail.' These guys took their traditions and expertise to places with different influences and were able to come up with stuff that may never have been created otherwise, either in Europe (or Latin America), or in the US. And even if the drink was created by a British bartender, in the UK, surely his level of innovation was to satisfy the thirst of his American expatriate customers, for whom a pint just would not do. Of course I have immense respect for bartenders worldwide, not trying to minimize anyone's contributions, but I do think it is important to remember that the effects of Prohibition were felt worldwide. Well, at least in the drinking world.

-Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting off the topic, so if we would like to continue I'll split out some posts and make a new thread.

Anyway... I think that when people speak of "Prohibition Cocktails" or "cocktails that came out of Prohibition," I think they are thinking of cocktails invented in America during the period from 1920 to 1933. For some reason, this era is imprinted upon the popular imagination as a great era in the cocktailian craft, when in fact all signs point to it being a terrible era and the beginning of a long decline that we are only beginning to turn around in recent times. I wouldn't call a cocktail invented in, say, London in 1928 a "Prohibition Cocktail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, I am still looking for a certified Classic cocktail that came out of Prohibition. No luck yet, though the Last Word might be the one I am looking for.

Sidecar doesn't fit the bill? Or do you mean something actually invented in America?

It's interesting to call the Last Word a classic, since it was only rediscovered as a drink worth making in the past few years. Before that it was no more classic than all the other weird drinks you see in books from the era. I must personally admit to not being the hugest fan of the drink (maraschino rarely does much for me, donno why), but I can see the merit of it regardless. However, did it really 'stand the test of time' the way even the lowly Alexander has? No contest, of course, as to which is the more interesting drink, but I think if you had entered a bar anywhere between 1927 (give or take) and 2007 and ordered an Alexander, you would have gotten something resembling an Alexander. Last word? of course not. Unfortunately Old Fashioneds and Manhattans usually fail this test of classic, but at least the bartender probably has heard of it.

Now the Sidecar, that's as classic as anything ever was.

-Andy

Yes, it was meant to be referring to my quest for a prohibition era drink that was invented on US soil.

And you are correct with the Last Word it is a modern-classic, from an old book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

This is my first post, although I've lurked here a while. I've wanted to post before, but I haven't really been sure I had anything to add to the conversation, aside from asking a bunch of questions you might have already heard before.

Anyway, my awesome wife and I are celebrating our first wedding anniversary and since we spent our wedding weekend steeped in good food and drink (Flatiron, Pegu Club, and Marlow and Sons), we've been returning to some of our crime scenes and also finding other fun ways to celebrate great drinks.

To that end, Jen found something online that made her jaw drop, and mine, when she told me about it:

A first edition of Embury's The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks, and here's the fun part--it cost less than a bottle of Old Potrero. Apparently the seller didn't quite know what they had.

Embury 1948 for my anniversary; the pressure's really on me now for Valentine's Day!

:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

This is my first post, although I've lurked here a while. I've wanted to post before, but I haven't really been sure I had anything to add to the conversation, aside from asking a bunch of questions you might have already heard before.

Anyway, my awesome wife and I are celebrating our first wedding anniversary and since we spent our wedding weekend steeped in good food and drink (Flatiron, Pegu Club, and Marlow and Sons), we've been returning to some of our crime scenes and also finding other fun ways to celebrate great drinks.

To that end, Jen found something online that made her jaw drop, and mine, when she told me about it:

A first edition of Embury's The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks, and here's the fun part--it cost less than a bottle of Old Potrero. Apparently the seller didn't quite know what they had.

Embury 1948 for my anniversary; the pressure's really on me now for Valentine's Day!

:wub:

Wow, that indeed is a good deal. Considering it cost me close over a c-note for my hard cover second edition, and that was after weeks of looking.

Congrats! Did they have any other good cocktail books? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats!  Did they have any other good cocktail books?    :blink:

Doesn't look like this particular vendor specializes in food or drink, which is probably why they underpriced Embury.

Maybe if we watch them carefully, one of us can get Savoy for a sawbuck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

This is my first post, although I've lurked here a while. I've wanted to post before, but I haven't really been sure I had anything to add to the conversation, aside from asking a bunch of questions you might have already heard before.

Anyway, my awesome wife and I are celebrating our first wedding anniversary and since we spent our wedding weekend steeped in good food and drink (Flatiron, Pegu Club, and Marlow and Sons), we've been returning to some of our crime scenes and also finding other fun ways to celebrate great drinks.

To that end, Jen found something online that made her jaw drop, and mine, when she told me about it:

A first edition of Embury's The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks, and here's the fun part--it cost less than a bottle of Old Potrero. Apparently the seller didn't quite know what they had.

Embury 1948 for my anniversary; the pressure's really on me now for Valentine's Day!

:wub:

Wow, that indeed is a good deal. Considering it cost me close over a c-note for my hard cover second edition, and that was after weeks of looking.

Congrats! Did they have any other good cocktail books? :blink:

Better yet, does your bride have a sister?!

I kid, I kid. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larousse Cocktails

Fernando Castellon

French Edition published in 2004, Published in Great Britain in 2005*

The book is primarily divided by type of alcohol used, with sections for Vodka, Gin, Whisky, Rum, Tequila, Brandy, Champagne, Other, and Non-Alcoholic.

It also includes a number of recipes for Cocktail snacks.

Each type of alcohol section is divided into, "Dry Cocktails", "Thirst Quenching Cocktails," "Fruit Based Cocktails," "Liqueur Based Cocktails," and "Smooth Cocktails".

A section on the history of Cocktails is interesting, focussing on the bartenders of each epoch. He also adds the rather unique feature of "A Chronological Overview" of cocktail recipes included in the book, as much as possible giving credit to the bartender or cocktail enthusiasts who created the cocktails. As with any historical endeavor, the history and attribution is sometimes questionable, or has been shown to be incorrect since the publication of the book.

On the cocktail philosophy front, the author divides cocktails into three primary components, "base," "modifier," and "flavouring and colouring agents" and gives the three conditions necessary for a successful cocktail as "taste," "apperance," and "the name". He doesn't go beyond that to talk about the spirit in which to present a cocktail successfully or any details about his experience behind the bar or as a cocktail consultant.

The obligatory "Cocktail Preparation" section is well written and illustrated.

The recipes are given using "measures" and fractions, and sometimes teaspoons. For example, the Cosmopolitan is given as: 1 measure vodka, 1/2 measure cranberry juice, 1 teaspoon fresh lime, 1 teaspoon curacao. All recipes are illustrated with a full color picture of the cocktail presented in appropriate glassware.

There are not many unusual ingredients called for. A well stocked bar or home bar shouldn't have too much trouble making the recipes included. Fresh juices are recommended. Aside from Grand Marnier Cordon Rouge, very few specific brands are given in recipes (aside from the ubiquitous ones, like Campari.)

The sections which stood out the most to me were the Champagne cocktails and non-alcoholic cocktails. Many more nice looking examples of those two categories here than in any other cocktail book I've seen.

A very nice illustrated section called, "For Greater Insight," follows the main book, including detailed sections on the manufacture of most of the spirits and liqueurs, a glossary of bar terms, and an extensive bibliography. Beyond the simple alphabetical index, he includes an index of cocktails by their main ingredient and a unique index of cocktails by their "appropriate time of drinking".

On the whole, I find it a useful; but, not entirely compelling resource. The author's writing style is quite dry. The pictures, while well done, are not exciting. Very few cocktails are exceptionally garnished beyond the lovely glassware or presented in any context beyond a light box.

One of the main advantages to the book, though, is the inclusion of a number of cocktail recipes created by bartenders in England or Europe. Many of these, like Bradsell's Bramble and Treacle, are only now beginning to show up on American bar menus. It is great to have the recipes for these, and many others, as a reference.

---

*By the way, I am still slightly confused, and wondering if the English and French versions of the book are the same. There appears to have been another book published in French under the same name in 1995 by an author named Jaques Salle. Neither Salle, nor that edition of the book are mentioned anywhere that I've found in this edition.


Edited by eje (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's something to be said for any book that inspires one. For me, it was Paul Harrington's Cocktail: The Drinks Bible for the 21st Century. It wasn't the first cocktail book I owned, and, objectively speaking, it may not be the best, but it was what really got me started making new drinks. It holds a special place on my shelves because of that.

I couldn't agree more. There are many superb cocktail books on the market, but Paul Harrington's Cocktail: The Drinks Bible for the 21st Century holds a special place in my heart for being such a stylish and beautifully written volume. I'll never understand why it went out of print.

What is Paul Harrington up to these days?

The mark of a good recipe book in our house is the number of sticky tabs protruding from the pages, marking favorite recipes, and our copy of Cocktail: The Drinks Bible for the 21st Century fairly bristles with sticky tabs :biggrin: Another fav. is The World's Best Bartenders' Guide by Scott & Bain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I realise this is quite an old topic so apologies if its becoming a tad tedious! :rolleyes:

I already own a number of cocktail books, but was wondering if anyone has anyone has any reccomendations for a book which has a good section on flavour pairings and flavour profiles (apart from Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking - legend!)

Doesn't necessarily have to be mixology orientated. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys, I realise this is quite an old topic so apologies if its becoming a tad tedious!  :rolleyes:

I already own a number of cocktail books, but was wondering if anyone has anyone has any reccomendations for a book which has a good section on flavour pairings and flavour profiles (apart from Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking - legend!)

Doesn't necessarily have to be mixology orientated. Cheers!

The book on my list right now related to that subject is "Culinary Artistry" by Andrew Dornenburg.

I thought I remembered it recommended up topic; but, don't see it there. Perhaps it was on another website.

More recently, Dornenburg has written another book called, "What to Drink with what you Eat".

Would love to get comments from anyone who has read either book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already own a number of cocktail books, but was wondering if anyone has anyone has any reccomendations for a book which has a good section on flavour pairings and flavour profiles (apart from Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking - legend!)

Doesn't necessarily have to be mixology orientated. Cheers!

Sounds like "What to Drink with What You Eat," from Andrew Dornenberg and Karen Page, is exactly what you're looking for. Fairly new, it's a comprehensive review of different foods and dishes, and different drinks (ranging from tea to wine to spirits & cocktails) that match the flavors. It's a pretty exhaustive exploration of flavor pairing.

I wrote up a more detailed review a while back on my site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got my copies of Dornenburg's books through the door this morning, they look pretty good. Thanks for the advice guys, I'm looking forward to geeking through them at the weekend! xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hip Sips: Modern Cocktails to Raise Your Spirits, by Lucy Brennan

This is a thin, pretty book. Brennan also has a gift for coming up with catchy one word cocktail names.

Unfortunately, for me, it doesn't have much else going for it. Too many recipes call for flavored spirits, which I don't typically have, or fruit purees, which I also don't usually have around.

There are a few "Sentimental Sips", or plain old cocktails; but, most of the recipes are balanced too far to the sweet side. For example, neither a sidecar nor a margarita should ever need an ounce of simple syrup.

So unless you can ransack the pastry station after the bakers go home, or have a personal mission to use every type of Cruzan flavored rum, I'd give it a skip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few "Sentimental Sips", or plain old cocktails; but, most of the recipes are balanced too far to the sweet side.  For example, neither a sidecar nor a margarita should ever need an ounce of simple syrup.

I can't imagine using simple syrup in either a sidecar or margarita in the first place! Isn't that the place of the triple sec/Cointreau/curacao/Grand Marnier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've all done it to me again. I just ordered the Dornenburg book.

Would that I weren't so easily lead, but I do like building up my professional library. It is a tax write-off after all. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've all done it to me again.  I just ordered the Dornenburg book.

Would that I weren't so easily lead, but I do like building up my professional library.  It is a tax write-off after all.  :wink:

i use the dornenberg book "what to drink with what you eat" alot. i like parts of it and i don't like parts at the same time. i've gotten inspired by it many times. i'm trying to write a book about flavor chemistry from the perspective of a bartender and the transition from wine to cocktails. you can create so many great cocktails by making them function in the mouth in the same way a great wine functions.

a big problem with the book is that it gives so many service people ammunition to talk a good game, but they don't sit down and actually taste the interaction of things for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine using simple syrup in either a sidecar or margarita in the first place! Isn't that the place of the triple sec/Cointreau/curacao/Grand Marnier?

I guess I shouldn't be so hard on her.

Here are the sidecar and margarita recipes. They are not horrible, both basically 2-1-1, with the sidecar being slightly drier. Just very light on the orange liqueur.

Sidecar: 2 1/2 oz Korbel Brandy, 1/4 oz Cointreau, 1 oz Fresh Lemon-Lime Juice, 1 oz Simple Syrup

Margarita: 2 oz Sauza Hornitos tequila, 1/4 oz Patron Citronage, 1 oz Fresh Lemon-Lime Juice, 1 oz Simple Syrup

And there are some interesting ideas for "culinary cocktails". Beet infused vodka, for one, seemed particularly interesting.

It's just, I like to think I have a well stocked bar, and going through this book, aside from the few classic recipes, there are almost no cocktails I could make without making a trip to the gourmet market or liquor store.

But, then, I put homemade granita in my last mixology Monday cocktail, so who am I to talk?

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.

×