Saturday was Bridge Night at the Bicks, so I did Sunday’s Cake a touch earlier than usual. I can tell you right now: the steamed pudding was FABULOUS and the madeleines were . . .okay. Not awful but not terrific either. Now I’ve made steamed puddings before but normally in a Pyrex dish. My first attempt, with an old Martha Washington recipe, was nearly a disaster. I’d only secured the top with parchment paper layered with tin foil and a rubber band because I simply didn’t realize how much puddings expand. Well, I learned my lesson, though I’ve waited until I made a few more puddings, just to see if I’d stick with it. Finally, I decided to splurge on a real pudding tin, the type with a center tube so the pudding would cook evenly and a lock-down top to keep that sucker from overflowing.
Which is why the finished pudding looks the way it does.
The pudding was absolutely scrumptious: moist, light, flavorful. I deliberately chose a recipe that was light on the mincemeat but still fruity with nice plump cranberries and a hint of mellow spice from that pumpkin. So this recipe is a real keeper. Instead of sour cream, I decided on double cream instead, and that, too, was terrific. Oh, and if you’re a fan of lemons, do try this recipe for that lemon mousse in the background: terrific, and you can make the lemon curd the day ahead of time.
As for the madeleines (those dark things dusted with confectioner’s sugar) . . .well, I’ve had better. I followed the recipe to a T, but I didn’t like them as much as a batch of pumpkin madeleines I made from a recipe in the same book, We Love Madeleines by (fittingly enough) Miss Madeleine. Now I think this has something to do with the fact that recipes are a compilation from different sources, which means that some may well be better than others, and that was the certainly the case here. These spicy chocolate madeleines were just a touch too dry, which could be either the heat from my oven (these suckers cook quickly) or that I believed the recipe when it said you could make the batter up to three days ahead of time. Whatever the case, these were . . . good but not up my standards of out-of-this-world-melt-in-your-mouth, and I think that’s born out by the fact that there’s a thin sliver of pudding left but about a dozen madeleines. Ah, well . . . I didn’t get good at cakes overnight either. Practice, practice…
The other thing about madeleines? Those suckers only last a day or two at room temperature. After that, you might as well pitch them. They turn to indigestible sponges. So I’d better get good at making them. Have to justify the expense of those pans, after all.
* * *
Now, as for Friday’s cocktail, it was a toss-up between a Vesper and a Corpse Reviver #2. Earlier in the week, the beleaguered husband asked for a cocktail after a LONG day in the office, so I quickly whipped up an Algonquin (sorry, no picture): a concoction of rye, vermouth, and pineapple juice. It wasn’t half-bad–very smooth–but after looking at the Vesper’s hefty booze quotient, I decided on the CR#2, which is a smaller, lighter drink that still draws on Lillet Blanc for sweetness (as does the Vesper)–and I was intrigued by the recipe’s calling for the addition of a few drops of absinthe. Like, whoa, how decadent!
Well, this baby–which calls for gin (I chose Hendrick’s for the floral quotient; just got to love those rose petals), Cointreau, Lillet Blanc, and absinthe (or Pernod), lemon juice, and a pretty cherry as a garnish–was terrific, and sipping that cocktail from those very pretty cocktail glasses (a set of vintage Libby rose-etched stemware) only added to the fun. You’ll notice that I also opted not to use Cointreau, which I’ve thought tastes quite raw and much too sweet, and instead went for some very fine Patron Citronge, a liqueur that’s essentially a triple sec. It’s got a very pronounced orange flavor but isn’t quite as raw in the mouth–and I think it made this cocktail just that much more interesting because you could really taste all the individual components, even those five DROPS (not dashes) of absinthe.
As for the recipe itself, again this is courtesy of Haigh’s Vintage Cocktails . As for how the drink got its name (and why it’s #2 and not #1), Haigh says there were about four or five different recipes, of which this is his favorite. The drink itself was more of a “class” of cocktails, those eye-openers you had the morning after. Like Haigh, I can’t imagine drinking this in the morning or even afternoon. This is strictly the one drink of the evening variety, but I rarely drink more than one of anything, regardless–with the exception being a very fine bourbon old-fashioned I made for the bridge folks last night, when I thought, Say, orange bitters, a slice of orange, and Citronge . . . what’s not to like? After trawling the Web, I happened on this variation and so used Pritchard’s Double Chocolate Bourbon instead of rye and added a half tsp. of maraschino cherry juice (a full tsp. was just too sweet). Well, it was terrific and really made me appreciate why you might use bourbon in an old-fashioned instead of rye . . . although I’m still waiting on a very special liqueur for an old-fashioned that I think will knock more than a few socks off.
