Man, oh, man...that was goooood Chicken!

Yesterday being Tuesday, it was my weekly eat-some-good-food-and-watch-some-good-TV-with-Carol-and-John night (aka "LOST Night" for now). We all seem to really enjoy these evenings, but since I started working full-time hours at my biggest client's office, it's been a little difficult to organize myself for my part of the food contribution. Basically, I either have to cook it on Monday night and reheat it at Carol's, or bring the ingredients and prepare it at her place on Tuesday.

Either way works fine. But then there's the added complication that I'm, well...lazy. So I'm constantly on the hunt for what I call "super-easy" recipes that are really yummy. I've posted a few of them here already. And just found a new one recently, thanks to my new favourite website: Pinterest.

This was named "Man-Pleasing Chicken" by the person whose website the recipe originally came from from (she stole it from somewhere else). It's very aptly named. And so super-easy. It literally took less than five minutes prep time and 40 minutes mostly ignoring it in the oven with just one check-in to baste.

The combination of mustard, vinegar and maple syrup is out of this world. Very flavourful, and the meat comes out moist and amazingly delicious.

Be sure to use a good quality Dijon. I was pleasantly surprised by its rich, full but not overpowering flavour, which was beautifully tempered by the maple syrup.

The recipe, as I made it was:

1 cup Dijon mustard
1/2 cup real Maple Syrup
1 tablespoons vinegar (I used cider vinegar)

Or, the easy way to customize it for your quantity of chicken is:
1 part Dijon
1/2 part Maple syrup
1 tbsp of vinegar to each part of Dijon

Just mix the ingredients till smooth and pour over the chicken pieces in a baking pan (use one with sides, not a cookie sheet). Turn the chicken to get it well coated, and leave it skin-side up, and then bake for 40 minutes at 450 degrees, basting halfway through. No need to turn it during baking.

Don't worry if it starts turning black on top. That's actually what you want...and it tastes really good! It's just the sugars in the maple syrup.

I used thighs, because I like 'em, but we all agreed this would work nicely on any type of chicken, and probably REALLY nicely on pork...possibly even better than chicken. But if I was putting it on pork, I'd marinate it for a couple of hours.

Enjoy!

Heroin Wings. Yeah, you heard me.

This is the wing recipe I made last night. It turned out great...really great. I'll definitely be making these again.

HEROIN WINGS

4 lb chicken wings

1/2 cup butter

1 cup grated parmesan cheese

2 tbsp dried parsley

1 tbsp dried oregano

2 tsp paprika (I used smoked paprika and it was NOM)

1 tsp salt

1/2 tsp freshly-ground black pepper

First, preheat the oven to 350°F. Cut the wings up into "drummettes". (Freeze the pointy "tips" for soup -- they make great broth!) Then combine the grated cheese and the seasonings. Line a shallow baking pan with foil. (Do not omit this step, or you'll still be scrubbing the pan come New Year's Day!) Melt the butter in a shallow bowl or pan.

Dip each "drummette" in butter, roll in the seasoned cheese, and arrange in the foil lined pan. Bake for 1 hour at 350°F. Kick yourself that you didn't make a double recipe!!

Description: "Once you try these, you'll understand the name -- utterly, totally addictive! You'll impress the heck out of your friends -- and wish you'd made more! They're great leftover, too." 

Source: ""500 Low-Carb Recipes: 500 Recipes, from Snacks to Dessert, That the Whole Family Will Love" by Dana W. Carpender"

Glenlivet vs Glenfiddich

In my last taste test, I compared Jack Daniels and Jim Beam, two bourbons you might call "low rent" perhaps. They conjure up images of road houses, well-worn jeans and good ol' boys.

This time, I picked up two very different sips... Glenlivet and Glenfiddich, two famous Scotch Whiskies with decidedly more high-brow pedigrees.

Upon first opening the bottles, I had a good sniff. At first they seem almost indistinguishable. But after a few good deep sniffs, a marked difference becomes apparent. The Glenfiddich has a much lighter, almost fruity aroma, while the Glenlivet has a richer, deeper scent, almost sweet, with a distinct, creamy caramel aroma.

Okay...on to the taste test. Glenfiddich first. It hits the tongue with a silky embrace, but the burn starts within a second or two. However, it's not a strong burn and doesn't burn going down. (Don't hold it in your mouth, though, or that burn will definitely intensify.) As suggested by the scent, it also has a light feel in the mouth. A nice flavour, lighter than bourbon, but still with that nice whisky taste. The fruitiness in the scent is not apparent in the flavour.

Now onto the Glenlivet.Definitely a heavier, thicker feel on the tongue. Smooth though, with a less stingy burn. The overall experience is of a full-bodied liquid. The flavour is rounder, creamier but still not as strong as a bourbon.

Between the two, I can easily say I prefer the Glenfiddich. One is silk and one is satin, but they're both excellent. The Glenlivet would have a definite edge on a cold winter night, while the Glenfiddich would be a nice summer sip.

Both definitely are a cut above the bourbons I've tried, and earn their reputation of being more refined drinks worthy of a place in a Scottish manor house library.

So, you've probably noticed a third bottle in the picture above and wondered if I've forgotten about it. Nope. But the reason it's there, and the reason I'm tacking on my comments about it at the end here, is because I didn't know I was going to be able to try it when I wrote the rest of this blog post.

Last night I was visiting my friends Carol and John. During the course of the evening, the subject of whiskey came up, and I told them about this blog post I was in the midst of writing, comparing Glenfiddich and Glenlivet. John jumped up and said WELL, if you're writing about whisky, you should try this one! And he pulled out a virgin, never-opened bottle of 10-year-old Laphroaig single-malt Scotch whisky. Oooh...great opportunity to try out a new tipple!

As it turns out, the Laphroaig is the Mama Bear in this tale of three whiskies.

With the initial sniff, I noticed a distinct smokey scent that I hadn't noticed in the other two whiskies. Otherwise, it seemed pretty much like the other two. The mouth feel hovered between the heavy satiny texture of the Glenlivet and the light silky feel of the Glenfiddich. The flavour was midway between the two also, making a really nice compromise between that winter-style Glenlivet and the summery Glenfiddich.

What really distinguished the Laphroaig from the other two was that smokiness I noted in the scent, which was surprisingly evident in the taste as well. I wasn't expecting that. Often with these things, the way it smells is one thing, the way it tastes is another. The round tube the bottle came in spoke of the "blue peaty smoke" flavour, and yep, it's definitely there...and it stays with you long after you've swallowed, which is also really nice. I can see Laphroaig as the perfect tipple to enjoy after a barbecue or a nice roast

My pal Jack Daniels, and his partner Jimmy Beam

I have a confession to make: I like bourbon. No, I don't drink it, or anything else, to excess (sweets are my vice). But now and then I buy a small bottle and enjoy sipping on it for two or three weeks.

Usually I drink Jack Daniels. I've found it to be the smoothest and most enjoyable of the whiskey/bourbon type liquors that I've sampled. The only other one I remember by name was Maker's Mark Whiskey, and I found that to be quite harsh. Most of that bottle went to waste. I think I tried Canadian Club too...wasn't impressed.

I've always thought it would be fun to have a whiskey-tasting party. It's never happened though, so today I figured what the hell, I'll have my own. It's too expensive to buy several different types, so I stuck to two: one small bottle each of Jack Daniels (previous champion, as a benchmark), and Jim Beam (the challenger). Here are my impressions of how they compare...

I chose these two because both are labelled as "sour mash whiskey." Jack Daniels is from Tennessee, Jim Beam from Kentucky. On their labels, Jack prefers to expound on their carefully toasted oak barrels, while Jim brags about their "seven generations of family distillers."

The first difference you notice in the product itself is the colour. The Jack is a slightly deeper amber colour. One might assume that means a richer flavour. We shall see.

Second, both have good legs (they leave a kind of drippy trail on the side of the glass when you swirl the liquid). I have no idea what this signifies...I just read about it somewhere and thought I'd toss it in so I sound halfway credible here. Ha.

The smell is very similar at first...that vapour that seems to hit the back of your sinuses before you actually smell anything. The Jack has a richer smell to go with its richer colour. The closest thing it reminds me of, I'm sorry to say, is turpentine. But there's a warm, kind of sweet note to the aroma that's very pleasant. Beside it, the Jim almost smells weak. But, inhaled deeply, both can be felt at the top of your chest, almost as if you'd already taken a sip.

Now the moment of truth. Jack first, as I'm familiar with its flavour...

Mmm. A little burny in the mouth. The reason I prefer Jack over other whiskey type liquors I've tried is because this burniness is not as pronounced. I don't like pain when I eat and drink. You can almost taste that oak. Kind of reminds you of standing in the middle of a busy woodworking shop if someone was sawing a burnt log. Oddly, it doesn't have a flavour so much as it has an impact on all your senses at once. It's silky smooth on the tongue, and if you don't swallow fast that burning starts. The nose is fully engaged when drinking bourbon. Block your nose and all you have is the burn.

No doubt this burn is the reason most tough guys knock back all or most of a shot in one go and then grimace as if they're suddenly not sure they shoulda done that.

Now for the Jim...Hmmm! Interesting! Lighter-tasting, yes, as I had guessed it might be. The first impression is that it's a tiny bit chemical tasting, but there are spicy undernotes that the Jack doesn't have that are quite pleasant actually. It also seems to be a tad less burny (although that might just be my mouth getting acclimated here). Has a bit more sweetness to it, also in the aftertaste. Quite nice indeed. It also has a nice glow going down. Both of them do, but the Jim Beam's glow seems a little more, how do I say it, comforting than the Jack's slightly more aggressive glow.

A very interesting experiment! I might just have a new favourite bourbon. I'm not going to abandon my pal Jack Daniels just yet, but Jimmy Beam sure is putting up a good case for himself!