Anyway, I don't question that it might be a useful way to specify that one is talking about the original cocktail formulation(s). So long as we acknowledge that it's an artificial distinction that we are making in this thread. And that it doesn't (as yet, anyway) have any real meaning outside of this kind of small-group slang use.
Imagine that we were talking about basketball instead of cocktails. And that some people had found it useful to call it "basket-ball" when describing the era before the 1955 adoption of the 24 second shot clock, and "basketball" for the sport as it existed in greatly changed form thereafter. This might be a useful shorthand for describing the older style of basketball without having to qualify what is meant every time. But that doesn't mean that "basket-ball and basketball are two different things." No, it's just two different spellings of the same sport, and a small group of people has made an artificial distinction for shorthand use in their discussions. It's not like Tri2Cook can go into a bar and ask for a "cock . . . tail" or participate in a discussion on the Chanticleer Society boards or elsewhere and write "cock-tail" and have people know what is being talked about.
Because, shorthand understanding in these forums or not, there is no generally accepted distinction between the two spellings and they do have the same meaning. If anything, it's like the difference between "olde tyme" and "old time."
That's all I'm really saying: Useful distinction? Sure. Real distinction? No.













