drcocktail

No it hasn't - but yes it has. What I mean is that the brand Malacca is only a few years old. It was an experiment of sorts. It was a faithful reproduction of a genuine 1830s gin recipe distilled and prepared correctly for the period. Utterly fantastic, and with a bit of sugar you could really (I believe) taste what real Old Tom gin was like before the advent of London Dry. I was smitten. It was an odd flavor, though, and about as far away from Bombay Sapphire or Tanq 10 as you could get. Vodka drinkers stayed away in droves. I mourn. --Doc.

Janet, they are awful because of one dirty little secret...they are not easy to clean and since they are not easy to clean, they are rarely kept clean, even a semblance of clean, and you can really taste that in soda and tonic - less so the colas and such. It's not just the gun, it's the lines and the connections. Like you, I avoid 'em. They are easy to use but not sanitary enough for my -ahem- tastes. --Doc.

For those not in the know, I should also clarify the term "sham". It is not derogatory in this sense. A sham shot is a heavy bottom and sided glass that looks like it holds more than it does, but it is a real and recognized style of shot glass. Picture the outside of the shot glass just looking like a big shot glass, but the inside comes to a cone point (like a jigger). The displaced area is clear glass and a pour gives an illusion of a pretty big dose. It looks like 2 oz but takes a 1 oz. volume, like magic! --Doc.

Get this...some internet sources still have a few bottles and they are selling them at about $85 a pop - up a bit from the original 20 buck bottle. Tanqueray should take note. It was a genuinely historic IMPORTANT gin. --Doc.

I ADORE Hendricks. I guess the cuke makes it a novelty gin? Actually folks would be amazed at some of the different botanicals in gin -besides juniper. Unfortunately when I adore a gin, it usually means it's not long for this world. Tanqueray Malacca was the last casualty. Boord's Old Tom before that. I've been remarkably lucky with the Plymouth! ;-) --Doc.

Oh, and Jager. Jeez, I went out one night in Chicago years ago with Charlie, the best bartender the Pump Room ever had, and he treated me to shots of Jager all night. I took 'em too. Didn't feel too worse for the wear when I got back to the hotel at about 4am. Then I looked in the mirror and gave myself whiplash. My whole face looked like W.C.Field's nose. --Doc.

Well, that is a jigger for your venues then! I guess the places I go are very cocktail recipe - bartender - centric. It's less about me, I am sure. I know, though, that if the recipe calls for 1.5 oz of this and 3/4 oz of that, that is what they'll pour - and if asked to pour a jigger, that's 1.5 oz in those places. Of course most of them DO take off running if they see ME come in. You made me smile to think of the 1 oz clip joints and their sham-based shots- usually strong enough because they serve their drinks in Delmonico glasses. (For those of you not so well steeped -looky, a pun- in arcane glassware, that is about the size of a diner breakfast juice glass.) --Doc.

Hi Beans & JAZ, thanks very much! What a nice set of forums. I'm glad to find 'em! Janet, I will surely let Magoo know about this thread. He wouldn't want to miss it for the world. Maybe you could figure out some sort of fast-track registration so we could receive his post while he's still "all het up". In any event, I'm alerting him now! --Doc.

Thought I'd weigh in on a couple of jigger points: Beans is right about the physical device, the jigger - and, as such, it comes in various sizes. A jigger is also a somewhat variable UNIT of bartending measure - much like a Tot. The jigger unit has been pretty much standardized at 1.5 oz, but older bar books have ref'd a 1.25 oz jigger - and sometimes (depending on the book, locale, and era) a 2 oz jigger. The use of the term as a unit is old fashioned too, but continues to this day (having dropped off since the 70s). The earliest citations actually called it a gigger. In those days other measures were equally perplexing: the wineglass (2 oz) and of course the pony (1 oz). Actually, the wineglass makes more sense than you'd think: while in the 19th century they certainly had 4 oz wine glasses, what was meant by the measure was a sherry glass - to this day, with a 2 oz volume. I apologize for swinging farther afield from South Carolina. I'll add this to that: I also caught the NPR piece. Most bars serve a 1.25 oz measure? Not the bars I go to. That's a very light pour in my experience. --Doc.

ACK! My cover is blown! Ah well, I'll be gentleman enough to admit to Magoo that I was wrong. There's a first time for everything! Magoo want to know when you are coming to Los Angeles. I think he wants to make you a Margarita. --Doc.

Who knew spirits dynasties could be so MEAN? ;-) --Doc.

Hi Gary & Mardee, I was drinking Margaritas at the home of a certain Magoo and we disagreed about which variety of Tequila made the best Margarita. While this is obviously a matter of taste, interestingly our tastes wanted exactly the same thing: the most redolent flavor of the Tequila to dominate. One of us (I'll not say which) preferred blanco saying it was the strongest in flavor being closest to the distillation and without the flavor and bite filtration that make reposado and anejo milder. The other of us (I'm not telling) said no, reposado is stronger in flavor because to extracts flavors from the wood aging - but with not so much aging as to cut the Tequila flavors - or bite - very much (unlike anejo.) Brand differences notwithstanding, what do you think? --Doc.