lostmyshape

i don't know what thomas might have thought about it, but what's the big deal. water is going in anyway, so why not dissolve your sugar ahead of time to ensure it's not grainy in the drink? i mean, is there really any difference between a drink that contains sugar and one that contains simple syrup with the same amount of sugar?

the martini aften becomes the sad poster child for this debate, but, really, it's a terrible representative. as dave says above, today, a martini is a class of drinks, usually with vodka or gin, served in a blah, blah, blah... as far as renaming, eje has it right... changing proportions to, as Regan says, "adjust for taste," why rename it? modifying ingrediants to "improve" the cocktail, give your creation a name! back to the real topic: who is this difford guy? and if i'm not into sweet cocktails (and already own the "classic" cocktail guides), is this guide worth looking for?

Canadian is often thought to be primarily rye, but it's actually corn. ask the historians here, but i think that this misconception started during prohibition, when Canadian whisky was used as a substitute for rye that had ceased production. i don't beleive there are government regulations on irish whisky and scotch like there are on american whiskey. i think scotch is primarily barley, as you said, but i think irish whisky varies. flavor comes from so many things: the grains used, how they're roasted, the strength of distillation, the barrels it's aged in, the length of aging. hard to predict what exactly you'll like, but follow the suggestions here. people on this forum know what they're talking about. edited for grammer.

sam has great reasoning for the Aviation. to add to his insightful comment on the internet, it's only the smallest step away from the cosmo, your drink of the 90's. but boy, is there more flavor and sophistication. it's a look back to the last decade and a precursor to what's (hopefully) to come, no? (edited to add: still can't get one of these outside of NYC, though. can't even get the cheap marichino liqueur in PA.)

as for definitions, here's what i know (correct me if i'm wrong): whiskey - spirit distilled from grain (typically barley, corn, wheat, rye), usually aged in charred oak barrels (although this varies) single malt - whiskey made from a single "batch"; made and aged together blended malt (or vatted malt) - many single malts blended together to create a more complex whiskey blended - whiskey blended with neutral spirits which then take on the flavor of the whiskey (i beleive a blended whiskey is something like 20-35% whiskey) Scotch whisky - whisky made in scotland; mash mostly barley that's often raosted with peat fires; typically single malt, but i've heard there are good vatted malts, also Irish whiskey - whisky made in Ireland (duh) Bourbon - Whiskey made in Kentucky; always single malt; distilled and aged to certain standards (mash must be 51%-79% corn, distilled no higher than 160 proof, etc.) TN whiskey - made like bourbon and filtered through charcoal Rye - Whiskey made with at least 51% rye (used to be produced primarily in PA and Maryland, but now mostly made by the big bourbon distilleries; i think this has to be single malt, also) Canadian Whiskey - uh, made in canada (i beleive this is typically a blended corn whiskey and is not straight rye like some beleive) Age - how long the whiskey has been aged in barrels (typically charred oak); some whiskeys have a standard (i.e., rye must be marked if it's aged less than 4 years); not a rule, but the longer the age the more flavorful the whiskey (and more expensive) a total generalization, but scotches are smokey/spicy, bourbons are sweet, and ryes are like a dry bourbon. use the suggestions in this thread and try it all. i'm not too experienced with whiskey, but i love all ryes (bourbon is good, but sometimes too sweet for me). i also love Islay (pronounced i-la, i think) scotch, like laphroig and ardbeg. super, super smokey, salty, and nice and spicy. makes me think of a good anejo tequila. edited to add new facts about whiskeys.

egullet made me interested in rye whiskey, and looking into its history i found that it used to be called Pennsylvania whiskey or Monongahela whiskey. well, i live about 1.5 miles from the Mon (as we call it here in Pittsburgh), but i couldn't recall ever hearing about whiskey being distilled here. so i did a little more research and found that pre-prohibition there were dozens of distilleries on the Mon river and the Allegheny river, all producing rye whiskey. but they all are gone now. most didn't make it past prohibition, but those that did were bought up by big bourbon distilleries in the 1960's and moved south. so, why couldn't they survive in PA? and why aren't there any here now? if rye is really making a comeback (as many here beleive), why don't we all start a place on the mon to make genuine, 100% real Old Monongahela Whiskey? and why aren't there more distilleries in the US? i recently read that there are around 60 distilleries in this country. why so few? especially compared to the, like, 7,000 microbreweries (we have 8-10 here in Pittsburgh alone... although this is a beer-drinking town)? i realize that permits and taxes for this business are insane, but i've also read that profit margins can be high. is this an untapped market? if cocktail culture is really coming back in the US, is distilling ripe for expansion? Noah (dreaming of quitting my job and making whiskey... and gin... and genever... and...)

ahh... too right, SL28ave. perhaps we should have asked the original poster what was it that made them feel the coffee was "too strong." SG-? still out there?

i've been looking around pittsburgh, out of curiousity, for how many bars here even have straight rye whiskey. i'm about 1 for 8 right now and all they had was old overholt. not bad, but i've really been wanting to try that michners without having to buy a whole bottle.

hmmm... maybe you guys are jumping the gun! if we all work together maybe we can make the rye manhatten the drink of the 2010's! edited for 1 too many smilies.

interesting list... things sort of take a dip in the latter 20th, huh?' sam and dave: i think this idea about 2 trends in the 00's is very interesting and much more on the money that what was discussed in that trends for 2006 thread (where i ranted about how old-school wasn't really coming back in non-cocktail centers like my hometown of pittsburgh). "vodka school" seems to be king here, although these drinks are getting drier, with more emphasis on flavoring liqueurs that aren't necessarily sweet. i'm hoping that the rye manhatten finally finds its way here, too, and becomes the drink of the 00's, but maybe it's too early to tell. noah

hey Savannah/annecros... it's really interesting to hear the viewpoint of a starbucks barista. i thought that was a great (long) post. i think that some people on egullet are a little hard on starbucks. from the little i know, it seems their business practices are pretty good and fairly ethical, especially in regards to their employees. as far as taste/quality... i think you'll find that the coffee nerds (i say that with love; i'm becoming one, too) will never be satisfied with anything that a large coffee chain can deliver. just by nature of the beast, they cater to what makes them money, often the lowest common denominator. i think, on the whole, starbucks coffee is overroasted, but there are some roasts that are pretty good anyway. overall, i won't complain, though, because i think the coffee-culture that they've helped to create is good. oh... and i mentioned the "drinks not on the menu" because i think it's great. i think people would get more of what they want if they told the starbucks employees what they like and ask them to recommend something. naturally, because of the lack of space on the menu board, starbucks won't ever put up every drink they can make... so, they put up the drinks that are 1)most popular, and 2)have the best profit margin. makes sense to me! but if what you want isn't on the board, just ask! it's most likely that you'll get something you're much more pleased with. edited for grammer.

yeah... i can't decide if they're smart or sneaky. there are a ton of drinks that starbuck will do (and i assume that their employees are trained to make) that aren't on their menu. looks like they only put things with a high margin on the menu board, though. they purposely direct their customers to high margin items. makes great sense to me (if you're trying to make a profit). next time you're in a starbucks that isn't too busy, ask the "baristas" what other drinks they make that aren't on the menu. there's quite a few, including employee inventions that i'm sure starbucks corporate wouldn't encourage.

just recently did Gary Regan's Delmarva No.2. sort of a 20th century with bourbon or rye... well, and dry vermouth instead of lillet, but same difference. it was something like: 2 oz rye or bourbon 1/2 oz dry vermouth 1/2 oz lemon juice 1/2 oz creme de cacao i forget what the garnish prescribed was... i just used a lemon twist. result: BEST DRINK EVER. seriously, my new favorite. unlike the 12th century, the creme de cacao doesn't really come off as chocolate. it's just this earthiness floating at the bottom of the flavor of this spectacular drink. just blown away. and eje: ugh on the old fashioned with vodka. why would anyone do that?

no doubt, but the point is that starbucks brewing practices result in a more caffinated beverage. i certainly can tell the difference. my wife calls it the starbuck's jitters. although i'm sure that it doesn't help that i often get that "very large portion."

aha! that's the article i was trying to quote (and got wrong), yet was too lazy to look up. good job, owen! anyway, caffeine aside, i think the big taste issue has to do more with how starbucks roasts its coffee than brew times. being a big chain, i'm sure that caribou coffee's brewing practices are comparible to starbuck's, but i rarely think that caribou's coffee suffers from the same "over-doneness." i almost always get a mild, flavorful and spicy cup of coffee there. no starbucks-like charred-ness.

ok... i don't have any idea what this device does. just floats liquor? somebody explain.

interesting... the ginger simple syrup sounds great! but i would miss the bite. i guess adding a touch of fresh ginger (as mentioned) would do the trick. what about gari, that japanese pickled ginger that comes with sushi. it seems to retain a bit of that bite. personally, i can't get enough of the stuff. i bet that could be used as a nice garnish. maybe dropped at the bottom of the glass... or wrapped around an olive? seems like that spiciness might go well with saltiness... maybe with a bourbon. how about a good, spicy tequila? a ginger margarita? hmm... just musing out loud.

i totally second the "little italy." really hit the spot (as did my visit to pegu club). actually, rye itself might be my biggest discovery of '05 (due to many of you championing it). now that i think of it... for me, the best of '05 has to go to this forum. the people here are so knowledgable and kind. i've learned so much here and these posts have inspired a new culinary passion. it's great to know that i can pull this forum up any night and find 10 new recipes or suggestions for a gin i haven't yet tried (i'm currently trying to track down an non-blended applejack). thanks to everyone and i can't wait to learn more. ps... that sazerac 50/50 sounds great! i'm assuming it's simply a sazerac made with 1 oz rye and 1 oz brandy... any suggestions for brands?

ha! yeah... i figured as much... it's just such a funny picture that i couldn't resist... my wife coming around the corner to catch me shaking equal parts gin, vermouth and bacon fat... ha, ha, ha... ugh... i'm actually kinda shocked that your still advocating this... think of the disasters possible... and i'm assuming that you're sober now. wow... a bacon martini. what will they think of next?

wow... truly depraved... but i'm actually tempted to try this. oh, god, how will i explain this to my wife when she catches me pouring bacon grease into the cocktail shaker?

Last year I had a rye on ice at The Winchester Room. I'd think the old time (or just plain old) restaurants would have rye and bitters more readily than some Shadyside bistro. ← my point exactly! i don't see the oldest restaurants and bars in the city leading the charge for the lastest trends in cocktails. the only reason these places know how to make drinks with rye is the bartenders remember where they put that bottle that was delivered the day they started working in 1958. due to the hipness of egullet, i'm drinking rye like it's going out of style... wait, i mean coming back in style. but unless some of you guys (and girls) are in pittsburgh, i'm drinking alone. or maybe my kitchen is the trendiest bar in town. i know... i know... you people are trying to have a civilized discussion about what trends might see their way from cocktail havens into bars across america and i keep ranting about how sorry the state of the cocktail is in 90% of this country. i'm just jealous (and that's the truth)! i guess i'll just have to lead the charge here... start demanding rye and bitters! and in the meantime, if any of yinz are in da 'burgh and want a sazerac or aviation or Audrey's little italy, my kitchen door is open.

good ole pittsburgh. i love the city, but it can be disappointing sometimes. just visited manhatten and now i feel a little lost back home. i can't get enough of the sazerac... almost finished with a bottle of old overholt drinking mostly sazeracs.

i can vouch for the Little Italy. had it at Pegu Club and had to go out and get a bottle of Cynar to do them at home. i think of Cynar as similar to Campari and have substituted one for the other in a couple drinks. they're distictive, Cynar seems sweeter to me, but both pack a bitter punch. is it odd that cocktaildb.com doesn't have a listing for cynar?

ooh... just reading about the 20th century in dr. cocktail's vintage and forgotten cocktails. really need to get some cacao. what do you call your 2nd, rye concoction? oh, and after you muddle the cherries, do they stay in the shaker during the pour?

amen to that, brother. i really think starbucks gets it right as far as strength. i've read all of their philosophy about brewing coffee and i totally agree. where i think they get it wrong is their beans. totally over-roasted. part of your objection might be the taste of really darkly roasted beans. if you can, find a local roaster and try their lightly roasted beans (even starbucks' light roasts are awfully roasty). brewed to correct strength (see above), this coffee won't taste nearly as "strong" and flavors you never knew were in coffee will jump out. as far as caffeine... from what i've read, with quality beans and the correct brewing ratio, you'll get content more in line with starbucks (200-250 mg) even brewing at home.