evo-lution

Old Fashioned = Cock-tail.

What about dashes of Curacao, as per JT 1862?

Think you may have misread what is on the website as they had non-potable status back in 2008, the transition was when they began working with The Bitter Truth who have their whole line listed as potable. Now they are producing themselves again they are back as a non-potable bitter. Having dealt with the TTB previously, as well as at this exact moment in time as I seek non-potable approval for my Spanish Bitters, I totally understand the frustration (and anger) that Avery and Janet have been through. They were also a great help to me when looking for clarity on the laws in the US (which as they mention on their website are unlike anywhere else in the World) so that sales of my bitters in the US were legal and above board. Something which other bitters producers should really pay heed to...

I'd be curious to know who they think the target audience of these videos is. Check out the comments under their videos and you may get an idea. The reaction from some on here to these videos is quite funny to be honest. They're harmless, not claiming to be doing anything unique, and are exposing people (who may not have had the chance to experience it) to another element of modern cocktail culture. So what if it's been done five years ago (the vast majority here are guilty of rediscovering techniques for themselves and boasting about it), so what if you think it comes across as smug (to me it's just some guys having fun), they're using the internet to whet the appetites of the following they have...

After looking into what Aviary seems to be about it doesn't sound like the sort of place where you'd rock up and ask for a drink made to your specific requirements as they intend to pair dishes with drinks so everything will follow a specific recipe (I'd assume). I'm sure they'd have no problem fixing you an Old-Fashioned to your desired tastes, which i can't be 100% sure of not knowing the people behind it, but it doesn't sound and look like that's the purpose of the venue. Which is a fair enough point but I read posts on this forum every other day which are made by someone who is discovering something which has already been done years ago, typically decades if not over a century old. What's the difference there? To me these videos seem like a pretty neat way for them to showcase the various techniques they are playing around with to create an element of intrigue. What seems apparent is that the bartender is constructing recipes which he's then demonstrating to the chef. If anything it's a clever use of social media, you only need to read some of the comments under the videos to show that it's working for them in that respect. Whimsical ideas are commonplace in the F&B industry, but sometimes it's fun and it tastes good, and it just works, you know...

That is a good thing. However, removing one of the crucial components of bartending -- a la minute service of a quality beverage -- is a bad thing. Just sayin'. The negativity surrounding Aviary's drinks (in particular the Old Fashioned) in this thread hasn't been shown toward barrel-aged and bottle-aged cocktails. What's the difference?!? I may be totally wrong (and if so please correct me), but I'd assume that the only part of the drink that will be prepared in advance is the egg ice-ball*. The drink will then be prepared, funneled into the egg ice-ball, and then served. The style of drinks-making these guys are playing around with (most call it molecular mixology but I hate that terminology) is one that'll always create a division, it's the marmite of cocktails if you must. They may not be breaking down boundaries and they may well be revisiting techniques that've already been discovered, but aren't we all doing that? *On a sidenote, I've seen these egg ice-balls used in the UK in Japanese restaurants for serving some of their dishes and it was something I played around with for Yatai, but never actually got round to using. They're very easy to make and have some interesting uses in the right setting...

I can never understand why people get wound up/upset/annoyed/miffed/pissed/angry/and so on at these lists as they're never going to get it right no matter who makes it onto the listing.

This thread's interesting to me as I recently did some work regarding bulletproof cocktails; those that are liked by all or in the worst case scenario the large majority. I have been hosting a number of cocktail trainings recently and have formed a structure that explains and showcases the number of drinks families alongside the development of cocktail culture going right back to the 1700s, so I was looking for the most accessible drink from the various cocktail eras/families. So for example start with gin & bitters and move onto punch > cock-tails > crustas > collins > and so on. This does crossover with your question as I'd find the best way to approach this (from both a bartending perspective but also recommending drinks to friends) would be to find a cocktail (or cocktails) that fits with the various taste groups and go from there, so for example... Dry - Champagne Cocktail (Sugar cube, bitters, Champagne) Fruity - Millionaire Cocktail (Aged rum, apricot brandy, sloe gin, fresh lime juice, egg white) Sweet - Clover Club (Gin, raspberry syrup, lemon juice, egg white) Floral - Elderflower Collins (London Dry, elderflower cordial, fresh lemon juice, soda water) Sour - White Lady (Gin, Cointreau, fresh lemon juice) Spicy - Dark & Stormy (Aged rum, fresh lime juice, spicy ginger beer, bitters) Creamy - Silk Stocking (Tequila, white cacao, grenadine, cream) Strong - Corn & Oil (Aged rum, falernum, bitters, fresh lime juice) Hope that helps.

Undoubtedly, but you're still connecting the quote of Eben's that I posted with this issue of copyrighting/trademarking which appears to have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. I mentioned to Eben that it may be in his best interests to release an article detailing his point of view in more depth which I think he seems willing to do.

I understand the path the topic has taken but as it was interpretations of Eben's comments which sparked the debate it's only right that he has the opportunity to explain what it was he meant, hence my post. The reason I quoted that line from Eben is because that is the issue at the heart of the matter and I believe that trademarking and/or copyrighting is not necessarily the road to go down to ensure bartenders receive the profit/credit they deserve...

Alright everyone. Just thought I'd chime in to say that having spoken with Eben (albeit through Facebook) the article (as I susupected may be the case) doesn't really do what he said justice and that his point has more substance when he explains in depth where he's coming from... I quote; "I just think bartenders deserve more of the profit and credit for the money being made by multinational beverage corporations during this golden age." I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Cheers, Adam

Which he can then pass onto the creator of vodka-jelly... Does anyone know if Freeman is still using the hard-shake method? http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2007/12/eben_freeman_of_tailor_imparts.html The headline alone makes the Atlantic article laughable. I know he's not claiming to have created the hard-shake but the fact he uses someone elses technique defeats his argument doesn't it? Or am I looking at this the wrong way?!? Now don't get me wrong, it sucks when someone steals your idea and claims to have come up with it themselves but the thought behind the Atlantic article is laughable. Personally speaking I'd like to see bartenders give credit (for drinks/techniques that they've picked up elsewhere) to the originator wherever possible. It's something I've always done as a few posters/lurkers here will testify. There's nothing more cringeworthy than someone trying to pass off someone else's work as their own.

I have to take exception to a particular part of the article; That's one technique* he really can't claim to be his own. *Ultimately the technique called infusion.

To be fair to the people behind Class Magazine and Difford's Guide they do make it clear that they reformulate drinks recipes to suit their palates and don't necessarily print the original.

I highly recommend Clay Johnston on Ebay; http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/arts_craftsofmexico/ They have 1l, 3l, 5l, 10l and 20l barrels. I've ordered them myself (for aging bitters, cocktails and spirits) and everything from the price, barrel and service was top drawer. Better than anything I've dealt with previously and they have no issues shipping internationally. You'll probably have seen the pictures of the barrel/s on my bitters Facebook page, if not check it out The added aspect is the fact they'll brand your barrel for you which adds a nice touch, plus they send you more info than you'll ever need to assist you in understanding the aging process and how best to care for your barrel/s. Getting the knack for this aging malarkey so I'll share my results with you when I've a bit more time.

I'm particularly interested in the 1715 recipe and how they're going to utilise it in their gin (what style of gin this'll be, I'd love to know).

Will be interesting to see how this turns out; http://www.drinksint.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1664

I think this gets to the heart of the matter as the craft explosion seems to be a lot more prevalent in the US (although similar things are happening over here) so I'm only exposed to a small minority of what you guys have at your disposal. In the UK there are smaller companies emerging (let's talk specifically about gin to keep it on topic) but for the most part their products are pretty damn good and they stay true to tradition. Darnley's View, Sipsmith's, Chase and Sacred to name but a few... At the same time there are other brands calling themselves gin just for the hell of it, but they're largely ignored, well they are in this house anyway.

Here's another of mine; B.F.G Winning Rusty Nail twist created for the Drambuie UK Cocktail Competition - January 2010 40ml Drambuie 25ml Noilly Prat Rouge 10ml Laphroaig 10 year old 2 Dashes Dr. Adam Elmegirab's Boker's Bitters Method: Add all ingredients to mixing glass fill with cubed ice and stir for 15-20 seconds. Glass: Two small cocktail glasses Garnish: Fresh lemon zest Ice: N/A

It's not been said that no person decides, I've been asking the question who is it that decides? The EU must have some sort of say in it as as the legislation on London Dry only came into play recently but I can't speak for gins from the rest of the World. That wasn't necessarily the sole point. The comparisons made earlier in the thread were ridiculous in my opinion when it comes to price-point. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part the smaller companies cannot compete with larger brands. Again though, this is just your opinion which was another point I was trying to make. Taste is entirely subjective. Some may feel that these micros are under-valued, over-valued, or whatever. I've no issue with them falling under the umbrella of gin (which is already a diverse category from Genever through to London Dry) so long as they know what they are (which at the moment no-one does). New World sounds fine to me... Anyway, enough of this chat, I'm having a Martinez. With Boker's of course.

Of course it matters, otherwise you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. The way I'm reading it is that you have an issue with products that aren't juniper-led calling themselves gin, the point I've repeatedly made is that there is a grey area because there isn't really anyone who decides if something is juniper-led or not. I have not suggested that people shouldn't debate or complain, my issue was against the hypocrisy displayed earlier (which I've already covered and not going over again). I have pointed out the reason why I added my thoughts to this thread, it had turned into a tirade against micro distilleries which I thought was wholly unfair. If they're not giving you what you expect don't buy their products. And at the same time, don't compare the price point of an international brand to a small micro, that's beyond ridiculous. (1) One of my first posts (post #206) was asking Erik if his viewpoint was in regards the debate of London Dry Gins versus New World/Western Gins. (2) My position is that there is a grey area within the definition of gin which now means another category is evolving within it. Genever > Old Tom > London Dry > New World I've already covered this point and acknowledged the definition of gin but for the last time; Who is it that ultimately decides it has a predominant flavour of juniper? Juniper-led and having a predominant flavour of juniper are one and the same, I use the term juniper-led as it's quicker to type. As for what you think I am arguing, see my next point. Production methods Sam, production methods... "If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle." The EU regulations were brought in to tighten up the category and were based on production methods, not taste. It's why Martin Miller's used to say London Dry on the bottle, but don't any more. Evolution.

As said, I'm not privvy to definitive fact as I've not been present to watch it be made but from what I gather it's not strictly a London Dry (for whatever reason, the essence explanation may not be exactly right). I just had a quick look at Gary Regan's Gin Compendium and it lists Tanq 10 as 'Distilled Gin'.

I have asked (on more than one occasion) if it is (by definition) a London Dry, and if it is, why it doesn't say so on the bottle. Tom Nichol has been present on one occasion when I asked. I am led to believe that they use an essence for one botanical as opposed the actual botanical, making it a 'distilled gin' as opposed to a 'London Dry gin'. I am happy to be proved wrong.

Thanks for your reply and for clarifying Erik. Don't get me wrong, it irritates me as well when producers make a product within a category which is nothing like what you'd expect* and is intended to compete with a completely different category (usually vodka). I guess that's business though, the good thing is we don't have to associate ourselves with that brand if we don't want to. However, it's not just the micros and new companies that are doing this, the large producers have been at it for decades, so maybe it's only fair that the little man is getting their slice of the action? *If I have to taste another bitters that isn't even bitter... Once again I completely agree and would love it were every producer to go down this road, sadly it's not the case. I do see it as an opporunity to turn a negative into a positive though, as it's easier to introduce someone to what I feel is a better product when they are a fan of another brand within the same category. That's fair enough, we can all make our own informed choices though. It's not as if there isn't an abundance of brands to choose from... The reason I've joined in with the discussion in this thread is that I've gotten extremely bored of the whole new western gin debate (specifically all the bashing); there's a grey area within the gin category as I've pointed out (who decides if something tastes predominantly of juniper?) and that's where the problem lies. I see it as an evolution of the category, genever to Old Tom to London Dry and now the new breed. The great thing is that we can now get our hands on all of these styles of gin, some good, some bad, some great, some mind-blowing. Whether or not these new bottlings (which are not juniper-led) are deserving of the title is not for me to decide. What I can decide though is whether or not I wish to part with my hard-earned for a specific product...

I have made many meaningful points and asked some valid questions like the one that I am about to repost, but you have avoided them for your own agenda. For example; You said - The threshold being when the presence of juniper goes below what can at least reasonably be argued is "primary flavoring." To which I asked - Which is decided by who? A valid point at the crux of the current debate... As I've already said, the issue isn't necessarily about them being called gin (because who is it that decides whether something tastes predominantly of juniper?), the problem is the designation. Is there some reason that you shout the loudest and are dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say? I'm not aware that I said it was historically or legally incorrect (in fact I said the opposite), so I've no idea where you are getting this from? Likewise, where did I say, "I know better?" And if I did say that (which I didn't), it sure makes a change from you doing it. I live in the UK, I try to attend every training possible, and I am inquisitive. Tanqueray often host trainings. I'm 99.9% sure that it's not a London Dry, the 0.1% doubt is because I haven't watched it be made. Do you not see the irony in bringing the historical aspect into it then citing a US definition?