Troy Sidle

Junipero. The proof alone will make things interesting.

I find it interesting that there are such varying ratios for something like a Sidecar. One, because some people prefer sweet, some sour, some boozy, proportions may be weighted accordingly. In that case, the center of a drink is not a consideration because it can be enjoyed unbalanced. The other factor is the variables of each ingredient. Cognacs (and other cognac-like brandies) are wildly different. Orange liqueurs are as different, if not more so. And lemons being a natural product, will vary in tartness. However, with any given combination (a specific brandy, a specific liqueur, a specific lemon), there will be a center. So a universal Sidecar ratio is elusive either way.

I'm not sure I understand the phrase in bold. ← By that I mean that when two (or more) aspects of a cocktail are off-setting each other, there is a point upon which pallets will agree upon a center. For instance, water can be added to a spirit (assuming a proof of at least 80) until that sweet spot is found with alcohol burn on one side and a diminishing or watering-down of flavor on the other. Sugar and bitters will off-set each other similarly. While it's one thing to enjoy a cocktail that is weighted on the bitter side or that has a pleasant burn, it does not diminish the idea that there is a center to every cocktail.

Can't wait to get there next month!

For what it's worth, I'll put my theory out there. I see cocktails in three loose categories: 1) spiritous (manhattan, martini, sazerac) 2) citric (margarita, mojito, pisco sour) 3) rich (irish cream, tom and jerry, flip) Granted there are mixed drinks with booze in them that I wouldn't include, but also would not dissuade an imbiber/tender from drinking/mixing. (pousse-cafe, snapper). Balance in each of the three categories means something different. The sugar to booze ratio in an old fashion is completely different from the sugar to booze ratio in a sidecar because of the citrus. And in an egg nog, sugar is serving a different function entirely in that it's complimenting the richness instead of contrasting tartness. Even given that each person has unique, subjective tastes, there are objective keys to balance. And I would argue that a well-balanced cocktail is exponentially better as that center is approached. Ratios are important. They're like the sites on a firearm. And, to extend that analogy, tasting each cocktail is like calibrating that weapon, and (I'll stop after this one) the tartness of the citrus, is like shifting winds. My point is, balance is discernible desirable thing, and ratios and recipes are essential starting points.

Hey Troy! It was really busy! Full house, small wait, lots and lots of cocktails and food out the door. Last night was smooth, not as busy, but the boys are amping up for a very busy next few nights. Phones are blowing up all around me with rezo requests. It's really so beautiful; when are you coming down? ← Kristen, as soon as possible. The place sounds fantastic. The pictures I saw online were amazing. And what's this I hear about a Bacon Bourbon Old Fashioned? Is it as good as it sounds?

I heard The Patterson House is now open for business. What was the opening day like?

This topic has come up several times for me recently. Chocolate and coffee is one of my favorite pairings. I hang my head in shame to admit this. But a while ago, I stopped into my local convenience store for a plastic wrapped choco-cream snack, then headed to the ubiquitous coffee chain store for a black cup o' joe. My breakfast. Separately, guilty pleasures at best. Together, eyes-rolling-in-the-back-of-my-head amazing. It's simple - sweet, bitter. It's complex - the oils, the roasts, the brew, the texture, the temperature, the aromas, the presentation. If it's good while briskly walking across the street, almost late to work on a rainy morning, how much better if all aspects are treated with precision? Tomorrow, I just might start my day by picking up a brownie at Coco Rouge, then head to Star Lounge Coffee Bar for a pour-over of Chiapas. Mmm.

I got a chance to do the program when it was in San Francisco. I got the impression that it was tailored to folks who have substantial experience working behind the stick, but are either new to, or trying to capitalize on, this "new" trend toward culinary cocktail and otherwise high-end drinks. The history is well put-together and concise, but pretty redundant (and cursory) if you've at least read Imbibe. That said, it's long and detailed enough that I can imagine that it might try the patience of someone who's not geeking out over mixology. The info on spirits production and history did fill some gaps in my knowledge, and I would expect they would do the same for most people already in the business. This was my favorite part of the course, and the part that they spent the most time on at the live class. The service part was kind of wasted on me, not working behind the bar. That said, it was nice to get a sense of all of the other business that your bartenders have to worry about in addition to simply making a great drink. The recipes are a good intro to making a good sampling of classic drinks, with a nod to the popular, for people who might be used to shortcuts like [shudder] sour mix. If you're taking the course it's worth knowing (and I don't think it's any sort of spoiler) that in the practical exam you're free to use your own ratios as long as the drink you produce is well-balanced. I wasted a lot of time trying to remember the recommended ratios for drinks like the daiquiri or the margarita that were different than the ratios I prefer. All-in-all I enjoyed the program, and got quite a bit out of it, even though I don't believe I was the target audience. I think it's particularly well-designed for introducing working professionals to classic mixology and spreading the word of the culinary cocktail. My two cents. I don't believe that there's anything sufficiently comprehensive in what I've offered above that it might infringe on any copyrights, but I'm glad to edit/remove any of this if any of the copyright holders or their surrogates disagree. ← I had some trouble with the online quizes. It seemed like there were questions asked that didn't have answers in the study guide. Did you run into that at all?

There are two aspects to the program. There is study material and there will be a class in certain cities with the BAR partners (Wondrich, DeGroff, et al) as they travel the country. It gives an overview of "mixology", everything from the history of alcohol production to practical things like how to handle cash behind the bar. The study material consists of DVDs and a workbook. It's designed to be a four week program each week culminating with an online quiz. Passing the quizzes is required for attending the class. Here in Chicago, we'll have the class on April 22. The website barsmarts.com has more information. Toby, as for cocktail theory and technique, I'm not sure yet. I'm still on the history and breakdown of spirits.

I just got my BarSmarts package in the mail a few days ago. I'm in the middle of the course and already I have mixed feelings about it. Anyone completed the program?

Any favorite books that give an overall education of coffee?

Re-reading Embury's account, he purportedly knew the guy who invented the drink in Paris referring to the WWI captain story. But he doesn't mention the bartender or the captain by name. It seems he assumes the reader already knows the story. So I'm deducing the myth (if it's that) doesn't originate with his book. Embury's account is in conflict with what Sam recalls from Vermiere's book (one I haven't read). I'll have to get my hands on a copy. So I'm no closer to understanding the origins of the name.

Reviving a topic from a few years ago, I'm wondering if my question is answered in another thread. However, I'll ask anyway. What is the history of the sidecar? In this thread Splif notes that there are a couple of versions going around since the 1920s but I'm wondering two things: 1) where does it first show up in print and 2) is there any validity to the connection of an imbibing military officer and his mode of transportation?

This cocktail was recently brought to my attention, but I have no clue what it is. I hear it's complicated.

The word mixologist is just absurd. At 7 I combined every liquid in the fridge and declared myself a mixologist. And once I had completed the research for and improved upon a Suicide, altering the proportions of Orange Crush, Sprite, Rootbeer, Coke, and Grape Soda at the roller rink when I was 9, I maximized my mixing skills. They're the same skills I use when deciding the best vodka to cranberry to ice ratio. Could one really argue A Death in the Afternoon is any better at a 2:5 ratio than it is at a 3:7? Mixing is the job of a Mixologist. The word is awkward, pretentious and dull. I prefer amalgamatologist.

I wasn't too involved in the fat-washing process. I first started with the idea of pecan/coffee/vanilla bitters. Once I mentioned that to Michael who (with Toby) makes our bitters, he said he was already working on the idea of pecan-infused whiskey. Good idea. Then we hired (with perfect timing) Mike who has worked at Moto here in Chicago. They're known for their non-traditional methods of playing with flavors. So, he's the one who took the reigns on the fat-washing. I do know that he tried blanching the pecans to avoid the tannin problem. But, it turns out that pecans with no tannins are boring. So, essentially we got toasted pecans, threw that in melted butter, threw all that into 3 different bourbons, and in a couple more days well strain out the butter solids and taste what we've got. Right now the idea is a whiskey sour - pecan-infused whiskey, lemon juice, thinned Karo syrup, egg white, topped off with coffee/vanilla bitters. We'll see.

Today we started the pecan fat-washed bourbon. Now, you might think that the combined flavor of toasted pecans with a touch of salt and brown sugar combined with browned butter steeped in a wheated bourbon might be one of the best things you've ever tasted in your life. Well, I'm here to tell you... you'd be right.

I too listed them by spirit and not by rank. I'll go one step further and list my favorite version of each one. Martini w/ Junipero Martinez w/ Hayes Old Tom Ramos Gin Fizz w/ Bombay Dry Aviation w/ Beefeater Sazerac w/ Thomas Handy Rye Manhattan w/ Rittenhouse 100 and Carpano Antica Mint Julep w/ Old Rip Van Winkle 107 Hemingway Daquiri w/ Flor de Cana 4 Margarita w/ Chinaco Pisco Sour w/ any Pisco italia Right now though, since I just woke up, I could go for one of Toby's Blinkers - Rye, Grapefruit juice, raspberry syrup. Mmm.

A friend of mine came back from the St. Germain competition with the best bar spoon I've ever used. It's weighted and smooth. Unfortunately, it's not marked so I don't know who makes it. I found a very similar one by Rosle but it's just not the same - the bowl of the spoon is too small. Anyone know who makes weighted bar spoons besides Rosle?

Anyone ever tried substituting gin for another spirit in a Ramos? ... to any success?

I've been looking for information on "Bombay London Dry Gin" only to find very little. Anyone know where I can find basic history and, most importantly, the number and type of botanicals used?

We may never know definitively where the word cocktail came from. But, what about punch? Or rum? or whiskey? or Tequila? or Chartreuse? Anyone have any insight?

We tasted the rum at TVH tonight. It's got a great spiciness up front, with a good amount of complexity, vanilla and cherry notes. It could stand up tall in a Dark and Stormy, but could carry a Hemingway nicely as well. I can't wait to play with it some more.

Thanks, Sam. Any idea as to when that standard was set? I've read that the standard for bourbon was set in 1964, but haven't seen anything like that for rye whisky (or the rest of naming standards, for that matter).