brinza

I actually omitted that the fact that I tasted this vodka at a whiskey festival. I know, why was I wasting valuable tasting time at a whiskey festival tasting vodka? Well, there is something deliciously decadent about using a $50 vodka to cleanse your palate to prepare for the next whiskey. I should have said that to the company rep just to ruffle their feathers. But had I known it was going to taste like diluted Canadian Club, I might have thought better of it.

So, based on those spoons, your Dash is equal to about 1.2 to 1.6 Pinches or, to keep it simple, 3 Smidgens ought to do it. Say, does anyone else do this: when measuring small amounts of a viscous (not to mention tasty and expensive) liqueur, I don't want to lose what might remain sticking to the shot glass, so I usually put that into the shaker first, then I measure out the "solvent" liquids like lemon juice and alcohol to rinse out the glass and make sure I got all of thick stuff that's supposed to be in the drink. Anyone?

Those look interesting. But I tried backtracking from your picture link and couldn't find the item for sale at netshops. No matter what I typed into the search engine, I got only coffee makers and bread machines, hundreds of pages of them. Can you put up a link to the product page? ← If you Google 'dash spoons' or 'mini measuring spoons' you'll get numerous hits. I don't remember where I found that particular image. Here are a couple examples: http://www.spacesavers.com/dash.html http://smalltownkitchen.com/Accessories/dash_spoons.html

Those first two ingredients were all I needed to see. You can sure as hell bet that whomever came with that concoction isn't drinking it himself.

I had a very similar experience with my wife a couple months ago, but with a regular ol' Negroni. I opened the Campari bottle and gave her a sniff. She recoiled in disgust. Plus, she's an avowed gin-hater. So I said, "While you're thinking of what you want, I'm making a Negroni for myself." Once that was made, she tasted it. Just like you, I ended up making another one.

I had a chance to taste the Jean-Marc XO Vodka at a festival. It has this huge vanilla flavor. The company rep at the table said, "There is no vanilla added to it." I don't know how they're getting that, but I'd be skeptical if they claim it's through the distillation alone. Supposedly it's distilled a mind-boggling nine times. What could possibly be left behind?

Bottles with large wide shoulders, like Hendrick's and St. Germain seem to be difficult to pour from, which is especially bad when it's a syrupy liqueur. Another one is this particular bottling of Clement Creole Shrubb, which is the one I happen to have. The Drambuie bottle, on the other hand, has the best cap design I've ever seen. In fact, I use empty 375ml Drambuie bottles to store simple syrup. You can always get that cap off no matter how sticky the rim of the bottle may get.

The only time I had the privilege of the tasting JW Blue was at whiskey festival. Unfortunately, it was at the very end of the festival. I couldn't even begin to say what it tasted like. I have to assume it was good! This year, I will make a point of hitting the JW station first. McClellans are rebottlings. Their stuff is usually very young whiskey, around 6 yrs, I believe. I was never fond of Glenlivet 12, but the 15 is very nice. There are loads of websites and books that guide one through how to become acquainted with single malts, so rather than try to do that here, I'll just list some others that I'd personally recommend. I already mentioned that I like Lagavulin, Talisker, Laphroaig 10, Highland Park 12, and Ardbeg 10. Others I recommend include: Balvenie Doublewood Balvenie Portwood Aberlour A'bunadh Dalmore (12 yr. and Cigar Malt) Macallan 12 Old Pultney Oban Glenfarclas 105

I think Hendrick's is overrated. Like you said, it's a fine gin, but it certainly doesn't justify the price. (On a personal, note, I'm glad it doesn't really taste of cucumber, since I don't like cucumber and I find the idea of a cucumber flavored gin somewhat repulsive). I have a bottle only because it was a gift, and while it was very much appreciated, I am not likely to buy another bottle once it's gone. At $30, it's no better than most of the $25 gins out there. Besides, you have to wiggle the bottle to determine how much you have left. Bombay Sapphire seems to get beat up on because it's trendy. It's a good gin, but then again, the Original Bombay Dry tastes just as good as costs significantly less (though it is lower in alcohol). Some look down their noses at Seagram's gin probably because it's inexpensive and domestic. Actually it holds its own against premium gins and gets high ratings among professional tasters. It's also unique among modern gins in that it's actually cask-aged for 3 months in charred oak. I don't think that is widely known. The Distiller's Reserve brings it a step up, yet still keeps the price tag under $20. When I hear someone declaring a particular brand of vodka to be their favorite, especially when it's a heavily marketed brand like Grey Goose or Absolut, I usually wonder if they've just been conditioned to think they like it. I can't help but think, "Are you claiming that you've really tried most of the brands of vodka out there and genuinely came to settle on that one as your favorite?" "If your palate is really that discerning, why are you drinking vodka in the first place, and not something more challenging?" I'm convinced that Stoli Elit is a marketing experiment to see how far they can push the envelope.

Never having been much of a wine drinker, especially dry wines, I've have come to enjoy drinking straight dry vermouth as an aperitif (that's what it was meant to be, right?), when I don't want something as strong as a mixed drink. I finally found a wine that suits my palate. And I guess most wine drinkers would look on in horror at ice in a glass of wine, but vermouth goes very well over ice. And a reverse Martini is a nice change of pace when something lighter is desired.

Yeah, the Bulleit is rather versatile in that regard. I had an unopened bottle of rye that I was reluctant to crack into, so I kept grabbing the Bulleit instead! Otherwise, my pattern follows the one described by eje.

Very well put. The Old Waldorf-Astoria Bar Book prints most of its cocktails by listing the bitters as the first ingredient (which does come in handy on occasion). For a few, bitters are not mentioned. Their version of the Lone Tree includes bitters (but no French vermouth). However, the book includes a cocktail called the Thanksgiving, which appears to be a version of the Lone Tree Cocktail (but specifying Old Tom gin), and is so pointed about the lack of bitters that it lists the first ingredient as "No bitters." I just find it comical that it's printed like that.

Amazon's page for it links back to Kegworks anyway.

I just recently purchased some from Kegworks: http://www.kegworks.com/product.php?produc...&cat=546&page=1

I was thinking it might be in Difford's (which I've seen you mention a few times). I don't own a copy and was about to order the 7th Edition (I understand it has recipes that use St. Germain), but then I noticed that the 8th Edition is due out in September, so I'm thinking of just waiting for that one.

I was going to put this in the Drinks! thread, but it's appropriate here as well. In Trader Vic's Bartender's Guide is a drink called the Atlas: 1 oz. calvados or Applejack (I used Applejack) 1/2 oz. Demerara rum, 151 (I only have Paramount 151) 1/2 oz. Cointreau 1 dash Angostura Bitters This was absolutely delicious. Strong (especially since I stirred instead of shaking), but really good. Everything just came together for one really stunning flavor. It's not often you make something new and immediately you know it's going to be a new favorite. I won't soon forget this one. And here's the strange thing about this cocktail. This drink does not appear, at least under the name Atlas, anyway, in any of these cocktail books: Savoy Hotel Cocktail book Old Walddorf-Astoria Bar Book Duffy's Mixer's Manual Regan's Joy of Mixology DeGroff's Craft of the Cocktail Ultimate A to Z Bar Guide I don't know if the recipe goes by other names (I wouldn't be surprised if it did), but it's the first time I noticed it. I checked a few online databases, and the Cocktaildb has it: http://www.cocktaildb.com/recipe_detail?id=120 (except their version calls for a full ounce of rum) Try this!

Finesse rules.

As others have pointed out, these are iconoclastic highballs he's making there. A typical highball would be something like 1.5 ounces of spirit in a 9 ounce glass with ice and a fill-up of lengthener to the tune of 4 ounces or so. And I should point out that these wouldn't necessarily be crap drinks, either. This is a fairly classic ratio. In contrast, db_campbell's version would be around 3 ounces of spirit with 2 ounces of lengthener. It's no surprise that the quality and qualities of the spirit would be much more important in this kind of drink. ← Wouldn't that then make these more cocktail-like drinks than highballs or long drinks? I'm saying that even though the second ingredient is in fact soda, the proportion in which it is used in more like what would be used in a cocktail. And thinking of the sweetness of the soda, it's being used more like a liqueur than a lengthener. I wonder what it would be like to use flat cola. It sounds strange, but it could be interesting. The drink would have an entirely different texture.

I wouldn't quite say I'm a proponent of the hard shake; I'm simply attempting to defend the method against some criticism that I believe is resultant merely from misconceptions that have arisen. My point is more, 'if we're going to criticise the hard shake, let's criticise the hard shake, not someone's haphazard, gussied-up interpretation of it.' ← My position is purely one of skepticism, not criticism. I'm simply saying that the claims for it shouldn't be taken on faith. I just think it needs to be made clear what the hard shake really is, what it's supposed to do, and does it indeed do that; and furthermore, does it do something that traditional shaking does not do? To be more concise: I'm not yet convinced. ETA: From Mr. Uveda's website: I dispute this as I find that traditional vigorous shaking does indeed effectively create bubbles (in fact this is one of the major elements in the "shaken or stirred" controversy of martini mixing in that it's common knowledge that shaking aerates the drink, thus it comes down to whether that consistency is preferred by the drinker over the silky texture that results from stirring). And so does traditional, vigorous shaking. Whether or not this is desirable (many prefer not to have these ice shards in the drink and therefore double strain) is beside the point, but the fact is ordinary shaking creates these as well. So far, I have yet to see anything supposedly produced by the "Hard Shake" that cannot be produced by traditional shaking. His last paragraph discusses the effects on cream as an ingredient, and since I have virtually zero experience (I made a Sputnik once, that's it) using cream, I will reserve judgment on this point.

That's precisely my point as well. One easy way to solve the whole thing is with a double-blind taste test. Have two identical cocktails made, one with the hard shake, one with a traditional shake. Serve them to Mr. Ueda and Mr. Freeman. See if they can identify the drink made with the hard shake. Repeat test ten times, or make ten cocktails, stating that some of them have been made with the hard shake. Identify which ones. ETA: the test is made double-blind in that the person who serves the cocktails is not the person who made them (and also doesn't know which is which).

To that end, there should be some support for the claims that have been made. Another message board I've been a member of for that past eight years is a skeptics' board. Taking a page from practitioners of critical thinking, I think it is incumbent upon proponents of this "hard shake" to do the following: 1) clearly define what claims are being made for this shaking method 2) show evidence, if not proof, that the method produces the results stated in the claims 3) show that these results are different than what can be achieved through traditional shaking methods

I'm about to hurl just reading that article. This is the problem when food product corporations try to publish recipes. They often make no sense. To quote James Lileks, author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food,

That stuff is awesome. I just bought a set of port sippers (mainly for their aesthetic quality and to add to the glassware collection). I understand their purpose has something to do with the oxidation of port, but I've read a couple different descriptions of their function, which I don't fully understand. I'd like to read your explanation of it.

From one of last year's Difford's Guides (issue #5.4, with a guide to Gin): ← And Bombay Sapphire adds cubeb berries and Grains of Paradise. One of the things I like about both of the Bombay gins is that I seem to be able to really sense the taste of the licorice root coming through.

I'm with you. ← Count me in on that as well, especially the claim that the ice is banging around at four different points within the shaker. I want to see that done in a transparent shaker before I'll believe it. What, is he using only one piece of ice? If one wants a hard shake, one needs to put some effort into it, not dance moves. I've heard it said that bartenders who know a certain drink should be stirred rather than shaken sometimes have difficulty convincing the customer of this because customers usually want to see their drink shaken to be convinced that they're getting a well-made drink. I'd like to see techniques presented for "the fine stir" rather than the hard shake. It's one thing to shake the bejezzus out of a drink, but if you can impress with your stirring technique (and get the drink cold as well), then you'll have something. How about finesse instead of brute force!