DrinkBoy

Wasn't even sure that my segment was going to make it. It was filmed on the sly when I had some brief time off during a business trip down to LA. I unfortunately don't get Fine Living up here in the Pacific Northwest, but "Miss Charming" was able to get a copy of the tape and is going to get me a copy when she passes through next month. Can't wait to see how it turned out. -Robert

I don't have the exact recipes that will be used at the dinner, just the descriptions, from that I made up what I hope was a close approximation of what the actual dish will be. For the Creole Mustard I used a gourmet mustard that said... well... "Creole Mustard" on the label :->

I'll agree that Janet's recommendation for artichoke works quite well with Martini's, as does the mayonnaise that is often used for dipping. I recently worked up the drinks to accompany a couple of the dinners for the "Tales of the Cocktail" in New Orleans, and for one of them I chose a martini variation that I thought worked very well in my tests. The appetizer is: Shrimp Remoulade Boiled Louisiana shrimp served in cold in a tangy horseradish and Creole mustard remoulade dressing And the cocktail I worked up is: “Tillicum Cocktail” Gin, Vermouth and Peychaud Bitters with smoked salmon garnish Essentially just a normal Martini, but with Peychaud's bitters instead of orange (oh, and by "normal" I mean a 3 parts gin to 1 part dry vermouth... or "my" normal :-) Even with a regular Martini I like the smoked salmon garnish. To be frugal, you can try searching out someplace that sells "scraps" of smoked salmon (this is what I do). Little bits that are leftover trimmings. Not useful for much, but are usually perfectly sized for use as a cocktail garnish. -Robert

An interesting side-note to add here... A lot of the energy surrounding great cocktails in London can be fairly closely traced to when Dale DeGroff started doing consulting work for several of the now-leading bars over there. Perhaps he is "the" reason, or perhaps he was just able to help fan the flames. Either way, I find it amusing that an American is at least partially to blame for London beating America at its own cuisine. -Robert

Just don't let the folks at Bartender Magazine know about this... :-> http://www.usbartender.com/article-barmag-spring04.htm -Robert

Zeb, the bar floats that Beans pointed to operate exactly like the "Cocktail Master" you found on the english website, the primary difference is that the "Cocktail Master" sticks the float at the end of a contraption that guides the pouring a little better. While the Cocktail Master will probably work better, the bar float, with a little practice, should do a fine job... and cost a lot less. You could even buy enough bar floats for each glass, and this way make all the drinks at once. -Robert

"branch" is short for "branch water", which is just purified water.

Ramos Gin Fizz 1 1/2 ounces Dry Gin 1/2 ounce Lemon Juice 1/2 ounce Lime Juice 2 Tbs. Cream 1 Egg White (fresh) 1/4 ounce Seltzer Water 1 Tbs. Powdered Sugar 3 to 4 dashes Orange Flower Water Shake all ingredients -well- with ice for at least one minute (or in a blender). This should result in a fairly foamy consistancy. Strain into a wine glass and top with club soda. As for the Aviation... it might be difficult finding a bar that can serve this. It relies upon "Maraschino Liqueur", which is -not- the juice from a jar of Maraschino's but instead is a clear liqueur made from Marasca cherries. It can be very hard to find sometimes, and even harder to find a bar that stocks it. -Robert

In the Sunday edition of the Seattle Times newspaper they had a decent writeup about the Mint Julep... no ground shaking information, but it's always good to see press on good cocktails... Seattle Times "Mint Julep" writeup -Robert

Yeah, I noticed that as well. Even rum doesn't taste "specifically" sweet, and it doesn't get distilled anywhere near as far as something needs to in order to be called vodka. I can only imagine that perhaps the water that they are using to cut the distillate with to bring it down to bottle strength is one that itself has something of a sweet character to it. The dirty little secret about vodka is that it is the water they use to dilute it with that provides the bulk of what is percieved as its flavor profile.

Further Details... Here are the exact regulations regarding Vodka from the ATF: Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms CHAPTER I ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY PART 5 LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS ... § 5.22 The standards of identity. Standards of identity for the several classes and types of distilled spirits set forth in this section shall be as follows (see also § 5.35, class and type): (a) Class 1; neutral spirits or alcohol. ‘‘Neutral spirits’’ or ‘‘alcohol’’ are distilled spirits produced from any material at or above 190° proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80° proof. (1) ‘‘Vodka’’ is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color. ... These, and other fun and exciting facts can be found here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/27cfr5_03.html -Robert

Do you mean because it is made out of sugar cane? Easy... there aren't any requirements that define "what" vodka can be made from. Potatoes, Grain, Grapes, Sugarcane, etc. Can all be made into vodka. In the US, the main regulation regarding "Vodka" is that it is distilled to at least 190 proof, and then diluted down to normal bottling strength. No indication is provided that it needs to be made from a particular product, or products. -Robert

Had artichokes and martini's most of this weekend (I could make some sort of joke here about "choking down a few Martinis", but I won't ":-)... I was sort of expecting one of those amazing taste combination experiences, like I remember the first time I tried chocolate with a proper Cabernet, but the pairing wasn't quite as awe inspiring as that. It was however very well balanced, and clearly represents a set of flavors that play well together. The sort of thing that allows you to easily consider artichoke based appetizers to serve with Martini's. A little further playing around showed that this medly also can be expended to include mayonnaise (I think this is part of a "bridge" flavor that was supporting the artichoke flavor with the juniper) and eggs. A note on artichokes... I'm not sure how many of you cook your artichokes, but I've got a secret. I grew up eating artichokes as a kid. My mom would always make them by boiling them in water, it took a long time... nearly half an hour or more. Later, when I was cooking on my own, I soon discovered that boiling vegetables is often the wrong way to do it, steaming them preserves flavor better, and so I would steam my artichokes instead (slicing them in half, and spreading them on a bamboo steamer), but it still took a long time. Then I discovered the microwave... Wrap a single artichoke in plastic wrap, microwave on high for 5 minutes, let set for 5 minutes, and you're done. Every microwave seems to be "just a little bit" different, so you may need to play around a little bit with the timing to get this the way you want it, but it works great for me. (note that unlike boiling or steaming, increasing the number of artichokes in the microwave will also require an increase in the amount of time to cook them in.)

FG... on using a Boston Shaker... Your general experimentations get pretty close to the right way to do this, but perhaps not quite for the right reasons :-> You should add the ingredients to the "glass" part of the Boston Shaker because it helps you see what you are doing, and the amounts you are using. When you "shake" the shaker, you should do so with the glass part on top, and the metal on bottom... and most importantly you should do so in an over-the-shoulder style. This is so "just in case" the seal actually breaks while you are shaking, you don't give your customer a shower. I often see folks having trouble breaking the seal on a boston shaker. Sometimes even resorting to tapping it on the edge of the counter (a big no-no!). Myself, I learned some basic physics that always works for me. Once you are done shaking, and ready to break the seal, look at the two shakers, and notice the side which the glass is "leaning" toward. give a firm tap with the heal of your hand on that side, right where you think the glass rim is probably making contact with the metal. The "opposite" side, being already angled up, is just begging to open up, and so your gentle nudge is all it needs. When you "Stir" a drink, you do so in the glass part of a boston shaker, since after all this is where you were adding your ingredients, and so when you pour the drink out, you also do so from the glass part. When you "Shake" a drink, and just broke the seal on the shaker, all of the ingredients are already in the metal part (it clearly doesn't make sense to break the seal with the glass part holding the mixture). So it is best/easiest to pour the drink from the metal part. As for straining... there are two types of strainers, a "Hawthorn" strainer, and a "Julep" strainer. The Hawthorn is the common type with the spring around it. A properly made one should fit "perfectly" in the metal part of the boston shaker, but needs to be "pressed" into the glass part. In fact it should "pop out" of the glass if you remove your hand from it. A "Julep" strainer is a much simpler style, essentially a mini colander (albiet much flatter). It will "fall into" the metal part of a boston shaker, but when placed in the glass, it will set nicely in place. The Julep strainer doesn't work well at all on the metal part of the boston shaker, but in a pinch a Hawthorn strainer works perfectly fine on the glass part. So the general rule of thumb is that a stirred drink is strained with a Julep strainer from the glass portion of a boston shaker, and a shaken drink is strained with a Hawthorn strainer from the metal portion. -Robert

I think this is a great idea. Hope Seattle is one of those two test markets! I was a fan of Starbucks coffee from back before they even sold brewed/espresso coffee. They were just selling beans back in those days, and from just a couple different locations. There were a few other gourmet roasters around Seattle, and after trying most of them I discovered that Starbucks beans just had the rich and robust flavor that struck a chord with me. I may still prefer Starbuck's "Latte's" from a historic loyalty perspective, but in general their latte's are essentially just as good as anybody elses. What I'd -really- love to see is somebody serving properly "pressed" coffee at these "to go" type of espresso joints (I expect there are places, I just haven't seen them yet). This is the only way to really get the full flavor of the coffee. -Robert

...my secret weapon is chili powder. It doesn't add any heat, but it does add some great depth of flavor. -Robert

This is a common question, that I've got a pretty stock answer for... one in fact that I'm sure I've given before on this board, but a quick search didn't find it, so I'll just repeat :-> The first impulse always appears to be the construction of a mildly inclusive "shopping list" to take with you to the liquor store. For somebody like my self, Doc, JAZ, or other experienced mixologists here this isn't a bad way to re-construct your bar after a tornado (or big party) might have cleaned us out. But for a "beginner", I personally think this is the wrong approach. You'll not only end up spending a -lot- of money, but chances are you'll end up buying ingredients that you may never use, as well as a lot of really, really, bad brands (when faced with needing ty purchase upwards of hundreds of dollars of booze, you will surely feel you can "make do" with some of the $8 brands...) Instead of trying to stock your bar so you you are prepared to make "almost anything", it would be far better to simply start your bar up to make "one drink at a time". Pick a drink (hopefully one that you know you like) do a little research on the recipes for this drink. Look for variations, as well as a little history. Can you identify what you think is "the" way to make this drink? Or perhaps there are a couple of different styles. Now go pick up all the ingredients you need to make this one drink, including the different variations you think are appropriate. Now spend the week making this drink up for yourself, significant other, and any friends that might happen to drop by. Try the variations. Take notes. Figure out what "you" think is the right way to make this drink, and now write this recipe down in your own private recipe book. For the next week, select a different drink. Go through the same process of doing a little research, finding the variations, doing the shopping, and then spending a week mixing it up. Eventually, following this process, you will not only build up a fairly good bar, but you will also know how to properly use -everything- in it. I think your friends will find this far more impressive then having a bunch of bottles that you aren't sure how to use. Another tip, is that as you are running low on a particular ingredient, be sure to buy a "new" bottle before you run completely out. And don't buy the same brand, try something else, a little cheaper, or a little more expensive, then do your own little taste test between the two to help you figure out which is the better "bang for the buck". This way you'll figure out which brands you like the best and are willing to spend your hard earned money on. -Robert

Ok... now I know what I'm picking up on my way home tonight!. I wonder if there is an appropriate way to garnish a Martini with artichoke? I suppose you could take a cooked artichoke, and get down to where the leaves are totally edible, clip off any bit of thorn on it, then roll it up and pierce it with a pick. Perhaps even roll it around something... perhaps a bit of smoked salmon? -Robert

By now, we of course all have a copy of Gary's "The Joy of Mixology", but there are of countless other books out there worth picking up, some old, some new. The old books are of course often the hardest to find, our salvation comes when somebody chooses to do a reprint of one of the old favorites, or better yet, when they do a faithful facimile edition. The oldest book of bartender recipes is Jerry Thomas's 1862 "Bar Tenders Guide or How To Mix Drinks". While this book was reprinted several times, to the best of my knowledge a facimile reprint was never available... until now. I just noticed that New Day Publishing is offering copies of this on their site, along with "The Stork Club Bar Book", and "The Old Waldorf-Astoria Bar Book". http://www.oldwaldorfastoriabarbook.com I've already picked up copies of the other two books, and was quite happy with the quality and faithfulness of the reproduction. So I've just now ordered several copies of JT's book. (Note: Their site is doing some strange things with frames which will cause problems for IE users who try to place an order. To avoid this problem you should use this link for placing an order via PayPal: http://www.oldwaldorfastoriabarbook.com/pages/5/page5.html) I am not in any way associated with New Day Publishing, I am just passing this information on because I think the opportunity to get a facimile copy of JT's book is not something to pass up. -Robert [Edited to fix ordering link]

I'm naturally one of those who is bothered by folks who refer to anything served in a cocktail glass as being a "Martini". If I were to pour orange juice into a wine glass, would it now be called orange wine? -Robert

I recently ran into a company that is selling a little device that is designed to (apparently) easily stuff pitted olives with just about anything. They call it the "Olive Injector"... peanut butter stuffed olives anyone? :-> http://www.MartiniWare.com

When somebody is wanting to extend their familiarity with a spirit (such as Whiskey) I always recommend that they try to learn a little bit about "what" that spirit actually is all about, and then use that as a stepping stone into trying out different brands. Of all of the spirits, whisky has probably the most complictated and confusing geneology. Whisk(e)y started off as simply being a way to take something that was easy/cheap to ferment (grain) and then distill it in order to increase it's alcohol. In areas that took this to it's extreme, and wanted to get as high of an alcohol content as possible, ended up with Vodka. For places that were satisfied with not spending that much time and energy on distillation, they ended up with a product that still retained some of the flavor of its original grain-based origins, and this became known as Whisk(e)y. We are probably talking about the early 1400's here, which is when we start seeing some minor mentions of the distillation of a brewed beverage in order to create "aqua vita", or "usquebaugh", which eventually bacame "whiskey". Ireland "appears" to be where formallized distillation of whiskey gained a decent foothold, but it also was evolving along similar lines in Scottland at this time as well, both areas appeared to exchange some of their techniques, styles, and equiptment for processing, although one key feature remained unique to Scottland, and that was that they would dry their malted barley over peat fires, which would give Scotch Whisky a unique smokey flavor that was lacking in its Irish counterpart. When Settlers from Ireland and Scottland arrived in America, they brought with them their distillation skills and processes, and quickly began setting up shop. Instead of using primarily barley as their ingredient, they began trying various grain products that were already well along in their cultivation here in America, noteably corn. Originally these settlers were situated on the east coast, but as the tax collectors began seeing distilled spirits as a way to beef up their coffers, the distillers moved further and further westwards, eventually settling in around the area now known as Kentucky... and as they moved, they continued to acclimate their processes to using the grains on hand, and thus Rye and Wheat were added to their existing recipes of corn and barley. Gradually, production evolved from being just the process of producing alcohol, to producing a product that had some level of quality associated to it. Originally whiskies would be sold soon after distillation, and would have been clear, harsh, and would have a flavor nothing like what we currently associate with American Whiskey. With a settled business in place, the whiskey distillers could take the time to both fine-tune their mash recipe, as well as start storing whiskey in barrels, which would mellow their flavors, and deepen their color. Rye became the popularized whiskey, and was made (as you might expect) with Rye as its primary ingredient. Another style of whiskey, "Bourbon", started getting noticed, the name coming simply from the fact that the barrels of this whiskey were stamped with the port along the Mississippi from which they originated... "Bourbon". Bourbon was made with corn as it's primary ingredient. It wasn't until after prohibition that Bourbon and Rye would exchange their roles, which is why Bourbon is not the predominant American Whiskey, and Rye can be very hard to find. For an American whiskey to be called "Bourbon", it can be made anywhere in the US, but it has to contain at least 51% corn in its mash recipe, and it has to be matured in new charred oak barrels. For it to be called "Rye" it has to be made with at least 51% rye, and also matured in new charred oak barrels. In Canada, things evolved a little differently. The Grain Millers were where farmers would take their grains to be milled into flour. Often the millers would be paid with a portion of the grain, and so many millers would have a stockpile of grain that they could then sell as flour. In many cases they started ending up with an excess that they didn't know what to do with, and they soon discovered that they could begin fermeting the grain before it was milled, and then distill it into whisky. This provided them essentially with a way of indefinately storing their "grain bank", although it would no longer be possible of making bread with it :-> Usually they would save their better grain for turning into flour, and the lesser grain which wasn't really suitable, they would turn into whisky. Since these gain millers would have a rather diverse collection of grain to use, the whiskies they would make became a "blended" style, with their recipe never specifically sticking to one particular grain or another. There is little in the way of regulations as to what a "Canadian Whisky" is, other then the fact that is is made in Canada. However virtually all of them are still of the"Blended" style, which means that the distiller will blend together the distillation from several different types of grain, sometimes even using neutral grain spirit. And while many people often refer to Canadian Whisky as "Rye", there is far less then the requisite 51% rye in Canadian Whisky. In the above, I've tried to stick as much as possible to the proper "naming" of Whisk(e)y. Traditionally (although there are no regulations that I know of that demand this), the products from Ireland and America are referred to as "Whiskey", while the products from Scottland and Canada are referred to as "Whisky" (without the 'e'). There are some exceptions of course, both Maker's Mark and George Dickle here in America refer to their product as Whisky. So what we have now is the following styles of whisk(e)y: Irish: Perhaps the simplest style of Whisky flavor-wise, made from malted barley like scotch, but without the smokey peat flavor. Scotch: It's often strong smokey character can make it a little daunting to the newly initiated. The "Lowland" Scotches will be of a softer style then the "Highland" Scotches, and so to provide for a more gradtual introduction you might want to start off with a Lowland Scotch. American Whiskey: Bourbon, and Rye, are the main special varieties, but you can also find many "Blended" Whiskies in America as well. Bourbon has a sweeter flavor to it, which comes from the corn. While Rye will be drier, and perhaps with a more detectable spicey character, which comes from Rye being the major ingredient. Canadian Whisky: Virtually all of them are blended, and across all of the whiskies, the blended versions are usually of less specific character then the non-blended versions. Now... did that just confuse you further, or did it actually answer any questions you might have had? :-> -Robert

Cynar in iced coffee? Never even thought of trying that!

Speaking of peach bitters... As Doc said, there are a limited number of classic recipes that use this. But that doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to that. I like using them as a "garnish" on a Bellini. Once the drink is fully made, just add a dash to the top, and they provide a nice ofactory note that enhances the drink. (I'll assume of course you are making a "real" bellini, with just champagne and peach puree). I've also come up with a few recipes of my own that were specifically designed to make use of peach bitters which I happen to be quite proud of. Trident Gotham Renaissance All of which you can get to from this page on my site: http://www.drinkboy.com/LiquorCabinet/Flav...achBitters.html The "Trident" is in itself an interesting cocktail since all of the ingredients it uses are ones that are often hard to find in a bar. Dry Sherry is probably it's most common ingredient, but Aquavit can be a little scarce, and Cynar is extremely rare to fine, rarer to find it actually being "used". And peach bitters of course is so rare that I have to bring some along with me if I have any hope of getting a drink with it. At the Zig Zag Cafe here in Seattle, they have the Trident on their cocktail menu, and serve so many of them that the manager of one of the liquor stores dropped in one day just to find out what the heck they were doing with Cynar that would make the Zig Zag go through more Cynar then all of the other bars in Washington State combined :-> -Robert

Doc, I wasn't lurking, just felt that you had the conversation well in hand, and didn't see that there was anything specific to add :-> If you fully -burn- the sugars you don't end up with anything even remotely useable. However when we refer to burnt sugar culinarily, we are actually talking about carmelized sugar, similar to the "burnt sugar" topping of a creme brule. I use carmelized sugar as the final stage in making bitters. Actually, once I carmelize the sugar, I turn this into a simple syrup by dissolving it in water (thats a lot of fun when the sugar is still hot :-) and then mix that with the tincture of herbs, spices, and flavorings that is the base for my bitters. You could just use simple syrup, but the carmelization allows the sweetenting to be a rounder flavor with more depth then just simple syrup by itself. In fact I usually keep some straight carmelized simple syrup also on hand for adding just a little more interesting flavor to some drinks that I might otherwise use simple syrup, or sometimes even drinks that don't normally call for it. The sidecar for instance has nice flavor profile when just slightly enhanced with carmelized simple syrup. -Robert