On Stirring & Cooking Your Cocktails

[dietsch]

It isn't.  After following up on some experiments Dave Wondrich did, I confirmed that stirring with cracked ice in a frozen stirring glass will give you the coldest drink.

It's all about surface area contact for thermal transfer.  With larger cubes, shaking will give you a colder drink because you increase the area of contact (and thus thermal transfer) by moving the liquid around vigorously.

←

I can't remember whether anyone's addressed this on the forums, so I apologize if I'm repeating a question. My science is pretty rusty, so the thermal properties of various materials is confusing. Is a frozen glass better for stirring than a frozen shaker tin would be? I stirred up a martini in a frozen tin last night and got a lovely layer of frost on the outside and a nice viscosity in the gin.

[slkinsey]

The frost on the outside of the mixing tin is indicative of two things: First, that the contents of the shaker are cold; second, and more to the point, that the metal mixing tin has good thermal conductivity.

Anyway... this is something I covered in some detail here in a thread on cocktail science. The short version: A common glass mixing vessel has a much higher thermal capacity than a common thin metal mixing vessel of the same size. Therefore, if we are using a room temperature mixing vessel, we would like to use metal because it has far less thermal energy to contribute to the drink -- resulting in a colder drink. If we have a frozen mixing vessel, we would like to use glass because it is able to absorb more thermal energy from the drink -- resulting in a colder drink.

In terms of real-world application, frozen glass is probably the best. Something like heavy frozen silver would be better, because that mixing vessel would not only have a large thermal capacity but also good thermal conductivity (i.e., it would be able to absorb even more thermal energy from the drink than frozen glass, which does not have good thermal conductivity).

My eGCI class on cookware has good sections on thermal capacity and thermal conductivity (the former is far more important in the context of barware).

Edited August 4, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[dietsch]

The frost on the outside of the mixing tin is indicative of two things:  First, that the contents of the shaker are cold; second, and more to the point, that the metal mixing tin has good thermal conductivity.

Anyway... this is something I covered in some detail here in a thread on cocktail science.  The short version:  A common glass mixing vessel has a much higher thermal capacity than a common thin metal mixing vessel of the same size.  Therefore, if we are using a room temperature mixing vessel, we would like to use metal because it has far less thermal energy to contribute to the drink -- resulting in a colder drink.  If we have a frozen mixing vessel, we would like to use glass because it is able to absorb more thermal energy from the drink -- resulting in a colder drink.

In terms of real-world application, frozen glass is probably the best.  Something like heavy frozen silver would be better, because that mixing vessel would not only have a large thermal capacity but also good thermal conductivity (i.e., it would be able to absorb even more thermal energy from the drink than frozen glass, which does not have good thermal conductivity).

My eGCI class on cookware has good sections on thermal capacity and thermal conductivity (the former is far more important in the context of barware).

←

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time for a brief primer, and I'll be sure to read the links you provided.

[boneface]

Most everyone down here likes them shaken until they freeze, and I don't know whether to attribute that to a lack of knowledge or to the incredibly high temperature and humidity outside.

I know brewpubs down here that serve their ales in room temperature glasses. But, when it's 100+ degrees, room temperature is not what I crave.

Therefore, I give people what they want, which is head splitting cold martinis with ice slivers in them.....

[jsmeeker]

Customers around here think the sign of a well made martini are the little chunks of ice floating on top.  Seems like it's completely backwards, but when in Rome...

←

I get that a lot too...weird

←

I once had a customer at the store where I used to work ask me if we carried "the tool bartenders use to get the little pieces of ice on the top of martinis."

←

I was watching a "reality" show on Bravo today. It's a show that is a "behind the scenes" look of a resort in Palm Springs (The Parker is what I think it's called).. Anyway, in the episode I saw, a high profile travel agent was there doing a tour/inspection of the property. She was having dinner at one of the restaurants and the hotel and RAVED to the bartender about how her drink had a lot of ice chips floating on top. This is an "expert" that is guiding people as to what is good service and not good service.

what the hell??

[adegiulio]

Customers around here think the sign of a well made martini are the little chunks of ice floating on top.  Seems like it's completely backwards, but when in Rome...

←

I get that a lot too...weird

←

I once had a customer at the store where I used to work ask me if we carried "the tool bartenders use to get the little pieces of ice on the top of martinis."

←

I was watching a "reality" show on Bravo today. It's a show that is a "behind the scenes" look of a resort in Palm Springs (The Parker is what I think it's called).. Anyway, in the episode I saw, a high profile travel agent was there doing a tour/inspection of the property. She was having dinner at one of the restaurants and the hotel and RAVED to the bartender about how her drink had a lot of ice chips floating on top. This is an "expert" that is guiding people as to what is good service and not good service.

what the hell??

←

Maybe it was a margarita...

[Lan4Dawg]

seldomly are cocktails shaken for several simple reasons:

1. James Bond ordered his cocktails "shaken not stirred".

2. Tom Cruise' movie "Cocktail" showed all of the drinks being shaken.

3. Shaking is much more fun than stirring.

4. People think that is how they are supposed to be made.

5 Shaking makes a lot of noise and looks nice so bar patrons pay attention to you while you are doing it.

6. It is hard to impress the good looking blonde at the end of the bar by stirring a cocktail.

[Alex]

Ask Dr. Knowledge, from The Boston Globe

While the detailed chemistry is not fully understood, shaken martinis are much more effective than either gin or vermouth alone at deactivating hydrogen peroxide, and about twice as effective when shaken as opposed to being stirred.

[slkinsey]

You can read the paper here:

Trevithick CC, Chartrand MM, Wahlman J, Rahman F, Hirst M, Trevithick JR. Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis. BMJ 1999;319:1600-1602

[jmfangio]

There's an article in today's LA Times on stirring vs. shaking, and the movement towards stirring.

THE making of a martini raises so many alluring questions: Does shaking spoil the taste of the martini? Does stirring get the drink cold enough? Should the bartender put on an exciting show, or should he mix with masterly nonchalance? (There's a delicious word for that quality: sprezzatura.)

For a century or more, the shake-or-stir debate has raged among martini drinkers. But lately it seems that the current is running strongly in the stirring direction.

When the Culver City-area branch of Father's Office opens next year, don't bother asking for a shaken martini. "What's a

shaker? We don't own a shaker," owner Sang Yoon says. "We don't even have a place to put one. We've designed the place that way."

[jsmeeker]

Still not seeing any one stir. Shaking really hard with really small ice seems to be the norm at bars. Makes for a weak Manhattan.

Although I will say that not having the capability to shake is about as wrong. Shaking IS proper procedure for many cocktails. Is Father's Office simply not going to prepare those? Or will they prepare them as incorrectly as other places prepare things that should be stirried?

[johnder]

Hmm no shaker eh? Does that mean I can't have a daiquri, or a margarita?

[Scotttos]

What about egg drinks? They gonna stir my pisco sour : )

[adegiulio]

What about egg drinks?  They gonna stir my pisco sour : )

←

Maybe they have a whisk??

[lostmyshape]

"What's a shaker? We don't own a shaker," owner Sang Yoon says. "We don't even have a place to put one. We've designed the place that way."

that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard!

If the cocktail includes juice, cream, or eggs it should be shaken, if it is spiritus, stired.  A drink shaken is effervesent, frothy, alive with bubbles that dance on your tounge.  A stired drink should be slick, chill, liquid velvet, viscous and calming to  the spirit.  The exceptions to this rule are the Stinger, and the Tombstone.

←

the above is what i always go by. this dallying over how cold or how diluted a drink is when stirred or shaken just seems silly to me. if you use good ice and technique, your drink will be properly cold and diluted either way.

i just go by two hard rules: shake if

1) required to combine an ingredient (e.g., a thick simple syrup)

2) one needs foam (usually via egg white).

otherwise it's just preference for mouthfeel... and either is just as valid as the other. and although the traditional way to make a martini is stirred, who needs tradition every time (and to the point of not even having a shaker is dumb). i like my gin and vermouth (and bitters) slick and oily - stirred - but my wife prefers it alive with bubbles - shaken.

although i'd love to see them whisk that pisco sour!

[slkinsey]

I think the whole reaction saying "oh my god! what are those idiots at Father's Office going to do when someone orders a Ramos Fizz?!" is a bit misplaced. Like many articles on cocktail developments, and especially those by the LA Times, this one simply asks the wrong person. I don't know if there are any serious cocktailian bars in LA along the lines of what exists in NYC and a few cities around the country, but regardless... Father's Office in LA does not seem to be one. From what I can tell (web site here) it's a medium-upscale pub well known for burgers that is focused mostly on beer, of which there are 30 on tap (cocktails aren't even mentioned on the web site). One is not surprised to learn that "Trivial Pursuit" is a popular passtime there.

What this means is that the guy from Father's Office was happy to get the press mention, but the fact is that they are not a serious cocktail spot and they don't seem to be set up to make any cocktails that one would be unhappy to have stirred. I imagine they do 99% of their (presumably relatively meager) cocktail business in highballs, rocks drinks and the occasional Martini or Manhattan -- none of which requires a shaker -- and I'm quite sure there isn't an egg white to be found behind the bar.

ETA: Considering that Father's Office doesn't seem to be much of a serious cocktailian bar, or even cocktail-focused establishment, it's interesting to me that this is the second LA Times article on the subject of cocktails that quotes Sang Yoon of Father's Office to appear within a month (the other being this article on cocktail "rules"). I'm wondering if Mr. Yoon has some in with the LAT staff.

Edited December 27, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[lostmyshape]

fair enough... however, being quoted in an article about cocktails with such an intense opinion sort of implies you're serious about cocktails.

however, many reporters have "go-to" sources when it comes to a subject. it sounds like Yoon is the LA Times food writer's "bar source." of course Yoon will probably answer any question the LA Times asks, because it's great publicity for his bar.

Edited December 27, 2007 by lostmyshape (log)

[jmfangio]

I think the whole reaction saying "oh my god!  what are those idiots at Father's Office going to do when someone orders a Ramos Fizz?!" is a bit misplaced.  Like many articles on cocktail developments, and especially those by the LA Times, this one simply asks the wrong person.  I don't know if there are any serious cocktailian bars in LA along the lines of what exists in NYC and a few cities around the country, but regardless... Father's Office in LA does not seem to be one.

All true...sadly, LA is not a great cocktail town (though I did just find a new bartender at Campanile who looks promising). The original Father's Office in Santa Monica is a great place - they were one of the first micro-brew pubs in LA, and they have fantastic food - and I look forward to trying out the new location, which is much, much closer to me. But, Yoon was probably far from the best person to go to on this subject. I wouldn't call up Dale DeGroff for an article on sous vide.

[Chris Amirault]

Stirring technique questions.

Had some fine stirred drinks at PDT and Death & Co a few days ago. I noted varying rest times for stirred drinks. What's the guideline?

Some bartenders stir only in one direction, using the spoon to create a vortex of ice and liquid and therefore not jostling the ice much. Others place the spoon in the middle and stir by rotating the spoon back-and-forth, using the twisted edge on the spoon, and therfore jostling the ice far more. Thoughts?

[plattetude]

ETA:  Considering that Father's Office doesn't seem to be much of a serious cocktailian bar, or even cocktail-focused establishment, it's interesting to me that this is the second LA Times article on the subject of cocktails that quotes Sang Yoon of Father's Office to appear within a month (the other being this article on cocktail "rules").  I'm wondering if Mr. Yoon has some in with the LAT staff. 

←

I was assuming from the context of the article that the new location may have more of a focus on cocktails than the original location. Maybe they're trying to catch the cocktail buzz to help in the pre-opening buzz....

Christopher

[slkinsey]

Had some fine stirred drinks at PDT and Death & Co a few days ago. I noted varying rest times for stirred drinks. What's the guideline?

Stirring and resting time will depend on a number of unique factors, most prominently among them: temperature of mixing vessel, composition of mixing vessel, temperature of ice, size and shape of ice, amount of ice relative to volume of spirits. By and large, what you want to look for when stirring a drink is dilution.

Some bartenders stir only in one direction, using the spoon to create a vortex of ice and liquid and therefore not jostling the ice much. Others place the spoon in the middle and stir by rotating the spoon back-and-forth, using the twisted edge on the spoon, and therfore jostling the ice far more. Thoughts?

As a general rule of thumb, I find that bartenders who are violent with the ice when stirring a drink are not particularly invested in high-calibre mixology. This would include those who like to "stir" by twisting the spoon between thumb and forefinger while plunging it up and down in the ice. This is likely to result in a drink that is perhaps not as cloudy and aerated as a shaken drink, but not as clear and silky as a slowly stirred drink either. "Half-cloudy" I'd call these drinks.

If one is going to take the trouble to stir a drink, why not do it with the proper affect? As Dave Wondrich points out in Imbibe!, the vogue for stirring developed as the result a desire on the part of bartenders to showcase their sprezzatura (from Castiglione's Il Cortegiano: the art of doing something difficult and/or complex with apparent ease and nonchalance) -- hence the masterful intermingling of spirits with nothing more than a languid turn of the wrist.

[Alchemist]

Stirring is one of the hardest things to master behind the bar. The shake is the gregarious rockstar, it gets the applause and the swooning fans, while the stir is the studio muscian, creating genius and getting no accolades. The shake is designed to make the cocktail dance, while the stir is there to make the cocktail recline on a sofa and wax poetic.

At The Violet Hour cocktail servers were part of the 50 hour training course. I got them to try stirring, so the bartenders could build the drink and the servers could stir it when it was busy. The look on thier face when they couldn't get the ice to lackadaisically swirl, like a debutant at a cotilion, was great. Their eyebrows would go up and a frown took over. You can see the "this shouldn't be this hard" creases between thier eyebrows.

Sloppy stirring is painful to watch. Booze is wasted, the clanking of metal on glass is unsettling, the little chips of ice an unwelcome sharp addition to what should be warming, fridgid, smooth, slick, liquid velvet.

[slkinsey]

It's interesting to me that no one has designed a better stirring vessel. I'd think that something with a convex curved shape, perhaps also with a gently rounded inner surface at the bottom of the glass, would better facilitate graceful and easy stirring than the straight-sided or gently sloped, narrow-at-the bottom mixing glasses we use today. In fact, a properly curved "stirring glass" could easily be employed as a "swirling glass" where the contents are mixed around without even needing the intervention of a spoon (the bartender would gently move the glass around in a circular motion, thereby using our old friend centripetal force to create a minor vortex inside the glass without the use of a spoon).

[eje]

It's interesting to me that no one has designed a better stirring vessel.  I'd think that something with a convex curved shape, perhaps also with a gently rounded inner surface at the bottom of the glass, would better facilitate graceful and easy stirring than the straight-sided or gently sloped, narrow-at-the bottom mixing glasses we use today.  In fact, a properly curved "stirring glass" could easily be employed as a "swirling glass" where the contents are mixed around without even needing the intervention of a spoon (the bartender would gently move the glass around in a circular motion, thereby using our old friend centripetal force to create a minor vortex inside the glass without the use of a spoon).

←

I can say from experience that big pitchers with rounded bottoms work great for Sazeracs for groups. Once you get the sugar dissolved, you don't need the spoon, just swirl the pitcher as slkinsey suggests.

In fact, I prefer making Sazeracs in pitchers to individually. Doesn't hurt that it is a crowd pleaser of a drink. However, it really is a drink where batching the steps makes preparing them much more efficient. Takes almost the same amount of time to make a big pitcher of Sazeracs for 6 that it does to make a single drink.

The only real challenge is finding an appropriate utensil for the straining. Especially since every time I've done this its been at friends' or families' houses, where I don't have access to proper bar equipment. Maybe I should start checking that second bag with proper mixing and measuring tools when traveling!

[slkinsey]

I'd like to have a "swirling pitcher" with a curved/rounded interior capable of making from 1 to 3 drinks at a time. It would have a pouring spout but the top would be sized so that the opening is approximately the same as a bar-standard mixing tin. This would facilitate easy addition of ice to the mixing vessel and would also fit a standard Hawthorne strainer.