On Stirring & Cooking Your Cocktails

[Chris Amirault]

I watched Dale DeGroff and Dave Wondrich's stirring technique really carefully at a recent workshop, and Dale made the point that he gives his spoon a slight curve in the lower half to facilitate stirring. That trick helps. I've also learned over the years that I should go counterclockwise (I'm a lefty).

Dale's also a smooth stirrer, rotating the ice around in the glass in a constant motion, whereas Dave lifts and lowers his spoon now and then.

[Alcuin]

It also helps to hold the spoon between your thumb and forefinger at the top and between your pinky and ring-finger on the shaft of the spoon (or between your ring and middle fingers). If find this gives you more control for smooth stirring.

[Mattmvb]

There's nothing magical about a spoon.  In fact, a rod may be a better stirring implement.

←

I'd agree with that. In fact when stirring cocktails you effectively are using it as a rod. The main reason a bar spoon is used is that it's a multi-purpose instrument - stirring, measuring, layering (especially if you have the type with a disc on the end), light muddling (again the disc type) etc. This cuts down on the amount of kit you have around you.

My stirring technique has evolved over the years into something I rarely see anyone else doing, but I find it gives me the best results. I take a room temp boston glass and put the spoon in bowl up so it rests diagonally accross the glass. I then add ice to the brim and gently stir - the time varies depending upon the temp of the glass and freshness of ice. When stirring the aim is to keep all the ice in the same position relative to each other, I visualise it as trying to keep it as one irregularly shaped ice cube. I then strain off the dilution with a julep strainer leaving the spoon in position - I use a julep strainer because I can get it into the glass and hold the ice in position. I then add the ingredients, stir until experience tells me it's ready and strian into the cocktail glass, which is chilled in a fridge rather than freezer. I've found that this method gives me the most control over the level of dilution whilst also delivering an ideal temperature.

Also, when stirring, I don't grip the spoon at all, I push it around with my index finger allowing the spoon to rotate if it wants to.

Why glass not tin? Firstly it's the way it's done by 99% of bartenders over here and was how I was taught, secondly I prefer the visual aspect both for the customer and my own refererence. It's also easier to get a perfectly smooth stir around a glass rim, especially when the tin has seen a bit of action and has got a bit deformed around the rim.

With regard to the general topic, I was quite surprised to learn how popular shaking Martinis, Manhattans etc is in the US - it's virtually unheard of over here, I even know a few places that will say no if you ask for a shaken martini - which I think is ridiculous, by all means spend a moment to try to persuade the customer that they'll get a better drink if it's stirred but failing that the customer is always right!

Cheers,

Matt

[brinza]

There's nothing magical about a spoon.  In fact, a rod may be a better stirring implement.

←

True. Just ask a chemist. They stir with rods, not spoons (although part of the reason may be to use glass, which is inert, instead of metal).

Lately, I've been stirring everything that does not call for citrus juice.

[Chris Hennes]

In your experience, is there any difference in the results between actually stirring, versus just swirling the liquid by picking up the glass? When swirling it seems quite straightforward to prevent the ice from knocking against itself and to get everything moving around smoothly in the glass. Up-topic someone suggested that a specific shape of mixing glass might make this more effective, but to be honest I am typically too lazy to pull out a spoon (or a chopstick) and typically resort to just swirling the glass for 30 seconds or so. I have not noticed any difference in the cocktails made this way, but I've never done a side-by-side comparison.

[slkinsey]

Most bar mixing glasses are tall and narrow, thus not particularly good for swirling -- especially when you want them to be as full of ice as is practically possible.

[MattJohnson]

Absolutely it makes sense to vary the amount of dilution according to the proof of your ingredients.  You might want more dilution when the ingredients are high proof and less dilution when the ingredients are lower proof.

This is only possible, however, if you have the ability to chill the lower proof drink sufficiently with a relatively low amount of dilution.  This will depend on some combination of equipment and ice.  If the mixing vessel is cold, and especially if it has a high thermal capacity, and your ice is cold, you are ahead of the game.  You can further enhance your chances by using larger pieces of ice.  All of these things, in different ways, can contribute to a situation where the low temperature is reached before the desired minimum dilution is reached -- meaning that you are primarily controlling dilution by stirring the drink and deciding when to strain it off the ice.  If your primary task in making a stirred drink is chilling the drink, your ability to control dilution is reduced.

←

What you're saying makes sense. You can always dilute more with agitation and time. With my materials, I've managed to find what I think is the sweet spot where the dilution/chill factor work out for my tastes. But I think I'll try to start chilling my mixing material and see what happens. I'll also try mixing in the tins and compare.

edit to add, the only other thing I have to manage now is my freezer space. there isn't much!

←

Just a quick follow up. The last several weeks, I've tried mixing in tins and chilled pint glasses. I've not noticed a colder drink, however I've noticed that the texture of the drinks are better. I'm guessing that the drink _is_ colder, but that manifests itself to me in a more silky, oily mouthfeel.

[John the Barman]

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.

←

I know it's a little late, but check out some of LA's cocktail bars these days. Seven Grand, The Edison, Hungry Cat, The Association, Comme Ca, Sona, Providence, Cole's, Tiki Ti, The Doheny, Malo, STK, Bar Centro, Ryan M's cocktail lists at SBE locations (Katsua, S Bar,...). Many more great, fresh juice drink programs in the area are going into effect at the moment. As important as any others is the soon to open 'The Varnish.' Eric Alprin and Sasha have something really special on the horizon with this bar. Next time anybody wants to take a trip to LA LA land, drop by Seven Grand. I promise we stir our spiritus drinks. I'll point you in the right direction. - John Coltharp, -lead barman, Seven Grand whiskey bar

[arctan]

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.

←

this should be on a tee-shirt

[slkinsey]

Moderator's note: this string of posts was split off from the Pimento Dram topic -- CA

"Cook" is slang for just letting the booze sit on the ice when you make a stirred cocktail rather than stirring it. Stirring the cocktail increases thermal transfer and melting. So, if you are in a professional situation where you're making several drinks, you can put the booze on the ice for a stirred cocktail, stir a bit and then let the drink "cook" while you're giving your attention to something else (say, shaking and pouring out a few shaken cocktails). Then later you can stir a bit more and strain. It's a practical way of "pausing" the chilling and dilution of the stirred cocktail when multitasking.

In a home situation, or when not multitasking, there is no practical reason to do this. However, for some reason, once this professional practice was described in these forums, people got the idea that it's a meaningful and beneficial technique to be used in preparing stirred cocktails. It isn't really, though. There is no reason not to simply stir the drink until you hit the temperature and dilution you want and then strain it out -- no "cooking" required. All of which is to say: don't sweat it.

Edited August 17, 2009 by chrisamirault (log)

[Chris Amirault]

In re cooking:

"Cook" is slang for just letting the booze sit on the ice when you make a stirred cocktail rather than stirring it. ... It's a practical way of "pausing" the chilling and dilution of the stirred cocktail when multitasking.

In a home situation, or when not multitasking, there is no practical reason to do this.  However, for some reason, once this professional practice was described in these forums, people got the idea that it's a meaningful and beneficial technique to be used in preparing stirred cocktails.  It isn't really, though.

←

Now I'm confused. Over in the gin proof topic you referenced the Cooking Issues blog and wrote,

Have a look at this chart here in particular.  Dilution continues to increase over time, long after the mixture goes below 0C.

←

I had always understood -- and had been told by a couple of bartenders -- that dilution continued after you stopped stirring, thus the "cooking." Why does dilution stop when you stop stirring? Wouldn't the same principles apply as in the chart above?

[vice]

In re cooking:

"Cook" is slang for just letting the booze sit on the ice when you make a stirred cocktail rather than stirring it. ... It's a practical way of "pausing" the chilling and dilution of the stirred cocktail when multitasking.

In a home situation, or when not multitasking, there is no practical reason to do this.  However, for some reason, once this professional practice was described in these forums, people got the idea that it's a meaningful and beneficial technique to be used in preparing stirred cocktails.  It isn't really, though.

←

Now I'm confused. Over in the gin proof topic you referenced the Cooking Issues blog and wrote,

Have a look at this chart here in particular.  Dilution continues to increase over time, long after the mixture goes below 0C.

←

I had always understood -- and had been told by a couple of bartenders -- that dilution continued after you stopped stirring, thus the "cooking." Why does dilution stop when you stop stirring? Wouldn't the same principles apply as in the chart above?

←

Allow me to put on my speculation hat.

Perhaps "slowing" is the more accurate word rather than Sam's "pausing". Dilution absolutely will increase after stirring if the drink is left on ice, but this may happen relatively slowly. For mixing a drink at home, where multitasking isn't necessary, it's easy enough to just stir to the desired level of dilution and strain immediately. For the professional bartender, cooking keeps the time-intensive stirred drinks cold while the rest of the order is prepared.

The Cooking Issues chart shows dilution vs. active shaking time, not "cooking" time. We might assume that dilution vs active stirring time would look similar, but dilution vs cooking time would have a much flatter slope.

eta: I do let stirred drinks sit for a minute at home, but it's mostly because that's when I put bottles back in the cabinet and make a garnish. I think this is just more of a habitual rhythm I've gotten into than something really purposeful.

Edited August 16, 2009 by vice (log)

[slkinsey]

vice has the right idea. All the thermal transfer and melting that happens when we shake a cocktail also happens when we stir a cocktail, it just happens at a slower rate. Why does it happen at a slower rate? Without getting too technical, we can say that the faster we move the liquid and ice around, the faster the rate of thermal transfer and the faster the rate of melting. So, yes, dilution does continue while the cocktail "cooks" (and so does chilling) -- it just happens at a much lower rate compared to when the mixture is being stirred.

Think about it for a minute: We can use whole ice cubes and stir the cocktail for perhaps as much as 60 seconds to get proper dilution and chilling. If we shake the same cocktail with the same ice for 60 seconds, we are going to get a lot more dilution.

So... when the booze is just sitting on the ice and not being agitated at all, we have the condition for which thermal transfer and melting are at their lowest possible rate. This may be useful if you need the extra time to do something else (e.g., a busy bar). But when you do have the time to stir the cocktail, letting it "cook" has no usefulness.

For example, say you are shooting for a Manhattan with 25% dilution. You stir Manhattan #1 constantly until it reaches 25% dilution and then strain it; and you stir Manhattan #2, then cook it for a while, then stir it a but more, and then strain it. . . How, exactly, would you think these two cocktails would be different? And if they are different, in what way would Manhattan #2 be an improvement over Manhattan #1, or in what way would Manhattan #2 have characteristics or qualities that couldn't be achieved with a constant stirring technique (e.g., by cracking the ice more)? One can, by the way, make a "stirred" cocktail without any stirring whatsoever. I've done this a few times with Martinis: Start with a frozen heavy glass mixing glass filled with medium-fie cracked ice that has been kept dry in the freezer. Pour in the booze. Let it sit for a while. Pour it out. No stirring required, and so long as you understand your materials and are consistent with your cooking time you'll get the right amount of chilling and dilution every time.

Edited August 17, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Got it: "slow" rather than "pause" makes sense to me. Thanks to both of you for the explanations.

[Kohai]

This technique was demonstrated for me by a bartender at London's M&H recently.

"Martinis," he said, "make themselves." And he pushed the tin into crushed ice for about a minute while he busied himself elsewhere.

Some Japanese bartenders I've worked with believe that, beyond just chilling and diluting, stirring techniques are crucial to binding flavors together, a concept that was new to me at the time.

Their explanations reminded me of swordsmithing, hammering and twisting and hammering ten steel rods together until they have fused into a single blade. To the Japanese, simply allowing a drink to get cold on ice is insufficient: the ingredients' flavors do not become one. But I'm not sure how much I've ever bought into their technique.

<edited for typo>

Edited August 23, 2009 by Kohai (log)

[slkinsey]

Japanese bartending is interesting, but also full of untrue ideas. This is one of them.

[Chris Amirault]

Ouch. That's a hard shake, Sam.

[Bfishback]

This technique was demonstrated for me by a bartender at London's M&H recently.

"Martinis," he said, "make themselves." And he pushed the tin into crushed ice for about a minute while he busied himself elsewhere.

Some Japanese bartenders I've worked with believe that, beyond just chilling and diluting, stirring techniques are crucial to binding flavors together, a concept that was new to me at the time.

Their explanations reminded me of swordsmithing, hammering and twisting and hammering ten steel rods together until they have fused into a single blade. To the Japanese, simply allowing a drink to get cold on ice is insufficient: the ingredients' flavors do not become one. But I'm not sure how much I've ever bought into their technique.

<edited for typo>

←

Completely OT but if it was Japanese sword making you are referring to it would be one single piece of steel folded over many times.

[Kohai]

Ha, welcome to eGullet.

[db_campbell]

Ouch. That's a hard shake, Sam.

←

(emphasis added)

Nice pun

[slkinsey]

Ha, welcome to eGullet.

None of the foregoing should be taken as disrespect or lack of interest in Japanese-style bartending. Rather think of it as respect for accuracy. Philosophically, if Japanese bartenders would like to believe that stirring at 1.2 revolutions per second with a spoon held at 6 degrees off true while focusing their ki the bowl of the spoon results in a different kind of drink than one which is made by stirring at 0.71 revolutions per second with the spoon held entirely vertical while fousing ki on the shaft of the spoon... that's cool. And worth talking about. And these guys might make great cocktails. But the fact of those great cocktails doesn't make it true that "stirring techniques are crucial to binding flavors together" -- any more than all those great dishes made by cooks who believe that searing meat "seals in the juices" makes it true that searing has any effect on fluid retention in meat (it doesn't).

All that said, I'd certainly be interested in hearing about how they think this is true, and what they have to say in general about stirring techniques. Perhaps you could start a thread on Japanese bartending techniques and philosophies.

[Alchemist]

I agree with Sam, mostly. I think that a drink that is stirred with attention to detail will be better than a cocktail stirred with no attention to detail. A good amount of the difference is that someone who is concentrating on stirring probably took pains with the construction of said cocktail.

There are guys out there like Mr. Ward, and Mr Day (to name a couple) who nonchalantly stir two cocktails with one hand, shake another, add up a bill in their head, while pontificating on the history of a Fish House Punch. They are paying as much attention to all of the above as other people who are doing just one thing.

That is a beautiful thing to behold.

Toby

[Kohai]

Indeed. I see what you both are saying. The seared-meat analogy, in particular, is an apt one.

I studied with Mr. Uyeda Kazuo and a few other Ginza bartenders last year. There was a lot of salt taking involved in those mentorships. There were some ideas I just couldn't accept, much of it regarding stirring and shaking technique and why certain things were important. But, as you suggest, this subject probably belongs in a different thread, rather than hijacking this one.

<edited for one lousy hyphen>

Edited August 28, 2009 by Kohai (log)

[slkinsey]

To echo a bit of what Toby says, I do believe that artisans or artisan traditions who spend a lot of time coming up with or executing pseudomystical mumbojumbo around what it is that they're doing, as a general rule of thumb, tend to pay very close attention to the work they're doing and may add extra steps that serve to enhance quality (both usually as a result of jumping through whatever pseudomystical mumbojumbo hoops need to be jumped through). This quite often produces a superior result.

The difficulty comes when the artisan or artisan tradition would like to attribute the superior result to the pseudomystical mumbojumbo rather than the extra attention and care, or some side-effect of the pseudomystical mumbojumbo. It is all the more difficult when the pseudomystical mumbojumbo may consist of 25 elements, but only 4 of those things are actually responsible for the increase in quality. And it is even more difficult when some of the things that contribute to higher quality are actually a side-effect of the pseudomystical mumbojumbo rather than part of the pseudomystical mumbojumbo dogma (e.g., holding the spoon at a certain angle and focusing ki on the bowl of the spoon might be the pseudomystical mumbojumbo dogma, but "unintentional side-effects" of this extra care such as a slower stirring speed or a precisely focused attention to dilution might be what really makes the drink better when the pseudomystical mumbojumbo technique is mastered).