Taxonomy and Cocktails

[slkinsey]

Host note: split from the Post Your New Cocktail Creations Here topic.

*the shrub is made from organic raspberries, sugared to 25 brix just like many sweet vermouths, and the fortifying spirits are infused with black tea cultivated by sherpas in nepal... (same recipe as my blackberry shrub but different fruit)

How is this a shrub? It doesn't seem to contain any vinegar.

[bostonapothecary]

*the shrub is made from organic raspberries, sugared to 25 brix just like many sweet vermouths, and the fortifying spirits are infused with black tea cultivated by sherpas in nepal... (same recipe as my blackberry shrub but different fruit)

How is this a shrub? It doesn't seem to contain any vinegar.

←

does creole shrub have vinegar?

the defining characteristic is that it is preserved...

[slkinsey]

I would hardly use Clement's Creole Shrubb as the defining standard of "shrub." The Martingue tradition of "shrubb" (note the two Bs) appears to be quite different from the tradition handed down from the Colonial era, as it consists of orange peels, sugar and rum (sometimes including spices). Shrubb from Martinique would then appear to belong in the family of curaçao liqueur.

To the best of my (admittedly not definitive) knowledge, the defining characteristic of a shrub is that the fruit juice is preserved with acid (and sugar).

My understanding is that shrub was probably already out of style by the time JT's book was published, but if you look at the JT four recipes for shrubs you will note that they are of two kinds: The first kind, represented by the currant shrub and raspberry shrub, conforms fairly closely to the old tradition. The currant shrub will be quite tart and may go through some acetic fermentation, and the raspberry shrub uses vinegar. The second kind, represented by the brandy and rum shrubs, constitutes approximations of the result that would have been obtained by mixing a traditional acid-preserved shrub with some booze. It is likely that, back in those days especially, there would have been some acetic fermentation during the three-day infusion period of the brandy shrub, and I believe it is also likely that the whole business of adding boiled milk to the rum shrub was done to approximate the effect of vinegar's acetic acid by substituting milk's lactic acid. I believe these are the shrub version of the bottled cocktail rather than a category of spirit.

Edited November 30, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[eje]

I would hardly use Clement's Creole Shrubb as the defining standard of "shrub."  The Martingue tradition of "shrubb" (note the two Bs) appears to be quite different from the tradition handed down from the Colonial era, as it consists of orange peels, sugar and rum (sometimes including spices).  Shrubb from Martinique would then appear to belong in the family of curaçao liqueur.

[...]

←

To the best of my knowledge, because it isn't distilled post infusion, Creole Shrubb probably falls nicely into the category of ratafia, rather than curaçao liqueur.

[bostonapothecary]

I would hardly use Clement's Creole Shrubb as the defining standard of "shrub."  The Martingue tradition of "shrubb" (note the two Bs) appears to be quite different from the tradition handed down from the Colonial era, as it consists of orange peels, sugar and rum (sometimes including spices).  Shrubb from Martinique would then appear to belong in the family of curaçao liqueur.

[...]

←

To the best of my knowledge, because it isn't distilled post infusion, Creole Shrubb probably falls nicely into the category of ratafia, rather than curaçao liqueur.

←

i got my origional "shrub" recipe from a hunting manuel. which tragicaly i can no longer find... i think i lost the origional "bb" because i wasn't paying close enough attention like happens with most things being translated through history... but the beauty of it all is that if i use it enough it becomes true because thats how the english language works... if my metaphor is not too much of a stretch to accept, every day i will become more correct until no one bothers me anymore...

strictly enforcing a taxonomy is boring... its the 21rst century and too many traditions are dead and a preserve is a preserve and there are many options to do it of which not enough people do anything... and rely solely on what they can buy... drinks these days need a little more ingenuity and frivelous novelty, especially now that you have to behave in most of the bars that make good drinks... its hard to find satisfying escapism anywhere these days...

[slkinsey]

I suppose one could take that position, Eric, if (1) redistillation is a necessary qualification for "curaçao liqueur," (2) Clément Créole Shrubb is not redistilled, and (3) one uses "ratafia" as a catchall term meaning "infused but not redistilled spirit."

[slkinsey]

strictly enforcing a taxonomy is boring... its the 21rst century and too many traditions are dead and a preserve is a preserve and there are many options to do it of which not enough people do anything... and rely solely on what they can buy... drinks these days need a little more ingenuity and frivelous novelty, especially now that you have to behave in most of the bars that make good drinks... its hard to find satisfying escapism anywhere these days...

I would take the opposite position -- which I believe is the position that characterizes much of the current cocktail revival -- which is that many traditions are worth reviving. I would also argue that the practice of taking a name which has some historical meaning and perverting that meaning by using that same name to describe a product that has little connection with the originally-described product, is a disservice because it (1) removes a potentially valuable piece of information as to the ingredient being used, and removes meaning from the word; (2) further erodes the great tradition of spirits, infusions and cocktails which many of us are working to revive and expand; and (3) represents a dumbing-down of tradition and a laziness of nomenclature (much like the sad practice of the "-tini"). If we follow this path, where does it lead? Well, at the end of the road we have meaningless nonsense like "potato rum" and "cucumber curaçao" and drinks with names like "tangerine silver fizz" that contain no egg white and no fizz.

Why not just call it a raspberry-tea infusion (or "ratafia," if you must)? Or try making a real shrub? Or take the viewpoint of elevating the craft and educating customers by introducing your customers to a drink made with a real shrub?

[slkinsey]

WRT "ratafia" since I'm home right now, I decided to give a look in the OED, which says the following:

ratafia 1. a cordial or liqueur flavored with certain fruits or their kernels, usually almonds or peach-, apricot-, and cherry-kernels.  Now esp. to a type of aperitif made from grape-juice and brandy.

1699 M. Lister Journ. to Paris. 164 All sorts of Strong Waters, particularly Ratafia's, which is a sort of Cherry Brandy made with Peach and Apricock stones. . . . 1946 A.L. Simon Conc. Encycl. Gastron. VIII. Ratafia, a generic name for a number of Cordials, usually home-made, always sweet and often of very highly alcoholic strength.  Ratafia may be made with new wine or grape juice and sufficient spirit to stop its fermentation; being further flavored with various fruits, herbs and spices; or else by infusion of the same ingredients in brandy. . . . 1964 Harper's Bazaar Nov. 146/2 Ratafia . . bears no resemblance to our ratafia, which is a home-made liqueur, usually made with almonds.  Ratafia is an aperitif made with local white wine and brandy.

This leads me to believe that the name "ratafia" is perhaps not so useful as a catch-all word meaning "infusion that is not re-distilled" since there are clearly a number of traditions that call themselves by that name, and I would suggest that the word "infusion" is both more accurate and more useful, unless the infusion is made in one of these historical styles. This is to say that one might make a "ratafia" by infusing almonds and peaches into brandy, but chai and kumquat infused into tequila is better and more accurately described as an "infusion."

[TBoner]

Well said, Sam. I think the argument is often made, not only regarding spirits or cocktails but regarding assorted disagreements about the use of language, that "we're just arguing semantics." But in fact the relationship between sign and signified matters as you argue above. The taxonomy is a valuable asset in identifying historical trends and in preserving not only tradition but knowledge.

I do agree with bostonapothecary's comment that ingenuity and frivolous novelty are needed, as in fact these are the forces that drive innovation and were responsible for the historical drinks we so often celebrate. Some classic cocktails appear truly odd on paper, and then work beautifully in the glass. I also feel that ingenuity and frivolous novelty are in fact exercised regularly by those who post here and other cocktailians. Witness some of the truly unique experiments discussed in this thread and the "Drinks!" thread. Certainly many, myself included, hew close to traditional drinks and variations thereof, almost to a fault. But ingenuity and novelty are alive and well. Where tradition exists, however, I think preserving in uncorrupted is valuable for tradition's sake and to ensure continued ingenuity (i.e., we don't want to keep unwittingly reinventing the wheel).