No-Fail Ratios

[mkayahara]

It seems like a lot of no-fail cocktail ratios have been coming up around here lately. I'm thinking of the New Esquire Cocktail discussed here, and Boudreau's Golden Ratio here. On top of that, I've seen mentions of Wondrich's ratio of 1 oz. fortified/aromatized wine, 2 oz. spirits, 1 tsp. liqueur, 2 dashes bitters. And would the Last Word and its myriad variations count, or is it too specific?

Of course, I think if you set out to break these ratios, you can, by using strong, clashing ingredients. And sometimes they're just nothing to write home about (I did Boudreau's Golden Ratio with blanco tequila, white Lillet, and Drambuie a couple of weeks ago... meh.) But on the whole, they're very serviceable.

What other no-fail ratios do you use?

[EvergreenDan]

Some cocktails seem to be prototypes for a more general class. A Negroni (spirit, aromatized wine, amaro, 1:1:1) seems to work like this, as does the Paper Plane (spirit, light aperitif amaro, dark digestif amaro, sour citrus, 1:1:1:1).

Is this the same sort of thing, or just a collection of riffs on a particular cocktail?

Edited February 22, 2011 by EvergreenDan (log)

[Boilerfood]

I tried the New Esquire tonight with Cruzan Black Strap, Camapri, St. Germain and Blood Orange Juice. Surprisingly good, but it became great once 2 dashes of Angostura were added to the party.

[Ian McCarthy]

I have to ask myself: But why?

Other than a passing curiosity, why put every cocktail with, say, vermouth, under such strict parameters? I could see the argument that this would allow creativity with ingredient selection by taking the work out of ingredient quantities. But these training wheels seem, forgive me, only fit for amateurs. I would worry that any "formula" would limit creativity within that section that already knows it Triple Sec from its Curacao. For those who are starting a home bar, I can see this being a good way to take the intimidation out of experimenting with ingredients. I think that is where it will find its use. For a professional? Not at all. I am not interested in making a drink that is merely "serviceable".

To answer your question, I never use a no-fail ratio, because I don't think one exists.

Not long ago I wondered what the Last Word would be as a tiki-drink. I subbed out the gin and maraschino for rum and falernum. I swizzeled it over crushed ice, and topped it with nutmeg and a mint sprig. And you know what? It needed another 1/4 - 1/2 oz of Matusalem... I didn't sweat it. There is no reason to think that different ingredients should be given the same treatment, quantitatively speaking.

[mkayahara]

Is this the same sort of thing, or just a collection of riffs on a particular cocktail?

Good question. I'm sure there's some room for overlap here; often, when riffing on a cocktail, I think that ends up being reflected in the name.

I have to ask myself: But why?

Other than a passing curiosity, why put every cocktail with, say, vermouth, under such strict parameters? I could see the argument that this would allow creativity with ingredient selection by taking the work out of ingredient quantities.

Well, I think that's the point: ratios like these aren't meant to restrict every cocktail with vermouth that you make, but simply to give you a template to play around with when you've got a bottle of, say, dry Madeira kicking around and aren't quite sure what to do with it. This isn't to say there are no other ways to mix cocktails with fortified or aromatized wines, but it can give you a good starting point... and you never know when you're going to hit the jackpot.

But these training wheels seem, forgive me, only fit for amateurs. I would worry that any "formula" would limit creativity within that section that already knows it Triple Sec from its Curacao. For those who are starting a home bar, I can see this being a good way to take the intimidation out of experimenting with ingredients. I think that is where it will find its use. For a professional? Not at all. I am not interested in making a drink that is merely "serviceable".

Well, since I'm an amateur and not a professional, I'm certainly not going to take offense at this! Maybe some of the (other?) professionals around here can offer an opinion on whether these types of ratios are useful?

[Chris Amirault]

I suppose you could ask Dale DeGroff that question, whose 2 oz spirit, 1 oz liqueur, 3/4 oz juice sour ratio is the base he arrived at after decades of what most of us would call a pretty decent professional career. Of course, it's just a base to be tweaked, not a proclamation of absolute truth in every instance. Correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, but I don't think that's what you're proclaiming, right?

[bostonapothecary]

But these training wheels seem, forgive me, only fit for amateurs. I would worry that any "formula" would limit creativity within that section that already knows it Triple Sec from its Curacao.

i've never met someone who actually knows their triple sec from their curacao. of course many will give you a historical/symbolic explanation of them, but that means nothing in a game of aesthetics.

ratios increase empathy. you have to have an aesthetic, plane conscious, spatial understanding of ingredients to put them in even ratios and hit your mark.

the wacky ratio and adding to the drink after you conceptualize it in your head is the crutch. its a sign that you probably don't aesthetically understand the bottlings you are working with. painters don't add extra canvas to a work after they have started. it would be a failure and mean their concept was off. they pick the canvas and work within its bounds, but use a large palate of colors as well as an intricate knowledge of perception.

Edited February 23, 2011 by bostonapothecary (log)

[Ian McCarthy]

the wacky ratio and adding to the drink after you conceptualize it in your head is the crutch. its a sign that you probably don't aesthetically understand the bottlings you are working with. painters don't add extra canvas to a work after they have started. it would be a failure and mean their concept was off. they pick the canvas and work within its bounds, but use a large palate of colors as well as an intricate knowledge of perception.

I think creating something beautiful is a process, a process which often includes creating many things that were not beautiful. I'm not crazy about the painting analogy, as a bartender with a background in fine arts, I worked with oils primarily. I might go through many sketches of a single concept before I took it to the canvas, and once there might "finish" a piece several times before I was satisfied. I might erase or gesso over a portion or the entirety of it several times, I might start on a new canvas, and YES I have added more canvas to a work in progress. This was just my approach, I would not call it better or worse than any other, and I would certainly not say that I was a "failure". To that, I am sorry that I made bold, declarative statements about the validity of this ratio technique. Its not for me, but I can see it being a tool for creative inspiration and a catalyst for experimentation for someone else. There is validity in any technique. Personally, I have tried a few of these ratio guidelines several times with results anywhere from serviceable to undrinkable, (Jamie's ratios, using Cachaca and Sambuca comes to mind...)

BA: was recently introduced to your blog. Many hours have been lost since... Keep it up!

[Mark Muller]

Whenever I encounter a cocktail I really like, I use it's ratios as a template for experimentation. For example, the corspe reviver #2 - the usual formulation is:

1 part gin

1 part lillet

1 part lemon juice

1 part orange liqueur

1 dash anise liqueur (Pernod at my place)

The template is then:

1 part base spirit (gin, whiskey or any type, brandy, rum, or ??)

1 part wine like substances (lillet (blanc or rouge), dry vermouth, sweet vermouth, sherry, leftover wine, etc, etc)

1 part sour juice (lemon, lime, sour orange, calamansi, or even 100%, unsweetened cranberry juice)

1 part liqueur (cointreu, amaretto, st germain, drambuie, benedictine, sloe gin, cherry heering, etc, etc)

1 dash something strongly flavored (pernod, creme de viollete, bitters, maraschino, etc, etc)

Obviously not every permutation works, at least for me. But some are great. A favorite result is gin/sherry/lemon/cointreu/pernod, which happened when we had sherry in the house but no lillet. Two other nice results were scotch/dry vermouth/lemon/drambuie/maraschino and tequila/dry vermouth/cranberry/cointreu/maraschino.

[brinza]

I agree with Matt that those ratios are merely good starting points when experimenting. At least you know that the first attempt won't be a total disaster. If it's at least "servicable" you're more likely to have a good idea of which direction to take it from there. (Also, if you weren't writing things down, it's easy to remember where you started.) They can also be useful for professionals and amateurs alike when someone makes that ever-popular request of "I don't know what I want--surprise me."

Another famous ratio to add to those mentioned in the OP is David Embury's 1-2-8 ratio for sours of sweet, sour, spirit. I wouldn't call if a no-fail ratio, however, because it seems to be somewhat controversial since many people find the result either too boozy or too tart. But I had two drinks that I could never seem to get quite right until I tried this ratio: The Jack Rose and the Scofflaw. No matter how I dickered with these, including trying various grenadines in the Jack Rose and different whiskeys in the Scofflaw, for example, they never tasted right. With a lot of sour recipes, the lemon often overpowers the spirit and adding more sweetener simply makes the drink too sweet and you end up with boozy lemonade. Once I applied the 1-2-8 ratio to these drinks (the Scofflaw has a 4th ingredient--vermouth--but you can still apply the principle), they came alive. I could taste the Applejack which was subtly enhanced by the modifiers, and not struggling to competing with them.