All About Bitters (Part 2)

[bostonapothecary]

i think you guys are getting hung up on the name bitters. the name bears no responsibility to providing gustatory bitterness. it mainly exists to exploit a tax & licensing loop hole.

Wow - swing and a miss there.

There's no tax or licensing loop-hole that is attached to the term "Bitters". In fact, "bitters" doesn't even exist as a category with the TTB on the nonbeverage alcohol side. Bitters fall under the designation of "Flavorings and Flavoring Extracts" from a tax perspective. If the formulation is either evaluated by the Nonbeverage Lab of the TTB to be not suitable for drinking, or if your formulation passes the self-assessment criteria, then it's considered a food product and taxed as such.

to be "not suitable for drinking" bitters rely mainly on their amount of dissolved aroma which is quite high, not strictly gustatory bitterness.

to much dissolved aroma can be just as dissonant as too much gustatory bitterness.

so "bitters" might often essentially be "flavoring extracts", but when you have such great pedigree and symbolism to appropriate, why not do it? most of the time these days its with the good intentions of helping people acquire acquired tastes and relax.

the term "cocktail" has been widely appropriated for its symbolism, "bitters" are basically the same thing with a little more bureaucracy.

bartending explores symbolism just like it explores raw aesthetic sensations. beauty is a composite of both.

[evo-lution]

i think you guys are getting hung up on the name bitters. the name bears no responsibility to providing gustatory bitterness. it mainly exists to exploit a tax & licensing loop hole.

Sorry, but I'd suggest it's you who is completely missing the point as to what bitters are. The suggestion that the name "mainly exists to exploit a tax & licensing loop hole" is just nonsense. There is only one company who benefits from any such loop hole and that is to be tightened up by all accounts.

The only exploitation I know of in the history of bitters were brands that released their alcoholic products under the banner of bitters in the 1800s to escape the various laws and regulations that were being put in place due to the various temperance movements and the like. Hence why the 1906 Pure Food & Drug Act came into force in the US.

The following is a pretty good definition as printed in The Standard Manual of Soda and Other Beverages:

BITTERS – These are made by extracting bitter and aromatic – or bitter only – drugs with a mixture of alcohol and water; sometimes a small amount of sugar or syrup is added.

Put simply, bitters are a compound of herbs, roots, barks, spices and spirit which were originally used as a medicine. The final product should have layers and layers of flavour with a pronounced bitter, or bittersweet, flavour.

Within the category there are two defined categories, potable and non-potable bitters. There isn't a third which consists of bitters that aren't actually bitter. With regards this particular discussion we are focusing on the non-potable category.

All true bitter recipes will consist of alcohol, bittering agents and supporting flavourings. The botanicals chosen will have been selected for both their flavour and/or the similar medicinal qualities they contain.

While some in the drinks industry may have deviated away from non-potable bitters original use there are still plenty of examples of products of this nature being commonly available that are not associated with the drinks industry at all.

Without a bittering agent you have what is probably a tincture or extract.

I am all for evolution and progression but it is a simple fact that many bottlings being bandied about as bitters simply aren't. I saw a recent quote attributed to Joe Fee that suggested that vanilla extract qualifies as a bitters. That quite simply is nonsensical...

I'd also be intrigued to hear what you define as an amaro?

Edited May 27, 2011 by evo-lution (log)

[bostonapothecary]

I'd also be intrigued to hear what you define as an amaro?

an amaro is not necessarily about being bitter (gustatory), it is about the manipulation of bitter things.

you can use "special effects" to create an expectation/anticipation differential between olfaction and gustation.

this is done by distilling bitter botanicals then re infusing that distillate with more of the bitter botanical so you have something like 2x aroma 1x bitter. it is also done with partial extractions of various sorts.

another special effect is the use of thickeners to increase viscosity without relying on dissolving sugar.

amaros then focus on aromatic tonality using olfactory overtones to abstract an expression into a negative space between two known spaces.

amaros are the flavor equivalent of a wassily kandinsky painting.

[EvergreenDan]

Alas, we don't get to vote on how people use language, except to "correct" them in absentia in a nerdy forum. Still, I'd prefer that bitters actually taste bitter. Having a great pedigree and symbolism is good reason to not expand the definition beyond its original scope. Martini was a great and noble drink and now it could be anything involving a clear spirit, some sweet crap, and a conical glass.

Cock-tail predates us all, so its use to mean a mixed drink, or even any alcoholic drink, disturbs mostly historians.

[evo-lution]

an amaro is not necessarily about being bitter

I didn't suggest they were however bitterness plays a major part in what an amaro is, hence the name.

The reason I asked is that there is a distinction between amaros and other products consisting of botanicals and alcohol. In the same way that non-potable bitters have a distinction differing from the products you suggest qualify as bitters.

[bostonapothecary]

an amaro is not necessarily about being bitter

I didn't suggest they were however bitterness plays a major part in what an amaro is, hence the name.

The reason I asked is that there is a distinction between amaros and other products consisting of botanicals and alcohol. In the same way that non-potable bitters have a distinction differing from the products you suggest qualify as bitters.

i don't think that quote can be truncated.

an amaro is not necessarily about being bitter (gustatory), it is about the manipulation of bitter things.

another thing about "bitters" is that the term "bitter" is a "halo dumping" catch all for gustatory and olfactory divisions that decrease the perception of sweetness.

it is very common to hear people say something is too "bitter" when it is actually too "acidic". this phenomenon of mislabeling things as "bitter" is discussed in Auvray & Spence's paper "the multisensory perception of flavor"

the olfactory division part assumes that you can categorize all aromas in terms of gustation (and i don't think i'm the only person that uses the olfaction into gustation "olfactory construct"). it is easy to identify olfactory sweetness and umami, but it is very difficult to break down the other olfactory divisions so they often get lumped with "bitter".

embrace the multisensory madness.

[evo-lution]

i don't think that quote can be truncated.

I do, as it is that quote which the remainder of your post was based around. My reason for asking your opinion was due to the fact that amaros have a distinction where bitterness plays a huge part. Bearing that in mind they have a striking similarity to the non-potable bitters at the heart of this discussion, they also have a distinction which is now being muddied by products calling themselves bitter when they're anything but, and people like yourself accepting that a bitters don't have to be bitter.

another thing about "bitters" is that the term "bitter" is a "halo dumping" catch all for gustatory and olfactory divisions that decrease the perception of sweetness.

it is very common to hear people say something is too "bitter" when it is actually too "acidic".

I know what you're getting at but for the most part it is irrelevant to this discussion. I've pointed out the facts to you with regards the bitters category and you've chosen to ignore them for whatever reason.

[bostonapothecary]

My reason for asking your opinion was due to the fact that amaros have a distinction where bitterness plays a huge part.

one of the tricky aspects of talking about flavor and its numerous divisions is that we cannot just say "bitter" or "sweet", we have to specify gustatory bitterness or olfactory bitterness. we cannot assume that all language defaults to gustation. this is particularly important to understanding the language attached to things like dry wines.

I know what you're getting at but for the most part it is irrelevant to this discussion. I've pointed out the facts to you with regards the bitters category and you've chosen to ignore them for whatever reason.

halo dumping is not irrelevant, it is an attempt to explain the name and the language we hear laymen use. if you want, you could just argue that it is not that plausible, but i think it is.

one thing that i want from my dasher bottle whatevers is a way to augment aromatic intervals & tonality by the dash without augmenting my gustatory proportions. i need those aromas that decreases the perception of sweetness to create the tension that renders my drink compelling... this is usually the way that "bitter make it better"

gustatory bitterness isn't a negative in dasher bottle bitters, but because of the order of operations of multisensory perception, gustatory bitterness can be a sensory distraction from aroma. so it comes down to what your favorite tension is; gustatory bitterness or various forms of olfactory dryness?

not that it is relevant, but i really enjoy both yours and avery's bitters. i don't even make my own anymore, i trust that you guys have more opportunity to make evolving generations of your recipes in pursuit of the extraordinary. but never limit yourself, pursue the extraordinary by any means necessary.

[evo-lution]

Yeah, but do you agree that bitters should contain a bittering agent and are intended to be bitter?

[thirtyoneknots]

Yeah, but do you agree that bitters should contain a bittering agent and are intended to be bitter?

If I may be so bold as to take a stab at interpreting our colleague's remarks, I think what Stephen is saying is that "bitter" by itself isn't useless unless a distinction is made as to what type of bitter it is. When we look at, for an example everyone will be familiar with, Angostura, it has both a noticeably bitter flavor, but also it contributes a level of intensity to the drink that is only peripherally related to the presence of alkaline compounds. In Angostura, the two components are pretty balanced. Peychaud's, for another convenient example, has relatively little bitterness on the palate (it can almost taste sweet to a bitterphile) but is still able to achieve it's purpose in a drink through a strong aromatic intensity. Most of us do not think to separate and distinguish those two aspects of a bitter tincture aka bitters. I think what Stephen is getting at is that he does find it useful to sometimes separate the actual bitter effect on the palate and the intensity contributed to the drink, for whatever given purpose. And so for the latter purpose, something labelled as "bitters" without having any discernable bitterness is still useful in constructing drinks and the semantics are not necessarily worth getting hung up on.

Is that even sort of close?

I definitely get what frustrates people in the bitters world about this--trying to make something that adheres to the traditional ideal of the product and having others make a product that takes great liberties with those criteria and still uses the same label. But really, everyone on this board is fighting that same fight--making beautiful 2:1 mixes of Tanqueray and Dolin with dashes of bitter orange bitters and wide strips of lemon peel, and that gets stuck with the same "Martini" moniker as Godiva liqueur, Bailey's, and Stoli Vanil with chocolate shaved over the top. Its extremely frustrating, and for my own part I'm nearly as put off by bitters that aren't bitter* as I am by 'Chocolate Martinis' but I do recognize the following two things: The concept has conceivable utility, and there's not a damn thing any of us can really do to stop it.

*I think most of my issue actually comes from my perception that making weak bitters is a way to try to get people to use more of the product faster. A bottle of bitters should be a good investment, not something you have to replenish every 15 drinks.

edit: spelling

Edited May 28, 2011 by thirtyoneknots (log)

[evo-lution]

To be perfectly honest the problem is the lack of understanding of the bitters category. It's not the only category that suffers, you only have to look at some of the products that have been released as a gin in recent times. And as you've rightly said drinks with the Martini moniker.

The definition of bitters is pretty simple, I don't see the need to blur the lines.

[thirtyoneknots]

To be perfectly honest the problem is the lack of understanding of the bitters category. It's not the only category that suffers, you only have to look at some of the products that have been released as a gin in recent times. And as you've rightly said drinks with the Martini moniker.

The definition of bitters is pretty simple, I don't see the need to blur the lines.

Just out of curiosity, what is the simple definition you like? I find the category almost mind-bogglingly complex though I'll admit my perspective is a bit unorthodox.

[haresfur]

one thing that i want from my dasher bottle whatevers is a way to augment aromatic intervals & tonality by the dash without augmenting my gustatory proportions. i need those aromas that decreases the perception of sweetness to create the tension that renders my drink compelling... this is usually the way that "bitter make it better"

gustatory bitterness isn't a negative in dasher bottle bitters, but because of the order of operations of multisensory perception, gustatory bitterness can be a sensory distraction from aroma. so it comes down to what your favorite tension is; gustatory bitterness or various forms of olfactory dryness?

not that it is relevant, but i really enjoy both yours and avery's bitters. i don't even make my own anymore, i trust that you guys have more opportunity to make evolving generations of your recipes in pursuit of the extraordinary. but never limit yourself, pursue the extraordinary by any means necessary.

I think I may be starting to understand a tiny bit of what you are saying. Scary.

I'm also beginning to think that maybe we should retire the term "bitters" in favour of "tinctures" and expand the choices for drops of stuff to put in my drinks. Afterall, except for maybe Underberg and potable bitters, no one seems to use these things for medicinal effects any longer.

[EvergreenDan]

... except for maybe ... potable bitters, no one seems to use these things for medicinal effects any longer.

Sniffle. Cough. I'm busting out the Campari and Cynar. I feel better already.

[Chris Amirault]

Just out of curiosity, what is the simple definition you like? I find the category almost mind-bogglingly complex though I'll admit my perspective is a bit unorthodox.

Andy, I think the simple definition to which Adam refers appears up-topic:

The following is a pretty good definition as printed in The Standard Manual of Soda and Other Beverages:

BITTERS – These are made by extracting bitter and aromatic – or bitter only – drugs with a mixture of alcohol and water; sometimes a small amount of sugar or syrup is added.

Put simply, bitters are a compound of herbs, roots, barks, spices and spirit which were originally used as a medicine. The final product should have layers and layers of flavour with a pronounced bitter, or bittersweet, flavour.

I think that's that, particulary given that the only two members around here who produce commercial bitters are Adam and Avery, and given that both insist on this pretty simple definition (bitters are made with bitter things and are bitter).

Personally, I honestly don't understand the debate. As a bartender who gets new "bitters" samples at work very often, I find it very frustrating to grab a new product labeled "bitters" in the hopes of using it in a drink as bitters only to discover that it's not bitter, has no bitter component at all. Sure, we can treat them like they are tinctures or some other compelling product with which to experiment. But given the critical role bitters play in cocktails, particularly as classically and originally defined (spirits, sugar, bitters, water), I don't see why we can't agree that bitters should be made with bitter things and be bitter.

[vice]

one thing that i want from my dasher bottle whatevers is a way to augment aromatic intervals & tonality by the dash without augmenting my gustatory proportions. i need those aromas that decreases the perception of sweetness to create the tension that renders my drink compelling... this is usually the way that "bitter make it better"

gustatory bitterness isn't a negative in dasher bottle bitters, but because of the order of operations of multisensory perception, gustatory bitterness can be a sensory distraction from aroma. so it comes down to what your favorite tension is; gustatory bitterness or various forms of olfactory dryness?

I think I may be starting to understand a tiny bit of what you are saying. Scary.

Count me in, too. Stephen's posts (and Andy's interpretation) have really expanded my perspective about the function of bitters in a drink. If a product labeled as a bitters doesn't have a strong bitter taste on its own but can play a similar role to traditional bitters in a cocktail, what should we call it? That's a semantic argument, and not terribly interesting to me. The more relevant issue is understanding exactly what function a dash of "bitters" provides to a drink. Personally, I appreciate that broadened perspective.

[violetfox]

I saw that recipe, and thought it funny that it doesn't actually contain any bittering agent. More of a rhubarb tincture really.

Gosh, just asked if anyone tried the recipe, which whether technically a "bitters" or not, sounded tasty and interesting. I'm completely baffled by why anyone wouldn't try a recipe because it didn't meet the technical description - it ain't precisely buidling rocket ships.

Anyway, I presume by the ensuing little diatribe that no one has tried the recipe. I shudder to mention that I think I'll try it anyway and see if it tastes good.

Edited May 29, 2011 by violetfox (log)

[EvergreenDan]

VioletFox - It looks like no one has tried it. I wouldn't infer that folks here wouldn't like it, but rather that some don't like the name.

I had a similar experience when I mentioned a XXXX Old Fashioned. No discussion of the drink itself, but lots of discussion of what an Old Fashioned is.

[haresfur]

Personally, I honestly don't understand the debate. As a bartender who gets new "bitters" samples at work very often, I find it very frustrating to grab a new product labeled "bitters" in the hopes of using it in a drink as bitters only to discover that it's not bitter, has no bitter component at all. Sure, we can treat them like they are tinctures or some other compelling product with which to experiment. But given the critical role bitters play in cocktails, particularly as classically and originally defined (spirits, sugar, bitters, water), I don't see why we can't agree that bitters should be made with bitter things and be bitter.

And I don't understand why this is frustrating. Don't you smell and taste them first, anyway? Then figure out how they might work for you? Surly mole bitters are a long way from anything used in classic cocktails so you are already expanding the category beyond the classic.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to fight the good fight and encourage the name be applied in a narrow way, that's fine with me. Personally, I don't care one way or another and think you are going to lose unless bartenders start to boycott inappropriately labeled bottles. And the manufacturers should probably be sensitive to this and try not to piss off their target market.

A long way from rhubarb season here...

[haresfur]

Is there a bitterness measurement scale like the one used for hops that can be applied to tinctures and bitters?

[bostonapothecary]

Is there a bitterness measurement scale like the one used for hops that can be applied to tinctures and bitters?

maynard amerine wrote about a technique for measuring the quinine in an aperitif via its alkaloid content. i think the technique was designed for regulatory reasons because there were/are quinine maximums that products can have. he provides example measurements for dubonnet & byrrh.

in beer the IBU doesn't even sum up the perceived bitterness of a beer completely because it is relative to the contrasting power of the malt aromas.

fenaroli's "handbook of flavor ingredients" (1975) opines that the term bitters is too broad and essentially meaningless. he makes some attempt to subdivide things.

i think the earliest definitions of the terms in question refer to stuff consumed with a medicinal motive, but now that we have different, primarily artistic motives, the terms don't apply.

i have a feeling that at some point in time in the 20th century as consumption motives changed and production sizes had to scale up, all famous bitter commercial products were retooled and refined by superstar consultant flavor chemists.

and then to top it all off there is a known culture of misinformation to protect production techniques.

i personally like the lack of rules, it is probably why there is so much awesome avante-garde stuff to drink.

[evo-lution]

what is the simple definition you like? I find the category almost mind-bogglingly complex though I'll admit my perspective is a bit unorthodox.

See Chris' reply #734, that pretty much covers it.

Count me in, too. Stephen's posts (and Andy's interpretation) have really expanded my perspective about the function of bitters in a drink. If a product labeled as a bitters doesn't have a strong bitter taste on its own but can play a similar role to traditional bitters in a cocktail, what should we call it? That's a semantic argument, and not terribly interesting to me. The more relevant issue is understanding exactly what function a dash of "bitters" provides to a drink. Personally, I appreciate that broadened perspective.

We've already covered what bitters are, tincture would be the answer to your bolded question. A tincture is defined as an alcoholic extract/compound that would lack the bittering agent.

To say that this is a semantic argument is ridiculous to be perfectly honest, what is the point in having any category of spirit then?

I do agree that the function is vitally important, and I doubt this is something that is overlooked by those in the drinks industry. The reason for having a clear distinction between bitters and tinctures is to help understand the role they play in drinks and food, the bitterness being a major component in any discernable differences they'd offer.

What is also of vital importance (and oft overlooked) is the botanicals used, something I've been happy to share as it is the flavour of these botanicals that bind together with existing flavours in a drink. Not everyone will have tried these botanicals, in which case I share tasting notes.

i think the earliest definitions of the terms in question refer to stuff consumed with a medicinal motive, but now that we have different, primarily artistic motives, the terms don't apply.

It's already been pointed out that bitters and tinctures are still used for their medicinal purposes.

And there are plenty of people around the World still consuming bitter drinks as aperitifs and digestifs. Would these people consume non-bitter beverages for this purpose? I think not.

and then to top it all off there is a known culture of misinformation to protect production techniques.

And let's not forget people accepting products sold under a banner that they aren't.

Edited May 30, 2011 by evo-lution (log)

[haresfur]

Cock-tail predates us all, so its use to mean a mixed drink, or even any alcoholic drink, disturbs mostly historians.

... and the post WWII height of Martini drinking predates most of the people drinking choco-tinis by at least 2 generations.

[Chris Amirault]

Personally, I honestly don't understand the debate. As a bartender who gets new "bitters" samples at work very often, I find it very frustrating to grab a new product labeled "bitters" in the hopes of using it in a drink as bitters only to discover that it's not bitter, has no bitter component at all. Sure, we can treat them like they are tinctures or some other compelling product with which to experiment. But given the critical role bitters play in cocktails, particularly as classically and originally defined (spirits, sugar, bitters, water), I don't see why we can't agree that bitters should be made with bitter things and be bitter.

And I don't understand why this is frustrating. Don't you smell and taste them first, anyway? Then figure out how they might work for you?

Of course I smell and taste any new product before using it in a drink. But that misses the point.

Allow me a comparison. Let's say that, like generations of shoppers before you, you've gone to the grocery store and purchased vinegar hundreds of times. Then, one day, you get home with a new brand of vinegar you've never had before, and you start to make your favorite vinaigrette, using your usual proportions and so on. You taste it and, lo and behold, it is terrible, far too sweet to remotely resemble vinaigrette. You go through your checklist: oil is same, salt and pepper are the same... and you taste the vinegar and realize that, for reasons you cannot understand, it tastes of a slightly savory, slightly sweet brew.

It is not, by any definition you'd previously held, vinegar.

You go back to the store, perplexed, and the grocer says, "How about that stuff?! It's this new breed of vinegars we're getting! Pretty amazing, aren't they?"

But you say, "Well, it's tasty and all, and maybe I'll use it for marinades or something, but... it isn't vinegar, is it? It's not acidic in the least!"

And the grocer says, "That's what's so great about them! They're non-acidic vinegars! I mean, they don't say that they're non-acidic vinegars. But, well... aren't they just the coolest things?!?"

And now, forever more, you cannot simply assume that the bottle of vinegar you have in your hands will be acidic -- even though that characteristic utterly defined the product for as long as it has existed. None of the recipes you have for vinegar work with the stuff as a result, and you have to fend off more and more pretenders who, as a marketing ploy, choose not to let you know whether the bottle you are holding in the store aisle is truly vinegar or some other, non-acidic ersatz brew.

Perhaps you wouldn't find that frustrating. If not, then we've found our disagreement, and your capacity for relativism exceeds my own!

Surly mole bitters are a long way from anything used in classic cocktails so you are already expanding the category beyond the classic.

Not at all -- indeed, I'd argue the opposite. Avery's Xocolatl Mole bitters are absolutely classic bitters, even if some of the flavors, in this combination, are unique. It's complex, is aromatic, has distinct and lengthy stages of flavor across your palate, and is of course bitter. There's a reason that those bitters is central to the Oaxacan Old Fashioned, arguably one of the most important cocktails of the current renaissance.

And the manufacturers should probably be sensitive to this and try not to piss off their target market.

Agreed!

[EvergreenDan]

... and the post WWII height of Martini drinking predates most of the people drinking choco-tinis by at least 2 generations.

Yeah, but I think most of us here have strong personal memories of the Martini -- from ourselves, parents, or grandparents. This is/was my parents' preferred drink. I don't recall any Bosco in the liquor cabinet.