Cheap for Mixing/Expensive for Sipping?

[mbanu]

I was thinking about that old rule everyone goes by that you should use your inexpensive liquor for mixing but drink your expensive liquor straight.

It never really made sense to me, because assuming your expensive liquor is good, it should be able to handle getting mixed with anything and have more than enough flavor to spare. And if your inexpensive liquor is bad, sadly sometimes no amount of mixing can get rid of nasty aftertastes. The whole "mixing destroys delicate flavors" excuse also never really caught on with me, because in my mind, all the things which make a spirit expensive (aging, low distillation proof, bottling at barrel proof, etc.) should be concentrating the flavors, not making them more delicate.

However, on thinking it through, I think that the real story behind this wasn't originally cheap vs. expensive, but an aged liquor rule of thumb for blends vs. straight.

With blended liquor, (good aged liquor mixed with unaged or neutral spirit) you're less likely to notice that it's been "stretched" when mixing, because the strong flavors of the mixer tend to pick up the slack from the blend. You'll notice something's not quite right because it won't have quite the same flavor strength of a straight liquor mixed drink, but it's usually harder to put your finger on what exactly is wrong. When drinking blended liquor by itself, it's relatively easy to identify it for what it is.

So since at one time "cheap" and "blend" and "expensive" and "straight" were more or less synonyms, (and "premium unaged spirits" were an oxymoron) the rule of thumb boiled down to "save the cheap stuff for mixing and drink the good stuff straight". It was mostly a rule to keep people from knowing when you served blends.

So if you've been paranoid about using that 30 year old single malt in your Rob Roys, you can probably quit worrying; you paid for a sturdy spirit, it'll handle mixing with aplomb. :)

Edited June 13, 2005 by mbanu (log)

[Splificator]

This is certainly an elegant theory, but I strongly suspect the real origins for this old rule of thumb can be traced to that well-known radix mali, money. A mixed drink made with top-shelf spirit will certainly be delightful, but will it be so much more delightful that it will be worth the extra cost?

Not too long ago, I obtained a bottle of Hennessy Paradis, a lovely tipple that retails for around $250 a bottle. In the interests of science, I mixed up a Sidecar with it, using one of those fabulous Grand Marnier anniversary bottlings in place of the Cointreau (it retailed for some $180, IIRC). Cost of cognac @ ca. $10 an oz: $20. Cost of Grand Marnier @ ca. $7.50 an oz: $7.50. Cost of lemon juice: $.35. Total cost of Sidecar (excluding labor and overhead): $27.85. Was it delicious? Sure. Was it three times more delicious than one made with a nice $90 XO-grade cognac (@ ca. $3.75 an oz) and regular, $35 Cointreau (@ ca. $1.50 an oz)? Hell, no. A little more complex, perhaps, what with the greater hints of rancio and whatnot, but after the orange liqueur and the lemon had their say, not markedly so.

On the other hand, that same amount of Paradis, reserved for sipping on a special occasion, will take me to places that no "ordinary" X.O. can reach. If mixographers were compensated on the same scale as pubescent entertainers, perhaps I wouldn't have to make these choices; it would be Paradis (or its equivalent) all the time. But alas they're not, and I must prioritize.

So I think it's not whether the booze can handle it, so much as whether your wallet can.

[mbanu]

Well, eventually you reach the law of diminishing returns, sadly. That 250 dollar bottle of brandy is probably only slightly better than a 90 dollar one, and a 500 dollar bottle would be only slightly better than the 250, because there's only so much better than "fantastic" that you can really go, without some groundbreaking new innovation. I suppose "destroy the delicate flavors" is a valid point for super super premiums, although generally when I hear people using the phrase, it's just their way of comforting themselves over the fact that they got bamboozled by someone's marketing department. :P

Most times when people have this sort of dillema, though, it's not between specialty Grandma bottlings and Cointreau, but Cointreau and Hiram Walker triple sec, straight rye vs. canadian blends, that sort of thing. :)

Also, when you scrape the bottom of the barrel, it really puts a strain on your mixological skills to cover up truly nasty spirit. Cheap stuff isn't always more suited for mixing. Try doing some mixing with Georgia Moon instead of bourbon, for instance. You'll quickly have to expand yourslf beyond the standard X and soda mix if you're looking for a drink that's not a test of your manhood. :)

[Libationgoddess]

I don't think the pendulum need swing so severely here---in most instances an older bottling is much too soft and mellow, and won't add as much detail to a cocktail as a younger sibling would. It gets, "lost in the mix". It has much more to do with the various bottlings, then age. Meaning I would always use a premium brand (Courvoisier) as opposed to a lesser quality brand. Good ingredients are essential in a good cocktail. Ditto Marie Brizard or another premium fruit liqueur (which costs me approx $25.00 ea) as opposed to a cheaper brand costing $3.00 (and tastes like pure sugar).

Single malts in cocktails? Absolutely, but again I would not use a 30 year---its beauty would get lost. But a 10 year bottling? Sure. Ditto XO cognacs, Anejo tequilas, etc.. As Gary Regan says, "nothing is ever written in stone", but these are sensible guidelines. Save the XO's, the 30 years, and the Anejos for sipping. It's more about the quality of the brand than the age, here.

Audrey

[Splificator]

Ah. Picking up on that "30 year old single malt Scotch," I misconstrued this as an argument about $300 booze versus $30 booze, rather than one about $30 booze versus $10 booze.

To the rule "you should use your inexpensive liquor for mixing but drink your expensive liquor straight" I like to add the corollary, "never mix a drink with anything you can't choke down straight."

As with all rules, I'll occasionally break it, for the likes of big pitchers of Early Times sours, Pitu caipirinhas, etc. But in general, I'll try to avoid the very cheapest brands and buy something that has a reputation to maintain. In general, if it comes in a plastic bottle, it can stay there.

On the other hand, again, I think there's no need in most cases to go with so-called superpremium spirits. As long as what I'm using is well made and properly displays the generic markers of the category (e.g., I want my blended Scotch to have a little peat and some barley-malt sweetness), I'm satisfied. I don't need single-barrel bottlings and wooden presentation boxes and suchlike.

[slkinsey]

In a strict dollar model, I think it probably goes something like this:

But there are many reasons why this is so.

On the cheap end of the curve, you're dealing with ingredients that fundamentally don't taste very good to begin with. This speaks to Dave's rule to "never mix a drink with anything you can't choke down straight (although I suppose this doesn't account for bitters).

In the middle part of the curve, you're getting a lot of ingredients that not only taste good and have a refined flavor profile, but also often have good intensity of flavor. I don't think anyone would argue, for example, that Booker's doesn't have a more intense flavor than Jim Beam White Label, or that Cointreau doesn't have a more refined flavor than Hiram Walker triple sec. In the middle point of the curve, you're going to find more liquors bottled at higher proof, and you're going to find liquors with some age on them, but not so much that they begin to become less assertive or overly mellow in character.

In the expensive part of the curve, you're going to find two categories of ingredient. The most obvious example is an ingredient that is simply too expensive to be consumed in anything other than its pure, unadulterated form. This is where you find your $300 bottles of XO cognac, etc. As Dave pointed out, it's unclear that his "Paradis Sidecar," which would retail for around $120, actually tastes all that much better than a still very expensive "XO Sidecar" that would retail at around 35 or 40 bucks. All the stuff you pay for in a $300 bottle of cognac would be obscured by the other ingredients in the cocktail.

The less obvious example is an expensive ingredient that actually doesn't work as well in a cocktail compared to the less expensive one. Many liquors come to be dominated by wood flavors after a certain amount of aging and to lose some interesting characteristics that are present at a younger (aka, less expensive) age. A perfect example is apple brandy. A younger calvados still tastes strongly of apples, whereas one with more age often tastes more of "aged spirit." Other expensive spirits are too subtly flavored to be employed to good use in a cocktail. If you're going to obscure all the subtle floral character of a boutique grappa di moscato by mixing with it, you might as well be using vodka.

So, looking at the curve we can think about something like the Jack Rose, a simple cocktail composed of applejack, lemon juice and grenadine. At the lowest end of the scale is regular 80 proof blended applejack, 30% apple brandy blended with 70% neutral spirits. This is actually pretty good. More expensive is Laird's bonded applejack, 100% apple brandy at 100 proof. This has a stronger apple flavor due to the increased percentage of apple brandy, and has more intensity of flavor due to the higher proof and is even better at making its presence felt through the lemon and grenadine. The Jack Rose is better made with the bonded applejack. More expensive still is Laird's 12 year old apple brandy. A Jack Rose made with this wouldn't be very good, because it doesn't taste all that much like apples. Lemon and grenadine would also obscure much of the delicate character.

[jbewley]

A Jack Rose made with this wouldn't be very good, because it doesn't taste all that much like apples.  Lemon and grenadine would also obscure much of the delicate character.

That's a great point. The more delicate the flavor, the harder it is to come through a cocktail.

Obviously, at either extreme you end up with arguably bad results. The low end gives you crappy well cocktails, the high end costs you $120 for a sidecar. So I think the curve is about dead-on.

The important part to me is identifying the right balance of suitability vs cost... much like obscenity, it's hard to define, but everybody knows it when they see it.

Personally, the scale for me goes something like:

Crappy Mixers -> Good Value Spirits -> Indulgent Spirits -> Big Money Spirits

Which might map over to a "Montezuma->Hornitos->Herradura->Casa Noble" in the tequila world. Or "Old Crow->Evan Williams->Russells Reserve->Stagg" in the bourbon world. The list goes on, your mileage may vary. Oddly, I find that I end up with entirely different "sweet spots" for different cocktails. My preferences for a Paloma may be different than a Brave Bull or a Margarita.

Obviously, occasion and cold, hard cash tend to dictate the right decision. A drink or two after work? Cocktail from the good value to indulgent area. Going to drink quite a bit with friends? Leans towards the cheaper "good value" categories. And if I get to one of those "just found out I won the lottery" kind of days, then maybe it's time for me to give the Paradis Sidecar a whirl.

But I mostly agree with Splificator's choke-it-down rule. If I can't drink it straight, I can't mix it. If you have to sneak up on a beverage, you shouldn't be drinking it in the first place.

Besides, there's generally not as huge of a price gap between "awful" and "pretty darned good" as people would have you believe. But I'm the guy that reaches past the Tanqueray to grab the bottle of Gordon's more often than not, so take me with a grain of salt. :)

[mizducky]

I also think it depends on the type of mixed drink you're talking about. A Manhattan made with Knob Creek is IMO a thing of beauty, but I wouldn't waste the Knob Creek on a bourbon-and-coke. In the first instance one can taste the bourbon, in the second the cola blots out pretty much everything and so you might as well just use Jack Daniels.

(This is totally assuming the bartender in question knows how to make a proper Manhattan, rather than a concoction that winds up tasting like a bad approximation of Jaegermeister, but that's a whine for another topic...)

[slkinsey]

Oddly, I find that I end up with entirely different "sweet spots" for different cocktails.  My preferences for a Paloma may be different than a Brave Bull or a Margarita.

Nothing odd about that. Different brands/bottlings of a spirit work better in different kinds of cocktail. I almost never use an expensive "boutique" gin when making a drink with a lot of ingredients, because the delicate notes tend to get lost and they often don't have a strong enough juniper note to sing through. It's not clear to me, for example, that there would be much point to making a Pegu Club with Hendrick's gin.

But I'm the guy that reaches past the Tanqueray to grab the bottle of Gordon's more often than not, so take me with a grain of salt. :)

Hey, Gordon's is a really good quality gin. I love Tanqueray and consider it probably the best "all around" gin, but in terms of a good quality traditional gin with an emphatic juniper note it's hard to beat Gordon's. Since it's around half the price of Tanqueray, I use it often in drinks with a lot of flavors going on. Gordon's juniper really cuts through.

I also think it depends on the type of mixed drink you're talking about. A Manhattan made with Knob Creek is IMO a thing of beauty, but I wouldn't waste the Knob Creek on a bourbon-and-coke.

This is an important point, and ties in with what I wrote above in response to jbewley. You won't often hurt the drink by defaulting to your top shelf mixer, but it's wise to consider whether the drink you're mixing might be more suitable to a less expensive bottling. Sometimes (e.g., a Pegu Club made with Gordon's versus Hendrick's) you're probably going to get a better drink with the less expensive brand. Most of the time I don't see much point in using an expensive spirit in a highball.

[Splificator]

Besides, there's generally not as huge of a price gap between "awful" and "pretty darned good" as people  would have you believe. 

This is an excellent point. We're usually talking about the difference between a $12-$15 bottle and a $15-$20 bottle.

There are exceptions, to be sure, usually in the realms of imported liqueurs, brandies and tequilas. Some of these--e.g., Cointreau--are very difficult to substitute for; for the others--cognacs, 100% agave tequilas--with careful shopping and well stocked liquor stores you can usually get something in the $25 range. This translates to less than $2 a drink. Seeing as a standard cheap brand of French brandy or mixto tequila clocks in at something like $15-$18 a bottle, the difference in cost is something like $.50 a drink between an okay drink and a really good one.

[slkinsey]

It would be interesting to come up with a list of the lowest priced "very high quality for mixing" spirits.

[BTR]

It would be interesting to come up with a list of the lowest priced "very high quality for mixing" spirits.

←

And highly useful. I remember seeing Chalfonte VSOP praised here, I think, and got a bottle for around $20 or less.

[mbanu]

I also think it depends on the type of mixed drink you're talking about. A Manhattan made with Knob Creek is IMO a thing of beauty, but I wouldn't waste the Knob Creek on a bourbon-and-coke.

This is an important point, and ties in with what I wrote above in response to jbewley. You won't often hurt the drink by defaulting to your top shelf mixer, but it's wise to consider whether the drink you're mixing might be more suitable to a less expensive bottling. Sometimes (e.g., a Pegu Club made with Gordon's versus Hendrick's) you're probably going to get a better drink with the less expensive brand. Most of the time I don't see much point in using an expensive spirit in a highball.

←

Well, that depends in my mind. If you put a young, high distillation proof, 40%abv bottling in a highball and then compare it to it's slightly older and slightly more expensive counterpart, you're right, no big diff. But compare it to an old, low distillation proof, barrel proof bottling and you'll be able to tell the difference, even in flavored sodas. It's like the difference between making a rum & coke with Bacardi vs. Prichard's. Make up a plain sodawater highball and the difference shows itself immediately.

I would say that you could argue that the "good stuff straight/cheap stuff mixing" law could also apply to using lighter (ie high distillation proof) spirits vs. using heavier (ie low distillation proof) ones, as well as to blends. That cheap white rum tastes a lot less bland mixed with coke than it does on the rocks. But then people enjoy drinking straight extra dry vodka martinis, so maybe it doesn't count. :)

Edited June 16, 2005 by mbanu (log)

[Vesper Lynd]

host note - topics merged.

We all know that a Cocktail is the sum of all its parts, and the best cocktails usually contain the freshest, highest quality ingredients.

So at what point does the law of “Diminishing Returns” kick in and the best ingredient, becomes too good to be used in a cocktail? What criteria do you use to determine this point?

This is a point we have pondered from time to time when we are trying new/unknown drinks. Do we use the best on the shelf, or one of the lesser ingredients?

[Bricktop]

It's an interesting concept. I doubt it would be the best use of Louis XIII cognac to use it in a Metropole, to use a recent cocktail I made. However, the best Manhattan I have had used Sazerac 18YO Rye and Carpano Antico. Sure, the Rittenhouse BIB and M&R vermouth versions are very good, a shitload cheaper, and more than satisfy me most days, but sometimes, the kicked up version is fun. There is a line somewhere, I am not sure where though.

[cocktailgeek]

There are in my mind two questions here:

1. at what point is is it pointless to use a superior product in a cocktail?

2. When trying an unknown drink, what quality spirit should we use?

I work in a tequila bar with over 100 tequilas, all 100% agave. Our Margaritas are made with only tequila, fresh lime juice, & agave nectar. I believe that the flavor of the tequila is not compromised by our recipe. I am asked every day whether it is worth using a better tequila in a margarita, whether you can taste the difference. Using our (Julio's) recipe, the difference between tequilas is noticeable, and this is how I would answer the first question: When the quality of the ingredient used in a cocktail is no longer perceptable, I would substitute a lesser product. The issue then becomes: if I can't taste the quality of the base spirit, the cocktail is unbalanced or poorly made. It is said that you can't make a great cocktail with inferior spirits. Also that you should never cook with any wine you wouldn't drink. Having said that, in some categories of spirits the differences between good and great are nuances that would be lost in a cocktail with strong flavors.

When trying a new cocktail, I would use a base spirit I am familiar with, so that my focus is the new combination of ingredients, not a new spirit. The quality of the spirit should be a known quantity. I don't know why you would keep around bottles of spirits you have deemed "lesser ingredients", I use them as drain cleaner.

We all know that a Cocktail is the sum of all its parts, and the best cocktails usually contain the freshest, highest quality ingredients.

So at what point does the law of “Diminishing Returns” kick in and the best ingredient, becomes too good to be used in a cocktail?  What criteria do you use to determine this point?

This is a point we have pondered from time to time when we are trying new/unknown drinks. Do we use the best on the shelf, or one of the lesser ingredients?

←

[thirtyoneknots]

Our Margaritas are made with only tequila, fresh lime juice, & agave nectar.

←

No Cointreau?

[cocktailgeek]

Our Margaritas are made with only tequila, fresh lime juice, & agave nectar.

←

No Cointreau?

←

No triple sec of any kind. Okay, so it's more a Tequila Daiquiri or Gimlet.

The recipe is from Julio Bermejo, Tequila Ambassador to the United States.

[Paul Stanley]

It is said that you can't make a great cocktail with inferior spirits.  Also that you should never cook with any wine you wouldn't drink.  Having said that, in some categories of spirits the differences between good and great are nuances that would be lost in a cocktail with strong flavors.

←

This is an interesting analogy, but not quite precise, I think. In cooking, wine is usually pretty massively transformed by cooking. The rule there is really not to use an undrinkable wine, but I think the consensus would probably be that beyond that there is really not much mileage in upping the quality. You are largely trying to avoid introducing positively nasty flavours. (And in fact, I'm told, the transformation can sometimes be so significant that you can use an undrinkable wine for cooking (e.g., I understand that a corked wine is OK for cooking, because the off tastes are eliminated; but I've never tried it).

Cocktails are different, because there is less transformation. There nevertheless comes a point where what (presumably) makes the "better" stuff better will be overwhelmed by less expensive ingredients or strongly assertive flavours. I'm afraid it wouldn't occur to me to use really excellent brandy for a sidecar, much as I love sidecars; perhaps I'm just mean. But it seems to me that whatever you do about the brandy and the cointreau, the lemon juice is going to win in the end. Conversely, with a martini or a manhattan, there's more room for manoeuvre. But anything that has significant quantities of fruit juices, sugar (in whatever form), or ... if you must ... cream, is going to hit the point of no return relatively quickly, I would think.

The crucial thing to me seems to be balance. You have to look at all the ingredients, and keep them balanced. Not much point in using a really expensive vermouth for a manhattan if you are going to make it with some mouthwash whisky.

And a question. What about temperature? Cocktails are usually cold. Often very cold. Generally speaking one thinks of the finer characteristics of many spirits (cognac, single malts etc) as being depressed by extreme cold. I would not generally want to drink a fine cognac or single malt on the rocks, even neat. That might be another reason to suppose that cocktails would not be a very sensible way to showcase the characteristics of the finest spirits.

[eje]

It's hard to add much to all the learned advice above, except to say, I find it useful to think more in terms of what type or brand of spirit is appropriate for a cocktail.

To use gins as an example, I usually have at least a couple in the house. Beefeater, Plymouth, Junipero, and now, thanks to the encouragement of certain enablers on these boards, Tanqueray.

They all have pretty different flavor profiles, and work better or worse than each other in certain cocktails. Beefeater works well in sophisticated Martinis and other dry cocktails. Tanqueray works well when there are more ingredients to fight with and a strong juniper flavor is required. Plymouth works well with darker flavors, like orange and Maraschino liqueur. I find the Junipero the hardest to mix, and almost never use it anything beyond the simplest cocktails, unless it is specifically called for in a recipe.

Of course, Gin, as a flavored spirit, is the easiest example.

The differences between various quality Bourbon Whiskeys, while existent, will be less significant. Though, there are types of spirits with a wider variety of flavor profiles, like the Cane Spirits and Scotch Whiskys.

To give some concrete advice, I seldom mix with spirits that cost more than around $30 US per 750ml. The exceptions are tequila, where it is almost impossible to get a decent 100% Agave blanco tequila for under that price, and Absinthe. But, you know, it's your household (or bar) budget, and you're the one who has to balance the books or account for expenses to the powers that be.

[cocktailgeek]

In some categories of spirits the differences between good and great are nuances that would be lost in a cocktail with strong flavors.

←

There comes a point where what (presumably) makes the "better" stuff better will be overwhelmed by less expensive ingredients or strongly assertive flavours.

←

I think we agree on this point, at least.

As far as Sidecars go, I have made one with Louis XIII and it was spectacular. I wouldn't do it again, but then I wouldn't pay the going rate for a glass of the cognac.

[Relish]

"The most exciting manhattan is one compounded with ordinary-quality bar whiskey rather than the rarest overproof article..." -- Lucius Beebe, Stork Club Bar Book. --> which is simply in line with slkinsey's earlier suggestion (and accompanying graphic!) that aged spirits may often lose some of their upfront flavor, or get "woody", and taste of nothing much more than "aged spirit" in a mixed drink.

[slkinsey]

I suppose that depends a bit on the quality of your "ordinary-quality bar whiskey." In the bars I frequent, a Manhattan compounded with ordinary-quality bar whiskey is likely to be made with Rittenhouse Bonded. In other bars... I'm not sure there's a whole lot you can do with something like Banker's Club or Heaven Hill.

[eje]

I suppose that depends a bit on the quality of your "ordinary-quality bar whiskey."  In the bars I frequent, a Manhattan compounded with ordinary-quality bar whiskey is likely to be made with Rittenhouse Bonded.  In other bars... I'm not sure there's a whole lot you can do with something like Banker's Club or Heaven Hill.

←

I was wondering what Beebe's "ordinary-quality bar whiskey" might have been.

I'm always suitably impressed when a bartender makes me a tasty Manhattan or Sazerac with something like Old-Overholt or Beam. Well, actually, I'm always impressed whenever I get a good cocktail, no matter the starting spirit.

But, still, it would take a miracle worker to make same with generic blended whisk(e)y.

[Rob Simmon]

I think there's too many variables to make a hard-and-fast rule. For instance I think the quality of the vermouth is more important than the quality of the whiskey in a manhattan (well, as long as you stay away from blended whiskeys). In particular, I like Vya. (Carpano Antiqua Formula is so intense it will easily overcome all but the most flavorful bourbons.)

In sours, the intensity of lemon or lime juice will likely obscure subtle characteristics of high-end liquors, while grapefruit juice is more amenable to mixing with the good stuff. Good whiskeys make a noticeable difference in something like a blinker, or the cocktail I mixed on the fly with Laird's 12-year, pomelo juice, and Chambourd.

Anything that's more than 50% juice is unlikely to taste much different no matter what price category of base liquor you use.

A caipirinha or pisco sour demands the cheap stuff--it's the funky flavors that make the drink.

And I suspect we all agree that the brand of vodka one chooses is irrelevant, as long as it's ethyl, and not methyl, alcohol.