When is a Collins not a Collins?

[kvltrede]

Or, Does a Faux-tini by any Other Name Taste Just as Sweet?

I know, I know. Whether one is of the "Jack Lord, people, there are rules for this!" school, the "rules, schmools, I'd settle for a little imagination" school" or the "enough with the kvetching, let 'em call it what they want" school, I imagine we're all a little tired of threads regarding the naming of cocktails. Yes, even those of us guilty of starting such threads ....

However, the latest Gary Regan piece at Wine Enthusiast includes such an egregious example of cocktail-naming heresy that the the "faux-tini problem", while a more pervasive issue, simply pales in comparison. In fact, I'm a little curious as to why Mr. Regan let it pass with only--as I read it--an exceptionally subtle rebuke.

Here's the excerpt in question:

Gin is also the base for the Tom Collins, a fairly simple drink, but one that’s stuck around for a long time. “This is a long drink, to be consumed slowly with reverence and meditation,” wrote David Embury in his book, The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks (Garden City Books, 1952). Made with gin, lemon juice, sugar and club soda, the Tom Collins can be a very refreshing quaff in the warmer months, but John Mautone, one of the owners of Dylan Prime, a great Manhattan steak house, and a good place to select from an array of fine cocktails, has brought this classic completely up to date in a cocktail he calls the Dylan Collins.

“The Dylan Collins was created with the thought of marrying a classic cocktail recipe with limoncello because of the growing popularity of this spirit in our restaurant and the history of it in my Italian upbringing,” says Mautone. “Pallini Limoncello is rich, thick and syrup-like, and it possesses the qualities evident in my Sicilian uncle’s homemade limoncello.” But not only did he add limoncello to the recipe, Mautone changed the base spirit, too, preferring to use Grey Goose Le Citron vodka rather than gin. And don’t look for any club soda in the Dylan Collins—it’s served straight up in a martini glass at Dylan Prime.

I appreciate that Gary provides more than enough information in the lead-in paragraph for the reader to see the absurdity of the "Dylan Collins" but still, Gary's a fine writer with a wonderful sense of humor. I'm sure he could have made a more pointed comment without offending Mr. Mautone.

Anyhoo, maybe it's just me. Maybe I simply need to get over the fact that the tremendous majority of people, even those in the food & drink industry, have little imagination and equally little regard for history. After all, it doesn’t take much to see that the semantical obsessions of one wanna-be cocktailian don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Then again, is it really nit-picking to insist that a Collins is, by definition, a long drink served over ice? Have we reached the point at which merely taking "inspiration" from the Collins family is sufficient cause for calling the result a "Collins"? No matter that the drink is shaken & strained into a cocktail glass? No matter that it contains egg white (!), for pete's sake? Is it wrong to assume that any bartender worthy of passing along a recipe to Gary Regan knows the difference between a long drink and a short drink?

The drink itself strikes me as a one note affair that is essentially a variation on the Lemon Drop. It may well be quite pleasant and refreshing. What it ain't, to be damn sure, is any sort of Collins. This is one case where "Dylantini" or "Dylan Collins-tini" or something equally lacking in imagination would be a better name. If this were my invention (and my restaurant) I think I'd call it the "Dylan Drop" but it's my guess is that Mr. Mautone knows his drink is really a Lemon Drop variation but figures that the Lemon Drop isn't "cool" enough to be acknowledged as the inspiration for it while a Collins is just passe enough for it's cool to be rehabilitated.

Whatever. I'm fully aware that I'm expending energy better spent elsewhere but I appreciate that there are like-minded folks who don't mind the occasional rant on topics of questionable importance.

Kurt

[ThinkingBartender]

It sounds to me like Regan is endorsing this nonsense.

"brought this classic completely up to date in a cocktail he calls the Dylan Collins."

Yeah right!

This collins in a cocktail (martini) glass is absolutley ridiculous. And why is it recieving coverage from a well-known cocktail celeb as Gary Regan? So that other simpletons can join in destroying cocktail catergories perhaps? Is there really nothing better out there in the world of cocktails to report on?

This "brought this classic completely up to date" thing really does take the bisquit. What a load of tosh.

Regan is steadily losting any modicum of respect he may once have had from me. The majority of his Ardent Newsletters are worthless junk, getting deleted immediately after reading.

George S.

[slkinsey]

I've always felt that Gary's columns more or less served to highlight and, to a certain extent, cheerlead for bartenders he thought were doing something interesting. To the extent that this is accurate -- and I don't know if it is or not -- I wouldn't think that these columns are the place to inveigh against naming conventions.

That said, and perhaps this reflects my profession as a classical musician, I don't agree with Gary's premise that Bach would have been pleased to see Air on a G String turned into A Whiter Shade of Pale. But for whatever it's worth, at least Procol Harum changed the name of the piece, and that's more germane to this discussion. It perhaps is a bit ironic to read at the beginning of the article that "a firm grasp on the structure of classic cocktails is essential for today’s bartenders if they want to create new drinks for their customers" -- something with which I absolutely agree -- and then to see recipes for a "collins" in a V-glass with no ice and no soda, and a "julep" with no crushed ice, both of which practices I'd say do not demonstrate a healthy respect for classicism when it comes to cocktails. But that kind of classisism (respecting certain naming conventions) and having "a firm grasp of the structure" of the classics aren't the same thing. It's possible to have one and not the other.

Several of the drinks featured in the article do strike me as relatively interesting -- the main point of the article, in my view -- and most of them seem to have respect for their forebears.

[racheld]

I'm new to any libation thread, but just your title was captivating. It brought back a Summer day in the South, on which I catered one of many lunches for a nice Delta matron whose butler/gardener "Royal" made all the drinks for her social gatherings. I was busily doing something with chicken salad or aspic or one of those standard lady dishes so beloved of the bridge-and-garden-club set, when she drifted into the kitchen, equal eddies of chiffon and Shalimar floating in her wake.

"Let Raw-yul make you something to drink while you're working," she graciously offered. I said some of that mint tea would be nice. She countered with, "But you MUST try one of his Jawun Collinses---they are just wonderful."

And so he made and presented a beautiful concoction---a tumbler of crystal ice, a peachish-looking liquid with a great skewer of pineapple chunks crowned with a strawberry and a clump of mint sitting raffishly askew. I'm not a drinker AT ALL; I knew that I'd admire it and let it sit, and perhaps eat the fruit later. She was, after all, one of those too-solicitous hostesses, waving her dainty hands like swirling leaves about your person, so needy to ascertain every possibility for your comfort and enjoyment.

Doubly admirable, I suppose, because I was, technically, the Hired Help, at least for a couple of hours. But I did have one sip through that straw, inhaling the mint and fruit essences as I tasted---it was julep meets mai tai, if such an unholy alliance ever came to be in the wee hours of a bartender's night.

In our moments together in the kitchen, I asked Royal about the drink. He said it was "A Tom made with Bourbon." Then he added "Makes it brown, so she likes me to put some drops of food color in the lemonade beforehand."

Every detail thought of, indeed.

I now yield the floor to those who know whereof they speak.

[Mayhaw Man]

I don't agree with Gary's premise that Bach would have been pleased to see Air on a G String turned into A Whiter Shade of Pale.  But for whatever it's worth, at least Procol Harum changed the name of the piece

Sam has now won the Obscure Musical Reference Award for the day. Thanks to the rest of you for playing, but this was not a difficult decision for the judging panel to reach.

Congratulations on this stellar achievement!

[slkinsey]

Heh. As much as I'd like to take credit, it's right there in the lead-in to the article.

[Gary Regan]

I don't agree with Gary's premise that Bach would have been pleased to see Air on a G String turned into A Whiter Shade of Pale.  But for whatever it's worth, at least Procol Harum changed the name of the piece

Sam has now won the Obscure Musical Reference Award for the day. Thanks to the rest of you for playing, but this was not a difficult decision for the judging panel to reach.

Congratulations on this stellar achievement!

←

Hi there:

Guess I should weigh in on this subject!

But where to begin?

First off I should say that I believe it's the right of the creator to name a drink whatever he or she want to name a drink.

And I don't believe that I have the right to make fun of them, point fingers, or anything like that.

Next I think it might be good to explore the Martini phenomenon, and I should mention that I'm afraid I haven't been around here a great deal recently, so if you guys have been over this in the recent past, please forgive.

When cocktails first started being called "Martinis" no matter what ingredients were called for, I didn't like it.

It didn't take me long, though, to realize that there was nothing I could do about it, so I simply accepted it. And now it's part of the norm. I'll hazzard a guess that there are people here who aren't old enough to have been drinking cocktails before they were called Martinis.

English is an ever-evolving language.

The "Cocktail" itself was initially defined as a drink containing spirits, sugar, water, and bitters (1806), and it was a long time after that definition before drinks that strayed from that formula were known as cocktails. But it eventually became the norm to call almost any drink in a V-shaped glass a cocktail.

I'm not going to defend myself on anything else that's been written in this thread, except to mention that, when I'm writing for a specific magazine I try to take into consideration my audience, and in the instance cited, I was writing for people who are far more interested in wine than cocktails. Wine Enthusiast is not an ideal platform to get into the intracasies of classic drink families, etc.

And although I have great respect for the classics, as anyone who know me will tell you, I do not consider myself to be a classicist. I'd prefer to be known as a progressive, but that might not be entirely true, either.

In closing, I'd like to add that I enjoy living in 2006, and I enjoy seeing things change as life goes on. How boring life would be if things never changed.

I'll try to get back here more often. Promise.

[M.X.Hassett]

I'll try to get back here more often.  Promise.

←

Please do good sir.

[slkinsey]

First off I should say that I believe it's the right of the creator to name a drink whatever he or she want to name a drink.

Thanks for stopping in, Gary!

I'm at an interesting crossroads on this point. As a classical musician, I guess I tend to stand against the idea of calling an atonal theme and variations composition for banjo and flute "Piano Sonata in G Major." Nevertheless, I do respect the composer's right to give the composition that name, and believe it could have meaning in a certain context depending on the composer's concept. That said, at the same time I recognize that the concepts "piano," "sonata" and "G major" will begin to lose meaning or take on new meanings if they come to be commonly used in this way. As you point out, this has happened in different ways with the words "cocktail" (which in my opinion has had a fairly useful evolution of meaning) and "martini" (perhaps not so much).

But... again, I'm someone who specializes in the interpretation of music that was written around 150 to 125 years ago, so I have my biases.

I'm not going to defend myself on anything else that's been written in this thread, except to mention that, when I'm writing for a specific magazine I try to take into consideration my audience, and in the instance cited, I was writing for people who are far more interested in wine than cocktails.  Wine Enthusiast is not an ideal platform to get into the intracasies of classic drink families, etc.

I hope you don't think anything I wrote needs defending against. I have my own viewpoints, but believe there is room for more than one. And, as you point out and I was trying to say, you're writing for a certain audience. I'm sure there are things you would have to say to a hardcore cocktail audience that you wouldn't put in an article such as this.

And although I have great respect for the classics, as anyone who know me will tell you, I do not consider myself to be a classicist.  I'd prefer to be known as a progressive, but that might not be entirely true, either.

Interesting thought, and maybe one that can be explored in a different thread. I've posted the following in an interesting thread Dave started on "The March of Booze Through Time":

<blockquote>

I see cocktail culture in the new century taking two divergent paths right now:  One path is what I call the "new old school."  This would be the school to which you & I and most of the people we like belong, grounded in the idea of continuing the great tradition that was interrupted by Prohibition and largely ignoring the "three different kinds of spiced rum blended with ice and 5 different kinds of fruit juice" mixing that happened in the 80s and 90s.  These tend to be dry, strong drinks based on traditional spirits.  But I think there is also the "new new school" path, where the idea seems to be to continue in the direction set in the 80s and 90s, but presumably with better quality.  These tend to be sweeter, fruit-flavored drinks based on flavored vodkas and flavored/spiced light rums, etc.  A good example of a "new old school" drink might be the Little Italy from Pegu Club (Rittenhouse bonded rye, Cynar, M&R Sweet) and a good example of a "new new school" drink might be the Wet Water Martini from Cherry (Beefeater Wet, Chambord, Power-C Vitamin Water).

</blockquote>

In reading your work, you have always struck me as someone with one foot in each school of thought -- very much of an "old school" outlook, but also eager to embrace new ingredients and trends and step outside the box.

[ThinkingBartender]

I don't think anyone doubts that it is totally a persons privilege to name their own creations whatever they wish to call them. The problem comes when they wilfully refer to a classic cocktail, and show it no respect.

If Joan Collins came into your bar and asked you to name a cocktail after her then fine, she can have whatever she wants, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be of a Collins nature. Afterall I am not a pitbull guarding over a chewed up slipper.

The problem is when people say "brought this classic completely up to date in a cocktail he calls the Dylan Collins." This is an entirely different matter. The Collins was not brought up-to-date in any way, shape or form.

The Raspberry Collins brought the Collins "completely up to date". It deviates, but still shows respect to the "original" formula of a Collins. Since then people have been substituting the raspberry for other fruits, with not much sucess IMHO.

Mr. Mautone shows no repect to the Collins, and does what many are continuing to do these days, using a name to simply tie it in historically.

Now I am not saying that history (& cocktail recipes) have to evolve in easy to follow step by step increment, but I do feel that something has to be said when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

Cheers!

George S.

[Gary Regan]

I'll try to get back here more often.  Promise.

←

Please do good sir.

←

Hi Sam, Geaorge, et al.

Well this is fun, huh? I really have to come visit more often.

I'm not sure how to include individual quotes from you guys apart from clipping and pasting, but I'll do my best to answer your comments.

Sam, I mis-spoke. I actually don't feel like I have to defend myself against anybody's comments in this thread. Like you, I believe everyone has a right to a different opinion.

Fact is it could be that I could be a little too liberal for everyone's taste. I don't really believe that these names matter all that much. That's me. Nobody has to agree with me, but that's the way I feel. You can please some of the people all of the time . . .

I LOVE your music analagy, Sam, and I think that if I went to a concert that promised me a concerto in G minor, and it was played in another key, I might feel as though I'd been duped (although I have a tin ear and probably wouldn't notice!).

I don't think, though, that anyone was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes re the Dylan Collins. I doubt very much that Mr. Mautone was thinking, "I know, I'll call it a Collins so everyone will expect a tall fizzy drink, then I'll really disappoint my customers by serving them a cocktail instead."

And it's fairly obvious from this

<<But not only did he add limoncello to the recipe, Mautone changed the base spirit, too, preferring to use Grey Goose Le Citron vodka rather than gin. And don’t look for any club soda in the Dylan Collins—it’s served straight up in a martini glass at Dylan Prime.>>

that I wasn't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, either.

As anyone can see, there was no skullduggery going on here.

<<I'm sure there are things you would have to say to a hardcore cocktail audience that you wouldn't put in an article such as this.>>

You know, Sam, this comment really made me think hard. (And my brain isn't used to that . . . ) I don't think I would have treated this drink much differently no matter who I was writing to. I might have thought differently 10 years ago, but now, after seeing what has happened in the cocktail world in the past decade, I've decided (at this point) to live and let live as long as intentions are pure.

I get recipes sent to me from all over the world. Literally. I see the same drink masquerading under different names, and I see drinks with the same name that call for entirely different ingredients (I'm talking about new cocktails now).

But I've never once had occasion to think, my God, someone's trying to fool me. Perhaps I'm too gullible, but I think not.

Perhaps it's time for a statement: I believe that it's of great importance that bartenders know and understand the formulas used to make all classic drinks. Without that knowledge as a base, nobody gets anywhere. But after that, as I tell my students at Cocktails in the Country, "There are no rules."

Make great drinks. Be creative. Call 'em whatever you like as long as your intentions are honorable. But make great drinks.

Cocktailian bartenders in the first decade of the 21st century have raised the bar on the creative side. They are using ingredients that Jerry Thomas never dreamed of putting into drinks, and some of the resultant cocktails are incredible. Sure, some are terrible, too, but that's just the way it goes.

The Dylan Collins is a great drink, though I'm not saying that it's a landmark cocktail. It's just a good use of ingredients that results in a very sippable potion. And I don't believe for a second that Mautone's intentions were anything less than honorable.

Nuff said.

Perhaps I should start a new thread with what I'm about to say, but what's been going through my head recently is, I believe, very important in the world of professional bartenders.

Are we, perhaps, not giving enough attention to the "core job" of the bartender?

I don't want to stop anyone in the world from keeping raising the creativity bar. I hope we continue to see more and more innovative drinks from bartenders who really understand flavors, but . . .

The core job of a bartender, in my 'umble opinion, is this:

A good bartender, no matter what his or her cocktailian skills are, makes sure that each and every customer leaves the bar feeling better than they did when they walked in.

This can be achieved by making a great cocktail, and it can be achieved by pouring a shot and a beer and telling a good joke, commiserating with lonesome souls, bringing like-minded folk together, or just by making a customer feel welcome at the bar. There are millions of ways in which to achieve this goal, and I think that this might be a better world if all professional bartenders had this as their primary goal.

Okay, them's me thoughts for this morning. Perhaps they'll change this afternoon!

[ThinkingBartender]

Dylan Collins

2 ounces Grey Goose Le Citron vodka

2 ounces Pallini Limoncello

1 ounce fresh lemon juice

1/2 of an egg white

1 large orange twist, for garnish

Fill a cocktail shaker two-thirds full of ice and add all of the ingredients. Shake for approximately 15 seconds, and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Add the garnish.

I myself, and others too I would guess, have come up with recipes like this. From my standpoint of wishing to creating a "Margarita style" drink, I too fell upon using Limoncello. However I swapped the Cointreau for limoncello, and swapped the Tequila for Grappa.

Salt Yard Dog

50ml Grappa

25ml Limoncello

10ml Fresh Lemon Juice

35ml Sugar Syrup (v. weak syrup; 1:1)

Shake with ice, and then strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a Lemon Twist.

The point is not the drink but the name. I started from Margarita, and ended up at the drink I did. Fairly logical, and obviously linked. But how anyone can start at Collins and end up with basically the same drink as I did, is beyond me, and fail to see that it is not a Collins anymore to boot.

For my own taste, I feel my drink still needs work, and an even better name.

Cheers!

George

[Gary Regan]

Dylan Collins

2 ounces Grey Goose Le Citron vodka

2 ounces Pallini Limoncello

1 ounce fresh lemon juice

1/2 of an egg white

1 large orange twist, for garnish

Fill a cocktail shaker two-thirds full of ice and add all of the ingredients. Shake for approximately 15 seconds, and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Add the garnish.

I myself, and others too I would guess, have come up with recipes like this. From my standpoint of wishing to creating a "Margarita style" drink, I too fell upon using Limoncello. However I swapped the Cointreau for limoncello, and swapped the Tequila for Grappa.

Salt Yard Dog

50ml Grappa

25ml Limoncello

10ml Fresh Lemon Juice

35ml Sugar Syrup (v. weak syrup; 1:1)

Shake with ice, and then strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a Lemon Twist.

The point is not the drink but the name. I started from Margarita, and ended up at the drink I did. Fairly logical, and obviously linked. But how anyone can start at Collins and end up with basically the same drink as I did, is beyond me, and fail to see that it is not a Collins anymore to boot.

For my own taste, I feel my drink still needs work, and an even better name.

Cheers!

George

←

I kind of like the name for your drink, George. The formula looks well thought out, too, and I like the idea that you're working with grappa. This should add a nice spiciness to the cocktail.

If you're going to re-work it, might I suggest that you try using a little more limoncello, and a little less syrup? (I use 1:1 ratio for simple syrup, too)

It's just a thought, but whenever I'm experimenting with this sort of formula I always start out with

3 base

2 liqueur

1 sour

Then I taste and adjust.

Just an idea.

[slkinsey]

I LOVE your music analagy, Sam, and I think that if I went to a concert that promised me a concerto in G minor, and it was played in another key, I might feel as though I'd been duped (although I have a tin ear and probably wouldn't notice!).

I don't think, though, that anyone was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes re the Dylan Collins.  I doubt very much that Mr. Mautone was thinking, "I know, I'll call it a Collins so everyone will expect a tall fizzy drink, then I'll really disappoint my customers by serving them a cocktail instead."

As always, interesting and thought provoking stuff... To a certain extent, some of these reactions depend on one's store of knowledge, which I think we would agree is regretably low when it comes to cocktails, not only in the customer base but even among professionals. To return back to my original musical example... one reason I wouldn't like to see a freeform atonal piece for banjo and flute called "Piano Sonata in G Major" is that the word "sonata" has certain connotations as to musical structure (see here), which would not be satisfied by the freeform atonal piece. Now, that's something you might not know about, and therefore you might not care. Similarly, if I were in a bar and ordered a drink called a "collins," I would absolutely expect a tall drink on ice with citrus and fizz, and would probably be disappointed to be served an up drink in a V-glass. For most people, though, this wouldn't be the case because "collins" doesn't particularly mean anything to them.

This all goes to my later point, and yours, about writing for a certain audience. . .

<<I'm sure there are things you would have to say to a hardcore cocktail audience that you wouldn't put in an article such as this.>>

You know, Sam, this comment really made me think hard.  (And my brain isn't used to that . . . )  I don't think I would have treated this drink much differently no matter who I was writing to.  I might have thought differently 10 years ago, but now, after seeing what has happened in the cocktail world in the past decade, I've decided (at this point) to live and let live as long as intentions are pure.

I wonder if that's entirely true. My guess is that, if you were writing an article for Mixologist, or perhaps even something for an audience such as we have here in the eG Forums, you might have gone a little bit into talking about what a collins has been historically, how or whether this new drink is derrived from or related to that concept, etc. Certainly this is the kind of explaining you do in The Joy of Mixology. But, again, that book has a different goal and a different audience from the magazine article. Actually, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts on how, if at all, the Dylan Collins is related to or updated from the Collins category.

Perhaps it's time for a statement:  I believe that it's of great importance that bartenders know and understand the formulas used to make all classic drinks.  Without that knowledge as a base, nobody gets anywhere.  But after that, as I tell my students at Cocktails in the Country, "There are no rules."

Make great drinks.  Be creative.  Call 'em whatever you like as long as your intentions are honorable.  But make great drinks.

To a large extent, and on all the important parts, I couldn't agree more. But -- and this is reflective of my personal biases -- I think there are an awful lot of potential cocktail names out there, and I think if someone is going to give a drink a name associated with an established category of cocktail (collins, julep, daisy, etc.) then it should respect those traditions. Otherwise, why not just pick another name?

The core job of a bartender, in my 'umble opinion, is this:

A good bartender, no matter what his or her cocktailian skills are, makes sure that each and every customer leaves the bar feeling better than they did when they walked in.

Absolutely. Audrey has made this point to me a number of times. If someone comes into the bar and wants a Ketel One tonic or whatever, you want to make them feel good and give them a great Ketel One tonic. That's job #1.

[ThinkingBartender]

Gary: I had your favoured 3:2:1 Margarita ratio in mind while making the Salt Yard Dog, but got lost along the way.

1 1/2 shots Grappa

1 shot Limoncello

1/2 shot Fresh Lemon Juice

However I think a little sugar syrup is needed, although I feel that 35ml was a bit overboard, so I think eggwhite and, dare I say, bitters might be in order, with a much smaller amount of thicker sugar syrup.

Cheers!

George

[Gary Regan]

Gary: I had your favoured 3:2:1 Margarita ratio in mind while making the Salt Yard Dog, but got lost along the way.

1 1/2 shots Grappa

1 shot Limoncello

1/2 shot Fresh Lemon Juice

However I think a little sugar syrup is needed, although I feel that 35ml was a bit overboard, so I think eggwhite and, dare I say, bitters might be in order, with a much smaller amount of thicker sugar syrup.

Cheers!

George

←

Good thinking. And the need for specific amount of syrup might change depending on which brand of limoncello you use, too.

George, can I ask where you work in London?

[ThinkingBartender]

The Salt Yard Dog was created for a Tapas Bar called "Salt Yard" Hopefully they are still making cocktails there, my "Grappacino" included. They weren't really into their cocktails, and I was sternly told "no muddling!". They just wanted quick to make cocktails (no problem as always).

http://www.london-eating.co.uk/5714.htm

As for where I am now, I am in Norway (again it seems). I am currently constructing my cocktail website (live next month, definately). Then its off to "sell" myself to one of the cocktail bars over here.

Cheers!

George

[Gary Regan]

I LOVE your music analagy, Sam, and I think that if I went to a concert that promised me a concerto in G minor, and it was played in another key, I might feel as though I'd been duped (although I have a tin ear and probably wouldn't notice!).

I don't think, though, that anyone was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes re the Dylan Collins.  I doubt very much that Mr. Mautone was thinking, "I know, I'll call it a Collins so everyone will expect a tall fizzy drink, then I'll really disappoint my customers by serving them a cocktail instead."

As always, interesting and thought provoking stuff... To a certain extent, some of these reactions depend on one's store of knowledge, which I think we would agree is regretably low when it comes to cocktails, not only in the customer base but even among professionals. To return back to my original musical example... one reason I wouldn't like to see a freeform atonal piece for banjo and flute called "Piano Sonata in G Major" is that the word "sonata" has certain connotations as to musical structure (see here), which would not be satisfied by the freeform atonal piece. Now, that's something you might not know about, and therefore you might not care. Similarly, if I were in a bar and ordered a drink called a "collins," I would absolutely expect a tall drink on ice with citrus and fizz, and would probably be disappointed to be served an up drink in a V-glass. For most people, though, this wouldn't be the case because "collins" doesn't particularly mean anything to them.

This all goes to my later point, and yours, about writing for a certain audience. . .

<<I'm sure there are things you would have to say to a hardcore cocktail audience that you wouldn't put in an article such as this.>>

You know, Sam, this comment really made me think hard.  (And my brain isn't used to that . . . )  I don't think I would have treated this drink much differently no matter who I was writing to.  I might have thought differently 10 years ago, but now, after seeing what has happened in the cocktail world in the past decade, I've decided (at this point) to live and let live as long as intentions are pure.

I wonder if that's entirely true. My guess is that, if you were writing an article for Mixologist, or perhaps even something for an audience such as we have here in the eG Forums, you might have gone a little bit into talking about what a collins has been historically, how or whether this new drink is derrived from or related to that concept, etc. Certainly this is the kind of explaining you do in The Joy of Mixology. But, again, that book has a different goal and a different audience from the magazine article. Actually, I'd still be interested in hearing your thoughts on how, if at all, the Dylan Collins is related to or updated from the Collins category.

Perhaps it's time for a statement:  I believe that it's of great importance that bartenders know and understand the formulas used to make all classic drinks.  Without that knowledge as a base, nobody gets anywhere.  But after that, as I tell my students at Cocktails in the Country, "There are no rules."

Make great drinks.  Be creative.  Call 'em whatever you like as long as your intentions are honorable.  But make great drinks.

To a large extent, and on all the important parts, I couldn't agree more. But -- and this is reflective of my personal biases -- I think there are an awful lot of potential cocktail names out there, and I think if someone is going to give a drink a name associated with an established category of cocktail (collins, julep, daisy, etc.) then it should respect those traditions. Otherwise, why not just pick another name?

The core job of a bartender, in my 'umble opinion, is this:

A good bartender, no matter what his or her cocktailian skills are, makes sure that each and every customer leaves the bar feeling better than they did when they walked in.

Absolutely. Audrey has made this point to me a number of times. If someone comes into the bar and wants a Ketel One tonic or whatever, you want to make them feel good and give them a great Ketel One tonic. That's job #1.

←

I'll try to answer your points, Sam.

Can't speak for the creator, but I think that the guy who came up with the Dylan Collins was, perhaps, thinking of the lemon aspect of the drink when he started to experiement. That's all I'm going to say on the subject of drink names in this thread. I think we've worn it out! Can we agree to disagree?

You're right to say that if I was writing about the drink for Mixologist, I would have gone into more detail, etc. But it's not really the kind of drink I'd write about for Mixologist. In this year's edition, though, I do have a piece about the Cosmopolitan . . .

You've "almost" got what I meant when I wrote about the core job of a bartender. Yes, if someone orders Ketel One & tonic, make the best K1 & T you can. But the real point I was trying to get across, is that some bartenders might serve me a lousy K1 & T in a cracked glass with lipstick on the rim, but if they make my experience at the bar enjoyable. If they have that certain something that puts a smile on my face, and makes me leave the bar feeling better than I did when I entered, then I've just encountered a great bartender.

Don't you know some servers at neighborhood diners who do this sort of thing? You get canned corned beef hash and greasy eggs, but you go back time and time again because of the sassy server.

There's room for lots of different types behind the stick, and much as I love Pegu, and I truly LOVE Pegu, I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I didn't have a good Blarney Stone to go to, too.

This would be a boring world if all the bars were fancy cocktail bars . . .

[slkinsey]

That's all I'm going to say on the subject of drink names in this thread.  I think we've worn it out!  Can we agree to disagree? 

Absolutely. I think it's clearly a topic on which there is more than one defensible viewpoint. I've only tried to explain mine.

Don't you know some servers at neighborhood diners who do this sort of thing?  You get canned corned beef hash and greasy eggs, but you go back time and time again because of the sassy server.

There's room for lots of different types behind the stick, and much as I love Pegu, and I truly LOVE Pegu, I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I didn't have a good Blarney Stone to go to, too.

This would be a boring world if all the bars were fancy cocktail bars . . .

I actually kind of like canned corned beef hash and greasy eggs. But I do get your point. Unfortunately for me, there are a lot of fun bars I can't visit any more because of my profession. I can't be damaging my hearing with loud music, straining my voice shouting over same. Them's the breaks when your hearing and voice are the tools of your trade. That's one reason I have been so happy about the NYS and NYC smoking bans -- I can finally go back into bars without screwing up my voice from the cigarete smoke.

[Gary Regan]

Unfortunately for me, there are a lot of fun bars I can't visit any more because of my profession.  I can't be damaging my hearing with loud music, straining my voice shouting over same.  Them's the breaks when your hearing and voice are the tools of your trade.  That's one reason I have been so happy about the NYS and NYC smoking bans -- I can finally go back into bars without screwing up my voice from the cigarete smoke.

Afraid you won't be able to come to one of my organized chaos events at my local, then! I tend to play the music pretty loud . . .

[eje]

Can't speak for the creator, but I think that the guy who came up with the Dylan Collins was, perhaps, thinking of the lemon aspect of the drink when he started to experiement.  That's all I'm going to say on the subject of drink names in this thread.  I think we've worn it out!  Can we agree to disagree? 

←

Hi Gary,

Can I tempt you into answering one more question about drink names?

Leaving aside the Dylan Collins and its creator, do you have any advice for people creating drinks, naming them, and convincing people to sample them?

Last holiday season, a friend and I had a cocktail party with a set drink menu of 6 or so drinks. I brought what I thought were a couple great cocktails; but, everyone wanted "something with vodka" or "Satan's Whiskers". Sadly, the batches of pineapple infused rum and "Mother-In-Law" cocktails went nearly untouched. It seemed most people's interest in "Satan's Whiskers" had nothing to do with the cocktail itself; but, only with the name. As well, their lack of interest in trying the Mother-In-Law seemed to have nothing to do with the cocktail; but, with feelings about their own Mother in Laws.

Do you have any guidelines you use yourself when coming up with names for cocktails?

-Erik

[ScorchedPalate]

Don't you know some servers at neighborhood diners who do this sort of thing?  You get canned corned beef hash and greasy eggs, but you go back time and time again because of the sassy server.

←

Actually, I go back because I *love* canned corned-beef hash. But that, as they say, is for another thread.

[fatdeko]

I'll cop to being one of those rigid folks when it comes to cocktail nomenclature/taxonomy--a thing is a thing, afterall and words should mean something at the end of the day. Which isn't to say that riffing on a tried and true formula is to be discouraged--to the contrary--I just think you can give it a clever name that pays homage to its heritage without sullying the good family name.

I'm thinking along the lines of The Screwdriver Variations, (waltz time, in the Key of V, natch)

Screwdriver

Sloe Screw

Sloe Comfortable Screw

Sloe Comfortable Screw Against the Wall

The name is a thing, the drink is a thing and they work together.

Personal real world examples:

I took a Champagne Fraise and turned it inside out, reversing the flavor of the sweetener and the flavor of the spirit, using Hangar 1 Fraser River Raspberry Vodka. "Down Goes Frazier" seemed the only natural thing to call it.

A riff on the Dark and Stormy became The Lytton Fizz in homage to (Samuel? Edgar? Edwin?) Bulwer-Lytton who gave us "It was a dark and stormy night and the rain fell in torrents, and at intervals...." (And George would be correct in calling me out for a slight misnaming of this drink, it is properly called Lytton Buck)

A riff on a Rusty Nail, subbing Galliano for Drambuie and punching up the peat with an Islay malt became The Golden Spike named after the ceremonial final nail that finished the TransContinental Railway and the convention that "Golden" often refers to the presence of Galliano.

I guess my point, finally, is that a cocktail's name should be pleasing to the ear, spur a little curiosity, and give some indication as to the drink's ingredients and format, his identity.

And to that end, I'll bet that y'all can suss out the recipe for the "Rathbone Sour". I'll send the first person who does a copy of Irwin S Cobb's Own Recipe Book. Barring that, the closest entry by Friday noon (EST) gets the book.

myers

[slkinsey]

And to that end, I'll bet that y'all can suss out the recipe for the "Rathbone Sour".  I'll send the first person who does a copy of Irwin S Cobb's Own Recipe Book.  Barring that, the closest entry by Friday noon (EST) gets the book.

A (gin, whiskey or perhaps scotch?) sour with basil?

[eje]

And to that end, I'll bet that y'all can suss out the recipe for the "Rathbone Sour".  I'll send the first person who does a copy of Irwin S Cobb's Own Recipe Book.  Barring that, the closest entry by Friday noon (EST) gets the book.

myers

←

Does it involve a seven percent solution?