Shaken? Stirred? Cloudy? Bruised?

[johnder]

So I was browsing around the newly launched chow.com and on the front page there was an article entitled: Conversation with a Cocktail Epicure obviously I was curious about it. It is an interview with Alberta Straub, who they describe as:

Alberta Straub, once described as “the Alice Waters of booze,” has been mixing up sublime adult beverages made with herbs, spices, and fresh fruits and vegetables for the past six years at San Francisco’s Orbit Room Café

It is an interesting read, but I was a little surprised at the question:

Shaken or Stirred?

and her response

Traditionally, clear beverages are stirred and others shaken. It has to do with dilution.

See I don't agree with that. For me it was always about shaking a drink without citrus (or a "clear" drink which I think is what the are referring to) just clouds the drink.

I am actually curious to check on the dilution point though. Tonight when I get home I will fill two shakers with 1 oz of booze and an equal amount of ice by weight and shake one for 15 seconds, and stir the other for 30 seconds, strain and measure out the liquid I get. I would think I would get pretty close to the same amount from each.

Thoughts?

edit: Sorry the url for the article is here.

Edited September 15, 2006 by johnder (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Good question. Evidence of clouding an otherwise fine drink can be seen here, where a dumbass shook up his Sazerac quite publicly. Take photos, measure carefully, and report back.

[donbert]

John I completely agree with you on the clouding issue but here are some other things you might want to consider:

1.) Any particular reason for shaking for 15 seconds vs stirring for 30 seconds? Do you think that both will have reached the same temperature at those time intervals?

2.) How about shards of ice in the shaken drink? You could use a fine mesh strainer to remove them and then see how much dilution they would add over time once they melt.

3.) Cracked ice for stirring I assume? Won't the size of the ice you use directly influence the amount of dilution since that would dictate the surface area?

4.) Would using a pre-chilled glass for stirring vs room temperature metal shakers make a noticable difference since the shakers/glass would also have to be brought into thermal equilibrium with the ice and alcohol?

5.) Also while you're experimenting let us know if you see a difference in viscosity and mouthfeel due to aeration.

[johnder]

Ok, I had high expectations to take photos at each step of the way, but I got too caught up in the moment to keep clicking away.

I did one run of tests, but I ran into a few kinks along the way, that I am not 100% happy with my results.

Here is the setup.

1 Ashiba 500g scale with 0.1 g resolution

1 Shaker bottom weighing 130g empty (will be used for shaken test)

1 Shaker botom weighing 131g empty (will be used for stirred test)

1 Shaker top weighing 169g empty (will be used with shaken test)

1 measuring vessel weighing 26g empty

All measuring vessles will be room temprature.

Liquid will be vodka, measured to be room temprature, 70 degrees F, 30g of liquid total for each test.

Ice will be 90.5g of ice (standard ice maker cubes) in each test, whole, not cracked.

Shaken time will be 15 seconds

Stirred time will be 30 seconds.

There will be 10 seconds of straining time for each drink at which poing the weight of the liquid + the 26g of the measuring vessel will be computed.

After the 15 seconds of straining time a weight will be taken of the vessels the liquid was shaken/stirred in.

One of the problems was that fact that there is no way to reliably extract all the liquid from the shaker/strainer after chilling has occurred. Unless I can get my centrifuge working , I am not sure what else to do.

Here is a picture of the setup:

That was the only picture I took. So, here are the results:

First test, shaken, 30g of 70 degree F vodka for 15 seconds.

Input weight (169.8 (shaker top) + 130 (shaker bottom) + 90.5 (ice) + 30 (vodka)

Total: 420g pre shake weight

Shake 15 seconds, strain liquid into 26g vessel for 10 seconds.

Resulting weight of measuring vessel + strained liquid = 31.7g (gain of 1.7g weight)

Total weight of the 2 shaking cups + ice after liquid was drained: 342.1g

So we have a total of 26g (vessel) containing 31.7g (vodka) + 362.1g (shaker + ice) = 419.8g

Net loss of 0.4g weight, but picked up 1.7g of liquid output.

[Note: liquid was strained through a fine mesh strainer, with shards of ice and slush returned to shaker]

Ok, moving on. Still with me? I am somewhat lost myself at this point.

Stir test.

Same variables, 30g of vodka by weight

90.5 g of ice

stirred in a cup which weighed 131g.

(total: 30g + 90.5 + 131 = 251.5g)

Contents were stirred for 30 seconds, strained into 26g measuring vessle.

The contents of the liquid that was strained out (for 10 seconds) was a whopping 39g.

That means I picked up 9g of liquid by weight.

The ice + stirring cup weight after straining was 246.3g (loss of 5.2g)

So this is interesting, I picked up 9g of liquid but only lost 5.2g.

A few notes:

It was much easier to strain out the stirred liquid obviously. I could tell there was a huge increase of the liquid from the stirred cocktail just by looking at the amount in the measuring vessel.

There was probably 0.3 to 0.5g of liquid still clinging to the strainer that wasn't accounted for in the shaken test.

I would have liked to take a post shake/stir temprature of the liquid, but my digital thermometer didn't go below 32, both liquids registered "Lo" after passing 33 degrees.

I am going to run a few more tests, and take some more pictures over the weekend.

Am I missing anything in these tests? Anything wrong with my logic?

I am measuring everything by weight as I don't have anything that can measure liquid volume with any precise granularity.

I really wish I took some pictures of the resulting liquid. The shaken liquid was cloudy, like sea water and while had a nice mouth feel it had very small ice particles that made its way through the very fine strainer.

The stirred cocktail had a great consistancy, perfectly clear and thick like a simple syrup. Although the shaken one had very small ice particles in it, the stirred one actually felt colder on my tounge overall. The shaken liquids temprature was colder in specific areas on my tounge, I assume to the ice crystals, but not overall as cold as the stirred one.

John

[donbert]

Perhaps there was condensation on the cup adding to the final weight after stirring?

Using weight shouldn't make a difference since the only variable in your experiment is water. Thanks to the metric system we know that 1 gram of water = 1 cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter.

You could just add the weight of the strainers into your calculation if you don't want to loose the liquid left on them from your final weights.

[Fat Guy]

Whether or not it has to do with dilution, I've not seen dilution given as the standard reason for stirring instead of shaking. The standard reason that has been given for ages, which Google will support with a zillion hits, is that shaking "bruises" the liquor. I've not heard a compelling explanation of what that means. Maybe it means diluted!

[raxelita]

Is booze heavier than water? Does this matter?

[Fat Guy]

All kinds of alcohol have a substantially lower specific gravity than water, meaning alcohol is lighter (less dense). So any booze that is mostly water plus alcohol (like vodka) is going to be lighter than water.

[Chris Amirault]

Whether or not it has to do with dilution, I've not seen dilution given as the standard reason for stirring instead of shaking. The standard reason that has been given for ages, which Google will support with a zillion hits, is that shaking "bruises" the liquor. I've not heard a compelling explanation of what that means. Maybe it means diluted!

←

I think that's partly right. I remember reading an article years ago (in the NYT?) about a group of martini drinkers who discussed methods, proportions, bars, and so on. To a man (they were all men), they could tell the difference between shaken/bruised and stirred/unbruised, and they explained that bruised gin was more watery and had shards of ice floating in it. All preferred the smooth, less diluted gin of the stirred martini. (They also preferred tiny dribbles of vermouth and didn't mention orange bitters, I'll grumpily add, but that's a thought for another topic.)

[BTR]

I think that's partly right. I remember reading an article years ago (in the NYT?) about a group of martini drinkers who discussed methods, proportions, bars, and so on. To a man (they were all men), they could tell the difference between shaken/bruised and stirred/unbruised, and they explained that bruised gin was more watery and had shards of ice floating in it. All preferred the smooth, less diluted gin of the stirred martini. (They also preferred tiny dribbles of vermouth and didn't mention orange bitters, I'll grumpily add, but that's a thought for another topic.)

←

Just because they could tell the difference between shaken and stirred doesn't mean that there's such a thing as "bruised" gin. If what they were going on was the presence of ice shards and greater dilution, that makes sense, but I don't see why you would call that "bruised".

[Chris Amirault]

I don't, either, but that was how they explained what "bruised" meant.

[Fat Guy]

I can buy the ice shards and cloudiness -- even a neophyte like me can easily tell the difference between a shaken and a stirred cocktail -- but dilution seems like a questionable theory. Like johnder, I'd need to see it quantified before I could buy it. Moreover, I often prefer shaken cocktails, cloudiness and all -- my big complaint is that most bartenders don't shake them enough.

[johnder]

I have been poking around the web and found a few interesting tidbits, first

The Martini -- Why everything you know is wong.

OK, say the critics, maybe “bruise” was a poor choice of words, but by shaking gin with ice you do change it—you aerate it (a tiny little bit) and you probably melt a little more of the ice, diluting it a smidgen more than you would by stirring. The presence of air bubbles (and perhaps a few ice fragments) can in fact make the martini slightly cloudy, but this appearance dissipates quickly. The real question is whether you can taste the difference between a shaken martini and a stirred one, and let’s just say that innumerable blind taste tests have yielded inconclusive results but a lot of bruised feelings.

Interesting... let us keep reading.

Or maybe he was doing it for his health. As crazy as it sounds, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that shaken martinis have measurably higher antioxidant properties than stirred martinis. Higher enough to make any real difference? Probably not. But at least when your know-it-all friends give you a dressing down for being clueless about proper martini preparation, you’ve got a great comeback.

Wha?

Ok, more info, this time at the Martini FAQ.

Shaking versus stirring is one of the great theological debates surrounding the rite of Martini preparation. The answer, too, is theological: "These are great mysteries."

Martini luminaries have weighed in on both sides of the debate throughout the drink's history. The two most famous pronouncements have literary sources. Author W. Somerset Maugham declared that "Martinis should always be stirred, not shaken, so that the molecules lie sensuously one on top of the other." Ian Flemming, speaking through James Bond, required that a Martini be "Shaken, not stirred." Why not stirred? "It bruises the gin." (qtd. in Conrad 107; the second Bond quote appears to be apocryphal).

Maugham's description of sensuously lounging molecules is certainly a poetic attempt to describe a phenomenon arising from other physical causes, and while we should all defer to the inimitable Mr. Bond on matters such as high-tech spy gadgets, impromptu hand-to-hand combat, and retrograde seduction techniques, his reasoning on this matter is specious. To "bruise" a wine or spirit means to take some action that changes its taste. Agitating and therefore aerating a gin or vodka martini changes its taste: it makes it taste "sharper," it imparts a certain bite or zing. Given this, and given his dislike of a bruised spirit, Bond should insist that his drink be "Stirred, not shaken," since shaking "bruises" the gin more than stirring does.

Here are the facts:

    * Shaking cools a drink more quickly.

    * Shaking is more likely to chip small shards off the ice, some of which will make their way into the drink, no matter how carefully one strains and pours. Which may be part of the reason why...

    * Although the gin spends less time with the ice when the drink is shaken, shaking a drink actually dilutes it more than stirring does.

    * Very rarely, shaking can produce a chill haze (the precipitation of very small solid particles) from the vermouth, giving the drink a cloudy appearance.

    * Shaking creates tiny bubbles in the mix, which temporarily impart a cloudy appearance to the drink.

    * Shaking causes a certain class of molecules in the liquor (aldehydes) to combine with oxygen more than stirring does. The oxidation of these molecules also slightly alters the flavor, making it "sharper" (Miller and Brown 57, et al.).

So, shaken Martinis and stirred Martinis are different, but they are also equivalent, in that neither has a firm claim on being "better." Each Martini drinker will have to decide for him- or herself whether one method is "more equal" than the other.

and his answer on bruising:

Q: Can you really "bruise" gin? (2.2)

A: If by "bruise" you mean "take some action that changes the taste," yes.

I don't have the book quoted in the faq

Miller, Anistatia R. and Jared M. Brown. Shaken Not Stirred: A Celebration of the Martini. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.

on hand to see the full explination, but the oxidiation explination is pretty plausible.

So the FAQ was pretty concise, and I really like the fact they quoted sources, and gave references. I did look up the claim of the report in the British Jounal of Medicine and found it here.

Definately an interesting read. Here is the summary:

Results: Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).

So what does this all mean? It seems that shaken martinis are slightly healthier for you, but at the behest of the loss of some flavor.

As far as the actual amount of dilution shaken vs. stirred I think I feel comfortable saying there definately is more dilution with a shaken drink rather than stirred, but I will commit fully to that statement after some more tests this weekend.

John