Comments on: Shaken or Stirred?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:38:00 +0000

silicone loaf pans

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:58:00 +0000

Kind of relating to shaking or stirring, but more to the ice which is being jostled:

What do you guys use for ice trays? I want some custom trays to make different sized and shaped ice, but my efforts so far have proved fruitless.

Any leads?

By: Doug Winship

Doug Winship — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:07:00 +0000

I usually don’t care whether a bartender shakes or stirs my cocktails, so long as he or she is… very… thorough. Most of the time, I prefer shaken, as it usually results in a much colder cocktail from the average bartender.
In Martinis, I have actually come to prefer the thin layer of slushy ice on the surface that comes from extensive shaking. But I don’t think (in Martinis) the taste differs much.
In my own favorite Pegu, (Yes, I DO have to gas on about Pegus every time I discuss cocktails) I insist on very vigorous shaking. It has a bit of pulpy lime juice, so the rule says shake anyway, but it is amazing how many bartenders will refuse at gunpoint an order to shake a Gin cocktail.

By: T. Mixeur

T. Mixeur — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:44:00 +0000

It bears commenting that if it is "theatricality" a drinker craves at the watering hole, there is no finer theater than the various stirring techniques of mixologists. It is subtle and nuanced theater, with much more room for creative expression that shaking a drink allows.

Keeping the theater analogy alive, you might say that shaking is Webber and stirring is Beckett.

Of course, Webber far outdraws Beckett.

By: Anita

Anita — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:53:00 +0000

piggybacking on what Frederic said, I had a similar experience watching H. Ehrmann teach a Mixology 101 class. He told everyone the shaken/stirred rule, then had them make a Manhattan both ways to see the difference. About half the class (including H.) preferred the shaken version, which I thought was a waste of good booze.

By: frederic

frederic — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:11:00 +0000

I got into a discussion with John from No.9 about this. He settled it via the experiment of making me a martini both ways, and they definitely had a different taste. Not sure if stronger liquors would mask that flavor component added when shaken, but it was definitely more than the aesthetics of a cloudiness of tiny bubbles.

By: erik_flannestad

erik_flannestad — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:23:00 +0000

In regards the Savoy Cocktail Book, I'm not sure if it was a sign of the times that most drinks were shaken, if it was just sloppy editing, or if the recipes had been verbally transferred and mucked up.

I kind of get the feeling, given the number of typos I've turned up so far, that the editing was not particularly careful. Many things like drink instructions and garnishes are muddled from what we suspect is the source material. It may just have been a "cut and paste" kind of thing that most drinks are shaken.

My imagination of Craddock's involvement in the process is more or less him stopping by the office of the publisher and dropping off a big pile of recipes and books and then washing his hands of the endeavor.

He doesn't appear to have even written the introduction or benediction, as he is referred to in the third person in both.

In my opinion, for method, the Savoy Cocktail Book is a pretty bad book to use as an example.

In his "Official Mixer's Manual" Patrick Gavin Duffy (or his editors) appear to have taken much more care with preserving the proper instructions for preparing and building cocktails. He stirs probably 80% of the drinks, even the Bronx. I tend to agree.