a good 'raj'ering

scottreiner

scottreiner

scott reiner
1236567234364.jpg
last night compared the old raj 46% alc and 55% alc. to be fair we tried both gins in a martini (served up, no fruit, stirred, minimal nouilly prat dry vermouth) and a gin and tonic (q tonic water).

*to those not familiar with the q tonic water, it is a tonic water sweetened with organic agave as opposed to high fructose corn syrup that uses actual quinine instead of various chemicals.

46% martini

the words used to describe the martini were: citrus, aromatic, floral, melon and earthy. it was not quite as aromatic as, say, tanqueray, but i thought that was a good thing.

55% martini

the words used to describe the martini were: medicinal, grassy, crisp, sharp, noted alcohol (spicy?) and pine. more classic martini.

martini comparison

overall we thought the 46% was richer while the 55% was cleaner and sharper. of the 7 people present, 6 preferred the 55%, but i think this is a simple stylistic preference and does not indicate a superior gin.

46% g+t

initialy there was a lack of reactions to this drink. people liked the drink but considered it a bit generic. overall, classic g+t. (at this point it was noted that we were all terribly gin-spoiled...)

55% g+t

the tonic water really brought out the aromatics of the gin that were somewhat missing in the 55% martini. someone thought that he may smell mothballs, but he may be crazy.

g+t comparison

the group split along the same lines as the martinis, but everyone switched gins. while the tonic brought more out of the 55% gin, the 46% was more classic and comfortable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

i would repeat any drink made with either old raj. i think they are great gins and i appreciate the company making both styles. they will not, however, replace the copious amounts of plymouth that i currently enjoy...
 
originally posted by scottreiner:

*to those not familiar with the q tonic water, it is a tonic water sweetened with organic agave as opposed to high fructose corn syrup that uses actual quinine instead of various chemicals.
Click to expand...

Err... what is quinine if not a chemical? And AFAIK all tonic water is made with quinine, and naturally sourced quinine at that. To date, quinine has been synthesized by two different research groups and in neither case was it close to being a commercial process. An easy test to see if it your tonic water contains quinine is to look for a blue tinge to the liquid which arises from the fluorescence of quinine.

Mark Lipton
 
Mark,

The Q Tonic folks do make that claim. Wikipedia says the US has substantial cinchona resources in Costa Rica, and, as the Axis powers no longer control Indonesia, there is no need for synthetic quinine.

Jeff
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Mark,

The Q Tonic folks do make that claim. Wikipedia says the US has substantial cinchona resources in Costa Rica, and, as the Axis powers no longer control Indonesia, there is no need for synthetic quinine.
Click to expand...
I think there's a semantic problem here. I believe that the Q folk are talking about some synthetic substitute for quinine, not actual quinine produced by chemical synthesis. It's pretty funny to hear the Woodward laboratory with the young William von Eggers Doering (my undergraduate mentor) described as a mini-Manhattan Project. I suppose it is true, in the sense that Seaview Securities is a mini-Morgan Stanley.

In any case, the Woodward-Doering synthesis never produced enough quinine to make a single round of G&T's, so whatever the tonic water producers were using in 1945 wasn't out of that process, and wasn't quinine in any strict sense that Mark would recognize.

The Q Tonic claim that their extract is natural and therefore more healthy must come as a considerable comfort to Socrates.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Mark,

The Q Tonic folks do make that claim. Wikipedia says the US has substantial cinchona resources in Costa Rica, and, as the Axis powers no longer control Indonesia, there is no need for synthetic quinine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jeff. I'll have more to say on their blurb below.

I think there's a semantic problem here. I believe that the Q folk are talking about some synthetic substitute for quinine, not actual quinine produced by chemical synthesis.
Click to expand...

That's one possible reading. It's also possible that they merely wish to imply such while only claiming that their source is Peruvian cinchona.

It's pretty funny to hear the Woodward laboratory with the young William von Eggers Doering (my undergraduate mentor) described as a mini-Manhattan Project. I suppose it is true, in the sense that Seaview Securities is a mini-Morgan Stanley.
Click to expand...

Woodward's effort was a genuine wartime effort to overcome the loss of Indonesian quinine. In that sense, the analogy holds.

In any case, the Woodward-Doering synthesis never produced enough quinine to make a single round of G&T's, so whatever the tonic water producers were using in 1945 wasn't out of that process, and wasn't quinine in any strict sense that Mark would recognize.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, the Woodward-Doering synthesis never produced any quinine at all, merely (as I'm sure that you remember) the degradation product quinotoxine, which Rabe had earlier claimed could be converted back to quinine. This latter claim was the source of the controversy when Stork later synthesized quinine in 2001 and claimed that Woodward's formal total synthesis wouldn't produce any quinine at all. For those 2-3 people who may have a shred of interest in this classic academic brouhaha, Wikipedia of all places provides a good synopsis.

The Q Tonic claim that their extract is natural and therefore more healthy must come as a considerable comfort to Socrates.
Click to expand...

The more I read their claims, the more it seems to me to be either purposeful or unintentional disinformation. Since the introduction of chloroquine in '41, quinine's use as an antimalarial has dropped to near nil and its price has fallen accordingly. Tonic water production has been I am sure the principal use of quinine for the past 40-50 years and they don't need a whole lot of it, either. Again, Wikipedia has some useful information on the topic.

(This is for you, jb)
Mark Lipton
 
I like Raj okay, but prefer Plymouth and Hendricks given the choice. My all-time bestest favorite-est gin though is one I tasted at Vie Vinum last year. There's a guy in Austria named Hans Reisetbauer who makes stuff called Blue Gin that's as good as the eau de vie he produces. His selection of botanicals is pretty much perfect and it's by far my gin of choice, when given the choice. it's imported on the east coast by Skurnik and on the west coast by Charles Neal (I get mine at Woodland Hills Wine Co) and it's very much worth the hassle to track down. Hans is a pretty cool guy too, so it's not like you're sending money to some conglomerate making acre-foot quantities of gin in some Dr Seuse-like industrial facility. Hell, for all I know he may be biodynamic or something.

-Eden (I have this image in mind of Reisetbauer distilling his gin in some backroom of a library while eating a plate of schnitzel with extra cucumber salad)
 
had the blue gin at the skurnik tasting maybe 2 years ago, and i remember liking it very much. i think i tried the haymans at diner in williamsburg, not sure. maybe thursday night...
 
Seems like someone who likes the softer style of something like Plymouth would also like the softer, less sharply dry taste of a gin in the Old Tom category. Hayman's is the only one I see around New York, and it is one I like quite a bit; maybe my favorite gin these days.

OBLIGATORY TRIP TO JAPAN REFERENCE: Although I did see a number of different Old Tom gins in Tokyo, often in grocery stores. Also, it is worth noting that Gordon's Gin is a popular well choice in your standout Ginza bars. I was surprised when a bartender at Y&M Kisling, someone who has been bartending for 55 years, picked out a bottle of Gordon's to pour into my martini (which was perhaps the best martini I have ever had). I asked him about it, and he said Gordon's was the first gin to be introduced in the Japanese market several years ago, and was still quite popular there. I noticed that the bottle of Gordon's he poured from had a yellow label, while the bottle of Gordon's I saw a liquor shop in Manhattan yesterday had a white label.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
Seems like someone who likes the softer style of something like Plymouth would also like the softer, less sharply dry taste of a gin in the Old Tom category. Hayman's is the only one I see around New York, and it is one I like quite a bit; maybe my favorite gin these days.
Click to expand...

On a side note, are there any commercially available gins that use juniper berries for flavoring any more? If so, are there any that are noteworthy for flavor. I'm quite fond of several oude genevers if that's any indication of my preferences.

Mark Lipton
 
tasting death's door gin right now from washington island, wisconsin. not only an old tom style (not officially, but sweet with no sugar added), but also flavored with juniper berries (and coriander and fennel).

smells like fennel, really! made with wheat, it actually tastes like wheat... 95 proof. a noted oiliness.

oiliness retained with q.

very different style of gin than i am used to, but not unpleasant. too sweet for me, but nice to know it exists...
 
Junipero is made from real juniper and other natural herbs and spices.

I favor fever-tree tonic (along with their other mixers) for the twice-yearly g&t. they have two versions of tonic, one that is less sweet than the commercial ones, and another that is yet drier and is the one i choose.

(i believe kane prefers canada dry with a few tablespoons of corn syrup added.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top