The science of the shake

originally posted by scottreiner:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Am I a bad person because I don't care very much about cocktails?
Click to expand...

how can you dislike and not actively love the perfect simplicity of the martini?
Click to expand...
I can't work up the dislike, but it's all about the indifference. Almost never drink 'em.

Wine crowds out my other alcohol units.
 
originally posted by Thor:
The science of the shakeOne experiment suggests: method doesn't matter. It's at least worth a read.
Click to expand...

The piece, in so much as it deals with shaking technique, as opposed to stirring, is just a restatement of what was addressed a year ago.

Loading…

winedisorder.com

Back then I brought up the points that the experiment didn't start with chilled ingredients, and did not pour the results into chilled vessels, and that this was different than the technique of Mr. Uyeda. There is also the matter of the use of chilled shaking equipment. All of that effects chilling, dilution, and texture in the finished drink. And those concerns weren't addressed by the experiment, which is often cited but rarely examined for its premises.

There is another whole problem with the experiment as practiced, because the Hard Shake is not a "Shake it As Hard As You Can Crazy Man Shake," which was what was done in the experiment, but actually a refined rolling technique.

Anyway, this has all come up and been addressed before, and it is late in the evening at the moment.

Maybe I so readily see the differences between what was done in the experiment and the Hard Shake as practiced by Mr. Uyeda because I have sought out opportunities to witness Mr. Uyeda using the technique in person.
 
The points about chilling the other elements in the process is a valid counter, though of course I'd still like to see the science to back it up. But the data encompasses actual bartenders' shakes as well as his "crazy monkey" version, as seen in the followup post.

I'm looking forward to the promised series of future posts, in which I'm sure they'd be happy to include any protocols you would like to suggest.
 
The article is mostly about stirring. They indicate a chilled pub glass performs as well as a thin metal shaker for stirring.
 
originally posted by Thor:
The points about chilling the other elements in the process is a valid counter, though of course I'd still like to see the science to back it up.
Click to expand...

You take the science, I'll take the drink.
 
Mmmm...martinis...

I have catholic tastes (awaiting responses to that in 5..4..3..) Bombay Sapphire, two olives.

I'm not into the cocktail scene at all. However, once in a great while something comes along. Sandi and I were sitting at the bar at Delarosa on Sunday afternoon having a couple of beers. A couple of guys walk in and start talking to the bartender (Matt). He makes them a drink which consisted of equal parts blanco tequila and mezcal. Some fresh lime juice. The secret ingredient is a couple of drops of the spicy oil that the restaurant uses to make their spicy tomato sauce for pizza. He said Tabasco didn't work because it's too vinegary. It was damn good. It also had a kick like a mule. Matt called the drink "Carter Tames The Beast" (I'm not sure about the second word).
 
I wonder if it might be possible to agree that there are several few people out there who do care about cocktails, who do enjoy them, and that that is perfectly ok?

Or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top