Jump to content

 

Photo

What is a martini?


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#91 OMG_Bill

OMG_Bill

    Complete Absinthe Geek

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,181 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 08:30 AM

Keep in mind that a proper Martini is stirred, not shaken.

Amen!

I wouldn't have it any other way. :cheers:
Some folks may cringe each time I use the term "Booze" regarding these high quality drinks.
I mean no offense. There are bottles of extraordinary booze out there. I've tasted a few. Relax.

#92 Gwydion Stone

Gwydion Stone

    Propriétaire

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Here's a treat: old-school cocktail humor from Nick and Nora Charles from The Thin Man movies. Please ignore his tutorial on cocktail shaking; it is fiction, after all. Still, it's hilarious stuff.


Maker of Marteau Absinthe
Master Distiller, Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery
www.absinthemarteau.com
Confessions of an Absinthiste


#93 thickasabrick

thickasabrick

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:24 PM

That would be thanks to the RN (British Royal Navy). "Navy Proof" is 57% ABV. The Royal Navy required this high proof because it wouldn't ruin the gunpowder and keep it from igniting if it happened to get wet.



Is this true?

I read that the Navy sometimes received watered-down gin by unscrupulous salesmen, so they would always check by mixing gin and gunpowder and seeing if it would ignite. In other words, they weren't really concerned about their gunpowder; they were concerned about their gin.

I suppose both stories could be true.

Edited by thickasabrick, 19 August 2012 - 12:24 PM.

When life gives you lemons, garnish your martini.
When life gives you honey, trade it for some lemons.

#94 Père Ubu

Père Ubu

    Veni Vidi Bibit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 02:57 AM

G, I think shaking might melt too much ice. Defeating the whole point of the navy strength. :)
Kudos to Todd, that is some good stuff. My dad sticks to the Churchill martini, and considers it sacrilege to consume it otherwise.

Edited by Père Ubu, 20 August 2012 - 03:01 AM.


#95 kaseijin

kaseijin

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:03 AM

Just stumbled in here. For what it's worth, here's my preferred Martini to date:

  • 4 parts Anchor Distilling's Junipero gin
  • 1 part Dolin dry vermouth
  • 1 dash orange bitters
Stirred, always.

#96 AiO

AiO

    Movie Freak

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:19 AM

Twist?
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot" -- Charlie Chaplin

#97 OMG_Bill

OMG_Bill

    Complete Absinthe Geek

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,181 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 05:52 AM

My martini recipe for home is simple.

4 or 5 parts gin to one part dry vermouth and how ever many dashes of bitters sound good at that exact moment in time.

Two olives, a man has to eat!

I enjoyed the video ~G. :thumbup:
Some folks may cringe each time I use the term "Booze" regarding these high quality drinks.
I mean no offense. There are bottles of extraordinary booze out there. I've tasted a few. Relax.

#98 Joe Legate

Joe Legate

    2 jobs. 0 sense.

  • Advisory Board
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,988 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:30 AM

Twist?

If there is one in the house, you bet. Then the olives go on the side (yep, gotta eat!)
The amount of vermouth is always determined by the quality of vermouth. Most vermouth suck so badly. I use good vermouth (Noilly Pratt, for example) at 4 to 1. Really good vermouth (Ponte or Dolin) at 3 to 1.

#99 kaseijin

kaseijin

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

I generally prefer olives to the twist, but I'll do a lemon rind occasionally. I never do two olives... always one or three. Gotta observe protocol.

addendum: For vermouth, I always have Perucchi and Dolin on hand. Of those, I tend to prefer the Dolin. Martini & Rossi is pretty much awful, and I'm honestly not a fan of Noilly Pratt...but I understand that there has been a recipe change and it used to be better.

I didn't really start building good Martinis until after that change, so I guess I just never hopped on that particular train.

I've never tried Ponte. I'll keep an eye out for that. How's it stack against Dolin?

Edited by kaseijin, 21 August 2012 - 01:46 PM.


#100 pierreverte

pierreverte

    Liquoristorian

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 08:32 AM

This is a thread worth of revisiting from time-to-time.

Vermouth? Ponte, Boissiere and Dolin are my personal favorites for a martini. Vya is alright and so is Noilly Prat but the recipe change a few years ago broke my heart. M&R? No thanks.



What seems to be completely forgotten is the effect of history of US vermouth makers on the world production of vermouth, and its effect on the Dry Martini.
From the end of World War I to 1939, according to the 'most respected' New York vermouth maker J. L. Tribuno, the formula 2 parts gin for 1 part dry vermouth was the ‘standard’ dry Martini. This period includes the most useless exercise in government-forced morality, called the US Prohibition (1919 - 1933), which sent many American barmen abroad to spread their talents and the ‘dry’ Martini.
During the war years, from 1939 to 1945 the USA, due to loss of imported vermouths (Italy as an enemy, France as occupied territory) major advancements in domestic vermouth production were made. Previously the US made little vermouth, starting around 1890, and these products were given ‘Awards of Merit’ in Italian tastings, most likely being treated like participants in the Special Olympics. Due to US government regulations which restricted adding additional alcohol to vermouths, as was standard practice in Europe, the trend toward lighter vermouths was established by force, changing American tastes, and not necessarily for the better, just as the war would create the eventual love affair Americans developed for an industrial canned pork-based product, made for soldiers, called Spam. The war creates a tenfold increase in the production of US domestic vermouth between 1939 to 1945 (there were 225 US vermouth producers in 1943, mostly in New York, New Jersey and California) though quality was not near the same as for the unavailable, imported vermouths.
World War Two forever changed the way the world uses vermouth.
From 1945 to 1959 a dry Marini was anywhere from 8 to 12 parts gin for 1 part dry vermouth following the trend toward lighter US vermouths, considered only for dry Martinis or cooking, and the eventual distaste for darker, stronger flavored, traditionally made French dry vermouth (aka Noilly Prat).
The majority of the rest of the world continued to prefer the sweet, Italian style.
From 1959 to 1964, the ratio finally dropped back to 4 parts gin to 1 part dry vermouth, where the establishment of the US pale/dry vermouth style allowed for larger doses of this virtually tasteless ‘Martini-class’ vermouth.
After being the epitome of French ‘dry’ vermouth, reaching many decades back to the 19th century, Noilly Prat struggled to convince American Martini drinkers to use its darker and more aromatic vermouth, and to serve it in respectable, measurable doses, as opposed to drops. A humorous 1957 Noilly magazine advertisement accused those using such small doses of vermouth in a dry Martini as being ‘fadist ’and even sadistic!
Unable to rise above the mid-century march to lighter spirits and cocktails, spearheaded headed by recently introduced, and pleasingly neutral Vodka, Noilly Prat abandoned their post-war, 10-year+ US marketing campaign against the pale/dry Martini trend and changed its original vermouth formula, created in 1813, to ‘Extra pale, Extra dry’, for exportation to the USA. Clear in color and almost without any aromatic distinction as compared to its ancestor, this mutant vermouth is then accepted with open arms in the USA, sideswiping the domestic competition and is then considered for over 40 years as the true ‘connoisseurs’ dry Martini vermouth, since its use or lack thereof in a dry Martini cocktail allowed the gin flavors or vodka non-flavors to be unhindered from an actual vermouth taste. When Noilly Prat decided to revert back to its ‘original dry’ roots in 2009, on the tail of the growing trend toward ‘vintage’ cocktails and spirits, it is mocked and questioned for its positioning from the ‘dry’ Martini crowd, and heavily abandoned by many for other ‘pale/dry’ vermouths which more closely imitated the US production ‘Martini-vermouth ’class, which, by this time, for the most part, no longer existed.
Noilly Prat is said to be preparing to re-release of their pale/dry product.


There was a law for the use of wormwood in vermouths in the USA (I find reference back to 1947, I'm sure it is earlier) which was set at less than 10 mg/liter of thujone. Sound familiar? (This was later changed in 1972 to state vermouths needed to be thujone-free, thus mucking everything up).
The FDA set a limit of 1 pound of dry wormwood per 150 gallons of finished wine, which they believed would produce less than 10 mg/liter of thujone. Apparently there were no restrictions on the source of wormwood, so thujone levels could have easily been all over the board.

Wish more time had been spent researching vermouth 12 years ago, might have maybe shaved some years off the prohibition of absinthe. Because of this, there is no law in the USA that states that US vermouths even need to contain any wormwood, which is like saying absinthe doesn't need to contain wormwood.
I believe the USA vermouths produced today don't have wormwood in them. Regulations in the EU now state that the wormwood component needs to be of the Artemisia species family, which is also a bit lax to vermouth's origins.
An angry side-note to Negroni drinkers: Martini makes their Rouge at 14.4% alc., which, in the EU actually does not allow it to be legally a vermouth, but the name is so associated with vermouth that they can make this 'aromatised wine-based drink' (along with only needing to use 50% wine as apposed to 75% wine for real vermouths) and people will keep reaching for it as a vermouth.


Happily, there will be more and better vermouths coming to the US/world market soon. If you think of it, isn't a vermouth really pretty damn close to the 'sugar, water and bitters' component add to a spirit, that makes up the most simple and earliest definition of cocktail? Might as well be good...
Absinthe is always greener in the other glass.™

#101 Evan Camomile

Evan Camomile

    "Mr The Judge"

  • Content Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:02 AM

Lovely information.

10mg/liter (~10ppm) is considered thujone free. So the change in 1972 was not a change at all. More likely a re-phrasing for consistency. Although the change in phrasing may have scared producers into changing their recipe.

The vermouth and absinthe connection is indeed an interesting one.

American Absintheur
Blog | FB | Twitter


#102 Larspeart

Larspeart

    Advanced 'member'...

  • Silver Member
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:36 AM

That would be thanks to the RN (British Royal Navy). "Navy Proof" is 57% ABV. The Royal Navy required this high proof because it wouldn't ruin the gunpowder and keep it from igniting if it happened to get wet.



Is this true?

I read that the Navy sometimes received watered-down gin by unscrupulous salesmen, so they would always check by mixing gin and gunpowder and seeing if it would ignite. In other words, they weren't really concerned about their gunpowder; they were concerned about their gin.

I suppose both stories could be true.



Neither is these is correct.

The RN didn't begin supplying gin to its officers (it was never given to the sailors- they received rum) until fairly late. Rum was the primary spirit aboard all ships, and until the mid-1700's was the main tot of all on deck (however, officers were more likely to be drinking madeira, port, claret, or brandy). Around the 1750's, gin started to be given to officers since, as gentry, it was considered beneath them to drink the same thing as ordinary seaman. (After 1820, when quinine began to be issued to officers, it served as incentive for them to 'Take their medicine'- which is where that term is believed to come from.)

The quote G posted is taken directly from Plymouth Gin's website, and is certainly apocryphal. Gunpowder would NEVER be stored in gin, or any other spirit- insanity. The gunpowder would never, ever be usable.

The quote about unscrupulous salesmen is also incorrect. The gin (and more important, the rum) would arrive at proof strength to the ship, and would be watered down onboard by the purser. This would be done in full site of (generally) the quartermaster, and usually 2 sailors. The gunpowder served here to ensure that the rum (mainly) was of sufficent strength, so that they were not being cheated out of their allotted rum ration. Gin was seldom tested in this manner, period, as the officers had far fewer limits on what they could drink, did not rely on the purser to divy out specific, measured amounts, etc. The term proof actually comes from this on-deck ritual (performed every day, usually around 10am)- The gunpowder is soaked (not submerged) in rum. If it ignites, that is PROOF that it is good rum. Literally. Science tells us that this number is 57% ABV. However, I have been in, and conducted a number of tests of this, and it is 'not an exact science'. Some don't ignite at 60%. Others ignite at 51%. It is frustrating. :)

(The purser, to be clear, was not a salesman. He was a member of the crew.)

I could do a whole post on proof, and what it means/meant, and how in a VERY big way it directly impacts you EVERY time you order a cocktail at a bar that was created pre-1900. The short version is simply this- Your drink is absolutely made incorrectly. Period. VERY few folks have ever had a Manhattan, sazerac, martinez, etc properly made/that tasted remotely correct. Don't worry- it's not your fault... but it is true.

"Here's to the corkscrew - a useful key to unlock the storehouse of wit, the treasury of laughter, the front door of fellowship, and the gate of pleasant folly." - W.E.P. French

We're only immortal
For a limited time.


#103 pierreverte

pierreverte

    Liquoristorian

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:52 AM

I could do a whole post on proof, and what it means/meant, and how in a VERY big way it directly impacts you EVERY time you order a cocktail at a bar that was created pre-1900. The short version is simply this- Your drink is absolutely made incorrectly. Period. VERY few folks have ever had a Manhattan, sazerac, martinez, etc properly made/that tasted remotely correct. Don't worry- it's not your fault... but it is true.


I think this is also a very important statement for all the 'cocktail nameists'.
People get wound up about calling a Martini a 'Martini' or a Negroni a 'Negroni', etc. only if it contains the 'historic' ingredients, when the ingredients themselves have changed, some not even close to their original state, and yet the producers who make them still label them by their original name. It's a bit amusing watching talented bartenders make their own bitters or syrups, because they can't get the originals, or cut their own ice, and yet are convinced and insist on using crap, industrial or modified products for certain cocktails, because they carry a historic name and that name was called for in the vintage cocktail manual.
Absinthe is always greener in the other glass.™

#104 Larspeart

Larspeart

    Advanced 'member'...

  • Silver Member
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:36 AM

Thank you, greatly, for pointing that out. (I knew you'd understand.)

Whiskey, rum, gin, tequila, etc- NONE of them was every as watered down (read- bland) as they are today. an 80 proof whiskey? Are you kidding me? Walk into a saloon in Colorado in 1880, a public house in England in 1740, a navy bar in Barbados in 1810 and have a bartender put something at 80 proof in front of you? You'd be well, well within your rights to throw it in his face, and (most juries) wouldn't put up a fuss if you punchd him square in the jaw. 80 proof? They just CHEATED you!! 80 proof, 88 proof? 94 proof? That rat-bastard cheat just tried to steal from you.

Proof, and over-proof, is not just/mostly about how much booze in in your booze. Proof (alcohol) is ALL that carries your flavor. Anything else is just water in the bottle. Audrey Saunders (wife of a very esteemed board member here, and one of the best bartenders in the world, IMHO), once used a term that I never forgot, and still use to this day. Modern cocktails, made with sub-90/100 proof spirits taste 'flabby'. Boring. Dull. Dead. Flabby is the term that fits best, I think though.

Now? I order a sazerac at ~90% of the bars out there (and remember- this bar is making/knows what a sazerac even is! They are likely a 'GOOD' bar!), and the bland, soulless thing that appears is a hollow shell of what a sazerac actually is.

Try this sometime. Get a bottle of Thomas H. Handy rye (132.7 proof), or if you want to be a sazerac purist, a bottle of the now just-available Louis Royer cognac (116 proof), and rather than pitching the absinthe rinse, leave that 1/4oz in it. That is a darn close sazerac to The Real McCoy, friends.

"Here's to the corkscrew - a useful key to unlock the storehouse of wit, the treasury of laughter, the front door of fellowship, and the gate of pleasant folly." - W.E.P. French

We're only immortal
For a limited time.


#105 Père Ubu

Père Ubu

    Veni Vidi Bibit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,572 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

Wow. The last few posts are gems of information.

#106 OMG_Bill

OMG_Bill

    Complete Absinthe Geek

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,181 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:41 AM

One of the reasons I come here.
Some folks may cringe each time I use the term "Booze" regarding these high quality drinks.
I mean no offense. There are bottles of extraordinary booze out there. I've tasted a few. Relax.

#107 Gwydion Stone

Gwydion Stone

    Propriétaire

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:15 PM

That would be thanks to the RN (British Royal Navy). "Navy Proof" is 57% ABV. The Royal Navy required this high proof because it wouldn't ruin the gunpowder and keep it from igniting if it happened to get wet.

Neither is these is correct. [...]

The quote G posted is taken directly from Plymouth Gin's website, and is certainly apocryphal. Gunpowder would NEVER be stored in gin, or any other spirit- insanity. The gunpowder would never, ever be usable.

Plymouth's website was definitely not among the sources I consulted, and I didn't say anything about storing gunpowder in gin (and I have no idea where such an absurd notion originated). I said "it wouldn't ruin the gunpowder ... if it happened to get wet."

Plymouth doesn't mention anything about storing in gin either, but actually has this to say:

When gunpowder goes bang, the ’proof’ of the alcohol strength is at least 100 proof (114 US proof) or 57% alcohol by volume. The gunpowder was used as the test for ’proving’ there was the expected level of alcohol in the clear liquid. Plymouth Gin Navy Strength first went to sea in 1793 with the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy Supply Offices ’Pussers’ needed to check what they were buying was what they had ordered. The Pussers would use gunpowder.


Maker of Marteau Absinthe
Master Distiller, Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery
www.absinthemarteau.com
Confessions of an Absinthiste


#108 Larspeart

Larspeart

    Advanced 'member'...

  • Silver Member
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:25 PM

My bad- You quoted from wikipedia (or a source that quoted from wikipedia- it's nearly word for word), and the wiki article cites and sources to plymouthgin.com.

""Navy Proof" is 57% ABV. The Royal Navy required this high proof because it wouldn't ruin the gunpowder and keep it from igniting if it happened to get wet."

I've reread your post 3 more times, and it still reads, to me, like they are using gin to preserve or 'not ruin' gunpowder. Taking all of that aside, your comment still isn't accurate/completely accurate. They required that high proof to maintain morale, keep order, stand to their word, and (per my post below that, regarding proof and cheating/stealing) because no spirit was served below 100 (British) proof during that entire era.

"Here's to the corkscrew - a useful key to unlock the storehouse of wit, the treasury of laughter, the front door of fellowship, and the gate of pleasant folly." - W.E.P. French

We're only immortal
For a limited time.


#109 Gwydion Stone

Gwydion Stone

    Propriétaire

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:10 PM

You quoted from wikipedia (or a source that quoted from wikipedia-

Or a source that the anonymous wiki author used without attribution.

I've reread your post 3 more times, and it still reads, to me, like they are using gin to preserve or 'not ruin' gunpowder.

I don't know why you're reading it that way, Lars. "If it happened to get wet" implies an accidental event, whereas intentionally putting the gunpowder in the gin literally makes it certain that it would get wet. The notion of preserving gunpowder in alcohol is pretty far-fetched, and I don't recall ever hearing of it before. I didn't have the pleasure of attending Chad and Christy's seminar on proof and spirits strengths at Tales, but I do get around a bit.

The idea may very well be apocryphal, but it isn't unreasonable.

In Commercial organic analysis: being a treatise on the properties, proximate analytical examination, and modes of assaying the various organic chemicals and preparations employed in the arts, manufactures, medicine, &c., 1885, Alfred Henry Allen says:

147. Proof Spirit of the British Pharmacopoeia has a density of 0-920, which corresponds to a strength of about 49 per cent, by weight of real alcohol. The term "proof spirit" is very confusing to many people, and might with advantage be abandoned. Of this there is little chance at present, as it is adopted in several Acts of Parliament, and is the scale to which Sykes' hydrometer, used by the Excise, has reference.

The Excise formerly tested the strength of spirits by pouring a certain amount on gunpowder. A light was then applied. If the spirit was above a certain strength ("proof") the gunpowder ultimately inflamed, but if weaker the gunpowder was too much moistened by the water to be capable of explosion, and the sample was said to be "under proof."

By Act of Parliament, proof spirit is now defined to be a liquid of such density that, at 51° F., 13 volumes shall weigh the same as 12 volumes of water at the same temperature. The "proof spirit" thus produced has a density of '91984 at 15°'5 C. ( = 60° F.), and contains, according to Fownes, 49'24 per cent, by weight of alcohol and 50'76 of water. Spirits weaker than the above are described by the Excise as being so many degrees, or so much per cent., "under proof" (U.P.). Thus, by the term "spirit of 20 per cent, or 20 degrees, under proof," is meant a liquid containing, at 60° F., 80 measures of proof spirit and 20 of water. "Spirit of 50° U.P." contains equal measures of proof spirit and water, while pure water is 100° under proof.

On the other hand, spirituous liquids stronger than proof spirit are described according to the number of measures of proof spirit 100 volumes would yield when suitably diluted with water. Thus, "spirit of 50° O.P." is alcohol of such strength that-100 measures at 60° F., when diluted with water to 150 measures, would be proof spirit.1 Absolute alcohol accordingly is 75£° O.P., and contains 175£ per cent, of proof spirit, for 100 volumes when diluted with water would yield 175^ volumes of spirit at "proof."


Whereas over at diffordsguide.com, Ian Cameron put it this way:

In England, up until 1816, there was no accurate way to measure the strength of a spirit, so pursers in the navy (then known as pussers) would test the alcoholic strength of their rum ration by using a rule-of-thumb method: pure rum was mixed with a little water to which was added a few grains of gunpowder. The mixture was then heated by concentrating the sun's rays through a magnifying glass. If the mixture just ignited it was 'proof'. Too weak and it would fail to light. If it was 'overproof' then it would go up with a bang.

Ensuring the strength of the alcohol also protected the explosive power of the gunpowder: should there be an accident with one of the many casks of rum on board the navy vessels the crew could at least be sure they still had fire-power.

In 1816, proof become more closely defined when Bartholomew Sikes invented an accurate hydrator, which measured 100 proof at just over 57% alcohol by volume (abv). Sikes' new scale was adopted by law in 1818. It defined a 100 proof spirit as 4/7 the alcohol purity by volume. Or to put it another way, to convert the percentage of ABV to degrees proof spirit, multiply the percentage by 7/4, or 1.75.

However, the navy had other ideas and, after Sikes' hydrometer was invented, conducted its own tests to establish the strength their rum should be issued at. They mixed 100 samples with gunpowder in the old way, and then measured the proof of each sample using a hydrometer. The average was 95.5 on the Sikes scale, which equated to 54.5% abv. It was this that was adopted as 'navy' standard - and was the strength adopted by Pusser's Rum.

This measure stayed in place until 1 January 1980, when the United Kingdom adopted the ABV standard to measure alcohol content, as prescribed by the European Union, (according to the recommendation of the International Organization of Legal Metrology) measuring alcohol strength as a percentage of alcohol by volume at a temperature of 20°C. The law was itself essentially a direct manifestation of the Gay-Lussac scale, which measured ethanol as a percentage - rather than in degrees - of total volume.

In the US, alcohol is also obviously now measured by alcohol by volume, but proof is defined in a different way: as twice the percentage of alcohol by volume, so a 50 per cent alcohol by volume equates to a 100 proof spirit. This is defined as being double the percentage of alcohol contained in a solution at 60°F or 15.6°C.


Maker of Marteau Absinthe
Master Distiller, Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery
www.absinthemarteau.com
Confessions of an Absinthiste


#110 Gwydion Stone

Gwydion Stone

    Propriétaire

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:20 PM

Earlier, in Reports of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council and Local Government Board [Great Britain], 1867, make the reasoning and process more understandable:

How has the Legislature, or the traditions of this country, fallen upon this curious standard? This is a very singular story to tell. Before science had anything to do with buying and selling, it was usual to take a saucer and put a little gunpowder in it, and then pour a little of the spirit which was to be tested over it. Then the spirit was set fire to and burned, and at the conclusion of the combustion it was necessary that the gunpowder should also take fire. The spirit was called "proof" if it was sufficiently concentrated to cause the gunpowder to burn; for if the spirit contained so much water that at the end of the combustion the gunpowder was wet, then of course it did not burn. This, then, is the derivation of "proofspirit," and according to this standard nearly all the spirit used in this country is now bought and sold.


Maker of Marteau Absinthe
Master Distiller, Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery
www.absinthemarteau.com
Confessions of an Absinthiste


#111 Larspeart

Larspeart

    Advanced 'member'...

  • Silver Member
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:27 PM

Fine. I totally misread your post. All's good, and we're (I believe) in agreement and stating the same thing. I still can't figure out what you're saying, or why I read it the way that I do, but the stuff you just posted and the stuff I just quoted are essentially identical.

Our minds just don't word stuff the same way, I guess.

:)


Also, to avoid confusion for folks that may not understand the difference/'the math doesn't add up', the BRitish (and most of Europe) use a very different measurement of proof than we do. They measure proof using ABWeight, whereas we do ABV. This means that their 100 proof (used to) mean (and sometimes still does... /sigh) our 114 proof, or 57% ABV.


Yes, G, I know. It was a great session that they did down at Tales, and everyone gave you a good 'hip-hip, hooray!' for your providing the hootch used in the sazeracs, (made using the recipe I posted above, with Louis Royer Cognac, instead of rye, and Marteau). I've been to 10 others on proof and/or overproof, including a few where Chad and Christy were in the audience with me, :) . And I know you know what you are talking about, ;) . Again- I just didn't understand what you were saying.

"Here's to the corkscrew - a useful key to unlock the storehouse of wit, the treasury of laughter, the front door of fellowship, and the gate of pleasant folly." - W.E.P. French

We're only immortal
For a limited time.


#112 Gwydion Stone

Gwydion Stone

    Propriétaire

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,274 posts

Posted 28 August 2012 - 05:05 PM

It's all good.

I only meant to convey that in my (apparently mistaken) understanding of the anecdote, the idea wasn't that the degree of proof was required so that the gunpowder could be intentionally put into gin or vice versa, but rather to insure against catastrophe in the event of accidental exposure to the spirits.

It was a great session that they did down at Tales, and everyone gave you a good 'hip-hip, hooray!' for your providing the hootch used in the sazeracs, (made using the recipe I posted above, with Louis Royer Cognac, instead of rye, and Marteau).

Sweet! :cheers:

Maker of Marteau Absinthe
Master Distiller, Gnostalgic Spirits Distillery
www.absinthemarteau.com
Confessions of an Absinthiste


#113 Larspeart

Larspeart

    Advanced 'member'...

  • Silver Member
  • 1,816 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

Nerd Fight!!!

 

:drunk:


"Here's to the corkscrew - a useful key to unlock the storehouse of wit, the treasury of laughter, the front door of fellowship, and the gate of pleasant folly." - W.E.P. French

We're only immortal
For a limited time.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2014 The Wormwood Society Absinthe Association