Straight up tasting

[splatgirl]

I've started treating cocktail ingredients like cooking ingredients--if it's something new to me or my stash I make a point to taste it by itself as a means to create a more clear flavor reference. I guess this seems obvious, but it hasn't always occurred to me with cocktail ingredients. I have also never been a neat booze drinker, so I've only just started catching up on those lessons.

Do you do this?

Among other recents--Luxardo Maraschino liqueur, which tastes WEIRD. Like indescribably weird and like nothing else I've ever tasted. Not like cherry. Maybe like sugary stinky socks. Anyone got anything better than that to describe it? It actually kind of gags me even though I've had and enjoyed a couple of cocktails that used it. Now that I know the flavor I wonder if I'll still like it used in a drink.

Also, Peychaud's bitters vs. Angostura. If these weren't both called bitters, I would not put them together in that category. They are night and day different.

Also on my to buy/taste list is Cynar, an absinthe comparison, and an Amaretto other than DiSaronno.

So many flavors, so little time to drink!

[ncyankee101]

One cocktail ingredient I would NOT recommend tasting neat is orange flower water. I got my first bottle a couple nights ago, took a tiny sip neat - ugh, might as well swig dish soap.

[JMF]

Yes, that and rose water... Best way to nose/taste them is as you would cocktail bitters. First place a few drops in your palm, then rub hands together, then shake to dry. Then cup hands and smell. Then place a single drop on the back of your hand and lick that.

[splatgirl]

These are both cooking ingredients, too. It's amazing how in a recipe, either can go from magical to disgusting in the space of a drop or two.

[INDIANRIVERFL]

Must be something in the air in the Italian Alps and Dolomites. I love Cynar there when relaxing after a day on the slopes. And here in the states it is closer to cough syrup.

The bar we stopped in every afternoon had 5 shelves holding about 10 bottles each of apertifs, liquors, and grappa. We got through more than half. And where I discovered Cynar.

Latest find was $40 in Milwaukee on the shelf.

[splatgirl]

The altitude!

So were the orders just "make me something that uses X"?

I feel a weird nostalgic pull from Cynar. I grew up in So.Cal and to this day artichokes are one of my most beloved foods.

[MGZ]

"I've started treating cocktail ingredients like cooking ingredients--if it's something new to me or my stash I make a point to taste it by itself as a means to create a more clear flavor reference. I guess this seems obvious, but it hasn't always occurred to me with cocktail ingredients."

I prefer most spirits neat, but I, similarly, would never use any ingredient in a drink or a dish that I hadn't tasted first.

[EvergreenDan]

Yes, Maraschino Liqueur tastes nothing like cherry. Now that you know what it tastes like, you'll be able to pick it out in cocktails. There are a great many wonderful ingredients -- this among them -- that I would not enjoy straight. I love Caesar dressing, but I don't eat anchovy paste straight.

Skip the Amaretto, though.

--
www.kindredcocktails.com | Craft + Collect + Concoct + Categorize + Community

[sunshine842]

I'm with you -- and thinking in particular of Campari -- nasty and foul and bitter by itself -- nearly addictive when it's mixed. (I'll drink it with soda, but I adore it in orange or grapefruit juice)

[splatgirl]

St. Germain I have been enjoying for a couple of years in various cocktails. I can't say that I'd want to drink it straight, but at least it tastes nice. Overpowering but nice. I wish it were less sweet. It's one that needs a lot of acid to balance yet I don't always want a citrus-y drink. That makes me wonder what it would be like with bitters...?

The Luxardo fail got me wondering even more about Cheery Herring which I have not tried. Have you tried both to know how they compare, TombstoneShadow?

Benedictine--do tell. Why a dog? It's on that's on my list.

[TombstoneShadow]

i'm going by memory but benedictine struck me as herbal or vegetal in character? It just wasn't interesting. Had it long ago and recall liking it ... "but that was then". Kinda ditto for Amaretto. Btw amaretto and frangelico I much prefer the frangelico.

CH isn't great but I can sip a shot or two now and then w/ no probl... not sure how it compares to Luxardo.... I suspect it might be less sweet as Marschino sounds like a candied cherry flavor?

Maybe I have a sweeter tooth than u b/c I do like St-G straight, what cocktail(s) are u putting it in??

[JMF]

Luxardo Maraschino liqueur tastes nothing like those fake, neon, maraschino cherries.

[TombstoneShadow]

Having some extra time on my hands last summer I dabbled around looking for some interesting new cordials. St. Germain is really interesting, derived from elderberry flowers of all things. Cherry Heering I like. Ditto Chambord.

I also experimented to find my own favorite chocolate cocktail. Found that a combo of Godiva (or mozart), Chambord, kahlua and a hint of frangelico or butterscotch liqueur is pretty awesome.... a chocolate raspberry indulgence.

There were alot of dogs in this tasting: Benedictine, B&B, Drambuie, Jagermeister, and many others I forget.

[ncyankee101]

Drambuie a dog? I love Drambuie. It is a little on the sweet side but it is what got me interested in Scotch, my first true liquor love affair.

[EvergreenDan]

I'm gonna stand up for Benedictine, too. It is an important herbal ingredient in classic and modern cocktails. And Jagermeister might have a frat-boy rap, but before that masterpiece of marketing, it was and is an interesting German "amaro" (If an amaro can be German.)

There is no liqueur, other than amari and aperitifs that I personally would drink straight. But I value many of them -- particularly the herbal and bitter ones. Plus orange peel liqueurs are important, too.

I have Luxardo and it is indeed much better than di Saronno, but at the end of the day, how often are you going to use what amounts to almond extract liqueur? Good orgeat is much more interesting.

[JMF]

Add me on to those who disagree with you, on many levels. Drambuie and Benedictine are two of the best, if not the two best, liqueurs in the world. While I don't do shots of Jagermeister, it is an excellent, well made, digestif type liqueur.

[zin1953]

Add me, too -- though Benedictine is a bit too sweet for me, which is why I prefer B&B. That said, I have both . . . .

[JMF]

I agree on the B&B being preferably for drinking straight or on the rocks. But like Benedictine for cocktails.

[zin1953]

Agreed.

[ncyankee101]

JMF - have you had the 15 year Drambuie? Is it worth the premium price?

[JMF]

I have both here in front of me right now. The 15 is less sweet, more Scotch comes through, it's a bit bitter and hot. Also it lost the depth and complexity of the regular. I prefer the regular Drambuie. by a large margin.

[ncyankee101]

Thanks, I have been tempted a couple times but resisted because of the $50+ pricetag.

[TombstoneShadow]

lol, they may be the "best", I just don't think they taste particularly good. If you twist my arm I'll have one but there's such a long list out ahead of them for my tastes.

[splatgirl]

I've received word, as a Manhattan lover, that I need to try a B&B Manhattan. Benedictine in place of vermouth---comments?
I do not currently have Benedictine in my cabinet but it might get moved to the top of my weird stuff list if someone can vouch for the B&B Manhattan.

[davis_sq_pro]

I don't think, if you're a Manhattan lover, subbing the Benedictine for 100% of the vermouth is going to satisfy you. It will become a drink all about the Benedictine, which might taste good, but it's not going to be a Manhattan.

That said, I regularly dose my Manhattans with a very small amount of Benedictine, which I think works really well. It adds a certain smoothness and a bit of spiciness. (I originally got the idea from a Trader Vic drink called "The Preakness," although I believe that drink calls for Scotch.) The ratio I use is:

- 2oz rye
- 3/4oz vermouth
- 1/4oz Benedictine
- 2d bitters

[JMF]

I agree, Benedictine would take over if used in the amounts to replace vermouth. Also agree than 1/4 oz Benedictine in a basic Manhattan is great. I use Benedictine in many cocktails, but never more than 3/4 oz, and usually 1/4-1/2 oz. In small amounts it adds herbal and honey notes, and adds body to the mouthfeel.

[JMF]

Just want to say that B&B is Benedictine mixed with brandy, Much dryer and less sweet than Benedictine. Also less herbal flavor.

[splatgirl]

Thanks to both of you! I am SO in.
Angostura, Peychauds or other with Benedictine? For regular Manhattans, I am currently in a two dashes Angostura, one dash Peychauds phase...

[davis_sq_pro]

Angostura goes very well with just about everything -- definitely including Benedictine. For me it's the best choice for a Manhattan. No reason to mess with perfection.

I think Fee Brothers Whiskey Barrel Aged can also add something nice to a Manhattan; it has a cinnamon note that complements sweet vermouth really well. (Peychaud's has a bit of the same, but that particular element is much more intense in the Fee Bros WBA.)

[splatgirl]

Reporting back on the Benedictine Manhattan: big thumbs up.
I went with my default Makers Mark, Dolin sweet, Benedictine, Angostura, a twist of lemon 2:1/2:1/2.
This ends up sweeter than I prefer secondary to the Benedictine being quite sweet--as you all have said--but I did really enjoy the extra hit of spice/herbal. A very thin slice of lemon as garnish instead of the twist, or even a couple of drops of lemon juice would have brought it closer to balanced for me.

Tonight I'll try one with Benedictine and dry vermouth instead of sweet.

I did notice the B&B on the shelf, JMF. When I read your post originally I thought you were referring to the drink named B&B designating the ingredients Benedictine and brandy, but I get it now. I think the recommendation was intended to mean Benedictine and Bourbon rather than the B&B liqueur, but I will have to clarify I guess!

[davis_sq_pro]

Maker's is on the sweet/mellow side as-is. I think instead of switching to dry vermouth -- which doesn't tend to pair very well with whiskey -- you'll be happier with a more robust Bourbon. Or, better yet, a rye. Failing that switch, just drop the percentage of (sweet) vermouth a bit further.

[EvergreenDan]

When substituting, try to keep the sugar balance as a primary objective, unless you intentionally decide to change that. Since Benedictine is much sweeter than sweet vermouth, if you were happy with 2:1, then I'd try something like 2:1/2:1/4. That would be about the same sweetness.

I also like DSP's dry vermouth idea. You could try 2:1/3:1/3:1/3 (sweet, dry, benedictine) to come out at about the same sweetness.

You are coming across one of the great problems of mixing with liqueurs. Many are so sweet that by the time you have the flavor intensity you want, you have too much sugar, which then needs to be balanced with acid, which then makes it a different sort of drink.

--
www.kindredcocktails.com

[davis_sq_pro]

Did you perchance sample these liqueurs from a styrofoam cup?

[sunshine842]

touché

[zin1953]

ROFL

[TombstoneShadow]

Is that a sincere question or sarcasm? If you're sincerely interested in the subject of whether a foam cup affects flavor (vs. an IDENTICALLY SHAPED glass) you might want to check out the photos and results of a recent test of that hypothesis here:
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/887159

[davis_sq_pro]

I was involved in the first thread about the styrofoam cups, and already looked over your report. And I still don't buy into the idea that it's a good idea.

But I don't want to relive that debate here. I just thought it was a funny coincidence that the same person arguing against proper tasting glassware has also marked off of his list some of what are considered to be the world's best liqueurs.

So? Were petroleum-derived drinking vessels part of the tasting process that doomed these liqueurs to your "dog" list?

[TombstoneShadow]

I never argued AGAINST "proper glassware", I've just proven that it is not essential: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/887159 You can talk about "pertroleum derivation" all you want, it doesn't show up in the scent or the taste of IDENTICALLY SHAPED vessels.

They are on my dog list b/c to my palate I don't like them. I'm fine if you love them, you're welcome to my share.

[zin1953]

Danger! Danger! Warning, Will Robinson. Thread drift approaching.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Personally, I think all you've "proven" was that YOU don't notice a difference.

In the FWIW Dept., over this past weekend I had my wife pour three different wines (one Chardonnay, one Cabernet-based, and one Grenache-based) into styrofoam, clear plastic, and glass -- all were "tumbler" shaped (coffee cup, "old fashioned"), rather than wine glass in shape. So, nine samples in all. I then put on a blindfold, and she "presented" the samples to me one-at-a-time in semi-random order (all the Chardonnays, then all the Cabs, then the Grenache) so that I could SMELL them. No tasting was involved.

I nailed the styrofoam each and every time, and mistook the plastic for the glass once out of the three times.

[TombstoneShadow]

well there were 5 persons in our test, not just me...

I seriously question how identical your shapes were also, because finding identically shaped vessels in each of those materials is very difficult.

We had to modify the 16 oz cup, by chopping off the top 1" to make it essentially identical in shape and volume to the 12 oz glass as the pictures show... the store-bought 12 oz foam and glass were so different in rising angle that comparing the two would result in an inaccurate comparison.

It's probable that the same goes for your plastic cup as well. If you can take photos of your drinking vessels as we have posted ours (
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/887159) then we can see exactly how identical the shapes are. "Tumbler shaped" is not identical as our test narrative and photos establishes. Even small differences such as differences in volume or differences in the rising angle of the sides of the tumbler will affect sensation of the tester. If you don't have identical shapes and volume, then of course your'e going to "nail" a difference every time.

Lastly, you did not mention whether you sniffed these 3 vessels blind without any wine in them (and someone else holding the vessel) to see if you could smell the basic material; nor did you indicate if the foam was CFC or non-CFC in composition.

But I do applaud your efforts to test the hypothesis scientifically.

FWIW, I came across another interesting test where the researcher investigated whether plastic cups affect taste. He went so far as to cut up a plastic cup and drop the cut-up plastic pieces in one decanter of wine while leaving the other decanter with no plastic pieces. After a time of decanting, the wine was poured into identical glassware and the testers could not identify a difference between the two. I haven't tested this myself, but I thought that was an interesting approach.

[ChristinaMason]

Nice! Good test :)

[maria lorraine]

Ethanol dissolves polystyrene, what Styrofoam is made of.
It's a terrible idea to drink any alcohol, but especially high-proof alcohol (spirits), out of Styrofoam. The polystyrene and ethanol create a chemical reaction and the drinker ingests styrene. Invariably, the styrene-ethanol chemical reaction changes what you taste.

So whatever was tasted in Styrofoam wasn't an accurate reflection of what was in the cup.

Read the scientific literature here for styrene solubility in ethanol:
STYRENE 1. Exposure Data - IARC Monographs
"Soluble in acetone, diethyl ether and ethanol"
(Lide, 2001).
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogra...

This is just one source, so please read the other sources on styrene solubility in ethanol. There are many. A search at the FDA website, Google Scholar, even a regular Google search will pull up the scientific references on styrofoam-alcohol interactions.

[TombstoneShadow]

When talking about styrene or any other "chemical", there's a difference between

A) whether that chemical may be harmful and at what concentrations,

B) at what concentrations it affects food taste and

C) if, as in this case, the chemical is not directly present but is "migrating" from an inert substance (polystyrene) in a rxn, how long must that migration occur before the chemical concentration reaches the lowest levels of the odor threshold for that chemical in humans? (which is between .40 and 2.2 ppm for styrene, assuming it's not conflicting with other environmental or in this case beverage odors). Is the time it takes that reaction to reach detectable odor threshold 1 second? 1 minute? hour? day? The peer-reviewed scientific literature is pretty clear on this.

It's inaccurate to glom these issues together and conclude: "styrene is bad for you in high-doses, and this product is a polymer of styrene, and certain beverages react with polystyrene to cause migration of styrene...." THEREFORE the reaction must be sudden and odor threshold must be reached in seconds (i.e. "invariable"). That's just not supported by objective literature.

[sunshine842]

if any of that were relevant in the real world, alcohol producers worldwide would have switched over to styrofoam cups a long time ago. Styrofoam cups are still cheaper than even cheap glasses, which have to be washed, and replaced when they break.

Since none of that has happened -- and they don't even use **hard plastic** glasses for serious tastings, it's a fairly safe assumption that styrofoam is a really, really unpleasant vessel for a serious tasting of alcoholic beverages.

(and I concur -- I don't even like drinking coffee out of styrofoam -- because it tastes like styrofoam)

[maria lorraine]

There's no justification for using styrofoam when tasting alcohol.

I have read the scientific literature and can cite chapter and verse. Styrene solubility in ethanol begins immediately and gets worse over time.

[TombstoneShadow]

again, foam cups are NOT styrene, they are polystyrene, an inert polymer.

The fact that migration may begin immediately says nothing as to the RATE of that migration, and when it reaches the lowest known detectable odor threshold in human beings.

Some studies on the question of migration actually use 1 to 7 days for their testing period. More specifics later.

[maria lorraine]

Polystyrene/"Styrofoam" cups are wrong
on so many levels.

(Poly)styrene-ethanol reaction
terrible for the environment
smell and taste of its own

and so on.

[sunshine842]

the fact that YOU do not detect the taste doesn't mean that no one else can.

It's pretty generally accepted that tastings need to be done in glass, which is completely inert and immune to the release of ANY kind of chemicals.

[davis_sq_pro]

Let me guess: You work in the styrofoam industry? Cup sales?

[TombstoneShadow]

No, actually I'm in several businesses including healthcare and have studied and lectured on the connections between food, obesity, and a host of chronic disorders.

I'm keenly interested in derangements of the American food supply from chemical additives to processing to genetic mutations of grain & livestock by the food industry; all of which have profound health implications.

I also teach pathophysiology and am working on my 4th college degree in the natural sciences at the moment.

Thanks for asking!

[ncyankee101]

Not to mention it is wasteful and bad for the environment.I try never to use anything disposable if I can avoid it. I

[TombstoneShadow]

Walking through the scientific evidence just takes a few steps:

1) Important conversions: 1mcg = 1 billionth of a Liter; 1mg = 1 millionth of a liter

2) The average odor detection threshold for styrene is .32 parts per million (ppm) : http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/styrene.html Note that this is a detection level with no other major competing scents, more on that in a bit.

SO, the question is, when various beverages are introduced to a polystyrene cup, how long does it take the migrated (leached) styrene to reach .32 ppm, the level at which styrene is detectable? 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour ?

If, for example, it takes 1 hour, then the tasting is long over before there is any scientific chance that the odor would even be minutely detected by the average person. So, let's check the peer-reviewed scientific literature on this:

In the March 2009 edition of Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, a variety of beverages were tested in foam cups to find how much styrene leached into the beverage, over what period of time, and at different temperature ranges. Here are the results:

A) For tea, milk, and milk cocoa, 68 degrees F, at 10 and 30 mins in mcg/L:
Tea: 0, .61
Milk: 0, .65
Cocoa: 0, .71

B) For 15% ethanol in mg/L
24 hours at 104 degrees F: .067

So, for milk and cocoa, both of which have high fat content associated with the highest rates of styrene leaching, at 10 minutes there is NO DETECTABLE LEVEL, and after 30 minutes a level of 0.61 parts per billion was reached. FAR under the .32 pp million level of detectable odor

For 15% alcohol, even after keeping it at 104 degrees for 24 hours, the concentration was 0.067 parts per million, about 1/5 the level of detectable odor by the average person. And this involves HEAT, another factor known to accelerate the rate of migration and leaching.

Now, I'm not suggesting that ANY level of styrene is good for you but frankly if you're concerned about chemicals and genetic alteration of the food supply there are many far bigger problems. Also, styrene does naturally occur in a wide range of food.

The point of whether it's healthy or not is quite apart from this topic which is odor and taste alteration of beverages. Of course nobody is going to keep their alcohol in a foam cup for 24 hours at 104 degrees, more like 10-20 minutes at plus or minus 50 or 60. There is no scientific evidence I've found that shows such a short exposure has any appreciable effect on taste and that is consistent with my own testing results on 4 unbiased tasters using stout, pale ale, bourbon, and rum here: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/887159

Reference study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

[maria lorraine]

Sorry, I have other studies that refute that.

In any case, there are many reasons not to use Styrofoam.
It's a poor choice of vessel.

[TombstoneShadow]

"sorry I have other studies that refute that":

Great, it will be very interesting to see those and examine the methodology.

The study I previously cited was published in a professional peer-reviewed toxicology journal, testing numerous beverages under a range of temperatures.... including 15% alcohol heated to 104 degrees for 24 hours.

Meanwhile, here's another study, published in the 25th Anniversary edition of peer reviewed journal Food Contaminants and Additives entitled: "Polystyrene cups and containers: Styrene migration". The pertinent results are shown in Table 2:

Beer sitting 16 hours in the cup at 52F: 0.006 mg/kg... that's 0.006 parts per million after sitting in the cup 16 hours.

15% Alcohol, 24 hours at 104 F: 0.026 parts per million, and 50% alcohol (100 proof!), 24 hours in the cup at 104 F: 0.035 parts per million. None of this is anywhere near the .32 ppm, the known average level of styrene odor detectability by the average person as cited from EPA in prior post.

Reference here: http://uhl233228nobody.wikispaces.com...

[maria lorraine]

None of this matters. I have ample current data that refutes everything you've said.

Besides, styrofoam has so many issues, so many reasons not to use it for drinking purposes or any other purpose. The environmental issue alone is enough to not use it.

[TombstoneShadow]

"none of this matters"... "I have ample current data that refutes everything"...

links please.

[sunshine842]

Dude, you're taking on Maria Lorraine AND Zin (Jason) on matters of palate and wine tasting?

Lost cause.

[TombstoneShadow]

Well I never really considered it a competition and I'm fine with disagreements... the proof ultimately is in the tasting.

For almost every dish there is more than one excellent pairing (sometimes there's 5 or more that work each in their own way); why not try several and experience the variations? That's why my dining table often ends up being littered with wine glasses :)

[sunshine842]

not a competition -- these two are trained professionals within the industry, and people pay them for using their palates and their knowledge.

I'm no noob when it comes to wine, but there is absolutely no way I would try to intimate that either of them don't know what they're doing -- they have forgotten more about wine than you and me and a half-dozen others will ever know in our entire lives.

[TombstoneShadow]

"they have forgotten more about wine than you and me ... will ever know in our entire lives"

Thanks sunshine!

You know, for a second I disagreed with the statement "riesling and gewurztraminer are the world's two most unpopular wines"... what was I thinking??

[zin1953]

I'll admit to a small -- "small" being the operative word -- bit of hyperbole, and suggest you substitute "world's" in the above sentence with the word "America's."

However, I'll stand by what I said about both cultivars being worthy of wider popularity than they currently enjoy.

As for what you were thinking, I'm sure I don't know, having never developed the ability to read people's minds. ;^)

[EvergreenDan]

15 yard penalty. ;)

[Boston_Otter]

You must have had some old, weird Benedictine and Drambuie. They're both really wonderful.

[ncyankee101]

IMO a much better amaretto than DiSaronno is Lazzaroni. I've also heard good things about Luxardo but have never tried it.

That said there are certain liqueuers that are meant to be used in small amounts in cocktails that are difficult to enjoy straight, Some of these are amari, maraschino, fernet branca, floral liqueurs such as St Germaine (though there are some amari I don't mind straight.)