The Worlds Most Practical Drunkards

I believe it fair to say, the British are the worlds most practical drunkards.

How so? 

Allow me to provide just one of many possible examples, which would tend to bear my thesis out:

The British were, in their time, the most thoroughgoing and successful imperialists the world had seen since Xerxes and Alexander (and by some measures, one might even say the most succesful of all time, without exception); controlling colonies, territories, and other posessions, in every corner of this good earth.

As it happens, the greatest fraction of these many jewels of empire, were located in tropical climes.

Being native to a few cool, damp, and windy isles, adrift between the north and Irish seas; the British peoples, were not notably tolerant of the extremely hot and humid conditions prevailing in these tropical regions. Nor did they posess notable natural resistance, to the many, varied... and it must be said, most unpleasant... diseases and maladies endemic to them

This however, did not appreciably deter the British from sending many of their best and brightest young men (or at least those rich enough to buy an officers comission, or secure a place in colonial service, or the EITC)... along with a few of those who managed to survive previous such assignments and adventures, and reach middle age; to govern them (which is to say, govern both the tropical colonies, and the young men in question... I will leave the determination of which was the greater challenge, to the reader).

This of course had the entirely predictable result of mortality rates for those posted to the tropics, often exceeding one in four. In fact, there were years in which some postings, suffered as many as seven in ten men, lost to these terrible ailments.

Still... Being British, and having a surplus of second, third, and fourth sons in the officer classes in those years...

...(and there always being an excess of the lower classes (men, women, and children) unable to find gainful employment in the home islands; there was no lack of those in Britain willing to serve as common soldiers, or take contracts of indentured service for 5 or 10 years, in order to seek better fortune in the colonies.

And of course, there was never a shortage of those convicted of minor criminal offences, such as stealing less than 10 shillings {that being a half pound, or about two weeks wages for a common laborer... about $1,000 today. Stealing more than 10 shillings meant a long prison term. Stealing more than 5 pounds, meant hanging}, failing to pay ones debts, incorrigible drunkenness, vagrancy, prostitution, or being Irish; who could be involuntarily transported to the colonies for a term of labor)...

...the frightful casualty rates did not give pause to the colonial administrators (or more importantly, the governors of the East India Trading Company). It only served to double, and redouble their efforts to find ways to prevent, and treat these illnesses.

After only 200 or so years of mass casualties... nothing of great importance... by the early 1800s, it was accepted that daily prophylactic treatment with tincture of quinchona bark... quinine...  would help prevent and treat these diseases, particularly the most common of them (and the one that killed the most people... and still does today), malaria.

Further, it was found to be more effective when combined with tincture of red willow bark...acetylsalicylic acid, aka aspirin... which helped reduce fevers, headaches, and other complaints and maladies of the joints and muscles.

Both tinctures are quite bitter however, and prone to upsetting ones stomach, particularly in the strengths necessary to be effective in resisting and treating tropical diseases.

Mixing these tinctures with a fair bit of sugar... thankfully common in the tropical colonies... helped make them more palatable, though still not pleasant tasting.

Diluting a spoonful of the resulting mixture, into a few ounces of water and bicarbonate of soda, or otherwise carbonated "soda water", tends to buffer the mixture; eliminating any tendency to upset ones stomach, and producing a healthful tonic, aiding in one's digestion.

Speaking of water... Of course, the heat and humidity being what they are in the tropics, one must always guard against dehydration, and heat stroke. To avoid this, it is advisable to sit in shady and cool areas, and drink plenty of water, preferably mixed with some of the vitamins and minerals that we lose through exertion and sweating.

It is even more important to stay hydrated when one is ill, and the tropical diseases under discussion, tend to cause extreme fluid and mineral loss, due to their unpleasant symptoms and side effects.

Unfortunately, lacking natural resistance to local waterborne pathogens, water in those regions was often not safe for the British to drink untreated; and in fact, drinking such water untreated proved to be one of the infection vectors for the unpleasant tropical diseases in question.

Thankfully, it was found that mixing local water with 80 proof alcohol (preferably alcoholic infusions of medicinal herbs and spices, such as juniper and various other various berries, citrus, rosemary, anise, cinnamon, nutmeg, and coriander), to a concentration of at least 12% alcohol by volume, generally proved sufficient to sanitize the water, rendering it safe to drink.

Such alcoholic infusions also proved to mix well in similar proportion with the previously mentioned healthful carbonated tonic, contrasting it's bitterness, with a sweet, citrusy, and herbaceous character, which proved much more pleasant to drink; though still not quite right yet...

At that time, British people were not in the habit of regularly eating much in the way of fresh fruit or vegetables, as their native islands had a relatively short growing season, and comparatively few hardy native species suited to it, which could last rhrough the winter and spring months (either fresh or preserved). And of course, they also had long sea journeys to reach the tropics; during which such foodstuffs were unavailable.

This lack of fresh fruits and vegetables, in turn often led to several other deficiencies and diseases, most notable scurvy.

However, around the same time our healthful tonic came into common use, it was also confirmed that the juice of limes (and other citrus fruits of course, but limes were the easiest to grow or purchase, and stored the longest without spoiling ) provided one with the nutritive elements necessary to prevent and treat these deficiences and diseases, including scurvy.

As a further benefit, it was found that the juice of citrus fruits, when mixed with water and a little sugar, make a lovely tasting, and quite refreshing beverage; which is more effective than water alone at preventing and treating dehydration, heat stroke, and the... other unpleasant gastrointestinal effects shall we say... of tropical diseases.

Thus, a concoction of gin, tonic, and lime, mixed in proper proportion, and drunk at least twice daily, preferably in a cool shady spot with a nice breeze; serves to refresh ones thirst, aid in one's digestion, prevent and treat malaria and other tropical diseases, as well as prevent and treat heat stroke, dehydration, scurvy, headache, fever, aches and pains of the muscles and joints, and other such ailments as one might suffer from.

Personally, I have also noted it tends to improve ones attitude and outlook, and is quite salutary to ones mental and emotional health, and general state of mind.

Given this, I'm sure you will agree, it can be fairly said that the British are, by far, the worlds most practical drunkards.

"Anything we want to keep?"

Helping a friend clear out the office of the company he's shutting down...

"Hey, can you go through this box of trash and junk before we toss it, make sure there's nothing in here that we actually want to keep"
Oh... I don't know... maybe a bit of something:

Neat gimmick... but really, there's no secret, just basic science and sense...

I used to be one of the lucky bastards who never got hangovers no matter how much I drank.

Then I turned 30...

Did you know you can get a hangover without having actually been drunk?

I actually went through a controlled alcohol study while I was in college. I'm one of the genetic anomalies who simply have a higher tolerance, and metabolize alcohol at a much higher than normal rate.

Combine that with my bodymass and you get something of an epic heavyweight as far as getting drunk...

I still don't like getting drunk though (and can count the number of times I've been actually drunk, vs. just having warm ears, on the fingers of both hands with a few left over), so I very rarely even get a slight buzz.

I DO like fine beer, wine, and spirits however, and there are times when I want to drink quite a few adult beverages of a night, and not suffer for it the next day.

This Esquire piece popped into many feeds overnight:

HOW TO DRINK ALL NIGHT WITHOUT GETTING DRUNK 

Jim Koch knows beer. He also knows a beer trick that may change your life.

It's a neat trick, well known among beerfest types, and it does work to an extent, but it's unnecessary. 

Here's what you really need to know:

1. Drink a glass of water before each glass of beer (or better, soda water with lime, a dash of salt, and a bit of sugar... It actually hydrates better than water, and replenishes some lost electrolytes. Or best of all, 50/50 sodawater mixed with OJ).
   
   DO NOT DRINK SUGAR SODA OR DIET SODA, or anything with caffeine, as they will dehydrate you and deplete electrolytes, which is the OPPOSITE of what you want.
   
2. Wait until you need to pee, before you order the next beer
   
3. Every 4 beers, drink an orange juice. It replaces lost potassium and other electrolytes, but potassium is the most important one here, and the one you lose the most of (and the one you NEED the most of) when drinking.
   
4. Before bed, take aspirin (it thins and expands the blood. If you're dehydrated and vitamin depleted it will make things worse, but since you shouldn't be at this point, it makes things better), drink a glass of water (or better as above) and a glass of orange juice. Then, when you have to get up and pee later, do it again.
   
5. Before you drink, and for breakfast the next day (and do NOT skip either), have a high protein meal, with low to moderate carbs, preferably rich in niacin and thiamine. DON'T DRINK COFFEE with either meal.  If necessary, take some B vitamin supplements, and a multivitamin before and after drinking. 

Alcohol consumption dramatically depletes potassium, niacin, and thiamine (and other critical vitamins and minerals) in your blood stream, and caffeine makes it worse. These deficiencies reduce kidney and liver function, causing waste products to build up in your blood (which is made worse by dehydration caused by alcohol diaeresis), and interfere with neurological function; causing headaches, joint pain, muscle aches... Hangovers.

Combine those five things and you'll never get more drunk than a light buzz, and never get a hangover.

They work with hard liquor and wine as well, but you have to wait longer between drinks, and drink twice as much water, because they fill your bladder less.

Things that are good

A birthday party, with great friends and loved ones, that starts Friday night, and ends Sunday night; with a nice steak and creme brulee.

A 150 mile motorcycle ride on a gorgeous (but VERY windy) day, through some of the prettiest country, IN this country, with a beautiful woman on the back.

Stopping off in the middle for a beer with a beautiful woman.

Surprisingly*... Coors new beer "Batch 19, a pre-prohibition style American Lager"... Especially since it was a $2 domestic draft in the biker bar we stopped at.

Simple things...

*When I say surprisingly... I really mean it. I HATE Coors... I'd rather drink Bud Light... and I'd rather drink straight ghost pepper hot sauce than Bud Light... but this stuff was quite good. 

I'm Sure Costco Refers to This as Customer Education

Posted from within one of the Costcos in Spokane:

Life's too short for bad booze

So, holiday party season is upon us; and as many people do, we're having a party for friends pre-thanksgiving.

Since we don't have any family up here, it'll be our chance to get together with people we care about around thanksgiving; before we go to visit the kids in Canada for visitation (actually probably just Mel, since my passport hasn't come back yet... no I'm not happy about that).

Since we're geeks, and most of our friends are geeks, but are of VASTLY different backgrounds, ages etc... Varying social conventions are in force. Do I bring something, do I not bring something, if I bring something what should it be etc...

What I tell people is this "If don't ask you to bring anything, except some folding chairs, and if you want to drink something other than soft drinks, please bring it with you".

Because, let's face it, booze is expensive. We've got some of our own stock of course, but we drink the good stuff... which is also the expensive stuff. Not only that, but fine spirits tend to be a bit... strongly flavored shall we say, for those who aren't accustomed to them.

So why waste a bottle of 25 year old whisk(e)y on partygoers who think "the good stuff" means jack and coke.

I mean, yeah they're my friends, and if they appreciate good liquor, I'm more than happy to share; but most don't.

Hell, I only have a drink a week or so myself (plus maybe two or three beer a week); so a good bottle of whisk(e)y might last me a couple years. On that basis, an $80-$120 bottle doesn't seem so bad.

At any rate, in the invite emails I sent out to everyone (remember, we're all geeks), I mentioned that we drink the good stuff so don't bring US a bottle (because I don't want to put anyone out expense wide); that it wasn't to everyone's taste, and to bring what they wanted to drink.

Though, the last party we threw, before Halloween; one of the guest who knew my preferences brought a bottle of Redbreast with him. I was impressed with his good taste.

So, I got an email earlier from one of our guests (not the one who brought the Redbreast), saying he wanted to give us a gift of a nice bottle of somethingorother, and what did we like.

Alrighty then, you asked for it:

I'm a fan of aged Irish whiskey (single and blends), single malt Scots whisky, and fine blended Scots whisky.

In particular, I like...

Irish:

1. Bushmills 16 year old, 21 year old, or 1608
2. Jamesons 12 year, 18 year old, and gold reserve
3. Middletons very rare, reserve 25 or 30 year
4. Tullamore dew single malt, 10 year, or 12 year old
5. Redbreast 12 or 15 year old

Scots single malt:

1. Balvenie 15 year old or better
2. Dalmore 18 year or better
3. Glenfiddich 18 year or better
4. The Glenlivet 18 year or better
5. The Glenmorangie 18 year or better
6. The Glenrothes vintage
7. The Lagavulin 21 year old or better
8. The Laphroaig 18yr or better
9. The Macallan 18yr old or better or 15yr fine oak or better (25yr Macallan is probably my favorite common bottling)
10. The Talisker 18yr or better.

For blended, I also like:

1. The Famous Grouse (especially the 12yr reserve)
2. Haig and Haig (pinch or dimple)
3. Johnny Black, Green, Gold, and Blue

Other than Whisk(e)y, I like:

1. Hendricks gin, and Mel likes Magellan. Bombay Sapphire, Boodles and Aviation are also acceptable. I really dislike Tanqueray
2. Ketel One, Chopin, and Belvedere vodka (or Grey Goose, Skyy, Absolut 100, or Stoli 100 for mixing)
3. Mount Gay white, eclipse gold, and extra old dark rum, plus Bacardi 151 for cocktails
4. Herradura, Patron, Don Julio, and Sauza Hornitos better bottlings of tequila, plus Cabo Wabo (I like Sammy, what can I say. Mostly I prefer Plata, but I won't turn down a good Anejo or Reposado)
5. Some fine bourbons and American rye whiskeys (Woodford reserve, Knob Creek, Makers Mark, Buffalo Traces higher end bottlings, Bookers, Jim Beams better bottlings, Sazerac)

This is why I generally don't ask anyone to bring liquor; because the liquors I buy usually start at $40 a liter and go up from there. Same thing for Champagne and wine, except you drink those faster.

So, unless someone is a fellow aficionado of fine liquor who I can return the favor to at some point, I usually just ask them to bring a nice micro-brew; where $15 gets you all the quality you might want.

"I'm Tasting Stars"

So, for years my wife has thought that she didn't like champagne.

This is a shame, because I rather enjoy a nice glass of champagne every once in a while; and champagne mixed with fruit juices makes a wonderful punch.

However, I had a cunning plan.

I was pretty sure the problem wasn't that she didn't like champagne, it's that she hadn't ever had any GOOD champagne.

Over the past few years, we've found that, as with so many other alcoholic beverages Mel thought she didn't like (wine, gin, tequila, beer etc..); she actually DOES like them, if given the chance to drink a decent example thereof.

In fact, she now quite enjoys gin and tonics, tequila and margaritas, and decent beer.

In this case however, I don't blame her. Most people in this country have never really had decent champagne or sparkling wine.

If the closest thing to champagne I'd ever drunk was Asti Spumante, Freixenet, or Korbel... Yeah, I'd think I didn't like champagne either.

Note, I didn't say EXPENSIVE champagne, I said DECENT champagne (or sparkling wine). A bottle doesn't have to be expensive, to be decent.

So, for our wedding anniversary (the day after Christmas) dinner (at one of our favorite places, Fogo de Chao) I ordered us a bottle of Taittinger Brut Reserve.

It's not an expensive champagne (you can get it around $60-70 in discount liquor stores, or about twice that on wine lists), but a decent one, at a REASONABLE price...

...Well, reasonable except at restaurants and bars anyway; but that's just the way buying wines there works... and besides, it was our anniversary.

Much to her surprise (though not to mine), she liked it.

Even better, it seems her taste in Champagne matches mine closely. She particularly liked how dry and acidic it was in comparison to most table wines.

Oh goody, this is going to be fun.

So, you don't have to spend a fortune to get some decent champagne... and it's new years, so what the heck, lets talk about what I like for a reasonably priced bottle... and maybe a couple of more expensive bottles too just for fun.

Oh and sparkling wine as well. We can't leave California out of it (I'll leave Sekt, Prosecco, Cava etc... for another time).

I'm going to stick to the major houses here; only because I want this advice to be useful for more than just this year. Some of the smaller houses make great champagne, but the ones worth buying change from year to year.

Actually, first things first, If you DO want to spend a fortune on a bottle, please... don't buy Cristal or Dom Perignon... There's nothing wrong with them, they're both excellent champagnes; but the hip hop culture references have driven the prices for either far beyond what I think you should pay.

If you want something very nice and special to celebrate with, buy the Perrier Jouet fleur (cuvee de prestige, vintage, current is '99 - about $300 or a little less from discount places), the Taittinger comtes de champagne (cuvee de prestige, vintage, current is '98 - about $250 from discount).

For a little less money... and I think honestly just as good champagne... the Bollinger grand anee vintage (current is '99, for about $125-$150), or Krug Grand Cuvee ($220 list, but as low as $140 from discount places), are both excellent. In fact I'd rather spend my money on either of those, than one of the more expensive cuvee de prestige (CdP is just a champagne makers term for "top of the line").

Krug and Bollinger both produce other vintage cuvee de prestige, but they are harder to find.

Technically, all Bollinger bottlings except the "brut special", and the all Krug bottlings, are considered cuvee de prestige, including the non vintage grand cuvee... they simply don't produce champagnes of a lower grade; but they do produce what might be called prestige cuvee plus ultra

A Bollinger RD, if you can find one, will run anywhere from $150 for a mediocre year, to over $500 for a very good year. Their top line bottling, the Vieille Vignes Françaises, will run over $750 for a bottle.

Krug produce three vintage cuvee de prestige; the Clos du Mesnil, Clos D'Ambonnay, and an occasional reserve or special vintage.

If you can find one (and you can't), they'll be well over $500 for a mediocre year, and well over $1000 for a good year... perhaps as high as $5,000 for the Clos D'Ambonnay in a very good year. It's expected that when the 2002 vintages come out, they will be, literally, the best champagnes ever produced by Krug.

Current vintage Roederer Cristal (cuvee de prestige, vintage, current is '02) runs about $300 a bottle, and I think it's overpriced. Discount places have it as low as $200 a bottle (a few even go down to $180), and I STILL think it's overpriced.

That doesn't mean it isn't excellent champagne, it is; but because of the high demand in the past few years, they're releasing it before it's ready (actually, at the legal minimum age according to french champagne regulations... though specifically, the '02 is an EXCELLENT year), and at a higher price than it should be.

Specific to the 2002 though, it is a really excellent champagne. I've only had it from uncorking, so it was great, but not "oh my god"; but people who've had it on day two or day three have rated it as possibly the best vintage for Cristal at least since '85.

To be honest I'd rather have the Krug. I drink champagne on uncorking, I don't drink it three days after opening.

Current vintage Moet et Chandon Dom Perignon (cuvee de prestige, vintage, current is '00) is running around $120-$150 at discount places, and it's worth that price; just don't pay the outrageous exaggerated retail price, and for gods sake don't buy it at a hotel or restaurant, where they'll charge you $200-300 for it.

Oh... and I'd still rather spend the extra $20 for the Krug.. or maybe the Veuve Clicquot La Grande Dame (cuvee de prestige, vintage, current is '98 - list is about $200, but it's running around $120 at discount).

Yes, Krug is my favorite non vintage champagne; and I prefer it to most vintage champagnes in most years. If you can get it for a good price, I think it should always be your first choice in non vintage.

Ok, now back to the land of REASONABLY priced bottles.

So first, we bought two bottles for tonight(it IS new years after all): a Perrier Jouet Grand Brut, and a Veuve Clicquot Brut "Yellow Label".

Both bottles list around $60 but are available for under $40 from discount (we paid $33 and $37 respectively... and the PJ came in a gift box with two flutes). Both are the base bottlings from each house (and both are among the best houses). Both are quite nice to drink, and are representative of the style of the house.

In fact, we're drinking the Veuve Cliquot right now, with a dinner of pizza and hot wings.

Yes, you can drink champagne with pizza. Actually, I think it's better than beer with Pizza, because the acid, and the nature of the carbonation, pair with the cheese very well... as long as the pizza doesn't have too much garlic anyway (garlic ruins your palette for wine).

There are a lot of good bottles available right around that price range.

You can get a slightly lower cost Taittinger than the "Brut Reserve" we had for our anniversary; the "Brut La Francaise", which is quite decent, and can sometimes be had for as low as $35.

Now, just to confuse you, there are three entirely separate and different houses called Heidsieck (different branches of the same extended family): Charles Heidsieck, Piper-Heidsieck, and Heidseck Monopole.

The Charles Heidsieck Brut Reserve, and the Heidsieck Monopole Brut Blue, are both very worthy choices; and again, both are available at discount for a little under $40.

The third Heidsieck, Piper-Heidsieck, has two offerings in the range we're talking about; with their non vintage brut running as low as $30 at discount (about $50 list), and their vintage brut ('98 is current) available around $60 at discount ($90 list).

At $60, that P-H vintage is probably the lowest cost you're going to pay for a decent vintage, from a good house; and looking around online I found it for as low as $40 from one place (everywhere else was from just under $60 up to $75).

If you want to spend a little bit more, Roederer, the house that bottles Cristal, makes a non vintage "brut premier", and Bollinger makes a non vintage "brut special cuvee"; both available for $50 to $60, and both definitely worth drinking.

Or, if you want the least expensive French champagne from a major house (the house that produces Dom Perignon in fact), the Moet et Chandon Imperial (a.k.a "white star, as it used to be labeled), has been the "default champagne" for most of the world for the last... Oh, 100 years or so. It lists at around $45, but can be had at discount for as little as $30.

Everyone should have Moet et Chandon Imperial at least once. If you've never had french champagne, and want to see if you'll hate it or not, buy the Imperial. If you're having a big party, and you want "the default champagne", buy the imperial.

Now, let me just say, I am limiting myself here to the major houses, but you shouldn't. There are lots of GREAT small house, or grower champagnes out there; and you should be looking out for them. Its just there are so many, and they are SOOOO vintage dependent, that I didn't want to include them here.

Figure out whats good when you're buying, and what is similar to other wines you like on your palette, and if the price is good, grab it. Don't just buy the major houses.

Now, to California...

I'll be honest with you, there's only one house that is completely American, that I particularly care for; Iron Horse.

Iron Horse makes several lovely sparkling wines in the $20 to $50 range; with the current vintage brut ('04, though the better '02 is still available around the same price) coming in around $30 at discount. It's entirely drinkable, and in fact a much better choice than any French house at the same price point... and most in the $40 or $50 range.

Also, Iron Horse releases several limited bottlings, when they have a particularly good year; in brut, extra brut, and ultra brut (or almost completely sugar free) styles.

Unfortunately, I don't care for the rest of Iron Horses general bottlings, because they are mostly in the "wedding style" or "russian style", and are much sweeter. Of course, if you like a sweet sparkling wine, I would certainly recommend them.

I do have two other recommendations; but neither are American houses, though they are grown, produced, and bottled, in California.

Moet et Chandon, and Louis Roederer (two of the houses I recommend above) both have estates here in California; and produce bottlings from under $20, into the $50 range (at discount).

Domaine Chandon bottlings start at $13 (at discount), and are very good. Not "very good for the money", just plain very good (good as in wine spectator rating them at over 90 every year, and as high as 97 in some bottlings).

Yes, a $13 bottle of sparkling wine can be, and is, very good.

Roederer Estates bottlings start at a bit under $20; and again, are very good, not just very good for the money.

I have a couple bottles of the Domaine Chandon in my fridge right now in fact.

As with Iron Horse, I would say that the Roederer and Chandon bottlings are FAR better than the French bottlings at the same price point, or even at twice the price.

You have to go to at least a $40 bottle of French champagne to match a $13 bottle of California Sparkling wine... and honestly, most $40 bottles wouldn't cut it (though I'd say the ones I list above are in the same quality range).

Oh, and again, as with the French houses; there are PLENTY of small houses, and small growers doing some great sparkling wines, at very reasonable prices. Find what's good when you're buying, find a decent price for it, and grab some.

For a bunch of recommendations for current, decent, bottlings of champagnes and sparking wines at lower prices, check out this post (and the links in it and at the bottom of it) from the New York Times wine blog "The Pour".

En Vin Verite

If you have any interest at all in wine, you should really read some of the several excellent books and articles, or the also excellent documentary, about the 1976 Judgement of Paris.

If you have no interest in wine, you probably have no idea of the significance of that even; but perhaps you'll enjoy a story about the French being hoist on their own petard of arrogance and snobbery.

The judgment of Paris, in this case (it also refers to an earlier event in fine art), refers to a blind tasting of French and California wines, conducted in France in 1976.

It was expected by everyone, especially the organizer of the event; that the French would win handily. Even the U.S. vintners were sure the French would win; if only due to chauvinism and cheating (it was fully expected by the California vintners that the "blind test" would not be).

Instead, a California chardonnay ( Chateau Montelena) was the unanimous top choice of whites by all the judges, and a California Cabernet (Stags Leap) the top choice of reds (though only just edging out the next two French wines).

Prior to this result (and the famous George Tabor Time Magazine article documenting it, and linked up above), very few in the wine world took California wines... or for that matter, any wines not from France... seriously.

After?

Well, in every significant blind tasting since, American wines (mostly California, but some from Washington or Oregon) have beaten French wines.

Every time.

Not only that, but worldwide, California wines outsell French wines by as much as 8 to 1 in some years (French wine, because of the climate, tends to be strongly vintage dependent. Better California wines tend to be much more consistent), and have in general outsold French wines every year since 1982.

Funny thing though: I think the best of Oregon and Washington, and even the best of Chile and Australia; are now better than the best of the same varietals, out of either France OR California.

At any rate, I just watched a dramatization of the events surrounding the Judgement, called "Bottle Shock", and starring... everyone really (seriously, almost every role is a name, or a familiar face).

I know that the movie wasn't very true to the real events, but I enjoyed it very much. I especially enjoyed the performances of Bill Pullman and Alan Rickman (honestly, it's rare I don't like Rickman)... and I didn't absolutely hate Chris "Captain Kirk Jr." Pine.

I won't call it a great movie, but it was fun; and if you like wine, worth watching.

Hmm.. my new favorite cocktail

Tonight, we decided to make an English night of it.. sort of... An English Colonial night that is.

Mel tried her hand at a lamb roganjosh, and I was planning on mixing up some gin and tonics; with my favorite gin, Hendricks (Actually, the only gin I really LIKE, vs tolerate).

One of our guests however decided they wanted a martini instead; and I decided to offer up something a little different.

I'm not a big straight martini fan, as it is corrently served. I prefer an original martini, or perfect martini; featuring a small amount of triple sec or orange bitters, along with both sweet and dry vermouth.

But I had this lovely lime juice, just sitting there...

Ok, what the hell, let's try an experiment.

I hadn't heard of it before I mixed one, but apparently this is called "the journalist martini", or just "the journalist"; or at least it is with slightly different proportions:

2 jiggers Hendricks gin
1/4 jigger sweet vermouth
1/4 jigger dry vermouth
1/2 jigger triple sec (I prefer cointreau)
1/2 lime juice (fresh, or clarified)
2 dashes bitters (I prefer peychauds, but angostura is fine)

Mix for two, over a full shaker of ice; stirred for 30 seconds, and poured straight into a martini glass.

By god that's a good drink. Seriously. Slightly bitter, slightly sweet, slightly sour, and totally refreshing.

A Pints a Pound the World 'Round

... Actually a pint's more like about £2 in the UK (a reader writes it's more like £2.70 where he is)

Would that it were only so here in the U.S.

A friend of mine from the UK, currently living in rural Spain, was wondering how much we paid for drink here.

A sad story really.

In general, we pay MUCH more for drink than you do in Europe and the U.K.

When I lived in Ireland, a pint of Guinness was cheaper than a pint of coke in most bars (and of course no free refills). Here the reverse is very definitely true.

For a British pint (570ml), of a half decent beer, we'll pay somewhere from $5 to $8 in most bars or restaurants. Prices vary widely, and a true imperial pint is rare.

We get 16oz pints in the U.S. which are 100ml (3-1/4 oz) less than imperial; and are typically $4.50 to $6.50. A lot of places will serve a 20oz or 22oz mugs for $1 or $2 more than their 16oz price.

However, we usually don't even get pints. Generally, beer is served by the glass (350ml) here, and in most places a domestic glass is $3.50 to $5.50, and an import or microbrew will be $1 more; though cheaper bars may serve as low as $2.50 for domestics. Often the cheapest beer in the bar will be sold at $1 a glass specials on certain days and certain hours etc...

Wine is generally sold by the 750ml bottle here, or by the 175ml glass (and often you won't even get that much. Many bars try to pour their wine to get six glasses per bottle, at 125ml per glass) and the cheapest acceptable (seriously I really mean the cheapest that are at all drinkable) wines will typically run around $15 per bottle, or $4 per glass in a bar... and that's an $8 bottle in the shop.

Wines that would sell for $15 in the shop would typically be sold for between $20 and $25 in the bar or restaurant; and at $6 a glass; and the prices only get worse from there.

Hard liquor is the worst here though. First, although the world standard shot is 35ml (1.25oz), legally a shot is defined as 29.72ml (1oz)... though at least most bars serve the 1.25oz version when you are ordering a neat shot, they may not when you order a mixed drink.

You'll find that most mixed drinks only get a pony (1oz) in a restaurant; especially in restaurants that have those auto drink mixing systems (so the bartenders can't steal).

Also, in many places when you ask for a double (what should be 2oz if using the legal measure, or 2.5 oz for full measure) you'll get a jigger (1.5oz) or a double pony (2oz); though at least they'll generally only charge you for the jigger or double pony, not twice price of a full shot.

You'll find the same practice in almost ALL mixed drinks in restaurants, and unfortunately in many bars. Ask for a double, or if the recipe calls for a double, and you'll get a jigger.

A 750ml bottle of hard liquor that costs $25 in the store, will be sold for $45-55 in the bar or restaurant; or as $4 to $6 dollar shots. Counting wastage, a bar SHOULD only count on being able to get 18 shots from a bottle, or at the very most 20; but many bars and restaurants (again, especially restaurants) have a policy mandating 22 shots (which is actually less than 35ml). I've even heard of places that mandate 24 shots.

Yes, $4 to $6 for a 35ml OR LESS shot, from a 750ml bottle that costs $25 at retail. 22 shots at $6 a shot... $132 from a $25 bottle..... it's nearly criminal.

This is why they say restaurants live and die by their bar by the way. Food keeps the lights on and the bar pays the salaries.

What's sad though is that even at those markups, most bars and restaurants can't make any damn money; even if they're full all the time. 80% of all restaurants close within 2 years of opening.

I need a drink...

It's been a hell of a week, and Mel and I needed a drink. Mel started asking me for ideas of what to do with apple juice, and I brainstomed this.

Ok, so this sounds odd, but it works; really you should try it:

2oz Bourbon
2oz applejuice
1/2 oz butterscotch liqueur
1/2oz sour apple liqueur
1/2oz lemon juice, lime juice, roses, or sweet-n-sour mix
6-8 oz of a real brewed Ginger Ale (Thomas Kemper or something similar)

So chip off about 4 cubes worth of ice, then pour the apple juice over it. Add the bourbon and butterscotch liqueur

Up to now, this is a standard shooter, the "Caramel Apple", and with the sour apple and lemon added it becomes a "Caramel Pucker".

Thing is though, between the bourbon, the butterscotch, and the apple juice, I think that's just too sweet.

So, I poured the drink out of my highball, into a tumbler, and topped it with a creamy, spicy, real brewed ginger ale (this really wouldn't work with the typical Schweppes/Canada Dry) ... and it's DAMN good.

Who wouldn't want one of these?

From Popular Science:

The Ultimate All-in-One Beer Brewing Machine
Behold PopSci staff photographer/mad scientist John Carnett's homemade microbrewery: an elaborate device that boils, ferments, chills, and pours home-crafted ale

What if there were a machine—a beautiful shiny machine—and all it did, with almost no work from you, was make you beer? Such was the dream that drove PopSci staff photographer John Carnett to spend weeks building what he simply refers to as the Device: a stainless-steel two-cart brewing system that starts by boiling extract—concentrated wort, or pre-fermented beer—and ends with a chilled pint.

In most home-brewing setups, each step in the process requires moving the beer to a new container by hand, which increases the chance of contamination and requires you to lift stuff. Carnett's machine keeps everything in the carts' closed system and requires only that he swap a few CO2-pressurized hoses to move the liquid along. It also employs a complex temperature-control system to regulate the fermentation (often done in a corner of a basement) to within a degree or two. A couple weeks later, the same system chills the beer on its way from keg to tap, so the Device is always ready with a cold pour and consumes no power when it's not serving or fermenting.

The next step: adding a third cart to make wort from raw grain instead of extract. But, says Carnett, there's a lot of "testing" of this design to be done first.

Actually, these things are nothing new; people have been making brewing sculptures since the 80s. This one is the first I've seen with built in kegging, cooling, and taps though. Very very cool.