The radiation method of preparation may have been too much for Winston Churchill, who preferred his vermouth “glance across the room at the vermouth” or, to “whisper the word ‘vermouth’ over the glass,” [0]
> A Manhattan is a Martini but you replace dry vermouth with bitters, replace gin with sweet vermouth, and add whiskey.
No, it's not.
What's missing is a sense of "role". Spirits should map to spirits, liqueurs to liqueurs etc.
There's usually only a few "slots" with cocktails: one (or sometimes a few) base spirits, something aromatic such as bitters or a vermouth, a sweet thing and/or a citrus.
(I once made a spreadsheet that I dubbed "the period table of cocktails - turns out the gaps usually lead you to an obscure variation you'd never heard of)
I'm in category 1 personally. I'll drink straight vermouth (if it's good) as an aperitif. But so many people seem to agree with Churchill I find it funny.
yes and the original manhattan recipe calls for equal parts vermouth and whiskey. you probably wouldn't want to drink it like that.
not only do people's tastes change over time, but so do the ingredients themselves. you can't necessarily buy the exact same gin, vermouth, and campari that was available to the count a hundred years ago. of the gins and vermouth available today, there is quite a range of diversity. you leave a lot on the table if you aren't willing to tweak ratios based on the ingredients you have.
The Manhattan & Martini both derive lineage from the Old Fashioned. The Old Fashioned was so named in the late 19th century as it was trying to recreate the original cocktail, as in "Don't give me one of those drinks with all the stuff in it, give me an old fashioned cocktail".
The Martini derives from the Martinez which is a much sweeter drink. Heavy on sweet vermouth and using a heavier & sweeter style of gin. It should be clear at that point that the Martinez and Manhattan aren't super far apart.
A Manhattan made with high-grade ingredients is sublime, but DIY is far more cost-effective than having someone else do it for you. Plus, there's lots of room for experimentation (maybe try different types/amounts of bitters, using rye rather than bourbon, or adding a dash of absinthe, or different mix ratios for the main ingredients).
The whole cartoon about "martini - gin + whiskey" cartoon isn't great, as "cocktail" really is the best answer it could give. (A manhattan would also have to switch from dry vermouth to sweet vermouth, and change the garnish from an olive or lemon peel to a cherry, and traditionally it would not use just any whiskey, but use rye specifically.)
There is a great bracing joy in having an occasional classic proportioned martini. 4:1 with a splash of Regans. Stirred until completely cold and poured in an ice cold martini glass. It connects you with all the great martini drinkers of the past. For a moment you are sitting with Myrna Loy and William Powell engaged in carefree and sarcastic conversation all the while ignoring the depression gripping the country.
> The part that wasn't particularly surprising was that mixed drinks and cocktails, along with associated terms ("cocktail hour", "cocktail party") date to U.S. Prohibition, when bootleg (and low-quality) hard liquor had to be mixed with other ingredients to become drinkable.
That's not totally true - Jerry Thomas published How to Mix Drinks or The Bon-Vivant’s Companion in 1862. Punch (sort of the precursor to cocktails) has been around even longer.
Actually a proper Manhattan is nothing like a modern Gin/Vodka Martini or a classical 20th century Martini, but is similar in some respects to a Perfect Martini due to the addition of sweet vermouth or the traditional Martinez, believed to be made with sweet vermouth.
Having said that, I do like the odd Rob Roy. Some places shake deliberately to get the froth as Manhattans tend to have a signature twist in posher places. I think you're right to ask to stir instead for a classic Manhattan (especially if you're using Canadian Club or Crown Royal).
>From the outset, it was laced with memories, or myths, of imperial rule; what Schweppes first sold in 1870 was not just tonic water but “Indian Tonic Water,” and today, though besieged by an army of Fever-Tree tonics, it still holds considerable sway. The water is tonic because it contains quinine, which is anti-malarial—a lifesaver, if you happen to be invading or infesting a marshy foreign land.
Oh yes - gin and tonic should be rightfully considered India's national drink. Its what the British had to invent to not die.
reply