Readers: Don't shake babies, and don't shake martinis and Manhattans

Thumbnail image for Squeaky Bean_Martini 21 Digit SerialNumber.jpg
A perfect martini done perfectly.
Laura Shunk issued a plea yesterday to local bartenders: Stop shaking your martinis and Manhattans. You don't shake babies, and you don't shake drinks. "There's a geeky, technical reason for stirring these drinks: Booze combined with booze blends without force (unlike citrus and booze, which needs a good hard shake to mix right)," Shunk wrote. "But not only is vigorous shaking not necessary, it's actually ruining the drink."

And she's tasted a lot of bad drinks while testing contenders for the upcoming Best of Denver issue.

Some readers thought she was being too picky. Wrote Elwood:

White people - Sucking the fun out of pretty much everything since the beginning of time.

But Monopod came to her rescue:


Gotta defend Laura on this one. If I'm paying $10 or $12 for a drink with high-quality ingredients, I definitely want it prepared right. And she's absolutely right that you can tell the difference. I've had many a Manhattan that tasted watered down when I got it; given that there's nothing but booze (and a cherry) in there, the only way that happens is if it's shaken. More bartenders should realize this.

Should they? Read more about the topic here. We guarantee the discussion will leave you stirred -- if not shaken.


My Voice Nation Help
7 comments
Matthew
Matthew

If you are drinking a manhattan with a cherry in it, you are doing it very, very wrong.

davebarnes
davebarnes

Babies should be stirred in a large pot with plenty of vegetables.

monopod
monopod

The International Bartender's Association manual specifies a cherry garnish in a manhattan.  I personally don't usually ask for one unless the bar has good cherries (like Luxardos, not the neon red ones), but I don't think you can credibly argue that a "real" manhattan cannot have a cherry.

NotLaughing
NotLaughing

I was wondering if anyone would take the bait.

There is a connection between alcohol consumption by the perpetrator and babies injured by shaking.  An attempted light-hearted connection through a partly serious/partly not headline that implicates the consequences of a horrific action with having too many ice shards in your cocktail may make it seem alright for a joke or two.  But it's not.

It's a tough line to walk, and while I appreciate the fact that Westword respects its readership enough to think that most of it can make that distinction, the cynic in me (and a review of alot of Westword blog postings), makes me doubtful. 

A drunk with a screaming baby in the middle of the night is a very, very dark place to be.

monopod
monopod

At least we can all agree on that.

shakeshakeshake
shakeshakeshake

 lighten the fuck up!  Your attempt to correlate drunken baby shakers with this post is ridiculous.

Plenty of sober baby shakers out there as well.

NotLaughing
NotLaughing

So, mention of the very serious topic of baby shaking is ok in an alcohol blog about too many shards of ice in a cocktail, and I just need to "lighten the fuck up" because sober people shake babies too?

How about we just leave the reference out altogether so that it doesn't add to the already prevalent tendency to objectify an infant. 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...