The Webtender
Forum and Chat

 Message 36491 of 39187 in General Discussion
 Share on Facebook |  Save to del.icio.us  
Subject: Re: Cocktail History
From: apetail
Posted: Sat Oct 4. 2008, 12:47 UTC
Followup to: "Re: Cocktail History"  by Cheryl Charming  (Sat Oct 4. 2008, 03:57 UTC)
> but as far as world cocktail  historians have found the 
> mention of the word was first in American newspapers and we have to 
> go with that for now. 

By saying 'we have to go with that for now' or 'it is the only thing we have 
got' you are trying to make the argument legit. It is not. Finding the word 
first mentioned in America does not mean that it is an American invention. It 
is only a clue and not a proof. It is not conclusive and there are still open 
ends.

Peychaud was only an example. The word Sazerac in relation to a drink is first 
(I guess) mentioned in American writings but does that make it an American 
invention? Peychaud is an example for a possible non-American inventing the 
cocktail. It is also an example about what a real proof should be. The 
writings about Peychaud are much more conclusive. We can be reasonably certain 
that Peychaud created the Sazerac. Finding the word 'cocktail' mentioned is 
not conclusive and it doesn't proof anything. True, writings about Peychaud 
are dated later but possibly some other producer of bitters might be the 
inventor of the cocktail. It is not uncommon for a bitter to be invented by a 
non-American (Orange bitters, Peychaud bitters and Angostura bitters). This 
makes that the proof for the inventor of the 'cocktail' should be more 
comprehensive in order to negate these open ends.


 Current thread (21 messages):
 Message options:
 

Get everything you need for your bar from
The Webtender's BarStore.

Home · Drink Recipes · Bookstore · Barstore · Handbook · Web Index · Feedback

Copyright © The Webtender.
About | Disclaimer | Privacy policy