"Online communities are bars and we should admit that and start building the diverse, engaging, and safe gathering places we deserve."
https://t.co/s2zmJXwk1z
BREAKING: Today, 300+ authors are speaking up for the digital rights of libraries and asking for an end to corporate attacks against libraries.
We hope authors will continue to reclaim their power & ✍🏻 at
https://t.co/hYwQjfNnMW
I'm an indie author/publisher, but if I was with any of those publishers I would NOT be suing the Internet Archive either.
Libraries are a positive good for authors.
My books sales are higher the more libraries my books are in—and that includes Controlled Digital Lending.
And pre-Prohibition many books mixed the no, low, regular, and high strength drinks together—which suggests the customers and perhaps their drinking during a single visit were similarly integrated.
@ideasimprove @MetaGrrrl @juliabainbridge @momose_julia ❤️
And always worth noting that the new No & Low movement has deep roots, so deep as to be foundational. By my calculations done some years back, Jerry Thomas’ 1862 book is 32% no & low, Terrington’s 1869 is 44%, Boothby 1891 40%. Even Ensslin & Bullock in 1917 are 23% & 29%.
@speakeasyradio @ideasimprove The Art of the Shim: Low-Alcohol Cocktails to Keep You Level is still available as an ebook and you can most easily support me by buying it from these links (Kindle) https://t.co/o75Se4ZMcV or (EPUB) https://t.co/eowHoP75c9
Chuffed at the kind mentions of The Art of the Shim in this episode of @SpeakeasyRadio podcast https://t.co/qzjPGx84mc with @ideasimprove (whose new book has arrived from our local bookstore!)
For more on my research supporting proof-integrated menus, see https://t.co/tjXx9PMjKj
From the department of incomplete Bibulous research, here is data from Dinah’s rough analysis of 17 early cocktail books dated 1862 through 1917.
tl;dr: they drank at all proofs, from mocktails to overproof all the way through.
@bonvivants_sf Excited that their menu gets back to the roots of cocktail bars by representing on an equal footing the full range of drink proofs. Cheers for everyone!
Truly delighted to hear about the @bonvivants_sf’s new venture ChezChez coming to the old Bon Voyage space with the great Jennifer Colliau as beverage director. https://t.co/2YsIoVKOkG
I found an old note in reference to this research: "Recalculate Boothby at 1.5oz jigger, and pony = ‘small bar glass’.
I don’t think got to that.
Not sure what it means anymore, alas, but noting it here for anyone else attempting a similar set of calculations.
High strength (4+ oz of 40%+ ABV ingredients) ranged from 0-5% of the recipes (except 1869 Terrington, where it was 31%!), but 13 of the 17 had 0-2% of the recipes high-proof.
(Is it possible that Terrington’s recipes were heavily weighted toward cups intended to be shared?)
… 1904 Stuart, 1908-1914 Boothby, 1917 Bullock (for which I assumed a 1.5 oz jigger), 1917 Ensslin.
Some notes on measurements are available with the books’ entries in our Bibulous Bibliography https://t.co/aTknI64faz
Regular strength (1.25oz through 4oz of 40%+ ABV ingredients) cocktails make up 18-69% of the recipes in these books. (1869 Terrington is the outlier, the next lowest % was 1908/1914 Boothby at 43%).
8 of the 17 books had 60-69% of their recipes regular strength.
From the department of incomplete Bibulous research, here is data from Dinah’s rough analysis of 17 early cocktail books dated 1862 through 1917.
tl;dr: they drank at all proofs, from mocktails to overproof all the way through.
So, let’s be clear; of these 17 cocktail books between 1862 and 1917, none of them had less than 29% of their recipes below regular strength.
Modern bars are woefully lacking the diversity of proof of beverages offered at early bars.