With my recent exploits in recreating Boker's bitters as well as working on other bitters recipes, I've been gathering as much information and feedback as possible regarding all things bitters.
Something which recently came up in conversation between myself and Gaz Regan (the bartender formerly known as Gary Regan) was how bitter a bitters should be. I have should in italic as I know there will not be an exact level of bitterness to measure it against but it's more to do with the fact that many bitters on the market nowadays are actually quite sweet with very little hints of bitterness, which arguably make them a flavouring and not a bitters.
Here's a quote from Gaz on this subject, "It made me think about the category, and I realized (though I’ve known this all along and just didn’t think about it) that most bitters are actually sweet..."
From what I've gathered, bitters should accentuate flavour, bridge gaps, round off the drink and also prolong the finish/complexities (which is where the bitter element plays its part). If there's no focus on the bitter element, then are they bitters?
In saying all that, bitters in their truest form were supposed to be medicinal and were created for that purpose so maybe the focus has shifted from what bitters were to what they now are.
So what do we expect from bitters? How bitter should they be?
Look forward to your thoughts...
Consultancy, training and events - www.evo-lution.org
Boker's Bitters and Dandelion & Burdock Bitters - www.bokersbitters.co.uk
To be clear, are we limiting the discussion to aromatic bitters (including stuff like orange bitters), as opposed to digestif bitters?
Good point. I'm talking about bitters that would fall under the non-potable description, for example; Angostura Aromatic/Orange, Peychaud's, Regan's Orange #6, The Bitter Truth Bitters, Fee Brothers Bitters, Bittermens Bitters, my Boker's Bitters, etc.
I'm interested to know what people expect from a bitters regarding the actual bitterness...
To my knowledge, and setting aside Underberg, there are only two aromatic bitters products on the market that aren't essentially new-fangled:
Both are quite bitter and neither is remotely sweet, although Peychaud's isn't quite as bitter as Angostura to my tongue.
Angostura Orange Bitters has a trace sweetness, but it's still considerably more bitter than sweet. I don't have any Abbott's to test. Working through my incomplete array of new-fangled bitters (Fee's, Bitter Truth), they're all bitter, and none have more than trace sweetness.
In short, I don't know what Gaz was talking about with regard to sweetness, unless it was digestif bitters.
As for the efficacy of the bitters in cocktails, I'm not convinced it all comes down to just bitterness, even if the bitterness is crucial. All my aromatic bitters are bitter, although the bitterness varies in character, probably due to varying botanicals and technique. For me, the Angostura (including the new orange bitters) and Peychaud's products are the gold standard, and whatever secret sauce makes them so timeless and effective I don't think we've quite figured out. I love that many folks are experimenting with making their own bitters and I enthusiastically encourage them to continue, but I'm not convinced by any of the results, so far. The new fangled bitters are interesting, but they remain curiosities for me.
Abbott's has a clovey sweetness to it. I personally find a hint of sweetness to Angostura Aromatic, a little more in their Orange, and Abbott's is even more than that. My own house bitters are even sweeter still.
I find the bitterness of bitters to be an important aspect in accentuating/taming the various flavors of a cocktail, but I also think the overall "complexity" is important, and part of that complexity can, but doesn't have to, come from some sweetness as well.
Robert Hess: Abbott's has a clovey sweetness to it. I personally find a hint of sweetness to Angostura Aromatic, a little more in their Orange, and Abbott's is even more than that. My own house bitters are even sweeter still.
When you say “a hint of sweetness”, you mean an evocation of sweetness, as one might detect in, say, a whisky, right? You're not saying these bitters are sweetened, right, or taste “sweet”? Or has my sense of taste gone completely to hell?
Robert Hess: I find the bitterness of bitters to be an important aspect in accentuating/taming the various flavors of a cocktail, but I also think the overall "complexity" is important, and part of that complexity can, but doesn't have to, come from some sweetness as well.
So what does “complexity” mean, anyway?
I conjecture that the successfulness of aromatic bitters depends greatly on the quality, blend and intensity of the oils and congeners, the elements that interact with (or rise above) the flavors of the other ingredients in the drink. Chemistry—which I know nothing about—is probably involved. [Sam?] For me, metaphorically speaking, a top notch bitters like Angostura is to lesser bitters as Cointreau is to a lackadaisical, generic triple sec. The former contains highly concentrated, robust flavors, and the other is thin and wan and cannot completely stand up for itself. My common frustration with new-fangled bitters is that most of what you smell and taste direct from the bottle vanishes without a trace when added to a cocktail, leaving behind only fragments and shards of the flavor profile (usually the primary bitter botanical component plus some cartoonish essentials). The result is somehow less than the sum of its parts. At least that's largely my experience so far.
Evo-lution: So what do we expect from bitters? How bitter should they be? Look forward to your thoughts...
When I make my bitters, I will separately make my infusions, which allows me to design the taste profile of the bitters to each's appropriate level. For instance, my grapefruit bitters are just medium bitter while the orange has more of the gentian/wormwood bitter infusion, not just because it seems to be a better bitters being more bitter, but because the orange can take/hold the bitters better then the more subtle grapefruit.
Then there's the question of whether or not you want to make your bitters spicy, clovey, etc. I tend to personally not like the more spicey bitteres, because if I want cloves/etc in my cocktail, I can make a specific bitters/liqueur/infusion for just that.
Liberty Bar :: Seattle, WA :: Alcohology
Martin Doudoroff:a top notch bitters like Angostura is to lesser bitters as Cointreau is to a lackadaisical, generic triple sec.
Without trying to slur the name or quality of Angostura, we have to remember that the reason for its success is not just its superior quality but that since the days of prohibition it has been the only bitter lucky enough to be classed as a food product. (Even today it is taxed less than other bitter products are).
I think there are many great bitters out there particularly "Bob's Bitters" and I even love using the potable versions like fernet or campari in dashes or splashes. I dont believe the bitterness is the key factor though rather the aromatics and these often do carry sweet aroma's.
DS
Why the long face?
I personally believe that bitterness does play a key role in increasing the lenght of the aftertaste. As a bitter taste often last for a long time it can synergistically increase the length of experience of other flavours e.g. volatiles (while they are already gone). Since bitter compounds vary a lot and can be experienced in many different ways many different bitter potions exist with differing effects.
Evo-lution: Something which recently came up in conversation between myself and Gaz Regan (the bartender formerly known as Gary Regan) was how bitter a bittersshould be. I have should in italic as I know there will not be an exact level of bitterness to measure it against but it's more to do with the fact that many bitters on the market nowadays are actually quite sweet with very little hints of bitterness, which arguably make them a flavouring and not a bitters. Here's a quote from Gaz on this subject, "It made me think about the category, and I realized (though I’ve known this all along and just didn’t think about it) that most bitters are actually sweet..."
Something which recently came up in conversation between myself and Gaz Regan (the bartender formerly known as Gary Regan) was how bitter a bittersshould be. I have should in italic as I know there will not be an exact level of bitterness to measure it against but it's more to do with the fact that many bitters on the market nowadays are actually quite sweet with very little hints of bitterness, which arguably make them a flavouring and not a bitters.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Gary on this one. No, most bitters are not sweet. Angostura is not fundamentally sweet. Peychaud's is not fundamentally sweet. We can talk about "sweet spices" like cinnamon, cloves, allspice, ginger, cardamom, anise and so on -- but these spices are not actually sweet. They are called sweet spices because they have a good affinity for sweet preparations and, at least to the Western palate, may evoke some perception of sweetness where there is none. Do many bitters have some presence of sugar? Sure. But that doesn't make them sweet.
Some bitters makers -- notably Fee Brothers -- has taken the position that "bitters" simply means "concentrated flavoring added in small amounts." I disagree with this position, and the Fee Brothers bitters that don't have much bitter component (e.g., the Rhubarb, Cherry) are their least successful whereas the ones that do have a good bitter component (Whiskey Barrel, Orange) are their most successful. That tells us something.
Bitterness levels may differ, but there should always be a bitter component. And the intensity of the flavoring should be strong. If there is one criticism I have of many of the newfangled bitters (I'm looking at you Bitter Truth) it is that they are lacking in sufficient intensity of flavor, and they are lacking in sufficiently intense bitterness.
The point of a bitters having strong bitterness and concentrated tastes and aromas is that something interesting happens when these flavor components are stretched out by massive dilution in a cocktail. I can compare this a bit to Audrey's "Dreamy Dorini Smoking Martini" where superconcentrated Islay malt is stretched out with vodka. I have likened the effect to dipping a brush into a pot of ink and running it across a white wall. Suddenly you notice that that ink you thought was black is actually a blue, with hints of red (etc.). Something similar happens to the flavor components of the Islay malt in Audrey's drink. With bitters, it's different still. In Audrey's drink, the scotch is still the game. With bitters, they are still typically going to be in the background -- subtle bass notes and top notes, a bit of rounding out and filling in the middle, a touch of bitter sharpness to make the drink sparkle. And, again, when the bitters are diluted so much in the cocktail, what seems like simple straightforward bitter at full strength, now becomes "quassia bitter" as opposed to "quinine bitter" and so on -- because it's stretched out enough to see subtle gradations that are obscured in full concentration. Concentration is important for another reason as well: so you don't have to add all that much.
We should also take care that we do not conflate cocktail bitters with potable bitters. They are not the same thing, they don't have the same origin, history or function, and there is not a smooth uninterrupted continuum of bitters stretching from Angostura to Aperol. This is one reason I tend to call potable bitters "amari" rather than "bitters" (also because Italy has the strongest tradition for this kind of drink).
Martin Doudoroff: So what does “complexity” mean, anyway?
I would say that "complexity" means having more than a one-note flavor. A simple orange bitters might just have a straightforward sweet orange flavor and nothing more. A complex orange bitters might start with a sweet orange flavor that also has a bitter orange backbone, that then evolves into hints of cardamom and clove, and finishes dry with quinine bitterness. Obviously things can get a lot more complex, because the "complex" bitters I have described is actually fairly simple.
Martin Doudoroff:I conjecture that the successfulness of aromatic bitters depends greatly on the quality, blend and intensity of the oils and congeners, the elements that interact with (or rise above) the flavors of the other ingredients in the drink. Chemistry—which I know nothing about—is probably involved. [Sam?]
I wouldn't say that there are any meaningful chemical reactions going on in the drink, although others may have better information on that. For sure the quality, blend and intensity of the oils is of paramount importance. It may also be that there simply aren't all that many flavorings that have the particular profile that cuts through other flavors on a consistent basis. It's important to remember that flavor is not a sense, but rather a perceptual phenomenon created by the interaction of taste, smell, texture, common chemical sense, temperature, etc. Interestingly, one major reason that humans probably have the most acute perception of flavor in eating is because we are unique in the extent to which we experience retronasal olfaction. This is when the aroma molecules travel backwards from your mouth into your nasal cavity where they activate scent receptors. Ever wonder why most animals wolf down their food rather than chewing and savoring it? This is why. They don't have much retronasal olfaction.
Congeners. . . Well, that depends on what you mean by congeners. In distilling, "congeners" usually refers to the so-called impurities (i.e., things that are not ethyl alcohol) created during fermentation and either selectively removed or kept in distillation. I'm fairly certain that the most iconic bitters makers use more or less pure ethyl alcohol with little distinctive flavor, and therefore little in the way of congeners. In chemistry, "congener" can mean one molecule or element that is similar to another molecule or element in a certain kind of way. It's kind of a chemical way of saying "cousins" I suppose.
Martin Doudoroff:. My common frustration with new-fangled bitters is that most of what you smell and taste direct from the bottle vanishes without a trace when added to a cocktail, leaving behind only fragments and shards of the flavor profile (usually the primary bitter botanical component plus some cartoonish essentials). The result is somehow less than the sum of its parts. At least that's largely my experience so far.
This is also my experience. The perfect example is the Bitter Truth Jerry Thomas bitters. They smell great coming out of the bottle, but even as many as 6 or 7 dashes into a whiskey cocktail and it's still hard to tell what you have in there, and many of the flavors that were interesting in the palm of my hand just disappear. If a bitters is subtle all by itself, it will almost surely not be entirely successful in a cocktail. Again, think of the most iconic bitters: Angostura and Peychaud's. Not only are these superconcentrated bitters a big punch in the mouth on their own, but they're not even particularly subtle in a cocktail. I've had a few Sazeracs in my day that were overwhelmed by 3 dashes of Peychaud's and 2 dashes of Angostura to the extent that the 100 proof rye whiskey was obscured by the bitters. How many dashes of Bitter Truth Aromatic Bitters or Bittermens Xocolatl Mole Bitters would it take to make that happen?
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey: Martin Doudoroff: So what does “complexity” mean, anyway? I would say that "complexity" means having more than a one-note flavor. A simple orange bitters might just have a straightforward sweet orange flavor and nothing more. A complex orange bitters might start with a sweet orange flavor that also has a bitter orange backbone, that then evolves into hints of cardamom and clove, and finishes dry with quinine bitterness. Obviously things can get a lot more complex, because the "complex" bitters I have described is actually fairly simple.
I would add that complexity is mulitiplicity of an order such that it is difficult or not possible to grasp or describe. It may be the same thing as you meant but your first sentence does not make this very clear.
Tinus: Samuel Lloyd Kinsey: Martin Doudoroff: So what does “complexity” mean, anyway? I would say that "complexity" means having more than a one-note flavor. A simple orange bitters might just have a straightforward sweet orange flavor and nothing more. A complex orange bitters might start with a sweet orange flavor that also has a bitter orange backbone, that then evolves into hints of cardamom and clove, and finishes dry with quinine bitterness. Obviously things can get a lot more complex, because the "complex" bitters I have described is actually fairly simple. I would add that complexity is mulitiplicity of an order such that it is difficult or not possible to grasp or describe. It may be the same thing as you meant but your first sentence does not make this very clear.
Tinus, I'm afraid that doesn't make much sense to me. "Multiplicity" means, more or less, "having the quality of being multiple" (I assume you are not evoking Riemann). I assume you meant to say "having many parts or constituents"? If so, I would not agree that having a large number of unparsable constituents equates to complexity. The iconic bitters still tend to have clearly identifiable top notes (e.g., Angostura's cinnamon and clove, Peychaud's anise, etc.). Are the newfangled bitters "more complex" than Angostura? I hardly think so. Much like cocktails, I think that when there are too many constituents it can often lead to less complexity, and certainly less appeal compared to simpler formulations.
Martin Doudoroff:When you say “a hint of sweetness”, you mean an evocation of sweetness, as one might detect in, say, a whisky, right? You're not saying these bitters are sweetened, right, or taste “sweet”? Or has my sense of taste gone completely to hell?
Well, I mean that it has a hint of sweetness :->... I'll be the first to admit that my tastes might not be as fine-tuned as some however, so I typically don't trouble myself with trying to pick out specific flavor nuances. Angostura "could" have some sweet component added to it, or it could just be the general flavor elements combining to evoke those receptors.
Robert Hess: Martin Doudoroff:When you say “a hint of sweetness”, you mean an evocation of sweetness, as one might detect in, say, a whisky, right? You're not saying these bitters are sweetened, right, or taste “sweet”? Or has my sense of taste gone completely to hell? Well, I mean that it has a hint of sweetness :->... I'll be the first to admit that my tastes might not be as fine-tuned as some however, so I typically don't trouble myself with trying to pick out specific flavor nuances. Angostura "could" have some sweet component added to it, or it could just be the general flavor elements combining to evoke those receptors.
Hmmm. Sweetness is sweetness. There is no "flavor elements combining to evoke those receptors." That's not how the sense of taste works. Again, this is not the same as flavor. Taste is a sense -- a neurological phenomenon. Flavor is a perception that is created in the mind from the combination of many senses -- a psychological phenomenon. Possibly some of the elements of Angostura or other bitters could have the effect of increasing the perception of sweetness. Plenty of things can effect the perception of other things. For example, acid decreases the perception of sweetness, and sugar decreases the perception of sourness. Cold temperatures decrease the perception of sweetness, and warm temperatures decrease the perception of salt. And so on.
There are plenty of things in bitters that could potentially increase the perception of sweetness in a cocktail for some people. But that doesn't make them fundamentally sweet -- even if they have some amount of sugar in them. Bitters are just that: fundamentally bitter. If you increase the level of sweetness to the point where the bitters become fundamentally "bittersweet" -- well, now you've got yourself some "potable bitters" and you're off in another category.
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey:Hmmm. Sweetness is sweetness....There is no "flavor elements combining to evoke those receptors."...Taste is a sense -- a neurological phenomenon.
Taste is more, complex, than that. Like with vision the image is indeed the perception but also the simple stimulus can be tricked. For instance due to the effect of fatigue, which act directly to change the way the receptors are evoked, a person who has been looking for a long time to some colour will experience other colours differetly.
There are examples of flavor elements which have allosteric effects or inhibatory effects. While the first type may probably not be present in bitters the latter may very well be present as a bitter taste can be decreased by another bitter taste if the added bitter taste has a higher affinity to attach to the receptor cells but induces a less strong stimuli. In that case the addition of a bitter can reduce the bitter taste and increase the perception of sweet flavour.
It is strange that you say sweetness is sweetness, a taste, while you also say that acid can decrease the perception of sweetness, a flavour. Maybe the bitter tincture components do not directly evoke the sweet taste receptors, like Drinkboy posed, but they might have other effects which alter the perception of sweetness as in sweet taste. (I would like to include Riemannian geometry here. As a straight line sweet taste is never to be observed in isolation from other matter we must speak of tastes in relation with their inertial frame other stimulated nerves and a taste is not the same as a simple neurological phenomenon as in an invokes receptor. There is a multiplicity of phenomena involved in the perception of a single taste.)
I personally have troubles with calling bitters fundamentally bitter. If it was just for the bitterness people would also use the white pith instead of the orange zest for making orange twists and people would muddle mint leaves into a paste when making Mojito's. I like the term noble bitterness.