If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Confirming what we always knew, all US vodka is equally devoid of taste, with different brands being indistinguishable from others by taste   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 203
    More: Obvious, Advance Publications, blind taste test, Mintel  
•       •       •

8907 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2012 at 8:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-11 01:21:14 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7155769/77411680#c77411680" target="_blank">Snarfangel</a>:</b>

<i>Many American vodkas contribute little to the actual manufacturing - they merely purchase 95% ethyl alcohol from industrial giants like Archer Daniels Midland or Midwest Grain Processors, add water, and filter the product to varying degrees.

So is it possible to buy a gallon from ADM and cut out the middleman?</i>

There's always Everclear or Golden Grain. Where it's allowed anyway.
 
2012-06-11 01:45:45 PM
As a daily vodak drinker, I have this to say: Given a choice, I'll pick Russian Standard every time. But, Smirnoff is good, and lately, due to excessive pricing in my new neighborhood, I've found the cheapie McCormick's more than adequate. It's not really the vodak that matters, though, but what you mix it with. If you use this stuff, you may find your new favorite drink.

www.foodservicedirect.com

/Oh yeah
 
2012-06-11 01:59:18 PM

bigpeeler: Ikam: You can't go wrong with Sobieski vodka (made from rye). Tastes decent and is inexpensive. I've been enjoying it in mixed drinks for years.

Thank you. Sobieski is an amazing vodka.


Discovered this brand a year ago. As a pollock, I quite often enjoy vodka. This is one of the better ones out there, and the price is great.
 
2012-06-11 02:01:15 PM

fonebone77: I dont know why you would drink any alcohol for any reason other than to get drunk. I drink vodka pretty much exclusively and I drink it in whatever way minimizes whatever taste there is as much as possible. Some does seem to go down smoother with less taste than others. I dont find that price is the determining factor though.

How anyone can drink gin is beyond me though. It tastes like a pine tree.


First alcohol I ever got drunk on (14 yrs old) was Beef Eaters gin. I can not to this day even get a whiff of it without becoming nauseous.

/But I'm still okay with pretty much anything else
 
2012-06-11 02:04:00 PM

darcsun: Discovered this brand a year ago. As a pollock, I quite often enjoy vodka. This is one of the better ones out there, and the price is great.


A friend of mine who is Polish turned me on to it. I've been drinking it ever since, thankfully, where I live, I'm pretty sure there are more Polish people here than in Poland, so it is pretty easy to come by.

Na zdrowie!
 
2012-06-11 02:07:07 PM
Well even between "expensive" vodka's I taste a difference. Give me Goose and Belvedere and I'll pick out which is which every time. I also can taste differences in cheaper vodka's as well. To me, it seems, generally speaking, the cheaper vodka's have more of a rubbing alcohol taste, while the more premium vodka's tend to have less of a "flavor".
 
2012-06-11 02:14:18 PM

The One True TheDavid: Jument:

beta_plus: ///the more expensive = less burn and turpentine flavor

Read that to yourself and tell me again why drinking vodak straight makes any logical sense at all. You're paying more money for something that has less taste. WTF?

The difference is that the stuff that gives whiskey its flavor is also the stuff that's likely to produce hangovers. At least in theory: I can't afford to get shiat-faced on Booker's very often, but I can tell you that a Fighting Cock hangover is terrible. "Purer" vodka, with the cogeners distilled away and filtered out, is much less dangerous -- unless you let the drinkability lull you into something stupid. When you're just drinking for the effect you might as well drink vodka.

Speaking of which, New Amsterdam vodka comes in a spiffy rectangular bottle and boasts that it's "five times distilled" but it's only $12 a fifth at the Rite Aid across the street. At room temperature it has very little "yuckiness" and just enough burn to remind me it's not water. Smirnoff is only distilled three times and costs a buck or two more, so I think I've found my "premium" brand. Of generic grain vodka anyway: the rye and potato stuff is a little different, though maybe if it were distilled two or three more times and filtered through 50 feet of activated charcoal it too would be just bland.


That's an interesting point.

However, let me play Devil's Advocate and point out that if you choose your drink based on the quality of the hangover, maybe you're a farking alcoholic!
 
2012-06-11 02:15:37 PM
OK, if we are now in to posting our favourites. Just finished a bottle of this :

www.thewhiskyexchange.com

Generally like potato vodkas. This one was barley and went down well - cold with ice.
 
2012-06-11 02:28:38 PM
When a product becomes "commodified" it means that the product is essentially fungible--you can replace any brand with any other, any unit with another. This means that producers and sellers are forced to compete largely on price since there aren't any differences in quality or utility between products.

To avoid this terrible fate, producers and sellers attempt to create imperfect competition by generating factitious differences between their products in the mind of the consumer. They use "lifestyle", advertising, branding, packaging and other superficial marketing and advertising ploys to create the illusion that their product is superior, to identify consumers who are willing and able to pay more, and to create brand loyalty where simply buying the cheapest and the nearest to hand product would be the rational thing for the consumer to do.

Vodka is a perfect example as it has neither colour nor flavour unless you add these artificially. It is essentially pure alcohol from any source--grain, potatoes, etc. You can make it with almost anything fermentable and thus even production costs don't justify a higher price.

Other products which are commodified include soaps, shampoos, detergents, etc. The main distinction between an expensive shampoo you purchase in a tony hairdressers and the cheapest commercial brand that can be purchased in three quart jugs is the price. All shampoos clean your hair more or less equally well. The scents and names, bottles and other packaging and marketing create a difference in "quality" that has nothing to do with functionality or value-for-dollar. Au contraire, snob appeal multiplies the price of the same ingredients, so that even the non-functional ingredients don't really determine the price: you do but deciding you have to pay more than those slobs next door, the Jones or the Smiths.

Imperfect competition works to the benefit even of those sellers who don't compete this way as it fragments the market and identifies price-conscious consumers. The cut-price brands can then use other tricks to part the fools from their money, such as selling shampoo in bottles the size of beer barrels, by the dozen, or without the cost of advertising, thus creating even lower prices for those who have conned to the scam or who are too poor to know or care from snob appeal and luxury and imaginary dream worlds in the South Pacific.

In many industries, the product that goes into the luxury high-end packages and the product that goes into the low end packages may be essentially the same quality (because of federal regulations, or because it's cheaper to make one kind and that kind is the "good" stuff). Wine, for example is often poured into several different bottles from the same vat. This is done to ensure that the market is not flooded with win in good years. A vintner may have several different "brands" from their top vintage wines to their ordinary table wines, and may also have "special" issues for the big spenders.

If the crop is really good, the surplus wine is dumped--on the second best label or even the mass market. Since the price paid makes the wine all the more delicious and distinctive, there is little chance that consumers will catch on to this trick unless somebody tells them about it.

The same economics govern many store brands and off labels--surplus production gets dumped--but not into the garbage--they get dumped into the store brand or the off label. Thus, many times you get a product that is just as good as the big national brand, if a bit off-standard in some respects, since old stock and other problematic product may be dumped in the same way.

It is a good idea if you are a heavy drinker of fine wines to keep an eye on the vintage each year and buy some of the second best labels from first rate vintners. You may be getting a real bargain if you can actually tell the difference between a first rate wine in a second rate bottle and a second rate wine in a first rate bottle--many experts have difficulty with this, but fortunately prices and fancy branding impresses even experts, so they are seldom disappointed and often pleasantly surprised by wines from the great wine firms and the great vintners.

The same is true of knock-off clothing sometimes. You may be getting the same shirt minus the label for one tenth of the price because over-production is being sold off-label. The same slaves may have made your $250 Hugo Boss shirt and the $15 knock-off in the same factory in Indonesia or the Philappines or wherever.

Caveat emptor.

If you are a thrifty snob, you can cut the labels off of the real thing and sew them on the knock-offs, which need them more. Then you can honestly say that half of your shirts are brand x, while the other half have the brand x label and are indistinguishable from brand x except to the trained eye of a few textile manufacturers and super-snobs. If anybody catches you removing the labels, you can always play the anti-snob card and say you like the quality but hate the commercialization of a fine old brand that is now, alas, a bit déclassé. Your little pile of labels will fool no one who has heard of this trick--but most of them practice it.

Make sure you can sew really well or have a good seamstress who will be discrete enough to keep her eyes down to the sewing and her mouth shut. Use the right thread or something virtually indistinguishable.

Like half of the ostensible "rich" in this world, half of their luxury goods are fakes. But it is better to wear a fake and be solvent than to be in precarious debt and still wear a lot of fakes because you can't afford the real thing, even if begged, borrowed, or rented.

If caught wearing fake jewels (of really good quality only), you can claim the real ones are in a safe somewhere. Nobody can afford the insurance for really good jewels and it's a hassel having to lug guards around for your jewels. You need the space for guards to protect you. Don't wear cheap fakes except as open and honest costume jewelery. Cheap fakes do not substitute for real jewels. They substitute for the lack of real jewels. That's why it is OK to wear them to luncheon when you can't, by custom, wear your evening baubles.
 
2012-06-11 02:31:23 PM
Jument:


However, let me play Devil's Advocate and point out that if you choose your drink based on the quality of the hangover, maybe you're a farking alcoholic!


Really?

You think being tipsy by 2 PM might also indicate something?
 
2012-06-11 02:32:57 PM
Sobieski tastes like vodka made from something "unusual." New Amsterdam tastes like slightly burning water.
 
2012-06-11 02:40:31 PM
A friend of mine who really likes vodka once told me that he read an article in a magazine where they hired a taste tester to see if he could tell the difference between vodka samples. They put before him 9 different samples - a cheap vodka, that same cheap vodka ran through a charcoal filter 1-7 times, and Grey Goose. The tester successfully identified all samples correctly, noting that the filtered vodka 5-7x were pretty good, but was different than Grey Goose.

I don't know which magazine, and I don't even know if this is true. I don't care. I hate vodka.
 
2012-06-11 02:41:21 PM

cptjeff: Congrats, vodka drinkers. You're drinking something utterly generic, produced on an industrial scale, differentiated only by what's on the bottle.


Yeah well they don't make birthday cake flavored rum, so whattaya gonna do.
 
2012-06-11 02:43:04 PM
I drank a gallon and a half a week of Kamchatka, Fleishcmanns, Popov, Potters, anything you can get a half gallon for $10-$12, with a healthy smattering of Gray Goose, Skyy, Absolut etc, types thrown in along the way, straight up vodkaholic. Vodka took out significant kidney function by 24. I'm not a connoisseur, but Ive had all the commercial shiat, in spades, and Ill have to agree with the people who believe that the more expensive vodka gets more "tasteless" and the alcohol burn becomes slightly milder. The alcohol burn from my usual cheap vodka was pretty significant, and the "aftertaste-burn" on these vodkas was pretty foul, always cringe inducing, sticking on your pallet until you chase or brush your teeth. Good vodka can be drunk straight, with just the initial brief alcohol burn, with that mild alcoholy aftertaste. Nothing much lingering on the pallet.

Tasty beer is infinitely more useful though.

/No alcohol burn, you can drink more without adverse affects, and you're much less likely to blackout and act like an idiot
 
2012-06-11 02:45:49 PM
palate*

/ I work in a warehouse
 
2012-06-11 02:49:09 PM

Jument: The One True TheDavid: Jument:

beta_plus: ///the more expensive = less burn and turpentine flavor

Read that to yourself and tell me again why drinking vodak straight makes any logical sense at all. You're paying more money for something that has less taste. WTF?

The difference is that the stuff that gives whiskey its flavor is also the stuff that's likely to produce hangovers. At least in theory: I can't afford to get shiat-faced on Booker's very often, but I can tell you that a Fighting Cock hangover is terrible. "Purer" vodka, with the cogeners distilled away and filtered out, is much less dangerous -- unless you let the drinkability lull you into something stupid. When you're just drinking for the effect you might as well drink vodka.

Speaking of which, New Amsterdam vodka comes in a spiffy rectangular bottle and boasts that it's "five times distilled" but it's only $12 a fifth at the Rite Aid across the street. At room temperature it has very little "yuckiness" and just enough burn to remind me it's not water. Smirnoff is only distilled three times and costs a buck or two more, so I think I've found my "premium" brand. Of generic grain vodka anyway: the rye and potato stuff is a little different, though maybe if it were distilled two or three more times and filtered through 50 feet of activated charcoal it too would be just bland.

That's an interesting point.

However, let me play Devil's Advocate and point out that if you choose your drink based on the quality of the hangover, maybe you're a farking alcoholic!


You say that like being alcoholic is a bad thing. This may not be the website for you.

/and yes, the main advantage of extremely pure vodak as opposed to other hard liquors is that the risk of hangover is significantly reduced
 
2012-06-11 03:01:39 PM
This is why I basically buy vodka for the interesting bottles, then refill them once I'm done with bulk from Costco. I'd rather look at a snazzy bottle than generic old Absolut or Skyy, it makes me feel ever so slightly better about drinking too much of it.

/Took over two years to break the woman of her Grey Goose habit. What's the point of posing when you live in freaking Fresno?
 
2012-06-11 03:04:16 PM
I agree with this sentiment as far as mainstream American liquor store vodkas go, at least from Smirnoff and up. I've drank plenty in my time and Popov is just bad. They must not do a very good job of filtering out the junk.
 
2012-06-11 03:04:31 PM

knightofargh: Considering it costs about the same as Popov and is better than most "top" shelf vodkas, I prefer:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293]

/hot
//Made in Poland, originates from Austria technically
///The Polish invented vodka, the Russians claimed credit and the Finns became immune while the others were busy puking



Even if Popov cost a dollar a gallon, it would still be overpriced.

/Had a bad experience with it when I was a freshman in college.
//Didn't get hammered on it, but we were doing shots and it gave me a horrible case of heart burn.
 
2012-06-11 03:06:25 PM

foxyshadis: This is why I basically buy vodka for the interesting bottles, then refill them once I'm done with bulk from Costco. I'd rather look at a snazzy bottle than generic old Absolut or Skyy, it makes me feel ever so slightly better about drinking too much of it.

/Took over two years to break the woman of her Grey Goose habit. What's the point of posing when you live in freaking Fresno?



Ha! My Dad once told me that his uber-cheap Ukrainian father used to take empty bourbon bottles and fill them with cheap Canadian whiskey, and then serve it to company.

Speaking of Costco, Grey Goose, and your woman.....

What does she think of the Kirkland Signature vodka?
 
2012-06-11 03:08:41 PM
Also:

Chopin is awesome, Grey Goose is for guidos who want to show off.
 
2012-06-11 03:14:03 PM

findthefish: Do yourself a favor...Tito's is excellent.


The thing about Tito's is that it's almost too smooth, like drinking warm water.

For me I only care about how I feel the next day, which is generally not good if I go with any of the cheaps other than Smirnoff.
 
2012-06-11 03:20:37 PM

The_Sponge: Even if Popov cost a dollar a gallon, it would still be overpriced.


I wasn't recommending Popov. It's just priced similarly to the much superior Monopolowa.

I cringe at the idea of drinking Popov, it's better suited to cleaning up oil based paints or possibly as a fuel.
 
2012-06-11 03:57:33 PM

brantgoose: When a product becomes "commodified" it means that the product is essentially fungible--you can replace any brand with any other, any unit with another. This means that producers and sellers are forced to compete largely on price since there aren't any differences in quality or utility between products.

To avoid this terrible fate, producers and sellers attempt to create imperfect competition by generating factitious differences between their products in the mind of the consumer. They use "lifestyle", advertising, branding, packaging and other superficial marketing and advertising ploys to create the illusion that their product is superior, to identify consumers who are willing and able to pay more, and to create brand loyalty where simply buying the cheapest and the nearest to hand product would be the rational thing for the consumer to do.

Vodka is a perfect example as it has neither colour nor flavour unless you add these artificially. It is essentially pure alcohol from any source--grain, potatoes, etc. You can make it with almost anything fermentable and thus even production costs don't justify a higher price.

Other products which are commodified include soaps, shampoos, detergents, etc. The main distinction between an expensive shampoo you purchase in a tony hairdressers and the cheapest commercial brand that can be purchased in three quart jugs is the price. All shampoos clean your hair more or less equally well. The scents and names, bottles and other packaging and marketing create a difference in "quality" that has nothing to do with functionality or value-for-dollar. Au contraire, snob appeal multiplies the price of the same ingredients, so that even the non-functional ingredients don't really determine the price: you do but deciding you have to pay more than those slobs next door, the Jones or the Smiths.

Imperfect competition works to the benefit even of those sellers who don't compete this way as it fragments the market and identifies price-conscious consumers. The cut-price brands can then use other tricks to part the fools from their money, such as selling shampoo in bottles the size of beer barrels, by the dozen, or without the cost of advertising, thus creating even lower prices for those who have conned to the scam or who are too poor to know or care from snob appeal and luxury and imaginary dream worlds in the South Pacific.

In many industries, the product that goes into the luxury high-end packages and the product that goes into the low end packages may be essentially the same quality (because of federal regulations, or because it's cheaper to make one kind and that kind is the "good" stuff). Wine, for example is often poured into several different bottles from the same vat. This is done to ensure that the market is not flooded with win in good years. A vintner may have several different "brands" from their top vintage wines to their ordinary table wines, and may also have "special" issues for the big spenders.

If the crop is really good, the surplus wine is dumped--on the second best label or even the mass market. Since the price paid makes the wine all the more delicious and distinctive, there is little chance that consumers will catch on to this trick unless somebody tells them about it.

The same economics govern many store brands and off labels--surplus production gets dumped--but not into the garbage--they get dumped into the store brand or the off label. Thus, many times you get a product that is just as good as the big national brand, if a bit off-standard in some respects, since old stock and other problematic product may be dumped in the same way.

It is a good idea if you are a heavy drinker of fine wines to keep an eye on the vintage each year and buy some of the second best labels from first rate vintners. You may be getting a real bargain if you can actually tell the difference between a first rate wine in a second rate bottle and a second rate wine in a first rate bottle--many experts have difficulty with this, but fortunately prices and fancy branding impresses even experts, so they are seldom disappointed and often pleasantly surprised by wines from the great wine firms and the great vintners.

The same is true of knock-off clothing sometimes. You may be getting the same shirt minus the label for one tenth of the price because over-production is being sold off-label. The same slaves may have made your $250 Hugo Boss shirt and the $15 knock-off in the same factory in Indonesia or the Philappines or wherever.

Caveat emptor.

If you are a thrifty snob, you can cut the labels off of the real thing and sew them on the knock-offs, which need them more. Then you can honestly say that half of your shirts are brand x, while the other half have the brand x label and are indistinguishable from brand x except to the trained eye of a few textile manufacturers and super-snobs. If anybody catches you removing the labels, you can always play the anti-snob card and say you like the quality but hate the commercialization of a fine old brand that is now, alas, a bit déclassé. Your little pile of labels will fool no one who has heard of this trick--but most of them practice it.

Make sure you can sew really well or have a good seamstress who will be discrete enough to keep her eyes down to the sewing and her mouth shut. Use the right thread or something virtually indistinguishable.

Like half of the ostensible "rich" in this world, half of their luxury goods are fakes. But it is better to wear a fake and be solvent than to be in precarious debt and still wear a lot of fakes because you can't afford the real thing, even if begged, borrowed, or rented.

If caught wearing fake jewels (of really good quality only), you can claim the real ones are in a safe somewhere. Nobody can afford the insurance for really good jewels and it's a hassel having to lug guards around for your jewels. You need the space for guards to protect you. Don't wear cheap fakes except as open and honest costume jewelery. Cheap fakes do not substitute for real jewels. They substitute for the lack of real jewels. That's why it is OK to wear them to luncheon when you can't, by custom, wear your evening baubles.




Ha-ha, you misspelled "discreet."

Seriously, what's with the Econ 101 windbaggery?

I realize the subject is snobbery, which has a huge overlap with hypocrisy, but what kind of insecure hole spends so much time "fixing" labels for themselves? Sure, prepping counterfeit merchandise for shallow saps, I can understand. But that?

And if anyone cares, my opinion on the ostensible thread subject echoes what some others have said: vodak is alcohol for people who don't like liquor, gin is superior, and ice is anathema to good bourbon.

/also "Philippines" and "hassle."
 
2012-06-11 04:01:28 PM

freewill: Clemkadidlefark: My fav

Nice. That goes on the shortlist, especially if I make it up to New England. Boyd & Blair is a Pennsylvania product.

I'm waiting for someone to finally realize that a London dry gin produced from a potato spirit base has the potential to produce the ideal martini.


Here Here
 
2012-06-11 04:07:44 PM

knightofargh: The_Sponge: Even if Popov cost a dollar a gallon, it would still be overpriced.

I wasn't recommending Popov. It's just priced similarly to the much superior Monopolowa.

I cringe at the idea of drinking Popov, it's better suited to cleaning up oil based paints or possibly as a fuel.



Oh no....I knew you weren't....it's just the fact that you mentioned it brought back a bad memory.
 
2012-06-11 04:13:37 PM
D_Evans45:

[...]

Tasty beer is infinitely more useful though.

/No alcohol burn, you can drink more without adverse affects, and you're much less likely to blackout and act like an idiot


I've never needed alcohol or any drug to act like an idiot, nor have I ever blacked out: indeed my memory for a lot of the stupid crap I did years ago is too damn good.

I read that to black out you drink a lot very fast on an empty stomach. I haven't tried it yet, something tells me I'd need a tolerant, loyal and trustworthy friend to keep me out of trouble (and for a weirdo like me those are scarce), but my hunch is I'd be more likely to puke all over everything and soil my trousers instead -- and remember every last wretched second of it.

Maybe one or more of my fellow Lexingtonian Farkers (including but not necessarily Drew Curtis) would like to sit with me and hold my hand while I test out my theory? I'll even buy my own damn vodka, and I'll sign a Youtube release beforehand while I'm sober. Just think, I'll be 0.000001% as famous as Wil Wheaton.


/*crickets*
 
2012-06-11 04:15:48 PM
whippedcreamvodka.net

I'm telling you, it's awesome.
 
2012-06-11 04:17:29 PM

The_Sponge: Oh no....I knew you weren't....it's just the fact that you mentioned it brought back a bad memory.


As it should. Many bad memories start with Popov.

Also many bad hockey performances by Russian players in the NHL.
 
2012-06-11 04:42:18 PM

9beers: [whippedcreamvodka.net image 400x266]

I'm telling you, it's awesome.


I loooooove making White Russians with this stuff in lieu of normal vodak.
 
2012-06-11 04:47:54 PM

9beers: [whippedcreamvodka.net image 400x266]

I'm telling you, it's awesome.


Dangerous....goes down like candy...sweet, sweet candy
 
2012-06-11 04:55:52 PM
2.bp.blogspot.comand any vodka.
 
2012-06-11 04:58:34 PM

TenJed_77: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x291]and any vodka.


Oh yeah. 12 year old gilrs love that shi-- -
who me?
over there?
Ok.
 
2012-06-11 05:02:25 PM

Phaeon: I loooooove making White Russians with this stuff in lieu of normal vodak.


Yep, that's what I was saying earlier in the thread.
 
2012-06-11 05:24:34 PM

beta_plus: Jument: The One True TheDavid: Jument:

beta_plus: ///the more expensive = less burn and turpentine flavor

Read that to yourself and tell me again why drinking vodak straight makes any logical sense at all. You're paying more money for something that has less taste. WTF?

The difference is that the stuff that gives whiskey its flavor is also the stuff that's likely to produce hangovers. At least in theory: I can't afford to get shiat-faced on Booker's very often, but I can tell you that a Fighting Cock hangover is terrible. "Purer" vodka, with the cogeners distilled away and filtered out, is much less dangerous -- unless you let the drinkability lull you into something stupid. When you're just drinking for the effect you might as well drink vodka.

Speaking of which, New Amsterdam vodka comes in a spiffy rectangular bottle and boasts that it's "five times distilled" but it's only $12 a fifth at the Rite Aid across the street. At room temperature it has very little "yuckiness" and just enough burn to remind me it's not water. Smirnoff is only distilled three times and costs a buck or two more, so I think I've found my "premium" brand. Of generic grain vodka anyway: the rye and potato stuff is a little different, though maybe if it were distilled two or three more times and filtered through 50 feet of activated charcoal it too would be just bland.

That's an interesting point.

However, let me play Devil's Advocate and point out that if you choose your drink based on the quality of the hangover, maybe you're a farking alcoholic!

You say that like being alcoholic is a bad thing. This may not be the website for you.

/and yes, the main advantage of extremely pure vodak as opposed to other hard liquors is that the risk of hangover is significantly reduced


Well that's a good point. This thread has actually taught me a valid reason for drinking expensive vodka. I still won't do it but "the more you know".

For the record: I drink 1-2 drinks a day pretty consistently plus social drinking (which honestly isn't very often). Beer, wine and scotch. Whatever I'm in the mood for mostly. I don't worry about hangovers because I rarely drink enough to really get drunk. And they ibuprophen will fix the worst hangover inside of 20 minutes. Plus copious amounts of water and juice.
 
2012-06-11 06:18:07 PM

The_Sponge: Speaking of Costco, Grey Goose, and your woman.....

What does she think of the Kirkland Signature vodka?


No idea, though we considered picking it up yesterday. It's fairly expensive, so I can't see the justification. She's moved on to adding a packet of stevia to drinks to make up for the slight loss in sweetness, and combined with cranberry any alcohol is completely lost. (I imagine you'd need a bit of grenadine to cover up turpentine like Popov, though.) I sip it straight but so cold you can't tell the difference anyway, and neither of us has the palate to discern things like hints of olive.

I might pick it up next time, just because it's the only one I haven't tried yet, but I've never noticed any difference in anything from medium-low to top shelf unless it actually comes from northeastern Europe. It's no surprise that all of the money in vodka comes from packaging and advertising.

The One True TheDavid: I read that to black out you drink a lot very fast on an empty stomach.


Nah, all you need to black out is head trauma. Fall into something or knock something into yourself, and you'll forget all of your stupidity.

/Woke up with a bright red L on my forehead after knocking over my speakers coming home. Only night I can't remember in my life.
 
2012-06-11 06:28:16 PM

Bruxellensis: A friend of mine who really likes vodka once told me that he read an article in a magazine where they hired a taste tester to see if he could tell the difference between vodka samples. They put before him 9 different samples - a cheap vodka, that same cheap vodka ran through a charcoal filter 1-7 times, and Grey Goose. The tester successfully identified all samples correctly, noting that the filtered vodka 5-7x were pretty good, but was different than Grey Goose.

I don't know which magazine, and I don't even know if this is true. I don't care. I hate vodka.


That's because Grey has a faint sweetener in it, or the water they use is just a bit sweeter. It was one of the first to do that, but now there are a lot of mid-shelf brands that use a bit of sweet to mild out the burn.
 
2012-06-11 07:23:52 PM

The One True TheDavid: Speaking of which, New Amsterdam vodka comes in a spiffy rectangular bottle and boasts that it's "five times distilled" but it's only $12 a fifth at the Rite Aid across the street. At room temperature it has very little "yuckiness" and just enough burn to remind me it's not water. Smirnoff is only distilled three times and costs a buck or two more, so I think I've found my "premium" brand. Of generic grain vodka anyway: the rye and potato stuff is a little different, though maybe if it were distilled two or three more times and filtered through 50 feet of activated charcoal it too would be just bland.


New Amsterdam is one of the more interesting brands to come along in a while - being cut rate yet very good. The gin and vodka are both more on the mellow side, good for easy drinking. I'm interested to find out what else they release - maybe a fortified sake?

That reminds me that I also want to try Van Gogh gin, supposedly one of the spiciest dry varieties.
 
2012-06-11 07:35:12 PM
Sippin' on some 3 olives now.

/said that with my W.C voice
 
2012-06-11 08:06:10 PM

WhippingBoy: Being a vodka snob is like being a white paint aficionado.


Pfft, I bet you think anything from Benjamin Moore is "fancy".

/ ;)
 
2012-06-11 08:35:56 PM
The best Vodka I have had was in Russia. My temporary house-mate (a local co-worker for a short time while I did some consulting back in the late 90's in St. Petersburg) had an "in" with some company who's label I still don't know. I think I did know it for a time, I think I could probably butcher the name of it well enough but I'm positive I can't spell it. It never came in a real bottle anyhow.

Basically he'd go down and visit one of his friends or relatives who worked at the distillation facility and for the equivalent of like three bucks (bring your own jug) you'd get a about a gallon or maybe a half in your own jug or bottle. I have no idea if the size of the bottle mattered, they always came back full and, now that I think about it, I don't ever recall cleaning said bottle.

Anyhow, it had almost no taste and very little burn until after you drank it. There might have been a hint of peasant sweat and potato, a slight taste of despair, but mostly it had that truly neutral taste. It was delightful in that I could drink it like, well, water... *sighs* It was an experience. The architecture was great, the vodak was wonderful, the food was edible - mostly, but the people were distant and, when closer, just plain strange. Also, they were drunk... A very emotional people once you got drunk with them a few times.
 
2012-06-11 08:45:27 PM
I like my vodka infused with new charred oak for several years...
 
2012-06-11 09:50:15 PM
Gin tastes like isopropyl alcohol mixed with celery juice. I like Ketel one on the rocks with a lemon twist occasionally.
 
2012-06-11 10:15:02 PM
If you've used the word "vodak" in this thread, you're an ignorant douchebag.
 
2012-06-11 10:24:43 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: If you've used the word "vodak" in this thread, you're an ignorant douchebag.


You sir,are an ignorant douchebag.
 
2012-06-11 10:49:52 PM
Hey Fark friends, I need your help. I bought a bottle of Tito's because of this thread, so now I hope this thread can give back. I have a friend who is competing for cheese monger of the year and she needs internet support so she can win A HUGE wheel of cheese. A quick click and a like/vote would help so much. Pass along the good word too....
Go here please! : http://www.cheesemongerinvitational.com/gourmet-library/
 
2012-06-11 11:11:20 PM

Argus Prescott: Hey Fark friends, I need your help. I bought a bottle of Tito's because of this thread, so now I hope this thread can give back. I have a friend who is competing for cheese monger of the year and she needs internet support so she can win A HUGE wheel of cheese. A quick click and a like/vote would help so much. Pass along the good word too....
Go here please! : http:

 
2012-06-11 11:27:01 PM

Theaetetus: ZER0T0THEC0RE: That doesn't mean all vodka's are exactly the same.

(food scientist who works in R&D for a large alcoholic beverages company)

Pff, right... If you were really a food scientist, you'd know it was spelled "vodak".


I cannot believe that thread is from 2006. I've wasted my life here.
 
2012-06-12 01:50:24 AM

W.C.fields forever: Your Average Witty Fark User: If you've used the word "vodak" in this thread, you're an ignorant douchebag.

You sir,are an ignorant douchebag.


No, I'm not a hipster douche. I'm also not retarded. Maybe you should've been hugged as a child.
 
2012-06-12 02:08:13 AM
Appears they are using an old Garden City Bottling image as their logo.

p2.la-img.com
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report