On Glassware

In the process of researching for a larger article on why the Old Fashioned, Martini and Crusta are all fairly identical drinks, I came across this idea that there are two primary (but on the side line) factors that affected the changing of drinking habits as the cocktail culture boomed in the 19th century. These are glassware and ice.
For this, I’d love some opinions on the glassware side of things…

My goal here is to simplify the concepts of mixed drinks in the context of learning theory rather than diving into super specifics on ratios, garnishes and minute differences in production so I’ll start with a little background.

I recently re-read my copy of Wondrich’s Imbibe and his description of the first 150 years of drinks being divided into what he calls the Archaic Age (pre 1830s), the Baroque age (1830s-1885) and the Classic Age (1885-early 1900) made me consider the important changes which essentially allowed the Gin Cocktail to expand beyond just Fancy Gin Cocktail and into the now hundreds of Martini variations (Racquet Club, Astoria, Mahoney, Marquerite, Third Degree, Fourth Degree, etc.) and more modern twists.

After finding an enormous volume of references for classic drinks for the Barchive project I realised this could be simplified (VERY simplified…) to this:

Archaic being pre formal cocktail era. This is the mostly hot or lukewarm drinks, pre-ice and pre-fancy glassware (Unless you were well posh)

Baroque being the introduction and widespread use of ice in mixed drinks.

Classic being the era of fancy (both glasses and garnishes)

And an added “Romantic” era (to stay in line with the art references) being the current 2010+ era. (The 1900s Dry Martini, Tiki Revolution and Juice Fests can be ignored for this discussion)

Again, some of the following (and the re-definitions above) will be obviously “wrong” if looking through the lense of specifics as an experienced professional, but this is part of the process of trying to formulate a possible framework for teaching future bartenders so I hope you’ll play along.

Based on Jerry Thomas’ descriptions of the Cocktail, Fancy Cocktail and Crusta, they are all basically defined as the same:

Fancy Cocktail being “same as the (spirit) cocktail, except that it is strained in a fancy wine-glass…” and the Crusta being "the same as a fancy cocktail, with a little lemon juice and a small lump of ice added…".
(He doesn’t specify the volume of lemon in his 1862 book, but in the posthumous 1887 edition it’s a single dash and Harry Johnson, in 1882, specified the same.
In Cooling Cups and Dainty Drinks from 1872 there’s no juice in the Crusta, just the garnish long twist and sugar rim).

What I’ve concluded here is that the Fancy Cocktail was a move towards stemmed glassware (As the public cocktail drinkers became more posh) and the Crusta is an early day example of presentation and garnish.
In similar style we have the Julep and Smash being size (and glassware) based variations of the same drink, the Collins and Fizz being a move from “chunky and big” to “stylish and small” or the Fix and Sour being garnish based variations (and later glassware when Fix died out).

From a new bartender’s perspective, it makes sense to consider these drinks more or less identical to better balance the taste.
Then once the Cocktail formula is understood, continue down the Crusta path to the sour style of Sidecar etc.

As for specific timelines I’ve got something like this:

Archaic:
Crystal glassware started off in very small quantities in late 17th century London but didn’t take off till around the 1780s France when Louis XV gave financial support to a factory in Baccarat. This wasn’t widely available unless you were posh so simple mugs, tumblers and goblets were the norm.

Baroque (Ish) - The early cocktails:
In 1862, Jerry Thomas used “Tumbler”, “Goblet”, “Fancy Wine-Glass” “Bar Glass” and “Large Silver-Plated Mugs” (for his Blue Blazer).
The book includes illustrations for:

  • “Large Bar Glass” (Illustrated use for individual Punches and Juleps) looking like a slightly taller (but still wide) tumbler
  • “Small Bar Glass” being specified for the Brandy Crusta but in the description it’s “fancy red-wine glass”. This is a Nick & Nora-esque stemware but I suspect “Small Bar Glass” may also reference a small tumbler?
  • “Small Wine-Glass” as used for the layered Pousse Cafe. Looks similar to the 2oz / 60ml Akvavit glasses common in Scandinavia today.

In the 1871 Barkeeper’s Ready Reference there’s an ad for Miller & Brother selling “A full assortment” which outlines:

  • Different Tumblers for Whiskey, Punch, Ale and Wine
  • Different Glasses for Pony, Wine, Sherry, Claret, Hock, Champange and Cocktail (I think this might actually be the first reference to a “Cocktail Glass” within a drinks book. The 1876 Bartenders Guide by Jerry Thomas is the first book I can find where it’s mentioned within a recipe as “Fancy Cocktail Glass”)
  • Tom and Jerry Mugs

Classic - The evolution of fancy:
Harry Johnson seems to be the front-runner, at least from a publication perspective, on this. His 1882 Bartender’s Manual included a long list of bar essentials including this list of glassware:

Champagne Goblets, Champagne Cocktail Glasses, Champagne Wine Glasses, John or Tom Collins Glasses, Julep or Cobbler Glasses. Claret Wine Glasses. Rhine Wine Glasses. Port Wine Glasses. Sherry Wine Glasses. Mineral Water Glasses, Absinthe Glasses, Cocktail and Sour Glasses, Hot Water Glasses. Whiskey Glasses, Pony Brandy Glasses, Cordial Glasses, Water Glasses. Hot Apple Toddy Glasses, Ale, Porter and Beer Glasses. Pony Glasses.

Although no illustrations were in this book, his 1900 version included illustrations for serving Cobblers, Juleps, Daisies, Sours, Martine and Flips. The “List of Glassware” in this book slightly extends the previous one as well.

The big changes here is that the Cobblers and Juleps were moved to fancy stemware but still served with crushed ice and a mountain of fruit on top while his Sherry Flip is served in what looks like a very elegant Coupette style glass.


The “Martine Cocktail” was in the slightly more square “Fizzio” style glassware:

This is also the first book I can find that specifically talks about this subject and puts attention towards the style of service and the venue beyond just the liquid:

As for the sizings, we know the original Julep/Smash or Collins/Fizz drinks were a question of glassware but specifics weren’t really mentioned.

In the 1904 Applegreen’s Bar Book, the illustrations specify the sizes as:

  • Brandy and Soda : 16oz
  • Collins or Milk Punch : 14oz
  • Strained Lemonade : 10oz
  • Hot Whisky (Stemmed) : 5 1/2oz
  • Whisky Sour (Stemmed) : 5 1/2oz
  • Saucer Champagne (Basically a coupe) : 5oz
  • Cocktail (Stemmed, semi v-shaped) : 4oz
  • Pony Glass (Stemmed) : 1oz
  • Pousse Cafe (looks like a baby flute) : 3/4oz

In the 1909 (3rd edition), the list of glassware is further expanded and now includes the “Tall Champagne” glass (That classic stereotype sling glass) and interestingly the “Cut Stem Cocktail” which resembles the classic v-shape Martini glass even more than the previous 4oz Cocktail glass.

As for the “Romantic” era of today, this is simply a much more evolved version of the same initial approach. As the hospitality industry keeps evolving, there’s a much higher focus on the guest experience and as such the presentation of a drink becomes paramount (Just like Johnson described it a hundred years ago!).
There’s 1000 different versions of Coupe, Martini and Nick & Nora glasses today and 1000 variations (and names…) for tumblers, rocks, old fashioned glasses etc.

If we ignore the glassware and garnish, then it simplifies the drinks for the next generation. Ultimately everything leads back to Punch and Cocktail being different ways to balance the sweetness that was originally added to spirits in slings, toddies and juleps.
Therefore I would argue that teaching drinks from a uni-serve perspective might be more beneficial and then separating out the art of presentation to a separate (but equally important) concept.

As a side note, Kevin Armstrong from Satan’s Whisker’s wrote an article recently for CLASS arguing that variation has disappeared! https://classbarmag.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1712/Why_do_cocktails_look_the_same_.html
This makes it easier to teach drinks as less cognitive overload for new comers but it also makes the experience much more clinical and boring.
I think a good middle ground would be ideal!

Are there any big writers out there on the evolution of serving vessels in hospitality? It’s a book I’d love to read!

1 Like

As a writer who has looked into the subject of the history and evolution of cocktail glassware several times, for several different books, I can say with some certainty that no such book exists. Sorry to say. I’ve spoken to other cocktail historians who have experienced the same frustration.

I’m curious about your opening line that the Martini, Old-Fashioned and Crusta are fairly identical drinks. How do you mean? Because I can’t see that at all.

3 Likes

I’m still a little unclear about your goals, but if you’re looking for a unifying spectrum for explaining cocktail history, I’d use time and volume rather than glassware dimensions. How much spirit and how much liquid are people looking to drink, at what rate? Drinking vessels are easily modified and produced to comply with these demands. We know the truism that punch gave way to cocktails as drinkers expected more efficiency and individuality in drinking. To extend this to the Armstrong article you linked, bars realized that 21st century drinkers were ready for more concentrated, “booze forward” spirit drinks, but disdained small, delicate glassware, through a combination of mores surrounding masculinity and expectations of large serves connoting value, so cue the jumbo clear ice cube.

2 Likes

@RobertSimonson
The goal here is to take a few steps back from the specifics and into the abstract world of cocktail “Families” as popularised by the Joy of Mixology or the Cocktail Codex. (Or David Embury’s Fine Art of Mixing Drinks!).

Of course the 3 drinks are very different, especially in bars today, but the underlying components are all strictly tied to the spirit, bitter, sweet template of the cocktail formula.

My motivation is based on how poorly this is often taught in bars. I remember the first introduction I had to the Old Fashioned was the fruit salad style (Funnily, I later read your book as preparation for a UKBG final on the Old Fashioned), the Martini was the “stir and discard vermouth” method and the first Crusta I ever learned was clearly a confusion with the Cobbler as it used crushed ice (and lots of citrus juice).
In this context, these are 3 wildly different drinks with zero relation to each other.

In the real world when you’re in front of guests it’s important to make each drink unique but in the context of education, it makes sense to abstract things a little bit.

The Old Fashioned (Whisky Cocktail) was spirit, sugar, bitters.
The Martini (Or Manhattan) is spirit, vermouth, bitters (Vermouth was itself very sweet originally and also included bittering agents thereby being able to replace both elements)
The Crusta was just a “fancy cocktail, with a little lemon juice”. (Basically an old fashioned in a fancy glass with a fancy garnish that obscures it’s simplicity).

I finished the other article yesterday and published it here. It might be explaining the argument better:

I’ve only recently started to write more so the formulations of ideas may still be less than ideal.

The style of glassware and type of ice just caught my eye as big factors in how drinks became “different” very quickly.

@EvanD on the topic of ice blocks, I found this fun Old Fashioned reference from an 1899 article specifying blocks with specifically 2 inch sides and also spheres!

1 Like