Dispatches from the Great Vodka War

By Serge Schmemann

PARIS: There's been a lot said lately about how the European Union has
staved off war on its continent.

Really? How about the great Banana War, in which the combined forces of
the New and Third Worlds were routed, and the European Commission boldly
proclaimed that nothing with "abnormal curvature" could be called
banana? (Britons who persist in claiming that the EU mandated straight
bananas are just trying to malign the EU.)

And what about the Vodka War, which is raging all around us even now as
the intrepid Union wrestles with the essence of these spirits?

Unlike the Banana War, this one is strictly civil war. In dispute is the
definition of a liquor that generates around $12 billion in annual
sales. The EU would define vodka simply as diluted ethyl alcohol, which
is, of course, what it is.

That suits EU members like Britain, Holland, France and Austria, which
wring "vodka" from anything from grape mush to sugarcane.

The quotes are important here, because countries of the Vodka Belt
around the Baltic Sea, who've been distilling the stuff for centuries
and who produce two-thirds of all EU vodka, insist that their
traditional use of grains and potatoes to make vodka should be enshrined
in the EU definition. All else, they insist, is mere regional swill, and
should be labeled as such.

A decision is said to be imminent. For that reason, I would like to add
my two cents. My qualifications are impeccable: I am of Russian descent.

Yes, I know, the Poles claim they invented vodka, and the Finns used to
claim in a memorable ad that "real Russian vodka comes from Finland,"
but let's face it, it is the Russians who are most closely identified
with vodka, if only by virtue of the heroic amounts they've consumed and
the suffering they've endured.

Besides, vodka is a Russian word, a diminutive of "water" (before you
adopt an ironic smile, be aware that "whisky" comes from the Gaelic for
"water of life"). The Poles may put "vodka" on their bottles, but among
themselves they call it "gorzalka" ("horilka" in Ukrainian) from the
root "to burn," which tells you something about their stuff.

My issue, however, is not with who gets to use what name for what in
Europe. The Eurocrats in Brussels are paid princely salaries to decide
whether feta has to come from Greece (yes) or how curved cucumbers can
be (Class I cukes are allowed a bend of 10 millimeters per 10
centimeters of length, ref. Commission Regulation No. 1677/88). My beef
is with the whole brouhaha over a liquor whose greatest, and only,
virtue is that it is colorless and tasteless.

The proliferation of premium vodkas, in ever fancier bottles and at ever
higher prices, is understandable, given the decadence of the Western
world. The endless debates about which vodka "tastes" better is less so.

Untold numbers of veteran vodka users from across the Eurasian expanse,
around the Vodka Belt and up the Eastern Seaboard with whom I've raised
an ice-cold shot are unanimous that all vodkas are divided into two, and
only two categories: pure and impure.

The way you can tell is this: good vodka has no taste, bad vodka tastes
like rubbing alcohol (if it tastes like brake fluid, it probably is and
you will die).

The 80-proof stuff, the standard set by Tsar Alexander III in 1894, is
just right for extended abuse. The 100 proof vodka, which is 50 percent
alcohol, burns the mouth and works too fast, but it can be fine-tuned by
simply adding water.

All vodka-drinking peoples have scores of recipes for flavoring vodka,
from the buffalo grass popular in Poland (zubrowka) to the pepper-honey
Ukrainian vodka that I particularly like.

It goes without saying that vodka can only be drunk neat, just out of
the freezer, followed by a tablespoon of caviar on a toast. If you're
out of caviar, use a slightly bent pickle. As for the name, well, vodka
is vodka is vodka.

Victor wrote on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:47:39 +0200:

VS> By Serge Schmemann

VS> PARIS: There's been a lot said lately about how the
European
VS> Union has staved off war on its continent.

VS> The 80-proof stuff, the standard set by Tsar Alexander III
VS> in 1894, is just right for extended abuse. The 100 proof
VS> vodka, which is 50 percent alcohol, burns the mouth and
VS> works too fast, but it can be fine-tuned by simply adding
VS> water.

VS> All vodka-drinking peoples have scores of recipes for
VS> flavoring vodka, from the buffalo grass popular in Poland
VS> (zubrowka) to the pepper-honey Ukrainian vodka that I
VS> particularly like.

A while ago, Consumer Reports assembled a tasting panel of vodka
experts. Unfortunately for the expertise, they slipped in a
ringer: pharmaceutical alcohol diluted to vodka strength and
that came first! I happen to like pepper vodka that I keep in
the freezer and I have found that expensive commercial products
don't taste any better than the cheapest vodka I can find ($6 a
bottle) with guadillo chillies steeped in it for 10 minutes.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

James Silverton wrote:

> A while ago, Consumer Reports assembled a tasting panel of vodka
> experts. Unfortunately for the expertise, they slipped in a
> ringer: pharmaceutical alcohol diluted to vodka strength and
> that came first! I happen to like pepper vodka that I keep in
> the freezer and I have found that expensive commercial products
> don't taste any better than the cheapest vodka I can find ($6 a
> bottle) with guadillo chillies steeped in it for 10 minutes.


Coupla years ago ago the _New York Times_ had a panel do a blind taste -
testing of different vodkas, including the most trendy and expensive. Plain
'ole Smirnoff (which was the lowest - price wodka on their list) came in
first...

For myself the very cheapest will do, I mix it with OJ or diet sodas
anyways, no use spending any more dough. For guests I'll have at least
Smirnoff on hand, maybe better...when I go out I drink vodka rocks so I want
a decent brand, Svedka is okay and I like the Effen brand flavoured
varietes...

When people come over for dinner they'll gift me with all kinds of snazzy
bottles of vodka, I gladly accept but I'll always say, "Please don't spend a
lot for fancy packaging or trendy names", etc...

I see all these people ordering fancy drinks out with top - shelf vodka,
these drinks are crappy sickeningly sweet concoctions so you can use the
cheapest liquors. Of course the demographic that orders most of these are
younger women, they are generally not too bright in any case. Gives the
bars a nice profit margin, though :-)

The local Midwest chain Jewel - Osco chain carries cheapo generic booze
simply labeled "Vodka", "Gin", etc. No pretense, reminds me of packaging I
saw in the old Soviet Bloc countries...

--
Best
Greg

"James Silverton" in :
> . . .
> A while ago, Consumer Reports assembled a tasting panel of vodka experts.
> Unfortunately for the expertise, they slipped in a ringer: pharmaceutical
> alcohol diluted to vodka strength and that came first!

[Gregory Morrow added more evidence along the same lines.]

Unfortunate for "expertise" maybe, but furtunate for truth. Bravo for these
blind tastings. Such results are why it's not unusual to slip "ringers"
into blind wine tastings (I participate in many of these, regularly, for
many years, and they are powerfully revealing). I've seen upstart wines
from unexpected places triumph over prestige labels. Some of the most
famous such events (the 1976 "Spurrier" international wine tasting and the
larger and even more decisive 1979 international tasting in Europe) helped
establish upstart California wines internationally, for instance. Other
such events regularly call high prices and overblown reputations into
question. For the consumer, they are the sword to the Gordian Knot.

(The consumer preoccupied by brand loyalty, label cachet, etc. had best
avoid them.)