This was posted on another newsgroup today.
<<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>>>>

Shape Of Beverage Glass Influences How Much People Pour And Drink

Champaign, Ill. -- Your eyes play tricks. And your brain makes it
worse. Both teenagers and adults misjudge how much they pour into
glasses. They will pour more into short wide glasses than into tall
slender glasses, but perceive the opposite to be true. The delusion of
shape even influences experienced bartenders, though to a lesser
degree, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
has found. How shape can alter a person's notion of size has been
widely investigated. For instance, triangles are generally perceived
to be larger than squares, and horizontal shapes are seen as smaller
than vertical objects of identical volume. Yet research examining the
effects of shape on how people determine how much they consume is
limited, said Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and nutritional
science at Illinois. To understand the process better, Wansink
examined how shape influences teenagers, adults and bartenders who
pour beverages into empty glasses.
The results of his study will be published in the December issue of
the Journal of Consumer Research.
Wansink, director of the Food & Brand Lab at Illinois, conducted
three tests. In the first, he looked at how much juice 97 teenagers
poured for themselves during breakfast at a summer camp in New
Hampshire. The male and female campers, 12 to 17, with an average age
of 15, had come to the camp to learn about nutrition and lose weight.
They were taught about dieting and portion control in daily lectures
and demonstrations. Upon entering the cafeteria line for breakfast on
the ninth day, the campers were randomly given a tall and short glass
of identical capacity in which to pour their orange juice. The tall
glass was slightly less than twice the height of the small glass. The
teenagers poured 76.4 percent more orange juice in the short, wide
glasses than in the tall glasses (9.7 ounces versus 5.5 ounces).
Although the girls poured less juice in their glasses than the boys,
both groups equally overpoured in the short, wide glasses.
When questioned by Wansink's team, however, the teenagers believed
that they had poured less (7 ounces) into the short, wide glasses, and
more (7.5 ounces) in the tall, slender glasses. This mistaken
impression translated into drinking more juice when placed in the
short glass, with 97 percent of all campers finishing the juice they
had poured.
The psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) believed that young
children tended to be caught and fixed by the vertical dimension of a
visual field. Piaget thought that as they grew up humans developed
strategies to isolate and better compare vertical and horizontal
dimensions. But the tendency to overestimate the vertical dimension
persisted in a second experiment conducted by Wansink. He used the
same basic procedure of the teenager study to measure how much juice
was poured by 89 adults eating breakfast at a camp in western
Massachusetts. The group ranged from 16 to 82, with an average age of
37. The adults poured and consumed 19.2 percent more juice in the
short wide glass than in the tall slender glass (6.8 ounces versus 5.7
ounces). "These results were consistent with Piaget's notion that
older people are less likely to focus their attention merely on the
vertical dimension and are better able to account for the other
dimensions as well. Still age did not eliminate the elongation
effect," Wansink wrote. The adults, like the teenagers, mistakenly
perceived that they had poured less into the wide glasses than into
tall, slender glasses. Seventy-nine percent of the adults given the
wide, short glasses underestimated how much they poured, as compared
with 17 percent of those given tall glasses.
When informed of the overpouring, most of the adults expressed
surprise. "We heard remarks like 'You're kidding' and 'Can you weigh
it and show me?' which is consistent with the general lack of
awareness by participants of how much they actually poured," Wansink
said in an interview.
In a final study, Wansink examined how accurately bartenders could
estimate drink volumes. He asked 45 bartenders in Philadelphia to pour
1.5 ounces of liquor into drink glasses. Half the bartenders were
given slender highball glasses, and the others had short tumbler
glasses. Each glass held 12 ounces. The bartenders were asked to pour
rum for a rum and Coke, whiskey for a whiskey on the rocks and vodka
for a vodka tonic. On average, the bartenders poured 31.3 percent more
into the tumbler glass than into the highball glass (2.1 ounces versus
1.6 ounces). Less experienced bartenders tended to overpour more (2.2
ounces in tumblers versus 1.6 ounces in highball glasses), but even
bartenders with an average of nine years of experience poured 1.8
ounces in the short glass compared with 1.7 ounces in the tall glass.
There are various policy implications in these findings, according to
Wansink. The tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters
seeking to monitor and better control food and beverage consumption.
"Because people believe there is greater capacity in a tall, slender
glass, they will pour less into it, but thinking the opposite with a
short, wide glass, will keep pouring," the researcher said. Aside from
overconsumption of alcohol, inadvertent overpouring of medications and
over-the-counter drugs could pose a potential health risk.
Wansink's paper is titled "Bottoms Up! The Influence of Elongation
on Pouring and Consumption Volumes."

Bob Pastorio wrote:
> [snip] In a final study, Wansink examined how accurately bartenders
> could estimate drink volumes. He asked 45 bartenders in Philadelphia to
> pour 1.5 ounces of liquor into drink glasses. Half the bartenders were
> given slender highball glasses, and the others had short tumbler
> glasses. Each glass held 12 ounces. The bartenders were asked to pour
> rum for a rum and Coke, whiskey for a whiskey on the rocks and vodka for
> a vodka tonic. On average, the bartenders poured 31.3 percent more into
> the tumbler glass than into the highball glass (2.1 ounces versus 1.6
> ounces). Less experienced bartenders tended to overpour more (2.2 ounces
> in tumblers versus 1.6 ounces in highball glasses), but even bartenders
> with an average of nine years of experience poured 1.8 ounces in the
> short glass compared with 1.7 ounces in the tall glass. There are
> various policy implications in these findings, according to Wansink. The
> tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters seeking to
> monitor and better control food and beverage consumption. "Because
> people believe there is greater capacity in a tall, slender glass, they
> will pour less into it, but thinking the opposite with a short, wide
> glass, will keep pouring," [snip]
>


Very useful information. So, what drinks (besides an Old Fashioned) are
usually served in a short fat glass?

Thanks, regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Pastorio wrote:
> > [snip] In a final study, Wansink examined how accurately bartenders
> > could estimate drink volumes. He asked 45 bartenders in Philadelphia to
> > pour 1.5 ounces of liquor into drink glasses. Half the bartenders were
> > given slender highball glasses, and the others had short tumbler
> > glasses. Each glass held 12 ounces. The bartenders were asked to pour
> > rum for a rum and Coke, whiskey for a whiskey on the rocks and vodka for
> > a vodka tonic. On average, the bartenders poured 31.3 percent more into
> > the tumbler glass than into the highball glass (2.1 ounces versus 1.6
> > ounces). Less experienced bartenders tended to overpour more (2.2 ounces
> > in tumblers versus 1.6 ounces in highball glasses), but even bartenders
> > with an average of nine years of experience poured 1.8 ounces in the
> > short glass compared with 1.7 ounces in the tall glass. There are
> > various policy implications in these findings, according to Wansink. The
> > tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters seeking to
> > monitor and better control food and beverage consumption. "Because
> > people believe there is greater capacity in a tall, slender glass, they
> > will pour less into it, but thinking the opposite with a short, wide
> > glass, will keep pouring," [snip]
> >
>
>
> Very useful information. So, what drinks (besides an Old Fashioned) are
> usually served in a short fat glass?
>
> Thanks, regards,
> Bob

Any drink "rough" (on the rocks) such as a martini rough, a non-frozen
margarita ad infinitum.

Dimitri

Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Shape Of Beverage Glass Influences How Much People Pour And Drink


I was under the impression that bartenders counted "seconds" to measure
the amount of liquor poured into glasses...

~john!

ps - and then gradually poured you less and less as you became more and
more hammered...


--
What was it like to see - the face of your own stability - suddenly look
away...

In article >, zxcvbob
> wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
> > [snip] In a final study, Wansink examined how accurately bartenders
> > could estimate drink volumes. He asked 45 bartenders in Philadelphia to
> > pour 1.5 ounces of liquor into drink glasses. Half the bartenders were
> > given slender highball glasses, and the others had short tumbler
> > glasses. Each glass held 12 ounces. The bartenders were asked to pour
> > rum for a rum and Coke, whiskey for a whiskey on the rocks and vodka for
> > a vodka tonic. On average, the bartenders poured 31.3 percent more into
> > the tumbler glass than into the highball glass (2.1 ounces versus 1.6
> > ounces). Less experienced bartenders tended to overpour more (2.2 ounces
> > in tumblers versus 1.6 ounces in highball glasses), but even bartenders
> > with an average of nine years of experience poured 1.8 ounces in the
> > short glass compared with 1.7 ounces in the tall glass. There are
> > various policy implications in these findings, according to Wansink. The
> > tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters seeking to
> > monitor and better control food and beverage consumption. "Because
> > people believe there is greater capacity in a tall, slender glass, they
> > will pour less into it, but thinking the opposite with a short, wide
> > glass, will keep pouring," [snip]
> >
>
>
> Very useful information. So, what drinks (besides an Old Fashioned) are
> usually served in a short fat glass?
>
> Thanks, regards,
> Bob
>

A Manhattan! Explains a lot!
--
-Barb (www.jamlady.eboard.com updated 10-16-03; check the PickleHats tab, too.)

levelwave wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>> Shape Of Beverage Glass Influences How Much People Pour And Drink
>
> I was under the impression that bartenders counted "seconds" to measure
> the amount of liquor poured into glasses...

Some do, but few of them seem to understand the concept of viscosity.
So they pour cassis and vodka for the same counts. Counting seconds
doesn't work well at different fill levels of the bottles, either. A
full bottle pours "harder" than a mostly empty one (p=hd).

When all is said and done, in all the places I've ever run, not one
bartender (out of literally hundreds, including me) could pour an
ounce or an ounce and a half consistently. We used pourers that let a
specific amount through and stopped. We tested them all once a week to
make sure they were right. Washed every one every day.

The game that a lot of places play is to use a 3/4 ounce shot glass,
pour it full and let it appear to overflow so you think you're getting
extra. Right. All the way up to a whole ounce. We used to call that
"pushing the tips" when we saw it in other places.

There's a glass industry thing that lets a 12 ounce glass look like it
holds 16 ounces. Those mugs are called "12 from 16" mugs. That's why
sometimes your normal capacity just doesn't seem to be enough.

Same for shot glasses. Three of them side by side, one is 3/4, next is
1 and the third is 1 1/4 ounces. They're all the same height and
outside diameter. You have to look at how thick the base and walls are.

I used to test bartenders when I hired them. Set up 6 different
glasses and asked them to pour me 1 1/2 ounces in each. Some came
close. Nobody ever did it all.

> ~john!
>
> ps - and then gradually poured you less and less as you became more and
> more hammered...

Not in my places. Our drinks were standard pours. We were more likely
to cut somebody off than to try to play with the alcohol content. Not
nice to charge for what you don't give them.

Pastorio

Melba's Jammin' > writes:

>zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>> So, what drinks (besides an Old Fashioned) are
>> usually served in a short fat glass?
>
>A Manhattan! Explains a lot!

A manhattan is served in a stemmed glass (cocktail glass), usually one with a
slightly deeper bowl than a mar2ni glass.

http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/1641

http://eat.epicurious.com/drink/spir...irits/basicgla
ss.html


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

If the barkeep doesn't free pore I leave.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

In article >,
(PENMART01) wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' > writes:
>
> >zxcvbob wrote:
> >>
> >> So, what drinks (besides an Old Fashioned) are
> >> usually served in a short fat glass?
> >
> >A Manhattan! Explains a lot!
>
> A manhattan is served in a stemmed glass (cocktail glass), usually
> one with a slightly deeper bowl than a mar2ni glass.

> http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/1641
>
> http://eat.epicurious.com/drink/spir...irits/basicgla
> ss.html

Hmmmm, mine have always been in an Old Fashioned glass -- maybe because
I always drink them on the rocks.
--
-Barb (www.jamlady.eboard.com updated 10-16-03; check the PickleHats tab, too.)

"Bob Pastorio" > wrote in message

> The tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters
> seeking to monitor and better control food and beverage consumption.

Thanks Bob,
There was some good information here written by Wansink, but this is BS. The
main concern is not some lard ass at the bar getting 1/10 of an ounce more
in booze, it is a concern of giving away the profits.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Bob Pastorio" > wrote in message
>
>>The tricks of the eye and brain could play havoc with dieters
>>seeking to monitor and better control food and beverage consumption.
>
> Thanks Bob,
> There was some good information here written by Wansink, but this is BS. The
> main concern is not some lard ass at the bar getting 1/10 of an ounce more
> in booze, it is a concern of giving away the profits.

Um, Ed, see what the header is? Note the words "my bartenders" in it.
I owned bars and ran a lot of others. Of course it's about liquor
cost. But it's also about consistency. I want the drinks to taste the
same every time you order them. If it were just 1/10 of an ounce, I'd
let them free pour.

Pastorio

Mark wrote:

> If the barkeep doesn't free pore I leave.

Why is that? And how do you know he doesn't have a posi-pour pourer in
the bottle? Or one of the other measured pourers that look like
open-pourers? Those red plastic ones that you can't tell from one of
the old-style open-pourers?

So why do you leave?

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:
> This was posted on another newsgroup today.
> <<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Shape Of Beverage Glass Influences How Much People Pour And Drink
>
> Champaign, Ill. -- Your eyes play tricks. And your brain makes it
> worse. Both teenagers and adults misjudge how much they pour into
> glasses. They will pour more into short wide glasses than into tall
> slender glasses, but perceive the opposite to be true.
(snip)

Forget about child psychological studies. That has very little to do with
serving alcohol with measured pourers. Given a tall cold glass of milk
containing 8 oz. or a short one containing 6 oz. I'll take the 8 oz. over
the 6 oz. every time. Why? I like milk. It's my beverage of choice
outside of iced water.

Anyone who has ever been a bartender (as I have) knows it is not the size or
shape of the glass, whether it is neat or on the rocks. For a shot of
liquor; you count the pour. One one thousand. Stop. For a double shot,
one one thousand, two one thousand. Stop. Kinda like waiting for lightning
after you hear the thunder.

The only reason my employers in restaurants or bars ever thought to use
automatic shot pourers was to prevent a bartender from over-pouring for
preferred customers who would tip them better for extra liquor at the same
price as for less liquor (or their friends who hang out and mooch). Liquor
is expensive and bartenders handing out triple shots to friends for the
price of a single eats into the profits. Some of those shot pours actually
count the shots so the owner can sum up what has occurred during the night.
But! they can't tell who did it or for whom.

I suppose this study was paid for by some government funding. Gee, what a
surprise

Jill

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> If the barkeep doesn't free pore I leave.
>
>

Amen. To the professional drinker, measured pouring is the sign of a
cheapskate. Best to leave, because there won't be a buyback either.

Jack Piker

jmcquown wrote:

> The only reason my employers in restaurants or bars ever thought to use
> automatic shot pourers was to prevent a bartender from over-pouring for
> preferred customers who would tip them better for extra liquor

I was in a situation like that in two different restaurants, I was
such a regular that the bartenders would comp me a drink all the
time, and yup, I would tip more. I can't drag the violin out,
though, the restaurant sure made enough from me. I know the big
profits are in the booze, but the restaurants certainly were not
hurting on my glass of wine.

> is expensive and bartenders handing out triple shots to friends for the
> price of a single eats into the profits. Some of those shot pours actually
> count the shots so the owner can sum up what has occurred during the night.
> But! they can't tell who did it or for whom.

This is not the type of restaurant I would enjoy. I don't know, the
measurement thing has always seemed icky to me.

nancy

jmcquown wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>This was posted on another newsgroup today.
>><<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Shape Of Beverage Glass Influences How Much People Pour And Drink
>>
>> Champaign, Ill. -- Your eyes play tricks. And your brain makes it
>>worse. Both teenagers and adults misjudge how much they pour into
>>glasses. They will pour more into short wide glasses than into tall
>>slender glasses, but perceive the opposite to be true.
>
> (snip)
>
> Forget about child psychological studies. That has very little to do with
> serving alcohol with measured pourers. Given a tall cold glass of milk
> containing 8 oz. or a short one containing 6 oz. I'll take the 8 oz. over
> the 6 oz. every time. Why? I like milk. It's my beverage of choice
> outside of iced water.

Um, Jill this is supremely irrelevant to what was being noted in the
article. It wasn't about child studies. It was about estimation, not
how much milk you like to drink when you know how much is in the
glass. Perhaps read the whole thing.

> Anyone who has ever been a bartender (as I have) knows it is not the size or
> shape of the glass, whether it is neat or on the rocks. For a shot of
> liquor; you count the pour. One one thousand. Stop. For a double shot,
> one one thousand, two one thousand. Stop. Kinda like waiting for lightning
> after you hear the thunder.

Right. But the people who did the study measured the results of
bartenders just like yourself and demonstrated rather conclusively
that you are unreliable judges of quantity. They even put the numbers
in the piece. You might want to read them.

Jill, Southern Comfort pours slower than vodka because the viscosity
is greater. A full bottle will pour "harder" than a low one because of
the weight of liquid bearing on the mouth of the bottle. Counting
assumes that all spouts will pour the same way, that the liquids will
leave the spout at the same rate and that your count will be constant.
None of these will be the case.

Liqueurs (and anything with any amount of sugar in it) build up sugar
in pourers and gradually close the hole down. Dirty pourers pour
slower. How the bartender moves while pouring will change the size of
the pour (slowly bring the bottle up to a 45-degree angle versus
quickly bring it completely upside down).

In one resort operation I ran, we had more than 50 bartenders. Not
one, not one could pour a constant ounce into 6 glasses of different
shapes. Not one. These weren't rookies. In actual tests at the bar,
not one could consistently pour a fixed amount. Did the same thing in
every bar I owned or operated. Not one could consistently pour a fixed
amount. Some counted, some estimated, some flat out guessed. A few
clever ones poured out measured amounts as reference points and then
proceeded to pour differently anyway, sometimes more, sometimes less.

The place where the greatest failure occurred was in pouring into
shakers for frothy drinks. Collinses and the like. Different drink
recipes call for different amounts of the booze. Some mixed drinks
call for fractions of an ounce or multiples of an ounce. The test was
to pour a total of 5 ounces of different things into a shaker and pour
that into a glass. Almost everybody poured short. Customers would have
gotten less than they were paying for. Bartenders count on the froth
to cover the difference.

One very interesting test we did was to put the pourers from different
manufacturers on bottles and see how they each performed. We filled
the bottles with 750 ml of tap water, turned them up to full upside
down and timed them to full empty. There was a 13-second spread
between the slowest and the fastest. Plastic ones poured faster than
metal. The ones made in China (those bright red ones you see in so
many bars) were the most inconsistent. Different pourers from the same
box poured at different rates.

> The only reason my employers in restaurants or bars ever thought to use
> automatic shot pourers was to prevent a bartender from over-pouring for
> preferred customers who would tip them better for extra liquor at the same
> price as for less liquor (or their friends who hang out and mooch). Liquor
> is expensive and bartenders handing out triple shots to friends for the
> price of a single eats into the profits. Some of those shot pours actually
> count the shots so the owner can sum up what has occurred during the night.
> But! they can't tell who did it or for whom.

You need to get acquainted with the newer equipment and newer
foodservice economic theory available before making sweeping
statements like this.

When my operations were doing $10K to $15K a day in alcohol sales, a
fraction of an ounce in each glass meant a huge difference in total
usage. And a few friends weren't going to affect the numbers enough to
even notice. When there are people 6 or 8 deep around the bar with a
big room full of as well, and a dozen people pouring, the whole issue
of tips and friends become meaningless. We're talking many hundreds of
gallons of booze a week and tens of thousands of drinks. In some
neighborhood bar or small restaurant that pours a few hundred dollars
a day, that's one thing. But in operations like mine, it's a few
orders of magnitude different.

Since our food sales generated a grand total of 2% to 3% profit,
alcohol sales had to carry the operation. This isn't uncommon in
resort foodservice. We poured heavy (our single shot in a mixed drink
was 1 3/4 ounces) and monitored it stringently. We could still do
happy hour sales and we could still change the pour size with a few
pokes at a keyboard for special events and special occasions. We
absolutely couldn't give alcohol away by state law and they're very
fussy about that. Since we were doing so much business, there were
undercover state inspectors around very, very often. We played no
games with the ABC board. The only way we could do anything like that
is to actually buy a drink for the customer and the inspectors liked
to assume the worst and would hassle us about it. The rule back then
was that a *person* had to buy the drink; the house couldn't.

Measured pouring made sure the umbrella drinks always tasted the same.
Same for martinis and other drinks of the sort. All mixed and rocks
and neat drinks always looked and tasted the same. And made sure that
people would be able to gauge their capacities better. And made sure
that we could keep better tabs on the heavy drinkers and deal with any
issues before they became problems.

> I suppose this study was paid for by some government funding. Gee, what a
> surprise

Good cheap shot at the end, there, Jill. Sorry you didn't grasp the
real implications it held. I thought it was cool that the dateline was
from Champaign, Illinois. Not champagne, but close enough.

POP! fizzzzzzzz

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Since our food sales generated a grand total of 2% to 3% profit,
> alcohol sales had to carry the operation. This isn't uncommon in
> resort foodservice. We poured heavy (our single shot in a mixed drink
> was 1 3/4 ounces) and monitored it stringently. We could still do
> happy hour sales and we could still change the pour size with a few
> pokes at a keyboard for special events and special occasions. We
> absolutely couldn't give alcohol away by state law and they're very
> fussy about that. Since we were doing so much business, there were
> undercover state inspectors around very, very often. We played no
> games with the ABC board. The only way we could do anything like that
> is to actually buy a drink for the customer and the inspectors liked
> to assume the worst and would hassle us about it. The rule back then
> was that a *person* had to buy the drink; the house couldn't.


Don't many places have a "free ring" key on the register?

And what are the names of some of the dispenser systems? I've heard
the name "Burke"....

--
Best
Greg

Nancy Young wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > The only reason my employers in restaurants or bars ever thought to use
> > automatic shot pourers was to prevent a bartender from over-pouring for
> > preferred customers who would tip them better for extra liquor
>
> I was in a situation like that in two different restaurants, I was
> such a regular that the bartenders would comp me a drink all the
> time, and yup, I would tip more. I can't drag the violin out,
> though, the restaurant sure made enough from me. I know the big
> profits are in the booze, but the restaurants certainly were not
> hurting on my glass of wine.


Yep. My favorite bartender says she'd rather have five regulars than a bar
full of strangers. She makes much more money from us regulars.


> > is expensive and bartenders handing out triple shots to friends for the
> > price of a single eats into the profits. Some of those shot pours
actually
> > count the shots so the owner can sum up what has occurred during the
night.
> > But! they can't tell who did it or for whom.
>
> This is not the type of restaurant I would enjoy. I don't know, the
> measurement thing has always seemed icky to me.


Isn't the measured pour thing used as a way to tot up revenue, figure out
taxes, inventory control, etc.?

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>
>>Since our food sales generated a grand total of 2% to 3% profit,
>>alcohol sales had to carry the operation. This isn't uncommon in
>>resort foodservice. We poured heavy (our single shot in a mixed drink
>>was 1 3/4 ounces) and monitored it stringently. We could still do
>>happy hour sales and we could still change the pour size with a few
>>pokes at a keyboard for special events and special occasions. We
>>absolutely couldn't give alcohol away by state law and they're very
>>fussy about that. Since we were doing so much business, there were
>>undercover state inspectors around very, very often. We played no
>>games with the ABC board. The only way we could do anything like that
>>is to actually buy a drink for the customer and the inspectors liked
>>to assume the worst and would hassle us about it. The rule back then
>>was that a *person* had to buy the drink; the house couldn't.
>
> Don't many places have a "free ring" key on the register?

The incredible mishmash of liquor laws in the US make it a bizarre
exercise to consider a national perspective. Many states have state
laws with local override on them. Others mandate consistent laws for all.

Here in Virginia, local law takes precedent over county or state laws.
In the case of the resort operation I ran, the state law said that all
alcohol service had to stop at midnight. Local law said it could go
until 2am. No free booze, period. Nobody on duty ever to consume
alcohol. No employees to drink where they work.

A friend who had a bar in New York laughed when I told him these
regulations. He said, "I'd go broke if I had to follow them." Not only
could he pour a freebie for a customer, he could join in and have one
himself. And he said his staffers could also join in with his
approval. When I bought my first restaurant in 1976, there was one
mixed beverage license in the town I was in; Staunton, VA. And the
city council had approved granting the license just the year before.
Before that, beer and wine, period.

I won't say I never poured a freebie for a customer, but I will say
that I more often put out a plate of wings or a couple ribs or
something to nibble rather than a drink. Just less trouble for
everybody. I never was cited by the ABC board for any infractions, but
the reality is that there are so many regulations that demand a
judgement call, if they wanted to cite you for something, it was
likely a simple matter. I didn't want to mess with them. They had all
the power. I never ran into a corrupt inspector, but several were
teetotalers.

> And what are the names of some of the dispenser systems? I've heard
> the name "Burke"...

I think you mean Berg. <http://www.berg-controls.com/products.html>
They're one of the big guns and many high-volume operations use their
equipment.

We used liquor trees (by Shot Steward) for our parties. The bottles
are upside down in a rack that only demands the bartender to press
upward on the release to get a shot. It looks nice and works quickly.

Here's a glimpse into the "Mission Impossible" world of high tech bar
management. <http://www.alcoholcontrols.com/frpobeco.html>

Lots of high-volume operations have their liquor in drink guns like
the ones that dispense sodas. <http://www.easybar.net/>

Low tech measured pourers: <http://tinyurl.com/tbkm> and open-pour
toppers <http://tinyurl.com/tbkp> It's hard to tell when the measured
pourer is on the bottle.

The bar business is a very complex situation. The owner and all
employees have the contradictory tasks of promoting the sale of
alcohol and regulating its consumption. I enjoyed it while I did it,
but I'm glad I don't own bars any more.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:

> I think you mean Berg. <http://www.berg-controls.com/products.html>
> They're one of the big guns and many high-volume operations use their
> equipment.
>
> We used liquor trees (by Shot Steward) for our parties. The bottles
> are upside down in a rack that only demands the bartender to press
> upward on the release to get a shot. It looks nice and works quickly.
>
> Here's a glimpse into the "Mission Impossible" world of high tech bar
> management. <http://www.alcoholcontrols.com/frpobeco.html>
>
> Lots of high-volume operations have their liquor in drink guns like
> the ones that dispense sodas. <http://www.easybar.net/>
>
> Low tech measured pourers: <http://tinyurl.com/tbkm> and open-pour
> toppers <http://tinyurl.com/tbkp> It's hard to tell when the measured
> pourer is on the bottle.


Thanks for all the links - very informative :-)

--
Best
Greg