Aquavit Week returns in its second year with new aquavit, a new location, and a new aquavit barrel-aged beer from Breakside Brewing. A new website and a new logo too. Check out the site for all the details.
Here’s another of our new cocktails at The Hop and Vine, this one using a delicious drinking vinegar from Genki-Su, a new company based here in Portland:
1 1/2 oz bourbon
3/4 oz yuzu vinegar
1/2 oz lemon juice
1/2 oz simple syrup
2 dashes Angostura bitters
lemon peel, for garnish
Shake, strain into an ice-filled rocks glass, and garnish with a lemon twist.
The Genki-Su vinegars are very good and can be purchased online. I especially like their shiso flavor, which I’ve used in a very similar cocktail with rum.
[Photo by Julia Raymond.]
My bartending these days has migrated from the west side to the east side of the Willamette River, allowing me to trade in monochrome dress slacks for denim and plaid. But the approach to cocktails remains the same. In addition to picking up occasional shifts at the exceedingly cool Expatriate, I’ve taken over the menu at one of my favorite places and long-time collaborators, The Hop and Vine.
With their frequently changing tap list and expansive bottle shop, The Hop and Vine is a great place to work on beer cocktails. The Mai Ta-IPA and Averna Stout Flip are both featured on the new menu. Of course we’re doing more than just beer though. Here’s a look at one of our other new cocktails, the Red Right Hand:
1 1/2 oz Novo Fogo silver cachaca
3/4 oz Aperol
3/4 oz lime juice
3/4 oz honey-chamomile syrup
Shake and serve up. To make the syrup, simply mix equal volumes of honey and chamomile tea.
Bartenders will often tell you that the hardest part of creating a new cocktail is naming it. I came up with this recipe for a Bars on Fire event at The Coupe in Washington, DC. I’d been stuck on the name and forgot to send it in before deadline. I remembered while listening to “Red Right Hand” just as the gong hit; thanks to a red hue provided by Aperol, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds solved my naming problem.
[Photo by Julia Raymond.]
Over at The Umlaut, I have an essay up today about why mandatory GMO labeling is probably inevitable in the United States, and why that may not be a good thing:
I would be more sympathetic to the cause of GMO labeling if its advocates were not so intent on stigmatizing genetic engineering. Instead, whether for reasons of political expediency, profit, or simply poor judgment, they too often associate with any idea that could bolster their cause, regardless of its scientific merits. Thus we end up with labeling advocates on stage in front of a Whole Foods banner, sowing fear among foodies that exposure to genetically modified crops may cause autism in their children.
[Photo via CT Senate Democrats.]
Over at Blue Oregon, politico and former pub owner Jesse Cornett argues against liquor privatization, satisfied with the system the way it is:
Bar and tavern owners obtain their liquor almost the same way that anyone in Oregon does: they buy it from a liquor store. It comes with a small discount and can include delivery. When I called in my order, they would ask when I wanted it. Right away? Sure. See you in 30 minutes. At a certain time? Great, we’ll see you then. Run out of a particular product late in their hours? Just pop by. Call on your way and it’s sitting at the counter waiting for you. The system works exceptionally well for Oregon’s pub, bar and restaurant owners. Obtaining liquor was much more convenient than any other product.
Jesse is absolutely right about this. Oregon’s system makes buying liquor simple. To stock the bar I manage, I make one phone call, receive one delivery, and write one check. Easy! In contrast, our wine buyer deals with more than a dozen distributors, taking separate deliveries and writing individual checks for each of them. Pain in the ass!
So yes, the current system is convenient for bar managers. But that’s a terrible reason to keep it in place. It leaves unaddressed, for starters, the cost to the bars. Licensees in Oregon receive only a very small (about 5%) discount off retail. The set price means we don’t spend time bargaining or making deals, or what is known in less regulated states as “doing your damn job.” It also means we pay more for our liquor, making it harder to put quality spirits in our menu cocktails.
The situation is even worse when we want to bring in relatively esoteric spirits from other states. Oregon distilleries benefit from the fact that the state’s monopoly buyer, the OLCC, gives them de facto favorable treatment. The agency is very likely to “list” their products, meaning it will purchase them in bulk and sell them at a lower price. That’s good for local distillers, but not so good for out-of-state producers and the consumers who want to buy their spirits.
As an example, I requested aquavits made in the Midwest as special order items this year. To the OLCC’s credit, they both eventually arrived, but our system renders the prices exceedingly high. The Gamle Ode Dill Aquavit sells in Oregon for $42.45 a bottle. In its home state of Wisconsin, I see it selling for $29.99. The North Shore Aquavit from Illinois? $47.25 in Oregon, $27.99 at Binny’s in Chicago. Shipping costs account for a portion of the difference, but not nearly all of it.
Advantaging local distillers over out-of-state producers shouldn’t be the goal of our distribution laws. It may even be unconstitutional. I have no doubt that skilled local producers will continue to thrive in a private market, just as they do in the privatized beer and wine system. And if there are some producers who cannot survive without the government buying their product in bulk, then maybe they shouldn’t be in the business.
(As a point of contrast, Matt Yglesias notes at Slate today that Washington, DC’s unique openness to importing spirits is part of what has made the city’s bar scene so fantastic. Oregon would do well to follow its lead.)
If Jesse’s argument were correct, there would be no reason not to extend it to restaurants’ other inputs. If a state monopoly on liquor is so great, why not monopolies on beer and wine too? Or on meat and cheese and fish and bread and vegetables? It would be so much easier on the chefs! But no one would take these ideas seriously, because we’ve long since figured out that essentially free markets are the best way to distribute normal goods. Liquor is a mostly normal good – and to the extent that isn’t because of negative externalities, taxes are a far better way of addressing that than inefficient distribution is.
As I never tire of reminding people when it comes to questions of distribution, markets are for consumers. Not only consumers who want local products, but all consumers – even the ones who just want stuff that’s basic and cheap. They would very much like to pick up a bottle for a few dollars less than they pay now and not have to visit a special store to get it. This is why privatization is likely to happen eventually, regardless of how it affects bar managers and local distilleries. Consumers are tired of dealing with a distribution system designed for the 1930s.
And this is where Jesse has a good point: There are going to be winners and losers with privatization, and distributors and large retailers are going to exert their influence to ensure that they get an advantage. This is one reason that Washington state’s privatization measure bars entry to new, smaller stores. If Oregon privatizes via ballot initiative, as appears increasingly likely, then we may end up with similar problems.
The solution to this is acknowledge that getting privatization right is difficult, but doable, and to demand that the legislature write a bill that learns from Washington’s mistakes and puts consumers first. The alternative is to wait for ballot initiatives written by retailers, one of which will inevitably pass.
[Disclosures: In addition to working as a bartender, I consult for several spirits brands and beverage-related products. I have not worked for retailers or distributors.]
The first lesson I’ve learned about the world of publishing: Publishing a book is hard! As many of you know, for the last few years I’ve been collaborating with Ezra Johnson-Greenough and Yetta Vorobik on a series of beer cocktail events called “Brewing Up Cocktails.” I realized early on that there was potential to create a book based on our exploration of beer as a cocktail ingredient. People love beer and people love cocktails, so this seemed like an easy sell. I wrote up a long book proposal, which was a learning experience in itself, and began the long process of pitching publishers and agents.
Unfortunately, despite getting great feedback about the content of the proposal, it turned out that traditional publishers didn’t agree with my assessment of the book’s potential. They deemed beer cocktails too niche — surprising when I look at the number of niche cookbooks that do make it into print — and weren’t confident that it would find a market large enough for their needs.
Not long ago, my only likely options from there would have been to either drop the project, settle for a small publisher with lower production values, or self-publish. Thanks to Kickstarter, I’m trying a new way to go forward. I’ve teamed up with Ellee Thalheimer of Into Action Publications to try a different model that combines some of the best attributes of larger publishers — ease of distribution, lower printing costs, and quality production — with the nimbleness of a small imprint. If we meet our funding goal, we’ll produce a book that looks fantastic and get it into stores faster than a traditional publisher would.
Of course, there are trade-offs. Had a larger publisher picked up the book, I’d likely have received a small advance and, if it sells well, modest royalties. It would have been a low-risk, low-reward proposition. In contrast, our approach is high-risk, high-reward. I’ve put in a lot of work and expense upfront. Even if our Kickstarter is successful, I may be working on practically no advance, with no income coming from the project for a long time. And if the book doesn’t sell well, none of that will be recouped.
But, obviously, I believe in the book and in its appeal to beer and cocktails lovers, so I’m taking the chance. And if it succeeds, I’ll have a much greater stake in the project than most first time authors ever do.
If you’re a regular reader of this site and enjoy the drinks I post here, I hope you’ll give it a shot too. For $20 you can be among the first to get a copy of the book as soon as it’s off the presses, and we have other rewards built into the Kickstarter for higher levels of support. Smaller contributions are appreciated as well. You won’t be charged at all unless we reach the minimum amount we need to produce the book — enough to cover printing, graphic design, photography, and the other costs associated with bringing a real physical book into existence. Please check out our Kickstarter here.
I couldn’t be more excited about the creative team assembled for the book. I’ve already mentioned Ellee, who’s also the co-author of Hop in the Saddle: A Guide to Portland’s Craft Beer Scene, by Bike. We also have the extremely talented David L. Reamer as photographer and Melissa Delzio as graphic designer. With them on board, I can guarantee this book is going to look fantastic.
Finally, I’d like to offer a few words of thanks to those who have helped get us this far, regardless of what happens from here: Yetta and Ezra for kicking off our series of events; author Diane Morgan for invaluable advice on getting started; Natalia Toral, Dave Shenaut, and Raven and Rose for letting us shoot in their Rookery Bar; our video crew, including Ben Clemons, for doing an amazing job; and Todd Steele, owner of Metrovino, for indulging my beer cocktail experiments over the years, even when they are of questionable cost-effectiveness.
Press so far for Cocktails on Tap:
Allison Jones at Portland Monthly
Anna Brones at Foodie Underground
Erin DeJesus at Eater PDX
Marcy Franklin at The Daily Meal
Jeff Alworth at Beervana
This year Negroni Week, the celebration of the classic cocktail hosted every year by Portland restaurant Nostrana, spread out to include bars all over the country featuring variations of the drink. Metrovino took part, and unsurprisingly, I reached for aquavit. The cumin-forward, barrel-aged aquavit from North Shore works great in this cocktail:
1 oz North Shore aquavit
1 oz Campari
1 oz sweet vermouth
orange peel, for garnish
Stir with ice, strain into a chilled cocktail glass, and garnish with the orange twist.
Today’s Oregonian editorial urges Oregon to make like Washington and privatize liquor:
It’s possible, even probable, that Oregonians will vote on same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization in November 2014, leaving the state one measure short of a following-Washington’s-footsteps trifecta. That spot may — and should — be filled by an initiative privatizing liquor sales. It’s time to drag booze regulation out of the 1930s.
I’m with them on this, but they oversell the case a bit in using Washington as a model. This paragraph in particular seems disingenuous:
Despite the initial price shock, Washingtonians bought more booze than they did the year before. It’s simply far more convenient to buy liquor at Safeway or Costco, as Washingtonians now can, than to make a separate trip to a state liquor store. And consumer choices have increased thanks to the appearance of popular store brands, says Gilliam.
I think it’s fair to say that the appeal of these “popular store brands” lies more in price than in quality. And that’s fine. I’ve said before that we shouldn’t force mainstream consumers to pay higher prices so that booze nerds can buy esoteric spirits. But let’s not pretend there’s no potential trade-off here. The OLCC, to its credit, has become quite good at placing special orders compared to other control states. (Trust me, I used to live in Virginia.) It’s also acted as an incubator for Oregon distillers. This seems at least partly because the agency is not a pure maximizer of profits. Depending on how retail licenses are structured in a successful privatization plan, the state may end up with a less responsive supply side.
The benefit of watching Washington privatize liquor first is that we can learn from its mistakes. So here are two to keep in mind:
Keep taxes reasonable — Washington gave privatization a bad name by packaging it with extremely high taxes, the highest in the nation. As a result, consumers associate privatization with price hikes instead of the lower costs they anticipated.
Allow small retailers — Washington’s initiative generally limits new retail licenses to stores that are at least 10,000 square feet in area. This is a classic “bootleggers and Baptists” dynamic: Temperance-minded voters didn’t want proliferation of liquor licenses, and large grocers didn’t mind restricting competition. This makes it difficult to open boutique stores appealing to consumers that Costco may ignore.
Both of these concerns will be a factor in Oregon’s eventual privatization, which may be broadly popular but will be driven by particular interests. The state will want to retain its revenue. Retailers and distributors will want to shape the law to their benefit. To get this right, voters and legislators will need to keep in mind that privatization is a means to the end of competition, not an end in itself.
A new law in Oregon will allow the state’s distilleries to open additional tasting rooms and retail sales centers:
The bill allows distillers to offer tastings and sell their products at their distillery and five other locations. Current law allows distillers to perform tastings and sell their spirits one other location in addition to the distillery.
Distillers still must purchase their liquor from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the same way liquor store owners do now. And distillers must enter into a contract with the OLCC to sell bottles of their craft spirits.
The goal is to help the increasing number of craft distilleries continue to grow, though as it currently stands only two of them (McMenamin’s and Rogue) have enough locations to take advantage of the new opportunities. Spirits produced in Oregon now account for about 12% of the state’s liquor sales. That’s really impressive, and some of the spirits made in Oregon are fantastic. I hope this trend continues.
However this new law might not be the best way to help craft distillers. It may be nice in the short-run, but is it constitutional? I think that it’s vulnerable to legal challenge by out-of-state producers as a violation of the Commerce Clause, following the arguments that allowed wine producers to strike down discriminatory direct shipping laws in Granholm v. Heald. (I have no formal legal training, so take this as a layman’s reading. The case isn’t too complicated.)
Granholm explicitly addressed the balancing of the Twenty-first Amendment, which gives states broad authority to regulate alcohol, and the Commerce Clause, which generally forbids states from discriminating against out-of-state producers.
The Twenty-first Amendment reads in part:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
This has been interpreted to allow states great flexibility in deciding how to regulate alcohol, including the power of outright prohibition. The Court’s ruling in Granholm made clear, however, that these regulations must treat in-state and out-of-state producers evenly, not giving undue favor to the former. As Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion:
The mere fact of nonresidence should not foreclose a producer in one State from access to markets in other States. […] States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses.
The Twenty-first Amendment does not exempt states from this requirement:
The aim of the Twenty-first Amendment was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. The Amendment did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they had not enjoyed at any earlier time.
In Granholm, the question at issue was whether states could allow their own wineries to ship directly to consumers while denying the privilege to wineries from other states. The Court ruled that they cannot. States can choose whether to ban or to allow direct shipping of wine, but they must treat in- and out-of-state wineries consistently.
The case doesn’t address liquor directly, but it’s easy to extend to the logic. Oregon’s new law allows in-state distilleries to open up to five retail stores, a privilege denied completely to distilleries from anywhere else. The law’s supporters say explicitly that its purpose is to promote local businesses:
“It takes advantage of Oregon agricultural products, it promotes tourism and it promotes small business development,” said Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, D-Beaverton, who is one of the bill’s sponsors.
The law clearly discriminates in favor of Oregon distilleries. For this to be permissible under the Commerce Clause, the discrimination must be necessary to achieve some other legitimate purpose. In Granholm, the states argued unsuccessfully that their laws were necessary for the collection of taxes and to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors.
It’s difficult to imagine either of these arguments faring any better for Oregon. All of the spirits sold in Oregon, including those in the new tasting rooms, retail at a set price through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). The state has no sales tax. Collection of revenue, then, is not a concern.
As for sales to minors, it would be hard to argue with a straight face that local distilleries are uniquely qualified to sell only to adults.
So if Oregon distilleries can open tasting rooms and retail centers anywhere in the state, why not distilleries from across the river in Washington? Or from Kentucky? Or anywhere else, for that matter? It’s easy to imagine an out-of-state distillery suing for access to Oregon’s market on equal terms,
This hypothetical case may be strengthened by the fact that through its monopoly on liquor distribution, the OLCC can grant de facto preferential treatment to Oregon producers. Though the agency doesn’t explicitly do this, there’s good reason to believe that it has this effect. From a recent article about the state’s craft distillery boom:
OLCC officials stopped short of saying the agency shows a preference for stocking Oregon-made products at its warehouse — but it hasn’t created many obstacles for start-up distilleries.
“We make it easy. They get a listing,” said Brian Flemming, director of retail services for the OLCC.
The makeup of the Court seems favorable to extending the Granholm interpretation. As Garrett Peck notes in his book The Prohibition Hangover, dissent in the case was associated with age, with all of the justices who were alive during Prohibition siding with the states. Dissenters Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Stevens have all since retired. If a new case involving distillers does reach the Court, they may get a sympathetic hearing.
That’s a big “if.” Even if a case is brought, it may never go that far. And lower courts may decide that since Oregon’s law presents a different set of facts, the ruling in Granholm doesn’t apply.
Nonetheless, promoting craft distilleries through laws that discriminate in favor of local producers is a risky strategy that may backfire when and if they are challenged in court. There are other ways to open up the market for craft distillers that would rest on more secure legal footing.
[Photo: Still at Grand Traverse Distillery in Michigan, 2008.]
[Disclosure: I do contract work in the spirits industry, often with brands not based in Oregon.]
An Oregonian editorial last week was refreshingly libertarian, calling for same-sex marriage, tuition equity for some undocumented immigrants, restraint on gun control, and even opposition to the state’s smoking ban. I sent in a letter about the last item, which they published today:
The Jan. 12 libertarian-leaning editorial “Protect and expand personal freedom: Agenda 2013” was a breath of fresh air, especially in regard to our state’s excessively stringent smoking ban.
Current law makes few exceptions for businesses that cater to smokers, making it essentially illegal for entrepreneurs to open new cigar bars or smoking lounges even in stand-alone tobacco shops. Regardless of whether one supports a broad smoking ban, it’s difficult to justify forbidding these businesses to open.
Sensible reform would replace the current exemptions, which apply only to venues that have been grandfathered in, with objective guidelines that would allow both existing and aspiring business owners to offer smokers an indoor refuge.
As I reported in the Oregonian in 2011, the promised decline in heart attacks that the smoking ban was supposed to usher in never developed.
It’s not everyday that one sees a corporation exert its dominance over government as openly and brazenly as Nike did to Oregon Governor Kitzhaber and the legislature this week. From The Oregonian:
Turmoil over Nike’s taxes surfaced Monday when Kitzhaber made a surprise announcement that he was ordering lawmakers into an “extraordinary” special session with four-days’ notice. He said he was motivated to act fast after being approached by Nike officials who were asking for greater tax certainty before proceeding with a major expansion.
Nike got the guarantees it wanted. Kitzhaber defended the policy by citing figures regarding the corporation’s economic impact — figures provided by Nike without verification:
In speeches and press releases, Kitzhaber and Nike representatives claimed that the company offers an average annual compensation of $100,000 to its employees and that employment in Oregon has grown 60 percent since 2007. Kitzhaber, citing a Nike economic analysis, said the company’s expansion could trigger up to 12,000 direct and indirect jobs and a $2 billion-a-year boost to the state economy.
Those numbers were repeated by supportive lawmakers on Friday, although Nike has not provided data to back up those claims. The company has declined to release the economic report done by AECOM.
Kitzhaber’s spokesman, Tim Raphael, said that the office took the figures from fact sheets provided by Nike, without any independent verification. Nike refused requests from The Oregonian for evidence or context regarding the figures.
The tax deal doesn’t change anything in the short term, but it’s a sign of a sick relationship between the state and large corporations.
Today at Drink Portland, I’ve posted a guide to the city’s few remaining cigar bars. There are only eight of them, so click through if you’re looking for a place to escape the rain with a cigar and a drink. Since Oregon’s smoking ban only exempts bars that can demonstrate cigar sales from 2006, it’s essentially illegal to open a new cigar bar. These eight are all we have and all there will be. An update to the law a couple years later also capped the number of tobacco shops that can allow smoking.
Ban advocates predicted that Oregon’s law would drastically reduce the rate of heart attacks in the state. As I noted in the Oregonian, that never came to pass.
Pre-ban, my favorite place to have a cigar in Oregon was the Horse Brass Pub. My ode the Horse Brass is here. It’s still a great bar, but you can’t light up there anymore.
Blue drinks are back, at least ironically. As Camper English wrote this summer:
Blue drinks have long been a mixologists’ in-joke. When bartenders were getting serious about pre-Prohibition cocktails about five years ago, jet-setting New Zealand bartender Jacob Briars invented the Corpse Reviver Number Blue, a piss-take on the sacrosanct classic Corpse Reviver #2 that was enjoying a major comeback.
Since then, he and other bartenders have been practicing “sabluetage”—spiking the drinks of unwitting victims with blue curaçao when no one is looking. The forbidden liqueur can now be found on the menus of a few of the world’s best cocktail bars, including Jasper’s Corner Tap in San Francisco, PDT in New York City (where it’s mixed with other unfashionable ingredients, such as Frangelico and cream), and London’s Artesian Bar (winner of the World’s Best Hotel Bar award this week), where a new blue drink—called Blue Lagoon—also features Sprite and bubble tea.
I’ve had my own run-ins with blue drinks, including a publisher who put a blue cocktail on the cover of my recipe guide despite my objections and an off-menu Mad Dog Blue Raspberry and aquavit cocktail we served for a while at Metrovino (it was actually pretty good!). Most blue cocktails get their coloration from blue curacao. But there’s another way to do it…
Vaccari Nero is a black sambuca that’s part of the Bols portfolio. I didn’t work with it for a long time because it wasn’t available in Oregon, but on road trips to other states I found that it had the potential to become an enthusiastically embraced spirit. This is in part because it’s a quality sambuca: It’s named after Arturo Vaccari, the creator of Galliano, and gets its extracts and distillates from the same source. It’s also in part due to its rich color, which despite its name is not black, but rather a very deep midnight blue. Mixed in cocktails, it adds a strong anise kick and striking hue.
I’m just beginning to explore the possibilities of this spirit in cocktails. My favorite so far comes from Erik Trickett, barman at the forthcoming Roe Restaurant and Fish Market in Long Beach, California. The drink he came up with is basically a Ramos Gin Fizz substituting Vaccari Nero for gin. Trading sambuca for gin is a counterintuitive stroke of genius that shouldn’t work yet somehow does, resulting in the lovely robin egg colored drink above. And since this drink needs a name, let’s go ahead and call it a Robin’s Egg (a.k.a. the Samblueca Fizz):
1 1/2 oz Vaccari Nero
1 oz lemon juice
1/2 oz Bols Genever
1/2 oz simple syrup
1/2 oz cream
1 egg white
coffee bean, for garnish
Add the sambuca, lemon, genever, simple syrup, cream, and egg white to a shaker. Dry shake to aerate, then add ice and shake again. Give it a good, long, hard shake. Strain into a glass, preferably a champagne flute if you have a tall one. Let the foam settle and top with soda. Finish by grating a bit of coffee bean on top, a nod to the traditional “con mosca” way of serving sambuca.
Vaccari Nero is finally available in Oregon, so I’m looking forward to seeing what local bartenders end up doing with it. To kick things off, I’ll be guest bartending at Portland’s new Italian spot Bar alla Bomba this Thursday, November 29, from 7-10 pm with a menu of cocktails featuring Vaccari Nero, Galliano L’Autentico, and Galliano Ristretto, including the drink above. Come on by to try it out.
After more than three years of running Thesis, I’ve given the site a long overdue design update and switched to the Genesis framework. Aside from finally enabling threaded comments, most of the changes are just aesthetic for now. Stay tuned, however, for the likely addition of new sections and more frequent updates. (And if you’re reading this via RSS, click over to check out the new site.)
To kick off the new design, I’m giving away a few books. Publisher Scout Books from Portland, Oregon, recently invited me to contribute to a new series of pocket recipe guides called The Cocktail Hour, launching with a trio devoted to rum, gin, and vodka. The books include recipes from me and many other West Coast bartenders and bloggers, including Camper English, Sue Erickson, Jordan Felix, Lauren Fitzgerald, Brian Gilbert, Ricky Gomez, Tommy Klus, Tom Lindstedt, Junior Ryan, Mike Shea, Daniel Shoemaker, and David and Lesley Solmonson, among others.
The books retail for $12 a set and would make a great stocking stuffer. For this contest, I’ll randomly pick winners for the following prizes:
First prize (one winner) — A complete set of The Cocktail Hour: Rum, Gin, and Vodka, plus a copy of my out of print recipe guide from 2010, The Cocktail Collective.
Second prize (two winners) — A complete set of The Cocktail Hour: Rum, Gin, and Vodka.
To enter, simply leave a comment on this blog post, one comment per person. I’ll randomly select winners from the list of comments around noon on Wednesday, November 28, 2012.
Update 11/12/2008: The contest is now closed. Winners announced here. Thanks to everyone who entered!
If you’re in Portland, you’ve had all summer to watch magic for free at First Thursdays and Last Thursdays. Now my frequent performing Grey Lerner and I are taking the show indoors. Good news: Indoors there’s a full bar! Bad news: Now you’ve gotta buy tickets. Fortunately tickets are only 10 bucks for a full night of entertainment that includes music, art, photography, fashion, and entertainment from an eclectic group of local creative talent. Plus you’ll be helping out your friends, as this is a great professional opportunity for us. We’d love to have your support at the October showcase and we each need to sell a few tickets. The show is October 18 from 8 pm to midnight at the Bossanova Ballroom in Portland, Oregon.
In the note below, Grey explains what this is all about, as does the video above. We hope to see you at Bossanova in a couple weeks!
To all my Friends,
I’ve got a great opportunity for some publicity, and I would sure appreciate your help. Publicity for what!? For my ongoing career as a magician!
A national organization called Raw ‘Natural Born Artists’ hosts a night of Art, Music, Fashion, and Performance Art once a month here is Portland at the BossaNova Club.
The venue is a great chance for some publicity and experience. I’m obliged to sell tickets to the show (no free lunch…damn), and they are $10 bucks each. I would greatly appreciate it if you’d support me and my artistic endeavors!
Please click away on the link to my Rawartists.org page. Once there you can choose (if you’d be so cool) to purchase a ticket to the show. The essentials are taken care of: There’s a bar, there’ll be art, music, and interesting people. I would love to do some magic for you.
My buddy Jacob Grier and I will be wowing the crowd with close up and stand up magic to mystify and astonish. We were performing street magic at a local street fair here in town when the Raw talent scout ‘found us’. Perhaps this’ll be our next big break. Please try and make it to the party, and we’ll try to blow your mind.
If buying a ticket isn’t in the cards (oy!) then maybe you’d take a quick sec to click on the link anyway and continue clicking on the “Vote Now” button above the picture of me (everything is a competition). If I win, I’ll share the million dollar prize with you!