Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Thujone guesstimates...
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > Absinthe & Absinthiana > Dr Magnan's Lab
Pages: 1, 2, 3
hartsmar
http://www.thujone.info/thujone-absinthe-36.html

Has anyone else noticed this article? The first impression and thought is that it takes on a good path and might be worthwhile. After a couple of lines that's all gone!

Honestly, I've read a lot of lousy "studies", especially on absinthe and thujone but this is really something.
It holds a table of nothing but pure guesstimates of thujone content of some of the biggest brands there was.

My initial question on that is of course - where did this Bogumil person (or Bogusmil?) find the recipes for
Pernod Fils, Duval, Junod, Berger, La Parisienne Lemercier and Kübler?!
Secondly, what interest is there really in a list of thujone and anethole levels that are completely based on assumptions, estimates and guesses?

Anyway, there are several contradictory parts in this article as well. In one place the author clearly states that thujone content has nothing to do with the quality of the spirit, yet in another paragraph outlines what should constitute a "real" absinthe and requires it to contain no less than 5mg/l... That's odd.

He also emphasizes that modern absinthes come in various strenghts and that those at 68-72% are the better ones, and then especially those labelled "amer". I quote: "In a coloring step the add wormwood again so increase thujone and may get 35mg/l." So, is this a good absinthe? An absinthe colored with wormwood?!

There's also a part where he claims that Francois Guy is "only" a absinthe ordinaire since it is only at 45% or it's a "crème d'absinthe" because it contains sugar. As far as I know, F.Guy does not contain sugar. It shows the vast knowledge behind this...

There are so many factual errors and so much crap in this article that I'm amazed it's been published!

For instance, he somehow differentiates absinthes labelled as "extrait d'absinthe" from those labelled "spiritueux aux extraits de plantes d'absinthe". I wonder why he didn't include the phrase "spiritueux a base de plantes d'absinthe". There's no actual difference between any of these. It's just different wordings that different manufacturers use to comply with stupid French labelling laws.

As interesting as it is to see more and more people interested and trying to do research on absinthe and thujone, I really cannot find the actual reason for this article. Seriously, I can't see the point of it given that there's been no actual testing.

Or, is it just me being really picky about this these days?

Just consider this, the guy lists what he think would be a way to define what is and what isn't absinthe.
One of the parameters in that is, it should contain "at least 5-35mg/l of thujone". You all know that one absinthe everyone agrees on being excellent and very much an absinthe - L'Artisanale. In this case, L'Artisanale wouldn't be an absinthe. How about that.

Oh boy!

Ok, enough of my ranting on this. Go on.. As you were...
louched liver
AbsentTits/Boggy-
Got anything to
say on this?
Chris
Bogumil=Boggy Tits? With the tansy references I wouldn't be surprised.



Not to mention any scientific paper that cites Wikipedia as a source must be trustworthy.

louched liver
He digs deep.
absinthist
QUOTE
My initial question on that is of course - where did this Bogumil person (or Bogusmil?) find the recipes for Pernod Fils, Duval, Junod, Berger, La Parisienne Lemercier and Kübler?!

Just as everyone else does that nowadays-by asking, reading, researching, contacting those who might know something. Nothing supernatural about it.
QUOTE
Secondly, what interest is there really in a list of tujon and anethole levels that are completely based on assumptions, estimates and guesses?

If you have read the conclusions, and you have not, I guess, you would figure out that calculations concerned the particular percentage of wormwood oil (the one most possible to occur in commercial varieties).
QUOTE
Anyway, there are several contradictory parts in this article as well. In one place the author clearly states that tujon content has nothing to do with the quality of the spirit, yet in another paragraph outlines what should constitute a "real" absinthe and requires it to contain no less than 5mg/l… That's odd.
He also emphasizes that modern absinthes come in various strenghts and that those at 68-72% are the better ones, and then especially those labelled "amer". I quote: "In a coloring step the add wormwood again so increase chop.gif and may get 35mg/l." So, is this a good absinthe? An absinthe colored with wormwood?!

Both tujon minimum and maximum content were given for the EU solely and do not reflect either my or other people involved in the project opinion in that particular matter. The case of amer was used to play devil's advocate of those who are responsible for adding wormwood oil (not wormwood) to absinthes to boost their tujon content. An article can have a sarcastic part but only aware and careful reader will find out that.
QUOTE
There's also a part where he claims that Francois Guy is "only" a absinthe ordinaire since it is only at 45% or it's a "crème d'absinthe" because it contains sugar. As far as I know, F.Guy does not contain sugar. It shows the vast knowledge behind this…

The very first batches of FG contained a hand crossed out "sucre" from the ingredient list and many people actually discovered sugar in the taste.
QUOTE
There are so many factual errors and so much crap in this article that I'm amazed it's been published!

Before any article is published, it is peer-reviewed by at least three authors, after the review, the author is sent proofs of the article and sends the final version via fax. Everything lasts very long and nothing is done ad hoc or without the consent of either the peer reviewers or the publisher, or finally the author. The process is long. After the publication as it is in case of DLR, each Institute receives one copy and from then on, other scientists can express their feelings about the article by writing to the author or presenting a rebuttal to the publisher if they are at odds with ideas presented therein.

Wikipedia? Where? There were 7 internet sources (regarding some recipes or history), the rest were books and articles. In fact, it is not recommended to use Wikipedia as a trustworthy source. The only encyclopedia that was referenced was Zygmunt Gloger's "Encyklopedia Staropolska" of 1972 which concerned the other aspects touched upon in the article.
Chris
French Wikipedia is referenced below the thuj0ne/anethole table (letter b)
absinthist
But only as the reference to Pernod fils recipe of 1906 presented there; in fact in the whole article it is not included in the range as trustworthy, if it had been included, the range would have been 8.5-12 mg/l in Zusammenfassung. As you can see, it was presented as 8.5-11 mg/l, so that anecdote given in Wikipedia was not included, neither there nor in the factual references.
Oxygenee
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:50 AM) *

QUOTE
My initial question on that is of course - where did this Bogumil person (or Bogusmil?) find the recipes for Pernod Fils, Duval, Junod, Berger, La Parisienne Lemercier and Kübler?!

Just as everyone else does that nowadays-by asking, reading, researching, contacting those who might know something. Nothing supernatural about it.


To the best of my knowledge, there are no known verified recipes for any of these absinthes in existence.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:50 AM) *

QUOTE
Secondly, what interest is there really in a list of tujon and anethole levels that are completely based on assumptions, estimates and guesses?

If you have read the conclusions, and you have not, I guess, you would figure out that calculations concerned the particular percentage of wormwood oil (the one most possible to occur in commercial varieties).


I'm puzzled how you would have any idea at all what the "most likely" chemotypes of wormwood any particular pre-ban manufacturer would have used a century ago. As with the pre-ban recipes you mentioned, to the best of my knowledge this information doesn't exist.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:50 AM) *


QUOTE
There are so many factual errors and so much crap in this article that I'm amazed it's been published!

Before any article is published, it is peer-reviewed by at least three authors, after the review, the author is sent proofs of the article and sends the final version via fax. Everything lasts very long and nothing is done ad hoc or without the consent of either the peer reviewers or the publisher, or finally the author. The process is long. After the publication as it is in case of DLR, each Institute receives one copy and from then on, other scientists can express their feelings about the article by writing to the author or presenting a rebuttal to the publisher if they are at odds with ideas presented therein.


I've published in the DLR myself, so I can confirm that there is no formal peer review process at all. It's not a peer reviewed journal. Inclusion is entirely at the discretion of the editors.


absinthist
I meant peer-review in general. In case of DLR, it is of course as you are saying, if people who are given the copies at different Institutes can react to any article thereafter.
Shabba53
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 12 2008, 05:50 PM) *

An article can have a sarcastic part but only aware and careful reader will find out that.

I didn't think that any 'scientific' journal articles were supposed to add humor. I thought they were supposed to be objective, and therefore separate from emotion and off the cuff commentary.
absinthist
Some of they are. In fact, they aren't written by robots, but by people who outside labs enjoy the good laugh as well. In fact, Hartsmar is the first who didn't see it whereas all the other scientists and absintheurs who have read it, did.
louched liver
Ha!
Shabba53
Were the comments on chop.gif level requirements in order to be considered an absinthe sarcastic as well?
louched liver
Ha!

(Non sarcastically
this time.)
hartsmar
Sarcasm in a "scientific" report/article? Wow.

I looked at on of the sites you referenced there (funny that you were the author, by the way!), Pastisnet.be and the history-page which you have referenced as source for information on the Duval recipe. I cannot find that on that page at all. Maybe I really only missed it, but if so, I'd love for you to quote it for me, since I'd be interested to see it.
hartsmar
I know very well about the labels on some of the first F.Guy bottles... Did it ever occur to you that since the word "sucre" was crossed out, it did in fact NOT contain sugar...? Did you bother to check it with the distillery?

QUOTE
If you have read the conclusions, and you have not, I guess, you would figure out that calculations concerned the particular percentage of wormwood oil (the one most possible to occur in commercial varieties).


I've read the entire article absinthist, word by word - or I wouldn't have commented on it. Still, it's nothing but estimates. Estimates based on allegded knowledge to recipes probably long gone. I'm sorry, I just have a hard time buying the recipe things here and I still can't see why estimated thujone levels in ANY absinthe would be significant. If you had calculated your estimates like this AND provided results of actual tests on the same brand absinthes, then it would be interesting. Dr. Arnold calculated and estimated his 250-260mg/l. Surely that's nothing you agree on, right?

Another thing which strikes me as odd is that you say that "the most valuable ones would be those of the earliest production (1800-1899) when no one tried to control them and inferior brands had not appeared."

First of all, 99 years is a long time. so, which end of the scale represents the "earliest production"? And what makes you say that there were no "inferior brands" before 1900?

QUOTE
Both tujon minimum and maximum content were given for the EU solely and do not reflect either my or other people involved in the project opinion in that particular matter.

When you list your requirements for what would be classified as an absinthe you write this;
"Henceforth, the following more coherent definition of absinthe might be suggested:"
There's no indication other than this is something coming from you.

In the list of recommendations you also mention "at least 50-75%" for alcohol level. Previously in the text you refer to the historical grades of "ordinaire" and "demi-fine" etc and also state that ordinaire was from 40-46%. That would in other words disqualify historical Absinthe Ordinaire as an authentic absinthe...?

I'm sure every single intention was the very best here but there are just so many things in the article that doesn't add up.
absinthist
Tujon minimum and maximum levels as part of suggested absinthe definition were for EU only and the end of the subchapter clearly says that tujon is irrelevant.

The table also clearly says these are possible calculations having in mind the particular percentage of wormwood oil, so I do not see anything problematic about them since they are not presented as definitive results of any kind.

At the beginning absinthe was fairly expensive as we all know and inferior brands were more probable to appear when its price has dropped not at the times when it was not even that popular. This is the rule of the market and it always happens that way-e.g. when prices of vodka dropped in 2000, we have witnessed the appearance of the whole range of inferior brands here. What makes you think there were ones when there would be no profit for them? You are not counterfeiting the product that is barely known-you want to profit from the existing market. Have inferior brands appeared to cater for the elitist absintheurs or simply to create the cheap market of a cheap adulterated booze? I guess, the latter was more probable, but you can always have your opinion.

In the thread about Mindshifter's pre-ban 4% does not make any difference to you, however here it does (50-46=4). Weird.

I am not defending the article as being perfect, it has it flaws and because you have raised some issues, some of the arguments might require explanations. On the other hand, it is in press since September and is available since Christmas in the net. Since its publication it has received many words of appraisal and coverage in similar discussions led by some of the leading scientists in the field. Hence, it is ever weirder that you bring it after so much time and finds it funny I am the author.

Have you asked these questions, btw:

Has the article busted the facts and deteriorated absinthe reputation? No.
Has the article hyped chop.gif and alleged wormwood toxicity? No.
Has the article favoured Czechsinth or any particular brand over others? No.
Oxygenee
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:41 PM) *

Tujon minimum and maximum levels as part of suggested absinthe definition were for EU only and the end of the subchapter clearly says that tujon is irrelevant.

However intended, your minimum level would have excluded L'Artisanale from the definition of "absinthe" (together with several other leading brands). It would have also, as a forthcoming paper will demonstrate, have excluded one of the greatest marques of the Belle Epoque. Since, as Dr Lachenmeier and others have demonstrated, some wormwood chemotypes contain almost no thujone, any attempt to define absinthe in terms of thujone levels will fail.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:41 PM) *

At the beginning absinthe was fairly expensive as we all know and inferior brands were more probable to appear when its price has dropped not at the times when it was not even that popular. This is the rule of the market and it always happens that way-e.g. when prices of vodka dropped in 2000, we have witnessed the appearance of the whole range of inferior brands here. What makes you think there were ones when there would be no profit for them? You are not counterfeiting the product that is barely known-you want to profit from the existing market. Have inferior brands appeared to cater for the elitist absintheurs or simply to create the cheap market of a cheap adulterated booze? I guess, the latter was more probable, but you can always have your opinion.

By 1860 absinthe was already a well established problem amongst the working classes, as Balesta's book published in that year demonstrates. Cheap brands undoubtedly existed from the 1850's onwards. An across the board price decrease occurred between 1865 and 1875, when many manufacturers switched from wine based to much cheaper beet and grain alcohols.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:41 PM) *

In the thread about Mindshifter's pre-ban 4% does not make any difference to you, however here it does (50-46=4). Weird.

I don't find this weird at all. Mindshifter measurement refers to a single sample of privately bottled absinthe never intended for commercial sale at all. It has no relevance to anything at all, except his particular bottle. This is not the same thing as making broad - and with respect, not factually defensible - statements in a scientific journal pertaining to the entire absinthe industry.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 12:41 PM) *

I am not defending the article as being perfect, it has it flaws and because you have raised some issues, some of the arguments might require explanations.

It's clear your heart was in the right place, but the article does contain many errors. In particular, I think the thujone estimates for specific pre-ban brands are very unfortunate, as these are not based on any verifiable reality, and we have seen from Dr Arnold's papers how quickly a mere guesstimate can enter the public domain as a fact. There are no specific verifiable recipes for ANY pre-ban brand in print, or in any publicly accessible archive (there are at least two in manuscript form, but these have never been published and are sitting right now just a few metres from me in my library…). The only way to know the thujone content of specific pre-ban brands is to actually test authentic samples with GC/MS - and even then one has to be very cautious, because we can't assume that the thujone content of a particular brand stayed constant over time - in actual fact there is evidence of considerable variations. With enough actual test results one can of course draw statistically meaningful conclusions about mean thujone levels.
absinthist
This is not my tujon level, neither minimum nor maximum. A forthcoming paper will also demonstrate that some pre-bans would not meet EU regulations as well as you know it, so there are two sides of the coin and we both know that current EU regulations are faulty in terms of tujon and fenchone limits.

And all I can add that I am truly disappointed. Weird is also that you are answering on behalf of Hartsmar, can't he talk or what? Or maybe I should look for some people to support me since it is the new kewel thing to do?
Shabba53
As are we, Dr. Boggsy Arnold.
absinthist
Shabba, if you have read the article, you would know what its position towards Dr Arnold is and that it is rather a negative one.
Oxygenee
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 02:17 PM) *

This is not my tujon level, neither minimum nor maximum.


Your precise words in the paper are:
QUOTE
Henceforth, the following more coherant definition of absinthe might be suggested:…(5) at least 5 - 35mg/l of thujone,…
Oxygenee
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 02:17 PM) *

and we both know that current EU regulations are faulty in terms of tujon and fenchone limits.


There are no EU regulations concerning fenchone in absinthe. There is a French regulation, applicable only to France. It may in fact be illegal, because it's not in harmony with the EU code.
Shabba53
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 07:28 AM) *

you would know what its position towards Dr Arnold is and that it is rather a negative one.

I read the article thoroughly, which is why I'm so disturbed by it. You may mock or criticize Dr. Arnold, but then put forth your own estimates of tujone content. Do you see how hypocriticsl that is? No matter how high or low your tujone estimates are, they are still estimates with no factual back up.

And may I ask who specificially you talked to to obtain the recipes? I'd like to speak with them as well.
Oxygenee
In the article you say:
QUOTE
We already know that Pernod contained 8.5mg/l, Lemercier - 9.1mg/l, blanche - 9.4mg/l and Berger 8.2mg/l.

On what basis do you make a statement like this? We don't know anything of the sort. I can understand in principle how one could make a theoretical estimate of the mean range of thujone in a particular regional style of absinthe (providing it was appropriately qualified, and the underlying assumptions carefully set out), but its just baffling to me how you can deduce, even in theory, the precise thujone content of say Lemercier Blanche, an absinthe of unknown recipe, and one which, as far as I know, no one in the modern era has even seen, let alone tested.

You go on in the same paragraph to say:
QUOTE
In (a) recipe from 1805 from Pernod, there is no star anis mentioned, whereas in the recipe of major Dubied (…) of 1798 when (the) Duval distillery was established, there is a ref.

Again, on what basis do you make this statement? There is no Pernod recipe dated 1805 in existence. There are three Duval/Pernod recipes from the 1790's. None of them mention star anise at all. The reference you give for the statement is http://www.pastisnet.be/Histopastis01.htm, a webpage on a Belgian pastis site (!). There's no support at all on the page for your assertion, or even any mention of these recipes, not even in passing.

Absinthist, I can see your heart is in the right place, but I think this article was perhaps written too soon, before you'd had a chance to digest the available scholarship thoroughly. It might be an idea to draft a revised and corrected version, or a set of amendments, at least for online publication. Otherwise there is a danger that without meaning to, you'll be responsible for putting more misinformation into the public domain, which I'm sure is just the opposite of your intention.
hartsmar
Absinthist, I don't think Oxy answered on my behalf. It's just that I'm not sitting here online on the forum all day long...

I will answer you later on today, as I'm too busy right now.


Shabba53
QUOTE(Oxygenee @ Mar 13 2008, 08:04 AM) *

an absinthe of unknown recipe, and one which, as far as I know, no one in the modern era has even seen, let alone tested.

Ya know, he asked around. Apparently it's that easy to get people to divulge previously secret or unavailable information if you're just gregarious.
absinthist
QUOTE
I will answer you later on today, as I'm too busy right now.

I am glad that Dr Hartsmar will spare a moment with me, but after all this I am not sure I will feel like answering anything-if as always I can be contacted via PM or e-mail to clear or blur things out.

As regards the other issues, an author awaits appraisal or critique of his work and is very glad when it arises as it suggests further ways to be taken in the forthcoming articles, however when it comes out of blue after full 5 months after the publication it is kinda weird, inappropriate and conspiracy-driven (I didn't expect the Swedish Inqusition).

For that matter, Dr Lachenmeier has been reading every draft of the article before it got published, after the very publication Dr Moll from Switzerland, where the article was notabene liked, expressed his full approval and we have had a very fruitful talk not only on that article but on the next one as well, professor Zatoński of the Warsaw Oncology Instutute found some of the ideas included as helpful for other research that is soon to be published and there were some others, including notable absintheurs from the whole world who have read it long before the publication.

Surprisingly, they have done all this before 5 months and I am grateful for their words and positive critique. Of course, these people are no match for omnipotent Dr Hartsmar (yes, it is sarcasm) nad™ I am even more disappointed and can admit I barely control my temper. Thus I will finish, accipere quam facere praestat injuriam.
absinthist
QUOTE(Oxygenee @ Mar 13 2008, 04:04 AM) *

Absinthist, I can see your heart is in the right place, but I think this article was perhaps written too soon, before you'd had a chance to digest the available scholarship thoroughly. It might be an idea to draft a revised and corrected version, or a set of amendments, at least for online publication. Otherwise there is a danger that without meaning to, you'll be responsible for putting more misinformation into the public domain, which I'm sure is just the opposite of your intention.


This I will agree with. As I mentioned before, it is not the best article I have written-in fact, it was the first one and from the perspective of time, it could be longer so as to explain certain facets more accurately (the following are much better in opinions of their reviewers) and it might lack some of the points that should be touched upon (if the latter will definitely be presented in the other articles to come). Still, it is not a lousy piece of writing full of bullshit.
Oxygenee
Some serious issues have been raised here. The article is available in its entirety at http://www.thujone.info/thujone-absinthe-36.html for anyone to read. Rather than just watch from the sidelines, I'd suggest as many of you as possible read it, and then post your thoughts and comments here, so that we develop a consensus view.
Shabba53
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 08:59 AM) *

however when it comes out of blue after full 5 months after the publication it is kinda weird, inappropriate and conspiracy-driven

Most of us aren't scouring the internet or scientific journals for the latest studies and reports, so it may take some time for things to be brought to our attention. Then we read it, and react. I don't see how this can be considered inappropriate in any sense of the word.

When I first read the article, I didn't put two and two together in regards to the author, so I didn't think to bring it up.
hartsmar
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 04:59 AM) *

QUOTE
I will answer you later on today, as I'm too busy right now.

I am glad that Dr Hartsmar will spare a moment with me, but after all this I am not sure I will feel like answering anything-if as always I can be contacted via PM or e-mail to clear or blur things out.

I'm not Dr of anything and as a matter of fact, neither are you, right?

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 04:59 AM) *
As regards the other issues, an author awaits appraisal or critique of his work and is very glad when it arises as it suggests further ways to be taken in the forthcoming articles, however when it comes out of blue after full 5 months after the publication it is kinda weird, inappropriate and conspiracy-driven (I didn't expect the Swedish Inqusition).

There's no inquisition here and I really didn't know you were the author. Regardless of that, I stand by my opinions. I didn't know exactly when the article came out and I just noticed it a short while back and didn't pay much attention to it until yesterday when I finally found the time to actually read it.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 04:59 AM) *
As regards the other issues, an
For that matter, Dr Lachenmeier has been reading every draft of the article before it got published, after the very publication Dr Moll from Switzerland, where the article was notabene liked, expressed his full approval and we have had a very fruitful talk not only on that article but on the next one as well, professor Zatoński of the Warsaw Oncology Instutute found some of the ideas included as helpful for other research that is soon to be published and there were some others, including notable absintheurs from the whole world who have read it long before the publication.

Well good for you. There's still a whole bunch of errors and outstanding questions. What can I say?

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 04:59 AM) *
Surprisingly, they have done all this before 5 months and I am grateful for their words and positive critique. Of course, these people are no match for omnipotent Dr Hartsmar (yes, it is sarcasm) nad™ I am even more disappointed and can admit I barely control my temper. Thus I will finish, accipere quam facere praestat injuriam.

Again, I'm not the Dr of anything - well except for Loooove maybe, but I'm honestly surprised that none of these questions were raised by any other person knowledgeable in the "absinthe field".

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 05:06 AM)

This I will agree with. As I mentioned before, it is not the best article I have written-in fact, it was the first one and from the perspective of time, it could be longer so as to explain certain facets more accurately (the following are much better in opinions of their reviewers) and it might lack some of the points that should be touched upon (if the latter will definitely be presented in the other articles to come).

Well, it's good to see that you keep researching and as I said before - it's interesting to see more and more interest in this. I just sincerely hope the quality of the coming articles is better. I'm actually surprised to find that someone so deeply interested in absinthe as I assume you are, would publish this kind of article.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 05:06 AM)
Still, it is not a lousy piece of writing full of bullshit.

Define bullshit...

absinthist
You do not have to. The article was sent to numerous absintheurs long before it even appeared on the net as such. Of course, I guess, if it has not been written by me, it would not have stirred so much mess as if it was its only intention. The fact that people who know my real names from PM and e-mails, suddenly suffer from collective amnesia or maybe over-indulgence in KOSG, who knows, and believe it is funny to call the author "this Bogumil person" or just misspell his factual name.

QUOTE

Well, it's good to see that you keep researching and as I said before - it's interesting to see more and more interest in this. I just sincerely hope the quality of the coming articles is better. I'm actually surprised to find that someone so deeply interested in absinthe as I assume you are, would publish this kind of article.


FYI, I am just sending you two other articles (one is awaiting publication, the other is awaiting approval), so you can make a full opinion on my writing. The fourth article is being written, will be finished soon.

QUOTE
Define bullshit…


A scientific article that hypes hallucinogenic nature of absinthe, alleged toxicity of wormwood and other tujon-yielding plants, tarnishes the good reputation of the versatile drink absinthe is or commits any other of these crimes my article has definitely not committed.
hartsmar
Absinthist... I didn't know you were the author. Ok?
Besides, if I did - would that mean that I should hold back on my thoughts regarding this?

I'll be thrilled to read the other articles. Absolutely.

Define sarcasm... See, it doesn't always come through that easy...
absinthist
QUOTE(hartsmar @ Mar 13 2008, 05:51 AM) *

I'll be thrilled to read the other articles. Absolutely.

Have been just sent. Anyone else wishes to read them? Feel free to post your opinions in that thread, of course.
Helfrich
I read the article before it was published, but I didn't get round to commenting upon it because of the turbulent period I was going through. I'm sorry about that. There's no cabal.
Provenance
QUOTE(Oxygenee @ Mar 13 2008, 02:59 AM) *
any attempt to define absinthe in terms of chop.gif levels will fail.


Up until now, I thought you understood market economics.

absinthist
QUOTE(Helfrich @ Mar 13 2008, 06:05 AM) *

I read the article before it was published, but I didn't get round to commenting upon it because of the turbulent period I was going through. I'm sorry about that. There's no cabal.

Probably all others who commented on it/them to me (just as you did) should be sorry they have not brought it to the public.
Shabba53
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 09:58 AM) *

Have been just sent. Anyone else wishes to read them? Feel free to post your opinions in that thread, of course.

I'd be more than happy to read them and provide constructive criticism or praise.

And just to clarify, I didn't know you wrote the article either. I didn't even pay attention to the author until this thread was posted. Even so, I've only ever known you by your first name, and it's not an uncommon one.

No offense intended, I was just surprised. (And of course you know the Dr. Boggy Arnold comment was tongue in cheek)
louched liver
I had 'em, didn't
read 'em. RL was
extremely bullxit
on many levels
at that time.

I seriously doubt I'd
have been a bit
of help anyway as
this is a subject I
really don't care
about except as a
fucked up marketing
tool used to sell to
fucked up tools.
Shabba53
QUOTE(louched liver @ Mar 13 2008, 11:42 AM) *

fucked up marketing
tool used to sell stool to
fucked up tools.

Provenance
Butt enough about Marteau.
absinthist
QUOTE(Shabba53 @ Mar 13 2008, 07:38 AM) *

I'd be more than happy to read them and provide constructive criticism or praise.

And so you will have that opportunity-they have been already sent.

I was thinking a bit (it happens, sad id est) and I wish to say some more about the recipes. First of all, there is no one on the Earth who can definitely verify any recipe as either being 100% true or 100% false. In fact, no one has the monopoly for recipes and no one should claim having the only genuine recipe for something whereas there are thousand others of that kind, including those that have not been discovered yet. Henceforth, in the article I am not claiming: "I have the recipe for that, and you don't, so harhar.gif "

All the recipes (not only those for absinthes) can be attributed to any particular brand and are prone to interpretations. In the article, the primary sources for all the recipes have been suggested and might or might not be attributed to particular products. The secondary and tertiary sources on the other hand were part of the research and as such should remain private and revealing them would not contribute to anything in that matter.

Some of the recipes have been printed in the books that are to be found in references, some are a result of coresspondence with various people who might (I am stressing the word "might") have been in the possession of certain documents, manuscripts or knowledge and were kind enough to share some of it for the purpose of the research.

As I said before the results and table itself are not definitive and are prone to further interpretations thereof. However, they are suggesting what might have been found in the given recipe and what might be the probable estimatation of certain chemical compounds resulting from the use of a certain herb bill of the aforementioned recipe.

I believe this has clarified a bit.
Shabba53
But why would you basically do exactly what Dr. Arnold did, regardless of your intentions?
absinthist
In what sense, then?
Shabba53
Guessing at or estimating chop.gif levels.
absinthist
The table is named maximum possible tujon concentration calculated with a tujon content of 67% in wormwood oil, whereas Dr Arnold in his article clearly and decisively mentions the following: "The chop.gif content of old absinthe was about 0.26 g/l (260 ppm.gif) and 350 ppm.gif when the thujyl alcohol from the wormwoods is included." what in my article was called a myth, so I do not see why I would be reaching his level whatsoever.
Oxygenee
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 07:42 PM) *

I was thinking a bit (it happens, sad id est) and I wish to say some more about the recipes. First of all, there is no one on the Earth who can definitely verify any recipe as either being 100% true or 100% false. In fact, no one has the monopoly for recipes and no one should claim having the only genuine recipe for something whereas there are thousand others of that kind, including those that have not been discovered yet. Henceforth, in the article I am not claiming: "I have the recipe for that, and you don't, so :harhar: "

All the recipes (not only those for absinthes) can be attributed to any particular brand and are prone to interpretations. In the article, the primary sources for all the recipes have been suggested and might or might not be attributed to particular products. The secondary and tertiary sources on the other hand were part of the research and as such should remain private and revealing them would not contribute to anything in that matter.

Some of the recipes have been printed in the books that are to be found in references, some are a result of coresspondence with various people who might (I am stressing the word "might") have been in the possession of certain documents, manuscripts or knowledge and were kind enough to share some of it for the purpose of the research.

As I said before the results and table itself are not definitive and are prone to further interpretations thereof. However, they are suggesting what might have been found in the given recipe and what might be the probable estimatation of certain chemical compounds resulting from the use of a certain herb bill of the aforementioned recipe.

I believe this has clarified a bit.


Sorry, but this is nonsense. I've tried to be kind, and to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're now defending the indefensible

There are no recipes for Pernod Fils. There is a description of some of the herbs they used - not necessarily all - in their 1896 booklet. There are no quantities given. this isn't a recipe, it's an advert.

There are no original recipes for Berger.
There are no original recipes for Lemercier.
There are no original recipes for Lemercier Blanche.
There are no original recipes for Junod.
There are no original recipes for La Parisienne.

This isn't a matter of opinion or of interpretation, it's a matter of historical fact. There are no extant original bills of materials, no extant surviving original recipes for any of these absinthes. I'm stating this as categorical fact.

Yet you have given PRECISE thujone measurements for all these absinthes in your article, stated not as wild guesstimates (which is all they can be), but as fact. The references you've given are either non-existent, or worthless, ie French Wikipedia and some Belgian pastis website, and, in every case I've checked, don't even refer to these absinthes or their recipes.

Over and over again, you make statements in the article completely unsupported by even a shred of evidence. Just to take one example again that I pointed out previously: you say the 1805 Pernod recipe includes star anise. There is no 1805 Pernod recipe. None of the 1790's "recipes" from Abram Perrenoud or Duval mention star anise at all. This isn't a matter of interpretation or nuance, it's a matter of plain black and white fact. And Pernod Fils, in common with many other premium Belle Epoque marques, actively promoted their absinthes as guaranteed NOT to contain badiane, the use of which was widely regarded as a low quality shortcut, on a par with artificial coloration.

It's just infuriating that in a field so bedevilled by misinformation, you'd put out a whole raft of entirely new misinformation, and then, when it's quite correctly pointed out to you, seek to excuse it and muddy the waters with vague statements about varying interpretations, and confidential sources.
absinthist
QUOTE
some Belgian pastis website, and, in every case I've checked, don't even refer to these absinthes or their recipes.

The pastis references concern the pastis part of the article, so they rather not refer to either absinthes or their recipes. It is good to see some of the facts of my article I am not even aware of. And I am terribly sorry I am not able to lead in such a heavy artillery as you do, hence I feel utterly defeated.
hartsmar
QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 08:42 AM) *
I was thinking a bit (it happens, sad id est) and I wish to say some more about the recipes. First of all, there is no one on the Earth who can definitely verify any recipe as either being 100% true or 100% false. In fact, no one has the monopoly for recipes and no one should claim having the only genuine recipe for something whereas there are thousand others of that kind, including those that have not been discovered yet. Henceforth, in the article I am not claiming: "I have the recipe for that, and you don't, so :harhar: "

No, but in the article you state that you have estimated the thujone levels for Pernod Fils, Junod, Lemercier, Kübler, La Parisienne etc. If you don't have the recipes for those, 100% sure, then you cannot and SHOULD NOT write that. No matter what you say.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 08:42 AM) *

All the recipes (not only those for absinthes) can be attributed to any particular brand and are prone to interpretations. In the article, the primary sources for all the recipes have been suggested and might or might not be attributed to particular products. The secondary and tertiary sources on the other hand were part of the research and as such should remain private and revealing them would not contribute to anything in that matter.

If you're stating the actual brand names in the way you do, you better be ready to back that up... Don't you agree?!

QUOTE(absinthist @ Mar 13 2008, 08:42 AM) *

Some of the recipes have been printed in the books that are to be found in references, some are a result of coresspondence with various people who might (I am stressing the word "might") have been in the possession of certain documents, manuscripts or knowledge and were kind enough to share some of it for the purpose of the research.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using the recipes from say Bedel or Duplais as references. That's fine - at least they exist and can be verified. But the, to go and publish a "scientific" article and afterwards say that some of the various people you've talked to MIGHT have had certain documents. Don't you KNOW for a fact where your information comes from?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.