Talk:Shot glass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source Citations

There are quite a few statements in this article with the "citation needed" link.

Here's a "source" for the popularity of collecting pre-prohibition shot glasses: http://www.pre-pro.com/ I'm not up on the standards for citing sources. Hopefully someone can use this to either properly cite something or give me a link to the page describing proper citation practices (I looked and couldn't find it...) --Theeldest (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of a shot

Maybe it's different in metric countries, and if it is feel free to add the old numbers back in, but a standard shot is most definately 1.5 ounces (~45 cc), a "pony shot" is 1 ounce (~30 cc), and a double shot is 3 ounces (about 90 cc). I have no clue why the "ounce shot" is listed at 50cc, because 1 ounce is about 30 cc. I've got dozens and dozens of shot glasses, all are 1.5 ounces. And I have found a beautiful Shot Glass Display Case to showcase them. The website is http://www.displaygifts.com/shotglass_displaycases.html. Here's a couple more of reference other than my experience: http://www.drinknation.com/glasses/Shot-glass http://www.webtender.com/db/glass/2

This post looks like it is more of a advertisement than a factual argument. I have plenty of "one gallon jugs" that hold more than 128 ounces, but that does not make them "130 ounce jugs." A 500 ml beaker holds more than 500 ml if you fill it to the rim, but that does not make it a "505 ml beaker." Containers are often designed to hold more than the "designated" amount, usually to leave room for expansion (the jug) or to make it harder to spill (the beaker). The shotglass is like the beaker -- there is supposed to be some "empty space" at the top of the glass so that the bartender, waitress or patron do not spill. Look at any of the metal jiggers used for measuring -- they are not designed to be filled to the rim. Look at the shotglasses with measuring lines -- none of them have the line at the rim. And, if a "single" was supposed to be 1.5 ounces, then a double would be 3 ounces. A double is only 2 ounces, so a single is 1 ounce. A "pony" is a generic term for something small (see the sorry wikipedia entry for a pony beer) -- there is no specific size, but "small." The most common glass that fits this category is the european style 2cl (20ml)

A "pony shot" is a new phrase, first appearing about 1968 , where a "pony glass" dates back to at least 1899 The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica gives the size of a "pony glass" as "less than a half-pint" (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pony) Most "turn of the century" usages of "pony glass" relate to a smaller than usual glass insulator used for telegraph wires -- In this case pony equals small --Dizneydude 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, shot glasses are often 25ml, or 50ml for a double. Orange Goblin 09:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really, hm. I guess us Americans can take more alcohol than you Brits. Either that or we're just bigger alcoholics :) I don't think I've ever seen a 25mL shot glass over here. I've gone ahead and added wording indicating that those amounts are common in the US. And I changed the units from cc to mL. jdoty 01:22, 8 Jun 2005 (EST)

But then your pints are only 16 fl. oz, whereas ours are 20 fl. oz :P - FrancisTyers 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The stupidity of using non-metric units is that no one knows that they differ from place to place and confusion reigns. In you statement about the difference between the British and US pints, you should also have mentioned that the ounces vary as well. 16 US ounces don't equal 16 UK ounces. The same is true for 20 ounces. 16 US ounces (1 US pint) is only 473 ml, while 16 UK ounces is 454 mL, a difference of 19 mL. 20 ounces US is 591 mL, where as 20 ounces UK is 568 mL, a difference of 23 mL. A US gallon is 128 US ounces, and a UK gallon is 160 UK ounces. (2007-10-13 23:00)

Lucky for the UK and others, the UK versions are being phased out of existence, except for the pint which is limited to beers and ales in pubs and milk in returnable bottles. The metric units are the same everywhere, so there is no chance of being confused or misled. (2007-10-13 23:00)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.74.197 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I live in the U.S. and I have some 25ml shot glasses, so they do exist over here. --Stevekl 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the CDC 12oz of beer, 5oz of wine and 1.5 oz of hard licquer contain the same amount of alcohol, I think this should be menitioned in the highly opinionated Sizes section. Plus someone should flag the article for point of veiw, an article should not contain the phrase "I believe" once and definately not twice.

Someone changed the page to something nasty, so I changed it back, I wasn't sure if there was a revert button, so I just copy/pasted the previous code into a new edit. :)

It is possible to revert a page. This is preferable. Go to the history page, find the edit which changed the page to something nasty, select both it and the edit immediately preceding it, and click the button labeled "Compare selected versions". Then, you should find that on the right side of the diff (comparing the two versions, there is a link labeled "Undo". Click that link. Save the page, after adding a note that you are reverting the edit for X reason. The Wilschon 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The contention that a double in the US needs attribution -- I can find a manufacturer (Libbey) who makes 2 ounce doubles --Dizneydude 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can, then do so! You must cite your sources on wikipedia. Even if you "just know" or even "know where you can find sources", that is not sufficient. You must, if you know where you can find sources, go and find them, and cite them! If you do not do this, then content which you add will be considered unreliable and will likely be deleted. These draconian-seeming rules are necessary to maintain wikipedia's reliability. The Wilschon 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did include a citation, including a link to the Libbey on-line catalog. Somebody else decided to remove the citation -- that's the fun of wikipedia. --Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photograph: A shot glass (pencil included for scale)

It would be much more helpful if there was a scale included for scale. Who knows how big or small this ****ing pencil is. — Daniel FR 07:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, it's about the size of a pencil. That particular pencil is the cheap Bic .07 mechanical pencil which is probably the most popular in North America. I think it works just fine as a scale object, even if you're not familiar with that type of pencil. Angrycrustacean 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

This sentence has a hanging participle and needs to be rephrased: When travelling, there may be shotglasses sporting national flags, or local tourist attractions. When it is read literally, it sounds very silly. Rintrah 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I've deleted the etymology section since, frankly, I think it is highly dubious. But here is my further rationale: 1. There are no sources listed. 2. I couldn't find any sources online myself. 3. The section doesn't mention who did this (i.e. the spitting) or when. 4. The use of dedicated glasses seems pretty fancy for this sort of thing, but what do I know. 5. It doesn't explain how "shot glasses" for spat out shots became glasses for drinking out of. 6. Shot also means "dose" or "small amount". I think it's probably that "shot glass" is called such because it holds a small amount of liquid. It could be that this meaning of shot derives from its use in "shot glass", but the other way seems more likely given the limited evidence here. AliaGemma 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time, ask the community before arbitrarily deleting a section of text. Now the etymology section contains an equally "highly dubious" and unsourced origin for the name. I agree that some research is in order, but let's not just randomly start deleting text from articles, please. 24.153.118.129 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Since there are so many "dubious" origins, I added them with reasons why they are dubious so that people stop deleting the story that conflicts with what they "know to be true." I have been studying the origin for 20 years, and #6 above ("dose" or "small amount") is getting close... --Dizneydude 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that this article has some knowlegeable content, it needs to be edited consistent with Wikipedia standards. Do the contributors want to do that themselves, or will they welcome some help? -- Mukrkrgsj 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, help is fine -- I'm not a wiki expert. I'm a shotglass expert. --Dizneydude 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! I've already rewritten the intro, and done a little cleanup. The main job will be to edit the conversational, "Discussion"-type text you posted to the main article, and clean up some links and references. You might want to add some more info about collectible shot glasses. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• One re-write changes the sentence to be incorrect. It states: "The terms "shot" and "shot glass" probably originated in the United States during the Great Depression." This is incorrect. The word shotglass or term "shot glass" probably originated during prohibition. The word "shot" has been around for hundreds of years, and has numerous meanings. What I think you intended was to say that the meaning of shot related to a small amount of alcohol dates to the prohibition era (not the depression), but even this is not true. The phrase "shot of whiskey" appears in 1904 (again in the New York Times), so the "shot" pre-dates the shotglass (and pre-dates both nationwide prohibition and the depression). Also, the prohibition era started a long time before the passage of the Volstead act -- many places had local prohibition ordinances before 1919. One "staple" of prohibition, the speakeasy, was invented many years before nationwide prohibition, in Pittsburgh, PA which had a local ban on alcohol. Other terms associated with nationwide prohibition may have originated in areas with local prohibition.
• Also, The object known as the shotglass is unlikely to have been created during the depression - it is more likely that someone would have the money to "invent" and/or produce a new type of glass during the "roaring twenties" than during the depression. I have not been able to prove this, but the economics of creating a new type of specialized glass would be more probable during the early years of prohibition, the years before the depression, than the prohibition years after the start of the depression.
• I am a little confused by the "citation needed" next to "There is no standard; it has never been officially defined in the United States" If it has never been defined, there will be no place to find a citation -- you cannot prove a negative. --Dizneydude 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is still some confusion about the origins of both the modern thick-walled shot glass or shotglass, and the words themselves. It doesn't help that pre-pro.com calls pre-Prohibition whiskey glasses "shot glasses":

"Prohibition began with the enactment of the Volstead act on January 1, 1920 so, by definition, pre-pro shot glasses date from before that time. Most of them were made in the last few years of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th. Pre-pro shot glasses are typically about two inches tall, made of very thin glass, and have a label that is white and looks to have been acid-etched."

Prohibition did not start with the enactment of the Volstead act -- Nationwide prohibition did. Prior to the enactment of National prohibition, there were many attempts at local prohibition, including in Pittsburg, PA where the speakeasy was born (prior to national prohibition). --Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I made several changes to the introduction; and I just cut the sentence, "The shotglass probably was born in America in the early 1900s."

• Robin (of pre-pro.com) uses the term shotglass to describe items that may not have been known as a shotglass when they were made because most people around today would not know what a "whiskey taster" or "whiskey sample glass" is. This is similar to the case of the people who built the first "flying machines" and did not have the word "airplane" but later people apply that word to their creations. The same is true with "automobile" and "train" or "locomotive." --Dizneydude 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added the "citation needed" tags, but the intro to the Sizes section still needs editing to eliminate the confusion. Mukrkrgsj 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just read on the Talk:Rabbit page that people hunted rabbits with shotguns, so when they were eating them they kept shot glasses nearby to deposit the pellets. Supposedly this is where the term originated. Is this verifiable? AStogie (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no source to point to but I always assumed that "shot" was derived from the same line as Snaps and Schnapps. I see no mention of that here. Any sources that point that way? VermillionBird (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

citation needed for negative assertion

I added the citation needed for 'size has never been defined'. My impression is that can't say that, because it's original research WP:OR (we are implying that WE did an exhaustive search and could not find any definition for the official volume of a shot glass). So what we need is a reliable source WP:V that says it's not been defined. It's a pretty bold statement to say that something has never happened, isn't it? Thanks for asking. Jethero^Talk 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WE may not have researched this, but I have. It is impossible to prove a negative (at least one with as many variables as this -- researching every local, county, state and federal statute) but in 20 years of research, the New York State "attempt" during the 1940s is the closest that I have found. If shotglass.org counts as a "reliable source" it covers this topic. How about saying "The volume of a shotglass has not been defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology" --Dizneydude 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"We may not have researched this, but I have." This statement says quite plainly that you have done original research and included it on wikipedia, which is expressly forbidden. If you have published your research and can cite it, then do so. Otherwise, take it somewhere else; it is not welcome here. The Wilschon 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not "original research" if it has been published prior to its inclusion in wikipedia. As I read the rules, shotglass.org falls under the "self published" category, or you can consider it "citing oneself." The website has been around for almost ten years and is considered by many to be a reliable source of information. Either way, the content should be acceptable. http://www.shotglass.org/messageboard/messages/3376.html --Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"A recent wikipedia article..."

Isn't it wrong to cite the source in the section? Also, since when has wikipedia been cited? 24.14.72.182 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference is to some of the previous content of this article, which the editor had replaced. It isn't needed, and I'm going to remove it. Knowledgeable editors should correct and add to the Origin section. Mukrkrgsj 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins is written in a very unencyclopedic tone

Someone should fix this. 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I love it when Wikipedia suddenly goes into the first person. Kensai Max 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Tagged section as original research. Propose deletion of section? Origins is not the most relevant or useful section in this article. Why not have an origins section for every word in the encyclopedia? Save it for the OED. The Wilschon 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the origin section should stay. Origin is the most modified part of the Article, which indicates that people are obviously interested in the subject, and have differing ideas about what the origin is. The difference between this article and an entry in the OED is that the origins section of this article is about where an object came from, not the origins of a word. The origin of an object is included in many wikipedia articles; the origins of the automobile is included in the automobile article, the origins of the movie is included in the movie article. As for the OED, it does not contain an origin for the word.

The exact date and location of the invention of the shotglass will probably never be known. But just because the origin is nebulous, that does not mean that we know nothing. We know the time period in which it was created, and the circumstances that lead to its creation. We can use the information that we do know to refute "well known" (but incorrect) theories.

I would think that wikipedia would want to have articles about subjects that people are interested in, and on a subject where the information cannot be found in other sources (such as the OED) --Dizneydude 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'a google book search returns' is completely inappropriate 131.111.243.37 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto Schott and Carl Zeiss Theory

This is only another theory at this time that may be able to be verified that the Shot Glass was originated from Otto Schott and should be spelled correctly, "Schott Glass". I first heard this from a Carl Ziess representative from Germany in the Optical industry and may be able to be verified in Germany.--ravtux 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Reading the article, I came to think of the origin of the word. In a sence it's touched upon in the bottom of the article, when referring to the small amount shot glasses contain. I suggest looking into the word short. Short glass. This both refer to the size of the glass and the amount it thusly contains - a short amount. It's just as likely, that "short" became "shot" as "Schott" did. Would this be an interesting trail to follow?--Nwinther 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image Shotglass.jpg‎

Is there any point in having this image?! resolution is crap, and it doesn't even LOOK like a shot glass. Unless someone has a reason why its there - I'm gonna delete it. It adds nothing to the article IMHO. Skippy (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that - looks like a random did it for me. lol Skippy (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion

First, a disclaimer: I don't know nuthin' about nuthin' when it comes to this subject. That's why I'm putting this on the talk page, and not making an edit.

That being said, it seems to me that the sentence "Contrary to public opinion, grappa is sipped from the shot glass, not downed in one gulp." can't but be wrong. It seems to me to be whatchamacallit, Americocentric or something. (Wow my spell-checker accepts "whatchamacallit.") Surely if Italian public opinion were that it's to be downed in one gulp, that would be the accepted procedure. Therefore I suggest changing it to something like "Contrary to public opinion in the United States," or "Contrary to public opinion outside Italy." Or something. Anyone got a problem with that? I welcome your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.1.118 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove that. I'm not sure it's public opinion - I've never heard that before - and even so, it is ethnocentric. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that the whole original article seems to be copied word for word from answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/shot-glass),or visa-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.17.9 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That site is a mirror site of Wikipedia, so that's not a problem. CopaceticThought (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Shots?

HElp me - In NZ Would you come into a bar and say please can i have a single shot of say bourbon and expect 15ml or 30ml? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.72.11 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Article

Hey. Anyone have any views on merging this article with Jigger (bartending). That stub article seems incredibly pointless on its own and very internationally unrepresentative, and I'm certain it could be merged into this one. Cheers. ★KEYS★ ^(talk) 23:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Trim up

Hi, I've just had a good hack at some of the explanations. (My apologies if I trashed your stuff) There's little or no external support for any of them even existing outside this article - let alone being supported by the facts. I have however removed some of the "debunking" text, mainly because without references it's just piling OR onto OR. Oh, and I found some nice earlier refs predating the (vague) OED one. Snori (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shot size

35 ml is more common in Scotland as well, and 35 is known as a "half" rather than a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Canada still seems to be confused about units, all these years after metrication. There is a source at Standard drink that says the standard drink in Canada is 13.6 grams.[1]. But it also says this is "44 ml (1.5 ounce) of 40% ... spirits", which would imply US ounces??

I wanted to fix the excess precision in the table; I guarantee no one defines the shot as 42.62 ml. But now I'm not sure what to change it to. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How to measure liquor in a bar

I've been trying to measure all our liquers at the bar and I dont really know how to even start.. can anyone help me take the first step??? Finah Drua (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not here. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Jigger

I have removed a table and some text from the Jigger section. The product catalog is unsourced and does not belong here per WP:NOTCATALOG. The rest of the text seems to be mostly WP:OR. The one source cited just says "during and immediately following Prohibition, recipes often carried measurements that are not common today." This does not support the text. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)