Note when that recipe was developed (well after the usage of the term “cocktail” had drifted away from the traditional definition).
But, if the “Museum of the American Cocktail” is using it in that sense, doesn’t it have to be true? 
We martini uber-purists are bemoaning the fact that the name “Martini” (a classic American Cocktail) is drifting away into ambiguity. We feel your plight with the definition of “cocktail.” But, it’s too late for you–we don’t want to suffer your fate.
I’ve never had a martini in my life, and my life has included a whole hell of a lot of alcohol. It would never occur to me to order or make one. I can’t think of the last time I saw one, though I remember a posh friend talking about a martini party, which sounded like a fine excuse to get wretchedly hammered in nice clothes.
Nevertheless, I have an opinion: You shouldn’t default to making them with vodka. Clearly, a martini is a fun-time kind of concoction, with that silly glass and all the sort of tuxedo-y nonsense. Vodka is not a fun-time drink for happy shiny people, except in some very few combinations. Naked, or nearly naked, it is a bone-warmer, a heart-wrencher.
Gin, on the other hand, practically glitters. Now, what’s happened is, gin is kind of a whore, and it’s putting out for any apple, cocoa bean, or lemon that walks in the place. People who thought gin was their party girl have some questions about this. Well, I say don’t look so surprised. You shoulda known it would happen.
That said, nobody should assume a martini is anything other than a martini. That’s grounds for a send-back.
I defense of my lady’s honor, I demand that you take back this heresy. 
It is vodka, not gin that is predominantly used in these trendy faux martinis.
It’s really meant to be pounded ice cold with kielbasa, or smelly fish-on-a-cracker.
Ah, I see, the two are connected. :smack: Well, then I’m just plain against the damn things.
Part of the problem there is that bartenders often tend to overfill glasses. A martini really shouldn’t be served filled absolutely to the brim. I find that if there’s a half-inch or so of “freeboard”, then I don’t spill any more than I would generally.
For me, the traditional glass is more visually appealing, making it easier to appreciate the the gently swaying mist of ice when first served. And holding it by the stem helps keep the contents cold, that’s what stemware is for.
I wonder why the only Google ad I see under this thread is about a humor writing workshop. Is that because we’re discussing alcoholic beverages, which are illegal in some places?
Meanwhile I suggest a new entry in the SDMB Lexicon: Pseudini!!!
We purists can use that word to refer to anything that isn’t a gin-and-vermouth martini.
Well, OK, I’ll allow vodka, but grudgingly.
Hmm, I see “Martini Glasses - $2.49”, “Swank Martini Glasses”, which I assume cost more than $2.49, and a gourmet website.
Viva la booze!
This thread is making me thirsty!
Man, you must have some posture.
If you’re balancing them on the top of your head, you’ve probably had too many already.
Stupid kids want their alcohol to taste like the Kool-Aid that they grew up with. Fuck it, I want some room temperature Stolichnya in a shot glass. Take that, college punk!
~Mang
Oh, here’s a ‘martini’ recipe for us purists. Please, don’t comment until after the “WTF” subsides…
1 part Pernod absenth
1 part sweet vermouth
1 part dry vermouth
Stir with ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass.
I can understand an ‘appletini’ being a martini styled drink with apple vodka. But Pernods? WTF?!
My main point is that it’s also too late for you. If the definition of “cocktail” itself can change, there’s no hope for a consistent method of making a martini. Hell, look at the number of different ways people make a cosmopolitan, and that drink was only invented some twenty years ago.
My second point is that you should probably abandon the notion that you’re a “purist” if you make dry martinis (according to the modern usage of “dry”), or don’t use ice, or whatever. For example, the recipe for a dry martini in the Savoy Cocktail Book (circa 1930) calls for two parts gin and one part vermouth. Most modern-day martini “purists” would be horrified at that, since they think that a dry martini is made with, say, one drop of vermouth. I have no problem with people having strong opinions about how they like their drinks made, but it seems a little silly to claim to be a “purist” when you’re actually championing an adulterated recipe.
Hi Pot, I’m Kettle.
I’m not championing an adulterated recipe. I only stated that martinis are made with gin and vermouth, not vodka. People can vary the ratios of the two ingredients, stir it, shake it, add ice, or make it “up” to satisfy their own desires.
Aha! I’ll go veering off on a tangent for a moment. (That tends to happen after too many martinis, don’tcha know?) This just might be a way to make my next bottle of absinthe palatable. I’m going to have to try that. I still won’t call it a martini, though.
Absinthe: feels so good, but tastes so bad.
And yes, I know Pernod absenth is not the same as absinthe, but I just might be able to piggy-back on the Pernod recipe and come up with something drinkable.
At Joli Rouge, our local bar, they make a drink with Campari, Pernod, and a couple of other things. It tastes like a satanic jellybean.
Daniel
It may have also had Drambuie in it (I’m seeing a recipe online for a rusty nail, consistng of scotch and drambuie; I thought that’s what they called their evil jellybelly recipe, but theirs definitely had Pernod in it, and was both fascinating and ill-advised, IMO).
Daniel