Talk:Lillet

Untitled

Changed 'varietals' to 'varieties.' Varietals means the kind of grape, not how it is made, e.g., red or white.

Questions about article content

Does the N.I.C. reference in 'Architect Hugh Newell Jacobsen includes a bottle of Lillet in his architectural drawings at the bar - with a note of N.I.C. (Not In Contract).' refer to the lack of a product placement contract for Lillet, or is this a term of art in set design? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.92.61 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lillet Products

This area needs some attention as it is light on objective fact and it is not usual to include detailed tasting notes in a wikipedia article. In addition these notes seem to be a copy of those available here so there is a potential copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbentley (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Reformulation, and troubling edits

In October of 2014, a user named "Lillet 1872" edited this article and removed sourced information regarding the alleged reformulation of Kina Lillet in the 1970s. Despite the user's name, I'll assume good faith, but we're at least owed an explanation for removing that information, especially given that it's very relevant to the history and general information about the product. If there's some dispute about the name change, then the Wikipedia article should cover the dispute.2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked into the edit in question, and I re-added this well-sourced paragraph:

Kina Lillet was reformulated in 1986[4] and rebranded as Lillet Blanc, a “fresher, fruitier, and less bitter” concoction.[5] Cocchi Americano is generally considered to be the nearest contemporary drink to the original recipe Kina Lillet and is often used as a substitute for it in cocktails.[6][7][8]

I also deleted some unsourced information in the history section that was added when this was removed.

The claim I have reproduced above is relevant, because Lillet is widely consumed as a mixer in classic cocktails that pre-date the alleged reformulation. The claim that Lillet was reformulated, and did did not simply face a name change, is attested by three secondary sources, at least one of which is as reliable as they come (the New York Times). I think it would be good to have a discussion about the content of the passage (does it really need to mention Cocchi?), but please do not unilaterally delete it.2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction between 2 descriptions

There is a contradiction between the description, "* Lillet Blanc (1986–present): A sweeter variant of the white-wine-based version with reduced quinine flavoring. It replaced Kina Lillet." and the statement, "To improve the balance between acidity and sweetness, the sugar content was slightly reduced, giving priority to the fruitiness while maintaining the same quinine bitterness concentration." As the 2nd statement is in reference to the changes made to Lillet in 1985, it must be refering to the Lillet Blanc in the 1st statement. The first statement describes the reformulation as more sweet with less quinine, and the second statement describes the reformulation as less sweet (with the same amount of quinine or an amount to balance the less sweet concoction). I could not find a definitive proof of either statement being correct.Brian of SummaeStudios (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)