Talk:Lucid Absinthe

Traditional or non traditional

Currently the article appears to contradict itself stating that it is created using a traditional recipe but was concocted by Ted. I believe it has been mentioned that it was modified to be lighter on the anise, so I don't think it can be said it's from a traditional recipe (although it may be originally based on one). -- Ari 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge (and as I recall from a Wired article), Mr. Breaux spent a very large amount of time researching, on a chemical level, the ingredients in famous brands of absinthe. His recipe, therefore, is as accurate as a modern production can be to the historical varieties. I have no reference for this information, however. fruitofwisdom 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To the best of Merriam-Webster's knowledge, that's not what the word "traditional" means. --70.131.55.41 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr. Breaux has not released any details on his research. There is no way to know if his method is actually an accurate representation of historical varieties. As one Erowid contributor suggests, it is also extremely convenient that after all this time, traditional absinthe is actually legal for sale in the US. The article should probably reflect this. Toleraen (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely convenient? I'm not sure how two companies working for the last couple years is "extremely convenient". The erowid article doesn't appear to understand the research or legal efforts that have happened in the last couple years. As far as the wikipedia absinthe article is concerned, Lucid is a traditional absinthe. -- Ari (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be pointed out that citing Erowid for anything falls somewhere between Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia on the reliability meter. That said, the current article, while more or less accurate reads rather like a press release. Rewrite for NPV? Lastly, T.A. Breaux is a well-known and respected distiller of absinthes made in the traditional style and using traditional methods; interpret how you will. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Picture Nomination

Hey, let's get a picture of a bottle and possible a glass of Lucid for the article. Based on what I read in Wikipedia's guidelines about images, it doesn't appear that a picture taken of an actual bottle of Lucid would violate any copyrights, as long as it is released into the public domain. Magnetic Rag (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thujone content

From reading the Forbes article, it is clear that this Absinthe contains no thujone, hence why the FDA allows it. I updated the article to correct this yet it got reverted back to the line that was there before that said "There is much speculation about whether it contains thujone, and the extent to which thujone is important." I agree with the latter part but from the article in Forbes there is no Thujone in this Absinthe. If there is any speculation about it from another source then please point it out to me on this page. Tall Midget (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately you are misunderstanding the current regulations. Absinthe with thujone is allowed in the US as long as it goes through TTB approval. Thus the FDA allowing a product only suggests that it contains under 10ppm thujone. -- Ari (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, I was not reading the article correctly. I apologize for that. Thanks for clarifying the regulations. Tall Midget (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucid is not just sold in the United States. It is also sold in Canada and France. Some of Canada has no regulations that deal with Absinthe/Thujone, so therefore Thujone can be present in the drink in it's natural state without alteration here. — ク Eloc 貢 19:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No credible information has been referenced that suggests that Lucid is altered from its 'natural state', or that more than one version exists. Vapeur (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)