American Spirits - Beyond WHISKY

Talk about Tennessee, American and Rye Whiskey here.

Moderator: Squire

American Spirits - Beyond WHISKY

Unread postby EllenJ » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:15 pm

I came across a very interesting tidbit today. I was reading Alex Reisner's "History and Taxonomy of Distilled Spirits" in which he lists some of the defining characteristics of just about every distilled spirit that ever existed. Among them, of course, were those with which we are concerned here. I was amazed to learn that, per the Scotch Whiskey Act of 1988, Single-Malt Scotch must be pot distilled to no more than 94.8% ABV, aged in oak for at least three years, diluted with water to bottling strength and with nothing but caramel added for color.

94.8% ABV?

Two tenths of one percent less than neutral spirits?

And yet we have people trying to imply that spirits distilled at 80% ABV should be considered INFERIOR if they can't wear the same "whisky" name?

Come on, folks!
Why should American spirit enthusiasts continue to use "whisky" as a standard against which to measure obviously superior products?

I say, look at what non-standard American distillers are producing (much of it being labeled "vodka" since that's about the only legal labeling category left open to them), and let's see some tasting notes for those products. I predict that, before the next decade is over, "whiskey" enthusiasts will occupy the same restrictive niche that "rye" enthusiasts do today. That is, Mark and Chris will have changed the forum to Spirit Enthusiast (or something similar), and both Bourbon and Rye will simply be subcategories, along with Scotch, Rum, (and perhaps Indian Whisky as a separate category), Tequila, Vodka, Gin, Canadian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.

Or maybe the forum should specialize in American Bourbon (and rye). No one (well, almost no one) said you can only participate in one forum. But in order to be happy participants, we need to agree that Bourbon and Rye ain't the only game in town.

Does that make sense?

And whilst meandering about the great Googleverse just now, I discovered a "vodka" distilled from pure Vermont maple sap. Of course, anyone else would call that "rum", but they can't -- by law -- in America. Pritchard's, the rum distilled in Tennesee, CAN label itself "rum", but only because the distiller agrees to make it out of sugarcane molasses instead of sorghum, which is both local and more accurate, but unacceptable to the Code of Federal Regulations. The more I learn about what's going on right now, the more I feel I could help Lenelle fill her shelves with REAL American product (of course, not all of those would be labeled "whiskey" - but somehow I don't think that would deter Lenell at all).
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby cowdery » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:45 pm

US law also allows the word "whiskey" to be used to describe a distillate distilled at less than 190 proof, i.e. 95% ABV. It's only for the "named types" (bourbon, rye, etc.) that the 160 proof (80% ABV) applies.

Does anyone know what is, in practice, the distillation proof of most malt whiskies?
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago

Unread postby gillmang » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:05 pm

From The Pocket Guide To Beer, Spirits and Liqueurs by M. Jackson and E.M. Greenberg (circa 1980): "The wort is fermented into beer or "wash", which contains about 10% alcohol. The wash goes into a copper pot still, emerging as "low wines". These go into a second pot still (called a low wines still [or spirit still]) to run off as raw colorless whisky of about 140 degrees".

Cognac also runs off in the 140's.

The world's traditional spirits are all low-proof distillates, including rum, although only some rum today is made in this way.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby EllenJ » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:07 pm

At least according the standard distillery hype, and as discussed here (and in the BCR and on our own website for that matter), the purpose of the "single barrel" and "small batch" designations was to indicate a premium quality that the consumer would equate with single-malt scotch.

Although it's conceivable that a distiller might attempt to sell light whiskey as a premium product, it's hardly likely we will be seeing "Frost80 Single Barrel" anytime soon :rolleyes:

However, SWA88 doesn't say just "scotch". It says "single-malt". I didn't notice anything being said about a higher (lower proof) standard for any particular class of single-malt.

Of course, I agree with both Chuck and Gary that most scotches, like most bourbons or ryes, come off at the lower proof of around 140 (70% abv).

But I'm not completely certain of that, either. Are you?
It's interesting that the only bourbon being made in scottish-style pot stills is distilled at barely two degrees under the 160 proof legal maximum. If Chris Morris is reading maybe he can tell us if that's a practical requirement for using that kind of still?

And if so, maybe that 140 isn't as accurate as we've been assuming. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. And it won't be the last.
Wait until we get to talking (as MikeV and I did recently) about barrels.
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby gillmang » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:02 pm

John, you are right of course about WR's distilling-out proof. But remember it is triple distilled. Malt whisky in Scotland is all double-distilled except for one or two surviving malt distilleries in the Lowlands which may still practice triple distillation (Auchtentoshan is one).

So if you do three runs, you will go higher than the 140's, and probably Auchtentoshan's distilling-out is closer to WR's, as is triple-distilled Irish pure pot still whiskey. But in general, double pot distillation of malt whisky and cognac gets you to about the 140's or in the 70's abv as you said.

In practice, I think most bourbon and rye are also, as you said, distilled out in the 140's, some may go lower (I think WT may) and some higher.

As long as (the U.S. decided) you are under 160 there is still plenty of that good old-time whiskey flavour in the drink. There was in Michter's and it distilled also not far under 160 (156 I think), just with a column still and pot still doubler.

The point is simply that at these lower proofs, the secondary constituents in spirit, all of which are formed in the ferment of the wash or mash or wine, aren't mostly removed by a more prolonged process. They give the drink its character - the part that does not derive from the wood of the aging process.

All traditional liquors that were distilled were distilled out low because equipment then couldn't get the spirit higher.

Tastes for those drinks developed, and endured.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:03 pm

John is hinting at a conversation we had the other day on the phone. At the Bourbon Academy Chris Morris was saying that he thought Bourbon Barrels first became widely used in the scotch industry starting with the Second World War. Supplies of their traditional barrels from France and other conteniental sources were cut off. The scotch whisky industry was an important industry to Great Britain because they needed the trade revenues to pay for the war. The scotch distillers continued to make and ship whisky all throught the war because of this need for foriegn (read American) currency to buy war supplies. The war starts in September 1939.

Now back in America a law is passed stating that any whiskey that wished to be called "straight" had to be put into a new oak barrel and this would start on 1 March 1938. John wonders how much of this law was put in the books because of a strong cooperage lobby and how much was it put in the books because of a strong scotch whisky lobby. If Britain sees war in ints future and disrupted supply of oak barrels of either new or used, then why not gaurantee a source by making American whiskey unable to re-use cooperage.

I would like to find out myself who did the lobying for the new cooperage clause. It could be interesting. Maybe Howie will visit the library of Congress and look it up for us someday. He is just an hours drive away...
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:25 pm

That is interesting, Mike, but I doubt scotch whisky had much to do with the change in U.S. law you are referring to. First, the use of ex-U.S. barrels in Scotland was well-established before 1938. The input is mentioned in the well-known 1933 Fortune Magazine story on the looming end of Prohibition. This means the usage had to pre-date Prohibition (for obvious reasons). Also, in mid-'38 and certainly in the period leading up when lobbying would have been at its height, Britain was firmly in appeasement mode. It was trying to avoid a war at any cost and placate every interest that was hostile to Britain and western values.



Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby cowdery » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:41 pm

Don't take too much from the fact that WR is triple-distilled. Because they are distilling from a mash, they use the first still strictly for stripping. The net effect probably isn't much different from the double-distillation in Scotland.

One only needs one's senses to know single malts are distilled at much less than 190, since they carry so much ingredient flavor. If they could get that much ingredient flavor at 190 well, that would be something.

Just like the US law for bourbon says 160 even though most distillers are 130-140, I'm sure it's the same in Scotland.

It's inconceivable that the "new barrel" law was strictly political. That is, after all, the style. Bourbon just wouldn't be anything like what it is without the new barrel. That "style" was well established by the late 19th century. The 1933 law codified an existing practice, it didn't create a new one.
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago


Return to Non-Bourbon Whiskey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests