Upon Whiskey Snobs and Blended Whiskey

Talk about Tennessee, American and Rye Whiskey here.

Moderator: Squire

Upon Whiskey Snobs and Blended Whiskey

Unread postby EllenJ » Sat May 19, 2007 3:02 pm

Okay, this is a long and drawn-out "article". I don't really have any choice, though, because it introduces ideas and issues that we're not accustomed to examining. And some of them have to be slipped into our minds through the back door in order to avoid the "knowledge police". You know, those little voices that say, "Danger, Will Robinson! This idea calls into question things we've learned from authorities and experts; we may be opening ourselves to ridicule here."

Y'see, I was reading a magazine article and it mentioned "wine snobs". And how they developed into spirit snobs and even beer snobs. I've watched this happen with Scotch whisky and I've seen how it has (in my opinion) destroyed once-legitimate Scotch clubs and publications.

And of course that got me thinking about bourbon snobs. Now that bourbon is becoming pricier and more fashionable among civilized (i.e., rich) folks, we're beginning to see our share. Some are obvious. Name-droppers who can only discuss the highest-priced brands, or those only obtainable by a select few. "Experts" who have neither experience nor interest in brands more commonly popular. But most of the examples that come to mind aren't what I'd really call "snobs". They're (maybe I should say "we're", since I may be one, too; I know I certainly have been at times) just people who have managed to obtain enough information to make them think they know something -- and then allow that knowledge to shield them from any new idea that might conflict with it.

If you've ever attended a whiskey-tasting you've encountered them. Usually (but certainly not always) they are newbies, just discovering the wonders that lie beyond 80-proof Beam white-label and Jack Daniel sourmash. Some go on to become truly fascinated by the range of flavors and character to be found among the different brands and expressions.

Some become fixated upon the relationship between "age" and "perceived value". Even when they might be expounding on the "correct" view (as determined by consensus on forums such as this one), you'll note that they (1) always seem to prefer the premium (i.e., older and more expensive) brands that offer such expressions, while at the same time (2) nearly always describe any specific four year old bourbon as being "too young" to be taken seriously.

Others may become focused on the higher alcohol levels available, especially the so-called "barrel proof" bottlings. Now, there has always been an element of whiskey enthusiasm that centers around its chief medicinal effect. Partially, that results from ignorance and from the ceaseless crusade of abstentionists bent on characterizing all beverage spirit consumption as simply a disgusting compulsion to be drunk and sin. Hopefully, participation on forums like B.E. and social events among enthusiasts will overcome those evils, but there are some for whom that stereotype may, unfortunately, actually apply. And with the availability of 130+ proof whiskey, you can expect to find a few of these folks at any sizeable event you attend.

There is also a "sub-set" of those folks often represented at tasting events (and in forums). Also in regular bars. These people don't really like whiskey. They don't like the taste of alcohol, nor the burning sensation, nor even the warm glow. You can easily see this, because they often enthusiastically express those feelings. They will wince and swallow with exaggerated difficulty. They will then catch their breath, wipe away (real or imaginary) perspiration, and then say something like, "Whee-doggies! That's real smooth!"

If they're of the "I-hope-y'all-know-I'm-really-a-God-fearin'-churchgoer-and-not-accustomed-to-messin'-with-this-here-Devil-stuff" school, they'll then switch to iced tea or Coke and drink that for the rest of the event. And if you continue to drink whiskey (which, of course, we do), you probably won't notice any "additional aroma" in their iced tea or Coke.

If they're of the "I'm-superior-to-you-because-I-can-take-more-pain-than-you-can" school, they might replace the comment with some remininces about other whiskeys with more "kick", that would "blow yo' haid off, boy". The Whee-doggies/Smooth declaration will probably be reserved for the barrel-proof stuff, and even then only if you make a similar statement.

Of course, most bourbon enthusiasts do very much enjoy whiskey's flavor, as well as its effects (at least the pre-stumbling ones). And while, after satisfying our curiosity, many of us will add water or ice to bring the alcohol level to our own preferred range, for nearly everyone here that range will likely be considerably higher than the 80-proof minimum required by law.

On the other hand, so far as I know the only blended whiskies normally found in America are all bottled at 80 proof. Suppose someone wanted to bottle an artisan blended whiskey? Of course, I mean "artisan" facetiously, as in "artisan vodka", but what if one wanted to produce a fine whiskey, basically from component parts? And suppose they wanted to bottle it at a more acceptable 94.6 proof? Or 107 proof? And, not being of the opinion that "older-is-better,-with-no-limits", maybe they wanted to use, as flavoring whiskey, a really great, high-quality bourbon or rye (or both) that was simply too old to be useful anymore in a straight whiskey product? Could one produce a blended whiskey that would be acceptable by bourbon enthusiast standards? Would one dare to try? Is such an idea conceivable?

Certainly, everyone (well, at least us bourbonheads) knows that "blended whiskey" means "fake". It isn't "real" whiskey at all, since it's only neutral grain ethanol assembled with flavoring whiskies on the bottling line like Pepsi-Cola or Gatorade and shipped immediately without any aging. The typical proportions are 40% nondescript flavoring whiskies and 60% neutral spirits. How can a product such as that compare with true straight bourbon?

Federal regulations set the maximum alcohol content of straight whiskey at no higher that 160 proof (80% ABV). At one time (and the distillers continue to quote this figure whenever they're asked, along with other questionable canned replies) around 140 proof was common. For this example (and to make calculations easier) let's split the difference and say 150 proof (75%) off the doubler (final distillation).

Okay, so for every gallon of newly-distilled whiskey we have 3/4 gallon of ethanol and 1/4 gallon of everything else. That is, water, congeners, etc. That 25% represents every bit of flavor derived from fermenting and distilling the mash. The distiller's work is done. No matter what happens to this spirit from now on, any additional qualities can only result from dilution, storage, selection, and mixing.

The other 75% contains nothing but alcohol. Pure grain alcohol. As in, grain neutral spirit. Or at least it would be, if we separated it out. But we don't; we dilute the whole mixture about 10% to 125 proof and barrel it as bourbon. By the way, since we're diluting both the alcohol and the water/congeners, that means the mash flavor elements are now only 22.5% of the barrel contents. And when that barrel is dumped in four to twelve years, a good portion of the non-alcohol elements will have evaporated, so the grain characteristics will be reduced even further.

... TIME MARCHES ON ...

When that barrel of aged straight bourbon is dumped, the alcohol level will have typically risen to around 130 proof (65%) or more, and the whiskey is then diluted for bottling. Since both alcohol and congeners (including those acquired from the barrel itself over the years) are reduced together, their proportions don't change.

Therefore...

At bottling, our straight bourbon whiskey consists of
65% neutral spirits
35% aged whiskey (including whatever flavor elements may have derived from the aged neutral spirits).

While a blended whiskey such as Seagam's Seven Crown consists of
60% neutral spirits
40% aged whiskies.

Interesting, no?

Now imagine what a profound difference it would make to our product comparison if the original distillate had been only 50% alcohol and the mash flavor elements were 50% of the total. That's also known as "100-proof" and that's the way straight whiskey was made until around the mid-1980s.

Still think today's American whiskey is the highest quality it's ever been?
=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 » Sat May 19, 2007 4:14 pm

A very interesting way to look at it.

All alcoholic beverages are some combination of ethanol, which is flavorless, colorless and odorless, and flavor. Where does the flavor come from and, especially if the flavor is pleasing, does it really matter? If it does, why?

Much is often made of the fact that Canadian and Scottish blends are "all whiskey," containing no "neutral spirits" like American blended whiskey, but what does that really mean? The Scots and Canadians put their vodka into an old barrel for a couple of years and the Americans don't. That's the only difference.

The "snobs" John describes should perhaps be envied for their blissful ignorance. When you know as much as we do, the emperor's clothes become at least translucent.
- Chuck Cowdery

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

Re: Upon Whiskey Snobs and Blended Whiskey

Unread postby afisher » Sat May 19, 2007 9:56 pm

EllenJ wrote:At bottling, our straight bourbon whiskey consists of
65% neutral spirits
35% aged whiskey (including whatever flavor elements may have derived from the aged neutral spirits).

While a blended whiskey such as Seagam's Seven Crown consists of
60% neutral spirits
40% aged whiskies.


This doesn't detract from your main points, but I think you have to apply your 65-35 factor to the 40% aged whiskeys in the blend, i.e. the blend has only 14% "mash flavor elements;" the rest is alcohol and plain water.
afisher
Registered User
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:49 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Upon Whiskey Snobs and Blended Whiskey

Unread postby EllenJ » Sun May 20, 2007 12:04 am

afisher wrote:... .. the blend has only 14% "mash flavor elements;" the rest is alcohol and plain water.

I knew when I wrote it that someone'd catch that factoid pretty quickly, but I'd already spent too long writing and was hoping a few days would go by before I had to explain more.

I didn't count on Eagle-Eye Fisher. Should have known better.
Congrats!

However, for what its worth, it isn't reduced-for-bottling aged whiskey that's being used for blends; it's whiskey made especially for use as a flavoring agent. I would expect it to be more like concentrated whiskey extract. For one thing, its production is overseen by a different set of cost accountants and therefore its quite possible that the distillation and barreling proofs are much lower. It's conceivable that the 100-proof tradition remains effective for whiskey that isn't part of the consumer marketing sphere of the business.

In describing some of the rye "flavoring whiskeys" from Seagram's in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, used for making Seven Crown, Jim Murray calls them the best he's ever tasted anywhere. One can safely dilute Murray's citation somewhat, but his point is well-taken -- there's a LOT of flavor cogeners in the whiskeys used for making blends.
=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 » Sun May 20, 2007 8:11 am

I see what you are saying, John, and I agree that older/more concentrated straight whiskey surely will be used usually to make a decent blend, i.e., even given afisher's salutary observation. I suspect too you have come to this conclusion by tasting some very good blends in your historical collection. That Melvale rye of circa-1900 I tasted with you might have been such a "super-blend".

We did actually have a discussion earlier along on the lines of what you are proposing. I queried whether (as Murray seems to confirm) the in-house straights used to make blends are strong and concentrated whiskeys, so that "net net", the flavor impact of a good blend will approach a straight whiskey at 80 proof.

I think I phrased it as a possible engineering throughput problem which 1800's Canadian distillers felt they had to solve, i.e., how to make a whiskey that tastes like a straight aged 4-6 years without aging all its components that long and without the inefficiences associated with production of low-proof new spirit.

But in fact, no blend tastes as good - good meaning here concentrated and full-flavored - as even a cheap 80 proof straight whiskey. You can't really duplicate I think, or not easily, what nature can do to a 150 proof distillate. And, much of it is doubled at lower than that I understand.

First, aging creates new elements: new chemical compounds are created by interaction of oxygen, wood, fusels. You can't dupliacte these - or not easily again - by blending.

Second, those heavy batch whiskies, e.g., the ones used by Seagram to make Crown Royal whisky, are probably not that heavy in relative terms -or if they are only a little is used in the make-up of the blends - because the final product is still a pretty lightish drink.

Also, I understand e.g., that some old Stitzel-Weller bourbon is being stored somewhere in Indiana (or is it at a Trace warehouse for Diageo? I am not sure) intended for use in Seagram blends, CR or other. So in other words I don't think custom-made heavy whiskies are always used, they will use sometimes what they have to make a characterful blend if it fits the overall bill (something quite forceful in taste, straight, old enough).

I have as you know made my own blends, I've used Old Potrero, say, some old straight bourbon or rye, vodka and or something like Black Velvet (which I believe may be 100% high proof aged spirits). I can get a very palatable drink but not something that is like bourbon or straight rye. There isn't enough barrel extract from new barrels in it to duplicate that taste and adding sugar and other flavor doesn't quite get you there.

And again, there isn't generally the total percentage of fusel oils that a distillate from an all-bourbon mash has. Whatever Hiram's whisky was like in 1860, today his 6 year old standard blend, good as it is of its type, is rather distant from straight whiskey.

And this brings me to the point that I think blends were and are designed for the consumer who basically does not like the unalloyed taste of straight whiskey - not that is to imitate straight whiskey. As Chuck has said, the Scots and Canadian producers are being a little cute when they vaunt the aged grain whisky element of blends as real whisky (or ditto for any American blends that may be "all whiskey"). The law in their countries allows, yes, such things to be called whisky, but this is only in the sense that a wooded flavor is given to something that is essentially neutral spirits. In other words the taste imparted to whiskey by the secondary constituents of new distillate, modified by long barrel aging (controlled oxidation), is lopped off from this understanding of whiskey. The producers know that a part of the market - maybe most of it - only wants a little of the real whiskey taste and a lot of the more neutral but woody taste, so everyone is happy...

But this does not mean a superior blend (superior e.g. to what is on the market today) can't be designed. I do this informally at home, initially I did it to balance out elements of whiskeys I found not to my taste and I often get great results.

My very best results come from a blend of all-straight whiskeys, as you know a grand old category somewhat neglected today.

My second best results (sometimes first best) are a blend of about 80% straight whiskeys and the rest Canadian whisky and/or GNS. Anything less than 80% straights, and I find the straight taste fades quite quickly. But then too I don't have aged heavy whiskeys to offset this.

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Sun May 20, 2007 10:29 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby gillmang » Sun May 20, 2007 8:34 am

By the way if someone was trying to duplicate a straight whiskey today without aging all its elements for 4 years or more in a new charred barrel, he would have more tools available than old Hiram Walker did in 1860.

He has the gas chromatograph, for one thing.

If you mapped out the complete chemical composition of, say, Jim Beam Black Label, would it be possible to duplicate it by using a super-concentrated straight whiskey and adding it to grain neutral spirits (possibly some of the latter would need to be aged in wood for the full period)? That superaged whiskey would have to have twice the congeners, or whatever the right number is, of those contained in the fully aged Beam Black. You could distill out probably a whiskey that met those requirements (or a combination of heavy whiskeys), but aging as I said earlier creates esters that do not originate in the mash, and other compounds too. How to you get those in? Maybe your heavy whiskeys or one of them is very estery, so you work it out that way. Or maybe esters can be added in some other way.

This is probably something worth doing (or trying) on an industrial, scientific basis, as opposed to my intuitive, home-tinkering methods, but I doubt distillers will do this. The will stick to the blends they have because they are traditional and meet the market requirement: a whisky with a mild taste. Also, I don't know how expensive it really is to age straight whiskey 4+ years vs. trying to imitate it scientifically, the added value may not be worth it.

But, as as a science matter, can it be done? I think so, or one could probably come close to the palate of a standard 4 year old aged whiskey.

I take again John's main point, which is that these are things we should not be afraid to ponder and a superficial appreciation of whiskey (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) should not be allowed to stand in the way of such theorising and practical essays. BT is doing (in a different way) its experimental program, and good for them. That is how the envelope is pushed. This is why some warehouses are artificiaally heated, someone worked out 100 years ago you could quicken the aging process that way, and they were right.

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

Unread postby bourbonv » Sun May 20, 2007 10:35 am

John,
One hundred years ago these same type questions were being asked in the "What is Whiskey?" controversy. For example if you can add water to lower proof of the whiskey why can't you add pure alcohol to increase the proof? Same principle in the opinion of the rectifiers of the time - you are adding a flavorless liquid to modify the proof.

It is also interesting that you brought this up. Yesterday the Bourbon Society did the hard hat tour at Buffalo Trace. Two things about their blends caught my ear. The first was Elmer saying the corn whiskey that we were tasting was made only for their blended whiskey. They use it instead of neutral spirits. Makes me want to go out and purchase an Ancient Age blended to examine the label and taste. The other is the new Old Charter PR blended whiskey. They hired the Master Blender from Seagram's Crown Royal blended whiskey when the company split up. They promised him that he could make a blend the way that he always wanted to do it and the results is Old Charter PR. Now I have tasted this in the tasting lab with Julian and Preston and I thought it was a decent blend with more flavor than most blends, but still a blend and that is to say pretty bland compared to a straight whiskey.

The fact is that you can not duplicate natural aging of whiskey. there is some flavors that are found when nature is allowed to work its alchemical magic over a period of years and no matter how hard human chemists try, they can not reproduce those wonderfull flavors.
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.

Re: Upon Whiskey Snobs and Blended Whiskey

Unread postby Mike » Sun May 20, 2007 12:04 pm

EllenJ wrote:When that barrel of aged straight bourbon is dumped, the alcohol level will have typically risen to around 130 proof (65%) or more, and the whiskey is then diluted for bottling. Since both alcohol and congeners (including those acquired from the barrel itself over the years) are reduced together, their proportions don't change.

Still think today's American whiskey is the highest quality it's ever been?


I know little to nothing about the actual making of whiskey, so what I am offering is an uninformed voice. Still, I proceed.

Remembering your comment, John, about how wonderful the aromas were from the mostly empty glasses which were left overnight after a party, I wonder if I took some G T Stagg (spring 2005 KY release at 130.9 proof) an extraordinarily rich bourbon by my lights, put it in a pan (increasing surface area) and let some of the alcohol evaporate (preserving the cogeners). Would that effectively achieve that 'higher quality' whiskey you are talking about?

What part would oxidation of the exposed bourbon play here? Could heating the pan to evaporate the alcohol more rapidly reduce the possible ill effects of exposure to oxygen?

I really enjoy this Stagg but rarely drink it straight because it is too hot for someone like me who suffers from acid reflux. Reducing it to about 105 proof seems to work best for me, but I just might be willing to try reducing the alcohol through evaporation (heated or not) if the exposure to air would not be too detrimental.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby EllenJ » Sun May 20, 2007 2:21 pm

bourbonv wrote:John, One hundred years ago these same type questions were being asked in the "What is Whiskey?" controversy.

Mike,
That, and President Taft's response, was a large part of my inspiration for writing it.

Mike wrote:... ..how wonderful the aromas were from the mostly empty glasses which were left overnight after a party, I wonder if I took some G T Stagg ... an extraordinarily rich bourbon by my lights, put it in a pan (increasing surface area) and let some of the alcohol evaporate (preserving the cogeners). Would that effectively achieve that 'higher quality' whiskey you are talking about? ... What part would oxidation of the exposed bourbon play here?

Okay Mike, on all three of your points...

(1) You nailed one deficiency right there. Were one of those glasses to have contained the "premium blend", it would probably have no aroma at all. Most of those come from elements derived from the wood (tannins, leathers, tobacco, etc). As an illustration of my final point, though, very few of the current whiskeys -- even aged ones, if they were bottled after the early nineties -- will leave much of an aroma, either. And some simply stink.

(2) One of the amazing characteristics of Stagg is that it IS so drinkable, even at that high a proof. It's even better when brought down closer to 100 like you're doing. In fact, at 90 proof it would pretty much be un-chill-filtered Elmer T. Lee. Great stuff! If you REALLY want to pucker up and do a Buddy Ebsen dance, take a slug of Booker's. But then, that's why I like to cook with Booker's -- the alcohol vaporizes away, of course, but there's just SO MUCH FLAVOR left in the food.

(3) Oxidation might play a part in your experiment, but simply the loss of much of the volatile elements would be overwhelmingly more influential. That wouldn't be an issue, of course, in a closed environment where the temperature can be controlled to within a degree or less. But leaving it out in a pan overnight is likely to have two very undesirable effects...

(a) The remaining liquid will be reduced, rather than concentrated, in those flavors you most want to keep. And

(b) Barleycorn will simply knock the pan over and consume the whole kaboodle, thus reducing both the flavor elements AND the alcohol content to zero.


Gary,
Okay, "not Mike", thanks for playing around with this with me. Now let's take the whole idea TOTALLY hypothetical... I don't ANYONE to get the impression that I'm offering to go into business with them. Nor that you, or Chuck, or afisher actually represent the contrasting characters I've assigned to you. We're just playin' a game here.

Now, suppose I have money and I want to invest in starting up a whiskey company. I don't know diggity-poop about whiskey (after all, MY people aren't drinkers, y'know), but I know you guys do. From what y'all have told me, it looks like these are my options (highly simplified, of course)...

(1) Chuck wants to make a good, solid, acceptable whiskey that will target the $20-$30 retail market. Using high-quality grain and deionized water (possibly calcium/magnesium treated for flavor and aging qualities), he expects to distill at a more closely standard 140 proof and barrel at 125 in charred new oak barrels (required by law for straight whiskey, but also by Chuck's own quality standards). This brand will be aged in climate-controlled warehousing, using multiple seasonal-variance cycles and should reach a level of maturity comparable to 8-10 years in under six. This brand is expected to be competitive with existing brands such as Buffalo Trace, Knob Creek, EWSB, Old Forester, or Beam Black. Chuck expects its success to result from its unique flavor character (augmented by skilled marketing) just as those brands are currently distinguished from one another.

(2) Gary wants to make the finest bourbon whiskey humanly possible. He wants to use hand-cultivated organic corn and rye, floor-malted two-row barley and water from the Kentucky aquafier transported to the distillery in ceramic-lined tank trucks. His choice of still is currently uncertain, but it will be all-copper in any event. He will distill at 100+ proof and barrel at 100 in brand new charred oak barrels (as required), made locally from weathered staves to Gary's quality standards. He would like to reserve a large portion of the whiskey for extended aging, but feels we could have a high-quality product to market in as few as four to six years, if necessary. Gary's target market is not concerned with the retail price of a bottle.

Both of these fine distillers will need for me to subscribe to a "program" in which I agree to finance, in addition to normal product and brand development, a full year's total production.
In advance.
For each of the next four to six years before I receive a single dime of cash flow.

(3) AFisher wants to make a beverage spirit that will meet or exceed what its target customer base expects of a fine bourbon whiskey that they would sip neat and not be ashamed to offer to friends. Like Chuck, he will use only high-quality grains and water treated to provide excellent flavor. Like Gary, AFisher insists on using as much copper equipment as possible, especially the main still and doubler. In AFisher's plant, where the distillation product is flavoring material and not beverage whiskey, the role of the doubler is especially important because his (perhaps unique, but I'm inclined to think not) process is to distill at a very low proof and then "reverse distill" the result. The 100-110 proof distillate is re-distilled in the doubler or pot still. But in this case, the target of the separation process is the remnants, not the vapors. The alcohol will be captured and reused, of course, but it's the extremely low-proof concentrate, containing only the congeners associated with fine whiskey, and none of the fusal oils and garbage that were left behind in the first run, that he is collecting. It is this concentrate that AFisher expects to barrel and mature. Since he is not bound by regulations intended to restrict the straight whiskey process, he can apply modern and efficient techniques as needed to obtain the desired barrel-aged character. These methods, in common use for every dark spirit produced in the world other than U.S. straight whiskey have come a long way from simply dumping some carmel color, mint extract, and oak flavoring into the mix. Maturation time is unknown just now, but should be approximately equivalent to that for other food-products; two or three months seems reasonable. The concentrated flavoring will be mixed with neutral spirits in a ratio to be determined, such as to produce a quality product, either for immediate bottling or possibly for further aging, or at least flavor marrying, in storage tanks. Because there is only minimal aging required, as well as a dramatic reduction in the cost of barrels and production facilities, both the upfront and ongoing financial picture is much more inviting. The resulting product will probably not appeal to most of the niche market that bourbon drinkers currently occupy, but should be capable of achieving a price point that would be attractive to current customers of blended whiskey and Early Times. If a portion of the cost savings are redirected toward upgrading and maintaining a quality level exceeding current market offerings (which should be easy to accomplish) and an under-$10 price level can be obtained (also easily realized, given the cost savings) I feel that the brand could be operating at a profit long before the first bottle from the other sources has been filled.

Product is manufactured as needed, after initial production of the flavoring concentrate
Approximately 3-month investment/return, repeatable indefinitely

**************************

Sure, it's imaginary. We all know it wouldn't work; I'm not even sure I'd WANT it to. So don't waste time jumping all over the descrepancies, errors, and things I've left out. Just enjoy the absurdity of it all and go with it, as the folks above have. And hopefully this daydream will set at least one or two wheels spinning in your mind and if you come up with something positive to add, please don't hesitate!!
=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 bunghole » Sun May 20, 2007 3:16 pm

John,

One interesting fact that has come to light from the Louisville Bourbon Society tour of Buffalo Trace is the distillation of corn whiskey strictly for use in blends, and thus doing away with GNS usage.

I don't know how this would factor into any of your scenarios.

Linn
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby cowdery » Mon May 21, 2007 12:09 am

Maybe I didn't understand John correctly.

American Blended Whiskey must contain at least 20% straight whiskey on a proof gallon basis, and usually contains between 30% and 40% in practice. The straight whiskey component of American Blended Whiskey is not some kind of special flavoring whiskey or "whiskey concentrate." It is, in the main, straight bourbon.

It is the Canadian practice to make blending whiskeys. That is not the American practice.

The straight whiskey component can be any straight whiskey, or any combination of straight whiskeys, so that component can include straight bourbon, straight rye and straight corn.

As for Seagram's, any of the 10 different bourbons made at Four Roses could be part of the straight whiskey component of Seagram's Seven, including some that are not otherwise sold solo, but that's a bit different from the Canadian practice.

To supply straight whiskey for the various Seagram's blends, including some Canadians, is part of the reason Four Roses makes 10 different whiskeys.

Although it is shorthand to deride the remaining 60% as "vodka" or "neutral spirits" some of it is distillate made in a particular way for blending to, in other words, contibute some flavor. It may be the equivalent of unaged corn whiskey or even bourbon white dog, but it's not aged.

All blends, regardless of country of origin, rely on the proposition that a little flavor goes a long way. This is easiest to demonstrate with scotch. Drink a premium blend beside a run-of-the-mill single malt and you might have trouble identifying the blend.
- 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 EllenJ » Mon May 21, 2007 1:05 am

cowdery wrote:Maybe I didn't understand John correctly... ..All blends, regardless of country of origin, rely on the proposition that a little flavor goes a long way. This is easiest to demonstrate with scotch. Drink a premium blend beside a run-of-the-mill single malt and you might have trouble identifying the blend.

Actually, Chuck, I think you understood perfectly, even if you didn't realize it. In fact, there are points incorporated into my story that I learned from you. Substitute "bourbon" for "single malt" and your final statement, in fact, is the basis of what I was saying; the rest is just a (hopefully entertaining and thought-provoking) way of placing that idea into a story to help illustrate it.
=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 » Mon May 21, 2007 6:52 am

A good example of a Canadian flavoring whisky may be Lot 40, which I have read is used to make Royal Reserve (a standard Canadian whisky). Lot 40 clearly (in my opinion) would not find a large sale on its own although it is an interesting product.

I think originally a lot of straight rye must have tasted (in Canada anyway, although I think Lot 40 is a type of Monongahela whisky, in fact) like Lot 40. One can see how this type of whiskey would be useful to flavor in an acceptable way a large amount of neutral spirit or mild-tasting whiskey. The intense, strong flavor of the low proof whisky is dissipated mostly in the base, producing some flavor which melds well with the oaky base whisky. This is in Canada but you get the same in the U.S. when straight whiskey is added to inter alia GNS or unoaked corn or green whiskey, the wood extract comes in that way, from the new wood used to age the bourbon or rye. Even if specific flavoring whiskeys were not devised in the U.S., the overall result is the same in my view.

Straight whiskey is, viewed against a historical and current market for light beers, wines and vodka, a pungent article. The view amongst distillers was its best use (same thing with malt whisky in the U.K.) was as a blending material. That is still so since the markets for straight bourbon and rye and malt whisky are much smaller than those for blended whisky whether Canadian, U.S., or Scots and, more so today, for vodka.

I remain convinced, however, that originally, people thought if you added a little well-aged or pungent straight rye and some other straights to a mild base, you'd duplicate a 3-4 years standard bourbon. (E.g. even in 1885 J. Fleischman states that adding well-aged whiskey to younger whiskey will help to impart an aged flavor, he doesn't say it in so many words, but you can see he thinks adding old whiskey will "even out" the age constituency of the barrel. However he was thinking of all-straights (a "blend of straight whiskeys", essentially, which is a recognised category still today under U.S. law). He would not have approved I think of what became the norm for whisky in Canada, but then he was a professional and like us had an aprreciation for genuine straight whiskey.

In the end, whatever the intentions were of the original blenders, their product became a separate category, a milder form of the straight whiskey.

But there were always stronger and weaker blends, better and less good ones, and John's idea of making one that can approach or exceed bourbon in quality is interesting. I believe it can be done and in fact the perfect whisky palate is yet to be attained.

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Mon May 21, 2007 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bunghole » Mon May 21, 2007 7:23 am

bourbonv wrote: Yesterday the Bourbon Society did the hard hat tour at Buffalo Trace. Two things about their blends caught my ear. The first was Elmer saying the corn whiskey that we were tasting was made only for their blended whiskey. They use it instead of neutral spirits. Makes me want to go out and purchase an Ancient Age blended to examine the label and taste. The other is the new Old Charter PR blended whiskey. They hired the Master Blender from Seagram's Crown Royal blended whiskey when the company split up. They promised him that he could make a blend the way that he always wanted to do it and the results is Old Charter PR. Now I have tasted this in the tasting lab with Julian and Preston and I thought it was a decent blend with more flavor than most blends, but still a blend and that is to say pretty bland compared to a straight whiskey.


Mike,

Somehow I missed this intel. Has the 13 year old Old Charter Propriter's Reserve been replaced by a blend?

Linn
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby EllenJ » Mon May 21, 2007 9:40 am

Gary,
My personal opinion is pretty much what Chuck said above. I believe the regulations allow up to about 80% dilution of straight whiskey(s) with neutral spirits (as part of the "What is Whiskey?" controversy and Taft decision that Mike brought up) and that whiskey producers wishing to serve a market of customers who prefer less whiskey flavor are thus able to offer a reduced-flavor product that can still deliver the desired amount of alcohol. Actually, I think this, more than an attempt at a cheap substitute for straight whiskey, is the rationale behind today's existing blends. I only point what one COULD do, and I also believe that what I suggested may have been more widely practiced at one time. As an aside, but perhaps an even more telling point, I noted that when that practice was common was also when the quality of straight whiskey easily surpassed that of the blends while today that may not be so.

I do disagree with Chuck and yourself about the nature of the straight whiskey that existing blend-producers use. The Lot No.40 brand you mentioned was indeed a flavoring whiskey used by Corby's, but probably not in the form we find labelled as Lot No.40. For one thing, nearly all modern whiskey is diluted with water; that certainly wouldn't be the case with blending stock. The stand-alone whiskey is chill-and carbon-filtered for appearance, which would be unnecessary in a blend (until performed on the blended product itself). Very unlike beverage whiskey, it's made, from the get-go, to be "off-balance". The "pure rye" nature of Lot No.40 is a good example of that. Neither Canadians nor Americans enjoy that much rye flavor (or at least that was true until quite recently), which I suspect is why Lot No.40 failed so badly as a stand-alone brand. A good, balanced blend (as opposed to just a cheaply-made junk product) would need to include a combination of several flavor whiskeys, probably none of which would be considered a balanced product in itself. The corn whiskey Mike wrote of would be another good example.

And that's why I maintain that the rules that apply to made-for-blending bourbon are different than those for made-for-bottling bourbon. Sure, Seagrams (and now Kirin) made ten different straight bourbons for use as flavoring whiskey. And they also bottled and sold about half a dozen or so brands of bourbon worldwide. All but one of those (under Seagram, that is; Kirin added another single-barrel for U.S. sale) were carefully mixed and balanced, by a company (and master distiller) with a passion for how well that is done. My guess is that, in a blind test where one didn't know how "special" the sample was, most of the tasters here would rate any one of Four Roses' blending whiskeys as "Poohey!". It's the combination that works. And that would be after reducing the samples to the same 80 proof as finished Four Roses (or finished Lot No.40); at barrel proof the effects would be magnified. So, if the intent is to produce a barrel of whiskey that is offset to the maximum possible toward a particular characteristic or combination, the methods for producing it can't be the same as they are for making "good whiskey".

One important issue that Chuck brought up is that federal regulations require at least 20% of the finished blend to contain, not just whiskey, but STRAIGHT whiskey. That means, among other things, aged a minimum of two years in new charred oak barrels. And although he didn't go any further with that I should point out that the regs specifically exclude "alcohol derived from added harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials, and, separately, or in combination, whisky or neutral spirits". So that right there disqualifies the suggested concentrate from being the straight whiskey component of our blend.
Sorry, AFisher.

BUT WAIT!!

No one said that the flavoring components and the neutral spirits had to be the ONLY ingredients. In fact, if 20% or more of our blend has to be made up of straight whiskey, then none of those "straight whiskey" restrictions need apply to our flavoring materials, so long as they are deemed "harmless". Of course, it also means we're stuck with making and aging straight whiskey that we need only for use in our blend. Is there no way to avoid that?

Probably not. But there are ways to minimize the costs and the effects on our product's quality.

Remember what Mike said about Buffalo Trace and their made-for-blending corn whiskey? Chuck also alluded to the use of unaged corn or even bourbon white dog. These products need be aged only two years, half the time that any decent stand-alone whiskey would require. Since we're not going to put an age statement on the finished product, we won't need to make one for the straight whiskey component (although at one time -- probably up to the 1980s -- it was common, and maybe even required, to list the age of each component straight whiskey on the bottle's back label). Since AFisher's operation is basically the production of the flavoring agents and their use in assembling a blended finished product, a better solution, in my opinion, might be to simply purchase acceptable 4-6 year old whiskey in bulk and make allowances for its inherent character when creating the flavor elements. That brings us back in line with the same schedule we were on, at only a small increase in cost, and still allows us to produce a product with a unique character superior to its peers and over which we maintain control.
=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)

Next

Return to Non-Bourbon Whiskey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests