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?