Charred Barrels

There's a lot of history and 'lore' behind bourbon so discuss both here.

Moderator: Squire

All this dicussion

Unread postby jbohan » Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:04 pm

All this discussion over the topic of charring would bore many people to tears if they heard it, but for a true bourbon enthusiast it is a great topic and I enjoyed reading every post on the topic. Thanks for the education, guys.


John :cheers:
User avatar
jbohan
True Friend
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Atlanta area

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:04 pm

In The Household Cyclopedia, an 1881 publication, there are numerous references to "casks" (not barrels, and in general the book seems very British in tone and subject matter yet bears an American imprint). A preoccupation is the "sweetening" of casks that are "musty". In the section on beer, it is stated that it is a "London Cooper's method" to "char" the inside of the barrels to sweeten them. In another section, dealing with sanitation on ships, it is stated water will keep perfectly "sweet" if stored in casks that are "charred" on the inside.

This book is on the web, just insert its name in Yahoo and it comes right up.

This suggests to me that charring of casks/barrels was an old English practice that came over on the Mayflower. It is doubtful London coopers' usage would have been influenced by developments in Kentucky; rather the reverse is almost certainly the case since the Republic was not that old and was founded by people of British origin (primarily).

I further conclude that the inherited knowledge and wisdom that water was kept pure in charred casks was transferred by distillers in the U.S. to the idea that white dog - white as water - would be kept pure and clean in charred casks. How ironic, since whiskey changes considerably in charred wood, but for the better!. Presumably water too might acquire a light tint if kept for months in barrels but I think probably it was not kept long enough for that to be a problem, the water barrels would have been refilled regularly except in unusual cases.

I infer (admittedly from slim but interesting data) that charred casks are an Old World technique used to keep contents clean and uncontaminated (as far as possible). In some places, e.g. France, it was noticed liquors improved thereby. In America, the same thing happened, possibly against initial expectation, i.e., the Scots-Irish in Kentucky may have thought by ancestral practice that whiskey, like water, would keep in its original form in charred wood but soon saw the beneficial effect of such aging, so stuck with it.

I always say that everything, broadly speaking, comes from somewhere. The Americans have a British heritage, by and large, which had an enormous influence on their daily habits and practices. If the British naval burgoo somehow ended up in the American South, so too could the British practice of charring casks to keep the contents in good condition.

I suspect 19th century coopering manuals may shed even more light on this, as may M'Harry's distilling book,when John and I get it and anyone else who ordered it.

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby Strayed » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:35 pm

gillmang wrote: I suspect 19th century coopering manuals may shed even more light on this, as may M'Harry's distilling book,when John and I get it and anyone else who ordered it.

I've already received M'Harry's book. And Byrne's too! That's one reason why you don't hear so much from me lately (I only have so much time available for "whiskey things" and I've been reading). And what I've read so far reinforces my suspicion that what early distillers were really aiming at was Grain Neutral Spirits, or as close as they could come given the crude heating methods most used. These were then rectified into something drinkable by the techniques outlined in the books.

Apparently, though, aged whiskey was familiar by 1809 because there is the following recommendation for duplicating it:
"This process ought to be attended to by every distiller, and with all whiskey, and if carefully done, would raise the character, and add to the wholesomeness of domestic spirits.

It may be done by clarifying the singlings as it runs from the still -- let the funnel be a little broader than usual, cover it with two or more layers of flannel, on which place a quantity of finely beaten maple charcoal, thro' which let the singlings filter into your usual receiving cask. When doubling, put some lime and charcoal in the still, and run the liquor thro' a flannel -- when it loses proof at the worm, take away the cask, and bring it to proof with rain water that has been distilled. To each hogshead of whiskey, use a pound of Bohea tea, and set it in the sun for two weeks or more, then remove it to a cool cellar, and when cold it will have the taste and flavor of old whiskey."


I should think, depending on how efficiently the maple charcoal was charred, it would also have either the smokey taste of Tennessee whiskey (this would be especially noted by those who have tasted the "before and after" Jack Daniels' samples) or the strong maple flavors of Michter's US-1 American or Conecuh Ridge.

In the same chapter, M'Harry offers that "...and was any particular distiller to ... brand his casks, it would raise the character of his liquor, and give it such an ascendency as to preclude the sale of any other..."

Am I the only one who might assume that by "brand his casks" M'Harry is referring to charring the inside of the barrels?
=JOHN= (the "Jaye" part of "L & J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
Strayed
Registered User
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Ohio-occupied No. Kentucky (aka Cincinnati)

Unread postby cowdery » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:04 pm

I have always maintained that one of the many reasons the Elijah Craig story is foolish is because it supposes the benefits of aging in charred wood were unknown and, therefore, needed to be discovered, which was not the case, as the evidence above and in other texts demonstrates. Frontier whiskey was not aged because the frontier distiller could sell all he could make just about as soon as he could make it, and most of his customers found ways to make it palatable that didn't involve waiting several years to slake their thirst. When technology and capital made it practical for distillers or their customers to age whiskey the old-fashioned way, they did.

As for them being on a quest to make GNS, that may be carrying the point too far. Their quest was to make the highest proof alcohol they could because alcohol, after all, was the whole point of the enterprise. However, I'm sure it wasn't lost on them that the highest proof spirits tended to taste the best too.
Last edited by cowdery on Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- 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 » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:44 pm

Yes, Byrn quite clearly recognises that normal aging produces beneficial effects, so this was known. The 1800's distiller - if he didn't want to make GNS, which often he did - wanted to emulate normal aging by short-cuts, of which Byrn gave numerous examples, as M'Harry did evidently from what John reports (that wool and charcoal stuff is fascinating - George Dickel still puts wool blankets at the top and bottom of their leaching vats). Branding clearly meant firing (as in branding cattle), so as early as 1809 its benefits were known. I ownder in what context M'Harry made that statement?

Regarding adding "Bohea tea" to a hogshead of whiskey in 1809, Joseph Fleischman's stipulation in 1885 to use green tea extract to blend rye whiskey seems an echo of that.

I wonder why Scots and Irish distillers did not take up the practice of aging in new or used charred wood. Maybe they had a regular supply (at the time) of ex-sherry and port casks, since those drinks were very popular in Britain then. I think I read somewhere that those casks were so plentiful they could be had for a pittance. Maybe their freshness precluded the need to sweeten the casks, which in turn prevented distillers from seeing the benefits of aging in charred oak. One would think though that in cool climates (especially Scotland's) distillers might have hit on using charred wood as a way to age more quickly, but the practice of using non-charred ex-sherry casks may have started very early and become a tradition. Also, if you charred them you would burn out the sherry and probably the distillers wanted the sherry to stay in, since aging in "sherry wood" is to this day a hallmark of quality in the manufacture of Scotch and Irish whisky. Maybe distillers tried aging in charred new or used casks but did not like how malt spirit aged in that wood. There is a malt whisky recently released aged in new charred wood, I think it is a Glenlivet (The Glenlivet) but I haven't tried it. Today, some casks are recharred in Europe before first or second use there but I think that is done to clean them up as it were, not to try to emulate the effect a new charred barrel gives to U.S. whiskey. By virtue of being used to begin with (charred or no), casks in Scotland and Ireland have a fundamentally different function from new wood in America, delivering that is much less flavor than the latter. Their function more is to allow the spirit to mature without gaining radical taste effects from the wood.

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

Brand the cask

Unread postby jbohan » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:08 am

Maybe the branding of the cask referred to the distiller putting his name on the outside of the cask. If George Wahsington gained a reputation as a good distiller, couldn't he command a premium for his product if people could indentify it ? It might be that he was talking about branding in the same sense as establishing a brand name product versus a commodity or generic product.
To long ashes and long finishes
User avatar
jbohan
True Friend
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Atlanta area

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:53 am

This is possible, we need to see the context of the remark, but I have a feeling he is referring to charring.

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

Unread postby Whiskme » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:00 pm

Wonderfully entertaining and informative read. And here I thought the only thing people cared about in 1800 was that it didn't kill them!
Whiskme
 

Unread postby gillmang » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:28 pm

I've since read the book and I must say contrary to my initial feelings I find some ambiguity in whether he meant to counsel firing the inside of the barrels or simply to brand one's name on the barrel head. Because also, he was talking about using tea to darken the whiskey so he might be talking about his special quick aging process not the inside firing of the cask. No doubt a specialist in early 19th century American English might be able to resolve the issue but where do we find such a person? And even if we did what are the chances she or he would take an interest in whiskey and its history? :(

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bunghole » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:32 pm

Gary, it all just seems like so much poofter smudge to me.

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

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:53 pm

Here is another thread that the historical fiction writer may want to read so I am moving it forward.
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 EllenJ » Tue May 22, 2007 8:55 am

Mike,
While re-reading Wayne Curtis' book, "And a Bottle of Rum" I was seeking references to early locally-produced rum. Rum produced in Philadelphia and Boston prior to the revolution (which would have been the "real" New England rum being discussed in another topic) was apparently, like local whiskey, not aged. At least, not universally. But, just as we bourbonheads prefer (and will readily pay for) higher-than-average quality, so it was even at the very beginning of the 18th century. On page 99 of the book, Curtis mentions a 1702 letter from Philadelphia merchant Isaac Norris to a companion in which he writes that the local rum, "only wants to age to taste well," but then goes on to lament that his customers could not be pursuaded to pay more for it, as it then wouldn't have "the right rum stink". :roll:

The letter (or at least Curtis' quote) doesn't mention charred barrels, nor did Norris include whiskey in his comment, but the idea of aging as a method of improving the flavor (or at least of emulating imported rum) is clear.

I'm amused that what also becomes clear is just how long the division between discerning brown-spirit drinkers and the teeming white-liquor masses has been going on. Seems the popularity of "vodka" (or its ilk) in America goes back way further than just Heublein.
:cabbage: :coffee3: :cabbage: :coffee3: :cabbage: :coffee3: :cabbage:
=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 May 22, 2007 11:41 am

This is right, John, although new whiskey disappeared pretty much before the vodka onslaught. One can argue though that white spirits drinkers switched to gin (those who didn't switch earlier to bourbon and aged rye) until vodka displaced its pre-eminence. As for the stink of new rum, I think he is referring to the odour of high proof unaged rum distilled from molasses or sugar cane, which can be pretty pungent and is an acquired taste. I believe it was in a history of Canadian whisky that I read a similar comment, from the mid-1800's in this case, by an Ontario distiller bemoaning that his refined product was not well regarded in certain parts of the Quebec market because the liquor did not burn as it went down. As always, localised or particular tastes develop...

Since some rum clearly was aged even in 1702 in New England, I would think rum produced there until the last distillery closed was (i.e., stylistically) part of a continuum of rum production there. Some rum is still made in Canada but it is blended with imported rum and I think it is fair to say this rum is part too of the tradition of making rum in North America from imported molasses.

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

Unread postby EllenJ » Tue May 22, 2007 3:13 pm

gillmang wrote:As for the stink of new rum, I think he is referring to the odour of high proof unaged rum distilled from molasses or sugar cane, which can be pretty pungent and is an acquired taste.

I think you're referring to such as Wray & Nephew's White Overproof in Jamaica, and you're dead-on accurate with that. It's also (along with other brands produced locally on Jamaica and other islands) what the people who MAKE rum, as well as 90% of the local population, call "whites", by which they mean "real rum" (the other kind being something like "rum for dummies"). Which (for AFisher) is pretty much the same way any Georgia 'shiner would look at 80-proof Georgia Moon.

That's also the way it was shipped to England and the northern American colonies. In fact, the purpose of barreling it at that strength (about 120 proof) was to increase efficiency. It was expected that the wholesale customer (tavernkeeper, shop owner, grocer) would dilute it appropriately for retail sale (and the odds are they exceeded that as far as the end customer would accept). But the island natives drank it "as is", as they still do. I would suspect, considering the reputation the North American colonists had for hard liquor, that that's the way it was often drunk in Canada and New England.

New England and Canadian rum was made exactly the same way as it was in the West Indies, and had exactly the same spunky flavors. Except that, since the molasses they used was nowhere near "fresh", there might have been a few additional delights as well.


gillmang wrote:Some rum is still made in Canada but it is blended with imported rum and I think it is fair to say this rum is part too of the tradition of making rum in North America from imported molasses.

That would be Screech? Actually, I believe the product available today is all Jamaican, and just bottled in Newfoundland. The marketing trades heavily on the close relationship between the cod fishers of Canada and the sugar plantations of the West Indies, which wouldn't have been able to exist without them. Employing the same forethought and leadership with which the British established North American colonies that had no provision for growing food, the sugar-producing islands were planted entirely with sugarcane and had no food crops at all. The population was kept alive almost exclusively by shipments of salt cod from the Canadian Atlantic colonies/provinces, in return for the same molasses as New England. I'm pretty sure the same processes were used and the same rum was produced as well.

The product that's sold under the name Screech today is actually a pretty good aged rum, darker than many, and similar to (maybe even better than) Jamaica's Coruba or Myers brands. I doubt that the original was like it in any way.

The same is probably true of Medford rum, the New England brand from that city (in Massachusetts) that made its fame in the 19th and early 20th cernturies by glorifying the legendary New England rums (several of which were distilled in Medford) and then marketing itself as a direct descendent. The mystique of that brand was only enhanced by the fact that it didn't survive prohibition, making it appear to be lumped in with the other New England distilleries of a long ago era. But Medford wasn't from that long ago. The company dates "only" from 1860. By that time the techniques of using the Coffey still and barrel aging to produce fine spirits were being discovered and used everywhere from Scotland to France to Jamaica and even to Pittsburgh, Lynchburg, and Louisville. With no bottled examples to preserve them, whatever the "real" New England rum was, as well as the real Monongahela and the real Bourbon -- and the real Screech, too -- had long passed into memory by then.
=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 » Tue May 22, 2007 3:54 pm

In the 18th century, "quality," as regards distilled spirits, was usually an issue of how many distillations occurred. A single distillation produced an underproof and very raw tasting spirit. Double distillation produced something acceptable to most and was the norm. Triple, quadruple, etc. distillation was considered "premium" and priced accordingly. This was all done in simple pot stills. The objective was a spirit as neutral as possible but vodka, as we understand it, was not technically within their reach.
- Chuck Cowdery

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

PreviousNext

Return to Bourbon Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests

cron