Charred Barrels

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

Moderator: Squire

Unread postby gillmang » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:05 am

By telling the distiller to burn or char the inside of his barrels because it will improve the flavor, the letter-writer is telling the distiller to make what we call today Bourbon, it seems to me. Bourbon, even today under law, can be called that if aged for a relatively short time (even less than 2 years). Whiskey aged even just a year or two can take colour and flavor from the wood. It may or may not have been called Bourbon until later but that whiskey the letter writer was talking about surely was close to young Bourbon as we know it today. From everything I have read both published and from the very knowledgable persons on this board, I believe Bourbon got its name because it was shipped from the original Bourbon County. And, I believe it was this self-same aged red whiskey, not white or pale whiskey. Or a least, early on the name bourbon became reserved for the superior version that took color and flavor from the cask. Why would any whiskey be called Bourbon and people pay more money for it than local production when young corn could be made in New Orleans or much closer to New Orleans than the ports from which Bourbon (as we know it today) was shipped?

The idea of long storage giving bourbon colour and flavor, especially if new charred barrels were used, and that this was noticed by middlemen such as merchants, shippers, grocers, watermen, is quite persuasive as is the fascinating idea that these traders were trying to appeal to a brandy market. They would regularly have appraised the whiskey in its post (white dog)-sale state. So surely did some of the distillers but not (let's say) in an organised or methodical way and not from a consumer's standpoint as it were. Likely originally, new barrels were used for storage and shipping if available, and if not available, reused charred barrels were used and finally new charred barrels for the best grades of whiskey at any rate. Distillers would have used whatever they had or was cheapest to buy. Middlemen would have seen the effects and, as the very interesting letter shows, assisted the distillers to make what became a hallmark product. They may have done this to appeal to that Cognac market downriver but as Tim says that may not have been the exclusive origin of the process, different markets, including local ones, may have noticed the effect on quality and required producers to sell them whiskey that was originally called Bourbon in the "export" market, meaning whiskey aged for a time in charred oak containers, and later became the name used in the production area, too.

I think it must have been like Dover sole. That fish famous for quality is, or was, landed in and shipped from Dover, England. In Dover itself it was a sole, no one there originally would have called it Dover sole that, but later the name stuck. Soles aren't fished incidentally at Dover, they are brought there from further afield (as it were) in the North Sea.

gary
Last edited by gillmang on Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby cowdery » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:50 am

that early on the name became reserved for the superior version, the one that took color and flavor from the charred wood.

Sorry, but, no, and wanting it to be true won't make it so. We don't know everything but to reach this conclusion you have to ignore a lot of the history we do know. When the term "bourbon" came into use, it was used rather indiscriminantly to refer to any whiskey produced in the Mid-South.
- 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 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:00 am

Not a conclusion but an inference, a working hypothesis, shall we say. Also, I don't wish the history to be any specific way, I can only express opinions based on what I have read over 20 or 30 years. My reading is not done systemmatically because I am neither a trained researcher nor a professional writer on the subject.

Thus, e.g., in the 1870's Byrn in, "Complete Practical Distiller", who makes numerous references to storage of whiskey, never once refers to "bourbon". He refers (briefly) to whiskey from "Indian corn". In speaking of storage, he refers to wood barrels but does not address the issue of new (or other) charred wood. In fact he suggests whiskey can be aged in large cisterns made from materials such as stone. Admittedly this is one reference amongst many one could consult, but if Bourbon was used in commerce at the time to mean whiskey in the sense you indicated he didn't know about it. Of course this isn't conclusive.

In the later blending guide (1885) by Joseph Fleischmann, I don't recall (I will check) if he uses the term bourbon as such but certainly he mentioned many whiskeys by brand name such as Mattingly, McBrayer, Crow, that were bourbon as we know it today. He makes this clear by referring to their multi-year aging in barrels and to their fine taste and color. But generally he speaks of, "whiskey".

I believe Bourbon was a term that emerged in the Southern and Mid-Western whiskey trade and it took time to be accepted and once it was amongst traders, maybe even more time to be accepted in the home area of production. E.g. how many whiskey labels have we all seen from the Getz museum and elsewhere from the early 20th century that do not state bourbon? Some do but many refer only to whiskey.

So, before the early 1900's, in my occasional reading, museum-going and so forth, rarely have I seen the term bourbon used and when it was it was clearly in reference to bourbon as we know it today. Someone on straightbourbon.com posted a photo of a bottle in a collection from the later 1800's, I think it was called Finch or Finch's and it said bourbon on the label. I recall also the product was long-aged (15 years or something like that). Clearly that was bourbon in our modern sense. But never have I seen the term Bourbon used to refer to new whiskey. I accept that not all bourbon was long-aged in new charred wood until the later 1930's when changes in regulation mandated this but the best of it was, in my view, from early on. And even whiskey aged in reused barrels or a mixture can be bourbon-like, e.g. as we see today from Early Times or Michter's Unblended.

But from what I know the term Bourbon never was applied to a new or hardly aged white whiskey, for example. I think Mike has said he feels Bourbon really first meant a whiskey long aged in charred oak containers. He was saying this in relation to other potential identifiers such as mash bill or area of production. I am coming to believe that is right.

I'd be happy to see evidence that Bourbon was used to describe any kind of whiskey, such as white corn whiskey or high proof whiskey. I think some people feel Bourbon could have meant such whiskeys and Old Bourbon was first used to mean the type of Bourbon we know today. That is an interseting theory but I doubt it is right. I think all Bourbon from the beginning of the use of the term was aged but of course, some was aged more than others. The current regulations allow bourbon aged under two years to be called (under certain conditions) bourbon, so an Old Bourbon in 1870 might have been, say 8 years old.


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

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:29 am

This is where Chuck and I disagree. This is the same disagreement we have had since I have known Chuck and that is the name bourbon coming from the county. I think the whole Maysville story is a myth made up after the fact or as part of the marketing plan to explain or legitimize the use of "Bourbon" as a name. The more I see of that period shipping lists and manifest from Kentucky merchants such as Corlis, the more convinced I am that Chuck is wrong. Most list the owner of the goods, a list of the good, but no place of origin, no marks of ports along the river such as Louisville or Shippingport or anything of that nature. If such a mark was used on the goods themselves, you would think it would also be put on the paperwork.

I think bourbon was used to designate whiskey aged in charred barrels. I think the term "Kentucky Whiskey" was also a term with the same meaning. In the 1880's Atherton testified before Congress on extending the bonding period to 8 years. He tells them that Kentucky Whiskey has a meaning in the industry such that they know they are talking about whiskey made to be aged before it is sold and has meant that for many decades. That is one reason why I think a lot of brands were simply labeled Kentucky Whiskey instead of bourbon. Kentucky Bourbon would be redundant to their customers.

I agree the term bourbon was probably used before it showed up in advertising, but I don't think the lag time would be more than 10 years and the Craig myth and the Limestone story are all suppose to be in the 1790's 20-25 years before the earliest advertisemnets.

I know there are a lot of people who agree with Chuck especially in the industry, because that is the way they have always heard it so that is the way it must be. I simply believe that spin doctors have been around longer than the last 50 years. The stories we have now served a purpose in creating the marketing of the 19th century.

Mike Veach
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby bunghole » Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:05 pm

The appealing part of the Big Easy Connection is that it was a marketing decision to make the whiskey more like cognac in order to increase both sales and price/profit and not one to make the whiskey better for whiskey drinkers whether local or long distance. Not only that but such a decision would have been made by a either a single and thus knowable man or a group of business partners. It would also mean that he/they deliberately chose to call the charred barrel'd product Bourbon as part of that early marketing strategy. Then you need more than just a bright idea - you need a salesman. You have to convince tavern owners not only to buy your whiskey over someone elses, but to pay more for it. That person would also have a name and therefore be knowable. This salesman could also very easily have been the originator of the whole idea. Could this person(s) have been of French origins and therefore had knowledge of cognac?

In Richmond, Virginia there were and still are a sizable community of French Huguenots. When Patrick Henry offered corn writs to Virginians to go to Kentucky County, Virginia how many Huguenots took up the challange?

It seems to me Professor Veach that you must walk backwards down the path. Start at the finish and finish at the start.

I haven't been to New Orleans in thirty years. I'm a lousy research assistant, but the Big Easy is such a damn fine photogenic city - I think I'll stay busy just capturing digital images.

So when are we going?

: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 cowdery » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:57 pm

Mike seems to want to disagree with me more than our actual difference of opinion warrants, but so be it.

There can be no doubt that there is a relationship between Bourbon County and bourbon whiskey. Does anyone believe the two were named independently?

Both Gary and Mike seem to be mixing evidence from late in the century, when the term bourbon whiskey had come to refer to a whiskey we would recognize as bourbon today, and early in the century when it did not.

It is also true that the term was not used very much until late in the century, post Civil War at the earliest.

In fact, it seems to have appeared early, possibly to refer to whiskey from "greater" Bourbon County (what Crowgey calls "Old Bourbon") and then fallen out of use, reappearing later in the century when it became useful as a way to differentiate a certain style.

Unquestionably, bourbon came in the late 19th century to mean a whiskey made from a mash of mostly corn, but including some percentage of small grains, aged in charred barrels and not mingled with any other spirit. When it began to have that meaning I don't know but the evidence does not support a theory that it always had that meaning.
Last edited by cowdery on Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:07 pm, 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 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:36 pm

I guess what I'd like to see is ANY citation of the use of the term "bourbon" to describe Kentucky whiskey before 1870 or so. I do not believe I have ever seen such a quotation.

So far based on reading these current posts, I think:

(i) the term Bourbon derives from a reference to (old) Bourbon County, where the whiskey was first made

(ii) this term likely was given this name by people downriver in Louisiana and in other markets outside old Bourbon County; the fact that the term was not mentioned in early manifests is not conclusive, in my view, because in the mid-1800's the term still was not official but was almost colloquial

(iii) Bourbon (the style) may have arisen to please French taste in New Orleans, developed that is by brokers or salespeople from something different ( the original white dog whiskey), but the style may also (concurrently, or solely) have arisen through the work of the distillers themselves in Bourbon County and acquired first a local market. I still cannot rule out what Craig and Crow and Williams and others may have contributed in this regard, not yet anyway

(iv) the term Bourbon only started to be used formally in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Before that, in Kentucky itself, it was Kentucky Whiskey, as Mike notes from the Atherton testimony.

Hopefully more evidence will emerge of the pre-1870 use of the term to shed more light on its original meaning.

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

Unread postby cowdery » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:12 pm

I'm sure Mike has seen some of the original materials, but for me it's Henry G. Crowgey. His book Kentucky Bourbon, The Early Years of Whiskeymaking is a scholarly tome, full of footnotes and citations to original material. Mike disagrees with some of Crowgey's conclusions, but I don't believe he questions Crowgey's scholarship.

You have to like a man who dedicates his book to his mother.

Here is a quote relevant to this discussion: "For the sake of sentiment and romantic tradition, it would be pleasant to record that a full-blown bourbon whiskey industry emerged from the limestone-layered soil of Kentucky at this time. However, the facts do not bear this out. The evidence suggests that, despite the taste of the early settlers for spirits, there was no such institution as a distinctive frontier beverage. The first few years of settlement were conspicuous for the introduction and use of a considerable variety of fruit and grains other than the indigenous Indian corn. Accordingly, the distiller discriminated little in his choice of raw material and there was a corresponding lack of bias on the part of the consumer."

Subsequently in the same chapter, he observes that references to rye whiskey were abundant in the late 1700s, but there was scarcely a word written about corn or "bourbon" whiskey. He also points out that Kentucky was exporting a lot of peach brandy to downriver markets during that period. From January to May of 1801, the Port of Louisville recorded 42,562 gallons of whiskey shipped and 6, 157 gallons of peach brandy. Whiskey at the time was selling for between 62 and 75 cents per gallon, while peach brandy was selling from $1 to $1.15 per gallon.

Arguably, peach brandy would have tasted more like cognac than corn whiskey did.

According to Crowgey, there was little effort to standardize the proportion of grains used in distilling Kentucky whiskey until the 1820s. In 1823, the Lexington Gazette published a recipe that called for 1.5 bushels of corn meal, 0.5 gallons of barley malt and 4 gallons of rye or wheat meal, what we would recognize today as a bourbon mash bill.

Crowgey cites an 1821 ad in the Western Citizen, published in Bourbon County, as the first known advertisement for bourbon whiskey. He adds, "the use of this nomenclature was to remain almost completely local for the next several years, but by 1840 the use of 'bourbon' in identifying this delightful whiskey had become a statewide practice."

As to the characteristics of this whiskey called "bourbon," there is a clue in market quotations in 1848, in which whiskey referred to as "rectified, raw and unclassified" is priced between 14.25 and 19.25 cents a gallon, while "Old Bourbon Whiskey" is priced between 30 cents and $1 per gallon "according to age."

In the next chapter he discusses the origin of the name and the legacy of Limestone (Maysville). He cites many references to "Old Bourbon Whiskey" in records from the 1840s onward in the Maysville area. He contends that Old Bourbon was a place, i.e., the former expanse of the original Bourbon County, Virginia, and not a type of whiskey.

His main point about aging in new charred barrels it that we have many records specifying the characteristics a whiskey should have and while age is often mentioned, charring of the barrels is not, nor is the color that is the result of such aging mentioned ever, despite the "hundreds of advertisements consulted." Nor was color cited in any of the records from agricultural fairs.

He does cite Harrison Hall, who writing in 1818 admonishes would-be distillers to ensure that their barrels are "well burnt or shaved inside," but this seems to be related to hygene concerns. He further says that, in the summer months, it may be necessary to burn the insides with straw. Crowgey suggests that what began as a sterilization process led to a realization that the taste was also enhanced.

The fact that Hall published his guide in 1818 and the Corlis letter was written in 1826 suggests that the practice was becoming known in that period, but the absense of any other reference to it until mid-century suggests that is wasn't widespread.

All of this is tantalizingly inconclusive, but those are the facts as I know them.
- 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 cowdery » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:54 pm

The conclusions I draw from those facts are that the term "bourbon whiskey" was originally (early 19th century) used locally in the area encompassing "Old Bourbon" County and may have referred to any whiskey made in that region. By the 1840s and thereafter, it was used to refer to a whiskey made from a mash of mostly corn, with a little rye or wheat, that had been aged, though not necessarily in charred barrels. By the middle of the century, the term "bourbon" was reserved for the finest examples of the kentucky distiller's art, at least some of which had been aged in new, charred cooperage and distinctive for its amber hue. Gerald Carson sites Robert Letcher's 1849 letter to Orlando Brown as the first reference to bourbon's red color, by referring to it as "the 'Red Cretur.'" Unfortunately, said letter doesn't seem to be where Carson says it is, because Mike has looked.

In other words, I think it first meant any whiskey from the region, then was distinguished by the mash bill and aging in some kind of cooperage, and only at the last stage by aging in specifically new, charred oak.
- 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 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:06 pm

Very interesting, thanks. From this I conclude the term Bourbon was used slowly from the early decades of the 1800's to refer to whiskey that was not aged exclusively in charred wood perhaps, but probably very generally was treated in such fashion. It sounds too that the name Bourbon came from within, not without the original Bourbon County, as did the process itself which moreover seems to have been, as is plausible, a side effect, happily beneficial, of storing whiskey in casks which were "sweetened" (cleaned to remove residues of former use). All this makes sense to me but I also recognise the plausibility of the alternate theories advanced by Mike and others. That "raw" whiskey sounds like low proof whiskey (white dog). Rectified whiskey sounds like GNS or as close as they got to it then. Old Bourbon whiskey surely was whiskey made in the manner that became customary in the original territory of Bourbon County, i.e., stored in charred wood (ultimately new charred wood), of different ages, from mashbills that are similar to those used today. Sounds a lot like today's picture: our GNS is vodka; our "raw" whiskey is Georgia Moon and American blended whiskies (more or less); our Old Bourbon whiskey is Bourbon Whiskey and like then we can buy it at different ages. As for color not being mentioned, I think it wouldn't be just as (generally) it isn't mentioned in ads today (or wasn't until bourbon became a trendy consumer drink). I think people took for granted then, as now, that aged whiskey would be amber-hued. By the way, I think peach brandy then would be white or almost so unless it was mixed with real brandy. All fruit spirits (like Poire William, Kirsch, Slivovitz) are white and drunk new, generally, except for Calvados or applejack. Byrn talks about all the spirits you mentioned and mentions numerous raw materials too as the source for 19th century distillate. Byrn was based in Philadelphia, plus he was a Europhile, so he may not have taken notice of terminology that was developing further west in (to him) a secondary, still-developing area. But it is interesting that Crowgey and Byrn both report the situation at mid-century in similar terms: whiskey can be made from many kinds of cereals and fruits; it can be made from "Indian corn"; details of barrel aging are few and far between. The picture Crowgey paints isn't definitive, I agree (I wish we could see those hundreds of ads, we might find more in them, possibly, than Crowgey) but the overall picture he paints (or as I interpret him) makes sense to me.

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

Unread postby bourbonv » Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:07 pm

Chuck,
I do indeed respect Crowgey as a historian. At the same time there have been papers and other sources come to light over the last 30 some odd years since his book was published and I think it might be time to re-examine his conclusions. As I said in a prior posting, I would not be surprised if my findings lead me down a completely different path all together, and it may lead me back to Crowgey, but it is a trip worth making.

Crowgey, to my knowledge never looked in the New Orleans newspapers for early advertisements of bourbon. Another place to look might be New York as many products sent to New Orleans often were loaded onto ships to be sent to the eastern seaboard and Europe.

The Filson has a label book from an early Louisville printer (went out of business in the 1850's). There are many bottle labels including labels for "Old Bourbon Whiskey", "Superior Old Bourbon Whiskey" and "Old Monongahela Whiskey". Two of the bourbon labels list the bottler on the label - Geo. Welby and Samuel Jacobs & Co., both of Louisville.

Mike Veach
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Strayed » Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:49 pm

My, my, but this thread has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it Mike? :lol:

Just to add a little more speculative fun to it, though, here's another thought to consider...

Bourbon whiskey isn't named for the county-of-origin stamped on the barrels. If that were true we'd also have bourbon leather and bourbon hams and bourbon cider. The ONLY thing anyone ever called bourbon was the liquor. And they called that kind of liquor bourbon no matter where it was made.

But, whether it began in Limestone or at the Falls of the Ohio, the practice of aging whiskey was almost certainly the work of merchants, not distillers. And some types of whiskey (corn, rye, mixed-mashes) are more suitable than others for making the type of spirit becoming known and marketable as "Bourbon". Eventually the merchants would be able to dictate what type of whiskey they would pay top dollar for (or buy at all) and that's what changed the face of Kentucky distilling. But before that could happen, someone had to be the first to distill whiskey which was intentionally designed to age into "bourbon", on a commercial scale, year after year for two to four years. Even while enduring the disdain of his peers and a local reputation for producing a terrible-tasting white dog. As has happened in more recent times, the new process might also have involved some mighty un-tasty missteps on the way to success.

Could it be that there might be more truth in the Evan Williams story than we might suspect?
=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 » Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:50 pm

Crowgey also can be maddeningly incomplete and inconsistent, and his reasoning can be a little hard to follow. Like a lot of academic historians, he tends to be generous with data, stingy with context and analysis. I wish I could ask him a few questions.
- 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 bourbonv » Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:41 pm

I hear you Chuck. The last I heard he was teaching college in North Carolina somewhere. The editor of the Louisville Encyclopedia was a classmate with Crowgey at U of K when he wrote his thesis.

John,
You make some more interesting points. Early on tobacco and hams were as big an export, if not bigger, than whiskey.

Mike Veach
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby bunghole » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:39 am

One thing that is clear enough to me is that the New Orleans history of Kentucky whiskey imports is a dangling thread that needs further investigation.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Bourbon Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests