|
In Scotland(and Ireland iirc) only the very cheap whiskeys use non-barley. Which is why they are less concerned with the grain because it's hard to mess up "100% barley". Every single malt (a bland of barrels from one distillery) or scotch blend (a bland of single malts from multiple distilleries) is 100% barley, enshrined in law. So it's a bit hard to be anal about the grain mix. "Grain whiskey" is whiskey that uses other grains and is primarily used for filler in very low quality blends though I am sure some premium grain whiskey exists they must be very rare. (This is in Scotland only)
With respect to distiling it to vodka. No. Vodka is basically pure ethyl, distilled to 90%+ then add water (I am almost certain that most vodka producers simply buy neutral spirit from medical producers then add water). The reason you can't really tell the difference between vodka and grain when drinking right off the still is that 65% is still too strong to taste what is there. And the barrel and aging process brings out the flavor of the grain in the same way that a whiskey will change flavored when you add water.
In general rye is spicey, corn is sweet (bourbon), barley is mellow, and wheat is shit (fuck you makers mark!). Ok for real though wheat is also sweet but it's a different sweet than corn. I just don't like it(and if you don't like makers you probably also don't like it since makers is 49% wheat). And all of these have a big effect on the overall taste profile. The reason that the barrel is more important in scotch is because it's less likely to be fresh* and because the grain used is probably the more mellow and more malleable barley.
None of the grain requirements precludes spices and other additions which are also important in the mash and will also have effects on taste. In general think of making a beer. Because that is pretty much the first step in making whiskey. Grain matters in beer of course. And addatives matter in beer of course. Even the yeast too. Then you add the aging in oak and finishers on top of that to increase complexity and reduce the punch of the alcohol.
*some American distilleries reuse barrels for what would be bourbon. Jack Daniels being the most obvious example. I am sure many do for the new "American single malts" that are being produced and for ryes do the same since there is no fresh oak requirement. JD also uses a "sour mash" which is like a "sour dough". They keep a starter mash alive and use it as the base for future mashes, which keeps the yeast portion of the mash consistent throughout the years. I am unsure if any scotch or rye producers do this but it isn't unlikely.
|
Didn't know JD reused barrels.
|
What's funny about reusing barrels is that Scotch is sometimes made in barrels used originally for making bourbon.
|
On August 28 2015 08:19 Djzapz wrote:
Didn't know JD reused barrels.
Yup. Bourbon is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Fresh Oak at least 2 years
JD is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Oak at least 2 years. And that is why they call themselves a "Tennessee Whiskey" and not a Bourbon.
|
On August 28 2015 08:49 Goumindong wrote:Yup. Bourbon is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Fresh Oak at least 2 years JD is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Oak at least 2 years. And that is why they call themselves a "Tennessee Whiskey" and not a Bourbon.
What kind of difference can you expect from the Fresh vs Reused? Just flavor/notes from the previous?
|
On August 28 2015 21:26 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:49 Goumindong wrote:On August 28 2015 08:19 Djzapz wrote:
Didn't know JD reused barrels. Yup. Bourbon is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Fresh Oak at least 2 years JD is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Oak at least 2 years. And that is why they call themselves a "Tennessee Whiskey" and not a Bourbon. What kind of difference can you expect from the Fresh vs Reused? Just flavor/notes from the previous?
It depends. If the spirit is the same, then the reused barrel will just give less of a woody taste to the spirit, that sometimes means less sweet, less tannins (which can arguably be bad in too high concentration).
If the spirit is different like when scottish distilleries use casks which previously contained for instance sherry or bourbon, you'll get the influence of the previous spirit into the whisky, because there's still some of the previous content remaining in the wood of the cask. If they then reuse them again, then the previous content influence is not as strong, etc.
Basically the wood loses some of its properties after every use.
|
On August 28 2015 21:26 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:49 Goumindong wrote:On August 28 2015 08:19 Djzapz wrote:
Didn't know JD reused barrels. Yup. Bourbon is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Fresh Oak at least 2 years JD is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Oak at least 2 years. And that is why they call themselves a "Tennessee Whiskey" and not a Bourbon. What kind of difference can you expect from the Fresh vs Reused? Just flavor/notes from the previous?
Not much. There is the obvious stuff like "barrel loses some of the wood flavor takes on the flavor of the spirit a bit".
The main reason companies reuse barrels is consistency. There are small variations between batches when you make whiskey and beer etc. Especially whiskey since you have a lot of different barrels (which are then mixed to flavor). So if you're reusing your barrels you're more likely to have a consistent flavor across barrels.
That is why I didn't recommend thinking about that kind of thing too heavily. It's an interesting minutiae for production but you're unlikely to like whiskey x that does y as a result of that process simply because you like whiskey z that also does y.
The exceptions to that are peating. If you like peat then you are more likely to like the peating process. But in terms of overall flavor the peating process is huge compared to the barrel and grain choice
|
On August 29 2015 01:36 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 21:26 mordek wrote:On August 28 2015 08:49 Goumindong wrote:On August 28 2015 08:19 Djzapz wrote:
Didn't know JD reused barrels. Yup. Bourbon is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Fresh Oak at least 2 years JD is >50% Corn + Made in the USA + Aged in Oak at least 2 years. And that is why they call themselves a "Tennessee Whiskey" and not a Bourbon. What kind of difference can you expect from the Fresh vs Reused? Just flavor/notes from the previous? Not much. There is the obvious stuff like "barrel loses some of the wood flavor takes on the flavor of the spirit a bit". The main reason companies reuse barrels is consistency. There are small variations between batches when you make whiskey and beer etc. Especially whiskey since you have a lot of different barrels (which are then mixed to flavor). So if you're reusing your barrels you're more likely to have a consistent flavor across barrels. That is why I didn't recommend thinking about that kind of thing too heavily. It's an interesting minutiae for production but you're unlikely to like whiskey x that does y as a result of that process simply because you like whiskey z that also does y. The exceptions to that are peating. If you like peat then you are more likely to like the peating process. But in terms of overall flavor the peating process is huge compared to the barrel and grain choice
I think you underestimate the difference between a fresh and a reused barrel. Someone in the last page said that JD reuses their barrels - it looks like they don't, at least not officially.
"It may not sound like a big change, but for whiskey distillers like Jeff Arnett, Jack Daniel's master distiller, using fresh oak barrels, charred on the inside, is essential to making high-quality whiskey." This is from 2014, in reference to a bill in Tennessee which would have amended the 2013 laws which did not permit the reuse of casks. As of now, it's not even legal for JD or Dickels to reuse barrels for Tennessee whisky.
Consistency comes from using the same woods but not the actual casks. The casks are used once and then sold. From my understanding, this is largely why the Americans never color their whisky, they don't need to because they use fresh wood which gives a lot of color to the whisky. Meanwhile, the Scots use mostly refill casks, and so they tend to color their whisky, especially the non-sherry matured ones.
After spirit has spent many years in a cask, it has apparently drawn a lot from the wood. And I'm not saying this should be thought of as some shopping strategy and that you should wonder what wood was used for this and that. It's just a thing you discover and figure out and you can try to experience for yourself maybe.
|
On August 28 2015 02:50 Goumindong wrote:
With respect to distiling it to vodka. No. Vodka is basically pure ethyl, distilled to 90%+ then add water (I am almost certain that most vodka producers simply buy neutral spirit from medical producers then add water). The reason you can't really tell the difference between vodka and grain when drinking right off the still is that 65% is still too strong to taste what is there. And the barrel and aging process brings out the flavor of the grain in the same way that a whiskey will change flavored when you add water.
Yes, wodka is near pure ethyl alcohol, with (mineral) water added. But the big difference is in the distillation method, sorry that I didn't make this clearer in my earlier post. For scotch, stills are usually round, short and have a short pipe into the condenser, which means that lots of aromatic chemical compounds (which are light in molecular weight) make the trip and get into the final product.
For bourbon, in all the video's i've seen they used column stills. These are long tubes that offer a better and cleaner method of distillation (and don't require solids to be removed prior). The result is that these produce a much cleaner end product; that is, without much taste or smell. To top it off, they also charcoal filter the stuff, so any last trace of flavour is removed. That's where the similarity to wodka comes in. So my question would actually be: why do bourbon distillers use column stills and charcoal filtration as they're the ones fussing about the grain ingredients? This makes no sense whatsoever...
|
The amount that you distill to matters more than the type of the still. Column still do not make whiskey that is more like vodka unless you specifically want them to. All of that matters with how much you distill it. You can make Vodka with a pot still, you just redistill until you have Vodka. Its not hard and was done for centuries before column stills were invented. Column stills are continuous and pot stills are batch. Column stills separate out solids naturally and pot stills must have the solids removed before they are placed in the still. The reason you use a column still is because it can run continuously rather than as a batch and because you have to be less careful about solids(solids will burn in a pot still). This makes column stills more efficient and potentially produces a more consistent whiskey (though that doesn't matter as much with the copious mixing of barrels that goes on)
Not all bourbon charcoal filters their bourbon. Though i am not sure why that would remove the taste. You have tasted bourbon before right? Even charcoal filtered corn whiskey is sweet as all shit. And its not because they put sugar in it (they do not; besides the corn of course). Its because corn is sweet as all shit and the resulting distillate is sweet as all shit.
Bourbon producers are not the only one who care about their grain. All whiskey producers care about their mash bill. The only reason that they aren't "exact" in Scotland and Ireland[minus grain whiskey producers] is because they're fussing about it being 100% barley. So if you're not mixing anything you don't have to make sure your mix is exact.
|
Highly recommend the Total Wine Version of Angel's envy. Very Smooth lovely whiskey.
Trying to find Yamazaki T_T Had a sip of the 18yr at a bar and it was amazing. TBF though I've mostly drunk at sub $80 range.
|
On August 29 2015 10:23 Sabu113 wrote:
Highly recommend the Total Wine Version of Angel's envy. Very Smooth lovely whiskey.
Trying to find Yamazaki T_T Had a sip of the 18yr at a bar and it was amazing. TBF though I've mostly drunk at sub $80 range.
Thank you very much! My wife and I were eyeing that one, not too sure if we should get it.
Speaking of total wine, I just opened one of their independent bottlings last night. I'm about 5 drams in (a little indulgent for me but what the heck) and its just lovely! The wood influence is real, I'm guessing the first refill of a bourbon cask. My favorite! I have never had a Ben Nevis before but this is just a classic scotch whisky taste. Nothing obtuse or particularly notable to point out, except that the spirit is very tempered and the flavor is, perhaps a bit woody, but lovely. This exact bottle, I can vouch for. I will be more likely to try Montgomerie's in the future now. Very balanced, no offputing notes at all. I'm very interested to see how it develops.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OWH5wC2.jpg)
If I were pressed for tasting notes it's definitely got a restrained nose, classic scotch smell - the taste comes as salty and oaked, with surprisingly little alcohol burn. The finish is long an oaky - the first dram was almost pine taste, but that has backed off. Really good stuff.
|
On August 29 2015 09:58 Goumindong wrote:
The amount that you distill to matters more than the type of the still. Column still do not make whiskey that is more like vodka unless you specifically want them to. All of that matters with how much you distill it. You can make Vodka with a pot still, you just redistill until you have Vodka. Its not hard and was done for centuries before column stills were invented. Column stills are continuous and pot stills are batch. Column stills separate out solids naturally and pot stills must have the solids removed before they are placed in the still. The reason you use a column still is because it can run continuously rather than as a batch and because you have to be less careful about solids(solids will burn in a pot still). This makes column stills more efficient and potentially produces a more consistent whiskey (though that doesn't matter as much with the copious mixing of barrels that goes on)
Not all bourbon charcoal filters their bourbon. Though i am not sure why that would remove the taste. You have tasted bourbon before right? Even charcoal filtered corn whiskey is sweet as all shit. And its not because they put sugar in it (they do not; besides the corn of course). Its because corn is sweet as all shit and the resulting distillate is sweet as all shit.
Bourbon producers are not the only one who care about their grain. All whiskey producers care about their mash bill. The only reason that they aren't "exact" in Scotland and Ireland[minus grain whiskey producers] is because they're fussing about it being 100% barley. So if you're not mixing anything you don't have to make sure your mix is exact.
I agree with you that scotch brewers wouldn't mention their ingredients, as it's 100% malt anyway. But I'm not so sure about the column still and the filtering (except for the continuity thing, that's an added benefit). I also don't think the resulting distillate can be 'sweet as all shit', as sugar is a relatively heavy molecule and won't make it into the distillate (demo). I looked up some random quotes from random places on the internet:
"The [name column still] comes from a tall, very efficient steel column of the sort used to refine crude oil into gasoline. At well over 90 percent alcohol, it's a lot purer (and a lot cheaper to make), but there's not much room for subtleties such as flavor and texture."
"If you are using a reflux still, it's no point using anything other than a thin sugar/water wort, because the reflux will strip out all the flavours. So no point in paying heaps for grains, malt extract etc, when sugar is so cheap."
From wiki: "Active charcoal carbon filters are most effective at removing chlorine, sediment, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), taste and odor from water."
|
Well I mean they're wrong. I assume you've tasted bourbon before and well you would know at one taste that such a claim was wrong. Because that shit tastes sweet. If you're distilling to 90-95% then yea you're gonna have tasteless liquor. But nothing stops you from distilling less in a column still just like nothing stops you from distilling more in a pot still.
When bourbon producers do charcoal filter the filter tends to be maple though some active filters exist they will not remove sugars from water or alcohol. It's similar to the "chill filtering" that many scotches go through so that the whiskeys do not get hazy.
|
I'm guessing (don't quote me on this) that there are certain compounds outside of sugar which still taste sweet or something like that. Like the Islay malts sometimes taste salty because of the water source but there's no sodium chloride molecules left in the bottle. Not a chemist (much less a homeopath/other type of fake science type person) so I don't know how that works...
Now I don't know if sugar is completely removed by the distillation process, salt should be, but there certainly is some sugar and sweet taste to be drawn from the casks.
|
Yup, there's some glucose in wood. That's why especially bourbons, which use fresh wood, can taste more sweet. I'm going to look for more info on this stuff.
|
Finlaggan Old Reserve. Got this at Trader Joes super cheap. Smokey and at 40%, probably chill filtered and colored. A lot of people think this is an independent bottling of Lagvulin, but I can't guess because I have never been a fan of that whisky. This is a bit more "unusual" and interesting than I imagined - almost reminds me of a Laphroaig. It's medicinal and has some like BBQ smoke notes. It's actually fantastic. Do recommend!
|
On September 05 2015 14:24 CursOr wrote:
Finlaggan Old Reserve. Got this at Trader Joes super cheap. Smokey and at 40%, probably chill filtered and colored. A lot of people think this is an independent bottling of Lagvulin, but I can't guess because I have never been a fan of that whisky. This is a bit more "unusual" and interesting than I imagined - almost reminds me of a Laphroaig. It's medicinal and has some like BBQ smoke notes. It's actually fantastic. Do recommend!
I had the normal Finlaggan at some bar just last week. It was the only Islay they had (not a whisky bar) and I'd never tried it before, so I gave it a go. I wasn't disappointed. Maybe I'll pick up a bottle from this 'brand'.
|
On September 06 2015 05:37 aseq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 14:24 CursOr wrote:
Finlaggan Old Reserve. Got this at Trader Joes super cheap. Smokey and at 40%, probably chill filtered and colored. A lot of people think this is an independent bottling of Lagvulin, but I can't guess because I have never been a fan of that whisky. This is a bit more "unusual" and interesting than I imagined - almost reminds me of a Laphroaig. It's medicinal and has some like BBQ smoke notes. It's actually fantastic. Do recommend! I had the normal Finlaggan at some bar just last week. It was the only Islay they had (not a whisky bar) and I'd never tried it before, so I gave it a go. I wasn't disappointed. Maybe I'll pick up a bottle from this 'brand'.
:D
It is not totally fawless for sure, its obviously young and the nose is "interesting" ... but its characterful and has all the characteristics I expect from an Islay, and is drinkable as all hell. (unfortunately I've proved that this weekend!) ... and at only 18.99 USD where I am buying it, I have already purchased another before it goes up and/or disappears >_>
|
My stock here is getting empty, so I will start another living bottle.
Also five single malts and a bourbon just arrived.
Connemara 12yo
Elijah Craig 12yo
Caol Ila 12yo
Aberlour Select Cask Reserve 15yo
Cardhu 12yo
Dalwhinnie 15yo
After adding a bottle my beloved Lagavulin 16yo, this will get me throught the cold season :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
