Explanation of distillation?

But for a more spiritual experience (in all senses of the term) it seems like a spirit that is very low on the totem pole with most of the 'flavor' coming from the infusions.

Don't disagree with the low on the totem pole thing, Rahsaan. In terms of finite differences in vodkas. Vodka is not my spirit of choice usually; and when it is I am very picky. You're right, there's not a lot of range in 'original' vodkas. That makes it more important to choose a good one carefully---if you want more than a mixer.

But there's a little misunderstanding: the 'flavor' doesn't necessarily come from an infusion. Infusion/Flavored vodkas are in a different category. I was primarily talking about the original style vodkas, where there is no infusion. There the flavor would have to come from the aforementioned sources of flavor.

It must be aged in new, charred oak barrels for a minimum or 2 years, but if less than 4 the age must be present on the bottle.

A little more to it than that though. Right, Jeff?

I'm not sure what you mean. That is how the statute is worded. Of course most bourbons are aged considerably longer. Avoid any product who's age statement is in months,

What kind of barrel are we talking about, Jeff? Good French Vosges, mayhaps, for a better style of bourbon?

Incidentally, the way the law is written, you can actually produce "bourbon" that is only one week old! If you follow the rules mentioned, you can age it for one week and sell it as 'bourbon'.. Of course, as you point out, the age statement would have to be on the label, and I doubt you'd sell much "One Week Old Bourbon".

Also, for the casual reader of this thread, bourbon doesn't have to be made in Kentucky, It can be made anywhere in the US.

In regard to aging spirits in oak barrels, besides time, wouldn’t the proof of the spirit that is placed in the barrel also be considered when determining how much time is needed to get the “desired” extraction from the barrel? One would think that the more proof the spirit is (the more “pure” it is) less time will be required.

Salute

In regard to aging spirits in oak barrels, besides time, wouldn’t the proof of the spirit that is placed in the barrel also be considered when determining how much time is needed to get the “desired” extraction from the barrel? One would think that the more proof the spirit is (the more “pure” it is) less time will be required.

Salute

Okay, this is where it gets tricky.

The higher the proof, the less flavor there is to develop---or another way of putting it would be that the higher the heat of distillation, the more the flavor components of source and fermentation are obliterated. That's because the higher the heat at distillation the closer a spirit gets to eliminating all flavor components and becoming neutral grain spirits.

So, lower proof levels means there's more flavor going into the barrel, and thus more for the barrel maturation process to develop, thus more nuances of flavor in the resulting spirit that comes out of the barrel.

What's tricky also is terminology. What a chemist or technician might call "impurities", a master blender would call "flavor"

Also what's tricky is what is actually going on in barrel maturation. Note that many 'purists' call this barrel maturation, and not simpy age. An age statement on a whiskey, for instance, doesn't necessarily tell you a great deal. It's not just how many years the spirit was in there---it's the type of the barrel used, hold old the barrel is, what might have been in it before (unless you're required to use all new barrels, as in bourbon), and---very important---the diurnal process the barrel goes through, as well as the entire seasonal process.

Barrel maturation in Scotland (pre-used barrels, cold, and wet) is very different from barrel maturation in Kentucky (new barrels, extreme diurnal ranges, warmer climate), and both are very different from Caribbean rum (any kind of barrel, not very much diurnal change, significantly hotter weather, ocean influence, high humidity; and the fact that you can use up to 10% of your spirit from the barrel through evaporation and transpiration).

even if you have exactly the same product in exactly the same type of barrel, where those barrels reside is crucial to the final product that comes from them. If it's in a warehouse in Kentucky, you look for different development in barrels that are lower down, in the middle of the rick, or very high up.

That's why the term "honey barrels" came about---they were the best developed of all the barrels, and were usually the barrels from the part of the warehouse that gave the highest diurnal ranges, and thus benefitted from more development. So, again, it's not the age spent, or number of years in the barrel, it's what the barrel went through.

Plus, mere extended barrel age is no guarantee of any sort of quality. Try a Single Malt scotch in 12, 18, and 25 year styles. The 12 can be wonderful, the 18 sublime----but the 25 could be dull, flat, insipid. So it's not just age.

Thanks Hoke!
I guess it would be wrong to think of “barrel maturation” of a distilled spirit not only as a process involving chemical changes (between components of the spirits and components of the barrel) but also part of the “steeping” process? (Well in reverse anyway- instead of placing the flavor component inside the distilled spirit, placing the distilled spirit inside the “flavor component” (the barrel).

Salute

Yes, Victor. Both. You place flavor inside the barrel; the barrel imparts flavor to what is inside the barrel as well.

Plus, we too often consider that spirit inside the barrel as separate from the outside environment. It isn't. In certain conditions, a the liquids in a barrel can transpire through the barrel itself, thus condensing the spirit remaining.

That's why it's generally conceded that the maturation process is the most prominent factor in bourbon, and where the greatest amount of flavor is generated. Whereas, in Scotch one of the primary factors is the barley malt/peat base source...because even after extreme maturation, that component dominates clearly.

[James Roscoe]

After reading through this thread I realize you know too much too. You need to relax that brain!

Hoke,

I'm going a little off the original topic, but seeing your depth of interest here gave hope that perhaps you could help us with a recommendation. We're looking for an interesting bottle of Bourbon to give to a Bourbon fan for her 50th birthday party. I am rather clueless once past Knob Creek. This gal likes Black Maple Hill (which I don't see in local stores),so it's not an option but it may be a clue to her taste. I don't want to give something insultingly-plain or poorly-regarded, and there are so many labels on the shelf.

Thanks in advance for any input you may offer. We can spend $75 - $100.

Jeff:

Van Winkle, if you can find any. Especially the stuff that's older. Might exceed your budget though. And there's always Van Winkle Rye, an absolute delight.

Also, while we're on Rye, there's an Old Rittenhouse aged Rye that's incredible as well.

Old Forrester Birthday Bourbon is superb stuff (disclosure: one that my company makes; but look at the reviews and you'll see it is universally exalted). Each one of those is a 'one-off' too. Plus this year OF is releasing a Repeal Bottling Special Edition.

I have only had it once but I'd recco the new Four Roses small batch reserve. Four Roses sorta faded away into blended whiskey, so make sure you read the label to check you're getting bourbon, then to check what quality it is.

Also, for a rarity/unusual but good, the Anchor Steam folk make a pretty damned good whiskey out in San Francisco: Old Potrero. If you can find it.

After reading through this thread I realize you know too much too. You need to relax that brain!

Au contraire, m'sieur: I know far too little.

Wow! Shively. Lively Shively! Hoke, you wouldn't happen to be from Shively? Minor detail, a mountain from a molehill. Never said that you claimed this or that, just having a good time. While we are on the subject, hasn't the metro government annexed the whole county?

[James Roscoe]

After reading through this thread I realize you know too much too. You need to relax that brain!

Au contraire, m'sieur: I know far too little.

Mes amie, thou dost protest too much.

Wow! Shively. Lively Shively! Hoke, you wouldn't happen to be from Shively? Minor detail, a mountain from a molehill. Never said that you claimed this or that, just having a good time. While we are on the subject, hasn't the metro government annexed the whole county?

Nope, not from Shively, Kerry. When I lived in L'ville I was out off Old Brownsboro Road. But I was told all the stories about Shively...and there were some good ones. The locals know the difference between Shively and Louisville, Was told. Apparently it was quite a place back in the day.

The annexation happened after I left. Every time I go back it looks like the Ville is dominating more and more of that part of Kentucky though. The Metro now spreads through several of the neighboring counties. City is looking better than it ever has before.

Every time I go back it looks like the Ville is dominating more and more of that part of Kentucky though. The Metro now spreads through several of the neighboring counties.

That's what we call urban sprawl.

Okay, this is where it gets tricky.

The higher the proof, the less flavor there is to develop---or another way of putting it would be that the higher the heat of distillation, the more the flavor components of source and fermentation are obliterated. That's because the higher the heat at distillation the closer a spirit gets to eliminating all flavor components and becoming neutral grain spirits.

So, lower proof levels means there's more flavor going into the barrel, and thus more for the barrel maturation process to develop, thus more nuances of flavor in the resulting spirit that comes out of the barrel.

That's true, Hoke, but it's also important to note that proof at bottling the opposite is true, which is to say the higher the alcohol at bottling the less water has been added and the closer the spirit is to its original flavor. The better whiskies are rarely 80 proof.

There are many different ways one can “cut it”. Like Oliver said water could be added, and/or a portion of the “original distillate” (of lesser strength or proof) could have been held back just for this purpose (also to add some of the “wanted and desirable original” flavor components).

Salute

Oliver and Victor: Both correct,of course.

I love it when I get the chance to taste a "Barrel Proof" bottling. I can put up with the high alcohol for the opportunity to taste, say, the Willett Reserve that Jake Parrott puts out. And in some of them, the flavors are so intense the alcohol doesn't even become a major issue. As long as you stick with one drink.

I mention this mostly because for years I mistakenly looked at eg cask-strenght malt bottlings and thought that they were merely macho, ie the higher proof was the point.

I love it when I get the chance to taste a "Barrel Proof" bottling. I can put up with the high alcohol for the opportunity to taste, say, the Willett Reserve that Jake Parrott puts out. And in some of them, the flavors are so intense the alcohol doesn't even become a major issue.

I was going to say, Jake has been very adamant about higher proof equaling more flavor.

What kind of barrel are we talking about, Jeff? Good French Vosges, mayhaps, for a better style of bourbon?

Incidentally, the way the law is written, you can actually produce "bourbon" that is only one week old! If you follow the rules mentioned, you can age it for one week and sell it as 'bourbon'.. Of course, as you point out, the age statement would have to be on the label, and I doubt you'd sell much "One Week Old Bourbon".

Also, for the casual reader of this thread, bourbon doesn't have to be made in Kentucky, It can be made anywhere in the US.

While you are technically correct, in order to use the designation "straight", a bourbon must conform to the standards stated above. I know of no simple "bourbon" on the market today. And, regarding the barrel, simple oak will do. You are correct, bourbon doesn't have to be made in KY...but good bourbon does!

Jeff:

Van Winkle, if you can find any. Especially the stuff that's older. Might exceed your budget though. And there's always Van Winkle Rye, an absolute delight.

Also, while we're on Rye, there's an Old Rittenhouse aged Rye that's incredible as well.

Old Forrester Birthday Bourbon is superb stuff (disclosure: one that my company makes; but look at the reviews and you'll see it is universally exalted). Each one of those is a 'one-off' too. Plus this year OF is releasing a Repeal Bottling Special Edition.

I have only had it once but I'd recco the new Four Roses small batch reserve. Four Roses sorta faded away into blended whiskey, so make sure you read the label to check you're getting bourbon, then to check what quality it is.

Also, for a rarity/unusual but good, the Anchor Steam folk make a pretty damned good whiskey out in San Francisco: Old Potrero. If you can find it.

Yes indeed, Van Winkle is good stuff. Actually a bourbon group that I belong to recently bought three barrels of Pappy 23yo and had it bottled privately. Damn fine whiskey. The Birthday Bourbon is usually fantastic, though a few years have been somewhat disappointing to me. Have you tried the repeal bourbon yet? I haven't picked up a bottle yet, but will probably do so this weekend. Potrero is a quality product, but not really to my tastes. I prefer their Junipero Gin. I got a taste of some old-world style genevere that they are now putting out. I can't remember the name, but I thought it was quite interesting.

The Repeal is pretty good stuff. It does have a (to me) fairly prominent honey note in the finish. Not honey sweetness, mind you, just the character of honey. (I'm sure you'll know what I mean.)

The 2006 and 2007 Birthdays were fantastic releases, I thought. A whiskey-knowledgeable friend had the upcoming Birthday release and said it would be one of the good ones.

Woodford is also coming out later this year with a Sweet Mash whiskey!

Can Winkle: so you're the culprits furthering the eventual depletion of Van Winkle, eh? Any possibilities remaining on that special bottling????

Re the bourbon qualifications, yeah, no one in their right mind would release anything less than a Straight. Certainly not now, in the middle of a resurgence of brown spirits. Still, it is possible.

The gin you alluded to, I think it is called "Genevriere"; it's pretty good.

Soon (up in Canada) I will be sampling a gin from Europe made with saffron. Should be interesting.

Meanwhile, I just acquired fresh bottles of all six Fee Brothers bitters (sans the special release Whiskey Barrel Bitters), so I'll be doing some inspired creative cocktail canoodling.

Here's a recipe that will either A) appall your basic bourbon core or B) intrigue you:

Swirl a glass with about a teaspoon of single malt scotch (brand according to preference) and dump (in your mouth is okay). Mix ice and bourbon, touch of sweet vermouth, bitters, bit of lime juice optional OR a drop or two of cherry juice optional. Shake, strain, pour. Pour in the middle of the glass, so as not to drain the dregs of scotch on the sides. Rub rim with lemon peel. Savor the aroma, then taste.

Like I said, you're either gonna love it, or hate it.