Osocalis

I wish we could all get over size and get on to quality! The question is (and it is the only question that counts) is Woodford Reserve a well made bourbon? The craft is in the bottle or not and it in no way is a necessary function of size. I've tasted some mighty poor small batch bourbon, all claiming to be craft spirits. So much for the craft,

Distilling to lower proof means your keeping too much of the seconds. No matter how long you plan to age it, the distillate should come out ~68%. After that you can dilute if you wish. However, the longer you plan to age it, the higher you want to keep the proof initially (you will lose alcohol over time. Put it in barrel at something like ~64%. Apple brandy starts to get nice after ~10 years and is really best from 25-35 years old. Good luck, Dan

Questions concerning the Internship of the application process can be addressed to Daniel Farber Chair of the Internship Committee Osocalis Distillery 5579 Old San Jose Rd. Soquel, CA, 95073 dan@osocalis.com

Use soft water and go slow! Especially below 48% you need to go in increments of ~2% and wait for the spirit and the water to marry (many weeks at the quickest). If you need to rush, think of chill filtering. You will remove some flavor but it’s the only solution. It takes us ~ 3 years to do a dilution get the spirit to marry and prevent haze formation. Good luck!

All the traditional brandy producers in California use direct fire. The pots are typically enclosed insulation and brick exterior (for looks) with a boiler door for access. The burners have flame control and safety pilot sensors. Basically all the stills in Cognac, Armagnac, and Calvados are direct fired (for good reason if you plan on making brown spirits) so I don’t see a problem. If you ever have vapor coming out of your condenser (except for the initial portion of the heads before liquid can condense) your still was grossly improperly made and or you are running way, way, way, too fast! There is really no problem at all with direct fire, after all, the steam-jacketed stills have open flames as well, just under the steam jacket and not in direct with the pot.

There is a problem here and one that pops up its ugly head with any column still. Once you 'strip' you do just that as you change the way in which the next distillation proceeds. The entire processes of obtaining a fine spirit is dependent on both the partition coefficient of the flavor components of interest as well as its solubility in polar vs. non-polar solvents (you can also think of this as alcohol vs. H2O). Thus, distilleries making high quality brandies and whiskeys will do two distillations at fixed alcohol in each run. Otherwise you will either miss getting the flavor components entirely or lose them in a second pass at too high a proof. You can entirely disregard these comments if you are making vodka.

There is a major difference between these two alloys when it comes to old barrel aged distillates. Ever see a nice golden brandy turn green? These essentially no difference, for eau de vie.

Oops, On reading my post and the original question I realized there might be some confusion as to the nature of a thumper and a chauffe-vin. There is really a profound difference between these two pieces. The chauffe-vin is vessel that holds wine and has a closed tube running through the center connecting the col de cygne directly to the serpentin. Thus, there is no mass transfer to the chauffe de vin only heat transfer. The thumper is a vessel that is open to the vapors (and heaven forbid liquid) coming over the col de cygne. Some of this material recondenses to liquid and collects in the thumper. The vapor from the col de cygne then passes through this collected liquid before passing to the serpentin. Thus, the ‘thump’.

There is quite a rich literature on the subject and even more information to be had with a simple visit to any distillery making Cognac or brandies of any origin using the method Charentais. Suffice it to say a thumper is something to ‘catch’ and then redistill marc that would have pushed over the Col de Cygne (here I use the French terms but the same pieces are essentially on every still in one form or another). This would be a disaster for high quality brandy as well as high quality whiskey (thus the absence of a thumper on a Scotch still). However, for moonshiners time was of the essence thus the use of a thumper to ‘protect’ the eau de vie from contamination with marc. The chauffe-vin is just that, it is a vessel that pre-heats the next batch of wine (never used with brouillis). This not only saves energy but also changes the character of the final brandy via the slow (~4-6 hr) low temperature cooking of the wine in the chauffe-vin. This is neither a plus nor a minus but, a definitive style (Rémy-Martin requires the use of a pre-heater other houses require that a pre-heater not be used as it is not part of the house style). If all the details of the method Charentais could be had in this forum, there would be no sense in professing the ‘craft’ of distillation. It would indeed, turn into a ‘paint by the numbers masterpiece’. I encourage all those interested in these subjects to taste the great distillates of the world and then make a trip to the far reaches of the globe to see and hopefully gain a better understanding of the production methods and most importantly the reasoning behind the methodologies.

For sale, 24hl alambic still with preheater. For further information contact: info@osocalis.com

We've got to move beyond the 'big is bad, small is good' mentality! If there is something to be said for just being small then what is it? And if there's something wrong with Jack Daniels (I myself am not a bourbon fan - too much oak for my tastes in general) than let's talk about that. But I see no reason that just due to size, quality must suffer. We need to be talking about quality factors and show that the big brands are lacking and the the micro-brands are superior to justify many of the postings.

Charles, Again, I couldn’t agree more! In fact (I know this is heresy) most of my favorite beers are not microbrews. In terms of whiskey, you make a strong and compelling argument and while I do not disagree at all, let me make a few observations from the brandy side of things. 1) In Cognac, to use the name Cognac on the product, there are a number of regulations that need to be followed (it is Europe after all). Most of these are aimed at insuring a basic quality of the product. While not touching on all of these, let me point out that it is required to use a still of less than 24hl. Why, one might ask? Because size does matter and the surface area to volume ratio has a profound influence on the final brandy. Thus, an argument can be made for micro. But does this not beg the question of whether or not all Cognac is made in micro-distilleries? I note, that I am not suggesting that 24hl is the magic number for all distillates (whiskey I would imagine, would be different) but just that there is a magic number and technique for all classic distillates. 2) In the US, modern brandy production with traditional techniques was truly pioneered by Hubert Germain-Robin of Alambic, Inc. (who unfortunately no longer works for the company). Here in California, Hubert experimented with new fermentation techniques and the distillation of single varieties of grapes (Pinot Noir is the classic example) that were never used before in either Cognac of California. Over the years (and it took many) Germain-Robin achieved a worldwide status for quality brandy as well as other products. This, I would claim was truly artesian. Overall, I think ‘craft’ is a loaded concept and pre-supposes a level of quality that frankly, I think is presently lacking in many of the small startup distilleries. My sense is that ‘micro’ is likely easier to define. I suggest that before defining ‘artisan’, ‘micro’, ‘craft’ or another distillery descriptor, we should focus the discussions on the definitions of the quality factors (much of which has already been done by the way) of the traditional products that the new small distilleries are trying to produce. The similarities or differences here might both shed light on the industry and suggest some possible differences that might warrant a title different from just distillery (which by the way is fine for me).

Bravo Charles! I do get a sense in this industry the there is a bit of the “Emperor has new clothes” syndrome at play. In the case of brown spirits where it takes 5-8 yrs to bring a product to even a 'young' maturity, would not one like to have the experience of even a few trials and errors (who knows 10 years experience?) before claiming to be a ‘Master’? In the case of spirits that need to start life as neutral, it is arguable how much art is in the artisan. There are however ways to screw up anything I guess. While this is indeed hard to quantify, much of the present use of the term ‘Master Distiller’ doesn’t pass the ‘ho ho test’.