Jump to content

Dado

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Dado's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Just bumping this, as I've run into a bit of a roadblock. I'm north of the border, and around here there is virtually no experience with small distilleries, or indeed distilleries of any kind. A couple of folks have mentioned (or at least implied) that explosiveproof electrical fixtures can be dispensed with if they are located at a sufficient distance from the potential vapor source (ie, the still). Is that part of the national electrical code, or is that a local-jurisdiction modification? In Canada, we share a great deal with the US/International code, but so far both engineers I've spoken with are pretty convinced that it doesn't matter how far away from the still the fixtures might be, they *have* to be explosiveproof. Again, I have found zero local resources who have experience dealing with distillery setup, this is new ground for the community. If I have to go all-XP, fine, I will, I'm not exactly safety-opposed! But this is a very small facility and I'd rather spend the money elsewhere, if possible.
  2. An excellent question and one that goes to the heart of what some? many? are trying to do. My back of the envelope definition is that "craft" means making something of sufficient uniqueness or complexity that it cannot reasonably be replicated on a large scale by large scale processes. Basically, if what you're doing scales to high volume, then it doesn't fit this definition of "craft". I sure don't accept "small" as being synonymous with "craft" - if I use the same inputs as a big producer, to make a product similar to what the big producer makes, then I'm not any more "craft" than they are, no matter how carefully I make my cuts. I do realize that, by this definition, a big chunk of micro-distilleries (and micro-brews and micro-etcs) wouldn't qualify. But to be honest, that's a marketing perspective. In engineering terms, making good product in high volume is every bit as much of a craft as making doubleplusgood product in small volume - it's just a different type of craft. All IMO, etc.
  3. IMO this relates directly back to the discussion started in the "barrel sizing" thread. Bourbon (as an ex.) is a well-defined product, whose very definition flows from the way it is made, even if it is in (relatively) large quantities. It is perfectly reasonable to look at 4R Mariage as an exemplary example of Bourbon. If aging and time - IE, leaving the stuff alone and not mucking with it - is so important and such a differentiator, then for the standard whiskey types it implies that skill & scale of the actual distilling process may not be so vitally important as we would like to think. *For the standard whiskey types!* So why don't we spend more effort making non-standard expressions that broaden the horizon of potential and compete on fertile ground? Instead of fighting a fight that can't be won, it seems to me small scale producers should concentrate on making anything but "by the book" bourbons or vodkas or gins or etc. IMO this shouldn't be surprising or viewed as antagonistic - the canonical whiskeys evolved along with their process - they are an expression of the way they are made. I think you and I are essentially in agreement, except that I don't think it's a different argument. I think it's a crucial issue that lies (or should lie) at the very heart of what the collective-we is trying to accomplish. <insert applause icon> I sure hope I don't step on any toes here, because I'm not trying to. To me this is a bit like the Kobayashi Maru problem - some fights you can't win -- so don't try -- change the rules of the game instead. Would like to add a recommendation for a documentary called "Mondovino". It's about the wine world, but many of the observations carry over to other beverage & food endeavours.
  4. Thoughts and prayers for Ralph and for his family. Hang in there, mate!
  5. My experiences in a small winery have taught me that making a product in small, hands-on quantities limits applicability of certain standard approaches, but it also opens up unique possibilities not available to those making product on a large scale. Making a few hundred or a few thousand cases a year allows for a level of attention and precision that simply can't be replicated when you're starting from a million-gallon mash. That midnight oil we're all burning isn't for nothing! It also seems to me that, for artisan-scale producers of any product, a more fundamental question than "can we [blank] just like them, only faster" is..."why do we want to [blank] just like them?" In my experience, much of what is done in any industry is as related to "that's how we've always done it" as it is to technically-derived understanding and conscious choice. I'm struck by the fact that there are exemplary aged spirits out there using decades-old barrels for aging that clearly cannot transfer the same level of wood-based compounds as new oak - yet few would argue that (for example) a well made, aged Calvados is a miraculously wonderfully complex drink. It seems clear this particular cat can be skun in more than one way. All IMO, etc. D.
  6. If it's alright to ask - is this the rumored joint venture between Hank Williams Jr and Popcorn's widow? Nice picture, though I have to wonder if Mr. Sutton ever actually used a thermometer!
  7. You can see there setup here, the stills look pretty identifiable. http://www.applejackohio.com/eau-de-vie For someone genuinely interested in small-scale production, it doesn't take much...
  8. Hello Robert, Do you by any chance have a link to that article? Even just title/author would probably do it. Cheers, D.
×
×
  • Create New...