bluestar

Uh, what do you mean? I got hits on anything I tried (of large brands).

It is hard for us to keep hybrid distillation from our current mash down below 160 proof for the entire heart run, although we could always further dilute the mash to achieve that. Also, we do get a more refined flavor from our double distillation IF we do a shallow tail cut on the first distillation. But more importantly, we think we get a better yield (hearts ratio) at equivalent flavor.

Okay, we are on the same page. We have a still that can switch between running as a pot still or as a hybrid still. That is, we can remove the plates from the column (not bypass, that is not quite the same IMO). We have run our mash through both ways. You don't get the same product from a single run in a hybrid still that you get from a double run in a pot still, at least when using a full on-grain mash for distillation, our preferred method. Beer might be different, we don't do much with beer. Our strips come out at about 120, we dilute back to 80 for the spirit run. We also run a dephlegmator for the spirit run, and that comes out just below 160 to start.

We are using the Race, OK for all hand application. But we have heard that the semiautomatics can be better. Which one you using JohninWV?

Drink more wood!

Nonsense. You need specific information on the run and pot still design to know how long a single pass run will take. I take it you mean to limit your discussion to the "hybrid pot still" you referred to earlier? I have a suspicion that people in this discussion are comparing apples to oranges. You might need to elaborate on the hybrid pot still design and process, since I think it is very different than what some here are thinking about when comparing a single distillation versus a two pass.

Might be helpful to post pot volume, plate diameter, condensor type/size, and a picture.

There are US made vodkas from grapes. In Michigan, Roundbarn makes DiVine and St. Julian makes Grey Heron. Dancing Tree makes a seasonal from Ohio-grown grapes. These turn midwestern grapes that might not be suitable for wine into a good quality spirit at a reasonable price. Contrast with Napa Vodka, that markets even a "Vintage Reserve" from sauvignon blanc, going more for the premium hype of a Ciroc. I am sure there are others.

We have had no problem with our St. Pat orders, including 2 Letina ZR tanks purchased at different times.

Relevant passage in CFR section 19.620: The serial number and date of form TTB F 5100.16 (not required for wine spirits withdrawn without payment of tax for use in wine production);

I think Charles gave you the answer: there is no separate form, but there are entries in the other forms for such transfers. For the DSP: 5110.11 has an entry for brandy or alcohol/spirits transferred to a bonded winery out of storage. 5110.28 records bulk wine received or on hand. It also records wines mixed with spirits (because when you do that, you increase the total proof gallons as spirits, and decrease the total proof gallons as wine). 5110.4 has an entry for use in wine production (because it went there directly without going to storage).

Go ahead, spill the beans on the pH regimen you used for that gravity.

5100.16 is only for DSP-to-DSP transfers. So unless the winery is ALSO a DSP (there are some), don't use that form.

Well, other than the fact that I am a scientist, I am not going to give you a slew of references. But proteins will go back into solution (deflocculate). Oils will not. And oils don't flocculate, not physically possible, unless they do so with other macromolecules, like protein. In which case it is protein flocculation with oils. Oils separate on their own either by going into suspension (not the same a flocculation) or just phase separating. The results look different, even to the naked eye. Oil suspensions look evenly cloudy, like when you louche absinthe. Protein flocculations usually end up in lots of floating, wispy, cloud-like fragments, that will have a tendency to settle to the BOTTOM of the bottle. Oils, if they separate (come out of suspension) will float to the top. Flocculation (in polymer science): Reversible formation of aggregates in which the particles are not in physical contact. So in your case, is it homogeneous, settling to the bottom, or floating to the top? That usually can determine which phenomenon (and which material) it is. I see the same effect when making my corn whiskey as you describe: corn strip will produce significant amounts of oils and waxes that appear in the tails. We get an oil slick on the top of new make in the latter stage, and we get cloudy suspensions at the very end of the tails. So I am not saying there are no oils in your product, of course there are. But they don't flocculate. I don't see any flocculation in the production of our corn whiskey if unaged, but rested in SS. I do see flocculation in the bourbon made from the very same new make, although not excessive. This leads me to suspect the proteins might be leachate from the barrel. But I can't rule out they were in the new make and modified by aging in wood.

According to the TTB, that is a redistilled gin (which are labeled "Distilled Gin" according to BAM, both distilled and redistilled are labeled that way). So, yes, it requires formulation. Rule is: if the spirit in the gin is distilled more than once from original ferment to get to the final product, you need a formulation.

PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE: time and date remains the same. We will be meeting in the Hilton Towers of Chicago, the new venue for the Indie Spirits Expo. We will be in the Buckingham Room.

Look forward to hearing from you.

get at least 6, our set up is similar, we started with 3 but doubled almost immediately

The craft distillery industry can head some of the aging issue off very simply: state the aging to the best of ones ability. If you age in a range, state that. If never more than a certain time, state that. We went so far in our single barrel baby bourbon to print up two labels, so that if it is aged 3 months, we state that, or 4 months, etc. Truth in advertising from the craft distiller will help TTB and our consumers.

Following on the wisdom of Chuck and Jonathan, and our own experience, if we go in at higher proof on our bourbon, we tend to end up at 113 proof in any case. So we now choose to barrel at 110-115 proof.

Correct, our "Railroad" gin is "Old No 176 TM" brand name, referring to the engine it is named after and pictured on the bottle. It is not a statement of age. I wonder if it is possible that Left Turn put the "Old Tom Gin" designation in an incorrect field in the application? I have seen that derail an application before. But he likely needs to speak to a TTB officer to clarify.

It is not just oxidation, there is also chemical reactions that continue between the congeners and the alcohol, the water, and themselves. Most have occurred after 48 hours, but we see change even after a week in some cases. Also, sometimes there are volatiles that will escape during that period.

we have been using simplybook.me not so much a ticketing service, more of a scheduler

We are considering it. Right now we have two odd gins, both are single distillations off of mash, using a plated column, and with most botanicals in the still head. One is based on our corn whiskey mash, the other is based on a pure malt mash. The latter is our version of a "genever", the former is our "railroad" gin. We have been considering different formulas for more traditional redistilled gins, including a london dry style, an american dry on whiskey base, and an old tom. The latter has been a conundrum, because we don't want to do something like Ransom (which our genever is not so far from) or Hayman's. We are thinking it should be sweetened with some sugar (there is enough historical precedence for it) like Hayman's, and we are thinking it should be pot still based, double distilled.

Not oils, mostly flocculation of proteins and some wood extractives. We only see it in the barrel aged product, never in the bottled new make. You can often agitate it back into solution (or at least, de-flocculation). We have tried chilling before filtering, does reduce effect. We filter either way at 1 micron.