Paul G

To continue on from this thread: The crux of the conversation is semantics. The topic has been broached because there's no definition of what "Distiller" means in the context of our industry. In the dictionary, yes, but in the industry it's not so black and white. As I've gathered thusfar, it's a matter of historical usage moreso than rule. Even so, it stands to reason that "distiller" can be more distinctly defined than such prefixes as "Master." At no point in time was it ever implied that any of us didn't want to know what terms the big guys use. Knowing about it and agreeing with it are two entirely different animals. I'd love to know what the historical usage of every term relating to our industry, not just who was traditionally bestowed the title of distiller/rectifier/master/poo-bah/what have you. It's not about making it better? Then I have been totally off-base. All along, I thought craft was about "making it better." If it's not, then I withdraw all of my objections. If what Gwydion was saying was just what you've quoted, I'd be asking the same question. As it is, those words are out of context. The rest of the paragraph went on to explain that he's not rectifying GNS to make the GNS better, but utilizing it as he hasn't the facility to economically produce it on his own. Of course "craft" is about making it better...but then that's back to the topic of "what is 'craft'?" Irrespective of that, here's where I weigh in on it (and I'm really just shooting from the hip here): I've stated before that in simplest terms,I assert that one who distills is a distiller. Distilling being defined a little more clearly as operating a still in as much as it converts an alcohol bearing liquid to vapor, then condenses that vapor back to a liquid and collects said liquid. A counterpoint has been made that a distiller is one who distills only a fermentation, but not any previously distilled spirits. This then defines one who distills previously distilled spirits as a rectifier as opposed to a distiller. My personal take on this sort of splits the difference; where one who distills a previously distilled spirit with no other alteration (therefore done as a means to improve that spirit) would be a rectifier, and one who uses a previously distilled spirit and integrates other ingredients and such to make it significantly different (as opposed to improving the previous) such as gin or absinthe would be a distiller. Finally, I like to believe that we at least have a level of consensus that "distiller" doesn't apply to anybody who simply rebottles, blends, macerates, infuses, etc. as there is no distillation (i.e. phase change) in their process(es). In the end, the micro (in lieu of "craft") industry is shaking things up in the spirits world. Where there's no room for distinct job/title/responsibility delineation among the crew, terms may not apply in the same way they do in the larger scale operations. I'm all for discussing and debating the merits of traditional versus new and where or if they apply between the macro and micro scales. Feedback? Cheers, Paul

Not rumor...Patron was started by John Paul DeJoria (of Paul Mitchell) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patr%C3%B3n In fact, his is a story worthy of inspiration...from being homeless to wealth rivaling Trump's. Then add to it all the humanitarian work he's done. http://www.islandconnections.com/edit/dejoria.htm I wanna be him when I grow up! Cheers, Paul

Hi Chuck!!! As one who's had an opposing view to what you've said, I have to also make it known that I value your contributions. If we all agreed, there would be no progress, misunderstandings or misconceptions may never come to light, and so on. Rock on with yo' bad self! Cheers, Paul

I think if we (the supposed professionals) can't agree upon what "distilling" is, then it's a waste of time trying to get the consumers to understand what it means. According to Dictionary.com: "distilling." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 29 Sep. 2008. v. dis·tilled also dis·tilled, dis·till·ing also dis·til·ling, dis·tills also dis·tils v. tr. 1. To subject (a substance) to distillation. 2. To separate (a distillate) by distillation. 3. To increase the concentration of, separate, or purify by or as if by distillation. 4. To separate or extract the essential elements of: distill the crucial points of the book. 5. To exude or give off (matter) in drops or small quantities. Again, whether you're distilling wash, wine, GNS, or what have you, distilling is occurring and thus, the location where this occurs is, by definition, a distillery. Cheers, Paul -honing the fine art of the run-on sentence

Space, equipment expense, time. To make one's own neutral spirit would need the space for the fermentation, mashing, and lautering equipment, the money/credit to purchase them, and the time to use them prior to the intended operation...not to mention the added utility cost. Purchasing neutral spirit allows one to start on a shoestring and to minimize the need for investors or incurring exorbitant debt. My point is that regardless of whether a distiller distills fermented wash into neutral spirit and subsequently distills it into the final product, or skips the first step and distills purchased spirit, the distilled product is distilled by the distiller in their still...they're still a distillery [1] It's one thing to argue "what is 'craft'?" In my opinion, it's nearly akin to asking "what is art?" It's another thing to say that a distillery that distills something other than fermented wash isn't a distillery even though they're distilling. In other words, I assert that a distillery is where distilling occurs...nothing less, nothing more. Cheers, Paul [1] editing courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

C'mon Chuck...this is a dead horse. If one heats up a liquid until boiling, collects the vapors, and condenses that back into a liquid, it *is* distilling by the pure definition of the word. This is true whether you care for the end result or not. Therefore, if this fellow or any other purchases GNS for use in whatever spirit they choose and runs it through a still, they are, by definition, a distillery, and it's really distilling. Tell an absinthe maker that by purchasing GNS (or grape or beet) for their base spirit they're not distilling. Likewise, if you're running your recipe through a still then disregard this. Unfortunately, other than that, I have no input as to the sourcing or quantities of available base spirits. Cheers, Paul

I started a new thread on the topic of hydrometers, electronic sensors, and other gadgetry that takes us further from the topic at hand.

Continuing from this thread: I'm considering different tools that may be available or useful to us that haven't gotten much consideration due to their non-traditional nature. The electronic hydrometer is of particular interest to me. As mentioned in the preceding thread, its advantage over a glass hydrometer is that you have an unambiguous indication. Unlike floats, there isn't a chance of parallax or errors from the meniscus. You get a clear numerical reading and that's that. I also recognize that industry standards can require more tried-and-true methods to be recognized as valid indication. I've been in situations where an archaic, error-prone, fragile analog meter was the standard over a NIST traceable digital multimeter. It's not inconcievable that the regulatory agency is behind the times either by red tape, stubbornness, workload, or simply oversight in the case of emerging technology. In this particular case, I think there's a good justification for the sensor in the still running process where the operator is monitoring the output of the still. With a clear, unambiguous reading, it can be helpful in the cut making process. In this capacity, I would strongly suspect that there's no requirement calling for instrumentation. In the end, it's the final product whose measurement matters to TTB, a float can be dropped in the container, read, recorded, and compliance is maintained. So, in an attempt to not beat a dead horse, what else is there? Are there other nifty gizmos and whiz-bangs out there that might serve a useful purpose in our trade/art that may have not been previously considered due to their non-traditional-ness? Inquiring geeks wanna know Cheers, Paul

I, too, am among the uncoordinated. I'm planning on buying them in bulk (i.e. a dozen at a time) unless this electronic gizmo-tron proves to be more cost effective. The inner geek in me wants to see how well it would work in a micro-continuous still. More as a fun little show-n-tell toy than as some bazillion gallons a year GNS plant. Rube Goldberg still anyone?? As my parents used to say: One day...when I'm rich and famous

Provided it is accurate enough, it sure beats the hell out of parallax or reading through the meniscus.

I've been looking for one of those. Most fluid density sensors are horribly big and prohibitively expensive. Then again, I'm in automation and such geekery appeals to me. I've been tempted to put together a completely automated, continuous rig just for the sake of doing it. I know an automated continuous still seems absolutely contrary to the spirit of the thread, but if you built it yourself? Now that's some craft, donchathink??? Eh? I know...too late in the day for coffee to be kicking in. Even so, I'll have to give them a call and find out how much one of those whizz-bangs are. Cheers, Paul

Welcome Chris. Never fear, it's not just impossible for you, it is for everybody. You can't solder stainless...you have to rely on brazing, welding or mechanical connection (threads, nuts-n-bolts, etc.). Pretty scary times when copper is more expensive than stainless, no? Still, the extra cost is worth it with the extra workability...and it polishes up so purty

In the context of semantics, particularly with the contrast of our scale vs. ultramegacorp, I have my own perspective. I'll qualify this by saying that I'm not yet in operation and there could be some established nuances to which I'm not yet privy. Please feel free to take this with a grain of salt, or even smack me around with a salt block. Distiller - one who distills. Stillman, still operator, still monkey, whatever...I see them all as "distillers" as they distill. They actually perform the act of distillation. Master distiller - I wholeheartedly agree that a qualifier of "master" is one bestowed by others. It's like giving yourself a nickname, only professional-er...no, seriously Head distiller - perhaps the middle ground we're reaching for that describes the distiller in charge. Again, in our scale, we're not likely to have a whole crew just to fire up the hardware...quite the opposite, we'll be wearing multiple if not all hats. However, if we have the benefit of additional hands working the copper, then it would be logical to call the one in charge the head distiller. Blender/Mixer/Macerationst? - Those who don't distill. There's no phase change between liquid, vapor, and back to liquid again in the methods they employ. There's a distinct art to making the right blend or the determining the right amount of fruit, berries, rodents, etc. for a product that has *just* the right whatever it is. By no means do I want to marginalize the skill required for this, but it's NOT distilling in any form. I wouldn't think it reasonable or logical to call them a "distiller." In contrast, I think the word "craft" is starting to become a little moot in the terms of terminology. Gluing googly eyes on a piece of felt is also called "craft" so the word's meaning is pretty open ended and subjective. If one is making hundreds of thousands of proof gallons in the course of the year, despite one's "craft-ness" of the product, it's not really micro. If you're buying ten thousand proof gallons of GNS and adding it to your family recipe kool-aid, you're micro, but not necessarily "craft." In my opinion, there's validity to the simple principle that there should be distinction among methods, possibly even to the point of labeling. On the other hand, COLA issues are difficult enough without having to add additional criteria and verbiage to labels that are already hard enough to compose. Even so, I think that in the current state of the industry, we need to pick our battles, and the tax legislation is higher on the list of priorities than somebody blending pre-fab GNS calling themselves a distiller...though I don't like it either. As far as perception...a huge portion of that is how one is marketed (or markets themselves). That's a skill that I will definitely need to cultivate. I see it as a combination of consumer education, advertising, and general PR rolled up into one word.

The public has a varied and (as far as I can tell) a generally flawed perception of distillers/distilleries, and what we do (or in my case, aspire to do). When I tell people of my work towards starting a distillery (using the word "distillery"), I've lost count of how many ask me "what kind of beer are you going to make?" I've even gotten one "you can't do that, it's illegal!" I guess what I'm saying is that the misconceptions appear to greatly outweigh the truth. Ignorance, marketing, and even urban legend [1] carry a profound influence on the public as I see it. That can be a boon for the unscrupulous. It can be a hindrance for we who create something that should be appreciated for its intrinsic qualities. A prime example of that would be the absinthe market. [2] I remain a little cynical about educating the general public/consumer base. I'm not inclined to believe that the person shelling out the retail price of our product cares whether it's distilled, blended, continuously or batch distilled, column or alembic, infused, macerated, julienned, or deep fried. Not to mention, in getting the word out, when does education begin the slippery descent into propaganda? Is it already there in some fashion or another? Does it matter...SHOULD it matter? And ultimately, does it make a difference in the sustainable viability of our individual facilities? As far as a threat from the less involved products goes, I think that's just the nature of business. High quality/high cost products will eventually become infiltrated with the corner cutters. As with any business, marketing and advertising are an absolute necessity. It appears (at least to me) that shaping the consumers' perceptions, both for the truth behind where the spirit came from as well as effective marketing/PR to get the information in front of them is a perpetually intertwined, neverending uphill battle. What do I mean? I don't remember by now. I'm with Denver...what is worrying about it going to positively accomplish? Perhaps one more thing in our marketing plan, most likely. Cheers, Paul [1] The ones I can think of off the top of my head - Jaegermeister is made with deer's blood - absinthe is a hallucinogen/aphrodisiac/identical to THC - Goldschlager's gold flakes are added to create microscopic cuts in the stomach lining so you absorb the alcohol quicker and get drunk faster [2] I just recently learned that absinthe is so expensive because it uses an extract from the nearly extinct wormwood tree. No, really, it's true...I read it on the internet!

It appears that the consensus is about scale and thus "micro-" seems to be the most apt prefix. In the verbage of the definition, I'm still not on board with the need to include a statement specifying agricultural raw materials. This isn't because of any intent to NOT use agricultural raw materials personally, but because of some potentially unforeseeen "bite-us-in-the-butt" curveball that may come down the pike in years to come. However, that's just my two cents. I'm still behind the intent and I'm 100% behind the current statement should it be presented in its most recent iteration. Cheers, Paul

Disclaimer: I'm tossing in my feedback while dealing with insomnia. Bear with me and take it with a grain of salt. And I think every point is good food for thought. I think that experimentation is a necessary means of keeping from stagnating as an artisan. I also think that what's most important to the overwhelming majority of us is the ability to to stay in business in order to experiment. Thus, the cycle of maintaining a consistent, predictable, high quality product to get the bills paid and the mad-scientist concoctions can be released upon the unsuspecting masses at intervals that don't eat up the ability to stay afloat. Even if experimentation was the most important element to an artisan distiller, sustaining the business is still paramount in order to enable the experimentation. I would suspect that the bulk of the consumer base has become familiar with craft breweries over the past few years. Some are phenomenal, some...well, aren't so much. I optimistically hope that it lays some sort of baseline for micro distillers in that the smaller, more closely attended batches mean a more (pick an adjective) spirit. For the rest, there's the big guysl. In terms of "tradition" it seems like lines start blurring...particularly when the consumer is concerned. I'm sure you encounter nearly daily those who "know" that Bourbon can only be from KY. Understood, and on both sides there can be either (IMHO). There can be some untapped artistic genius lurking on the bottling line at JD, and some apathetic hand behind a shiny Holstein pot still who can't tell vodka from gin. On a general note, I'd venture to say that practically by definition, the micro *has* to be "more craft" in order to viably compete. By the same token, as it seems that the larger distilleries and/or conglomerates have historically been the ones holding the permits, couldn't their products be considered the "traditional" benchmark? This one's a big "maybe" from my perspective. I would say that as a maker, one would be responsible for controlling the process, but using the analogy of skinning a cat, there's more than one way. Is there really a difference between hiring somebody to oversee the wash process in order to ensure it meets the maker's expectations and contracting that step to a brewery to accomplish the same? It's ultimately the responsibility of the maker to ensure that whomever is involved (themselves, their wash guy, the outside brewery) gets it to their specifications prior to taking it to the next phase in the process. Another analogy is how micro breweries sometimes contract their most popular beer to a larger brewery in order to keep up with demand. The recipe and procedure has been developed for a specific result "artisanally" but simply scaled up and executed by a contractor. Same for outsourcing wash. The control in this context is the QA of each batch received, holding your employee or contractor to the standard of the wash that's been developed. The counter to this would simply be buying an unfermented wash that the contract brewery has already developed, or did without the input of the spirit maker. Then yes, I too would consider that step bypassed. I still contend that despite the best wash (no matter whose creation it is) the stiller's cutting plays just as much a role in the flavor of the final product. Though, you're absolutely right in that it must start with the wash. GIGO [1] or "you can't polish a turd." Agreed, and that's why I'm emphasizing the importance of making cuts in addition to the wash making. The science is by the numbers, and any trained monkey can operate a valve or swap a bucket when a gauge, dial, or hydrometer reads X, but there's still the art of brewing, cutting, aging, and blending that can only be done with the senses. Paul -I'm trying to imagine Bob Ross describing the process: "...and we'll put a happy little malt over here. Yeah, that's nice...and now maybe a little yeast. However much is up to you, after all, it's your wash..." [1] Garbage In = Garbage Out

The problem I see with running lockstep with "tradition" is that the end result is stagnation. Innovation is where the artisan distiller shines. There will ALWAYS be the ones who take as many shortcuts as possible to get their product out the door and the revenue in their pocket. Even so, the artisan who contracts out some help isn't necessarily less of a artisan for doing so. My business plan involves partnering with a brewery. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm pigeonholed into doing strictly malt spirits. There's no rule stating I can't do a thick chewy molasses rum, Cousin Jethro's Corn Squeezin's or even a potato vodka...all with the tools and equipment that the brewery already has. I'm not about reinventing the wheel, but I *am* opposed to buying more wheels than I need. On the other side of the coin, I'm a big believer of "just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea." Hmmm...say, let's make durian flavored rum! I disagree. I take Bill's statement to be more like: Instead of milling your own flour or churning your own butter, buy the flour and butter. Or, worst case, contract another bakery to make dough for you, using your proprietary recipe, because you don't have the room or equipment for that portion of the process in your own bakery. In terms of business these days, "contractor" is very nearly synonymous with "employee" anyway [1] And two-thirds of the process? Let's see...mashing, sparging, fermenting, distilling, cutting, aging, blending. Wait, step-wise, I get only one third, and time wise...a few hours out of potentially years? Poor analogy IMHO. In general, I take the commentary to be a bit disparaging to those who are just starting out and have to find ways of putting the pieces of a very expensive puzzle together in order to follow their dreams. Personally, my wallet (or credit) can't handle funding a facility from scratch. So, I'm going to find workarounds [2] with the absolute minimum of compromises. I'm all for conceding that a brewer will make a better wash than I (at least now) and if I can have my wash made the way I intend by that brewer, who cares if it's done at his place or mine? As a whole, I find valid points in the commentary, and it's a means of keeping perspective...perhaps even helping to form a perspective. While I disagree with a lot of it, I definitely appreciate the time and effort taken to assemble its points. Cheers, Paul [1] Just my personal bit of cynicism here...and me being a contractor, go figure. [2] I don't see "workaround" being synonymous with "shortcut," either. Quite the opposite, in some cases one might have to work longer and harder to get past a particular obstacle. Granted, a workaround may not achieve identical results as the originally intended plan, it could be better or worse. Just sayin'...

I'm looking into using direct fire, too. I'd say that it might be worthwhile consulting somebody who installs boilers or furnaces (check with local HVAC contractors) for any input on code compliance as well as proper venting of flue gases. In addition to fire concerns, atmospheric concerns are also an issue (carbon monoxide in particular). Also, with the consideration that ethanol vapors are heavier than air, their escape is a potential hazard with direct fire. If you haven't already considered it, aim for overkill on your condensing system.

Indeed, but I think that's why any mention of raw materials (primary, secondary, etc.) isn't necessary in what we propose as the definition of what we're about. In my humblest of opinions, of course, Paul

I read "primarily" to imply that there are alternate raw materials to agricultural. Are there any beverage spirits made from raw materials other than of agricultural origin? In the spirit (no pun intended) of "less is more," how about: Micro Spirit makers produce beverage spirits utilizing a variety of techniques which substantially change the character of their raw materials, up to 65,000 proof gallons of product per year in a single licensed premises. These techniques include, but are not limited to: infusion, distillation, and/or rectification. [1] The gist of the statement (as I see it) is: 1) that we're not trying to exclude any of the methods of spiritous beverage production. [2] 2) that we're establishing a volume criterium to define "micro" 3) that we don't want it any more complicated than that. Cheers, Paul [1] I'm using "rectification" in place of re-distillation [2] While on the surface, continuous distillation may not seem to apply, it's not inconceivable [3] that it could be utilized within our scale. [3] I keep using this word, but I really do know what it means Edited for clarity and I can't type for diddly today

Welcome from San Diego! Cheers, Paul

I would have a hard time believing that either 304 or 316 would turn anything green. All stainless cookware is 18-8/304 and I would definitely be up to the challenge of storing some brown spirits in a commercially available piece of stainless cookware to put it to the test. More realistic (to me) would be that the container may have had brass fittings somewhere and previously held something alkaline.

Greetings! Welcome to the party.

Give this page a try. Fenaroli's Handbook of Flavor Ingredients is handy and cross references the aforementioned CFR. It's a little on the spendy side...as listed on Amazon.

Like Sherman, I too am not yet a producer, but I absolutely support this proposal.