Jump to content

EllenJ

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EllenJ

  1. Thank you!!!!! I could hardly agree more. I'm not sure just what "regular people" are, but I feel that too many people are hung up on labels they've been taught are "desirable". What artisan and craft distillers need to do is to work with "artisan" or "craft" MARKETERS to educate drinkers about the benefits of such new adventures and not trying to fit into current expectations. The finest American "bourbon" whiskey I've ever tasted cannot be marketed as "bourbon", or even "whiskey". Unfortunately for the world of potential customers and folks who enjoy what can be done with fermented grain, the distiller refuses to market his product. Why? Because he feels no one will buy a bottle of something that has to be called "spirit" instead of "bourbon". His loss. Ours, too.
  2. Actually, Willett's still is a pot still, full of valves and taps and multiple ways for manipulating the distillate. This will allow them to do some really precise custom distillations, should a customer wish to do so. Currently, however, they have all the valves closed and use the still as simply a doubler (for spirit produced by their column still) or as a basic pot still (for specialty spirits). Their original rye distillate was INTENDED to be doubled from the column still, but the column still wasn't working right, so they distilled it from the pot still, with no taps (i.e., simple, pot-still whiskey). THAT whiskey (which is still aging, y'know) is, indeed, pure pot-still whiskey. There wasn't much of it, and I wouldn't count on finding any of that in your local liquor store. The REAL Willett whiskey (which also won't be available for a few years) is column-stilled and pot-still-doubled. They have a regular doubler for the low-wine column still output, but they're using that wonderful copper pot still for doubling at this time anyway. These guys truly know what they're doing! (
  3. Some very interesting info here about whiskey, Ben Holladay, the Shawhan family, McCormick, Weston Missouri, the Butterfield Stagecoach company, and several western railroads. Fascinating stuff. http://www.fohbc.org...an_Holladay.pdf
  4. At least one "old-line" bourbon is a good example of that. Old Charter's mashbill was (and probably still is, even though it's a Sazerac-owned brand now, distilled at Buffalo Trace) 80% corn (not sure of the rye and malt content). Aged in new, charred oak barrels, it's a legitimate straight bourbon. Were it aged new un-charred barrels it could be called "straight corn whiskey", but intrestingly enough, if it were aged in used charred barrels (or any other container using charred wood) it would lose its right to the term "straight" and could only be called "corn whiskey". Go figure!
  5. I just really can't imagine how much better that could have been stated. Thank you.
  6. Okay, let's get something straight right from the beginning... I could not possibly be more respectful of Chuck Cowdery than I am. Period. Chuck is one of the "gods" from whom I learned about what American whiskey is all about. He is also one of (maybe the ONLY one of) my "mentors" who has always stressed the idea of looking beyond the "generally accepted" marketing hype and checking out whether what we're being told actually corresponds to what our own intellegence says. They are often not the same thing. And Chuck isn't afraid to provoke us into thinking that way. Thank you, Mr. Cowdery. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with him. Way, WAY, NO!! But it's never been Chuck's point that you agree with him. It's never been mine, either, and I'm another person who often gets quoted as if I knew what I was talking about. In this particular case, I totally agree with the good commentator from Chi-town. I'm not even sure that many who think they disagree would, if they realized what Chuck is saying here... Please take these thoughts into consideration: (1) "Bourbon" is a particular KIND of whiskey. It has particular qualities that are common to the familiar brands, and which are also LEGALLY applicable to other expressions. The fact is, though, that "Bourbon", like many other "heritage" things, is very narrowly defined in people's minds and is, basically, a fantasy product that exists only as a number of recognizable brands -- even if the actual whiskey no longer bears any resemblance to the whiskey that those brands once represented. (2) Very good whiskey, often made with processes that are different from "standard" bourbon-distilling processes -- including different maturing styles, is being made today by distillers (and bottlers) that tastes delicious... and TRIES to, but should NOT, attempt to call itself "bourbon" (3) Among those, there are many very fine-tasting products that have, among their flavor characteristics, the peculiar -- and for many people, quite desireable -- flavor that is inherent in short-term, small-barrel aging. The point -- and I believe this is Chuck's point -- is that that particular flavor is NOT characteristic of what people normally associate with good "bourbon". In fact, it is a flavor that is considered to be INAPPROPRIATE for whiskey that is labelled as "bourbon". I totally agree. My position (and it might be Chuck's as well, although I can't remember him ever actually expressing it as such) is that "BOURBON" is NOT the "be all" and "end all" of American whiskey, and that products that have (and appreciate) the flavor that comes from aging in small barrels should be compared to each other, and not to a standard that is different. (4) By the way, when I say "...a standard that is different" it is important to understand that does NOT mean a standard that is "inferior". I believe the term "American Whiskey" needs to be brought out from its present position as "whiskey that isn't good enough to be called "straight bourbon or rye" and given it's rightful position as American whiskey that is NOT "straight" rye or bourbon, even if it really does qualify as "straight" whiskey, but has other features (such as as small cooperage, or non-oak barrels, or whatever) that should put it into a different class of comparison from "traditional" bourbon, rye, scotch, etc. In other words, it's not that Mr. Cowdery objects to the (sometimes very delicious) new spirits being marketed; it's that he (and, really I as well) object to the makers of these new spirits limiting themselves to calling it "bourbon" when it's really something else entirely. I say, Vive le Differance, and to H#!! with existing categories!
  7. Thanks, Drew. I hope I didn't sound (read?) belligerent; I only meant that I, too was curious, but wondered if early identification of the judges might have been withheld to avoid unwanted pressure on them.
  8. Why has there been no answer to Bryan's question, since mid-February? I know that at least one member of the judging panel is already confirmed. Are the judges supposed to remain anonymous for some reason?
  9. Not a bad article. In fact, just about ANY recognition in a major national mag for craft distilling is a positive thing, and Ms. McLaughlin's piece is as good as any and better than most. As most good stories do, her article begins and ends with the same example, which in this case is Tuthilltown. That's an excellent choice, as the point of her story is the renaissance of spirit distilling in America, not just new American spirit brands. Erenzo and Lee's products carry names that are familiar to Americans, such as "bourbon" and "rye whiskey" and so immediately grab the reader's attention. Tuthilltown is also quite proud of their vodka (which is featured in the sidebar sampling), and even that product is associated with "American" things like apples and the Hudson River Valley. Good choice. Even better, McLaughlin spends the bulk of the article interviewing distillers of other American craft spirits in locations that emphasize the physical scope of this growing industry. Since it's generally pretty safe to assume the original story was cut by about two thirds so as to fit the publication needs, she probably had another half dozen or so interviews with craft distillers. And a little history, too. Of course, not everything is completely accurate -- she quotes the same DISCUS P.R. about George Washington (who, in fact, died the year after whiskey was first distilled at Mt. Vernon -- well before it was EVER sold), and she mentions the "Blue Ridge Mountains of Pennsylvania". But almost every journalist who isn't a whiskey specialist makes the same sort of mistakes. What she DOES accomplish, and quite effectively, is a story that raises both awareness and interest in people who already enjoy spirits from major distillers and didn't know there were hand-crafted examples to be had. Good for her!
  10. Hi, I'm John Lipman, of "Linda and John" (L'n'J) dot com. Then again, sometimes I'm Linda; y'never know. So y'better watch yer language, buddy! We're explorers of American Beverage Spirits - Bourbon, Rye, Corn, Cider Fruits, Barley, Wheat, Molasses, Sugar, Sorghum, Rutabagas, and any combination thereof. Well... maybe not the rutabagas. But who knows? We enjoy exploring the way America's history so tightly intertwines with that of the distilled spirits we drink. We've learned a lot about the people who once made beverage alcohol in America, and how they made it. We're frequent contributors to events and net forums about the spirits Americans make and drink today, and we're acquainted with many of those who produce it. Here, we hope to learn more about the spirits Americans will be drinking tomorrow, and to get to know some of those who are making and aging it right now.
×
×
  • Create New...