WI Distiller

Hey, I haven't had an episode in a little while, so I wanted to let you all know that episode 10 is up, featuring an interview with F. Paul Pacult of Spirit Journal: http://potentpotablespodcast.libsyn.com/webpage/episode-10-f-paul-pacult

"Pure Pot Still" is a specific product. It is not simply a reference to a pot distilled product (which all Single Malt Irish and Scotch Whisk(e)y is), but a specific type of tripple pot distilled whikey from a mash of both malted and unmalted barley, unlike Single Malt, which is obviously all malted barley. My understanding is that they are now calling these whiskeys "Single Pot Still," and that the EU is going to protect this name. Some good info here: http://www.singlepotstill.com/spslanding.do Also, we talk about this a bit on my first podcast: http://potentpotablespodcast.libsyn.com/webpage/episode-1-irish-whiskey

Thanks, glad you enjoyed them. Spread the word!

Hello All, I'm starting up a new podcast on spirits and other beverages called The Potent Potables Podcast. The first episode was on Irish Whiskey and was posted up yesterday. I hope to do some episodes featuring craft distillers in the future. You can find it in the iTunes store if you search for Potent Potables, or here: http://potentpotablespodcast.libsyn.com/

I was able to try your stuff there DPM, really fascinating and like nothing else there. And you're right, I was sent to your table when I asked a friend "what do I need to try." I wrote a short blog about my thought on the event if anyone is interested: http://m-lange.blogspot.com/

Chuck, You can speak from your experience, so I'll speak from mine. As someone who has studied journalism and worked as a journalist on a professional level, I find it offensive when someone prioritizes provocation over accuracy and conflates opinion with fact. You continue to ignore the fact that the title of your original blog post was patently false, and also assert to know what other people "expect bourbon to taste like." I have only been drinking bourbon in a serious way for about five years, so I cannot match your 40 years of experience, and can respect if you feel that none of the new craft bourbons taste like bourbon. I agree with you that many craft distilled products are vastly different from traditional American whiskey and need to be thought of differently. The stuff from Koval comes to mind as being so different that comparisons to traditional rye and bourbon seem misguided. But I don't think this is true of all craft whiskey. I have had a lot of bourbon, have traveled to Kentuck and toured nearly all of the big distilleres and have tasted all of their products. To me, products like Hudson's Four Grain Bourbon are more similar to the Kentuck products than they are different. That's just my opinion, one that you obviously disagree with, but don't tell me that your opionion is a fact or that I am not an experienced bourbon drinker if I disagree with you. I think your last post points to the source of your frustration with craft distillers, and there is a lot of validity to what you say. I agree that there are a number of small producers who don't show enough respect for the established distilleries. I think this is a tradition that is a hold over from the craft beer movement, where small brewers have always had nothing but distain for the Bud, Miller and Coors's of the world. In beer this made a lot more sense, as the major breweries had made nothing but one bland product for decades, and the argument that craft breweries provided a better alternative was an easy one to make. Large distilleres make a variety of products at different levels of quality and different price points. Condescending toward "commercial" distillers is a big mistake, and I, for one, would never argue that Kentucky bourbon is garbage.

Funny video:

Alright Chuck, you win, you have my 99 cents just so I could respond. I had already read Lew Bryson's article on the same experiment when I responded to your blog post, but I was curious to read the whole article. I want to first say that I do not currently operate a distillery, though I am working on getting one started. I have no plans to make whiskey in the way you describe small distillers doing so in the article, and I am a huge fan of many of the same large-distillery products that you love. I enjoyed reading your book, regularly read your blog, and have nothing but respect for you and the Buffalo Trace distillery. I do not have a horse in this race, and am simply giving you my opinion on this "controversy," because I feel you need to hear it. The huge responses you got to your blog post were, as you said, due to the provocative title "Buffalo Trace Proves Small Barrels Don't Work." You are right that the purpose of a title is to get people's attention, but the title should also meet basic journalistic standards and be accurate. This title is simply false. All that buffalo trace did was prove that when you put their distillate into those specific small barrels for that specific period of time they create a whiskey that you and the others who tasted it found to be unpleasant. If you think this experiment "proved" anything beyond this, as your "provocative" title clearly asserts, then you need to re-learn the basics of the scientific method. As to the kindle article I just read, I learned nothing new about the experiment or your feelings on it. I will repeat what has been said many times; 5 years is an absurd amount of time for a small barrel, and I know of no one who ages whiskey that long in these barrels or advises anyone to do so. You continually assert that many micro's think that whiskeys in small barrels will keep getting better, and that is simply not the case. If anyone is saying this, I haven't heard it. I have heard many people make age claims like you mention, the "two years is as good as six" claims. Even Bill Owens says something along these lines in one of his books. I completely agree with you that this is a foolish statement. Whenever you change a variable in such a significant way, you will obviously end up with a different product, especially when the variable in question is so vital to the flavor of the product. But I still disagree that a bourbon made in this way is not a bourbon. I think one of the reasons people on this forum dislike much of your writing is that you have a very aggressive writing style. You jump to conclusions about other people's views and often state your opinions as fact. For example, in this piece you write "Whether or not Hudson Baby Bourbon...has a pleasing taste is subjective...but none of the small barrel bourbons taste like bourbon. There is nothing recognizable as bourbon about them. They taste nothing like the whiskey that most people recognize as 'bourbon'." After saying that taste is subjective, you assert a subjective opinion about "what most people recognize as 'bourbon'" as though it were a fact! And, as a long time lover of bourbon and someone who has nothing but respect and admiration for the big Kentucky distilleries, this is a subjective opinion I completely disagree with! To me, the Hudson Baby Bourbon and Four Grain Bourbon have all of the qualities I associate with the heart and soul of bourbon. Do they taste different than any bourbon aged in 53's? Of course. But in my subjective opinion everything that makes a bourbon a bourbon is there in those whiskeys. I have no doubt there are many who agree with you, and I know some people agree with me, but you will never hear me assert my opinion about these products as anything other than my opinion. Reading your blog and the many posts you have made on this forum, I get the feeling that you are a bit of a provocateur, and get some satisfaction out of ruffling people's feathers a bit. There is nothing wrong with this impulse, as long as it doesn't go to far, but I have no doubt that when you wrote that teaser you knew exactly what kind of response you would get. The whole piece reads as if you are trying to teach craft distillers a lesson, but when you write a piece with this title and jump to unfounded conclusions, many of the people who might benefit from understanding this experiment will simply tune out, assume you have a bias against craft distillers in favor of the big Kentucky distillers, and not read further. It's counter productive. Having read more of your work, I know that you often have nice things to say about craft distillers and give your honest opinions about their products. The unfortunate thing is, I do think that Buffalo Trace did a valuable thing with this experiment, that it was interesting and that craft distillers should read about it and think about what it means, and that you may actually be discouraging people from doing so. Ok, there's my unsolicited opinion, take it or leave it. I will continue to read your blog as I feel it is a very valuable place to find out about many things going on in the world of whiskey. Cheers.

Coop, Respectfully, 2 years is only a requirement for the designation "Straight Whiskey." The word "Whiskey" has no age requirement other than it must be "stored in oak containers." Many distilleries, such as Hudson, have released whiskeys that have spent less than a year in a smaller barrel.

This is the operative question and the biggest hurdle for new whiskey distillers. There is no easy answer. As has been said, the most common approaches are: 1: Bottle wholesale whiskey while your own stuff ages out. 2: Make Gin/Vodka/White Whiskey/Moonshine while your stuff ages out. Many have done this. Vodka and Gin can be made from GNS (Grain Neutral Spirits) without a column still. Some argue that this is not a "craft" approach, others disagree. A quick search around the forums will get lots of input on this. 3: Use smaller barrels to get products on the market more quickly. I'm in the planning stages as well so I can't say what works, but all of these approaches have been done.

Jedd Haas, there is an "Alcohol and Starch" section on the site that has some products that may be of interest to distillers. The SEBamyl G is glucoamylase which, if it is the same glucoamylase I am familiar with, can be used in grain fermentation after the mash to convert unfermentable sugar into glucose, thus increasing the yield of the mash. Am I reading this right, SpecialtyEnzymes?

I do not yet have a distillery, so I can't comment directly on what works and what does not, just give some thoughts. Firstly, many of the big boys, beyond just Makers, do use a doubler or thumper after the column still. This is still a continuous, not batch, process, and so would not be correctly called a pot still, which I think led to the confusion from Violentblue. I've attached a picture of the thumper at Four Roses as an example. As far as column versus pot, that's a great question and a tough call. I'm leaning toward pot myself, but will have to decide as far as double or triple distillation. Every pot still is different, and variables that can be controlled by plates in a column still are often a result of size and shape in a pot still. An alembic or gooseneck with a shallow neck will come out with lower proof, higher congener whiskey, whereas a gooseneck with a very tall, broad neck will be higher proof, lower congener. Do a google image search for the pot stills at Glenmorangie to see how tall these stills can be. The angle of the lyne arm also has a big effect. Remember also that exit proof is not the only determiner of whiskey flavor. There is no doubt that whiskey from a pot still and whiskey from a column still that are distilled to the same proof will be two different whiskeys, or even whiskey from two different pot stills for that matter. There is also no doubt that great whiskey can be made from either type of still. Without being able to buy both a column and pot still and run test batches then age them out to determine which I like better (which is what my analytical mind wishes I could do) for me it comes down to looking at my favorite spirits and what stills they are made in, which has me leaning toward a gooseneck pot still. I also think there is something to be said for the marketing value of the image of a pot still. My two cents.

I just have to add my 2 cents here and agree with Scott on just about everything he's said. As a huge fan of creative mixology and great bartenders, I have to say that infusion after the point of purchase (after the spirit has be purchased wholesale from a distributor who bought it from a DSP) is a vital part of many great cocktails and restricting this would be ridiculous. I would gladly sign a petition and support anything that says you should have the right to serve samples and sell your product from your facility, but the argument that a bar should need to be a licensed DSP to make infusions is crazy. But, I don't have a DSP yet, don't live in California, and have no plans to make Vodka, so feel free to ignore me

still "no topics found" message on the gin forum.

No one has posted anything on the new Brandy forums yet, so I thought I'd start things off with an apple brandy question: how are the apple brandy makers out there aging their products? Small or full sized barrels, American or French, toasted or charred, new or used? Anyone using used whiskey or wine barrels? How long are you aging it? Any thoughts on what you do and why would be interesting to hear.

You should talk to Nate at Old Sugar Distillery: http://madisondistillery.com/Homepage.html I don't think he's on the forum. He makes a sugar beet-based Honey Liqueur that is aged in oak then lightly sweetened with honey before bottling. It's quite nice. I believe he uses brown sugar made from beets as a base, though I could be remembering that incorrectly.

Thanks for the post. I really like the detail and openness about your setup and am excited to try your products. I think re-using your own whiskey cooperage to make a rum is a great idea, especially in Virgina with a rich colonial history of Rum production.

Chuck, I think this page answers your queston: http://www.olesmokymoonshine.com/varieties/ Sounds like both unaged corn whiskey and white lighting style. Mr. King, I love your website, the look and feel of the products and the product line. I see success in your future.

Sounds like a great project, we'll all be excited to see some new small batch Tennessee Whiskey on the market.

Just out of curiosity, were you aging those out in full sized barrels? How long did you feel they needed to age?

As I continue working on getting financing together and tweaking my business plan, I have been thinking quite a bit about the whiskeys I want to make. My plan right now has one whiskey in small barrels and two others in larger barrels for longer aging. I still feel this is a good plan, but I want to make sure the small barrel aged whiskey is a high quality product deserving of a premium price. Criticisms of small barrel aged whiskeys (such as this: http://www.whatdoesjohnknow.com/2011/06/27/do-smaller-whiskey-barrels-mature-whiskey-faster/) seem to hinge on young whiskeys being immature and harsh, caused by bad congeners such as fusel oils being present in the final product. These congeners can be mitigated by managing yeast health, controlling fermentation temperature, making your cuts more conservatively at the still, or by aging several years in a charred barrel. Aging in small barrels limits the ability of the barrel to scrub out some of these off flavors because the whiskey is not in the barrel for very long. There are a number of small barrel aged whiskeys I have tasted that are very good (I would point to Koval, New Holland and Tuthilltown), and they obviously have a good handle on the fermentation and distillation to make this happen. To some extent, it seems that a good product going in to the barrel will be a good product coming out. I wonder, however, if adding a charcoal filtration step before barreling could also improve the product. The process of charcoal filtration is said to also remove fusel oils while leaving desirable congeners in tact, as opposed to activated carbon filtration used in vodka that strips nearly all flavor out of a distillate. It seems like a charcoal filtration could work very well in conjunction with small barrel aging, helping to scrub out some of the conginers that normally would be removed or modified by extended aging. The obvious connection to this idea is the sugar maple filtration done in Tennessee whiskey. I'm not a huge fan of the Daniels products, but I like George Dickel, especially the Barrel Select. All of this is, of course, theoretical as I don't have a distillery yet to test this out. Nor do I understand the precise logistics of how Dickel, Daniels or other whiskey makers filter their products through charcoal. Does anyone here charcoal filter their whiskeys, or done any experimentation with charcoal? Is this a terrible idea?

Column still's are out there, as are Alambic style. I'd like to see something in a swan's neck style pot still like those in Scotland or at Woodford Reserve, set up either for direct fire or an internal steam coil. That is what is missing in the inexpensive (read: not vendome) market.

Briess does not supply whole rye grain, but flaked rye which does not require pre-cooking to be mashed. This is why the price point is higher.

I know many breweries (including my former employers) who used a similar technique, even getting triple sized fermenters and adding a third batch of wort. If your fermentation takes off quickly and finishes in the amount of time you are looking for, there is no down side at all.

I'll quote John Glazer from Compass Box and say that the simple definition of any "craft" is "making something better for the sake of it." By that definition I'll say that Rarnold3 is a bit too broad, while others are maybe a bit to narrow. I'll use the example of what I believe inspired Chuck to write this post in the first place: the Buffalo Trace Single Oak project. Taken by itself, it's hard to argue that this is not a "craft" project. In striving to create the best bourbon possible by narrowing down all the possible aging variables (and one recipe variable: rye vs wheat), they are clearly trying to make a better product. But are they doing so "for the sake of it"? Or is there a level of business calculation in the positive PR such an endeavor will produce? My assumption is a bit of both; the distillers themselves are probably excited about making something better for the sake of it, while the business people in the company were convinced to sink the time and money into it for the PR. This, to me, precludes the distillery from being called a "craft distillery." Another knock against them: in addition to some very fine products, they also make some cheap junk. This is a straight forward business decision that all the big distilleries make; for the sake of market segmentation they make products ranging from cheap to very expensive and everything in between to reach every possible consumer. Nothing wrong with this, but the idea of "making something better for the sake of it" means that every product you make, you strive to make it as good as it can possibly be. The big distilleries don't meet this requirement. I'll agree with Chuck that "from scratch" need not be a requirement, and that the term itself is incredibly hard to define. The pre-gelatinized flakes that Chuck mentions, for example, are just a small step from raw grain, allowing distillers (or brewers, who use them extensively) to use rye, wheat or corn without having to invest in a cereal cooker. The distance in terms of processing from raw to flaked grain is not much different than from raw to malted grain, and almost no one in the US malts their own barley. Trying to draw a line in the sand that says when a process begins "from scratch" is a silly way to define "craft." I think the motivation behind the products and the quality of the products themselves, ALL the products a given distillery makes, is a better indicator of whether they should be considered "craft."