Jump to content

Defining DISTILLER


Paul G

Recommended Posts

To continue on from this thread:

By "reflected glory," I mean people doing what, in the macro spirits industry, would be called rectification and calling it distillation because they like the connotations better. That's what I'm reacting to. I'm not saying I think rectifier is a bad word, but the rectifier who calls himself a distiller probably does.

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."

Don't you guys think it's at least worth knowing how the dominant spirits producers in this country operate and how they use different terms? I'm not saying you can't go your own way, but don't you even want to know?

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, it's about making it period.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm mystified by that one, which you've used twice. I'm not even sure what you mean. Grain v. Fruit, or Grain v. Malt? If Grain v. Malt that sounds like scotch snobbery, which is at least something I understand. Otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at.

By "reflected glory," I mean people doing what, in the macro spirits industry, would be called rectification and calling it distillation because they like the connotations better. That's what I'm reacting to. I'm not saying I think rectifier is a bad word, but the rectifier who calls himself a distiller probably does.

Don't you guys think it's at least worth knowing how the dominant spirits producers in this country operate and how they use different terms? I'm not saying you can't go your own way, but don't you even want to know?

As for "distilled gin," that's a very interesting observation, because I think it reflects a difference in usage, although since "distilled gin" has rarely been made in the United States, most domestic gin being compound gin, maybe there's just been no reason to use it. (I'm referring to the macro industry, I know there are micros who make distilled gin. That's what we're talking about.)

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.

Great, I want to get at the crux of some issues that are important to me and my profession, and you want to spar and play internet word games. I don't have time for cantankerous journalists that don't have a real stake in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate on this topic:

To me, and the drinking public, nobody identifies with the term "rectifier". Why use it? It's more of a process than it is a title. Why fight an uphill marketing battle and explain to everybody why your operations is called "Jim's Rectifying" instead of "Jim's Distillery"? It sounds like you're a petroleum refinery.

The disclaimer on this is those who buy, blend, and bottle therefore diluting the terminology. That goes without saying, hopefully.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumers are not monolithic, they are wonderfully varied. A goodly number of mine don't know the difference between fermentation and distillation. In nerdly terms, these folks largely think that 'hackers' vandalize other peoples computers and that 'crackers' are something to put cheese on. My daily mission is to carry the message to them that 'cider' is made from apples and has alcohol in it. It's that basic.

It's the rare enthusiast who can tell the difference between a still operator and a distiller. Or a cuisine chef and a sous chef and a cook.

Or knows that there are more than three kinds of apples.

In a tiny operation, role compression blurs definitions so even tech-speak is hard. And most of us are just learning the spirit world tech-speak and jargon.

Consumer understanding of the nuances an industry gives to seemingly everyday words is _widely_ varied. Is it any wonder that there's confusion and discussion amongst ourselves? And are the newcomers necessarily wrong in how we are using a word like 'distiller'? Maybe we're just talking to a different part of the consumer bell curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Cowdery, I respectfully submit that your definition of what a distiller is, is, well, a bit strange.

To quote you from another thread, "For example, I come from a world where the people who call themselves distillers start with whole grains and end with a barrel-aged finished product. In that world, people who buy bulk spirit and flavor or otherwise alter it, even if a still is involved, are called rectifiers, not distillers."

You do realize that you are describing the vast majority of the whisk(e)y produced in the world, right? I have NEVER heard a whiskey labelled as "rectified", and I have never seen the word rectify or rectifier used in relation to a whiskey like, say, Woodford Reserve.

Here's what Chris Morris (I'm assuming he's still there) does to put Woodford Reserve in a bottle. He brings in his grain bill, mills it, mashes it (ok, not really, he mixes his grain with enzymes from a pail, but why split hairs), ferments it, distills in in his pot stills, and barrels it.

...but the process is not finished. When he wants to bottle some "Woodford Reserve" whiskey, he picks up the phone, and calls his good friend Poppa B. Forman, and has selected barrels shipped in bulk (that is to say, in quantities large than 5 gallons) to his bottling hall and blends it with a fraction of his pot distilled whiskey. Now according to you, he's a rectifier. He's buying "bulk spirit and flavor or otherwise alter it, even if a still is involved, are (is therefore) called a rectifier, not (a) distiller".

Somehow I don't think that you call Morris a rectifier. That's because he's a distiller, and a damn good one.

But I can make it even easier for you. Look up the SOI for Distilled Gin. You're going to find that those who purchase GNS, put it in the still, add juniper etc., and run it through the still are making distilled, not rectified, Gin....and the labels on their bottles can say as much.

I have no problem with your bringing these subjects up, but I respectfully disagree with the lingo you are using.

Oh, and FWIW, to rectify means to purify by distilling...and also implies raising the proof of the spirit. I should know because I rectify my brandy (raising the proof, too). That's not what Gin or Absinthe makers are doing. Their end product isn't more pure than it was when it entered their bonded premises as GNS.

Lastly, these statements are coming from a guy who mashes and ferments, but also uses bulk brandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description of Woodford Reserve is thoroughly wrong but since you don't give me much credibility, I won't waste my own time or yours by explaining it to you. You can't even quote me accurately.

Most mass-market gin made in the United States is compound gin, not distilled gin, but the SOI does provide specifications for distilled gin.

Call yourself the Shah of Iran if you want to. That's not really the point. All I am doing is explaining why I personally and generally, based on my background and experience, would not tend to call someone who uses distillation to flavor GNS a distiller. I'm not saying you can't, but you are lending support to my suspicion that many in the micro-distilling world have little understanding of what goes on and what has gone on, historically, in the macro-distilling world, especially in the United States as differentiated from Europe.

I've lived in or close to the industry for the last 25-30 years. I'm just telling you what I know of that world and I'm puzzled why people who clearly know almost nothing about that world persist in arguing with me about it.

Today, few rectifiers operate stills and the term usually refers to people who blend or flavor bulk spirits without any processes related to distillation, but historically rectifiers did re-distill, generally to neutralize poorly made whiskey, hence the somewhat fanciful term. The Whiskey Wars that took place in the United States almost exactly a century ago are fascinating because they were a national debate about...guess what? Terminology!

All I ask and all I have ever asked is that all spirits producers, regardless of their size, tell the truth about their products and about how those products are made, and the truth means, in part, using the clearest, most accurate, and most readily understood terminology.

And to those of you who keep saying my posts are a waste of your time, keeping you from practicing your profession, do I really need to point out that you don't have to either read or respond to them? This is a big board, with a lot of sections, and there doesn't seem to be any shortage of bandwidth. If you truly find these discussions distracting and irrelevant, as opposed to unsettling, please ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description of Woodford Reserve is thoroughly wrong but since you don't give me much credibility, I won't waste my own time or yours by explaining it to you. You can't even quote me accurately.

For what it's worth, *I* am interested in knowing.

Call yourself the Shah of Iran if you want to.

Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm the Shah of Iran. :P

That was easy.

I've lived in or close to the industry for the last 25-30 years. I'm just telling you what I know of that world and I'm puzzled why people who clearly know almost nothing about that world persist in arguing with me about it.

Then again, over the years, it's not inconceivable that the macro distillers have adapted the terms during that time (and long before) to suit their own needs and therefore deviating from their sources (devil's advocate here, I don't claim to know). I'm open to be shown where I'm out to lunch on this one.

Today, few rectifiers operate stills and the term usually refers to people who blend or flavor bulk spirits without any processes related to distillation, but historically rectifiers did re-distill, generally to neutralize poorly made whiskey, hence the somewhat fanciful term. Terminology!

Honestly, I would take the position you do re: distillers with rectifiers who don't redistill. Otherwise, how would blending/flavoring be not that...blending or flavoring?

All I ask and all I have ever asked is that all spirits producers, regardless of their size, tell the truth about their products and about how those products are made, and the truth means, in part, using the clearest, most accurate, and most readily understood terminology.

We're working towards that. The sticking point is the "truth" bit and its relation to the term "distiller." As mentioned before, using "distiller" to describe one who distills seems (at least to me) to use "the clearest, most accurate, and most readily understood terminology." That flies in the face of the industry-speak that seems to contradict how we're using it...at least as you're describing it to us.

The Shah has spoken, so it shall be.

Cheers,

Paul

*tongue planted firmly in cheek*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description of Woodford Reserve is thoroughly wrong but since you don't give me much credibility, I won't waste my own time or yours by explaining it to you. You can't even quote me accurately.

No need to be rude. Let's keep it polite. I thought that I was quite polite. I thought that it was ok to discuss this?

And again...I'm a distiller, according to any definition of the word, including yours. I mash and ferment. Have for years. So I'm not trying to get away with calling myself a "Shah" or whatever else you seem to think I'm doing.

1st off, I may be wrong about the exact procedure at Woodford (where they bottle, or barrel, or what-have-you), but I do know for a fact that they take a portion of the distillate that they produce at Woodford Reserve, and blend it with whiskey that is prepared elsewhere. I know, because Mr. Morris told me that what he does (no we are not friends, I don't know him personally). It's not exactly a secret, although I'd guess that the general public believes that every drop in a WR bottle is distilled and bottled at one distillery.

2nd off, here's the direct quote from you. I emphasized the appropriate portion in bold:

"For example, I come from a world where the people who call themselves distillers start with whole grains and end with a barrel-aged finished product. In that world, people who buy bulk spirit and flavor or otherwise alter it, even if a still is involved, are called rectifiers, not distillers."

So, to put the two ideas together, explain to me how the "distillers" at Woodford reserve aren't buying bulk spirit? They are. It may be "in-house" buying, but it's still obtaining bulk spirits from off the premises. So, I politely ask again, explain to me how your definition of a distiller fits into this scenario? It seems to me that you think that WR is a rectifier, not a distiller. If I am in error, please explain why.

I'm not trying to be rude. I honestly think that you are trying to apply the terminology used in American Whiskey production to the production of every other kind of spirit made, and that's leading to the confusion. Just to pick one example, blended whisk(e)y, as you very well know, means two entirely different things in Scotland and the US. The terms you are discussing don't always mean the same thing to distillers of different spirits.

I gave an example as to why, respectfully, I believe your use of the word rectify is in error, and explained why.....and you skipped over it. So I'll ask again. Do you agree that the word rectify means two things: First, it means that you are purifying the spirit that is rectified. In other words, the spirit will have a lower concentration of congeners after rectification. Second, the proof of the spirit will be raised. Are we on the same page here?

If we are, the adding herbs to GNS and distilling it isn't rectification at all. It is something else. Personally, I think that it is distilling. You may not agree.

I'm just posing questions, the same way that you are. I ask, because I respect your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING, MUCH DISCUSSION OF TERMINOLOGY AHEAD. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT TERMINOLOGY, TURN BACK NOW.

What Paul says is absolutely correct, about how the use of terms has evolved. Rectifiers have always been middle-men. They were never distillers in the grain-to-barrel sense of the word, although some operated stills and, yes, they coined the term "rectification" for their business because they maintained that they were fixing whiskey that had been poorly made, by making it more neutral (though not necessarily GNS), then flavoring it with (I'm talking about 100 years ago) things like black tea and prune juice.

After Prohibition and into the modern era, with the advent of large GNS producers and easy availability of GNS, rectifiers pretty much stopped distilling and they never had been involved in things like making good gin or absinthe. In current usage, a rectifier is a producer who basically has a tank farm and a bottling line, and at least one tank with an agitator, and they do things like make American blended whiskey from bulk straight whiskey and GNS, make gin from GNS and concentrate, and make liqueurs from GNS, concentrate and sweetener.

As for the Shah crack, what I meant by that is I recognize and acknowledge the way you are using the term distiller and I have no objection to you using it that way. All I'm trying to do is point out where and under what circumstances that usage might be confusing to some people.

I took a little offense at my words being labeled as "strange" and I spoke too hastily about the quote, which you quoted correctly. You are, however, taking great leaps in your characterization of Woodford Reserve, which I'll explain in a moment. As for "rectified whiskey," there was a strong effort by makers of straight whiskey, 100 years ago, to require makers of the other kind of whiskey to call their product "rectified whiskey" or even "imitation whiskey" (you can imagine how well that suggestion was received), which was when they settled on the terms "straight whiskey" and "blended whiskey."

So blended whiskey, e.g., Seagram's Seven Crown, is "rectified whiskey," although the accepted term now is "blended whiskey." There is a confusing matter of semantics here, however, that bears on the Woodford story. All whiskeys except single barrel bottlings are "blended" in the dictionary sense of "to combine or mix so that the constituent parts are indistinguishable from one another."

What is done with most straight whiskey also is consistent with the second dictionary definition of the verb "to blend." "To combine (varieties or grades) to obtain a mixture of a particular character, quality, or consistency."

In the case of straight whiskey, it usually involves mixing whiskeys of different ages but Four Roses, for example, makes ten distinct bourbon recipes by combining two different mash bills with five different yeasts. They sell those whiskeys individually in their single barrel line, in a small combination of two to four varieties in their Small Batch line, and all ten plus age variations in their standard Yellow Label product.

But Four Roses Master Distiller Jim Rutledge will take great umbrage if you call what he does "blending," even though it is, clearly, according to the plain meaning of the word. The reason is that, in the American whiskey business, "blend" is a term of art and it means mixing a small amount of one or several straight whiskeys with GNS to produce an American blended whiskey product like Seagram's Seven Crown. This is very similar to the Scottish, Irish and Canadian practice, except they use a nearly-neutral, barrel-aged whiskey instead of GNS.

What Woodford does is not usual, in that they combine (notice me avoiding the word "blend") straight whiskey made at two different locations. By law, a combination of straight bourbons all made within the same state, but at different distilleries, is still considered straight bourbon. (I can't answer why "same state" is important, but that's the law.)

They don't in any sense "buy bulk whiskey" since it's all part of the same company and Chris Morris supervises both plants. Jim Beam also has two distilleries making Jim Beam bourbon and a given bottle of Jim Beam white label or Jim Beam black label might contain whiskey distilled at Clermont, whiskey distilled at Boston, or some of each.

And now that we're being all polite, I hope you can admit you weren't very polite in the way you told your version of the Woodford story. For the record, Chris Morris has been a friend of mine for more than 20 years.

At the Woodford distillery, Brown-Forman has an operation unlike any other in the world, in that they have a series of three Scottish-made alembics (not a rectification column in the place). Although the three look the same, the first one is unique, because it has a recirculation system in it so the mash (not wash) is always moving and doesn't stick or congeal. This is the stripper or beer still. Spirit comes off that first still at only about 20% ABV. It comes off the second one at about 55%, and off the third one at a point or two below the legal maximum of 80%. It gets reduced to 62.5% for barrel entry and goes into the aging warehouses there at the distillery.

Woodford uses the same mash bill and yeast as the Brown-Forman plant in Shively uses for the Old Forester brand. About the only difference is they bring the Shively spirit off the doubler at a slightly lower proof, but I don't recall exactly what. They basically wanted to make the same whiskey at both plants and see how much difference there was due to the two different technologies. They are different, but they're pretty close.

By the way, Brown-Forman does not, in any of its distilleries, use enzymes. Their mash is converted to a fermentable substrate by endogenous enzyme systems only. They do not "mix ... grain with enzymes from a pail," as you so politely put it.

After a couple of years of aging in the warehouses at Shively, barrels are selected to continue aging at Woodford. The creation of a batch of whiskey to be bottled as Woodford Reserve Distiller's Select starts with sampling barrels from both distilleries at about seven years. Barrels that match the standard are then combined together is four groups. The group of four must contain barrels from both distilleries but how much of it is from which distillery varies by batch. Some batches might be 75/25 from Woodford, some 75/25 from Shively, some closer to 50/50, but the characterization that it's never more than a "fraction" of the pot distilled whiskey is completely false and is, in fact, a calumny spread by competitors. It's rarely less than 25%, and often more than 75%. (The four groups are not always equal in size, so it doesn't always break down by quarters, but it's easier to explain and understand that way).

That's been how Woodford has been produced since early 2003, when the first whiskey made at the Woodford plant was mature enough. Although Woodford doesn't bear an age statement, the whiskey is usually about seven years old.

Woodford Reserve has been very successful. The Woodford distillery operates at capacity (Shively does not). Overall, it's probably about 50/50 in terms of what is coming from which distillery, but if Woodford keeps growing they won't be able to keep that up. In the not too distant future, they'll probably double the capacity of that plant. The Scottish manufacturer of the stills has the order and all the specifications, and Woodford has the space, they're just waiting for B-F to pull the trigger.

I think that about covers it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, great. We are totally, 100% on the same page regarding Whiskey. Frankly, I like your sense of humor.

First off, my apologies for making the mistake re: the enzymes. I was at Woodford Reserve in 2002 with two other distillers and Mr. Morris. I confused two bourbon plants. I apologize for that. That's something that I should have remembered, and I'm embarrassed that I didn't. At the time I was there, they were bottling WR with other stock, not from the WR stills. And to be clear...I'm not the one who has an issue with bulk spirits. I could care less if they blend, mix, add, or whatever you wish to call it. Whatever makes for a nice dram is fine by me. And who am I to tell any other distiller what they can make, or what they can call what they do. I simply don't care. I have enough to deal with at my own distillery to worry about what others are doing. If it sells, good for them.

Second, I feel like you missed that I hold both Chris Morris and the other bourbon distillers in the highest regard. That was the point of my post, and I chose Woodford Reserve because I am well aware of your association with Morris. He mentioned you during my visit, actually. I don't think that they are rectifiers or whatever you'd like to call them simply because they get bulk spirits off-premise. Morris is the man. Chris Bird, who I'd imagine you know, took us out to see him in '02, and told us about all the cool things he was doing out at WR. Seeing those huge potstills in a bourbon plant was like a visiting a holy place for me. It's the primary reason I'm purchasing a potstill rather than a hybrid this fall, in point of fact.

What I'm trying to do is get you to transfer your understanding and respect for guys like Chris Morris.....who clearly use bulk spirits (bulk defined by the TTB as spirits in a container larger than 5 gallons that is shipped to a bonded area for further processing)....over to the guys who use bulk spirits to produce things like Absinthe or Gin. The traditions of whiskey production aren't the same as they are for Absinthe or Gin production. One method is not inherently better than the other. They're just different, is all.

Traditionally, and I'm talking over a hundred years here, Absinthe and Gin distillers purchased neutral, or nearly neutral spirits from outside sources to produce their spirits. Sometimes they had a stake in the NS plants, sometimes not. Unless I'm totally mistaken, it is still illegal to have a GNS plant in England on the same premises as the potstills used for Gin. That's how those spirits are traditionally distilled. There's nothing wrong with how they make their spirits, and I think that I have adequately explained why what they are doing isn't rectification (correct me if you disagree).

I think that the way they make and mix various batches of bourbon is great. I have no problem with it whatsoever. You were the person who brought up the issue of using bulk spirits, so that's why I pointed out that most of the bourbon producers do the same thing....and to the benefit of whiskey lovers everywhere, right?

I think that you'll have issues with this paragraph, but..........the fact that Woodford is part of the same company that they receive the bulk whiskey from is immaterial to me. Morris did not have a hand in crafting many of the whiskeys he uses in his bottlings, correct? So then why would it make a difference if the bulk whiskey is made by the same company in that case? Seems like semantics. If my distillery gets bought by Brown Forman, does that mean that it's ok to use their bulk whiskey, and changes me from a rectifier to a distiller if I wasn't making my own mash? Respectfully, that doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm enjoying this discussion.

Oh, I hope I didn't come across as rude, and I apologize for using the word "strange". I should have chosen my words more carefully, and I enjoyed your rundown of some of the bourbon plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, great. We are totally, 100% on the same page regarding Whiskey.

I think we're on the same page with most of it, after a rocky start.

What I'm trying to do is get you to transfer your understanding and respect for guys like Chris Morris.....who clearly use bulk spirits (bulk defined by the TTB as spirits in a container larger than 5 gallons that is shipped to a bonded area for further processing)....over to the guys who use bulk spirits to produce things like Absinthe or Gin. The traditions of whiskey production aren't the same as they are for Absinthe or Gin production. One method is not inherently better than the other. They're just different, is all.

You're right, it's not about "bulk" and never was, it's about making something v. not making it. The only bulk whiskey Chris Morris uses is whiskey Chris Morris made, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with bulk. Yes, he made it, that is, he made the Shively whiskey in the same sense that he made the Woodford whiskey. He is Master Distiller for both plants and before him, Lincoln Henderson was Master Distiller for both plants. Beam makes the same whiskey at two locations, so does Brown-Forman. The only difference is that the two Beam plants use essentially the same technology while the two B-F operations are very different, but they're both making the same whiskey and the same distiller is responsible for both of them. Yes, it's bulk whiskey if it goes from one DSP to another. I think Beam actually uses the same DSP at both locations. They're only a couple of miles apart. I don't really know the rules on that. I think the two B-F plants have different DSPs but, as I said, bulk's not really the point. It's not really a valid comparison because whiskey has personality. The whole point of GNS is that it has no personality. It's a tabula rasa.

As for respecting gin and absinthe guys, I'm already there, and you can credit Melkon Khosrovian of Modern Spirits for that. He got me onboard with that a long time ago. I just wish there was a name for that, that the people who do it liked, that wasn't "distiller," but that's not a deal killer. I accept that since the United States doesn't really have a tradition in that sort of craft, there is nothing in the American lexicon, meaning the field is open. I agree that "rectification" is not the right word for that by any stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're on the same page with most of it, after a rocky start.

If there was a misunderstanding or rockiness, it was on my part. And for that, I apologize. This is a discussion that is better served over a nice dram or three, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was a misunderstanding or rockiness, it was on my part. And for that, I apologize. This is a discussion that is better served over a nice dram or three, don't you think?

That's true of any discussion. I can't think of an exception. Are we on the same page now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You two guys need to get a room......(kidding, kidding, of course).

This is a lively discussion. And it is especially interesting when it rolls over into the kinds of things that GNS users are doing, like Melkon. I propose the word "infuser" would fit. Melkon is a great example, using his skills, intuition and the best materials to create new expressions in spirits.

Why a person who is not actually distilling would want to claim the title is not beyond understanding, it has cache, it is not the kind of title the public understands fully. Hell, all of us who actually do this shit are having a pretty difficult time getting to a definition. But there is no shame in practicing a Craft that has GNS as its base material. The "Craft" is not in the materials, it's in how they are treated and the character of the starting material is changed under the careful manipulation of the Craftsman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Cowdery,

I appreciate you feedback on the forum. As a whole I believe your comments force us to flush out some issues. I also believe you are right in your comments regarding the use of terminology. However, I disagree with your desire to use it as blanket classifications. From you explainations, how would one ever create a crafted gin or absinthe if by definition they are derived from the redistillation of "other" spirits?

To draw a parallel to the rise of the craft brewing movement......

If you have a mash vessel, lauter tun, brew kettle, whirlpool, HX, FV, filter & BBT you are craft brewing.......but that is the same equipment used if you are SAB Miller or AB-InBev. Why are you choosing to classify a craft distiller based on the specific designs of thier equipment?

As a collective whole we have spent alot of time on this forum splitting hairs over what we call ourselve in one respect of another. But can someone tell me why instead we are not working to come up with classifications of further sub catagories for the spirits themselves? Or bringing back since "deceased" styles? As a consumer, the craft brewing moment caused the exposure of many different interpretations and sub-styles of beer. Why are we not striving for the same?

Look at the BJCP classifications..... You mean to tell me as a collective whole we can't do the same? Here's a brief example:

Vodka:

Rye Based Vodka (at least 80% usage rate)

Corn Based Vodka (at least 80% usage rate)

Wheat Based Vodka (at least 80% usage rate)

Potato Based Vodka (at least 80% usage rate)

*want to seperate ourselves further? Them make an "American" sub catagory. Like American Pale Ale vs. India Pale Ale

*want to seperate further?? Column distilled vs. pot distilled vs. Column&Pot distilled

Absinthe:

For the love of god and everything holy.....talk about a wide open door and a clean slate for us to define..... Are there any of use NOT thinking of doing one??

Another thread there was a discussion on some absinthe's not tasting enough like wormwood, why not have absinthe's with a prodominant wormwood note be a category definition, anise dominant being another sub-cat of absinthe.

Gin:

Distilled vs. Compounded

With gin & absinthe you have such a wide array of botanicals & herbs, that is just asking for some classification guidance.

Pick any catagory and we can go on and on and on and on. But I also feel this is something the conclusions are not something that can be derived purely from the manufacturers (I am not saying distiller as to not have a 30th pissing contest). It needs to be a coordination between critics and producers. As producers we get to have fun wit this! Critics get o have just as much fun with it!

Instead of throwing jests at on another and acting snobbish, as an industry whole lets step up and show that "craft" is more than just size of your operation, it is something that allows us to formulate provocative new spins on otherwise old classifications. Lets use what we have to our advantage. As small producers we can take larger chances on "wacky" profiles and limited runs. We can create a new style (or spin on) of spirit without having to do 3 years of focus groups. In reality, we ARE niche. Why are we trying to conform otherwise?

I am realizing how long this email has become, and since most of the "long ones" i just skim.....I will cut this short now, so people are more likely to read it as whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can someone tell me why instead we are not working to come up with classifications of further sub catagories for the spirits themselves? Or bringing back since "deceased" styles? As a consumer, the craft brewing moment caused the exposure of many different interpretations and sub-styles of beer. Why are we not striving for the same?

We have been doing these things. And for some time now.

As an example, I've been making an American Gin (as opposed to a London Dry Gin....and it says so right on the label) for years now. I also revived the original intent of the spirit now known as SoCo, by distilling a Peach Whiskey that is made by adding peaches to new make whiskey, before it is dropped into used bourbon barrels.

Maytag makes a Genever, reviving the style in the US. Stranahan's basically invented a new category in their Colorado Whiskey by using all-malt lautered and filtered wash. Ralph at Tuthilltown pretty much invented the 3 month whiskey. Pacific Distillery and Marteau are producing Traditional Absinthe based on Absinthe recipes that are from the 1800's. And there's many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm focusing specifically on 19th century style spirits. I'm starting with absinthe, which is what brought me to distilling, but I'm also working on an oude graangenever and a few other things.

Absinthe:

For the love of god and everything holy.....talk about a wide open door and a clean slate for us to define..... Are there any of us NOT thinking of doing one??

<sermon>Probably not, but also for the love of God and everything holy, I'm begging: please do some research and make it properly; absinthe is not a blank slate. While it may be new to the US and relatively obscure, that doesn't mean that those just now finding out about it get to (re)define it. I'll be happy to give bits of advice here on the forum, and I'm available for consulting.

why not have absinthe's with a prodominant wormwood note be a category definition, anise dominant being another sub-cat of absinthe.
How dominant the wormwood, anise or other herb is in a given absinthe is a question of style, like Speyside, Islay or Highland are with whisky. With absinthe, this is already documented by regional styles such as Pontarlier, Montpellier, Nimes, Besançon, etc.

No doubt new styles will emerge, as they should, but if you try to re-define absinthe, you may destroy the category entirely.</sermon>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am well aware of the references you linked to and stated as I am sure many of us are.

But how as a group can we relay/educate this to the public? This is where I think we need to work more with the spirits competitions organizers, retailers, press, critics, TTB etc.

BTW, it sounds like you are doing some great product development and as a consumer as well as producer, I look forward to trying them.

Accept my apology for not relaying my thought well. I was trying to use absinthe as an example to relay my thought, not to start it as a specific thread. Yes, I agree that we don't need to START by redefining. But need to be prepared to accept that some may not conform to these existing style but would still be "an absinthe". Granted I don't think we need to get artsy & full of ourselves and reinvent the wheel.

In this post, I said pick a catagory. If absinthe is the one we want to discuss, awesome. I am all for it, I am all for these discussions on all of them. I am trying to start some chatter on these subjects for all of our benefit. But let's not attack each other with "go do your research". Let's have a line of communication that educates. Does anyone have an objection to me posting a thread on specifically defining these catagories of absinthe? With many of us making them, I can only see good things for the craft/micro distilling industry by having such laid out definitions. Granted I am not saying we should lay out specific recipes. But why not make specifications based on proportion of the ingredients. 70% wormwood vs 20% wormwood. Or color between the range of 20-40 on some scale of measurement. I am most familar with SRM for beer, so that's what I will use as an example of a "scale" or "unit" of measurement for color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to start a tangent, only respond to that particular comment because it involved my area of expertise. The research comment wasn't intended as an attack but as an exhortation stemming from my many experiences of being confronted with spirits labeled as absinthe but which clearly fall outside the category. We could continue the discussion in an appropriate thread if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to start a tangent, only respond to that particular comment because it involved my area of expertise. The research comment wasn't intended as an attack but as an exhortation stemming from my many experiences of being confronted with spirits labeled as absinthe but which clearly fall outside the category. We could continue the discussion in an appropriate thread if you like.

Great! I REALLY look forward to talking about this further and am very excited you have an expertise in this area and are willing to talk about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the French tradition, a distillateur (distiller) is someone who makes and sells the product of distillation. There is no requirement for that person to perform fermentation, since distillation is the separation of more volatile components from lesser ones through boiling and collecting the condensed vapors.

The French also have the term liquoriste, the maker of liquors. This is someone who may or may not distill, but also makes liquors by other means such as infusion and blending.

I can see why the large American whiskey manufacturers have evolved the set of terms appropriate for their business.

Doesn't mean that the small artisanal producers have to follow that terminology especially if it's not appropriate to their business and methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...