Is a Holstein a Pot Still?

[Jonathan Forester]

What do you mean by "Therefore, pot still vodka is a joke."? Please clarify.

Who am I?

Fair question.

A few of you know me. For the rest, there is plenty of information out there about me and I won't bother to repeat it here. It's easy to find. If you're interested, my web site is a good place to start.

But the short answer, for purposes of this discussion, is this: I'm your customer, potentially your best customer.

I am an American whiskey enthusiast and so are my readers. We prefer American whiskey to all other alcoholic beverages. We can't get enough of it and are always interested in something new and different, but we're not chumps. We don't like to be zoomed. We're not children and we don't need to be told that our whiskey was made by elves in a hollow tree.

And although we aren't, for the most part, distillers, we know that a pot still is that thing pictured at the top of this page, and not a Holstein or anything else with a rectification column on it. Therefore, pot still vodka is a joke.

So if you don't care what your customers think or want, or you don't care how American whiskey enthusiasts generally approach and consider American whiskey, then ignore or disdain me. Otherwise, let's take each other seriously and have a dialogue.

Was that piece meant to be provocative? Of course. As Bill Owens said when he asked me if he could republish it, "let's see if anybody is awake out there."

[cowdery]

Grehorst wrote: "A pot still is a device for producing a product in a batch- which is what we do -even vodka."

Jonathan Forester wrote: "What do you mean by 'Therefore, pot still vodka is a joke.?' Please clarify."

Coming from the perspective of a whiskey enthusiast, the column still-pot still divide is mostly about malt whiskey enthusiasts who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the use of pot stills--by which they mean alembics--instead of column stills is one of the reasons scotch is superior to bourbon. As an American whiskey enthusiast I consider that an unfounded prejudice but it is a view shared by many.

Of the claims made for the superiority of pot stills, charge versus continuous is not among them. The supposed advantages of an alembic have to do with copper contact, head shape, that sort of thing, and ancient tradition. It's the alembic that goes back into the mists of time, not the Holstein.

The only sense in which a Holstein is a pot still is the fact that it is a charge still. In the way it separates ethanol from water, it functions like a column still. So which is it? I contend people choose to call it a pot still to exploit the prejudice despite the fact that it is not a pot still in the sense most people mean.

Alembics and columns are different because different congeners come off at different temperatures. A nice metaphoric way of looking at it is that what an alembic does with time a column does with space, each plate being a different temperature. Some say that, in effect, each plate in a column still is like an individual alembic.

As for the "pot still vodka is a joke" comment, you can't make neutral spirits in an alembic, can you? So-called "pot still vodka" is made in what perhaps should be called a charge column still. Knowing that for most people, when you say "pot still" the picture at the top of this page pops into their mind, saying that is a "pot still" product and claiming for it the supposed superiority of pot stills is simply dishonest, so calling it "a joke" is actually charitable.

Bill Owens has told me that, to him, this whole ADI enterprise is about championing the pot still. Yet the (my term) hybrid still favored by so many microdistillers is a pot still only in the sense that it is a charge, not continuous, still and is that really what makes "pot still"-anything more attractive?

[Jonathan Forester]

Many people do use a hybrid still as a pot still. All you do is turn off the plates and it is a pot still. I've run one that way just recently making an eau de vie, and it works great. You get reflux without rectification and retain all the taste and aroma.

[cowdery]

Using a true, traditional alembic still such as the one pictured at the top of this page, how many distillations are required to achieve a spirit that exceeds 95% ABV and thus is able to be marketed as vodka in the United States? I'm prepared to be enlightened.

[delaware_phoenix]

The TTB definition for vodka:

Spirits distilled from any material at or above 95% alcohol by volume (190 proof), and if bottled, bottled at not less than 40% alcohol by volume (80 proof)

This is probably not a traditional definition from the Slavic countries where vodka originated. And I suspect in the late 19th century they didn't have the fancy columns in use today.

I don't know about Holstein, but I do know that a Carl still can be had with a traditional cognac helmet, so no column at all, straight pot still. From what I understand (from others that know much more than I), reaching 85% is relatively easy. Higher abv's are possible but probably not economical.

[Guest tom]

The TTB definition for vodka:

This is probably not a traditional definition from the Slavic countries where vodka originated. And I suspect in the late 19th century they didn't have the fancy columns in use today.

I don't know about Holstein, but I do know that a Carl still can be had with a traditional cognac helmet, so no column at all, straight pot still. From what I understand (from others that know much more than I), reaching 85% is relatively easy. Higher abv's are possible but probably not economical.

I think what Chuck is talking about, when he says pot still vodka is a joke, is that some people may be redistilling gns in the holstein or carl stills and therefore the holstein still is not really the still making the vodka. Some people are making there own vodka from scratch in these hybrid, I like that term, stills, and blending it with bulk gns. You can take spirit up to vodka proof on these hybrid stills, but the way they are designed the "vodka" spirit still retains a lot of character from the mash. These stills are very effective, making whiskey on them is a real trick, I have found that to make a whiskey that resembles anything made in kentucky on a column still, you run it through the short column on the hybrid still with the plates closed. Even though a lot of people say they are double distilling their whiskey by passing it through the columns with the plates open, I have found this not to be the best way. Their is still a hell of a lot of reflux going on ii that column, and it effects the final flavor, by making it too light. But some people that are microdistilling are not trying to recreate bourbon, they are trying to come up with their own system and flavor, I just wish some of them would not call it bourbon.

[Doug MacKenzie]

Answer to Chucks question: It impossible to get 95% on an Alembic. So if somebody is distilling "vodka" from a mash on an Alembic, they're either defying the laws of chemistry/physics or they're defying the laws of the TTB. That's the reason for the hybrid stills allowing the use of the rectifying column or bypassing it to get the same effects as a pot still.

[Jonathan Forester]

Has anyone tried, or heard anything about some of the new style pot stills with a extra tall head made by Colonel Wilson? These provide a large amount of reflux. They are hollow, no column or packing.

I have been told the "Georgia Ridge" still gets 80% abv. on a first run and around 90% abv. on a second run, I bet they hit 95% on a third run. I spoke with the Colonel and he says that if the head is packed for more reflux (I assume with copper mesh) it will run 90-95% on the first run. It hasn't been delivered so I don't have any idea personally of how it will perform, but will see in a few months.

It stands 83" tall, the kettle is 30.5" wide, and the kettle fill capacity is 60 gallons / 225 lites, with a total kettle volume of 85 gallons.

Also this traditional Kentucky style pot still head called the "Ozark Mountain." It supposedly does 50-70% abv. on a first run and around 80% abv. on a second. Same kettle as the top one.

Answer to Chucks question: It impossible to get 95% on an Alembic. So if somebody is distilling "vodka" from a mash on an Alembic, they're either defying the laws of chemistry/physics or they're defying the laws of the TTB. That's the reason for the hybrid stills allowing the use of the rectifying column or bypassing it to get the same effects as a pot still.

[cowdery]

My issue is not so much the technical one as the truth-in-advertising one.

When a producer touts a product as "pot still," what is the point being made? One obvious answer is: "not made in a column still." There is, among many spirits enthusiasts, a prejudice against column stills in favor of pot stills. I use the term "prejudice" deliberately because the attitude is based on some very debatable assumptions, but it exists nonetheless.

If it is an appeal to authenticity, to some sort of adherence to tradition, then does that have any validity if the equipment in question bears little or no resemblance to the traditional alembic or, at least, to the modern versions of same employed in Scotland and Cognac? Even if the equipment is, technically, a pot still, are you being true to the customer's expectations if you use that term?

There is a product called A. H. Hirsch bourbon, which claimed to be the only pot still bourbon made after Prohibition. Let me say right off that it is a delicious whiskey and I have purchased as many bottles of it as I can afford. It is exceptional. That's not the issue.

Extensive research has been done on the pot still claim and although all of the people with direct knowledge are dead (the whiskey was distilled more than 30 years ago), it appears that the claim was essentially false, but rationalized by the fact that the doubler in an American whiskey distillery is, in fact, a pot still, and at the time of the whiskey's distillation at the Michter's Distillery in Pennsylvania, many other larger Pennsylvania distilleries had abandoned doubling, so Michter's did have a somewhat valid claim to a process, involving a pot still, that differentiated it from its competitors.

It also appears that the whiskey's makers set out intending to make an entirely pot still whiskey but were never able to get that off the ground and settled for just using the term to describe a conventionally-made whiskey. They did, however, stencil the words "pot still" onto their doubler.

There is a new product on the market right now called Willett Family Pot Still Reserve. The bottle resembles a pot still owned by the Willett family, however the product inside said bottle was not made in that still nor in any pot still except, as with Hirsch, for the doubler used by the conventional American whiskey distillery that actually distilled the product.

Woodford Reserve, on the other hand, uses three pot stills, manufactured in Scotland, to make one of the component bourbons in its Woodford Reserve Distillers Select. The company has also released two products in what it calls its Masters Collection that are 100% pot still. The stills function exactly like the pot stills used in Scotland for malt whiskey except that the first still uses a recirculating pump that allows them to distill from a mash, in the traditional American manner, rather than a wash.

That's whiskey and there is no question that whiskey can be made in pot stills. As for vodka, even if it is possible to make vodka, i.e., gns, in a pot still, even without the use of a rectification column, so what? What would be the point of the claim? What superiority would the use of a pot still ostensibly impart?

My purpose here is neither to prescribe nor proscribe, but to provide information and stimulate thought and discussion.

[Charles@AEppelTreow]

I'll admit that I'm still learning here. I'm trying to wade my way through the terms being thrown about, especially as they aren't always used the way I expect. (So maybe I'm the one nedeing adjustment?)

We've recently seen:

pot still

charge still

continuous still

alembic

column still

hybrid still

Now, up to this point, my meager understand was that the fundamental dichotomy was charge (batch) vs continuous. And that nested within charge, was a second variable: alembic vs column. (That's without getting into just what the shape/size of the onion might contribute)

So my logic has been: charge = pot, and hybrid = rectifying pot and is kind of an unnecessary term.

Now, that's what I've gleaned from my reading. But some folks seem to be ordering the variable the other way, making alembic vs. rectifying as the fundamental difference. But if this were true, I would expect to find continuous alembics. Is there such a thing? I thought all continuous stills were column/rectifying stills.

Just two bits

[Jonathan Forester]

Charles, you come from a whiskey background. So much so that you seem to base your whole being, knowledge, and opinions on everything in the spirits industry on this. That may work for you, but it doesn't make you correct. One must look at the spirits industry as a whole, with a distinction on the vagaries of each category within the industry. Especially the infant artisanal distillery industry that we are currently creating here in the US, and around the world. This is a whole new baby that we are nursing here and I think I can say with some support that we refuse to be categorized under the old ways of doing things. We are busy birthing here; forming, molding, educating, pushing boundaries, developing personality, growing, becoming, are.

Personally I don't understand why you are in this forum causing dissension under the blanket of your stated purpose of "neither to prescribe nor proscribe, but to provide information and stimulate thought and discussion." When in reality you are just having fun inciting emotions and challenging in a negative way. There is a right way and a wrong way to open up discussion, and antagonizing isn't the right way. All you do is create anger, instead of rational thought and discussion.

I look at these few sentences below that you wrote and all that they bring to mind is your condescension towards anything that isn't whiskey, and made how whiskey should be made; or a spirit such as vodka made in a way different than what has been done before. (In recent times that is. Vodka was originally/traditionally made in pot stills for centuries, even dare I say millennia. It may not fit the TTB definition of vodka, but that doesn't mean it wasn't vodka.)

As for vodka, even if it is possible to make vodka, i.e., gns, in a pot still, even without the use of a rectification column, so what? What would be the point of the claim? What superiority would the use of a pot still ostensibly impart?

I don't believe that I am challenging for the pro's of vodka in any form. Four months ago if someone had suggested it, I would have said they were mad, no, completely insane. I had categorically stated that there was no way I would make a vodka; well I was wrong. It isn't commercially feasible not to in today's market. Since then I have sampled well over 100 vodka's, and reviewed a percentage of those. I have broken through my stereotypes and grown. That said.

First, gns and vodka are not synonymous. The distinction is important in order to get away from the idea that all vodka is a gns based product. Artisanal vodka may be made from grain (corn, wheat, rye,barley, triticale, etc.), potatoes, apples, maple sugar, molasses, etc. It may have a small, partial gns component to comply with TTB standards of identity; or be a fully artisanal distilled product.

Second, You say "so what?" that vodka may be made in a pot still (with or without a rectification column.) "What would be the point of the claim? What superiority would the use of a pot still ostensibly impart?"

The point? With the myriad forms of stills available and used in the artisanal market there is a need for distinction between them, and the spirits made in them. If vodka can be made in a way that is different, unique, and artisanal. If a quality product can be created in a way that shouts " Micro-Batch. Personal Attention. Difficult. Hand Crafted. Time Consuming. Special. Premium. Rare. (Insert relative buzz word here.)" This is a product worth making, and should be made if at all possible.

Superiority? That depends upon the product.

TTB Standards of Identity state: "(a) Class 1; neutral spirits or alcohol. “Neutral spirits” or “alcohol” are distilled spirits produced from any material at or above 190° proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80° proof.

(1) “Vodka” is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.

(2) “Grain spirits” are neutral spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain and stored in oak containers."

The reality is that fine, artisanal vodka does have a distinctive character, aroma, and taste. They are extremely mild in contrast to other spirits; so much so, that in comparison they fit the TTB definition. But anyone who has tasted many vodkas will universally say that they do have a distinctiveness of taste and aroma to them. I postulate that the vodkas that do not have any distinctiveness to them are not an artisanal product, solely because they lack an individual character and are no different than the myriad of vodka produced in huge rectification columns.

[cowdery]

Jonathan,

Yes, I'm a whiskey guy. I probably wouldn't be here if micro-distilleries weren't making whiskey, but that is not my sole interest.

I look at the industry as a whole. My background is not that different from yours.

You'd like me to go away? You think I'm having too much fun?

It is the TTB, not me, that decides what you can call spirits products if you want to sell them in the United States. As for vodka, it says vodka is a spirit made from any material, distilled above 95% ABV, which the TTB considers "neutral," then "treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color." All the TTB is saying there is that said treatments may only enhance neutrality, not diminish it. They can remove aroma, taste, or color, they can't add it.

You are correct that vodka doesn't have to be based on GNS, in that you can take away the "G," but not the "NS." Vodka is a subset of neutral spirits or alcohol.

The TTB definition certainly does not describe the spirit called vodka in the 18th century and before, but unless you can get the TTB to change its definition, that is what you are stuck with making today and there is no way around it. If you believe the industry should lobby the TTB for a definition change, have at it.

Distillers can make something that doesn't comply with the TTB description of vodka, they can make something more like the way vodka was made before the invention of the column still, they can make anything they want, they just can't call it vodka.

Phil Prichard would like to make rum from Tennessee sorghum. He can make all the spirit from Tennessee sorghum that he wants, he just can't call it rum. Nation-of-laws and all that. We may wish the laws were different, but we play the hand we're dealt.

In India, they make a spirit from sugar cane that they call whiskey. They are unhappy that the United States, the European Union, and most other markets won't accept that product as whiskey. They argue that it is a whole new baby they are nursing there and they think they can say with some support that they refuse to be categorized under the old ways of doing things. They are busy birthing there; forming, molding, educating, pushing boundaries, developing personality, growing, becoming...

There I go again, having too much fun.

By the TTB definition, all vodka should taste alike, but we know it doesn't. It doesn't because human senses are incredibly sensitive and can detect flavor elements in parts per billion. Some people believe the best of vodka is revealed when the spirit is distilled at the highest proof technology allows, then heavily filtered. Other people have different ideas.

None of that changes anything I have written here previously. If the words "pot still" are so important, why are they so important? When you say "pot still," what exactly are you trying to tell me? Don't just say "pot still" like we're all supposed to nod and accept that "pot still means it's better."

I am a spirits enthusiast and here is what I would like from someone who calls him- or herself a craft distiller or artisan distiller. Make something original. Make it as well as it can be made. Tell me the truth about it.

[Rich Morgan]

When a producer touts a product as "pot still," what is the point being made? One obvious answer is: "not made in a column still."

I have to disagree here, the main distinction when we say Pot still is to draw a difference to a continuous still. Lets not forget that despite all the hoopla, 80% of the worlds spirits are made in continuous stills. Almost 60% of all whiskey is continuous stilled.

The only difference between a pot still, an alembic (say a French pattern) or a pot still with a 30 plate column is the number of theoretical plates, and the reflux rate.

I believe the key distinction of a pot stilled product is the fact that it is of batch or charge based process, hence, the impurities are removed progressively with each distilling operation (or plate), but the total amount of impurities is finite in the batch. No so with a continuous still.

[delaware_phoenix]

I'm not really a whiskey person, so this will probably demonstrate my extreme ignorance, but I thought pot still would not only refer to a batch mode of operation, but also the number of theoretical plates. An old alembic (or cognac still) has only one theoretical plate.

I thought that it was the congeners (and their varied composition) that actually provided flavor to the beverage as well as defined it's class: the typical congeners in whiskey are different from gin which are different from rum, etc.

If the output of a pot still is fed into a 30 plate column, it would seem that due to the separation processes you'd end up with vodka and not whiskey or rum or what have you. Am I missing something? (Probably yes, so someone can explain it to me.)

[Rich Morgan]

I'm not really a whiskey person, so this will probably demonstrate my extreme ignorance, but I thought pot still would not only refer to a batch mode of operation, but also the number of theoretical plates. An old alembic (or cognac still) has only one theoretical plate.

I thought that it was the congeners (and their varied composition) that actually provided flavor to the beverage as well as defined it's class: the typical congeners in whiskey are different from gin which are different from rum, etc.

If the output of a pot still is fed into a 30 plate column, it would seem that due to the separation processes you'd end up with vodka and not whiskey or rum or what have you. Am I missing something? (Probably yes, so someone can explain it to me.)

Absolutely agreed !

[delaware_phoenix]

I was poking around the web, and found the site for Loch Lomond Distillery (in Scotland, so perhaps the folks on the Grand Tour will pay them a visit). The following page discusses the basics of making scotch. They mention their whiskey pot stills, but also discuss using rectifying columns to (in effect) simulate the different lengths/heights of the swan necks. From this I gathered that a pot still with a really tall swan neck would perhaps produce a lighter whiskey? Anyway, their discussion seemed to dovetail with our discussion of pot still vs column and what that might mean for the resulting product.

http://www.lochlomonddistillery.com/making-scotch.htm

btw, I'm really glad we don't have spirit safes here in the US.