September 2nd, 2010

Guest blog #4: Flavored whiskies

John Hansell

Today, I introduce Jason Cretacci, a Fine Spirits Consultant in Western New York as a guest blogger. Jason explores the flavor of things . . .

—-

My question to the What does John know? readers concerns flavored whisk(e)ys.  I have always enjoyed Compass Box Orangerie, Wild Turkey American Honey & Phillps Union Cherry Whisky.  I have also had the good fortune to try Bird Dog Blackberry Whiskey and Whitetail Caramel Flavored Whiskey.  Now, these are not something I would drink on a regular basis, but they have their place on whiskey rack, the store shelf, and on the back of bars.  These are great ways to introduce people to whiskeys, the same way I would introduce friends to wine with sweeter, more approachable ones before they move on to the dryer varietals.

What flavored whiskeys have you enjoyed? Did you get your start on whiskeys through flavored whiskeys? What other flavors would you like to see on store shelves? What bad experiences have you had from flavored whiskeys?

Good Drinks,

Jason Cretacci
Fine Spirits Consultant
Passport Wine & Spirits
http://www.passportwineandspirits.com

Category: Flavored whiskies,Guest Blogger 26 Comments

September 1st, 2010

Guest blog #3: The Whisky War Chest

John Hansell

Nate Nicoll, blogger at www.whiskywall.wordpress.com, joins “What Do You Know” as today’s guest blogger and opens the whisky war chest.

—–

While drinking does not always need to be a battle, and hopefully most of the time it is not, of fundamental importance to the savvy and seasoned imbiber of spirits is how one stocks the war chest.  And this isn’t just any war chest, this is the cache of whiskies that must have a proper balance of bottles to fortify one’s abode against any unprecedented or decidedly welcome peril.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way.  One must stock a celebratory-grade whisky.  This is something you tend to ignore, perhaps dusting it off occasionally and admiring it, pondering when the day will arrive when you will be justified in cracking the seal.  This object of your fawning, this grail of sorts imparts to you a sense of purpose.  The mere idea of trying to justify savoring such a pour will inspire you to set the bar higher, to clearly state goals in your mind, the achievement of which will permit you to raise a chalice of this superlative spirit.  Simply possessing the celebratory-grade whisky can make you a better person.  And if you torture yourself for long enough, holding out till the moment when you feel you’ve earned your reward, you will probably be so deranged that the whisky will taste as nectar and in the manner of self-fulfilling prophecies, you will love it no matter what.  Depending on the depths of one’s wealth this prized bottle can be astronomically expensive.  Thoughts of bottles from now long gone distilleries like Port Ellen or Brora come to mind.

Then there is your guest whisky.  This term may be bifurcated depending on your relationship with your guests.  If your guests are limited to solid friends and family, this should be something a cut above.  More importantly, it should be an expression of you.  This whisky is an opportunity to let those you invite into a private setting to get to experience an aspect of yourself that you have come to terms with and that you entrust to those around you.  It is easy to impress a guest with something rare or fine, but to share a whisky with them that reflects something of your own tastes and personality give them insight into who you are, brings them into your inner-circle.  An expression that might surprise them or that you think to yourself “you have to try this.”  As you can see this is a highly personalized choice and will vary from drammer to drammer.  For my purposes I like to have an independent bottling of an Islay or Lowland malt.  

Then there is the other guest whisky.  If you have occasion to suffer guests that aren’t particularly welcome but seem to occasionally wash up on your shore, you might need something to make them feel special while you hide any whisky of real value.  A decent blend serves this purpose well.  Something you can use on your own when you need to inject several ounces of medicinal booze into the system and you don’t have time for sipping. And when you need to serve it you start out with the old, “I stumbled upon a surprisingly decent blend, you’ve got to try it…”  They won’t question you. They are a guest.  Such bottles are not difficult to think of or find as there are many at your local supermarket.

Perhaps the most important component of the war chest, one that is overlooked or under stocked at your own peril, is the table whisky.  The table whisky, like it’s name implies, is your daily dram.  Of supreme importance is to not be lulled in by the somewhat proletariat common-sounding term “table whisky”.  The whisky is easily the most difficult to settle upon and requires far more research then any of the previously mentioned bottles.  This whisky has to be eminently sip-able but also able to be gulped without a tinge of wasteful regret.  This is the whisky you will spend most of your time drinking.  And if you value your time, your quality of life, you will make sure you really like this whisky.  It serves as both comfort and medicine depending on the situation.  It can precede a meal and/or round a meal out.  And unless you are rolling in it, it can be inexpensive.  For a whisky to satisfy all of these things, you usually have to move on to a new table whisky every 3-to-6 months, or so.  Otherwise the familiarity takes away from the overall experience.

Solid table whiskies can be found in the $40-$60 price range, and when you find one you need to keep it well stocked.  The table whisky is the last line of defense.  Failure to properly stock a good supply of table whisky and keep that supply well tended will result in you coming through the door one night and decimating every more rarified, special occasion whisky in your collection in a misevaluated need to get further lit.  Even a few beers can trigger a run on your whisky stash, and to avoid any next-day recriminations over your rare moment of rashness, you need the table whisky to stand up against your temporary lack of judgment. 

Just like a balanced financial portfolio you must maintain a nicely diversified whisky war chest.  One that will be able to competently ride the waves of a fluctuating market of guests and fend off an unexpected run on resources. 

What is your strategy to keeping a diverse whisky war chest and what is currently in it?

Category: Guest Blogger 45 Comments

August 31st, 2010

Guest Blog #2: What killed Michter’s distillery?

John Hansell

Today’s guest blogger on “What Do You Know?”, Ethan Smith, explores What Killed Michter’s?

—–

Was it because people, by 1990, no longer associated Pennsylvania with whiskey distilling? Maybe it was because whiskey consumption nationwide was declining? Or could it have been simply history closing the books on the last operating distillery in Penn’s woods? If you’re at all familiar with the distillery, you know well that the last days of Michter’s were not good ones. See Sam Komlenic’s post about his trip in 1989 and how empty the warehouses were. But what actually led to Michter’s shutting down on Valentine’s Day 20 years ago?

Doing a search for Michter’s online yields all sorts of results- most are inaccurate. I’ve found closure dates ranging from 1980 to 1992. And no one seems to fully understand why it closed. They only speculate. I set out several months ago to try and find out what made Michter’s tick and what made it finally wind to a stop (Being unemployed gave me PLENTY of time to do research!). I soon found myself involved with the distillery site itself helping the owner clean up and make the place look somewhat presentable. In our time working together at the abandoned place, Dwight began telling me what he knew and names he had heard. His stories about what happened to the distillery after its closure were fascinating and I quickly found myself scouring the internet for more information. I soon stumbled on a Straightbourbon post by Chuck Cowdery where he had interviewed Michter’s Master Distiller Dick Stoll. Within a few days, I had contact information and was on my way to meeting THE man who could answer a few questions I had. The first time I talked with Mr. Stoll we talked for a few hours. It was fantastic. We discussed everything from the process they used to make the whiskey, to the tourist business (His wife Elaine was a tour guide there), to what products they made, and of course, what killed Michter’s.

Louis Forman created the Michter’s brand back in the 1950’s by merging his two son’s names- Michael and Peter. Dick and Elaine Stoll wrote this to me about early distillery ownership:

“Lou [Forman] never owned the distillery.  In the early 1970s Samuel Glass and Associates bought the distillery from Kirk Foulk.  Sam Glass was the brother-in-law of Lou so Sam made him president.  Lou was the brains behind the Michter’s name and brand.  The plant was contracted by Hiram Walker to make cordials, who brought in new equipment, but the plant did not expand to the level expected. Hiram Walker ended the relationship and took back the equipment. 

“Around 1975(?)  Sam Glass sold the operation to a group of Lebanon businessmen including Stanley Katz, Phil Davis, Dale Yocum, and Abe Grosky (uncle of George Shattls).  Lou was named president, but Charles “Chuck” Romito, a lawyer from the law firm of Katz and Davis was put in charge. Under this group there was a new paint job and landscaping. Business started to boom with the help of Dale Yocum’s sons, Dave and Marty.  Lou was an important part of establishing the distillery on the National Register of Historic Places.  Dave and Marty established the Collectors Society and the tourist business.  The gift store items and decanters started with them, along with lots of press, including The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine.  Lots of bus tours ended up at Michter’s on their way from the tourist areas of Lancaster to Hershey. 

“Eventually the Lebanon group sold the distillery to Theodore Veru [Around 1979] despite an offer from Austin-Nichols.  Veru’s higher offer won out.  Although the distillery made whiskey bottled as Wild Turkey in the 50s-60s for Austin-Nichols, they were not making it for them when they made the offer.”   Since whiskey drinking was declining, Austin-Nichols was looking to diversify their portfolio in hopes to make up profit where they were starting to lose it. Austin-Nichols was primarily interested in the deep wells on the property. So what did they want with these wells? Water of course. Lots of it. Pure, fresh, 54-degree limestone water. And what were they looking to do with all of it? Bottle it and sell it. Bottled water was just starting to get popular in the early 80’s and Austin-Nichols wanted a piece of the market. But since Veru’s bid was higher, we never got to enjoy bottles of pure limestone water from Michter’s.

Under the Yocum’s management, the distillery became a National Historic Landmark and a wonderful tourist destination. Then of course were the famous Michter’s decanters! Soon there were Michter’s T-shirts, balloons, aprons, ornaments, a Collectors Society, donkey rides for the kids, and many other retail items. But under that glamour and merchandise, there was trouble brewing. After the distillery had been sold to Veru, sales started to slump. Quickly. America lost its love affair with whiskey and the big glut was coming.

Veru had purchased a ceramic manufacturing plant in Ohio to design and manufacture the Michter’s decanters and named it GVI China but it too started to consume more money than it made. Dick said by around 1981, leaking barrels in the warehouses were no longer repaired and were just left to leak dry. The main distilling equipment was also no longer used on a continuous basis.

Then came the bankruptcy. Veru left the scene and the bank (Commonwealth bank, which later became Mellon Bank) took over. Well, sort of. Commonwealth Bank, according the Stoll’s “…Could not run it because they were loaning money to businesses that promoted alcohol, so they hired a holding company not to run the business, but to put a name on the “Business”.” According to Dick, most of these people really had no clue what they were doing and only tried to line their own pockets with the distillery’s meager profits. Finally a man by the name of Frank Pitassi came in and started running Michter’s. By that time, the main distilling equipment was not being used, but the mini pot still was still in use. Pitassi got a few contracts and they even exported some whiskey to Japan and Korea, but it wasn’t enough to keep the place afloat. And of course there was still the bank- who was holding all the debt AND all the bonds on the whiskey aging in the warehouses. Dick said supposedly the bank had asked Pitassi to buy the bonds from them since he was, after all, getting the profits off the distillery. Pitassi refused and on February, 14th 1990, the bank got tired of not being paid and Pitassi made a phone call to shut Michter’s down until they were paid.

The bank payment never happened. Pitassi and all other interested parties vanished. Dick said a few people had come to look at the distillery in the following years, but soon the government got tired of waiting for their tax money and cleaned the place out. The bank sold the whiskey.  All the aging whiskey on site was rumored to be sent to Continental in Philadelphia and re-distilled into pure Ethanol.

So all that said, what led to the rapid decrease in sales of whiskey? First and foremost was, as I had mentioned before, America had fallen out of love with whiskey. Distillers no longer needed the little brown distillery in Schaefferstown to pick up the slack for them, so all the contracts evaporated, which really killed profit. Secondly, years of a lack of vision by management started catching up to the distillery. Veru lived very much for the “here and now” according to Dick, as did the people that followed him. The on-the-road sales team disappeared and suppliers started forgetting about Michter’s. Lastly, the market niche that Michter’s was aiming for was already very full. Jack Daniel’s, Maker’s Mark, and Wild Turkey were all priced lower than or in line with Michter’s and they had much larger names and distribution. And the whole decanter fad was starting to die off in the 80’s, too.

So there you have it. The last days of Pennsylvania’s last distiller, the oldest distillery in the United States, were sad, lonely times. But, if you ask Dick, and his wife Elaine, if they didn’t like working there, they will tell you they enjoyed it all. What hurt them was knowing the end of Michter’s was coming and there was little they could do about it. And don’t think Michter’s ever sacrificed the quality of their products through all of it. Dick said that every last drop that made it into their decanters and bottles was “good stuff.” And now we’re left to speculate about the future of the distillery. There has been interest in recent months from some parties about purchasing the distillery and restarting it- and with the popularity of small “craft” distilleries today, it could be an incredible distillery again. Oh, and it seems Americans have fallen back in love with whiskey again. So even though I couldn’t have my Michter’s open house back in February, it doesn’t mean we can’t still all raise a glass and salute the little distillery on Snitzel Creek.

 If you want to learn more about Michter’s and its history and/or its future, feel free to contact me at ethangsmith@dejazzd.com

Category: Bourbon,Distillery Tours,Guest Blogger,Opinions Tags: 23 Comments

August 30th, 2010

Guest Blog #1: Most craft whiskeys suck!

John Hansell

(As promised, What Does John Know? becomes “What Do you Know?” this week–and next! Let’s hit the ground running with the most controversial guest blog. Our first guest blogger, Steve Ury of www.recenteats.blogspot.com, makes his point. And he doesn’t sugar-coat it.)

——

Most craft whiskeys suck!

I’m sorry, but someone had to say it. This particular emperor has been wearing new clothes for too long.

The Phenomenon
Like every whiskey writer/blogger in the universe, I’ve written a fair amount about American microdistilleries; I even put together one of the first complete lists of American whiskey microdistilleries on the web (which I continue to keep up to date). It’s a fascinating and exciting phenomenon. Suddenly, after years of having only a dozen whiskey distilleries, the nation is awash in microdistilleries cropping up in every unlikely nook and cranny. The proprietors of these micros are, almost to a person, lovely folks. They are the type of creative artisans who bring a real love to their craft and have invested countless hours of sweat-equity. They pursue innovative new recipes and techniques; they epitomize the “little guy.” Who could not like them? The only problem is that many of their products suck.

I’m sorry, but I am tired of hearing raves about this great new, innovative distillery in Idaho with their first whiskey on sale for $85 plus shipping, only to find out that it’s been aged for 18 days and tastes like turpentine. I have had this experience multiple times. Despite their lovable heritage, craft whiskeys are mostly too young, too expensive and too crappy.

Don’t believe me? Last May, the American Distilling Institute (ADI), an association for craft distillers, had a craft whiskey tasting competition. A panel of experts blind tasted 65 craft whiskeys. The winner of the best in show award (Best Craft American Whiskey) was High West’s Bourye. But the whiskey in Bourye was not made by a craft distillery. It was made by a macrodistillery and purchased by High West, which blended it for Bourye. It turns out that the best craft whiskey in American isn’t a craft whiskey at all.

The Press
It’s time to admit that many of us in the blogging/journalistic community, out of a desire to encourage and nurture this young industry, have given these craft whiskeys a pass. If you read reviews of craft whiskeys you will continually see words like “interesting,” “innovative” and “experimental.” Reviewers seem afraid to come down too hard on these lovely folks, so we get a lot of euphemisms. Meanwhile, we continually see romantic puff pieces about one man’s brave quest to make quinoa whiskey in a remote Nebraska town. The big exception to this trend has been Chuck Cowdery who has not held back about craft distilleries, particularly those that aren’t really distilling.

These Ain’t Microbrews
There are constant comparisons between the microdistillery movement and the microbrewery movement, but while there are certain similarities, the two are really apples and oranges. Back in the ’80s, before the first big wave of microbrews, the vast majority of Americans were drinking crap beer. It was Bud, Miller, Coors, Schlitz – looks like piss, tastes like water. There was barely any alternative. The microbrewery revolution wasn’t just about smaller producers, it was about bringing flavor back to beer. Suddenly, you could get beer that tasted like something. The microbreweries continue to lead the way on flavor and the big guys, for the most part, continue to put out crap.

The story with whiskey is nearly the opposite. The big macrodistilleries put out some amazing quality whiskeys. I’m talking Parker’s Heritage, the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection, Four Roses Single Barrel and Wild Turkey Rare Breed. They also put out innovative new whiskeys like the Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection and the Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection. Sure there is bottom shelf stuff out there, but the macrodistilleries give the whiskey lover plenty to choose from. In contrast, the micros are giving us less flavor and less age, and in the end, that means less care is going into the product. Unlike microbrews, they aren’t filling an important gap because there is no gap to fill.

I Said “Most”
Now bear in mind that I say “most” craft whiskeys suck, and by most I do mean the vast majority. However, Anchor’s Old Potrero and Charbay’s hopped whiskeys are excellent. I consider those two distilleries to be the only two I have tried that compete with the majors on quality. Everyone else is batting for the minor leagues at best.

I do love High West’s Rendezvous Rye, but as with their Bourye, it is not craft distilled. It’s a macrodistillery whiskey that High West has done a great job sourcing and blending. Sourcing and blending are real skills and High West deserves credit for blending and bottling a great whiskey, but it doesn’t count as something made by a microdistillery.

And I have nothing against craft distilling generally. I’ve written multiple posts on the fabulous craft distilled brandies from Germain-Robin and also enjoyed St. George Absinthe. I’m sure there are other good craft distilled spirits out there, but the whiskey sucks.

Now, I’m perfectly aware that mine isn’t the only opinion on the block, so I’d love to hear from anyone who thinks that these whiskeys really do measure up. Let me know which ones you love.

What Do You Think?
To the whiskey writing community I have to ask, are we doing any favors by coddling distillers who are putting out substandard products at inflated prices? Are we being honest with our readers about the line between “interesting” and “worth your hard earned cash”? Is our emotional investment in the innovation and enthusiasm of craft whiskeys clouding our collective judgment? Isn’t it time someone said it: Most Craft Whiskeys Suck! Maybe someday it won’t be the case, but today it is.

Category: Guest Blogger,Microdistilleries,Opinions 89 Comments

August 27th, 2010

Ten straight guest posts, starting Monday. Don’t miss them!

John Hansell

Starting Monday, I will be putting up one guest post each weekday for two weeks straight–including Labor Day!

This all started when I was originally planning on taking vacation all next week. So, I thought it would be cool to ask you to submit a guest post. The plan was for me to pick the five best and publish them.

Well, a few things changed. It looks like my vacation will only begin Wednesday (too much stuff going on). And I received a lot of interesting guest submissions. After reading them all, I decided to post up ten of them beginning Monday, regardless of whether I am going to be on vacation or not.

I want to say a few things about the guest posts before I begin publishing them. First, I can’t publish all of them. For those of you whose submissions I didn’t publish, I still want to thank you for taking the time to submit something. They were all good.

Second, some of the posts are opinionated and controversial. I believe in free speech. I’m publishing a couple submissions that I don’t entirely agree with, but I think the topic should be debated. I just want to make it clear that the opinions are those of the author, and not necessarily mine.

So, starting Monday, let the fun begin!

Category: Guest Blogger,Opinions 6 Comments

August 24th, 2010

Update on guest posts for next week

John Hansell

As you will recall, I invited you to submit a guest post for possible publication while I am on vacation next week. Submissions we due yesterday. I promised to read through them and publish the five best submissions.

Well, I received over 20 post submissions, and I’ll be reading through them this week. So, for those of you who submitted a post, you have about a one in four chance of being published.

It looks like I’m only going to be taking three days vacation next week (Wednesday-Friday), but I’ll still post up one each week day. Be sure to check each day.

I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to write something and send it in to me.

Category: Guest Blogger No Comments

August 9th, 2010

Guest whisky reviews coming from Dominic Roskrow and Dave Broom

John Hansell

As I mentioned here back in June, Dominic Roskrow and Dave Broom have joined me in reviewing whiskies in Malt Advocate’s Buyer’s Guide. They will be focusing on whiskies not generally available in the U.S. (They have easier access to these whiskies than I do.)

Starting this week, I’ll be posting up reviews by Dominic. Most are Travel Retail exclusive whiskies. Then, I’ll be posting Dave Broom’s reviews of eight different Japanese whiskies during the two weeks following. All these reviews will also be included in the next issue of Malt Advocate, due out in September. I’m giving my WDJK readers a sneak peak here first.

Category: Guest Blogger,Reviews,Writers Tags: , 7 Comments

August 6th, 2010

Would you like to be a guest blogger?

John Hansell

I’m vacationing from August 30th through September 3rd.  I don’t want to be blogging while I’m on vacation. (Well, to be truthful, my wife doesn’t want me blogging while I’m on vacation.)

So, I’m looking for five worthy guest bloggers. Are you interested? Then send me a guest blog post. For one week, this will be “What do you know,” not “What does John know?”

Here are the details:

Anyone reading this is eligible. But, if you work in the whisky field in some manner, it can’t be a sales pitch. You can talk about your product/brand/etc., just don’t be peddling it. The more informative, thought provoking, entertaining, etc., that it is, the greater the chance I’ll pick yours. Still, it could be something as simple as a great question you wanted to ask everyone here–one that will stimulate conversation and get a great thread going.

You’ll get a “by line” at the end, so be sure to include your real name. If you don’t, I won’t publish it. And if you work for a whisky-related company, let me know who that is too.

This is a non-paying gig. (Sorry.) But, it’s really great exposure for you. (And the opportunity to be published.)

Email me one post (just one), along with a picture if you want to, before Monday, August 23rd. I will pick the five best guest blog posts that I read.

Send your guest post to john@maltadvocate.com. I’ll look at them during the week of August 23rd and pick five.

Let’s have some fun with this.

Now for the fine print:

In the subject line, you must put “Guest Blog” or I might not read it.

If you have a question about your post, comment here. Others might have the same question. Please don’t email me.

Unfortunately, I won’t have time to respond to your submission, so please don’t take it personally. I won’t be sending rejection emails out to everyone. Just check in daily during that week and keep your fingers crossed.

Category: Guest Blogger,Writers 11 Comments

June 11th, 2010

Guest blog: Chuck Cowdery on those confusing bourbon regulations

John Hansell

Chuck is a leading authority on American whiskey and, of course, one of Malt Advocate magazine’s regular feature writers. He also has a great blog you should be checking out. He’s here to clear up all the confusion about those subtle nuances of American whiskey regulations. Take it away Chuck. (And feel free to ask that question you always wanted the answer to.)

There is a lot of activity in the distilled spirits world right now, much of it at the intersection of production, marketing, and government regulation. Tuthilltown’s sale of its Hudson Whiskey line to William Grant & Sons has raised questions about differences between American and European definitions of whiskey, which have nothing to do with how the word is spelled and everything to do with how and for how long the spirit is aged.

Alcoholic beverages also seem prone to myths, some of which die hard. Although bourbon whiskey is strongly associated with Kentucky, for example, there is no law restricting its manufacture to that state. Many people also believe that Kentucky is the only state name that can appear on a bourbon label but that’s false too. There are similar myths about the relationship between bourbon and Tennessee whiskey.

The actual rules can all easily be found in one place, the Code of Federal Regulations, title 27, part 5, subpart C. The rules apply to all products sold inside the United States, whether made here or imported.

The rules don’t restrict what producers can make, just what they can call it.

They can be confusing.

One easy way to understand them is as a hierarchy or winnowing. The legal definition of “alcohol” is very broad. The definition of “whiskey” is more narrow and the definition of “bourbon whiskey” is even more restrictive. Each level incorporates the requirements of the one below.

To simply use the term “whiskey” the spirit has to be made from grain, distilled at less than 190° proof (95% ABV), and stored in oak containers. The rules don’t say anything about the type of oak container (new, used, charred, toasted. etc.), nor barrel entry proof, nor minimum age.

European Union (EU) rules are the same except they require a minimum of three years in wood.

For a product to be labeled “bourbon whiskey” it has to meet tighter requirements. The mash must be at least 51% corn, the distillation proof has to be less than 160° proof (80% ABV), the barrel entry proof has to be less than 125° proof (62.5% ABV), and the oak containers have to be new and charred, but there is still no minimum age specified.

Hence Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey may be just three months old and legal in the USA, while in the EU it can be called bourbon, but not whiskey.

That brings us to “straight bourbon whiskey,” which has to comply with all of the above plus spend at least two years in wood. Why the word “straight” was chosen to mean “aged in wood for at least two years” I cannot explain.

Finishes and infusions are another controversial area. Many people have argued, incorrectly, that Red Stag by Jim Beam forfeited the right to call itself bourbon by adding a maceration of black cherries and other flavors. Some are raising similar concerns about the new Maker’s Mark 46, which spends a little time in what are technically used barrels, with additional un-charred wood surfaces added. Woodford Reserve, Jim Beam, and Buffalo Trace have all used wood finishes, comparable to single malt scotch finished in sherry casks.

The best way to understand finishes and flavorings is that just as you can’t un-ring a bell, you can’t un-bourbon a bourbon. What you get when you add something to it is “bourbon and…” The official description of Maker’s 46, for example, is “Kentucky bourbon whiskey barrel-finished with oak staves.”

The purpose of these regulations is not to protect the purity of bourbon, it is to ensure that consumers know exactly what they’re buying.

Category: American whiskey,Bourbon,Guest Blogger,Regulatory issues,Writers 27 Comments

June 8th, 2010

Guest blog: Dominic Roskrow on the “Micro-distilling revolution”

John Hansell

I’m happy to introduce Dominic Roscrow to to WDJK readers. He is kind enough to write a guest blog. Dominic is a freelance writer and regular feature writer for Malt Advocate. (And doing a great job of it, I might add!) He just finished researching for his new book, and is using this knowledge to talk a little bit about the micro-distilling (aka craft distilling, artisan distilling, etc.) movement occurring worldwide. Here’s your chance to discuss the issue and ask a question (or two).

(Oh, and for those of you who are wondering about the special whisky, whiskey, wine, beer, etc., that I drank on my 50th birthday last night, well…I didn’t. I woke up with the stomach flue and was in bed all day. I’ll do it tonight, hopefully. If so, I’ll report here tomorrow.)

Whisper it quietly but we might be on the edge of a micro-whisky revolution – and America is at the forefront of it.

I’ve spent the last six months researching my new World’s Best Whiskies book, which is published in the Fall, and on my travels I’ve been amazed by how much great whiskey there is out there, not just from traditional whiskey making countries but in Germany, France, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands and even Taiwan.

Not all of it plays by the rules – spirits made using buckwheat or with chestnuts in the grist fall outside the recognized definition of what constitutes whisky. But without exception the spirits – whiskey or otherwise – are extremely well made and of high quality.

And nowhere is this more so than in America. Across the country there is maturing malt spirit which has the potential to turn the conventional world of whisky on its head. There are 100 per cent malted rye and wheat mixes, and spirit made with sweet corn and with pure malted barley. Some of it’s maturing in hickory, some in maplewood,  and some of it is in casks which have previously been used for an array of different drinks. Some of it has already reached the market place of course – Woodford Reserve and Buffalo Trace are among the companies which have launched whiskeys that cannot call themselves bourbon – but there is much, much more to come. Across the States micro-distilleries might be set to do for whiskey what the micro-breweries have done for American beer.

What interests me most, though, is the confident way these craft distillers are breaking the conventional rules and throwing down a challenge to Scotch whisky in particular, which they claim has sacrificed quality for quantity.

I addressed this in the last issue of Malt Advocate, and in the main this view is nonsense. But there is a fascinating subtext here – this new wave of producers are breaking the traditional rules of whiskey-making while claiming the quality moral high ground and accusing the rule-abiding Scots of putting out a potentially inferior product.

And this in turn raises the question: if you can put together a high quality drink by breaking the rules which traditionally govern Scotch, are those rules too rigid?

This is dangerous territory. A few years ago a speaker at the World Whiskies Conference dared to entertain the idea of flavored whisky and while it would be an exaggeration to say he disappeared soon after and his body has never been found, he was removed from his post and doesn’t get to speak about Scottish single malt any more.

So let me make this clear. I fully respect the work the Scotch Whisky Association has done to protect what can be termed whisky, and to ring-fence the category to ensure its purity. No-one should dispute that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere.

The issue is, though, where that line is drawn. It’s not a black and white issue at all, and although the rules are strict, they’re open to interpretation. So you can’t add anything to whisky except some caramel and yet this week I tasted a malt finished in an Italian red wine cask which was the same color as a good quality ruby port.  It’s okay to replace damaged staves with new virgin oak ones, or to replace cask heads with new wood, but it’s against the rules to introduce extra staves inside the cask as Compass Box originally did with Spice Tree.  Loch Lomond distillery has fallen foul of the new laws and yet it’s okay to mature single malt whisky in an exhausted cask used previously to mature wine made with a lab-created grape variety for three years and a minute in Scotland and then to call it Scotch.

When John Glaser of Compass Box debated these issues with the SWA and pointed out that he was using fine and aged single malt he was told that quality wasn’t an issue. But shouldn’t it be? What’s the point of protecting a genre if your purpose isn’t to send a message to others about the values your genre stands for?

These questions will become more important as the micro-revolution grows and the traditional distillers find themselves in competition with an exciting new wave of  flavorsome and baggage-free spirits drinks.

Many of them won’t be allowed to use the term whisky in some parts of the world, but as Compass Box showed with its ‘whisky-infused’ Orangerie, they’ll be able to get mighty close. There’s nothing to stop them inventing an entirely new malt spirit category with the potential to pick off the next generation of drinkers.

You could argue that this doesn’t matter. Traditional whiskies have survived and prospered in the past when challenged by new and innovative drinks categories. But I think it does. This time the threat may well come from within the family.

For the time being Scottish single malt is doing just fine. Barely a week goes by without an exciting new whisky from somewhere. The likes of Benromach and Arran may be small but they’re coming up with great new malts. Laphroaig’s Triple wood – Quarter Cask finished in sherry wood – is an example of a company making some of its rarest bottlings affordable to pretty much everyone. Ardmore has a whole warehouse  of  experimental malts. But for how long can the traditional markets hold of the new boys?

Nobody’s arguing that we throw away whisky’s unique selling points or ‘dumb down’ to battle it out with untested drinks which have no pedigree, provenance or history.

But shouldn’t there at least be a debate over whether we can preserve all that is good in our world while at the same time allowing genuine, quality-driven innovation?

There’s a revolution coming – shouldn’t the established markets be allowed to be part of it?

Category: Guest Blogger,Microdistilleries 17 Comments

Older Posts »

Malt Advocate magazine is the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.

Find out more