Tasting Notes: Georgia Moon brand Corn Whiskey

[Gillman]

I doubt anyone's white dog tastes much different than Georgia Moon. If new spirit (whether with rye or not) was all that great bourbon never would have been invented! It is the years in wood that took out those hog tracks. This is why Mellow Corn tastes so much better than GM, it's aged longer, and why bourbon tastes better than MC - it's aged longer and all in new charred wood.

With all the discussion about rebarreling going on I don't know why none of us thought of the obvious - put GM or MC in that little keg and see if it doesn't turn into bourbon in two or three years. It has to, basically.

I believe the reason corn whiskey has a legal spec of minimum 80% corn is because too much small grains especially rye would, added to all those new distillation tastes, make the product undrinkable. Corn whiskey, to be palatable, was given an 80% corn minimum content - and clearly the unaged article still is not great.

There is a reason rectification developed as a major industry in the 19th century. Making bourbon is the old pre-industrial way to rectify...

Gary

[NorCalBoozer]

doh!!! thats quite an interesting idea!

With all the discussion about rebarreling going on I don't know why none of us thought of the obvious - put GM or MC in that little keg and see if it doesn't turn into bourbon in two or three years. It has to, basically.
Gary

[Rughi]

Interesting - yes. But Bourbon?

I'm not sure that Georgia Moon or Mellow Corn contain any rye. For ease of mashing, I would guess they do contain a good dose of malted barley. They _could_ have a mashbill similar to Old Charter, which rumour has it is on the edge of satisfying the 81% corn stricture of a straight corn whiskey, but I don't know of any reason to think they actually do.

When I asked Parker Beam at the Festival whether Mellow Corn would continue to develop more interesting characteristics if aged longer than the bonded period they use, he said something like "no, it's just corn whiskey."

Roger

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Interesting - yes. But Bourbon?

I'm not sure that Georgia Moon or Mellow Corn contain any rye. For ease of mashing, I would guess they do contain a good dose of malted barley. They _could_ have a mashbill similar to Old Charter, which rumour has it is on the edge of satisfying the 81% corn stricture of a straight corn whiskey, but I don't know of any reason to think they actually do.


Roger

I just took a look at the regs and the way I read it, a bourbon mash need not contain any rye nor any wheat, just 51% or more corn. So, if the mashbill is, say, 90% corn 10% malted barley, and the distilling and barreling regs are followed for bourbon, you get bourbon, don't you?

Here is the relevant section of the regs.


(1)(i) "Bourbon whisky", "rye whisky", "wheat whisky", "malt whisky", or "rye
malt whisky" is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a
fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley,
or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in
charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of
the same type.

[Gillman]

But bourbon need not have rye in it to be bourbon. As you noted, there is so little rye in Old Charter that one wonders what it adds to the equation. Conversely, corn whiskey need not be only corn and barley malt to be corn whiskey.

Gary

[Randy_Ricchi]

I'm puzzled by the original poster's description of Georgia Moon. He talks about B.O., armpits (same thing), and cooked cabbage. I've tried this stuff off and on over the last 20 years or so, and I've always gotten sweet corn, both in the nose and on the palate.

While I'm not crazy about the stuff, it isn't that bad. I remember reading somewhere (online, I'm sure - I think it was an interview with a distiller) that it is a good example of what bourbon tastes like before it goes into the barrel.

I agree with one of the recent posts to this thread that this would be a good whiskey to age in one of those small, toasted barrels that can be found online for a reasonable price. That would be a fun experiment, and wouldn't take too long to see some improvement in the liquor, assuming a pretty small barrel.

[JeffRenner]

I doubt anyone's white dog tastes much different than Georgia Moon.

I usually agree with Gary's insightful views, but I'm going to dissent here. I think that there is probably quite a difference between corn white dog and rye white dog, for instance. Now it might well be that they all taste rather raw and feinty, but I think that we could surely tell the difference between, say, Maker's Mark white dog and Old Overholt rye white dog. (Or did you mean anybody's bourbon white dog?)

Fritz Maytag is trying to in some way emulate 18th century rye whiskey, which was little aged. And Malt Advocate (I think it was) had an article a few years ago about Revolutionary period rye whiskey (Korn). This is, I think, probably related to schnapps and vodka.

I believe the reason corn whiskey has a legal spec of minimum 80% corn is because too much small grains especially rye would, added to all those new distillation tastes, make the product undrinkable.

One of my projects of the future is to investigate this first hand. I have my resources!

Corn whiskey, to be palatable, was given an 80% corn minimum content - and clearly the unaged article still is not great.

I think the legal minimum is to produce something like the unaged or lightly aged corn whiskey of the past, and not to produce something palatable, necessarily.

Jeff

[JeffRenner]

corn whiskey need not be only corn and barley malt to be corn whiskey.

More dissent here (my last post was started several hours before I finished it, and there were intervening posts).

Corn whiskey need not have any barley malt in it. I could well be 100% corn and be mashed either with malted corn (as in the old days with moonshine) or with amylase enzymes from fungi or bacteria.

Jeff

[Rughi]

I just took a look at the regs and the way I read it, a bourbon mash need not contain any rye nor any wheat, just 51% or more corn. So, if the mashbill is, say, 90% corn 10% malted barley, and the distilling and barreling regs are followed for bourbon, you get bourbon, don't you?

Here is the relevant section of the regs.


(1)(i) "Bourbon whisky", "rye whisky", "wheat whisky", "malt whisky", or "rye
malt whisky" is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a
fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley,
or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in
charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of
the same type.

Ed,
You may be right, but the clause in the regs that I believe is salient is not what you quoted. From the regs here in section 5.22(b) is the following _very elastic_ clause:

"``Whisky'' is an alcoholic distillate from a
fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190 deg. proof in such
manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and
characteristics generally attributed to whisky"

The passage then goes on to identify specific types of whiskey. Now, it's definitely open to interpretation, but I would think that each of the specific types named in the passage would also have to satisfy the clause that "the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to (bourbon, straight rye, straight corn, etc.) whisky." How this is adjudicated, I don't know, but it seems that bourbon must seem like bourbon - and my supposition is that one doesn't get bourbon character without a flavor grain. I don't believe all white dog is the same at all.

Who's right? Who cares - if it gives further cause for quaffable "study" the debate has it's own rewards.

So, do we get law school credits if we carry on this esoterica long enough?
Roger

[Gillman]

All comments made are valid and I don't disagree with anything Jeff said. I did mean bourbon white dog when I said I suspect all white dog is more or less similar. I know that barley malt isn't a necessary component of any whiskey but mentioned it since its use is almost invariable as far as I know. As for corn whiskey requiring a spec of minimum 80% corn content, I know that legal standards followed historical example but I believe that original corn moonshine and corn whiskey were made to a high corn content because their flavour was better than if mixed with too much rye. We can see from whiskey with a high rye content that is not aged that long (relatively), from the examples Jeff mentioned, how powerful a palate that is. Even Georgia Moon doesn't approach it in my opinion. Of course part of this has to do with how far under 160 proof the liquor is distilled at, but only to a point I think. I don't have a lot of experience with Georgia Moon, I do have some Mellow Corn and tried it tonight. I find it quite redolent of corn (to me it smells and tastes almost of frying oil) but with no feinty tastes and again it has been aged for a time, probably in a used container which modified the original taste. My sample has a faint bourbon note which may indicate aging in a used bourbon barrel or even maybe a new one at least for a time. New spirit of any kind can have pungent characteristics but everyone views them differently or with their own words. In any case I do believe if Mellow Corn was aged in a small keg under conditions similar to what Doug has been doing it would produce a palatable bourbon-like drink. If one wanted more rye tang some Old Potrero could be added, the two year old high proof version (malted or non-) would be ideal. I think I'd combine that and a 100 proof Mellow Corn. True, the corn whiskey may not have been aged in new charred wood but that should not matter in the end (to whether a bourbon-like palate emerges).

Gary