JACK DANIEL'S: LEMONADE NEXT?

[wrbriggs]

I can tell from the article that they don't know a whole lot about how whiskey is made. Brown-Forman didn't alter the recipe, as they frequently alledge in the article. They are merely diluting the barrelled product more than they used to.

Well, true enough... I'm not knowledgeable enough about whiskey to know how much the dilution alters the flavor though... a "recipe" is how you combine ingredients to get a finished product. Adding 3% more water is indeed a change of the recipe... it's not a change of the mash bill, or a change of the distilling method, or even of the aging... but it IS a change in the recipe, because it could potentially create a measurable, noticeable difference in the finished product.

[musher]

Based on that line of argumentation, then, you would have to argue that they have a new recipe for a different, new product.

The old recipe was to produce a 90 proof (or 86 proof, in recent years) Tennessee Whiskey. The new recipe is for 80 proof Tennessee Whiskey.

Their true gripe is that they've dropped the old product, and have instituted a new product with its own unique "recipe".

[ratcheer]

Sadly, that is the truth.

Tim

[wrbriggs]

Their true gripe is that they've dropped the old product, and have instituted a new product with its own unique "recipe".

Yes, and all the while, they are playing up the "heritage" of Jack Daniels, and how they still use his "original recipe". At the same time, they raised the price. Ridiculous. It's their product, they can do what they want with it... but cashing in on the "heritage" of the brand is just a bunch of hooey. It's almost false advertising.

[voigtman]

Maybe the Feds should require that whiskey be at least 86 proof. Yeah, it's government regulation of "never wrong" private industry, but I'd sure support it. Personally, I think 80 proof is watered down, regardless of the type of whisk(e)y and I never add water: Stagg 2003 is perfect at 142.7 proof, Van Winkle 15 is perfect at 107 proof, etc. If anything, we need more high proof options: anyone can add all the water they want, at home. As for JD, I've never tried it and have yet to see anything written here at SB.com, or in print, that would make me want to. The JD proof was dropped only to increase profits, as many have said, and the rest is cover story BS.

[cowdery]

Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 is a simple reminder that some things just never change. And shouldn’t. This is the old-time whiskey made as our fathers made it. Remaining true to Jack Daniel’s original recipe and charcoal-mellowed character means folks today enjoy the same sipping whiskey awarded seven international gold medals.

On the one hand, changing the proof is changing the product, which the above--from the JD web site--seems to say they will never do. On the other hand, only the previous change, from 90 to 86, was within recent memory. No doubt it was 100 proof both before and immediately after Prohibition. Off-proof whiskies only started to appear in the 1950s. On the other hand (how many hands is that?), bottle proof isn't really "recipe," it's more like a serving suggestion. On the other hand, what it really, really is about is a sneaky way to take a price increase. I think that's the real point.

[TNbourbon]

Happily, they can't do it again, unless they want to take the word "whiskey" off the label. Anything lower than 80 proof has to be labeled "diluted whiskey."

Of course, and we talked about this before, Jack Daniel's might be able to get away with just calling it "Jack Daniel's," period.

Just coincidentally, I happened across an old photograph of JD No. 7 Black this evening from an old (early-Eighties) drink-mixing book -- and the label plainly stated "78 proof". Since it also was labeled "sour mash whiskey" and "70cl", I'm assuming it was an export-only bottle, but it does show that Jack Daniel's has experience and willingness to bottle below 80 proof, at least for certain markets.

[gr8erdane]

After perusing all that has been said, and enduring the pain of long dormant grey matter being awakened from lack of use, I offer another matter for thought. Could it be that the demand has outstripped their supply and by cutting the proof they can produce a greater quantity to meet the current demand of existing and possibly new markets overseas? This may be a way of stretching a maximized production capacity without adding new capital expenditures needed to increase plant size over a short period of time. It certainly is cheaper to add water than to build a bigger distillery.


Naw, they're probably just greedy as everyone else has surmised.

[Vision]

Tell 'em what you think

[Gillman]

I have at least two books on spirits and liqueurs from the 1970's, published in Britain, which also show a picture of a bottle of Jack Daniels. The proof stated on the labels also is 78. However, I believe this does not not denote 39% abv. Formerly in Britain, the proof system used was British proof, sometimes called the Sikes system after the scientist who devised it in the early 1800's, Bartholomew Sikes. Sikes felt that a proven spirit - one that burned evenly when mixed with gunpowder - was 57.1% alcohol by volume. On this basis, 100 British proof equals 57.1% abv (pure alcohol would be 175.1% proof, that is, 75 overproof). You add or deduct 1% proof for every half-percentage of alcohol. The formula to convert British proof to alcohol by volume is multiply by 4, divide by 7. 78.00 proof produces just under 90 American proof. 78.75 British proof is exactly 90 American proof, which is what Jack Daniels was in the 1970's in America. Possibly, intending to sell the same (U.S. 90 proof) liquor in Britain as in the States, the company settled on 78 British proof although in fact the product may have been 78.75 proof (i.e. on the idea that there is no harm offering a little more than advertised but ensuring no less was offered).

Or possibly I am wrong and the statements on the 1970's U.K. bottles were rendered in U.S. proof thus meaning an approximately 40% abv product was sold in Britain at the time, but I think that was not the case. Certainly in Canada at the time Jack Daniels was 90 proof. On page 208 of the 1970's era British book mentioned in the note below, it is stated that Jack Daniels comes in two versions, a Green Label sold in parts of the South and a national domestic and exported Black Label, and that both labels are "78 proof". If at the time Green Label, as we know the Black was, was 90 proof, this would suggest that "78 proof" was being used on the label of the exported Black Label in its British sense. By the way, I believe domestically in Britain today, the Sikes system is no longer used, and the alcohol by volume system (Gay Lussac) has replaced it.

Gary

Note: The above information on proof systems and strength of the Black and Green Labels in the 1970's is from, "The World Guide To Spirits, Aperitifs and Cocktails" by Tony Lord, 1979, Quarto Limited, London.