Kittling Ridge

[cowdery]

The product just tastes too typically Canadian for it all to come off that low. There has to be some nearly-neutral base whiskey in there somewhere.

[Gillman]

I would think the same.

Gary

[dbk]

There has to be some nearly-neutral base whiskey in there somewhere.

If there is, it ain't part of the party line.

[cowdery]

If there is, it ain't part of the party line.

Sin of omission, probably.

When what my palate tells me conflicts with the party line I always go with my palate.

[Gillman]

If it is all distilled out at low proof, perhaps the long aging (upwards of 11 years for some of the components) smooths out the congeners and other secondary constituents. Since new charred barrels are not used I believe for all the whiskies in the blends, this too may soften the palate. Still, I would have thought the base is distilled-out higher, just from the taste. But I could be wrong on this.

Gary

[cowdery]

I had occasion to taste some 10-year-old Canadian base whiskey earlier this week (more on that later) but that, of course, is the nearly neutral spirit. If they're taking corn whiskey off at 60% abv, even in used barrels, after 11 years it's going to taste like bourbon and not like long-aged base whiskey.

John Hall has also said that he makes his whiskey "in the Canadian style." That means he's using a nearly-neutral base whiskey, distilled out at more than 60%. That's the 'Canadian style.'

[dbk]

Chuck,

I see from your WhiskyFest 2011 blog post that you got John Hall to confirm using a higher proof base whisky. Thanks for asking him directly; I had tried by email, but without success.

[cowdery]

He hemmed and hawed a little bit. He got off onto barrel entry proof and I had to ask a couple times. He does the corn in the same still with a second distillation.

[Gillman]

Excellent blogging, Chuck, that was a whole whack of good info in a small compass. (Small point, Gimli is in Manitoba). The interview with John Hall was very interesting. I agree with John on the effects of wood, but only up to a point.

For example, his Confederation Oak whisky is excellent with a full butterscotch palate but it is still Canadian in style and relatively light-bodied. You can't mistake it for a bourbon or straight rye. Even after drinking Jack Daniels for a while, and the SB at that, when returning to bourbon I'm always impressed with the heavier, more complex palate bourbon has. This applies irrespective of age and is from the larger number of secondary constituents in the whiskey, either that or their specific type, i.e., when not subjected to maple charcoal filtration or high proof distillation.

I hope John one day will consider distilling out all the components of his blends at a low proof, that would be a very interesting drink to try.

Gary

[cowdery]

Thanks, Gary. I fixed the Manitoba thing.

I don't think there is anything preventing John Hall or anyone else in Canada from making an American-style straight except tradition. But tradition is a pretty valuable thing and I'm learning that within the Canadian style it is possible to make richer and more interesting whiskeys than most of them do. Personally, I don't need a bourbon-style whiskey from Canada anymore than I need one from Scotland or, for that matter, Bulgaria.

[tmckenzie]

I just watched the video. He has to have a continuos still somewhere, I saw one, but he did not say it was in his plant. I do know one thing, he ain't making all that whiskey with the 2 copper pots. If he ran both 24 hours a day he would only get about 7 barrels a day. If he is running the rye it would be less than that because it does not yeild nearly what corn and barley does.

[dbk]

Not to re-open this can of worms yet again, but I spoke with John Hall last weekend about his distilling the corn spirit at a higher proof. After some discussion, I asked him to confirm that 100% of the whisky in a Forty Creek bottle comes off the still at no higher than about 72% (the highest proof he claimed he could get off the still), and that all of it is distilled only once. He confirmed this statement, so now I feel we're back to the beginning, without a clear answer.

[cowdery]

This is why hearsay evidence isn't admissible in court.

[dbk]

This is why hearsay evidence isn't admissible in court.

In a sense, this is worse, as both of us have gathered our information directly from the source (and thus the information conflicts, but does not constitute hearsay).

[cowdery]

It's hearsay in the tribunal that is SB.com.

I really think John is being coy. I'm not sure why.

Maybe he's just good at getting people to hear what they want to hear in whatever vague thing he says.

It doesn't make sense. Based on the taste of his products, he is using some kind of nearly-neutral blending whiskey. He just has to be.