Giving short shrift to blenders...

[macdeffe]

Steffen, I'm not sure the "focus in this thread is blending versus distilling". The OP's original post asks about non-distilling blenders getting short shrift from some in the bourbon enthusiasts community, versus what those same people in this community think of bourbon distilleries who do the entire process. Quite different angle, I think

[Gillman]

Josh made a good point but you can look at it different ways. The purpose of the straight whiskey in those blends, in the percentages currently used, is really to improve the white spirits, it's a flavoured vodka, a particular form of rectified form of alcohol (largely).

Also, at one time in the U.S., there were "luxury" blends which contained far more straight whiskey. And there were blends of straight whiskey.

There is ample basis therefore on which to build a blending revival. The idea of combining young straight whiskeys from craft distillers is another take on it. Blend 4 bourbons, say, 1-2 years old, add some older, more conventional bourbon, maybe some GNS for some versions.

Just contracting out production of straight bourbon to an established distiller, which is an old tradition in America, is kind of the same thing, in that the person behind it has chosen to or is not able to set up his own distillery.

Gary

[smokinjoe]

Aha! I'm starting to get it, now. So, these guys are really just glorified "rectifiers", like what were prevalent...back....in the pioneer days!

[Gillman]

But rectification is a broad concept, it takes in making flavorless spirit, somewhat flavored (in various ways), more highly flavored, and up to combinations of different straight whiskeys, or bourbons from different states. Bourbon itself as defined in the law can be a combination of different bourbons from one state. So one end of the spectrum shades into another...

Gary

[cowdery]

Here's another way to look at it.

Most of the blending done in the production of American whiskey is done by distillers.

Every bourbon or rye except a single barrel is blended, in that barrels are selected and dumped so as to match an established flavor profile for the brand and expression. Setting aside the legal definition, that's blending, but it's done by distillers and their tasting panels.

This also demonstrates that there isn't a clear line between the two skill sets, which is why I think arguing about which is more important is pointless.

It's really quality control. If you're tasting and evaluating the grain, the mash, the beer, the white dog, and the aging spirit, you're a distiller. If you're only tasting and evaluating aging spirit, you're a blender. But even those distinctions can get blurred.

In any enterprise, there has to be accountability. The person who is most responsible for the product in the bottle is most important, regardless of title.

[sailor22]

Here's another way to look at it.

Most of the blending done in the production of American whiskey is done by distillers.

Every bourbon or rye except a single barrel is blended, in that barrels are selected and dumped so as to match an established flavor profile for the brand and expression. Setting aside the legal definition, that's blending, but it's done by distillers and their tasting panels.

This also demonstrates that there isn't a clear line between the two skill sets, which is why I think arguing about which is more important is pointless.

It's really quality control. If you're tasting and evaluating the grain, the mash, the beer, the white dog, and the aging spirit, you're a distiller. If you're only tasting and evaluating aging spirit, you're a blender. But even those distinctions can get blurred.

Well said. That is the point I was trying to make.