What accounts for bourbons of same proof having such big differences in heat/burn?

[Richnimrod]

Heads & tails, distillation style, shape of the still, proof into the barrel, jeez; this is fun! :cool:

I always learn so much in these forums. You guys just rattle this stuff off like it's nothing; but, to me it's AMAZING!!!!

From my common sense, I bet the heads and tails explanation is a big part of the 'burn'. Don't know; ...just sayin'....

[mbroo5880i]

The burn and color help remind me that I am not drinking water.

[393foureyedfox]

I don't mind, ask the pussies.

[nblair]

There's a lot more to "burn" than alcohol. Wood tannins, for instance.

I think this is a main contributor. If a barrel is 10 years old and aged on the top floor of a warehouse, I think it would taste much "hotter" due to the intense oak influence. I would also think a similar barrel aged in the middle floors or lower floors would seem more well rounded and not have the same "heat".

[Pikesville]

A lot of the sensation of "burn" comes from the amount of heads and tails present. Not sure that the alcohol itself has a lot of "burn" taste. I have tasted white dog fresh from the still that had no burn at all.

I totally agree. When tasting at Leopold Bros, we tried the heads, hearts and tails right off the second distillation run. Heads were nasty, nail polish remover or $8 per handle vodka smell (and taste). Those went bye-bye. The hearts didn't burn, even at 70% alcohol, just left a warming sensation. The tails were funky and burned somewhat, but not unpleasant like the heads. Very informative session.

[Bmac]

Sorry but I don't buy the concept that it's supposed to burn. The PVW 15yr didn't burn and it's 107 proof. My William Larue Weller 2010 didn't burn either; however it did create some warm heat. A heat that no other bourbon has matched since.

Most of the low end bourbons are all burn. That and Woodford Double Oaked. It's like a flash of flavor and then prepare for pain. My guess is, if you drink enough of it on a daily basis, your tongue and taste buds are so numb you couldn't tell if it was burning you or not.

I bet if you stop drinking for a month and started back, you'd feel the burn again.

[tmckenzie]

I will rethink my position some, at least on still proof of rye. We had some issues getting our new still to run. Got it fixed yesterday, They way I am running rye is at a higher proof to get the profile I want, but it is just off the beer still, so it has a syrupy, look coming off the still and it coats the mouth some when you drink it. So sometimes it is not the still proof, but how it is brought off the still.

[squire]

If someone want's to take the position higher quality whiskys have less burn I certainly won't argue with them.

[sailor22]

I totally agree. When tasting at Leopold Bros, we tried the heads, hearts and tails right off the second distillation run. Heads were nasty, nail polish remover or $8 per handle vodka smell (and taste). Those went bye-bye. The hearts didn't burn, even at 70% alcohol, just left a warming sensation. The tails were funky and burned somewhat, but not unpleasant like the heads. Very informative session.

Sounds a lot like the talk David Perkins of High West gave here in Tallahassee. He passed around samples of heads, hearts and tails and some mixes of them. It convinced me that what we call burn is often the nasty tastes from the less desirable parts of the run. OTOH it showed me that some of those tastes in small doses when mixed with the sweeter product and barrel flavors produced by aging create the complexity and fulsomeness we enjoy. There might be a little burn associated with the complexity. That balance is the art.

Most of the low end bourbons are all burn.

It's cheaper to make juice that has more of the nasties in it. Cheaper to make so it retails for less usually.

If someone want's to take the position higher quality whiskys have less burn I certainly won't argue with them.

Yep, less, but certainly not no burn.

Edited June 7, 2013 by sailor22

[Restaurant man]

Sorry but I don't buy the concept that it's supposed to burn. The PVW 15yr didn't burn and it's 107 proof. My William Larue Weller 2010 didn't burn either; however it did create some warm heat. A heat that no other bourbon has matched since.

I think the wheaters feel softer because the spicyness of the rye can intensify the feeling of "burn" just my opinion

[tanstaafl2]

The burn and color help remind me that I am not drinking water.

In some parts of the world I have found the color not to be all that helpful in making the distinction. I didn't drink that water but I expect it would have had it's own particular burn as well!

[callmeox]

I would accept the heads/hearts/tails reasoning for bourbon if the macros were not made in a column still.

[squire]

Scott I was just about to post that very thought.

[Balcones Winston]

I would accept the heads/hearts/tails reasoning for bourbon if the macros were not made in a column still.

Because?

When I spoke to Chip about this, he was very specific that column stills are more likely to produce harsher alcohols, especially if you run your distillation fast.

[callmeox]

Because?

When I spoke to Chip about this, he was very specific that column stills are more likely to produce harsher alcohols, especially if you run your distillation fast.

How do you equate Chips answer with heads/hearts/tails? Does running a column fast make it all heads or all tails and no hearts?

Like asking three railroad engineers the time, asking distillers the same question can lead to different answers.

According to earlier threads, heads/tails are not column still concepts except for still startup and shutdown.

Taking that to a logical conclusion, if there's a short run on a column it could have an effect, but how many short runs do you think they make on the column at Beam or HH?

[squire]

That's not a given Winston, the classic whiskys of America, Canada, the Brandys of Armagnac and most of the World's finest gins, vodkas and rums are all made with a column still. To say that less desirable whisky can be with a column still is misleading because equally bad or worse whisky can be make with a pot still.

[Bmac]

Because?

When I spoke to Chip about this, he was very specific that column stills are more likely to produce harsher alcohols, especially if you run your distillation fast.

Yeah, I think you're right. This reminded me of a video I watched on Rum production. The Distiller stated that the first part of the new make that comes off the still has high sulfur content and they typically discard it and catch the medium portion. They said that is the best part.

So it is possible that, at least the cheap stuff, it's probably all made from the "head" of the new make.

[sutton]

So it is possible that, at least the cheap stuff, it's probably all made from the "head" of the new make.

[squire]

Bmac that's actually due to the high concentration of sulfur naturally occurring in the volcanic soil where the sugar cane is grown, particularly in the Caribbean Islands. The sugar refining process produces molasses as a by product which has a much more concentrated sulfur content and since the molasses is the primary product used for rum distillation the sulfur must be dealt with by the distiller. It's a problem that has nothing to do with the size, shape, type or style of the still.

[squire]

Guys, once a column still is up and running the heads and tails are removed within the column itself and do not make it into the finished whisky. That's a simplified explanation but close enough to be a general statement. This is why a column still is always referred to as being efficient when compared to the old fashioned pot still which is itself a glorified tea kettle whose fore shots (heads) can be very dangerous to drink.

[tmckenzie]

Guys, once a column still is up and running the heads and tails are removed within the column itself and do not make it into the finished whisky. That's a simplified explanation but close enough to be a general statement. This is why a column still is always referred to as being efficient when compared to the old fashioned pot still which is itself a glorified tea kettle whose fore shots (heads) can be very dangerous to drink.

You are right on the money, you get heads on start up and tails on shutdown. When that sucker is running right, the heads and tails are not in there. Some of the worst whiskey I have drank, all of it micro, was made on a pot. Where you make your whiskey at is in the cooker and fermenter. You cannot improve it anyway whatsoever by distilling it. You can make it worse though. If you put crap in, you WILL get crap out, and there is a lot of crap mash being boiled off in this country.

[squire]

Tom you're reinforcing that old saying good whisky is made in the mash barrel, not in the still.

[sailor22]

Aren't column stills tunable? Can't the distiller pull out or leave in the compounds he chooses? I'm not a distiller or chemist but I seem to recall being told that that was the big advantage besides the possibility of continuous running.

Also I am under the distinct impression that Armagnac being mostly produces by very small farms is almost entirely pot still and that Cognac is also even thou it is produced on a much larger scale.

Tom, could "heat" be the result of bad mashing? Perhaps a mold or bacteria in the grain?

Edited June 9, 2013 by sailor22

[jburlowski]

Also I am under the distinct impression that Armagnac being mostly produces by very small farms is almost entirely pot still and that Cognac is also even thou it is produced on a much larger scale.

I've always heard that Armagnac is made using column stills and, unlike cognac, is double-distilled.

[tanstaafl2]

I've always heard that Armagnac is made using column stills and, unlike cognac, is double-distilled.

To say that one is done one way and the other is done the other is apt to be troublesome as it does not leave room for the exceptions! Cognacs traditionally use pot stills although I don't know if a continuous still is prohibited or just not the traditional method. I suspect it is the latter.

Most armagnacs use a continuous still which producers think gives a more full flavor fruit forward component. But armagnac can be made with a pot still if the distiller so chooses and according to the recent post on Spirits Journal some of the smaller producers may be distilled using a traveling alembic still more similar to cognac.

And isn't it the reverse for number of times distilled? Armagnac is generally once while cognac is twice.