History of Proof Offerings?

[ramblinman]

Hi all,

Just curious and hoping some of you old timers, or more well versed in history of the hobby can fill me in.

It seems like the "gold standard" for Bourbon has been 100pr for a while, with BiB requiring that and it being "the good stuff", though we've talked here quite a bit about proof lowering being all too common of a theme recently.

Have 80 and 90 always been commonly available? And how about the 81/86/92/101, I assume these are mostly just marketing driven with the one offs, but maybe the 86 is a real sweet spot for some juice?

[squire]

There are some interesting signposts along the historical road that led to modern distilling. 800 years ago the spirit we now call vodka was just a couple times stronger than wine, about 40 proof. During late Medieval times wine merchants would use the distilling process to create brandewijn (burnt wine) to separate water out of wine so more alcohol could be stored in the limited cargo capacity of early sailing vessels. The idea was to add water back to it at the destination point but of course sailors (and others) quickly developed a taste for the undiluted product.

The early pot stills required a couple of runs to get the whisky up to full strength of 50%. Not everybody could achieve that consistency so 100 proof was actually a goal at the time and to make sure the goal was reached equal amounts of whisky and gunpowder were mixed together and if the mixture ignited it was "proved" to be full 100 proof. Odd sounding, but that's how we got from there to here.

I believe it was the Master Distiller for the Royal Court of Peter the Great's father who came up with the formula of 80 proof for a grain distillate (rye, wheat) by determining that was the proper proportion of alcohol to water. So 80 proof was a Continental standard for many years and it was the Scots, Irish and later the Americans and Canadians who upped the proof. From the 18th century on the British Imperial Proof gallon was 100 but under a different scaling system was actually 114 proof by modern standards. 114 proof is also called Navy Strength for the rum issued aboard British Warships in the days of sailing vessels and 114 proof is still called that today.

Bourbon mash bills as we know them developed along with column stills from the 1840s on and 100 proof was no longer a goal but an achievable standard which was passed on to our times. Print ads, particularly from the 1950s forward, show the Bourbon hierarchy to be top shelf at 100 proof, mid shelf 86-90, lower shelf 80-86. General statements, yes and there were exceptions but those were the trends.

As near as I can figure any proof statement ending with a 1 was for marketing purposes much like Col. E. H. Taylor telling his printer to make the Old Taylor label bright yellow so it would stand out on the shelf.

[ramblinman]

Damn squire.

Much appreciate the answer there, a bit deeper than I would have thought, and I'm still not sure that you're not pulling my leg with the Peter the Great thing, but cheers man, thanks for the insight and trivia on the Navy Proof.

[squire]

I believe the distiller's name was Isidor. In his work 'The History of Vodka' Russian historian William Pokhlebkin determined the development of modern vodka was established in the 1440s which coincided with the introduction of a three field system of crop rotation which provided surplus grain for distillation. The Tsar promptly claimed distillation as a Royal monopoly so taverns had to buy their hooch from the King. Good deal for the Tsar because it was more profitable to sell vodka to the people than try to collect taxes from them.

Old Grand Dad 114 was introduced as being barrel proof (it may have been, or close) but I've always suspected it was to identify with the fairly well known overproof British Navy Strength spirits, which phrase would've been recognizable by WW11 vets.

[MauiSon]

The early pot stills required a couple of runs to get the whisky up to full strength of 50%. Not everybody could achieve that consistency so 100 proof was actually a goal at the time and to make sure the goal was reached equal amounts of whisky and gunpowder were mixed together and if the mixture ignited it was "proved" to be full 100 proof. Odd sounding, but that's how we got from there to here.

I read an article the other day that said whiskey had to be 114 proof for the mixture to ignite.

[luther.r]

I read an article the other day that said whiskey had to be 114 proof for the mixture to ignite.

[393foureyedfox]

114 proof is where the whiskey itself will burn IIRC. The thinking on Navy proof was that if the sailor spilled the whiskey on his matches they'd still light.

100 proof is where it will burn if mixed with gunpowder, which is pretty darn flammable on its own.

stick around and we'll show you how to make firecrackers out of a stick of dynamite and an empty toilet paper tube roll....

[callmeox]

stick around and we'll show you how to make firecrackers out of a stick of dynamite and an empty toilet paper tube roll....

Let's stay on topic.

[squire]

I read an article the other day that said whiskey had to be 114 proof for the mixture to ignite.

Brought to you by the folks who drive on the wrong side of the road, the Brits have their own way of doing things. Under the old Sykes system (in use since 1816) British 100 proof was 57% alcohol which under our system is 114 proof. Colonial Americans used the gunpowder test which works at 50% (100 proof or above) and caused the Native American Indians to name the stuff 'firewater'.

Edited February 18, 2014 by squire