Attention Vodka Drinkers

[cowdery]

Some posts in another thread told me there are some vodka drinkers here. I would like to invite vodka drinkers (okay, anybody) to react/respond to the following:

Vodka is grain neutral spirits (GNS) and water. The water is added to reduce the 190+ proof GNS to between 100 and 80 proof for bottling. That is the legal definition of vodka. Vodka, by law, has no "distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color." The only reason two different vodkas taste different is because different sources were used for the water used to dilute it after distillation. Therefore, the only difference between the contents of a $10 bottle of vodka and a $50 bottle of vodka is that different water has been used to dilute the GNS.

[ratcheer]

I just dispense with the suspense and forego drinking vodka. If I'm in the mood for white spirits, I much prefer gin.

Tim

[dhooch]

Here! Here! (or, is it, Hear! Hear!)

Oh well!

[Gillman]

It does seem though that many vodkas taste different, one from the other, when sampled straight - I realise all vodka in the bottle is diluted from the cask strength, but still this remains true and I don't think the different waters alone explain the difference. Some vodka is floral, some sweetish (e.g., Stolichnaya has sugar added, I am quite sure), some creamy, etc. I think the different cereals used to form the mash do have varying impact on flavour.

I believe also that even at 190 proof congeneric content varies in vodka and that residual congeners can impact flavor.

Theory and practice are two different things. I remain convinced that vodka is not GNS in most cases, not at the higher ranges of quality. There are too many variables.

[robbyvirus]

It does seem though that many vodkas taste different, one from the other, when sampled straight

I agree. Try drinking a straight shot of a "premium" vodka and a shot of a cheap, well vodka. I guarantee you'll taste a difference. I drank Popov straight once and it tasted like kerosene. (Not to be confused with Zima, which tastes like a mix of kerosene and 7-Up).

[OneCubeOnly]

I imagine what distinguishes a high-end vodka is the grain quality, water source, and distillation procedures. My personal favorite, Pearl, boasts that it's distilled five times and made from winter wheat.

I can attest that mouthfeel and taste (or *LACK* of taste) varies greatly in vodkas.

Bottom line--vodkas are boring. Give me a bourbon any day!

[cowdery]

27 CFR 5.22

(a) Class 1; neutral spirits or alcohol. "Neutral spirits" or "alcohol" are distilled spirits produced from any material at or above 190 deg. proof, and, if bottled, bottled at not less than 80 deg. proof.

(1) "Vodka" is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.

[Gillman]

This is the U.S. definition of vodka, i.e., domestic vodka. If I read it right it is saying that 190 proof neutral spirit is not vodka per se but qualifies if distilled again or subjected to filtration or other rectification to remove distinctive flavour. So clearly vodka, at least in the U.S., is grain neutral spirit but requires yet further processing to be called vodka! I don't know that much about vodka production but do know that generally, U.S. and British vodkas, including Canadian types, are almost tasteless as a result. But this does not mean, in practice, that they are identical in nose, taste or mouthfeel. I do not believe water alone can explain this. I would think all water is treated in North American plants when added to pure spirit so as itself to be almost neutral.

Consumer writers on vodka say that traditional vodkas from Poland and Russia are not bland and neutral like American vodka but have flavour - it can be subtle - resulting from production differences vs. our methods. E.g., some Russian vodka traditionally was distilled only once. I have noted on vodka labels over the years reference to two, three or even four distillations. Repeated distillation(s) I would think are done not just to produce more throughput economically but to "purify" the taste more. That is, the less processed vodkas have "more" or at any rate a different taste than, say, a quadruple-distilled vodka. Traditional vodka was also subjected to less filtration than, say, American vodka. Also, people have written that rye and wheat are superior materials to start from than molasses or corn. (I noted in England two years ago that a well-known gin brand advertised on the label the base spirit was made from grain: a cheaper, own-brand close by stated the base was derived from molasses). I can't explain further technically why Russian or Polish vodkas are considered superior in flavour generally to our versions. Can it be false perception? Maybe in part but I think there is some basis to it. Has some Russian and Polish vodka itself become more neutral tasting over the years to widen its market here? Undoubtedly. But still there are detectable differences amongst the traditional foreign brands and between them as a group and our silent spirit-type vodkas.

Also, something can lack distinctive taste but still differ from another of its type. Water from springs varies widely in taste for example but does not have a distinctive taste.

If one sampled Everclear diluted to 80 proof vs. Popov vs. a Polish rye vodka vs. a good Russian vodka, I think they would be found to taste somewhat different. I once attended a tasting some years ago of this nature and the tasters agreed that differences abounded. I believe taste differences result from the type of fermentable materials used, whether there are prolonged distillations or filtrations to remove congeners, and in some cases the type of water used to make or dilute the spirit.

Also, grain neutral spirit contains measurable amounts of congeners. The amounts are very small but in my view the fact that each brand will contain differing types and levels of congeners will have an effect on flavour. It may be subtle and probably is not noticeable in mixed drinks, at least when consumed casually as is usually the case. But there seem to be "signatures" to many of the vodkas in the market when taken neat.

Gary

[wadewood]

I think there are more differences in flavor than water alone would cause. The differences must either come from distillation process or grain used. But these differences are subtle.

I think the higher end (and heavily marketed) vodkas like Grey Goose and Belvedere are way overrated. One of my favorites costs $15, Monopolowa; a potato vodka from Austria. There are so many vodkas on market and most are not advertised.

Another consideration is probably 90% of vodkas go into cocktails/ martinis with fruit juices or other flavorings. Once you start mixing a cosmopolitan, I doubt you could tell Grey Goose from Absolute or Popvov.

[boone]

Blended Vodka...not the "specialty" stuff but "regular" Vodka...

Buy the one with the "cheapest" price tag ...

Bettye Jo

[tdelling]

A few points on vodka:

1) If ever there was a place for analytical chemistry in the drinks business,

this is it! I'll bet that there's more in there than just ethanol + water.

2) Congeners are human-detectable at really low concentrations, so it doesn't

take much to alter the taste/smell.

3) Just because the law says it must be water + ethanol doesn't mean that it's

true in practice. When dealing with pure things, cleanliness is everything.

Perhaps a certain vodka was distlled to 190 proof, but later handling

could "inadvertantly" add flavorings. <*see footnote>.

4) I'm not joking when I say this, but: define "water". As we've seen in

the press lately, Coca-Cola's flagship bottled water ("Dasani"), marketed

as "pure", actually has added magnesium, calcium, and sodium bicarbonate,

all for taste. How much of these minerals can you add and still call it

water? How much of these minerals are required to make vodkas taste

different? I consider minerals to be valid ingredients in vodka which

might very well lead to detectable differences in taste.

Tim

<*> I heard a funny story about Budweiser trying to track down some "off"

flavors in one of it's beers. They thought they had an infection

somewhere in the brewing process, but it only turned up every now and then.

They pulled their hair out for a while... and discovered that it was coming

from the bottle caps. So they leaned on their suppliers and tried to root

out the problem, but to no avail. Eventually they discovered the real problem:

every now and then, one of the semi trailers used to haul the bottle caps

would have a residual smell in it from a previous (unrelated to beer) load

of something they were hauling. This would then seep into the plastic lining

of the bottlecaps and from there seep into the beer!

[SteveZZZ]

From my experience, there are definitely significant differences in the taste of vodka. Grey Goose, Turi, Ciroc, Thor's Hammer, and Ketel One are the ones I've tasted most recently, and all have significantly different flavors that I was able to identify in a blind test... I even convinced someone who had argued his whole life that vodka was just ethanol and water that there really is a difference using Grey Goose and Ketel One, and those are far more similar than say, Ciroc, Turi, and Thor's Hammer.

Steve

[cowdery]

All excellent points, especially the one that all water is not created equal, which is exactly my point. The differences in vodkas are all attributable to the differences in the dilution water, which has nothing to do with the "quality grains" or the "careful distillation methods" or the "distiller's art." It's the water!

[cowdery]

Federal regulations regarding spirits apply to all products sold in the United States, regardless of their origin. I can't speak for Canada. Here is the only regulation I can find permitting the flavoring of vodka without causing it to be called "flavored vodka."

27 CFR 5.23 Alteration of class and type.

(3) "Harmless coloring, flavoring, and blending materials" shall

not include (i) any material which would render the product to which it

is added an imitation, or (ii) any material, other than caramel,

infusion of oak chips, and sugar, in the case of Cognac brandy; or (iii)

any material whatsoever in the case of neutral spirits or straight

whiskey, except that vodka may be treated with sugar in an amount not to

exceed 2 grams per liter and a trace amount of citric acid. (emphasis added)

The portion of the CFR pertaining to alcohol regulation can be found here

Finally, vodka drinkers should see also cognitive dissonance for a further explanation of what they think they're tasting.

If science can't explain it, perhaps religion can. From the Book of Hebrews: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[tdelling]

A quick google search for:

gc vodka

turned up a .pdf of a paper that looked at mineral content of vodkas

with an eye towards spotting fakes.

From the paper:

"For premium vodka brands,

demineralised water is filtered through activated carbon

to absorb unwanted organic and inorganic materials. Then

it is passed through deionisation columns, which remove

other impurities present. The rectified spirit and demineralised

water are blended in the correct proportions. The

blended spirit is charcoaled for up to 8 h. The charcoal

adsorbs impurities that cannot be removed by distillation

alone."

They make a big deal about getting all the salts out, and

the study shows that Russian vodkas tend to have very little

salt, whereas German vodkas have much more salt (as do the

fakes).

They also mention that additives are used to change pH,

"which enhance the softness of taste".

The GC results show that there is some acetaldehyde and

some iso-amyl alcohol in the Smirnoff and the "authentic

German vodka", but no other higher alcohols.

Their list of vodkas tested didn't look all that impressive...

the only names I recognized were Smirnoff and Absolut.

I think I'm starting to agree with Chuck. "Premium vodka" is

all about the water.

Tim Dellinger

[gr8erdane]

I agree also Chuck, not all water IS equal.

Case in point:

A few years back our good friends at Jack Daniels had a novel piece of holiday glassware in which there were two spheres, one above the other kind of resembling a headless Frostie the Snowman. The idea was to fill the bottom portion with water or other chaser and float the JD on top of it in the second cylinder. A good friend found that the JD would not float on tap water, bottled spring water, or even distilled water from a bottle but would blend right in. However, he tried some well water from his grandfather's farm's well and VOILA seperation was achieved. I've tasted (or rather didn't taste) that water supply before and it has to be the most mineral free tasteless water I ever had. I'd like to think it was akin to the limestone filtered water used by our good friends at the distilleries.

[Gillman]

Yet even Budweiser doesn't always taste (exactly) the same, why then should the ethanol component of vodkas made in many different parts of the world, from different materials, distilled from once to four times depending on the method employed, filtered or not in various ways? It can't just be the water that explains the fact they do taste different. Don't distilleries all use a fairly tasteless demineralised water (or whatever it's called) to dilute? If (as is the case) GNS contain measurable amounts of congeners, surely the type and amount must vary in all these products; why would the taste result not vary accordingly?

Isn't the discussion more, what constitutes a subtle difference?

Gary

[dhooch]

I am not a big vodka drinker, but, it is my understanding that vodka is made from various grains and/or potatoes. These ingredients have to have an influence on the taste... just like wheat and rye with bourbon!

[OneCubeOnly]

I have a hard time believing it's all from the water. Vodka tasting notes often speak of "anise", "citrus", and other flavors that ethanol + water alone really shouldn't have. Unless of course, you think it's all a bunch of hooey.

[cowdery]

I am not a big vodka drinker, but, it is my understanding that vodka is made from various grains and/or potatoes. These ingredients have to have an influence on the taste... just like wheat and rye with bourbon!

Not, and this is the point, at 190+ proof. GNS is alcohol and nothing else. The chemists here can explain it better than I can, but alcohol is alcohol, all chemically identical. You taste grain characteristics, etc., in whiskey because it is distilled at less than 160 proof and in some cases as low as 110 proof. The very purpose of the high distillation proof of vodka and the processes like charcoal filtering is to remove the taste-producing congeners so it complies with the federal requirement of tastelessness.

[Gillman]

For some time I've been following a company called Shakers which makes vodka in the U.S. This company came out of the team that produced Pete's Wicked Ale which until sale of the brand was a successful, pioneering micro-beer. Shakers is making a splash around the country. Pat Couteaux is the company's distiller and has advanced degrees in distillation science. Pat Couteaux has been interviewed numerous times about his company's product. See e.g. www.cocktailtimes.com, also www.findarticles.com. He states that the grain from which vodka is derived and the mix of grains affects flavour and mouth feel. He classifies flavour as neutral if corn is used, "soft" if wheat is used and spicy if rye is used (he speaks of a "hint" of spice from the rye). He describes in detail the complex distillation process - 6 distillations - used by Shakers to get what it wants in the flavour profile. I am not an expert on vodka, much less chemistry, far from it, but he is focusing on grain source as a differentiator here. On the company's website, www.shakersvodka.com, it is claimed the taste "embodies" the wheat the vodka is made from. It is suggested the further removal of congeners, in two final extractive distillations, allows the wheat character to come through.

There would appear to be different views of what constitutes a lack of taste. I am not saying I could detect these differences on a blind taste test but then again I rarely drink vodka. I recall having some Stoli recently at a Russian-style restaurant and it struck me as "empty", lacking body and flavour. But then too my regular tipples are some of the most flavourous whiskies made, so it is going from one extreme to another..

Also, I would note each maker of GNS (as legally defined for proof level of course) establishes its own specification for its brand. There is no national standard which specifies what residual congeners can or cannot be in the ethanol or in what percentage. No doubt distillation to 190 or 192 proof in pratice will remove most congeners that affect flavour - most but not all because otherwise why would some distillers continue to rectify pure alcohol? Shakers' site makes clear that its first four distillations removes the water from the spirit. The last two are intended to remove congeners that (presumably) don't deliver the taste profile the company is looking for. If in fact the "wheat" still influences the final product there must be something in the spirit derived from the wheat that delivers this result - I assume this consists of very small amounts of "good" congeners that help impart the taste desired. I was reading of a vodka made in France and sold in the U.S. - can't recall the name at present - that is distilled from wine. It is sold here as a "vodka" (thus meeting the legal test Chuck has mentioned). The taste notes given indicate a scent of white grapes. Byrn writing in the 1870's noted that no matter how much a grape brandy from lees (kernels and skins of grapes left over from winemaking rehydrated for fermentation) is distilled, it still shows some character from the source material (the typical grappa flavour is what he had in mind). I can only assume that something must remain in the ethanol no matter how prolonged the distillations and filtrations to explain such results.

Gary

[SteveZZZ]

Gary, the vodka made from grapes you mentioned is most likely Ciroc ( http://www.cirocvodka.com/ ). Its made from grapes, and distilled 5 times in pot stills. The character of the grapes is evident. I say with confidence that after my first taste of this, I could have picked it out in a blind test. I'm pretty sure I could pick it out, even if I'd never had it before. Its not an overpowering taste, but it is most definitely there. If you've ever had anything distilled from grapes before, you'd recognize this taste. Very good vodka by the way, highly recommended.

Steve

[cowdery]

Calling a neutral spirit made from grapes "vodka" is as absurd as calling a drink that contains no gin, vodka nor vermouth a martini, just because it's served in a martini glass. Well, counter-intuitive if not absurd. In fact, the rules allow, maybe even require, any neutral spirit made from any material to be called "vodka." That's why the source has to be identified. Normally a spirit made from grapes would be called brandy, but at neutral proof it cannot legally be called brandy and has to be called vodka. As most of you probably have figured out by now, I interpret the current vodka craze as proof that the end times are nigh.

[OneCubeOnly]

Chuck, I think the reason that was introduced was to show that the grains (or in this case, grapes) of origin do indeed contribute some character to the beverage. You would intuitively think that after run through multiple high-performance distillations the ethanol shouldn't care where it came from, but actually it does. Water differences alone don't answer for the residual character.

[cowdery]

There are only four possibilities.

1) GNS is, in fact, not truly oderless, tasteless, etc. as the law requires, although presumably those are terms of art that have some legal significance, while being actually untrue, and human taste receptors can, in fact, detect residual source flavors in the 3 to 4 percent component of the distillate that is not pure ethanol. (I'm skeptical of this explanation.)

2) All ethanol is not, in fact, the same so far as taste and scent are concerned and you can taste the source material in something that is virtually pure ethanol. (I'm extremely skeptical of this one.)

3) It's the water. (My explanation for part of the phenomenon.)

4) It's cognitive dissonance. (My explanation for the rest.)