General Guide for buying Vintage Armagnacs

[WhiskeyBlender]

9 hours ago, EarthQuake said:

@WhiskeyBlender great information as always, now I have a few new terms to google. 

 

I've had a couple more pours of the 1982 and 2000. I'm noticing the sour note in both (better integrated in the 1982). I would say it's more of a vinegary note, and now that you mention the different types sour flavors it helps me to identify it and I see a similarity to the Lemorton Calvados that we were discussing a while back.

 

I don't have a bottle of Millet anymore, so I can't say for sure what that one was but if memory serves me correctly it was probably vinegary as well.

 

In other news, I finished off my bottle of Dartigalongue 1985 and I sure am sad to see that go. Very well balanced and all around rather lovely. I will have to try to find it again the next time we go to Chicago. 

@EarthQuake, I'm glad that the sour note explanation was helpful! If you are getting a vinegary note in the Pellehaut, then that would definitely be volatile acidity/acetic acid (aka "VA"), either coming from the bacteria acetobacter, or also possibly from wild yeast. Although I've visited Pellehaut, I didn't get to see their production, so I'm not sure what their doing with their fermentations, etc. Also, I'm not sure what the time is between the end of fermentation and distillation. This could also be where the VA is originating. At any rate, as you said, that's probably what you were seeing in the Lemorton Calvados too, and perhaps also a bit of acrolein. At least that's what I was getting in my bottle of Lemorton. 

 

On a more positive aromatic note, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the Dartigalongue! It's always hard to see a favorite bottle finish up.  

 

 

[kevinbrink]

@WhiskeyBlender or anyone else for that matter, any experience with Domaine des Seailles? I was in a shop that had a few different vintages, 1974, 1988 and a 20 yo with no vintage, they are from the Tenareze region and all were in the mid 40's in ABV.  I took a shot in the dark on the 20yo since it was cheap but am wondering if I should have grabbed the 1974 as it seemed to be priced very fairly.

https://www.pariswinecompany.com/domaineseailles

[WhiskeyBlender]

1 hour ago, kevinbrink said:

@WhiskeyBlender or anyone else for that matter, any experience with Domaine des Seailles? I was in a shop that had a few different vintages, 1974, 1988 and a 20 yo with no vintage, they are from the Tenareze region and all were in the mid 40's in ABV.  I took a shot in the dark on the 20yo since it was cheap but am wondering if I should have grabbed the 1974 as it seemed to be priced very fairly.

https://www.pariswinecompany.com/domaineseailles

@kevinbrink, I haven't actually tasted this one, but I do happen to know exactly where it is in the little commune of Mouchan. If you do buy one, I would recommend you get an older bottle such as the '74. Because it is from the Tenareze and probably made with Ugni Blanc, it takes a while for those Armagnacs to show well, unlike the ones from Bas Armagnac, those older expressions will most likely be more interesting. Please let me know if you end up buying it and what you think. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[kevinbrink]

4 minutes ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@kevinbrink, I haven't actually tasted this one, but I do happen to know exactly where it is in the little commune of Mouchan. If you do buy one, I would recommend you get an older bottle such as the '74. Because it is from the Tenareze and probably made with Ugni Blanc, it takes a while for those Armagnacs to show well, unlike the ones from Bas Armagnac, those older expressions will most likely be more interesting. Please let me know if you end up buying it and what you think. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

Thanks as always Nancy, I already picked up the 20 year but like I said it was pretty inexpensive, I'll probably pick up the 1974 as well, at this point I haven't had multiple bottles from a single producer so it might be an interesting "experiment" and some help in figuring Armagnac out, though I've already figured out that I really like it. 

[WhiskeyBlender]

41 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Thanks as always Nancy, I already picked up the 20 year but like I said it was pretty inexpensive, I'll probably pick up the 1974 as well, at this point I haven't had multiple bottles from a single producer so it might be an interesting "experiment" and some help in figuring Armagnac out, though I've already figured out that I really like it. 

@kevinbrink, I don't mean to be a pusher, but I certainly do strongly encourage you to go back and buy that '74! One thing I've found as a general rule is that for most producers, products like the 20 year old you bought (which is most likely a blend) are often created for mass consumption and are usually not nearly as interesting as the vintage Armagnacs. Whenever you visit their distilleries, the blends (i.e., the VS's, VSOP's, XO's, Hor d'Age, etc.) are the first things they let you try, since these are usually thought to be more "approachable" to the average consumer. I usually try to go directly to the vintages, since this is where the "good stuff" is. The exception to that general rule would be blends that are put together by the very top producers/negociants like Marc Darroze (i.e., try his Les Grandes Assemblages 20 or 30 year Armagnac. When I'm drinking Armagnac, that's become a relatively affordable daily drinker). 

 

However, I would like to hear back on your tasting notes for the 20 y.o. 

 

Enjoy!

Nancy

Edited January 4, 2019 by WhiskeyBlender

[kevinbrink]

1 hour ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@kevinbrink, I don't mean to be a pusher, but I certainly do strongly encourage you to go back and buy that '74! One thing I've found as a general rule is that for most producers, products like the 20 year old you bought (which is most likely a blend) are often created for mass consumption and are usually not nearly as interesting as the vintage Armagnacs. Whenever you visit their distilleries, the blends (i.e., the VS's, VSOP's, XO's, Hor d'Age, etc.) are the first things they let you try, since these are usually thought to be more "approachable" to the average consumer. I usually try to go directly to the vintages, since this is where the "good stuff" is. The exception to that general rule would be blends that are put together by the very top producers/negociants like Marc Darroze (i.e., try his Les Grandes Assemblages 20 or 30 year Armagnac. When I'm drinking Armagnac, that's become a relatively affordable daily drinker). 

 

However, I would like to hear back on your tasting notes for the 20 y.o. 

 

Enjoy!

Nancy

Nancy in no way are you a pusher, more like a "spirit guide", all puns intended. Already purchased the 1974 and will update once I'm back to business which is looking more and more like it's going to be February, as an aside the place I purchased it from appears to ship and the price was $99 which seemed pretty great considering the vintage so if anyone else is willing to fly somewhat blind like I was feel free to PM me and I'll send a link.  

[Billy Reis]

@WhiskeyBlender Hello Nancy, maybe a little off topic but hopefully you know something about this bottle. Any info would be appreciated. I have yet to come up with anything other than the obvious from the bottle.

[WhiskeyBlender]

22 hours ago, Billy Reis said:

@WhiskeyBlender Hello Nancy, maybe a little off topic but hopefully you know something about this bottle. Any info would be appreciated. I have yet to come up with anything other than the obvious from the bottle.

Hey @Billy Reis, if it is brandy-related, it is certainly not off topic! Wow, I have to say I'm absolutely fascinated by your bottle. Although I do know some history of brandy production here in California, I wasn't aware of the California Wine Association, so I did a little research into it. Apparently they were a group of seven prominent SF Bay Area wineries and distilleries who formed the organization during the depression of 1894 in order to help stimulate trade. The organization lasted until 1936. 

 

What I find intriguing is that the brandy in your bottle was distilled in 1922, which obviously would have been during Prohibition. I couldn't find any information on "distillery 330" where it was produced, but I'm very interested to know that. At any rate, Prohibition had a devastating effect on the industry here. However, they did continue to make pharmaceutical brandy, although they didn't have a large part of that market the way the Bourbon industry did. 

 

In light of this information, maybe the brandy in your bottle was originally intended for use as "medicinal" brandy? The association shut down in 1936 and this was sold off to the Shenley Products Company and bottled in 1937. The Shenley Co. bought the Jos. S. Finch distillery in 1920. There's a very interesting history about Jos. S. Finch, which I've attached below. Apparently the Shenley company did sell "medicinal" whiskey to customers who had a doctor's prescription, so the pharmaceutical theory seems quite plausible. 

 

How did you acquire this bottle? Are you intending to open it? I'm really curious about the juice inside. It looks like it might very well be in good condition, as the fill level is still fairly full. 

 

At any rate, thanks for sharing the photos of it! I'm really intrigued by your very cool find. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

http://pre-prowhiskeymen.blogspot.com/2015/01/finch-to-painter-to-pontefract-produced.html

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by WhiskeyBlender
typo

[Billy Reis]

Thanks Nancy @WhiskeyBlender, lots of good information you dug up. I too was intrigued by the distillation year. I know the distilled some during the dry years to replenish dwindling stocks, but this seems very early to me, plus distilled in Cali? Schenley was one of the 6  with Medicinal licences, but I thought their working distillery was the now Buffalo Trace. There must be a story behind that. I remember reading a story somewhere of a Cali winemaker providing Wine, and maybe Brandy, to Church's in the area for Masses; maybe that is the link?

As for this bottle, I am trying to acquire here locally from a man in Dayton. It appears to be clear and he says there are no floaters. Would I drink this? Probably not. The history of it is too great for me to open it. I would probably just admire it and use it as a talker. LOL

If I can acquire this I will let you know, maybe this is more important to you as a Brandy aficionado.

[WhiskeyBlender]

8 hours ago, Billy Reis said:

Thanks Nancy @WhiskeyBlender, lots of good information you dug up. I too was intrigued by the distillation year. I know the distilled some during the dry years to replenish dwindling stocks, but this seems very early to me, plus distilled in Cali? Schenley was one of the 6  with Medicinal licences, but I thought their working distillery was the now Buffalo Trace. There must be a story behind that. I remember reading a story somewhere of a Cali winemaker providing Wine, and maybe Brandy, to Church's in the area for Masses; maybe that is the link?

As for this bottle, I am trying to acquire here locally from a man in Dayton. It appears to be clear and he says there are no floaters. Would I drink this? Probably not. The history of it is too great for me to open it. I would probably just admire it and use it as a talker. LOL

If I can acquire this I will let you know, maybe this is more important to you as a Brandy aficionado.

Sure, it would certainly make sense to me that if it is brandy it was distilled here in CA. It could be that when the California Wine Association shut down, they were selling off the stocks they had accumulated, and the only buyers were those in the pharmaceutical spirits industry. Since the association ended in 1936, and your bottle was bottled in 1937, perhaps Shenley was the only buyer for it at the time?

 

I'm completely intrigued by that bottle. I'd also love to know if the brandy was distilled on a column vs. an alambic Charentes-style still (aka a "Cognac still), so some other form of pot still. This would make a big difference as to how it would have aged over those 15 years. If it was distilled via continuous distillation on a column, it might not have a lot of fatty acid and congeneric content that's needed for long term brandy maturation. But at any rate, I'd sure love to find out who had DSP 330 and what kind of distillation they were doing. 

 

If you do acquire the bottle and want to try a little bit, you can always take a small sample of it by inserting a hypodermic needle in the space between the glass and the cork, so that you don't compromise the integrity of the closure and bottle. 

 

Please let me know what you decide to do on this bottle. I'd really like to hear more about it!

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[Billy Reis]

https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=tf667nb130&developer=local&style=oac4&s=1&query=distilleries&x=14&y=8&servlet=view

 

Here are some archives though it appears none are online. 

[Billy Reis]

On 1/13/2019 at 7:32 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

 

I'm completely intrigued by that bottle. I'd also love to know if the brandy was distilled on a column vs. an alambic Charentes-style still (aka a "Cognac still), so some other form of pot still. This would make a big difference as to how it would have aged over those 15 years. If it was distilled via continuous distillation on a column, it might not have a lot of fatty acid and congeneric content that's needed for long term brandy maturation. But at any rate, I'd sure love to find out who had DSP 330 and what kind of distillation they were doing

Nancy, you brought up Column vs. alambic style for Brandy distillation and how alambic allows for more fatty acid and congener formation for proper Brandy maturation, can that also be said for Bourbon? Most Bourbon is column distilled, save for Woodford Reserve, which is then blended with Old Forester for most of their offerings. Should I deduce that too much F.A. and Congeners are not condusive for good Bourbon? Is this a grain vs. grape issue?

[kevinbrink]

51 minutes ago, Billy Reis said:

Nancy, you brought up Column vs. alambic style for Brandy distillation and how alambic allows for more fatty acid and congener formation for proper Brandy maturation, can that also be said for Bourbon? Most Bourbon is column distilled, save for Woodford Reserve, which is then blended with Old Forester for most of their offerings. Should I deduce that too much F.A. and Congeners are not condusive for good Bourbon? Is this a grain vs. grape issue?

I'm truly interested in hearing the response to this. I think one of the things that I would guess is a factor is what we expect bourbon to taste like rather than it being an issue of what is "good", I say this as someone who doesn't care for well over 90% of the pot still bourbon I have had in my life. 

[WhiskeyBlender]

5 hours ago, Billy Reis said:

Nancy, you brought up Column vs. alambic style for Brandy distillation and how alambic allows for more fatty acid and congener formation for proper Brandy maturation, can that also be said for Bourbon? Most Bourbon is column distilled, save for Woodford Reserve, which is then blended with Old Forester for most of their offerings. Should I deduce that too much F.A. and Congeners are not condusive for good Bourbon? Is this a grain vs. grape issue?

@Billy Reis and @kevinbrink, that's a great question, to I'll start off by answering that "it depends." As a general rule, yes, most column distilled spirits will be somewhat more rectified, and won't have as many fatty acids and congeneric content as those that are distilled via alambic distillation. Let's start with brandy production before moving over to Bourbon. So, part of the fatty acid and congeneric content will depend upon whether or not the brandy is distilled "sur lie," or on the lees (lees being the dead/residual yeast that is present after fermentation). Brandies that are distilled on the lees tend to have a lot of fat, and will also have a lot of estery aromas, since dead yeast tends to liberate fatty acids, polysaccharides (like glucose), amino acids, etc. In fact, grapes generally tend to have a lot of fat as well. And all these things will come over during distillation. To some degree you can control the amount of fat that comes over in distillation by controlling the temperature of the condenser water, but I digress. 

 

If you want to compare two classic Cognacs, one that has been distilled sur lie and one that is not distilled on the lees, compare Remy Martin to Martell Cognac. Martell does not distill with lees, whereas Remy always does. IMHO, if you plan to release a brandy at a younger age, then distilling without lees makes more sense. If you want to age a brandy for a long time, then it will need the lees to gain more complexity as it ages. 

 

Also, a caveat to the general rule that alambic distillation produces a more complex brandy than a column is that it all depends on the type of column, and how much the spirit is being rectified. If you are using an alambic Armagnacais to produce Armagnac, then it will have more fatty acid and congeneric content than, say, a Cognac that was distilled on an alambic Charentais style still. Why? Well, an Armagnac still is basically a more crude form of column still for continuous distillation, usually with somewhere between 2 to 4 plates. The EDV coming off the still is usually somewhere between 104 to 120 proof, vs. the 140 proof that comes from an alambic still. 

 

At any rate, how does all of this translate to Bourbon? Well, of course, all the same things such as yeast strain, grain bill, fermentation, distillation method & rectification, etc. will make a difference in the amount of fats and congeneric content for Bourbon, just as it does for brandy. I don't know what the distillation proof is on Blanton's, but to me, it tastes like it is highly rectified, more on the vodka-side of things, very neutral. It tends to get the majority of its flavorants from the oak. Conversely, these days I'm seeing a lot of craft distillers who use pot still double distillation for their Bourbons. Depending upon how they make their cuts during distillation, these Bourbons often tend to have a lot of fat to them. In fact, in the past few years, I've seen a rise in the number of craft Bourbons that are saponified, i.e., have turned to soap. They haven't learned from the brandy industry that when you have a lot of fat in your distillate, you have to be very slow with your water reductions from cask to bottling proof both over time and at the time of a particular water reduction session. I digress on this issue, too. 

 

I don't necessarily believe that a lot of fatty acids and congeneric content leads to bad Bourbon. If anything, if proper production methods are used, it might actually lead to bourbons that are capable of much longer maturation. Ever wonder why high-end Cognacs and Armagnacs tend to have the capacity to age for 20, 30, 40, 50, even 60 years, while Bourbon's maturation seems to peak somewhere between 12 to 18 years before they start going down hill? Of course there are a whole host of reasons why this is so, such as warehousing conditions, yeast strains, fermentation styles, fats in grapes vs. grains, distillation styles, type of cooperage used for maturation and length of use, etc., but these are good questions to ponder. 

 

I hope I answered that question somewhat. It isn't the end of the story, but I hope it sheds some light on the topic. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by WhiskeyBlender

[kevinbrink]

@WhiskeyBlender as always, nothing if not informative! 

[Billy Reis]

@WhiskeyBlender. Thank you Nancy, yes very informative.  I have one question, what do you mean by rectification? Do you mean distilling out the FA's and congeners?

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 1/16/2019 at 2:41 PM, Billy Reis said:

@WhiskeyBlender. Thank you Nancy, yes very informative.  I have one question, what do you mean by rectification? Do you mean distilling out the FA's and congeners?

Sure thing, @Billy Reis. Yes, that is more or less what I mean. So when you distill a spirit, the more you "rectify" it, the more neutral and higher in proof it becomes. You might even say that it becomes more "pure." During distillation, you are essentially turning liquid into vapor which is then condensed back into a very concentrated liquid. 

 

Also, a congener is basically all the other alcohols and flavor components that are NOT ethyl alcohol. Congeners are what create flavor in an ethanol solution, and the more you rectify a spirit, the more you strip these out. 

 

Does that help? 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[Billy Reis]

On 1/17/2019 at 8:23 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

Sure thing, @Billy Reis. Yes, that is more or less what I mean. So when you distill a spirit, the more you "rectify" it, the more neutral and higher in proof it becomes. You might even say that it becomes more "pure." During distillation, you are essentially turning liquid into vapor which is then condensed back into a very concentrated liquid. 

 

Also, a congener is basically all the other alcohols and flavor components that are NOT ethyl alcohol. Congeners are what create flavor in an ethanol solution, and the more you rectify a spirit, the more you strip these out. 

 

Does that help? 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

Yes it does, and that is how we get Vodka. thank you.

[EarthQuake]

@WhiskeyBlender Fascinating as always. So let me know if I understand things correctly. In a very basic sense, the more rectified the spirit the more neutral the flavor, and the more flavor profile will be dependent on the barrel rather than the grape, grain, sugar cane, etc. Is that generally true?

 

It seems to match up with my experiences in general. Last year while in San Francisco for work I did a tour of Anchor Distilling where they make Old Potrero Ryes. They use pot stills and the products they produce seem to be very grain forward. I've noticed similar things with other craft places which I think use pot stills or maybe some hybrid stills. Generally I don't like these grain-forward spirits and I have associated it with craft producers (ie: they just haven't been doing it long enough to make something good), and aging in small barrels (which seems to impart the "wrong" sort of oak flavors if that makes sense). But perhaps it has more to do with the still than other factors?

 

I tend to enjoy bourbons in the 10-20 year range, at which point I imagine the barrel is the driving factor for flavor. I read somewhere once that the barrel was responsible for 80% of the flavor in bourbon and that seemed like a high figure, but it was from a well known distiller at one of the big bourbon producers (I can't remember who now).

 

Pot vs column still rum seems to tell a similar story. Pot still rum tends to have tons of flavor, funk, and weirdness, while column style rums tend to be very light and doesn't seem to have much flavor outside the usual flavors I associate with barrel aging (heavy on wood sugars, vanilla, etc).

 

So perhaps my conclusion here is similar to what @kevinbrink suggested above, that we tend not to like pot still bourbons simply because they are so different than what we expect bourbon to taste like?

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by EarthQuake

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 1/19/2019 at 10:26 AM, EarthQuake said:

@WhiskeyBlender Fascinating as always. So let me know if I understand things correctly. In a very basic sense, the more rectified the spirit the more neutral the flavor, and the more flavor profile will be dependent on the barrel rather than the grape, grain, sugar cane, etc. Is that generally true?

 

It seems to match up with my experiences in general. Last year while in San Francisco for work I did a tour of Anchor Distilling where they make Old Potrero Ryes. They use pot stills and the products they produce seem to be very grain forward. I've noticed similar things with other craft places which I think use pot stills or maybe some hybrid stills. Generally I don't like these grain-forward spirits and I have associated it with craft producers (ie: they just haven't been doing it long enough to make something good), and aging in small barrels (which seems to impart the "wrong" sort of oak flavors if that makes sense). But perhaps it has more to do with the still than other factors?

 

I tend to enjoy bourbons in the 10-20 year range, at which point I imagine the barrel is the driving factor for flavor. I read somewhere once that the barrel was responsible for 80% of the flavor in bourbon and that seemed like a high figure, but it was from a well known distiller at one of the big bourbon producers (I can't remember who now).

 

Pot vs column still rum seems to tell a similar story. Pot still rum tends to have tons of flavor, funk, and weirdness, while column style rums tend to be very light and doesn't seem to have much flavor outside the usual flavors I associate with barrel aging (heavy on wood sugars, vanilla, etc).

 

So perhaps my conclusion here is similar to what @kevinbrink suggested above, that we tend not to like pot still bourbons simply because they are so different than what we expect bourbon to taste like?

 

@EarthQuake, you are right, right, and right again on just about all of this! Probably one thing I forgot to mention, which might be a wrench in all of this, is that often craft distillers using pot stills or hybrids make the mistake of making cuts, or should I say at least conservative cuts, in the distillation. Ever notice how many craft bourbons can be extremely grain forward, but then they also taste like there's no complexity? I often think about it as very "tight," because while they might be grain forward, there are no heads and tails to create any sort of matured complexity. 

 

You also mention small barrels. Wow, don't get me started on that one! I absolutely despise small barrels. For one thing, the quality of the wood is usually not as good as what you would find in a standard 53 gallon barrel. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the extraction rate of tannins, wood sugars, lignins, lactones, etc., from a small barrel will always exceed the oxidation rate. Thus, you will never truly be able to have matured quality from that kind of barrel. 

 

Ever nose and taste a craft whiskey from a small cask, and notice that when you smell the aroma, there are a lot of simple caramel and vanilla notes? Then you taste it, and the caramel and vanilla notes fall off quickly. That's because when you put new distillate into a barrel, the first thing that will happen is that the distillate will extract unbound, simple caramelized wood sugars, angular tannins, and vanilla. But it takes time for longer, more complex molecular chains to form in the presence of oxygen from its slow ingress and egress out of the barrel. 

 

What you heard about the barrel comprised up to 80% of the flavor and aroma profile is mostly true, but this will of course depend upon the time the distillate has spent in the barrel, what the congeneric content of the distillate is, where it is racked in a rick house and how it is affected by humidity and temperature, etc. 

 

You also talk about pot vs. column still rums. I think this is an excellent example of the principle in motion. The very light styled rums, like what you find in the Spanish distilling traditions (i.e., Cuba, Puerto Rico, the DR, etc.) really need to be paired with used cooperage so that the wood doesn't completely dominate. Whereas with, say, a heavy ester Jamaican style rum, it can handle more oak if need be. 

 

Ah, I digress......All of this conversation is oddly enough making me crave a full on, funky and flavorful Jamaican rum right now!

 

Cheers, and hope you're enjoying a great libation on this Sunday afternoon....

Nancy

[Billy Reis]

@WhiskeyBlenderThis is all very good stuff. This is the type of geeky insider knowledge that I really appreciate. There is so much more to spirits than just mixing them in some cocktail. There is history, chemistry, and sensory-satisfaction, something that could appeal to most people if given the chance to appreciate them. I know I enjoy my two fingers worth. Thanks Nancy!

[EarthQuake]

On 1/20/2019 at 5:30 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

Cheers, and hope you're enjoying a great libation on this Sunday afternoon....

Nancy

Supremely eloquent as usual Nancy. It's great to see that I wasn't spouting nonsense - it's very satisfying to get to a point where the things I read and the what I taste starts to match up and make sense. I enjoyed a wee dram of George T Stagg while reading it over. Did you raid the cupboards and find a rum? I've got a Hamilton St Lucia 10 year barrel proof that I've really been enjoying. I don't think it's technically an agricole but I get some lovely grassy notes and a good does of funk as well.

[smokinjoe]

24 minutes ago, EarthQuake said:

 I enjoyed a wee dram of George T Stagg....

Now, you done it.  Here’s what happened to the last guy who used wee dram and George T Stagg in the same sentence...    

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YG7G6hk-wxk

 

 

 

[kevinbrink]

10 hours ago, EarthQuake said:

Supremely eloquent as usual Nancy. It's great to see that I wasn't spouting nonsense - it's very satisfying to get to a point where the things I read and the what I taste starts to match up and make sense. I enjoyed a wee dram of George T Stagg while reading it over. Did you raid the cupboards and find a rum? I've got a Hamilton St Lucia 10 year barrel proof that I've really been enjoying. I don't think it's technically an agricole but I get some lovely grassy notes and a good does of funk as well.

I love the Hamilton St. Lucia Rums, they are definitely not agricole they use Molasses sourced from Guyana but they definitely bring some unique funk http://saintluciarums.com/rum.html

[Bbstout]

On 1/20/2019 at 5:30 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

@EarthQuake, you are right, right, and right again on just about all of this! Probably one thing I forgot to mention, which might be a wrench in all of this, is that often craft distillers using pot stills or hybrids make the mistake of making cuts, or should I say at least conservative cuts, in the distillation. Ever notice how many craft bourbons can be extremely grain forward, but then they also taste like there's no complexity? I often think about it as very "tight," because while they might be grain forward, there are no heads and tails to create any sort of matured complexity. 

 

You also mention small barrels. Wow, don't get me started on that one! I absolutely despise small barrels. For one thing, the quality of the wood is usually not as good as what you would find in a standard 53 gallon barrel. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the extraction rate of tannins, wood sugars, lignins, lactones, etc., from a small barrel will always exceed the oxidation rate. Thus, you will never truly be able to have matured quality from that kind of barrel. 

 

Ever nose and taste a craft whiskey from a small cask, and notice that when you smell the aroma, there are a lot of simple caramel and vanilla notes? Then you taste it, and the caramel and vanilla notes fall off quickly. That's because when you put new distillate into a barrel, the first thing that will happen is that the distillate will extract unbound, simple caramelized wood sugars, angular tannins, and vanilla. But it takes time for longer, more complex molecular chains to form in the presence of oxygen from its slow ingress and egress out of the barrel. 

 

What you heard about the barrel comprised up to 80% of the flavor and aroma profile is mostly true, but this will of course depend upon the time the distillate has spent in the barrel, what the congeneric content of the distillate is, where it is racked in a rick house and how it is affected by humidity and temperature, etc. 

 

You also talk about pot vs. column still rums. I think this is an excellent example of the principle in motion. The very light styled rums, like what you find in the Spanish distilling traditions (i.e., Cuba, Puerto Rico, the DR, etc.) really need to be paired with used cooperage so that the wood doesn't completely dominate. Whereas with, say, a heavy ester Jamaican style rum, it can handle more oak if need be. 

 

Ah, I digress......All of this conversation is oddly enough making me crave a full on, funky and flavorful Jamaican rum right now!

 

Cheers, and hope you're enjoying a great libation on this Sunday afternoon....

Nancy

Thanks for all the great information Nancy. Now I know why I got burnt tire in a funky pot distilled Rum I purchased.