An Heretical Idea For A New American Whiskey

[pete_d]

In all fairness to Greenbob, I must admit that he hasn't gone so far as to actually cite preference of Scotch over Bourbon. He has claimed that BT and other bottlings are more interesting and overall more of a preference than other Scotches available. His original point was interesting if however fatally flawed in logic.

Being a newbie to the whole Whisk(e)y appreciation myself, I would have to be told that the longer an oak barrel is used, the less tannins and other flavours get imparted into the alcohol. This would make any bourbon that was stored in used barrels a whole less 'intense' than those with new charred barrels.

I myself was mentally mooting the concept of using other forms of barrels and grains to make alternative whiskys. There are a few whisky distilleries down here in Australia, but they still just mimic distilleries of Scotland. How about trying different wood (Eucalypt anyone...?) or Australian grains. Sure it wouldn't be bourbon, but If it tasted cool then would it really matter?

At the end of the day, the complexity issue for me is one of age and proof. There is no way that a Single Malt aged for 16 years and bottled at 80 proof could match the intensity and complexity of a 100+ proof at 8-10 years. It's just going to be more robust a spirit. Horses for Courses...

[gr8erdane]

Native Australian grains in Eucalyptus barrels? Sounds exotic. Someone had to try corn a first time as well as oak barrels. But isn't eucalyptus an aromatic wood? And where would the koalas live if you cut down their trees to make the barrels? Kondominiums?

[OneCubeOnly]

Gosh, this thread sure caused a ruckus! I don't really see where the problem is!? Do we really need to be so defensive about bourbon!? I think the basic question he's asking can be a valid one, although I believe the original theory that a spent barrel allows for longer aging and greater character in whisk(e)y than a new charred one is absurd.

Regardless of whether you perceive one whisk(e)y or another to be more complex, I don't think anybody would deny that scotch begins life as a more delicate spirit, and then many of the layers of flavor are developed after distillation by long term aging. The Scotch flavor spectrum is infinitely more diverse than bourbon because of the wide variations in climate and aging processes. Does that mean it's more complex? Not necessarily.

In my opinion, bourbon begins life as are more intense spirit, and needs the hardcore effects of a new charred barrel to tone it down. Some things mellow, some things are added by the barrel, and in 3+ years you get something wonderful and complex.

[Gillman]

Another way to look at it is charring the barrel is a short cut, it imparts qualities that you have to wait much longer for using other kinds of barrels. The char layer acts as a kind of filter, as charcoal does in the Jack Daniel maple charcoal leaching process. So, this shortens the time needed to stay in the barrel because otherwise you need to wait for further oxidation to occur to work its flavor changes. Second, charring imparts (to varying degrees) a burned wood smell which to my mind is the counterpart to the peat odour in many scotches. Net result, you can get complexity in bourbon equal to that in malt scotch, it just takes a shorter time. The obverse is, if you age too long in charred wood it can (again depending on the product) put the whiskey out of balance. Scotch too can be aged too long, Dave Broome at Whisky Magazine calls that being "grippy", this is the oak tannin and other wood elements overtaking the distillery character.

The Kentucky climate is warmer and maturation (of any kind I think) occurs faster in a warm climate, another factor to consider.

So, malt whisky simply takes longer to mature, to reach the complexity the best bourbon does when younger.

The only sense in which I'd agree scotch is more complex than bourbon is there are more types of scotch flavour out there, both in blended and single malt, than in bourbon, (i.e., between the brands). This is because there are many fewer whiskey production plants in America than in Scotland, so inevitably there are fewer differences between the brands here than there. But that is looking at complexity in a narrow way. "Ounce per ounce", bourbon can be as complex as many scotches.

Gary

[cowdery]

The flaw in greenbob's argument is his quest to determine as between scotch and bourbon, which is "better." Does something always have to be "better"? I guess some people feel the need to rank everything in life: Ginger v. Mary Ann, ST-TOS v. ST-TNG, apples v. oranges, Mighty Mouse v. Superman.

I like scotch but prefer bourbon. Trying to rank one over the other according to some kind of seemingly objective analysis strikes me as so much blather. No thank you, not interested.

[TNbourbon]

Ginger v. Mary Ann, ST-TOS v. ST-TNG, apples v. oranges, Mighty Mouse v. Superman.

Don't be silly, Chuck. Mary Ann and Mighty Mouse are obvious!

As to the topic at hand -- I don't really care which is more complex, or which one anyone else thinks is more complex. I mostly drink either one alone, so I get to choose. I've had good Scotch. I've had more good bourbon. And bourbon's cheaper.

Maybe Greenbob's right, cause there's your answer -- good bourbon is more plentiful and cheaper. That's not too complex. Pretty simple, actually.

[Gillman]

In one of his books drinks writer Michael Jackson says Americans are "obsessed" by what is best, e.g., what beer is best. He elaborates to say people always want to know what is the best beer, whisky, pasta, etc. So he deprecates the idea of ratings but in his beer and whisky books does just that! I guess because as he says people want ratings and he feels obliged to respond in this way.

His nuanced answer always is, well, what beer or whisky do I feel like having now amongst the choice in the part of the world I am in? E.g. on a hill on Islay at sunset he wants one of the Island's famous specialities. Fair enough.

In truth it is not just Americans who want to know what is best, everyone does! Sometimes you can say what the best is. I say The Who were the best hard rock act of their generation. I say Pilsener Urquel - in optimum condition - is probably the best pilsener beer I have ever had. Fuller 1845 is the best bottled ale I have ever had. Elizabeth David was the best 2Oth century female writer on food and gastronomy. Bettye Jo Boone is the best local historian of bourbon anywhere in these U-nited States, okay?

I can't say which bourbon is best though, there are too many good ones to choose from. Right now, my vatting of two bottles of Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel is pretty darn good. If I had to name one bourbon I might say it was Bobby's Yellowstone Mellow Mash from the 1970's.

Gary

[shoshani]

Why doesn't a Bourbon distiller with a lot of liquor and a lot of resources, like Buffalo Trace or Jim Beam, take some "Bourbon liquor" and put it into used Bourbon barrels for about 20 years? Legally they would not be allowed to call it "Bourbon," but they could call it something else like "New American Whiskey" or "New Kentucky Whiskey" or something. The purpose in all this would be to see what a more complex corn-rye whiskey would taste like.

They've already done it. It's called "Early Times". It is not nearly so complex as bourbon aged in new-charred barrels.

Michael Shoshani

Chicago, IL