Bourbon Not A Bourbon (JD)

[bluesbassdad]

Bj,

I'm with you on this one.

Next thing you know someone may take up my cockamamie idea of substituting one stave of some other wood in each oak barrel. (I once opined that EC12 tastes a little like eucalyptus. Why not try just one, itsy-bitsy eucalyptus stave in each barrel.) Or "finishing" a bourbon in a barrel of some other wood. Or an uncharred oak barrel.

Would the resulting product in each case still be bourbon? I think not; but then who am I to say?

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[wadewood]

Or "finishing" a bourbon in a barrel of some other wood. Or an uncharred oak barrel.

Wild Turkey has a product called "Sherry Signature" that is finished in a Sherry cask. They do not call the finished product bourbon. They do say it is made from bourbon.

[cowdery]

All but a handful of whiskies, scotches as well as bourbons, are filtered before bottling, usually at temperatures approaching freezing. This "chill-filtering" process removes amino acids that cause flocking or "chill haze." This processing is only necessary for whiskies bottled at below full (i.e., 100) proof. In many and possibly all cases, the filtration material used includes some charcoal. The difference is that this filter is paper thin, whereas the tank used for the Lincoln County process is ten feet tall and jammed full of gravel-sized pieces of charcoal. It takes a second for whiskey to pass through the former type of charcoal filter, while it takes days for it to go through the Lincoln County one.

You'll notice that the "Beam's Choice" label resembles the JD green label in other subtle ways too. I believe they put that "charcoal filtering" statement on there deliberately to confuse the issue. They're not alone. Some other bourbons that, just coincidentally I'm sure also come in square bottles, do it too.

But you do raise an interesting point. Although I have described the difference between the two processes, both involve the whiskey coming into contact with charcoal.

[squire]

Chuck I don't see it much now days but in the '70s it seems that every other square bottle on the shelves had "Charcoal Filtered" on the label somewhere prominent.

Squire

[Ken Weber]

Chuck, do you think that the since JD only goes through a single distillation, the initial charcoal filtration basically accomplishes the same thing that a doubler does? In other words, do both processes "polish" the whiskey?

Ken

[Gillman]

I'll let Chuck make the final call as you asked him, but Jack Daniel's is distilled twice before charcoal leaching. It exits the doubler at 140 F and then submits to the week-long mellowing process.

Gary

[drew_kulsveen]

JD is what I call an adulterated product. As for the proof being lowered, it makes sense for them to do it. If you produce roughly 5,000,000 cases a year at 43% Alc/Vol like JD then you reduce it to 40% Alc/Vol, You gain approximately 79251.6 Proof Gallons(41,711 cases) without doing anything else. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Gillman]

Why do you say "adulterated", Drew?

Gary

[cowdery]

Is JD not doubled? I did not know that. Doubling removes congeners, as does the Lincoln County Process (LCP), but doubling also removes water, increasing the proof, which the LCP does not. However, both are forms of rectification. This does once again raise the point that mere variation from normal bourbon practice, if the regs are silent about that particular practice, would not necessarily offend the regs.

[cowdery]

Drew,

There is very little doubt that the proof change was a way to increase profits by paying less in tax and at the same time getting customers to pay the same price for water that they were paying for whiskey. I suppose you could interpret that as "stretching" production, but I don't think Jack has any production problems that would force it to stretch existing inventory by reducing bottling proof.

I suppose that if you're buying whiskey to re-sell, rather than making it, stretching stocks would be an important consideration. If you're making it, and have sufficient capacity, you just make more. Once you've got a distillery up and going, whiskey is really cheap to make. The incremental costs are minimal.

It couldn't be simpler. If you can reduce the proof of an existing, high volume product without losing sales you totally should do it, because your customers will be paying the same price for water that they were paying for whiskey, and you'll pay a lot less in excise tax, since that's based on proof.

As has also been pointed out here, in countries where whiskey sold at less than 80 proof doesn't have to be labeled "diluted," as it does here, JD black is 70 proof.

As for "adulterated," that is a word you don't want to throw around lightly and you should at least minimally justify its use, not just leave it hanging out there like that.

[jace33]

Dear Chuck

Does the lower proof add more of marketablity to those who mix their booze?

Do all lower prooffing have less flavor then higher proof?

In my option the high proof bourbons have more flavor than the 80/90 proofs except in older agging bourbon.

Next qeustion how big of a part does the yeast play in the flavor role?

[Gillman]

In 1995 Jimmy Bedford stated Jack Daniel's is redistilled in a doubler. He stated the purpose is to remove undesirables from the whiskey. See www.realbeer.com/maltadvocate/u95/U95DAN.html

Gary

[cowdery]

A modern column still can achieve 160 proof in a single pass, but the doubler provides "polish," as Ken said, so I would have been surprised if Jack is not doubled.

By the way, "doubler" is just a name. It doesn't, for example, double the proof.

[cowdery]

Proof differences in whiskey are primarily about value, although some people prefer the taste of a higher proof whiskey drunk neat. Traditionally (by which I mean before Prohibition and immediately after), straight whiskey was always 100 proof. Proof cutting began in part because consumers wanted a lighter taste and in part because a proof cut always represents a hidden price increase (substituting water for whiskey). As this process went on, the trade tended to expect so-called "premium" products to be higher proof than the minimum of 80. The common proof points were 80, 86, 94 and 100. Then people started doing "odd" proofs, just to be different. There is no magic to any particular proof. The equation is really just more proof, more whiskey, less water.

Yeast is a significant contributor to flavor.

[greenbob]

If you can reduce the proof of an existing, high volume product without losing sales you totally should do it, because your customers will be paying the same price for water that they were paying for whiskey, and you'll pay a lot less in excise tax, since that's based on proof.

Chuck,

Please forgive me for asking a question with what I expect has an obvious answer. But I'm still troubled by your use of the word "should" in the quote above. Given what you have said in this post, and given what you said in your 11/26/04 response to jace33, I assume that "should" means what the distillers should do from a purely business standpoint, right? It's not something that distillers should do for the high quality whiskies that the people on this forum like, right?

Actually as I proof this post I notice the term "high volume" in your quote. This makes me feel better. This makes the answers to my questions all the more obvious.

[cowdery]

I assume that "should" means what the distillers should do from a purely business standpoint, right?

Yes, that is a correct assumption.

[lakegz]

wow, i can only imagine how flat a 70 proof JD would taste and feel. who would buy such a bottle if not for novelty reasons?

[Gillman]

A question that arises in my mind: is any Bourbon or Tennessee whiskey made today subjected to only one distillation?

I believe the answer is no.

Sam Cecil in his book states that over the years some distillers have distilled once only, e.g., in a short-chambered beer still without a rectifier or doubler attached or in a true pot still because he refers sometimes to a "charge still" (one that you have to recharge with mash after the previous distillation). He writes that when single runs were last tried, in the early 1970's, the plan was soon abandoned because the results were not good. This means of course the liquor was too congeneric and would take too long to age. I am sure the Rowan's Creek I bought recently was made in a continuous still with doubler or thumper annexed. Still, at some nine and one-half years of age it shows a big "distillery" character. This may reflect a higher level of natural flavouring compounds than is found in many other whiskeys that age. This ain't no sissy whiskey, in other words, and I am glad of it. Perhaps it started out like all the others but simply has taken longer to mature and the house deemed it meet to release at this time for connoisseurs of robust taste. I think were it aged a few years more those "vegetable roots" (great term from Chuck C) would dampen down somewhat. Sometimes a whiskey can be too clean, though, I was thinking that the current Knob Creek is an example of a very clean whiskey and some people like that of course. I did (in the glass) recently vat this Rowan's Creek and Knob Creek (1:2 respectively) - a confluence of creeks you might say - and man is the result good. The distillery character of the Rowan's Creek is eased down a bit and is given a nice frame of vanilla and peanut brittle-like tastes; correlatively the Knob Creek is amped up by its riverine relation. Oh yeah!!!!!!!!!

Gary