Cluny Scotch

[fogfrog]

I drank some Chivas and liked it. Then I visited a Casino just south of Memphis and asked for a scotch while with a friend on the video poker slots. What I got was darn good and I thought it tasted a lot like the Chivas. So the next time the lady came around, I looked at the bottle and it was Cluny.

At the liquor store here in Lenexa KS, Cluny is 15.29 a 1.75L bottle so I bought one. I liked it so much I finished it and bought another. But in the meantime I tried some Famous Old Grouse and found the Grouse lacking in taste, I did not like it nearly as well as I liked the Cluny so I now am favoring the Cluny. Plus the price can't be beat.

Supposedly the Cluny is heavily malted scotch. Maybe that is why I like it. Curious if others have tried it, and if you have, do you know other scotches that have similar taste profiles to this or how would you describe the taste profile?

Some reviews I have seen on the net do not rate this scotch too highly. I wonder why I like it so much since it definitely falls in the realm of cheap stuff!

Thanks,

Paul

[fogfrog]

Oh, this stuff is Scotch but it is made by Heaven Hill in Kentucky. I figure they blend it up there with stuff they got from Scotland.

[Frodo]

Oh, this stuff is Scotch but it is made by Heaven Hill in Kentucky.

??????????????????????????????????????????

[bluesbassdad]

I can't furnish details, but here is confirmation of fogfrog's assertion -- depending upon one's definition of "made by", I suppose.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

I think it is imported in bulk and bottled at HH.

Gary

[Frodo]

Oh, this stuff is Scotch but it is made by Heaven Hill in Kentucky.

Ah! So it's bottled by Heavan Hill, not made by them. That would make sence. I wondered about a scotch made in kentucky...

[boone]

Ah! So it's bottled by Heavan Hill, not made by them. That would make sence. I wondered about a scotch made in kentucky...

B :grin: I :grin: N :grin: G :grin: O

We do not create it.

Scotch is a product of Scotland, made in Scotland.

Same kinda theme as Tequila...it's a product of Mexico. Made in Mexico.

Bourbon is a product of the :grin: USA :grin: Made in the United States of America :grin:

That's the way it's supposed to be. I don't know "for sure" what would happen if someone decided to start making Tequila here in the United States, or if someone in Mexico opened a "Bourbon Distillery". I also wonder if anyone has tried this in the past? All the legal stuff about producing Bourbon became law (in the USA) back in 1964.

During prohibition, My Grandfather (Harry Beam), and Great Grandfather (Joseph L. Beam) and Uncle Otis Beam, dismantled a entire distillery, moved it to Juarez Mexico...and produced for Waterfill and Frazier :grin:

Bettye Jo

[fogfrog]

Bettye Jo,

So do you know about the Cluny then? I love this stuff! What is it that you put in it that makes it so good? I am curious if your other scotches from Heaven Hill are similar.

Thanks,

Paul

[boone]

Bettye Jo,

So do you know about the Cluny then? I love this stuff! What is it that you put in it that makes it so good? I am curious if your other scotches from Heaven Hill are similar.

Thanks,

Paul

I don't think we mess with this at all. It comes in blended...I will double check to make sure this is correct. I've asked that question many years ago...the response might need updating :grin:

You might want to try another of our products :grin: ...The Isle of Jura is a excellent Scotch, so I'm told :grin: Can't vouch from personal preference though...I'm a Bourbon Person :grin:

Click on this link to find more information about it :grin:

http://www.isleofjura.com/newjura/index.htm

[bluesbassdad]

I don't know "for sure" what would happen if someone decided to start making Tequila here in the United States, . . .

Bettye Jo,

I started a thread about just such a situation early last year in regard to a product initially called "Temequila", but now called "JB Wagoner's".

Although the purveyor can't call his product "tequila", he certainly uses the word at every opportunity on his website -- by way of explaining why he can't use the word on the label.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[boone]

Ya learn something everyday :grin:

Or...maybe they have yet to be discovered? Who knows?

I heard "rumor" several years ago that Mexico tried to make "Tequila" a product that can only be produced packaged and sold from Mexico...That idea "would have" closed bottling operations for Tequila in the United States...I heard there was a big "stink" over it...

I found this information on Wikipedia :grin:

On January 17, 2006 the United States and Mexico signed an agreement allowing the continued bulk import of Tequila into the United States. Without this agreement all tequila would have had to be bottled in Mexico. In addition to allowing bulk import, the agreement also created a “tequila bottlers registry” that identifies approved bottlers of tequila.

Other key elements of the agreement include:

• A prohibition on restrictions of bulk tequila exports to the United States;
  
• A prohibition on Mexican regulation of tequila labeling or marketing, as well as the labeling, formulation, and marketing of distilled spirits specialty products outside of Mexico;
  
• Continuation of current practice with respect to addressing Mexican concerns regarding the manufacturing of tequila in the United States; and
  
• Establishment of a working group to monitor the implementation of the agreement.

[edit]

TMA

For more detail on TMA, see the entry in Tequila

Bettye Jo

[Frodo]

You might want to try another of our products :grin: ...The Isle of Jura is a excellent Scotch, so I'm told :grin: Can't vouch from personal preference though...I'm a Bourbon Person :grin:

Click on this link to find more information about it :grin:

http://www.isleofjura.com/newjura/index.htm

I've tried the Jura scotch (12yr & 16yr) and I liked them. Significant coastal flavours and well priced. However, say this on whiskymag.com and you'll take a pounding in terms of credibility, as other posters don't seem to share this opinion. Vive le difference I say. They like stuff I couldn't stand - you'd have to pay me to drink Macallan.

[Frodo]

Bettye Jo,

I started a thread about just such a situation early last year in regard to a product initially called "Temequila", but now called "JB Wagoner's".

Although the purveyor can't call his product "tequila", he certainly uses the word at every opportunity on his website -- by way of explaining why he can't use the word on the label.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

There is a very entertaining spirited debate between JB Wagoner and Ian Chadwick (site admin) on the mumpsimous forum. You'd have to dig for it as it is spread over two threads, but these guys did go for it like hammer and tongs. VERY entertaining!!!

Essentially, Ian posits that tequila can only come from Mexico, as the traditions of tequila making and the cultural influances in Mexican society are part of what makes tequila unique to Mexico. If you are making "tequila" outside Mexico, you are actually making agave spirit - the inference being you lack the cultural "library" or background to make true tequila.

JB argues that the culture of tequila-making as well as the craft expertise can be exported and there's nothing that can be done in Mexico (related to making tequila) that can't be done abroad. A cultural vs scientific argument at it's (oversimplified) core.

Keep in mind that Ian doesn't like imprecise wordings, and when JB compares asking for a keelex with asking for a paper product tissue, he uses this as an example why he shouldn't ba able to call his stuff tequila. You can imagine Ian's responce!!!! Fun for us readers!!!

[Frodo]

I heard "rumor" several years ago that Mexico tried to make "Tequila" a product that can only be produced packaged and sold from Mexico...That idea "would have" closed bottling operations for Tequila in the United States...I heard there was a big "stink" over it...

Bettye Jo

Hi Bettye Jo:

Just for clarification, "Tequila" is protected by the same international laws that prohibit "Cognac, Armanac, Scotch whisky, or Bourbon whisky" from being made in a foreign country. You can make brandy anywhere, just not Cognac. You can make "whisky" anywhere just not Bourbon or Scotch.

I'm 100% sure of this.

A lot of bulk tequila is shipped to and bottled in the US. I think you may have found something regarding this practise.

Cheers

[Gillman]

You know that's a very interesting debate. I know for example some beer specialists state that a beer can't be duplicated elsewhere than on its home ground. CAMRA argues this even for beers whose production locale is being moved with England. Some people have suggested that Pilsener Urquel, some of which for export (e.g., the one we get in Canada) is made in Poland now, is not genuine, not "the same".

I don't buy that at all. I have drunk Urquel for 30 years and have always found it to taste substantially as it does today. I think anything (almost) can be duplicated elsewhere with enough effort. It has been pointed out that a company in Oregon makes a peated malt whisky (it uses imported Scottish peated malt); I find it very similar to many younger Islay malts. It is very much in that family. Can it state on the label Scotch, or Scots whisky? No, but it is almost the same thing.

Now, I have found in tequila that a 100% blue agave spirit made in South Africa is quite removed (just my opinion) from a range of tequilas I have tasted (genuine Mexican ones). That does not prove that a "true" tequila cannot be made outside Mexico, it just means no one has achieved it yet (there was mention recently on the board of an American tequila-like spirit, I haven't tried that one yet so I can't say in that regard).

It remains true that most great drinks do have a local or national character. And so they should because they are products of local industry and indeed to a point local cultural memory and habits ("terroir" in a word). And because of this, most producers I think do not want to bother duplicating something made elsewhere. They prefer to make something distinctive. I also believe that trade laws should protect local appellations, I have no problem with that.

But I believe that, say, Bourbon (or a bourbon-like drink, since the name is reserved to American production) could easily be made outside the U.S. if someone wanted to. This is obvious in fact. The climate in Ontario isn't that different from that in upstate New York, yet you are telling me a true straight bourbon or other whiskey can be made there but not Ontario? Of course it can. The same must be true (in my opinion) of tequila. But again I agree Mexico only should have the right to call tequila, tequila; that is a different point.

Gary

[Frodo]

But I believe that, say, Bourbon (or a bourbon-like drink, since the name is reserved to American production) could easily be made outside the U.S. if someone wanted to. This is obvious in fact. The climate in Ontario isn't that different from that in upstate New York, yet you are telling me a true straight bourbon or other whiskey can be made there but not Ontario? Of course it can. The same must be true (in my opinion) of tequila. But again I agree Mexico only should have the right to call tequila, tequila; that is a different point.

Gary

Hi Gary:

1) Dave Broom in "Whisky Handbook" mentions that John Hall from Kittling Ridge distillery (Fourty-Creek whisky) makes several whiskies for blending including a bourbon-style whisky. I agree with you on this point - it should be a short step to making a straight bourbon style whisky up here. What we would lack is the familly interconnectedness of the Beams/Noes and the cultural heritage from this. Could we make a reasonable copy? Probably. Could we make something that would fool a true enthusiest? I doubt it. Would the climate of Ontario make a noticable difference? I'll leave that to others more suited to answer.

Similar point made in Glenora with the Glen Scotia distillery making malt whisky. It's not Scotch, but the Scotch Whisky Association is having a heart attack with a Cdn dsitillery calling itself "Glen anything" - concerns about confusing the consumers. Point here is that Scotch style malt whisky is made in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan (I don't know about the US). The differences between true Scotch and scotch-style whiskies are a matter for debate (ie. how different and in what ways).

2) With Tequila, the big difference would be the raw materials. Agave grows for 7-10 years until harvested, thus giving more of a terrior influance. I guess if you found a climate that was simmilar, this difference might be minimized. It is an additional variable though.

[Gillman]

Well, I am not sure about John Hall's bourbon-like whiskey. He makes an all corn spirit but first, it is not a corn and rye or corn and wheat spec; second, he does not sell it unblended; third, I believe he distills it at higher than 160 proof (based on the taste of 40 Creek whiskeys which are very good but lighter than bourbon whiskey by a fair margin in my view). But this is not to say he couldn't make real bourbon if he wanted to. I believe he could quite easily. He couldn't call it bourbon, but he could make something quite similar. In fact other Canadian distilleries used to make a bourbon-type whiskey to add to high proof whisky to flavour it. Some of those in-house flavouring whiskeys might taste like bourbon or straight rye. I just don't think bourbon is (or has to be) that local a drink. It can be made from a corn and rye-based grist and distilled twice at under 160 proof anywhere. It used to be made in many States with climates quite variable, so why not in Canada, or Australia...? But I view this as more theoretical than anything. I don't think we should try to make bourbon. We should continue to make blended whisky, the Canadian national specialty. But if someone wants to try, I think he could do it quite easily: it's a process.

Gary

[gr8erdane]

Well, Gary, there are several variables I can think of that could prevent a whiskey made from the same basic ingredients from tasting like a true Kentucky bourbon. One is the water. The limestone filtered water would be hard to reproduce in sufficient quantities if it wasn't available locally. Remember that minerals that are filtered out of the water by the limestone like iron can drastically change not only the taste but also the look of the whiskey. And it's as much what minerals are in the water as the ones that aren't. Climate you have already covered. If my geography serves me right, most of Canada has long summers and winters and very short spring and fall seasons to transition between them. And what about the wild yeasts that might live in the different climates which might overpower the preferred proprietary strains? While legally you could make bourbon in upstate NY, would we recognize it as what we know as bourbon? Maybe and maybe not.

[barturtle]

Actually, at least one, if not both of the distilleries in Louisville use Louisville city water(and that water comes from the Ohio River, after flowing down from Pitt and past Cincy, Yuck!). It (or they) have filters that add and subtract the proper minerals in the water(You wouldn't want fluoride-which Lou. water has added to it- in sizable quantities ending up in your bottles-it's poisonous!) Also the advent of climate control would make the seasons easy to replicate.

[JeffRenner]

The limestone filtered water would be hard to reproduce in sufficient quantities if it wasn't available locally.

As Timothy has pointed out, river water is used by some distilleries. According to the Regan's The Bourbon Companion, BT uses "Filtered Kentucky River water, adjusted for mineral content," and the two Louisville distilleries use "Filtered city water, adjusted for mineral content."

I suspect that even the rest of the distilleries, which all use either spring water or spring-fed lake water, may well adjust the mineral content.

It isn't hard to reproduce the mineral profile wanted/needed by using reverse osmosis, then adding minerals. It is done all the time in the beer industry. That's how Budweiser gets such consistency in its breweries around the world. Well, one part of their consistency.

Jeff

[Gillman]

Then too all that water whatever its source is distilled and I wonder how many minerals follow the steam into the condenser. Maybe their role is more when interracting at fermentation stage, i.e., to help produce specific congeners which are in fact volatile. Also, I referred not to Kentucky bourbon in my original comments, but American bourbon. Hirsch 16 is an American bourbon and it was made (and aged at least part of its life) in a climate, Pennsylvania's, not that different from southern Ontario's I think. I'd like to think you are right, Dane (and maybe you are!) but I just don't know.. Maybe one day we can all tour a Canadian distillery which may still make in-house a bourbon-type straight whisky and try it and decide for ourselves. I understand Seagram used to make such a product for in-house blending use only, but I am not sure if they do anymore, they may simply bring in real bourbon from Four Roses or some other source in the U.S. I just know from beer brewing that so many great beers can be made far from source. I have found this with porters and Russian stouts especially. Just the other day in Toronto I had a Helles Bock that I doubt could be improved in Bavaria. Anyway this question is mostly moot since apart from some beer specialties (and it's a different market from spirits) why would anyone want to make such an imitation? Better to make something unique.

Gary

[Frodo]

In fact other Canadian distilleries used to make a bourbon-type whiskey to add to high proof whisky to flavour it. Some of those in-house flavouring whiskeys might taste like bourbon or straight rye.

Gary

I believe this is in fact what John Hall does. I think other distilleries also do this as well.

[Frodo]

But I view this as more theoretical than anything. I don't think we should try to make bourbon. We should continue to make blended whisky, the Canadian national specialty. But if someone wants to try, I think he could do it quite easily: it's a process.

Gary

In theory I agree! In practice, I have yet to find a Cdn whisky that makes me stand up and say WOW (like Bookers, Blanton's, Ardbeg or Middleton VR). I don't know what it is...Someone I know toured Alberta Distillers Distillery and tasted a flavouring whisky which impressed him to no end. He ended up posting that he wished that distillery would release that whisky on it's own! This from a malt lover!

Chuck Cowdrey posted a lot on another thread about the make-up of blended whiskies - a core of flavour whiskies surrounded by cheaper ones or NGS in the US. Blended whisky doesn't have to be made like this. John Glaser argues that if you use quality ingrediants, there's no reason why you shouldn't a get good quality blend. His Asyla blend is 10yrs at minimum (he said) but is 60% malt, 40% grain.

I'm not going to get into Middleton VR or Johnny Walker Blue - products made for a different market. I'm going to say that Cdn whisky makers could make interesting blends if they put their minds to it - no reason why not! Just don't get me started on the 9.09% non-whisky component that can get into the bottle here!

[Gillman]

Well, regarding Alberta Distillers, there you go. That is an in-house produced (as far as we know) straight-type whisky, i.e., distilled at under 160 proof. I don't think John Hall makes that but I am not sure. I think what he does is distill a number of whiskies, each made from one cereal mash only (and maybe barley malt), e.g., one corn whisky, one malt whisky and one rye whisky, age them separately, and then blend them for sale, and that each is distilled at over 160. But you may be right that some of these are distilled under that, I wish I knew for sure.

The reason Canadian whisky is not as distinctive as bourbon is most of it is high proof spirits.

If, say, half was composed of bourbons and ryes, or more than half, and the other half, or less, of aged high proof, it would be much better. This is how I build my own blends. You can too, e.g. take any Canadian whisky, say CC, and add some Beam Black or any other bourbon to it. You have made an improved blend. As for flavourings, I think they have their place. There is nothing inherently wrong with them, but they need to be used with discretion. You mentioned liking Black Bush because more of the sherry taste gets in due to aging a high proportion of the malt component in sherry cask. I do not see the difference between aging whisky in that way and pouring a little sherry into a finished whisky, to me it is essentially the same thing.

Gary

[Frodo]

The reason Canadian whisky is not as distinctive as bourbon is most of it is high proof spirits.

Gary

BINGO!!! Give the man a cigar!!!!