TOTM, 3/07: Column Stills

[koji]

Can I ask about the history of the Column Still.

When did the first column still appear in the distillation of whiskey in the

States, or even in Europe?

When you see these whiskey companies say (Jim Beam, Jack Daniel's etc)

"The same way we used to make it in the OLD DAYS"isn't really the same

way is it? because when they (Jack and Beam and all)started out in the

OLD DAYS it was all Pot Still.

I asked the people at Vendome once about the first Column Stills but there

company history started after the appearence of the Column Still and they

had no real answer, as to when it was born or been started to use.

And they started there company in the early 1900's.

Who introduced the Column Still, and when?

If this History was already talked about sorry.And I havent really Googled

this so I will after this.

I will attach the Photo of the Vendome Family and a model of the Still.

From Last years visit.

[cowdery]

History of the column still.

Robert Stein, in Scotland, is credited with working out most of the details in about 1826. He was a cousin of John Haig and first put his ideas into practice at Haig’s Cameronbridge Distillery. A few years later, Aeneas Coffey made some refinements and sought a patent.

I'm not exactly clear on the connection between one thing and the other, but the invention of the continuous still made possible the distillation of whiskey from a mash that included cheaper un-malted grains.

From that point forward, there was experimentation with blending of the two kinds of whiskey. The first to make it a commercial proposition was Andrew Usher of Edinburgh, who began offering Old Vatted Glenlivet in London in about 1844.

The column still became popular in the United States and Canada after about 1860.

[Gillman]

Early versions of steam distillation go back the beginning of the 1800's, a progenitor is referred to by M'Harry in 1809. Also, there were improved pot stills available (early illustrations show e.g. a series of linked "eggs"). One of the earliest practical improved stills was the Adam still. I am not sure if this used steam to analyse the heated wash or mashes.

Foreshots and heads can be removed from some column stills depending how they are designed and used. A staged column can be built whereby you can draw the ethanol only (or mostly ethanol - these are always mixtures) from the lower section. If the column is not high enough it isn't practical to do this separation although home distillers (where this is legal!) have ways to achieve this.

Depending on what kind of alcohol you want to produce, you may rely on sufficient dilution of the methanol.

Methanol is a poison but in very small amounts together with some tails contribute flavor and make whiskey (and tequila, cognac, etc.) what it is.

As to undesireable tails (high boilers), temperature control is the main thing in column distillation for bourbon.

Again, for other liquors, there are ways in sophisticated still houses to separate the undesireable tails.

You can always re-distill a distillate to eliminate undesirable tails but in bourbon production there is the upward limit of 160 proof to deal with.

See www.homedistiller.org for descriptions of distilling equipment and the theory of distillation. Mike Nixon's 1999 essay, linked to the theory section, is superb.

Note the three main kinds of equipment used: pot still; reflux still; fractionating column still. See the pictures of home-made column stills and how the operators achieve (where desired) 95% purity in their mixtures. It is also explained how these stills can be used to make cognac, whiskey, etc. Note of course that home distillation is legal in New Zealand, where these materials originate, and illegal in most other places! I refer to these materials simply for their academic value.

Gary

[nor02lei]

First I want to pay tribute to Jeff for bringing up this very interesting monthly thread.

When visiting Kentucky in September one of the biggest question of issue I had was the difference of the distillation technique between USA and Scotland in general and the logic behind the high proof from the third still at Woodford in particular. Not that much of the precise theoretical technique but mostly about the outcome of different methods. When I did visit the Woodford distillery the “one of a kind man†Chris Morris explained it to me like this:

Column distillation produces a lighter spirit than pot still distillation at the same proof. No question about that. However the American mash is significant heavier flavoured than the Scottish one, peaty Islay counted. In Scotland in contrary to USA they do filter away the grain solids with make the mash even thinner. These facts make the pot still method perfect for the Scottish single malt, al row a column distillation would make a far to thin final product. In USA however the heavy mash make the column still prefect. At Woodford were they use pot still a double distillation to the same proof as the 2 other B-F distilleries would create a to heavy final product that would be impossible to sell in commercial amounts. That is the reason why they distil 3 times to 158 proof. Since they don’t want to filter away the grain solids the first pot still have a special design with a reverse pyramid in the bottom were the solids go out. According to Chris this is the only one in the world of its kind. This said they aren’t completely satisfied with the pot still whiskey by it self so Woodford reserve will continue to be a blend with whiskey from the Louisville distillery for ever.

Leif

[Gillman]

Well put Leif.

Certainly the column still has become the classic still to make bourbon.

But pot stills were used initially and until the end of the 1800's. Surely their operators perfected bourbon using this equipment.

B-F has only been doing it for a little while and is still learning how best to utilise mashes and pot stills together.

Gary

[nor02lei]

But pot stills were used initially and until the end of the 1800's. Surely their operators perfected bourbon using this equipment.

Gary

The reason for filtering before cocking in a pot still is to prevent the mash to be burnt at the bottom of the still. Do you Gary or anybody else know how they solved this in the old pot still times in USA.

Leif

[Gillman]

Byrn refers to pot stills in which chains are drawn over the bottom to agitate the mash and ensure it does not stick. M'Harry refers also to the need to agitate the mash (simply to stit in manually) and also used other tricks, e.g., placing soaps and fats in the pot to grease it. Some American mashes might have been filtered but the 1800's sources I have read make it clear that unfiltered mashes were used successfully in pot stills. B-F has worked out its own system for WR.

Gary

[nor02lei]

Byrn refers to pot stills in which chains are drawn over the bottom to agitate the mash and ensure it does not stick. M'Harry refers also to the need to agitate the mash (simply to stit in manually) and also used other tricks, e.g., placing soaps and fats in the pot to grease it. Some American mashes might have been filtered but the 1800's sources I have read make it clear that unfiltered mashes were used successfully in pot stills. B-F has worked out its own system for WR.

Gary

Very interesting Gary. It seems that it always has been considered important to keep the grain solids intact in the mash at the first distillation in USA.

Leif