Non-Chill Filtered

[mgilbertva]

I love the Willett label. It's the classiest looking label out there for any whiskey, IMO.

[TNbourbon]

For some reason I remember them being ERSB...but I had a bit to drink that day:lol:

I recall the filtered vs non-chill filtered taste test. Truman (AKA Etochem here) over at BT provided two samples of 14yo Eagle Rare SB.....filtered and non-filtered. 9 out of 10 picked which were which. Truman was very surprised that the group got it right.

Randy

You guys are probably right -- though I'm sure he also sent along a solo SFTB Blanton's sample, too, because I remember being disappointed I didn't find it significantly better than standard Blanton's. But, that may have been later at the Gazebo.

Anyway, for whatever reason, I simply flat out preferred the filtered one. Correspondingly, I don't care so much whether or not a bourbon is filtered as whether or not I like it.

[MacinJosh]

Has anyone done a side by side of the same bourbon chilled and non-chilled? Would make for an interesting tasting if done blind.

[sutton]

To your point, here is a very interesting article on the topic written by one of the Malt Maniacs ... as close to a real experiment as I've ever seen.

http://www.maltmaniacs.net/E-pistles/Malt_Maniacs_2012_01_The%20Taste%20of%20Chill%20Filtration.pdf

[scratchline]

That Malt Maniacs chill-filtration report is fantastic. On so many levels. The prejudices that taint personal preferences for different whiskies are insidious and innumerable. Add to that the fact that the strongest opinions tend to be offered when people are half in the bag (often the barrel-proof bag) and the loudest voices can often be dismissed as the dumbest. The general rule should be: "Sip blind and spit or shut the f--- up". At the very least, turn down the volume and proceed cautiously. That only the novice taster could distinguish the chill-filtered from the non-chill-filtered whiskies should give all "experts" serious pause.

Thanks so much for sharing the link to that!

On a side note, last year I enjoyed some Blanton's Straight From the Barrel at the Auld Alliance in Singapore where the tasting was conducted and it's worth the trip. That's both the whiskey and the bar.

[ebo]

Ardmore TC is also unchill filtered.

[sutton]

That Malt Maniacs chill-filtration report is fantastic. On so many levels. The prejudices that taint personal preferences for different whiskies are insidious and innumerable. Add to that the fact that the strongest opinions tend to be offered when people are half in the bag (often the barrel-proof bag) and the loudest voices can often be dismissed as the dumbest. The general rule should be: "Sip blind and spit or shut the f--- up". At the very least, turn down the volume and proceed cautiously. That only the novice taster could distinguish the chill-filtered from the non-chill-filtered whiskies should give all "experts" serious pause.

The natural bias is that chill-filtration removes flavor/body; hence you tend to believe the sample you favor is non-chill filtered. But as Josh points out, it can remove off flavor compounds as well. I think he makes a good point about making a taste assessment on whether to perform chill filtration prior to bottling, but it is probably impractical. For high end bottlings, you do the "cask-strength/un-chill filtered" thing because that will carry perceived value with the customer - even if you "improved" it with the chill filtration the assumption would be that you removed something desireable.

I read this article a couple of times to see if I could come up with a flaw in the experimental design, but it seemed a pretty decent experiment. You could improve this test by not telling the tasters they are being given chill filtered and non-chill filtered samples; just present the samples and ask them to state a taste preference. The only other thing I wondered is whether exposure to oxygen affected the chill filtered and non-chilled filtered samples differently; since the chill-filtered samples got significant aeration in the slow process of filtering described in the article. Perhaps the chill filtered samples went a bit flat...

[Young Blacksmith]

The only flaw I saw in the article was the choice of spirits... :cool: (I'm putting my flame suit on now)

[Restaurant man]

Got an non-chill filtered EC12 from the party source that was awesome. I'll be getting more soon

[BradleyC]

Thanks for the info MacinJosh and Sutton. Thanks also for bumping this thread. I don't think that I have ever read this one. The findings are counter intuitive to what I have trained myself to believe, but I have never done an experiment like either of these. I also don't have any hard facts to base my own personal opinion on so could very well be misinformed. Very interesting stuff. This makes me want to try the EC12 side by side. I understand those aren't the same barrel or batches, but I'm not willing to do my own chill filtration myself.

[BradleyC]

Got an non-chill filtered EC12 from the party source that was awesome. I'll be getting more soon

Have you done a side by side comparison with the regular EC12? I would be interested to hear your thoughts. I would also be interested to hear blind tasting results between the two.

[CoMobourbon]

This conversation, though really interesting, seems limited by its emphasis of flavor over texture/body/mouth-feel. While definitely need to re-examine our assumptions about chill-filtering and flavor, our assumptions about chill-filtering and texture/body/mouth-feel seem more straightforward: surely chill-filtering, by removing lipids, makes the liquid feel thinner. (right?) And thinner is worse, at least for me. (right?)

I should clarify first that mouth-feel and body are always more important to me than flavor. Really, so long as the flavor crosses a certain basic good threshold, mouth-feel and body are my main and sometimes only criteria for preferring one bourbon over another. Don't get me wrong - I like bourbon flavors and appreciate the differences in different bourbon flavors. But there is just something about mouth-feel that gets my attention. Maybe basic physical properties like body, mouth-feel, and viscosity have a kind of amplifying effect that makes all the difference; they physically enable the juice to spread over the tongue and stick to it in ways that intensify whatever flavors are present and, crucially, lengthen the finish. According to this framework, as long as the flavor isn't BAD, thicker and heavier mouth-feels tends to be a good thing. I mean, even if the flavor profile of bourbon A is exquisite, if its flavors are fainter and shorter than those of (pretty good) bourbon B, is bourbon A really better? Probably not. For me, a relative newcomer without years and years of palate development, faintly delicious bourbon A is NEVER better than intensely good bourbon B.

And I could be totally wrong, but I would think that filtering out the lipids MUST make the whiskey feel thinner, the infinite variability of subjective experience notwithstanding. We are talking about physics/chemistry (science!) here. For the reasons I have explained above, I prefer thicker feeling whiskey.

So, exceptions aside, (and there are always TONS of exceptions to every rule), I would prefer non chill-filtered every time and would not mind at all if they just stopped chill-filtering pretty much any decent+ whiskey. Chill-filtering only sometimes improves flavor, apparently, but I would think that it ALWAYS / CATEGORICALLY hurts mouthfeel and body. So on the whole, and regardless of our simplistic ideas about chill-filtering, more non-chill-filtered whiskeys is totally better. (Right?)

*I recognize that the article in question addresses mouth-feel, but it does not account for it as thoroughly/systemically as would be necessary to satisfy me on this account. Texture is huge for me in general, and I have trouble understanding why it is not the central question in chill-filtering; physics and chemistry (science again!) seem to dictate that filtering out lipids and such will affect body/mouthfeel (one way or another) more than anything.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CoMobourbon
important afterthought

[MacinJosh]

I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

[ebo]

I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

I would tend to agree. I have never had a corn, rye, wheat whiskey that has the same mouth feel as single malt scotch. That doesn't mean they aren't out there.

[CoMobourbon]

I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

Maybe someday. Even if mouth-feel is more important to me than flavor, QPR - or really just price outright - is most important of all to me right now.

But that's actually really interesting; I have not yet had the opportunity/budget space to discover this for myself. I will have to think about that and try some SMS's against my favorite bourbons when I get the chance.

Thanks a lot. I learn something new on this site everyday (well, at least every once in a while :grin:).

[MacinJosh]

No problem.

You will find WAY more NCF options in SMS than Bourbon too. A far wider pool to choose from. Try a few from different regions and see if any of them speak to you. I have a feeling, based on mouth feel alone, you're going to fall in love....