mbanu

If this has already been covered somewhere, I apologize. So why exactly does wine age in the bottle? Is it mostly chemical reactions between the wine's various components? And why does this supposedly only happen with wine and not with spirits? For instance, I've read things which mention how tannins precipitate in the bottle over time, leading to a more mellow wine. But most spirits contain tannins as well... does this not happen with spirits, or are the people who say spirits don't change in the bottle incorrect? What other sort of chemical changes does wine go through in the bottle? Is the difference because spirits are generally sealed with screwcaps, while wine is mostly sealed with corks? Does it have to do with the alcohol content? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

We've got Cachaça down here, but sadly no Rhum Agricole. :) I'd be interested in doing a side by side taste test.

Besides the usual rum drinks, I like making 151 orange daiquiris. :) (I'm sure they have a proper name, but I don't know what it is at the moment) 1 ounce Bacardi 151 (or other overproof rum) 1 ounce orange juice 1/2 ounce lime juice 1/2 ounce simple syrup Shake and strain.

Perhaps if you could elaborate on what it is that you dislike about the French 75 using your current recipe?

The information on Plymoth is quite useful. Thank you very much. :) Whether or not the flavors would be harsh depends primarily on how the wash is treated, and the distillation process. Whether or not it would be "gin-like" is a very valid point. Assuming that their primary botanical is still juniper, I suppose it would be, but since as both of us have agreed noone makes gin like this, I suppose it's hard to say one way or the other. :) But with the higher proof Booker's you're given more opportunity. :) Let's say you wish to make a whiskey sour. You can make it the same way you always do, only cutting the Booker's down to appropriate strength with water before using. Or you can use the opportunity to cut it down with other ingredients, orange juice, tea, whichever, that you wouldn't have had the opportunity to use before without modifying the other ingredient ratio to keep it the same strength. Plus given the higher proof you can suddenly be more creative with it. Use it as a float on top of cocktails or in the top layer of pousse cafes instead of Bacardi 151 for instance. :) Set it on fire if you care to. :P As the proof increases, options increase. As long as it's not at the cost of flavor, this is a good thing.

If you're wandering around the store looking for a more flavorful aged product, here's a few things to look for: Age statements - All other things being equal, the older it is the more flavorful it is. "Barrel proof" declarations - Some producers market barrel proof bottlings. These are generally more flavorful. Bottling proof to a degree. For instance, if two versions of a liquor by the same distiller come in at 80 proof and 100 proof, the stronger one will be more flavorful than the weaker one, but not necessarily more flavorful than a competing brand. After a while it comes down to either going by customer reviews, buying a test bottle and comparing yourself, or talking to people at the distilleries or online who can give you the information you need. Quite helpfully, in Gary Regan's The Book of Bourbon and Other Fine American Whiskeys he has a rather lengthy list of all the major bourbon distillers at the time that the book was published, that includes the distillation proofs and barrel proofs of all their bourbons. Ick. That's the other thing to remember. :) More flavorful doesn't necessarily mean more good flavors. :) Whether or not the extra flavors of a lower distillation proof will be worth having are entirely based on the quality of the base mash. A good mash will take you to many surprising places. :) That's how Germain-Robin's $100 American brandies distilled from quality wines have been able to compete with $1,000 French brandies distilled from crappy ones. ;)

Well I would agree with you that with infused spirits distillation proof becomes less important because there are more variables. But I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. It's role just isn't as obvious. With infused spirits instead of one or two important variables (distillation proof and barrel proof if it's aged) you have three (distillation proof, wash proof, botanical concentration), or possibly four if it's aged. Wash proof effects non-infused spirits too, but not really as much because most washes are within 5-15% abv. With infusions however they can be anywhere from 5%-95% so it's more of an issue. If you use a low botanical concentration, (such as using a gin head) it's cheaper because it uses less botanicals to flavor the same amount of spirit, but it makes a less flavorful gin, all other things being equal. If you use a high wash proof (such as making your gin "tea" out of 40%abv neutral spirits) it's cheaper because you need less botanicals to flavor the same volume of gin, but it makes a less flavorful gin, all other things being equal. If you use a high distillation proof it's cheaper because you get more gin out of your efforts. But once again, all other things being equal, you get a less flavorful gin. For instance if you start out with 50% abv vodka and redistill it through a gin head to 79% abv, and then water it down into 40% abv gin, it will be very lightly flavored. I don't know how many distillers do this though (besides possibly Bombay Sapphire), since you can get the same results through using essential oils and it's probably cheaper. On the other hand if you start out with a 10% abv wash steeped with a large number of botanicals and then distilled to 55% abv and cut into 40% abv gin, it will be far more flavorful. I also sincerely doubt any distillers fall on this end of the extreme either, since it really isn't a very cost effective way of making gin, and most gin marketing is going towards luring in vodka drinkers, not giving a "ginny" gin to people who already drink gin.

Well not quite. Flavor strength is primarily related to distillation proof. If a spirit fresh off the still is 95% abv and is diluted to 50% (like some vodkas), it will have less flavor than a spirit distilled to 67% abv and diluted to 40% (like some bourbons); even though the second one is a lower proof, it has been diluted less. Yep. This is one of the reasons some distillers distill light rum to such a high proof. The way that many distillers make their mash, by fermenting the molasses with wild airborne yeasts, create rather nasty flavors that would only be more obvious at lower distillation proofs. Distillation proofs being equal, I'd prefer the higher proof, simply because I can add water to the liquor myself, if needed, plus I'm given more flexibility in using other ingredients instead. If I wanted a 15% abv coffee liqueur, I could buy a 15% abv coffee liqueur, or I could cut my Kahlua with water, coffee, cola, melted ice cream, whatever and end up at the same 15% abv, but with more options as to how to get there.

Yeah, they may. But it's $10 bourbon. It's just as cheap as Evan Williams black label, which many use to mix. ← Well, true. I suppose it depends on one's view of mixing. If one would use 10 year old single malt scotch for mixing with lemon-lime soda and VSOP cognac for mixing with cola, because one felt that only the assertive flavors of aged spirits had any chance of shining through all that mixer, then it would be perfectly appropriate to use a 10 year old single malt bourbon that way. But if one were the sort who thought mixing older spirits robbed them of subtle flavors, and would cringe at the thought of doing anything of the sort to their cognac or scotch, it would seem a bit unusual to do the same with their bourbon, simply because they made out like a bandit pricewise. :)

That Evan Williams is an incredible buy. That's my go to bourbon for mixing with ginger ale. I think it's a by-product of Evan Williams single barrel manufacture. :) After all, predicting which barrels will be the nicest 10 years ahead of time is a very tricky thing to do. And after you've selected the choice barrels, you've still got quite a bit of very good 10 year old whiskey in need of using somehow. Or at least, that's my theory. :) Better watch out with the ginger ale declarations, though. :P Some people might take it the same way as if you said Hennesssy was your go to brandy for mixing with coke. :P

So why is straight tequila so expensive, considering that virtually no age goes into it? The oldest tequilas I've ever seen made barely hit the 5 year old mark; while there is a seperate category for tequila that's "rested" for 6 months in wood. I know that the blue agave blight from a few years back caused some problems, but still! Some of the prices are similar to those of illegal absinthe or 10 year old scotch, and many people seem to think that good tequila for less than 30 dollars a fifth is an unlikely occurence, even for a blanco. Is it that expensive in Mexico? Or is it just a case of insightful Mexicans realizing that the US baby boomers from the 70s who got introduced to tequila thinking it was a hallucinogen are now 40-50somethings with cash to spend? Is it due to distillation costs? Like do they use a distillation proof that's significantly lower than say, bourbon? I can understand if maybe the agave plant were difficult and expensive to harvest, ferment, and cultivate, but if that were the case, how did pulque ever become a popular drink there? Someone help me out here? Many thanks in advance. :)

Rum 1. Prichard's 2. Pusser's Blue Label 3. Brugal Anejo Bourbon 1. Evan Williams 1783 2. Wild Turkey Rare Breed 3. Heaven Hill Bottled-in-Bond Gin 1. Gordon's 2. Gordon's 3. Gordon's. :) If I find a better gin at a better price I'll drink it. Vodka 1. Skyy 2. Neutral grain spirits + water 3. There are three types of vodka? :P Scotch 1. Sadly I am too poor to afford proper Scotch. :( 2. McClelland's Speyside (yay for 5-year-old Morrison-Bowmore! :P) 3. Johnnie Walker isn't bad. :) Brandy 1. I am also too poor to afford proper brandy. :) 2. But Salignac isn't too bad. 3. Neither is Metaxa. :) Tequila 1. I think I'll wait 2. Till the prices go down (hopefully?) 3. Now that the agave blight is mostly over

So how do you fellows determine where a rum was actually distilled, or if it's a blend, where the components were distilled? Many rum labels I've seen aren't particularly helpful. Most labels seem to just give the name of the bottler if anything, and when they do give the name of a distillery, I have trouble determining whether it's the real distillery it was produced from, or simply the name of a holding company. So how do you guys place the origin of rum? UPC codes? Marks on the bottle? Talking to wholesalers? Clever guesswork? Magic? :) Any help would be greatly appreciated

I wonder if you could elaborate on this a bit more. What, exactly, is the "gin head," how is it being used and by whom? Well, if you don't use a gin head, and you're not just adding essential oils, making gin can be a bit botanical-intensive. The old way of making the mash was to actually soak each batch of herbs in the mash for an unspecified time (different gin-makers have their different times; some say if you steep the botanicals too long that you extract unwanted flavors, others say that's just an excuse to hurry up the manufacturing process) and then either filter the botanicals out or boil them along with the mash in the still itself. Assuming your mash & distillation proof are reasonable, you end up with a more flavorful gin, but one which is more expensive to produce. A gin head is basically a basket full of botanicals either suspended in the vaporizor column, or built into the doubler which allows the alcohol fumes to pass through the botanicals. Because the botanicals don't come into direct contact with the mash, just with the hot alcohol vapor, a single set of botanicals can be used to flavor a large quantity of alcohol with this method, although the flavoring isn't a strong one. Bombay Sapphire uses this method, and I'm sure there are others, but they seem to be the ones marketing it as an "asset" the most heavily. (I don't recall if they do the same with regular Bombay) In fact, Jim Beam and Maker's Mark shouldn't have anything to do with each other whatsoever. Thanks for the elaboration. :) Here's hoping things stay on the level. At the moment, many bourbon makers exceed these standards instead of just meet them. But many are slowly edging down. Wild Turkey is a good example of a long-term holdout. They held their standards for quite some time, but are slowly modifying them to become more competitive. Their standard Wild Turkey is no longer 8 years old; it became "old #8" and eventually just "Wild Turkey 101", supposedly because they started blending 6 and 8 year old bourbon together to cut costs and so they'd have enough 8-year-old for the lucrative Japanese export market. Not sure if they're still holding there. (Note however this is still 2-3 years above the "industry standard" of 4 years, and the industry standard is still 2 years above the legal minimum). Their Russel's Reserve 10 year old was lowered from 101 proof strength to 90 proof for similar economic reasons, I suspect. The reason why it's more obvious with the bourbon industry is that they maintained the traditions longer than most of the other spirit-makers. For instance, at the moment, the bourbon market is the only one I can think of that still really even attempts to stick to the old 100 proof standard, and is only now beginning to creep down to 80 proof on an industry-wide scale. First they dropped to 45% abv, then to 43% (where most are lingering). Plus at the moment there are very few distilleries that are distilling at the mandatory minimum distillation proof of 80%abv, but industry pressues have pushed the proof up from it's originals.

Proof has been going down, both to cut costs and to offset the way most people drink. Back in the day, the standard proof for all liquors was 100 (ie 50% abv). Of course, then as now, people tried to cut costs, and if the liquor wasn't cut at the distillery, and it wasn't cut by the wholesaler, it would definitely have been cut at the bar. This was one of the major reasons people introduced liquor in individually sealed bottles from the distillery direct, and why mandatory minimum proof laws were passed. Recently many distilleries have been finding ways to skirt these though, and the next big push it seems will be in popularizing 60 and 70 proof "liquor". Although a few percentage points isn't really a big deal in the bottle, when you span it out over several thousand barrels there's serious savings, both from a manufacturing standpoint, and potentially a tax standpoint. People like smooth liquor. Cutting the proof and recommending they only drink it very cold are much cheaper than the alternatives. People like appearing as though they can hold their liquor. The lower the proof, the more they can drink. People don't like hangovers, but they don't like drinking water, either. By pre-mixing some of their water in, they kill two birds with one stone, and their spirit gets the reputation for "not causing hangovers". People don't understand enough about the liquor-making process to realize that distilleries are simply adding more water (which they can do at home), not lowering the proof in a good way (like lowering the distillation proof). Related to this, distillation proof has been going up. For one, it's cheaper, because you get more liquor from the mash. For another, it makes heavier spirit makers more competitive against high distillation proof rum and vodkas. For a third, it makes them easier to use in mixed drinks, while skirting the negative opinion blended liquor still carries. Rums have gotten older. Tequilas haven't changed very much, but they've gotten more expensive. American Brandies have gotten better, at least in the big-money high end market, by using high-end wines in their mashes. (A thing illegal to do in France) Vodka makers have for the most part stepped down from the race to be the purest, and are now marketing their slight impurities as assets, by branding themselves as alcoholic bottled waters. Gins have followed in vodka's footsteps (or more likely vodka followed gin) by changing disadvantages into marketing gimmicks. For instance the "gin head", once a cost-saving measure used by gin manufacturers to flavor large amounts of gin with small amounts of botanicals has become a creator of "subtle flavors" for high end gins. Whisky blends are slowly losing their negative image, as the rise in popularity for Canadian whisky seems to show. No clue what's new in the Scotch world. Bourbon makers are busy eating eachother (Maker's Mark just got bought by Jim Beam, I think) but I'm not sure what else has changed besides the higher distillation proofs and lowering bottle proofs.

Anyone ever noticed that large chunks of Jerry Thomas's book detail how to make shooters and frozen drinks? And that it also includes a recipe for jello-shots? I mean, they call the shooters "pousse cafes" instead of shooters, and the frozen drinks aren't immediately obvious because they don't use a blender (usually they involve packing shaved ice tightly into a glass, adding the ingredients, shaking to mix, topping the thick slush with fruit and serving with a straw), and they call the jello shot recipe "punch jelly" but really, c'mon now. :) So why do so many critics of the modern bar scene with it's shooters and frozen drinks latch onto Jerry Thomas as an example of how good bartending is "supposed" to be?

The proof of the beginning ingredients isn't nearly as important as the proof of the finished cocktail. Or rather the proof of the beginning ingredients only matters so much as they effect the proof of the finished cocktail. Alcohol heat is just as much an ingredient in a good cocktail as anything else. If it is too strong or too weak, it has a negative effect on the finished drink. This is why when you sub triple sec for Cointreau in the Cointreau margarita recipe (equal parts tequila, Cointreau and lime juice) you have to adjust the ratios or it won't taste strong enough. This is also why when you sub Cointreau for triple sec in the triple sec margarita recipe (2 parts tequila, 1 part triple sec, half part lime juice) you have to either cut the Cointreau with orange juice or modify the ratios or it will taste too strong. I personally have found that cocktails in the 16-20% abv range after meltage tend to be the smoothest while still maintaining their cocktail heat. 20-25% abv after meltage can also work, but the cocktail needs to be ice cold, or it will seem a bit harsh. Higher than that and you're basically making shot drinks. Some people prefer stronger liquor because it gives them more flexibility. After all, you can always add water to your liquor, but you can't take it back out again. Plus you don't necessarily need to cut the proof of your liquor with water, you can use other liquids for more creative returns. Some people prefer stronger liquor under the mistaken assumption that the stronger it is, the more flavorful it is. This is true to the extent that the closer the bottling proof is to the distillation proof, the more concentrated the flavors will be, but the minute you add water to that Bacardi 151 you've basically cancelled that out, and really drinking it straight at that proof will just end up anesthizing your mouth so you won't be able to taste the concentrated flavors anyway. Trick to getting more flavorful liquor is in lowering the distillation proof, not upping the bottling proof. Some people like things that make them sweat, especially in hot climates for some reason. Barrel strength bourbons and the less ridiculous overproof rums clock in at a more drinkable 63% abv, but they fall into a sort of a unique category that doesn't have much to do with cocktail-making. You can use overproof spirits in cocktail making, you just have to adjust your ratios accordingly.

Just out of curiosity, why do people consider Evan Williams to be a lower-end spirit? Is it just because of the lower price and higher popularity? Or something else? I mean, if I was simply to take it blind as a spirit not knowing anything about it's pricing or marketing, or even its style, the fact that it's aged 7 years, is unblended, is single-malt, is distilled to a relatively low proof, and is bottled at a higher proof than the legal minimum, to me this would maybe not qualify as a super-premium spirit, but definitely heads and shoulders above most low-enders. What am I missing?

Trying to build a bookshelf one day and realizing it looked more like a backbar. :)

A big part of garnish with the classic drinks is in maintaining traditions. For instance the Martini wasn't originally an olive drink, and the Bloody Mary didn't originally have a celery stick in it; but if you were to present those drinks without the olive and the celery stick, a lot of people would feel cheated. It's become part of the ritual. I agree with you on the smell. Something I've found that's helped tremendously in understanding the proper way to make old recipes, is that if they require a dash or two of an ingredient which doesn't add color like grenedine, or strong flavor like bitters, (and of course you're sure it's not just a gimmick) it's most likely purpose is to add smell, and it should be added at the end of the drink instead of being mixed in with it. Also leaving a healthy rim on glasses in recipes where it says "rinse glass with x", since in most of those cases, it's the smell from the rim that's the point of the exercise. (be sure to pour straight from the center so that you don't wash the rim away with the drink). Personally, I've found that if you can even let the glass rest for a minute after rinsing, it can help a lot with the aroma. Not sure how practical it is in a professional environment, although supposedly "seasoning" the glasses is popular with places that serve wine.

This is an important point, and ties in with what I wrote above in response to jbewley. You won't often hurt the drink by defaulting to your top shelf mixer, but it's wise to consider whether the drink you're mixing might be more suitable to a less expensive bottling. Sometimes (e.g., a Pegu Club made with Gordon's versus Hendrick's) you're probably going to get a better drink with the less expensive brand. Most of the time I don't see much point in using an expensive spirit in a highball. ← Well, that depends in my mind. If you put a young, high distillation proof, 40%abv bottling in a highball and then compare it to it's slightly older and slightly more expensive counterpart, you're right, no big diff. But compare it to an old, low distillation proof, barrel proof bottling and you'll be able to tell the difference, even in flavored sodas. It's like the difference between making a rum & coke with Bacardi vs. Prichard's. Make up a plain sodawater highball and the difference shows itself immediately. I would say that you could argue that the "good stuff straight/cheap stuff mixing" law could also apply to using lighter (ie high distillation proof) spirits vs. using heavier (ie low distillation proof) ones, as well as to blends. That cheap white rum tastes a lot less bland mixed with coke than it does on the rocks. But then people enjoy drinking straight extra dry vodka martinis, so maybe it doesn't count. :)

I was wondering if anyone here knew how they typically make commercial flavored vodkas? Do they soak the botanicals in the vodka and then redistill it like with gin? Do they soak the botanicals in the vodka and then filter it to remove the color like with Puerto Rican rum? Do they just add essential oils and additives to regular vodka? All of the above? None of the above? Any help would be appreiciated.

Well, eventually you reach the law of diminishing returns, sadly. That 250 dollar bottle of brandy is probably only slightly better than a 90 dollar one, and a 500 dollar bottle would be only slightly better than the 250, because there's only so much better than "fantastic" that you can really go, without some groundbreaking new innovation. I suppose "destroy the delicate flavors" is a valid point for super super premiums, although generally when I hear people using the phrase, it's just their way of comforting themselves over the fact that they got bamboozled by someone's marketing department. :P Most times when people have this sort of dillema, though, it's not between specialty Grandma bottlings and Cointreau, but Cointreau and Hiram Walker triple sec, straight rye vs. canadian blends, that sort of thing. :) Also, when you scrape the bottom of the barrel, it really puts a strain on your mixological skills to cover up truly nasty spirit. Cheap stuff isn't always more suited for mixing. Try doing some mixing with Georgia Moon instead of bourbon, for instance. You'll quickly have to expand yourslf beyond the standard X and soda mix if you're looking for a drink that's not a test of your manhood. :)

I was thinking about that old rule everyone goes by that you should use your inexpensive liquor for mixing but drink your expensive liquor straight. It never really made sense to me, because assuming your expensive liquor is good, it should be able to handle getting mixed with anything and have more than enough flavor to spare. And if your inexpensive liquor is bad, sadly sometimes no amount of mixing can get rid of nasty aftertastes. The whole "mixing destroys delicate flavors" excuse also never really caught on with me, because in my mind, all the things which make a spirit expensive (aging, low distillation proof, bottling at barrel proof, etc.) should be concentrating the flavors, not making them more delicate. However, on thinking it through, I think that the real story behind this wasn't originally cheap vs. expensive, but an aged liquor rule of thumb for blends vs. straight. With blended liquor, (good aged liquor mixed with unaged or neutral spirit) you're less likely to notice that it's been "stretched" when mixing, because the strong flavors of the mixer tend to pick up the slack from the blend. You'll notice something's not quite right because it won't have quite the same flavor strength of a straight liquor mixed drink, but it's usually harder to put your finger on what exactly is wrong. When drinking blended liquor by itself, it's relatively easy to identify it for what it is. So since at one time "cheap" and "blend" and "expensive" and "straight" were more or less synonyms, (and "premium unaged spirits" were an oxymoron) the rule of thumb boiled down to "save the cheap stuff for mixing and drink the good stuff straight". It was mostly a rule to keep people from knowing when you served blends. So if you've been paranoid about using that 30 year old single malt in your Rob Roys, you can probably quit worrying; you paid for a sturdy spirit, it'll handle mixing with aplomb. :)

The whole Puerto-Rican light vs. Jamaican heavy rum thing is a bit misleading. From what I've come to understand, Jamaican-style rum is made in a very similar fashion to blended Scotch, with lower distillation proof "heavy rum" being blended with higher distillation proof "spirit rum" and then aged together in barrels (and then blended again with other rums aged in a similar fashion to achieve the end result), while Puerto Rican-style rum is simply pure high distillation proof "spirit rum" aged or aged and filtered, depending. However what I'm looking for is "straight" heavy rum styles, like Prichards, with no "spirit rum" added. (On an unrelated note, I'm itching to get my hands on some of the Prichards white rum, really curious how the base spirit tastes before the barrel flavors come into play) Do they make stuff like this anymore? Did they ever?? Any advice?