Tips for a Dry Manhattan?

[weinoo]

I think CA left out one of our favorite ryes, Old Overholt. I also like Pikesville, but that's because I can get it.

Do try rye however, as that's the way the lord intended it.

I also truly like Pikesville. It has a specific taste that most other rye's do not. The Wild Turkey 101 was my standard rye for many years. I though it offered good value and was easily obtained. I have not used, and most likely won't the 81 proof.

I can always get OO and it is a good standby product. Here in pennsylvania it Rittenhouse is hard to find, but I do have a bottle now.

I love me a good bourbon, but I am in agreement with Mr. Weinoo that a manhattan should be made with rye

Nice to see another Pikesville fan; at $11 or $12 bottle, a truly good value.

Also agree about the WT 101, which was a great mixing spirit. The 81, not near as good.

[mkayahara]

Canadian whisky [is] also often diluted with grain neutral spirits

This is actually a falsehood: the full contents of a bottle of Canadian whisky are aged in small wood for at least 3 years. No grain neutral spirits permitted, though very high-proof whisky is used as the blending whisky.

"1363106910">

>Generally, Canadian whisky tastes softer, milder, and more diluted than American wh

iskeys.

This, of course, is quite true, in much the same way that Cuban rum tastes softer, milder, and more diluted than Jamaican rums.

My mistake. I knew that the full contents of a bottle of Canadian whisky had to be aged together but the way I wrote it makes it sound like it's diluted after aging. I was under the impression, though, that Canadian whisky legally can be distilled to a much higher proof than US spirits, i.e., that at least some of the distillate going into the barrel is effectively neutral spirit? And that the law permits additives other than grain spirits to go into the barrel (e.g., wine and brandy). At any rate I don't object to the softer profile of Canadian whisky, which as you say is somewhat analogous to the softness of Cuban-style rum, which I'm a fan of (an especially apt analogy since Cuban rum producers in the early 20th century were known to add fruit, wine, and other flavorings to their spirits).

I mean, I think that's basically correct, but it's a pretty big distinction. I'm not sure there are government regulations on how much high-proof whisky vs. how much low-proof "flavouring whisky" is required, but it's the combination of the two that gives Canadian its distinctive profile. And yes, other flavourings are permitted as well, though the more reputable brands tend to avoid them. If I had my copy of Davin de Kergommeaux's excellent book Canadian Whisky: The Portable Expert with me, I could tell you more. Instead, I'll just encourage you to read it!

[tanstaafl2]

As for Wild Turkey, it was a great product at 101 proof. I don't know if they plan to re-release it at this proof. All my experience is from the old product so YMMV. Generally speaking I'd say that it's just about what you'd expect from a Wild Turkey whiskey. It's full flavored with considerable roughness around the edges, in contrast to Rittenhouse's overall smoother and sweeter character. Personally, I've never found any reason to buy Bulleit.

Rumors are rampant that WT 101 Rye will return, eventually, although possibly with less readily available at retail and with a focus on use in bars and available primarily in a 1 liter bottle. When it will return remains unclear.

[brinza]

slkinsey, on 12 Mar 2013 - 14:55, said:

All of the 95% rye mash American whiskeys are actually made from distillate obtained from MGP Ingredients in Lawrenceburg, Indiana (formerly known as Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana). This includes Bulleit, Willett, Templeton, Redemption, High West, and so on. If the mash bill is 95% rye, it almost certainly came from MGP. All these brands start out as tanker trucks full of "MGP Standard" 95% rye white dog. The only difference, then, has to do with aging (how long, in what kind of barrels, and under what conditions) and bottle proof.

How can Bulleit call it "Small Batch" on the label then? How exactly are they using the word "batch." Not challenging your statements, but now I'm curious about this.

[KatieLoeb]

I usually calculate a "dash" as 1/25th of an ounce for batching purposes. So if one single serving cocktail has 2 dashes, if I'm batching up for 50 cocktails I'll go on the lighter side of 4 ounces. You can always add more bitters, but if you put in too much you're screwed...

[EvergreenDan]

I'm with Katie. I consider a dash to be about 1/4 tsp, which would be 1/24th of an ounce. But then I round it to 1ml too, which is 1/30th of an ounce. Measurements.

[tanstaafl2]

slkinsey, on 12 Mar 2013 - 14:55, said:

All of the 95% rye mash American whiskeys are actually made from distillate obtained from MGP Ingredients in Lawrenceburg, Indiana (formerly known as Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana). This includes Bulleit, Willett, Templeton, Redemption, High West, and so on. If the mash bill is 95% rye, it almost certainly came from MGP. All these brands start out as tanker trucks full of "MGP Standard" 95% rye white dog. The only difference, then, has to do with aging (how long, in what kind of barrels, and under what conditions) and bottle proof.

How can Bulleit call it "Small Batch" on the label then? How exactly are they using the word "batch." Not challenging your statements, but now I'm curious about this.

Because in the whiskey business, and in most of the spirits business it would seem, making crap up (or at the very least bending the truth) is A-OK!

Bulleit is "small batch" only in the sense that that they amount they bottle is presumably far less than the major distillers (although it seems to be everywhere as best I can tell) . But it isn't "Frontier Whiskey" from a secret family formula and it isn't distilled by Bulleit. It is sourced whiskey (Rye from LDI/MGP and Bourbon from Four Roses, at least until recently) and the brand is owned by one of the giants of the spirits world, Diageo, which seems at times to specialize in misinformation as a marketing strategy if you believe more than a few bloggers out there.

Most of these companies that use LDI/MGP ryes at one time or another tried to make it appear the rye was their own creation and not bought in bulk from LDI/MGP.

Willet is the only one that I don't think tried intially to hide the fact that it was LDI/MGP rye, perhaps because they are pretty well established as an NDP. Which is a bit ironic because with most everything else they bottle the source is generally not revealed.

Selling booze is a weird business were transparancy seems to be a dirty word!

Edited March 15, 2013 by tanstaafl2 (log)