Changing Tastes

[Ed Hamilton]

Following an expensive ad campaign by the marketers of Jack Daniels that the Old No 7 brand is built on years of tradition, that standard of the back bar got a makeover and the proof was lowered from 86 to 80.

Besides changing the proof, which means more water is now added to the blend, are there other spirits that have changed in recent years?

Distilling and fermentation technology has improved since prohibition, bottlers have modified blends to appeal to a greater audience and brands have been bought and sold. Cruzan's Single Barrel Rum, their premium blend, has changed at least three times since it was introduced in the late 90's. There are a number of other rums that have changed in the last twenty years.

Have other spirits changed their flavor?

[Joe Blowe]

Have other spirits changed their flavor?

A good discussion on this point can be found here.

And, after much enthusiastic research elsewhere reading about how taste profiles from recently opened older examples of bourbon differ from today's iterations, I'll go on record and say that American whiskey has probably been screwed with the most.

But, if it's all in an effort to recapture market share from other liquors, and it will help keep the smaller distilleries in business, then I guess I'll just have to adapt...

[mbanu]

Following an expensive ad campaign by the marketers of Jack Daniels that the Old No 7 brand is built on years of tradition, that standard of the back bar got a makeover and the proof was lowered from 86 to 80.

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).

Besides changing the proof, which means more water is now added to the blend, are there other spirits that have changed in recent years?

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.

Have other spirits changed their flavor?

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.

[slkinsey]

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.

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?

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.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Jim Beam purchased Maker's Mark. What happened was that Fortune Brands, a consumer brands parent company that includes such liquor brands as Jim Beam, Vox and The Dalmore under its umbrella as well as brands such as Master Lock, Titleist and Swingline, received approval from the European Commission to acquire Maker's Mark, along with other brands such as Sauza, Courvoisier and Larios, from both Allied Domecq (Maker's Mark, Beefeater, Canadian Club, Stolichnaya, Perrier Jouët, Clos du Bois, Dunkin Donuts, Baskin Robbins, etc.) and Pernod Ricard (Wild Turkey, Jameson, Bushmills, Powers, Pernod and Ricard of course, Wyborowa, Martell, Dubonnet, etc.). So its not exactly like the people at Maker's Mark are suddenly going to be taking their orders from Jim Beam's management or running their whiskey out of Jim Beam stills. In fact, Jim Beam and Maker's Mark shouldn't have anything to do with each other whatsoever.

Also, won't they have to change the laws before bourbon producers can monkey around with the distillation proofs and bottle proofs much more than they already have? As far as I know, "straight whiskey" must be distilled from at least 51% of one kind of grain to no more than 80% abv, aged for at least two years at no more than 62.5% abv in charred new oak barrels, and bottled at no less than 40% abv with no neutral grain spirits or any other substances added.

[eje]

What, exactly, is the "gin head," how is it being used and by whom?

←

I'm not mbanu; but, I can answer this question.

The more traditional method of making gin involves infusing a distillate (or even the mash) with the botanicals and then redistilling. I've read Gins like Gordon's, Plymouth, and Beefeaters are made this way. I would also assume all the older Dutch Jenevers are made this way.

Some of the newer gins have a "gin head" filled with botanicals, and instead of infusing, they pass the distillate through the "head" during the manufacturing process. I've read Bombay does it this way.

[mbanu]

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.

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)

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.

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.

Also, won't they have to change the laws before bourbon producers can monkey around with the distillation proofs and bottle proofs much more than they already have?  As far as I know, "straight whiskey" must be distilled from at least 51% of one kind of grain to no more than 80% abv, aged for at least two years at no more than 62.5% abv in charred new oak barrels, and bottled at no less than 40% abv with no neutral grain spirits or any other substances added.

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.