New Generation Gins

[brinza]

Similar ambiguities are arising in the world of vodkas as well. Amongst the flavored vodkas (which aren't just flavored, but have significant sugar added to them), we have iced tea flavored vodka. Really? This isn't flavored vodka, it's tea with vodka. They didn't stop there: now there are flavored tea flavored vodkas. So any crap with alcohol is *vodka these days? Then, in another vein, we have things like bison grass flavored vodka. I don't know what bison grass even is, but it sounds to me like a botanical. So from one end, we've got nearly juniperless gins and from the other end we've got vodka with botanicals. Will they eventually meet in the middle, maybe overlap? Then what?

Certainly there is room for innovation, but while at first I didn't mind these newer products being called gin, I have to agree that their proliferation is distorting the notion of what gin really is. A consumer browsing a shop and considering untried brands should at least be afforded some reasonable expectation of what a product is by its categorical designation stated on the bottle. When I tasted New Amsterdam, for example, I realized just how far away from actual gin a product called "gin" can be.

I say we call them Melange Botanique.

[slkinsey]

If you think about it, these International-Style things do function as gins--they emphasize the botanicals, not the base spirit (obviously this is where Hollands differs from its many and more successful children) and, more importantly, they're invariably mixed, not drunk straight. You just have to invent your own cocktails for them. That, too, is nothing new: the Dry Martini was an English gin drink, not a Hollands one, and indeed helped kill the category. As long as that doesn't happen to London dry, I'm cool.

What I'd like to see, then, is these things deciding on a goddamn subcategory and identifying themselves with it, so when I'm fixing to Mart up or drink some Aviations or whatnot i won't drop $35 on something that tastes like my grandmother's potpourri boiled in drilling mud.

Chances o them doing that? Slim. Ah, well.

If we take this view, however, wouldn't it at some point be possible to market aquavit as "gin"? Although I suppose you could make the argument that gin and aquavit are already the same thing: GNS that emphasizes the botanicals over the base spirit.

I suppose I could get behind a new category of gin that means "there's a touch of juniper in there somewhere, along with a bunch of other stuff that's in the forefront." But considering that these products are all really, when it comes down to it, representing themselves as having a commonality with traditional gin ("riding their coattails" one might say), I agree that the chances of them doing that are exceedingly slim.

Certainly there is room for innovation, but while at first I didn't mind these newer products being called gin, I have to agree that their proliferation is distorting the notion of what gin really is. A consumer browsing a shop and considering untried brands should at least be afforded some reasonable expectation of what a product is by its categorical designation stated on the bottle. When I tasted New Amsterdam, for example, I realized just how far away from actual gin a product called "gin" can be.

I say we call them Melange Botanique.

Something like that would be fine with me... and it would also free the various producers from using token amounts of juniper.

[evo-lution]

I don't think the issue of who decides matters overly much to the general subject at debate. Clearly, whoever makes the regulatory determination has decided that some products with very little juniper character are allowed to call themselves "gin."

Of course it matters, otherwise you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. The way I'm reading it is that you have an issue with products that aren't juniper-led calling themselves gin, the point I've repeatedly made is that there is a grey area because there isn't really anyone who decides if something is juniper-led or not.

But this is quite separate from one's ability to debate or indeed complain about the prevalence of products out there calling themselves "gin" that don't seem to have the predominant flavor of juniper which is the single most important defining characteristic of the spirit. As to this point, naturally, people who agree that a defining characteristic of gin is having a predominant flavor of juniper may reasonably disagree as to whether a specific product does or does not have such predominant flavor. This is why we have these discussions. Suggesting that one shouldn't debate or complain about these things is a bit like saying that one isn't allowed to debate or complain about bitters that aren't bitter or transplantation of American rootstock onto European grape vines because that water has run under the bridge.

I have not suggested that people shouldn't debate or complain, my issue was against the hypocrisy displayed earlier (which I've already covered and not going over again).

I have pointed out the reason why I added my thoughts to this thread, it had turned into a tirade against micro distilleries which I thought was wholly unfair. If they're not giving you what you expect don't buy their products. And at the same time, don't compare the price point of an international brand to a small micro, that's beyond ridiculous.

(1)What you seem to be arguing -- and perhaps I have simply misunderstood you -- is that having a predominant flavor of juniper is not a defining characteristic of gin, but only a defining characteristic of London dry gin, and that the so-called "new western dry gins" simply exist as a different designation of gin that does not include having predominant flavor of juniper as a defining characteristic. (2) If it is incorrect or mistaken, I would like to hear your position on this stated in a similarly clear manner. Or are you, rather, arguing that it's all a judgment call so we should stop debating/complaining because who can say one way or the other (more on which below)?

(1) One of my first posts (post #206) was asking Erik if his viewpoint was in regards the debate of London Dry Gins versus New World/Western Gins.

(2) My position is that there is a grey area within the definition of gin which now means another category is evolving within it. Genever > Old Tom > London Dry > New World

It seems to me that both the United States and EU regulations as to what can be called a "gin" under any designation quite clearly specify that the spirit must have a predominant flavor of juniper. Would you agree that's true?

I've already covered this point and acknowledged the definition of gin but for the last time;

Who is it that ultimately decides it has a predominant flavour of juniper?

You seem to have argued (and again, please correct my misinterpretations of your arguments where they exist) that it's only "London dry gin" that needs to be "juniper led." Perhaps you could start by explaining what "juniper led" means? This is a term I have only heard used by you. How is this different from "having a predominant flavor of juniper"?

Juniper-led and having a predominant flavour of juniper are one and the same, I use the term juniper-led as it's quicker to type.

As for what you think I am arguing, see my next point.

It also seems to me from reading the EU regulations, that many of the "juniper deprived" new gins out there should be able to qualify as London dry gins if they wanted to. The main difference between "distilled gin" and "London gin" as outlined by the EU regulations is that "London gin" has to be made exclusively by distilling high quality ethyl alcohol in the presence of natural plant materials to 70% abv, whereas "distilled gin" only has to distill juniper berries with a lower quality of ethyl alcohol, is allowed to use essences, etc. for the other flavorings and does not seem required to distill up to a specific percent abv. In fact, the EU regulations for London gin don't say anything about the presence of juniper flavor at all, except to say that it is "a type of distilled gin" which presumably means that it is subject to the same requirement that the "juniper taste is predominant." So, for example, if Hendrick's gin (which has already apparently passed the "predominant flavor of juniper" test) were flavored exclusively by distillation instead of adding cucumber and rose essences, there is nothing about the flavor profile that would prevent if from proclaiming itself a "London gin" despite not being "juniper led."

Production methods Sam, production methods...

"If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle."

The EU regulations were brought in to tighten up the category and were based on production methods, not taste.

It's why Martin Miller's used to say London Dry on the bottle, but don't any more.

What I see through all of these traditions except for some of the "new breed" is juniper. And I would argue that it is juniper character that has enabled gin to work in such a vast repertoire of cocktails throughout the ages.

Evolution.

Edited July 30, 2010 by evo-lution (log)

[slkinsey]

I don't think the issue of who decides matters overly much to the general subject at debate. Clearly, whoever makes the regulatory determination has decided that some products with very little juniper character are allowed to call themselves "gin."

Of course it matters, otherwise you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. The way I'm reading it is that you have an issue with products that aren't juniper-led calling themselves gin, the point I've repeatedly made is that there is a grey area because there isn't really anyone who decides if something is juniper-led or not.

I disagree that it's "complaining for the sake of complaining" anymore than if would be "complaining for the sake of complaining" to remark that most of the Fee Brothers "bitters" products aren't actually bitter, and that this represents a defect in these products. Inherent in these comments and complaints, I suppose, is the premise that the regulators are getting it wrong. Considering that the current regulations were more or less put in place at the behest of certain producers who thought that their spirit category was being infringed upon, I suppose it's not impossible that they will agitate for more regulation of juniper character at some point in the future.

Out of curiosity (and I ask because you may know the answer to this question, which answer I do not know)... are we sure there is no person or persons who decides if the product has a predominant flavor of gin? If there aren't such persons, then what is the point of having legal regulations, standards of identification, etc. that involve these qualitative distinctions? Why not simply say that you're allowed to call it gin so long as you throw some amount of juniper berries into the still and have done with it?

I have not suggested that people shouldn't debate or complain, my issue was against the hypocrisy displayed earlier (which I've already covered and not going over again).

What? That Tanqueray makes Rangpur? You certainly haven't heard me saying that I think it's a great product.

I have pointed out the reason why I added my thoughts to this thread, it had turned into a tirade against micro distilleries which I thought was wholly unfair. If they're not giving you what you expect don't buy their products. And at the same time, don't compare the price point of an international brand to a small micro, that's beyond ridiculous.

Well, we part ways there. I don't believe it is "beyond ridiculous" to observe that there are a lot of products coming out of micros that cost 40% more than many brands of notably higher quality (not all of which are made by the international giants, I should hasten to add). I don't believe this is beyond ridiculous because there is abundant evidence before us on the shelves of bars and liquor stores that it is indeed possible to make a small batch product that evidences an understanding of the spirit category and is reasonably positioned vis-a-vis other brands on a quality/price basis.

A good example of this might be Redemption Rye whiskey that just came out. They haven't been around long enough to compete in terms of age, but they have managed to make a very interesting product by doing a 95% rye grain mash bill and releasing it at high proof. It's a couple of dollars more per bottle than Wild Turkey and Rittenhouse, and a few dollars less per bottle than Baby Sazerac. Ultimately, Redemption Rye isn't quite as good yet as these other products because it isn't aged long enough. But it's a very high quality product made by people who clearly love, understand and respect the tradition, and it has the additional interest of having an amplified rye character that maybe makes you reach for it sometimes rather than some other ostensibly higher quality brands. So, giving some consideration to the "price spread" this rye is pretty competitive on a quality and a price basis. Meanwhile, this is a lot more difficult and expensive to do with whiskey than it is with gin.

Another example might be Ransom Old Tom. This stuff is priced at around ten dollars more than Tanqueray, but is such an interesting product of high quality and historical interest (and it also isn't made with GNS) that it more than justifies the price. Still another example is Anchor's Junipero, an outstanding product of high quality and broad usefulness made by people who clearly understand and love gin. Only around $5 more per bottle than Tanqueray. Both of these products, albeit in different ways, compete very well on a price and quality basis.

My position is that there is a grey area within the definition of gin which now means another category is evolving within it. Genever > Old Tom > London Dry > New World

So maybe we should call it something else?

I think it's noteworthy that "genever" means "juniper" and so this juniper-flavored malty/sweet spirit evolved into a herb-forward sweet juniper-flavored spirit which then evolved into a herb-forward dry juniper-flavored spirit. And what's the common thread there? Juniper. So, I don't necessarily dispute that some other evolution may be taking place, but part of what happens in evolution is that sometimes you don't end up with some evolved form of the same species, but rather a new species. At some point it's no longer Homo erectus and now it's Homo sapiens. And maybe sometimes this is mostly clear in retrospect. I think it's noteworthy, for example, that we don't typically call genever "gin" anymore. We understand it as being different from this herb-focused spirit we call "gin" today. That some evolution may be taking place seems clear. Whether this will be a lasting evolution or a momentary departure last remains to be seen (wine coolers and white zinfandel once seemed like they would stick around, after all, and we even seem to finally be seeing the end of calling every cocktail a "something-or-other Martini"). But I think it's reasonable to suggest that if it evolves away from containing the noteworthy presence of juniper, maybe it has evolved into a different species that isn't "gin" any more (fwiw the word "gin" is etymologically derived as gin > geneva > genever > "juniper"). Time will tell. In the meantime we will see some interesting and not-so-interesting products.

[EvergreenDan]

So if I've got this straight, international-style gins are made by domestic companies and non-international-style gins are made by international companies? I need a Martini.

[Alcuin]

So if I've got this straight, international-style gins are made by domestic companies and non-international-style gins are made by international companies? I need a Martini.

Not necessarily-Junipero has a traditional profile as far as I'm concerned while Rangpur does not. Bombay Sapphire is from England, etc. I'd say its a style, like international wine, which can be made pretty much anywhere. International style is inoffensive to the palate and pushes fruitiness and plushness. This is at the expensive of the structure that a core of juniper gives you which is a baseline around which other botanicals may constellate, making for broad usability as well as innovation. My two cents anyway.

Edited to say: don't they market Damrak as "international style"? I wonder what they mean by this...

Edited July 30, 2010 by Alcuin (log)

[Splificator]

So if I've got this straight, international-style gins are made by domestic companies and non-international-style gins are made by international companies? I need a Martini.

. . . and "Geneva" is from Holland, not Switzerland, and if you make it anywhere but in the Benelux countries and tiny slivers of France and Germany you have to find some name of your own for it, and "London dry gin" can be made anywhere but Plymouth, where you have to call it "Plymouth gin," and "distilled gin" is distilled, but so is every other gin, and Old Tom gin is sweetened except when it isn't, and . . . . Ah, t'hell with it. I'll join you in that martini. Up, please, not too dry. Twist.

[slkinsey]

. . . and "Geneva" is from Holland, not Switzerland . . .

Where I grew up in Boston, this was simply the way one pronounces "genever."

Edited July 30, 2010 by slkinsey (log)

[Splificator]

. . . and "Geneva" is from Holland, not Switzerland . . .

Where I grew up in Boston, this was simply the way one pronounces "genever."

And those Bostonites were originally from . . . ?

What's yours?

[EvergreenDan]

Up, please, not too dry. Twist.

Not too dry? 3/4 oz of Punt e Mes for you.

As I live in a Bauhaus-style home, I'm not too fond of "international-style" being used to mean "watered down for lowbrow tastes." Humph. But then my house was designed by an American. From Germany. Oh dear.

Oh, and Dave, it's Bostonian and it's "wicked pissa Geneva". I have friends who's relatives still live in Holland. It's funny to listen to them talk about being subjected to shots of Genever whenever they go there. Sounds like fun to me.

Edited July 30, 2010 by EvergreenDan (log)

[slkinsey]

. . . and "Geneva" is from Holland, not Switzerland . . .

Where I grew up in Boston, this was simply the way one pronounces "genever."

And those Bostonites were originally from . . . ?

Ireland and England?

[Splificator]

Oh, and Dave, it's Bostonian and it's "wicked pissa Geneva". I have friends who's relatives still live in Holland. It's funny to listen to them talk about being subjected to shots of Genever whenever they go there. Sounds like fun to me.

That's because it is fun! Kopstootjes all around! Screw the Martinis. We'll never agree on them anyway.

[slkinsey]

Speaking of which, if the web site is accurate, Astor Wines has a very good deal going on Bols Genever at $33 a bottle ($42 being more common around here).

[evo-lution]

Out of curiosity (and I ask because you may know the answer to this question, which answer I do not know)... are we sure there is no person or persons who decides if the product has a predominant flavor of gin? If there aren't such persons, then what is the point of having legal regulations, standards of identification, etc. that involve these qualitative distinctions? Why not simply say that you're allowed to call it gin so long as you throw some amount of juniper berries into the still and have done with it?

It's not been said that no person decides, I've been asking the question who is it that decides? The EU must have some sort of say in it as as the legislation on London Dry only came into play recently but I can't speak for gins from the rest of the World.

What? That Tanqueray makes Rangpur? You certainly haven't heard me saying that I think it's a great product.

That wasn't necessarily the sole point.

Well, we part ways there. I don't believe it is "beyond ridiculous" to observe that there are a lot of products coming out of micros that cost 40% more than many brands of notably higher quality (not all of which are made by the international giants, I should hasten to add). I don't believe this is beyond ridiculous because there is abundant evidence before us on the shelves of bars and liquor stores that it is indeed possible to make a small batch product that evidences an understanding of the spirit category and is reasonably positioned vis-a-vis other brands on a quality/price basis.

The comparisons made earlier in the thread were ridiculous in my opinion when it comes to price-point.

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part the smaller companies cannot compete with larger brands.

Another example might be Ransom Old Tom. This stuff is priced at around ten dollars more than Tanqueray, but is such an interesting product of high quality and historical interest (and it also isn't made with GNS) that it more than justifies the price. Still another example is Anchor's Junipero, an outstanding product of high quality and broad usefulness made by people who clearly understand and love gin. Only around $5 more per bottle than Tanqueray. Both of these products, albeit in different ways, compete very well on a price and quality basis.

Again though, this is just your opinion which was another point I was trying to make. Taste is entirely subjective. Some may feel that these micros are under-valued, over-valued, or whatever.

So maybe we should call it something else?

I've no issue with them falling under the umbrella of gin (which is already a diverse category from Genever through to London Dry) so long as they know what they are (which at the moment no-one does). New World sounds fine to me...

Anyway, enough of this chat, I'm having a Martinez. With Boker's of course.

[brinza]

Well, anyone who has spent the last ten days or so following this thread deserves a martini by now. I had one tonight, in fact. Also I blame Chris for the fact that I have just run out of CAF. He keeps going on about Martinezeses made with CAF, so I started making them that way, and now my wife has decided that she likes Martinezes (to my utter astonishment) and she downed two of them tonight. Luckily, the week after next, I will have the opportunity to obtain some more. I'll probably also be able to get a hold of Junipero and even Damrak. I've heard that Damrak is really genever even though they call it gin on the bottle (here we go again). What's the consensus on it (ie whether it's good and whether it is in fact representative of genever--I don't care about what it should be called)?

[Alcuin]

Well, anyone who has spent the last ten days or so following this thread deserves a martini by now. I had one tonight, in fact. Also I blame Chris for the fact that I have just run out of CAF. He keeps going on about Martinezeses made with CAF, so I started making them that way, and now my wife has decided that she likes Martinezes (to my utter astonishment) and she downed two of them tonight. Luckily, the week after next, I will have the opportunity to obtain some more. I'll probably also be able to get a hold of Junipero and even Damrak. I've heard that Damrak is really genever even though they call it gin on the bottle (here we go again). What's the consensus on it (ie whether it's good and whether it is in fact representative of genever--I don't care about what it should be called)?

I'm certainly no authority but I did drink some Damrak this very night and it doesn't bear much resemblance to genever. It's got some more body maybe, but nothing like the maltiness of the real deal. As a baseline, I'd compare it to London Dry.

[Splificator]

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but for the most part the smaller companies cannot compete with larger brands.

See, this speaks to the heart of my objections--which are by no means universal--with a some of what's being called craft distilling these days. I don't see why I should have to pay a 25%+ premium to fund somebody's effort to compete head-to-head with an established brand, even if the product is just as refined, mature, perfected. And usually you can't even say that: given the choice between paying $45 for a half-bottle of speed-aged local rye and $25 for a full bottle of six-year-old, I'll take the latter.

With many of these new gins, it looks very much to me like they're using the consumer to fund their learning curve, banking on the belief that local pride will create a market for them that they can't earn on taste alone. (Try tasting your local favorite blind in a line up of its peers; results can be eye-opening.)

Again, there are many exceptions. But to me the beauty and utility of craft distilling lie in finding blank spots in the pallette of available spirits and filling them in; markets the big companies have either abandoned or not yet identified. The Kuchan Peach Brandy from California is a perfect example. Peach eau-de-vie, barrel aged and delicious. Sure, it costs $43 a half-bottle, but I can't go out and buy a six-year-old version of it from Wild Turkey or Sazerac at a quarter of the price. I wish more of these small distillers had the vision to do something like that, rather than bubbling GNS through a random assortment of botanicals, not omitting a hint of juniper, and calling it "gin."

Square One are entirely to be applauded, IMHO, for throwing away that marketing crutch and calling their entry "Botanical Spirit." I wish we could get everyone else to adopt a similar label, but that ain't gonna happen. So gin it is.

[slkinsey]

Thank you Dave for articulating the core of my argument here in a way that is both infinitely more succinct and also more far more clear than I was able to do.

[evo-lution]

See, this speaks to the heart of my objections--which are by no means universal--with a some of what's being called craft distilling these days.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter as the craft explosion seems to be a lot more prevalent in the US (although similar things are happening over here) so I'm only exposed to a small minority of what you guys have at your disposal.

In the UK there are smaller companies emerging (let's talk specifically about gin to keep it on topic) but for the most part their products are pretty damn good and they stay true to tradition. Darnley's View, Sipsmith's, Chase and Sacred to name but a few...

At the same time there are other brands calling themselves gin just for the hell of it, but they're largely ignored, well they are in this house anyway.

[Splificator]

Yeah, over here there is a good deal of small-scale distilling going on. That is a very good thing in the long run; I don't think anyone would argue with that. But "small scale" is not automatically synonymous with "craft," just as "large-scale" is not antonymous (why do we never use that word?) to it. I think that's the gist of what Sam and I are saying (oh, and thanks, Sam!). We're far from the only ones--the whiskey writer Chuck Cowdery, for example, has been on about this for some time.

Some of the small-scale producers are making traditional-style London gins, with purchased GNS and the usual botanicals. Their gins taste "normal" and work just fine in the classic gin cocktails. If their prices are within a few bucks of the Tanquerays, Plymouths and Beefeaters of this world, then I don't particularly mind spending a little bit extra to encourage a small local business, but I'm also not going to trumpet the stuff as the greatest thing since juniper met ethanol. If their prices are appreciably higher than that, then I'll pass.

Others still use purchased GNS, but come up with their own, often hasty and random-seeming (although definitely not juniper driven), botanical formulae, wrap the mantle of art around themselves--"we're redefining the category of gin," etc. etc.--and charge people through the nose for the privilege of trying their "hand-crafted" formula. I'm tired of these. I participate in a lot of blind tastings, and they rarely fare well in them.

Yet others actually are hand-crafting their gins: long-time, experienced distillers who are making all or at least a significant part of their base spirit from mash, coming up with either painstakingly-researched historical formulae that enable us to wake up old recipes or patiently developed new formulae that are balanced, clean and delightful. I don't think anybody's arguing against them. Unfortunately, they're in the minority. My hope is that as some of the enterpreneurs and career-changers who populate the first two categories gain experience they're going to step up their games; come out with better or more interesting products. We'll see.

[Chris Amirault]

I've heard that Damrak is really genever even though they call it gin on the bottle (here we go again). What's the consensus on it (ie whether it's good and whether it is in fact representative of genever--I don't care about what it should be called)?

Not at all a genever: Bols has one of those already. As far as I can tell, Bols is marketing it as a substitute for Plymouth, and in the mouth it does lean more Plymouth than London, but ymmv.

Square One are entirely to be applauded, IMHO, for throwing away that marketing crutch and calling their entry "Botanical Spirit." I wish we could get everyone else to adopt a similar label, but that ain't gonna happen. So gin it is.

I've been thinking a lot about Bluecoat as a "botanical spirit" since reading this, and last night at work, spying some very good looking kirby cucumbers, I threw together this Kirby Smash for the night's special, based on DeGroff's Whiskey Peach Smash, based on Jerry Thomas's, based on...

1/2 kirby cuke, diced

2-3 sprigs of fresh thyme

2 oz Bluecoat

3/4 oz lemon

-1/2 oz simple

5-6 drops Angostura

Muddle cuke and thyme; shake; fine strain. Lemon twist.

Following a Negroni, I sold it to a big Tanqueray fan as drink #2 to go with her fried hake. "Damned refreshing," she says, "But that isn't gin." I shrugged.

[slkinsey]

. . . As far as I can tell, Bols is marketing it as a substitute for Plymouth, and in the mouth it does lean more Plymouth than London, but ymmv. . . .

That's an interesting thought. My understanding is that Plymouth style gin used to be fairly different from what it is today, and kind-of split the difference between London dry and genever. It's unclear to me that there is a meaningful categorical style difference between today's Plymouth gin and what may be called London dry gin.

[Chris Amirault]

It's unclear to me that there is a meaningful categorical style difference between today's Plymouth gin and what may be called London dry gin.

Whenever I do side-by-sides with Plymouth and, say, Beefeater or Tanqueray, the Plymouth seems a bit earthier, with a richer mouthfeel. But I've never really understood the "two different styles" distinction very clearly, and I couldn't articulate it to myself in such tastings. Seems more a matter of degree than category.

[slkinsey]

Someone like Dave W could speak authoritatively on this, but I am led to believe that the historical Plymouth style was different from London dry in having a touch of "genever-ness" to it. Forget where I read that.

[Chris Amirault]

Maybe kinda malty...