Corn whiskey can be aged or unaged. However, if it is aged, it can’t be aged in new charred oak barrels. (Used or uncharred oak barrels are okay.)

I tried explaining to a bartender in Wilkes-Barre that he didn’t have two bourbons on his shelf, he had one: Jack Daniel’s isn’t a bourbon. He said it was, that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I challenged him to find the word ‘bourbon’ on the label, and he blustered. Meanwhile, his colleague picked up the bottle and checked. “He’s right,” she said, “it doesn’t say bourbon.” I told the guy I’d have the Jim Beam. “No, you won’t,” he said, and flagged me. Kicked out for the truth!

Sam, you were there, you know it’s true!

Lew

And yes, I also noticed the Dowd statement about the scotch industry switching to “closed pot stills” preventing the whisky from becoming smoky. What he meant (I think) was that the kiln drying of the barley during the malting process is not exposed to peat smoke (i.e. “closed off” from the smoke. That is, indirect heat, not direct heat.) But only he can really explain what he meant.

Corn whiskey is Corn whiskey whether it is aged or not – it simply does not REQUIRE maturation in oak casks…

Today I did a story on Bill Dowd and his complete ignorance on the production method of Scotch (and apparently any spirit)…

“You’re right, of course. I should have said, if it so much as kisses those charred oak containers, it’s no longer considered corn whiskey.”

Thanks, Eric, for responding–and for the clarification.

I emailed him too with the clarification the next day. No response yet.

So, within the past two weeks, there have been major whisky (and whiskey) mistakes in the New York Times, New York Post, L.A. Times, and New York magazine. Sad, really.

“A whiskey can be distilled 100 percent from corn, but if it so much as kisses those charred oak containers it becomes bourbon.”

As you know, it has to do more than ‘kiss’ oak to become bourbon. Law requires it to be aged in oak a minimum of two years to be called bourbon. (He actually made reference to this in a previous paragraph, so I don’t know why he made this comment. Regardless, it is very misleading.) I sent the author a comment but have not heard back from him yet.

The unfortunate truth is that as little as the general public knows about scotch, they know even less about bourbon. Try playing word association with any random person you know, and they will respond with ‘Jack Daniels’ when you say bourbon. Then tell them that Jack Daniels is actually Tennessee whikey, and they will look at you like you are crazy. Challenge them to find the word bourbon on the bottle, and you will get this look that implies ‘go tell this to somebody who actually cares about this, except that no one but you really does’. Don’t even waste your time explaining about charcoal filtering prior to bottling.

Meanwhile, the New York Times also had an article about bourbon recently. So I was in a liquor store this past Thursday night, and there was some guy clutching the Times’ list, trying to pick out just one bottle. The only help the salesman could offer was to say that of any two bottles the guy was looking at, the more expensive one was smoother. It took a lot of effort for me to keep a straight face as the salesman tried to explain the various degrees of smoothness, especially between bottle with prices only a dollar or two apart.

Slainte.

Louis

Within the past two weeks, I have seen whisky errors or misleading whisky references in in several major publications, including the LA Times, New York Times, New York Magazine, and the New York Post. In most of these cases, the person writing the story just didn’t know the subject. In some instances, they did consult a knowledgeable whisky source, but the facts got lost in the translation.

“The Old Fashioned was first mixed in 1934 in Louisville, KY and combined Kentucky whiskey with a mixture of fruit and sugar. Twin Creek’s will serve the New Fashioned ($12). This modern version on the Old Fashioned combines 2-ounces Basil Hayden Bourbon instead of whiskey….”

At which point my head exploded. 1934? Try at least as early as the 1880s. Bourbon instead of whiskey? Is that like driving an Chevy instead of a car? You really have to work to get so many things wrong in such a short space.

“Sorry, I never got an email from you. where did you send it? our note about michter’s was on the authority of ethan kelley, from the brandy library. if you re-send your note I will pass it on to the editor of our “comments” (i.e. letters) page.”

I responded by telling him that I responded to the online posting of the article, which he then found. Ethan Responded with:

“As any bourbon enthusiast will tell you, of course the Michter’s distillery is closed. I had simply mentioned a comment about the history of the name, in an attempt to illustrate the enormous history and tradition found in American whiskies. It was simply a side note, and I apologize if the full details were not disclosed. Thank you for pointing it out to the readers, and together you and I can better inform all interested parties one taste at a time.”

Samuel Johnson once remarked “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” But not very much, so far as whisky writing is concerned.