Comments on: Six year old whiskey in six month’s time?

By: Leonard

Leonard — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:18:48 +0000

Anybody knows what governmental entity is meant by “Lix gained a federal permit to operate…”? Who issued such permit?

Thanks!

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:58:01 +0000

Very interesting. I wonder if those who are trying the “new” methods know this piece of whisky history.

By: Dougie Allan

Dougie Allan — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:57:03 +0000

“If distillers could have done this 150 years ago, you bet they would have…” (Rob K, July 30).
“…then it would be whisky-tradition today…” (Red_Arremer, July 31)

It appears that they could but it never did make it into ‘accepted’ whisky tradition today. This from Barnard when he visited Yoker Distillery in 1885:

“The No. 7 Warehouse is not devoted to storage purposes, although it is equally under the surveillance of the Excise. It is a smaller building than the others, and contains a Patent “Ageing Apparatus,” where new Whisky is subjected to an immense pressure of heat. This process is said to have the power of destroying the aldehyde or fieriness of new Whisky and converting it into a mature spirit of three to five years old. This patent is at present in its infancy, but arrangements are being made to work it in this Distillery on a larger scale.”

I had recently queried this on my blog, http://whiskystory.blogspot.com/2010/08/glasgow-part-5-yoker-distillery.html after visiting Yoker but I couldn’t find any more information so had parked the topic for now, but seems relevant now given the timing of the topic on here. If anyone knows what happened to the patent or process at Yoker I would be interested to hear. Thanks.

By: Jon W

Jon W — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:53:14 +0000

I’m not sure I can agree with you here. Each is a different approach to the same ultimate goal: faster maturation. Different means to the same end. I don’t really care about regulations (if that’s what you were inferring by “There is nothing that would define the size of the cask”). I do care that these “techniques” are properly disclosed and aren’t used to try to decieve consumers into thinking they’re buying something other than what they’re actually buying.

By: joe hyman

joe hyman — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:13:01 +0000

exactamundo, ricardo!
in my experimentation, there is no discernable evaporation of alcohol, nor loss of volume (‘angel’s share’)… there might be slight losses as whatever is absorbed by the wood chips remains in them. i suppose, the chips could be held in a differant tank until they give up their liquid gold.
i just realized, if the big guys have been experimenting on these things for decades, why are they bitchin’ about someone else’s success? i’m sure if there were some innovations 30-40 years ago, they would have lobbied the swa and touted their brilliance to their shareholders…
my own fear is that the big guys will trash me and my patents, then swoop in and steal my ideas and suddenly claim them as their own, and then make $bazillions…

By: Rick Duff

Rick Duff — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:04:12 +0000

“a process that uses heating, cooling and pressure to greatly reduce the maturing time for whiskey.”
Now.. some American distilleries already do the heating and cooling.
The pressure is a brilliant idea. It will aid in sucking the liquid into and out of the wood.. thus speeding up maturation. Really a similar principle to pressure cookers. They can shorten cooking times, that’s for sure. It speeds up the natural pressure occurring in the atmosphere with barometric changes.
I’m interested if this then affects angel share and loss/gain of alcohol. I suspect it maintains both.

Hey.. if it’s produces great whisky and lowers the costs (and prices I pay).. I’m for it.
I really don’t care if my whisky is 6 months, days, or decades old, as long as it tastes great and is affordable.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:53:41 +0000

I like Bruichladdich and all their crazy bottlings, and I like Bernheim and things like that. But I’m not crazy about Roseisle or 6 month whisky or stuff like that. Is there any substantive difference between what the one sentence above indicates and what the other does? You get my drift.

Entirely aside from that, is there any compelling way to make sense of the phrase “advances in the arts”?

By: mongo

mongo — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:38:59 +0000

hmmm there are such creatures as digital artists you know, and they’ve been around for a long time. andy warhol would have been very surprised to hear that quick reproducibility was antithetical to art.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:23:53 +0000

There were no disposable film cameras in 60s and even early 70s. I still believe that it required more commitment to take a picture in ancient, film days than currently. Yes, the medium is secondary but efficiency inevitably lowers the standards. I hope that there will be more Kilchomans in this research driven times. By the way, I was through my early education and work very much a scientific/engineering type but age (the same for whisky) made me more refined

By: Neil Fusillo

Neil Fusillo — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:12:23 +0000

Heh. You think it took skill and creativity to buy a $10 disposable camera and take your film to a flunky at the drug store to have it developed?

It’s not the medium that makes the difference. It’s the artist. If an artist can create with more efficiency, he’s no less an artist.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:49:11 +0000

Whisky making art aside, efficiency is never a good thing because it creates commonality of a “product”. Art and efficiency are almost exclusive.
As far as photography is concerned, digital does cater to a lower common denominator. To take a good picture in the time of film (and especially LF cameras), required knowledge, experience and commitment (also financial). An artist can still do the great work using digital means but most of the time, digital cameras will be used to upload another banal snapshot to Facebook.

By: Neil Fusillo

Neil Fusillo — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:16:03 +0000

Red, while I agree that losing the tradition and art of whisky is a VERY bad thing, one must recall that, whisky itself was a scientific discovery. Someone discovered that taking their recently fermented stuff and distilling it like an alchemist produced a stronger alcohol and a different flavour. Over the years, in their archaic way, people worked out ways to perfect this process.

But once the product became lucrative monetarily, their interest in advancing the process stopped. People started using the same techniques to produce whisky as they’d used before because it worked and they were more interested in selling their product than investing in the research needed to POSSIBLY advance the basic science of the affair.

I am 100% in support of someone who wants to advance the science of whisky instead of just wanting to craft product that will make him some immediate cash. If the end result comes out good, then what harm is done? It’s a bit like saying no one should use digital cameras because it caters to the lower common denominator and people should instead stick with smelly, caustic darkroom chemicals and antiquated, reciprocity-laden film technology.

Advances — even advances in the arts — aren’t always bad just because they’re advances. And efficiency isn’t always a negative thing.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:05:20 +0000

“Experimentation” is the name of the game, Neil, but should “pure science” be the emblem of experimentation?
Wanting to do whisky better is admirable, but when pure science is applied to improving the creative process of a preexisting art form the results are almost always questionable. Mainly, science gears things more effectively towards the quick buck– Whisky production becomes more efficient, and the whisky is more consistently and fully adapted to the expectations of the majority of consumers. Too bad that the people who lose-out are the ones whose expectations diverge from the majority– amongst them, whisky afficianados like us.

By: Neil Fusillo

Neil Fusillo — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:40:28 +0000

I like the idea, personally. It’s well past time we started gaining a true understanding of HOW a whisky gains the things it gains over time, and how to control that. I’m all for experimentation in pure science. Will it replace fine, aged whisky? Heavens no. They’ll come out with labelling laws that dictate what you can call which and when. But it COULD create good whisky all the same, and I see nothing wrong with that at all.

By: Red_Arremer

Red_Arremer — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:38:23 +0000

Joe, currently the terms “whisky” and “whisky flavored” mean completely different things. Would you like to see this distinction, and the various circumstances it reflects, collapsed?