How Long Does It Take to Make Good Bourbon?

"How Long Does It Take to Make Good Bourbon?" he asked with the innocence of youth.

Little did he know what a slug fest asking that question can ignite. Since the micro-distiller age has dawned, much of the discussion on that question has been bullshit. This is an attempt to answer it honestly and equitably in the context of our times.

Most micro-distillers are faced with a dilemma. They rarely have enough capital, or patience, to put their product away for four years or more, so they try to come up with ways to make it drinkable at a younger age. If they tell you it's the product they want to make and not a financial decision, they are lying. If it's not money it's petulance. They just don't want to wait so long.

So we have small barrels, spirals, vacuum pumps, finishes, and rationales that remind one of the fable, "The Emperor's New Clothes." And we have a lot of very hot, harsh, white-doggy spirits.

But it's not all bullshit. Some producers have tried to solve the problem thoughtfully and stylistically, remembering that the first rule of beverage making is: "Don't try to pass off disgusting crap with a good story. Make something that, first and foremost, tastes good."

At this, some have been more successful than others, but no product has been completely satisfying. Still, it's a worthy quest and none of them have been at it for very long. They will get better. They probably hurt themselves when they call their product 'bourbon' or 'rye whiskey,' if the taste and character one usually associates with those styles are nowhere to be found.

Which brings us back to the original question: "How Long Does It Take to Make Good Bourbon?" Let's assume that by "good bourbon," the questioner means the drink most whiskey drinkers would recognize as "good bourbon." The wisdom of the families and companies who have been making bourbon for a long time--several centuries in some cases--is that in a climate similar to Kentucky, it takes a minimum of four years in new charred wood to make something you would like to drink.

There are a few three-year-olds out there from the major distilleries, and they pretty much prove the point.

And four years, in itself, is a short cut compared to the minimum ten to twelve years it takes in chilly Scotland or Ireland. The short cut Americans came up with is the new, charred oak barrel, emphasis on 'new.' That innovation was a different and shorter route to deliciousness, but it made a different style of whiskey, as did our use of corn and rye instead of barley malt. We call that style 'bourbon.' 'Tennessee whiskey' is what Tennessee producers call the same style.

In a way, American rye whiskey should be called 'rye bourbon,' since it is whiskey made in the bourbon style but with rye as the dominant grain rather than corn. Wheat whiskey could probably be called 'wheat bourbon,' using the same logic. That's because, under U.S. rules, mash bill is the only variable. All require the new, charred oak barrel.

But that's just by way of making a point. No one is proposing that nomenclature.

If you're worried about all of those used-once barrels going into land fills, they don't. They go to Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Jamaica. You get the idea.

Looked at in that broad historical context, you can say today's micro-distillers are working on their own new style of whiskey, something that's tasty after less than four years in wood, and frequently much less. It's a work in progress. Some are trying to do it the old-fashioned way, although few have anything on the market that's more than two years old.

Eventually, though, they will. And through experimentation the younger products will get better too. Either that, or there will be a lot of second-hand stills for sale.

So, again, back to the question. Traditionally, in Kentucky and Tennessee, the consensus is that four years is the minimum, five to six is better, eight to ten is optimum, and beyond ten you're again getting into a different, wood-heavy style, which is risky but can be superb.

Of Whiskey And Innovation (Part 2)

A small number of companies own most of the world’s major distilled spirits products, so it’s not surprising that we often see them doing similar things across their portfolios. ‘Innovation’ is the hot buzzword right now, even in the whiskey space which is usually innovation-averse.

You’ve read here about Diageo’s recent innovations with its Crown Royal and George Dickel brands. Now it’s the flagship’s turn.

Introducing Johnnie Walker The Spice Road, the first of a portfolio of whiskeys that take their inspiration from the traveling heritage of John Walker & Sons. It’s available only in duty free stores, but it shows what ‘innovation’ means for the world’s leading whiskey brand. (A title that goes to either Johnnie Walker or Jack Daniel’s, depending on how you count and who you ask.)

This is not a flavored whiskey, as one might be entitled to suppose. It’s a special, limited edition blend. Scheduled for future release are The Gold Route and The Royal Route. Here is how Master Blender Jim Beveridge describes this premier release: "To create the intense spicy flavor profile of Johnnie Walker The Spice Road, we used well-matured single malts and grains, presenting all their fresh vibrant distillery characters, aged in carefully selected, high quality American oak casks; and of course there is a trace of West Coast smoke in the background - revealing the classic Johnnie Walker signature.”

Duty-free means limited availability, and many readers of this blog have little interest in blended scotch. This is interesting nevertheless because it shows another way a whiskey-maker can innovate without necessarily making a new whiskey from scratch, thereby avoiding the many years of lead time that entails. It also ties-in neatly with the distribution channel, a very sophisticated maneuver.

It’s a good story too. Here’s the gist of it. From 1820, the Walker family and their agents traveled the world, navigating their way down the famous trade routes: the Spice Road of Europe and Asia; the Royal Route from Europe to Persia; and the Gold Route of the Americas and the Caribbean.

Their efforts ensured that, by the 1920s, Johnnie Walker had arrived in 120 countries and was being enjoyed on the great railways, luxury ocean liners and early transatlantic flights. Meanwhile, the striking image of the Johnnie Walker Striding Man was becoming an icon all over the world.

Back in London, close to the shipping houses and docks from which the Johnnie Walker agents traveled the world, Alexander Walker established the Travelers’ Room (pictured, above) where his agents would convene to rest, talk strategy, and exchange stories and samples from their travels.

This all sounds true and, assuming it is, it means Diageo shows more respect for Walker’s history that it does for Dickel and Bulleit, its main U.S.-whiskey brands, where it prefers fiction.

Whiskeys Top Shanken's 'Hot Prospects.'

For the first time ever, the whiskey category has the highest number of brands in Impact’s spirits 'Hot Prospect' rankings. Seven whiskey brands earned Hot Prospect honors for 2011, narrowly edging out vodka, which had six.

The winning whiskies are Woodford Reserve Bourbon from Brown-Forman, Pendleton Canadian whisky from Hood River Distillers, Bulleit Bourbon from Diageo North America, Glenmorangie single malt Scotch from Moët Hennessy USA, The Balvenie single malt Scotch from William Grant & Sons USA, Devil’s Cut Bourbon from Beam Inc. and Seagram’s 7 Dark Honey from Diageo North America.

The Hot Prospects designation is for brands that posted at least 15 percent depletions growth in 2011, while also showing consistent growth in 2009 and 2010. Brand volume must be at least 50,000 cases but not more than 200,000 cases. New products can also qualify as Hot Prospects if they pass the 50,000-case mark in their first year.

Also on the list, as a liqueur, is Evan Williams Honey Reserve from Heaven Hill. It is through only the narrowest of technical distinctions that Evan Williams Honey is considered a liqueur while Seagram's 7 Dark Honey is considered whiskey. Both can be found in the American whiskey section of most liquor stores.

That the list includes more bourbons than single malt scotches is notable. That it includes flavored whiskeys at all raises worries about category confusion, but also shows that these products have developed a strong following in a short time. Seagram's 7 Crown, the #1 American Blended Whiskey, has been a moribund brand in a moribund segment, making the rise of Dark Honey a surprise.

A Scotch For Bourbon Lovers.

The tart, smoky taste of peat is such a scotch whisky signature, and so unlike any flavor in the bourbon profile, that it is easy to say no common ground exists between the world’s two favorite whiskey styles.

Since more than 90 percent of the scotch consumed is blended, and most blends work in at least a hint of peat, finding a scotch with none can be challenging, but they do exist.

If peat-less scotch is what you seek, look to single malts from Speyside. Cutty Sark has about the lightest peat signature of any blend and there is a lovely Speyside malt at the heart of Cutty; The Glenrothes.

Although The Glenrothes Distillery is 134 years old, the Glenrothes brand is only about 20. That’s when London’s Berry Bros. & Rudd, Britain's oldest wine and spirits merchant, first issued a Glenrothes single malt. It was also the first vintage-dated single malt.

The Glenrothes is a huge distillery, one of five in the small town of Rothes. Only about two-percent of its output is released as singles, the rest goes into blends.

“Glen,” by the way, is the Scottish word for river, and when a whiskey’s name starts with Glen, the second part is the name of the river on which the distillery is located. In this case, Rothes is both a tributary of the Spey and the town name.

Rothes is also home to Forsyths, a major still manufacturer. Forsyths made the three pot stills at the Woodford Reserve Distillery in Kentucky.

These notes are based on the just-released 1995 vintage. It is 16-years-old and 43 percent ABV.

In the absence of peat, most of the whisky’s flavor comes from the barrel. About a third of this batch comes from sherry casks, both American and Spanish oak. These casks are new wood that has just been briefly seasoned with Oloroso sherry.

The rest is from former bourbon barrels that have been through at least one full aging cycle with malt whiskey.

Because they're using new wood there’s a lot of vanilla and caramel, a little bit of chocolate, butterscotch, white pepper, and cedar, with a hint of peanuts on the finish. The taste is mild overall and very easy to like. There is a resemblance to Weller 12, a wheated bourbon, believe it or not.

If you’re mostly a bourbon drinker and haven’t had much luck with scotch, this is a premium single malt you just might enjoy.

One of the advantages bourbon usually has over scotch is price. Weller 12 will set you back about $30. The Glenrothes 1995 Vintage is more than twice that much, but you can find other Glenrothes for as little as $45.

In the USA, The Glenrothes is marketed by Campari America, the new name for Skyy Spirits, which in addition to Skyy Vodka also gives us Wild Turkey bourbon and rye.

Upcoming Schedule Of I Wish Whiskey Classes Taught By Me.

I have been negligent in posting about the upcoming schedule of classes I'm teaching for I Wish Lessons, perhaps because I've been so busy teaching them. We have increased the number and types of classes this year and they have been very well received. I Wish is a new company, only just beginning its second year in business.

The mission of I Wish Lessons is to help people enjoy life through learning. All of the classes I teach about distilled spirits are held in different cool bars in the city (Chicago). They always involve tasting usually four products and the bars are pretty good about premium pours. You can also order food and other beverages, and make it a fun night out with a little learning on the side.

They prefer the term 'coach' to 'teacher' or 'instructor.' I usually 'coach' everybody as a group for about an hour, then hang around for individual one-on-one 'coaching.' Class size is typically 20 to 30 people. It's all very relaxed and informal and the students usually determine the course of events through their questions. Students are encouraged to participate. They are also encouraged to stay after class to continue their studies on their own.

Last night we debuted a new course at Waterhouse called Whiskey 101. As the name suggests, it's an introduction to whiskey in general. Because it's me we started with bourbon and worked our way up to single malt scotch, with Irish and Canadian in between. It went well, I think. I was surprised that the group was probably two-thirds women, which is rare for anything to do with whiskey. I was thrilled because I like women and because that's good for the whiskey business, if more women start to discover and appreciate whiskey.

Whiskey & Cupcakes is, essentially, Whiskey 101 except with cupcakes. The cupcakes are fun and the cupcake artists do try to match each cupcake to a whiskey, which gives us an opportunity to talk about matching whiskey with foods. The cupcake thing is really just a way to up the fun a little bit. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to coach and eat cupcakes so I usually miss out. (I do manage to drink, however.)

Here is what I have coming up. Go to the I Wish website to sign up.

• Mon, Mar. 7th – Whiskey & Cupcakes (Pitchfork) 
• Tue., Mar. 29th – Single Malt Scotch (Pitchfork)
• Wed, Mar. 30th – Whiskey & Cupcakes (Pitchfork)
• Tue, Apr. 5th – Whiskey 101 (Waterhouse)
• Mon, Apr. 11th -- Whiskey & Cupcakes  (Pitchfork)
• Tue, Apr. 19th – Bourbon (Pitchfork)
• Wed, April 27th -- Whiskey & Cupcakes (Pitchfork)

Pitchfork is at 2922 W. Irving Park Rd., just west of California. Waterhouse is at 3407 N. Paulina Ave., at the intersection of Roscoe, Lincoln and Paulina, adjacent to Paulina Brown Line 'L' stop.

All dates are subject to change.

I Wish also does private classes, so if you have a group that would like to have a whiskey or other distilled spirits tasting with me as your coach, you can arrange that through I Wish too.

SMS. The Straw That Stirs The Drink.

I have been thinking a lot lately about how single malt scotch is the straw that stirs the drink of the entire whiskey category.

In 2010, 47,093,000 cases of whiskey were sold in the United States. (New DISCUS Data, released Monday.) Just 1,281,000 of those cases, less than 3%, were single malt scotch, yet that’s what people want to talk about, that's what dominates the general and enthusiast media, that’s what gets consumers and the trade excited, and (not coincidentally) that’s what produces everybody’s highest per-unit profits.

Mind you these are just the U.S. stats, but we are the world's largest whiskey market. Less than half of the whiskey we drink is whiskey made here, 44%. Another 34% comes from our friends to the north. The rest, 22%, comes from the whiskey motherlands of Scotland and Ireland. The smallest piece of that is single malt scotch.

Yet that is what whiskey enthusiasts care about. There are many good reasons for this and I'm not complaining. It's not a bad thing. It's a great thing. I drink single malt scotch, I love single malt scotch, I just happen to be a little more interested in whiskey subjects other than single malt scotch, American whiskey in particular. That makes me an oddball in the world of whiskey enthusiasts and whiskey writers, which may give me a unique perspective. (It must be good for something.)

I am also very interested in America's young microdistillery movement. I think American microdistilleries have the potential to make the American whiskey landscape a lot more interesting, in the same way that Scottish single malts are such an outsize part of what makes whiskey in general so interesting. It's not a perfect analogy because what keeps the single malt distilleries in business is a combination of what they sell as singles and what they sell to blenders, and I don't see a parallel to that evolving here.

On the other hand, bourbon and Tennessee whiskey aren't exactly analogous to Scottish blends. It's a completely different paradigm. You can't compare Johnnie Walker to Jack Daniel's and if you always look at American whiskey through a scotch prism you'll always see a distorted picture.

This potential to be American stir-straws is what the buyers of Hudson and Stranahan's must see. If American micros can build their business on a combination of great products, local pride and fun tourism, I can see parallels and how in not so many years microdistilleries could be an integral part of the U.S. whiskey scene, not for their sales volume but for intangible benefits similar to what Scottish single malts provide now.

American Malt Whiskey. It’s Not Scotch.

What is American malt whiskey? Is it, pardon the expression, American scotch?

No, it’s not.

Thanks to the Federal Government’s Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits, which were written for rye and bourbon makers, American malt whiskey must be aged in new charred oak, just like bourbon and rye but unlike scotch, which typically is aged in used barrels.

Also unlike scotch, which is seldom sold at less than eight years old, most American malt whiskey is aged for less than three.

With those specifications it is hard to make something that tastes like scotch, which most American malt whiskey does not.

Historically, American distillers don’t make malt whiskey. Americans consume plenty of malt whiskey, imported from Scotland and Ireland, and we use malt to make beer, but we make whiskey mostly out of corn.

No major American distillery makes malt whiskey for sale, but it is very popular among American micro-distillers. If a micro-distillery makes whiskey at all, it probably makes malt whiskey.

Why? Because it’s easy, perfect for a little guy. In the early stages it is just like making beer. You can even have a micro-brewer make a wash for you, so all you have to do is distill it. That’s what the American Distilling Institute, the national association of small distillers, recommends.

Likewise selling the whiskey young isn’t an artistic decision, it’s a financial one. Aging is expensive. All of that money you invested in making the whiskey ages right along with it. In a sense you only have to pay that cost once, because after you have a steady supply of aging whiskey in the pipeline, sales of mature spirit can fund the new stuff, but that initial hump is a big one for most small producers to overcome.

That’s why most micro-distiller whiskey, malt or otherwise, is less than three years old. Some is aged for as little as three months, and some isn’t aged at all (so-called ‘white whiskey’).

I was one of twelve judges at the American Distilling Institute (ADI) 2010 American Craft Whiskey competition in May. Most of the products we tasted had a malt base. Because we tasted blind I can’t comment on any entrants specifically, but my impression of the field overall was clove notes over a sour apple base. The whiskeys didn’t have much character and lacked the complex balance of flavors that is whiskey’s primary appeal.

But they did possess some charms. Most micro-distiller whiskeys make a virtue of the raw, herbal, sometimes bitter, usually tart tastes that time softens. The new wood adds different but equally strong flavors. The spirit tends to be bold and aggressive, more like slivovitz than bourbon or scotch. It is like nothing you’ve ever tasted before.

Aging measured in years is a relatively recent phenomenon. It only became popular about 150 years ago. Before then, most people drank whiskey that was fresh from the still, innocent of oak, or only lightly aged, perhaps incidentally, such as during transport.

There may be a place for both styles in the modern whiskey universe but it would be a shame if craft distillers became pigeonholed as only making young whiskey, or only malt whiskey for that matter.

There are pleasant surprises out there, but American micro-distilling is a very young movement and its products are mostly works-in-progress. What we have now, at best, is evidence that the wait may be worth it.

Upcoming Bourbon Classes Taught By Me.

For the better part of this year I have been teaching classes for I Wish Lessons. The mission of I Wish Lessons is to make learning fun. How better to make learning fun than by drinking during class?

We hold the Introduction to Bourbon classes at Rocks Lincoln Park (1301 West Schubert, Chicago). The class starts at 7:00 PM, includes a tasting of four bourbons, and lasts about a hour, although one nice thing about doing it in a bar is that students can continue to 'learn' after the class concludes. I usually hang around to answer questions.

The schedule of bourbon classes from now until February is as follows:
Mon, Nov. 15, 2010
Thurs, Dec. 16, 2010
Mon, Jan. 3, 2011
Mon, Jan. 17, 2011
Mon, Feb. 14, 2011
Fri, Feb. 18, 2011

Go here to buy tickets and to check for any date changes. I also teach Introduction to Cognac and Introduction to Single Malt Scotch, but those classes haven't been scheduled yet. Stay tuned.

I Teach Bourbon Tomorrow At Rocks.

I'm teaching a Bourbon class tomorrow (Monday, August 30th) at Rocks Lincoln Park (1301 West Schubert). The class starts at 7:00 PM, includes a tasting of four bourbons, and lasts about a hour, although one nice thing about doing it in a bar is that students can continue to 'learn' after the class concludes.

I teach these classes through I Wish Lessons. The mission of I Wish is to make learning fun. How better to make learning fun than by drinking during class?

Either because people have so many other things to do in the summer or because it's too hot to drink whiskey, the classes haven't been selling out lately like they usually do, so there may still be some tickets left. Go here to order tickets for this or any future class.

I Wish also does private lessons for individuals or groups so contact them if you would like me to conduct a private tasting for your group. (For Chicago-area events only. Out-of-town contact me directly.) The standard classes are introductory but for a private event I can go as advanced as you want. I also teach classes about scotch and cognac.

What's The Difference Between Scotch And Bourbon?

The question I am probably asked more than any other is, "what's the difference between scotch and bourbon?"

Sometimes I start by explaining the difference between blended and single-malt scotch and then draw a parallel to American whiskey. Scotland has blended whiskey and so does the United States. Scottish blends are like American blends and single malt scotch is like bourbon, right?

Not exactly.

You might think everybody at least knows what whiskey is, but there are points of contention there too. Europeans declare that grain spirit aged for less than three years is not whiskey. Indians declare that any spirit that resembles whiskey in appearance and taste is whiskey, even if it’s not made from grain.

What is the real difference between scotch and bourbon? They taste nothing alike, that’s the real difference. Why do they taste nothing alike? The legal regimes under which they operate have a little bit to do with it. But the traditions and aspirations of producers, and the preferences of consumers, are most of it.

Take the difference between Scottish and American blends, for example.

Everybody knows what vodka is and nobody considers it whiskey, even though most vodka is made from grain. It isn’t whiskey because it is distilled to neutrality (generally considered to be 95% alcohol) and not aged.

But, in effect, the United States says vodka is whiskey if you replace at least 1/5 of it with straight whiskey. Then it is blended whiskey (20% straight whiskey, 80% vodka).

Canadians and Europeans get to just about the same place by a different and slightly less magical route. Instead of 95% alcohol they distill their beer to 94.5% alcohol and put it in wood for three years. They call that whiskey and it is found in virtually all of their blends.

So on paper, at least, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, and American blends are almost the same, yet anyone who has tasted both would vehemently disagree. The difference isn’t the 1/2 of 1% neutrality difference, or even those precious three years in wood. It’s that the Scots (and the Irish and Canadians) produce cheap blends but also very fine and expensive blends, and everything in between, while the U.S. produces cheap blends only.

That has nothing to do with rules and regs.

A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing.

Two of the most persistent controversies in the world of whiskey are the whiskey/whisky spelling issue and the "Jack Daniel's isn't bourbon, or is it?" issue.

I'm not going to rehash either of them here. If you're interested, the spelling issue is explained here and the Daniel's issue is here.

As I say in the later essay, the two are similar in that there is much less to both than many people think. They are both information usually obtained very early in a whiskey drinker's education, right after they learn that "smooth" is the catch-all attribute for any whiskey they like, but before they learn that using it marks them as a novice.

Why is "a little knowledge" dangerous? Because it makes a person feel superior, which makes them defensive when they subsequently learn that the reality is more nuanced than they realized.

Typical is the person who wants to call the manager to the table because a server has included Jack Daniel's when listing the establishment's bourbon selection. When you ask a server what bourbons they have, "Jack Daniel's" is the least of the possible wrong answers. I've had them list everything on the bar that isn't clear, including Crown Royal, Johnnie Walker, and Southern Comfort.

In that context, Jack Daniel's is actually a right answer.

Is it ironic that the best-selling bourbon-type whiskey isn't bourbon? Yes, but it's not particularly important. When you only have a little knowledge, you don't know this, so your outrage about the ignorance of the server or bar actually betrays your own ignorance. Neat how that works.

Here's all you need to know. The only reason Jack Daniel's isn't labeled as bourbon is because its owners don't want to label it as bourbon. All of the reasons people cite for why JD can't be labeled as bourbon are nonsense. The only ruling on the subject that the feds have ever made was made at the request of the company, seeking permission to call their product Tennessee whiskey instead of bourbon. They did this because they were afraid they would be forced to label it as bourbon and they didn't want to, so they lobbied for and received acknowledgement of Tennessee Whiskey as not-bourbon..

Similarly, the only reason people worry about using the spelling "whisky" when talking about scotch is because the Scotch Whisky Association makes such a big damn fuss about it.

Bourbon Versus Scotch.

Although I prefer American whiskey I have nothing against scotch, despite my occasional pokes at some of its more pretentious enthusiasts. My real quarrel is with the ones who denigrate and dismiss as pretenders all whiskeys that are not single malt scotch. Their prejudices, like most, are generally based in ignorance.

One of their false beliefs is that spirit distilled in pot stills is inherently superior to spirit distilled in column stills. Because most American whiskey is initially distilled in a column still, like Scottish grain whiskey, many scotch enthusiasts assume they are more or less the same thing.

They aren't.

First, the stills. A column still can do anything a pot still can do but it can also do things a pot still cannot, like distill to 95% alcohol. It's not the type of still that matters, it's how you use it.

Second, the second distillation. Like Scottish single malts, American whiskeys are distilled twice, the second time in a pot still. Although the Americans don't need that second distillation to raise the proof, they believe it polishes the whiskey by pulling off a few of the more stubborn undesirable congeners.

Third, the end product. In Scotland, column stills are used to make blending whiskey that is distilled just shy of 95% alcohol, meaning just shy of neutrality, i.e., vodka. Pot stills are used to make malt whiskey that is distilled to about 70% alcohol. In an American whiskey distillery, column stills are used to distill to about 70% alcohol, about the same as a Scottish malt distillery. (Lower proof off the still means more flavor in the green spirit.)

The two distillates are different because of different grains, different yeast, and different water, but not because the stills are different.

The Celtic (Scotland plus Ireland and Wales) and American whiskey-making traditions began to diverge more than 200 years ago. They're different, you may even like the product of one better than the other, but to claim that one is objectively better than the other is calumny.

Scotch Snobs On Parade.

I get in trouble every time I use the term 'scotch snobs.' Maybe I should say 'whiskey snobs,' since there are bourbon snobs too, but scotch drinkers seem to be the worst offenders.

Let me be clear that I do not consider all scotch drinkers to be scotch snobs. That would be ridiculous. Scotch snobs are people who aren't satisfied with choosing for themselves what to drink and how to drink it, they have to tell everybody else the correct way to do it too. (See 'know-it-alls' and 'busy-bodies.')

Scotch snobbery went on rare display after John Hansell posted a press release from the makers of The Macallan, announcing that they are introducing ice ball cutters in bars in London, Scotland and Yorkshire. The Macallan is one of the most highly acclaimed of all single malt scotches.

Ice balls -- molded, not cut -- have recently become popular here in Chicago. They originated in Japan, where apprentice bartenders carve them by hand from blocks of ice. The Macallan device is a copper press that instantly trims a block of ice into a flawless ice ball.

Ice balls, an ice cube the size and shape of a tennis ball, look slick but they have the practical benefit of chilling a drink fast while diluting it slowly.

From the comments to Hansell's post, you would think that parliament had made the use of ice balls mandatory. "Blasphemy!" wrote one. "With an every day blend, maybe. With a Macallan, no way," wrote another. "The entire text is apologetic marketing newspeak for disguising their real motivation:  Finding a way to sell their whisky to more people than before," as if "finding a way to sell their whiskey to more people," is the most unspeakable kind of evil.

Here's how to tell if you're a whiskey snob. If you berate other people about the way they enjoy their whiskey and you berate producers when they stray from your idea of whiskey purity, you just might be a whiskey snob.

Bourbon Monday, Single Malts Wednesday.

Just a reminder that I'm teaching a Bourbon class this coming Monday, March 8th, at Rocks Lincoln Park (1301 West Schubert). Then on Wednesday, March 10, I'm teaching a Single Malt Scotch class at the Bar on Buena (910 West Buena Avenue). The classes start at 7:00 PM, include tasting, and last about a hour, although the nice thing about doing them in a bar is that you can continue to 'learn' after the class concludes.

All of these classes are "an introduction to..."

I'm doing this through I Wish Lessons. To attend, or get more information, go to their web site and click on "Drinks Around the World."

Scotch Class Tuesday.

Yes, I know a few things about scotch too. In fact, I'm teaching a Single Malt Scotch class this coming Tuesday, February 16, at the Bar on Buena (910 W. Buena Ave.). The class includes a tasting of four single malts. It lasts about a hour.

I teach these classes through I Wish Lessons. To attend, or get more information, go to their web site and click on "Drinks Around the World."

Buy Your WhiskeyFest Chicago Tickets by Sunday and Save $10.

WhiskeyFest Chicago, sponsored by Malt Advocate Magazine, is Chicago's only major whiskey event. It is held each year at the Hyatt Regency downtown. This year it is on Friday, April 23, from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm.

For the second consecutive year there is no increase in ticket prices. Regular tickets are $110 each and early admission VIP tickets are $150 each. But order now (through Sunday, January 31) and pay just $100 for the standard admission ticket. Go here to order your tickets or here if you want more information.

They've also arranged for special room rates at the Hyatt. Unless you're like me and can get home on the #145 bus, staying there is a good plan.

If you've never been to one of these events, it goes something like this.

When you arrive and register, you receive a commemorative Glencairn Scottish crystal nosing glass. Then you enter the ballroom, which looks like you're at a trade show, with rows of booths. Each booth is hosted by a different whiskey producer and they are pouring one or several of their whiskeys. Sometimes the person doing the pouring is the master distiller or master blender.

There's also a substantial buffet, one at each end of the hall. It's a typical hotel buffet, but you can make a dinner of it.

In the adjacent meeting rooms, distillery representatives give presentations, most of which include guided tastings.

Most of the whiskeys you can buy in the United States are represented. Bourbon, rye, scotch, Irish, Canadian, Japanese, it's all there. Naturally, new expressions are often featured.

It can get pretty crowded. So it doesn't get too crowded, they limit how many tickets they sell. They always sell all of them in advance, so don't think you're going get tickets at the door.

I'll be there, though not in any official capacity. Once, a few years ago, I asked myself if I was there to work or there to drink and I opted for drinking.

Scotland Moves To Protect Scotch Whisky.

New Scottish regulations aimed at protecting Scotch whisky will come into force later this month. Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy announced the new regulations, which will require single malts to be bottled in Scotland. At the same time, the Scottish government is also considering minimum pricing standards for all alcohol as a way to combat alcohol abuse, on the misguided theory that buyers of cheap alcohol are more prone to abusing it.

How important is scotch to Scotland's economy? It represents fully 20% of all export income.

Under the new rules, all scotch whiskies must carry a category description, such as "blended Scotch whisky." Use of the term "pure malt" will be banned, to prevent this description from being applied to blended whiskies in an attempt to make them appear superior to single malts.

There will also be new protection for the traditional regional names associated with Scotch whisky, and clear rules on statements about the age of the whisky.

The Scots want to get their own house in order before they take on India and other countries that make imitation scotch.
 
Although Scotland sells five times more of its whiskey to the rest of the world that the U.S. does, the U.S. has done a better job of protecting its product, probably as a result of learning from Scotland's mistakes.

Richard Paterson Teaches Us a Trick.

Richard Paterson is Master Blender at Whyte & Mackay, makers of The Dalmore Single Highland Malt Scotch Whisky.

I had lunch with Paterson yesterday, along with his PR handlers and several other journalists. We ate, drank scotch, and listened to Paterson’s presentation about the company’s flagship single malt brand, The Dalmore, which has new owners, a new U.S. importer, and is being re-launched.

Paterson is one of Scotland’s best-known noses, but the highlight of his presentation yesterday was a parlor trick.

That may sound snide. I don’t mean it to. I’ve seen a million of these presentations, they’re all about the same, and this was a particularly good parlor trick executed by a master showman.

Paterson took a water glass that was about two-thirds full of plain water. Then he took a clean, white handkerchief, unfolded it, and draped it over the glass. Using his finger he made a well in the center and slowly poured in a few ounces of whiskey. Then he carefully removed the handkerchief and, voila, the whiskey was floating on top of the water, with a distinct line between them.

He even rocked the glass back and forth a few times, and the whiskey and water didn’t mix.

The trick isn’t hard to do, Paterson explained. The key is to make sure the handkerchief touches the water when you create the well and remains in contact with it as you carefully pour in the whiskey.

Oh yeah, The Dalmore. It’s good stuff. The familiar 12-year-old expression is still the flagship. It is an affordable and not-too-challenging entry into the world of premium single malts. But the new regime (The Dalmore used to be a Beam product) has broadened the line to include additional 15-, 30-, 40- and 50-year-old expressions (pricey), plus two NAS labels, called Gran Reserva and King Alexander III.

You can find out more about them here.

More Thoughts On The Whole Glenora v SWA Thing.

What do scotch enthusiasts think about the Scotch Whiskey Association (SWA) and its nine-year campaign to prevent a small Canadian distillery from using the word "Glen" in its product name? I checked Kevin Erskine's The Scotch Blog, where Erskine offered his opinion, then turned the floor over to Mark Reynier of Scotland's Bruichladdich Distillery.

I agree with both of them. As Erskine says, "it's silly and was a dumb fight for the SWA to pick." As Reynier points out, Glenora's VP and chief spokesperson is named Bob Scott, so the SWA should be glad he used a local place name and not his own surname.

As anyone willing to look at the facts can see, Glenora actually went to great pains to make sure consumers understand that their whiskey is a product of Canada, not Scotland.

I suppose it makes sense for the SWA to test the limits, push the envelope, all that, in its efforts to protect the image of Scotland-produced whiskey; but they should have thought about this 200 years ago or so, when Scots started to settle in other parts of the world, scattering Scottish place names about in their new homes. They maybe should also have been a little more original about their own distillery and brand naming, and not have everything be Glen-this and Glen-that.

And the whole spelling thing--whiskey v whisky--has already been done to death.

The real target here is not Canada anyway, it's India, where so-called "Indian Whiskey," a spirit usually not even made from grain, is marketed with tartans and Scottish-sounding names and every other bit of Scottish imagery the producers can get away with. The SWA's goal, of course, is to vanquish the fake scotch so consumers in that booming economy will buy more real scotch.

Decision: "Glen" Does Not Equal "Scotch."

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the Scotch Whisky Association’s (SWA) appeal of a Federal Court of Appeal decision. The ruling allows Glenora Distillery of Nova Scotia to register the name "Glen Breton, Canada’s only single malt whisky," under the Trademarks Act of Canada.

I wrote about this last Tuesday, the day the SWA announced its intention to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada works fast.

In reporting the Court's decision, the Chronicle Herald of Halifax provided some interesting background. Apparently, the SWA first registered their objections nine years ago. The attorney Glenora hired is a sole practitioner out of Halifax, Nova Scotia, named David Copp, who is originally from Cape Breton. You can read that story here.

Although this settles the matter so far as sales in Canada are concerned, the SWA said Friday it could take action outside Canada (read: USA) depending on how Glenora markets its products internationally.