News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by beloch on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @08:50PM (#11727179)
"During the aging process, changes in heat and pressure push and pull the alcohol in and out of the wood. There is a constant back-and-forth between aldehyde and acid, until the acids accumulate en masse and turn permanently into esters, adding complex character and deep flavors."

This quote I found interesting. It would seem an important ingredient in making whisky is a locale with reasonably varied weather. I wonder if anyone has tried the equivalent of putting their whisky barrels in a giant iron lung? Pushing and pulling the whisky in and out of the wood more often might speed up the aging process.

"When it opened in 2003, Tuthilltown started experimenting with accelerating the maturation of single malt, rye, and bourbon whiskeys by letting the alcohol settle in 2- to 5-gallon oak barrels, instead of the industry-standard 53- to 55-gallon oak casks, increasing the alcohol-to-barrel-surface ratio. The small barrels sped up aging significantly; we could get to market in months, instead of years,” says Tuthilltown co-owner Ralph Erenzo"

Laphroaig takes 5-year old whisky and then ages it in "quarter casks" (~80 L or 20 gallons) for several months. The result is actually pretty tasty for a relatively cheap scotch. (Warning: must like Islay's or this one will slay you). Their 10-year old bottling is a bit nicer, but almost twice the price.

It's worth noting that more years in the barrel doesn't always improve a whisky. Islay's tend to lose their famous medicinal character if aged for too long, and other scotches often just get musty. I once had a 30-year old bottling of a rye that tasted like licking a steel drum. I'm not sure what went wrong there. Unlike many other things, there isn't so much a point of diminishing returns, but rather, a point after which a whisky will start getting worse, even as the prices continue to grow exponentially.

"Bourbon made in less than a year may be financially savvy, but most bourbon experts say it falls short on taste. “I don’t think new methods are producing whiskey that is comparable,” Bryson says. “Some accelerated whiskeys don’t feel right. They feel too thin; they don’t have the proper ‘roundness.’ ”

I'd have to do a double blind taste-test to be convinced this is true. Are whisky aficionados really more accurate than wine tasters, who famously aren't good at telling what they're drinking at all? I'm certain I could tell an Islay from a Rye or a Speyside, but could I tell a 5-year-old Bourbon from an 8-year-old Bourbon made by the same distiller if they were messing about with these accelerated aging methods?

Aging issues aside, it will be interesting to see how consumer tastes evolve over the coming decades. Scotch has come on big in the last couple of decades and demand for Bourbon is also exploding. Rye (especially Canadian Rye) remains a bit of a niche drink though, but public interest seems to be picking up. Last year, Jim Murray declared the #1 new whisky in the world to be Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye, which is a good rye for the price, but nothing particularly special. There are several Canadian Rye producers that could easily produce higher end bottlings if the market demand was there, and it does seem to be developing. It would be a fine day indeed if Alberta Premium started regularly producing 20-30 year-old bottlings instead of tricking an extremely limited bottling out every 5 years.

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by stepvhen on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @09:09PM (#11727233)
On your first point: people have known about this for a long time. Rum, for instance, is mostly produced in warmer climates, and the aging process is 2x to 5x faster. A 3 year rum tastes like a 10 year whiskey. And indeed, Buffalo Trace ages its Blanton's brand whiskey at the top of a meal rickhouse, where it can get the most exposure to the shifting temperatures of the natural world. (it pays off, it is one of the best bourbons you can get for $60 or even more).

Second: Scotch is aged very differently from bourbon, mostly regarding the barrel restrictions bourbon has (new charred american oak, only). A number of scotch distilleries actually buy barrels off of bourbon distilleries after the casks have been used. Thats also why bourbon is almost always much sweeter in profile than scotch or other whiskies. (Also Laphroaig is delicious).

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by peterwwillis on Thursday May 19, 2016 @12:49AM (#11728055)
Temperature, like age, is one of many factors that determines when a spirit is ready, but it's a mistake to think that because rums are aged less that it's because of the climate. The congeners are also significantly different, just like those between bourbon and scotch, and the processes all vary in order to get the specific flavor profile the distiller wants.

Yes, there are 3 year rums that taste like 18 year scotch. And there are 18 year rums that taste like 8 year whisky.

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by manachar on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @09:19PM (#11727275)
It'd be fascinating if a few barrels of Laphroaig were sent someplace warm, but equally as coastal for aging to see how it changes the tastes.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by stepvhen on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @09:28PM (#11727302)
Too much effort and money, probably, especially since they have a good spot in the market right now.

However, Jefferson's Ocean [1] whiskey is an experiment where Jefferson's took 68 bourbons aged 6-8 years, blended them together, threw the barrels onto a ship, and sent it on a 6 month sea voyage. Apparently, it yielded some interesting, tasty bourbon. I haven't had it, I havent even seen it in person. But be on the look out, i guess.

[1] http://thewhiskeyjug.com/bourbon-whiskey/jeffersons-ocean-ag...

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by Kalium on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @10:24PM (#11727518)
I've had it. It's amazing and well worth the price. Hell, well worth a significantly higher price.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by joezydeco on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @10:27PM (#11727530)
See also: Aquavit Linie

http://linie.com

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by sliverstorm on Thursday May 19, 2016 @12:25AM (#11727952)
I imagine in Laphroaig case, if you already have a pipeline going strong you care less about accelerating.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by trb8 on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @11:01PM (#11727658)
> Their 10-year old bottling is a bit nicer, but almost twice the price.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. At least when I've seen it, the Quarter Cask is noticeably more expensive then the 10 year. $60 vs. $45. Which now that you point out it is aged half as long does not make a lot of sense.

http://www.bevmo.com/laphroaig-quarter-cask--750-ml-.html http://www.bevmo.com/laphroaig-scotch-10-year--750-ml-.html

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by TylerE on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @09:22PM (#11727288)
Jim Murray is a professional shill/troll. His Whiskey Guide is an utter joke to anyone who actually enjoys the spirit.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by beloch on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @11:45PM (#11727807)
I've tried his past recommendations and found some pretty good whiskies as a result. He's certainly guilty of a little misrepresentation. I wouldn't say he chooses the best whisky made in a given year so much as a good, usually possible to acquire (which is important) whisky from a region/producer that probably doesn't get enough recognition.
Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by TylerE on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @11:53PM (#11727840)
But that's sort of the point.

Which ever distillery decides to pay him off in any given year gets declared 'world's greatest whiskey' and suddenly sells out and then comes back on the market at triple the price...

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by coldtea on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @10:59PM (#11727652)
Or so say those who disagree and consider themselves better connoisseurs...

Because otherwise, he is a well respected Whisky writer with a long history in the trade, and lots of achievements.

Re:Whiskey Can’t Hide Its Age by coldtea on Thursday May 19, 2016 @05:09AM (#11728932)
From the first link:

"The first thing I need to state, and I want to be very clear, is that Murray is an expert on whiskey. He knows what he is talking about, and he certainly knows more about whiskey than I, or any of my readers do."

I could go on...

The rest is just about how taste is subjective etc, which every drink/food aficionado knows...