A question of consistency

I have read a bit about the steps in making whisky, but have not seen any description of how it is bottled. If you read various sources of tasting opinions and information, there are some significant differences in opinion from supposedly the same whisky. Most of the rating is probably due to personal bias, unless the tastings were totally blind which does not seem to be the predominant method used by whisky clubs and groups. Here's why I'm interested:

I am a chemist by education, training and experience and I make my living with chemistry as a small part of it. I know that water and ethanol are essentially infinitely miscible. But I also know that various organic components of whisky, such as esters, have differing densities. If you pour liquids of different densities together, and allow them to settle for a long period of time, the heavier liquid will migrate down to the bottom of the container due to simple gravity. There are other factors as well, such as molecular structure, polar and non-polar attractions, etc.

Depending on how a barrel is stored, how long it is stored, how it is handled after storage enroute to tapping the keg, the use of a "thief" during tasting in the ageing process when the blender makes decisions about finishing, and a myriad of other variables, how can we be sure that the sample we get from the first bottle is chemically the same as the sample from the last bottle from the barrel? Are barrels tapped like beer kegs in the end? Is whisky mixed in any way prior to removal to the bottling process, or is the first bottle from the bottom of the barrel and the last bottle from the top? We know that different batches (barrels) can yield slightly different bottles due to differences in the barrel wood and its history, but what is done to prevent variations from within a single barrel? It would seem to make a difference.

Reply to
mdavis
Loading thread data ...

Or perhaps even within a single bottle!

Reply to
n_cramerSPAM

Yes, even within a single bottle. Unlike wine, which is generally left alone and undisturbed until the bottle is opened and decanted, whisky is usually poured by the drink. I've noted pouring spouts used at some tastings which require the bottle to be inverted for each "shot", but for home use that would not likely be the case. With my bottles, I invert the bottle with the cork in the bottle before pouring my portion. This disrupts gravitational tendencies for the various organic components to separate, and keeps the cork "wet" to prevent drying and maintains a good seal. I doubt many people do this.

But what about the casks?

Reply to
mdavis

For the most part multiple casks from the same distillery are mixed together prior to bottling.. Bruichladdich (sp?) one of the only distilleries that bottles its own product uses the stainless steel tanks from old milk trucks to handle this task.

(HEY they're Scots after all)

Lots of different casks all with slightly (or vastly) different characteristics and ages are mixed together with enough water to bring the ABV into line and to produce what they feel is their distinctive taste. The different whiskies and the water are (so I'm told) re-casked and given time to "marry" before bottling .. anywhere from weeks to months depending on who is telling the story. These casks are returned to the tanks prior to bottling, so a much as possible they are exactly consistent from the beginning of the bottling run to the end.

Over time the whiskies do change in character and flavor, just listen to real Lag fans speak longingly of the Lagavoulin 77 or 78 .. this is also one of the reasons that single casks and cask strength are so popular, they are seen as a more pure reflection of the distillers art. Personally my preference is for whisky from a second fill bourbon cask for most peaty whiskies and first fill for others.

Reply to
ajames54

If, in fact, the cask is transferred to a tank for bottle filling, that process should sufficiently mix the contents to assure at least some uniformity from first bottle to last. I note that my bottle of Avelour a'bunadh is a "Batch 16" and cask strength 59.6 abv. That would no doubt be a blend rather than a cask. I would think, then, that cask bottlings "could" be more inconsistent than batches depending on the final handling?

Reply to
mdavis

I would certainly expect so, Abelour offers (at the end of your tour) the opportunity to purchase a bottle of whisky that you yourself have drawn from a cask .. kind of cool as a gimmick but.. in this case there would certainly be a great deal of inconsistency (1). Even in the cases of single cask, cask strength whiskies they are descanted from the cask before bottling .. if for no other reason than to filter out the floaties (chunks of char etc from inside the casks(2)).

(1) A'bunagh and really all other "single malts" are blends of different cask types and ages, the aim is for a consistent taste. A'bunagh is a bit different in that they are not attempting to create a whisky that is consistent from year to year or even really batch to batch .. they have a broad idea of what they want but they treat it more like a chef than a chemist. Personally while I'm not a huge fan of Sherried whisky, I like to try the different batches .. it just seems more artisanal than other whiskies (probably just the marketing but what the hell)

(2) The first time I toured Bruichladdich the guide showed us the traditional "spirit thief" which was two older HP Sauce bottles on a string, he demonstrated how they would barely fit into the cask, and they were heavy enough to sink. Since he was demonstrating we of course all got to sample the whisky, the amount of char floating in the whisky was surprising, some people wouldn't try it because of that .. hee hee more for me.

Reply to
ajames54

The "thief", of course, is another area of inconsistency. If the blender dips and tastes, does he do anything to stir up the cask, or just take his chances with what comes up? I would think the chance of an undistributed contents would affect the blender's assessment of the aging process and the subsequent addition of other casks to the vatting.

Reply to
mdavis

"mdavis" skrev i melding news:MPyvg.126870$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

I beleive it's the only one really. Concerning the other mentioned areas, well: Standard OBs are vattings, and they are filtered. Even unchillfiltered single cask bottlings are usually still physically filtered AFAIK. You may have a point when it comes to very special "straight from the cask" bottlings, if they really ARE straight from the cask. Even in this case it is reasonable to believe that the cask has been transported and handled before bottling.

If the blender

You may very well be right about this. But I'm sure those blenders know about the problem if it exists, and take the necessary steps. They are, after all, experienced professionals : ) I find your thoughts interesting from a theoretical point of view, though.

Gunnar

Reply to
Gunnar Thormodsaeter

The potential for so many inconsistencies might explain the vast differences in tasting notes between some very experienced SMS drinkers on web sites such as Malt Maniacs and some of the forums. We can also throw in some additional variables such as length of time the bottle has been opened, type of cork or top seal, storage temperature in the bottle, color of the bottle glass and subsequent amount of light reaching the malt. I take all ratings with a grain of salt (skeptically) and use tasting notes for general overall style expectations.

Reply to
mdavis

"mdavis" skrev i melding news:nECvg.174606$F snipped-for-privacy@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Oxidation is indeed an interesting topic, and has been mentioned here from time to time. I tried to raise a discussion about this myself on this NG some time ago, and this is roughly what I wrote: I often find that an opened whisky will go through changes over time. Generally, my experience is that in an opened bottle there will be a detectable positive effect to begin with; say the first couple of weeks or up to a couple of months. The whisky opens up and shows more complexity. As long as there's more whisky than air in the bottle, then nothing more happens for quite a while. Sooner or later though, a negative effect will be noticable; the whisky will slowly become flat and dull. This may occur after about a year, but sometimes allready after maybe six months. Different whiskies react differently and in varying degree to the phenomenon, and exactly which factors that are at play here is perhaps difficult to establish. ("Malt Madness" mentions type of cask (bourbon/sherry), phenol level and age as possible factors). When age is concerned, I really can't draw any conclusions at all from my own experience. But a guess wold be that young whiskies, since they haven't allready been breathing in the cask for that long, will 1) be more sensitive than older whiskies to the early, positive effects of oxidation, and 2) endure a longer period of air exposure than older whiskies before they decline. But then there is the influence of the cask. If that in some way has a preservative effect, then probably older whiskies will withstand oxidation better... And what about tannins? Anyway, it's an interesting phenomenon, and difficult to understand. Strange thing that a few weeks in an opened bottle (not to mention 15 to 30 minutes in a glass!) can make so much difference with whisky that has been breathing in the cask for many years. Your viewpoints on the above would be appreciated!

That's another topic I've tried to raise on this NG, with limited response. Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable with tin screw caps with an inner seal of what seems to be some sort of prepared cardboard...

For sure.

So do I. And I too have sometimes read tasting notes that made me feel that the taster probably hasn't taken into account variables you mention. But when it comes to tasting notes and ratings, I'm quite sure that the most significant variables is to find with the different tasters. A tasting experience is such a personal and subjective matter afterall. And we all have different noses and palates.

Gunnar

Reply to
Gunnar Thormodsaeter

Quite some time ago I posted about a blind side by side testing I did with a few friends and two Ardbeg 17's. One had been open for some time and the other was brand new (both had been purchased at the same time) everyone felt that they were both very nice whiskies, with quite different characteristics it was evenly split as to which whisky was preferred.

Just an interesting note not meant to be indicative of really anything..

Absolutely .. I don't think the tendency of tasting notes to include terms like "tarry rope" helps matters any. I don't think I've ever known anyone who has tasted tarry rope so how do they have any basis for comparison? Personally I've never tried treacle toffee, heather or any of half a dozen of other compounds commonly listed in tasting notes .. but it is enough for me to know that if Highland Park

18 is described as having X characteristics then I may very well like other whiskies the same taster says have X characteristics.

Even then there is a real hit and miss quality with reading others tasting notes.. As long as who ever is doing the tasting likes what I like and dislikes what I dislike then I will give the benefit of the doubt. Actually I find that the Dislikes are more important than the likes, there is a finite amount of money available for this pastime, and I've wasted enough on bad bottles as it stands. If I ever find tasting notes that rate Littlemill or Glen Parker better than exorable(sp?) then I know to forever ignore the taster

Reply to
ajames54

Although it is early in the game (a bit over 2 months) for me with respect to single malt scotch whisky, it seems that higher alcohol contents seem to act as a better preservative; say comparing a Laphroaig 10 yo at 43% ABV (alcohol by volume) versus a Glenfarclas 105 at least 10 yo (current bottle) and 60% ABV. There seems to be less change in the bottle over many weeks with the Glenfarclas 105 which is also cask strength. The Laphroaig 10 yo may change dramatically, but it is hard to tell just how consistent the Laphroaig 10 yo is from bottle to bottle. I am only on my second bottle of it and this one seems to be more rounded and less aggressive when compared to the first one.

The comment about 15 to 30 minutes in a glass is a very analytical observation. If one watches something like the Malt Project video series:

formatting link

one sees very rapid evalutions of single malts by the experts in a very small glass. For anyone who is interested in single malts scotch whisky, this is an eye opener that one can really not get out of any book. An extremely interesting article on the subject of glasses and single malts is to be found in MaltMadness:

formatting link

which was written in 2002 and compared six different glasses for single malt scotch whisky evaluation. The overall winner of the experiment was a 660 ml cognac snifter. The great loser was the Riedel Vinum Single Malt glass - an indication of poor judgement on the part of Riedel when it comes to single malt scotch whisky glass design, finishing a dead last! To that set of glassware, I would suggest, for those who have Riedel Sommelier wine glasses, to try the Burgundy glass that holds over one liter of fluid. Initially the alcohol is overwhelming from the Burgundy glass when compared to the snifter, but once this is gotten through, as in 10 minutes or even longer, one can detect layers that are not at all apparent in the snifter (mine was a Riedel version). It is quite an interesting exercise to line up a bunch of glasses and pour in the same whisky, such as a Laphroaig and see the differences.

When it comes to wine, the well done screw top cap will do better than the cork, but there is the snob appeal of the cork versus unscrewing a cap (which use to be the sign of something cheap - such as Gallo Thunderbird). The Glenfiddich 12 yo comes with a screw top and I don't recall seeing anything that remotely resembled cardboard. All of the other single malts in my possession have corks.

Chemical reaction is certainly dependent upon temperature so that it would only be logical to store whisky in a cooler area, not necessarily a refrigerator, especially if the bottle has been opened and there is something approaching 50% gone.

Reply to
Fookoo Network

There are several possibilities that come to mind with regard to bottle aging, from the mind of this chemist:

First, casks are not air tight, therefore, most of the oxidation reactions that have taken place have already occurred during the maturation process. The simple fact that alcohol evaporates (the "angel's share") demonstrates that fact, albeit very very slowly, as oxygen and alcohol trade places. I would therefore not expect an appreciable amount of aging to occur to the organic contents of a bottled malt unless exposed to heat greater than the maturation temperatures, or to light containing UV radiation which causes havoc with organic molecular stability. I keep my stock in the basement with my wine at cooler temperatures, and completely out of the light during storage. I suspect those who use a malt display cabinet at living room temperatures and lighting may suffer some changes that others would not. Most bottle corks are secure enough to prevent appreciable loss of alcohol or entry of oxygen. I recently drank a bottle of 30 year old Chivas Regal

12 (left from my deceased father's estate) which was sound enough and had no detectible ullage by visual inspection. (Yeah, I know....I just couldn't throw it OUT!)

In addition, we all know that the "nose" changes with most malts over a fairly short period of time in the glass. I suspect, again, that this is due not so much to an organic reaction taking place in 5-30 minutes time that could not occur in 12 years time, but rather the evaporation, in stages, of various components of this complex brew. Alcohol can mask some delicate aromas, and evaporation of some alcohol can progressively reveal these in a short period of time.

It is standard procedure in identifying organic compounds in a chemistry laboratory to use devices such as the gas chromatograph (GC) and mass spectrometer (MS). These devices make use of the fact that different organic molecules evaporate (and hence travel through a long column) at different rates. Lighter molecules evaporate more quickly, leaving behind heavier molecules. In the GC/MS, compounds are identified by a flame detector as they line up to exit the column. In a whisky glass they are identified by the nose/brain as they evaporate from the surface of the liquid and sides of the glass.

I would expect, logically, that the changes we associate with an open bottle, come about from varying rates of evaporation of volatile esters which changes the overall mix, hence masking and unmasking what we smell. The most pungent odors (the Islays) are likely to mask more subtle background components, hence loss of even a slight amount of "smoke" for example from an open bottle, leaves other aromas more accessible to the senses.

My own practices (and I'm a green novice) are to keep bottles in the dark and at cool cellar temperatures, and keep stoppers in the bottles at all times except to pour. This most closely duplicates the conditions under which the malt was matured, except for removal of the influence of the maturation cask. I will stick to this policy unless or until someone can convice me that there is a better way. I'm listening and completely open to suggestions and alternative viewpoints.

Reply to
mdavis

Damn! Methinks I should have more chem classes.

Reply to
n_cramerSPAM

Well, a gas chromatograph of the contents inside of a glass every 30 seconds or perhaps one minute increments might be quite interesting. This technique would certainly eliminate the possibility of nose fatigue because of the alcohol concentration affecting the nose. In coffee, the lighter molecules come off first and one then detects floral and more volatile aroma dimensions that disappear as the coffee cools down in the cup, yielding, sometimes, to a deeper sense of more and denser fruitiness. With Laphroaig 10 yo in particular one can detect, very early on, burnt rubber and scorched earth that disappear with time - which would seem counter-intuitive. If the temperature is relatively constant throughout the evaluation, then the results maybe from oxidation and not so much from evaporation. Or perhaps it may be a combination of both. I leave that determination to a chemist via objective testing. Another perspective is to consider what happens inside of a bottle which is a closed system because of the cork/screw top, in which change is, usually, for the better, in terms of taste/aroma characteristics, not worse, assuming that there is enough volume left inside of the bottle. A good example of the previous sentence would, again, be Laphroaig 10 yo.

Reply to
Fookoo Network

Reply to
archangel

There must be a lot of unbelievably excellent noses around - just look here:

formatting link

and look at the various ratings of the same single malt from different years. I would tend to believe them rather than your friend.

Of course, a lot of these evaluations are dependent upon one's background. Now if one has been serious about wine and taken it to its limits, then there is no problem in detecting what some might consider to be subtle differences.

Still all of this is subjective. And the bottom line is if one can't tell any difference, then there is no difference to you, no matter what someone else might experience.

Reply to
Fookoo Network

I suspect your master distiller is talking about bottle to bottle from a single cask or vatting at the point of bottling. Once the bottle is turned loose on the market to weather the variables of temperature, storage, etc. things can happen.

I've read that the entire purpose of blends is to reproduce, as nearly as possible, the exact same color, nose and palate as previous years, much like brewing mass produced beer. This, of course, robs the blends of much of their potential character.

Other variables can be a person's general health (I note some tastings where an experienced taster complains of having a cold or allergy problem), type of glass used, length of time the bottle has been opened, storage conditions on both opened and sealed bottles, and (for me) previously tasted drams in the same session. Then there is the amount of water (if any) added, length of time in the glass (see above discussion on volatility of organic components), and expectations from age and label (if not tasting blind).

I suspect, in most tastings, there are simply too many variables to control. I know, in my own tastings (on my own, usually H2H), I find the same malt gives up different secrets on different days.

Reply to
mdavis

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.