does it stand up to bakers, bookers, knob creek, makers mark, etc?
- posted
20 years ago
does it stand up to bakers, bookers, knob creek, makers mark, etc?
Is it just me, or is that a strange question to post to irish-whiskey and scotch-whisky ngs?
FWIW, I'd say "no it doesn't", just as bakers, bookers, knob creek, makers mark etc etc don't stand up to real whiskeys. :-)
Regards Declan, Okazaki, Japan
I've tasted all four of the above-listed American whiskeys, and I've enjoyed every one of them more than, say, an over-sherried highland malt.
Most days I wouldn't take any of them ahead of any given Ardbeg, mind you.
Fortunately we're not required to choose one and never enjoy the other.
cheers.
bill
Aye - though part of my soul screams that over-sherried drops aren't real either. We only get what we pay for.
True enuff
Regards Declan, Okazaki, Japan
I've got a bottle of Silver Single Barrel Jack Daniels, and it's quite pleasant. Not as nice as a good Balvenie, but nice.
Do Coca Cola make branded jugs so you can dilute that shit in style?
Besides the fact that the above mentioned whiskies are bourbons and Jack Daniels isn't makes a difference.
Sure, Jack is a bourbon. (Mash at least 51% corn, distilled to at most 80%, aged in new, charred oak barrels for at least 2 years, bottled at 80 proof or higher.) It just so happens that Jack (and George) choose not to put the word "bourbon" on the bottle as they decided some years ago that "Tennessee Whisk[e]y" had more cachet.
I think Jack Daniels is a respectable Tennessee Whiskey, but I prefer the Gentleman Jack. I don't think JD single is on a par with my favorate single barrel bourbons such as Blanton's or Kentucky Spirit.
I would agree that the best s> > does it stand up to bakers, bookers, knob creek, makers mark, etc? >
Unless I'm misled by Jack's propaganda, they were informed by the US government in the 1940s that they had properties unknown to bourbon and were a Tennessee Whiskey. Extra properties come from charcoal filtering. (I guess that means its really an extra absence of properties.) I don't know nuthin about George's process. Maybe he does the whole sugar maple charcoal thing, maybe he's just in Tennessee.
Mike
For the real address, convert the "twelve" to a numeral, and drop the word spam. No spaces, no underscores, pretty bland, huh.
~ > ~ Besides the fact that the above mentioned whiskies are bourbons and ~ > ~ Jack Daniels isn't makes a difference. ~ >
~ > Sure, Jack is a bourbon. (Mash at least 51% corn, distilled to ~ > at most 80%, aged in new, charred oak barrels for at least 2 years, ~ > bottled at 80 proof or higher.) It just so happens that Jack ~ > (and George) choose not to put the word "bourbon" on the bottle ~ > as they decided some years ago that "Tennessee Whisk[e]y" had ~ > more cachet. ~ ~ Unless I'm misled by Jack's propaganda, they were informed by the US ~ government in the 1940s that they had properties unknown to bourbon and were ~ a Tennessee Whiskey. Extra properties come from charcoal filtering. (I guess ~ that means its really an extra absence of properties.) I don't know nuthin ~ about George's process. Maybe he does the whole sugar maple charcoal thing, ~ maybe he's just in Tennessee. ~ ~ Mike
OK, despite my best efforts, I haven't been able to locate online the sections of US Code that specifically define bourbon and Tennessee whiskey. But here's what I've got so far ...
From NAFTA, Annex 313
This implies that Tennessee whiskey is a subtype of bourbon. So, yes, Jack and George have "extra properties", but those "extra properties" don't disqualify the whiskey from being bourbon.
Here are the federal regs (not statute, which I can't find) applicable to the use of the appellation[straight] bourbon whiskey (from
Whisky: "Whisky" is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190 deg. proof, in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80 deg. proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.
(1) (i) "Bourbon whisky", "rye whisky", "wheat whisky", "malt whisky", or "rye malt whisky" is whisky produced at not exceeding 160 deg. proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125 deg. proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type. (ii) "Corn whisky" is whisky produced at not exceeding 160 deg. proof from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn grain, and if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125 deg. proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood; and also includes mixtures of such whisky. (iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) (i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as "straight"; for example, "straight bourbon whisky", "straight corn whisky", and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph (b) (1) (i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as "straight whisky". No other whiskies may be designated "straight". "Straight whisky" includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State.
I don't see anything there that says that doing charcoal filtering between the still and the barrel causes an otherwise bourbon-compliant whiskey to fail to be bourbon.
Aaron
i think the silver select is ace, but i prefer Dickel over Jack any time
schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@news.meganetnews.com...
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.