Mellow Jack?

A few weeks back we had a bit of a staff masterclass at work featuring Jack Daniel's. I managed to miss it because I was on the way to Scotland. I also managed to miss a very similar event for the shops I'd been in all day up in Edinburgh, because I was on the train back down south. Ah well...

Anyway, a couple of samples were left for me to try to demonstrate development of Jack Daniel's whiskey through its famous charcoal mellowing process. Jack Daniel's all goes through '10 feet of hard sugar maple charcoal' before maturing in barrels and becoming whiskey.

These two are not quite new-make JD since it's cut down to 40%, and I'd imagine it's not matured at that strength. In Scotland the industry standard is 63.5% abv. In the USA whiskey is introduced to the cask at no higher than 125 proof (62.5% abv, see here) but as I understand it in practice it does go into casks at a lower strength than that, but not as low as 40%. Buffalo Trace, for example, generally introduce their wheated bourbons to cask at 57%/114 (American) Proof, something they've recently experimented with to make sure it's the optimium level.

I should also add that this is not a commercial release, it's not for sale at all and clearly states so on the bottle. The commercial release of these 'not whisky yet' whiskies is something I struggle to make my mind up about. I'm all in favour of things coming out that help us all to understand what we drink but when I see 50cl (ie. a sizeable amount of spirit) for more than bottles of decent quality single malt then something doesn't quite sit right. But that's for another post I think; there are some interesting thoughts on commercial releases of 'new-make' spirit over at the Edinburgh Whisky Blog.

Now I wouldn't really describe myself as a Jack fan, but in terms of readily available whiskies around the world, I'd say it's up there. I'd certainly take it over a cheap blended Scotch or for that matter an Indian 'whisky' which is, well, nothing of the sort. So what do these two taste like?

Jack Daniel's Unmatured - Before Mellowing.

The first impression is that it's kind of like you've walked into a sweet shop, there's a load of sweet corn there with a dusting of icing sugar and sugared water - you may get the impression I'm going with a sweet theme here on the nose. On the palate there's not much going on, some oily sweetness and some patisserie baked notes,but it comes across a bit like a rather directionless vodka. There's no finish to speak of unless a vague (and not particularly pleasant) lingering of the sweet corn flavours count. I know some people use these sort of raw spirits as a cocktail ingredient and I suppose it could work like that, it's really not meant to be a drink as such so it's unfair to suggest that it should be one - it's certainly not unpleasant just rather forgettable!

Jack Daniel's Unmatured - After Mellowing.

At first on the nose it's not hugely different, and if anything it's even more so, but I've run out of sweet metaphors so feel free to fill in your own. It seemed slightly more viscous in the glass, and once it had opened up the harsher sweet corn notes are not so pronounced as in the first sample. On the palate it's immediately more like whiskey, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that  'it is absent the grainy character of the white-labelled before-mellowing whiskey,'* it is Jack Daniels's after all, but it certainly pulls the flavours together more, and comes across as much smoother, even if it does add another layer of sweetness!

All in all it was interesting to try these two samples, you can certainly see that the mellowing does have an effect, although part of me does wonder if that extra sweetness might be at least as appealing as the smoothness.

* The blurb on the side of the bottle.

Blended Whisky Tasting

I don't drink, and indeed never really have drunk, blended whiskies. Not really knowing anything at all about whiskies, single malts seemed to me to be a natural starting point; one whisky, from one crop, from one distillery has a certain beautiful simplicity to me. When I worked for Oddbins it was trying different whiskies while trying to learn about the different regions that got me into exploration of the flavours that the distillers could coax from the raw materials. Neither have I tried enough whiskies to feel like I am in danger of running out at any point. I therefore find it intriguing when luminaries such as Jim Murray sing the praises of blends, indeed Ballantine's 17 was his scotch whisky of the year for 2013 in his recently published Whisky Bible. It does make me wonder if I've just missed out a stage in my enjoyment of whisky. After all, even single malts are generally blends of different casks, so blending is all part of the art and creativity of the industry.

I tasted these three different blended whiskies while practising for my WSET Spirits exam but rather than bore anyone with lengthy tasting notes I thought I'd just go through what I see as the stylistic differences.

The Famous Grouse was first up. I picked it more because of a good write up from Jim Murray that its status as one of the UK's best-selling whiskies; to see if I can pick out the qualities that lead to him giving it some 89 points in the Whisky Bible. I have to admit I struggled. I think I'll have to try it alongside another scotch blend, but there seemed to be very little character. The nose was grainy, with the vanilla oak coming through. On the palate there's some grassy freshness, and I suppose if you were dedicated to whisky to the point where you wanted one as an apéritif, this would be one choice.

The Jameson has more toffee and caramel on the nose, and again on the palate. It comes across as sweeter, but it's equally light in body and character, which complements the grassy, grainy palate. Again this gets a massive 95 points in the Whisky Bible but I was struggling to see why; in fact if anything the finish was worse than the Famous Grouse, the caramel leaving something of an artificial taste in the mouth.

Last up, Jack Daniel's ubiquitous No.7. Saviour of supermarket blends? Well, actually I thought it was better than the other two. The nose had more to it, showing multi-faceted rather than one-dimensional oak character; coconut, and maple, rather than simple vanilla. On the palate there's still some grassiness, this is still light if you're used to single malts, but there's more maple and notes of smoke from the char. The finish has almost gone before it starts. It's rough round the edges but it's hard to argue that there's anything unpleasant going on there. 87 points and, for me, the best of the bunch.

I don't think I'll be changing my whisky drinking habits on the back of this particular tasting, but, as ever, the flavour quest continues, and it was certainly interesting to re-visit and re-assess rather than holding to long-held opinions on these whiskies!