Explanation of distillation?

Can anyone recommend a straightforward source on the internet that explains the process of distillation (and any significant variations across different types) for hard liquors? Just looking so I can discuss (and understand) the basics semi-coherently (and as my wine hardcopy resources don't help . . . )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation[url][url][/url][/url]

Thanks, Howie, I saw those, but wikipedia didn't really seem to have what I was looking for in this instance. The entry on distilled beverages doesn't discuss the process and I couldn't figure out what parts of the general entry on distillation applied to the distillation of alcoholic beverages and which parts did not. I was hoping for something particularly geared for someone interested in how these processes relate to the delicious drinks I love . . .

Keith, although I'm not a Wiki pusher, Howie's linking of the two Wiki sites on distillation very much DO go into the process of fermentation and distillation.

I'm not sure at this point why the information didn't answer your questions, because it seemed to me they did.

The basic fundamental process of fermentation and distillation to get a distilled spirit is going to be the same. The differences of the resulting spirits come from the primary sources of flavor.

These primary sources are

The base ingredients(s): grains (type of grain, blend of types, etc.), fruit, vegetable---anything with sugar and starch; a subset of this is the influence of terroir on the flavor of the base source.

Fermentation: how you prepare the base source (straight or create a wash), and how you proceed (cold fermentation, open fermentation, slow/fast, long/short, type of vessel, etc.

Distillation Process: pot still, continuous still, combination, type of vessel (copper, steel). long/short, hot/moderately hot, repetitive or singular, selection of results, blending of results, etc.

Additional Flavorings, or additional processes, post distillation (liqueurs can be neutral alcohol flavored with natural or artifical ingredients, gin can be either redistilled with botanicals or cold-compounded, and on and on.)

Maturation Process (if any): Eaux de vie is a clear, unaged brandy; Cognac is a clear unaged brandy aged for variable periods in oak casks under prescribed rules---the primary difference between the two is the type/duration of maturation process used.

Everything in in spirit essentially is a result of differing variation of the above.

Scotch whisky is Scotch Whisky because it is made in a certain place, follows certains rules and in so doing, uses a certain source of grain (barley malt), sometimes peat smoked, made in a certain way, and aged in a certain type of barrel for a certain amount of time in a certain invironment. So Scotch whiskey is largely influenced by its source/process of production. Whereas Bourbon, made in a certain place (America), made from corn and other grains, made by a somewhat looser set of rules, and then matured in warehouses in a hotter climate with carefully prescribed barrels (new, one use only, and charred) tend to show much more of the influence of the maturation process than any of the other elements (although they are still there).

Cognac is another that relies on its identity primarily (but not exclusively) through its maturation/blending process, as versus the edv, which primarily shows influence of base source, since it doesn't undergo maturation at all.

Rum is either made from molasses or sugar cane juice. Tequila is made from Blue Agave in certain areas of Mexico. Brandy is always made of some type of fruit (and if it isn't grapes, it must indicate what it is on the label, as in "Apple Brandy".

You want anything more, you'll have to take a class, dude.

Oh, and if you really want to know the rules, you can always go online to the TTB (formerly BATF) federal regulatory site and download each and every rule and regulation for every category and type recognized in the US. Same for wine.

If you do that you will:

waste an awful lot of time

fall asleep in numbed boredom

learn a few fascinating things.

But mostly you'll waste a lot of time.

Keith, although I'm not a Wiki pusher, Howie's linking of the two Wiki sites on distillation very much DO go into the process of fermentation and distillation.

I'm not sure at this point why the information didn't answer your questions, because it seemed to me they did.

I guess I was not clear. I am more interested in how the variations in distilling practices of alcohol translate into the final products.

I understand the basics of base ingredients, fermentation, and maturation techniques that end up driving the final result. What I am interested it (and saw little of in the wiki entries) was your mention of:

Distillation Process: pot still, continuous still, combination, type of vessel (copper, steel). long/short, hot/moderately hot, repetitive or singular, selection of results, blending of results, etc.

Colored alcohols go batch, clear go continuous . . . I'm not clear why from the wiki entry. The wiki entry on distillation mentions that pot stills are generally no longer used, except for "cognac, Scotch whisky, tequila and some vodkas" -- but does not explain why pot stills are still used for those beverages and not others.

To my reading, the wiki entry was more useful for comparing broad differences among distillations used for different purposes, rather than the difference within processes in which distillation is used for a single purpose: making alcohol for consumption. But I'll take a few more reads to see if I get something more out of it.

Okay, gotcha.

Colored alcohols go batch, clear go continuous . . . I'm not clear why from the wiki entry. The wiki entry on distillation mentions that pot stills are generally no longer used, except for "cognac, Scotch whisky, tequila and some vodkas" --

Didn't see that quote on the wiki thing, but it is not true that colored alc go batch, clear go continous.

Quick run down: pot stills (alembic) are the simplest and most original form of distillation (heat wine, catch alcohol vapors, condense alcohol vapors: spirits); column, or continuous of Coffey stills are simply a more economical/industrial/faster way of making spirits than pot stills, by using a series of heated plates for the process rather than a "pot".

Pot is slower, and operates at a much lower temperature. That makes a BIG difference. SO more artisanal (and usually expensive) and small batch stuff is pot still (but now may be cognac, armagnac, other brandies, whiskey, gin, even vodka and rum and tequila).

Column still is faster, but being hotter, results in fewer congeners remaining in the resulting spirit----so in essence it is closer to a neutral spirit, and generally has less/fewer flavor components----so you can use the gns and then add flavors to it----gin, liqueurs. Pot still is slower and cooler, so more of the congeners are left in the spirit (or you could say, in a sense, more of the impurities are left in the spirit)---which means more texture (oiliness and aldehydes) and more flavor.

But th biggest difference in result, in terms of absolute impact, is the maturation process (if any). It's the slow aging in barrels with changes in heat, cold and humidity that make the big differences, the really macro differences.

You can see that (pardon the brand push but it's necessary) by going to a bar and getting a shot each of Jack Daniels, Jack Daniels Single Barrel, and Gentle Jack. There you start with the same basic product, but then it is the maturation process (style, duration, filtering, blending, etc.) that makes all the difference in the world. And it is very easy to taste/see that difference if you do it that way.

Another comparison: check out Woodford Reserve and either Makers Mark of Weller side by side. Woodford is a pot still whiskey, with lots of maturation, and heavy up on rye grain as a constituent to the corn (called 'rye-heavy'). Makers Mark is a continuous still whiskey, with maturation, but made with a heavy mix of wheat. You can taste the differnences, both in the wheated base and the rye based comparison of taste and texture, and you can gauge the effects of the maturation process at the same time. (Because you've defined and limited the variables.

Another difference: tequila can be either 100% Agave (the best), or it can be 'mixto', a blend of agave with at least 51% "other", usually sugar cane. Hint: the one that doesn't say 100% Agave is the mixto, and you can tell the difference (usually) just by price. That cheap Gold Tequila you might have od'ed on? That was Mixto.

I could go on and on, but that's a quick top of the head gloss, Keith.

Super. Thanks, Hoke. Precisely what I was looking for.

But th biggest difference in result, in terms of absolute impact, is the maturation process (if any). It's the slow aging in barrels with changes in heat, cold and humidity that make the big differences, the really macro differences.

Indeed. I've already got a sense of this from just an introduction to comparing blanco, reposado, and añejo tequilas (no extra añejo yet), 100 percent agave all.

But, yeah, even though it might not drive the macro differences of the end products, I was just looking to understand the differences among distillation choices as that clarifies the general process of distillation in my head. Your post was mightily helpful in that effort, so many thanks.

Oh, and one more question. I've heard that in some cases distillers distill to the exact alcohol level desired in the end product, while in most cases they distill to a higher level of alcohol and then dilute to reach the desired alcohol level (and pardon me if I am misremembering here). Does this occur and, if so, is it significant in the final products produced, or just a flourish?

Oh, and one more question. I've heard that in some cases distillers distill to the exact alcohol level desired in the end product, while in most cases they distill to a higher level of alcohol and then dilute to reach the desired alcohol level (and pardon me if I am misremembering here). Does this occur and, if so, is it significant in the final products produced, or just a flourish?

Well, general answer is that almost all of the major distillers distill out to a higher proof, then cut down with distilled water, Keith.

There are regulations in place for most categories (the specifics differ) as to how high the distillation can go (actually, it's usually stated in a high/low range), and at what proof it has to be go to into the bottle.

Here's a for instance: Bourbon has to go in the bottle at a minimum of 80 proof (40abv), but in rare ciircumstances you can find Bourbon bottled at Cask Proof---or whatever it was when the cask was broached---so you might see Cask Proof--116% Proof. The "Bottled in Bond" designation that came out of the end of Prohibition stipulated that the whiskey be bottled at 100 proof.

Well, general answer is that almost all of the major distillers distill out to a higher proof, then cut down with distilled water, Keith. [snip] Here's a for instance: Bourbon has to go in the bottle at a minimum of 80 proof (40abv), but in rare ciircumstances you can find Bourbon bottled at Cask Proof---or whatever it was when the cask was broached---so you might see Cask Proof--116% Proof.

Aha, I see, thanks Hoke.

Keith, you mentioned the tequila spectrum earlier, and that's a great example of the effect/impact of the maturation spectrum, from blanco to extra anejo.

And trust me, you would easily register the Extra Anejo on the far end of that spectrum. No question: it's the barrel and maturation effect writ large.

Now to fill out the Tequila paradigm, you'd have to add, on the left side, a Gold/Joven Abocado, which is by definition a mixto (not 100% agave) and by definition un-aged. The gold is just caramel coloring.

The other aspects that impact Tequila are

1. Terroir: there are roughly two primary growing areas for prime Tequila, lowlands and highlands, and each has different terroir (hot/cool, dry/wet, soil differences) that create different taste profiles. Many Tequilas are a careful blend of the two, but some focus on one or the other.

2. Processing differences: primarily whether a slow cook oven process or an autoclave steamer is used, and then how the cooked agave is shredded and pressed (and how much it is hydrated and then squeezed, the equivalent of hard pressing grapes versus 'free run').

3. Distillation. Most 100% agave quality tequilas go through an initial pot still to make the 'ordinario', and then a hotter continuous still to produce the final product that goes into the bottle. But some Tequila is made by triple-distillation process---crisper and cleaner to the taste.

And the last big difference is that some Tequila is rested or aged past the required minimums. Herradura has a Blanco, which doesn't require aging---but it is held long enough that it can almost be classified as a Reposado. And the Reposada is almost an Anejo. And the Anejo is aged longer than most other Anejos.

Milagro is sort of the equivalent of what whiskey makers might call 'small batch'. Doesn't mean anything technically/legally, but basically the Milagro people are more interested in doing more artisanal stuff from a particular location, rather than a general style in large volume.

And I take it that all that applies to tequila also applies to mezcal more generally?

Not that I've had much non-tequila mezcal . . . though I'd like to weave my way through Del Maguey's single village options.

Tangentially, I've never cared for the wine writers they've had scribbling for the Washington Post (though a new one has just started, so best of luck to him), but within the past few years (I think) they got a new spirits writer who writes helpful pieces like this about tequila--they could've given him the wine beat too 'far as I'm concerned . . .

And I take it that all that applies to tequila also applies to mezcal more generally?

Not that I've had much non-tequila mezcal . . . though I'd like to weave my way through Del Maguey's single village options.

Tangentially, I've never cared for the wine writers they've had scribbling for the Washington Post (though a new one has just started, so best of luck to him), but within the past few years (I think) they got a new spirits writer who writes helpful pieces like this about tequila--they could've given him the wine beat too 'far as I'm concerned . . .

Yes, with the caveat that mezcal is much less regulated than Tequila is (because Tequila is place specific, and mezcal isn't). And we must not forget raicillia, comiteca, and the ever popular bacanora! (Although they are not exported to the US.)

Great article, by the way.

The one and only quibble is a tasting note quibble: I wouldn't say the cooked agave tastes like pumpkin; to me it tasted much more like an overcooked sweet potato. But serious, it was a very good, and nicely written article.

In case anyone is interested in bourbon specifically:

The mash bill must contain at least 51% corn, with the remainder made up of wheat and/or rye for flavor and malt for enzymatic conversion. A typical bourbon mash is something like 75% corn, 15% rye and 10% malt.

It must come off the still at or less than 160 proof.

It must enter the barrel at or less than 125 proof.

It must be aged in new, charred oak barrels for a minimum or 2 years, but if less than 4 the age must be present on the bottle.

The age on the bottle, if listed, refers to the youngest bourbon in the blend.

"Bottled in Bond" refers to a bourbon that is 4 years old, bottled at 100 proof, and is the product of a single distilling season. This was a designation of quality in years past, but has since lost it's appeal.

It must be aged in new, charred oak barrels for a minimum or 2 years, but if less than 4 the age must be present on the bottle.

A little more to it than that though. Right, Jeff?

Another thing to consider when looking at the quality of a distilled spirit is not only the quality of the raw material, how it was fermented, distilling method used, maturation etc, but the actual material the distilling apparatus is made from (copper vs. stainless steel).

Salute

Another thing to consider when looking at the quality of a distilled spirit is not only the quality of the raw material, how it was fermented, distilling method used, maturation etc, but the actual material the distilling apparatus is made from (copper vs. stainless steel).

Salute

Good point, Victor. I mentioned that earlier when I listed the sources of flavor. When you are distilling, the type of vessel is important. As is the particular way you distill, and the heat at which you distill. Also, how you deal with the foreshots and tails. Also how many times you distil. Then, of course, how you treat the distillation, and how you filter (if you filter). Then later, when you blend, an experienced master distiller can actually blend to emphasize different congeners to express certain types of preferred flavors.

I can easily dispell the old saw about "vodka is vodka is vodka" (when talking about the original US vodka standards, simply by sitting someone down and having them sample a handful of vodkas that I have chosen. There are aromatic differences, there are taste differences, and there are textural differences; and they are fairly obvious too, even to an untrained palate. It's just that most people, alas including most professionals, never notice these things in detail because the never actually compare the different vodkas (at the same time, I mean).

I can easily dispell the old saw about "vodka is vodka is vodka" (when talking about the original US vodka standards, simply by sitting someone down and having them sample a handful of vodkas that I have chosen. There are aromatic differences, there are taste differences, and there are textural differences; and they are fairly obvious too, even to an untrained palate. It's just that most people, alas including most professionals, never notice these things in detail because the never actually compare the different vodkas (at the same time, I mean).

Don't you get quickly bored with vodka?

This is a reply to "hoke". Woodford reserve is not an autonomous distillery (unfortunately). It is a co-mingled product of select barrels from Old Forrester (distilled in Louisville) than shipped and racked at the Woodford distillery for ageing. It is not a 100% potstill product, although I'm sure some people wouldn't mind that the masses believed that it was. I will say that the copper used in the creation of the distilate from Versaillles does impart a definate mineral characteristic, but the quality that one sees in this product must lend the MAJORITY of its grace to Old Forrester.

I can easily dispell the old saw about "vodka is vodka is vodka" (when talking about the original US vodka standards, simply by sitting someone down and having them sample a handful of vodkas that I have chosen. There are aromatic differences, there are taste differences, and there are textural differences; and they are fairly obvious too, even to an untrained palate. It's just that most people, alas including most professionals, never notice these things in detail because the never actually compare the different vodkas (at the same time, I mean).

Don't you get quickly bored with vodka?

I'm not Hoke (and indeed I'd be interested to hear the handful of vodkas he'd choose as most of what has fueled my interest in vodka has been selections generally not available in the United States), but aromatic differences/taste differences/textural differences are hardly recipes for boredrom. Refreshing, concise, superb for food pairing with certain items (herring, anyone?), refreshing, and refreshing . . . frankly I'm surprised you'd be bored!

(Apologize in advance for somehow screwing up the quotes thingie. Sorry. Hope it's not too confusing.)

Don't you get quickly bored with vodka?

Yes.

This is a reply to "hoke".

I'm not "hoke". Unless you are "kerry gardner". My name is Hoke. I am a person, not a thing. No need to be rude on first acquaintance, Kerry.

Woodford reserve is not an autonomous distillery (unfortunately).

I'm, not exactly sure what you're replying to here, Kerry. Did I say that Woodford Reserve was an 'autonomous distillery"? I don't recall that.

It is a co-mingled product of select barrels from Old Forrester (distilled in Louisville) than shipped and racked at the Woodford distillery for ageing. It is not a 100% potstill product, although I'm sure some people wouldn't mind that the masses believed that it was. I will say that the copper used in the creation of the distilate from Versaillles does impart a definate mineral characteristic, but the quality that one sees in this product must lend the MAJORITY of its grace to Old Forrester.

Well, you mostly have it right. Mostly.

First, Old Forrester is not distilled in Louisville. It's made in Shively. May not mean anything to you, but it sure does when you're talking to a Kentuckian (and especially one from Louisville ). Second, you don't have the details down quite correctly.

It is not a 100% potstill product, although I'm sure some people wouldn't mind that the masses believed that it was....

Again, are you replying to something I claimed? I'll have to read back through the thread, but I don't remember saying it.

You seem to be indicting me for something I'm not sure I committed, Kerry. Wonder why?

... I will say that the copper used in the creation of the distilate from Versaillles does impart a definate mineral characteristic, but the quality that one sees in this product must lend the MAJORITY of its grace to Old Forrester.

Okay, agree and disagree. I agree that the copper in the pot stills does impart a definite mineral characteristic. I don't agree, however, that he majority of the quality comes from Old Forrester. Don't get me wrong: I believe Old Forrester is one of the finest bourbons around, and sadly overlooked; it has superb quality. (And if you like OF, then you know good whiskey.) But the product that comes from Labrot & Graham/Woodford pot stills is every bit as good a quality, and adds a great deal...a great deal...to the finished product. As does the amazing craft and genius in blendability that Master Distiller Chris Morris provides. For both Old Forrester and Woodford Reserve.

Now let's get to the gist of your 'reply', Kerry. You seem to be casting some sort of aspersions here, with your statement that Woodford Reserve is not the product of an "autonomous distillery". Do you know how many actual autonomous distilleries there are, Kerry? More to the point, in all of Kentucky and Tennessee, do you know how many "autonomous distilleries" there are?

Your implication that to be any good a whiskey must come from an autonomous distillery is...how should I say this?: ridiculous. That would pretty much put...oh, Brown-Forman, Heaven Hill, Wild Turkey, Sazerac, Jim Beam, and a whole bunch of others out of business, Kerry. It's standard practice, I hope you know (and since you seem to be moderately well informed, I suspect you do) that a small handful of distilleries account for the plethora of brands out there. Or do you think each and every brand you see actually has its own distillery?

Question: where's the distillery for one of the best bourbons (and rye whiskeys) in the market, Van Winkle? How much has that distillery produced lately?

And I'll go even further: after the disastrous Heaven Hill fire in th 1990s, the other distilleries banded together to make different products to keep Heaven Hill's brands in business. And they still do today. So what you are drinking may not necessarily come from an autonomous distillery. Hope I haven't burst your bubble.

I'm not Hoke (and indeed I'd be interested to hear the handful of vodkas he'd choose

Well, I am Hoke (or "hoke") and I can't give you a simple answer (alright already, I know I talk too much when I get excited ). Because the answer would depend on what you want to focus on or learn. But I can give you some hints.

(And for the record, when I do my Spirits seminar and get to Vodka, I generally showcase about 6 to 9 selected vodkas.)

For vodka in the "original US style", put Finlandia first (it is made from row barley), then, say, Square One second (rye grain). Then try Absolut (primarily wheat). Pay attention. The Fin will be most crisp in texture; S1 will have more body and a bare hint of spiciness; Absolut will be slightly creamier in texture and may show a bit of lemony nose.

Now expand: Try a Chopin or Luksosowa (potato).

Now expand further: Get "European" style with Ciroc (grapes), or Hangar One (grains, with viognier added in the distillation). Whoa, all of a sudden the differences are looming a little larger, huh? Now go to the flavored vodkas----but I mean more like the Zubrowka, not the ones with the infusions.

But if you go to the infusions, pay close attention to how intense, focused, direct, lasting those flavors are. Compare, say, Absolut Grapefruit and Findlandia Grapefruit Fusion; bet you can tell a clear difference. Or Hangar One Buddha's Hand against some other Orange or Citron).

Refreshing, concise, superb for food pairing with certain items (herring, anyone?), refreshing, and refreshing . . . frankly I'm surprised you'd be bored!

Wellllll...depends on how you do it, dude.

Take a vodka, well iced, and serve it as an aperitif, yeah. Even as a Vodka Martini, sure. Or a Dirty Vodka Martini (!). Or serve a shot with oysters, or caviar, or some such, absolutely.

Trouble is, you have to stop with just one of those things (well, maybe two if you're not driving). Otherwise you get signifcantly more amusing to yourself than you do to anyone around you, and your wife is really going to give you hell for spoiling the evening and embarrassing her with friends. That's the problem: this is a spirit, not a wine. And after one or two, it ceases to be "refreshing". And concise goes right out the window (with your inhibitions and chances for promotion).

For vodka in the "original US style", put Finlandia first (it is made from row barley), then, say, Square One second (rye grain). Then try Absolut (primarily wheat). Pay attention. The Fin will be most crisp in texture; S1 will have more body and a bare hint of spiciness; Absolut will be slightly creamier in texture and may show a bit of lemony nose.

Now expand: Try a Chopin or Luksosowa (potato).

Now expand further: Get "European" style with Ciroc (grapes), or Hangar One (grains, with viognier added in the distillation). Whoa, all of a sudden the differences are looming a little larger, huh? Now go to the flavored vodkas----but I mean more like the Zubrowka, not the ones with the infusions.

But if you go to the infusions, pay close attention to how intense, focused, direct, lasting those flavors are. Compare, say, Absolut Grapefruit and Findlandia Grapefruit Fusion; bet you can tell a clear difference. Or Hangar One Buddha's Hand against some other Orange or Citron).

Just because you can compare and contrast doesn't make it interesting. You can also compare and contrast Danon(e) yogurt but it's still boring.

I'll take Keith's point about being a refreshing drink that goes down smoothly with certain foods.

But for a more spiritual experience (in all senses of the term) it seems like a spirit that is very low on the totem pole with most of the 'flavor' coming from the infusions.

It must be aged in new, charred oak barrels for a minimum or 2 years, but if less than 4 the age must be present on the bottle.

A little more to it than that though. Right, Jeff?

I'm not sure what you mean. That is how the statute is worded. Of course most bourbons are aged considerably longer. Avoid any product who's age statement is in months,