Alright, so I'm going to take a little bit of a dig at the craft beer community here.
I think the craft beer community is trying to build its reputation by, in some ways, mimicking the wine industry, and the wine community, and there are some ways in which that's great, and some which just aren't a good idea.
One of those, in my personal opinion, is special or limited release beers, with a few exceptions.
The basic attraction to me, and many others, of the craft beer scene, is that anyone can get into it. You can taste something truly special, and as pleasant as any nice bottle of wine, right in your own neighborhood, at a much lower price point. Beer people, although a little quirky, are generally more down to earth than wine people, meaning anyone can jump into the craft beer scene, and have an enlightened and enlightening conversation about a particular beer or style without being intimidated by suits, somelier certifications, and fancy words, as well as high price tags.
Well, I think specialty and limited release beers are a clever way to build a brand, focusing on the "exclusivity" of it, but that exclusivity is exactly what many new beer drinkers are looking to get away from!
Simple differences make the rarity and price tags on some wines more acceptable than similar rarity and price tags on beer.
1) Wine is a seasonal product. While it is consumed year round, there is about a 3-5 week window to harvest, juice, and start fermenting grapes. After harvest is over, what you have is what you have.
2) Wine is much more a product of terroir. While winemaking takes skill, and yeast, barreling, and other factors affect the finished product, a pinot noir made with the same yeast and same procedures from two different vineyards will taste different. Again, what you have is what you have.
3) Wine grapes vary from year to year, making some vintages just mediocre, and some outstanding. Again, what you have is what you have.
4) Beer, on the other hand, while ingredients matter, allows brewers much more choice. All of the key ingredients in beer (with the exception of fresh hopped or fruit beers), are commodities. They are available year round, and produced in excess of what just the beer industry uses. While the barley or hop crop yield may affect the price of these commodities, more will be available. And because of the way in which both barley and hops are processed, by the time barley becomes malt and hops become pellets, a certain consistency is achieved regardless of slight variations in the original product. This means almost any batch of almost any beer is re-creatable (assuming the exact recipe was written down somewhere).
This is a huge difference. Let's look at some legitimate (in my own opinion) reasons that beers can be rare (what I call the exception):
-Certain beers use ingredients which don't fit the general mold above. Namely, fresh hopped beers, spontaneously fermented brews, and beers with fruit or other non-commodity adjuncts. These beers could vary from batch to batch, even if they are made using the same recipes. This means some batches will be better than others, and have an inherent value, and the beers will all have some value, as tasting them next to each other is a worthwhile exercise.
-Certain beers undergo treatment after fermentation which is less controllable. The two major categories here would be barrel aging and keg/bottle conditioning. Because the exact same barrel can't necessarily be re-used (and even if it could, the wood will have been changed by the first batch), barrel aging provides an inherently unique product. Cask, keg, and bottle conditioned beers are subject to all types of factors after they leave the brewery's control. Travel distance, time allowed for conditioning (does the yeast finish its work?), and temperature, altitude, and lighting conditions where the beer is stored will all create a variable experience for the drinker. These beers are inherently unique.
-Beers which are not available due to distribution issues. For many reasons (some legal or business related, some branding or personal preference related), most craft breweries don't distribute nationally or internationally. Beers from great brewers which are not usually available in your area will, of course, have more value to you, and this is as it should be.
-Beers which have been aged. If a great beer was made once, or even multiple times, and you managed to save a bottle or keg, this beer has some inherent value to it (assuming it's a beer that holds up well to aging, many of which fit into one or more of the above categories).
-A brewery is at capacity, and has decided, for financial or branding reasons, not to expand. This is the area that has the most gray space in my opinion. If a brewery is brewing at its full capacity, it simply can't make more beer. This is a problem which most craft brewers hope to have one day. They then have to ask themselves, 1) can we afford to expand (probably if you're selling that much beer!) and 2) do we believe that we can expand and still be the same great brand? This is a tricky one, as as local, small batch focus is what draws many to craft beer. Moreover, larger equipment yields different product. And more small equipment, running concurrently, means owners and brewmasters have to give up some control of each batch, potentially losing consistency or quality. When a brewery has decided that they don't want to expand, and their beers are good enough to sell out in their current market, it makes sense that their beers would sell out.
In my mind, however, many craft breweries release "specialty" or "limited" release beers in small quantities (or brand them as if they have) for the wrong reasons. Here's a list of those:
-To add value to the product (this is pretty rare on the brewer side, fortunately)
-To create buy in with accounts, who feel special being given this "rare" beer. Usually, these allocations are highly sought after, and involve buying a lot of year round/open availability beers to "win over" your reps. This flips the basic business relationship between a bar (customer) and a distributor (vendor), and also creates tension or competition between retail outlets, which, in the craft beer scene, should all be supportive of each other.
-To create a cult following behind a particular beer and build the brand of both that beer and the brewery as a whole. Fortunately, these beers are pretty damn good. On the other hand, if they're so good, and people love them so much, why aren't they made year round? Beer should be an enjoyable hobby, not a task or a chore. So why make people continue to call around about the availability of a certain beer, only to usually be told "We're not sure" up until a week or two before the release? Why make people take time off of work, stand in line, buy tickets, and even fight for a pour of this beer? If these beers are so good, and people love them, why not raise the price a bit (the one I have in mind is actually pretty reasonably priced wholesale), and make it year round, or at least multiple times a year? Yes, your brewery may be at capacity. But there's a few options here. 1) Expand. 2) Pull out of out of state markets to make sure you can supply your home state year round with the beers they want (again, the beer I have in mind has already done this once). 3) Switch up your brewing schedule. Many of your beers (to that same example) are hard to find year round because of your brewing capacity. They're all great, but there are a handful people actually hunt down and wait in line for, including your special, February release beer.
The reality of it is, craft beer is supposed to be about making a great alcoholic beverage available to as many people as possible. Releasing these beers once a year doesn't do that. What it does do, is build a particular brand. Again, not naming names, but the brewery I have in mind makes several hard to find brews. They are all great beers. I would argue that some of them (which, coincidentally fit into the categories I view as acceptably rare) are well worth the wait. Others, including the rarest of the rare (the annual release is one of, if not the, most anticipated in the country), are great, but not all that special. And eventually consumers will catch on to that. Maybe a few years ago, a really great Double or Triple (oops, did I give it away?) IPA was a rarity. There are now several out there, including some year round, non-allocated brews, which easily meet or exceed the quality of some of these rare beers.
The smart move for these breweries, both from a business perspective, and from the perspective of giving craft beer lovers great beer, is to switch it up a bit. Pull back on producing some of your other great beers, and make the "cult favorites" available year round.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Styles of Whiskey
Whiskey (or whisky) can be confusing, because it encompasses so many different flavors, and so many different styles. Historically, there are four general categories of whiskey, based on the regions where they originated. It is important to note that of late, more and more countries have started producing whiskey, and more craft distilleries are popping up who create whiskeys not necessarily true to they style of their home country. What is listed below is based on style, not on actual country of origin. While three of the four styles are actually internationally protected designations, and the U.S. has a couple within it, it is possible for a "Scotch" style whisky to come from the U.S., although it won't be called Scotch.
What is a mashbill? Much of whiskey's flavor comes from the barrel it ages in, as you probably know. But the base ingredients do tend to show some characteristics throughout. Mashbill is a term for the recipe for original ingredients used. In general, whiskey is made from some combination of four grains: barley, wheat, rye, and corn. Two of these grains, barley and corn, undergo treatment before being used. Barley is malted, or partially germinated, before being fermented, to release enzymes which break down starches into fermentable sugars. Corn is cooked in order to start releasing fermentable sugars. The main differentiation for each of the regions where a style originated is the mashbill. It is important to note that almost all whiskeys are a blend of more than one grain. When we say a "rye" whiskey, that does not mean the mashbill is 100% rye. Depending on the country, it means a large portion, probably a majority, of the mashbill is rye. In fact, all whiskeys have at least some malt (malted barley) in the mashbill, as the enzymes produced by the malting process are vital to saccharification, or converting starch to sugar, in not just barley, but all of the grains used in whiskey production.
Irish Whiskey
Ireland is actually thought to be the birth place of whiskey. Whiskey was then thought to be brought to Scotland by monks. Irish whiskey (spelled with an 'e') is generally made with a mashbill of both malted and unmalted barley. The unmalted barley contributes a spice and bite which is not present in most malt whiskeys.
Scotch Whisky
The Scotch spell whisky without an "e." Scotch whiskey can vary tremendously in style, but it is usually malt-heavy, using only malted, and no un-malted barley. It is traditonally aged in used sherry barrels, giving an extra sweet note to the whisky. Malt for Scotch is traditionally kilned (malt must be heated in a kiln in order to halt germination once all necessary enzymes have been released), using peat-fired kilns. This imparts "peat reak," a unique combination of smells and flavors. Peat imparts smokey, earthy, pungent, and even slightly salty flavors and aromas into a whisky. The peat is more prominent in some whiskys than others.
Different styles of Scotch-malt vs. grain, "single malt" vs. vatted, etc.
Even within the Scotch family there are distinctions. People often get confused by these and think "single malt" is in contrast to "double malt" or something similar. The easiest way to understand a Scotch label is to split the two descriptors apart.
Malt or grain refers to the mashbill. Malt whisky indicates a whisky made entirely from malted barley. Grain whisky referes to a whisky made from a mixture of malt and other grains.
"Single" Malt or Single Grain refers to the whisky being made at a single distillery. Most Scotch distillers own multiple distilleries, and they transfer whisky between them all of the time, or even buy from other producers to create their blends. Blended, vatted, or simply "malt" or "grain" whisky is a whisky made by blending barrels from different distilleries.
There is a common misconception that "single malt" is always better than other Scotch whiskys. This is simply not true. In fact, they are often interesting and bold, highlighting the distinct flavors imparted by different climates and different production methods. But blending allows a distiller or bottler to create a consistent, quality product which has exactly the flavor profile they are looking for. The whiskys are different, but there are some very good, and very pricey, blended whiskys out there.
American Whiskey
American Whiskey (with an 'e'), generally refers to Bourbon and Tennessee whiskey (speaking in terms of style). These whiskeys are at least 51% corn, giving them some sweeter flavors than many other whiskeys. They are also aged in new, American oak barrels. This leads to them having very distinct wood-derived flavors, rather than simply mellowing or absorbing other sweet spirit flavors from their barrels. Bourbon does not have to come from Bourbon County, or even from Kentucky. Tennessee Whiskey, on the other hand, must come from that state, and must undergo charcoal mellowing after aging. It is important here to note that the U.S. is undergoing a bit of a craft spirit surge right now, and many American Whiskeys are actually crafted to mimic other styles. They will be labeled as American Whiskey, but be modeled after Scotch, Irish, or Canadian styles, or present a whole new idea of what whiskey can be.
Canadian Whisky
Canadians follow the Scotch spelling, but the style is quite different. Canadian whisky is also heavy on corn in the mash, but also generally has rye as well. Canadian whiskys can legally be labeled "rye whisky" even if there is no rye in them, as the term is legally synonymous in Canada with "Canadian Whisky." The corn provides the same sweetness that it does to American whiskeys, but the rye adds a slightly lemony, spicy, flavor to they whisky, as well as a dry, slightly harsh finish. Also, Canadian whisky producers often ferment and distill each grain separately, then blend the spirit either right before, or even after, aging. This allows each grain to develop its own unique characteristics, and allows the distiller to create a blend of those characteristics.
What is a mashbill? Much of whiskey's flavor comes from the barrel it ages in, as you probably know. But the base ingredients do tend to show some characteristics throughout. Mashbill is a term for the recipe for original ingredients used. In general, whiskey is made from some combination of four grains: barley, wheat, rye, and corn. Two of these grains, barley and corn, undergo treatment before being used. Barley is malted, or partially germinated, before being fermented, to release enzymes which break down starches into fermentable sugars. Corn is cooked in order to start releasing fermentable sugars. The main differentiation for each of the regions where a style originated is the mashbill. It is important to note that almost all whiskeys are a blend of more than one grain. When we say a "rye" whiskey, that does not mean the mashbill is 100% rye. Depending on the country, it means a large portion, probably a majority, of the mashbill is rye. In fact, all whiskeys have at least some malt (malted barley) in the mashbill, as the enzymes produced by the malting process are vital to saccharification, or converting starch to sugar, in not just barley, but all of the grains used in whiskey production.
Irish Whiskey
Ireland is actually thought to be the birth place of whiskey. Whiskey was then thought to be brought to Scotland by monks. Irish whiskey (spelled with an 'e') is generally made with a mashbill of both malted and unmalted barley. The unmalted barley contributes a spice and bite which is not present in most malt whiskeys.
Scotch Whisky
The Scotch spell whisky without an "e." Scotch whiskey can vary tremendously in style, but it is usually malt-heavy, using only malted, and no un-malted barley. It is traditonally aged in used sherry barrels, giving an extra sweet note to the whisky. Malt for Scotch is traditionally kilned (malt must be heated in a kiln in order to halt germination once all necessary enzymes have been released), using peat-fired kilns. This imparts "peat reak," a unique combination of smells and flavors. Peat imparts smokey, earthy, pungent, and even slightly salty flavors and aromas into a whisky. The peat is more prominent in some whiskys than others.
Different styles of Scotch-malt vs. grain, "single malt" vs. vatted, etc.
Even within the Scotch family there are distinctions. People often get confused by these and think "single malt" is in contrast to "double malt" or something similar. The easiest way to understand a Scotch label is to split the two descriptors apart.
Malt or grain refers to the mashbill. Malt whisky indicates a whisky made entirely from malted barley. Grain whisky referes to a whisky made from a mixture of malt and other grains.
"Single" Malt or Single Grain refers to the whisky being made at a single distillery. Most Scotch distillers own multiple distilleries, and they transfer whisky between them all of the time, or even buy from other producers to create their blends. Blended, vatted, or simply "malt" or "grain" whisky is a whisky made by blending barrels from different distilleries.
There is a common misconception that "single malt" is always better than other Scotch whiskys. This is simply not true. In fact, they are often interesting and bold, highlighting the distinct flavors imparted by different climates and different production methods. But blending allows a distiller or bottler to create a consistent, quality product which has exactly the flavor profile they are looking for. The whiskys are different, but there are some very good, and very pricey, blended whiskys out there.
American Whiskey
American Whiskey (with an 'e'), generally refers to Bourbon and Tennessee whiskey (speaking in terms of style). These whiskeys are at least 51% corn, giving them some sweeter flavors than many other whiskeys. They are also aged in new, American oak barrels. This leads to them having very distinct wood-derived flavors, rather than simply mellowing or absorbing other sweet spirit flavors from their barrels. Bourbon does not have to come from Bourbon County, or even from Kentucky. Tennessee Whiskey, on the other hand, must come from that state, and must undergo charcoal mellowing after aging. It is important here to note that the U.S. is undergoing a bit of a craft spirit surge right now, and many American Whiskeys are actually crafted to mimic other styles. They will be labeled as American Whiskey, but be modeled after Scotch, Irish, or Canadian styles, or present a whole new idea of what whiskey can be.
Canadian Whisky
Canadians follow the Scotch spelling, but the style is quite different. Canadian whisky is also heavy on corn in the mash, but also generally has rye as well. Canadian whiskys can legally be labeled "rye whisky" even if there is no rye in them, as the term is legally synonymous in Canada with "Canadian Whisky." The corn provides the same sweetness that it does to American whiskeys, but the rye adds a slightly lemony, spicy, flavor to they whisky, as well as a dry, slightly harsh finish. Also, Canadian whisky producers often ferment and distill each grain separately, then blend the spirit either right before, or even after, aging. This allows each grain to develop its own unique characteristics, and allows the distiller to create a blend of those characteristics.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tasting Notes: 2011 Trefethen Family Vineyards Chardonnay
Aroma: Bright, citrus, lemon, just a touch of butter/creaminess.
Mouthfeel: Medium bodied.
Flavors: Refreshing, crisp, slightly acidic, and with more prominent wood notes than on the nose, although only a little bit of butter. More the fresh, woody, oaky, flavor, than the malolactic flavor a lot of heavily oaked chardonnays have. Lingering citrus and oak finish.
Overall: A balanced chardonnay. Not super tart or acidic like some 100% stainless California Chardonnays can be. But also not completely overcome by malolactic fermentation. Very little butter flavors, and definitely still light and crisp, rather than creamy like some oaked Chardonnays. Probably not a favorite for fans of either super citrusy, fresh, or super buttery, creamy Chardonnays, but a good balance of the two.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Gluten and Spirits
So, this post is inspired by overhearing a pretty high-up-the-chain employee of a local liquor distribution company misspeaking to a bar manager while I was eating out. Gluten is a complicated thing, only fairly recently becoming a common concern. So, here's my take (with the disclaimer that I am not a nutritionist, or a scientist, and that this is mostly a synthesis of information I've gained from other sources?).
Are undistilled alcoholic beverages "gluten free?"
Prior to distillation, any barley or wheat based alcoholic beverage is not gluten free. Gluten is not a living thing, but a chemical compound found in certain starchy grains. Yeast does not break down these compounds, which means that they will remain in a fermented beverage. Ciders and wines should be fine, although, as I'll get into more in the section on distilled spirits, it's more complicated than that if you are truly a celiac, and cannot tolerate any gluten. If the cider or wine is produced, fermented, and packaged in a facility in which no beer is made, it should be good, though.
What about distilled spirits?
This is where the liquor distributor employee made the opposite point than he was trying to. His argument was that, as somebody who was trying to avoid gluten, he did not drink wheat or barley based spirits because, if people can have a reaction from cross-contamination in a fryer, "if 400 degree fryer oil won't kill gluten, I doubt distillation will either."
So, a couple of points, and then on to how he actually proved the opposite point.
Gluten is not a living thing. It is a chemical compound. So it is not something that is dangerous living, but not dangerous dead. The question is not if you can "kill it" by cooking it. It is whether you can either break down (very difficult, which is why many people choose to avoid or minimize it in their diets) or remove it.
Heat does not break down or destroy gluten. So, it would seem this person's argument is right, correct? Wrong. A basic understanding of distillation and how it works will make it clear why.
Distillation works by heating a liquid consisting of water (which boils at 212F) and ethyl alcohol (which boils at 173F) to a temperature somewhere in between the two. This means more alcohol than water evaporates, making the vapors more concentrated in the vapors than in the original liquid. The vapors are then condensed (cooled down) and brought back into a liquid form in a separate container. Now, in reality, since Ethyl alcohol is produced by yeast from materials which are not PURELY fermentable sugars, there's a lot of other junk in the solution (the wash) which goes into the still. The art of distillation is to use time, temperature, shape of the still, etc. to control which of the other junk (flavors, aromas, and nasty stuff) make it into the vapors. Each of these things will break down into the solution and vaporize at a different temperature.
Now, back to the distributor's point. Gluten is not broken down completely in a fryer with 400F oil in it. Meaning that the 180-200F solution is also not going to break down and vaporize gluten. The important thing to note here is that you are not drinking what is left in the still. You are drinking the vapors that come off the still and are recondensed. So gluten is left in the still, not withdrawn into the final spirit.
Essentially, in a basic sense, gluten is removed from the finished product.
If distillation makes a spirit gluten free, why aren't spirits marketed that way?
There is a difference, as in many things, in our overly regulated and overly litigious society, between gluten free and "capital g" Gluten Free. Most distilleries mash, ferement, distill, mature, blend, and package their products in the same facilities. What this means is that there is an ever-so-slight chance that the finished, gluten free, product fresh off the still, may come into contact with malted or unmalted grains, undistilled "beer" or "wash," or another source of gluten before it is sealed in the bottle. More importantly, the barrel it is aged in, the bottles it is packed in, the tubes and lines through which it travels, the hands which are used in various steps of the process, may have come into contact with malt, grain, or beer some time prior to the finished product as well. Meaning there is a possibility of cross-contamination. This is probably not enough to affect the average "gluten free" drinker, but could cause a problem for someone with a very serious case of Celiac disease. This is similar to why many corporate, chain, or hotel restaurants have disclaimers on their walls, or on their menus, about "products may come into contact with nuts, shellfish, soy, or other allergens in the kitchen." While the chances are slim (and even more slim given that most gluten-free diners are making a choice, or have a relatively mild intolerance to gluten, versus many severe allergies to more common allergens), distilleries do not want the liability of having claimed their product was gluten free, and having a serious issue occur.
So is it safer to stick to fruit-derrived spirits altogether?
This is the interesting part. In and of itself, no. If the distillery also produces grain-based spirits, it doesn't really matter what the base of the spirit you're consuming is. For instance, if a distillery distills a 100% grape vodka, and a 50/50 grape/wheat blended vodka, the chance of the grape-only distillate coming into contact with wheat used for the blend is just as high as the chance of the blend coming into contact with wheat. The distillates themselves are both, theoretically 100% pure.
So if I am hypersensitive to gluten what should I drink?
Drink fermented or distilled beverages from a fruit origin, produced in a facility which does not produce other spirits or fermented beverages. This is actually pretty easy for fermented drinks, as I can't, off the top of my head, think of anywhere which produces beer and wine in the same facility. Actually, scratch that, I do know of some wineries who, in production of their sparkling wines, will borrow equipment from breweries in order to force carbonate their products. But overall, I think this is a pretty rare practice.
If you are drinking distilled spirits, and you're that worried about a tiny, tiny chance of a tiny, tiny bit of cross-contaminaton, make sure you're drinking a product from a fruit-only distillery. Brandies are probably safe. As are some vodka and gin producers in wine-producing regions, who use ONLY wine or winemaking byproducts in their base spirits.
Again, though for the average gluten-free drinker, anything distilled is probably fine.
Are undistilled alcoholic beverages "gluten free?"
Prior to distillation, any barley or wheat based alcoholic beverage is not gluten free. Gluten is not a living thing, but a chemical compound found in certain starchy grains. Yeast does not break down these compounds, which means that they will remain in a fermented beverage. Ciders and wines should be fine, although, as I'll get into more in the section on distilled spirits, it's more complicated than that if you are truly a celiac, and cannot tolerate any gluten. If the cider or wine is produced, fermented, and packaged in a facility in which no beer is made, it should be good, though.
What about distilled spirits?
This is where the liquor distributor employee made the opposite point than he was trying to. His argument was that, as somebody who was trying to avoid gluten, he did not drink wheat or barley based spirits because, if people can have a reaction from cross-contamination in a fryer, "if 400 degree fryer oil won't kill gluten, I doubt distillation will either."
So, a couple of points, and then on to how he actually proved the opposite point.
Gluten is not a living thing. It is a chemical compound. So it is not something that is dangerous living, but not dangerous dead. The question is not if you can "kill it" by cooking it. It is whether you can either break down (very difficult, which is why many people choose to avoid or minimize it in their diets) or remove it.
Heat does not break down or destroy gluten. So, it would seem this person's argument is right, correct? Wrong. A basic understanding of distillation and how it works will make it clear why.
Distillation works by heating a liquid consisting of water (which boils at 212F) and ethyl alcohol (which boils at 173F) to a temperature somewhere in between the two. This means more alcohol than water evaporates, making the vapors more concentrated in the vapors than in the original liquid. The vapors are then condensed (cooled down) and brought back into a liquid form in a separate container. Now, in reality, since Ethyl alcohol is produced by yeast from materials which are not PURELY fermentable sugars, there's a lot of other junk in the solution (the wash) which goes into the still. The art of distillation is to use time, temperature, shape of the still, etc. to control which of the other junk (flavors, aromas, and nasty stuff) make it into the vapors. Each of these things will break down into the solution and vaporize at a different temperature.
Now, back to the distributor's point. Gluten is not broken down completely in a fryer with 400F oil in it. Meaning that the 180-200F solution is also not going to break down and vaporize gluten. The important thing to note here is that you are not drinking what is left in the still. You are drinking the vapors that come off the still and are recondensed. So gluten is left in the still, not withdrawn into the final spirit.
Essentially, in a basic sense, gluten is removed from the finished product.
If distillation makes a spirit gluten free, why aren't spirits marketed that way?
There is a difference, as in many things, in our overly regulated and overly litigious society, between gluten free and "capital g" Gluten Free. Most distilleries mash, ferement, distill, mature, blend, and package their products in the same facilities. What this means is that there is an ever-so-slight chance that the finished, gluten free, product fresh off the still, may come into contact with malted or unmalted grains, undistilled "beer" or "wash," or another source of gluten before it is sealed in the bottle. More importantly, the barrel it is aged in, the bottles it is packed in, the tubes and lines through which it travels, the hands which are used in various steps of the process, may have come into contact with malt, grain, or beer some time prior to the finished product as well. Meaning there is a possibility of cross-contamination. This is probably not enough to affect the average "gluten free" drinker, but could cause a problem for someone with a very serious case of Celiac disease. This is similar to why many corporate, chain, or hotel restaurants have disclaimers on their walls, or on their menus, about "products may come into contact with nuts, shellfish, soy, or other allergens in the kitchen." While the chances are slim (and even more slim given that most gluten-free diners are making a choice, or have a relatively mild intolerance to gluten, versus many severe allergies to more common allergens), distilleries do not want the liability of having claimed their product was gluten free, and having a serious issue occur.
So is it safer to stick to fruit-derrived spirits altogether?
This is the interesting part. In and of itself, no. If the distillery also produces grain-based spirits, it doesn't really matter what the base of the spirit you're consuming is. For instance, if a distillery distills a 100% grape vodka, and a 50/50 grape/wheat blended vodka, the chance of the grape-only distillate coming into contact with wheat used for the blend is just as high as the chance of the blend coming into contact with wheat. The distillates themselves are both, theoretically 100% pure.
So if I am hypersensitive to gluten what should I drink?
Drink fermented or distilled beverages from a fruit origin, produced in a facility which does not produce other spirits or fermented beverages. This is actually pretty easy for fermented drinks, as I can't, off the top of my head, think of anywhere which produces beer and wine in the same facility. Actually, scratch that, I do know of some wineries who, in production of their sparkling wines, will borrow equipment from breweries in order to force carbonate their products. But overall, I think this is a pretty rare practice.
If you are drinking distilled spirits, and you're that worried about a tiny, tiny chance of a tiny, tiny bit of cross-contaminaton, make sure you're drinking a product from a fruit-only distillery. Brandies are probably safe. As are some vodka and gin producers in wine-producing regions, who use ONLY wine or winemaking byproducts in their base spirits.
Again, though for the average gluten-free drinker, anything distilled is probably fine.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
CSS Exam
So I took my CSS exam yesterday. For those who don't know, that's the Certified Specialist of Spirits exam from the Society of Wine Educators. I'm fairly certain that I passed, although it will likely be 2-4 weeks until it's official.
My advice to anyone else thinking of taking it is don't stress out. The exam was actually much easier than I had expected. Get a copy of the study guide, and get some good online flash cards. Even a couple reads through the study guide and a couple of passes through your flash cards should be good enough.
The test itself is 100% multiple choice questions. Meaning that if you're studying flashcards, that say, for instance: what are the production requirements for bourbon? You will be overpreparing, because the question will be: which of the following is not a requirement for producing bourbon?
Interestingly, the phrasing on some of the questions is a little tricky, meaning you need to be sure to read each question correctly. But the content questions were actually not all that hard. While I'm sure the questions very from test to test, here are some general tips based on the questions I got:
-The questions on spirit production tend to cover aspects which apply to all or multiple spirit categories. Very few (if any) questions on maturations. No questions on individual still types.
-Historical data based primarily on the names, not the dates. If a specific brand or distillery is mentioned in association with a historical development in the study guide, the two instances I recall on the test both asked for the name of the brand or distillery, NOT the date.
-In fact, any time a particular distillery or brand is mentioned (aside from proprietary liquors, or in a list of some sort), pay extra special attention. I think there were three specific distilleries singled out in the study guide, and all three appeared on my exam.
-Know the geographic requirements for spirit families (or lack thereof), as well as any specific, protected AOCs. There were AT LEAST 5 or 6 questions on this, which, when you think about it, is actually quite a bit.
-I had heard, before taking the test, that the liqueurs are hard, just because there are SO MANY liqueurs out there. Maybe the test has changed sine that information came floating my way, but, based on my exam, I would say all you need to MEMORIZE is the broad definitions of liqueurs. Individual proprietary and generic liqueurs didn't come up in the sense of knowing the details of flavor source, history, origin, etc. of the specific liqueur. Instead, it tested your knowledge of whether something was proprietary or generic. If you understand the difference between the two, and have a little bit of reasoning ability, you should do fine on this, even if you are not familiar with each of the individual liqueurs.
Overall, definitely a test worth taking (or at least studying for-I learned a lot), and not as difficult as I thought. That being said, I'm sure different questions appear each time the exam is given. Plus, I could be totally wrong about this since I don't actually know if I passed yet.
My advice to anyone else thinking of taking it is don't stress out. The exam was actually much easier than I had expected. Get a copy of the study guide, and get some good online flash cards. Even a couple reads through the study guide and a couple of passes through your flash cards should be good enough.
The test itself is 100% multiple choice questions. Meaning that if you're studying flashcards, that say, for instance: what are the production requirements for bourbon? You will be overpreparing, because the question will be: which of the following is not a requirement for producing bourbon?
Interestingly, the phrasing on some of the questions is a little tricky, meaning you need to be sure to read each question correctly. But the content questions were actually not all that hard. While I'm sure the questions very from test to test, here are some general tips based on the questions I got:
-The questions on spirit production tend to cover aspects which apply to all or multiple spirit categories. Very few (if any) questions on maturations. No questions on individual still types.
-Historical data based primarily on the names, not the dates. If a specific brand or distillery is mentioned in association with a historical development in the study guide, the two instances I recall on the test both asked for the name of the brand or distillery, NOT the date.
-In fact, any time a particular distillery or brand is mentioned (aside from proprietary liquors, or in a list of some sort), pay extra special attention. I think there were three specific distilleries singled out in the study guide, and all three appeared on my exam.
-Know the geographic requirements for spirit families (or lack thereof), as well as any specific, protected AOCs. There were AT LEAST 5 or 6 questions on this, which, when you think about it, is actually quite a bit.
-I had heard, before taking the test, that the liqueurs are hard, just because there are SO MANY liqueurs out there. Maybe the test has changed sine that information came floating my way, but, based on my exam, I would say all you need to MEMORIZE is the broad definitions of liqueurs. Individual proprietary and generic liqueurs didn't come up in the sense of knowing the details of flavor source, history, origin, etc. of the specific liqueur. Instead, it tested your knowledge of whether something was proprietary or generic. If you understand the difference between the two, and have a little bit of reasoning ability, you should do fine on this, even if you are not familiar with each of the individual liqueurs.
Overall, definitely a test worth taking (or at least studying for-I learned a lot), and not as difficult as I thought. That being said, I'm sure different questions appear each time the exam is given. Plus, I could be totally wrong about this since I don't actually know if I passed yet.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Tasting Notes: Retsina Olympias
Before I begin this, let me give the disclaimer that this is my first taste of Retsina, so other than a vague, book-gained idea, I really have no clue what Retsina is "supposed" to taste like, and no point of comparison. So while all tasting notes and reviews are objective, and really just my opinion, this one really is pulled straight from my posterior. That said, here goes:
Appearance: Pours a bright yellow, completely translucent, and a little more yellow, less green or white, than any other wine I'm used to.
Aroma: Pine, lemon, a little bit of honey. The pine is not so much like a gin or Christmas tree pine, but more the smell of fresh cut pine wood, or of pine sap, a little more earthy than Christmasy.
Mouthfeel: Very light bodied, rolls right off the tongue and through the mouth.
Flavors: Very much like the smells, but with less lemon. Definitely get the woody version of pine, and a little bit of sappy flavors. I still get honey, but it's hard to describe, since it is not sweet at all. The same flavors, and kind of tingling sensation, but light bodied and not sweet. Flavors have a pretty clean finish, although there's some slight lingering pine and woodsy notes to it.
Overall: Unique, new, and different would be the three words I could come up with. Not really sure a) whether I like it, b) if I could learn to like it, or c) if it would go better with food than on its own. I'm guessing the answers to b) and c) are yes. Probably, like most wines, and most new food and drink experiences, it's an acquired taste. And the dry but honey-like flavor, along with the woodiness, make me think that with a good Greek dish, this wine's flavors would really pop. As of yet, I'm still undecided.
Appearance: Pours a bright yellow, completely translucent, and a little more yellow, less green or white, than any other wine I'm used to.
Aroma: Pine, lemon, a little bit of honey. The pine is not so much like a gin or Christmas tree pine, but more the smell of fresh cut pine wood, or of pine sap, a little more earthy than Christmasy.
Mouthfeel: Very light bodied, rolls right off the tongue and through the mouth.
Flavors: Very much like the smells, but with less lemon. Definitely get the woody version of pine, and a little bit of sappy flavors. I still get honey, but it's hard to describe, since it is not sweet at all. The same flavors, and kind of tingling sensation, but light bodied and not sweet. Flavors have a pretty clean finish, although there's some slight lingering pine and woodsy notes to it.
Overall: Unique, new, and different would be the three words I could come up with. Not really sure a) whether I like it, b) if I could learn to like it, or c) if it would go better with food than on its own. I'm guessing the answers to b) and c) are yes. Probably, like most wines, and most new food and drink experiences, it's an acquired taste. And the dry but honey-like flavor, along with the woodiness, make me think that with a good Greek dish, this wine's flavors would really pop. As of yet, I'm still undecided.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Tasting Notes: New Glarus Fat Squirrel
Appearance: Pours an opaque, hazelnut brown, with a thin head, which leaves nice lacing, but dissipates from the beer fairly quickly.
Aroma: Malty, bready.
Mouthfeel: Pretty light for a brown ale, and very effervescent carbonation feeling.
Flavors: Coffee, bread, almonds, hazelnut. Pretty balance between the coffee, the malty/bready notes, and the nutty flavors. Finishes with a crisp hoppiness, and a lingering hint of coffee.
Overall: Pretty balanced beer, and not as heavy or full bodied as one might expect from a brown ale. The bottle-conditioned effervescence give it a lightness on the palate which make this a great beer for even a hot summer day. All the flavors one would expect from a nut brown, without the heaviness that usually keeps me drinking these only in the winter.
Aroma: Malty, bready.
Mouthfeel: Pretty light for a brown ale, and very effervescent carbonation feeling.
Flavors: Coffee, bread, almonds, hazelnut. Pretty balance between the coffee, the malty/bready notes, and the nutty flavors. Finishes with a crisp hoppiness, and a lingering hint of coffee.
Overall: Pretty balanced beer, and not as heavy or full bodied as one might expect from a brown ale. The bottle-conditioned effervescence give it a lightness on the palate which make this a great beer for even a hot summer day. All the flavors one would expect from a nut brown, without the heaviness that usually keeps me drinking these only in the winter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)