Time to take genever / gin one step further. Maybe away from gin and more towards genever. But that actually means a move back towards whiskey again. So that should suit you, shouldn't it? Sorry, you say what ...? If I want to explain? Sure. Here we go.
Originally drinks are made from either fruit or grain. A fruit fermentation is called wine (grape, banana, pear, etc.), a grain fermentation is called beer. Big difference between the fruits and grains, is that the fruits usually live in warmer climates, providing some of their own water supply. Grains are more suited for a Northern (well, on this side of the hemisphere that is) climate and dependent on environmental water being present in order to start growing into a plant.
Make any wine from any fruit, distill it and you have a brandy (from: "brandewijn"), distill any kinda grain and you get ... well whiskey it is mostly called. Or should be called. "Whiskey is a distilled likker based on a grain fermentation in which - after distillation - the taste of the grain it is made from is recognizably present". As far as definitions go, that's the one I like. All the state inflicted nonsense like "3 years in wooden casks" is just that: nonsense. Originally Irish whiskey was sweetened with dry fruits and not aged on wood. Aging on wood was an accident happening in what is now the Cognac region. Nothing intentioal.
Okay, why do I like this definition? Because it clearly defines other grain distilates. Very quickly double distillation became the standard for whiskey making. From grain to beer to low wines to newmake spirit, white dog, pure whiskey, whatever. And if a grain distilate was distilled once more, it would be a vodka. The third distillation was an extra effort, and this extra effort was only invested in to make vodka. That is: a grain distilate in which "the taste of the grain it is made from is not recognizably present." You taste & smell the grain, but what is it (sorry for the Polish among us: I am leaving out potatoes) made from exactly is hard to tell. Corn, barley, rye, a mixture? So a vodka, originally, is not a drink of pure ethanol and water, without taste, congeners, etc. It is a product with taste and a bit of smell, only (much) less in comparison to a (double distilled) whiskey.
Now back to gin / genever. If we forget some first experiments based on brandywine, gin / genever is originally made from grains as well. Rye (for sure), (malted) barley, corn (nowadays). It is distilled four times instead of twice or thrice (?), like whiskey or vodka. The fourth distillation is the run with botanicals. This also meant that orininally gin / genever was the purest drink in terms of absence (relative that is) of heads/tails), closely followed by vodka. is the grain present? For sure. Is it recognizable? Not as such, but it does contribute to the taste.
Nowadays gin is considered a neutral vodka with botanicals. But that defies the original character of a true gin or genever (and even a vodka!): it is a grain based drink that used to be potdistilled and stayed well under 80% abv when being made (in fact after tripple distillation the pre botanicals gin would be 46 or 47% before the final run).
I think most Anglo-Saxon gins are based on the "gin is neutral vodka with botanicals" theory. I must say that 95% of Dutch gin / genever is also based on that. But there still is "old genever" and "korenwijn" around. These are gins / genevers with a grain taste present. It supports the botanicals in a great way. Korenwijn is made from a 100% all grain mash. Old genever is made from (mostly) like 50% grain and 50% neutral (a blend so to speak). The old gins are can be aged, and the korenwijn is definately aged. Sometimes up to 15 or 18 years. Taste notes come close to the best single malts: delicate, spicey. Aged in bourbon, sherry, port ... well you know, just like whiskey.
Why this long introduction? Because I want to invite you on a trip to making an old style gin. Not based on a neutral vodka, but based on a whiskey. If you do it right, it will give you a better (much better, I personally think) drink that a gin based on a neutral. A good grain bill adds to the experience. Adds to the complexity. And you can age it on wood to make it even better.
Here is where I might start: with an UJSSM like recipe. Or sweet feet, sorry "feed", as far as I am concerned. Sweet feed would not be bad at all, since old style gin is sweetened. The molasses in the sweet feed ad some sweetness, so why not. At least: take a whiskey you like and start with that.
I had some sweet feed left that I did not like. My mistake. I freez-filtered it and that harmed the taste big time. But good enough for a old style gin experiment, because there, grain flavour will only support botanicals, not stand on its own like in a whiskey.
So I took 3 liters of 40% sweed feed. See, it was already aged. No problem. Maybe some of the ageing / wood comes over. Who knows.
Then i put in 40 grams of lightly crushed juniper berries, some 10 grams of coriander seed (broken), 4 grams of Saint John's worth, 2 grams of fennel, a bit of cardemon and some dried orange peel. No liquorice, because I want grain in the aftertaste, not long, hot liquorice notes. And - compared to my normal style gin - I use less juniper and less coriander. I don't want the botanicals to swipe the grain notes of their feed. It will macerate for 12 hours, then I will distill it. Should give me like 1.5 liters at around 72, 73%. Pot distilling. And yes, I will take out the orange peel prior to distilling. The other botanicals stay in the pot while distilling.
Not thirsty yet? Not sure if you want to take this trip together with me? Look at the pics below. Hope they are convincing!
Odin out (for now).Some pics:
