A QUESTION OF TASTE

[pinetar]

Good morning,
Thanks to your earlier comments of advice, I have finished my third spirit run, with no problems. Four gallons of low wines @ 30% abv, plus three quarts of feints. Producing three liters of spirits @ 70% abv. I started keeping at 76% abv and quit at 61 abv. Measuring every 250 ml, and correcting for temperature. I kept the heads and tails for next time.
The beer batches are, 5gal water, 4 lbs of crushed malted barley, 2 lbs pleated barley and 4 lbs of light DME. I am very careful to convert the starches under 170 deg F. I use Bert Strands yeast.
On 8/12 I rested the 3 liters on 3 tsp of toasted white oak. Every month I made cuts to lower the abv to 42%. All three of my spirit runs have a grainy flavor after 3 or 4 months. The flavor is smooth, sweet with a touch of Carmel taste. Will aging eventually disperse the grainy flavor or should I change my recipe?

[theholymackerel]

Will aging eventually disperse the grainy flavor or should I change my recipe?

That ability to taste the original grain is what most of us home distillers are after. Is it possible ya don't like whiskeys? Maybe ya should try fermentin' molassas to make rum, or fruit to make brandies. Everyone has their own taste.

Maybe "no taste" is what yer after... if so make a nice column still and ferment out sugar and tomato paste washes. It makes a super cheap yet good vodka.


And to answer yer original question: No... flavors will mellow and blend with age, but will not disappear.

[duds2u]

Maybe you should take a sip from your reference bottle of single malt whisky. You will find grainy notes here as well. The afficiendos call it "grassiness"

[pinetar]

Bin drinkin scotch and Irish whiskey for over 50 years, guess I know the taste. Trying to catch close to ISLAY "BRUICHLADDICH" smooth flavor.
Thanks Theholymackerel your answer of NO is what I want to hear. Thank you Dudes2u, grassy is the taste. Maybe one scrubber in my columm would fine her out. A compounded error is ruination of good work.[/quote]


LINEMAN DON'T MAKE MISTAKES, THEY MAKE WIDOWS.

[BoomTown]

A reference for taste is an interesting idea. Standardizing how the taste of liquor is discussed is deep science for some folks.

Here's a website where the discussion is taken to any interesting appreciable level.

http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2011/ ... heels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Hope this doesn't spoil your holiday....

Boom

[pinetar]

Hey Boon Town, --- Thanks for he follow up, I have come a long way on making and enjoying my strait grain products since 2006. I bookmarked the site you sent me, great info. The flavor wheels are good information, a person could get lost in there. Thanks
Good Cooking

[skow69]

I have always struggled with ways to describe scents and flavors, which is extremely frustrating because it makes it so hard to discuss things that I care about, like food and drink (obviously). I have seen some of the wheels before, but I usually get a feeling of being overwhelmed and give up. Maybe it's the complexity, or maybe my lack of understanding of some of the terms. For instance, I don't know what a 'resinous' smell is. Maybe this is silly, but I think I could benefit from some sort of tutorial, if such a thing exists.

I have some basic questions, if someone would be so kind.
1. Are adjacent areas on the wheel intended to be related or similar to each other?
2. Are areas on opposite sides of the wheel mutually exclusive?
3. Is the idea that you can take a taste sensation and assign it a single spot on the wheel? Like where it is most intense, and then it gets weaker in the descriptions as they get farther away?
4. Do you take each slice of the pie as a category or attribute and assign a value to the taste according to how strong it is in that category? Then you could put a dot on that slice, farther out for stronger, connect the dots, and color in the area they surround. That would make a unique sort of blob to describe any flavor.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but this is something that I have tried to get a handle on for some time. I would appreciate any comments, helpful, humorous, snarky, or otherwise (I know I've hung plenty of straight lines out there).

Thanks,
skow

[MichiganCornhusker]

This could be a very helpful thread. I have been struggling to document what my spirits smell and taste like from the git-go. Just having all the words on the flavor wheels will give me some new ways to try to interpret what I'm sensing.

[bellybuster]

I am very careful to convert the starches under 170 deg F. ?

Can you elaborate on this?

[BoomTown]

hmmmmm. Let's not over think this. The wheel is a way of generating words to talk about experience.

no more serious than talking about our first orgasm. It was. It was special. But evan so, what was it?

This is words talking about something that is different to each of us.

This is the wheel. That is the point.

Boom.

[skow69]

Har! Thanks. I'm pretty sure my first orgasm didn't smell resinous.

[skow69]

Damn, Boom, that's profound! In a zen-like sorta way. I didn't know you were so philosophicable.

[BoomTown]

Damn, Boom, that's profound! In a zen-like sorta way. I didn't know you were so philosophicable.

+++

Read my last night's posting over this morning. This is an excellent example of when one should not post after embibing liberally of one's own fruit de hobby.

[skow69]

Imbibe some more. It's the best advice I've had in years.

[Bushman]

Tastes and smells are definitely different for each of us, when wine tasting with friends it seems like we all experience it a bit differently. I like the idea of a wheel for taste and a wheel for smell as descriptors. Skow69 I think your questions are basically the answers. If we have a different experience it shouldn't be on the opposite side of the wheel but to the right or left of someone else. I wouldn't mind if people like a particular wheel for taste and smell that we choose or design one for each that we can use on this site to describe OUR experience.

[MichiganCornhusker]

I'm pretty sure my first orgasm didn't smell resinous.

I was camping. I remember it being a bit resinous. And earthy.

[skow69]

VW microbus. Predominantly herbal with notes of carbon monoxide.

[T-Pee]

Vaseline.

tp

[S-Cackalacky]

Mine - must have been that very garlicy meatball sub I had a few hours before.

[Bushman]

To get back to the original topic what do people think of my idea of getting or creating a wheel for taste and smell that members can go to to describe what they are experiencing.

[still_stirrin]

Homerun all.

As a certified beer judge, I have to be descriptive when describing the contestant's entry. It's what they pay for when entering (although I don't get paid to judge it...I do "get" to drink it. Sometimes that's not a benefit really).

Anyway, using descriptors to define taste perceptions is key. You use words that are defined by a "benchmark", paradigm if you will, so that the contestant can likewise learn the proper and improper taste profiles. Sometimes it's process oriented, sometimes recipe oriented.

Terms like "buttery", "spicy/peppery", "spicy/clove-like", "banana", "vanilla", "toasty", "oakey" (yes, in beer too), "wet cardboard", "vinegary", "cider-like", and many more are used to relate the perception on paper to the entrant (and others who would read the judging forms as well).

Simply put, "funky" is NOT a taste descriptor. Neither is "weird". I tend to disregard any or all input from a judge who would use those in the contest.

So the flavor wheel does help to relate perceptions (good or bad) of the sample from the taster. It spurs a more universal flavor benchmark.
ss

[Jimbo]

VW microbus. Predominantly herbal with notes of carbon monoxide.

LMFAO! Thats some funny shit right there. (reminds me of last night, sittin in teh garage after band practice with the kerosene heater going and.... never mind.)

Bush, there's a great many wheels of flavor and aroma descripters avail in a flash with a google search if youre looking for a word to help describe that 'what the hell is that' flavor youre experiencing. They are helpful indeed.

Another nice wholistic way to approach sensory perception on different level from just flavors is by asking questions like 'Is this what I expect from this style' and 'are there any flaws (heads, tails, fermentation mistakes, aging mistakes etc)

For example, one aged craft whiskey I recently tasted had what I consider 2 flaws. Its taken off the still high proof, off several plates 6 I think, at around 90%, and for that reason is lacking the complexity I expect from a $40 whiskey, its also why I argued with Odin about 'pure whiskey' off a plated column) And second its was heavily oaked, think oak tea. So lacking in character and drown in oak. Yum. Not. On an accessibility level, its simple so more widely accepted maybe, and the oak is familiar and evokes a warm aged emotion instantly. Long story short, he's making the right decisions for the mass populace, maybe, but not for someone who really gives a shit about a quality whiskey.

Anyway, here's something funny from the interwebs on the topic of rating spirits:
0-10: No one should ever drink this shit, I think it's poison (White lightning)
10-20: It's still white and my esophagus is on fire
20-30: Well, it got me drunk, I poured it into Mt. Dew and could barely taste it (Jim Beam 4y)
30-40: Okay, I could deal with this. Non-bourbon drinkers won't know the difference between this and something rated 60
40-50: A decent, cheap sipper, maybe a good value for something that tastes okay, or it's a solid mixer
50-60: This is where your slightly above average bourbon should land, because, you know, it's slightly above the middle.
60-70: This is where I think most decent bourbons should fall (EJ12, Weller Antique) and where the great values can be found
70-80: Amped up a little more - this is good bourbon, you should expect to pay a little more for it (BT, WR, 4R small batch)
80-90: well holy shit, this is for a special drink - woodford double oaked, eagle rare, 4R single barrel. unless you've got money, or are happy spending it on alcohol, this isn't your nightly bourbon. if you drink this too often you'll lose perspective on just how good it is.
90-100: god-damned best bourbons you've ever had - I've never had anything this good, so I won't even try. But this is where the upper echelon should be.

[BoomTown]

yep, what Jimbo said. Thasss right. hic up.

[woodshed]

I like the idea of the wheel being incorporated here.
Jimbo, band practice and kerosene? You'll have to fill me in on that at the S3 meeting.

[heartcut]

This worked better than coffee. Thanks, all.

[Bushman]

I like the idea of the wheel being incorporated here.

That is why I suggested it for the forum, I know there are a lot out there and most are similar but if anyone has several descriptor wheels they would like that we can use on the forum (I would like to keep it simple, one for taste, one for smell) let me know and we will put up a thread in the New Distillers Reading Lounge as a reference for people to describe what they are tasting/smelling or what they should be.

[BoomTown]

So, Bushman,

At Jedfest, I had printed out a wheel, and had folks tasting my stuff rate it according to the wheel. It's a great idea, and I'm all for it.

Can I help?

Boom

[MichiganCornhusker]

I agree. The wheels that we had at Jed's were at least a start in this direction. I'm not sure how to get started with something like this, but would be happy to lend feedback.
I kind of like the idea of a flowchart, too, or a "tree"... Yam, potato, and whiskey are all definitely branches, but they do share a trunk...