Recently, a very good friend offered me an opportunity to sample from his bottle of newly-acquired Rogue Dead Guy Whiskey. Distilled by Rogue Spirits of Newport, Oregon, it utilizes the same malts used for their Dead Guy Ale, is distilled twice in copper pot stills, then “minimally aged” in new charred American oak casks. It was also one of the roughest whiskeys to ever pass my lips, and at $35-45 per bottle retail, is pretty far from one of the best value bottles out there.
No offense to fans of the product (specifically the one who let me try it), but I don’t think of this as whiskey. See, in order for a product of Scotland to be labeled Scotch whisky, it has to be aged for a minimum of three years (among other requirements). Ditto for Irish whiskey. Bourbon must be aged for at least two years in order for it to legally be labeled Bourbon whiskey, and anything younger than four years old must carry an age statement on the label.
Several articles I’ve read seem to indicate that the “minimally aged” descriptor for Rogue Dead Guy whiskey is shorthand for “long enough to get a bit of color”. That time can vary, naturally, but the process generally takes at least six months; near as I can tell, no Rogue Dead Guy whiskey is ever aged longer than one year. In my opinion, that’s not whiskey; that’s a reposado barley spirit.
Depending on who you’re listening to, most whiskey experts say that a whiskey gets somewhere between 60 to 80 % of its flavor from the aging process. That’s right, more than half of the character of any given whiskey comes from the wood it came into contact with. So how much complexity can you get in 8-10 months? Not much, unless you're using casks that hold less than 10 liters; this stuff did not. Judging it as a whiskey, I found it very sweet on the palate, but definitely harsh, one-dimensional, and completely lacking a finish. If you know what to expect going in (which I did), you might save yourself some disappointment. Try to judge it for what is: young.
Recently, Steve Ury of recenteats.blogspot.com wrote a guest blog entry for John Hansell of Malt Advocate titled “Most Craft Whiskeys Suck!” in which he laments the practice of some micro-distillers who charge premium prices for extremely young spirits in an effort to offset some of the overhead associated with whiskey aging. He also completely razes the romantic comparisons between today’s micro-distilleries and the micro-breweries of the 80’s.
Because I live in the Old North State, my experience with the products of craft distilleries is exceptionally limited. But I do think that a lot of small distillers take advantage of the fact that there are no legal definitions in this country on what can or cannot be called “whiskey”. The general expectation of what whiskey should be is a wood aged distilled spirit from fermented grain. In India, however, 90% of all “whisky” produced within their borders is distilled from fermented molasses, which would technically make them rums. Attempts to export these Indian whiskies have run into roadblocks because of that distinction.
My solution? Make a legal definition for American whiskey. If a Bourbon needs to stay in wood for at least two years to be called Bourbon whiskey, why not make the same distinction for other non-Bourbon American whiskeys? Internationally, American whiskeys are seen as inferior as is. Exporting minimally-aged products labeled as whiskey will probably do nothing but reinforce that stereotype.
No offense to fans of the product (specifically the one who let me try it), but I don’t think of this as whiskey. See, in order for a product of Scotland to be labeled Scotch whisky, it has to be aged for a minimum of three years (among other requirements). Ditto for Irish whiskey. Bourbon must be aged for at least two years in order for it to legally be labeled Bourbon whiskey, and anything younger than four years old must carry an age statement on the label.
Several articles I’ve read seem to indicate that the “minimally aged” descriptor for Rogue Dead Guy whiskey is shorthand for “long enough to get a bit of color”. That time can vary, naturally, but the process generally takes at least six months; near as I can tell, no Rogue Dead Guy whiskey is ever aged longer than one year. In my opinion, that’s not whiskey; that’s a reposado barley spirit.
Depending on who you’re listening to, most whiskey experts say that a whiskey gets somewhere between 60 to 80 % of its flavor from the aging process. That’s right, more than half of the character of any given whiskey comes from the wood it came into contact with. So how much complexity can you get in 8-10 months? Not much, unless you're using casks that hold less than 10 liters; this stuff did not. Judging it as a whiskey, I found it very sweet on the palate, but definitely harsh, one-dimensional, and completely lacking a finish. If you know what to expect going in (which I did), you might save yourself some disappointment. Try to judge it for what is: young.
Recently, Steve Ury of recenteats.blogspot.com wrote a guest blog entry for John Hansell of Malt Advocate titled “Most Craft Whiskeys Suck!” in which he laments the practice of some micro-distillers who charge premium prices for extremely young spirits in an effort to offset some of the overhead associated with whiskey aging. He also completely razes the romantic comparisons between today’s micro-distilleries and the micro-breweries of the 80’s.
Because I live in the Old North State, my experience with the products of craft distilleries is exceptionally limited. But I do think that a lot of small distillers take advantage of the fact that there are no legal definitions in this country on what can or cannot be called “whiskey”. The general expectation of what whiskey should be is a wood aged distilled spirit from fermented grain. In India, however, 90% of all “whisky” produced within their borders is distilled from fermented molasses, which would technically make them rums. Attempts to export these Indian whiskies have run into roadblocks because of that distinction.
My solution? Make a legal definition for American whiskey. If a Bourbon needs to stay in wood for at least two years to be called Bourbon whiskey, why not make the same distinction for other non-Bourbon American whiskeys? Internationally, American whiskeys are seen as inferior as is. Exporting minimally-aged products labeled as whiskey will probably do nothing but reinforce that stereotype.
While I appreciate that my name was kept out of this, as the owner of the offending whiskey. However, I make no apologies. The bottle was purchased as a lover of beer and fully aware of the potential for failure by the distillery; Their gin is completely lack-luster as well. On a brighter note, while on the whole brewery run distilleries are sub-par, Anchor Brewing has some spectacular spirits. Thanks for another great post.
ReplyDelete