Jack Daniel's is not Bourbon.

[therealbigtasty]

It seems a little pompous on my part to say so, yes, but Jack Daniel's is not bourbon. We should protest calling it so based on the fact that it is a Tennessee whiskey.

They are two different entities, Kentucky bourbon and Tennessee whiskey.

As a bartender I cringe when I see Jack Daniel's listed under a Bourbon menu. Again, I know it sounds a little odd to be annoyed by that, but you wouldn't call Bushmills a scotch, would you?

I prefer George Dickel No. 12 (Tennessee) anyway...

[JMF]

I agree with you 100%. Part of what CH is all about is learning new things, have discussions, correct misinformation, etc. Oh, and have fun talking about the best subjects in the world. Food and Beverages.

[JMF]

I did a little research and found out that JD is made like any Bourbon, BUT it is then charcoal filtered. This is called the Lincoln County Process, and is the only difference between a Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey and a Bourbon. Also basically all Bourbons are sour mash.

[mojoeater]

Evan Williams, definitely a Kentucky Bourbon, is charcoal-filtered. I've got a bottle of it right here and the lable says in big letters: "Every Ounce Charcoal Filtered"

Bourbon is named after Bourbon County, Kentucky, and can be made anywhere in the US, but Kentucky is the only state allowed to put its name on the bottle. Jack Daniels is not a bourbon, in that it is not subject to the same regulations as bourbon, such as low level of distilling proof.

[sku]

Thank you, I agree. Here are some other common whisky-related mistakes that are pet peeves of mine.

Contrary to popular belief, Bourbon does not have to come from Kentucky (this discussion is going on right now on another thread).

There is very little (and sometimes no) rye in Canadian "Rye" whisky.

Spell it whisky for Japanese, Scotch and Canadian; whiskey for American and Irish.

Johnnie Walker Blue is not the be all and end all of anything (okay, this is opinion, but still).

[Scary Bill]

There is no rye grain in Canadian Whisky. Canadian Rye Whisky however is typically 100% Canadian rye grain spirit.

Crown Royal and Canadian Club are not rye based anymore. Haven't been for years.

There are several very good rye-based Canadian Whiskeys, with Alberta Premium, Alberta Springs, and Centennial by Highwood coming to mind.

The lesson is: Read Your Labels!

[sku]

Thanks for the correction Bill, I was referring more to the tendency to refer to any Canadian Whisky as Rye, regardless of it's content.

[Scary Bill]

And don't the distillers just love that. Most Canadians, and I can say this because I am one, don't have a clue that they're not drinking rye. Branding has a much stronger influence than product content, since most people never look beyond the name on th label.

[therealbigtasty]

Blue Label=too smooth...I want what I'm drinking to at least taste like whisky.

[thebigreason]

Ha! Amen.

[Woodside Al]

Who has been calling JD "bourbon"? Certainly not a mistake I can imagine any of the folks I know making.

P.S., agree on the Dickel. Good stuff, particularly for the money.

[therealbigtasty]

In my five years bartending the majority of people refer to Jack as bourbon. Sometimes, I'd correct them if I weren't busy.

[olfashiond]

Now, this thread has turned into something interesting. In the first place, everyone seems to agree that the distinction (i.e., between bourbon and Tennessee whiskey) is meaningful, although there seems to be some uncertainty, even now, as to precisely what qualities define the difference. Tennessee whiskey surely tastes different from bourbon; but, then again (as at least 2 posts here acknowledge), Dickel does not taste the same as JD; which raises the obvious, but nevetheless as yet unanswered question: do bourbons (and, for that matter, Tennessee whiskeys) taste more like each other than they do the whiskeys in the other category? If so, then what is the nature of the distinction that defines the category (according to taste, I mean, not according to method of production)? If not, then what--apart from marketing, of course--is the purpose of the distinction?

Clearly, the only responsible way of approaching this problem is for all truly interested parties to arrange whiskey tastings to compare, contrast, and report back here.

[Chinon00]

I agree. The OP states that "you wouldn't call Bushmills a scotch, would you?
" No, but Irish and Scotch are clearly distinguished by the use of peat in Scotch. The one Irish which I've had which utilizes peat is Tyrconnell. I enjoy it but I wouldn't confuse it with Scotch. On the other hand I have enjoyed both Tennessee Whiskey and Bourbon in say a Manhattan.
So on a whiskey list it probably would be technically more accurate to separate Bourbon from Tennessee. But a shared "Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey" listing would also be acceptable to me.

[chazzerking]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a Manhattan should be made with Rye anyway. IMO, there's more of a breadth of difference among various bourbons than between the Tennessee Sours and many of the Bourbons I've tasted.

[the capers]

tennessee whiskeys are filtered through sugar maple charcoal. bourbons are not. i believe that originally, bourbons had to come from bourbon county, in the same sense that a french "syrah" would be labeled cote rote, or a pinot noir labeled morgon, and the fact that the county of bourbon more than likely took its name from a ruling family of france seem to suggest that there may have been an influence toward regionallity. however, at this point all a whiskey needs to be called a bourbon is a majority of corn mash with a little rye thrown in (minus the sugar maple filtering)...plus extra flavor, not just from the barrel...supposedly elijah craig {spelling?} discovered the process of charring barrels when his (dis)still(ery) burned to the ground, leaving the salvagable barrels charred, and in his effort to save money he re-used them...hence charred oak barrels, the final ingredient for bourbon...(tho im not sure how much credence to give to the elija craig story)
still...i love bourbon.

[mojoeater]

Actually, there are a number of requirements for a whiskey to be called a bourbon (From Wikipedia):

Bourbon is an American form of whiskey made from (pursuant to U.S. law) at least 51% corn, or maize — typically about 70% — with the remainder being wheat and/or rye, and malted barley. It is distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof, and aged in new charred oak barrels for at least two years. The two years maturation process is not a legal requirement for a whiskey to be called "bourbon," but it is a legal requirement for "straight bourbon." However, in practice, most bourbon whiskeys are aged for at least four years.

Bourbon must be put into the barrels at no more than 125 U.S. proof. Generally, it is then adjusted to 80–100 proof and bottled. Some jurisdictions, mostly in the United States, do not allow alcoholic beverages with over 40% alcohol content to be sold. However, the recent trend among distillers has been to return to higher proofs, and even “cask strength” bottlings.

Bourbon can legally be made anywhere in the United States where it is legal to distill spirits. Legitimate production is not restricted to Kentucky, although currently all but a few brands are made there, and the drink is associated strongly with that state...The name is taken from Bourbon County, Kentucky.

[zin1953]

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER I--ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

PART 5--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

Subpart C--Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits

Sec. 5.22 The standards of identity.

(1)(i) ``Bourbon whisky'', ``rye whisky'', ``wheat whisky'', ``malt
whisky'', or ``rye malt whisky'' is whisky produced at not exceeding
160 deg. proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn,
rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored
at not more than 125 deg. proof in charred new oak containers; and also
includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.
(ii) ``Corn whisky'' is whisky produced at not exceeding 160 deg.
proof from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn grain, and
if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125 deg. proof in
used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to
treatment with charred wood; and also includes mixtures of such whisky.
(iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type
of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be
further designated as ``straight''; for example, ``straight bourbon
whisky'', ``straight corn whisky'', and whisky conforming to the
standards prescribed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that
it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one
type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new
oak containers shall be designated merely as ``straight whisky''. No
other whiskies may be designated ``straight''. ``Straight whisky''
includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the
same State.

(2) ``Whisky distilled from bourbon (rye, wheat, malt, or rye malt)
mash'' is whisky produced in the United States at not exceeding 160 deg.
proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye,
wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored in
used oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the
same type. Whisky conforming to the standard of identity for corn whisky
must be designated corn whisky.

(3) ``Light whisky'' is whisky produced in the United States at more
than 160 deg. proof, on or after January 26, 1968, and stored in used or
uncharred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such
whiskies. If ``light whisky'' is mixed with less than 20 percent of straight whisky on a proof gallon basis, the mixture shall be designated ``blended light
whisky'' (light whisky--a blend).

(4) ``Blended whisky'' (whisky--a blend) is a mixture which contains
straight whisky or a blend of straight whiskies at not less than 20
percent on a proof gallon basis, excluding alcohol derived from added
harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials, and, separately, or
in combination, whisky or neutral spirits. A blended whisky containing
not less than 51 percent on a proof gallon basis of one of the types of
straight whisky shall be further designated by that specific type of
straight whisky; for example, ``blended rye whisky'' (rye whisky--a
blend).

(5)(i) ``A blend of straight whiskies'' (blended straight whiskies)
is a mixture of straight whiskies which does not conform to the standard
of identify for ``straight whisky.'' Products so designated may contain
harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials as set forth in 27
CFR 5.23(a).
(ii) ``A blend of straight whiskies'' (blended straight whiskies)
consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky, and not
conforming to the standard for straight whisky, shall be further
designated by that specific type of straight whisky; for example, ``a
blend of straight rye whiskies'' (blended straight rye whiskies). ``A
blend of straight whiskies'' consisting entirely of one of the types of
straight whisky shall include straight whisky of the same type which was
produced in the same State or by the same proprietor within the same
State, provided that such whisky contains harmless coloring, flavoring,
or blending materials as stated in 27 CFR 5.23(a).

[ChefJune]

*OFF SUBJECT!*

< or a pinot noir labeled morgon, >???????? Morgon, last time I looked, was a cru Beaujolais, made from Gamay grapes.

[zin1953]

>>> in the same sense that a french "syrah" would be labeled cote rote, or a pinot noir labeled morgon <<<

ONLY if that Syrah was indeed grown within the appellation of Côte-Rôtie. Gorwn anywhere else and it would *never* be called that. Now would it have been called that prior to the creation of the regulations for appellation Côte-Rôtie contrôlée (which, BTW, can include up to 10 percent Viognier); Hermitage was a much more popular wine back then.

As for Morgon, as Chef June has quite rightly pointed out, being one of the 11 Crus de Beaujolais, it is produced from the grape variety Gamay noir au jus blanc, and not from Pinot Noir.

[chazzerking]

I'm going to need a pair of Pince-nez and a pointer here. Cote Rotie is made from several different grapes, Syrah among them. Morgon is made from Gamay grapes not Pinot Noir. As the poster above said, CH is about learning. there is no requirement that Bourbon whiskey needs any rye to be called bourbon. there are minimum requirements of corn, but no other specs on the mash. the whiskey needs to be distilled to a maximum alcohol concentration (80% I recall,) and aged a minimum of 2 years. It is then be diluted and bottled at anywhere from 35% to 62% alcohol. this is from memory so subject to correction(especially the percentages) but basically the req's.

[MC Slim JB]

It's pretty common in my experience (over many years and U.S. states) to see Jack Daniel's freely substituted without comment when you order bourbon, particularly in places where the bartenders' skills don't extend much beyond pouring beer or highballs (e.g., bars catering to young drinkers, airplanes), and/or the selection of liquors is limited (e.g., wedding and conference receptions).

The vast majority of American bartenders have no idea what rye whiskey is; many who think they know, don't, reaching for Canadian whisky. Most Candians are blends with little or no rye grain content; a bare handful actually meet the US definition of straight rye, but they are little seen here.

Rye is still a mystery at many high-end bars that are reasonably serious about cocktail craft, though the situation has improved a bit in the last year or so as rye makers have invested more in marketing and tried to take its image upmarket with fancier, longer-aged bottlings.

[Woodside Al]

Amazing to think now that rye whiskey once WAS whiskey for several generations of Americans. It was certainly what my father or grandfather meant when they asked for "whiskey." Now it's seemingly become very obscure (although very slowly regaining recogniton) and almost no bartender seems to know how to make, say, a proper Manhattan, but instead reaches for bourbon, Canadian, or, weirdly, Jack Daniel's.

[MC Slim JB]

Yep, rye was the king of whiskeys in America for generations: the Father of Our Country distilled it, and it was the original base for all the classic whiskey cocktails. Without Prohibition, bourbon might have been relegated to a historical footnote, a forgotten bit of moonshine only referred to in old cowboy movies as "corn liquor", cheap firewater for thirsty roughnecks. I'm glad to see rye making a slow comeback: it's a great bit of authentic Americana, like jazz and peanut butter.

(For the record: I like Scotch and Irish, love bourbon, only got to know real rye a couple of years ago, but have become a minor evangelist for it.)

[zin1953]

>>> The vast majority of American bartenders have no idea what rye whiskey is; many who think they know, don't, reaching for Canadian whisky. <<<

Actually most I've seen reach for Old Overholt.

[MC Slim JB]

I like Old Overholt a lot, just picked up a bottle recently ($11 for a 750ml!), think it's a tremendous value, admire it for being a Prohibition survivor. Speaking only for Greater Boston, though, there's not one bar in fifty around here that stocks a single bottle of real, American straight rye whiskey. The situation is improving but still pretty dismal.

I was at a high-end restaurant bar the other night (very trendy, of-the-moment Italian place), where the barmen know their stuff reasonably well, though I wouldn't put them in the top flight of serious craft bartenders in Boston. I ordered rye, the bartender scratched his head for a moment, then rummaged around to find their sole bottle, Jim Beam rye (which ain't terrible, but not my favorite). The next night, I was at the bar at the old Ritz-Carlton (which just recently became a Taj): ordered rye, got Canadian. The working-man's bars around here have no idea about it, tending to carry Jack, a couple of bourbons (Turkey, Beam, maybe Old Grand-Dad), an Irish or two, and a few Scotches. (Of course, folks around here still think Southern Comfort is based on whiskey, too.)

[wontonton]

At what liquor store(s) in Boston can you buy Old Overholt? I've glanced around after hearing good things, but haven't seen it.

[MC Slim JB]

I found mine at the Martignetti's on Soldier Field Road in Brighton. Given their broad selection of whiskies, I'm betting you could find it at Gordon's on Main St in Waltham, too.

[The Dive]

My father managed the ad campaigns for JD for more than two decades. Every one painstakingly referred to it as a Tennessee whiskey. It drives him nuts to hear it called bourbon.

[lupaglupa]

My Dad is from Tullahoma, where Dickel is made, just down the road from Lynchburg where JD is made. He travelled in Europe for work and used to serve Dickel in snifters to French friends and tell them it was American cognac.

[therealbigtasty]

That's how good Dickel is...

It's just so tasty.

I heard that they almost went out of business a couple of years ago. Is that true?

[lupaglupa]

I don't think so - I think that Dickel is owned by one of the big liquor conglomerates <sigh> like everything else.

[Woodside Al]

Dickel is owned by Diageo, which owns or distributes many famous alcohol brands (Guinness, Smirnoff, Cuervo, J&B, Tanqueray, Johnnie Walker, Bushmill's, several single malt scotches, etc.) and more or less descends from the Guinness Co. Apparently George Dickel over-produced for some time and the distillery was shut down in the '90s, remaining closed while the back stock was sold off until 2003.

[therealbigtasty]

That's what happened. I was curious because I have some family in Tullahoma and he'd said Dickel was going out of business, but they just had too much made...hm.

If people would just wise up and drink Dickel instead of Jack...then the world would be a sensible place!

[zin1953]

I grant you --absolutely -- that Jack Daniel's, in any of its incarnations, is NOT Bourbon.

With that as a given, what's the difference? Not in geography, but in taste.

[mojoeater]

I can DEFINITELY taste the difference. Bourbon is sweeter to me. Jack is a little more oaky/smoky.

[zin1953]

BUT . . . the question is, is this because one is a Bourbon and the other isn't, OR is it a natural difference between two similar whiskies?

Lagavulin is more peaty than Bowmore, for example, yet both are examples of single malt Scotch whisky from Islay. The difference is one of production techniques, not of geography. Martell Cognac is sweeter than Hine Cognac, for example, yet both are "Fine Champagne" Cognacs. Again, the difference is one of "house style," not of geography.

I agree that Jack Daniel's tastes different than, say, Wild Turkey. But Maker's Mark tastes different than Wild Turkey, too, and both taste difference than Old Weller, Old Forrester or Rip Van Winkle -- Bourbons all. And, for that matter, Jack tastes different than George Dickel, yet both are examples of Tennessee whiskey.

Is the difference between Jack Daniel's and Wild Turkey any greater because one is a Bourbon and one isn't?

I suspect the answer is "no." I suspect this is a distinction without a difference.

That said, were I doing the list for a restaurant, I would not place Jack in the "Bourbon" category either.

[sku]

Tennessee whiskey afficianados will tell you that the charcoal filtering (that which separates TN whiskey from bourbon) imparts a smoky taste as well as a certain syrupy quality which makes it taste distinctly different than bourbon. As I'm not a big Tennessee drinker, I can't vouch for this distinction.

Of course, as you point out, different beverages of the same type can taste different (you didn't even mention the great variety of wine tastes even among those from the same varietals). Sometimes that has to do with ingredients, productions techniques or even geography.

The definitions (bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey) etc., are primarilly statutory and regulate what can be on the label, based primarily on tradition, influence of various interest groups and all of the other non-taste based elements that go into legislation. They don't tell you what something tastes like, except to the extent you can make broad generalizations.

[mojoeater]

OK. Charcoal filtering is NOT what separates the two. Many bourbons are charcoal filtered (look at every Evan Williams lable if you disagree). Jack Daniels is charcoal MELLOWED (their name for it), which means slowly dripped through maple sugar charcoal. But there are other qualities that separate it from bourbon. Look at the above posts for the exact criteria for a whiskey to be called Bourbon. It involves ingredients, temperature, proof, and more.

[zin1953]

I sent off an email to the Jack Daniel's Distillery to ask if they were using a mash that was 51% corn. Not sure if I'll get an answer, but one can hope.

[MC Slim JB]

I can't vouch for its authority, but one online source (not the Distillery) claims that JD uses an 80% corn mash and is aged (like bourbons) in charred barrels of new oak.

[zin1953]

Yeah, that's what I thought . . . in other words, if they were in Bardstown instead of Lynchburg, it would be labeled Bourbon.

That was precisely my point when I wrote above, "I suspect this is a distinction without a difference. That said, were I doing the list for a restaurant, I would not place Jack in the "Bourbon" category either."

[sku]

The JD website itself names charcoal filtering as the thing that distinguishes it from bourbon:

Is Jack Daniel's a bourbon?

Jack Daniel's is not a Bourbon - it's a TENNESSEE WHISKEY. Jack Daniel's is dripped slowly - drop-by-drop - through ten feet of firmly packed charcoal (made from hard sugar maple) before going into new charred oak barrels for aging. This special process gives Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey its rare smoothness. It's this extra step - charcoal mellowing - which makes Jack Daniel's a Tennessee Whiskey.

http://www.jackdaniels.com/faq.asp

[olfashiond]

Yes, we all understand the distinction (but thank you for putting the designation in capital letters—that really helps). The question is whether the distinction matters: whether, as zin1953 said much earlier, the distinction is one that makes no difference. My suspicion is that it makes no difference when it comes to flavor: that is, that there is no distinctive difference between a Tennessee whiskey and a bourbon—that whatever difference there exists, it is indistinguishable from the kind of difference you will find between any two bourbons, or between JD and Dickel. If you can’t characterize the difference, then it is, essentially, a distinction that makes no difference.

Certainly you can insist that the distinction in production methods is one that matters, but, if you do, then what are you really arguing for? Would any true connoisseur claim to prefer cognac not because of its distinctive flavor, but because of where it is made? (Yes, I know that in the case of cognac, where it is made has been established to be a significant factor in how it tastes; but that has not been established with respect to Tennessee whiskey.) If you prefer to distinguish between spirits based on point of origin rather than on flavor, then what is your rationale?

I can see that this truly matters to a lot of people, so I don’t presume to say that the point-of-origin distinction is unimportant; but I don’t understand the thinking, and I’d like to. But please don’t anyone post another description of how the stuff is made. I really don’t care.

[sku]

FYI, I pasted the question and answer (including all caps portion) directly from the website. It wasn't my intent to make any sort of point by capitalizing. Sorry if it offended.

And it's not that you like something because of the way it is produced, it's that looking at production methods can help explain flavor profiles, not just between Tn whiskey and bourbon, but between two bourbons or between two different preparations of a soup.

Frankly, as I stated earlier, I tend to agree with Zin on this point, but I don't drink enough Tenn. whiskey to know how similar or different it is to various bourbons.

[Woodside Al]

Because a Tennessee whiskey is from Tennessee, and is therefore not the same thing as a bourbon, the same way "cognac" that is not from Cognac really isn't a cognac, or a "champagne" from somewhere other than Champagne isn't really a champagne. For instance, a lot of well made mezcal tastes pretty much exactly like tequila, and is made from the same stuff, but it isn't a tequila, and cannot legally be called one, because it's not from Jalisco. Would you argue that there is no meaningful distinction between tequila and mezcal or champagne and "champagne" as long as they taste pretty much the same? I'm certain that the producers would vehemently disagree with you, and so I suspect would a lot of consumers.

Would you argue that if someone made a whisky in, say, Ireland or Japan that tasted like scotch that the naming of scotch whiskey was largely meaningless? I've had very good Suntory whiskys from Japan that tasted pretty much the same as really good blended scotches (and was made with precisely that intention), but I would never think to call it scotch. It's not from Scotland, and therefore not part of the same tradition that scotch whiskys come from.

Having said all that though, I think there is a meaningful taste difference between Tennessee whiskey with its sugar-maple charcoal filtering and that of most bourbons (which are, as pointed out below, not filterd in the same way even when charcoal is used). Some bourbons, however, seem to be made purposely a bit on the sweet side these days, perhaps to sell more towards the market of the very popular JD?

[zin1953]

sku,

1) I agree that Jack Daniel's is a Tennessee Whiskey, and not a Bourbon. (As I've said above, were I printing a restaurant or bar's list of spirits, I would not list it under "Bourbon.")

2) At least some Bourbons, however, are also charcoal filtered. (See Evan Williams.)

3) The Jack Daniel's website calls it "charcoal mellowing," but either way, it's "filtering."

4) This is only relevant, vis-a-vis this discussion, IF all Tennessee Whiskey *must* be charcoal mellowed/filtered as a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of what makes a Tennessee Whiskey a Tennessee Whiskey, as distinguished from a Bourbon. This is not relevant if "charcoal mellowing" is a solely production technique of Jack Daniel's, as oppsoed to George Dickel, for instance. In that regard, "charcoal mellowing" would be similar difference between one whiskey and another to one distiller using, say, 75% corn and 25% rye in the mash, while another uses a ration of 75-25 corn to wheat.

[sku]

Zin, to clarify, Evan Williams is filtered through activated charcoal, as are many bourbons. Activated charcoal is the carbon stuff used in brita filters and is done to remove impurities.

Jack Daniels (and Dickel as well) is filtered through sugar-maple charcoal (known as the Lincoln County process), which is more like the charcoal you cook on and is used to impart flavor. This is the process that people say adds the smoky and syrupy flavors to it and that, I believe, prevents it from legally being called bourbon.

Unlike "bourbon," Tennessee Whiskey is not a legal term, but a term based in tradition that includes the Lincoln County Process. Thus, I don't believe there is a legal requirement for anything to be called Tennessee Whiskey, but there is a tradition of how it is made that is supposed to be related to flavor. Whether that bears out in tasting is another question.

[zin1953]

Of course it's a little distressing that no one at the distillery has replied to my email.

[sku]

Fortuitously, this month's Whisky Magazine has a feature article on Jack Daniel's. In it, Dominic Roskrow tastes new make spirit (freshly distilled, unaged spirit) befoe and after the charcoal filtering process. He reports that after the filtering, the spirit is "softer and frutier and nowhere near as chewy."

[zin1953]

I don't doubt it, but I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion at ahnd -- though VERY relevant to the production of Jack Daniel's.

This entire thread boils down to whether or not there is a specific and meaningful distinction between *Tennessee Whiskey* (as exemplified by Jack Daniel's) and other whiskies known collectively as *Bourbon*. By "specific and meaningful," I am not referring to production techniques between one brand of whiskey and another, but between whiskey TYPES. Is "Tennessee Whiskey" (Jack Daniel's, George Dickel) distinct and different from "Bourbon" as a category, in the same way that Scotch whisky is different from Irish whisky?

If the answer is no, then -- once again -- while I would certainly separate it from "Bourbons" on a restaurant list of spirits, I think it's a distinction without much difference.

If the answer is yes, then not only should it be listed separately, but no bartender should ever use it in place of Bourbon in a recipe unless it's a specific call by the customer.

[zin1953]

Still disappointed.

[nitpicker]

zin-
I stumbled upon this discussion while doing research. my question is:
legally and technically, does JD conform to the requirements that define bourbon. if so, it is a bourbon whether the owners wish to call it such or not. just as tequila producers will not call their product mezcal (even though it is) nor do cognac producers call their product brandy (even though it is).

[sku]

My understanding is that Jack Daniel does not meet the definition of bourbon because of the sugar-maple charcoal filtering (the Lincoln County process), which is considered a flavor enahncer. The BATF, which regulates liquor production, has recognized the status of Tennessee Whiskey as a distinct cateogry, though it is not set out in the regulations.

I think Zin's point, which is valid, is regardless of the legal definition, does it really make sense to treat JD separately from bourbon since they are so similar in profile and taste.

[sku]

Here's an interesting discussion of the issue from straightbourbon.com:
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums...

[zin1953]

Well, my real point(s) are (I think) as follows:

1) It's true that Jack Daniels is not Bourbon, and . . .
2) If I were writing a restaurant's or bar's list of drinks and spirits, I *would* put Jack Daniel's (and George Dickel) under "Tennessee Whiskey" and NOT under Bourbon, although . . .
3) Precisely because they ARE so close in flavor profile, I'd make sure they were on the same page, or on the facing page, of my list, but . . .
4) I wouldn't "get my knickers in a twist" were they included on *someone's* list as "Bourbon" -- however . . .
5) I *would* get upset if a bartender used Jack Daniel's to make a Manhattan or other drink that called for Bourbon UNLESS it was specifically called by the customer.

Clear as mud, right? ;^)

[therealbigtasty]

And I just wish more bars carried DIckel!

[tesla]

I have read most of this discussion . To answer this for my self
I think this is right on the 5 points .
I personally love makers mark ,like evan williams kinda dickle and j d not at all I to do not think they should be listed as a bourbon and would be offended if were interchanged

[chazzerking]

I'd be much more disturbed if a bartender used any bourbon or Tennessee whiskey in my Manhattan( instead of the Rye it is supposed to be made with) than if i asked for bourbon and was offerred JD or GD. the flavor profiles of Tennessee whiskey isn't any more different from bourbons than the difference among bourbons, IMHO

[Kitchen Queen]

I always thought Jack Daniels was considered "sour mash" -not whisky

[zin1953]

Sour mash is like sour dough -- it's still bread, but uses an "old" starter. So, too, sour mash: it's still whiskey . . . but it's not "whisky."

[welle]

I saw a show on distilleries either on Discovery or History channel, and they said that taste-wise what makes Kentucky bourbon a bourbon is their water - mineral, limestone rich.

Another curiosity I learnt from the show was that the new charred oak barrels they can't use afterwards, American distillers export to Scottish distillers. All those expensive single malts come from American used barrels!

[zin1953]

Close.

Bourbon whiskey is required BY LAW to use new, charred white oak barrels in which to age their spirit.

Scotch distilleries do not use new oak. The major source of oak is actually the Sherry producers in Spain; many producers utilize barrels in which formerly Oloroso Sherry was aged. Bourbon barrels are also in widespread use. So, too, are barrels from other sources -- Porto for instance, but that is a minor source. Sherry and Bourbon are the main suppliers of oak for Scotch whisky.

[superadboy]

Not being an expert in any way, but just thought I'd chime in. I watched a story on Discovery and they seemed to talk alot about how the source of the water in KY and TN played a role in the taste (being that the water in both states is limestone filtered). Any thoughts to this?

[tesla]

mentioned earlier in the post

[phantomdoc]

Hard water free of iron. Iron it seems, ruins the taste of the spirit.

[imhungryletseat]

Is Evan Williams a Bourbon or Tenn Whiskey? The liquor store by my house has an ad for the 1.75 ltr for $19.99. I currently have Jim Beam for bourbon and ginger ale and Woodford Reserve for sipping but my Jim Beam is almost gone and I 'm looking for something with more taste/better quality around the same price or a little more expensive. How is the Evan Williams?
IS the Evan

[dcscotchchick]

For another take on it, check out "The American Cousins":

http://www.scotchchix.com/2008/06/ame...