The Proof Factor

I have seen mention by @Victor where he pointed out (I am paraphrasing by memory) that grain whisky distilled at a very high ABV/proof, that is then cut with a lot of water, diminishes the taste.

VS Something at a lower proof cut with less water.

' How big a factor is “distillation proof” and “entry proof” when it comes to a whisky’s final flavour and texture?'

Imagine Wild Turkey coming off the stills at 190!? I think my tongue might dissolve

Hmm interesting. I'd always assumed that distilling at a lower proof would create a more 'mellow' spirit, shall we say, but maybe it's not that simple? I guess it ultimately depends on the stuff that's coming off the stills as some spirits may benefit from a higher run and some may not - WT being a case in point, perhaps? I'd also guess it varies grain to grain, distillery to distillery, and perhaps also how the spirit will fare as it matures.

In Scottish terms I wonder if this is all part of what comes under the banner of a distillery 'finding its feet'? Where Scots' grain is concerned though I'd, again, imagine that they distill it as high as possible for maximum yield, foregoing quality for bulk.

@OdysseusUnbound, I had begun a reply to your query and erased it, at about 300 words, as I was only .05% complete and had no desire to continue. I'll cut to the chase...

CC 40 YO, CC Chronicles 41 YO are double distilled corn whisky, they've had the piss boiled out of them. Four decades of soothing oak (not new oak) and extreme temperature fluctuation has shaped them into what some consider to be good whiskies. These two are the product of near 190 proof distillate, 189 proof if I recall correctly. Highwood Ninety 20 YO, Can Rock 17 YO, Can Rock 21 YO, Century 30 YO, and Bush Pilot are examples of a similar process. None of these are done in new oak. With the possible exception of CC 41 YO, all of the aforementioned whiskies are base whiskies from near NGS (probably within a degree or two, 94 - 94.5% abv). They were most likely watered down to an entry proof in the 150 - 180 range. The entry proof for FORTY CREEK CONFEDERATION OAK in 2010 was 139.4...see photo.

A higher entry proof will extract more from the barrels over time, slashing away and releasing goodness as well as some not so good characteristics....char and toasting levels come into play. High entry proof alcohol will be too aggressive for Wild Turkey. The barrels will be slashed to pieces at a microscopic level and yield a hot mess. WhistlePig changes barrels during the aging process because the alcohol can be too aggressive over a long period of time; a lower entry proof will not yield the same delicious results. I'll stop here before I begin to expound about pot still retaining grain characteristics in Lot No. 40 and Old Potrero.

@OdysseusUnbound et alii, In keeping with @paddockjudge's ".05% complete" comment, this is a short question with a very long answer. I believe that several variables come into play here, and while I find all of this interesting I would want an enormous amount of side by side tasting experience which I do not have of the various variables isolated before I would want to draw any large scale conclusions about how, how much, and in what ways differing distillation proof and dilution programs alter the finished products. It's a big whisk(e)y world.

Wovon man night sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen.

That said, or not said, my understanding is that most, but not all of the flavours in whisky are contained in the aquaeous fraction. If one therefore distills at high ABV, e.g. 190+ proof as is according to John Glaser routinely done with Scottish "grain" whiskies, and then arbitrarily dilute the product down to 40% ABV, the resulting whisky will have only a small fraction of the undiluted aqueous component flavours per unit volume available. . It is easy to see why most blended Scotch, and, I would add blended Canadian whisky winds up with relatively low flavour density, perfect for the "smoothness" desired by the mild-mannered general public, but too light to please the aficionados.

On the subject of much lower than average distillation proofs, e.g. in the case of Wild Turkey, I've read various things but I am not at all sure what to believe as to the effects of that approach. Once again I would want a lot of experience which I do not yet have. .

@Victor, when engaged in a conversation about whisk(e)y and the "s" word is employed, it is a dead giveaway for an unintended admission of ignorance, a lack of knowledge of flavour and texture. Many people drink a martini without as much as a comment, but are quick to criticize whisky. It is often better to be perceived as ignorant than to open one's mouth and prove it, nein?

I tell my sons and nephews that the least of bottom shelf whiskies is equally as entertaining as almost any martini, but probably more entertaining.

@paddockjudge As much as I respect you, I must disagree. I am not a person who enjoys a martini, but on occasion when my wife orders one (or I make one for her) I will taste it. The fact that I can sip it and taste it and swallow it already puts it higher than Lambertus, Turv Exloo, and contemporary JW Red.

I must stress, re Lambertus, cat urine on the nose is NEVER entertaining

@Nozinan, Thank you for your respect. I did specify "entertaining"...I derive a great deal of pleasure from watching someone attempt to partake of the aforementioned beverages. Disagree as you may, I believe you have made my point, twice. You are "not a person who enjoys a martini" and you made reference to the show stoppers Lambertus, Turv Exloo, and contemporary JW Red..... :mike_drop:

@paddockjudge My prediction is you will always have my respect

Now I may be summarizing incorrectly or oversimplifying, so please forgive any misinterpretation on my part.

It seems that what @paddockjudge is suggesting (or at least what I am inferring) is that higher distillation proof/Barrel entry proof is useful or necessary when using second or third fill casks/barrels in order to extract more flavour compounds. But this process takes a long time, which may be why I don’t enjoy many less mature Canadian whiskies which contain a high proportion of base whisky.

The consensus seems to be that virgin oak and high distillation/barrel entry proof don’t make for a happy marriage.

And for the record, I love a good Martini, but James Bond’s version is terrible. Gin not vodka, stirred not shaken, and a little dirty with the addition of olive brine. That’s what I’m talking about.

@OdysseusUnbound I'm with you on the martini. If it ain't gin it ain't a martini. My Dad used to say "pour the gin over some ice, whisper the word Vermouth close to the pitcher, pour and drink."

@BlueNote Isn’t that a variation on a Churchill Martini?

Churchill Martini

• Pour Gin into a glass
• Gaze in the direction of France
• Enjoy Martini

Gin is "ginerally" too bitter for my liking. Get it, ginerally. Ok I'll stop...