Point being that you can boycott US products and still have Bourbon “style” whisky. Kind of like how some distilleries outside Scotland make Scotch style whisky, which is often very very good.
You’re the one calling appropriation a “genuine contribution” if you knew anything about the history of whiskey and bourbon, you wouldn’t be making that claim.
I’m no expert on alcohol, but when I went to the distillery in Bourbon County, they tell it was made by accident originally. Basically the distillery burned down, and they tried reusing the burnt barrels only to find that the whiskey had a pleasant flavor?
What’s appropriation there? The locals just brought the whiskey recipe with them when they hopped the pond.
They distinctly changed the recipe. It’s no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn’t called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?
They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.
In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.
The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.
Depending on what they are making, sometimes they do. Re-charing can only go so far and you lose a lot of the elements in the oak when you do. Some casks are one time use only for what they want to make.
3-4 uses, than they ship them to Scotland to be broken down for scotch.
I worked at a distillery as a contractor. Orientations include history as well as all the products they make. Also just talking with the higher ups gets some pretty useless neat information.
Yeah, I didn’t love bourbon before, but my brother in law is a huge fan and hasn’t bought any.
And he buys it but also follows and has all of us enter the lcbo lotteries to buy bourbons.
I do love bourbon. I think it’s one of the very few genuine contributions to world cuisine from the USA.
And I will never drink another drop of it.
There’s nothing unique about bourbon. Other places can distill it, just not market it as such.
There’s plenty of over 50% corn mash, and aged in brand new oak barrels, type “whiskeys” out there.
Okanagan Spirits makes “BRBN Bourbon-style whisky”. Bourbon (as you say) is a protected designation of origin product, meaning that it has to be made in the US. It’s not on the PDO list on Wikipedia though, so it appears it is a separate designation, same idea though.
Point being that you can boycott US products and still have Bourbon “style” whisky. Kind of like how some distilleries outside Scotland make Scotch style whisky, which is often very very good.
Wow! It’s like I didn’t know anything about liquor and you just enlightened me! THANK YOU OH SO MUCH KIND SIR!
Oh, and … buh-bye.
You’re the one calling appropriation a “genuine contribution” if you knew anything about the history of whiskey and bourbon, you wouldn’t be making that claim.
I’m no expert on alcohol, but when I went to the distillery in Bourbon County, they tell it was made by accident originally. Basically the distillery burned down, and they tried reusing the burnt barrels only to find that the whiskey had a pleasant flavor?
What’s appropriation there? The locals just brought the whiskey recipe with them when they hopped the pond.
And then made legislation that it can only be made across the pond and no longer where the recipes originated from.
They distinctly changed the recipe. It’s no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn’t called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?
They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.
In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.
The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.
You’re a fucking shithead
A real asshole. An excellent account to block.
I do worry about what happens when cheap American oak ex bourbon casks stop getting sent to Scotland…
Canada buys them for their whiskey, doesn’t need to be new.
Depending on what they are making, sometimes they do. Re-charing can only go so far and you lose a lot of the elements in the oak when you do. Some casks are one time use only for what they want to make.
3-4 uses, than they ship them to Scotland to be broken down for scotch.
I worked at a distillery as a contractor. Orientations include history as well as all the products they make. Also just talking with the higher ups gets some pretty useless neat information.