Gentleman Jack is a Wuss

It's been all over the news today. Jack Daniels is watering down Old No 7 . They are changing the proof of Jack Daniels from 86 to 80. In other words a galss of Jack is now like a glass of Jack and water. It's a sad day. (And I don't even drink)

Steve,

The good news is, if you buy a whole barrel of the stuff (and they are available), you can still get the more traditional, less diluted version (however, the original JD has been diluted once already from the original formulation -- from 90 to 86 proof). You get the actual barrel into the deal, which can make an excellent decorative planter or place to lie down after consuming contents.

Hammond

PS. Quote I just read on the topic: "You can't screw with a legend like that and get away with it," said Frank Kelly Rich, editor of Modern Drunkard magazine.

Could "Jack Classic" be in our future?

P.S. If I had an empty barrel, I'd use it as fuel for my WSM!

Meh. I prefer bourbon anyway. Just gives me one more reason to root against Tennessee this weekend (as if I needed any more).

Any justification offered for the change? They've always had an 80 proof version (with the green label), so I don't see the need.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Any justification offered for the change? They've always had an 80 proof version (with the green label), so I don't see the need.

I believe the reason given was that the "new generation" of Jack-guzzlers prefered a "lite" version. Really. No kidding.

My understanding is that the green label is kind of a grab bag; it's less regulated than the regular black label, and thus may not be quite up to the usual JD standard.

Hammond

Hey, the barrel has significant residual (heh) value!

Whiskey barrels are commonly used for at least part of the time of wine aging, and I'm assuming that WSM has something to do with a smoker, right? Awesome quality hardwood in those staves. Filling it with dirt would be a shame.

JoelF wrote:Whiskey barrels are commonly used for at least part of the time of wine aging, .

Really? Sherry barrels are used for some whisky aging (e.g., The Macallan), but whiskey barrels for wine is new one on me.

Hammond

David Hammond wrote:

JoelF wrote:Whiskey barrels are commonly used for at least part of the time of wine aging, .

Really? Sherry barrels are used for some whisky aging (e.g., The Macallan), but whiskey barrels for wine is new one on me.

Hammond

Some whisky barrels are reused for brandy, as well.

JoelF wrote:Whiskey barrels are commonly used for at least part of the time of wine aging

Chateau Jethro?

Where have you heard this?

Thanks,
Al

Al Ehrhardt wrote:

JoelF wrote:Whiskey barrels are commonly used for at least part of the time of wine aging

Where have you heard this?

Now you've got me doubting my memory. I may have seen this on FoodTV wine tours, or perhaps I do have it backwards, and it's whiskey that uses wine.

The switch to 80 proof has begun at my neighborhood liquor store. I was in there yesterday, and they had a rep handing out free samples of Jack & Coke, using the new, lower-proof version. On the shelf, all the 750 ml bottles were 80 proof (some of the larger bottles were still 86 proof). They also had a number of bottles of the old "green label" 80 proof Jack; it was $2.50 cheaper than the new, "black label" 80 proof Jack. I can't recall whether the green label was always cheaper than the black.

In my experience the green was always cheaper than the black. I recall my days back at Auburn, where the liquor of choice during football season was either Jack Black (the sour mash, not the peformer) or Wild Turkey 101. All the ABC stores around would be sold out of both by the end of Thursday on weekends with home games. I guess not having to be bothered with the economic issues that private enterprises confront it never occurred to them that if they ordered MORE during football season they could sell MORE and make $$. So my time in college was well-spent if for no other reason then I learned the value of planning ahead.

The real reason for the proof change is that the Federal Excise Tax is based on proof. Lower proof, less tax. How much will they save by dropping the proof six points? Since Jack Black sells about 7 million cases a year, the annual FET savings is about $13,500,000.

Unfortunately for them, that's as far as you can go if you want to call your product "whiskey" in the U.S. However, at this point Jack is such a strong brand, they might be able to get away with just "Jack Daniels" on the label and cut the proof even lower.

Obviously, although they saved millions of dollars, they didn't cut the price. In effect, it was an invisible price hike.

Will they, have they, gotten away with it? The change was actually made in late 2003 and it took nearly a year for anybody to make a fuss about it so, yeah, I'd say it worked.

As for the re-use of whiskey barrels, one of the characteristics of American whiskey is that only new barrels are used. Therefore, the industry produces a lot of perfectly good barrels that have only been used once. Most scotch whiskey, Irish whiskey and Canadian whiskey is aged in refilled bourbon barrels, as are some other aged spirits around the world, as well as some fortified wines (e.g., port, sherry), and even some beers (e.g., bourbon barrel stout), but normal, everyday wine probably not. Winemakers in most cases don't even use charred barrels (did I mention that American whiskey barrels are always charred?), let alone used whiskey barrels. The whiskey taste would be too overpowering.

Chuck -- Has Jack Daniels always been 86 proof (I mean, prior to the recent switch)? Has it ever gone up and down then back up again in the past? The reason I ask is to decide whether there is an "authenticity" argument to be made -- i.e., that the new 80 proof stuff in some real sense is not Jack Daniels (not what JD himself envisioned, invented and drank himself). Or did concepts like "proof" not even exist back when Jack Daniels first started production, meaning it is not worth getting up in arms about this change as a matter of principle? (Now, as a matter of taste, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between the 80 and 86 proof, but I'm sure plenty could -- and maybe have a preference.)

The term "proof" or "proved goods" always meant roughly 50 percent alcohol. That was considered "right" whiskey. As measurement technology improved, exactly 50 percent alcohol by volume (abv) was considered 100 percent "proof," i.e., 100 proof. Prior to Prohibition, the distiller's goal was to distill out, barrel and bottle his whiskey at as close to "proof" as possible. When government regulation came in and the federal government set up the rules for giving a whiskey its stamp of authenticity, the whiskey had to be at least 100 proof to get that stamp. In those days, i.e., Jack's day, Jack was 100 proof.

After Prohibition, most brands came back at 100 proof but tastes had changed and consumers wanted a lighter taste. Dilution was one way to achieve it and the producers were happy to sell people water for the same price as whiskey. The law set 80 proof as the floor and some brands went there immediately. Others chose intermediate proofs. Some offered a choice, a Bottled-in-Bond, 100 proof expression and a lower proof expression.

Jack was one of the last major brands to resume production after Prohibition because Tennessee retained state prohibition for several years after National Prohibition was repealed, so I'm not sure if it came back at 100 proof or 90 proof, but it was 90 proof until the last time the Federal Excise Tax (FET) was increased, which was October 1, 1985. A number of brands, including Jack, took a proof decrease then instead of taking a price increase to cover the increased tax. That's when Jack went to 86 proof.

Every distiller who talks about their "family recipe, unchanged for 200+ years" is BSing you to some extent, because many aspects of production are different now than they were a century or two ago, as you might expect. The "recipe," in terms of the proportions of the different grains, may be the same, they may even be using the same or a similar yeast strain, but proof of distillation, proof of entry (into the barrel) and bottling proof have all changed.

Mostly, it should be noted, American whiskies have changed for the better. Because the process was so hit-or-miss in the old days, there was a lot of bad whiskey produced. Now most of it is pretty good.

Chuck -- Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response! If I can just draw you out like that on a few more questions, I won't have to buy your book...

Let's not forget that they also sell the old barrels as wood chips for smoking. If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it.

midas wrote:Let's not forget that they also sell the old barrels as wood chips for smoking. If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it.

Midas,

As a JD fan and a smoker guy, I'm intrigued. What have you smoked with these chips? I'm guessing the flavor might work best with red meat, but I'm interested in your experiences with it.

Hammond

Unfortunately you will find me in the hated class of BBQ. I don't slow smoke, I don't own a smoker and I use a propane Weber grill. Everything that is detested by the true afficianado.

But my Weber does have the smoker attachment and I use it all the time and almost exclusively with JD chips. I cook my ribs dry until the last 20 minutes when I'll sauce them. I also cook chicken the same way. This is where the chips really seem to shine. For some reason it really brings out the spicyness of the sauce. And the few times when there are leftovers that get reheated, the residual smoke is enough to smell up the whole house.

I also use it with red meat. I use for steaks and burgers. And I use it for Italian sausages and brats. There basically isn't anything that we grill that I don't use it for.

I first ran across this stuff at Hagen's fish market. They carried it for a few years. But for the last 3 years or so I've been forced to buy it mail order via the internet, however, I did run across it recently at a local K-Mart.

But like I said in the beginning, I am not a true smoker or BBQer. I'm a griller. Without the JD chips, I'd probably be tempted to go back to charcoal.

midas wrote:I first ran across this stuff at Hagen's fish market. They carried it for a few years. But for the last 3 years or so I've been forced to buy it mail order via the internet, however, I did run across it recently at a local K-Mart.

See, that kind of surprises me. Ribs sound like a good use for JD chips, but I would have thought they'd be a little overpowering for fish.

I checked a few sites and found JD "pellets," as well, but I am a little suspicious of these.

Hammond

PS. I really like Hagen's -- I've been going there since the 50s.

I checked a few sites and found JD "pellets," as well, but I am a little suspicious of these.

Last June, I went to a rib contest cook off in Chicago. One guy had a pellet burner smoker. The guy was claiming to be smoking at a temperature of around 140 degrees, which was a strange temperature zone (for food safety).

I checked this with others, who thought I had wrong information believing the temperature was really higher. I don't know more than what the guy said. The whole set-up had a Rube Goldberg feel about it.

The last batch I ordered from Americas Best BBQ.

The real reason for the proof change is that the Federal Excise Tax is based on proof. Lower proof, less tax. How much will they save by dropping the proof six points? Since Jack Black sells about 7 million cases a year, the annual FET savings is about $13,500,000.

Not to change the subject back from tricked-up BBQ, but let us remember that tax avoidance is a time honored American tradition (in fact, one could argue that the USA came into being primarily to avoid taxes), so I think this is quite appropriate for an American whiskey.

And lower proof often means you can actually taste the subtle flavors of the whiskey without them being as overwhelmed by the heat of alcohol - at least that applies to wine, I really do not know whiskey so well.

Does it taste the same?

dicksond wrote:
And lower proof often means you can actually taste the subtle flavors of the whiskey without them being as overwhelmed by the heat of alcohol - at least that applies to wine, I really do not know whiskey so well. Does it taste the same?

Butch,

I think you may have a point about reducing the heat and tasting the flavor, but my feeling would be, give it to me full proof and I'll do my own heat reduction (with ice or water). When it comes already "diluted" in the bottle, adding ice (as I do) dilutes it even more. And where does this constant dilution end?

Hammond

A drop of six proof points is three percentage points, so it went from being 43% alcohol by volume (abv) to being 40%. Can you taste that? Sure, but it's subtle. Yes, dilution can bring out subtle flavors and I always suggest it when people taste but, of course, you can add the water yourself. You don't need the distillery to do it.

Where will it end? At 80 proof (40% abv) unless Daniel's wants to use the term "diluted whiskey" or remove the word "whiskey" altogether. That's the law, although in some overseas markets where the law is different, Jack Daniel's is 70 proof.

The tax benefit isn't really tax avoidance. They're paying the correct FET, they're just making the whiskey they've paid it on go further. The real trick here is that it's an invisible price hike, since the consumer is paying the same price today for water that they were paying yesterday for whiskey.

Back to BBQ chips for a minute, a friend of mine in Kentucky who has tried to get into that business discovered that it's more costly than you might think because that white oak is so hard, chipping it rips up the chipping equipment in nothing flat.