August 9th, 2010

Guest whisky reviews coming from Dominic Roskrow and Dave Broom

John Hansell

As I mentioned here back in June, Dominic Roskrow and Dave Broom have joined me in reviewing whiskies in Malt Advocate’s Buyer’s Guide. They will be focusing on whiskies not generally available in the U.S. (They have easier access to these whiskies than I do.)

Starting this week, I’ll be posting up reviews by Dominic. Most are Travel Retail exclusive whiskies. Then, I’ll be posting Dave Broom’s reviews of eight different Japanese whiskies during the two weeks following. All these reviews will also be included in the next issue of Malt Advocate, due out in September. I’m giving my WDJK readers a sneak peak here first.

Category: Guest Blogger,Reviews,Writers Tags: , 7 Comments

August 6th, 2010

Would you like to be a guest blogger?

John Hansell

I’m vacationing from August 30th through September 3rd.  I don’t want to be blogging while I’m on vacation. (Well, to be truthful, my wife doesn’t want me blogging while I’m on vacation.)

So, I’m looking for five worthy guest bloggers. Are you interested? Then send me a guest blog post. For one week, this will be “What do you know,” not “What does John know?”

Here are the details:

Anyone reading this is eligible. But, if you work in the whisky field in some manner, it can’t be a sales pitch. You can talk about your product/brand/etc., just don’t be peddling it. The more informative, thought provoking, entertaining, etc., that it is, the greater the chance I’ll pick yours. Still, it could be something as simple as a great question you wanted to ask everyone here–one that will stimulate conversation and get a great thread going.

You’ll get a “by line” at the end, so be sure to include your real name. If you don’t, I won’t publish it. And if you work for a whisky-related company, let me know who that is too.

This is a non-paying gig. (Sorry.) But, it’s really great exposure for you. (And the opportunity to be published.)

Email me one post (just one), along with a picture if you want to, before Monday, August 23rd. I will pick the five best guest blog posts that I read.

Send your guest post to john@maltadvocate.com. I’ll look at them during the week of August 23rd and pick five.

Let’s have some fun with this.

Now for the fine print:

In the subject line, you must put “Guest Blog” or I might not read it.

If you have a question about your post, comment here. Others might have the same question. Please don’t email me.

Unfortunately, I won’t have time to respond to your submission, so please don’t take it personally. I won’t be sending rejection emails out to everyone. Just check in daily during that week and keep your fingers crossed.

Category: Guest Blogger,Writers 11 Comments

July 28th, 2010

Sharing a Michael Jackson Story with you

John Hansell

I was in London, in the Diageo offices on this particular morning. Diageo was introducing several new limited edition whiskies, and a handful of whisky writers were getting a preview. Among the attendees was my good friend Michael Jackson.

We sampled probably close to a dozen whiskies, with the tasting concluding around lunchtime. I hadn’t seen Michael for several months, so I suggested we have lunch together. We weren’t far away from the Fuller’s Brewery and he said he knew of a great Fuller’s pub just down from the brewery along the Thames called The Dove. It was a short stroll away, so that’s where we went.

Well, the Fuller’s Chiswick Bitter was in perfect condition, so we each had a pint before lunch. With lunch, it was a pint each of Fuller’s London Pride. Delicious!

We were finishing up our lunch, having a great time together getting caught up with stories ab0ut our travels, the whisky business, etc. Not wanting the good times to end, I proposed we each have another pint. It was about 2:oo pm, and I didn’t have any plans for the rest of the afternoon.

Michael hesitated for a moment, contemplating the whiskies we tasted in the morning, along with the the two pints of beer we enjoyed with lunch. Then he responded, with a slight grin (like he has in the picture I included of him above):

“Better make mine a half pint, John. I have a Five O’clock deadline for a story I’m doing for the Independent. It’s on vodka. I need to go back to my office, taste 20 vodkas and then write the story.”

I just cracked up laughing! I don’t know if it was exactly 20 vodkas, but it was something like that. And I (unfortunately) never did get to read the vodka story in the Independent, but I sure am glad I wasn’t the Independent’s copy editor that day. :)

Category: Beer,Humor,Opinions,Writers Tags: , 23 Comments

June 22nd, 2010

Malt Advocate adds new whisky reviewers

John Hansell

For the first time since its inception 19 years ago, Malt Advocate magazine will have multiple whisky reviewers. I’m proud to announce that Dave Broom and Dominic Roscrow have both agreed to join me in reviewing whiskies. These guys are great writers, accomplished book authors, excellent whisky reviewers, and also regular contributors to Malt Advocate.

As most of you know, many whiskies are not imported to the US (because of the 750 ml bottle requirements, burdensome labeling requirements, small bottling runs, and other issues). Some of these whiskies are very good, and I sometimes have trouble sourcing them. Dave and Dominic live in the UK and have easier access to them. Their focus will be on reviewing these whiskies, while I continue concentrating on those whiskies that come to the US.

The majority of Malt Advocate magazine’s circulation is in the US, so why include reviews of whiskies that aren’t? I can think of three strong reasons, outlined below:

First, this blog (WDJK) is definitely international in scope. Similar to past whisky reviews which I’ve done, we will be posting many new reviews up here first, before they are published in Malt Advocate.

Second, the world is  a much smaller place. People travel internationally. Plus, thanks to the internet, websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc., people are becoming more aware of special releases, regardless of where they live.

Finally, now that we’ve joined M. Shanken Communications, I expect our circulation to increase rapidly–and internationally.

The reviews will begin with our next issue, Volume 19.3, due out around September 1st. We still have not determined the number of reviews or the specific whiskies. That will be sorted out in the near future.

Category: Malt Advocate Mag,Scotch whisky,Writers 25 Comments

June 11th, 2010

Guest blog: Chuck Cowdery on those confusing bourbon regulations

John Hansell

Chuck is a leading authority on American whiskey and, of course, one of Malt Advocate magazine’s regular feature writers. He also has a great blog you should be checking out. He’s here to clear up all the confusion about those subtle nuances of American whiskey regulations. Take it away Chuck. (And feel free to ask that question you always wanted the answer to.)

There is a lot of activity in the distilled spirits world right now, much of it at the intersection of production, marketing, and government regulation. Tuthilltown’s sale of its Hudson Whiskey line to William Grant & Sons has raised questions about differences between American and European definitions of whiskey, which have nothing to do with how the word is spelled and everything to do with how and for how long the spirit is aged.

Alcoholic beverages also seem prone to myths, some of which die hard. Although bourbon whiskey is strongly associated with Kentucky, for example, there is no law restricting its manufacture to that state. Many people also believe that Kentucky is the only state name that can appear on a bourbon label but that’s false too. There are similar myths about the relationship between bourbon and Tennessee whiskey.

The actual rules can all easily be found in one place, the Code of Federal Regulations, title 27, part 5, subpart C. The rules apply to all products sold inside the United States, whether made here or imported.

The rules don’t restrict what producers can make, just what they can call it.

They can be confusing.

One easy way to understand them is as a hierarchy or winnowing. The legal definition of “alcohol” is very broad. The definition of “whiskey” is more narrow and the definition of “bourbon whiskey” is even more restrictive. Each level incorporates the requirements of the one below.

To simply use the term “whiskey” the spirit has to be made from grain, distilled at less than 190° proof (95% ABV), and stored in oak containers. The rules don’t say anything about the type of oak container (new, used, charred, toasted. etc.), nor barrel entry proof, nor minimum age.

European Union (EU) rules are the same except they require a minimum of three years in wood.

For a product to be labeled “bourbon whiskey” it has to meet tighter requirements. The mash must be at least 51% corn, the distillation proof has to be less than 160° proof (80% ABV), the barrel entry proof has to be less than 125° proof (62.5% ABV), and the oak containers have to be new and charred, but there is still no minimum age specified.

Hence Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey may be just three months old and legal in the USA, while in the EU it can be called bourbon, but not whiskey.

That brings us to “straight bourbon whiskey,” which has to comply with all of the above plus spend at least two years in wood. Why the word “straight” was chosen to mean “aged in wood for at least two years” I cannot explain.

Finishes and infusions are another controversial area. Many people have argued, incorrectly, that Red Stag by Jim Beam forfeited the right to call itself bourbon by adding a maceration of black cherries and other flavors. Some are raising similar concerns about the new Maker’s Mark 46, which spends a little time in what are technically used barrels, with additional un-charred wood surfaces added. Woodford Reserve, Jim Beam, and Buffalo Trace have all used wood finishes, comparable to single malt scotch finished in sherry casks.

The best way to understand finishes and flavorings is that just as you can’t un-ring a bell, you can’t un-bourbon a bourbon. What you get when you add something to it is “bourbon and…” The official description of Maker’s 46, for example, is “Kentucky bourbon whiskey barrel-finished with oak staves.”

The purpose of these regulations is not to protect the purity of bourbon, it is to ensure that consumers know exactly what they’re buying.

Category: American whiskey,Bourbon,Guest Blogger,Regulatory issues,Writers 27 Comments

May 21st, 2010

My new policy on company-sponsored press trips

John Hansell

I have made the decision to no longer accept “expenses paid” press trip invites by individual whisky companies. If there’s a distillery I want to visit, I’ll pay for the trip myself.

I actually started this policy effective January 1st of this year (I have turned down several invites already to Kentucky and to Scotland), but I haven’t told anyone about it publicly until now.

I think it goes without saying, if a whisky company invites a journalist on an all expense paid press trip to their distillery, they’re hoping the journalist will write about them. In the past, they way I dealt with this was that I would only accept an invite from a company if I truly felt there was something noteworthy to write about. And I always made it clear that I wasn’t promising editorial exposure in exchange for the free trip.

I decided at the beginning of the year to take this one step further and eliminate any gray area. This is my ”coming out” blog post.

In actuality, I haven’t accepted any press trip invitations “across the pond” (which are the expensive ones) for almost two years. My only trips last year were to nearby Kentucky for special occasions.

I think that I might be the first professional whisky writer to take this position, so maybe I am setting some sort of precedence here? I don’t know, and it’s not important.

What is important is that paying my own way will ensure that I only visit distilleries where there is a legitimate reason for doing so for Malt Advocate–and with no expectations by the whisky companies.

Category: Distillery Tours,Opinions,Travel,Writers 55 Comments

May 20th, 2010

An interesting article on small U.S. craft distillers

John Hansell

The American Distilling Institute (ADI) hosted a “Whisky and Moonshine Distilling Conference” this past week, which featured the many up and coming small distillers. The Washington Post was there covering it, and this week they published an interesting article on the conference. Read about it here.

One of the biggest challenges facing these small distillers who are making whiskey? Waiting for the whiskey to mature, and the methods they can employ to accelerate the maturation process (using smaller barrels, etc.)

Category: American whiskey,Media,Microdistilleries,Special events,Writers Tags: 2 Comments

April 27th, 2010

Recommend a book you like

John Hansell

Keeping in the theme of yesterday’s post, what book have you read on whisky that you really like and can recommend to others?

And why? Is it entertaining? Informative? Comprehensive? Ground-breaking?

Category: Media,Writers 23 Comments

April 26th, 2010

Your favorite whisky writers? And why?

John Hansell

When it comes to whisky writers, who do you enjoy reading? And why? Is it because you like their writing style? Or because you trust their reviews? Another reason, perhaps?

Let’s try to keep this discussion upbeat, so try not to dwell on why you don’t like someone. Also, to avoid any appearance of coming across as self-serving, please exclude me.

Category: Opinions,Writers 50 Comments

February 19th, 2010

A Whisky Blogging “Code of Ethics”?

John Hansell

I was thinking about this the past few days. The dozens of whisky blogs out there provide a great service to the whisky industry and to whisky enthusiasts. This is the main reason why they received Malt Advocate magazine’s “Pioneer of the Year” award.

But the downside to blogging (in general) is that it is essentially unsupervised. People can basically say whatever they want. I established brief etiquette guidelines on WDJK here  last year  which focused on comments. I wonder if something like this should be fleshed out, expanded, and (hopefully) adopted by all my fellow whisky bloggers?

Do you think this is a good idea? If we did try to create some sort of “Code of Ethics”, what do you think it should include?

Category: Administrative,Media,Opinions,Writers 28 Comments

Older Posts »

Malt Advocate magazine is the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.

Find out more