What's changed in Pure Pot Still in the last 20 years?

[IainB]

This is a follow on from a discussion on another part of the forum last night with John M.

When we taste some of the older pure pot still we aften talk about a dusty, or musty taste that's different from the likes of the current Redbreast or Greenspot, of even the pot still blends.

So far all the PPS I've tried from closed distilleries has it. This would be John's Lane, Bow St, Old Midleton and Tullamore. JohnM said he's tasted to to some extent in Comber. There's also and element of it to some of the older bottlings from the new Midleton distillery, such as the Jameson 15 Millenium. The age was one possibility but having tasted a older Powers blend and a Jameson 1780 they have it too and they would not have been aged for much longer than the current stuff.

So what is it? What's changed? It can't be attributed to a particuar distillery character as it appears in all of them. It's hardly a quirk of new Midleton as some of it's older bottlings have it.

Has the make up changed? The mix of malted / unmalted? Other grains? A different cut perhaps? I've heard it said the older pot still whiskeys were heavier. Does that account for such a different taste profile?

Any thoughts anyone?

[shanel23]

I don't know - have not had the pleasure of tasting old PPSs

Maybe pesticides in the barley ?

[DavidH]

I've no idea but I do recall that Barry Crockett said at our tasting the quality achievable with their modern plant was much better than at the old plants it replaced. For example, the direct firing was very difficult to control.

Plus they know so much more about the science of maturation and so on now. They can better predict what the wood will do and so on. So perhaps it's a quality issue that went away.

[IainB]

Mmmm perhaps. But that would imply what we're tasting in the older ones is some poor quality. I've been thinking about this some more and it seems to me you could say that the new stuff is the aberation - it's different from all that went before. Well maybe not all but there is a tangible difference in what I've tasted.

By the way I think, on balance, I prefer the new stuff but I'm staring to think of them as two different whiskey styles, as say peated and unpeated malts are. There the heavily peated on on side and completely unpeated on the other with a wide spectrum in between. But we know what makes up these differences.

I suppose I should have asked at the tasting in March.

I wonder is there something different about the casks. Were they or the same quality. Was a different type of sherry more common. I know IDL commission their own casks now but would they have done so 20 years ago. Would Tullamore, Bow st etc. have done so in their time?

[DavidH]

I wonder is there something different about the casks.

Were there any bourbon casks? My assumption is that empty bourbon casks were sourced after we stopped importing drink in casks and/or making our own casks. I'm open to correction.

[IainB]

I don't know. I'm not sure how far back the use of bourbon casks goes. I really know nothing I guess. Lots of questions. No answers.

[jcskinner]

All I can contribute to this conversation is confirmation that the musty dustiness is definitely there is Old Comber.

[IainB]

Thanks. I think that's the problem isn't it. There's not much anyone can say - we know it's different but we really don't know why. It's kind of annoying I didn't think of this in March when I had the chance to ask the man. Maybe if Ally's trip goes ahead in autumn I'll get another chance to ask someone.

[varizoltan]

well, i be interested what will be a whiskey like in 20-30 years time

you see, there is almost everything is controlled by computers today through the making of whiskey

so what is the whiskey bar or shop gonna be like?

type in a computer what you would like to drink, and you get a plastic cup with your 1970-s style 25 years old pure pot still, or 12 years old 70/30 blended Irish or Scotch whiskey poured, like the way you get your coffee/ cappuccino etc at a kiosk today?

[Joel1802]

Another old thread revived.

I too noticed this and I actually miss the dusty quality. I remember it being quite strong in Jameson 1780 around 1996/7. It would be interesting to see if anyone can pinpoint at around what time it disappears. I'm sure something must have changed. Could it have been the elimination of oats? I read somewhere that they were used at New Middleton, but that the use of oats has been abandoned.

[JohnM]

Someone here described it as "old tool shed", which I think is perfect.

[Distiller]

Here are my 2 cents

In my experience a Dusty or Musty taste and nose is found in older bottling of Irish and Scottish whiskey. I always found a musty damp house or old wet clothes nose along with a very dry dusty finish that felt like the glass was not clean. I think you can find this in a lot of old Irish whiskey.

As far as I can determine this is coming from the wood. With the big factor being either not good casks or musty wet warehouses. I have tasted some casks that were musty in damp old warehouse and then moved to a dry warehouse and the musty nose and finish left the whiskey.

My guess is that the quality of the wood and the warehouse have improved and this is not found as often as before. But this is only my 2 cents.

[IrishWhiskeyChaser]

Sounds very plausible Distiller. Or maybe we could even say it has just to do with the warehouse. The majority of warehouses used to be all Dunnage warehouses in days gone by. The Dunnage Warehouse was where the floor was compacted earth rather than a concrete floor. Now they are by default concrete. Dunnage warehouses always seemed dry but do we really know the difference between them and concrete yet? So no matter how good your wood was maybe even the slightest dampness would affect it in some way.

However I would also agree that the quality of wood is a key factor too as that seems to be a huge focus these days, especially to big operations. IDL would have been and still are at the forefront of wood management and that would have transcended to Bushmills too.

I used to still think there was a separate vegetal trait from pot still too (Boiled Potato skins etc) but now wonder if that is a pot still trait or a dunnage trait. Dam you Distiller now I'm confused .

I have a bottle of Jameson 15yo currently open that definitely has that trait, this is from the 1970's possibly even early 80's so the whiskey was distilled in the 1950's or 60's. It works sometimes and like this bottle sometimes doesn't. The Jameson 15yo PPS has it too and is a wonderful addition. I actually have both open so I must compare.

[Pudge72]

Just throwing out another variable here, which was brought up in a discussion of what impacts whisk(e)y (Irish/Scotch/Bourbon etc.) flavours the most on the Connosr site:

the yeast used in the whisk(e)y making process.

You see this play out most specifically in Four Roses Limited Edition Single Barrel recipe bottles. FR uses two rye content variations (20% & 35% rye in the mashbill, iirc) and five yeast strain variations to create 10 different recipe varieties for their bourbon making. I have an 'OESQ' recipe that generates a banana note off of the yeast strain (the 'Q' in the recipe code). Here is the FR page that explains their recipes:

http://www.fourroses.us/ten-unique-bourbon-recipes/

I know little or nothing about the technicalities of the whiskey making process, but someone did comment (iirc) that when they had the chance to speak to a Master blender/distiller at one of the bourbon distilleries about the greatest influence on whisky taste, that person felt that the type of yeast used was a very significant, and largely overlooked, component of the overall taste profile. I believe this all stemmed from a discussion on the emergence of a mint note in some, but not most, rye whiskeys.

All this leads to my novice question...would most/all yeast for Irish distilleries have been sourced from a common strain in the past and/or has the composition or type of yeast strain changed over the years?

I am quite interested to hear people's thoughts (is there a Master blender/distiller amongst the IWS forum members who can shed some light on this, without giving away trade secrets of course ). If this isn't plausible, I would vote for the dunnage vs. concrete floor variant as a significant contributor to this phenomenon.

[Fionnán]

sorry, just saw this. to answer your question, IDL use something called M strain yeast. It used to be called DCL-M but DCL dont exist anymore (or rather they've gradually warped into Diageo) and the strain is now released by Kerry Group. It's a bit like Golden Promise barley in that it was once ubiquitous in both Ireland and Scotland's distilling industries although now there are also yeasts like MX (slightly faster, favouring short fermentation periods), Mauri yeast (faster again), and Anchor yeast, which is mainly used in grain whiskey and a few lowlanders. M strain's been around for ages and it's almost certainly evolved since its original release in 1952. Does that help?

[Good Whiskey Hunting]

Would other distilleries use this strain?

I often get that musty taste from Canadian whiskies I've tried but never rated it til I say this thread.

[Fionnán]

So, to be specific, IDL use primarily M strain with a small amount of brewers yeast tipped in, which is not unique to them. As for other distilleries, Bunnahabhain and Highland Park also use M Strain. Bruichladdich and Lagavulin both use M Strain in combination with the much faster Mauri yeast, and Macallan use a strange three-way combination of M Strain, Mauri, and brewers yeast. Mind you, yeast works in conjunction with heat and the actual length of the fermentation times and IDL use a rather long warm fermentation, which is supposed to favour a fruitier wash. No idea what they're using in Canada.

[AlecM]

A very interesting thread, thanks everyone. RE: yeast - how do you find out which yeast different distilleries use?

[Joel1802]

A very interesting thread, thanks everyone. RE: yeast - how do you find out which yeast different distilleries use?

There are a number of sources, but you can always ask them. Many will be happy to tell you.

[Chuck Finlay]

IDL use primarily M strain with a small amount of brewers yeast tipped in

There's a huge variation in brewers yeast too, if I'm not mistaken, ales yeasts, larger yeasts, weissbier yeasts etc. Or is there one that distillers use in general?

[Fionnán]

There's a huge variation in brewers yeast too, if I'm not mistaken, ales yeasts, larger yeasts, weissbier yeasts etc. Or is there one that distillers use in general?

I could start a whole new topic ranting about yeast but no, sadly distillers yeast still has a lot to learn from brewers yeast. Brewers jealously guard their yeasts like family secrets and they've very often been bred, as you say, for flavour effects on specific styles etc. The whiskey industry, in contrast, tends to revolve around four very similar strains of "distillers yeast" that are bred primarily for efficiency and temperature resistance. The M strain was released by DCL in the fifties and has been followed by MX and Mauri as faster versions. The old explanation used to be that varients from yeast would be distilled out but obviously this would only be true if you were going to the point of neutral alcohol and i've personally seen/tasted some incredible (and incredibly delicious!) research to the contrary. I know IDL and a few others are currently experimenting with alternative strains so there may be some diversification in the future. While we're on the subject of history, it's worth mentioning that they've come a long way. Distillers yeast itself replaced simply using things like brewers yeast (porter yeast was apparently especially sought after for distilling) and if you go far back enough, a lot of the yeast was recycled from batch to batch and contaminated with natural yeast.

[Joel1802]

It is interesting to compare the importance awarded to yeast in the USA, especially in Kentucky, compared with the near indifference in the UK and Ireland. After the Heaven Hill fire I believe they had to ask Jim Beam for yeast as they had the same strain and it existed nowhere else.

[IainB]

Mmm, lots of interesting views here but from everything I've heard and read over the years I'm not sure the variety of yeast would be a huge impact on the final taste. Now i'm not saying it has none - I've heard conflicting views on whether the flavour difference form yeast could survive the distilling process - but I think if you add up all the varients that make up the flavour of a whiskey that the yeast would be well down the list on influence.

I'm definitely not a distiller but it seems to me the biggest influences are the cask, the distillation method (still type, no. of distillations, speed, cut, type of condenser), the grains and the water type (used in the process and in reducing to botttling strength). Also as they get older and older the cask has a bigger and bigger influence - at 25yrs a sherry cask Malt and PPS get closer and closer in style.

Other than the type of grain I think the pre distillation ingredients / processes have a lesser impact. Certainly the varieties of barley used have changed significantly over time and you hear conflicting opinions form distillers on this.

But the "tool shed etc.etc." characteristic is a BIG BIG flavour element so I'd tend to agree with Distiller that the cask may well be the key here. ( I really should have asked Frank Hardy about this in Springbank - he has previously worked in Midleton after all!)

[IainB]

Here's an odd one - I've been drinking recent sps all night but decided to finish with the 2005 redbreast 15. I'm now getting that old musty thing from this in way I've never got before. I can only think of 3 possible reasons:

1- There has been a gradual progression from Old style to New style sps over the years and this shows the slow change
2- All the 'musty' whiskeys are old(ish) and have been bottle a long time- is it possible that they're somehow changing in the bottle-I know convention wisdom says no.
3- I'm just some idiot who has no idea what he' on about.

[Joel1802]

Here's an odd one - I've been drinking recent sps all night but decided to finish with the 2005 redbreast 15. I'm now getting that old musty thing from this in way I've never got before. I can only think of 3 possible reasons:

1- There has been a gradual progression from Old style to New style sps over the years and this shows the slow change
2- All the 'musty' whiskeys are old(ish) and have been bottle a long time- is it possible that they're somehow changing in the bottle-I know convention wisdom says no.
3- I'm just some idiot who has no idea what he' on about.

1. I have noticed the same thing.
2. I don't think this is the case, because when I first discovered it the bottles where brand new.
3. If you are you're in good company.


Has anyone aske Irish Distillers what has changed?