W. Blake Gray - Vodka defender

I always felt there was something off about W. Blake Gray, erstwhile wine editor for the SF Chronicle, and now I find that he's a vodka lover! His monthly article on Palate Press is Going clear: Appreciating vodka, and while I kinda like the Scientology reference, I really don't understand vodka. Like Mr. Gray, my first drink, the Dirty Girl Scout, used vodka (and for those who aren't 19 years old, also Kahlúa, Irish cream, and creme de menthe). But post-college I have lost that literally warm feeling I used to have about vodka. If I want a ginger beer and lime, I'll make that; the vodka doesn't improve the drink.

Of two minds here, Walt.

While understanding your *snif* at W. Blake Gray (beyond everything else, I have a difficult time taking seriously anyone who uses the initial as first name. Seems precious and pretentious to me. And I never know whether to address him as "W" (which has supremely negative connotations to me, or as "Blake". But I digress...) I approach vodka somewhat differently than you.

Vodka---good vodka and other neutral spirits---is one of the most difficult things to make in the spirit world. That's why there's lots of crappy vodka out there; everybody thinks they can make it, and the can't. Not well, at least. You're dealing with super-fine nuances and the rules (when obeyed, and they often aren't any more) leave damned little leeway. And it's that "leeway" that makes all the difference.

I've trained myself to taste, evaluate and appreciate vodka. But that "appreciate" usually has little reference to actually liking the vodka on a personal sensory level. In short, on a non-professional basis, vodka doesn't do much for me. I very seldom order vodka, and don't usually get very excited about vodka-driven drinks.

On the other hand, if you're making any type of flavored neutral spirits, the spirit base is of crucial importance to the quality of the product.

In the past I have said much the same thing you allude to: adding vodka has little actual effect on the drink itself. But I was rather forcefully proven wrong when I said this in the presence of some craft bartenders. They heartily disagreed with me, and then went to great lengths to prove me wrong with a series of drinks. In almost all cases I had to agree that not only did vodka itself make a difference, the specific vodka used in a drink made a significant difference.

To keep it as simple as possible, put four vodkas out. Blind, if possible. For the sake of discovery, try Finlandia, Monopolowa, Hangar One or Ciroc, and Tito's Vodka. Pay close attention to aromatics, taste, body, texture, just as you would with wine. Each vodka will emerge as distinctive and identifiable. And then it gets down to usage: the Tito's is good in one type of drink; the Finlandia in a totally different kind of drink.

Is vodka mostly marketing BS? Well, absolutely. Doesn't mean there isn't substance there though.

And a PS: anyone, first-initial-name or not, anyone who voluntarily drinks a "Dirty Girl Scout" is so far beyond redemption as to be hopeless.

Like you, technically, I can tell the difference between cheap, midrange, and high-end vodka, but there's so little daylight between the latter two. Yes, Grey Goose is very sweet. And in a weak moment I might admit I actually like the band-aid notes of Stolichnaya. But it would take a lot of experimenting with cocktails like the vodka martini to find what I liked them in.

So I'll have to take your word for it. I have, quite literally, no room in my life for more vodka. There's a bottle of Finlandia for emergencies and that's it. Even the gin selection has been pared down considerably to make room for the countless varieties of whiskey that I find so satisfying.

Like you, technically, I can tell the difference between cheap, midrange, and high-end vodka, but there's so little daylight between the latter two. Yes, Grey Goose is very sweet. And in a weak moment I might admit I actually like the band-aid notes of Stolichnaya. But it would take a lot of experimenting with cocktails like the vodka martini to find what I liked them in.

So I'll have to take your word for it. I have, quite literally, no room in my life for more vodka. There's a bottle of Finlandia for emergencies and that's it. Even the gin selection has been pared down considerably to make room for the countless varieties of whiskey that I find so satisfying.

I happen to think the Finlandia is quite good enough, Walt. It's a lovely, super-crisp "hard" style of vodka, nice and clean, and great for martinis and vespers and anything else you might need it for.

Gin. Hmmm. I'd actually select more gins than I would have several years ago. Partly because there are so many excellent gins and partly because I'm drinking so many more gin-based drinks.

Whiskey and brandy are still the mainstays of my bottle selection. Because satisfying, yes.

Did the TTB ever change their definition of Vodka (a colorless, odorless, tasteless neutral spirit)?

Salute

Did the TTB ever change their definition of Vodka (a colorless, odorless, tasteless neutral spirit)?

Salute

Still on the books that way.

They have since altered the sub-regs to allow small additions of sugar and acid (I believe tartaric), purportedly for textural.mouthfeel purposes.

It is still somewhat a raging controversy---although raging is probably far too strong a word here---because there exists a clear definition of American vodka as well as a clear definition of E.U. vodka. Trouble is, the two are not only different but almost entirely contradictory.

American definition still as stated. E.U. definition states that vodka can and should have some expression of the base source, so not actually neural at all. Example: Ciroc, because it is made from grapes (they say Fine French Wine Grapes, although I take that to mean Fine French Wine Grapes That Didn't Actually Make It Into Fine French Wine); it is supposed to, and does, have a distinctive aroma of wine.

Further trouble (all of which you know), is that the TTB has abrogated their responsibility of governance over spirits (lack of manpower and funding; expected voluntary compliance) by not enforcing their own rules or investigating any possible deviations. Thus, many of the American producers (largely driven by the craft/artisan distilleries) simply ignore the rules with blithe abandon. The TTB got embarrassed by the some whiskey producers' labelling problem, but so far no one has made a real public stink about vodka. With all it's huge sales (though now diminishing), nobody seems to give vodka any respect.

Hey, you should write an article!

(And as an aside---how does one address you? Being serious now. As long as I've read your writing I've wondered if your acquaintances address you as "W" or "Blake". Or maybe it's "They call me MR. Gray!")

Is Ciroc a Vodka “distilled from grapes” or Marc?

Salute

Is Ciroc a Vodka “distilled from grapes” or Marc?

Salute

I believe it is distilled from grapes/grape wine, Victor...but I am not sure.

All I know for sure is that it is not classified as either eau-de-vie or marc spirit (which are both brandy subsets) because it has to follow the rule of being distilled at high proof temperatures. And in the EU, as the phrasing goes, the spirit is "selectively reduced so as to maintain source characteristics".

The local closest equivalent---and really not that close---is Hangar One, which is (at last report I've seen) a combination of 89% grain with 11% viognier grape wine. Also quite distintctive: you can clearly pick up the viognier floral/fruit character.

Thanks Hoke, and Happy Holidays!!!

So even though the “raw material” for the “distillant” (the fermented product to be distilled) may be similar, how far one takes the distillation (plus the fact you have to keep it colorless or should keep it colorless) would be the deciding factor if one produces Vodka “distilled from grapes” or just colorless Marc. Could one think of Vodka “distilled from grain” as just an, unoaked colorless Whiskey? These craft distillers are making things very confusing!

Salute

Thanks Hoke, and Happy Holidays!!!

So even though the “raw material” for the “distillant” (the fermented product to be distilled) may be similar, how far one takes the distillation (plus the fact you have to keep it colorless) would be the deciding factor if one produces Vodka “distilled from grapes” or just colorless Marc. Could one think of Vodka “distilled from grain” as just an, unoaked colorless Whiskey? These craft distillers are making things very confusing!

Salute

Uh, not quite, but you're generally on the right track, Victor.

Vodka definitions (both U.S. and E.U.) maintain that vodka is any source of sugar cooked at a high enough proof temperature (at or above 190 Proof), which makes it technically a "neutral spirit"---i.e., the majority of congeners/esters/etc. (flavor and aroma) are cooked out or fractioned out in the process of distillation.

All other major spirit categories have rules that keep the distillation proof below 190 Proof, specifically so as to retain the characteristics of the source material.

So: sugar cane distilled below that level is called "rum". Sugar cane above that level cannot be called "rum" but can be called vodka. (Case in point: Panama, which grows a hell of a lot of sugar cane, makes rum, vodka, gin, and a local drink called Seco Herrerano, all from sugar cane. It's largely how the source is distilled (heat level) that defines vodka.

There's also wording in the definitions to allow (but not necessarily mandate) post-distillation treatment for vodka. That is to say, usually charcoal filtering to clean up the aldehydes, oils, fatty acids, and further take out unpleasant taste characteristics.

Colorless is in the definition for U.S. vodka, but it's not that important in E.U. vodka, because the E.U. vodka allows you to retain "base source characteristics".

"Could one think of Vodka “distilled from grain” as just an, unoaked colorless Whiskey?"

No, although people do that all the time. Whiskey is by definition aged in wood barrels (with quirky allowances of differences in "corn whiskey". The oak is part and parcel of what whiskey is by definition. But there's more to being whiskey, and even more to being certain types of whiskey, or whisky: Whiskey has to be made from grain (some from specific or majority of a certain grain; some not). It has to be aged in an oak container (Bourbon specifies only an American white oak container that is toasted and charred inside, so as to give color). Bourbon also forbids any form of extraneous material other than yeast and water dilution. Global Whiskey says it must be distilled BELOW the 190 Proof level; Bourbon says it has to be under 160 Proof, and is in actuality usually much lower than that. Also can't go into the barrel at more than 125 Proof (because it will increase in proof during maturation).

To further confuse things: Genever, the precursor of gin, and now possessing it's own GPI, is made from grain (usually barley and corn). But it can't be called whiskey, despite using the same source, because other conditions don't apply. But it is, in a sense, a form of white (unmatured) whiskey, yes...but flavored with at least juniper. So because it's flavored, and because it is not matured by regulation, it can't be whiskey.

Thing to keep in mind with spirit categories is each is a combination of base source, fermentation process, distillation process, maturation process (if any), and post-distillation process (blending and flavoring). And the more "home place" the spirit, the more regulation and specification there usually is.

For vodka, the process is the most dominant element. For gin, it's vodka with specific flavoring. For whiskey, there are many, many more rules, depending on where the whiskey comes from. (Some so-called whiskies, 'spirit whisky", only have to have a minimum of 5% actual whisky in them, with the rest being essentially almost neutral spirit. (Avoid those, please.)