Controversy

The other day, in recounting the sorry tale of my discovery of some fake Jack Daniel's here in Beijing, I was rash enough to make a passing reference to "other bourbons".

My America-based drinking buddy and long-time Barstool commenter, The British Cowboy, immediately waded in to remind me of the alleged heinousness of implying that JD is a bourbon.

Now, he has thus far omitted to give us his argument as to why such an appellation would be inappropriate. Perhaps he may yet bring something new to the subject. However, in an idle moment this morning I conducted some online research and discovered that - in the States, at least - this is already a well-worn controversy.

My nutshell summary of what I have discovered so far would be this:

1) Most of the reasons adduced by opponents of the 'bourbon' tag are incorrect.

2) Those that are perhaps not incorrect, are severely obscure and nit-picky, and really of very little relevance to the man-in-the-street.

3) The supposed distinction is, I would say, an invention of snobs, and not useful to the general populace.

It would seem that the good folks at Lynchburg, where the Jack Daniel's distillery is to be found, feel - not unjustifiably - that their product is a rather finer and more individual creation than the general run of American whiskeys, and so disdain to call it a 'bourbon'.

Since the name bourbon came originally from Bourbon County in Kentucky, and most of the best-known whiskeys called bourbons today are from Kentucky.... well, of course, all Tennesseeans (remind me again where you went to law school, Cowboy) disdain the term, out of a sense of rivalry with their neighbour state.

And so, American whiskey snobs have taken up the habit of refusing to call Jack (or other whiskeys from Tennessee - although, to my knowledge, there is these days only one other, at least that's commonly available) a bourbon.

Amongst the reasons these ridiculous bee-bonnet types have cited are:

Bourbon can only be made in uncharred barrels - WRONG.

Bourbon cannot be made in previously used barrels - WRONG. Well, this may be true according the US government regulations on the definition of different types of spirits (see full text here, if you're feeling lawyerly), but I'm not aware that Jack Daniel's does re-use its barrels; and, even if it did, the fact that they are charred would appear to bring them back within the definition of 'bourbon' under these provisions.

Bourbon cannot be made using the "sour mash" process - WRONG (many of the Kentucky bourbons are).

Bourbon cannot be flavoured by such means as 'The Lincoln County Process' (the charcoal filtering method which gives Jack so much of its distinctive character) - WRONG. This is probably the key argument for the Tennessee diehards, but it is not supported by the regulations I just cited, and some of the Kentucky bourbons are charcoal-filtered too.

The most intriguing argument I have come across is that Jack should properly be called a 'corn whiskey', since it allegedly uses slightly more than 80% corn mash in its raw ingredients. Now, that is such a can of worms that I think I'll pass over it for now (and perhaps return to it in a 'footnote' later). Let me just say that I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the term 'corn whiskey'; and that is not how Jack Daniel's describes itself. The terms that the 'Not a bourbon!' school are lobbying for are 'Sippin' Whiskey' or 'Tennessee Whiskey' or 'Sour Mash Whiskey'.

As a final sally, I would also observe that there is no shortage of references in American usage to "Tennessee bourbons" (and possibly more, the further back in time you go - suggesting that this 'Not a bourbon!' nonsense is a relatively recent fetish). And it is interesting to note that even some of the online 'Not a bourbon!' advocates make the same 'slip' I did of discussing Jack Daniel's in the context of "other bourbons".

Really, people, grow up and get real. There are TWO types of American whiskey: rye (made with predominantly rye grain) and bourbon (made with predominantly corn). What on earth is the point of trying to establish a separate category that would include only two members (even if you could find a way of defining them that did clearly differentiate them as distinctively and importantly different from 'the rest' of the bourbon family!)???

North American whiskeys are pretty unsophisticated creatures anyway, compared to their Scots and Irish forebears. There's absolutely no need to get so finicky about trying to differentiate them.