Follow along: IG @birectifier
There may only be nine more months of birectifier production before I move this workshop to Portugal (and then more months to resume). Get one while they are available! The birectifier is a pre-GCMS laboratory tool best associated with Rafael Arroyo and rum production, but it’s greatest value proposition may actually be with gin. It is wild what you can learn; how easily, how affordably, and how quickly.
I’ve done many gin case studies in the past as well as numerous single botanicals profiles. I even produce a Clevenger apparatus for assaying essential oil yield of botanicals. My aim with this case study was to highlight an old mythic brand as the king of the gins, but that quickly went sideways.
[In the photo, I’m using a spirit bubble to cut the gin down to 47% ABV for organoleptic appraisal.]
If you go back 20 years or so, the only indie gins on the market were Boodles & this guy. The cocktail scene was growing out of nothing and we were all making wild style drinks with the ultimate spirits. I remember espresso martinis had totally died and I was bringing them back with Macallan cask strength & nocino. We were making Manhattans with Van Winkle rye (and determining they were over oaked junk). When you went bartenders handshake with your gin, you pulled out this guy. Monkey 47 wasn’t a glimmer in anyone’s eye. This was the highest ABV gin on the shelf and had an alluring yellow tinge from saffron. The bottle was a precious 750 to everyone else’s liter and it had these pedigreed curves taken from an older era of design that evoked little British roadsters.
I picked my current bottle up at Total Wine and it was in a carton so I could not detect the yellowness or any lack thereof and I paid the high price and was excited. I wanted a show stopping case study and did not think for a second of picking a newer player in the gin market.
Well, this gin is kind of lame. And that is extremely surprising to me. I’m also very confident in the results. I’ve looked at quite a few role models. One thing we can say is this gin is light for its ethanol content. Going to 55%ABV does not get you extra concentration and that was disappointing. I also did not note any saffron. So juniper was essentially light, coriander was minimal and then there was just a simplistic sweet orange note in the 4th fraction followed by a plebian flat 5th fraction that couldn’t hold a candle to that of a gold standard like Tanqueray.
[A few people already chimed in and told me about their impressions over the years. Everyone wanted this to be the king of the gins, but was underwhelmed and surprised at how such a high ABV could have its character just disappear in a cocktail.]
What gives? This brand has gravitas so why does the juice not match the quality of the brand when we are supposedly in the middle of some kind of spirits renaissance? The parent company is a top 5 independent bottler, probably second only to Berry Bros. & Rudd which just released the No. 3 gin to wide acclaim. With decades on the market, why did this important gin slip or fail to evolve? It is actively managed closely enough to have a second lower ABV bottling created.
One thing I’ve learned as a machinist is that you need metrology tools for inspection nearly matching the value of your milling machines & lathes. Most new distillers do no metrology and have no inspection tools besides hydrometers. This is a problem because botanicals yo-yo in quality. There may even be fraud in the botanical market that new gin distillers have no capability to spot. In a recent post on knowing botanicals, I provide data on botanical variance from old Seagram protocols.
Does this producer know it is so light on the juniper? And what control do they have over their processes? Is their coriander junk and that’s why it is barely noticeable? Or are they calling their shot and for some reason that is what they want (which is not good..)? Do they know how they compare to industry leading role models? Have they dealt with supply chain issues that are compounded by no metrology tools to integrate new sourcing that varies qualitatively and quantitatively in essential oil yield? If you produce a gin and are reading along, where are you with understanding your own production and what tools do you own? Do you know what tools are available and what they cost to implement?
It was previously thought inhouse distillery analysis was either do nothing or spend $30K on a GCMS solution with a lot of training. Some global gin brands also use a form of high pressure solvent extraction to measure essential oil yield which could set you back another $30k. Both the birectifier & clevenger apparatus give analysis solutions to gin distillers for well under $2000USD (for both with heating gear). They also allow you to study role models and understand your competition & the lay of the land. What is premium and where are you? When you have international distribution, these tools should be a minimum standard of sophistication.
When I picked this gin to do a case study, my intention was to find a role model that other gins should look up to, but sadly I picked something I had not touched in considerable years. I never thought I’d be examining a cautionary tale. Simple tools are available at completely accessible prices and just like any machinist, a distiller should own metrology & inspections tools proportional to the size of the still they run. You should also start a survey & research phase before you ever start commercial production.
The chatter among educated spirit buyers is that most of the many thousand new gins on the market are junk, but why? Do they have wacky conceptions of what a gin can be and are calling their shot? Are they marketing to a vodka crowd or is that a cheap rationalization? Or, do they simply have no tools to sculpt their product or create consistency? A lot of money is being spent and a lot of junk is being made.
If I was tasked with reviving this brand, I would implement basic tools like the birectifier & clevenger apparatus. I would setup structured tastings of each fraction versus chosen role models so that stake holders could see each style decision face to face, organoleptically, and have buy-in for any changes. If the formulation was changed, I would include essential oil yield data so that the botanical charge could be scaled for consistency as botanicals fluctuate in essential oil. As a point of style in this particular case, the king of the gins, and the gem of a legendary bottler, I would consider 1% Hampden DOK as a “botanical” in addition to the saffron. That would depend on whether the 1% number impacted labelling regulations.
Fraction 1: Angular juniper notes. This appears very clear as opposed to the slight cloudiness upon dilution exhibited by some gins and that is another indication of lightness.
Fraction 2: Surprisingly neutral? This is like a less concentrated version of fraction 1. Hints of juniper character, but not much.
Fraction 3: Fairly neutral with slight angular character.
Fraction 4: Distinctive sweet orange-y fruitiness. Possibly more concentrated than any of the previous fractions. Sort of mono. Not much more dimension than a simple note.
Fraction 5: More complex character than fraction 4, but with slightly less intensity. Honied chamomile character? Unique mouthfeel similar to other fraction 5’s in gins, possibly due to barely soluble essential oils and their impact on surface tension. It is different than fraction 4, but nothing is too unique or distinctive. It is lighter with less complexity than role models.
Fraction 6: Very little aroma; more neutral than expected. No particular stale character like some gins.
You must be logged in to post a comment.