sherry cask

[To this point, no mention of scorching.]

In summation:

1) it is not true that every or even most casks are scorched before use,

2) scorching even when done probably does not constitute a kashering process, and

My article has been taken down while I reevaluate my next step. In the meantime, I still sense there are some myths regarding scotch so ingrained in much of the frum drinking populace that they need to be dispelled. Let me start with

Regarding the above explanations of Shulchan Aruch, there is nothing new here; Kashrus organizations know all this. Now you do too.

http://www.thewhiskyguide.com/Taste-Notes/Benromach-traditional.html

BOWMORE Legend: The cheapest in their line; says nothing on the label. But it happens to be aged in 70% bourbon casks, 30% sherry casks:

http://www.bruichladdich.com/by_andrew_jefford.htm

(Other online sources give the same split. The author in the link above wrote a book on Islay whiskies of which Bowmore is one. Sources claim the percentage of sherry casks in the vatting goes up as you go up the Bowmore line.)

http://bruichladdich.com/

For example, check out the 15, where the exact percentage split is given, even though the label say nothing:

http://www.bruichladdich.com/wwwproduct/pdfsheets/15/15sell.pdf

GLENFARCLAS: Despite their expressions being among the most heavily sherried in the industry (as a little research will show), many of them say nothing at all on the label. You can read the tasting notes on their website,

http://www.glenfarclas.co.uk/en/

where they all talk about sherry. Glenfarclas 12 won a Best Sherried Whisky of the Year award,

http://www.glenfarclas.co.uk/en/pages/70,12_Years_Old.html

yet says nothing on the label.

http://www.glenfiddich.us/the-range/12-year-old.html

GLENGOYNE: Known to be heavily sherried. At least the 10 and I believe the 12 say nothing on the label. Its web site says,

http://www.glengoyne.com/single_malt_whisky/malt_whisky_method/

HIGHLAND PARK: Despite HP being very heavily sherried, e.g.,

http://inebrio.com/thescotchblog/?p=69

JAMESON (no age statement) Irish Whiskey: combo of bourbon and sherry casks, exact sherry cask percentage a closely guarded secret.

http://www.jamesonlive.co.uk/history.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/epicure/mixing-it-with-the-best/2008/05/01/1209235057195.html

JOHNNIE WALKER Black Label: says nothing on the label, but Andrew Jefford, well known wine and whisky critic mentioned above, had this to say in the Financial Times:

http://www.andrewjefford.com/node/202

Black Label

This complex, 12-year-old blend of 40 or so grains and malts (including Speyside greats Cardhu and Cragganmore) is regarded as a benchmark for the entire Scotch world. Sherry casks are an important element of the blend, according to Jim Beveridge [fitting name, that; according to the article he is Master Blender at JW]. “A classic Walker blend is a balance of the smoky West Coast style with lighter Speyside. That can leave a gap in the middle, and for Black Label we try to fill it with Highland malts matured in sherry casks.”

I could go on with this list, but time is short and my fingers are tired.

You and your cleaning. 🙂 Until proven otherwise, I am assuming in general no cleaning or at least no practical halachic effect due to cleaning.

Jothar, one followup: Can you provide any halachic sources as to what is halachically gained regarding your comment “Cleaning the casks reduces the amount of absorption in the cask”? Remember, we’re talking about a cask that has already aged sherry for a long time, not a brand new cask.

Jothar, I understand, too risky to email me direct. How do I contact mod-42? Does he have an email address? And is he expecting this correspondence?

You can email me at [email protected] – Mod42

I realize that without providing sources, my comments may not be taken as any more reliable than comments here to the contrary. Below are some sources that may help clear some things up as to what’s really going on and may dispel some myths about all casks filled with scotch first being thoroughly washed out, dried out, smoked out, coaled out, etc. Enjoy!

1999 interview (it’s on the web) with then head of distilleries and maturation at Glenmorangie:

How many fills do you get from a cask?

My requirement is that the cask must not have been sitting around and be all dried out. Ideally the wine is emptied out completely, the cask resealed and shipped to Scotland within a couple of weeks. Most arrive dry but they do have a lining of crystals of tartrate and such like. The fortified wine casks are dry to moist but none of our casks has any lees swilling about in it. If that was the case you could ask if the flavour was coming from that but there must be some wood maturation for success. Any wine in the cask would be strictly against the law and the rules of the Scotch Whisky Association as it would potentially be considered as an additive.

From a scotch blog:

Whisky Magazine Issue 52 on 30/11/2005:

Whisky Magazine Issue 34 on 5/10/2003 (article mostly about Macallan):

When no longer appropriate for ageing malt, certain second fill Macallan casks are utilised as marrying vessels (being essentially inert with a minimal wood extractive influence).

A recharred bourbon cask, for example, could contribute less vanilla, coconut and sweetness, though a similar oakeyness and colour compared to a first fill.

Rejuvenated casks may hold up to two further fillings, after which there is the option of additional rejuvenation, with two rejuvenation treatments usually the limit.

This also raises the issue of what role recharred casks can play in the overall inventory. As the practise of recharring is only about 15 years old, research into the influence of recharred casks is still on-going, with the current focus being to age whisky for blends.

Whether rejuvenated casks play a more prominent role remains to be seen.

I’d like to address some of the misinformation here, even by those claiming misinformation here.

To those who claim sherry casks are just a marketing ploy: Please explain why a distillery would use sherry casks when they cost around 9 times (yes, 9 times) more than a bourbon cask. And why would a distillery like Glenlivet use sherry casks in the vatting for Glenlivet 12 when it doesn’t advertise it and for the most part only tells you if you ask? Not much of a marketing ploy for the money invested.

To those who claim sherry casks don’t give taste: You may not be able to taste actual sherry, but a connoisseur can usually tell if a scotch is sherried: among other things, there is a taste of mellow dried fruit. There’s a kid in shul who can tell if the scotch he’s given is sherried–he hasn’t missed yet.

To those who think there is a direct and reliable connection between not saying on the label and not using sherry casks, I am sorry, but it just ain’t so. I can even list some common scotches that are 100% or almost 100% sherry cask aged that say nothing on the label.

It’s not such a secret which distillery did a run of scotches finished in Carmel wine casks: Bruichladdich. There were two bottlings, 1989 and 1994.

Somebody mentioned he ran out and bought Caol Ila after hearing a shiur suggesting there’s no problem with scotch. Research suggests Caol Ila’s main bottlings, the 12 and the 18, both are 100% ex-bourbon cask, so if that’s what you bought, you could’ve walked, not run.

To those who claim sherry casks are cleaned multiple times, soaked, coaled, and smoked: When the casks are first made, they are toasted. Only after that do they soak in sherry for a while, then are shipped to Scotland and filled almost instantly without any of those things done to it. They generally only fill with water if testing for leaks. The better distilleries discard casks after the second fill, which means in general none of the above were done. Other distilleries refurbish casks by shaving off a very small inner layer. They don’t like to do a full re-toasting if they don’t have to because it won’t come out so good with the sherry already in the walls being heated up that way. Regardless, they often re-soak with sherry or cook sherry back into the walls. Bottom line: the claim in the first sentence does not hold in general.

How many here have actually read Rav Moshe’s tshuva? Did you know he didn’t write about sherry casks? Rather he wrote about the practice of adding wine directly into whiskey to sweeten it, and mattired (even if you could taste the wine) as long as the ratio of whiskey to wine was at least 6:1. Yes, it would be a kol shekain to scotch in sherry casks, but only if there would be 6:1 against the entire wood, and there isn’t. Without this some poskim (if they knew this) might be troubled to mattir. Did you know Rav Moshe in his own tshuva gave four reasons why a baal nefesh shouldn’t drink? Do you know why? I’m not saying not to rely on Rav Moshe, but many Kashrus organizations do not want to rely (at least solely) on Rav Moshe.

How many here have actually read the Minchas Yitzchok’s tshuva? Did you know he has an additional requirement over Rav Moshe that it also must be true that even an expert cannot be able to discern the taste of actual sherry? While this may be true in general, would you bet your life this is so for every scotch aged 100% in first fill sherry casks?

With the exception of a few posters, most of you are getting some things wrong. Regarding those who claim Shulchan Aruch says it’s mutar, there are two seifim frequently quoted, both in Yorah Daiah: 135:13 (wine only penetrates kdai klipah) and 137:4 (you can store water or beer in such vessels). The first is in a simman talking about prepping a new cask with wine before use, and the Shach says that if you know for sure it contained wine for a 24-hour period, then kdai klipah doesn’t work and you’d need a far bigger shiur of bitul. In the second seif, the Taz says the reason it’s mutar is because the taste of the wine went bad in the walls and so it’s pagum. But what if sherry makes scotch taste better? To address such reservations, Kashrus authorities came up with a collection of assumptions so as to pasken l’kulah. Only problem is, I’ve discovered those assumptions simply are not true. I just happen to have written a paper just over a week ago about this. The objections I raise are not a rehash of the same arguments seen everywhere else; they are mostly new. A friend of mine posted it on his blog. Please read it. Then let’s have a serious discussion.

EDITED