Malarkey, Blather and Blarney Dept: Balcone's Tate Speaks

What is feckin whiskey doing on the net's leading independent rum website? There's a reason, read on, but it's not my fault! Honest...
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Malarkey, Blather and Blarney Dept: Balcone's Tate Speaks

Post by Capn Jimbo »

There are two things new distiller's think they need...


Those two "things" are: a story, a "unique" product and a spokesman with the gift of gab.

Oops, that's three (apologies to Gov. Rick Perry), and Balcone's newbie distiller has all of them in spades. His products are unquestionably unique, like his "whiskey" made from a fig/honey/sugar mash bill. The story is romantic, the boy-under-the-bridge, borrowing $100K and on a knights of the roundtable quest, a rags to maybe riches story. And gift of gab?

You bet. Think Lost Spirits.

If it weren't for our own Bear and his strong recommendation, I'd have never heard of Balcones and would sure have not investigated them. But you know me - when a very young spirit is sold for $75 to $90, it had better work to replace my Viagra or no sale. So natch, I researched it, and what really got my attention?

Very, very mixed reviews. Murray, Pacult and Ralfy were intrigued while Whisky Magazine, Broom and Serge found them just average. It's the same on the net - very mixed.

With that, I had to know why, ergo the rash of articles posted recently. Turns out Tate is really quite outspoken and just like Lost Spirits works very hard to sell himself, his elevated goals (the next Macallan or Balvenie, honest), and his methods as if they accompanied the second coming. Were they?

Fortunately for me, Bacone's slick site features their owner/builder/master distiller/blender/promoter/spokesman Tate - who was also the dreamer and builder of the stills - in two nice long videos featuring a knowledgeable Scottish interviewer.

The following article was held until now. It's long but highly entertaining, and meant in good humour. Read at least as far as #10 and you will laugh your arse off, and read the rest.

The farther you read, the more you will laugh - or maybe cry - seriously! Consider it a counterpoint to grandiosity...


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


The problem of micro/craft distillers...

...is time and money and lack of both. Real aging is expensive. Unlike beers, the sweet spot for rum is 7 to 10 years. Honestly no craft distillers can manage that. Therefore they have to find a way to sell very young spirit by using marketing puffery and/or by making claims of new and revolutionary technology like magic lights, banana dunder, supersonic fast aging and the like. The very very few who succeed really don't stoop to these: think Sammy Hagar (whose following helps), Phil Prichard (rum only) and especially Charbay, with its generational history and experience.


So how 'bout Balcones?

Although Balcones is using the ADI inspired mini-barrels, they are smart enough to avoid "fast aging" claims. So much for what they don't do. Realizing the difficulty of producing a fine traditional whiskey Chip Tate, the owner/distiller/etc/etc pushes these points in his two long videos:

1. He sells the town of Waco and its history

2. He uses reverse psychology in admitting that Texas has no real history of whiskey making, and claiming that he intends to create a "Texas style".

3. He pitches his intended role in the "rebirth of Waco".

4. He sells his family, and neighbors.

Is anything missing here? Let's continue...

5. He sells his failure to complete his ten year plan to create a micro-brewery, by then stating that "poof!" the idea to make whiskey came to him and "three weeks later I founded the company" and in "months" was rehabbing a junky building into a distillery.

6. He sells the fact that he learned how to weld copper and thus built his own stills from copper sheet. He sells the "accidental" quality of this process.

Finally. Now it gets a bit better.

7. He sells his raw materials, chosen to represent his goal of Texas wild honey or the use of Texas scrub instead of Islay peat. All Texan all the time, a instantaneous Texas style leading to the rebirth of Waco. Seriously.

8. Like all micro-distillers there's a Distilling 101 pitch like Lost Spirits', designed to sound authoritative by specifying truisms like the importance of wood, the need for a good nose in blending from "thousands" of his mini-barrels. "It's very much like composing...and the intersection of art and science" he opines. Wow! Thanks Beethoven. Or is it Einstein?

And later a big Texas surprise...

9. "I wasn't born here, but I really want to become a part of this place over time and become part of its history...". Wha?! The video is almost over before he admits he's not even from Waco? With the overalls and suspenders you coulda fooled me. That's like waiting until just before insertion, you admit you forgot the rubbers, lol, but its hard to stop. Hey, it worked with me. Mind you, the video production is super slick, actually suspiciously so for such a small craft operation.

So can't we get at least a little specificity?

10. "We're not trying to make whiskeys made in Texas, but Texas Whiskeys... we're trying to make new styles of whiskey". However grandiose, this is actually a good start. Craft distillers really need to do something unique, especially in light of the aging problem. He tosses out wine words like "terroir", a word I've never heard in John Wayne movies. "Terroir" would have gotten you shot in the old Wild West, including Waco I'm sure. Its surely valid for wine (where a top taster can blind taste the geography), but rum or whiskey? Not at all.

11. You see, he continues, because unlike Scotland, it's really, really hot in Texas, which he counters by claims that he prefers fermenting in hot conditions as a good thing, but counters that with an opposing claim that his fermentation is actually on the cooler, slower side? Which is it? Or both? Stay tuned.

It's a start, and on to wood...

12. He sells the importance of wood, notes his ADI small barrels are "Quercus Alba" (same as everybody else) which are, uh "toasted, but uh, also charred". Is it just me or is he on both sides again? He brags that oak is so important that "...you have to use THE finest quality oak... full yarded, fine grain". I'll buy that. He admits that most of his oak is American, I mean Quercus Alba, but alludes to a few French/Euro oak barrels as well, apparently needed for his composing. He forgets to name drop the French "Quercus Robur".

And how bout those raw materials?

13. Now he admits he gets his malt, corn and oak from sources that are oops, not Texas based, but immediately adds that the figs, honey and sugar ARE from Texas. Oops again, but maybe not all the figs. Both sides again. It's Texan but its not. No marketing point left unsaid. You like black? We got it. White? That too. And all the greys! C'mon Chip, how bout some real specifics?

14. He notes his "Blue" series whiskies are made from heirloom blue corn, because of its "earthy, rich and flinty flavor". He points out that his roasting of it brings out the "oil" which he claims is transferred to the ferment, and thence to the distillations. He notes that the ferment goes unfiltered into the still for the stripping run. At last - some specifics, but rather late in the game. But what's this? He follows this by admitting he DOES filter the product - but - "not all that much". It's now filtered, but the "least filtering you can do". All three sides covered here. Again.

Filtered? Or not?

15. He then attributes the whiskies "cloudiness" due to this "minimal filtering". Yes, but also no as he points out their use of local minerals in their water which, uh, changes, and "might" affect the clarity, but then no again and quickly pivots and lifts a bottle of his whiskey and points out how crystal clear it is. My head is spinning now, but I'm committed to continue.

You want a fermentation story? You got it!

16. Now the knowledgeable interviewer asks about his long, allegedly cool fermentation and asks him directly "do you have temperature controls?". He breaks eye contact, looks down, then up and admits the room yes, is air conditioned, but no he doesn't and can't really control the fermentation, but yes, somehow he "knows" how to adjust the yeast and kinda, sorta well keep it from overheating, so in a way, sure, he does kinda, sorta control the ferment. But without controls, got that? He then quickly diverts our attention into Fermenting 101, you know, generalized stuff about yeast creating alcohols and flavors.

Aging? We don't need no steenking aging...

17. Now he gets to the meat, the fact that this is but a four year old distillery who can't possibly have even a drop of truly aged good stuff. He attempts to tie his controlled/not controlled, hot/cool fermentation to this by instead emphasizing the quality of the ferment and how he's "...trying to make things that are yes, not as long aged - we're only four years old so we don't have a 10 year old product - but the concept is to ferment, mash, choosing the ingredients carefully enough, all of these things so that I can take something that yes, is not mature, but is rich and smooth right off of the stove". Spoken as a former baker of bread (really). That's two "yes, but's" in one sentence.

He authoritatively convinces us that a 4 year old distillery can't have a 10 year old whiskey. In truth, he doesn't seem to have any 4 year olds either.

He then points out that those other distillers' new make whiskies are at first "a bit much", as those "other whiskies" are really intended to be aged for 8 to 12 years in charred barrels. He then compares these to his new make, which are simply lovely and drinkable and certainly NOT "a bit much" (which he just got done saying is important for aging) - but - which his charred/not charred barrels will age nicely anyway?! If I spin any faster, I'll afraid I'll end up in China.

I ask you: if it is possible to produce new make that is "rich and smooth" and doesn't need aging, but ages well anyway, then wouldn't all the experienced and talented distillers be doing this already? Did these newbie methods find something missed in hundreds of years of distilling? Or am I missing something?


A tough question is posed...

The knowledgeable Scottish interviewer - who seems to know his stuff - asks a really good, tough question, namely "with your long and open fermentations, how do you avoid infections?"/ His response is almost instantaneous and unlike all his other long winded and spinning dialogue, and summarized in a single word: "Cleanliness!". He practically jumps when he says this, like a jack-in-the-box toy. Gee, so forceful, so easy, so clear. It's like asking a surgeon operating on a antibiotic resistant TB patient the same question, and getting the same simplistic answer. But not to worry. Perhaps anticipating a natural follow-up, he then quickly commences to cite his great experience as a home brewer of beer. Now he actually puts down his earlier reference to the "art of distillation" by quipping that sanitation in distilling is "nothing", nothing I say, compared to that needed in brewing. Spoken as a proud home brewer. Tell that to Lost Spirits who actually had to destroy their wooden whiskey still due to a fungal infection.

Beer, er bear with him...

In truth, Tate is correct. Beer is VERY sensitive to infection, thus beer fermentation has to occur in closed fermenters with good airlocks to prevent the entry of common wild yeasts, etc. that are floating around everywhere. You're breathing some right now. His denial of the possibility is delivered forcefully, but he manages to avoid explaining how a long and open fermentation avoids being contaminated.

Having been lightly bitch slapped, the interviewer knows when to back off. But the rest of us should keep in mind that all the active components of his operation are in the same space - stills and fermenters both. But having just denied the possibility he then quickly segways to the other side and attributes luck ("knock on wood"), but then pivots again by citing their fanatical meticulousness. These guys clearly wash their hands after urinating. "I'm a bit anal" he adds.

This could easily turn into another unique marketing claim, lol: "...rich, smooth and clean very young spirit by a lucky, anal and confident young distiller who constantly washes his hands...". Just kidding Chip, relax already, and BTW do you know the Frozen Wonder? From now on I'll refer to Chip from Waco. Let's go on...

You want sides? We got sides...


18. When asked if he uses special yeast, again we get all three sides: "No we use commercial yeast" - but - "it's hard to get" - and - "some of it is from Europe!" (really now). He then returns to his claim of "anal cleanliness" by proudly relating that his home made fermenters, walls and floors are meticulously and frequently cleaned - but - not the ceiling! I'm not kidding. So the facility is clean but uh - not completely clean. But get this - by being both clean and not clean, some wild yeast et al (ostensibly from the ceiling) IS apparently allowed to fall and enter the open fermenters (?) - but - only on the 4th or 5th day, at the end. You know, like sprinkling a little pepper on your hot and just served dinner entree. Apparently this peppering is facilitated - anally I guess - by brushing the dirty ceiling. You are following this, yes?

He completes his pitch on yeast by first claiming a "Belgian beer approach" (uncontrolled, wild yeasts), as evident by the ceiling pepper shaker, then shifts to a counterclaim of closely controlled, "ideal fermenting conditions", and finally takes a breath. All to a broadly and skeptically smiling interviewer, who is now convinced the distiller is now somehow channeling Robin Williams. On to the actual distillation.

Addition or subtraction?

19. Tate then describes distillation as basically a subtractive process, emphasizing the importance of fermentation in creating flavor. He LOVES his fermentation story! While technically true, the opposite view is equally valid, namely that distilling is the capturing - adding if you will - the heart and parts of the heads and tails you wish to retain. "Whiskey is made in the ferment, where the flavors are fixed" he claims, completely ignoring the notion of aging and its additive, subtractive and interactive processes in adding ever more flavors and aromas, perhaps the bulk of them. Even his quick dunk in micro-barrels add color and some extractives. Based on his view everything - including fermentation - is substractive once you harvest the figs, lol. Our regular posters know this. For a moment I'm taken aback by the presentation of just one side here, but just for a moment as this is quickly rectified, this time in the same short sentence:

Unusual or traditional? Both of course.

20. "The stills I made are a bit unusual, but in most respects are traditional pot stills". Unusual AND traditional both, this is great! But how can this be? He refers directly to his "helical" coil condenser, which is a long piece of coiled copper tubing inside a large tube. He presents this as his unique cross between a classic worm-in-tub cooler, compared with the more common Gatling gun shell and multiple-tube condenser. Earth to Chip in Waco: your "unique" condenser is common, especially at homedistillers.org and has been around for years. He really can't have it both ways, but seems to anyway. Without explanation and when prompted, he concurs that his condenser is the best of both worlds, as efficient as the shell and tube, but with the extended copper contact of a worm leading to a "richer fuller spirit". This is actually true, but nothing much happening here folks, keep on moving...

21. Onto the stripping run. In describing that he keeps moving the goal posts. He claims that the stripping run takes the wash at 8%, will "come in at 22 to 25%" but adds "with the heads and tails at 25 to 27%" but, well "never more than 28%, another key, key thing" but that "many people will say 30%” but all said, really “it doesn't matter" - but then again – "but it does matter for a rich full whiskey". Mind you, this is all in one long, meandering, obfuscating but knowingly delivered single, run on description. Even worse than moi, can you believe that! The interviewer remains completely amused and can't suppress a big smile - he's seems to have known better from the beginning.

At the conclusion of the interview, the now definitely Scottish interviewer asks him to define his goal, and even then he appears to stumble. It's traditional - kind of - and progressive - kind of. It's not a bourbon, it's not a single malt that has to meet SWA regulations but it does meet American regulations. It's well, it's Texan (well at least two of them, except for the imported figs and grain), and it's really good for a very young kinda sorta whiskey. You'll really love it.

Maybe.


Was this too long?

Absolutely, and to be honest I had no intention to make it so, but the more I viewed, the more I was amazed and entertained by the richness and fullness of the both sides blather and blarney being promoted. The actual facts I gleaned are really quite sparse and appear to be:

  • 1. Idiosyncratic mash bills, fermented in open stainless tanks using commercial yeast to about 28%
    2. Double pot stilled in tall necked, up angled lyne arm, homemade copper stills to 60 to 70%. Modified worm-in-tube condenser.
    3. Short finish in very small, mostly new charred American oak micro-barrels for an unknown period (later research indicates 5.3 gal, 10 months, credit to Homedistillers).
    4. Some experimental techniques such as smoking the distillate.
    5. Well reviewed insofar as uniqueness, not so much otherwise.
All said, this guy's main claim to fame are not his claims, but rather his reviews from Murray and Pacult, plus a number of the usual whiskey "awards" (he doesn't mention the lackluster reviews of Broom, Serge or Whisky Magazine). Still, it's a mad marketing world which requires this sort of puffery and romanticism. It will work with those who are willing to spend $72 on a bottle of a very young overproof rum that may or may not taste like rum as we know it (much as Serge found the Lost Spirits whiskey was indeed interesting and likeable enough but really didn't taste like whiskey).

I believe his use of blue corn and Texan ingredients for a fig-sugar-honey mash bills to make “whiskey” are interesting, and were perfect choices for his first two releases. What the world doesn't need is another ordinary very young whiskey. To me this guy – former baker, former home brewer - is not yet a great distiller, but like Edison a great experimenter, willing to try, try, try until he gets it right.

Think of him as a young cook who is willing to toss unusual ingredients into the pot until it tastes right. It will be years before he truly understands what he has done, but his products may be worth trying depending on your disposable income, and interest in unique products that defy comparison for quality and with a 50/50 chance of satisfaction. Thanks to his micro-barrels though, you can be confident they will be drinkable.

I need to lay down now...




*******
Don't believe me - or do so at your own risk. Better that you should check out the videos for yourself. (See Balcones at the Brandy Library, Parts I & II)
http://balconesdistilling.com/our-story
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

We all know about "Awards"...


...and how few of them are really valid. Most spirits "fests" feature paid "competitions" that are designed with so many categories and multiple awards that well, its really hard to go home without one. The promoters, fests, attendees, distributors and distillers are all happily involved in one big cicle yank, and everyone goes home with a happy ending.

The promoters get their money, and the distillers get their promotable "awards": bronze, silver, gold, double gold, platinum, best of's, ad infinitum. Balcones was smart enough - and had money enough - to likewise solicit and "win" a sack full of these, which natch - are promoted heavily on his slick website.

Some of the worst would probably be those of San Francisco, whose list of awards is so long that it's soon to appear in paperback. Others like the self-serving "ADI" awards are especially dubious and self-promoting. Balcones proudly features all of them, among others.

But that's just marketing as usual, and the monkeys eat it up. With this in mind, I'd like to add another award, but unlike the others is truly independent, competitive, hard to win, and sincerely earned...

. . . . . . .Image

All distillers are eligible, it's free to enter, and only one will be awarded. For now Cleveland Whisky would seem to have been in the clear lead for its amazing "6 day fast aging", in a near tie with Lost Spirits for their "banana dunder and magic light aging", but now both facing a serious, surprise challenge by Balcones for their stunning "all sides of everything" presentation. Who will win?
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Slap me up side the head...


...but I was so worn out after all that work - performed at the junction between art and science, lol - that I completely forgot to ask for nominations...

Any suggestions? And do include the reason for your nomination.

The winner will be named, and will actually be presented the award, including some dandy shelf talkers that will never be used, lol...
Post Reply