Missed it by *that* much

I'm continually surprised how many writers make similar mistakes when writing about whiskey.

Kevin at The Scotch Blog fires off at Bill Dowd for misrepresenting the distillation process and the aging process in this article.

My beef is with Eric Asimov at The New York Times. in this article He does a great job of talking up bourbon and the new generation of premium bourbons but loses me right at the end:

By the time it is bottled, it can be as low as 80 proof, so producers have a lot of room to find just the right strength. If you find a bourbon that seems too strong, do what the producers do and add more water. Or ice.

This reinforces one of the many misconceptions about water and its role in whiskey tasting. Water doesn't just thin out the liquor, it reacts with it.

Whiskey is formed via a large number of chemical processes during distillation and aging. When you add water you're setting off a chemical reaction called hydrolysis. Specifically the water is reacting with the esters in the whiskey. This reaction alters the flavors and scents in the liquor and brings out many that are hidden while the chemicals involved are bound up with the alcohol.

I didn't understand this at first, but I expect professionals to have a better understanding of the subjects they're covering than an amateur like myself. Maybe I'm being too harsh, the article covers a lot of ground but ending with "just water it down" leaves out much of the art of whiskey and tasting.

I've learned the benefits of water and am evaluating waters for our tasting event next year and my final choice will be based off a number of factors. That will have to be a separate discussion though.