Crime Group
-
@asdf said in Crime Group:
What happened to you? Still stuck in that job that makes you drink every day?
Moved on to much greener pastures. Luckily.
@asdf said in Crime Group:
What's the point? I'm pretty sure he will not be able to find that thread when he's drunk. (Plus, he doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks, even when sober.)
I get perverse pleasure out of watching someone on the internet get drunk and make a fool out of himself. Amusing. Very.
-
@blek said in Crime Group:
Seriously, whisky is horrible. People call it "acquired taste" but that just means "you'll get used to how horrible it is, eventually".
Same goes for cognac, most rums, and all those eastern-european fruit brandys like slivovitz. Blergh.
What about Beherovka?
-
@Maciejasjmj said in Crime Group:
@asdf said in Crime Group:
But I've managed to convert a few people by letting them try my expensive malts.
I don't think you'd convert me, I'm opposed to the very idea of whisky. I've tried a few, not exclusive stuff, but not bottom shelf either - JW Red Label, Ballantine's, Jack Daniels I think too
You've just mentioned the worst possible choices available here in Poland. JW red label is awful, young Ballantine's is undrinkable. Honestly. You can try some cheaper bourbons (I think Four Roses goes for like 80 PLN per 0,7l) because they're much sweeter and thus harder to screw up. Good (i.e. Enjoyable) whiskey costs 100-150+ in Poland.
-
In the uk it's hard to get bourbon that's not Jack Daniels or others in that quality band. I don't mind it but it's not on the same level as a good quality single malt Scotch. On the odd occasion I have found high quality bourbon it's been most enjoyable. It seems you Americans can make a good whisky but you're not too keen on exporting it
-
@stillwater said in Crime Group:
I've not been visiting the forum frequently as of late. Is there a "Lucas is drunk" appreciation thread somewhere? If not will someone start a new one ? Will @lucas1 post all his drunken wisdom there ?
Try "Nobody shares drunk better than this"?
-
@kt_ That one's not bad at all - classic Becherovka with some tonic or straight Lemond.
-
@Jaloopa Jack Daniel's is a Tennessee.
-
@kt_ oh, are they different? I always thought bourbon === American whisky
-
@Jaloopa Bourbon is a type of American Whiskey, but not the only type. JD is a different type.
-
@Yamikuronue TIL
-
@asdf said in Crime Group:
In case of Jack Daniels, I 100% understand. (The other two you mentioned aren't that great, either.)
How dare you besmirch the name of the great John Daniels? I have killed for less egregious actions.
-
@lucas1 said in Crime Group:
@loose Bourbon isn't whiskey.
They are different.
All bourbon is whiskey, not all whiskey is bourbon.
-
@lucas1 said in Crime Group:
http://www.your-me.com/durcheinander/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/heavy-metal4.jpg
A better one
Judas Preist
Yeah no. IE/EI mistakes already trigger me - and this one is an incredibly bad one.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Crime Group:
@Jaloopa Bourbon is a type of American Whiskey, but not the only type. JD is a different type.
More correctly, Jack Daniel's is a subset of bourbon.
-
@lucas1 said in Crime Group:
@Maciejasjmj Whiskey is great if it is something decent on the rocks.
Whiskey is great if you throw some ice into a glass, add some soda or juice, and throw away the whiskey
-
@Polygeekery Eh... not really.
Tennessee whiskey is straight whiskey produced in Tennessee. Although it has been legally defined as a bourbon whiskey in some international trade agreements,[1][2][3] most current producers of Tennessee whiskey disclaim references to their products as "bourbon" and do not label them as such on any of their bottles or advertising materials.
-
@Yamikuronue It is legally defined as bourbon, but some don't want to be called that for some reason. Still bourbon. Still meets the definition of bourbon.
-
@Yamikuronue It's trans-whiskey.
-
@Polygeekery said in Crime Group:
It is legally defined as bourbon
ehhh... that's internationally. Bourbon is Kentucky-style whiskey, and Tennessee Whiskey is Tennessee-style whiskey. Tennessee style starts with the same steps as Kentucky style, but then it adds to it.
-
@Yamikuronue Fair enough. I don't know all of the intricacies of it. But a few years ago the wife and I took a weekend trip to Lexington, KY and did the bourbon trail. At Buffalo Trace they had a fellow there that certainly seemed like he knew what he was talking about and he said (IIRC) that the definition of bourbon is based upon its grain make up, yada yada yada, Jack Daniels has the correct grain make up to be called bourbon.
But maybe that was all part of some elaborate Hatfields and McCoys manner of feud? Or maybe that guy was just really good at sounding like he knew what he was talking about? Or maybe by that point on the Bourbon Trail I was snockered and I am way the fuck off?
The truth is probably some combination of those factors.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Crime Group:
Tennessee style starts with the same steps as Kentucky style, but then it adds to it.
Which is why I said it is a subset of bourbon.
-
@Polygeekery said in Crime Group:
that the definition of bourbon is based upon its grain make up, yada yada yada, Jack Daniels has the correct grain make up to be called bourbon.
This is true, and the reason it's legally classified as bourbon. If you base your categories solely on grain makeup, then you're going to be very inclusive. My understanding, however, is that you shouldn't in any way base your understanding of what bourbon is on how Jack Daniels tastes. I could be wrong here, I don't actually drink it either :) I just know people who do.
I kind of like JD, which means it's probably shit XD
-
@Yamikuronue Yeah, but if you try to base the taste of anything based on one brand, you are unlikely to get an accurate baseline.
Also, I drink roughly 1/2 gallon of Jack a week. You could say I like it also. ;)
-
@Yamikuronue These things are much simpler in Europe. One prime requirement for something to be called bourbon would be that the grain was grown in Kentucky.
-
@PleegWat said in Crime Group:
One prime requirement for something to be called bourbon would be that the grain was grown in Kentucky.
No, the grain can be grown anywhere but it should be brought out to Kentucky to soak up that specific flavor for at least a week.
-
Somebody in this thread was using whiskey and snobs in the same sentence. Unpossible! Whiskey people are not snobs but just very sensitive people. As this commercial demonstrates:
-
@Luhmann said in Crime Group:
@PleegWat said in Crime Group:
One prime requirement for something to be called bourbon would be that the grain was grown in Kentucky.
No, the grain can be grown anywhere but it should be brought out to Kentucky to soak up that specific flavor for at least a week.
That's pigs. I don't actually know about whiskeys, but wines do require the actual grapes to have been grown in the relevant geographical area (which is, of course, different from the political area because reasons). And I'm pretty sure this applies to Calvados as well.
-
@PleegWat said in Crime Group:
I don't actually know about whiskeys
At least for Scotch, the location of the production of the grain isn't very important. The water matters a lot more AIUI.
-
@dkf the barrels are probably more important than any ingredients. It takes a hell of a lot of flavour from the wood
-
@Jaloopa said in Crime Group:
the barrels are probably more important than any ingredients
That'll certainly be an important part, but won't explain the whole of it. But I think the grain is more like fuel than flavouring.
-
@dkf According to wikipedia, the legal requirement is on the location of the distillery, and of the warehouse where it is ripened. It's probably not economical to import the water though.
-
@PleegWat said in Crime Group:
It's probably not economical to import the water though.
The idea of running stills that size on bottled water amuses me.
-
@PleegWat said in Crime Group:
These things are much simpler in Europe.
Actually, there's a pretty specific legal definition for Bourbon, even in the USA, see Wikipedia.
(I have to resist the urge to mention certain people now, who would tell us that legal definitions are the devil. If it were up to them, it would probably be legal to sell apple juice as "Bourbon".)
-
-
@asdf said in Crime Group:
(I have to resist the urge to mention certain people now, who would tell us that legal definitions are the devil. If it were up to them, it would probably be legal to sell apple juice as "Bourbon".)
It's pretty silly to legally define "bourbon." The best I can say is that it keeps lawmakers busy for a bit so they aren't fucking stuff up in even bigger ways.
-
@boomzilla said in Crime Group:
It's pretty silly to legally define "bourbon."
It makes sense if the definition is restricted geographically, as it protects the branding of the distilleries in Kentucky (for example). If some distillery in some foreign country starts making a similar drink but can sell it much cheaper, the Kentucky distilleries can say "it's not made here, so it's not real bourbon, so it can't be as good, so you should buy our more expensive product." That's pure marketing b.s. of course, but that's why they want the legal definition and the government is happy to give it to them. Same with Champagne in France.
-
@NedFodder said in Crime Group:
It makes sense if the definition is restricted geographically,
You're just engaging in another silliness.
@NedFodder said in Crime Group:
If some distillery in some foreign country starts making a similar drink but can sell it much cheaper, the Kentucky distilleries can say "it's not made here, so it's not real bourbon, so it can't be as good, so you should buy our more expensive product."
They don't need a law for that.
@NedFodder said in Crime Group:
Same with Champagne in France.
I think that if I ever come across some of that I will make a point to call it sparkling wine.
-
@boomzilla said in Crime Group:
They don't need a law for that.
The law prevents the cheaper foreign bottle from even saying "bourbon" on the label. The Kentucky distilleries argue that this is to protect American consumers. Like I said, that's b.s., the real reason is to protect the Kentucky distilleries, but that doesn't make the law "silly".
-
@NedFodder said in Crime Group:
The law prevents the cheaper foreign bottle from even saying "bourbon" on the label. The Kentucky distilleries argue that this is to protect American consumers. Like I said, that's b.s., the real reason is to protect the Kentucky distilleries, but that doesn't make the law "silly".
9 out of 10 ginger ale anarchists disagree.
-
@NedFodder said in Crime Group:
Like I said, that's b.s., the real reason is to protect the Kentucky distilleries, but that doesn't make the law "silly".
The real reason being different from the stated reason is more than enough to make a law "silly".
-
-
-
@boomzilla No, I am not, as you know perfectly well, see our long discussion on the subject.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uchE5mncrI
Remember you aren't living in London.
-
don't go out of London?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4g4DQmDXi0
He says there is no time for kit kats:
http://www.kitkat.co.uk/content/content/img/range/4-finger-1.png
Fucking kit kat racist.
-
@lucas1 said in Crime Group:
He says there is no time for kit kats
Of course. He thinks you should upgrade your phone to Marshmallow or Nougat.