Talk:Gin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taste

"Jenever is produced in a pot still and is typically lower in alcohol and more strongly flavoured than London gin." Not in my experience! I would say exactly the opposite: Gin is far more strongly flavoured. Anyone want to defend this statement? Pemboid

I do not think gin and Dutch genever can really be compared to each other, but I do agree that London-style gin (especially those that are pot distilled) has much more of the juniper 'punch'. Strength wise, TheDrinkShop.com shows four brands of genever, all varying from 35% to 42%, so they even perhaps slightly weaker than the gins of today. To name two; Tanqueray No.Ten 47.3%, Miller's Westbourne Strength 45.2% Steviepee (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no simple differentiation in alcoholic strength. Belgian supermarkets sell jenever down to 30%, while you can get genièvre from the distillery shop at Wambrechies, a few km over the border in France, up to twice that strength. The amount of juniper flavour seems to vary and overlap just as much, although it's hard to be sure, as the alcohol content and other "botanicals" affect one's perception.

Additionally, the last paragraph of the introduction says, "A well-made gin will be relatively dry compared to other spirits. . . Gin should not be shaken, to avoid releasing undesirable flavours by "bruising" it." I tend to think that choosing the level of dryness and whether or not to shake your Gin is a matter of taste. Considering the popularity of the shaken Martini, finding citations to support the claim that Gin should not ever be shaken is unlikely. Maybe it would be better to say that Gin is traditionally thought best when dry and unshaken? Citations for these claims almost certainly exist, and they avoid the issue of personal preference by focusing on history. dash2hyphen

If you can find and enter citations to that effect, please edit the text of the article accordingly. It seems worthwhile since you are mentioning that sources substantiating this point exist. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with with Dieter Simon, these are both matters of taste as it seems modern distillers are experimenting with dryness and, from personal experience, while the stirred martini is fetishized by James Bonds fans I can attest, when I prepare classic martini's shaken ones are prefered overwhelmingly espceially when it is less than top shelf gin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.247.137 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Shaking versus Stirring. Shaking or stirring a cocktail is usually down to what type of ingredients are used. Drinks that are cloudy, contain juices, purée or fruit, are usually shaken to ensure the cocktail is mixed well and also to avoid the chance of the ingredients being separated. Cocktails are stirred when only pure spirits or liqueurs are used in the drink, maybe with bitters. The Martini can be described as a cocktail that has a 'silver bullet' appearance, this is because it is stirred, if you were to shake it, it wouldn't have the same initial appearance. Of course, it is also down to personal taste, and I'm not saying that stirring a Martini should be the be-all-and-end-all of making this cocktail, but I have found that stirred Martini (or Manhattan) tastes far superior to a shaken Martini which will have a much higher dilution than a stirred equivalent. The one cocktail I can think of that is indeed shaken is a Vesper martini, but I think this is due to it containing Lillet Blanc, which is quite different to dry vermouth such as Noilly Prat or Martini Extra Dry. Steviepee (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bond demands a shaken, not stirred, martini in the films, while it's the reverse in the books. It's unclear whether the script got it wrong or Connery forgot his lines. You're obviously quite right that shaking a cocktail with ice dilutes it far more quickly than stirring it. "Dry" in the case of a martini, originally referred to the use of dry vermouth, as the sweet red variety was more common pre-war. It was taken to refer to the gin content and quality only later, when the use of dry vermouth became universal.Sjwells53 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Boodles Gin

Does anyone know who makes Boodles Gin?

• This article on Forbes dated 3/14/2006 lists Joseph E. Seagram & Sons as the maker.
• This site indicates that Joseph E. Seagram & Sons was owned by Vivendi Universal, who owned The Seagram Company Ltd. who made Boodles British Gin.
• The Wikipedia article on Seagram states that it no longer exists, and it's assets were sold to companies like Pepsico, Diageo, and Pernod Ricard. However, I see no mention of Boodles Gin on any of their websites.

Any ideas??

• • A mystery! I can certainly still get Boodles gin at my local Bevmo, at a darn good price, too! $15 for 75cl. Boodles & bitter lemon is one of the finest combinations I have had the pleasure of imbibing...Cravenmonket 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jefflundberg 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Update:

• A page on the Pernod Ricard site describes Boodles Gin.
  • It states: Produced by: Chivas Brothers for Pernod Ricard USA.

Jefflundberg 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Update:

• I created an article on Boodles based on the information I have gathered. I just recently took a picture of the bottle (20px) and added it to the article as well.

Jefflundberg 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible fact dispute

From article: "Gin originated in the Netherlands in the 17th century - its invention is often credited to the physician Franciscus Sylvius."

According to their website, Damrak has been produced since 1575, which would seem to contradict the assertion Gin originated in the 17th century. <http://www.damrakgin.com>

A second website (which seems to be a longer version of Damrak's own description) repeats this information, asserting that Gin was marketed as a medicine prior to 1575. <http://www.internetwines.com/rws25214.html>

The Gin and Vodka association notes that the early 17th century is the "first confirmed date for the production of gin." <http://www.ginvodka.org/history/origingin.html>

Sugar within Gin. The opening paragraph states that "Distilled gin is made by redistilling white grain spirit and raw cane sugar which has been flavoured with juniper berries." I have never heard of any modern gin that is made using raw cane sugar. Old Tom Gin to my knowledge did use sugar to soften the taste, but as palates wanted drier drinks as time went on, the sugar was dropped and London Dry gin was born (or perhaps it was Plymouth that born the first dry gin?) which does not use sugar in any form. Old Tom gin is having somewhat of a rebirth however.Steviepee (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Defunct

Anybody think a list of famous defunct brands is a good idea? Like, say, Bushmill's? (Or did John D. MacDonald make it up...?) Trekphiler 03:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mother's Ruin

Is there any special reason why this one synonym is mentioned so prominently? Many beverages have analagous nicknames, and to be truthful, I've never even heard this one.

You would have heard it in British English, it is a term which has been used in the UK for a century or so. Dieter Simon 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from editing

• After Old Tom gin, segment "said to approximate the pot-distilled 18th century spirit." -- is this just Old Tom or also Plymouth and Genever? I've never heard this before.Philvarner 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• "By 1740 the production of gin had increased to six times that of beer, and because of its cheapness it became extremely popular with the poor." -- is this by volume or ABV?

Definitely by volume. I came across a 1726 quote by Defoe (The Complete English Tradesman) and put it as a REF to a "popular with the poor" sentence -- in Chapter 3 he gives detailed statistics, by volume of various classes of drink. Alanf777 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fruit or Grain or both?

The Template:Alcoholic beverages lists Gin with distilled alcohols made with fruit, but it could just as well fit with those made with grains. Any suggestions? - TheMightyQuill 02:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

this template needs a lot of revision. For example, there are only 2 vodkas currently produced with potatoes. The categories are not orthogonal, for example, brandy is distilled from fruit, but sambuca is flavored with anise rather than distilled from it. I wouldn't even bother changing it, there will probably be a major revision sometime soon. Philvarner 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History questions not answered in article

• Was it created for medicinal purposes?

• If so, what maladies were the juniper and other herbs supposed to cure, or was it just meant as a rejuvenating tonic?

• What was the original recipe, and what were the other herbs, if any, besides juniper berries, in the first formulation?

• Was it originally meant to be drunk "straight," or mixed into other liquids? Badagnani 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jenever article seems to answer some of this. Badagnani 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cocktails made with Gin?

What is the purpose of this section? A number of the drinks mentioned in this section are not technically cocktails. If it is supposed to be a list of gin drinks it is highly selective. Given the complex history of cocktails themselves, what do you think about deleting this section (or perhaps moving it to its own entry). For example, virtually any cocktail made with whiskey, e.g. the Old Fashioned Cocktail, also has been made with Holland's style gin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.198.70 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to "Gin and Juice" leads to a page regarding a rap album, not a cocktail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.146.147 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What flavour of English?

With [1] the British English spelling "flavour" in the lead has been changed to "flavor".

However, looking down the article, there seems no strong indication the article is written in British English or another variant that uses the spelling "flavor":

• Further down the lead it is "flavoring", not "flavouring" (as in the US).
• "Recognized", "popularized" and "stablized" end in -ize not -ise (as in the US, though -ize is acceptable and common in the UK).
• "encyclopædia" is spelt with the ligature "æ", as in older orthographies of British English.
• The article content has a significant section on gin in the UK in the 18th century, but is not particularly UK-centric.
• "sulfuric acid" needs to be ruled out from WP:ENGVAR since "sulfur" is actually the preferred IUPAC spelling (see Sulfur).
• As an Englishman, I can't myself see any obvious Americanisms, but an American perhaps would see obvious Britishisms.

One way or another we should settle on one variant, as per [[WP:ENGVAR].

Si Trew (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable Brands section

Many of the links on the brand names point to generic pages or disambiguation ones. My expectation was that it would go to a page for that brand. Should I fix this or is there some other reasoning I am missing?

Aaron S. Kurland (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please fix it if you have time. If items are linked they shouldn't be linked to mere disambiguation pages, they should only be linked to a full page of a brand. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A wiki article does not DEFINE notability. I reverted West Winds (with REFS) -- and see that (eg) Portobello Road Gin No.171 - England was also removed by User:Vapeur for the same reason. Alanf777 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(See history for a suggestion -- withdrawn because the distiller is defunct) Alanf777 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article "Gin" cannot become a repository for the hundreds of brands of gin presently in production, which is a simple matter of practicality. External links (citations or otherwise) inserted to promote a website or product are specifically prohibited. See: Wikipedia: Commercial Links If you have no legal affiliation with this brand of gin, and you feel it notable enough to be mentioned in the gin article, there is nothing preventing you from creating a Wiki article for it. Vapeur (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided two links : a) timeout review, to establish notability, and b) the official company link, permitted under WP:ELOFFICIAL --- and which is used widely. I know of no wiki policy requiring that something has to have a wiki entry to be notable (though the converse is true). Maybe we need some agreed policy on what's a notable brand (some of those in the current list look dubious to me --- eg South Gin - New Zealand). Volume of sales? Year brand was established? Made in an unusual country? In an unusual way? Won some award? Alanf777 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The attached citations do not meet condition (1) of WP:ELOFFICIAL because the linked content is not controlled by the subject of the article, not that citations/references are necessarily appropriate for the section regardless. The criteria you've suggested (e.g. case volume, year of establishment, etc.) are pertinent only to individual brands and lie outside of the scope of this article. The practice of naming only those brands with a Wiki article has proved stable, serves as clear cut rule that is free of subjectivity, and discourages repeated attempts at advertising. As a result, the Gin article has not become so bloated with individual listings as to require a separate article (e.g. List of Whisky Brands), although I would express no objection if someone wanted to take that route and liberate the gin article of the "Notable Brands" section altogether. Alternatively, I have no objection to renaming the section, "Gin Brands with a Wiki Article", to further edify the objectivity of selection. And again, if you feel a particular brand is notable, it is a straightforward matter to submit an article on its behalf as was done for the others. Vapeur (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a comment to the Gin#Notable_brands section so that casual users don't try adding their favorite only to have it deleted without a clear explanation. It will only be seen by people who edit the section. Alanf777 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: the agreed policy for this list is that only brands with a Wiki entry should be added. If you wish to add a brand, create a wiki entry and then link to it in this list. (See talk User:Vapeur and User:Alanf777 May 2013)

Good idea - well done. This aids in protecting the integrity of the article while encouraging others to write Wiki articles pertaining to brands of gin deemed notable by the community. Vapeur (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks some further trimming of this section is now overdue. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Gin varieties edit

While using the legal definitions of various governing bodies is a way of specifying different varieties of gin I'm not sure that is good idea. For one thing, difference countries have different category or category names for the gins. Moreover, even the current category grouping of the article done by User:Vapeur does not really fit well with the US and EU legal definitions of grouping. Just imagine if we add the groupings of other nations as well.

I propose that the gins varieties be listed andclassified by its method of production for simplicity. The legal definitions/categorizations can go in a subsection. Jeanpetr (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal regulations are what defines permitted methods of production, and therefore represent the ultimate boundaries within the various categories. Within these boundaries, the list of potential ingredients, production nuances and variations are limitless, and can (and do) vary substantially amongst various brands, large and small.

The most comprehensive set of legal definitions is that recognized by the EU, which easily governs the majority of gin production (and producers) worldwide. I felt it a bonus to reference the U.S. definitions for this English article, but this isn't a necessity. Virtually every country that defines gin adopts the EU definitions or subset thereof. Vapeur (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal definitions are created based on the method of production of a product named "gin, and not vice-versa. The term is legally defined because of the protection it affords to the gin makers from other manufactures who would adulterate their products or pass another product off as gin even though it may not adhere to the standards or protect the names for regional appellations. The categories I created were from a professional beverages handbooks and is not something I created. Furthermore, you also removed much of the information of the production. This has to be added back.

Finally, even if it is the case than your idea of ordering is better right now it does not even adhere to your own standards: (1) the US and EU definitions are not well integrated with each other and you should explain how you came up with each category, (2) From my reading of the articles, the categories are poorly defined. What you categorized as "Juniper-Flavored Spirit Drinks" can just as well be "distilled gin" by the EU definition. As well, where does "Old Tom gin" fit under this designation? (3)Can you support your claim that the EU standards are accepted in whole or in part outside of the EU?

Perhaps you can help clarify some of these matters. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal categories presented in the article are not of my creation, nor do they represent ‘my idea’. Both titles and descriptions, are taken directly from the published EU codex. The EU laws are the most relevant and extensive, ostensibly because the EU represents the birthplace of gin, and encompasses the vast majority of gin production. Such laws are/were crafted and tailored by the industry, for the benefit of the industry and consumers alike. This is true of any legally defined category that pertains to spirits, wine, etc. Everything legally produced and sold as “gin” fits within one of these major categories. As such, they provide the key to understanding as to how gin is defined and differentiated by the industry itself.

A ‘professional beverages handbook’ is basically a cookbook, subject to the opinions of the author. It provides examples of how something can be done, but not necessarily how it is done, and certainly not how it is done throughout the industry. Specific details sourced from said book were presented out of context, such as to suggest they were adhered to rigorously by every gin distiller. This is both false and misleading.

The categories recognized by the EU are not poorly defined. On the contrary, they are defined such as to allow for ample creativity within a given category, so long as the integrity of the spirit (and consumer expectations thereof) is preserved.

“Juniper Spirit Drinks” differs substantially from “Distilled Gin”, which is why it was created and written as a separate legal category. If the differences remain unclear to you, I am willing to explain/discuss them.

Old Tom is simply a nickname that refers to a cultural style of gin, and is not presently legally defined. This means any gin can legally be labeled and sold as “Old Tom Gin”. This is noted as such in the article.

Certain terms that are legally defined, like Plymouth, refer only to place of origin (see text), and are not mandated to follow any particular style or herb bill (contrary to your prior edit). This is also noted as such in the article.

Lesser gin producing countries (like the USA) have not updated their definitions to the extent of the EU, simply because there has not (yet) been a need to do so. For example, no one (to my knowledge) has attempted to sell a product of Massachusetts as genever. Nevertheless, the broad US definitions encompass the EU definitions, although certain products sold in the US under undefined designations (e.g. Bols Genever) are required to carry additional information on the label to further explain the product. Vapeur (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What you state is rather interesting, if a ‘professional beverages handbook’ to you is basically a cookbook, then I assume that you are a proper authority on the matter and will be able to properly cite to justify your categorization of the gin types. Direct interepretation of legal definitions are not really satisfactory for me in defining categories and I prefer someone who is in the industry, a professional who has written on the subject, to do the job. I am indeed not an expert in any of this and my edits were solely take from the the handbook and information from the Plymouth Gin and Jenever pages. I look forward to educate myself further from your references. Jeanpetr (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Destabilizing Edits

Jeanpetr: "I am indeed not an expert in any of this and my edits were solely take from the the handbook and information from the Plymouth Gin and Jenever pages."

In consideration of this admission, I find it curious as to your insistence on adding a new section to what was a stable article when the subject matter is apparently not clearly understood, and also redundant with respect to what is provided both in the Legal Definition and History sections. Additionally, the information you removed from the legal definitions was pertinent to that section. Shall we discuss the content of your prior edit, with specific attention to the content ambiguities and redundancies? Vapeur (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• You call them "destablizing edits" simply because it does not fit your vision of this article. You have effectivly taken over the article, imposing your editorial views on everything. I can equally say you edits are rather obstinate. Note, since I am not an expert I rely on AUTHORATATIVE sources. As such, I only write and transcribe information which I have read from these sources which include the "Handbook of Alcoholic Beverages" (Not a cookbook, incidently) and the legal sources listed in EU and US legal info sites. In our previous discussion, you did not agree that the manufacturing process should be used to define gin variety, insisting that the legal definition is the ONLY way. This is why I have refined it into Manufacturing and Legal definition. Yet, for some reason, you insist that this is confusing and redundant.
  1. Do you not understand that the two are different things?
  2. Do you not see that the History and Legal definition sections do not make a "Manufacturing/production" section?
  3. Do you not understand that compond gin "...is not as highly regarded" is not a legal matter?
  4. Can you not read that no where in the EU legal definition states that "Geneva gin or Holland gin are the most prominent gins of this class"? Jeanpetr (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a professional in this industry, and like the many others who have contributed to the article, I welcome constructive contributions that do not interfere with the content of what is a stable, logically arranged, informative article. To answer your questions...

- Every brand of spirit drink that is sold as "gin", and its method of production, fits into one of the legal categories in the jurisdictions described.

- The article is encyclopedic, and as a matter of practicality, does not serve as a comprehensive treatise on the production of gin and its many variances. Nevertheless, I would support a basic production section on the basis that it is simple, accurate, does not rob information from either the Legal Definition or History sections, nor does it repeat information (i.e. redundancy) already provided within and pertinent to those sections.

- Compound gin is not as highly regarded either by the industry or the consumer, which is why it appears on the shelf at a lower price, just as does cheaper wine, etc., and so forth. It's a matter of market and consumer perception, and no legalities are involved.

- Genever (Holland gin), both oude and jonge, is indeed the most prominent occupant of the Juniper Flavored Spirit Drinks category. This stark observation is prima facie based upon the obvious reality that it is virtually the only occupant of that category.

Now, shall we discuss the content of what you proposed, or ...?Vapeur (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you are a professional in this industry. As you say, we are trying to make this article encyclopedic. In this regard, cited information is key in determining what information we put into the article and how it's organized. In short, it should not be based solely on verbal assurances of expertise. In my proposal, I believe that the article can benefit from a manufacturing/production section, which I have already written. To reduce the said "redundancy", I propose that that any such information be moved from the legal and history sections into manufacturing. To address your 4 points:
  1. True, every brand fits into a legal catagory as it should. Just as each gin also fits into a manufacturing category, hence the need for the latter
  2. It was never supposed to serve as as THE treatise on the subject, nevertheless it should try to be comprehensive. Yes, we should reduce redundancy, but overlap is unavoidable especially when one is classifying varieties of something.
  3. Compound is is not highly regarded, true. Still this info is not part of the legal definition (EU or US), is a matter of general opinion, and thus should be place somewhere else.
  4. Once again, it's true. But to me, this is not strictly part of the legal definition.

Jeanpetr (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree upon citing credible information, which is needed one way or another. In this case however, I urge the consideration of additional sources, as certain information presented seems contradictory to what is prevalent in the industry, and this can be verified/cited from multiple alternate sources, including in many cases, the producers themselves via their websites, etc. For example, with column distilled gins, the multiplate column (coffey still) is used for the production of the base spirit, but many (actually, most) gin producers find it more economical and less troublesome to purchase base spirits from the large distillation houses rather than ferment and distill their own. Effectively, many (if not most) gin producers are strictly redistillers.

Base spirits of agricultural origin (as per EU definition) are often sourced from not only grain, but wine, sugar beets, cane, potatoes, or just about any agricultural produce, and must be 96% ABV (by EU standards). That being said, most distilled gins are finished via a single pass in a pot still with a 'gin head' and/or gin basket to suspend the botanicals, using a third party base spirit. Third party and producer websites will further confirm and describe these things, although many gin distillers don't find something like 'sugar beet spirit' as particularly attractive in their advertising. And in the case of some distilled (but not London) gins, additional plants and/or natural flavourings are added after the redistillation is completed.

On another note, Plymouth is a geographical designation that includes only a single brand (Plymouth). As far as my recollection goes, it is possible to make a compound gin and refer to it as Plymouth gin so long as it is produced in Plymouth. That being said, we can't say that a Plymouth gin fits by default into the distilled or London category, despite the fact that the lone product in that category happens to be at least a 'distilled' gin.

Azeotrope is the correct term that refers to the constant boiling point whereby alcohol and water can no longer be separated via distillation (~96% ABV).

I see no issue with relocating certain production specifics from the History section, so long as those specifics are included in the production section. That section would be better entitled something like "Production Methodology" or similar, as "manufacturing" is more associated with mass production of durable goods.Vapeur (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• In this case, I proposed that we put back the "Manufacturing" section and modify it in the manner as follows:
  1. Rename it to "Production methodology" or "Production"
  2. Maintain the Pot distillation, Column distillation, and Compound classification with much furthered elaboration on cited information and terminology used by the industry.
  3. Add info that base spirits are often purchased for redistilling and that they can be sourced from any agricultural product. The listing of spirit source is mandatory by US law (Title 27 Sec 5.39 Presence of neutral spirits and coloring, flavoring, and blending materials.) State also that flavouring can be added after the distillation/redistillation
  4. State that Plymouth is a designation, then (1) choose to take it out of the column classification or (2) elaborate that it can also be made as a compound gin.
  5. Correct "eutectic" with "azeotrope" or remove the sentence altogether.
  6. Relocate relavent information from History into the newly named "Production methodology" section Jeanpetr (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's your idea, so write and arrange the draft as you wish, and I will aid in fine tuning language, content, clarity, style, etc.Vapeur (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to new section completed.

I omitted the blurb about the widespread practice of purchasing neutral spirits from a third party. After looking at this again, it just doesn't make a coherent fit, and seems less relevant with respect to the scope of information presented than I originally imagined.

I omitted the blurb about Plymouth gin. It doesn't fit in the context of information, and doesn't really say anything (except possibly add confusion). Vapeur (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing help. It looks great! Jeanpetr (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it all fits into a logical order and reads intelligently now - definitely improved the article. Thanks for assisting with what turned out to be a solid contribution! Vapeur (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusion between ABV and proof

I may be confused but it seems like there is a mix up between ABV and proof, or someone has just made a mistake. In the Varieties section there are ABVs of 100% which I have been told is not possible, and 68% ABV (136 proof) is called a low level of alcohol. I believe all of the ABVs should be between 30% and 50% (60 - 100 proof) but I don't know which ones are right and which are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilkscom56 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added some clarifications, but this should help your understanding:

• The "100%" you identified actually refers to 100% ABV equivalent, which is not the same thing as saying 100% ABV. For example, 100 litres of 50% ABV spirit would be 50 litres 100% ABV equivalent. This is just saying there are 50 litres equivalent of 100% alcohol contained therein, regardless of the final volume. Such ratios are used to defined alcohol impurity limits and calculate taxes, both of which are applied strictly to the volume of pure alcohol equivalent in a finished product, not water or anything else used to dilute it.

• As for 68% ABV being a relatively low level of alcohol, it is when considering the strength of spirit exiting the still, which should not be confused with bottled strength. For example, spirit from grain, cane, beet, potato, etc., distilled in a column still often exits at 95-96% ABV. The finished bottled product (vodka, rum, whiskey, etc.) however is oftentimes only 40% ABV. The balance of course, is virtually all water. Vapeur (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources: History section

There seems to be a lot of quite dubious sourcing happening in the history section - brand pages and obscure sites. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213205501/http://bluecoatgin.com:80/history_orgins.html to http://www.bluecoatgin.com/history_orgins.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120719080643/http://greenhookgin.com:80/plum.html to http://greenhookgin.com/plum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zephyr Ji.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gin brands and distilleries

There's a list in this article. As usual, a bit of a cruft magnet.

If we do this, there should be a list article for List of gins, List of gin brands, List of gin distilleries etc. It's a vast list (I have a dozen gins just in my own pantry), it doesn't belong here. The list in this article should be only as broad as London / Plymouth / Old Tom / sloe (and others?).

Also there are a ridiculous number of gin brands out there today - even on The Archers. We should remember that few of them are even distilling - most of the hipsters are buying in a base spirit and flavouring it, or sub-contracting manufacture altogether.

Given the popularity of gin at present (is that a global thing?), this article could use work and expansion. But it doesn't need yet another crappy wikilist of "my local favourite". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The list in the article isn't a repository of every available brand of gin, but provides the reader with a convenient listing of Wiki articles associated with specific brands. This objective qualifier keeps the list relevant, and free of advertising and spam. Clearly, there are more brands that are notable enough to warrant their own Wiki articles. As further articles are published, they may be added to the list.Vapeur (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vapeur, why do you keep re-adding an incorrect link, piping Hayman's Old Tom (a very minor brand) to Old Tom Gin - a notable type of gin, with several centuries of history? Hayman's is not the only Old Tom in production, it is misleading to present it in this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add it, but you are correct in pointing out that it should not be in this list. Fixed.Vapeur (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic posts

Quick, everyone round to Andy's. I'll bring the lemons and olives. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lazlo's Bar - I do sometimes run a curated gin and cocktail bar. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Trust you serve pickled eggs. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not with gin! We do have Kraken Scratchings though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mmmm, a scratchy leg each? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) ...make mine a Mar-ti-ni-123

I'm with Martin. Party at Andy's house! I'll bring a selection of bourbons and ryes for variety, and so we can have a martini vs Manhattan drink-off. oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Een constelijck distileerboec

According to this site on the A History of Gin (and during the 1300S was used as a plague remedy), the first recipe on Gin appeared in this book or this from 1557 or 1552, maybe someone who understands the language, shine some more light on this? prokaryotes (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not that well up on my 1557 Philippus Hermanni Gothic script publications. Presumably that's Dutch? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Production

This section could use some fairly serious editing. There should be more clarity about the two phases of distillation and licenses for gin production (in the UK at least).

i.e. distilling: fermenting and distilling a neutral spirit of agricultural origin to 96% ABV or above (very few gin distilleries actually do this in house, the equipment to efficiently produce high quality neutral spirit is more akin to an industrial plant and not particularly compatible with batch processing. Additionally once at this purity there is very little character present in the neutral spirit, basically just ethanol, and as such there is almost no economic reason to produce it in house unless there is a waste valorisation opportunity (e.g. Black cow vodka). Where this is done in house it is usually part of a business plan where a distillery has long term aims to produce whisky and in the short term further rectifies to produce neutral spirit to make gin for revenue while they wait for their whisky to age.

Rectifying: This covers all aspects of distillation that does no include fermentation. e.g. the vast majority of gin distillers are rectifiers who purchase neutral spirit infuse it with botanics and redistil it, this is not the 'hipster' short-cut this is legitimately the key part of gin manufacture (when flavour and character is imparted) and how the vast majority is and always has been produced in modern history.

Which also brings me onto the last point, pot distillation is simply the most common and efficient method to transfer flavour from wash to distillate. So, almost all gin is 'pot distilled' at the point of redistillation to transfer flavour to the spirit, although some engage further rectification in the form of columns, plates, trays etc. to further modify character at the later stages. The neutral spirit used to infuse the botanics will have been column distilled in one form or another for all gins, the only related exclusion to this are juniper flavoured spirit drinks like genever where traditional multiple pot distillations are used. Vapour distillation doesn't really necessitate it's own section, it can be added on to either pot or pot/column systems in the form of a gin basket and is not a different form of distillation, but a rather a pretty inefficient way of flavouring/compounding i.e. hot vapour compounding. Vacuum and pressure modulated distillation should probably be mentioned and potentially steam distillation for production of gin essences. Happy to have a go at this at some point, but it's a big edit, so might be good to get some discussion going. Cheers! ThomasMartin-Wells (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All your suggestions here seem perfectly valid. A major edit is welcomed, provided you can support with sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks Martin. I don't know when I'll get a chance to work on this, particularly citing relevant references. Is it possible/correct practice to write a draft version in here that more contributors could work on? I'd be happy to kick it off. P.s. Herb bill is a distiller's term for a list of the botanicals and proportions used to produce a particular gin recipe, like a mash bill for a whisky, but honestly it's probably not a very well-known term, so I think your edit is spot on. Nice catch. Thanks! ThomasMartin-Wells (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware, thanks. Draft versions can be created at you Sandbox. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

misleading statement under pot still gins

The fermentation of grain mash produces a neutral alcohol (similar to vodka) that is predominately tasteless except for the iconic ethyl alcohol taste.Bold text

fermentation in pot stills does not produce neutral alcohol yes! alcohol with a high dree of purity and relatively more cogeners but neutral alcohol NO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfection161 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Types?

I've found different classification in couple of places than what is presented in the article; four types: London Dry (Beefeater, Tanqueray, Bombay Sapphire, Gordon's, Mombasa Club...), Plymouth (style but also only one product), Old Tom i Genever (or Jenever) [2]. But that raises the question where distilled gin (Sloane's), japanese (dry) gin, Aviation American Gin, Hendrick's Gin, Gin Mare and Scapegrace Black (Dry) Gin fit. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bon Appetit article invites one to confuse subjective styles with legal classifications, but only the latter are defined and objective, and are explained in the Wiki article. "Plymouth Gin" was formerly a legal geographic designation, but it still fits one of the aforementioned legal definitions. Stylistic categories of gin with no legal recognition (e.g. Old Tom Gin) are merely cultural descriptions with no legally defined boundaries, and are limited only by the imagination of the producer. As such, any gin can be labeled as "Old Tom Gin," regardless of color, flavor, or method of production. Where brands like Hendricks, Gin Mare, etc., fit legally lie with their method of production. Wherever they fall stylistically is subject to the claims of their respective producers, and ultimately, the interpretation of consumers. Many modern brands can perhaps best be described as non-traditional London or non-traditional distilled gins.Vapeur (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)