Defining Absinthe Options

[Zman (Marc Bernh...]

The only authentic absinthes currently available in the US are Lucid, Kübler and St. George.

I wouldn't go so far as to call St. George authentic absinthe, because it barely qualifies as an absinthe.

But as so many have said, there is no actual classification for absinthe. Although most of us agree that the holy trinity should exist, there are still several exceptions; this just being the latest.

It doesn't even have the original Holy Trinity. It's missing green anise and St. George opted for the cheap shot of using badiane. It is also claiming to be a verte, so by that reasoning it should have the additional trinity of melissa, Roman wormwood, and hyssop. Last time I checked it did not have any Roman wormwood. Again, I do not consider it a true absinthe

But, since it's categorized as an authentic absinthe in our review system, I don't see why we shouldn't call it so here.

So our review system needs some tweaking.

It's actually quite good.

But it's still not a true, traditional absinthe that hearkens back to the Belle Epoque

But do all absinthes really have to harken back to the Belle Epoque? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy traditional absinthes. But can you really penalize someone for trying to create a modern version?

I think St. George has done a very good job of keeping in line with what a traditional absinthe should look and taste like, but have also taken some artistic liberties in order to create something new and refreshing. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

If it were an off color, or tasted completely different than what absinthe should taste like, I'd think otherwise, but it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Maybe a new category should sort things out.
St. George = ducksinthe.

But can you really penalize someone for trying to create a modern version?

I think St. George has done a very good job of keeping in line with what a traditional absinthe should look and taste like, but have also taken some artistic liberties in order to create something new and refreshing.

I don't see anywhere that Zman is in favor of penalizing St. George for its efforts. I think his concern is to hold to a definition that has historical meaning. In other words, to avoid the first step on the proverbial slippery slope. I think this is the safe approach until a legal definition is in place. This is not a knock on any distiller or manufacturer, a lot of crap can still meet historical criteria, but should be more about insuring that the uninformed consumer is buying something within the perimeters of what is expected of a product that bears a particular name. St. George may be honorable in its intent of creating a modern absinthe, but how many further mutations can you allow and still maintain fidelity to the name? Once you allow a single step into the grey zone the field of allowed variation becomes virtually infinite. Maybe there should be a distinct class for "modern absinthes", but within some bounded structure. Next thing you know you'll be arguing that "vodka martini" is a perfectly acceptable bastardization name for a familiar cocktail.

Thanks Pan Buh. You have captured almost exactly what I'm trying to convey. With the Czech swill we have a good example of what can happen when you don't have a firm definition of what absinthe is, or should be. Granted, St. George is leaps and bounds above the Czech stuff, but the slippery slope is a good analogy of what can happen. I know for a fact that there are at least 20 USA distilleries that are now playing with the idea of introducing a US made absinthe. I also know that most, if not all of them, really don't have a clue. St. George is an example of that. Keep in mind St. George had help developing their absinthe from a person knowledgeable in absinthe making. Even with all the resources St. George had at their command, they still chose to market something as absinthe that does not accurately fit the historical definition of absinthe.

Then your argument further enforces what I've been saying ; that we need to put together some hard and fast rules on what constititutes absinthe.

I say green anise and A.a., 45% ABV minimum, distilled (either alcohol or steam, separately is okay) must louche when cold water is added. Preferably fennel, too. If only because I think it would be funny to hear F. Guy's reaction to the idea of his absinthe not being considered absinthe in the US.

Star anise is okay, but used with green anise, not instead of. Don't know what a good proportion would be here. Half of anise has to be green maybe?

See, here's the issue. You say preferably fennel. But you'd be happy classifying it with only two of the three that make up the holy trinity? If you're comfortable making that drastic of a change, then it would be rather easy to say made with 'anise' instead of made with 'GREEN anise'.

Just being the devil's advocate here.

No, I'm throwing a bone to those who say that there's no historical evidence that fennel has to be in it. I'm not listing what I think is necessary but what I think is most likely to be agreed upon by all.

If it were entirely up to me fennel would be required.

Are we looking at just a barebones definition or actually having grades of quality here? Because I'd like to see some absinthe aged before bottling.

I think baby steps would be best at first. It would be easier I think to submit a less defined idea of absinthe first and have it approved, then move to further classify by grades. some producers just may not be able to keep their inventory long enough to age it for very long. At least at first.

Also, as an FYIand to further discussion on 'anise' vs. 'green anise', Oxy has put forth the following as a classification:

“Absinthe”:
1. Should be at least 45% alcohol, or 90 degrees proof.
2. Should contain grande wormwood AND anise.
3. The predominant flavour should be anise, with an underlying wormwood bitterness.
4. Should also contain at least most of the following herbs: fennel, hyssop, melissa, petite absinthe, peppermint.
5. Should be natural-looking,in colour.
6. Should louche – ie turn a milky colour – on the addition of water.

Some of those are a little hard to enforce consistently. Who decides what is "natural" looking and what's their criteria? I once worked at a place that required that anyone who dyed their hair did so to a "natural" colour. Of course there was tons of argument over that. And what about most of the listed herbs? Is there going to be a 3/5 or 4/5 requirement?

Also, regarding star anise and green anise, they're not even related to each other. That's where I think it gets a little absurd to list them as interchangeable as opposed to possibly complimentary. They have a similar flavour but not the same. If licorice root was called anise root in layman terms would that be fair game too?

My point isn't to defend the use of one anise or another, but that there is such disparity in the community regarding what IS and what ISN'T absinthe.

If those who are most knowledgable on absinthe can't come to an agreement, then how can we expect to submit anything to the TTB?

3. The predominant flavour should be anise...
4. ...peppermint.

I don't know if anise would be considered the predominant flavor of Belle Amie, Doubs Mystique, or Roquette 1797, just to cite three.

And peppermint wouldn't have been one of the basic herbs on my list, I might have even thought of calamus first.

But, as you said, just playing devil's advocate here.

Absinthe :

A liquor made with a minimum of Green Anis, Grand Wormwood and Fennel (Preferably Fennel of Florence).

May contain at most 20% by weight of the green Anis as Star Anise.

Sold at a minimum proof of 90 Degrees or 45% alcohol.

If colored, should contain at a minimum Petit wormwood, Hysops and Lemon Balm for coloration.

The predominant flavors should be anis/fenel and wormwood.

Should Louche (turn opaque) when cold water is added.

May contain other herbs to give additional subtle flavors in addition to the predominant ansi/fenel and wormwood flavors.

Just a thought: I propose we split this out of the original thread.

DP probably isn't the only person who wasn't paying attention to the thread, strictly due to the ambiguous title.

[peridot]

My point isn't to defend the use of one anise or another, but that there is such disparity in the community regarding what IS and what ISN'T absinthe.

If those who are most knowledgable on absinthe can't come to an agreement, then how can we expect to submit anything to the TTB?

Then let's do what we're doing now. Discuss it and see if we can come to an agreement.

[speedle]

I thought Shabba's mention of Oxy's criteria was a good start, but I really liked what LG put down, even though it seemed too narrow at first blush.

[Le Gimp]

My definition points out the problem with defining Absinthe. I view Absinthe with a bit of a slant to the styles of absinthe defined in historical texts such as De Brevans.

From a historical perspective I believe I have defined Absinthe Superior or Suisse.

Absinthe Fine and Ordinare would probably not have Flo Fennel, but rather plain Fennel, however since in gave the option it would also fit the description if they used coloration with the mentioned herbs.

Absinthe from Essences is also a subclass and would probably not be colored by the traditional method but would most likely use commercial colorants. So it is left out of my definition.

However, I did not address whether the absinthe was macerated/distilled or made from essences so it is a hazy definition.

If the definition is ammended to include 'natural looking colorants' (ok, what is natural?) the definition could include Absinthe from Essences.

[dakini_painter]

I'm sorry I haven't been paying attention to this thread.

... no historical evidence that fennel has to be in <absinthe>

afaik, this comes up because there's one recette in Duplais for an absinthe ordinaire that doesn't call for fennel. That's the only historical evidence.

It would be easier I think to submit a less defined idea of absinthe first and have it approved, then move to further classify by grades.

The TTB is not going to listen to any of us as individuals.

3. The predominant flavour should be anise, with an underlying wormwood bitterness.
4. Should also contain at least most of the following herbs: fennel, hyssop, melissa, petite absinthe, peppermint.

The first statement is utter crap and will guarantee the utter miserable failure of absinthe in America. Remember how amazingly popular anise flavored drinks are in America.

There's far more evidence that peppermint should not be a required herb.

Also, regarding star anise and green anise, they're not even related to each other. <snip>
If licorice root was called anise root in layman terms would that be fair game too?

While badiane and anise are unrelated, the essential oils both are predominantly anethole. Most licorice candies made today are made with anise. Some fennels (even florence fennel) contain the flavonoid limonene, the same chemical that gives lemons their flavor.

The biological world doesn't work in nice neat categories.

If colored, should contain at a minimum Petit wormwood, Hysops and Lemon Balm for coloration.

The predominant flavors should be anis/fenel and wormwood.

So Maggie the Cat can't have any vertes because they contain hyssop? (She's allergic.)

And once again, I'd disagree with any definition that attempts to control the flavor profile.

What are you going to do when someone comes up with a "minty" or "peppery" wormwood? And why require something (Roman wormwood) that is practically impossible to obtain? Unless of course you're sitting on a very large stash of it and you're planning on making a lot of money from those 20 American distilleries.



Hopefully those American distilleries aren't planning to get some NGS, add anise, fennel, and wormwood oil and varying quantities of FD&C colors to make "green" and called it absinthe.

[Pan Buh]

Green anise, Florence fennel and grand wormwood.

Petite wormwood, hyssop and lemon balm.

45% alcohol or greater.

Must have an appreciable anise flavor and louche to some degree.

I'd also like an allowance for red absinthes.


Basically, if you walk into your local liquor store what do you want to be able to expect as a bare minimum from any absinthe you picked-up off the shelf? If this is a discussion primarily amongst consumers then I think that's the primary question you have to answer.

If this is really about taking it to the TTB than I guess we have to additionally take into consideration the opinions of who ever's footing the bill, don't we?

[Chris]

3. The predominant flavour should be anise, with an underlying wormwood bitterness.
4. Should also contain at least most of the following herbs: fennel, hyssop, melissa, petite absinthe, peppermint.

The first statement is utter crap and will guarantee the utter miserable failure of absinthe in America. Remember how amazingly popular anise flavored drinks are in America.

There's far more evidence that peppermint should not be a required herb.

What should the predominant flavor be then?
Whether popular or not absinthe is, and should be, an anise flavored drink.

[speedle]

I was going to respond to Dakini's response with a quoted post, but I messed about for a few minutes and it was clear the end product would only be a confusing mess. So, that said, I will attempt it this way.

First, it seems clear from the historical reference sources we have that distilled absinthe has fennel. And isn't that what we're touting as the real deal, distilled absinthe?

Second, the TTB will indeed listen to us as individuals, collectively, whatever. I'm certain of it, this is America after all. The day my government doesn't listen to me is the day I'll move to China. At least that's what I'm sayin' now.

Third, perhaps the overwhelmingly predominant flavor doesn't have to be anise, but it should be fairly significant, shouldn't it? Otherwise, what? Bubblegum? I don't care if absinthe fails in the US or not, I want ABSINTHE to be absinthe. If you want to make some other drink, that's fine, just don't call it absinthe.

Fourth, a looser definition of anise is surely a step in the right direction, even if the biology is a little messy. It's beyond me in any case.

Lastly, the coloring should be natural and done in a historically correct manner, with historically correct herbs, plus some bubble gum if you want I guess. I mean, really, the existing federal standards for spirits seem to be all over the place with regard to specificity, so why shouldn't we give it our best shot and see what happens.

[Brian Robinson]

The TTB is not going to listen to any of us as individuals.

DP, please see my previous post. I have a lawyer who specializes in work with the TTB, and he practically volunteered to do a lot of the legwork in submitting the definition and arguing for its approval. All we need to do is come up with an acceptable definition.

I don't really see any other way that's better than working with a TTB attorney.

Remember how amazingly popular anise flavored drinks are in America.

So, are we arguing to get absinthe legalized in the US just so we can screw with the ingredients so it doesn't taste like anise? Dosn't that defeat the whole purpose?

Sambuca may not be hugely popular in the US, but it still gets enough business to be carried in almost every liquor store in the country, as well as several brand variations and competitors.

[Joe Legate]

Trying to move posts:
What makes Absinthe, Absinthe?

[Absomphe]

Nice conglomeration, T!

[Joe Legate]

After screwing up the first post, I finally figured out how to work this thing...I think. Sorry about that first clusterfuck.


So the question is, can we make a clear definition of absinthe? What are the bare-bone basics that it must be in order to qualify as absinthe?

[dakini_painter]

Oops. I posted to the wrong thread. I didn't realize that it had been moved. Would the Mods be able to delete the wrong one please?


Just so folks know, dominant anise flavor does not correlate with louching. Yes anise has to be there to do it, but it doesn't have to be the dominant flavor.

Shabba, I know this was brought up about the lawyer and all before and getting a definition to the TTB. But anyone who looks at the existing definitions for the various spirits will see that these are really broad definitions. They describe the minimum qualifications. And none of these categories preclude poorly made products.

And perhaps you think future distillers shouldn't innovate or ever attempt anything not described in Duplais? Surely you can't be suggesting this?


The definition for aquavit basically says it's a caraway flavored drink. From my friend Mindshifter, I know that there are many many aquavits in Sweden that are not based on caraway, and in fact don't have any caraway in them at all. Yet they are all considered aquavits in Sweden. (I'm sure if I'm wrong on this our Sweden friends will correct me.)

So for everyone that thinks anise should be the dominant flavor of absinthe, does that mean that the Wormwood Blanche shouldn't be labeled absinthe?

Even if the St Georges used anise (Pimpinella anisum) and had access to A. pontica, none of these definitions would preclude them using just a little to meet some requirement.


Speedle, I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but the TTB listens to industry members and various lobbying groups. These groups sometimes spend years trying to get the TTB to do what they want. Diageo (largest spirits manufacturer in the world, $17 billion in revenues) has been pushing to be allowed a "Serving Facts" label on their spirits. This would be similar to the Nutritional labels for packaged foods, but since alcoholic beverages have no food value it really focuses on alcohol content, calories, carbohydrates, and fat. Supposedly some dieter will look on the bottle to see how much to drink so they don't blow their calorie count for the day. Have you commented to the TTB on this proposal? It was published in the Federal Register. It's been posted on the TTB web site for months on end. I even posted on WS about it, so people could comment. I wrote a detailed (17 page) critique of the proposal, and stated my opposition. I'm sure by the end of 2008 we'll see "Serving Facts" labels being introduced.


I know I want absinthe to succeed in America.


Absinthe is barely legal in the US and you folks want in name it, nail it down and fix it. I think that would be a real shame. Yes, there'll be some weak efforts, but maybe we'll get something special too.


I'm done.

[Joe Legate]

I appreciate your thoughts, Dakini. I prefer you continue to share them, please.

I think we're interested in finding a basic standard for absinthe to protect what it is, not to limit new ideas or recipes. Ultimately, I think we'd like to prohibit Czechsinth from coming to the US, advertising itself as absinth(e), too. All of this is a challenge and makes for a good exchange of ideas. How can we define absinthe to protect it without squelching innovation?

Oops. I posted to the wrong thread. I didn't realize that it had been moved. Would the Mods be able to delete the wrong one please?

Done. And at your service. (assuming I don't screw something else up! )

[Ari (Eric Litton...]

Absinthe needs to be nailed down. We have seen what happens when it isn't. You get products that have nothing to do with absinthe using the name. Whether their products are good or bad it makes it a pain for all when someone says "yeah I've had absinthe it tastes like minty-piss and I'll never drink it again."

If people want to experiment I would be quite happy, for example I would love a good distilled wormwood liquor, but I don't want them calling it "Absinthe."

[speedle]

Well DP, I'm glad you commented back, and I'll tell you what. If we here, at one of the nicest most civil, yet focused and knowledgeable places on the interwebs, can't "nail down" what absinthe is and isn't, I don't know who I'd want to do it. As Ari indicated, it's more of a preventative measure. We're not trying to squelch any innovation by producers I don't think, just protect what we love and admire.

Better we mix it up here first, then go out and take the message to the masses.

edit: Oh and by the way, I see that at least some historical sources reference both anise and star anise as being the usual ingredients in absinthe.

Eulogy

[Marlow]

I'm not an expert, but I'll offer a few layman's thoughts.

First, a legal definition of absinthe is very important. Just as bourbon, champagne, and scotch have certain criteria that define and protect them, so must absinthe. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, any god-awful swill could be sold as "absinth(e)," to the great detriment of the spirit's reputation.

Second, to be absithe, clearly it must be made with artemisia absinthium, no exceptions.

Third, it should contain the "holy trinity," but here I think some flexibility would be useful to allow innovation and, let's be realistic, mass production. Personally, I don't have any visceral objection to the use of star anise, or a lesser sort of fennel, for example. Perhaps a particular legal sub-category of absinthe (e.e. "Belle Epoch" absinthe) could also be established, with stricter requirements (green anise, Florence fennel, etc).

Beyond that, I would recommend against too many requirements, with one exception. Let every label list the herbs used. Makers need not reveal the exact proportions and recipes, but they must list all ingredients. In that way, all consumers can make informed decisions about which to buy and which to avoid.

[Absomphe]

I like that idea, Marlow, but I doubt it will ever take hold.

The best one could hope for would be for a distiller to voluntarily list all the herbs used in the creation of an absinthe, which not a single one does, as yet, that I'm aware of.

[Brian Robinson]

They describe the minimum qualifications. And none of these categories preclude poorly made products.

Exactly my point. We first need a general definition of absinthe, then we can work on quality definitions.

And perhaps you think future distillers shouldn't innovate or ever attempt anything not described in Duplais? Surely you can't be suggesting this?

I hope this wasn't directed at me. Especially considering I just defended St. George regarding being flexible enough to allow modernization of absinthe.

But do all absinthes really have to harken back to the Belle Epoque? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy traditional absinthes. But can you really penalize someone for trying to create a modern version?

I think St. George has done a very good job of keeping in line with what a traditional absinthe should look and taste like, but have also taken some artistic liberties in order to create something new and refreshing. Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

If it were an off color, or tasted completely different than what absinthe should taste like, I'd think otherwise, but it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[Zman (Marc Bernh...]

First, a legal definition of absinthe is very important. Just as bourbon, champagne, and scotch have certain criteria that define and protect them, so must absinthe. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, any god-awful swill could be sold as "absinth(e)," to the great detriment of the spirit's reputation.

Amen Brother, that is exactly what I've tried to get across.

Second, to be absithe, clearly it must be made with artemisia absinthium, no exceptions.

Can I get another "Amen?"

Third, it should contain the "holy trinity," but here I think some flexibility would be useful to allow innovation and, let's be realistic, mass production. Personally, I don't have any visceral objection to the use of star anise, or a lesser sort of fennel, for example. Perhaps a particular legal sub-category of absinthe (e.e. "Belle Epoch" absinthe) could also be established, with stricter requirements (green anise, Florence fennel, etc).

Pass the amunition, he's on a roll.

Beyond that, I would recommend against too many requirements, with one exception. Let every label list the herbs used. Makers need not reveal the exact proportions and recipes, but they must list all ingredients. In that way, all consumers can make informed decisions about which to buy and which to avoid.

I heartlily agree.
My goal for absinthe would be to have it when you order one in a bar, you're getting the same thing that was offered in the days of yore.

[Ari (Eric Litton...]

Also to the great detriment of pocketbooks and experimentation. Many shoppers (me included) don't do massive research on their booze but grab a bottle from the shelf that looks interesting to try out. I assume that good or bad that bottle of Rum will taste at least a bit like rum. I would be a lot less likely to do that if the rum I grabbed could possibly taste like tequila or asparagus liqueur.

[Gwydion Stone]

Holy crap, where did this come from? Looks like Zman is going a little (more) schizo!

Part of the problem is that some of us seem to think that the defining process is wide open and that we get to say how we want absinthe defined. We don't.

you'd be happy classifying it with only two of the three that make up the holy trinity?

The "holy trinity" is a modern concept. We might as well just call it the holy hexad.

Are we looking at just a barebones definition or actually having grades of quality here?

That's the problem: Class and Type have nothing to do with quality, they have to do with mere identity. We cannot take the criteria for what most of us would consider a true, properly made, premium absinthe and try to make that the minimum standard for all absinthe.

The historic record, limited to many newspaper articles, a few catalogs, agricultural reports and distillers manuals, shows us absinthes without fennel and absinthe with star anise. Not great absinthe mind you, but still given the name by those we cite as authorities. That alone is enough to shoot the holy trinity in the ass.

My definition points out the problem with defining Absinthe. ... From a historical perspective I believe I have defined Absinthe Superior or Suisse. Absinthe Fine and Ordinare would probably not have Flo Fennel, but rather plain Fennel...

... Absinthe from Essences is also a subclass and would probably not be colored by the traditional method but would most likely use commercial colorants. So it is left out of my definition.

I completely agree. If we're going to cite these 19th popular cookbooks as authorities, we have to accept:

Absinthe with no fennel and/or with common fennel.
Absinthe from essences.
Artificially colored absinthe.

There are only two ingredients which appear to be universal to 19th century absinthe: absinthium and anise of some kind. That's what the TTB will look for, a bare mimimum. The rest is left to the ingenium of the distiller.

3. The predominant flavour should be anise, with an underlying wormwood bitterness.
4. Should also contain at least most of the following herbs: fennel, hyssop, melissa, petite absinthe, peppermint.

The first statement is utter crap and will guarantee the utter miserable failure of absinthe in America. Remember how amazingly popular anise flavored drinks are in America.

There's far more evidence that peppermint should not be a required herb.

I agree about the peppermint but not the anise, DP. As someone pointed out above, ouzo, sambuca, and Pernod Anis can be found in practically every liquor store in the country. If I could get one case of Marteau in every liquor store, I'd retire on the spot and take my utter miserable failure with me.

First, a legal definition of absinthe is very important. Just as bourbon, champagne, and scotch have certain criteria that define and protect them, so must absinthe. Otherwise, as has been pointed out, any god-awful swill could be sold as "absinth(e)," to the great detriment of the spirit's reputation... Personally, I don't have any visceral objection to the use of star anise, or a lesser sort of fennel, for example.

That's not likely to happen, they don't get that specific. I'd suggest everyone have a look at the standards of identity for other spirits in order to gain a realistic idea of how far the gov will go in defining a spirit.  chapter4.pdf ( 120.9K ) Number of downloads: 18

Beyond that, I would recommend against too many requirements, with one exception. Let every label list the herbs used. Makers need not reveal the exact proportions and recipes, but they must list all ingredients.

I'm against that.

I like that idea, Marlow, but I doubt it will ever take hold.

The best one could hope for would be for a distiller to voluntarily list all the herbs used in the creation of an absinthe, which not a single one does, as yet, that I'm aware of.

St. George does it. In fact they were required to add mint to the second printing of their label because they left it off the first printing. It's my understanding that if you mention any ingredients on the front, you have to list them all. Go figure.

On star anise: get used to it. Pernod-Ricard will be bringing their star-anise-only, no fennel-havin', oil-mix absinthe in soon and if you think you can argue against them with the TTB, well... you can't.

It's not about us getting absinthe defined the way we want it to be, it's about getting absinthe defined the way it really was, crap and all (sans heavy metals, of course).

If every absinthe on the market had to follow some version of one of the Duplais or De Brevans recipes, absinthe would get pretty damned boring pretty damned quickly.

[speedle]

I couldn't agree more. Except for the part about the fennel. But it's a blast to read those class and type definitions!

[biznacho]

That's not likely to happen, they don't get that specific. I'd suggest everyone have a look at the standards of identity for other spirits in order to gain a realistic idea of how far the gov will go in defining a spirit.  chapter4.pdf ( 120.9K ) Number of downloads: 18

Thank you, I was poking around trying to find those. Quite an interesting and informative read.

[peridot]

There are only two ingredients which appear to be universal to 19th century absinthe: absinthium and anise of some kind. That's what the TTB will look for, a bare mimimum. The rest is left to the ingenium of the distiller.

With other liquors, even the most utterly foul or the most creative, I can taste it and be able to tell you what it is. If the criteria is so broad that it's possible to make something that doesn't taste like absinthe by only barely meeting the criteria, then there's no point in having a definition, except to be able to put "ABSINTHE" in huge letters on your bottle. Which everyone not making absinthe will be all too enthusiastic to do as long as they put a little bit of anise and wormwood in it.

By the way, I don't see even the most detailed criteria that has been listed by anyone here so far as being all that restrictive on creativity. There's still a million ways to be creative within those boundaries. When you get creative enough that you're making something that doesn't taste remotely like absinthe or even anything else that already exists then give it its own name.

Maybe I'm just cranky because of having to work on my day off.

[Marlow]

First, a legal definition of absinthe is very important. Just as bourbon, champagne, and scotch have certain criteria that define and protect them, so must absinthe.

That's not likely to happen, they don't get that specific. I'd suggest everyone have a look at the standards of identity for other spirits in order to gain a realistic idea of how far the gov will go in defining a spirit.

Hiram, I believe your attachment essentially supports the point I was making. Consider the criteria for bourbon:

1. whiskey made in the US;
2. less than 125 proof;
3. mash components include >50 percent corn;
4. aged in charred white oak barrels

To be sure, there's plenty of room for variation here, and not all bourbons taste alike, but that said, you cannot make bourbon in Scotland and you cannot make bourbon without corn and white oak.

I think a similar level of specificity could be used to define absinthe. Just for the purpose of the exercise, let's try:

1. A distilled spirit between 110 and 150 proof at bottling;
2. Flavored with infusions of Artemisia absinthium and Pimpinella anisum/Illicium verum;

I think that gets us started. A distilled "spirit" would (I think) preclude the addition of sugar (which would make it a "liqueur"), and the final alcohol levels could be set at historic limits (high and low). And we still have at least two criteria which could be used to tighten our hypothetical legal definition, perhaps specifying minimum quantities/proportions of the required herbs or requiring a certain technique in the distillation process.

Whether the authorities can be persuaded or not is another matter, regarding which I have little insight.

As for listing ingredients, what is the objection? I believe that any determined person with the right knowledge and equipment can determine what, chemically, any liquid contains. Thus, it seems to me that listing herbal ingredients wouldn't give away the store, but maybe there are other issues of which I'm not aware?

As a general rule, I believe in letting consumers know what they are consuming. I know that if there were a distiller using, say, rat droppings to give his absinthe a unique flavor, I'd want to see that on the label before I made the purchase.

[biznacho]

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe a rework of the gin definition would be appropriate?

[Gwydion Stone]

Hiram, I believe your attachment essentially supports the point I was making.

I think I misplaced my remark in all the mess, I agree with you. However I do think that every ingredient you add to the mix reduces the chance the TTB will accept it.

Peridot has the right idea: bourbon tastes like corn, rye tastes like rye, gin tastes like juniper, aquavit (in the US) tastes like caraway, absinthe tastes like anise and wormwood. I really do think that's as close as you'll get to nail it down.

As for listing ingredients, tell it to Coca-Cola. Seriously, I think that should be the maker's prerogative, and that it shouldn't be a requirement, but that's a whole different topic.

Added:

Maybe a rework of the gin definition would be appropriate?

I posted this in the private Board Room over a year ago:

First Step Toward Legalization: Designating Type and Class

Seriously. I think that should be the prime objective...

<snip>

Basic Mandatory Labeling Information for DISTILLED SPIRITS
Volume 2
CHAPTER 4
CLASS AND TYPE DESIGNATION
[attachment=2213:attachment]

I think the best Class to work from is probably Gin (page 5), since it already has a distinction for "distilled gin" and "compounded gin." It clearly defines gin as a juniper drink. We can do the same with anise and absinthium.

That's where I started with the definition in my sig line.

[jonathan_carfax]

There is another perspective to this, and I'm sure the lawyer working gratis would have this in mind as a consideration.

Any rules or laws you set up around what defines absinthe has the potential to instigate challenge from countries exporting to the US under the WTO on the grounds of technical barrier to trade. I would bet penny to the pound that the Czech producers would not hesitate in pushing their authorities to make such a challenge.

Bourbans, champagnes, cheeses etc... yes international trading rules have come into play, but this more often than not centres around the country/region of origin of that product/style claiming an intellectual cultural right. Having the US set up firm rules on what constitutes an absinthe that differs to major trading partners such as the EU, even when there is an absence of definition - I don't believe for a minute would fly.

In the alcohol business, especially wine, there is a tremendous amount of "horse trading" that goes on in the background under Free-Trade Agreements and other such instruments. When restrictions go up there is often some quid pro quo as a trade off.

An example - as part of negotiation for further opening up market access, very soon Australia will not be able to describe any fortified wine going to the EU or sold domestically (and that is the important part) as a "Port" or a "Sherry", these will be protected terms.


I think the position I am coming to on this is for a drink of European origin, until European legislators decided to set up specific definitions around what constitutes an absinthe - and that this was thrashed out between the countries in the EU manufacturing absinth(e) - for the TTB to go ahead and set definitions would be courting more trouble than they probably care for.

This post has been edited by jonathan_carfax: Jan 4 2008, 11:55 PM

[Trid]

I think the best Class to work from is probably Gin (page 5), since it already has a distinction for "distilled gin" and "compounded gin." It clearly defines gin as a juniper drink. We can do the same with anise and absinthium.

Would it not make more sense to have it fall under whatever umbrella category covers pastis or perhaps Chartreuse?

I'm in favor of making it not much more restrictive than the requirement of a. absinthium. Give people the option of making swill or liquid heaven. I honestly believe that, while it opens the doors to opportunists who want to make a quick buck, it allows for creativity and merits of which to stand out. Let's face it, somebody had to figure it out 200 years ago, and while they 'done good' who's to say it can't be done better by some inspired deviation? Perhaps, like the distilled/compounded gin, there could be something more akin to "traditional" (or as mentioned previously, "bell epoque") and "modern" or somesuch.

For just about every criterium we cite, there's a historically relevant exception...save a. absinthium. Proofs range, herbs range, color ranges, proportions vary, louches run the gambit, etc.

It's like a handful of mud...the tighter you grip, the quicker it escapes.