Gin as a category, and London gin in particular, bears little resemblance to what it was just a few years ago. For one thing, it is now a recognised EU spirit category with its own regulations. At the same time, a raft of new brands has lately entered the category, many attempting to make their mark with novel botanicals and distillation techniques.
Ever on the lookout for an excuse to dose up on juniper, we at Imbibe decided it was time we got a panel of bartenders together to assess the new-look London gins, and see how they rated against the old-guard.
While the definition that entered EU law in May last year regulates quality quite tightly, it specifies very little in terms of taste or style, meaning the newcomers have had a long leash in terms of flavour. This tasting brought an extensive selection of London gins to the London Cocktail Club, where they were presented blind to a panel of experts. Tasters described each gin, and also rated various characteristics in each spirit. A final, 19th contender was included – an illicitly distilled spirit marked Ottery’s Gin – which had been created from spirit distilled from a sugar wash fermentation, and made with the intention of refining a prototype before beginning production of a legal small-batch spirit.
In addition to this array of 19 glasses, a set of six botanical distillates including juniper, mixed fresh citrus and liquorice, created by Sacred Gin distiller Ian Hart, were available for tasters to use to calibrate their palates.
ON THE MAP
The average scores allowed each gin to be placed on a flavour map (bottom of page). The gins clustered near the centre of the map, but towards the sweeter, lighter spectrums, were mainly traditional brands. At the core of these were the gins most described by tasters as classic examples of London gin – Beefeater and Beefeater 24 primarily, along with Tanqueray, Bombay Sapphire, and newcomer-in-an-old-style, Oxley. Jensen’s Bermondsey Gin was also part of this group. Perhaps unsurprisingly, almost all of these passed muster with those judges who (quite rightly) insisted on a proper hit of juniper in their gin.
The gins slightly further afield from these were all new entrants: Sacred, SW4 and
No.3. These ventured out in both sweet and savoury directions. Further away, the truly controversial gins of the tasting were those described as too pungent or floral – those that drifted to the
south of the map.
In discussions after the tasting, it was gins such as these that raised questions about the creation of the London gin category in the first place. An interesting contender among these was Tanqueray No. Ten which, judging by comments and its placement on the map, is a gin that’s well-liked, but clearly isn’t a typical London gin. More experimental brands in terms of style were newcomers Geranium and Heather.
The difficulty, it seems, lies not so much with the gins themselves, but with categorising them all together. There are at least three, maybe four, distinct styles here, and panellists mused about the usefulness of the London gin distinction. Edwin Atkinson, director general of the Gin & Vodka Association, commented: ‘It has not caused significant change by producers, trade, or consumers. Rather it has sought to set the quality required for the longer term.’
It certainly does this, but does far less, if anything, to define the category stylistically. The definition is of value to distillers, but it means little to anyone working in the on-trade, let alone consumers. To communicate anything of any practical value, London gins need to be talked about in terms of botanicals and flavour. The way the London gin distinction is promoted will be significant for the future of the category. As panellists commented, even the word ‘London’ in the name is potentially confusing to consumers, given that it can be produced anywhere.
As those gins on the outskirts of the map remind us, ‘London Gin’ on a label implies little about flavour. There may be a classic flavour profile, but outside of this, it’s a broad church.
Many thanks to the London Cocktail Club for hosting the tasting and for all of their help on the day.
| The panel | ||
|
‘Tasting this many London gins blind confirmed that there’s a distinct classic style, and a fair amount of experimentation outside of that. That these all fit within one definition obviously has implications for how the category is seen, by both trade and consumers.’
‘A lot of gin cocktails contain lemon juice, so producers are maybe aiming towards the floral spectrum because of that. But I think if they wanted to define a style, they could have specified acceptable botanicals instead.’
‘I was expecting a lot more citrus, but there was a lot of floral character. But I don’t mind different styles. We have to look at gin less in categories, and more in terms of flavours. I don’t think the new definition has made things clearer – there’s a danger of confusing consumers with the word “London”.’
‘There were a lot of intriguing characters that combined aromas and tastes along more of a savoury route rather than light, fresh and citrus zesty styles. I like the idea being batted around at the moment for a “New World Style” which could allow for more singular expressions and enable better evolution of the category without it stagnating.’ |
‘While the newly-defined London dry moniker may tell you something about how a gin was made, based on this tasting at least, it tells you diddly-squat about how it will taste. I think it’s also extremely confusing for consumers. Perhaps highlighting key botanicals, in the same way that wines highlight varietals, might be more helpful. Just look at that amazing list of botanicals in this line-up!’
‘Overall, I prefer bigger juniper character. When I’m drinking gin I want to taste gin. With these, it’s about knowing the individual products. Having a style is confusing – there are few gins here that belong in the same category.’
‘There were some traditional London gins, and then some very modern, floral gins. They’re far away from London dry. I think some have gone far too far.’
‘The ones I liked the most were the style of gin that I’d want in my Martini. Those likely designed for that purpose, with high strength, spicy finishes and fresh whole citrus fruit notes had a sweeter flavour. You could argue that these gins probably shouldn’t be classed as London dry at all.’ |
|
CLINTON CAWOOD, IMBIBE
PHIL DUFFY, THE PLAYER
JULIAN DE FERAL,
LUTYENS
MARK JENNER, THE COBURG
BAR
ALICE LASCELLES,
IMBIBE
ANDREA MONTAGUE, CALLOOH
CALLAY
TIM OAKLEY, RISING STAR LEISURE
(THE ESTABLISHMENT)
LEE OTTERY, LONDON COCKTAIL
CLUB|
Capital gins These are all the gins that were tasted, listed in order of botanical intensity, as rated by the panel Prices are RRP for 70cl unless otherwise stated |
|
No.3, £30, Inspirit, 020 7739 1333 Williams Elegant Crisp Gin, £29.99, Mangrove, 020 8551 4966 Geranium, £29, Coe Vintners, 020 8551 4966 Tanqueray No. Ten, £29.99, Diageo Reserve Brands, 0845 751 5101 Hayman’s, £14.99, Love Drinks, 020 7501 9630 Whitley Neill, £17.49, Halewood International, 0151 480 8800 Tanqueray, £17.29, Diageo, 020 7927 5200 Beefeater 24, £21.65, Pernod Ricard, 020 8538 4501 Oxley, £50/litre, Bacardi-Martini, 01962 762100 Beefeater, £14.50, Pernod Ricard, 020 8538 4501 SW4, £16, Park Place Drinks, 01259 743848 Heather Gin, £24.99, Knockeen Hills, www.heather-gin.com Sipsmith, £23.99, Sipsmith, 020 8741 2034 Fifty Pounds, £34.99, Eaux-de-Vie, 020 7724 5009 Bombay Sapphire, £16.95, Bacardi-Martini, 01962 762100 Bulldog, £25, Venus, 020 8801 0011 Jensen’s Bermondsey Gin, £23.49, Speciality Brands, 020 8838 9367 Sacred, £25.95, www.sacredgin.com |
|
London gin defined London gin is made in a traditional still by re-distilling ethyl alcohol in the presence of all natural flavourings used |
Source: www.ginvodka.org |
Add your comment
Please sign in or register if you'd like to comment.