Talk:Applejack (drink)

--

Untitled

Reads a bit like an ad for Laird's.24.12.29.236 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above and have tagged the article as potentially promotional/spam. I would suggest either removing all references to Laird's, or add significant historical information about other distilleries. Rritterson (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Methanol and fusel alcohols

As pointed out in a footnote in the article Distilled beverage, the methanol and fusel alcohols are not concentrated any more than the ethanol. If you take 3/4 of a litre and distill it to 1/4 of a litre, you still have the same amounts of methanol and fusel alcohols as you had at the beginning. So it's no more dangerous to drink the quarter litre of distilled beverage than the 3/4 litre of undistilled beverage. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is that whereas true distillation would remove the methanol and fusel alcohols, freeze distillation (as in applejack) will concentrate those harmful chemicals just as the ethanol is concentrated, making this type of distillation more dangerous. The undistilled liquid is toxic as well, of course, but freeze-distilled liquid will contain harmful amounts of methanol while conventionally distilled liquid will not. 205.132.119.9 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Freeze distillation will concentrate both methanol and ethanol at the same rates, but where evaporative distillation allows distillers to preferentially remove the methanol at a high rate while retaining the ethanol, freeze distillation does not allow this measure, resulting in significantly higher methanol concentrations compared to properly done evaporative distillation. Note that even traditional (evaporative) stills can be badly operated, skipping the methanol removal steps and resulting in methanol-contaminated, potentially dangerous spirits. This is a common concern with backyard-distilled palm wine and arak spirits that have killed and blinded tourists in Indonesia.

We should consider leaving the methanol note out altogether as it is covered under Fractional freezing.

Right but it's not the case that the only relevant comparison is with a distilled beverage. The inability to remove methanol is a disadvantage of applejack compared to e.g. apple brandy, but it isn't a disadvantage compared to cider, wine, beer etc. which are also made without a distillation step. The question is, would the person presented with Eric's 4x concentrated beverage consequently drink only a quarter of the volume they would drink of the unconcentrated beverage or would they drink the same volume? - because if it's only a quarter, they are getting no more of anything than they would if they had drunk the original fermented beverage. All the evidence, e.g. from wine, beer, vodka etc. is that people do drink proportionally less when presented with a stronger drink in terms of ethanol ABV - if anyone doesn't accept that then arguments about conventional distilling concentrating ethanol to dangerous levels (if one were to drink 8 pints of it as one would with beer), become admissible too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.227.47 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In reality, methanol is brought over to the distillate throughout the distilling process, as noted here: Wikipedia Moonshine - ...methanol is present until the very end of the distillation run... Source used in the wikitext: Distillation Techniques in the Fruit Spirits Production

Methanol levels are sustained throughout: Spirit Distillation: Monitoring Methanol Formation with a Hand-Held Device

Thorough explanation of this myth and the reality

Instances of methanol poisoning precipitated by fermentation + distillation are unheard of. Poisonings systematically happen due to intentional adulteration with the substance. See List of methanol poisoning incidents. Jonsku99 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applejack (beverage). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517231120/http://124.205.222.100/Jwk_spkx/EN/abstract/abstract15544.shtml to http://124.205.222.100/Jwk_spkx/EN/abstract/abstract15544.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's a type of brandy?

If so, I think that should be stated in the first section of the article. There is talk of "apple brandy" in later sections when it hasn't been established that applejack is apple brandy. Objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caladfwlch (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)