Skip to main content

Experiencing JacqSon Gin

I know gin is very trendy at the moment, and I felt it was time to have a bit of a gin experience, sampling a new artisanal gin, JacqSon. This had all the potential for disaster.

First of all, this is Yorkshire gin - and I am firmly Lancastrian. However, strong though the rivalry is between the two counties, we do generally admit that, if it can't be Lancashire, Yorkshire's the next best thing, so this proved less of a problem than it may seem.

There was, however, a bigger hurdle to overcome. I don't particularly like gin. I love tonic water, but for me it tastes better without the gin in it. (My alcoholic tonic drink of choice is white port and tonic, which is wonderful. Has to be white port though, not ruby or tawny.) But there have been lots of things over the years that I didn't like, but with a bit of effort got to appreciate, from mushrooms to bitter, so I was determined to give it a go.

What have we got here? It's a small run gin, made in a Yorkshire village by a mother/son combo (Jacqueline and son - geddit?). And to make it special they've given a local flavour to the botanicals. These are the extras added before distilling that give gins their unique character - and as well as the inevitable juniper and other common botanicals, they've gone for the very Yorkshire rhubarb and liquorice.

Bearing in mind I'm not gin-savvy, I got rather excited on hearing about the rhubarb. While I struggle to appreciate gin itself, I love sloe gin, which take plenty of fruity taste from those purple berries. But because botanicals go in before distillation, most of their flavour is lost. Somewhat disappointingly for me, the gin doesn't taste of rhubarb (or liquorice).

However, I gave it a go and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Like all gin, it's pretty pungent on its own, but had a more complex and interesting mix of taste than most gins I've tried. With tonic, if I'm honest, the tonic dominates the flavour, but the gin came through with a subtlety to the aroma that I really appreciated - one of the main reasons I've been put off gin and tonic is that some gins are too pungent, but this really did complement the tonic.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not going switch away from white port and tonic - but it was a pleasant surprise that I enjoyed the experience. And perhaps more importantly, the two gin-lovers in the house gave it a thumbs up, particularly noting that complexity of flavour and subtlety of aroma that must come from that unusual mix of botanicals. I have no doubt we'll be adding more JacqSon to our drinks cabinet (and, let's face it, the bottles look beautiful too).

You can find out more about JacqSon (and buy some!) at the website.

I need to declare an interest - the makers of JacqSon gin are family friends, and this is the only reason I tried it in the first place, but I would have happily have said it was terrible if I thought so - and instead I had a pleasant surprise.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope