78 



KEPORT Oi' THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE. 



At the same time it is hardly practicable to estimate in liquors of ex- 

 cellent quality those ethers "which impart "bouquet," and to a great 

 extent \'alue to the sample. The trained senses of an expert are here 

 of more value than the chemical analysis. The American market is 

 flooded witli vile wines and brandies whicli are in fact nothing but poor 

 raw whisky, fla^'ored, colored, and sophisticated according to the whims 

 and caprices of professional " im[)rovers." 



The samples of native wines that have been analyzed this year have 

 not been of first quality. They were not received, liowcver, from those 

 sections of the country where wine-making has been carried to its great- 

 est i)erfection. 



JVincs. 



Constituents. 



No.l. 



No. 2. 



No. 3. 



Per cent, alcoliol, 'oj' woiglifc 



Per cent, total acid, as tartaric. . . 



Per cent, acetic acitl 



Per cent, total residue, organic . . 



Per cent, asli 



Per cent, cane sugar 



Per cent, {jrape sugar 



Per cent, taryiric acid 



Per cent, tannin and extractives. 

 Specific gravity 



Trace. 



7.4 

 .602 



1.896 



Trace. 



8.8 

 .493 



Trace. 

 Trace. 



Not determined. 



Kot determined. 



. 99070* 



,595 

 ,197 



Trace. 

 Trace. 



Not determined. 



Not determined. 



. 99250" 



7.2 



.391 



.310 

 2.030 



.260 



.170 



.360 



.14 

 1.36 



. 99292 



* Nos. 1 and 2 at 17. 5= C. ; No. 3 at 28. b° C. 



Kos. 1 and 2 were received from John G. Klein, Cullman, Ala. No. 

 1 w^as a very dark-colored sample, and had a pleasant odor, due to the 

 grape used (thought to be Ives' seedling), but it had a decidedly astrin- 

 gent aftertaste. No. 2 had a light color and no distinctive odor, nor 

 was its taste pleasant. Both of these wines would probably have been 

 improved by the addition of a moderate amount of sugar to the ex- 

 pressed juice; also a less heavy pressure of the seeds and skins would, 

 to a consi^lerable extent, have prevented the removal therefrom of the 

 tannic acid to which was due the unpleasant astringency of the wine. 



No. 3 was a low-grade, rather acid wine, received from T. J. Stevens, 

 of Washington, D. G. The most noticeable abnormal constituent was 

 the high amount of acetic acid. Those wines containing over 20 per 

 cent, of acetic acid are condemned by judges as " soured," although many 

 are sold of about the cliaractcr of this No. 3. The alcoholic strength 

 of these wines is low. None of them gave evidence of adulteration. 



A number of other specimens have been partially examined, but owing 

 to insufficient samples their analysis cannot be given. 



Samples for analysis should contain at least a pint. 



Distilled liquors. 



No. 2 was a very raw whisky containing traces of fusel-oil. It was 

 claimed that No. I'was made from this same No. 2 by so me mysterio us 



♦No.".. 1 and 2 fron\ T. H. llu.'j.scll, W^shinston, D. C. 



1 Gin in bottle marked "Hall &Huiiiei AVashinston,D.C." _ ,. ..„ ^ ,,<,,«» 



* Brandy from General Henry M. Naglee, San Jos6, Cal., " vintage of ISJ, distillate of 1872. 

 \ This residue was all sirup. 



