Eugene,

Regarding your question of December 23rd @ 8:49 a.m.

''How much is a fifth of bourbon?''

Eugene, 1 fl. fifth is 1/5 fl.gal. of whiskey.

1 fl. fifth = 1/5 fl.gal.
1 fl. fifth = 2/5 fl.pot.
1 fl. fifth = 4/5 fl.qt.
1 fl. fifth = 8/5 fl.pt.
1 fl. fifth = 16/5 fl. cups
75/2 fl. fifths = 1 cu.'

In a state package store a while ago, I noticed the following sign stuck on a shelf of 1 fl. fifth bottles.

99 1/2% fifth

The state clerk allowed me to look at one of the so-called 99 1/2% fl. fifth bottles, and it appears that at that state liquor store anyway, when you buy a 1 fl. fifth of whiskey, you are really only getting a 99.322% fl. fifth of whiskey. That's because the bottle was marked 3/4 -/l on the bottom. Looks like even the napoleonic nuts can't get the napoleonic nere scam right.

That's about 1 1/2 fl.dr. missing.

I don't know why the 1 fl. fifth exists, but someone once told me that it was invented by bootleggers, who were trying to cheat their customers out of the standard 1 fl.qt. of:

ballpeen hammer
blind stump
bull dew
bull pop
BoP elixir (Bureau of Prohibition) (Treasury)
BATT elixir (Bureau of Alcohol & Tobacco Tax) (Treasury)
BATF elixir (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) (Treasury)
cracker dew
cracker pop
fire medicine
fire spirits
fire water
G-man elixir (Government man)
FBI elixir (Federal Bureau of Investigation) (Labor) (Attorney-General) (Justice)
hillbilly dew
hillbilly pop
happy betsy
happy hannah
happy sally
happy susanna
jim corn
john corn
jonathan corn
moon beam
moon shine
moon shot
moon strike
moose dew
moose pop
mule kick
paleface poison
red eye
rot gut
skull cracker
sledge hammer
spike hammer
splitting stump
SS elixir (United States Secret Service) (Treasury)
stumble stump
stump
stump hole
T-man elixir (Treasury man)
two by four
white lighting
whitemans wampum

or whatever their poison was.

At first I didn't believe that because I couldn't see how a liquor customer wouldn't notice that a 1 fl. fifth bottle was 1/5 less than a 1 fl.qt. bottle.

But then I looked at a 1 fl. fifth bottle and then at a 1 fl.qt. bottle, both being Jack Daniel's #7 whiskey bottles, and I wasn't positive as to which was bigger. I had to put the two bottles side by side before I was sure. Maybe the glass in the 1 fl. fifth bottle is made thicker than the 1 fl.qt. bottle, but I couldn't tell. Both bottles were full of whiskey, so I couldn't bust them apart and check. Although some folks would read what was on the bottle to see what size it was, most wouldn't. So I guess it's possible for liquor customers to ask for a 1 fl.qt. and get a 1 fl. fifth instead.

Which makes me wonder, did bootlegger cheating invent the 1 fl. fifth, or did legitimate licensed liquor distiller cheating invent the 1 fl. fifth?

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

P.S.
Eugene,
That state liquor clerk was a the rudest guy I've ever come across. He allowed me to look at the bottle, but not touch it, claiming he didn't know if I was over 28 yr. or not. Here, folks over 28 yr. are allowed to buy any legal liquor there is from any state outlet. If you're 28 yr. or under, you have to produce written identification, and the state statute does not say what that identification has to be. But like all state flunkies, the liquor store clerks just ignore the statute, and they won't sell you the liquor unless you produce a state motor vehicle operator's licence. The purpose of the state legislation is to stop boys under 21 yr. from getting liquored up, not to intimidate, insult, and harass the public.

xcole,

I don't see how you arrive at 1 fl fifth = 46.080 cu". If you mean the original size, that would be 231/5 cu" = 46.2 cu". If you meant 99 1/2% fifth then that would be 46.2 x .995 = 45.969 cu". I you meant that the fifth being sold was really 75cl = 45.768 cu" = 0.990 645 fifths then thats still not 46.080 cu".

Either I'm missing something (in which case tell me quick!) or your math is slightly out.

I can tell you that as a teen living in Canada, the entry to weekend parties held at someones home was at least a 26er of some spirit. Now that was what we called a full bottle. I don't remember exactly how the contents were actually marked but it was either 26 fl oz or something very close to that. If you take the US gallon of 128 fl oz, 1/5 of that would be 128/5 = 25.6 fl oz. Of course in Canada at that time (ermmm around 195?-196?) the gallon in use was the Imperial gallon of 160 fl oz. So where these measures came from I can only guess as being from our southern neighbours. Looking at the fluid ounces, we have 26 US fl oz = 24.979 UK fl oz. That because the Imperial gallon is bigger than the US fluid gallon but the US gallon is divided into only 128 fluid ounces as opposed to the 160 fl oz of the imperial gallon. The US gallon is 231 cu in and the Imperial gallon is 277.42 cu in.

Maybe if someone has an old Canadian spirit bottle lying around with the label intact they could shed some light. Of course if anybody does have a bottle that old with an intact label then it's a good chance the whole bottle is intact!!!! Why else would anybody keep an empty bottle? In which case could they please send it to me, marked as an archeological exhibit of course, and I'll pay the postage.

<<<Either I'm missing something>>>

I think you are Ray ;-)

Ray

Try http://www.lfw.co.uk and look at the article "Bottles - a history" in their latest Scotch Whisky Review

"William Younger’s examination of bottles from between 1660—1817 in the Ashmolean Museum showed the capacity of wine (and therefore whisky) bottles remained relatively constant at around 30 Fl.Oz during this period, in spite of bottles being free-blown.

With the introduction of moulded bottles in the 1820s it became much easier to standardise capacity, and this was soon fixed at 26 2/3 Fl.Oz (or 1/6th of a gallon).

About 1900 this capacity was defined by law for a standard bottle—along with 40 Fl.Oz (equal to an Imperial quart – 2 pints), 13 1/3 Fl.Oz (half bottle), 6 2/3 Fl.Oz (quarter bottle), 3 4/5 Fl. Oz (miniature). Brand owners were not required to print the capacity on the label until after the Second World War, however, although some did.

Since January 1980 capacities have been expressed metrically on bottle labels, in line with the Système International d’Unités, when 26 2/3 Fl.Oz became 75 cl, half bottles 37.5cl, quarter bottles 18.75cl and miniatures 5cl.

In 1992 the standard bottle size throughout the European Community was lowered to 70cl. The United States retains fluid ounces, with the ‘reputed quart’ remaining the standard bottle size (75cl). In Japan, both 75cl and 70cl bottles are acceptable."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The "reputed quart" - 5 bottles of wine make roughly 1 wine gallon (the wine gallon legalized by Queen Anne, 231 cubic inches, which is the U.S. liquid gallon). Until metrication, in the United States bottles of whiskey and other spirits contained 4/5 quart, or 1/5 U.S. gallon, hence the name "fifth".)

But yeah, I think Xcole has his maths wrong - I can't see where he gets the figure from either.

The whisky shop mentioned above (http://www.lfw.co.uk) has an old unopened bottle of Bell's for sale (a surprisingly popular blended Scotch - considering (IMHO) how poor a whisky it is) It is marked 26 2/3 fl. oz.

I'm surprised that the local TSO hasn't seized it for not having a metric indication marked......

Beranger,

Thanks for the reference. However, I think we are talking at cross purposes here brought about by the differences between UK (Imperial) gallons and US gallons.

Quite rightly, 1/6 of a UK gallon is 26 2/3 (UK)fl oz since the UK gallon had 160 fluid ounces and is 277.42 cu in. The US fluid gallon was set to the size of the Queen Anne or wine gallon which was 231 cu in and contains 128 (US) fl oz. One fifth of this gallon is therefore 128/5 = 25.6 (US) fl oz = 231/5 = 46.2 cu in.

Since I assumed xcole was speaking of US experience since he referred to a 'state clerk', and multiple US colloquial references for booze
"(BATF elixir (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) (Treasury),
hillbilly dew
FBI elixir (Federal Bureau of Investigation) (Labor) (Attorney-General) (Justice)" etcetera,
I responded with my own experiences as a teen in Canada. Now the LCBO as was (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) sold Canadian, British, American and many other national products (including Sabra? from Isreal, chocolate/orange!!! mmmm), and therefore the capacities at that time would have varied widely. Some of these must have been US fl oz and the Canadian and British products must have been Imperial fl oz.

I was assuming xcole was speaking exclusively of the US versions, yet I still cannot reconcile his calculation of 46.080 cu in.

Xcole has slightly idealised figures (at least for him). For him a fluidounce of water is 1.728cuin (1/1000cft); it is actually more like 1.73

"I'm surprised that the local TSO hasn't seized it for not having a metric indication marked......"

If the bottle goes missing look out for a swerving, swearing and occasionally stumbling bloke wearing a special hat.

Ray

Dunno if we are confusing things. Unless I am totally wrong, your reference to a 26er can only refer to UK measure. Not a good advert for imperial if you are confusing US & UK in a conversation about benefits of imperial....

Steve

See my next email to you :-p

Beranger,

In those days and at that age who looked at the bloody label? It was a 26er and thats all I knew then. This was Canada in the 1950/60s. The great debate had never risen at that time and even if it had, at that age I didn't care!!! All I wanted was a bottle for the weekend bash. It's only now that I ask the questions, and since I'm no longer in Canada I have a hard time tracking down the answers from "Middle Dollop" UK.

So I ask the question again, does anybody have any details of spirit bottle volumes in Canada in the 1950/60s and were these Imperial or US and did it vary from brand to brand depending on where they wore bottled?

"See my next email to you :-p"

Fingers tapping...... ;-)

Berenger wrote
<<Ray

Dunno if we are confusing things. Unless I am totally wrong, your reference to a 26er can only refer to UK measure. Not a good advert for imperial if you are confusing US & UK in a conversation about benefits of imperial.... >>

Actually, Ray's numbers, carried slightly further, show the two numbers are so close, the difference is negligible.
1/6 UK gallon, 277.42 in^3 x 1/6 = 46.2367 in^3
1/5 US gallon, 231 in^3 x 1/5 = 46.2 in^3
The difference is 0.0367 in^3 or 0.6 mL difference

A UK sixth and US fifth could be easily confused, and with an extra splash and a label, they could be identical.

Only XCOLE's numbers don't match.
But 750 mL is only 45.77 in^3, so standardizing on 750 mL is a bit of a shrink.

JohnS-MI

My only defence is the differences between the different gallons and different fluid ounces! (I saw my mistake the next night, and thought "mmmmmmhhhh, stay away from this debate for a while"...........)

But, would I deliberately post anything suggesting that different fluid ounces & gallons could cause problems though?

Surprised that the imperial experts didn't pick up on it for nearly 3 months though.........