PDA

View Full Version : New Product Wish List



bourbonmed
08-28-2002, 23:28
Hiya Greg, Bettye Jo and all:

Are there any 'new' bourbons being introduced at the fest? Last year, Distillers Masterpiece 20y and Old Whiskey River made their debut.

My new product wish list would be:

- A single barrel Four Roses for US market
- Anything from the pot stills at Labrot & Graham
- A 15y Elijah Craig
- A 107 proof Elmer T. Lee
- A 101 proof or single barrel Makers
- A 90-95 proof Basil Hayden
- An affordable Old Potrero rye

What would you fellow bourbonians add to your wish list?

Cheers,
Omar

**DONOTDELETE**
08-29-2002, 03:44
Hey Omar that's not off topic at all! So let's put this puppy in General Bourbon Topics. As for my wish I do agree that a single barrel pot-stilled bourbon from L&G is at the top of my list.

kitzg
08-29-2002, 11:50
Ken Weber tells me they'll have a new barrel proof bourbon available later this year and available for our tasting Sept. 19 (Linn, please wear TWO pairs of pants!).

George T. Stagg Kentucky Bourbon, approx. 130 proof, 15 years old, uncut, unfiltered

George T. Stagg owned the distillery now known as Buffalo Trace in the 1880s and it carried his name.

**DONOTDELETE**
08-29-2002, 15:31
Greg if this is the BT#2 mashbill straight out of the barrel at fifteen years of age I would advise everyone to wear at least five pairs of pants. http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

kgiammarco
08-29-2002, 17:17
I would be intrested in the 'new' pappy van winkle 23 year old, (which i believe is the 20 year old that is on sale now, but 3 years older)... It should be 23 years old soon i think (hope)... I like the wheat 20 year old a lot, and it would be intresting to compare it with the 23 year one (if it is released)... Actually, it would be real nice to have something between the 15 year old 107 proof and the current 20 year pappy van winkle... While i am at it, some hirsch in 'regular' production under $40 would be real nice...

...back in the realm of reality, I remember tasting last year at the gala a four roses 'super premium'... supposedly it was only for the japanese market... I wish we could get that here..

Hopefully we will all be suprised and the BT barrel proof will be available when we get down there so we can all take a bunch of bottles home with us in the trunk...

Didn't we taste a 107 proof Elmer T. Lee last year at the BT tasting? was that a discontinued thing, or was that something that we can hope for to be released?

bobbyc
08-29-2002, 19:40
I would like to see Wathens and Blanton's in a 1.75 liter size , Damn it's hard enough to buy those now I guess it would take a little planning ahead. Woodford also.

jeff
08-29-2002, 19:48
Actually I would like to see more premium bourbons in 200ml sizes. That way I could try more of them and not spend a fortune. And those little singles just piss me off. Most of the time the flavor is off and I really need more than a little taste to make up my mind. Last time I was at MM they told me that they don't even bottle those things at the distillery. They ship off the bourbon in a tanker to a bottling facility somewhere out west. Plenty of time to pick up "off" flavors. I remember trying Baker's for the first time in one of those little things. I thought I hated it and didn't try it again for a long time. Turns out I got a bad "bottle". http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif

MurphyDawg
08-30-2002, 00:33
I will bring a 6TH pair, just in case!



TomC http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/cool.gif

**DONOTDELETE**
08-30-2002, 01:51
http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif BLEEE! http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

ratcheer
08-31-2002, 07:05
When I was in Atlanta, I saw Woodford in a full liter size. However, when I did the math, it was higher per unit than the 3/4 liter size. What a ripoff.

Tim

bobbyc
08-31-2002, 08:01
I have a derby liter of Woodford and all I've seen in that size is a horse race bottle. ( Derby or Oakes) was the bottle you saw like that or just plain? http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif

ratcheer
08-31-2002, 15:00
Sorry, I didn't look at it that closely after comparing the prices. There was something a little different about it, though.

Tim

cowdery
08-31-2002, 20:05
Your suggestion of a A 90-95 proof Basil Hayden made me hanker for an extra-age/high proof Old Grand-Dad, maybe the 116 in a 10-year-old version.

Bob
09-01-2002, 10:33
Omar,

What I've been waiting for is Labrot and Graham's Pot Stilled Bourbon. Hope it's ready soon!

Bob

rwilps
09-01-2002, 12:55
Now there's a bourbon idea! I'd love to see if that bottling (I think you mean 114, not 116) would give the same "dark fruit" barrel effect of WT 12 YO, since it has a high-rye mashbill. I also have the thought that it might taste somewhere between Rare Breed and the VW rye 13 if the barrels were decent.

Ralph Wilps

ratcheer
09-02-2002, 04:18
I hear that. I recently opened my new (and first) bottle of OGD 114. I enjoy it, very much. It seems to me to combine many of the qualities of Rare Breed (especially the strong burst of flavors) with the taste profile of Bakers and/or Bookers. But maybe a little sweeter than the latter two.

This is a very fine bourbon. After my purchase, I had grown to doubt my selection of it, but no more.

Is OGD 86 as bad as everyone says? I can actually buy it here at home. Hell, it is cheap, maybe I should just try it for myself.

Tim

cowdery
09-02-2002, 16:10
Right, 114. Count the other two points as more wishful thinking.

cowdery
09-02-2002, 16:13
I wouldn't call OGD 86 bad, but it is pretty ordinary and higher priced than a lot of equally good (i.e., similarly mediocre) whiskeys. If I want OGD, I always step up to the BIB or 114.

ratcheer
09-02-2002, 19:45
And that seems to be the consensus. I suppose I should just pass on the 86 and enjoy the 114 while it lasts.

Thanks, Tim

bourbonmed
09-04-2002, 20:42
Greg, all:

A new 130 proof whiskey in the works at BT? I thought bourbon couldn't be bottled over the 125-126 mark...and Bookers was pushing the limit.

Can you clarify this? Also, I was under the impression that bourbon needs to be a minimum 80 proof/40% Alc. But in Australia and New Zealand, there are a couple of 'Kentucky Straight' bourbons bottled at 37% Alc. And a bourbon 'drink', named Silver Dollar, that's a mere 22% ABV. At least they call that one a 'drink', not a KSB.

So, what's the story? http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/confused.gif

Omar

Blackkeno
09-05-2002, 07:43
I know that in Europe "proof" is a different abv than here in the states. I'm pretty sure I have seen 70 proof bottles that concerned me, but after reading the label they were 40%abv. (I'm not positive on the exact numbers).

cowdery
09-06-2002, 15:27
Under U.S. law, any straight spirit (whiskey, rum, gin, vodka, etc.) sold at less than 80 proof (40% abv) must be labeled as "diluted." There is no high end legal limit on bottling, but there is a practical limit based on the proof of barrel entry, which is limited by law. In other words, the whiskey has to go into the barrel at no more than 120 proof. (I think that's right. I'm sure someone will correct me if it's not.)

bobbyc
09-06-2002, 20:31
You're close Chuck , It's 125 Proof Max allowed to be entered in the Barrel. http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

bourbonmed
09-06-2002, 22:23
Hi Bobby & Chuck,

Maybe the proof climbs past its 125 barrel entry max for a very simple reason: evaporation. The new uncut/unfiltered Stagg is 15 yrs in wood, plenty of time for the distillery angels to push the proof to 130 or beyond. I'm wondering if this is the highest proof bourbon ever bottled.

As for the 37% ABV found in some Aussie offerings, it sure explains how the country got that 'Down Under' http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif name, doesn't it?

Omar

cowdery
09-09-2002, 14:31
Proof of entry is just that. It is expected that the proof will increase during aging. This presents an apparent paradox. To me it is both an apparent and actual paradox, because I don't have an explanation for it. Maybe someone else does.

My rudimentary understanding of distillation starts with the principle that alcohol is more volatile than water. Therefore, alcohol can be liberated from water by heating a liquid to the point at which alcohol vaporizes but water does not, whereby the alcohol vapors rise and ... well, we all know the happy outcome.

But in the barrel, water seems to evaporate more readily than alcohol, so the alcohol content of the liquid increases over time. Since alcohol is more volatile than water, shouldn't the alcohol evaporate more readily, causing the alcohol content to decrease over time?

ratcheer
09-09-2002, 18:18
Chuck, I agree that it seems backwards. Also, the term "the angel's share" would seem to indicate that alcohol is being lost. Who would care about the water? Unless they are just referring to the fact that the total volume is decreased.

Tim

bourbonmed
09-09-2002, 21:14
Tim,

I'd say the 'angels share' refers to the entire barrel contents. But Chuck raises a great question with regards to the evaporation rates of alcohol and water, maybe the master distillers can discuss it at the fest.

Bettye Jo once posted a comment about the HH/Evan Williams 23y blue, how evaporation took a huge amount of whiskey out of those barrels. I can't imagine that whiskey's proof if they ever decide to barrel it at full strength.

Ken Weber says the Stagg coming out next month isn't actually 130 proof...it's 141! 1-4-1...inhale those 3 digits too fast and you can pass out.

Once, he says, they discovered a barrel tucked away at a weird angle in the warehouse...its contents had evaporated far more than others. It was an accident, they weren't trying to cook it. It poured out at an astonishing 161 proof! http://www.straightbourbon.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

Cheers,
Omar