PDA

View Full Version : The New Old Taylor, First Batch.



cowdery
08-30-2009, 10:54
As archivist at the Filson Historical Society for the papers of E. H. Taylor, Jr., Mike Veach discovered that Taylor favored white corn, not yellow, and used 2 1/2 times the normal amount of barley malt -- about 25% malt. With 10% rye and the rest white corn, that was Taylor's mash bill. He distilled it to about 107 proof and put it in the barrel that way, aging it for about 8 years.

The picture below, courtesy of Mark Brown, is that recipe, last week, in the micro-distillery fermenters at Buffalo Trace. The first batch of the new Old Taylor has started its journey.

OscarV
08-30-2009, 11:56
Kinda feels like we are wittnessing history.

DeanSheen
08-30-2009, 21:45
Nice. Hopefully in 2017 we can be talking about this day while sipping on some new Old Taylor.

Lost Pollito
08-30-2009, 22:13
Can we keep this thread going until the juice hits the shelves? Who's with me?

OscarV
08-31-2009, 03:12
Can we keep this thread going until the juice hits the shelves? Who's with me?



I have it penciled in on my 2010 calendar to bump this thread no later than August.

Lost Pollito
08-31-2009, 05:18
I have it penciled in on my 2010 calendar to bump this thread no later than August.
Awesome. Now that is dedication. :grin:

OscarV
08-31-2009, 06:06
As Cowdery reported BT wants to get the new OT on par with the Van Winkles as far as quality and reputation but as a ryed bourbon of course.
I think when this comes out they should also change the name.
Using Old in the Old Taylor name might not have the same appeal for a top shelf bourbon.
I would suggest "Edmund Haynes Taylor JR.".
This would give it the look and sound of William Larue Weller, George T Stagg, Thomas H Handy.

shoshani
08-31-2009, 08:32
I would suggest "Edmund Haynes Taylor JR.".
This would give it the look and sound of William Larue Weller, George T Stagg, Thomas H Handy.

I think you may be on to something there.

I expect this to be damn fine juice when it hits the shelves, even though it will differ markedly from Taylor's own juice, which came from pot stills. I imagine that BT is using a column still for first distillation, as is standard practice today.

*salivates*

cowdery
08-31-2009, 10:15
As Cowdery reported BT wants to get the new OT on par with the Van Winkles as far as quality and reputation but as a ryed bourbon of course.
I think when this comes out they should also change the name.
Using Old in the Old Taylor name might not have the same appeal for a top shelf bourbon.
I would suggest "Edmund Haynes Taylor JR.".
This would give it the look and sound of William Larue Weller, George T Stagg, Thomas H Handy.

Their intention is to use "Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr." on all the new stuff. "Old Taylor," as it is, will continue for the time being.

jinenjo
08-31-2009, 11:33
Thanks for the photo. Very exciting indeed! I imagine when it hits the shelves I'll no longer be paying $17 a bottle (as with dusty prices).


Taylor favored white corn, not yellow, and used 2 1/2 times the normal amount of barley malt -- about 25% malt. With 10% rye and the rest white corn, that was Taylor's mash bill. He distilled it to about 107 proof and put it in the barrel that way, aging it for about 8 years.


Is this also the recipe ND was using up until 1972 or when Beam took over?

shoshani
08-31-2009, 11:37
Their intention is to use "Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr." on all the new stuff. "Old Taylor," as it is, will continue for the time being.

Will "Old Taylor" also be made from the Taylor mashbill, eventually, or will its label grace one of two popular BT mashbills instead?

kickert
08-31-2009, 13:15
I think you may be on to something there.

I expect this to be damn fine juice when it hits the shelves, even though it will differ markedly from Taylor's own juice, which came from pot stills. I imagine that BT is using a column still for first distillation, as is standard practice today.

*salivates*

At least for these initial batches, if they are using their experimental still, it will be pot distilled.

fishnbowljoe
08-31-2009, 14:41
At least for these initial batches, if they are using their experimental still, it will be pot distilled.

Thanks Ben, I was just going to say/ask something about that. I thought that I remembered from my tour last year, that their micro-distillery was a pot still. Joe

cowdery
08-31-2009, 15:17
Thanks Ben, I was just going to say/ask something about that. I thought that I remembered from my tour last year, that their micro-distillery was a pot still. Joe

Their micro-distillery is what I call a hybrid, as it has characteristics of both and can, I believe, run in either plain pot still mode, full-on continuous distillation mode, or some of each, which is what a lot of micro-distillers do. That's where they operate it as a charge still (as opposed to continuous) but they use some or all of the rectification column.

callmeox
08-31-2009, 17:08
For those who have not been on the tour, this is BT's micro still:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_D1aZHtGmNIs/SM8lQib_OSI/AAAAAAAAAaA/WXQDlzr6ksk/s400/IMG_2130.JPG

tommyboy38
08-31-2009, 20:00
Are you sure that isn't a space ship?

Are the Beam OT's now dusty?

Lost Pollito
08-31-2009, 21:23
Tommy...it's a space ship to a better bourbon. :cool:

OscarV
09-01-2009, 11:26
Are you sure that isn't a space ship?

Are the Beam OT's now dusty?

The Beam OT's are the kind of dust you sweep under the rug.


Tommy...it's a space ship to a better bourbon. :cool:

Great call Joe, how about the Mother Ship to better bourbon?
P-Funk in tha house!

cowdery
09-01-2009, 15:12
By the way, the micro-distillery at Buffalo Trace has a new, official name:

The Col. E.H. Taylor, Jr. Old Fashioned Copper Distillery

In honor of Col. Taylor, I have changed my SB.com signature to reflect my own commission from Gov. Patton in the 206th year of the Commonwealth (1997).

kickert
09-02-2009, 14:04
Their micro-distillery is what I call a hybrid, as it has characteristics of both and can, I believe, run in either plain pot still mode, full-on continuous distillation mode, or some of each, which is what a lot of micro-distillers do. That's where they operate it as a charge still (as opposed to continuous) but they use some or all of the rectification column.

Their still is similar to ours... both were made by vendome. They are in fact "hybrid" stills because there are plates in the column, but because of the set up you can't run it like a continuous still and pull off your finished spirits. Unless theirs is significantly different than ours, you always have to run the batch through the whole column then through the condensing unit. Of course, you have the choice to either turn the plates on or off (or any combination).

OscarV
03-02-2010, 13:23
Can we keep this thread going until the juice hits the shelves? Who's with me?






I have it penciled in on my 2010 calendar to bump this thread no later than August.



It's early but I just thought of it.

cowdery
03-02-2010, 14:11
Someone told me recently that they were in one of the BT warehouses and saw some of this reposing.

mobourbon
03-02-2010, 15:14
Someone told me recently that they were in one of the BT warehouses and saw some of this reposing.


Chuck, there are 2 barrels of the micro-distilled Old Taylor in warehouse C and 2 in D. They have OFC on the barrel heads.

furious
03-02-2010, 15:39
Can't wait to sample some of the new Old Taylor. Nice to see BT honoring the roots of an old and storied brand again. Hope Beam can pull off something similar with Crow. The Reserve is a nice step in the right direction, but surely there is such much more they can do with a brand like Old Crow.

I am lucky enough to have a sizable amount of pre-prohibition Old Crow that displays the most intricate flavors of wintergreen and anise. Why can't Beam re-create that?? I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Dramiel McHinson
03-02-2010, 17:28
I read where BT had liberated the good Col Taylor from Beam Global June of last year and now I learn of his hopeful return to his rightful place higher on the shelves and in plain view. I like a good family reunion story.

funknik
03-02-2010, 18:43
I am excited about the "new" Old Taylor, but it's too bad I'll have to wait so long to taste it. Also, since BT is going through all of the trouble of recreating the original mashbill, I'm sure we'll be looking at another premium-priced top-shelfer . . . not that there's anything wrong with that, but my future wallet hurts already.
:D

TNbourbon
03-02-2010, 18:47
Chuck, there are 2 barrels of the micro-distilled Old Taylor in warehouse C and 2 in D. They have OFC on the barrel heads.
As in, "Old Fire Copper"?

ErichPryde
03-02-2010, 19:13
Chuck, there are 2 barrels of the micro-distilled Old Taylor in warehouse C and 2 in D. They have OFC on the barrel heads.

What is going to happen to those four barrels when they are mature, whether or not that be 6 or 8 years, or less? will any of that "experimental" old taylor see the market at all?



I am lucky enough to have a sizable amount of pre-prohibition Old Crow that displays the most intricate flavors of wintergreen and anise. Why can't Beam re-create that?? I would buy it in a heartbeat.

the tree selection simply isn't there. If you discount every other factor, the trees that go towards the barrels simply aren't the same anymore if nothing else.

cowdery
03-02-2010, 19:42
I am lucky enough to have a sizable amount of pre-prohibition Old Crow that displays the most intricate flavors of wintergreen and anise. Why can't Beam re-create that?? I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Better question. Why can't anyone? those are precisely the flavors you can find in bourbons bottled as late as the 1970s, but rarely today.

ErichPryde
03-03-2010, 10:51
I blame global warming. :slappin:

sailor22
03-03-2010, 11:01
I blame the Federal Govt. ........... and the French.

Josh
03-03-2010, 12:19
I blame Mike Veach.

CorvallisCracker
03-03-2010, 12:44
I blame the Scientologists.

Um, what is it, again, for which we're blaming them?

smokinjoe
03-03-2010, 12:59
I blame the reason for This, Global Warming, Scientology, and Mind Control all on Maker's Mark....XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER ...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XA WDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER. ..XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...XAWDER...

mobourbon
03-03-2010, 20:36
As in, "Old Fire Copper"?


You got it, Tim.

bourbonv
03-04-2010, 06:21
What am I getting blamed for now??? After all, it was my research that inspired Buffalo Trace to make the Old Taylor using the recipe used by Taylor at OFC (Old Fashioned Fire under Taylor's ownership) and they even distilled it at a low proof and put it in the barrel at the lowest proof done in several decades. I am looking forward to tasting some of the whiskey. My bet is that at four years of age it will be better than many 7 or 8 years old bourbons.

Mike Veach

sailor22
03-04-2010, 12:21
Good on ya Mike. I'm really looking forward to tasting it too. Keep us posted if they sneak you a sample or two in a year or two.

You do know we were having a bit of fun don't you? Drinking Bourbon is fun - it's not always serious.

bourbonv
03-04-2010, 13:06
Sailor,
Of course I know that it is all in fun. I will also let you know if they send me a sample or two. The white dog is excellent! I am looking forward to the finished product.

Mike Veach

spun_cookie
03-04-2010, 13:56
What am I getting blamed for now??? After all, it was my research that inspired Buffalo Trace to make the Old Taylor using the recipe used by Taylor at OFC (Old Fashioned Fire under Taylor's ownership) and they even distilled it at a low proof and put it in the barrel at the lowest proof done in several decades. I am looking forward to tasting some of the whiskey. My bet is that at four years of age it will be better than many 7 or 8 years old bourbons.

Mike Veach

Mike,
I cannot tell you how much I am looking forward to this juice. I am glad you worked BT into doing this...

DeanSheen
03-04-2010, 14:00
Would be really nice if BT started a waiting list like the Texas whiskey producer.....

furious
03-04-2010, 18:34
What am I getting blamed for now??? After all, it was my research that inspired Buffalo Trace to make the Old Taylor using the recipe used by Taylor at OFC (Old Fashioned Fire under Taylor's ownership) and they even distilled it at a low proof and put it in the barrel at the lowest proof done in several decades. I am looking forward to tasting some of the whiskey. My bet is that at four years of age it will be better than many 7 or 8 years old bourbons.

Mike Veach

This begs the question, what is the lowest distillation proof/barrel proof bourbon on the market today? On first blush I would guess WT, but I am nowhere near as educated as most on this forum.

Great job convincing the good folks at BT to do this, Mr. Veach.

ErichPryde
03-04-2010, 18:55
Mike,
I cannot tell you how much I am looking forward to this juice. I am glad you worked BT into doing this...

I'm with everyone else! I can't wait for a genuine, low entry proof dammit-all delicious whiskey, and that's what I'm hoping for!

nblair
03-04-2010, 19:20
I tell you what, for all the crap BT gets for dropping age statements, raising the prices of premium brands, etc. Good for them for experimenting like this and trying to give us something like the bourbon of the good 'ol days (not that I've had that much bourbon from the good 'ol days, yet). I know they aren't mass producing it yet, but still.

OscarV
03-05-2010, 00:08
This begs the question, what is the lowest distillation proof/barrel proof bourbon on the market today? On first blush I would guess WT,

Yep it's WT and 4R's, Jimmy and Jim in Lawrenceburg do it right.

bourbonv
03-05-2010, 06:23
Maker's Mark and Woodford Reserve are using a 110 barrel entry proof. Jimmy Russell will not say what the barrel proof is on Wild Turkey and I know it has gone up over the last two decades and I suspect it is also 110. Four Roses is going into the barrel at 120. The Old Taylor is going into the barrel at a proof closer to 100 than 110.

Mike Veach

Josh
03-05-2010, 06:49
Maker's Mark and Woodford Reserve are using a 110 barrel entry proof. Jimmy Russell will not say what the barrel proof is on Wild Turkey and I know it has gone up over the last two decades and I suspect it is also 110. Four Roses is going into the barrel at 120. The Old Taylor is going into the barrel at a proof closer to 100 than 110.

Mike Veach

I'm surprised to hear that MM and Woodford are that low. Is that all the barrels that go into Woodford, or just the whiskey distilled in Versailles?

bourbonv
03-05-2010, 07:47
That is a good question about the Woodford. I suspect that it is just the ones that are made at Woodford, but I don't know that for sure. I will find out tomorrow since I am doing a Woodford Bourbon Academy with Chris tomorrow.

Mike Veach

Josh
03-05-2010, 07:50
That is a good question about the Woodford. I suspect that it is just the ones that are made at Woodford, but I don't know that for sure. I will find out tomorrow since I am doing a Woodford Bourbon Academy with Chris tomorrow.

Mike Veach

Thanks Mike!


padpad

cowdery
03-05-2010, 08:58
Low barrel entry proof can be achieved by a low proof off the still or by adding more water. Woodford comes off the still at near the maximum of 160 proof. Wild Turkey comes off the still at 130 and goes into the barrel at 115. Beam actually has the lowest proof off the still to my knowledge, with Baker's and Booker's, which come off at 125 and go into the barrel that way, with no water added. So Turkey has a lower entry proof, but Beam has a lower proof off the still.

bourbonv
03-05-2010, 09:54
Good points Chuck.

Mike Veach

CorvallisCracker
03-05-2010, 10:04
...they even distilled it at a low proof and put it in the barrel at the lowest proof done in several decades. I am looking forward to tasting some of the whiskey. My bet is that at four years of age it will be better than many 7 or 8 years old bourbons.

Lower distillation proof will do that? Interesting.

Clear Creek's "McCarthy Single Malt" is distilled at close to 160 proof, but is a pretty good whiskey for something with only three years barrel time. I've always wondered if the high distillation proof has something to do with that. Your statement would suggest the opposite.


= Woodford comes off the still at near the maximum of 160 proof.

Huh. I wonder if a lower distillation proof would make it less "coppery".

OscarV
03-05-2010, 10:40
Low barrel entry proof can be achieved by a low proof off the still or by adding more water. Woodford comes off the still at near the maximum of 160 proof. Wild Turkey comes off the still at 130 and goes into the barrel at 115. Beam actually has the lowest proof off the still to my knowledge, with Baker's and Booker's, which come off at 125 and go into the barrel that way, with no water added. So Turkey has a lower entry proof, but Beam has a lower proof off the still.


Good points Chuck.

Mike Veach

Yeah, like I said, the Lawrenceburg Boys rule.

ILLfarmboy
03-05-2010, 12:03
I'm with everyone else! I can't wait for a genuine, low entry proof dammit-all delicious whiskey, and that's what I'm hoping for!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

cowdery
03-06-2010, 20:06
Higher distillation proof generally means a cleaner, less flavorful spirit. Lower entry proof means more absorption of substances from the barrel, as water is a better solvent (at least in that application) than alcohol. Lower distillation proof and lower entry proof both mean more flavor, but flavor from different sources.

kickert
03-07-2010, 04:54
Higher distillation proof generally means a cleaner, less flavorful spirit. Lower entry proof means more absorption of substances from the barrel, as water is a better solvent (at least in that application) than alcohol. Lower distillation proof and lower entry proof both mean more flavor, but flavor from different sources.

Lower distillation proof also makes for an "oilier" product as well as much more grain flavor.

I might disagree with you on water being a better solvent. When we first get our barrels we fill them with water and let them sit for several days (on occasion we have forgotten about them and let them sit for over a week). Even after all that time, the water picks up very little character from the barrel. What character it does have is more related to the particulate floating around than any actual change to the water. Generally the water picks up very little color and only nominal taste. On the other hand, when we take the same barrel and put 120 proof whiskey in it, after 24 hours the color is has clearly changed and the taste is noticeably different. After a week, the barrel character is obvious.

Of course my experience is only with small barrels on short timelines, but I figured it was worth throwing out.

kickert
03-07-2010, 04:56
Lower distillation proof also makes for an "oilier" product as well as much more grain flavor.

I should also add that lower distillation proof is not always better. Without doubt, the further you go into the tails the more of a pungent "wet cardboard" smell and taste you pick up. At first, it adds a lot of body, but if you go to far you will be wishing your whiskey wasn't nearly as flavorful.

OscarV
03-07-2010, 05:00
Jim Rutledge(I'm name dropping so early today:rolleyes: ), also said of high/low distillation/barrel entry proofs, that the bean counters up at HQ want higher proofs all the way around to have more product after cutting it down for bottling, but it takes more aging time to get the flavor at higher proofs so it's a financial wash.
Or to make it short, what Chuck said.

So back in the "olden days" they could get away with shorter aging periods because of lower proofs.

Later Edit:
Also, what Kickert said.

tmckenzie
03-07-2010, 08:56
In my experience, lower distillation proof as well as lower barrel proof makes a better product. Water is a better solvent, and lower still proof brings more flavors of the grain over. I think the reason that all the big distilleries went to higher proofs is you get more whiskey in a barrel at 125 proof, and the higher proof requires less steam to make than lower proof, meaning less fuel usage.

ILLfarmboy
03-07-2010, 11:19
I'm cerious, Ben, If you were deciding on the proof off the still and barreling proof, what proof points would you choose. I know that's not an easy question since many factors such as yeast, still construction and manipulation have a lot to do with the congener content of the distillate, but I'd love to hear your further thoughts on this subject?

cowdery
03-07-2010, 13:47
Re lower proof spirits aging better, most industry folks cite the experience of rum makers who put high proof rum into barrels in their hot climate and got very little absorption after years of aging. I mention absorption because I don't believe barrel proof matters with regard to evaporation or oxidation, the other two effects of aging.

A lot of times when people cite to traditional methods they're just guessing but with this we know that the practice was to distill out and barrel enter at no more than 110. Ideally they would get exactly the proof they wanted off the still and wouldn't add any water. The purpose was to ensure that no barrel dropped below 100 proof during aging, since 100 was the target bottling proof.

All of today's distillers say they would prefer to distill and especially to enter at a lower proof but the bean counters won't let them.

These practices preserve more of the flavor that is in the beer, but you don't necessarily always want that. I recently visited a boutique distillery that is making grain spirits in the eau de vie style. By distilling off the grain in a pot still and distilling to 92% (184 proof), they get a very clean and focused grain flavor.

tmckenzie
03-07-2010, 14:51
The lower still proof brings over more esters in my opinion.

sailor22
03-07-2010, 15:26
Don't most Brandy, particularly Cognac and Armagnac makers go into the barrel at lower proof, right around 100? Not exactly apples to apples but their product has a lot of the flavors of the fruit they started with. Seems like I taste more flavors of the source materials in their product than I do in whiskey.

BTW in a recent conversation with Ansley Coale of Germain-Robin Brandy he mentioned they were about to do some experimental distilling with wheat as opposed to their typical grape or fruit. They don't use the same barrels typically used in Bourbon production so I would anticipate a hybrid product. I'm interested in what they come up with.

cowdery
03-07-2010, 16:02
Cognac brandy typically comes off the still at 70% ABV. I don't know if it's reduced before barreling. I believe California bradies, at least the mass-produced ones, come off even higher. The legal maximum distillation proof for brandy is the same as for whiskey, less than 95% ABV, but for whiskey there are the named types such as bourbon, where the legal max is 80% ABV. There are no equivalent "types" for U.S.-made brandy. U.S.-made brandy has to be distilled at less than 95% ABV and aged at least two years.

craigthom
03-07-2010, 16:33
Lower proof going into the barrel would also mean more barrel contribution in the finished product because less water is added between the barrel and the bottle.

kickert
03-08-2010, 06:08
I'm cerious, Ben, If you were deciding on the proof off the still and barreling proof, what proof points would you choose. I know that's not an easy question since many factors such as yeast, still construction and manipulation have a lot to do with the congener content of the distillate, but I'd love to hear your further thoughts on this subject?

Hey Brad... you are right, there are no easy answers. The more experimental batches we run through the still, the less confident I am of anything :-). Each recipe has its own character. Some have more heads, some have more tails, some have more of both.

For us, since most of what we are doing is experimental or small production batches, our target is a flavor, more than it is a distillation proof. Final distillation proof isn't determined until we do the final blending of fractions off the still. Even if we would prefer a lower proof off the still, we are not going to add more lower proof fractions if that means it negatively affects the flavor of the whiskey. Once the run starts dropping, the flavor can get very pungent (smells like wet cardboard). We have cut to tails as high as 135 and as low as 100, it all depends on the flavor coming off the still.

As for barreling proof, we have generally barrelled around 120. We have experimented higher and lower, but for us, that proof tends to work best.

bourbonv
03-08-2010, 06:45
Josh,
According to Chris Morris, the Woodford Reserve being made at the Brown-Forman distillery is going into the barrel at 110 proof.

Mike Veach

Josh
03-08-2010, 10:41
Josh,
According to Chris Morris, the Woodford Reserve being made at the Brown-Forman distillery is going into the barrel at 110 proof.

Mike Veach

Interesting. Thanks for the info, Mike!

nblair
03-09-2010, 19:38
Each recipe has its own character. Some have more heads, some have more tails, some have more of both.

Do major distillers also use this technique to achieve differences between labels? Maybe if they have several bourbons of the same mash bill they adjust the heads/tails content of each?

cowdery
03-10-2010, 08:35
The concept of "heads and tails" doesn't really apply in a column distillation system.

bourbonv
03-10-2010, 09:15
The whole point of Heads and Tails is the beginning and ending of the distillation and the whole point of a column still is to allow the mash to run through the still in a continual flow. With that said, if the distiller is using a pot still doubler and not a thumper, then you can have some heads and tails involved.

MIke Veach

kickert
03-10-2010, 09:27
The whole point of Heads and Tails is the beginning and ending of the distillation and the whole point of a column still is to allow the mash to run through the still in a continual flow. With that said, if the distiller is using a pot still doubler and not a thumper, then you can have some heads and tails involved.

MIke Veach

Plus, if we are talking about BT's experimental still, it is a hybrid pot still and thus would have heads and tails.

nblair
03-10-2010, 09:46
Plus, if we are talking about BT's experimental still, it is a hybrid pot still and thus would have heads and tails.

True, but Chuck was right to correct me because I was mistakenly referring to the usual mass produced bourbons made in a column still. I didn't think about my question before I asked it... :confused:

cowdery
03-11-2010, 14:04
There are no heads and tails as such in a second distillation. There is a residue somewhat like tales left in the bottom of the doubler, but heads would be impossible since the methanol and other heads cogeners were removed in the first distillation. They can't magically reappear.

Gillman
03-11-2010, 15:28
An opinion from a 1930's writer on whiskey production (see page 95):

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y25d9Ht161wC&pg=PA79&dq=herstein+distillation&cd=1#v=onepage&q=heads&f=false

pfiest
09-02-2010, 10:02
I have it penciled in on my 2010 calendar to bump this thread no later than August.


I noticed that this has yet to occur, so I decided to take the liberty of bumping this thread. I hope that's OK.

OscarV
09-02-2010, 10:31
I noticed that this has yet to occur, so I decided to take the liberty of bumping this thread. I hope that's OK.

A-OK, the threads get locked after a year of no posts, March 11, 2010 was the last post prior to yours.
I was just waiting till then.
If any newbies see this go back and check out Chuck's original post.

cowdery
09-02-2010, 14:59
Hard to believe that was just a year ago.

CorvallisCracker
11-08-2010, 21:41
bump!

probably unnecessary, but...

T Comp
11-09-2010, 19:54
bump!

probably unnecessary, but...



No! At least not for me as I somehow missed this all before. Just wonderful knowledge again being imparted here and as often on SB, miss a little, miss a lot. Oh how I hate to wait!

CorvallisCracker
11-10-2010, 09:21
No! At least not for me as I somehow missed this all before. Just wonderful knowledge again being imparted here and as often on SB, miss a little, miss a lot.

A great way to discover interesting old threads is to go to Quick Links -> Who's Online and look at what the guest viewers are reading. I've found a lot of informative discussions that way. It's also mildly amusing to speculate about the Google search string that brought them here.

smokinjoe
11-10-2010, 10:44
A great way to discover interesting old threads is to go to Quick Links -> Who's Online and look at what the guest viewers are reading. I've found a lot of informative discussions that way. It's also mildly amusing to speculate about the Google search string that brought them here.

:lol: I do this all the time. I thought I was the only one! I enjoy seeing what guests are looking up. As you have Scott, I've discovered many old and informative topics.

Worthless info alert: The one item that I see many guests hitting on over the last several months is the "Mad Men Glasses" thread......

Also, you can pretty much get an idea who the poaching lurkers of the "membership" are...i.e., years on the board, daily visitor, 0 posts, and always seem to be checking on BTAC,BTEC, 4 Roses LE's, dusty finds, etc threads... So, people, be careful about posting publicly where you find special bottles.

Back on topic....1 down, 7 to go!

kickert
04-02-2011, 18:38
Hey... Remember this thread?

TNbourbon
04-02-2011, 21:02
Hey... Remember this thread?
If I'm mistaken, then ignore my existence, please, because I've forgotten how to do this! However, it seems nobody's posted a tasting note yet, so:
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=240515#post240515

kickert
04-02-2011, 21:11
If I'm mistaken, then ignore my existence, please, because I've forgotten how to do this! However, it seems nobody's posted a tasting note yet, so:
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=240515#post240515


Is this the same thing?

OscarV
04-03-2011, 02:16
Is this the same thing?

The just released Col E H Taylor Jr and the bourbon that is the subject of this thread are two different ones.
See post #1 here in this thread, it won't be available until 2017.

kickert
04-03-2011, 05:10
The just released Col E H Taylor Jr and the bourbon that is the subject of this thread are two different ones.
See post #1 here in this thread, it won't be available until 2017.

That is what I thought.

Gillman
04-03-2011, 06:43
Well, a simple question: was the mashbill of white corn, 10% rye and 25% barley malt used by National Distillers for Old Taylor, i.e., until 1987?

Gary

cowdery
04-03-2011, 11:48
Well, a simple question: was the mashbill of white corn, 10% rye and 25% barley malt used by National Distillers for Old Taylor, i.e., until 1987?

Gary

Unlikely. National had no more regard for the history or historical authenticity of the brands it owned than did the subsequent owner.

TNbourbon
04-03-2011, 12:17
The just released Col E H Taylor Jr and the bourbon that is the subject of this thread are two different ones.
See post #1 here in this thread, it won't be available until 2017.
Okay, go ahead and slap my hand now. My once laser-like focus has become, with each advancing year, something more akin to a thousand points of light, I'm afraid.
Mea culpa.

Gillman
04-03-2011, 17:53
But ND made the better bourbon (in the opinion of most here from what I can gauge). If not mash bill, what explains it? I think it may have been the particular yeast used and possibly the effects of wooden mashing vessels and fermenters. I don't think age alone explains it, the Beam/OG profile is just too different.

Gary

squire
04-03-2011, 18:11
How long did ND make Taylor whisky? I thought they bought the place in 1935.

flintlock
04-03-2011, 18:14
But ND made the better bourbon (in the opinion of most here from what I can gauge). If not mash bill, what explains it? I think it may have been the particular yeast used and possibly the effects of wooden mashing vessels and fermenters. I don't think age alone explains it, the Beam/OG profile is just too different.

Gary

I wonder about the corn itself. With corn genetics often largely controlled by Big Ag like Archer Daniels Midland, I wonder what corn is bought by the distilleries, and how much effort they put into ascertaining breeds. I know they carefully watch quality/contamination/moisture, etc. I've read that modern corn has a lot more carbohydrate, whereas corn used to have a lot more protein. This has to be a huge factor - certainly as big a factor as water or barrel char or a dozen other variables. And I'm certainly not a geneticist or a farmer, but I think breaking corn down by "white versus yellow" must be an oversimplification along the lines of breaking spirits down as "clear versus brown".

cowdery
04-03-2011, 18:58
The Old Taylor Distillery ran its last batch in 1972. Thereafter Old Taylor was made at the adjacent Old Crow Distillery, where it presumably was made until the Beam acquisition in 1987. It's possible they made it at Old Grand-Dad. It's also possible they used the two distilleries interchangeably.

Old Grand-Dad always had a special mash bill and yeast. It's entirely possible and, I think, likely that Crow and Taylor were the same yeast and same mash bill, i.e., the same whiskey, except Taylor was a six-year-old whereas Crow was a four-year-old. National had a lot of other bourbons at that time -- Bellows was one of them -- and I imagine that all of them except Old Grand-Dad were essentially that same whiskey, made at Old Crow.

We don't know what mash bill, yeast and other specifications they were using. We just know that recipe was never made again after 1987. We know Beam retained the Old Grand-Dad formula only. For every other bourbon they obtained from National, as well as for Old Overholt Rye, they used up the National stock, then switched everything over to the Jim Beam bourbon and rye recipes.

So I don't see what the mystery is. Of course Old Taylor changed after Beam bought it. The whiskey was a different mash bill, a different yeast, and made in a different distillery by a different company with different operating procedures, etc. That is more than enough to explain the difference and we know all of that happened.

The most unlikely theory is that they were using some kind of special corn specification for Taylor. In the post-prohibition era, despite what a lot of people dearly want to believe, 'corn' has meant #2 dent and nothing else. Possibly some distilleries had slightly different moisture content specs but that would be about it. It's also possible that some of the crappier distilleries were using crappier corn, but the industry standard is and long has been #2 dent.

Nobody has ever used anything 'special' in the modern era (excluding micro-distilleries, of course). Distilleries in the 70s and 80s certainly were not using anything that cost more than #2 dent. That's when everyone was cutting costs so they could compete on price, which might have tempted some people to use some #3 or #4, but not #1.

To bourbon distilleries, corn is a commodity. Anything they might say about 'the finest choice grains' is pure marketing fluff.

squire
04-03-2011, 19:58
My Grandmothers, who agreed on almost everything, were disparate in one regard. One made corn bread with yellow corn meal and the other used white corn meal. Dent yellow and Shoepeg white were the varietals I think but the resultant bread flavor was different. Doubt if Bourbons made in the last 50 years or so have used other than yellow dent. Perhaps one of the Micros might explore this if they really want to do something different.

Rughi
04-03-2011, 22:11
My Grandmothers, who agreed on almost everything, were disparate in one regard. One made corn bread with yellow corn meal and the other used white corn meal. Dent yellow and Shoepeg white were the varietals I think but the resultant bread flavor was different. Doubt if Bourbons made in the last 50 years or so have used other than yellow dent. Perhaps one of the Micros might explore this if they really want to do something different.

Well, don't know if any micros have, but BT has been it seems.

tmckenzie
04-04-2011, 03:39
#2 dent corn now, and #2 dent corn then are 2 different animals. I do not know when all of the hybrids started coming along, but it was probably after ww2, but this has had a serious impact on the flavor of corn. Now, corn is bred to have way more starch in it than it used to have. To have more starch, it has to have less germ, and that is where the flavor comes from. I had this very conversation with 2 corn genetic folks last week. 1 from cornell and the other from some school in missouri. I do know that we have had to try several different farmers corn around here until we found a corn that balanced flavor and alcohol yeild. There was one we tried that had a hell of a lot more corn flavor, but the yeild was half of what it is with the corn we use now. We have played around with open pollinated corn and use a small amount of it, just because the taste is so distinctive.
I know that Steve Nally has had to do the same thing out where he is at.

I wonder if the amount of backset used back when the nd plants were operating is one of the causes of the huge change. Maybe they used a lot more backset than beam does. More backset means lower ph and therfore makes a yeast act totally different and produces different flavors. We also had to experiment to find just the right amount.

Gillman
04-04-2011, 04:47
Makes a lot of sense Tom, thanks.

Gary

flintlock
04-04-2011, 08:14
#2 dent corn now, and #2 dent corn then are 2 different animals. I do not know when all of the hybrids started coming along, but it was probably after ww2, but this has had a serious impact on the flavor of corn.

Thanks Tom. I wondered if that wasn't the case. They talk about water and copper and oak all day long, but they don't talk about the corn. It's the single largest ingredient, and also the one thing the distilleries can't control. It's amazing, and a little frightening, how completely crops are controlled by the corporations that sell the seed and the geneticists who tailor it to specific market needs.

Seems like a big issue to me. But, like the weather, whaddaya gonna do?

squire
04-04-2011, 08:37
What I'm going to do is buy the products that please me most and refuse for the most part to pay for fancy packaging.

cowdery
04-04-2011, 19:57
One of the most unusual things I was told when working on the documentary in 1991-92 was said by a man who identified himself as the last master distiller at Old Crow and who was by then a Beam employee working at the Forks of Elkorn (Old Grand-Dad) plant, which is where Beam stuck all of the National production people it retained.

He told me that in the 1960s, National enlarged the Old Crow plant and accidentally altered the percentage of setback they were using. He said this completely screwed up the flavor and everyone, including he and the distillery tasting panel, told management it was screwed up, but at that point they were selling all they could make, so nothing was done to fix it. A few years later, when the bottom fell out, it was worse for Crow than just about any other major brand. He said they finally figured it out and fixed it a couple of years before Beam bought the place, so for the last few years of production from that plant the whiskey was good.

I've never found another source that could either confirm or deny that story.

jinenjo
04-04-2011, 20:37
That's quite interesting. Have you or anyone ever tasted the difference in, say, an '80s-era Old Crow vertical? When you say this man told you the change was a couple years before the buyout, I'm wondering when this juice was bottled--up to four years after 1987?

T Comp
04-04-2011, 20:42
#2 dent corn now, and #2 dent corn then are 2 different animals. I do not know when all of the hybrids started coming along, but it was probably after ww2, but this has had a serious impact on the flavor of corn. Now, corn is bred to have way more starch in it than it used to have. To have more starch, it has to have less germ, and that is where the flavor comes from. I had this very conversation with 2 corn genetic folks last week. 1 from cornell and the other from some school in missouri. I do know that we have had to try several different farmers corn around here until we found a corn that balanced flavor and alcohol yeild. There was one we tried that had a hell of a lot more corn flavor, but the yeild was half of what it is with the corn we use now. We have played around with open pollinated corn and use a small amount of it, just because the taste is so distinctive.
I know that Steve Nally has had to do the same thing out where he is at.

I wonder if the amount of backset used back when the nd plants were operating is one of the causes of the huge change. Maybe they used a lot more backset than beam does. More backset means lower ph and therfore makes a yeast act totally different and produces different flavors. We also had to experiment to find just the right amount.


One of the most unusual things I was told when working on the documentary in 1991-92 was said by a man who identified himself as the last master distiller at Old Crow and who was by then a Beam employee working at the Forks of Elkorn (Old Grand-Dad) plant, which is where Beam stuck all of the National production people it retained.

He told me that in the 1960s, National enlarged the Old Crow plant and accidentally altered the percentage of setback they were using. He said this completely screwed up the flavor and everyone, including he and the distillery tasting panel, told management it was screwed up, but at that point they were selling all they could make, so nothing was done to fix it. A few years later, when the bottom fell out, it was worse for Crow than just about any other major brand. He said they finally figured it out and fixed it a couple of years before Beam bought the place, so for the last few years of production from that plant the whiskey was good.

I've never found another source that could either confirm or deny that story.

These are the nuggets of information that come out of the dialog here that makes me damn proud to be a member of SB. Great stuff!

tmckenzie
04-05-2011, 04:15
If they screwed it up on account of say installing bigger fermenters, all they would have had to do was pump more backset in. From what I have been told, most distilleries did not even check the ph, they just knew how long to run the pump to put the backset in. And the screwup may not have shown up in the new make as much as it did in the barrel and it was not caught until it was time to bottle. They must have just decided to live with it. Looks like the yeild would have been off and they would have caught it that way though. If everything is working right, the mash will yeld a certain amount of whiskey, and if something like the amount of backset is wrong the yeild will be off.

OscarV
08-18-2011, 21:54
With the upcoming release of the second edition of E H Taylor Jr I thought it'd be a good time to bump this thread.
Anyone new to this thread check out the original post and see why.
Also below are pics of the first release Sour Mash and the second Single Barrel.

HP12
08-19-2011, 06:16
This is one very interesting thread! Thanks to all the contributors!

marna
08-21-2011, 11:22
I also enjoyed this thread and learned a lot. It made me wonder about this effort compared to the BTAC line. This one seems like it is more purist - trying to recreate, or at least follow, an original recipe. The BTAC appears to me, a newbie, as an homage. Is that an accurate assessment?

Are there other "original recipe" offerings out there, or offerings that aim to copy pre-prohibition formulas? I realize with GMO a lot has changed, but still wonder if this is an isolated effort.
Marna

Beer&Bourbon
11-10-2011, 07:59
I recently found a few bottles of the sour mash. Feel free to pm me if anyone is interested.

M Pickle
12-18-2011, 15:00
So I pick this as my first post. Go figure.

As a long time all grain home brewer, it seems like yeast gets short shrift in the distilled spirit world. When brewing beer for style, grain is important, but yeast strain is key. If you use the wrong yeast, your end result will be way off the mark. Yeast brings so much flavor to the party. Another variable is fermentation temperature. It contributes to the quantity and type of fusil oils produced.

How do bourbon distillers controll these variables?

My real question is, does the type of corn affect flavor more than the yeast or fermentation temps? My gut tells me that corn is corn on the whole.

cowdery
12-18-2011, 16:25
Yeast is important because, as distillers will tell you, all of the flavor is produced in the fermentation. The still just concentrates flavors, and discards some unpleasant ones, but it doesn't create any new ones. The major distillers know yeast is important.

Brewers use different yeasts to create different styles whereas, generally, a distiller will use one yeast because they're really only making one style, which is bourbon. So when they've found a yeast they like, they don't have much reason to talk about yeast.

An exception is Four Roses, which uses five different yeast strains and uses them for the flavor properties they produce. One is considered spicy, one is considered floral, etc.

In the micro-distillery world there are some people who give fermentation short shrift because they have confused the roles of distiller and still operator. Bill Owens, president of the American Distilling Institute, recommends that micro-distillers contract out their fermentation to a micro-brewer and just concentrate on distilling, which I think is very bad advice.

M Pickle
12-18-2011, 17:13
Bill Owens, president of the American Distilling Institute, recommends that micro-distillers contract out their fermentation to a micro-brewer and just concentrate on distilling, which I think is very bad advice.

Agreed. My brewing experience would drive me to believe that distilling would concentrate the flavours generated by fermentation. For example the yeast from a Belgian beer would creat vasty different flavours from a czech pils. The temps required to use these yeasts are at the oposite ends of the spectrum.

Slightly off topic. Are the yeasts used by bourbon distillers more ale like vice lager? I assume so, since lager takes too long to ferment for liquor.

cowdery
12-18-2011, 23:17
I know a typical fermentation takes four to seven days, depending on how they set it. Does that tell you anything?

tmckenzie
12-19-2011, 04:07
They are more ale like in nature. However I have played around with lager yeast at higher temps for bourbon and it make for intereting esters.

M Pickle
12-20-2011, 18:00
I know a typical fermentation takes four to seven days, depending on how they set it. Does that tell you anything?

That tells me they are more like Ale yeast. Lagers take longer to ferment. They also require temperatures well below room temperature.

M Pickle
12-20-2011, 18:03
They are more ale like in nature. However I have played around with lager yeast at higher temps for bourbon and it make for intereting esters.

Fascinating. I bet you got some strong fusils. A higher ferm temp would stress the yeast, wich usually results in off flavours.

tmckenzie
12-21-2011, 03:50
That is the point, to stress the yeast to make those flavors. Off flavors in beer, means good flavors in bourbon. We ferment in the 90's.

M Pickle
12-21-2011, 18:39
That is the point, to stress the yeast to make those flavors. Off flavors in beer, means good flavors in bourbon. We ferment in the 90's.

Man booze is so cool! I lern something new every day.

If you want funky flavours, try some Belgian farmhouse ale yeast.

tmckenzie
12-22-2011, 03:23
I have used some in the past you are right. Basically when you hear about all of the old distillers who captured a wild yeast and kept it alive, it is about the same yeast as a belgian farmhouse ale yeast.

tommyboy38
12-30-2011, 20:48
I like old Old taylor.

Young Blacksmith
01-17-2012, 16:55
Three years down, Five to go.:grin:

OscarV
08-02-2012, 03:27
Bumping this thread for some old and new information.
First the old, below is the original post and photo submitted by Chuck Cowdery in August 2009.
Below the photo is the new info from Cowdery's comments in another thread a couple of months ago.

As archivist at the Filson Historical Society for the papers of E. H. Taylor, Jr., Mike Veach discovered that Taylor favored white corn, not yellow, and used 2 1/2 times the normal amount of barley malt -- about 25% malt. With 10% rye and the rest white corn, that was Taylor's mash bill. He distilled it to about 107 proof and put it in the barrel that way, aging it for about 8 years.
The picture below, courtesy of Mark Brown, is that recipe, last week, in the micro-distillery fermenters at Buffalo Trace. The first batch of the new Old Taylor has started its journey.
http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w504/ovhWinstonovh/Taylor20recipe202.jpg

Some people seem to assume that the white corn bourbon BT put down for Taylor a couple of years ago will be Taylor when it comes of age. The evidence suggests otherwise. That was a one-off. They haven't made any more of it. It was, I think I heard, three barrels worth. It will be like the old fashioned sour mash, an authentic historic artifact but a one-off, not a regular product.

tmckenzie
08-02-2012, 04:42
Do we know if this batch was indeed sour mash? I do not see how it could have been, since they were starting up and ran only one batch. I would not think I or they would use backset from a regular yello corn bourbon bourbon run. Maybe they did it right after doing a batch of the rain vodka, which is white corn and used some of it for backset.

Lost Pollito
08-02-2012, 04:52
Do we know if this batch was indeed sour mash? I thought they let the mash sit extra long in a holding tank before distillation to sour "Old fashioned" style.

tmckenzie
08-02-2012, 14:05
I know they said they did for the first release of the eh taylor, but I do not know about this batch. Maybe I missed it.

cowdery
08-02-2012, 19:08
I'm pretty sure nothing was ever said about that, whether or not it was sour mash and, if so, where they got the slop. BT certainly has plenty and since spent mash is, by definition, spent, there would be nothing wrong with using yellow corn slop for backset.

tmckenzie
08-03-2012, 04:22
They could use yellow corn slop, but it would effect the taste. My money says either sweet mash or they brought it down with acid.

cowdery
08-03-2012, 11:44
I agree. What kind of acid would you use?

tmckenzie
08-03-2012, 17:34
phosphoric, lactic, citric and some use sulfuric.

DBM
06-28-2013, 08:20
Approaching the 1 year mark from the last post, bumpity bump.

bourbonv
06-28-2013, 09:34
I tasted this last December and I really liked it. With the low distillation and barrel proof, my bet is it will be ready to bottle in four years.
Mike Veach

weller_tex
06-28-2013, 12:46
I tasted this last December and I really liked it. With the low distillation and barrel proof, my bet is it will be ready to bottle in four years.
Mike Veach

I was looking forward to trying this initially, but the way BT has gone with a lot of their products (not all since I can still get W12 for < $24 but holding my breath on that one) I expect they will price it at $70 and I will have to get on some damn waiting or call list to get it..and I ain't doing that anymore. Too many good whiskeys to go through that bullshit again..

squire
06-28-2013, 14:40
Too many to go through it once.

mbroo5880i
06-29-2013, 19:16
I was looking forward to trying this initially, but the way BT has gone with a lot of their products (not all since I can still get W12 for < $24 but holding my breath on that one) I expect they will price it at $70 and I will have to get on some damn waiting or call list to get it..and I ain't doing that anymore. Too many good whiskeys to go through that bullshit again..

Man, I am with you. Special ain't so special anymore. Price it so the average man (or woman) can enjoy it.

cowdery
06-30-2013, 14:35
So far as I know, this white corn Old Taylor was a one off. However much they made back when this thread began is it. They haven't continued to fill the pipeline. So when they do release this it will be a limited edition and priced accordingly.

weller_tex
07-03-2013, 09:13
So far as I know, this white corn Old Taylor was a one off. However much they made back when this thread began is it. They haven't continued to fill the pipeline. So when they do release this it will be a limited edition and priced accordingly.

I don't have a problem with the price so much (I do still buy Single Malts at times)..it's the stupid hoops one has to go through to buy BT's premium products. Easy enough for me..I just don't try to buy them anymore.

theglobalguy
07-03-2013, 14:29
I'm ok with the prices, it's the over distribution that has me baffled. Can't think of another industry where the limited release (mid to high end depending on your viewpoint) gets pushed out to gas stations, grocery chains, backwoods shops and large format liquor stores.

Giving everyone 2 bottles isn't worth my time to attempt.

Lost Pollito
04-25-2014, 07:30
Just a gentle bump.

mosugoji64
04-25-2014, 17:01
Someone posted recently that BT dropped the age statement on OT. Has anyone tried the BT version yet?

WAINWRIGHT
04-28-2014, 13:32
I would be curious to try the BT version since the switch of the Beam sourced myself surely it can't be any worse.I personally have yet to see the NAS BT version as the 6 year Beam version didn't seem to sell well and is still gracing many a shelf......weird huh.[emoji107]

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

ModernThirst
06-03-2014, 06:26
Someone posted recently that BT dropped the age statement on OT. Has anyone tried the BT version yet?

I have a new 200mL bottle for a budget tasting that I just purchased this week, stating "aged 6 years." Maybe it's just an older bottle, but the guys at the liquor store said it was a fresh case (who knows how long it was warehoused). I haven't tried it yet. It still says Frankfort/Clermont on the label, so I'm guessing it's an older bottle. Can anyone confirm based on the front label? I don't have photos of the back yet..I'll check that when I get home tonight.

18513

18514