PDA

View Full Version : Lot 40 2012 Edition



Gillman
10-23-2012, 18:04
Well, it's back. Every few years Lot 40 reappears, like a fondly-recalled pop group that refuses to call it a day. And like some of those recurring rock outfits, this whiskey shows its chops can get better.

The current release is cotton-soft in texture and quite bourbon-like in taste. The old pot still rye, varsol-like notes are present, but the result is more nuanced than of yore, it's more approachable and much better than all prior iterations IMO.

Not to be missed and a bargain at about $40.00.

Gary

portwood
10-23-2012, 18:56
I've been enjoying this for a few days. It may be the most flavourful Canadian whisky on the market today.
It has taken top spot on my Canadian shelf - ahead of Wiser's Legacy and Alberta Premium 30yo.

Since the LCBO has it listed as "limited supply" I'm going to stock up. A full case (12?) may be too much but 6 for sure!

ThomasH
10-23-2012, 19:57
Hopefully this will still be available when I go to Windsor next month. I recently scored a bottle of Wisers Legacy in a local store here!

Thomas

redbear
10-23-2012, 20:26
Is this available in the states? I have an old bottle in the bunker.....

Gillman
10-24-2012, 01:55
I'd think the new one will be available soon, since the older releases were.

It would be interesting to compare the two. They are similar but the new one is more refined IMO, more like a cross between an aged bourbon and a vigorous, younger straight rye.

Now that this is back, I definitely rate it in the top group of the Canadians. Wiser's Legacy is good too although I preferred the initial bottling back in 2010 to the current one.

One thing that has emerged for the high-end Canadians is how different they are. Bourbon and straight rye in the U.S. present more similarities, whereas products like CC 20 and 30 or Alberta Premium 30, Dark Horse, Lot 40, John Hall's range from Kittling Ridge (Barrel Select etc.), and the U.S. bottlings like WhistlePig and Masterson's are all quite different. This reflects the greater stylistic variety at work today or at least now being made public (as it seems the more assertive whiskeys were always made in-house and used for blending).

Gary

WhiskyToWhiskey
10-24-2012, 14:10
I picked this one up too, really like it. I'm not sure if I would rate it higher than the Legacy (only had it open a day, my opinion as it stays open could change), but the two are very close. Forty Creek I really like the Copper Pot, but am not as big a fan of the Port Wood or Barrel Select finding too much influence the port and sherry casks have on the whisky. Legacy, Lot 40 and Wisers Small Batch are my 3 favorites right now, all Corby's products I believe, and I'm looking forward to trying the Pike Creek.

Smithford
10-24-2012, 15:27
Hopefully this will still be available when I go to Windsor next month.
Thomas, just before you go to Windsor, do a search at the LCBO (http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=291468). Search the store inventory in Windsor to see which ones have it in stock. The numbers are updated overnight and are usually pretty accurate (unless you see only one bottle - sometimes those are phantoms). Currently, two outlets in Windsor have stock of Lot No. 40. (further searching reveals that both of those stores also have Wiser's Legacy, and Forty Creek Confederation Oak). You could walk away with the Canadian Whiskey Triple Crown. :yum:

jtgraves
10-24-2012, 17:27
Now this is some great news! I'll certainly be on the lookout for this one. Lot 40 was the whiskey that made me rethink my views on Canadian ryes. Hopefully it won't take too long for it to trickle down to texas. I'll enjoy trying it next to old bottle I'm currently drinking.

ThomasH
10-24-2012, 18:47
I already have the Wisers legacy and Confederation Oak. I always search the LCBO befre going to Windsor. The Store at howard and E C Rowe expressway is like a super store. Another store around the corner and up the Road from The Canadian Club distillery is also good. We usually buy Crown Royal at duty free but otherwise I only buy stuff I can't get in the US, and many time it ends up being Canadian. While my wife and Sister in law and brother in law go to the casino, I go bottle hunting!

Thomas


Thomas, just before you go to Windsor, do a search at the LCBO (http://www.lcbo.com/lcbo-ear/lcbo/product/details.do?language=EN&itemNumber=291468). Search the store inventory in Windsor to see which ones have it in stock. The numbers are updated overnight and are usually pretty accurate (unless you see only one bottle - sometimes those are phantoms). Currently, two outlets in Windsor have stock of Lot No. 40. (further searching reveals that both of those stores also have Wiser's Legacy, and Forty Creek Confederation Oak). You could walk away with the Canadian Whiskey Triple Crown. :yum:

Megawatt
11-01-2012, 20:48
Having a glass now, and I absolutely love it. I also like your comment, Gary, about the increasing variety of Canadian whiskies. I too have a harder time differentiating between bourbons, possibly because they tend to have that overwhelming bourbon taste whereas Canadian whisky is more subtle.

Alphanumeric
09-19-2013, 16:23
A shipment of the 2012 just made it to my local Binny's. $60, so not quite the $40 bargain, but I picked one up anyway because it's been on my list and I don't have any Canadians right now. Looking forward to trying this one.

theglobalguy
09-19-2013, 16:44
A shipment of the 2012 just made it to my local Binny's. $60, so not quite the $40 bargain, but I picked one up anyway because it's been on my list and I don't have any Canadians right now. Looking forward to trying this one.

Damn that's pricey! I enjoyed it at the $39 i picked it up for at LCBO in Canada, wouldn't be a buyer at $60.

portwood
09-19-2013, 16:52
Damn that's pricey! I enjoyed it at the $39 i picked it up for at LCBO in Canada, wouldn't be a buyer at $60.
Payback for the bourbons that cost 60 bucks up here but can be had for 40 south of the border.:slappin:

What I really want to know is: whatever happened to "free trade":confused:

theglobalguy
09-19-2013, 17:56
Payback for the bourbons that cost 60 bucks up here but can be had for 40 south of the border.:slappin:

What I really want to know is: whatever happened to "free trade":confused:

Zing! Point well taken.

As a CDN expat living in KY, i recognize VERY MUCH how good i have it. When i found a 90's era Lot 40 in KY this summer....$36. Any profit that store might have made was long gone due to carrying capital costs, taxes, etc.

squire
09-19-2013, 18:08
I liked the first version of Lot 40 and was sorta planning on picking up one of these new ones but not at that price.

WhiskyRI
09-20-2013, 05:01
$60 might be a little steep but it is tasty juice. Back in August at the Canadian Whisky tasting I put on with Davin De Kergomeaux - Lot 40 was the most popular whisky of the tasting. The second favorite was Pike Creek Double Barreled - which can be had for under $40 if memory serves. Also quite tasty.

ChainWhip
09-20-2013, 08:35
It's about $50 out the door but I have to drive up to Vancouver to pick it up.

jtgraves
09-20-2013, 17:58
The original is what got me started in dusty hunting. When it finally makes it to Texas, I'll pick up a bottle, and try it alongside one of my dusty Lot 40s At $60, it might be the only one I ever buy, but I just have to compare them for myself. Can't fight that curiosity.

Alphanumeric
09-22-2013, 21:34
You guys have certainly de-winded my sails. I purchased it out of excitement and figured Binny's was due for a 15 or 20%-off sale in the next month (thirty day returns on unopened bottles). I wasn't planning on returning it if a sale didn't pop up, but I am now.

Frodo
09-23-2013, 01:24
I had a glass tonight - really nice stuff!!!

theglobalguy
10-06-2013, 19:47
In stock @ TPS now for $55 for those within a drive.

ChainWhip
10-07-2013, 23:25
This bottle is growing on me :-)

skidfive
10-18-2013, 15:03
found three in CA at $57 plus tax.

Grabbed all three of them, was really surprised to see them on the shelf

theglobalguy
10-18-2013, 15:14
found three in CA at $57 plus tax.

Grabbed all three of them, was really surprised to see them on the shelf

It seems to be popping up more and more.

Sku posted a review on this earlier this week.....

http://recenteats.blogspot.com/2013/10/canada-week-part-iii-lot-40-canadian-rye.html

MtnDew
10-19-2013, 12:10
Man, I'm really going to have to open my bottle now. That and the pikes creek I grabbed in Edmonton, can't wait to give them a whirl!

ChainWhip
11-08-2013, 11:02
Man, I'm really going to have to open my bottle now. That and the pikes creek I grabbed in Edmonton, can't wait to give them a whirl!

It's hit the shelves in WA state - but it's $75.12 out the door.

RVTsteve
11-08-2013, 12:01
Been seeing it a lot around but just looked past it. I'll have to take a closer look.

ChainWhip
11-08-2013, 12:16
It's cheaper for me to drive up to Vancouver and pick up a bottle than buying locally... what I don't get from a pricing perspective is that Pike Creek is right next to the Lot No. 40 and it's $37.76 out the door. It's the same class/series of Canadian rye and yet one is 2x's as expensive as the other.

portwood
11-08-2013, 13:25
It's cheaper for me to drive up to Vancouver and pick up a bottle than buying locally... what I don't get from a pricing perspective is that Pike Creek is right next to the Lot No. 40 and it's $37.76 out the door. It's the same class/series of Canadian rye and yet one is 2x's as expensive as the other.
Having bought both the Pike Creek and Lot 40 for the same price ($40) I can say the Lot 40 is worth twice as much as the PC.
I would not put them in "the same class" taste-wise!

ChainWhip
11-08-2013, 13:47
Having bought both the Pike Creek and Lot 40 for the same price ($40) I can say the Lot 40 is worth twice as much as the PC.
I would not put them in "the same class" taste-wise!

Taste-wise, I'm right there with you. Price-wise, LCBO has them both priced $39.99 (which makes sense since they're both from the Canadian Whisky Guild releases). I'm glad to see it here but just not at those prices.

ChainWhip
11-08-2013, 14:12
I do plan on stocking up on Lot No. 40 next time I'm in Canada though.

biskuit
02-08-2014, 11:00
This just hit Georgia. Wow, I am super impressed. Grabbed two bottles at $55, may go back for more. Tasting notes to come as I get into this bottle a bit more...

squire
02-08-2014, 11:31
Do tell biskuit, I've been a fan of this one for a long time.

biskuit
02-10-2014, 11:28
Do tell biskuit, I've been a fan of this one for a long time.

Here you go - tasting notes/review at http://www.thirstysouth.com/2014/02/10/lot-40-rye-whisky/

BigRich
02-10-2014, 11:31
I grabbed one on Saturday. I'm excited to open it up as soon as this head cold blows over so that I can actually taste it.

garbanzobean
02-10-2014, 15:59
I've heard enough people extolling the virtues of the 2012 release that I suppose I'll have to pick it up. My local honey hole has a ton of it, plus a bunch of baby Saz for $27.

Megawatt
02-15-2014, 13:35
Excellent review, Biskuit. I got another bottle of this recently and confirmed that it is indeed as good as I first thought. From the nose to the finish its outstanding.

tanstaafl2
02-15-2014, 15:04
I also picked up the Lot 40 2012 today (along with a Dickel Barrel Select and a few others). Will sit down and compare it to the original when I have an opportunity. Definitely cost more than the original so it loses that comparison!

17789

Megawatt
02-15-2014, 15:11
I must admit it is nice to pay less for a quality product than you people in the USA, considering we get stiffed on everything else here in Ontario.

Mamba
02-17-2014, 01:06
I also picked up a bottle after reading this thread. I'll have to finish some opens before popping the cork though. Had to pay $58 here

DBM
02-17-2014, 01:28
I really want to try this, but the best price in WA state is $75.17 to walk out the door with a bottle. First world problem.

theglobalguy
02-17-2014, 07:21
I really want to try this, but the best price in WA state is $75.17 to walk out the door with a bottle. First world problem.

Only $39.99 up in BC. Get driving!!

DBM
02-18-2014, 00:25
Only $39.99 up in BC. Get driving!!
I seriously considered that, but it's 210 miles round trip which is $40 in gas so it would cost more. :)

ChainWhip
02-18-2014, 00:33
I seriously considered that, but it's 210 miles round trip which is $40 in gas so it would cost more. :)

Just hit up Ramen row while you're at it ;)

ChainWhip
02-18-2014, 00:55
I've got a bottle of Lot 40 2012 if you'd like to try it

MtnDew
02-18-2014, 14:38
Hmmm, I'm headed that way in a few weeks. Looks like I'll be bringing home some bottles for myself and others. DBM, CW, how many bottles do you want? ;)

portwood
02-22-2014, 10:33
I hit the jackpot today. Found this top-shelf Canadian whisky at bottom shelf price.
Regularly priced at $39.95, found today on sale at local store for $28. Bought 7 bottles to bring my stash total to 12!

tanstaafl2
02-22-2014, 10:37
I hit the jackpot today. Found this top-shelf Canadian whisky at bottom shelf price.
Regularly priced at $39.95, found today on sale at local store for $28. Bought 7 bottles to bring my stash total to 12!

I would be happy with $39.95 down south of the border. Which seems weird given the price difference is usually reversed!

portwood
02-22-2014, 11:09
I would be happy with $39.95 down south of the border. Which seems weird given the price difference is usually reversed!
Its extremely RARE when Canadians pay less for booze than Americans, its worth celebrating when its stuff that is actually worth drinkig!

MyOldKyDram
02-22-2014, 11:37
Yeah, for that price I would be a regular drinker of it. For what they're asking here it's going to be an extremely rare purchase.

MtnDew
02-23-2014, 23:51
Just tried my bottle of Lot 40 I grabbed last year in Alberta... dang, it's quite tasty. I get a whole crap ton of tropical fruit on the nose, not what I expected from a 100% rye. I am going to grab another bottle or three during the excursion northward.

ramblinman
02-24-2014, 10:31
Yall are going to make me go out and buy a sub 90pr bottle for the first time in about a year, shame!

ramblinman
02-24-2014, 19:15
Well, I picked up a bottle of this today and one glass in I'm having a little buyers remorse. It's not that it's bad in any way, it's actually quite good , but I find myself comparing it to jeff10 and coming up a little short on that, and tasting a little less intense in the flavor dept.

Looking forward to revisiting it and comparing the two, but for my first pour I'm having trouble understanding the amazing reviews vs other Canadian ryes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WhiskyToWhiskey
02-27-2014, 18:55
..... I'm having trouble understanding the amazing reviews vs other Canadian ryes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to other Canadian ryes, Lot 40 does stand out big (compared to standard crown, cc, wisers, etc). It may get blown out of the water by Jeffersons 10, Mastersons, and Whistlepig....but those are in a whole different class.

ramblinman
02-27-2014, 19:02
Compared to other Canadian ryes, Lot 40 does stand out big (compared to standard crown, cc, wisers, etc). It may get blown out of the water by Jeffersons 10, Mastersons, and Whistlepig....but those are in a whole different class.

Seems to me that Jeff/WP/Mastersons are exactly what I should be comparing a > $50 Canadian rye to. Maybe I'm missing a differentiation?

If I don't enjoy my next pour I think I'll just pass it along to my dad, he's a long time crown/canadian club guy so he might appreciate it a bit more than me.

Not a big deal, I've had bigger miss bottles, and every additional tasting gives me more experience to build on, just very surprised at the difference between my expectation and delivery.

Gillman
02-27-2014, 19:25
Well, what you are noticing IMO is the difference between new charred barrel aging and reused (or brand new uncharred) barrel aging. The American-made straight ryes use of course the new charred barrel, it gives a warm, sweet, tannic finish. With Lot 40, you don't have that, you get the full minty/chemical taste of unrefined rye spirit but without modification from the new charred barrel - no red layer gums in particular. Masterson's is a better comparison to Yank straight rye because it too is aged in new charred barrels albeit in Canada. It stands between the two extremes so to speak: the Canadian climate and perhaps all-rye grist of the Masterson tend to soften a bit the full-on effect of the red layer, but still you can see the difference vs. the austere taste of Lot 40. I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

WhiskyToWhiskey
02-28-2014, 04:14
.....I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

I was thinking the same thing. But sites that do their reviews, group Canadian whisky together, and Lot 40 does get higher points than most. Where I live this is $40, and Mastersons is close to double (and was priced close to triple 6months ago), so I didn't compare the two as being in the same league....never thought about the barrel aging having so much of a huge difference, thx Gary.

Gillman
02-28-2014, 05:50
Well, really the new charred barrel is what makes U.S. straight whiskey what it is. The woody sweetness comes in from the red layer under the thin char crust. Lot 40 is definitely not aged in new charred barrels or not 100%. It is probably a mix of barrels of different kinds. If it was 100% new charred barrel aging the whiskey would be much closer to American rye but the intent in creating it was to go back to the origins of Canadian rye when it was an unrefined drink. (This is why clearly the Canadians devised their own approach to a blended whisky - the typical CC or CR-type taste - because it was felt (or so I conclude) that a drink as assertive as Lot 40 probably wouldn't gain national appeal. So they ended by using (in effect) just a little of the straight unrefined stuff with a whole lot more of fairly neutral but aged spirit and this is what became the Canadian taste. I can see that people still bracket Lot 40 with the other Canadians and after all they are broadly of the same family, but to me they actually taste, side by side, quite different).

The real question I think is why Canada didn't create its own style of 100% new charred barrel-aged straight whisky. I don't know, we have a lot of oak in the country and this was especially so in the 1800's. For some reason the taste didn't go in that direction. Possibly this was due to the Scottish and Irish influences on the liquor industry here, and they never used new charred barrels either - as all here know, in fact their whiskey became known as being aged in reused bourbon and rye barrels, so perhaps Canada just followed that practice.

When all is said and done, while Lot 40 is an interesting product, a historical curiosity, I don't think it can ever displace the regular style of Canadian whisky. The taste is too out there. It does enjoy a good niche position in the market currently. To me Masterson's offers more scope for development as a new national style of whisky since it is new charred barrel aged yet despite that shows some similarity to standard Canadian whisky. I was speculating our climate may lead to that especially if the warehouses are not cycled (artificially cooled and heated). Alberta's very cold winters would result I'd think over 10-12 years in a more restrained palate than Kentucky's which is why perhaps Masterson's tastes different to some of the U.S. straight ryes mentioned in this thread.

So if it was me, I'd put Lot 40 when new in new charred barrels for 8 years and then see. I think it would be an outstanding drink.

Gray

WhiskyToWhiskey
02-28-2014, 19:13
So if it was me, I'd put Lot 40 when new in new charred barrels for 8 years and then see. I think it would be an outstanding drink.

Gray

Ya...that would be something for sure. Masterson's 10yr is the best Canadian Whisky I have had. I tried Whistlepig 10yr and imo it is not as good.

ramblinman
03-02-2014, 11:48
Well, what you are noticing IMO is the difference between new charred barrel aging and reused (or brand new uncharred) barrel aging. The American-made straight ryes use of course the new charred barrel, it gives a warm, sweet, tannic finish. With Lot 40, you don't have that, you get the full minty/chemical taste of unrefined rye spirit but without modification from the new charred barrel - no red layer gums in particular. Masterson's is a better comparison to Yank straight rye because it too is aged in new charred barrels albeit in Canada. It stands between the two extremes so to speak: the Canadian climate and perhaps all-rye grist of the Masterson tend to soften a bit the full-on effect of the red layer, but still you can see the difference vs. the austere taste of Lot 40. I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

Gary, I think you might be a little over my head with this. By American-made do you mean American-style? Or am I completely wrong in thinking that WP/Jeff10 are Canadian made ryes?

Gillman
03-02-2014, 12:51
Yes American-style, you are certainly right that Masterson's, plus Jefferson's rye apparently, are Canadian-sourced and aged in new charred oak, that is why it is okay to call them straight rye in the States. That practice though to release a whiskey made like that as a straight (not blended with other whiskeys) is an American one, in Canada they have not done this for generations. Generally in Canada, my understanding is the straight-type whiskey made in-house is used only for blending and generally too it won't be aged, or 100%, in new charred barrels, they often use in Canada (whether for the "straight" or blended products - let's call Lot 40 straight for present purposes) a mix of barrel types extending to reused bourbon and new (uncharred) oak barrels. Masterson's is an exception since you can buy it in Canada now, but it was sold in the States first and has an American theme on the packaging. In other words as I see it, Canadians don't see this kind of whiskey as something in general to release on its own (in Canada), that is an American practice.

Jazzhead
04-12-2014, 12:52
Yes American-style, you are certainly right that Masterson's, plus Jefferson's rye apparently, are Canadian-sourced and aged in new charred oak, that is why it is okay to call them straight rye in the States. That practice though to release a whiskey made like that as a straight (not blended with other whiskeys) is an American one, in Canada they have not done this for generations. Generally in Canada, my understanding is the straight-type whiskey made in-house is used only for blending and generally too it won't be aged, or 100%, in new charred barrels, they often use in Canada (whether for the "straight" or blended products - let's call Lot 40 straight for present purposes) a mix of barrel types extending to reused bourbon and new (uncharred) oak barrels. Masterson's is an exception since you can buy it in Canada now, but it was sold in the States first and has an American theme on the packaging. In other words as I see it, Canadians don't see this kind of whiskey as something in general to release on its own (in Canada), that is an American practice.

From what I understand, Lot 40 is a blend, of 90% unmalted rye and 10% malted rye. While it tastes, of course, nothing like it, I wonder if the proper comparison is to pot-still based Irish whisky.

I've only recently discovered this stuff, and I'm hooked. The rye bread up front is huge, but the overall feel of the sip and swallow is sweet creaminess. It's an amazing contrast, and the best rye I've ever tasted.

Gillman
04-12-2014, 13:21
The mash bill is as you describe but that is not (as such) what makes a whisky a blend. A blend is composed in part of a bland whisky distilled out at a high proof. Lot 40 is apparently an all-pot still whisky, i.e., all distilled out at a low proof and therefore not a blend in the usual sense.

The mix of malted and unmalted cereals in Lot 40 can be analogized to an Irish single pot still whiskey but then you could say the same of a bourbon.

Gary

Jazzhead
04-12-2014, 22:57
The mash bill is as you describe but that is not (as such) what makes a whisky a blend. A blend is composed in part of a bland whisky distilled out at a high proof. Lot 40 is apparently an all-pot still whisky, i.e., all distilled out at a low proof and therefore not a blend in the usual sense.

The mix of malted and unmalted cereals in Lot 40 can be analogized to an Irish single pot still whiskey but then you could say the same of a bourbon.

Gary

Thanks for the clarification, Gillman. Interesting stuff, Canadian whiskey. I had assumed that Lot 40 represented a blend (two separate whiskeys blended together) rather than a mashbill (a recipe for a single whiskey). I know that "blended scotch" is exactly what you describe - malt whiskey blended with (I think the term is) grain neutral spirits. Lot 40, I believe, includes no grain neutral spirits, which is why I was thinking of an Irish pot still - based whiskey, containing malted and unmalted barley.

MtnDew
04-12-2014, 23:13
Thanks for the clarification, Gillman. Interesting stuff, Canadian whiskey. I had assumed that Lot 40 represented a blend (two separate whiskeys blended together) rather than a mashbill (a recipe for a single whiskey). I know that "blended scotch" is exactly what you describe - malt whiskey blended with (I think the term is) grain neutral spirits. Lot 40, I believe, includes no grain neutral spirits, which is why I was thinking of an Irish pot still - based whiskey, containing malted and unmalted barley.

I think your off just a little on the Scotch. Canadian whiskies do the blend with grain neutral spirits, at least most do, where as a blended scotch uses grain whiskys made from grains other than barely. The difference being that the grain whiskys are distilled and then aged just like the malt spirit, though I'm assuming they tend to use their oldest barrels for the most part. This is to meet the minimum age requirement of 3 years, something that is required of blends and single malts alike. Any age statement you see on a blended scotch whisky applies to all the spirits inside, not just the malt.

Otherwise you seem right on, Lot 40 is not made in the classic sense as they don't use that high proof whisky combined with flavoring whisky (thats what they call it right, flavoring whisky?) just the good stuff. Dang, now I kinda want to get pick up another bottle....

squire
04-13-2014, 06:47
Just a bit of clarification:

American blended whisky is made up of whisky blended with GNS, Canadians do not use GNS.

Blended Canadian whisky uses the same type grain whisky as used in Scotch and is also aged a minimum of three years.

Jazzhead
04-13-2014, 07:49
I think I see where the confusion lies. I was equating Gillman's description of "bland whiskey distilled at a high proof" with my description of "grain neutral spirits" It appears they are not the same thing. A "straight" whiskey under U.S. law has to be distilled to no more than 80% ABV. Stuff distilled at higher proofs becomes the "bland spirit" Gillman describes, and under Scottish law (as per my perusal of wikipedia) grains can be distilled to approximately 93 - 94 percent ABV, which apparently produces a more or less neutral spirit. But that's not as high an ABV as true grain neutral spirit can be.

So I guess then that Lot 40 is blended straight rye pot-still whiskeys, malted and unmalted.

Does that make it unique? Are there any other Canadians made this way of a blend of straight rye "flavoring whiskeys" only? There's an excellent American rye I've had recently that sort of compares, with a baseball-bat-upside-the-head whallop of rye bread but still balanced. It's High West's Double Rye, which is a blend of two year and fifteen year straight ryes. They do another blend called Rendezvous Rye, which I'll have to try to find next time I'm in Maryland.

Gillman
04-13-2014, 10:53
From what I understand, Lot 40 is not two whiskeys blended, rather, it is one whiskey, distilled out at a low proof (under 160) whose mash bill is composed mostly of raw (unmalted) rye with some malted rye. In this respect it is like Irish pure pot still especially as the latter is aged in reused barrels. It is also like bourbon except that, i) bourbon is aged in all-new charred barrels, ii) bourbon is entered in barrel at maximum 125 proof and I doubt Lot 40 is.

GNS and the part of Canadian whisky blends that is the bland part distilled out at high proof are to all intends and purposes the same thing except that the latter must be aged at least 3 years. It is true GNS can be higher in ABV than Scots grain whisky but the difference in flavour is probably minimal especially after aging.

The key to a Canadian blend, IMO, is that part of the whisky, usually the greatest part, is distilled out at a high proof: it is aged GNS basically. The blending can be done at the beginning of the maturation period or the end from stocks of each whisky type separately aged. I hope this clarifies everything.

Gary

Jazzhead
04-13-2014, 11:51
Thanks, Gillman! I guess the bottom line is that Lot 40 is not conventional Canadian rye whiskey. Although I can discern, or at least it pleases me to think so, that it retains a whiff of difference as compared to a good American rye (I compared it the other day with of a bit of my last Van Winkle Family Reserve) that makes for a Canadian signature. Could be the sense of creaminess that dresses the rye up in its Sunday (punch) best.

Another Canadian I've enjoyed recently, actually finished the sucker off embarrassingly fast, is Collingwood. The Nestles Quik of whiskeys, Canadian Mist put through the Lincoln County process, and served in a Zippo. Oh, but I love it so.

squire
04-13-2014, 14:13
Jazz I believe Collingwood is another stand along whisky that is not blended. At the end of maturation in oak casks it is finished for awhile in maple wood barrels but not mixed with any other whisky. Very, very far from Canadian Mist though it comes from the same distillery.

Gillman
04-13-2014, 19:04
Lot 40 is not conventional Canadian whisky at all, exactly right. Really it is, or is very much akin to, a flavouring or straight whisky (albeit different from U.S. rye as you said) that would normally be used in a small amount in a blend but that happened to be released on its own. If you blended Lot 40 with 90% aged GNS, it might end up tasting like Seagram VO, say, or… maybe that Collingwood.

Of course, Collingwood 21 years old is a different story - it is a straight whisky essentially, the Collingwood counterpart to Lot 40. Masterson's is another counterpart except aged in new charred oak and thus getting closer to American straight rye in character.

Gary

mbroo5880i
04-13-2014, 19:07
I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.

Gillman
04-13-2014, 19:09
Squire certainly true of Collingwood 21 years old but I am not sure about the regular Collingwood maple-finished whisky. I would think it is a Canadian Mist type product except subjected to the maple treatment.

Gary

Gillman
04-13-2014, 19:11
I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.

Think of it as U.S.-type straight rye, especially the LDI/MGPI type, except not aged in new charred barrels. Putting it in U.S. terminology, it is a rye mash whisky, that's exactly what it is although I'd doubt (but I may be wrong) it is entered under 125 proof, I'd think it is entered higher since there is no limit here. Collingwood 21 years old is also a rye mash whiskey except subjected to the very beneficent in this case maple wood treatment. Masterson's (plus WhistlePig and Jefferson's rye) are not rye mash whiskey because while Canadian-made they were aged in new charred wood and presumably entered under 125 proof in that case, so those meet the U.S. straight rye standards and that is why they were called straight rye on the label.

Gary

squire
04-13-2014, 19:15
Yes, I was restricting my comments to the 21 year old. What's interesting is these Canadian distilleries have the stock to make things like Lot 40, Masterson's and Collingwood 21 regular production items. I understand in the past they occasionally launched an unblended special but it didn't prove viable in the marketplace at the time. Perhaps now Canadian "singles" time has come.

mbroo5880i
04-13-2014, 19:23
I like LDI rye (Willett, BoneSnapper) and I am sure others. I loved the Jeff 10 Canadian NCF that I had. I assume it came from Alberta. I will probably end up getting a Lot 40.

Gillman
04-13-2014, 19:27
Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now. Before that, as far as I know, to find a Canadian straight on its own you have to go back to circa-1950 when Seagram had a line called Pedigree that came both in rye and bourbon. These were made in Canada and were all-flavouring whisky. But they were phased out, I'd guess not to confuse the market with "real" U.S. bourbon and rye, or maybe it was due to early trade agreements (pre-NAFTA) that reserved bourbon and straight rye to products which were made in the U.S. But the point being, products very similar to bourbon, straight rye, single malt and Irish pure pot still have always been made in Canada from Day 1. Here though in the last 60 years they have been used, until Lot 40 et al, solely for blending, to give taste to a much larger quantity of fairly bland albeit aged neutral spirit or something very close to neutral spirit. We used the straights as a seasoning, basically. The Americans do that too, e.g. for the 7 Crown type of whiskey, but the difference is, as with the Scots, they never stopped selling the straights on their own. The Irish did stop, like the Canadians, until fairly recently except for Redbreast and Green Spot, so a little "true" Irish was always available. But even Jameson and other famous names (Power's) - made famous when they were straight - had been turned into blends by the 1980's. Once again straight in this context means, distilled out at a low proof which is what locks the flavour in. It doesn't mean aged in new charred wood which has always been mainly an American thing. Nonetheless some Canadian flavouring whisky - e.g., Masterson's, WP, Jefferson, - is aged in new charred wood.

The Canadians have taken a much more flexible approach to defining whisky than the U.S. but in practice until recently it meant the market was dominated, and still is virtually to 100%, by the subtle blend… The straights came back here, I infer, due to the market success of single malt, Irish pot still and of course bourbon. So I think the distillers here felt they had to do something. Forty Creek's whiskies were kind of a bridge to this development, having more taste (quite a bit more) than the regular Canadian blend but not having a frankly straight character either.

Gary

MtnDew
04-13-2014, 21:56
Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now.

...
Gary

Are you sure about that? I know the first Lot 40 was out a while ago and 12 years sounds about right, but it's my understanding it was pulled from the market for some reason, lack of demand I assume. The 2012 version is the latest version released, so essentially it's a "new" whisky again as there was a decade or so with no Lot 40.

And thanks for clarifying up the Canadian GNS question. I remember articles talking mixing flavoring whisky with base whisky, or whatever they called it, to make most Canadian whiskys and I had assumed that base was GNS. I guess I should have realized that since it was called 'whisky' it was likely aged, at least a little bit.

Gillman
04-14-2014, 05:32
I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

Gary

MtnDew
04-14-2014, 09:06
I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

Gary

Thanks for the clarification!

Jazzhead
04-14-2014, 13:01
The Collingwood I enjoyed and described is the "regular" Collingwood, not the 21-year old "straight rye mash". I saw a bottle of the 21-yr old stuff a few weeks ago in Maryland and picked up a bottle of High West rye instead. The High West is great stuff, but I sure hope the Collingwood 21 is still available next time I'm in Maryland. I've search the Jersey packies to no avail. (I've never seen the regular Collingwood in Jersey either, but it is easy to find in the Pennsy state stores. It's a true bargain, IMO.)

squire
04-14-2014, 15:44
Ah, I see. From what I can tell the regular Collingwood is a blend of just two whiskys, a mostly corn base distillate and the flavoring rye, finished with toasted maple staves added to the vat for a period of time up to a year. Apparently designed to be a Crown Royal killer.

Gillman
04-14-2014, 18:24
That's my conclusion too.

Gary

MauiSon
06-01-2014, 23:18
I see this has made it to our friendly shores. I wonder if this is all from one big batch (2012 release) or is in continual production.

ChainWhip
06-02-2014, 00:09
I see this has made it to our friendly shores. I wonder if this is all from one big batch (2012 release) or is in continual production.

It should say 2012 on the label if it is the 2012

MauiSon
06-03-2014, 19:18
It does say 2012 release. I just wonder if it's worth $40 [to me].

Kpiz
06-03-2014, 19:32
It does say 2012 release. I just wonder if it's worth $40 [to me].

$40?! That's about $15 cheaper than I've seen it anywhere. I'm not a big fan of this one, as it's a little too muted for me, but it's prob worth $40, IMHo

BFerguson
06-03-2014, 19:47
It's completely worth it. And at that price it's a steal. Bag all you can.

B

ChainWhip
06-04-2014, 00:59
Its worth it - but its a lighter style compared to many of the american ryes. I was disappointed initially but came around quickly.

MauiSon
06-04-2014, 15:42
It's completely worth it. And at that price it's a steal. Bag all you can.

B

Ha ha, we've got cases of it here right now - I'll buy one to try, another if I like it.

Gillman
06-04-2014, 16:02
I don't find it light in any way, it's packed with pot still and nutty character.

Gary

squire
06-04-2014, 16:06
To call the Canadians light is a lot like comparing veal to steak, same sort of origin but different products.

Gillman
06-04-2014, 18:45
To call the Canadians light is a lot like comparing veal to steak, same sort of origin but different products.

The good Canadians that is, i.e., Masterson/Jefferson/WhistlePIg, Lot 40, Dark Horse, Collingwood 21 and some of the Forty Creeks.

Gary

ChainWhip
06-04-2014, 18:58
Fair enough on the apples-to-oranges sentiment... And the Lot 40 should be enjoyed in its own right - it is lighter in comparison to the aged American ryes I have been drinking.

It was a SBS tasting with a '77 Old Overholt that turned things around for me.