PDA

View Full Version : Is this Old Charter 10 a UD bottle or BT?



SFS
01-29-2013, 14:57
I found this bottle today, next to a shelf full of Old Charter 8 year. It was the only one, and I didn't have my notes with me, so I bought it on a whim (for $20/750 mL). Based on the pictures on BourbonEnthusiast, I suspect this is BT product, but I can't find a picture of the UD iteration.

SKU ends in 009837, 86 proof (both the UD and BT versions were 86, so that doesn't help me). Numbers on bottom of bottle are:

9:00 position - 42
6:00 position - 98 (though that second digit didn't mold as clearly as all the other digits on the bottom.)
3:00 position - 16

There is also a faint "printing" of a date code or similar on the bottom, next to the "16", that reads (as best I can tell): 42 22 371 8 1458

Can anyone help me out on the UD vs. BT question? Also, how's the bourbon?

Edit: I'll post a picture in the next post. Can't figure out how to add it now.

SFS
01-29-2013, 15:14
Here's a picture. The bottle on the right is just for comparison purposes. I bought the one on the left.

HighInTheMtns
01-29-2013, 15:30
Appears that the bottle is from the end of 98 or later. Your reading of the date code is probably incorrect - the three digit number should be the day of the year, so 371 is too high. That date code came from the bottle manufacturer and not the distiller, so it only gives you a lower limit. AFAIK this would date that bottle right around the time that BT acquired the brand. They did get some OC barrels in the acquisition (they later released some as BTEC Rediscovered) so it very well might have UD juice in it even if it was bottled by BT.

T Comp
01-29-2013, 15:44
The purchase by Sazerac of Charter and WL Weller from Diageo was announced on 4/28/99. You have a Bernheim distilled OC.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/-a054502139

HighInTheMtns
01-29-2013, 15:46
One other thing - it's the first part of the UPC code that can tell you who bottled it, not the last part. Current OC10 starts out with 88004 according to Sazerac's website.

SFS
01-29-2013, 15:56
The purchase by Sazerac of Charter and WL Weller from Diageo was announced on 4/28/99. You have a Bernheim distilled OC.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/-a054502139


Is that good news? Can anyone tell me what to expect?

SFS
01-29-2013, 15:58
One other thing - it's the first part of the UPC code that can tell you who bottled it, not the last part. Current OC10 starts out with 88004 according to Sazerac's website.

Thanks for that correction, I've been looking at ALL SKU numbers WRONG. This bottle is an 88076 SKU.

ErichPryde
01-29-2013, 16:38
88076 is the bernheim code now owned (and I'm pretty sure used) by Heaven Hill. back then it would have been Bernie! Nice. I think HH still uses that on current Fitz products. I memorized most of the majors for Beam, BT, HH, UD, S-W when it had its first UPC (not SKU, btw), and so on. There's a resource on this site that should help you if you look (I've got to give a cat some meds, I'll look later on)

Also, a note on glass: You have an anchor bottle. Anchor glass almost always bears a 42, which is simply some internal code they use, and then the year. 1998, would be 98. At the very latest this was bottled in 1999 sometime. I don't know if UD was even using a printed Julian code at that time, and glass is the best way to tell (other than UPC). I'd bet your bottle has an anchor symbol somewhere on it.

SFS
01-29-2013, 16:56
It does, in the 12:00 position, on the bottom. Couldn't tell what that was. Was going to put it in the OP as "kind of an reversed capital G followed by a capital G", but sure, that's an anchor, and I see it on a lot of bottles.

So I've actually found something good?!?! This will be my third ever dusty!

ErichPryde
01-29-2013, 17:10
Sure you did. I'm not a fan of Charter, UD or otherwise, except the BIB. but enjoy it! Something from another era that can't be found any more.

Also, my mom used the UD charter 10 year for her bourbon pecan pie. She quite using Charter a little after 2000 because "the quality of the bourbon went downhill." And she didn't even know they were bought out!

HighInTheMtns
01-29-2013, 17:12
Also, a note on glass: You have an anchor bottle. Anchor glass almost always bears a 42, which is simply some internal code they use, and then the year. 1998, would be 98. At the very latest this was bottled in 1999 sometime. I don't know if UD was even using a printed Julian code at that time, and glass is the best way to tell (other than UPC). I'd bet your bottle has an anchor symbol somewhere on it.
The printed code is from Anchor. If you look at a bottle of Blanton's it'll have two codes, the BT bottling date and a code from Anchor that matches the date stamp in the glass. Other Anchor bottles have the printed date as well.

It's mighty nice of them to do... Wish other bottle makers would follow their lead.

ErichPryde
01-29-2013, 17:14
rightrightright, on the bottom, in black letters, almost impossible to read until all the bourbon is DRANK. I almost forgot. :D


EDIT:: and by the way, either Anchor doesn't make for BT (or must anyone else for that matter) anymore, or Anchor quit with the date stamping. I've been out of the bourbon business for a few seconds, so I probably missed a few other things in there. :D

smknjoe
01-29-2013, 17:15
What about the underscored 09 on a bottle of ETL?

ErichPryde
01-29-2013, 17:17
yeah, I know what you're talking about. NOT a date, unfortunately. look for a black letter chain if one is possible. ETL bottles, as well as some of the bottles that Weller Centennial and Old Charter BHC went into, were produced by someone else.

Clyde Forth Packaging Co Ltd made the original dimpled bottles for cent, and the design stayed the same (more or less) for Proprietors reserve and Elmer T. Lee. Assume it's the same producer. if so, no date stamp in glass. However (I'm looking at an empty Lville cent that has been, sadly, empty for years), there is a chain of whitish almost invisible letters right below the UPC label on the back.

smknjoe
01-29-2013, 17:26
One more question and I'll stop hijacking the thread. I have a bottle of OWA 7 yr. With the anchor and then 42 28 and G2 or 07. The last 2 are not as well defined. So is it probably from '02 or '07?

HighInTheMtns
01-29-2013, 17:28
One more question and I'll stop highjacking the thread. I have a bottle of OWA 7 yr. With the anchor and then 42 28 and G2 or 07. The last 2 are not as well defined. So is it probably from '02 or '07?
On the bottle I have the date is opposite the anchor. It's an 08 bottle.

ErichPryde
01-29-2013, 17:28
probably 07. if it's a OWA 107, it's also going to have some black lettering somewhere on the bottom that will have a julian day of the year code followed by a year. holdit up to a strong light source and look through the bottom of it.

Anchor had that issue with their date punch off and on. it's just like minting a coin, eventually whatever presses the date into the hot glass gets all gummed up and doesn't imprint as well. Man, I love die and hub error coins! too bad bottles aren't worth something like that. :)

ChainWhip
01-29-2013, 19:43
The amount of whisgeekery on this thread is dizzying... Love it!!!

Edit: I have nothing else useful to contribute - carry on as you were.

:-)

PaulO
01-30-2013, 15:01
One thing I noticed is the 10 year bottle in the picture has a label that is not exactly the same as the current 10 year old. The current 10 year label looks a lot like the 8 year in the picture. The question of how is it; well I've tried non-dusty 10 year old. It's ok, nothing wrong with it. No big adjectives jump out at me. A friend of mine described the 8 year old as like JD without the burn.

tmckenzie
01-31-2013, 03:28
I drank oc a lot back in the late 90s. That sir is fine bourbon.

barturtle
02-10-2013, 03:36
Here's a picture. The bottle on the right is just for comparison purposes. I bought the one on the left.
Fucking simple. The label says "Louisville" UDV. "Frankfort" BT.

SFS
02-10-2013, 04:47
Wow, that really is simple. Especially if you somehow know that Louisville equals UDV. And that Frankfort doesn't. And where the Bernheim fits in.

Thanks. Now I know.

And am not likely to forget.

Ever.

p_elliott
02-10-2013, 19:31
Fucking simple. The label says "Louisville" UDV. "Frankfort" BT.

Timothy chill a little

smknjoe
02-13-2013, 15:13
Sooo, did you ever try it? I saw a bunch of dusty bottles of it today, but it was BT. I guess it was just a dirty store!

SFS
02-13-2013, 15:24
Haven't cracked it yet. Will report when I do.

SFS
02-22-2013, 15:47
Am drinking this now, and it's really nice. Sweet on the nose, with a little alcohol (it's only 86 proof). Entry is sweet, with vague hints of cherry and butterscotch (though I had the 08 OFBB earlier, so I may be dreaming the butterscotch). Mid palate, the sweet moderates just a little. Nothing overly complex, in either the linear or layered sense, but the finish is relatively long, with absolutely no burn, and a nice simple balance. I use the word balance in a couple of different ways, and both apply here- the flavors that are there are constant, and the amplitude of the experience is constant. This is a wonderful pour, and I'll be having another.

I will also be on the lookout for other examples of this. I wish I could decide what the date stamp really says on the bottom of the bottle. It could be 96, or 98, or 99. The bottle must not have released from the mold cleanly.

HighHorse
02-22-2013, 16:24
Am drinking this now, and it's really nice. Sweet on the nose, with a little alcohol (it's only 86 proof). Entry is sweet, with vague hints of cherry and butterscotch (though I had the 08 OFBB earlier, so I may be dreaming the butterscotch). Mid palate, the sweet moderates just a little. Nothing overly complex, in either the linear or layered sense, but the finish is relatively long, with absolutely no burn, and a nice simple balance. I use the word balance in a couple of different ways, and both apply here- the flavors that are there are constant, and the amplitude of the experience is constant. This is a wonderful pour, and I'll be having another.

I will also be on the lookout for other examples of this. I wish I could decide what the date stamp really says on the bottom of the bottle. It could be 96, or 98, or 99. The bottle must not have released from the mold cleanly.

Ray - It's been a pleasure to follow your dusty adventures and your tasting notes.

smknjoe
02-22-2013, 16:55
Am drinking this now, and it's really nice. Sweet on the nose, with a little alcohol (it's only 86 proof). Entry is sweet, with vague hints of cherry and butterscotch (though I had the 08 OFBB earlier, so I may be dreaming the butterscotch). Mid palate, the sweet moderates just a little. Nothing overly complex, in either the linear or layered sense, but the finish is relatively long, with absolutely no burn, and a nice simple balance. I use the word balance in a couple of different ways, and both apply here- the flavors that are there are constant, and the amplitude of the experience is constant. This is a wonderful pour, and I'll be having another.

I will also be on the lookout for other examples of this. I wish I could decide what the date stamp really says on the bottom of the bottle. It could be 96, or 98, or 99. The bottle must not have released from the mold cleanly.

I have some of the Old Charter Classic 90 12yr. that sounds pretty close. It's a sweet and easy drinker. No burn at all.

SFS
02-22-2013, 17:01
Thank you kindly, sir. I'm on my second pour of this, and the entry reminds me a LOT of the Very Old Wiser 18 yo (that you likely have tasted). It's not quite that sweet (what is?), but it's the same start. That of course is at 80 proof, and this has a little more heft at 86.

I'm reminded of a comment that Jim Rutledge made about drinking the 4R YL at events - it's so smooth that he has to remind himself that he is drinking, and drinking 80 proof juice at that. I could say the same about both these pours. So incredibly drinkable.

squire
02-22-2013, 17:25
Which is a very high complement when you think about it.

ErichPryde
02-22-2013, 17:34
Fucking simple. The label says "Louisville" UDV. "Frankfort" BT.


with charter, it really is this simple, but it's fun to talk about all the other little bourbon bottle id factoids there are. :)

squire
02-22-2013, 17:55
Too bad Charter seems to be getting away from age statements.

ErichPryde
02-22-2013, 22:28
have you tried the current iteration of charter 101? would be up your alley.

squire
02-23-2013, 08:56
No I haven't Erick, and would you believe it, the only store in town that's carrying 101 is limited to the 1.75 in stock.