View Full Version : Did anyone else notice this?

05-19-2005, 17:21
I have a bottle of Noah's Mill and one of Rowan's Creek. Both are listed as being from Bardstown and both have the same distill date of 8/11/87. The Noah's Mill is listed as 15 years old (bottled on 11/07/03) and the Rowan's Mill states it is 12 years old (bottled on 10/27/03).

Now for two supposedly different bourbons this seems to be too much of a coincidence. Any thoughts?

05-19-2005, 18:46
Well, they're both 16 year old whiskey, so it's legal to market them as a 12 year old or a 15 year old whiskey.

I'm pretty sure that the whiskey in the bottle comes from Heaven Hill in both cases, although I cannot say that with any authority; I remember reading somewhere that both brands use HH whiskey. The 'Bardstown' label is pretty much a positive ID for HH spirits as well...

As for "how could two different whiskeys come from essentially the same stuff?" I think what happens is that even though the distillate would be made from the same plant at about the same time, put into the warehouse at the same time, one could end up with different whiskey depending on the characteristics of the individual barrels and how and where they were warehoused.

Here's my idea of how the process might work - correct me if I'm wrong: the bottler (Even Kulsveen?) visits HH and asks to sample some whiskey meeting some criterion. He tastes a number of barrels and picks some that fit a particular taste profile and then has them dumped together and bottled. It might be that 16 year barrels are available that fit the profile of his 12 year old brand, so those can get used for that. Likewise, some 16 year old barrels might work for his 15 year old brand too, so they get used.

One question for you - how do you like the whiskeys?? I've seen both, and this month, I'm not so keen on extra aged HH whiskey, although there are some notable exceptions - some of the Black Maple Hill stuff defies the laws of physics, and some of the Classic Cask bottlings can be pretty good too (both of which are unofficially reported to be derived from HH whiskey). I usually prefer HH whiskey around 10-12 years old or less, but that's just my taste.

Can you compare the Rowan's Creek and Noah's Mill to anything else available??



05-20-2005, 04:16
My understanding, from talking with Drew, is that, while they do purchase some aged whiskey, most of what they purchase is new distillate that they age in their own warehouses.

05-20-2005, 05:38
The Rowan's Creek reminds me of Bookers but not as strong but the Noah's Mill doesn't bring anything immediately to mind. Of the two I do like the Noah's Mill better.

I'm not saying they are the same exactly as the Noah's Mill is a much darker color and they don't taste the same. I just found it odd that they had the same distill dates and the age statements didn't match the actual age. Never had run across that before.

If you care to read the reviews I did on these for another board the Rowan's Creek is here (http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=7927) and the Noah's Mill is here (http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=8179).

BTW, if you like cigars then explore around the linked website and join up.

05-20-2005, 13:41
Just for clarification, you can call these whiskeys anything you want to, 16 years or less. You can understate the age of bourbon, but never overstate the age. So if they are actually 16 year old whiskeys, they can be called 16 or anything below that.