Evan Williams Single Barrel 1996 Vintage [Archive]

mobourbon

09-01-2005, 18:49

I received an invitation to the EWSB 1996 sneak unveiling at the Frazier Historical Arms Museum in Louisville on Oct 8 at 8 PM. I'll be there! Any other Bardstown Bourbon Society members planning to be there? I just hope this is as good as the '95. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/drink.gif http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/yum.gif

camduncan

09-01-2005, 19:03

Damm, we only just got the '95 bottles Downunder a few months ago http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I'm yet to grab one of these http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

mobourbon

09-01-2005, 21:44

Cam, we didn't get the '95's in PA until Feb. of this year. As a matter of fact, the bottles we received in the middle of Feb. were bottled in the beginning of Feb. So you have plenty of time before you get the '96's.

BourbonJoe

09-02-2005, 10:48

I got that invation too. Darn it Fred, I can't make that one either. Have a ball and let us know how it is.
Joe http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/toast.gif

tmas

12-16-2005, 02:04

I Was wondering if anyone has had an opportunity to taste the 1996. I notice it has just appeared in a local store. Tom V

jeff

12-21-2005, 15:46

I'm having my first drink of this right now. Barrel #27, barreled on 2/19/96, bottled on 11/18/05. The nose is quite fruity with a strong caramel foundation. The palate is classic HH bourbon with nice caramel and vanilla notes and just a hint of cinnamon on the back end. The finish is long and warm. This is a slight improvement on the 1995 release, which I thought was fantastic. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/yum.gif

mobourbon

12-21-2005, 19:26

This is a slight improvement on the 1995 release, which I thought was fantastic. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/yum.gif

Jeff, I also thought the '95 was fantastic. I especially liked the creamy vanilla taste. So I'll be looking forward to the '96! We won't get it here until Feb., though.

fogfrog

12-22-2005, 17:53

Here in Lenexa KS the Gift Sets are the 1995 which gives you a glass and a silver measuring cup for 25 bucks. I got one and think this is an awesome bourbon. Best I've had to date.

ProofPositive

12-29-2005, 22:14

In a related EWSB Vintage question, how does the '93 bottling compare to the '94 & '95 versions? I have read a lot on here about the '94 & '95 bottles respectively, but not much on previous years. I've read some quips from critics saying EWSB Vintage has gotten better every year. Maybe the last 2 years have been larger improvements or captivated more attention than seen before in the series. Is either or both a possibility?

jeff

12-30-2005, 03:52

Personally, I have enjoyed the '94-'96 releases more than the '92 or '93. The '91 vintage is my favorite of the series, though I haven't tried the '86 or '87

RedVette

12-30-2005, 15:43

I am having my first taste of '96 right now. Since I have not ever finished a whole bottle of EWSB, let alone multiple bottles, I don't have the flavor profile embedded in the noggin like I do some of the others. The 96 does seem to be a little lighter in character than some of the other years. In color and in taste, this just seems to be a fresher, friendlier pour. I'll do a vertical in the near future, my collection only goes back to 91, to see whether my first impressions are accurate.

ProofPositive

01-05-2006, 09:17

In your opinion, how does the '96 compare to the '95? Anyone else out there is welcome & respectfully requested to chime in as well. I still have not gotten around to getting a '95. Also, I know best to not wait too long if I want one of the gift sets with the glass & jigger. I have a '94 which is quite good and an unopened '93. It is in the brown box and I am thinking of trading/selling it....just running out of space in the vault! http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/usflag.gif

BourbonJoe

01-05-2006, 15:36

Buy the '95 Proof. Most people prefer it to the 94, which was also good. We won't get the '96 in PA. until February.
Joe http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/usflag.gif

ProofPositive

01-23-2006, 21:20

Buy the '95 Proof. Most people prefer it to the 94, which was also good. We won't get the '96 in PA. until February.
Joe http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/usflag.gif

After reading back throught this thread last night, I realized that I had not yet seen a '96 in my neck of the woods. Well, I saw my first one today while out looking for dusty bottles. Guess I should have brought it home but figured I would soon be seeing more.

Here's a question that I would bet has been asked and answered several times over: Before the HH distillery burned in 1996 (exact date?), were a good number of the barrels designated to become EWSB 1996 already in the warehouse? In other words, will there be less 1996 than previous years due to the fire? If so, any idea how much less?

At present, around here it is pretty common to find 93 & 95 EWSB in just about any store you visit. The 94 bottle is also to be found but much less common than the previous mentioned. I just wonder if the 96 is going to be harder to find. If so, maybe I best go back and grab that one I saw today.

barturtle

01-23-2006, 21:49

Before the HH distillery burned in 1996 (exact date?), were a good number of the barrels designated to become EWSB 1996 already in the warehouse?

Someone else can probably give you more info, but here goes anyway:

November, 7 1996(so most of the year was gone and therefore they should have plenty of whiskey from that years' distillation, minus the following fact)

Approximately 14% of the total whiskey in storage was destroyed(of course that's not just that years' distillate, but many other years' as well, some of which other people had warehouse receipts on)

-source of both the above facts, The Evolution of the Bourbon Whiskey Industry in Kentucky, Sam K. Cecil

gr8erdane

01-23-2006, 22:17

From what I've been led to believe, they don't store all of one distillation in any one location but spread it out among the different rickhouses for aging. The whiskey destroyed by the fire would have been from numerous distillations and ages and used in all the different bottlings produced since then and there hasn't been any shortage up to now has there? They likely just pulled barrels from other rickhouses with the same age and profile to make up for those that were lost and held onto barrels that normally would have been harvested earlier for younger bottlings. If there were to be any shortages, I'm sure we would have noticed by now.

Of course some might say that their recent dropping of the 7 year statement from EW Black label is due to the fire but I am skeptical. I'm more inclined to believe they did it as a precaution against any FURTHER losses that would force them to meet demand for their flagship with younger whiskey. Easier to change the label now when they have plenty of time to get it approved than on the fly if the need ever arises. Of course that's only my own personal speculation.

ProofPositive

01-24-2006, 23:19

Personally, I have enjoyed the '94-'96 releases more than the '92 or '93. The '91 vintage is my favorite of the series, though I haven't tried the '86 or '87

Jeff,

Though I hate to admit it, I do peruse the ebay listings for any GTS and EWSB. Came across a 92 bottle tonite - uopened and signed by Parker Beam. The sell wants $49.99 on "Buy It Now". Just wondering if that is good, bad or ugly?

Wayne Brown

ProofPositive

01-27-2006, 21:39

photogjunkie

03-07-2006, 11:45

Each to his own, but I for one DID NOT enjoy the 1996 EWSB. I felt it was substandard in quality to the 1995 EWSB vintage in every way. Both bourbons were compared side-by-side with a bottle from each year. In the past I felt that the '94 was better than the '93 and the '95 was better than the '94, but the '96 IS NOT BETTER than the '95, in my opinion.

I will buy a couple bottles of the 1995 vintage to hold me over and wait for the 1997 to arrive.

BourbonSteve

04-25-2006, 18:36

I thought the '96 was pretty good. Until I put a bottle of RHF next ot it and tried it. The '96 smelled bad and wasn't touched again, no lie! I'm giving it away. I even tried it again 2 days later but there was no comparison and I've liked the '93 &'95 but I likely won't get them either. Sad but true.

jburlowski

04-29-2006, 10:52

Finally got around to opeing my bottle last night... very disappointing. Uninspired and insipid. IMHO, not worth the premium price.

jspero

05-01-2006, 08:38

Finally got around to opeing my bottle last night... very disappointing. Uninspired and insipid. IMHO, not worth the premium price.

I felt the same way about the '95 until last night. I tried it off and on for a few weeks and really didn't think it was all that great. Not bad, just not worth the extra price over, say, EW1783. Then I had some yesterday after a glass of WT Rye and I really liked it. I guess like anything, it depends on those random environmental factors before you try it (at least for me).

Jay

pepcycle

05-01-2006, 09:57

Try Heaven Hill 10 Y/O Bottled in Bond.
It may be just a tick below the single barrel in flavor, but its well worth the $12.

ProofPositive

05-02-2006, 22:33

Finally got around to opeing my bottle last night... very disappointing. Uninspired and insipid. IMHO, not worth the premium price.

Same for me with '95 & '94.....not worth it IMHO. The first and second pours of them were good but after that the taste went south. So, I'll pass on the '96 and any others that happen to cross my path.

Nebraska

05-03-2006, 15:00

For the last two months I've periodically been visiting my bottle of '95, I've really enjoyed it every time. A lot of other bourbons, my taste buds seem to vary on from time to time, but for some reason the '95 hits the spot every time.

I had the good fortune of finding EWSB on sale this week locally at a grocery store chain. I managed to purchase another '95, 2 92's and 3 93's. I'm looking forward to comparing. Unfortunately in my excitement of finding all those previous years, I forgot to pick up a '96, which is what I went for in the first place! Back to the grocery store.

I haven't seen a '94 in my travels yet, but hopefully one will pop up.

Mark/Nebraska

wku88

06-12-2006, 20:54

Try Heaven Hill 10 Y/O Bottled in Bond.
It may be just a tick below the single barrel in flavor, but its well worth the $12.

Agreed. I just can't say enough about this whisky! Definitely is in the top 2 or 3 for bang for the buck! I have had a bottle or two that were off from others, but the full, butterscotch taste is very satisfying. Back to back with OC12, you'll use the OC for charcoal starter. In fact, the much vaunted EC12 is kinda pale in comparison.

JeffRenner

06-13-2006, 08:45

Try Heaven Hill 10 Y/O Bottled in Bond.
It may be just a tick below the single barrel in flavor, but its well worth the $12.

I agree, and it's only $9.99 (including tax) at The Party Source (http://www.thepartysource.com/) in Bellevue, KY.

But this past weekend I also picked up a Heaven Hill 6 y/o Bottled in Bond there for only $8.79, and have to say that this is perhaps even better. Not as much wood, of course, but more nimble, with nice spice and honey and less burn.

The wonderful thing is that this would apparently be from the Bernheim distillery in Louisville that HH bought to replace their Bardstown one that burned in 1996. This bodes wonderully well for the future HH products.

I plan on doing a proper tasting of the 6 y/o shortly, perhaps along with the 10 y/o, and posting notes.

Jeff

Gillman

06-13-2006, 09:10

Jeff that is a great idea, the HH-branded whiskeys as far as I know (or some of them together) have never received a full description here. I bought the regular white label in Bardstown recently (4 years old presumably) and found it a little young and feisty. The 6 year may hit the sweet spot for balance and flavor. Not sure about the 10, I bought it some years back and wasn't knocked out, but it seems too the bottles vary a bit. The 6 year BIB offers I think the chance to see to the max the seasonal character now issuing from Bernheim. Next time I'm in Bardstown I'm going to buy every HH-branded bourbon and line them for a tasting but your remarks would be helpful. I know Jim Murray is a big fan of these bourbons and considers they offer much traditional character.

Gary

cowdery

06-15-2006, 15:48

jburlowski

06-15-2006, 17:05

the HH-branded whiskeys as far as I know (or some of them together) have never received a full description here.
Gary

So maybe one of them should be the next BOTM...?

Gillman

06-17-2006, 06:23

I am looking forward to the 1997 vintage, because the source of every previous EWSB was destroyed in November of 1996. Will the 1997 be older than the usual 9 years so they can stay with whiskey made in Bardstown? If it's 1997 whiskey, will they tell us where it was made? I haven't heard anything about how they are going to go, nor have I asked, but I am curious.

Sam Cecil in his book states that HH was distilling temporarily at Jim Beam and Early Times when deciding whether to rebuild its distillery destroyed in the 1996 conflagration. I suppose HH could continue to issue whiskey distilled at the old distillery and still use the successive designation years ('97, '98, etc.) until they catch up to whiskey made at Bernheim (I guess from 2001). Legally one is allowed to understate age, in other words. I would think however they won't do that. My thinking is, each year's character is different anyway to a degree, so why not offer something which may be even a little further from last year's palate for EWSB, something distilled at Beam or by B-F? This would be interesting, but as Chuck says who knows what HH will do and if it will say? Sam Cecil wrote that the whiskey made under contract for HH was made under its, "supervision". I wonder what that means, exactly? Would HH have allowed its yeast and mash bills to be used at another plant?

Gary

cowdery

06-19-2006, 14:44

Sam Cecil in his book states that HH was distilling temporarily at Jim Beam and Early Times when deciding whether to rebuild its distillery destroyed in the 1996 conflagration. I suppose HH could continue to issue whiskey distilled at the old distillery and still use the successive designation years ('97, '98, etc.) until they catch up to whiskey made at Bernheim (I guess from 2001). Legally one is allowed to understate age, in other words. I would think however they won't do that. My thinking is, each year's character is different anyway to a degree, so why not offer something which may be even a little further from last year's palate for EWSB, something distilled at Beam or by B-F? This would be interesting, but as Chuck says who knows what HH will do and if it will say? Sam Cecil wrote that the whiskey made under contract for HH was made under its, "supervision". I wonder what that means, exactly? Would HH have allowed its yeast and mash bills to be used at another plant?

Gary

Considering the "vintage" concept, it would be disingenuous if not flat out dishonest to label whiskey actually distilled in 1996 as having been distilled in 1997 just to keep up appearances. Their first vintage at Bernheim will be either 1999 or 2000.

As for the whiskey made for them in the interim, I think they can fairly state that it was "made by Heaven Hill at Jim Beam" or "made by Heaven Hill at Brown-Forman." The two Beam plants and the Brown-Forman plant in Shively are perfectly capable of using a different mash bill, different yeast, even variables like fermentation temperature (hence time) could have been adjusted to Heaven Hill's specifications.

jeff

06-19-2006, 16:46

Considering the "vintage" concept, it would be disingenuous if not flat out dishonest to label whiskey actually distilled in 1996 as having been distilled in 1997 just to keep up appearances. Their first vintage at Bernheim will be either 1999 or 2000.

As for the whiskey made for them in the interim, I think they can fairly state that it was "made by Heaven Hill at Jim Beam" or "made by Heaven Hill at Brown-Forman." The two Beam plants and the Brown-Forman plant in Shively are perfectly capable of using a different mash bill, different yeast, even variables like fermentation temperature (hence time) could have been adjusted to Heaven Hill's specifications.
Chuck,

When you say "made by Heaven Hill at..." do you mean that Jim Beam and Brown-Foreman contract distilled the whiskey for them, or that Heaven Hill employees phisically ran the stills and barrelling facilities during off hours?

Gillman

06-19-2006, 16:49

They could say all that on the label, e.g., made by HH at Beam, but they won't (IMO). I don't think it is disingenuous to offer a '96 or '95 distillate as a '97 unless the label states specifically it was distilled in '97. If the label doesn't say that but just that the spirit is "vintage '97", I have no problem with that. The fact that the law allows understating of age is an implicit recognition of the validity of such approach. Old is gold, in other words...

Gary

cowdery

06-20-2006, 11:02

As I understand it, Jeff, Parker Beam was on hand to monitor and supervise, although the other employees were from the respective distilleries. Yes, that technically is "contract distilling," but having a guest master distiller oversee the process is not typical. I know that in the case of Brown-Forman, they saw it as making Heaven Hill's whiskey for Heaven Hill, and not as Heaven Hill merely buying their whiskey.

As for Jim Beam, remember that when there were Beams running both shops, first cousins at that, the two companies bought much of the same equipment and ran their stills in a pretty similar manner. David Beam, the last of the Beam family distillers at Jim Beam, had just retired in 1996, the same year as the fire.

Also, though I can't get anyone to confirm this, I always have believed that Beam and HH are using the same yeast, just based on stories I have heard and putting two and two together. Anyway, the idea that HH could make "its" whiskey at BF or JB is no stranger than the notion that it can make "its" whiskey at Bernheim.

No one would claim identical, but close.

As for the labelling, Gary, the EWSB front label says "Put in Oak 1995" (or whatever). To say "Put in Oak 1997" when the whiskey was, in fact, put in oak in 1995 would be a lie. Maybe they'll put "Already in Oak by 1997."

Like I said, I don't know what they're going to do, but I'll be interested to see.

Gillman

06-20-2006, 11:17

Chuck, of course I agree regarding the labelling aspect. I am simply saying if they choose to use whiskey made before 1997 and label it with some general reference to 1997 or 9 years aged (etc.) without stating it was distilled or put into the barrel in 1997, I'd have no issue with that. They may not continue to use the same labelling (or exactly) as before, in other words. If they do however for the 1997 EWSB, one can conclude it was contract whiskey.

Gary

Sijan

06-20-2006, 18:02

I sure hope they stay honest with the next few vintages.

If anyone would like to trade for some EWSB 1988, let me know.

wku88

06-28-2006, 21:31

Just cracked my bottle of '96 ( barrelled 01/15/96, bottled 03/31/06, barrel 247)

WHO PUT THE 2X4 OF GREEN OAK IN MY WHISKEY??????

Hope it is just the first taste...I'll definitely be coming back to make sure this is an anomoly (I hope!)

photogjunkie

06-29-2006, 13:45

Nope...the '96 EWSB won't improve in later tastings. For some reason, something went wrong...very wrong. I had to get the bottle I purchased out of my sight since I was so disappointed with it. So I fed it to some friends of mine who dropped by one night and take their bourbon with ice and COKE. They didn't say a bad word about their drinks and were very happy to be sipping on such a preceived high-end pour, compared to their usual JD or JB experience. Maybe somebody liked the 1996, but I didn't.

scopenut

07-05-2006, 08:27

smokinjoe

07-05-2006, 09:56

In view of the recent postings of displeasure with the EWSB 1996, I've been holding off getting a bottle. I've not had any of the vintages of EWSB, and recently came across, in addition to the 96, a 95 and a 93. Can anyone offer an opinion on the relative merits of these other 2 vintages?

Thanks....

Kevin

Kevin:
I really like the 95, but wasn't thrilled with the 93. The 93 seemed funky to me. My favorite has been the 94. You can still occasionally find it on the shelves. If you do, I'd recommend getting that one. IMO the 95 is definately worth picking up too. A very nice pour.

Cheers!
JOE

cowdery

07-05-2006, 21:25

I don't dislike the 1996. In fact, I'm drinking some right now. But given the choice of those three, I would go for the 1993. If you happen to see some 1994, that would jump into first place. Of the whole series, I would say the 1992 and 1994 are the best, especially if you like your bourbons big and flavorful.

scopenut

07-06-2006, 07:13

Thanks for the recommendations and insights.

Kevin

TimmyBoston

07-07-2006, 03:57

BourbonBalls

07-07-2006, 07:13

At my local liquor store they have both the 95 and 96. I've never had any EWSB, but I'm considering buying a bottle. I'd like to hear which one you'd recommend? Opinions for both are welcome and encouraged. Also how do they compare to the EW 1783? Or am I better off just drinking my 1783?
In my opinion....if you are only able to get the '96, then you are better off drinking your 1783.

As has been said here before, the '94 is excellent and still get-able in some areas.....If you can find the '95, I don't think you'll be disappointed. If you try the '96, then you most certainly will.

jspero

07-07-2006, 08:39

Or am I better off just drinking my 1783?

I think it's worth a try one time for the '95 (I haven't had the '96 yet). Having said that, I like the 1783 just fine, especially at half the price.

Jay

elkdoggydog

07-07-2006, 16:38

I liked the '95 a lot. I'd give it a try, just to give it a try. I haven't had the '96 yet, but my wife found a nice BevMo coupon in the paper today, and I think I'll apply it toward that EWSB.

cowdery

07-07-2006, 17:37

The 1995 is superior to the 1996, but you might actually be better off with the 1783, which even the people at Heaven Hill consider the best value of anything they make.

TennBourbonMan

08-20-2006, 10:22

In reading some of the responses on this thread I am surprised by the number that feel the 1996 exceeds the 1995 in quality. To me the 1996 lacked the complexity, the length of finish, and just the overall impression was a bit of a let down in relation to the 94 and 95. That said, both the 94 and the 95 are in my top 10 so the fact that the 96 didn't meet their perfection, doesn't mean I felt it a bad bourbon, just not quite as pleasing for me as the previous offerings.