PDA

View Full Version : Just say no to H2O



P&J
10-09-2006, 18:56
I've been scouring the old threads for a list of barrel proof bourbons, but I haven't found one. Can we pull something together?

I can start with some easy ones:

Wild Turkey 1855 Reserve BP
Wild Turker Rare Bread BP
George T. Stagg

Is Old Grand-Dad 114 barrel proof as well?

-Jeff

straightwhiskeyruffneck
10-09-2006, 19:25
old grandad 114 IS a barrel proof whiskey, lets not forget booker's. another nice barrel proof offering from our buddies at beam.

doubleblank
10-09-2006, 19:31
Don't forget W Larue Weller and this year's Hardy BP rye. Then there is also the BP rye some members here did that is also available at retail in CA. Blanton's does a BP for export that many here have tasted.

Randy

Bamber
10-10-2006, 04:29
I guess it depends how you define barrel proof. AFAIK the only ones that come straight from the cask are:

GTS
WT RB
WLW 12yo
Bookers
Blanton's Straight From The Cask
O. Potrero (some bottlings)

Not nearly enough IMO.

However as a 'half the time' Scotch drinker I tend to think of anything over 46% as 'barrel proof' and thankfully there are many American whiskies exceeding that limit.

cowdery
10-10-2006, 17:55
I don't believe Old Grand-Dad 114 is "barrel proof." Unless it says it is on the package, it probably is not. Re Bamber's list, there may be some differences between what is offered here in the U.S. and what you can get in the U.K. Here Weller 12 is 90 proof.

I don't think there is any difficulty defining "barrel proof," as it simply means no water has been added to the dumped whiskey prior to bottling, i.e., "uncut." Some products are also unfiltered, but that's a whole different issue. A whiskey can be "uncut and unfiltered" (Stagg, Bookers) but it can also be "cut and unfiltered" (Rittenhouse 21) or "uncut and filtered" (WT Rare Breed).

Remember, too, that "uncut" refers only to the addition of water prior to bottling. In most cases, water has been added to the new make spirit prior to barrel entry.

Virus_Of_Life
10-10-2006, 18:14
I don't believe Old Grand-Dad 114 is "barrel proof." Unless it says it is on the package, it probably is not. Re Bamber's list, there may be some differences between what is offered here in the U.S. and what you can get in the U.K. Here Weller 12 is 90 proof.

I don't think there is any difficulty defining "barrel proof," as it simply means no water has been added to the dumped whiskey prior to bottling, i.e., "uncut." Some products are also unfiltered, but that's a whole different issue. A whiskey can be "uncut and unfiltered" (Stagg, Bookers) but it can also be "cut and unfiltered" (Rittenhouse 21) or "uncut and filtered" (WT Rare Breed).

Remember, too, that "uncut" refers only to the addition of water prior to bottling. In most cases, water has been added to the new make spirit prior to barrel entry.

Question about Bookers; if it is unfiltered why do I never see any charcoal sediment in it like I do in WLW and Stagg? I used to believe it was filtered, because of this until reading here otherwise... BUt then again I must also admit that since discovering Stagg and OGD 114 I have not owned a bottle of Bookers, but have drank it in a bar a few times.

FlashPuppy
10-10-2006, 21:27
Question about Bookers; if it is unfiltered why do I never see any charcoal sediment in it like I do in WLW and Stagg? I used to believe it was filtered, because of this until reading here otherwise... BUt then again I must also admit that since discovering Stagg and OGD 114 I have not owned a bottle of Bookers, but have drank it in a bar a few times.

I would really like an answer to this as well, any takers?

barturtle
10-10-2006, 22:07
I believe that it would depend on what your definition of "unfiltered" is. It could refer to just unchill-filtered, or it could mean no filters at all, but that would be a problematic definition as the nozzels on the filling machine themselves would be considered filters. Crack open the barrel and fill the bottle by immersion and the neck of the bottle is the filter.

Each distillery has to decide for itself what its own standard for unfiltered is. That definition is likely to depend as much on how much flavor the lack of filtering departs, as the amount of sediment that the machinery can handle running through it and how much they feel comfortable leaving in the bottle as that may but seen as a flaw by the general public.

Virus_Of_Life
10-11-2006, 00:05
... Hhmm, well, I think you know what I am getting at; tip a bottle of GTS or WLW upside down and back up right and you get a groovy little black cloud, do the same to Booker's and I believe you get nothing... So I guess that would be the filtering, how to define it I don't know, that I would be talking about, but it's obvious that there is no "chunks" that make it into GTS whereas there appears to be no "unfiltered" evidence to the naked eye whatsoever in Bookers. You get the point I think that I am referring to here.... I hope...:skep:

cowdery
10-11-2006, 05:28
Chill filtering is the "culprit" that spawned the introduction of "unfiltered" whiskeys. Chill filtering is done to eliminate a haze that appears when the bottle gets cold. It's mostly cosmetic, but chill filtering does diminish flavor, which is why unfiltered whiskeys are desirable. Every distillery is a little different, but generally the whiskey is chilled to about 32 degrees F, at which temperature it thickens but does not freeze. Then it is forced through several layers of a very fine filtering medium.

Sometimes, as a by-product of not chill filtering, there is some sediment, but not necessarily. I have seen sediment in Booker's, by the way, so I wouldn't take it as gospel that "Stagg has sediment but Booker's doesn't," although your results may vary.

As Timothy says, there are lots of things that can be construed as "filters." The trough into which barrels are dumped contains a screen intended to catch the big chunks of charcoal that fall out of the barrel with the whiskey. The term "unfiltered" means not chill-filtered. It doesn't mean the whiskey was poured directly from the barrel into the bottle.

Edward_call_me_Ed
10-11-2006, 06:44
... Hhmm, well, I think you know what I am getting at; tip a bottle of GTS or WLW upside down and back up right and you get a groovy little black cloud, do the same to Booker's and I believe you get nothing... So I guess that would be the filtering, how to define it I don't know, that I would be talking about, but it's obvious that there is no "chunks" that make it into GTS whereas there appears to be no "unfiltered" evidence to the naked eye whatsoever in Bookers. You get the point I think that I am referring to here.... I hope...:skep:

It occurs to me that as Booker's is made in rather large batches that the sediment might be doing what sediment does, settle to the bottom of the tank. That might mean that little or no charcoal would make it to most bottles. Pure speculation on my part. BTW, there is no sediment in my current bottle of Booker's nor do I remember any.
Ed

Bamber
10-11-2006, 07:09
I don't think there is any difficulty defining "barrel proof," as it simply means no water has been added to the dumped whiskey prior to bottling, i.e., "uncut."

Hi Chuck,

I was referring to the tendency in the UK to use Cask Strength to refer to high proof whiskies in general. For example the Vintage House in London (one of our best retailers) defines cask strength simply as over 50%.

Rughi
10-11-2006, 07:44
I was referring to the tendency in the UK to use Cask Strength to refer to high proof whiskies in general. For example the Vintage House in London (one of our best retailers) defines cask strength simply as over 50%.

That may be _approximately_ true for many scotches - my understanding is that it's not standard, but also not uncommon for a cask to dip into the 40%s, because the barrel entry proof was low relative to practice in Kentucky and then dropped as it aged. I've heard stories at tastings of casks that would have been allowed to age longer except that they were getting dangerously close to not being salable as whisky due to being under the minimum proof allowable (40%).

Every low proof cask strength whisky I've tried has been bursting with character, by the way. It makes me think that everything good about whiskey lies in the proportion that is neither ethanol nor added water.

Roger

Bamber
10-11-2006, 08:56
Well this is where it becomes really confusing because as you rightly point out some old CS Scotches are 40.1 % or so.

To go back to the original question, I think it is crackers that HH don't do a barrel proof bottling of their own. The Scotch Malt Whisky Society do barrel proof bottlings occasionally - as do Cadenheads and they are truly excellent.

Always finish a trip to the society bar in London with an aged (sometimes 20yo's) HH bourbon, and 9/10 it is the best drink of the night.

mbanu
10-11-2006, 09:24
Remember, too, that "uncut" refers only to the addition of water prior to bottling. In most cases, water has been added to the new make spirit prior to barrel entry.

Have any bourbons ever been released that were bottled entirely at the strength they were distilled to? (ie no water before entering the barrel and no water after)

Nebraska
10-11-2006, 13:32
I'm not completely sure, but I believe that would not be legal if you were still going to call it bourbon, because of the proof.

barturtle
10-11-2006, 15:25
I'm thinking that if it was distilled to less than the 125 barreling proof it could happen. I'm not sure what the proof off the still is of most bourbons, but surely there may be one that has a final proof below this threshold that could be don ein this manner.

cowdery
10-11-2006, 15:31
Have any bourbons ever been released that were bottled entirely at the strength they were distilled to? (ie no water before entering the barrel and no water after)

There is very little water added to Wild Turkey after distillation, either prior to entry or prior to bottling. The proof of barrel proof Rare Breed is, what, 110? Historically, whiskey entered the barrel at a little above 100 proof and came out the same way. Wild Turkey is the only distillery that still follows that practice.

CrispyCritter
10-11-2006, 18:09
I've heard stories at tastings of casks that would have been allowed to age longer except that they were getting dangerously close to not being salable as whisky due to being under the minimum proof allowable (40%).
Of course, if a cask of Scotch did fall below the 40% threshold, it could still be salvaged by using it instead of water to dilute younger whisky.

That isn't likely to happen often, though, as the cask would be far more valuable if it wasn't allowed to fall below 40%.

jburlowski
10-12-2006, 19:56
Reading this thread reminds me of the great W.C Fields quote: "I never drink water; that is the stuff that rusts pipes."

cowdery
10-12-2006, 23:49
Or, "I never drink water because fish fuck in it."

Edward_call_me_Ed
10-13-2006, 00:21
Hello All,
Some time ago I said in a post that OGD 114 was a barrel proof and was told that it isn't. It does say Barrel Proof on the label but the powers that be, Jim Butler if my faulty memory serves, ruled that it isn't. He knows far more than I do about bourbon and labels can be misleading. I assume that he knows for a fact that water is added to bring the proof down to 114. Fine Bourbon though.

Ed

Edward_call_me_Ed
10-13-2006, 00:47
Hello All,
Some time ago I said in a post that OGD 114 was a barrel proof and was told that it isn't. It does say Barrel Proof on the label but the powers that be, Jim Butler if my faulty memory serves, ruled that it isn't. He knows far more than I do about bourbon and labels can be misleading. I assume that he knows for a fact that water is added to bring the proof down to 114. Fine Bourbon though.

Ed

Here is the link to the point of the thread that I called OGD 114 was barrel proof. A number of people weighed in. Jim was one of the last to do so. By the way, the whole thread is very interesting. It is one of my very favorites. Read the whole thing, if you have time.

Ed

Rughi
10-13-2006, 07:24
Here is the link to the point of the thread that I called OGD 114 was barrel proof.Ed

Ed,
Is this thread (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2529&page=2) the one you meant to link? the Grand Dad discussion seems to start at post 61. The relevant discussion primarily talks about how older bottles of Grand Dad 114 stated barrel proof, but that newer ones don't, with some speculation on why that labelling change would occur.

Could you direct us to the thread you intended?

cowdery
10-13-2006, 11:39
One of the reasons I write so much is because I have such a lousy memory. According to me, in my book, "Old Grand-Dad 114 was one of the first barrel-proof bourbons, created long before Booker's or Wild Turkey Rare Breed." Its creation preceded its acquisition by Jim Beam. The label used to say, "bottled straight from the barrel." I can only speculate why it doesn't say that now. Regardless of whether or not 114 is barrel proof, it's right up there.

TNbourbon
10-13-2006, 12:54
...The label used to say, "bottled straight from the barrel." I can only speculate why it doesn't say that now...

Could it be that that Beam enters its bourbon into the barrel at close to the 125-proof maximum, so it's pretty hard to dump it at 114?
I suspect that when 114 WAS barrel-proof, entry was closer to 100.

Gillman
10-13-2006, 13:44
Remember our earlier disccussions that 114 proof, or 57% abv, is exactly the old British 100 proof (Sykes proof that is)? In my view this explains why 114 proof was a standard of quality, it is an inheritance or rather echo of the days before 100 proof became 50% abv in America.

It would have been improbable even when OG 114 was first released that the barrel happened to contain 114 proof, it is too much of a coincidence. Rather, this was an old standard of quality. Different barrels were mingled, I believe, to get 114 proof. It was still barrel proof and decanted straight from the barrel or barrels or however they wanted to say it, because no water was added. Today though, they may add water to get to 114 proof, in fact this seems likely. Still, it is the hallmark of 57% abv that is important.

Gary

jburlowski
10-13-2006, 15:11
Or, "I never drink water because fish fuck in it."

Sounds like some sort of species elitism to me...

FlashPuppy
10-13-2006, 19:52
So, my bottle of Stagg doesn't have any sediment in it. Does anyone else experience this, or am I just not leaving the bottle alone long enough?:drink:

OR... is it just that I have one of those bum Indiana bottles? Huh Dawn? :lol:

CrispyCritter
10-13-2006, 20:52
I've noticed that Stagg tends to get darker as one nears the last pours from the bottle...

TNbourbon
10-13-2006, 21:23
I've noticed that Stagg tends to get darker as one nears the last pours from the bottle...

It is the darkness of despair, a darkness more than night.

Edward_call_me_Ed
10-14-2006, 06:06
Ed,
Is this thread (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2529&page=2) the one you meant to link? the Grand Dad discussion seems to start at post 61. The relevant discussion primarily talks about how older bottles of Grand Dad 114 stated barrel proof, but that newer ones don't, with some speculation on why that labelling change would occur.

Could you direct us to the thread you intended?

Whoops! Yeah that is the thread.

Great thread.

Ed

luv2hunt
10-15-2006, 17:32
OR... is it just that I have one of those bum Indiana bottles? Huh Dawn? :lol:

Duh....I pick 'em that way!!! I'm not fond of "chunks" in my drink!

Dawn