PDA

View Full Version : Non-Chill Filtered



Luna56
05-07-2008, 20:16
After having a few non chill filtered single malts recently it seems to me that chill filtering is a bad, bad thing. The fats and oils in a whisk(e)y seem to contribute a lot to flavor and mouthfeel.
Is there a list of non chill filtered bourbons? I admit, I should have used the search function. You guys have any favorite non chill filtered bourbons?

Cheers!

drunkenjayhawk
05-07-2008, 21:01
The ones that come immediately to mind are Bookers, Parkers Heritage, Stagg, WL Weller but that is only a fraction I am sure. I would like to see a much more expanded list myself.

cowdery
05-07-2008, 21:11
No, actually, that's about it.

sku
05-07-2008, 22:31
It seems that the whole concept of chill filtering is less controversial in the Bourbon world than in the Scotch world, where it has become a big deal. Is there a reason for this?

TNbourbon
05-07-2008, 22:35
Some private bottlings, in particular from Buffalo Trace, have been produced without chill-filtering, but the commercial brands are pretty scarce.

HipFlask
05-08-2008, 00:02
Does Rare Breed and ODG114 fit? Also I beleive the Thomas Handy Rye is unchill filtered.

dcb
05-08-2008, 08:53
chill filtering is one thing, but I sure wish the scots would collectively move away from artificial coloring. Or should I say colouring? A couple of my regular scotch pours I know are coloring-free, Ardbeg and Highland Park. Ardbeg doesn't chill-filter either. I LOVE that bourbon color is natural.

craigthom
05-08-2008, 11:45
I've got a couple of private bottlings of Weller Antique that aren't chill filtered (yes, I stopped after the first two, and, yes, I know BT private bottlings have been mentioned).

The Four Roses Jim Rutledge 40th is not chill filtered, and I would guess the new anniversary bourbon is not.

Luna56
05-08-2008, 22:03
Thanks for the info, guys.
Bruichladdich is also non chill filtered and uncolored by additives. Not my most favorite SMS but still very good.

Cheers!

TomH
05-09-2008, 06:24
Just attended a tasting of Bruchladdich samplings this week presented by one of the owners, Andrew Gray, at one of our local stores. I did like their peated offering (3D 2nd edition, Mòine Mhòr) and picked up a couple of bottles.

Tom

OscarV
05-09-2008, 12:58
Does Rare Breed and ODG114 fit? .

nope.




(adding digits so post will be long enough)

cigarnv
05-09-2008, 16:20
Has anyone done a side by side of the same bourbon cilled and non-chilled? Would make for and interesting tasting if done blind.

TBoner
05-09-2008, 16:27
Handy. Good call.

No chill filtering for that beauty.

The old Yellowstone Mellow Mash was 91 proof. AFAIK, 90 proof and below are always chill filtered (where did I read that?). Was the 91 proof just to one-up 90 proofers (like Beam black) or was it meant to imply lack of chill filtering? Or did anyone give a damn about chill filtration 25 years ago?

BTW, it's been awhile since I've posted here. Been very busy and preoccupied with other stuff. I don't remember everything I know right now, if that makes sense. So forgive me for any inanity in my comments. I have no excuse for inanity in comments made before January 2008.

Rughi
05-09-2008, 22:25
Has anyone done a side by side of the same bourbon cilled and non-chilled? Would make for and interesting tasting if done blind.

That was done at Bettye Jo's shindig (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=69399&postcount=58) a couple of years ago.

Only one person couldn't identify the difference.

Roger

Luna56
05-09-2008, 22:45
Only one person couldn't identify the difference.

Roger

Interesting indeed. What differences were noted? Were they more oriented towards flavor or mouthfeel?

Cheers!

cowdery
05-09-2008, 23:20
The unfiltered sample simply had more flavor. The filtered sample tasted slightly diluted.

billthewoodguy
05-10-2008, 12:39
I am also a fan of non chill filtered barrel strength bourbons. Bookers was my first but stagg left a huge impact on me. the handy at first taste was too much cinnamon for me, the wt rare breed is good and the weller and parkers is on my to do list.

DowntownD
05-10-2008, 13:35
Booker's, GTStagg 2007, and the 2007 BTAC WLWeller are in my top-5, though I've never though abut it from this perspective. Interesting.

TNbourbon
05-10-2008, 17:35
That was done at Bettye Jo's shindig (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=69399&postcount=58) a couple of years ago.

Only one person couldn't identify the difference.

Roger

:blush: :lol: A confession, and a (limited) defense: I'm the person Roger references, but it's not necessarily correct to say that I couldn't identify the difference. I was simply the only one who identified which was which incorrectly, and the only one who preferred the standard/filtered one (which is why I got the ID wrong; I, too, assumed that non-filtered would be the better one!). If I had identified no difference at all, I'd have had no preference at all. And, if I'd simply been guessing, I'd have gone alone with the herd to avoid embarrassment.
Alas, the samples were Blanton's, for which I've never really cared, filtered or not (in fact, post-Sampler, I have a 'Straight From the Barrel' and a standard bottling open right now, neither of which thrills me. I mixed some of the latter one with diet ginger ale the other night:shocked:).

Rughi
05-10-2008, 19:46
I'm the person Roger references...

Actually, I never even knew who it was.
Your secret's safe with me -- er, um, as long as noone reads your post...DOH!

Roger

Luna56
05-13-2008, 22:32
The Four Roses Jim Rutledge 40th is not chill filtered, and I would guess the new anniversary bourbon is not.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, guys.
As for the Rutledge 40th vs. the standard FR1B; aside from proof differences, what other differences were noted? Just curious.

I appreciate the wisdom of the sages here, as I don't have access to most of the great bourbons up here in NH. Maybe a million dollar online shopping spree at Binny's is in order.

Cheers!

barturtle
05-13-2008, 22:43
Alas, the samples were Blanton's, for which I've never really cared, filtered or not ...

For some reason I remember them being ERSB...but I had a bit to drink that day:lol:

doubleblank
05-14-2008, 06:40
I recall the filtered vs non-chill filtered taste test. Truman (AKA Etochem here) over at BT provided two samples of 14yo Eagle Rare SB.....filtered and non-filtered. 9 out of 10 picked which were which. Truman was very surprised that the group got it right.

Randy

mgilbertva
05-17-2008, 13:17
I was waiting to post, but I wanted confirmation first. All of the Willett releases here in DC (6, 7, and 15 yr barrel proof bourbons, 23 and 24 yr barrel proof ryes) are non-chill filtered. I checked with Jake Parrott, who arranged the bottlings, and he confirmed this was the case.

Thanks Jake!

Rughi
05-17-2008, 15:47
The two bottlings of Willett Ryes and the 4yo bourbon of the West Coast/East Bay Study Group were non-chill filtered, as was Doug's Toddy bottling.

Every Willett bottling I know of was a specialty bottling with a base criteria as non-chill filtered, barrel proof and single barrel. The Willett white label/cognac bottle presentation had this very specific meaning through the Doug/Study Group/Ledger/Jake/Ace bottlings.

It'll be interesting to see what the white label/cognac bottle presentation comes to mean over time as other groups/retailers and KBD themselves use it for their own purposes. So far it has also been used by KBD for a 25yo non-barrel proof bourbon.

Roger

mgilbertva
05-17-2008, 21:10
I love the Willett label. It's the classiest looking label out there for any whiskey, IMO.

TNbourbon
05-17-2008, 21:13
For some reason I remember them being ERSB...but I had a bit to drink that day:lol:


I recall the filtered vs non-chill filtered taste test. Truman (AKA Etochem here) over at BT provided two samples of 14yo Eagle Rare SB.....filtered and non-filtered. 9 out of 10 picked which were which. Truman was very surprised that the group got it right.

Randy

You guys are probably right -- though I'm sure he also sent along a solo SFTB Blanton's sample, too, because I remember being disappointed I didn't find it significantly better than standard Blanton's. But, that may have been later at the Gazebo.
Anyway, for whatever reason, I simply flat out preferred the filtered one. Correspondingly, I don't care so much whether or not a bourbon is filtered as whether or not I like it.

MacinJosh
07-16-2012, 06:33
Has anyone done a side by side of the same bourbon chilled and non-chilled? Would make for an interesting tasting if done blind.

While spending some quality time this weekend with my fellow bourbon enthusiasts, an interesting discussion arose.

The general census amongst most whisk(e)y enthusiasts is that chill filtration is unwanted and undesirable because it strips and removes the fatty lipids that impart a particular flavor in the spirit. And removing these lipids produces a "thinner" dram that connoisseurs disapprove of.

But the great Mike Veach made a single comment to me that rocked my preconceived world on this topic.

"What if the chill filtration removes offensive flavors?"

Josh<------ ~struck by a lightning bolt~

And right on que, with perfect timing, John Lipman produces two glasses of brown liquid, one containing EC 12 chill filtered and the other containing EC 12 non-chill filtered. Let the blind taste test begin.

The results? About 50/50. Tom, Joe, and Larry picked the NCF. Sierra, Gary Gillman, and myself picked the chill filtered. And Mike Veach was grinning ear to ear at me. :)

Full disclosure, I didn't like either pour as I'm just not an EC fan, but that's not what we were testing. We wanted to determine two things.

1.) Is there indeed an emphatic difference in taste between CF and NCF. According to all of our palates? A resounding yes. The two pours tasted quite different.

2.) Which one was which. And whichever one you preferred, what does that suggest about your preference?

My conclusion. I'm in Mike's camp. I believe that chill filtration, at times, removes offensive, unwanted flavors (like perhaps in this case, at least to my palate) while removing beneficial, wanted flavors at other times. I have had a few Scotches where the NCF version is far superior to the filtered.

Based on this conclusion, if I had my way, each individual spirit would go through a taste test to determine whether chill filtration aides the overall flavor (and not just the appearance) or suppresses it. Every distillery, every expression, every bottle, every CF process…..they’re all unique. Would it not make sense that the results are unique as well and might actually be beneficial at times? Of course, it's all subjective anyway. But the only thing I'm quite certain of after this past weekend, in my opinion.....

Chill filtration is not always such a bad thing.

sutton
07-16-2012, 08:42
To your point, here is a very interesting article on the topic written by one of the Malt Maniacs ... as close to a real experiment as I've ever seen.
http://www.maltmaniacs.net/E-pistles/Malt_Maniacs_2012_01_The%20Taste%20of%20Chill%20Fi ltration.pdf

scratchline
07-16-2012, 10:31
That Malt Maniacs chill-filtration report is fantastic. On so many levels. The prejudices that taint personal preferences for different whiskies are insidious and innumerable. Add to that the fact that the strongest opinions tend to be offered when people are half in the bag (often the barrel-proof bag) and the loudest voices can often be dismissed as the dumbest. The general rule should be: "Sip blind and spit or shut the f--- up". At the very least, turn down the volume and proceed cautiously. That only the novice taster could distinguish the chill-filtered from the non-chill-filtered whiskies should give all "experts" serious pause.

Thanks so much for sharing the link to that!

On a side note, last year I enjoyed some Blanton's Straight From the Barrel at the Auld Alliance in Singapore where the tasting was conducted and it's worth the trip. That's both the whiskey and the bar.

ebo
07-16-2012, 14:57
Ardmore TC is also unchill filtered.

sutton
07-16-2012, 15:12
That Malt Maniacs chill-filtration report is fantastic. On so many levels. The prejudices that taint personal preferences for different whiskies are insidious and innumerable. Add to that the fact that the strongest opinions tend to be offered when people are half in the bag (often the barrel-proof bag) and the loudest voices can often be dismissed as the dumbest. The general rule should be: "Sip blind and spit or shut the f--- up". At the very least, turn down the volume and proceed cautiously. That only the novice taster could distinguish the chill-filtered from the non-chill-filtered whiskies should give all "experts" serious pause.


The natural bias is that chill-filtration removes flavor/body; hence you tend to believe the sample you favor is non-chill filtered. But as Josh points out, it can remove off flavor compounds as well. I think he makes a good point about making a taste assessment on whether to perform chill filtration prior to bottling, but it is probably impractical. For high end bottlings, you do the "cask-strength/un-chill filtered" thing because that will carry perceived value with the customer - even if you "improved" it with the chill filtration the assumption would be that you removed something desireable.

I read this article a couple of times to see if I could come up with a flaw in the experimental design, but it seemed a pretty decent experiment. You could improve this test by not telling the tasters they are being given chill filtered and non-chill filtered samples; just present the samples and ask them to state a taste preference. The only other thing I wondered is whether exposure to oxygen affected the chill filtered and non-chilled filtered samples differently; since the chill-filtered samples got significant aeration in the slow process of filtering described in the article. Perhaps the chill filtered samples went a bit flat...

Young Blacksmith
07-16-2012, 20:07
The only flaw I saw in the article was the choice of spirits... :cool: (I'm putting my flame suit on now)

Restaurant man
07-16-2012, 20:21
Got an non-chill filtered EC12 from the party source that was awesome. I'll be getting more soon

BradleyC
07-16-2012, 21:11
Thanks for the info MacinJosh and Sutton. Thanks also for bumping this thread. I don't think that I have ever read this one. The findings are counter intuitive to what I have trained myself to believe, but I have never done an experiment like either of these. I also don't have any hard facts to base my own personal opinion on so could very well be misinformed. Very interesting stuff. This makes me want to try the EC12 side by side. I understand those aren't the same barrel or batches, but I'm not willing to do my own chill filtration myself.

BradleyC
07-16-2012, 21:12
Got an non-chill filtered EC12 from the party source that was awesome. I'll be getting more soon


Have you done a side by side comparison with the regular EC12? I would be interested to hear your thoughts. I would also be interested to hear blind tasting results between the two.

CoMobourbon
07-19-2012, 16:45
This conversation, though really interesting, seems limited by its emphasis of flavor over texture/body/mouth-feel. While definitely need to re-examine our assumptions about chill-filtering and flavor, our assumptions about chill-filtering and texture/body/mouth-feel seem more straightforward: surely chill-filtering, by removing lipids, makes the liquid feel thinner. (right?) And thinner is worse, at least for me. (right?)

I should clarify first that mouth-feel and body are always more important to me than flavor. Really, so long as the flavor crosses a certain basic good threshold, mouth-feel and body are my main and sometimes only criteria for preferring one bourbon over another. Don't get me wrong - I like bourbon flavors and appreciate the differences in different bourbon flavors. But there is just something about mouth-feel that gets my attention. Maybe basic physical properties like body, mouth-feel, and viscosity have a kind of amplifying effect that makes all the difference; they physically enable the juice to spread over the tongue and stick to it in ways that intensify whatever flavors are present and, crucially, lengthen the finish. According to this framework, as long as the flavor isn't BAD, thicker and heavier mouth-feels tends to be a good thing. I mean, even if the flavor profile of bourbon A is exquisite, if its flavors are fainter and shorter than those of (pretty good) bourbon B, is bourbon A really better? Probably not. For me, a relative newcomer without years and years of palate development, faintly delicious bourbon A is NEVER better than intensely good bourbon B.

And I could be totally wrong, but I would think that filtering out the lipids MUST make the whiskey feel thinner, the infinite variability of subjective experience notwithstanding. We are talking about physics/chemistry (science!) here. For the reasons I have explained above, I prefer thicker feeling whiskey.

So, exceptions aside, (and there are always TONS of exceptions to every rule), I would prefer non chill-filtered every time and would not mind at all if they just stopped chill-filtering pretty much any decent+ whiskey. Chill-filtering only sometimes improves flavor, apparently, but I would think that it ALWAYS / CATEGORICALLY hurts mouthfeel and body. So on the whole, and regardless of our simplistic ideas about chill-filtering, more non-chill-filtered whiskeys is totally better. (Right?)

*I recognize that the article in question addresses mouth-feel, but it does not account for it as thoroughly/systemically as would be necessary to satisfy me on this account. Texture is huge for me in general, and I have trouble understanding why it is not the central question in chill-filtering; physics and chemistry (science again!) seem to dictate that filtering out lipids and such will affect body/mouthfeel (one way or another) more than anything.

MacinJosh
07-20-2012, 20:52
I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

ebo
07-21-2012, 07:56
I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

I would tend to agree. I have never had a corn, rye, wheat whiskey that has the same mouth feel as single malt scotch. That doesn't mean they aren't out there.

CoMobourbon
07-21-2012, 10:50
I presume you love Single Malt Scotch then?

Corn, rye, or wheat's got nothing on malted barely when it comes to mouth feel. Not even in the same league.....

Maybe someday. Even if mouth-feel is more important to me than flavor, QPR - or really just price outright - is most important of all to me right now.

But that's actually really interesting; I have not yet had the opportunity/budget space to discover this for myself. I will have to think about that and try some SMS's against my favorite bourbons when I get the chance.

Thanks a lot. I learn something new on this site everyday (well, at least every once in a while :grin:).

MacinJosh
07-21-2012, 11:16
No problem.

You will find WAY more NCF options in SMS than Bourbon too. A far wider pool to choose from. Try a few from different regions and see if any of them speak to you. I have a feeling, based on mouth feel alone, you're going to fall in love....