Printable View
As documented e.g., here: http://www.moodiereport.com/document...1&doc_id=25794 Beam Black has a new label and it's on the shelves at LCBO. The label states triple-aged, and a rear label explains that that is three times the aging needed under the definition of straight bourbon.
Gary
Is this just a Canada thing? I thought it was a little dodgy when they decided that 8 years old would equal "Double Aged." Now 6 years old is "Triple Aged?"
I don't know.
So far to me it looks like international only, but again not sure. I'm going to try this and offer taste notes, it's been a while since I've had Jim Beam Black.
Gary
My understanding is that there's been no change to the whiskey in the bottle. Still a little bizarre that the US "Double Aged" is 2 years older than your "Triple Aged"!
If I remember correctly, they took the age statement off the non-U.S. version of JBB a few years ago due to supply tightness, but left the U.S. version alone. Likewise, when the new bottle and label were introduced about a year ago in the U.S., the 'double aged' claim was introduced, premised on white label being 4 years old and black label being 8. This is the same bottle and similar label to the current U.S. version except for the aging statement. It's funny that the younger one is 'triple aged,' but correct as they are positioning it. Where I think this may be a mistake is in the high level of transparency that we have now with travel and communication across national lines. A bourbon enthusiast outside the U.S. has easy access to information about what is going on in the U.S. market and vice versa, so Beam is kidding itself if it thinks these two versions of the black label can exist in blithe isolation.
I found this thread http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...ead.php?t=7845 in the "similar thread" list at the bottom of the page and it seems to address that specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by cowdery
Yes that's definitely the case, and the taste remained basically unchanged, i.e., with all the Beam signatures (little char, yeasty/anise notes, etc.). However, every time packaging changes, I like to try the brand, sometimes they do evolve over the years. Especially if Beam is getting away from palletized warehouses, I'm interested to see if the palate will change change over time regardless of age, although I do feel the move to ironclads is probably to increase the rate of maturation.
Gary
So that's what their doing with the Monitor and the Merrimack...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillman
Gary,
You're making too much of the palletized warehouses. They have like two of them out of approximately 50. They've probably built 15 new rackhouses since the last palletized warehouse was built. Plus the whiskey is ready when the whiskey is ready, it's not on the clock. If the maturation rate in the palletized warehouses is different, and there's no reason to assume it is, then they would simply adjust the duration. It's not going to change the whiskey but if you want that as an excuse to buy another bottle, that's cool with me.
I'm not making too much of it, I am speculating that as the proportion of the whiskey from palletized in the bottles goes down, it may impact the taste. It's something I think could happen, an opinion.
For whiskey bottled 6 years ago, does anyone know the proportion of the whiskey that went into Jim Beam that came from the palletized warehouses? Was their capacity - all the different warehouses - equal? I seem to recall that the palletized ones are very large.
Gary