Dusty Score or Bad Bottle

[hjminard]

First, forums are not primarily for the collection of knowledge, they are for the discussion of topics. Just because something has been discussed before, does not make it inappropriate to discuss it again

You had me up to here ...

... the rest registered as rules and restrictions .



Seriously, though ... it took me about 5-10 seconds to read and understand Squash's original post. It takes much longer to respond and complain than it does ignore it and move along (assuming disinterest).

Really I see this thread as more of an excited "hey, look what I found ... thought I'd share" with a question thrown in for validation. I don't think someone should be expected to dig through old Eagle Rare threads before sharing their small victory. "Dusty" threads are a mainstay on StraightBourbon, and fun to read. The OP's uncertainty about the legitimacy of their find does not make it a post of lesser value.

Just one guy's opinion, anyway ...

Prost!

[craigthom]

I found some bottles like the second one a year or so ago. I came to SB.com and found out all about them. I bought some. I posted about it here in an existing "dusty finds" thread.

It was easy enough to find out about the Lawrenceburg/New Orleans/Frankfort origins, when the 10/101 was discontinued, and even when it was release.

It didn't prevent conversation, because I did post about it. I just didn't ask others to provide information that I knew must be here somewhere.

Sometimes information is here but it's darned tough to dig up. I know that's not the case with the ER 10/101 because I've done it myself.

[kickert]

You had me up to here ...

... the rest registered as rules and restrictions .



Seriously, though ... it took me about 5-10 seconds to read and understand Squash's original post. It takes much longer to respond and complain than it does ignore it and move along (assuming disinterest).

Really I see this thread as more of an excited "hey, look what I found ... thought I'd share" with a question thrown in for validation. I don't think someone should be expected to dig through old Eagle Rare threads before sharing their small victory. "Dusty" threads are a mainstay on StraightBourbon, and fun to read. The OP's uncertainty about the legitimacy of their find does not make it a post of lesser value.

Just one guy's opinion, anyway ...

Prost!

I don't disagree with you.

To be perfectly honest I am addicted to SB.com and read every new post. Since I have never had ER101, I could not comment on the bourbon, but by discussing the nuances of the forum I am able to contribute.

Did the OP get me worked up? not at all. Was I bored and simply wanted to contribute to a discussion? absolutely!!

[smokinjoe]

Pointing a guy to an appropriate open thread is one thing. Ranting about it, right off the bat, is another.

[ggilbertva]

There are many numbers on the bottom of the bottle, but the only two-digit number appears to be 02. Does that make sense?

There was also some Old Forester 86 proof, $14, that seems to be of an older bottling than that currently on sale in most stores. Is this good whiskey?

Squash,

Focus on the number that makes most sense. For instance, if you see a 53 on the bottom but there's also a UPC on the label, then you know it's not 1953. The 02 on your bottle is in line with the Frankfort, KY bottling. I have a bottle from '03 open right now and it's very good.

Regarding the Old Forester 86 pf, it's a good whiskey that get's better the older it is. I have a handle from 1984 that's very very good. I've had some from the mid 90's that were good....not great. So, check out the bottom of the bottle.

If you're getting into dusty hunting (which really is a lot of fun), read the Collectibles forum....there's tons of info in there that will help you determine the rarity of a dusty bottle. Feel free to PM me if you have additional questions.

Good luck.....

[Rughi]

...Regarding the Old Forester 86 pf, it's a good whiskey that get's better the older it is. I have a handle from 1980 that's very very good. I've had some from the mid 90's that were good....not great. So, check out the bottom of the bottle...

I might as well contract Greg to be a spokesman for me. His tastes are so very often right in line with mine. I posted in another thread about some tell tale signs of Forester eras.

I haven't opened an 86er for some time, but in writing this, I am reminded that the 86 and the Bond had (have?) distinctly different profiles other than just proof, and that I often preferred the profile of the 86er to the Bond.

Roger

[ggilbertva]

Roger,

I just read that other thread. Nice line up on those Old Foresters. I have handles and liters that I've picked up in my dusty hunting in MD and DC. The oldest one I have is 1959 BIB that is superlative, then I have 1980 and newer.

Just last night I drank some Old Forester BIB from 1980 and thoroughly enjoyed it. Now I'm thinking of taking a pour from the 86p handle.

Don't know about you, but sometimes just these types of discussions dictate my drinking selection that day.

correction: The handle stated above is 1984....not 1980....by bad.

[Rughi]

Just last night I drank some Old Forester BIB from 1980 and thoroughly enjoyed it. Now I'm thinking of taking a pour from the 86p handle.

Don't know about you, but sometimes just these types of discussions dictate my drinking selection that day.

I'm feeling thirsty for a certain strip-stamped 86er myself...

I think the oldest Bond I have right now was bottled in 71 or 73, but I've been fortunate enough to taste several from previous decades. It was all good.

You being fortunate enough to hang out with Howie, who knows what he may have brought around. Until recently I had a sample of a 52-59 Bond from a tasting he brought with him when he, Doug and I were batchin' it up in New Haven that was really, really satisfying. My notes from it were "satisfying rye tingle, most 'modern' of the group, least piney." Make you wonder what the others in the flight were?

Roger

[ggilbertva]

I'm feeling thirsty for a certain strip-stamped 86er myself...

I think the oldest Bond I have right now was bottled in 71 or 73, but I've been fortunate enough to taste several from previous decades. It was all good.

You being fortunate enough to hang out with Howie, who knows what he may have brought around. Until recently I had a sample of a 52-59 Bond from a tasting he brought with him when he, Doug and I were batchin' it up in New Haven that was really, really satisfying. My notes from it were "satisfying rye tingle, most 'modern' of the group, least piney." Make you wonder what the others in the flight were?

Roger

I was just at Howie's place about two weeks ago. He brought out an Old Fitz 86p from '78. Delicious is all I can say. Doug(dog) was in town not too long ago and brought 18 or so choice bottles of various bourbons with him (my fav was a Castle era Old Taylor BIB...Fantastic). It was a fun time. The Old Forester sample you had is probably from the same bottle Howie shared with me which is why I went on the hunt for a similar bottle. To say Howie has a silly/crazy collection would be an understatement.

[mozilla]

Really?


I participate in a whole bunch of different forums and I occasionally see a rant like this. If you really think about it... once forum has been in effect for a few years you could say that much of what is being discussed has at some point been discussed before. So should nobody post a new question in fear of asking something that may have been previously discussed?

Maybe a better avenue would be to simply ignore the post if it stresses you out that much?

It doesn't stress me out...IT, frustrates me that most of our members take bourbon seriously and do our diligent research, while some others think it our responsability to be their private tutor. If the OP had taken only a few minutes to look...he would have seen a thread almost identical, posted a few days earlier.

Why should we feel obligated to spoon feed answeres to people who are too lazy to do their own research? I have noticed a patern with people like this...they just keep posting the same obviouse questions. How is this, what's the value of that, have you seen this(current bottle). Simple questions with very obvios answeres.

I think it is rude and disrespectful to the real bourbon freeks on this site. It is called "decorum". Act like you respect the other members. Read before you write. Find a friend on the site and ask potentially easy questions to them. This is a discussion board for bourbon, yes. Not a board for spoon feeding lazy people. Memebers have personally spent hundreds of hours researching, tasting, reading, visiting distilleries, discussing and more. That knowledge took alot of time to gain. The OP thinks it's his right to plunder this knowledge and is rude in demanding we smile while he does it. Many of the longstanding members that were here when I arrived have departed because of situations such as this.

I was calling this type of behavior to the forefront because it is rude and disrespectful to members interested in discussing whisky. Most answeres are already in the archives. How many times does a person need to repeat them?