The New Old Taylor, First Batch.

[CorvallisCracker]

...they even distilled it at a low proof and put it in the barrel at the lowest proof done in several decades. I am looking forward to tasting some of the whiskey. My bet is that at four years of age it will be better than many 7 or 8 years old bourbons.

Lower distillation proof will do that? Interesting.

Clear Creek's "McCarthy Single Malt" is distilled at close to 160 proof, but is a pretty good whiskey for something with only three years barrel time. I've always wondered if the high distillation proof has something to do with that. Your statement would suggest the opposite.

= Woodford comes off the still at near the maximum of 160 proof.

Huh. I wonder if a lower distillation proof would make it less "coppery".

[OscarV]

Low barrel entry proof can be achieved by a low proof off the still or by adding more water. Woodford comes off the still at near the maximum of 160 proof. Wild Turkey comes off the still at 130 and goes into the barrel at 115. Beam actually has the lowest proof off the still to my knowledge, with Baker's and Booker's, which come off at 125 and go into the barrel that way, with no water added. So Turkey has a lower entry proof, but Beam has a lower proof off the still.

Good points Chuck.

Mike Veach

Yeah, like I said, the Lawrenceburg Boys rule.

[ILLfarmboy]

I'm with everyone else! I can't wait for a genuine, low entry proof dammit-all delicious whiskey, and that's what I'm hoping for!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[cowdery]

Higher distillation proof generally means a cleaner, less flavorful spirit. Lower entry proof means more absorption of substances from the barrel, as water is a better solvent (at least in that application) than alcohol. Lower distillation proof and lower entry proof both mean more flavor, but flavor from different sources.

[kickert]

Higher distillation proof generally means a cleaner, less flavorful spirit. Lower entry proof means more absorption of substances from the barrel, as water is a better solvent (at least in that application) than alcohol. Lower distillation proof and lower entry proof both mean more flavor, but flavor from different sources.

Lower distillation proof also makes for an "oilier" product as well as much more grain flavor.

I might disagree with you on water being a better solvent. When we first get our barrels we fill them with water and let them sit for several days (on occasion we have forgotten about them and let them sit for over a week). Even after all that time, the water picks up very little character from the barrel. What character it does have is more related to the particulate floating around than any actual change to the water. Generally the water picks up very little color and only nominal taste. On the other hand, when we take the same barrel and put 120 proof whiskey in it, after 24 hours the color is has clearly changed and the taste is noticeably different. After a week, the barrel character is obvious.

Of course my experience is only with small barrels on short timelines, but I figured it was worth throwing out.

[kickert]

Lower distillation proof also makes for an "oilier" product as well as much more grain flavor.

I should also add that lower distillation proof is not always better. Without doubt, the further you go into the tails the more of a pungent "wet cardboard" smell and taste you pick up. At first, it adds a lot of body, but if you go to far you will be wishing your whiskey wasn't nearly as flavorful.

[OscarV]

Jim Rutledge(I'm name dropping so early today ), also said of high/low distillation/barrel entry proofs, that the bean counters up at HQ want higher proofs all the way around to have more product after cutting it down for bottling, but it takes more aging time to get the flavor at higher proofs so it's a financial wash.
Or to make it short, what Chuck said.

So back in the "olden days" they could get away with shorter aging periods because of lower proofs.

Later Edit:
Also, what Kickert said.

[tmckenzie]

In my experience, lower distillation proof as well as lower barrel proof makes a better product. Water is a better solvent, and lower still proof brings more flavors of the grain over. I think the reason that all the big distilleries went to higher proofs is you get more whiskey in a barrel at 125 proof, and the higher proof requires less steam to make than lower proof, meaning less fuel usage.

[ILLfarmboy]

I'm cerious, Ben, If you were deciding on the proof off the still and barreling proof, what proof points would you choose. I know that's not an easy question since many factors such as yeast, still construction and manipulation have a lot to do with the congener content of the distillate, but I'd love to hear your further thoughts on this subject?

[cowdery]

Re lower proof spirits aging better, most industry folks cite the experience of rum makers who put high proof rum into barrels in their hot climate and got very little absorption after years of aging. I mention absorption because I don't believe barrel proof matters with regard to evaporation or oxidation, the other two effects of aging.

A lot of times when people cite to traditional methods they're just guessing but with this we know that the practice was to distill out and barrel enter at no more than 110. Ideally they would get exactly the proof they wanted off the still and wouldn't add any water. The purpose was to ensure that no barrel dropped below 100 proof during aging, since 100 was the target bottling proof.

All of today's distillers say they would prefer to distill and especially to enter at a lower proof but the bean counters won't let them.

These practices preserve more of the flavor that is in the beer, but you don't necessarily always want that. I recently visited a boutique distillery that is making grain spirits in the eau de vie style. By distilling off the grain in a pot still and distilling to 92% (184 proof), they get a very clean and focused grain flavor.