New Beam Black Packaging

[cowdery]

Most barrel heads are not charred. Only Woodford chars the heads, so far as I know. Therefore, head contact is of little consequence regardless of the orientation of the barrels.

Don't lose sight of the fact that no more than 5% of Beam's whiskey has ever come from palletized warehouses (my estimate).

The palletized warehouses were new when I saw them in 1991-92. So far as I know there were never more than two of them and also so far as I know, they are still in use.

Since we're all making assumptions, I assume the maturation experts at Beam would have made every possible adjustment to ensure aging consistent with their flavor profile. That would have been job one and that part of the experiment would have concluded by the mid-90s.

In Beam's case, I believe the palletized warehouse was a reaction to the decline of the labor-intensive practice of barrel rotation. Much like Jack Daniel's and Maker's Mark, and unlike Heaven Hill and Buffalo Trace, because so much of Beam's output is in one expression maturation uniformity is a very high priority.

The palletized warehouse was, due to the forced air circulation, an effort to ensure more uniform maturation. The use of pallets and fork lifts was also a way to move barrels around within the warehouse in a more cost-effective way.

If they found that the palletized warehouses took 20% more time, that meant that with the addition of that time, the result would be the same, hence undetectible, hence that fact is of little consequence in this discussion.

All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if leakage was a reason for deeming the experiment a failure, but less than optimal maturation might also be a reason but they choose not to reveal it, which would be a very Beam thing to do (or not do).

However, if the results were really unsatisfactory, they would have stopped using those warehouses years ago and moved the barrels into rackhouses. It was my understanding that they weren't going to build more of them but they were going to keep using the ones they have. Presumably they're also still trying to tweak them.

So I think you're chasing nothing if you think you can taste the palletized whiskey in any Beam releases. Unless they do an all-palletized release, this discussion is moot.

[warehouseman]

Theirs not ant difference in rack houses and palletized, Its kinda like the barrell made from an oak in Mo and an oak tree in Ky

[warehouseman]

Theirs not ant difference in rack houses and palletized, Its kinda like the barrell made from an oak in Mo and an oak tree in Ky

But i got some JB to go drink

[T Comp]

Erich,

As an example, I cite Doug Philip's Beam's Choice from the 1970's which was a rich rummy bourbon the likes of which I wish I could buy today.

That said, I find this new format (international only I think) Beam Black excellent. You should see the legs it throws, and taste is clean, deep, rich and inviting. The mouthfeel is soft and well-integrated, for a bourbon claiming only 6 years it is very mature. It is very similar to the best Knob Creek I've had but with a lesser proof. Very nice and well worth the $$.
Gary

Here are my prior tasting notes about the current Black USA label (double aged) versus a Beam's Black label from 1978, aged 101 months and 90 proof: The current is light anise, white bread yeast, green fruit of apple and pear, flowers, pepper and hay. I'd further describe it as lively, fresh and mellow. The old Beam's Sour Mash Black Label is just much more heavier, intense, dark and brooding. Nothing mellow here. Any anise is more candied black licorice. The yeast is of a multi grain sour dough. There are combined complex tastes of corn, brown sugar-molasses and caramel. The rye leaves a perceptible zing on the back of the tongue. This for me is up there with some of the best bourbons I've ever tasted but if you prefer lighter, fruitier and drier then the current is for you.

[ErichPryde]

Gary,

I think I was too brief in what I said. The differences ARE very significant at times, and I can definitely tell if I'm drinking a current beam or an older one. Beam has gone through various stages: some Beam DID almost have a rum like texture and quality that I found completely amazing, and I also wish I could find a bourbon like that today. Some of the stuff I have tried has had a barnyard type mildewed sweet hay thing going on. Some of it has been rich and velvety, some of it has been heavy, sweet, and spicy.
I think many of the things I find as similarities lie in the nose, and perhaps some in the taste. Texture has certainly changed significantly depending upon year and proof. There certainly has been a big change between the current black label and earlier examples of it.

However, ultimately what I mean is, compared to other distilleries, Beam whiskey has changed little. Stitzel-Weller whiskey has gone through at least one recipe change and one yeast change that I am aware of, Turkey went from requisitioning their whiskey to distilling their own, Heaven Hill has had things going on (namely: fire) that significantly effected how and where they distilled and aged their whiskey. Old Grand-dad, Old Crow, Charter, Eagle Rare, many of the other names that were purchased and sold multiple times in the 80s and 90s, all of them have changed significantly In how they are made. Has Beam changed nearly as much? I don't know. Hmm... now that I think about it, Perhaps Maker's Mark can also claim to have gone through relatively little change... I'd bet they'd claim to have changed less now that I think about it.

[Gillman]

Definitely agree in the contextual way you are pointing out, Erich. Also, I would say Beam is more consistent now. I've had that "mildewed" 1960's-70's taste, bourbon with a lot of weather on it I call it. (And it was from a bottle that was not spoiled). The current is lighter, drier, more elegant overall. Still, something has been lost I think...

Gary

[Gillman]

That's an interesting point about barrel heads. I took a fast look at some Brown Forman Cooperage references online and thought they said all their barrel heads are charred but maybe it depends on brand, customer, etc., and clearly not all distillers do that to the head. But it's still wood and in the atmosphere of the barrel, I would think contact with the head even where not charred would promote aging.

Anyway it's just speculation, I wish I had bottles before me aged entirely in one or the other so I could judge myself. But if palletized is not more than 5% of any bottle it's a non-issue practically, I agree.

And good notes there T Comp, thanks for that.

Gary

[ErichPryde]

Definitely agree in the contextual way you are pointing out, Erich. Also, I would say Beam is more consistent now. I've had that "mildewed" 1960's-70's taste, bourbon with a lot of weather on it I call it. (And it was from a bottle that was not spoiled). The current is lighter, drier, more elegant overall. Still, something has been lost I think...

Gary

That damp sweet hay "weathered," or natural-type taste/scent, is present in the handles of 1982 beam 52 month white label I picked up just the other day. It's not bad, it's very interesting and different. I think the more common taste from the 80s white label though is the overboiled corn (blah corn, whatever?) type thing that sometimes goes on.

I actually added a couple ounces each of black label 1986, bonded 1969, and choice from 70(something) to this handle, and it's much better whiskey now than it was yesterday. seriously.

[Gillman]

That mingling makes a lot of sense, the logic is perfect.

I am planning a mingling soon of Baby Saz and the current Beam Black, I think that will work very well. The rich earthy/minty notes of the Saz will blend with the soft caramel and orangey/citric taste of the Beam.

Similar idea but different drink: 50% Heineken from the can (very fresh stock not more than 2 months from packaging) and 50% regular bottled Guinness (non-widget) and Rogue Imperial Stout. It's a half and half and the stout will absorb the pungent Hallertau character of the Heineken but take complexity from it.

Gary

[squire]

Well, I always say its what's in the bottle that counts, so, we'll see.