Successful Two Bourbon Vattings

[RobP_n_TN]

I've been fond of the SB 1:1 vatting of OWA and Weller12 and stocked up on both to make sure I can have this combo for a while longer.

After reading the "Wheatley revelations" of SW and BT juice mingled in Pappy, I did a small 1:1 vat of JPS-17 (batch 7) and OWA just for yucks.....

Really good, and tastes somewhat familiar. I've got about 2 pours left - when I finish this I'll make a final decision, but for now, I think it is good enough for a full bottle next time.

Rob

[JayMonster]

So the 1:2 WR DC blend was tonight's sampling... And it was nothing like I expected. It seemed that the Woodford came across much more prominently in rhe 1:2 than it did in the even blending.

Where I was expecting basically Devil's Cut with more flavor, what I got was Woodford with a much more woody finish. The oxidized penny taste was much more prominent rhis time, but unlike straight Woodford, did not linger as the finish was dryer, shorter and far more oaky.

It was very much like what I imagined the WRDO would taste like. Those who like WR may like this blending... But it is definitely not for me. I will give it another week and try the 2:1 WR/DC blending and see if the opposite holds true and the Devil's Cut asserts itself more.

[Gillman]

Interesting. Sometimes when you add a little (relatively) of something, it pokes through more than if you add a greater amount, it's true. If I add a bit of something distinctive (say, oily or corny) to a much greater quantity of mixed bourbons, you can often still taste it, but not always. I'm thinking though the reverse won't happen if you do the obverse, I'd be interested in the results! For my taste though, I think a really good result would come from using either whiskey as the minority in a vatting with one which is relatively bland or uncomplex.

Gary

[Brisko]

Forgive me for discussing another bourbon/rye vatting here. Earlier I talked about Jim Beam Rye and Old Forester. In the same spirit, I vatted Heaven Hill Gold BiB with Beam Rye at about 3:2. The result was surprisingly clean drinking with significant depth. I wouldn't say it was as great as the Forester vatting, but quite interesting and one I would repeat (though maybe not in large quantity). As before the Beam funkiness was subdued, and the HH's rough edges smoothed a bit.

I also tried the same ratios but with Rittenhouse, which rendered the drink more astringent and brought out the corniness of the HH in way that wasn't entirely flattering. However adding a splash of EC12 brought the other elements into control and created (perversely) a more rye-like profile. I settled on a final ratio of 5:3:1 (HH:Ritt:EC12).

Back in the realm of two-bourbon vattings, I again brought HH and EC12 together. Despite the familial relationship they didn't really work well together, as the char and wood of the EC12 really come to the fore in this mingling even in the smallest quantities.

[Rockefeller]

As promised, I did a 50:50 PVW15/VWFRR last night (Both from the Fall11 release). It was incredible and highly recommended.

The amount of deep dried fruit on the nose was the first thing I noticed and it had an extremely rich mouthfeel. I didn't let it combine overnight so there were certain times where it was still possible to distinguish the individual whiskeys but overall, it had it's own unique taste profile. If I had to use one word to describe the blend, it would be sultry.

[soad]

After reading this thread I decided to try my hand at vatting. After some duds, I came up with a really delicious combination.

My sweet spot is 4 parts OWA, 3 parts Weller SR, and 3 parts Old Ezra 101. The result is almost exactly 100 proof. The Old Ezra gives the Wellers a little spice that makes it special.

[JayMonster]

OK, so tonight I poured combination number 3. 2:1 Woodford/Devil's Cut.

As Gary correctly predicted, the use of a smaller amount of DC did not provide an opposite result of the 1:2 mixing. The Woodford dominated this (not a good thing to me), and while I did get a nice wood taste in the mid palate, the oxidized penny taste while slightly subdued, was more than clear enough to be disheartening to me. Oh, and lest I forget, the nose on this was just (for some odd reason), just downright dreadful. Not alcohol, not acetone, but something more like that clear highly toxic fumed model plane glue you used to be able to get lightheaded with by just opening the little tube.

I could probably continue down this path seeking the right combination, but honestly, I don't think I care enough. I started down this road, just looking for a way to make this Woodford more palatable. It has become clear that I am not going to be buying this again, so there is no point in continuing this journey with this particular combination.

It was definitely worth the effort in the way of a learning experience, and I will certainly try Gillmanizing more bourbon (I figure I better not say vatting or blending, less I be called "ignorant" for using the improper terms) ... just not with Woodford in the mix.

Sombody mentioned on another thread that vatting is for use with inferior whiskies. I disagreed with him there, and this just solidifies that opinion. If you start with inferior whiskey, you are not going to come up with much more than an "adequate" mix. This isn't alchemy, you can't turn bad whiskey good.

[Gillman]

Jay I see what you mean, although to me no bourbon is really inferior, it's just a set of tastes. E.g. I think the pot-still flavor of WR works well when set against a bourbon of mild character, 1:4 perhaps. In general, I like to blend feisty and mild, or strong and weaker (in ABV), high rye vs. low rye, oily vs. non-, etc. At least for a two-whiskey combination.

I recognise the pitfalls of the term blend because it is associated today by many with adding GNS, but at one time a "blend of straight whiskeys", or "blend of straight bourbon whiskeys", and other variants, were often seen in the market. These didn't have GNS. IIRC these products were combinations of straight whiskeys from different states because just the terms bourbon or straight rye can mean a combination of whiskeys of that respective type made in different distilleries from the same state. All this was and is of relevance to the licensed companies which distill and sell whiskey in the market. From the standpoint of someone combining whiskeys at home as a kind of cocktail, I just call it a blend of straight whiskeys whether from one state or multiple states and whether bourbons only, ryes only, or both, are combined. (I use JD too, often, in the blends). It's an old thing though, this is what I have tried to emphasize throughout.

Gary

[JayMonster]

Jay I see what you mean, although to me no bourbon is really inferior, it's just a set of tastes. E.g. I think the pot-still flavor of WR works well when set against a bourbon of mild character, 1:4 perhaps. In general, I like to blend feisty and mild, or strong and weaker (in ABV), high rye vs. low rye, oily vs. non-, etc. At least for a two-whiskey combination.

I recognise the pitfalls of the term blend because it is associated today by many with adding GNS, but at one time a "blend of straight whiskeys", or "blend of straight bourbon whiskeys", and other variants, were often seen in the market. These didn't have GNS.

Gary

Yeah, I should clarify myself a bit. I wasn't speaking about Woodford specifically, but reiterating what was on another thread about how somebody thought you should blend say "Pappy" and "VWFRR" and that is should be saved for mixing "inferior" whiskies. I agree that there are plenty of people that like Woodford Reserve... I am just not one of them.

Also, I probably shouldn't have dragged it into this thread, but I had just finished another where the argument was being had about what is "Vatting" and what is properly called "blending" I will try to keep these issues separate, and for this purpose go back to calling it vatting since that is what we all generally use for it.

I'm certainly not giving up on vatting (just not Woodford), and I will look into trying some things that match those suggestions you listed. Thanks.

[Gillman]

Understood and by the way I'm not suggesting that, say, a 36 month corny bourbon is as good as an 8 year old bourbon, but that in a vatting each can find a good place. I find young oily bourbon can add weight and "middle", for example. WR, which I rarely drink on its own, can add "spice", etc.

Vatting is an excellent term for the purpose being discussed. I've used it myself many times and it's neater than "a blend of straight whiskeys"!

Gary