Welcome to the Straightbourbon.com Forums.
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94
  1. #71
    Bourbonian of the Year 2011
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Lot 40 is not conventional Canadian whisky at all, exactly right. Really it is, or is very much akin to, a flavouring or straight whisky (albeit different from U.S. rye as you said) that would normally be used in a small amount in a blend but that happened to be released on its own. If you blended Lot 40 with 90% aged GNS, it might end up tasting like Seagram VO, say, or… maybe that Collingwood.

    Of course, Collingwood 21 years old is a different story - it is a straight whisky essentially, the Collingwood counterpart to Lot 40. Masterson's is another counterpart except aged in new charred oak and thus getting closer to American straight rye in character.

    Gary
    Last edited by Gillman; 04-13-2014 at 18:18.

  2. #72
    Disciple
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.

  3. #73
    Bourbonian of the Year 2011
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Squire certainly true of Collingwood 21 years old but I am not sure about the regular Collingwood maple-finished whisky. I would think it is a Canadian Mist type product except subjected to the maple treatment.

    Gary

  4. #74
    Bourbonian of the Year 2011
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by mbroo5880i View Post
    I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.
    Think of it as U.S.-type straight rye, especially the LDI/MGPI type, except not aged in new charred barrels. Putting it in U.S. terminology, it is a rye mash whisky, that's exactly what it is although I'd doubt (but I may be wrong) it is entered under 125 proof, I'd think it is entered higher since there is no limit here. Collingwood 21 years old is also a rye mash whiskey except subjected to the very beneficent in this case maple wood treatment. Masterson's (plus WhistlePig and Jefferson's rye) are not rye mash whiskey because while Canadian-made they were aged in new charred wood and presumably entered under 125 proof in that case, so those meet the U.S. straight rye standards and that is why they were called straight rye on the label.

    Gary
    Last edited by Gillman; 04-13-2014 at 18:16.

  5. #75
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Posts
    12,323

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Yes, I was restricting my comments to the 21 year old. What's interesting is these Canadian distilleries have the stock to make things like Lot 40, Masterson's and Collingwood 21 regular production items. I understand in the past they occasionally launched an unblended special but it didn't prove viable in the marketplace at the time. Perhaps now Canadian "singles" time has come.
    We're Bourbon Geeks, it's who we are, it's what we do.

  6. #76
    Disciple
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    I like LDI rye (Willett, BoneSnapper) and I am sure others. I loved the Jeff 10 Canadian NCF that I had. I assume it came from Alberta. I will probably end up getting a Lot 40.

  7. #77
    Bourbonian of the Year 2011
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now. Before that, as far as I know, to find a Canadian straight on its own you have to go back to circa-1950 when Seagram had a line called Pedigree that came both in rye and bourbon. These were made in Canada and were all-flavouring whisky. But they were phased out, I'd guess not to confuse the market with "real" U.S. bourbon and rye, or maybe it was due to early trade agreements (pre-NAFTA) that reserved bourbon and straight rye to products which were made in the U.S. But the point being, products very similar to bourbon, straight rye, single malt and Irish pure pot still have always been made in Canada from Day 1. Here though in the last 60 years they have been used, until Lot 40 et al, solely for blending, to give taste to a much larger quantity of fairly bland albeit aged neutral spirit or something very close to neutral spirit. We used the straights as a seasoning, basically. The Americans do that too, e.g. for the 7 Crown type of whiskey, but the difference is, as with the Scots, they never stopped selling the straights on their own. The Irish did stop, like the Canadians, until fairly recently except for Redbreast and Green Spot, so a little "true" Irish was always available. But even Jameson and other famous names (Power's) - made famous when they were straight - had been turned into blends by the 1980's. Once again straight in this context means, distilled out at a low proof which is what locks the flavour in. It doesn't mean aged in new charred wood which has always been mainly an American thing. Nonetheless some Canadian flavouring whisky - e.g., Masterson's, WP, Jefferson, - is aged in new charred wood.

    The Canadians have taken a much more flexible approach to defining whisky than the U.S. but in practice until recently it meant the market was dominated, and still is virtually to 100%, by the subtle blend… The straights came back here, I infer, due to the market success of single malt, Irish pot still and of course bourbon. So I think the distillers here felt they had to do something. Forty Creek's whiskies were kind of a bridge to this development, having more taste (quite a bit more) than the regular Canadian blend but not having a frankly straight character either.

    Gary
    Last edited by Gillman; 04-13-2014 at 18:41.

  8. #78
    Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Seattle Area
    Posts
    539

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillman View Post
    Well (answering Squire's last comments), I hope so. Lot 40 was really the groundbreaker, it has been out about 12 years now.

    ...
    Gary
    Are you sure about that? I know the first Lot 40 was out a while ago and 12 years sounds about right, but it's my understanding it was pulled from the market for some reason, lack of demand I assume. The 2012 version is the latest version released, so essentially it's a "new" whisky again as there was a decade or so with no Lot 40.

    And thanks for clarifying up the Canadian GNS question. I remember articles talking mixing flavoring whisky with base whisky, or whatever they called it, to make most Canadian whiskys and I had assumed that base was GNS. I guess I should have realized that since it was called 'whisky' it was likely aged, at least a little bit.

  9. #79
    Bourbonian of the Year 2011
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

    I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

    Gary
    Last edited by Gillman; 04-14-2014 at 04:43.

  10. #80
    Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Seattle Area
    Posts
    539

    Re: Lot 40 2012 Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillman View Post
    I didn't mean it was continuously available over the last 12 years (maybe it is more like 15) but that when it first appeared then, it was, to my knowledge, the first "flavouring" whisky - or whisky of that character - sold in Canada since the early 1950's. After Lot 40 first came out, it was reintroduced once or twice in succeeding years and then again in 2012. The stocks on the shelf are from 2012. The 2012 one is the best so far, the original had a strong congeneric taste, the new one does too but the balance is better.

    I am sure each maker would probably state that its base whiskies do have a certain character and aren't pure GNS but in my view, the differences are likely very minor. And it must be aged three years to be called whisky under Canadian regs, indeed. The aging is important because not just wood taste but other flavours to the alcohol surely are imparted depending on where it is aged, the environment and temperature, etc. So you have a lot of variables. I have no issue with the use of grain whisky as a base, I am a proponent of good blending in fact, but feel that Canadian whisky became too bland over the last 100 years perhaps because the amount of flavouring whisky used (the percentages in the bottle) declined over time. I am just speculating here but would think the average product had a more robust taste in 1900, say. This is why those vertical tastings are so interesting, one can try to assess the palate over a lengthy period.

    Gary
    Thanks for the clarification!

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. I.W.Harper Bicentennial Edition
    By Cybrwzrd in forum General Bourbon Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-23-2012, 12:15
  2. Bruichladdich 15 second edition
    By Sijan in forum Foreign Whiskey
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 16:29
  3. Dowling "Collector's Edition"
    By cowdery in forum History
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-12-2001, 14:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top