Wheaters

[White Dog]

I'd love to see this thread become a roundtable for our thoughts on Wheaters. Many of us love them, some are indifferent, and some hate.

The main reason I started this thread was the mouthfeel difference I get from HH Wheaters vs. all others. I was tasting Larceny, and it had the high-toned spice notes that I get from all HH products. Regardless of mashbill, HH never gives me the fatter mouthfeel I get from certain products, except for the occasional rare product like PHC Wheater.

After the Larceny, I revisited current Old Fitz 12, and got the same profile. Then I went to Weller 12 and MM, and there I got that fat, buttery mouthfeel I associate with Wheaters.

Josh's Tree(Which should be a sticky!) lists MM as 70/16/14. Further down the tree he says that Bernheim wheater was listed as 75/20/5. As I understand it, Samuels got both the recipe AND yeast from Pappy. I assume BT is using the same recipe as S-W, but what about yeast? As for HH, I was also under the assumption that they also got the same mashbill that Old Fitz had always been, but what about yeast?

The reason I raise these questions is why the variation in mouthfeel between HH Wheaters, and all others? Is it a question of the house style or recipe? Maybe the Beam boys simply blend to a different profile, and have never felt comfortable with the classic Wheater taste? Yet they made the PHC Wheater, which was extraordinary.

Let's discuss, if anyone cares to.

[Brisko]

I think the PHC, while extraordinary, is still well within the HH wheater profile, just better. Imagine, if you will, what a 10 year old cask strength Maker's would be like. We already have WLW for comparison from the BT line.

I also taste a lot of similarities between the HH wheaters and their rye recipe bourbons...the mouthfeel is consistent across the board, I think.

[HighInTheMtns]

A few observations...

The mashbill for HH wheater seems to be in question as of the latest version of the tree (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...l=1#post285944) but 5% barley would be extraordinarily low and my money would be against it being so - that's not much more than the bare minimum to convert all the starches in the mash. If 5% barley is truly the case, this could explain some of the difference in mouth feel (see: single malts with thick mouthfeels even at lower proofs.)

BT enters their wheater into the barrel at 114 proof. Don't know whether HH does the same, but I think this is probably one of the biggest influences on mouthfeel. People who have had a lot of dusties talk about the same sort of mouthfeel in older bottles - from the time when entry proofs were lower.

I feel like I can be pretty confident in saying that HH is using the same yeast for their wheater as for everything else - Larceny has a very noticeable HH yeast character. I bet BT does the same. I'm sure there's someone here who can tell us that for sure.

[CaptainQ]

Imagine, if you will, what a 10 year old cask strength Maker's would be like.

Yes, I would love to. Hey Maker's Mark how about throwing us enthusiasts a bone, would you. Pretty please.

[Young Blacksmith]

I'm also going to guess it is the HH yeast that gives the minty profile you find in all their bourbons. Barrel entry proof sounds right for the thicker mouthfeel too, as I'd suspect they go in around 120-125.

But, these are all guesses and have no rooting in facts.

[bad_scientist]

A few observations...

The mashbill for HH wheater seems to be in question as of the latest version of the tree (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...l=1#post285944) but 5% barley would be extraordinarily low and my money would be against it being so - that's not much more than the bare minimum to convert all the starches in the mash. If 5% barley is truly the case, this could explain some of the difference in mouth feel (see: single malts with thick mouthfeels even at lower proofs.)

BT enters their wheater into the barrel at 114 proof. Don't know whether HH does the same, but I think this is probably one of the biggest influences on mouthfeel. People who have had a lot of dusties talk about the same sort of mouthfeel in older bottles - from the time when entry proofs were lower.

I feel like I can be pretty confident in saying that HH is using the same yeast for their wheater as for everything else - Larceny has a very noticeable HH yeast character. I bet BT does the same. I'm sure there's someone here who can tell us that for sure.

I heard from another SB.com member that HH distills the white dog for their bourbon almost to the alcohol % limit of what is allowed. I dunno if they do that with their wheaters, but it fits.

[fishnbowljoe]

Imagine, if you will, what a 10 year old cask strength Maker's would be like.

Hey Maker's Mark how about throwing us enthusiasts a bone, would you. Pretty please.

Maybe they could just reintroduce their 101 proof offering. A 101 proof wheater aged 5 1/2 - 6 1/2 years would suit me just fine.

[HighInTheMtns]

Maybe they could just reintroduce their 101 proof offering. A 101 proof wheater aged 5 1/2 - 6 1/2 years would suit me just fine.

I'd love to see this happen.

[squire]

Or 100 proof between 4-6 years. If given a choice I always choose proof over age.

[White Dog]

I heard from another SB.com member that HH distills the white dog for their bourbon almost to the alcohol % limit of what is allowed. I dunno if they do that with their wheaters, but it fits.

Yikes. Well that would explain the mouthfeel of HH.