Evan Williams Single Barrel 2002 Vintage

[MauiSon]

Just wondering, what's the highest numbered barrel seen of the 2002 vintage? I can start it with #649.

[jeffrey r]

My bottle is #964, barreled on 4-18-02, bottled on 10-19-12.

Gotta be honest, I thought this bottle was a dud after the first couple of pours. But something has changed for the better since then, and I am pleased with the bottle. Very good bourbon for $23 a bottle.

[tanstaafl2]

Picked up barrel #997 a few weeks ago here in Atlanta.

EWSB02.JPG

[smknjoe]

Barrel 699.

IMAG0001.jpg

[SFS]

Mine was #922 IIRC (bottle got recycled).

[cowdery]

This is interesting because, while Heaven Hill doesn't report its sales, you can use the barrel numbers on EWSBV to get a pretty close estimate of how much of that they're selling. Let's say those 9-year-old barrels yield about 40 gallons of 140° proof whiskey each. How many 750 ml bottles is that at 86.6° proof? (I'll let someone with better math skills than mine finish the calculation.)

[SFS]

This is interesting because, while Heaven Hill doesn't report its sales, you can use the barrel numbers on EWSBV to get a pretty close estimate of how much of that they're selling. Let's say those 9-year-old barrels yield about 40 gallons of 140° proof whiskey each. How many 750 ml bottles is that at 86.6° proof? (I'll let someone with better math skills than mine finish the calculation.)

Is this a valid assertion Chuck? Just because a bottle came out of barrel #997, can we correctly infer that they used at least 997 barrels worth of bourbon in creating this year's SB offering? I don't know that we can.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm just wondering. In laboratory work, every reagent should be assigned a unique number, but I've audited a lot of labs where that criterion was nicely met, yet the identifying numbers were not incremented by 1 each time, or even assigned sequentially, so the total number of reagent bottles could not be inferred from the ID number (nor could their use). I would think that the barrel number would yield historical data about that barrel's contents and the history thereof, including it's use. But I doubt we can infer that barrel numbers are sequential, and even if they are, I doubt we can infer that all barrel numbers between integers X and Y were used for a given offering.

[callmeox]

Every barrel in the warehouse will have a unique serial number for tracking. The barrel number indicated on the label is probably a cross reference to the barrel serial number.

The real 'lot' information for a bottle is going to be printed on the glass.

[SFS]

But the math looks like this.

40 gallons = 151.4 Liters

1 Liter of 140 proof bourbon + 0.6166 L water = 1.616 L of 86.6 proof bourbon (this is actually not quite correct, with respect to volume, because 100 mL of water + 100 mL of pure ethanol will not yield 200 mL of liquid, regardless of the proof of that liquid, but that is another topic. For the sake of estimation, I'll not worry about that factor.)

997 barrels X 151.4 liters = 150,945.8 L of 140 proof.

Each of those 150,946 L needs 0.6166 L water, so that's another 93,073 L.

150,946 + 93,073 = 244,019 L which would make 325,358 bottles (of 750 mL each). At $23 each, that's $7,483,249.

Note: Beginning at the line that starts with "Each of", I rounded to whole units.

[squire]

You're on a roll there Ray, how many bottles would that be at 84 proof?