BOTM, 7/05: Old Forester

[jeff]

Bourbon of the Month, July 2005:

Old Forester

Specifically the 100 proof, although discussion of the 86 proof is acceptable. Birthday Bourbon expressions can be mentioned for comparative analysis with either of the traditional Old Forester bottlings.

Sound off!

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

I'll go get mine tomorrow.
Ed

[Chaz7]

Well, I went out to buy a bottle; when I saw it was $12.00 for the 100 proof, I thought it can't be that good. I usually pay $20-40, and I haven't been disappointed yet. I don't mean to sound like a bourbon snob; I just didn't have the highest expectations going in. My first two finger pour? Well, I was less than thrilled. All I got was a smokey taste.I really did not enjoy it at all. But, I did not stop there. Over the next couple of nights, I tried several more pours. I am slowly growing fond of it. It doesn't, to me anyway, have the complexity of Elmer T. Lee, EWSB 95, or any of the Pappys. But, it's not half bad. Far better than it's modest price suggests. Over the course of this month, I will work on what flavours I do get from it. It is though a bourbon that after the first glass, I have no problem tasting anything else in my rather limited bunker. Does this suggest it's a little thin? I don't know. Again, time will tell.

[OFC]

Old Forrester 86 is my every day first pour for some time now. I always sample a differrent bourbon going from light to heavier body and if your a rye flavored bourbon fan Old Forrester 86 or 100 is tops for the the first sip of the day in my book. The mash bill has 18% rye, more than many. OF 100 proof has been difficult to find in NYC and the likely sources would probably want list price. OF 86 liter lists for $19. but can be had for $13, discounted. The prices some of you are posting quote has me jealous !!! So I mostly drink the 86 now. Forget what the OF 100 says about its age on the label.
Most knowledgable people report it is actually 8 years old, the 86 proof 5 1/2 years average. For the story on this, see the posting of 10/02/02 on the is site---about page 85 on the index for the whole scoop on how old is Old Forrester. OF is a very distinctive drink with sharp nutty/ toffee tones and dry finish and holds up nicely to ice on a warm day if your are so inclined. I am often.

[dgonano]

Old Forester 100 is indeed a fine pour for the price( about

$14 in Maryland). The caramel and vanilla flavors are

prominent. To my recollection this bourbon is 6 to 8 yrs

old. The 86 proof is a few yrs younger. The labels state

4 yrs on both bottlings.

I always pick up a few bottles of the 100 as it is not

always in stock.

[BrbnBorderline]

WA State doesn't carry the 100 Proof, so I bought the 86 proof version to try it. I'll chime in later with my thoughts.

[BrbnBorderline]

Well, I've sipped my first finger's worth. Here are my first impressions:

Given that I'm not an expert taster, I'd say this would be a good Scotch drinker's bourbon. Lot's of barrel and smoke. Very little of the vanilla/caramel/maple flavors I enjoy in a bourbon. I'd like to try the 100 proof bottling. The 86 proof version seems a wee bit thin. I'm following it up with some Weller Antique.


YMMV

[TNbourbon]

In the 'by-the-way' department, I looked at an old tax-stamped Old Forester BIB 1.75L in a store today for $35 after tax (he had several other smaller sizes, too, including some dimple-sided 86 proofs), but wound up instead buying a sealed/boxed 1975 Benchmark 57th American Legion commemorative bottle for $46. I'll go back for the other(s).
I already had, however, an OF 100 proof, which states 4 years old on the rear label:

The color is new-copper-plating orangish, as on a current-year penny. The nose has hints of lemon/citrus, with underlying brown sugar/maple, and holds suggestion of a light-bodied pour. On the palate, the weight is indeed light, and the flavors complement the nose about as well as any bourbon I've ever tasted -- the citrus is prominent, with almost no 'dark' flavors (tobacco, leather, acidic oak). There is a medium finish with mild heat, leaving a remarkably fresh aftertaste.
Not a lot of complexity here, but no real unpleasantness either. This is a fresh, enjoyable drink, seemingly tuned to summertime sipping.
Afternote: I often marinade beef steaks in OF 86 to good result; I think I'll try this one with pork and/or fish.

[TNbourbon]

My original impression in July of near-current bottle:

...The color is new-copper-plating orangish, as on a current-year penny. The nose has hints of lemon/citrus, with underlying brown sugar/maple, and holds suggestion of a light-bodied pour. On the palate, the weight is indeed light, and the flavors complement the nose about as well as any bourbon I've ever tasted -- the citrus is prominent, with almost no 'dark' flavors (tobacco, leather, acidic oak). There is a medium finish with mild heat, leaving a remarkably fresh aftertaste.
Not a lot of complexity here, but no real unpleasantness either. This is a fresh, enjoyable drink, seemingly tuned to summertime sipping...

I'm revisiting this because I found an older (1994), dimpled liter BIB today for under $20, so picked it up. Wow! Not the same bourbon (literally, in fact -- this one was distilled at Shively's DSP-354 Early Times plant, not the Old Forester DSP-414 distillery in Louisville proper).
This one is full tawny, with just hints of orange (older than 4 years, maybe?); no lightness about it -- not in nose, taste or finish; there is certainly leather, tobacco and oak here; and it provides a fair amount of alcohol heat before demurring at the very end.
This store also had several 1998 bottles of the old-label (but not dimpled) 86 proof (packaged with an NFL highlights video). I might lay them in if they approach this one in style.

[Rughi]

Of bonds that I have, the first one from DSP 354 is a post-tax stamp 375ml that has "88" stamped into the glass. My copy of Jim Murray's Complete Book of Whiskey (1997) states that Old Forester, Louisville (DSP 414) distillation was moved to Early Times, Shively (DSP 354) in 1979. I have no reason to believe (or disbelieve, other than the liquor itself) that the Louisville still ever operated again after that, although since Forester stopped declaring the DSP on newer bib's, who's to know?

In comparison to the 1970s bonds, the '88 and the '95 bonds are noticeably lighter, hotter, have some less caramel in both aroma and flavor (the '95 less than the '88), and have a noticeable alcohol whiff that is absent from the heavier, much more complex and caramelly-sweet '78.

So, based on my samples, I think that Forester became progressively lighter in Shively. Murray refers to a "virtual triple distillation..beer still to thumper to doubler" added "recently" (published 1997). It's not clear if the '95 bottle would be just before the advent of the "triple distillation," or if this was one more step in lightening the flavor.

Roger