BOTM, 12/06: Old Grand Dad 114

[drli]

My Grand father (RIP) drank this bourbon.... from what I remember, not the 114 but I remember the BIB or 86 bottle. Why did i take so long for me to give it a try??

Its a Keeper! I really liked my Grand Father. Miss him alot now. Did I mention I really like his bourbon? Kind-a fitting to the name of this bourbon.

[angelshare]

We agree, OGD 114 is fabulous, and for some reason, seems to hold up to watering well below 100 proof in our opinion. IE, it seems better than OGD 86 even when tasted around the same proof - although we've never done it blinded, so that could be imagination at work.

How long ago did Beam take over the brand? We happened upon a dusty bottle from the early 90's a while back, and the flavor profile was a little different to us. A little less of what Chuck described as cinnamon heat, perhaps. Did Beam have the brand, then? If so, would it have been Beam whiskey, or OGD that had been already barrelled when they bought the brand?

Crap! This sounds like one I would love to try, but the 114 isn't sold here in Virginia!

Actually, we've special ordered without any significant difficulty. Give it a try! It's in VA ABC Special Order catalogue here. Just don't get your hopes up about ordering Stagg or Hirsch, also listed!

[Old Lamplighter]

Visiting this great one again tonite and plan to do so each night the rest of the month as we say goodbye as BOTM......been a good one and with my new bottle will continue to be for quite some time! Thanks for honoring OGD 114 as December 06 BOTM.

[darkluna]

The thing I like best about Old Grand-Dad is that it is exactly what it should be exactly as it is. In other words, I don't find myself wishing I could taste it a little older or wishing for some other variation. It's a little yeasty but the signature taste is a sharp edge I liken to hot cinnamon candy.

Chuck - ever since I read your tasting notes, I am now acutely aware of the yeasty taste you mentioned. Not sure that's a good thing, I think I'll put this bottle in the back row for a while and come back to it again later.

[NYtaster]

I know I'm late on this one but haven't been logged in all month, I must be slipping. As luck would have it I just got a now bottle of OGB114 today. This is one of my regular pours. Lots of kick but the taste comes through and it really is a bargin. What more could you want, other than free to the door step that is.

Tim

[Virus_Of_Life]

OK so I am late as well, tonight I am having some OGD 114 for the first time in a while, mainly becuase I had to decant it from a bottle with an eroding cork. Yes this is actually the ND version, truly great, great stuff! If I had to write a top 10 today it'd probably be on it. The current Beam version if great too, but now quite as rich as this one.

Maybe I'll pick up some ND BiB and report on this month's BOTM before it passes...

[Old Lamplighter]

Visiting this most fine elixir again this evening. Probably one of the best 2 or 3 bourbons I have ever found for $20 + tax.....even though I did have to buy it out of state to find it at that bargain price.

[Brennan77]

I tasted OGD 114 for the first time yesterday. I found it on sale for less than $20. It's really a great pour...much better than I expected. It's very well rounded and became fantastic with a splash of water in a snifter.

[TBoner]

Last night I got into one of my ND OGD 114, the first I've opened. Had some issues with the cork, but it came out in one piece. I decanted due to the cork's, er, degraded state.

The first thing I noticed here was the color: rich, deep amber with orange highlights. It appears to have a good bit of char going on.

Next, aroma: oranges (even moreso than in the current OGD bonded and 114, both of which have terrific orange peel on the nose), cinnamon, char and leather. A good bit, actually. So much so that it reminds me a bit of WTRR 101 or even WT12.

Flavor: Yep, the yeast is there, but I don't mind it. Much more powerful are hints of almond, nutmeg, more cinnamon (and Chuck's right: it's hard to tell where that cinnamon ends and the char begins), and fruit. Specifically, I get raisins, orange, and maybe (oddly) dried apricots. There's more sweetness than anticipated. Also, there is enough burn to remind you this is high-proof, though it's not too much. This is hardly elegant, but that's to its advantage. I like it.

Finish: Long, surprising given the high rye content. The finish draws out the char and spice and restores the leather from the nose. Then, abruptly, it ends, drying out on the tongue and leaving you wanting another sip.

I prefer this to the current version, but not by a lot. As the proof goes up, Beam's products seem closer to the ND versions when it comes to OGD.
That said, given the color, sweetness level, and char character here as compared to Beam's version, I wonder if the biggest difference between current and older OGD 114 is barrel entry proof.
At one time, OGD 114 claimed to be barrel proof, and it may well have been close to it. We know Beam distills its other recipe to about 125 proof. And the OGDs I've had from ND seem deeper, richer, and fruitier across the board than their Beam counterparts. Since the recipe and yeast are the same, is it possible that Beam simply distills it to a higher proof, losing some congeners and lessening the impact of the barrel in the process?

[Gillman]

It is possible that after the purchase (1987) of National Distillers and once the new OG was being made at Clermont or Boston (not sure which), the distilling-out or entry proofs or both were set at a higher level than had been followed at Frankfort.

However, I think the recipe (maybe the yeast) may have changed too, to a degree anyway, since the current OGs are (IMO) quite different from the ND ones. There is a connection, and I agree it strengthens as you go up the proof scale, but there seem to me at least as many differences.

I don't get the "funky yeast" in any of the ND versions, for example, and also they seem more estery, sweeter, richer all 'round, as you said.

Then too I didn't get any of that yeasty/licorice in 1980 Beam White either, or in the 1960's and 70's-era Beam Choice.

I suspect that all these old recipes, including Beam's own, were changed in some way along the way, either that or some process change occurred whereby the palates evolved in some way. Only Knob Creek doesn't seem to share the key-notes of the Beam range of today, why I am not sure. Maybe the process change was simply overall not to age the whiskeys as long as they had been except for KC. But I think other factors may have been at work, too.

By the way I believe when it was spoken that 114 used to be barrel proof, I think what was meant was that was the dumping proof of the single barrel it originally was. Maybe I am wrong on that.

Gary