I was going to edit my previous post to fix the typo, "requited" to what I had originally intended, "required".
And then I thought, by the serendipity of it, requited works just as well...
Gary
I was going to edit my previous post to fix the typo, "requited" to what I had originally intended, "required".
And then I thought, by the serendipity of it, requited works just as well...
Gary
Agreed on all points, Gary.
IIRC, Chuck has said that 1792 is one of the higher-barley recipes out there. Try tasting it next to a mid-shelf pour with less barley. I think barley does a nice job of adding body and mouthfeel without the overt sweetness of corn or spice and oiliness of rye.
Old Potrero uses uses rye malt for it's pure rye whiskey, as do some Canadian "ryes." See this page for more detail. However, I don't recommend OP if you're just starting out.
As for whether I like wheat or rye mashbills better - I love 'em both. I suppose if I have to choose I lean towards rye-flavored bourbons, but it really depends on the mood I'm in. A couple of my all-time favorites have been mentioned: W.L Weller 7yr 107 proof and Old Grand-Dad BIB (I haven't opened my bottle of 114 proof yet). Of course if you can get your hands on an old Stitzel-Weller Old Fitz BIB or ND-era OGD, now you've got something (lots on these in the Collectibles section).
Most people here, including me, don't care for Basel Hayden even though it's the same recipe as Old Grand-Dad and it's aged 8 years, because it's too watered down at 80 proof. I'd love to try a barrel strength Basel, though.
• • •Mark
I love him whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks...for he always gives away and does not want to preserve himself.
-Nietzsche
As always Gary, informative and interesting, thanks for the information.
I will have to revisit 1792, as it has been a long time since I had any.
I have kept my eye out for Old Portero to give it a try. Kind of like Bernheim Original, I would like to have a bottle as it is so different, but here in WA it goes for $101, so it's not likely to see my shelf any time soon. I actually don't mind the Bernheim, and several of my guests have very much enjoyed the smooth flavor.
I guess I need to do more searching on "recipes". I had no idea Basil Hayden and OGD were the same recipe? I found Basil Hayden a little bland for the $37 they want for it here.
Always an excellent education.
![]()
Todd
Thanks, I agree 1792 seems to benefit from the extra dollop of malted barley added.
Potrero does offer the taste of malted rye, however due to its youth and/or not being aged all that long in new charred wood, I find the ideal combination of malted rye and new charred wood aging is lacking. Still, an interesting whiskey in all its various forms.
Gary
This may have been more appropriate in the mashbill discussion than in this forum, but here's my take:
I think the key to wheat is that it essentially makes the mashbill "less", leaving the oak to play a larger part. The mashbill is less spicy, less sweet, drier and has a lighter body. Bernheim wheat is a perfect example of this. Wheat summer beers are another good example of a light and dry grainbill (the clove character of many wheat beers is the yeast, not a part of the wheat itself).
Less Spicy
Wheat is definitely less spicy than rye.
Less Sweet, Lower Body
Corn is the sweet grain and also the oily, heavy body grain. Some of the % of corn that would have been in a rye mashbill has been displaced with the higher percentages of wheat used in current wheaters than rye in rye bourbons. I think that the low spiciness of wheaters allows the sweetness that it does have to shine through more emphatically. Also, the sweetness that is present is a higher proportion of delightfully complex, vanillin-rich oak sweetness than the less articulated sweetness of corn (think high fructose corn sweetener or Mellow Corn).
Lower proof off still and lower proof in Barrel = less dilution of "bourbonness" in the bottle
Whatever info is available to the public points to current wheat bourbons being "babied" by not having to come off the still or go into the barrel at as high of proofs as their rye bourbon siblings. Whether the lighter mashbill "allows" for a distillate to be less "cut" with ethanol and water or "requires" it is, I guess, in the eye of the beholder. My opinion is that if wheaters were subjected to the same high proof, highly watered strategy as rye bourbons are that they might not have much character in them by the time they get out of the bottling hall.
Bourbon lovers love oak
So, why are some of the most excellent bourbons wheaters? In my opinion, it's because the lighter mashbill allows the barrel to shine through, especially with age. Rye bourbons are exciting at an early age because of the mashbill, wheaters get exciting as the barrel works its magic.
The question I don't get is why, at least in my group, there is a general consensus that wheaters age into their teens and early twenties really well, straight ryes age really well, but rye bourbons, not as predictably well. Is it that too much corn becomes cloying with time (because the only common mashbill element of wheaters and straight ryes is the lower corn content)? I dunno.
And, of course, ymmv.
Roger
Brad
Thanks for all the information fellas, it was very helpful.
I had a quick follow-up question regarding the Wild Turkey 101s. Is the standard 101 a wheat bourbon, since there's a 101 Rye? Or do they each have both, but in different ratios? If so, how different are those ratios? Are they then also aged differently?
They each have both, but in different proportions. The WT rye has at least 51% rye grist in the mash. The WT 101 bourbon has at least 51% corn and in fact rather more. I don't know the exact amount of rye in the bourbon but it is likely 15%-20% or so.
This shows though that rye whiskey and bourbon whiskey which (as most does) incorporates rye are really variations on a theme..
Gary