Has Four Roses made Barrel Proof obsolete?

[DowntownD]

right, and let me clarify - the only thing I wish those who are the makers/producers these days would do differently (in this context) is this:

add a cask strength unfiltered expression to your lineup and adjust your prices accordingly such that it's worth your effort yet doesn't screw those who are interested in such things.

as for drinking in the bay area goes, I'm down. It's been a few years.

[Gillman]

Many interesting thoughts here. I can't argue with the idea that adding my own water is as good or better than someone else doing it, and cheaper. By adding water of the type and to the proportion I like, I can get a taste as close or as far as I want from the original barrel strength. (The farness thing gets into the idea of bringing out the taste or "display", which can be very valid but is only one aspect of whiskey drinking). I think this was the original concept of bonded or 100 proof anyway since originally, whiskey was distilled around that level and climbed not too much higher from there. So by getting 100 proof you were getting something close to barrel strength, but standarized for commercial purposes. With higher distilling out and entry proofs, 100 proof gets away from the original concept to a degree, but then some people feel I understand you get a better product with higher entry (I believe Parker Beam is of this view).

The answer for me is to have a choice. WT is the model with its Rare Breed (albeit mingled of different years), 101 which apparently is close to the barrel proof, 80 for those who want that, the Russell's Reserve variations, etc. Four Roses too with its single barrel of high integrity, its excellent 80 proof (where you get the benefit of the company's mingling expertise), the small batch and now the limited edition releases at barrel strength.

But I take Roger's point, and for those who want whiskey as close to barrel form as possible and as "whiskey" as it gets its single barrel is a fine choice.

I hadn't realised that the FR single barrel's 100 was so close to barrel proof. I thought this was so only for some of the recent limited edition releases. Probably the 100 was "designed" to have a dumping strength at close to 100 and the limited editions are simply extra-aged versions.

Gary

[Rughi]

I hadn't realised that the FR single barrel's 100 was so close to barrel proof. I thought this was so only for some of the recent limited edition releases. Probably the 100 was "designed" to have a dumping strength at close to 100 and the limited editions are simply extra-aged versions.
Gary

I was trying to find in the archives where I believe someone had posted about a conversation with Rutledge about entry proofs at 105, 110 and 120 - unfortunately I couldn't find it.

I have no way of knowing what proportion of barrels get filled at lower proofs - but contrary to Parker Beam's belief in high entry proof, Rutledge has espoused lower entry proofs as being cost effective, as they mature more quickly. The post I read had him saying that the extra cost of more water in the barrel is offset by the quicker time to recoup the investment.

Roger

[mozilla]

I was trying to find in the archives where I believe someone had posted about a conversation with Rutledge about entry proofs at 105, 110 and 120 - unfortunately I couldn't find it.

I have no way of knowing what proportion of barrels get filled at lower proofs - but contrary to Parker Beam's belief in high entry proof, Rutledge has espoused lower entry proofs as being cost effective, as they mature more quickly. The post I read had him saying that the extra cost of more water in the barrel is offset by the quicker time to recoup the investment.

Roger

I was told the same thing, though not by JR. It came from the warehouse mngr.(Gary Fields) and Al Young(former Distillery mngr.).

I don't have any info on numbers produced or percentage of each.

[Rughi]

Jeff,
I was thinking it might have been you, so I did a search for "rutledge" by "mozilla". I hadn't thought to search for Gary or Al.

Thanks
Roger

[mozilla]

We (my Dad and I) drank some bourbon right out of the barrels they were dumping the morning we visited.

Man was that stuff great. Every version of their bourbon from 80 proof.....to barrel samples from various barrels... to strait from their mash tubs and still...it is always very very intense with flavors. Not always the same flavors either....some fruity and some spicey but always top notch. They really have their stuff together at Four Roses.

Also, found out that they hand picked their own yeast samples from the vast coffers of the Seagrams vaults. I think that Seargrams had around 2 thousand different types of yeast varieties (from memory).

[doubleblank]

I agree that there are numerous examples of and opinions for the position that "lower barrel entry proof makes better and perhaps more economic whiskey". But I'm not ready to accept that position is what is best for any/all distilleries. There are too many other variables in the equation in making bourbon. Mash bills, cookers, fermentation tanks, distillation column design, distillation proof, barrel makers, char levels, rickhouse materials and location, etc, etc. So if HH or BT says we believe a higher barrel entry proof makes the best whiskey right here, I'm going to believe them. Its too easy to say the accountants are reponsible for higher barrel entry proofs....particularly when there is evidence (or opinion anyway) that the opposite is true.

I didn't make notes per se, but I recall every master distiller I've ever spoken with about barrel entry proof has responded with something like "We use different barrel entry proofs in producing our whiskeys".

Randy

[Rughi]

I agree that there are numerous examples of and opinions for the position that "lower barrel entry proof makes better and perhaps more economic whiskey". But I'm not ready to accept that position is what is best for any/all distilleries. There are too many other variables...
Randy

You're probably right, but...

My thesis was how diluted different barrel proofs need to be to get to the 80 and 100 proof range at which they are often bottled and that Four Roses has the opportunity to release a 100 proof product that is virtually undiluted from barrel proof.

I can accept that each product has an optimal entry proof and optimal barrel proof, but not that the whiskey is at its best when watered down 20-40% at bottling. If I want it watered down that much, I want to do it myself.

Roger

[barturtle]

I think this is all about how much the whiskey is cut-or how much unaged water is in the bottle you buy. I think I would rather buy a 80 proof whiskey that came out of the barrel at 100 proof than a 90 proof whiskey that came out of the barrel at 130 proof. I know is Scotland there's been some times where a barrel has shown to not be even 80 proof, so they have to blend in others to get it up to proof...but hell I say if it came out at 70 proof, leave it alone, I'd be willing to give it a shot as is.

[fog]

I was thinking the same thing after the 40th was released last year.

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...6&postcount=50