Bottle-to-bottle variation in Hirsch 16 third release?

[Sijan]

It's common knowledge on this forum that the third release of A.H. Hirsch 16 year old may not live up to the reputation of the previous two releases. I myself have been rather disappointed by my third release bottle of Hirsch 16.

But a few days ago while on vacation, I had an opportunity to try a few sips from a different bottle of Hirsch 16 third release, and was pleasantly surprised - it wasn't the best bourbon I've ever had, but it was noticeably better than I remembered it. Returning home, I decided to revisit my bottle of Hirsch 16 tonight & was again disappointed by the metallic/woody bitter taste - it is simply not a pleasant bourbon to drink.

So I'm trying to figure out what might explain this seeming bottle-to-bottle variation. Was the third release bottled at subsantially different times or over an extended period of time such that some of it may have been closer to the first and second releases, or was it a one-shot deal?

Also, any advice on what, if anything, can be done to revive the bad bottles of Hirsch 16? I don't have any Hirsch 20 to vat with it, so that solution isn't viable for me.

[DrinkyBanjo]

I'm sure by now everyone is aware that this is Michter's whiskey from PA. From previous posts it seems that this whiskey was removed for casks and stored in stainless steel vats. As the bottling went on the the remaining whiskey remained in the vats so it might make sense about the metallic taste you describe.

I believe this is the same scenario as Pappy Van Winkle 15 YO and Old Rip Van Winkle 15 YO. Same whiskey but it is in storage.

Many believe/claim that the stainless steel vat will not affect the taste. Others, especially on this page, say it does affect the taste. I wonder if we psych ourselves out and 'think' we are tasting these things because we know what is going on behind the scenes.

Hmmmmmmm..........

[NorCalBoozer]

I've found this bourbon odd in a similiar vain. Everytime I open a new bottle, I think "hmmm this doesn't taste like I remember it". Seems rather bland or ho hum.

Just seems that it's really "tight". Then I let a pour set out for a while and it's a totally different animal.

I would recommend letting a pour sit out for 30 minutes or so. Then try it.

But then again, I've never encountered the strong tastes you describe with a gold foil, and I suppose it could be bad.

Originally Posted by Sijan

It's common knowledge on this forum that the third release of A.H. Hirsch 16 year old may not live up to the reputation of the previous two releases. I myself have been rather disappointed by my third release bottle of Hirsch 16.

But a few days ago while on vacation, I had an opportunity to try a few sips from a different bottle of Hirsch 16 third release, and was pleasantly surprised - it wasn't the best bourbon I've ever had, but it was noticeably better than I remembered it. Returning home, I decided to revisit my bottle of Hirsch 16 tonight & was again disappointed by the metallic/woody bitter taste - it is simply not a pleasant bourbon to drink.

So I'm trying to figure out what might explain this seeming bottle-to-bottle variation. Was the third release bottled at subsantially different times or over an extended period of time such that some of it may have been closer to the first and second releases, or was it a one-shot deal?

Also, any advice on what, if anything, can be done to revive the bad bottles of Hirsch 16? I don't have any Hirsch 20 to vat with it, so that solution isn't viable for me.

[Pharaoh]

You certainly aren't crazy.

Norcal is correct that the last release has tighter screws and breathing helps.

Metalic might be the description, for me rusty was what came to mind (when compared to 1st and 2nd release bottles).

I have no doubt that the stainless steel tanking played a role. I also would guess, probably whiskey first drawn and bottled was the best of the arrested volume but as the tank drew downward, the concentration of newer accents grew upwards.

Could this explain the third release never being quite as buttery good as the second and first -- while some bottles of the said third release appear to be marketedly better / worse than the others of the same release?

At any rate, you aren't the first to reach these conclusions (count me as another) and perhaps begrudgingly, Mr. P acknowledged something along the lines of "oxidation was minimal".

For someone like myself, I saw it as a skillful dash across a tightrope but I took it for what I thought it was worth... which was his inability to deny that oxidation had occurred at all.

[Sijan]

I don't think I was psyched out about it - fully expected this bottling to be quite good based on a number of reviews I'd read. I had seen information on this forum about it not standing up to the previous bottlings, but felt that was pretty irrelevant to me since I'd never had the the previous two versions of Hirsch 16. I don't recall reading any specific notes about the metallic taste, etc., until after I'd already tasted it and recognized the same.

Anyhow, I think the problems of third edition have already been hashed out quite a bit on this forum - my interest is in whether there is substantial variation between bottles in the third release or if my taste buds simply played a trick on me a few days ago. I really thought the Hirsch I tasted out on the Cape was markedly better than the stuff I could barely drink last night. I'm hoping Julian can tell us whether the third release was all bottle at once, or over a long period of time, with some of the bourbon sitting in the tank much longer than earlier bottles of the third release.

And yes, my initial question assumed common knowledge about the bourbon having been stored in the stainless steel vats for an extended period of time, etc. Thanks to Drinky Banjo for covering that ground for folks who weren't familiar.

[bluesbassdad]

Tim,

That may be so in some cases. However, I had heard none of those theories back when I snatched up several bottles of the gold-foil bottling when it first came out. IIRC, it was on sale at one of the Chicago stores for $40. I couldn't believe my good fortune.

When I first opened one of those bottles, I barely recognized the taste. At first I thought I had partially lost my liking for it, as I've done with other spirits. However, a head-to-head comparison with my dwindling bottle of the gold wax version revealed the truth. Tasting a second bottle of the new batch confirmed my first impression. To my taste the gold wax version is far superior. I came to regret stocking up with the gold foil version without tasting it first. I think I still have four bottles boxed up in the floor of the closet. Maybe in a few years I'll try to auction them on eBay.

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

[bluesbassdad]

Sijan,

IIRC, I've tried only two bottles of the gold foil version. I could detect no difference -- not that two bottles comprise a worthwhile sample.

I find something slightly humorous in the idea that this or any bourbon can be revived. However, if any plausible suggestions come to light, I'll be more than happy to dig out one of my remaining bottles and give it a try. Heck, if it works, I may claim I believed in the concept from the start.

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

[jburlowski]

I've tried a number (5 or 6) bottles locally over the last few years with no noticeable difference in taste. Maybe the phenomenon is localized due to issues in storage, transit, etc.

[BourbonJoe]

I too have had several bottles of this and did not notice anything strange about the taste. I find this whiskey extremely enjoyable. It is one of my favorites.
Joe

[Sijan]

Dave, the revival idea was based on a post from another member of this forum who reported good results from mixing the last of a bottle of Hirsch 20 with a 'bad' bottle of Hirsch 16