Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
camduncan

BOTM, 10/08: Old Taylor 6yo

Recommended Posts

BourbonJoe

Picked up a 200 ml. 80 proofer from 1991 (UD?) to try it. I thought it was very nice, not extraordinary, but nice, especially for $4.50.

Joe :usflag:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rughi
Picked up a 200 ml. 80 proofer from 1991 (UD?) to try it. I thought it was very nice, not extraordinary, but nice, especially for $4.50.

Joe :usflag:

1991 would still have been National Distillers juice, unless Beam started mixing in some of their own during the transition.

Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scratchline

Made it back yesterday for that ND Old Taylor 86 and managed to get a taste in under the October deadline. It's been several years since I've had this although I've had the old 80 proof recently thanks to a couple of SBers. I'm in total agreement with the butterscotch profile. But one thing I found notable was the finish on this one. For such a gentle pour it has a very long, strong finish. A lot of lingering spice. I'll taste it again tonight and try to be more specific, but it really finished with a bang. I've been drinking quite a few in the 86-94 proof range, and this one stands out.

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gillman

The finish on the ND 80 proof, pure ND or transition, is good too, not quite as strong as in the 86 proof. The 80 may have been bottled a bit younger than the 86. The 86 would have been the flagship in the 1980's (any bonded around would have been quite rare, as discussed earlier on the board) and surely it - the 86 - was the one that had whiskey 10-12 years old in it as Micheal Jackson wrote in 1987, although the 80 may have as well (or some whiskey at any rate older than 6 years).

To me the NDOT palate of maple and butterscotch is unique. I think in part it came from fairly strong congeners and this is why I think this: A rare black label 90 proof OT from the 1970's, which a number here have tried, clearly was not older than 6 years (IMO). It has a kind of chemical-like taste which resembles the keynote of the 1980's/early 90's NDOTs but the latter are much better (again IMO). I think this is because they were on average older than this 90 proof version. As sometimes happens, I think the distillery had on hand some younger-tasting stock in the early 70's and thought what the heck we will issue it but give the people a higher proof to off-set the lesser maturity - or maybe NDOT always had the black label 90 palate and it was only in the 80's that the deeper-tasting butterscotch OTs started to appear. Roger has tasted more from the various eras than anyone here I believe and has said if memory serves that the maple butterscotch palate of OT was most pronounced in the 80's. If so the brand hit a high point then I think.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polyamnesia

all interesting for sure! but a shame that many here didn't delve into the challenge and get a bottle of RECENT OT6...

i still don't understand the bottom of the bottle info...not sure if my bottle was super recent or a few years old.

good stuff for sure!

but can't say this BOTM was a successful exchange of ideas. at least a balanced one.

i really wish i had access to all these early bottlings. i've found maybe 2 dusties in my life...:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gillman

My problem is the reverse, no Beam Old Taylor is available here. In some markets there is, or was until recently, a fair amount of NDOT around, and that is why it elicits so much comment, apart also that most people think it is better (from what I can tell) than the current version.

I did actually have the current one recently, but in a bourbon Bloody Mary, so an assessment of the bourbon qua bourbon wouldn't be fair. I could taste it, though. :)

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polyamnesia

gary, when did beam acquire OT? and what would those numbers on either side of the bottle bottom mean? 02 and maybe an 04 (or 06...hard to tell).

i don't think my state, PA, carries it. i got mine across the state line in DE.

are dusties more prevalent in certain states, certain types of stores? i would assume less populated areas would have bottles lingering a bit more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gillman

The acquisition was in 1987. The label associated to National Distillers was a darker yellow with different graphics than today's. Your's sounds like a modern bottling.

Small stores in non-control states sometimes still have the older one. On the base of the glass along the rim, usually you will see a number like "90" or "92", meaning the bottle was struck then, so 3 or 5 years out from the purchase and too soon to be Beam distillate designated as OT (although perhaps a 1987 or earlier Beam whiskey was mixed with the ND one, my belief is this did not occur).

Well into the 1990s this older label persisted and I believe this meant, even where the bottle was struck after 1992, that ND whiskey was being used - used til it ran out - although again maybe some mingling did occur to ease the transition to the Beam production.

Anyway net net the current Beam version is quite different to ND's IMO and many here would concur I think.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gillman

Just to clarify if necessary, of course a bottle stamped out out in 1992 could not have contained Beam whiskey unless Beam was using stocks Beam distilled in 1986 or earler. It is possible such stocks were mingled with National Distillers Old Taylor until the latter ran out. However, based on tasting OT bourbon unquestionably made by ND for OT (stock issued in the early 80's for example), I think this kind of mingling did not occur until much later. If there was a lot of OT around and there seems to have been judging by the bottles one still sees around we are talking about, and factoring that OT was bottled at higher ages than the bottle statements at the time, I think ND whiskey or its essential profile may have even been used even until the label design change. Not sure when that occurred but I think it was about 10 years ago.

Today's OT would I think be the Beam formula for bourbon, one of the two it makes, and I'd guess it is the same as white label Beam.

I've generally found NDOT in stores in less prosperous parts of town. Once when looking for ND bottles in New York off 2nd street near the bus station a gent walked in and asked for a half-pint of Georgi and I saw a small bottle handed over - it was vodka. In searching for dusty bottles I'd say at least 5 times in recent years when I'm peering at shelves or trying to get behind the lazy susan partition, someone behind me comes in asking for Georgi. (The last time this happened the shopper inquired after flavored Georgi, he asked about lemon and I think banana, the owner replied, rather gruffly I thought, "we don't sell that" and the unflavored made a sale with no difficulty). In New York I've had good luck up around 100th street and Amsterdam and as I said around the bus station. In San Francisco in the SOMA too although its marching gentrification will preclude further success there I fear. In some cities, even the less attractive parts of town offer nothing (that I found), in Las Vegas a friend there drove me to a dozen or so stores in the north and north east parts and I found nothing. But you have to keep looking and you never know when something will pop up, too.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scratchline

Just to follow up on Gary's point about the whiskey in the bottle being older than the label statement: at the same shop where I got the Old Taylor 86, there was a 1.75 of Old Forester Bonded. The tax strip indicates that it was distilled fall 72/bottled fall 78 so six years old. I was looking at the label later and noticed that it says the whiskey is five years old. Labels should be read as claiming the whiskey is AT LEAST as old as the stated age.

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnbowljoe

Bought a bottle last week. I'm trying, whenever possible to try the different BOTM. Nice surprise here. Paid $10 for this, not expecting a whole lot. Nothing great about this bourbon, but nothing bad either. A decent bourbon at a very good price. Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polyamnesia

yep, i agree........i was pleasantly surprised by it. first by the fact it wasn't BAD! but then, in a minimal sense, it was really nice! too BAD it wasn't a higher proof. not an effect aspect, but FLAVOR....it has so much potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...