Woodford 1838 Sweet Mash Bourbon.

[cowdery]

The 2008 release of the limited edition Woodford Reserve Master's Collection was unveiled yesterday at the distillery. It is an 1838-recipe sweet mash bourbon and will be in stores November 1. Go here for more about the whiskey and here for more about the release event.

[Gillman]

Very cool, Chuck, thanks.

Gary

[shoshani]

Any idea of prices and availability? (I presume Binny's will get a few, as will Sam's)

Sweet Mash Bourbon would be an interesting historical exercise to taste. Anyone who drinks Scotch or Irish is, of course, drinking sweet mash; the sour mash method is pretty much restricted to Bourbon and Rye.

[cowdery]

I'm guessing $80-$90, since that's been the price point.

[cowdery]

I finally read the press release. SRP is $89.99. It will be available in 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It should be in stores November 1.

For the states list and some more interesting stuff, go here.

[OscarV]

I would really like to try this but I don't want to put down 90 bucks on something and regret it.

I would however wouldn't mind splitting a bottle 4 or 5 ways.

[smokinjoe]

Hey, there's a picture of that Charles guys book again...:skep: That guy is EVERYWHERE!

Would we presume that some of the "off" (to some) flavor (pennies, etc) that characterized the first 3 releases be present, subdued, or eliminated with this new offering?

[barturtle]

I finally read the press release. SRP is $89.99. It will be available in 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It should be in stores November 1.

For the states list and some more interesting stuff, go here.

Chuck, from your blog:

The bottling proof is 86.4° (45.2% ABV)

Which one is it? I'm guessing the 45.2% 90.4 proof, as that's the standard WR bottling proof.

[mozilla]

Hey Chuck,

on your blog...you state a proof of 86 and an ABV of 45%.

[callmeox]

It's the damn angels skimming again.

Greedy #$(*#$

[cowdery]

Chuck, from your blog:

The bottling proof is 86.4° (45.2% ABV)

Which one is it? I'm guessing the 45.2% 90.4 proof, as that's the standard WR bottling proof.

Just my big fat fingers. Thanks for the catch.

[Gillman]

In Michael Jackson's 1987 World Guide To Whisky, he indicates another sense in which the term sweet mash is understood. He states that at least one distiller (Smith Bowman, then operating independently), added backset to the cooker but claimed its process as sweet mash because its fermentation vessels were sterilised between each use. Jackson thought this was "hair-splitting" over the term, and felt the company's process was really sour mash.

In either Byrn (1870) or M'Harry (1809) (I'll check, I think the former), a passing reference is made to the desirability of adding backset to the ferment where the latter is proceeding too slowly. Clearly creating a favourable environment for the yeast was something worked out empirically, and of course systematically by Dr. James Crow.

It would be interesting to compare the white dogs created by respective sweet and sour mashing in the small tubs Chuck described recently done at B-F as a historical experiment, good report, Chuck. I wonder if they taste the same or almost, I would think so. Sweet mashing shouldn't effect a difference of taste, I think, as opposed to promoting an even and continuous action of the yeast. It may have been a way too to keep yeast consistent in its properties before the advent of sophisticated labs where single cell yeast could be isolated and reliably replicated.

Gary

[purplehaze67]

I would really like to try this but I don't want to put down 90 bucks on something and regret it.

I would however wouldn't mind splitting a bottle 4 or 5 ways.

I'm up for buying a "share" of a bottle....

[barturtle]

In either Byrn (1870) or M'Harry (1809) (I'll check, I think the former), a passing reference is made to the desirability of adding backset to the ferment where the latter is proceeding too slowly. Clearly creating a favourable environment for the yeast was something worked out empirically, and of course systematically by Dr. James Crow.

I wonder if they taste the same or almost, I would think so. Sweet mashing shouldn't effect a difference of taste, I think, as opposed to promoting an even and continuous action of the yeast. It may have been a way too to keep yeast consistent in its properties before the advent of sophisticated labs where single cell yeast could be isolated and reliably replicated.

Gary

My quick thoughts;

I would think that adding backset creates a more favorable ph balance initially that would allow for a quicker ferment, resulting in less of a buildup of dead and dying yeast that could create off flavors. This could possibly be the same types of off flavors that result from under pitching in beer brewing.

The quicker ferment would yield huge cost advantages in equipment: Let's say that this allows ferment time to be cut from 7 days to 5 days. With one day for cleaning between batches, that means every 24 days you get an extra batch per fermenter.

[Gillman]

Makes sense, Timothy. Also, a delayed ferment could go sour, so timing was critical for this reason too.

However, timing aside, the yeast cultured originally from a favourable (backseted) ferment should, I would have thought, operate as efficiently as the same yeast in a ferment to which backset is added, simply because the cultured yeast would have been adapted to quick action by its origin. I may be wrong in this but it is interesting that in the experiment Chuck described the sweet mash worked faster than the sour.

Gary

[cowdery]

In our little experiment, the sweet mash tub began fermenting with more vigor than the sour mash tub.

The point of Woodford's experiment was taking the exact same everything and only omitting the backset. The result was a "shock" to the yeast that induced it to produce an entirely different flavor set. That is what was interesting.

[cowdery]

Chuck, from your blog:

The bottling proof is 86.4° (45.2% ABV)

Which one is it? I'm guessing the 45.2% 90.4 proof, as that's the standard WR bottling proof.

I didn't really answer you. Sorry. It is, in fact, 86.4° (43.2% ABV) for the 1838 Sweet Mash. The standard Woodford is 90.4° (45.2% ABV).

Also, I looked for the copper penny taste and detected none of it, even though the 1838 is all pot-still.

[barturtle]

In our little experiment, the sweet mash tub began fermenting with more vigor than the sour mash tub.

The point of Woodford's experiment was taking the exact same everything and only omitting the backset. The result was a "shock" to the yeast that induced it to produce an entirely different flavor set. That is what was interesting.

I did read the article, and while I don't want to discount it, I do find it interesting that the one stirred with the rake fermented quicker. I would think that a rake would better agitate the mash than a paddle, as it would plow through and separate the grains allowing the hot water access to them permitting the conversion process to proceed more rapidly.

I could be completely wrong about this though...

Of course, maybe your team, with your leadership, just did a better job following directions :grin:

[Rughi]

It is, in fact, 86.4° (43.2% ABV) for the 1838 Sweet Mash. The standard Woodford is 90.4° (45.2% ABV).

Many seemingly arbitrary abv's have a historical reason for the exact number chosen: 100, 101, 107

I believe 86.8 is descended from the Sykes system.

43% is a rule of thumb number in Scotch as a threshold against chill-haze in un-chill filtered product.

I've seen 90.4 on several brands and 95.6 on VW bottles, but have no idea exactly from what those numbers descend.

So what is the reasoning behind 86.4?

Roger

[barturtle]

Many seemingly arbitrary abv's have a historical reason for the exact number chosen: 100, 101, 107

I believe 86.8 is descended from the Sykes system.

43% is a rule of thumb number in Scotch as a threshold against chill-haze in un-chill filtered product.

I've seen 90.4 on several brands and 95.6 on VW bottles, but have no idea exactly from what those numbers descend.

So what is the reasoning behind 86.4?

Roger

Maybe it's the old Spinal Tap.."it's more" thing.

It could be that they are trying to make the .4 above a WR signature...most bourbons are 90 proof, we'll go 90.4, some others are 86, we'll for 86.4

Maybe that's just how far they had to dilute it to get the number of bottles they were shooting for so they could get the profit they had projected...damn accountants.:hot:

[Gillman]

How do you know the flavours were different, Chuck? Were the white dogs compared in taste or chemical properties?

Gary

[cowdery]

The proof choices aren't entirely arbitrary as they are part of the process, selecting the proof the distiller thinks is best for enjoying the product neat. Beyond that, they're just a bid to be a little different and, as a premium product, it has to be above 80°.

As for the speculation about why the sweet mash took off faster, I chose the sweet mash team because I consider the rake a superior tool for that sort of work, and I may have been the only person there with anything in mind, except Stephen Beaumont, who was on the sour mash team and who knows his way around a mash tun. The sour mash team, our hosts remarked, did wind up with more dough balls.

They may also have been distracted. (See photo.)

[cowdery]

How do you know the flavours were different, Chuck? Were the white dogs compared in taste or chemical properties?

Gary

I'm sure they were, but not by us. We did, however, compare the standard Woodford to the Sweet Mash product, and noted the differences there.

[OscarV]

I would really like to try this but I don't want to put down 90 bucks on something and regret it.

I would however wouldn't mind splitting a bottle 4 or 5 ways.

I'm up for buying a "share" of a bottle....

I'm serious, I am going to KY next week and I will pick up a bottle and split it 5 ways.

I'll bottle it and ship it out to ya'll and then you send me the 1/5 of the bottle cost plus shipping.

PM me if interested.

So far we have 2, purplehaze67 and me.

[barturtle]

They may also have been distracted. (See photo.)

I'm surprised those guys weren't over there flexing their muscles and putting some real effort into the work.:grin: