Woodford 1838 Sweet Mash Bourbon.

[scratchline]

Them boots are made for mashin'!

-Mike

[Gillman]

I'm just wondering if the small batch size (if it is not single barrel) might account for differences noted from the hitherto Versailles (pot still) profile.

Gary

[craigthom]

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

It's worth noting that Pasteur didn't demonstrate that yeast was an organism until the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Chances are backset was the primary source for the little critters, in not just whiskey but beer and even bread, until later that century. It was a sour dough world.

People had observed yeast, but it was generally considered a chemical reaction.

[cowdery]

Woodford has a thing about not doing single barrel anything. In part, that's because of the mixing of Woodford and Forester, if you will, in Distiller's Select. Even their private selection is always a mingling of two barrels.

The batch was relatively small compared to regular production, but it was the output of several fermenters. The difference is the yeast, or rather the absense of backset and what that made the yeast do. That's the whole point of this product. Are you doubting this, or just looking for other possible differences?

Pre-Pasteur, distillers would mix up their own secret yeast mash recipe (though they obviously didn't call it that then) and just leave it out in the open until it started cooking. Then they would eye it and smell it and probably listen to it to decide if it was right. If it wasn't, they would dump it out and try again. You can do this in a bucket.

As you said, they probably considered it a chemical reaction, but they knew how to make yeast. I disagree with the statement "chances are backset was the primary source for the little critters," and as Gary has pointed out before, back-set wasn't just spent mash, which likely would contain no living yeast. It also included the dregs from the previous mashing.

And in a facility that is, whether it knows it or not, propigating the same yeast strain in large quantities, that yeast can become dominant in the atmosphere, if it is a dominant species.

[Gillman]

I would think absence of backset may result in some differences in taste in the final matured product, but it is hard to say how much in my opinion when final matured whiskies, made the same way, can differ so much in taste especially in small batches and considering too that wood maturation lends so much of the taste to (any producer's) bourbon. If the white dogs were quite different in taste (sour vs. sweet mash), that would suggest the final matured products will be, too. I am reasonably familiar with the B-F bourbon products (the Old Forester profile, the WR one, the Four-Grain one, the one that was sold at Bourbons Bistro for example), so it will be interesting to compare the sweet mash to these. I'm just speculating here, really. I admire the effort because this kind of experiment can only enlarge the boundaries of whiskey-making and the kind of products that result.

Gary

[cowdery]

Gary,

You seem to be denying or disbelieving the premise of the experiment, that yeast produce flavor, that those flavors persist into the final product, and that the absence of sour mash (i.e., a different pH), would shock the yeast into producing different flavors. Am I reading you correctly?

[barturtle]

The way I read it is that he's not denying that the differences causes by the change from sweet to sour will cause a difference, but more that he's questioning how much of a difference there will be, probably due to the amount of flavor that is usually attributed to the barrel being more so than the amount of flavor attributed to the base spirit.

So basically, I read the question as "How much of the difference shows through in the final product as bottled?"

Do I interpret that correctly, Gary?

[Gillman]

Chuck: I do not deny any of what you assert in your question to me; I am addressing questions of degree. If the white dogs were quite different in taste and the final matured whiskeys are, too, it is a fair inference IMO that the differing processes contributed to this result, but even then other factors (some fortuitous) may have been at play especially in the maturation phase. Timothy has correctly interpreted my meaning, thanks Timothy.

Gary

[barturtle]

Yeah, I actually interpreted it similarly to Chuck the first time I read it, but upon a reread following his post, I began to realize you were talking about degrees of perception that remain in the finished product, as opposed to a complete elimination of those flavors during the aging process (which may happen if the product is given too much aging).

[cowdery]

It's hard to say. The nature of some of the differences, apparent in the final product, are clearly from the yeast, as they aren't wood flavors. You're right, of course, about fortuitous chance, because like any producer they want people to like the product, so they're more interested in putting out something that tastes good than they are in presenting a "pure" experimental product.

You mght want to check out what Stephen Beaumont posted over on Kevin Erskine's Scotch Blog here. Stephen says hi, by the way, Gary.

[Gillman]

Interesting. I'll reserve further comment until I taste it, and yes I ran into Stephen the other day and he mentioned he met you at this event!

Gary

[loose proton]

I ran across some of this for $100 and never tried it. Is it unusual enough to go ahead and spring for a novel flavor?

[cowdery]

I ran across some of this for $100 and never tried it. Is it unusual enough to go ahead and spring for a novel flavor?

It is a novel flavor. You won't taste anything else like it. I think it tastes pretty good--I just had some again recently--but I wonder how I would feel about having a whole bottle of it. How often would I grab for it?

I would recommend it for a group of enthusiasts who want to have a tasting. Everybody chips in, everybody gets a drink or two, and if somebody likes it a lot, they get to take home the rest of it. I recommend this for the Woodford Masters, for the BT experimentals, and for most micro-distillery whiskeys. These are things you probably want to taste but may not want to drink.

[loose proton]

thanks cowdery, that was enough to talk me into it. I like trying different flavors and I was already intrigued. even if i don't like it, I think maybe it will be $$ well spent just to learn about it.

[tommyboy38]

I can think of a lot of other bottles I'd grab first if I was spending $100.

That's almost 2 BTAC's.

[cowdery]

I can think of a lot of other bottles I'd grab first if I was spending $100.

That's almost 2 BTAC's.

Where are you getting BTACs for $50?

[ErichPryde]

Where are you getting BTACs for $50?

I don't know about him, but Jacob's liquor exchange here in wichita priced the whole BTAC at 47.99 when it came in. :skep: ABC liquor had it more "fairly" priced at 66.99.

[Lost Pollito]

I don't know about him, but Jacob's liquor exchange here in wichita priced the whole BTAC at 47.99 when it came in. :skep: ABC liquor had it more "fairly" priced at 66.99.

Sounds like a pricing error at Jacob's. Hope you grabbed some.

[loose proton]

Cowdery, I'm glad you twisted my arm. This was indeed an interesting pour. As per reviews I read, this has a very distinctive nose. The nose and body of flavor are rustic/musty, but in a pleasing way. This 1838 sweet mash made me think of a scotch and whiskey hybrid. It has a surprising aftertaste. Chasing my wayward cat around the backyard, I could still taste it on the back of tongue and in "nose" for quite some time.

On another forum, mozilla brought up the importance of the glass. To fully appreciate this material, a glass should be something like a cognac glass. I use a small cognac glass for sipping top shelf material. I see on John Hansell's web page that he maybe prefers a larger glass to get a good feel of the drink. This drink definitely deserves more than a shot glass.

Though this drink reminded me of some scotches I wanted to compare it to, I'm haven't been able to bring myself to pour something else.

[cas]

Does the label make any reference to 1838 or does it just say "Sweet Mash"? There's Sweet Mash on the shelves here but I don't see 1838 on the bottle. I'm guessing there's only one version, but wanted to confirm it was the same stuff discussed here.

Craig

[cowdery]

Does the label make any reference to 1838 or does it just say "Sweet Mash"? There's Sweet Mash on the shelves here but I don't see 1838 on the bottle. I'm guessing there's only one version, but wanted to confirm it was the same stuff discussed here.

Craig

There is only one Woodford Reserve Masters Collection Sweet Mash and it does say 1838 on the label.

[tommyboy38]

I said it was ALMOST two of the BTAC.

[cas]

There is only one Woodford Reserve Masters Collection Sweet Mash and it does say 1838 on the label.

Your right. I swung by the liquor store yesterday afternoon and realized this. Here in MI the bottles are all behind a counter and often up high on a shelf. So you can't pick them up and look at them closely. Added to the fact that I refuse to admit that my eyesight isn't what it used to be...

Craig