Defining Premium Bourbon

[kickert]

So what defines a "premium" bourbon? This is obviously a subjective question, but since there was a discussion area specifically for it, I figured it was worth asking.

Does it need to be a single barrel? Would a small batch qualify?

What about price point? Is anything over $25 dollars (KY prices) premium? $35??

For me, I distinguish between those with screw tops and those with corks (shallow, I know!!) but that doesn't seem like a very good distinctive.

Thoughts?

[ACDetroit]

I know I may be in the minority here but I think "Premium" has nothing to do with price when it comes to bourbon. I think we should look at all bottles being created equal and choose our "Premium" selections by what is in the bottle!

Example! I have had some older bottlings of bottom shelf bourbon! Why was it bottom shelf? Price only! The content of some National Distilleries bottles say OGD or OT 86, 100 or 114 would be a "Premium" IMO especially if you compare it to today's release (We did this last Feb at a Michigan tasting). I have had the same thing happen with W.L. Weller Special Reserve $13.99 KY price, again this is opinion, but I feel Weller is better than say Makers Mark or some of the Beam Small Batches that do fetch "Premium" prices for an inferior product.

Truly a subjective Thread but I guess everyone would call Pappy 23 and the new Parker 27 yr old "Premium" to the extreme!

Just my .02 cents!

Tony

[kickert]

Truly a subjective Thread ...

Tony

I agree that price should not be the determining factor. It is interesting that in the beer world, most of the beers labeled "premium" are usually bottom shelf brands.

If we just go on taste, then things could really get out of hand. For instance, I think OGD BIB is among the worst whiskies I have ever had (and I know I am in the minority here, but the times I have had it I was overwhelmed by a varnish flavor). At the same time, I think Blanton's is an extremely overrated bourbon (very flat with mustiness in some bottles).

I think by most people's measure Blanton's would be premium. It is hand bottled, single barrel and fetch a hefty price. I want to be able to say that blanton's is disappointing for a premium and for you to be able to say that OGD or WLWSR is much better than many premium bourbons even if it is not considered one.

[OscarV]

I know I may be in the minority here but I think "Premium" has nothing to do with price when it comes to bourbon. I think we should look at all bottles being created equal and choose our "Premium" selections by what is in the bottle!

to say that blanton's is disappointing for a premium

I agree 100%

.

[Vange]

Since the premium category got muddled I feel that is what gave birth to the ULTRA-premium category and thats where Pappy 23 and Parers 27 would fall. I think the ultras are easier to group.

I would call any bourbon <$25 that is EXCELLENT "a great deal" rather than a "premium". I guess I base it on price even though I shouldnt. Blanton's fits the mold as a premium, but could be a disappointing premium bourbon. Is ODG 114 good bourbon, sure, is it a PREMIUM brand I have to say no.

Obviously there is no right answer. Just how I view it.

[Vange]

Since the premium category got muddled I feel that is what gave birth to the ULTRA-premium category and thats where Pappy 23 and Parkers 27 would fall. I think the ultras are easier to group.

I would call any bourbon <$25 that is EXCELLENT "a great deal" rather than a "premium". I guess I base it on price even though I shouldnt. Blanton's fits the mold as a premium, but could be a disappointing premium bourbon. Is ODG 114 good bourbon, sure, is it a PREMIUM brand I have to say no.

Obviously there is no right answer. Just how I view it.

[gothbat]

The term "Premium Bourbon" has 2 different meanings to me depending on which bottle you are talking about, sometimes both will apply to a particular bottle and sometimes only one will apply. The first meaning applies to those bottles who's price is above the average cost of a bottle of bourbon (I define "average" around $20 - $30.). When you buy these bottles you are pretty much paying a premium to get them. This definition has nothing to do with quality, only price.

The next definition, the subjective one, applies only to taste; these are bottles that you believe to be of higher quality/have a better taste than your average bottle.

Here are some opinionated examples, ymmv:

PVW20 is premium in that it costs a lot more than most bourbons but it is also premium in that it tastes better than a lot of other bourbons.

Weller Antique 107 is premium solely because of it’s great taste, it’s priced within a price range that I consider average so you do not pay a premium when you buy a bottle of this.

BMH14 is only a premium bottle because they charge a lot for it, my conclusion by the end of the bottle was that it was just as good as an average tasting bourbon.

[kickert]

I tend to put the price point for "premium" around $25 as well. At this point you are getting into bourbons that are not mass produced but single barrel / small batch. Interesting enough this is also the point where tops move from screw top to corks. Are their exceptions to this? Are there any small batch / single barrel bourbons with screw tops, or mass produced bourbons with corks? The only one I can think of in the later catagory is Bulleit.

[ACDetroit]

or mass produced bourbons with corks? The only one I can think of in the later catagory is Bulleit.

How about Knob Creek, Basil Haydens, Bakers and Bookers all mass produced, Four Roses Single Barrel (although I would not put it in the same category as the afore mentioned).

Tony

[Special Reserve]

I think "Premium" has nothing to do with price when it comes to bourbon. I think we should look at all bottles being created equal and choose our "Premium" selections by what is in the bottle!

Tony

Tony,

You hit the nail directly on the head.

Premium is defined by the quality of the product, not the price.

Will

[ThomasH]

Old Ezra 101 is mass produced and has a cork but is anything but a premium brand. I think of a premium brand as more of a bottling that is in limited supply or isn't bottled continuously!

Thomas

[bluesbassdad]

Tony,

You hit the nail directly on the head.

Premium is defined by the quality of the product, not the price.

Will

At least three of us now agree on that point; I'm going to pretend that the matter is settled. :grin: (I'll go a step further and say that a bourbon whose only claim to premium status is its high price is a scam.)

Now we face the difficult challenge of describing premium quality.

One way to approach the problem is to divide the range of available bourbons and describe how we differentiate among them.

• Hard to Drink -- It says bourbon on the label, but its flavors are predominantly unpleasant. It doesn't qualify for Chuck's "Drinkable in a Pinch" appellation.
  
• Tolerable -- Their are few if any unpleasant flavor elements. The taste of corn and char/caramel is present, although to only a slight degree.
  
• Always Welcome, Seldom Sought Out -- The characteristic flavors of bourbon are pronounced. An occasional nuance may be detected.
  
• A Cut Above -- The characteristic flavors of bourbon are always up front, but numerous nuances are readily apparent. It takes an experienced taster several trials before s/he is willing to say "I get this bourbon" and write tasting notes for all to see.
  
• Premium -- This bourbon enchants almost everyone who tastes it, even those who don't necessarily call it a favorite. It includes flavor elements that boldly, or subtly, go where no one has gone before. Even the most experienced tasters admit to misgivings about identifying and cataloging all the flavor elements.

I welcome a critique of the above analysis.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[ILLfarmboy]

I like Dave's definition for "a cut above" as representing my definition of a premium with the added provision that the whiskey is designed to have bold charisticly bourbon flavors with a full, not thin, mouth feel.

In other words. Whiskeys like the new 90 proof RR fail to make the cut because they are purposefully not bold.

[kickert]

How about Knob Creek, Basil Haydens, Bakers and Bookers all mass produced).

By mass produced I wasn't thinking distribution as much as I was thinking selection process (single barrel, hand bottled vs. large barrel dump, mechanized bottling). KC, BH, Bakers and Bookers are all a part of the "Smal Batch" collection so I wouldn't put them in that catagory.

[OscarV]

By mass produced I wasn't thinking distribution as much as I was thinking selection process (single barrel, hand bottled vs. large barrel dump, mechanized bottling). KC, BH, Bakers and Bookers are all a part of the "Smal Batch" collection so I wouldn't put them in that catagory.

There is no legal definition or "industry accepted" amount of barrels for "Small Batch"

The number of barrels for a small batch dump are up to that producer, could be a few, could be a few hundred.

As far as the Beam Small Batch collection goes, I would rate them no higher than "mid-shelf."

[kickert]

There is no legal definition or "industry accepted" amount of barrels for "Small Batch"

The number of barrels for a small batch dump are up to that producer, could be a few, could be a few hundred.

As far as the Beam Small Batch collection goes, I would rate them no higher than "mid-shelf."

I agree small batch can be an ambiguous term at best. Plus, I am not impressed by the Beam Small Batch Collection, but then again, I am not a fan of many Beam products.

I find your second comment interesting, especially in light of the flow of this discussion. It seems we all agree there is a big differece between premium price and premium taste. For me, shelf level is a discussion of price. Using Bluesbassdad's ratings, I would put Bookers and Bakers in the "cut above" catagory and BH and KC in the "always welcome, never sought out" catagory. However, pricewise, these have a premium asking price (although KC is a bit lower). At the stores I frequent, these Beam products are literaly on the top shelf.

[ILLfarmboy]

There is no legal definition or "industry accepted" amount of barrels for "Small Batch"

The number of barrels for a small batch dump are up to that producer, could be a few, could be a few hundred.

As far as the Beam Small Batch collection goes, I would rate them no higher than "mid-shelf."

I'm curious, Oscar.

While I would throw out Basil Hayden from the premium category because of its proof and thinness, and I'm not particularly a huge fan of Knob Creek, I don't keep any at home but will on a fairly regular basis drink it in bars or restaurants, I quite like Booker's. Chuck has remarked the Beam whiskey isn't meant to be particularly robust, and I would agree, but at around 8 years and bottled at barrel proof, Booker's in my opinion, makes it over the hump with regard to my requisite "boldness" criteria. And, to be fair, while I'm not a huge fan, the extra age and being bottled at 100 proof, Knob may make the cut.

What is it in your opinion that makes the small batch collection "no higher than mid-shelf"?

[funknik]

I tend to put the price point for "premium" around $25 as well. At this point you are getting into bourbons that are not mass produced but single barrel / small batch. Interesting enough this is also the point where tops move from screw top to corks. Are their exceptions to this? Are there any small batch / single barrel bourbons with screw tops, or mass produced bourbons with corks? The only one I can think of in the later catagory is Bulleit.

I think that what is in the bottle is in no way related to the price tag or whether or not a bottle has a cork. In fact, I seem to be the only one who is completely anti-cork. Corks in liquor are for show and if you judge a bourbon by its cork, you will eventually get burned and pick up a nasty bourbon (if there is such a thing) at a premium price. Also, most people haven't seemed to run into it, but I've had at least two bad bottles of bourbon this month that I suspect were tainted by the cork (EC 12yo which is my stand-by bourbon, so I know when it doesn't taste right).

That being said, I think some of the best pours I've had are from "bottom shelf" bottles -- WL Weller 7yr springs to mind, George Dickel No 12 (which isn't bourbon but is fantastic just the same), Elijah Craig 12yr (which is only $16.99 here in ME). And although I consider most "premium" or small-batch bourbons to be very, very good many of them are not worth the pricetag -- Origine (avoid at all costs!), Basil Hayden's, Bulleit, Elijah Craig 18yr (which is good but strange), & even Wild Turkey 101 (which I love!) is a mass-produced bourbon with a cork and a $20 plus pricetag -- you're paying for the name.

Bottom line, I think, is follow your tongue -- value is in the eye of the beholder -- there are great whiskies in every price category.

:cool:

[ILLfarmboy]

funknik.

I think if you search past threads you'll find you'r not the only one who is anti-cork.

Are you saying that the basic WT 101 isn't worth the price, or that the cork closure adds to the cost needlessly?

[funknik]

funknik.

I think if you search past threads you'll find you'r not the only one who is anti-cork.

Are you saying that the basic WT 101 isn't worth the price, or that the cork closure adds to the cost needlessly?

I do have a flair for the dramatic, I'm sure there are plenty of other cork haters. I like the cork aesthetically, but I think it's a gamble -- that's all I'm saying, it can spoil a bottle of good wine or liquor. Also, there is a growing shortage of the stuff so why bother to keep using it. They are cool and I like the customized tops like WT Rare Breed & all, but I don't really see it adding value to the experience.

As for the WT 101, I was responding to the earlier question of which mass-produced bourbons have a cork top. As for is it worth the price, I guess I would say...........sometimes? The "Sweet Heat", as I like to call it, is a fantastic bourbon, but I feel that for a few dollars more (or Less!) you can sometimes get a bottle that is much more interesting (or better, I'll just say it). But I wouldn't take anything away from WT 101, it certainly has its place.

[kickert]

I am neither pro or anti cork. I was just commenting on the situation in general: most bottom shelf bourbons are screw top and most premium bourbons are corks.

I too have had bottles ruined by the cork. Once I lost a whole bottle of BT because the cork dislodged in the car. Another time I got a bottle of blantons with a cracked cork that tasted horrible.

A significant number of wineries are moving to synthetic corks. I am surprised we haven't seen that in the whiskey world.

[callmeox]

I have a bourbon here with a synthetic cork...I can't remember which one it is.

Time to go hunting. Wish me luck. :grin:

[ACDetroit]

Scott, please be careful and don't fall in! :slappin:

Oh yeah and as you wished...Good Luck.

Tony

[callmeox]

I've returned from my quest and I have to say that it was a false alarm.

Nothing but screw tops and natural cork in the bourbon section.

The bottles that I have with synthetic cork stoppers are Aqua Perfecta raspberry brandy and liqueur from St. George Spirits.

[shyster512]

I believe that Pritchards Double Barrell has an "artificial" cork. I bought one when it was the Bourbon of the Month and I recollect it had a different type stopper.