15 yr Wheated Bourbons (SW, Van Winkles, etc)

[doubleblank]

You didn't dream it Tom, I said it in my earlier post in this thread. Julian agreed that some of those early Pappy 15's were closer to 16 yo and you could taste the difference......Julian could too.

Also, Julian's SOP was to not chill filter whiskeys over 100 proof. So those ORVW 10 and 15 107's from L'burg are not chill filtered

Randy

[StraightBoston]

Also, not to take this thread off topic, why do some bourbon drinkers think that more wood flavor = a scotch type profile. This is the 2nd time this weekend this came up....Joe and I also noted this when talking about a Parkers bottling that a customer said "tasted like scotch". IMHO, wood does not equal (or even approximates) peat.

The Rest Of The Story (did anyone else read about Paul Harvey's secret correspondence with J. Edgar Hoover?) is that said scotch drinker is also a bourbon fan but finds many of the bourbons that I prefer to be too "sweet" or "mild" to his taste. More char adds a dimension of complexity for him, whereas I found it off-putting compared to the near-identical ORVW15/107.

[OscarV]

I think there is a lot of theorizing and hoping that because it tastes like SW and it fits the necessary age requirement, that it is. I've heard both. I don't think that BT would out-and-out lie on the fact sheet, but could they be intentionally misleading? including the mill screen and recipe, and proof off of the still, but not the "actual" distillation location? It's not bottled in bond, and since they own the weller name, are the obligated to be completely honest about the actual location? I see that the BTAC fact sheets have "Distiller: Buffalo Trace distillery, franklin county, kentucky" on the top, but are they saying that they distilled it, or that they are the distiller that bottled it?

Honestly, I feel that the WLW we're talking about probably is BT distillate. They can, and DO, make some very good wheat whiskeys, what's to say that one didn't come out very reminiscent of a S-W whiskey and particularly delicious?

I'm with you 100% here.

As I stated before/another thread, I don't think BT can BS about location because the Tax Collector keeps them honest on this subject, AND all 5 of the specs sheet say, and I quote,...

Distiller

Buffalo Trace Distillery, Franklin County, Kentucky

Hey Virus_Of_Life, from the threads I have read here on SB.com I have to conclude that this ('05 WLarueW as S-W whiskey) was just a wishful emotion, nothing else backed up those claims.

And as far as taste is concerned, the '06 WLarueW tastes like Pappy15, so that "fact" ("fact",...hmm, were talking subjected taste here:rolleyes: ) finalizes the deal, it ain't S-W whiskey.

[ErichPryde]

Also, not to take this thread off topic, why do some bourbon drinkers think that more wood flavor = a scotch type profile. This is the 2nd time this weekend this came up....Joe and I also noted this when talking about a Parkers bottling that a customer said "tasted like scotch". IMHO, wood does not equal (or even approximates) peat.

Tom

It doesn't approximate peat, but it may approximate the additional age that some scotches undergo. I think it's two things: 1) The presence of additional complex oak notes (and I don't mean straight char here), and 2) The absence of much complexity or flavor in the mashbill, that makes people make this comparison. I have had some older subdued bourbons (Jefferson's Reserve Very old immediately comes to mind) in which the corn and rye notes were very muted compared to some of the other flavors. When the sweet notes are almost gone I think some scotch comparisons are unavoidable, as scotches tend to be less sweet.

and I think the other thing is, they aren't talking about peaty islay scotches when they say it- Islays have about as much in common with some highlands as rye has with bourbon (or less!)- I think they're talking about your typical highland and lowland malts that most people have had. I've never had a bourbon that reminded me of an islay or a spey, and I hope I never do, however I have had some bourbons that are somewhat reminescent of a bourbon-barrel finished, low peat, scotch.

[spun_cookie]

Am I the only one who is concerned that Spun has developed a "thing" for 15 year olds? :grin:

I would only talk about 18 year olds, under that you will get in trouble.

That is actually an improvement....

Remember when he was in love with the WT 8 yr olds???? :skep:

You know your home and safe when the hard hitting "love" comments come out

I, over a few years and a few tasting of bourbon, have come to an understanding of what years for what "recipes" and conditions I enjoy the most.

Side Comment: WT 8 yr from 89-93 is, in my mind, sporting a fake ID for being younger than it is. I would guess that there is some fat juice at least 12 yrs only blended into that bottle with and average probably around 10 yrs old (based on the WTRR101 profile that is still not as rich as the WT8yr).

The wheated bourbons, from the 90s on, seem to have a better profile to me once they hit 13 to 16 yrs in age and are 100 proof or better. I find the older SW juice to be just as complex at 6 yrs as the ORVW 10 yr today...or even more complex and rich. The 8-10 yr juices of yesteryear are near the PVW 15 yr off the shelf today.

I have not tasted a 15 yr from the true SW era yet, but I do have the option now. The most aged SW I have had was distilled in 12/05/1980 and has a profile that cannot be captured in words. It is a true sit down, relax, sip and think whiskey (Willett 27yr 1 or 24 bottles). I thank the bourbon gods for that bottle.

SO you may ask, why start this thread or care... I think a vertical of everything 15 yr, SW or SW recipe bourbon would be the pentacle of a bourbon vertical. I believe that none of these bourbons would be over aged or under aged (save the comments Soctt^2 ).

Now, believing my theory is correct, I then try to evaluate what the master distillers at each era believed. If they also believed that 15 yrs was the "ideal" age then it would reflect in their bourbon and how they marketed it.

As far as I can tell, VVOF is the oldest SW juice that was ever advertised on the market. We have a 20 and 23 yr today from the lineage of those Master Distillers and we have 17 yr and others from quality rectifiers.... but I am not aware, in any case, of a 16 or older Wheated bourbon past prohibition in general production (I have seen prohibition era bottles that may be wheated that are 16-17 yrs in age... I have a hard time adding these to the decision matrix.... that was survival time....

NOW... I will continue to morph my opinion as more is discussed in this thread. I am very interested in hearing from Chuck and Veach

VVOF 15yr is the Best Bourbon I have ever had.

on this topic and I chose to start this topic on the weekend knowing we would be a few pages deep before they could comment on all of the comments and the greater question....

It would be great of Julian with also comment…. There is a lot of history for this style of whiskey and I believe that decisions from the 40s to 1972 were based on the Master Distillers desires, not the penny pinchers demands. I also believe that Julian and company have a balanced approach with BT to get the best product on the market while reaming profitable and competitive (if you make it right, the customer will come).

[spun_cookie]

It doesn't approximate peat, but it may approximate the additional age that some scotches undergo.

Scotch ages slower. They go into used barrels and do not see the extrems that many of the bourbons go through.

Peat is a powerful taste that is loved by those that... love it. Nothing more. If someone loves a single powerful flavor like a strong peat, they may be prone to liking a powerful char to focus their tastes... it is not an age thing .. .. .. just my 2-cents worth.

[Old Lamplighter]

Sorry for the redundancy if this has been asked here in this thread, or, in the past.......but, is there any legal or industry requirement that a company must put a date - whether it be in code, digits, etc., on a bottle/label when it is bottled?

Thanks in advance for the answer/explanation and/or pointing me to a thread in re to my question.

[spun_cookie]

Sorry for the redundancy if this has been asked here in this thread, or, in the past.......but, is there any legal or industry requirement that a company must put a date - whether it be in code, digits, etc., on a bottle/label when it is bottled?

Thanks in advance for the answer/explanation and/or pointing me to a thread in re to my question.

No...Must have min proof on the bottle and if it is less than 4 yrs, the age.

There are BIB rules, but I think this covers your question right?

[Old Lamplighter]

No...Must have min proof on the bottle and if it is less than 4 yrs, the age.

There are BIB rules, but I think this covers your question right?

Yes and no. I was not specific enough now that I re-read my question/post. Min proof and age - if less than 4yrs - understood.

More specific, I was questioning the actual bottling date. In other words, many bottles of the past - and now not so many - used to have a 2-digit "code" on the bottom of the bottling which we presume indicated the year of bottling. Is there any requirement for same today.....or was there any in yesteryear either. Maybe it was just an industry practice that has been eliminated due to costs associated with doing it(?). Sorry I was not more specific.

[StraightBoston]

From what I've read (IIRC, including some master distillers here) the two digit date code tells when the glass was made -- if provides an upper bound on age but doesn't guarantee year of bottling (i.e. the glass could sit in inventory for more than the stated year.)

I also believe that it is for convenience of rotating inventory of empty bottles, and not a legal requirement. Only the pre-Reagan green BIB tax labels are guaranteed to nail the date of distillation and bottling.

[callmeox]

Would lot numbers and/or bottling locations be required somewhere on the bottle in the event that a product was contaminated and needed to be recalled?

[ErichPryde]

From what I've read (IIRC, including some master distillers here) the two digit date code tells when the glass was made -- if provides an upper bound on age but doesn't guarantee year of bottling (i.e. the glass could sit in inventory for more than the stated year.)

I also believe that it is for convenience of rotating inventory of empty bottles, and not a legal requirement. Only the pre-Reagan green BIB tax labels are guaranteed to nail the date of distillation and bottling.

The two digit code, when it is present, is when the glass was made. anchor glass container corporation made a good number of whiskey bottles because they have a distribution center in Lawrenceburg, IN. It isn't a guarantee of when the juice was made, but it certainly can help pin it down a bit.

http://emhartglass.com/punt_marks/view/country/USA

[spun_cookie]

I am sure you will hear soon enough, that Larue Weller has never been 100% confirmed to be of SW origin

... I don't think BT can BS about location because the Tax Collector keeps them honest on this subject, AND all 5 of the specs sheet say, and I quote,...

Distiller

Buffalo Trace Distillery, Franklin County, Kentucky

Here is the only confirmation on the juice being SW...

I just got confirmation from Kris Comstock at BT that the WLW is the last of the old Stitzel-Weller stock.

I do not know Shaggy, but Kris should know... but was he pushing the info?

[Virus_Of_Life]

I'm with you 100% here.

As I stated before/another thread, I don't think BT can BS about location because the Tax Collector keeps them honest on this subject, AND all 5 of the specs sheet say, and I quote,...

Are you serious? Do I need to dig up some threads where we talk about the BS these same folks put on their labels and run off all their DBA "distilleries"? You're right, these guys would never ever tell us something not 100% completely true. :slappin::bs::bs::deadhorse::bs:

Hey Virus_Of_Life, from the threads I have read here on SB.com I have to conclude that this ('05 WLarueW as S-W whiskey) was just a wishful emotion, nothing else backed up those claims.

Never, ever said the '05 was and never ever heard anything before you even suggest such nonsense. IIRC it was only 12 years old, 2005-12=1993 SW shut down in 1992, remember.

And as far as taste is concerned, the '06 WLarueW tastes like Pappy15, so that "fact" ("fact",...hmm, were talking subjected taste here:rolleyes: ) finalizes the deal, it ain't S-W whiskey.

OK, and I am sure this is the last time it'll ever be brought up.

[OscarV]

OK, and I am sure this is the last time it'll ever be brought up.

Aww c'mon let's keep bringing it up,...I couldn't help myself.:grin:

See Post #38 where Emerald has Shaggy quoted, hit the blue arrow button by Shaggy.

Who knows, it might be S-W. I have always said that the '06 is the most different of the 5.

[BourbonJoe]

Also, Julian's SOP was to not chill filter whiskeys over 100 proof. So those ORVW 10 and 15 107's from L'burg are not chill filtered

Randy

[CorvallisCracker]

For Christmas my daughter gave me a copy of the 2010 edition of Jim Murray's Whisky Bible. In his entry for PVW 15 he describes it as "a classic corn/rye whiskey", going on to say that "the mouth puckers under an onslaught of sharp rye" and "the waves of juicy rye lap kindly on the palate".

He likes it, giving it a score of 93.5, but you gotta wonder about someone who smells/tastes rye in a bourbon that doesn't have any.

[marco246]

For Christmas my daughter gave me a copy of the 2010 edition of Jim Murray's Whisky Bible. In his entry for PVW 15 he describes it as "a classic corn/rye whiskey", going on to say that "the mouth puckers under an onslaught of sharp rye" and "the waves of juicy rye lap kindly on the palate".

He likes it, giving it a score of 93.5, but you gotta wonder about someone who smells/tastes rye in a bourbon that doesn't have any.

That particular entry is carried over from Murray's 2009 edition and is one of the reasons I'll ignore him in the future. With respect to bourbon, I think he's something of a windbag. The cover blurb calls him a "legend" and a "colossus". Maybe that's accurate where Scotch is concerned.