Jim Beam Devil's Cut

[ebo]

I'll be looking forward to trying it.

[macdeffe]

Could it be similar to Blackadders Raw Cask ?

Steffen

[Lost Pollito]

Doubt that it's simliar to the adder. Adder raw dumps whole casks unfilterred. This sounds like something else.

[pepcycle]

Since when is "barrel squeezin'" proprietary??

[doubleblank]

I assume that they aren't simply using the typical "squeezin" techniques to get more whiskey out of the wood. A traditional method to drive moisture/liquid out of wood involves heat in the presence of vacuum conditions. Perhaps a barrel might sweat out some liquid if freshly dumped barrels were carted into a heated room and the pressure reduced. That sounds like a lot of work to get a little liquid out.

Randy

[cowdery]

Here's what Fred Noe had to say in reply to my inquiry:

"The bourbon base is Jim Beam aged for 6 years. You are exactly correct in your thinking regarding the water, heat, and motion. The whole idea came from the “sweating†of barrels and the bourbon left behind after dumping. Pulling more out of the wood is the key to this product."

[jburlowski]

If the base is 6 yo JB, any idea what "special bourbon" it is added to?

[squire]

Perhaps he means all their Bourbon is special.

[jburlowski]

Perhaps he means all their Bourbon is special.

And, of course, all made the same way since 1795.

[squire]

The exact same way or so I've been told.

[IowaJeff]

Based on Chuck's writeup I'm excited to try this. I've never been a big JB drinker (I certainly don't dislike their products, I just always end up reaching for something else). The SB Knob Creek and this are exciting, especially at their price points. I mean, a SB (practically) barrel proof 9 yo whiskey? A whiskey that extracts more the wood flavor through a new, or at the very least not widely used method? Its like they are granting long held wishes (KCSB) and wishes I didn't even know I had.

Kudos and thanks to JB.

[p_elliott]

I'll give this one a try if I can find it or order it. I like woody bourbons so this might be right up my alley. Good on JB for trying a couple of new things that are not like Red Stagg or Ri (1). Something for real bourbon drinkers.

[nblair]

I can definitely see myself picking up a bottle of this. I'm intrigued! I'm also glad it's 90 proof and not 80, 86, etc. (although higher than 90 is always nice too :yum:).

[wadewood]

I contend as purely a legal fact this is no longer bourbon. Yes, you can use water to reduce bourbon to bottle it. To be bourbon it has no added coloring, flavoring, or other spirits. They are using the squezzins to add back to product. Squezzins are not bourbon, nor is the water they add to the barrel.

[kickert]

I contend as purely a legal fact this is no longer bourbon. Yes, you can use water to reduce bourbon to bottle it. To be bourbon it has no added coloring, flavoring, or other spirits. They are using the squezzins to add back to product. Squezzins are not bourbon, nor is the water they add to the barrel.

meh ....

[Inthewater]

I contend as purely a legal fact this is no longer bourbon. Yes, you can use water to reduce bourbon to bottle it. To be bourbon it has no added coloring, flavoring, or other spirits. They are using the squezzins to add back to product. Squezzins are not bourbon, nor is the water they add to the barrel.

I don't get it.

How is it any different than the burbon that poured out of it? Sounds like you are reading more into this than there is.

Isn't it just water "drawing" more of the burbon out of the wood, for all practical purposes? At least that was how it sounded on cowdery's blog.

I mean, if they were adding some other burbon to it, or some other spirit...maybe. But in this case, it's just what was in the barrel. How does that make it not burbon?

[squire]

My thoughts also, I don't see how the Bourbon trapped by the barrel is legally any different from that which was dumped.

[wadewood]

My thoughts also, I don't see how the Bourbon trapped by the barrel is legally any different from that which was dumped.

Because they use a process to get that out instead of just draining it. The liquid that comes out after washing/rinsing/heating with water is no longer just water, nor could it be called bourbon (it would be under 80 proof). Since it's not water or bourbon, you can't add it to bourbon.

I also realize I'm splitting hairs and playing Devil's advocate. I'm also not a lawyer so when I say "legal fact" take it with a grain of salt.

[Gillman]

I can see why Wade is asking though because if the bourbon is extracted using water and pressure, the water didn't form part of the aging. True, you can add water to reduce proof upon bottling, but is that the same thing?

Yet, I understand Jack Daniels extracts whiskey from the interior of the barrel frames (i.e., once emptied after aging) with water and uses the diluted whiskey to reduce barrel proof to bottling proof, thereby incurring a saving to the extent of the added alcohol. If this is the case, it must be then that adding extracted whiskey albeit diluted with water is considered okay. The rules are pretty general too and probably allow for a range of interpretations...

What I am wondering is, is this what the Devil's Cut is, essentially?

Gary

[callmeox]

By law (KY or federal, not sure) barrels must be rinsed at least once after dumping. Whenever I have observed this rinsing, the water goes in to the dump trough.

My source: I asked about the rinse at Four Roses and was told that it was required by law. My guess is that it cuts down the level of flammable alcohol vapor in the barrels and makes them safer to transport.

If it legal to dump the rinse into the trough and bottle the result as bourbon, I don't see why the same liquid can't be sold as bourbon as long as it meets the proof requirements.

[Gillman]

That makes sense, Scott, added to what Chuck was saying earlier, that is probably the answer.

Gary

[cowdery]

I doubt the statement that rinsing is required by law. It's certainly not in the federal regs and I don't know of any body of state law, Kentucky or otherwise, that controls distillery operations that closely. If it is required it's a safety issue but that seems far fetched to me. Besides, it just makes sense to do it in terms of product yield. They hardly have to be required to do something whose sole effect is to give them more product to sell.

At to Wade's contention, there is also no law that says you can't "use a process to get that out instead of just draining it." There is nothing that says or suggests that you can only drain the barrel and can't do anything else to extract more whiskey from it.

If a process used some substance other than water there would be a problem if the substance remained in the whiskey, but since water is a component part of whiskey and the only limitation on adding water is labeling-related (anything bottled at less than 40% ABV must be labeled 'diluted'), you can do just about anything you want with plain water.

Since everything except barrel proof products contains added water, Wade's contention is clearly wrong, since why would it matter where or how the added water is introduced? They could, for example, top off the barrels with water before dumping them.

You should understand that Wade's Bourbon Purity Laws generally are not in effect on this planet.

The idea of extracting as much whiskey as possible from the barrel is nothing new. What's new in Beam's case it that they came up with a way to make a product out of it. It's much like Four Roses being able to make different products with their different recipes. In this case it's the same recipe but isolating these dregs and adding them back in enough quantity to affect taste, that's the innovation.

As Fred says, their process uses heat, water and motion, so probably less water than JD's process, producing something with a distinctive flavor that is concentrated enough to flavor whiskey. It's probably significantly less than barrel proof so it's used partly as flavoring and partly as dilution water.

My assumption is that this is something they're doing with all dumped barrels to increase yield. It's a bonus that they are also able to use it to create a cool new product.

So why now? Robotics has made it possible to large-scale automate processes like this. I'm basing this on having seen the JD operation. There's an operator but his job is mostly to watch and hit the "off" switch if anything starts to go hinky. Also, whiskey is more "dear" right now than it has been in probably 40 years. Since you can sell every drop at a good profit, you can afford to spend a little money to squeeze out that last drop.

[squire]

Gary it seems to me it would be the same presuming water from the same source was used.

[squire]

A thought occurs, if Daniels is using a recapture process on its dumped barrels wouldn't Brown Forman have something similar going on for their other brands.

[cowdery]

A thought occurs, if Daniels is using a recapture process on its dumped barrels wouldn't Brown Forman have something similar going on for their other brands.