Heaven Hill New Make Coming In May.

[jburlowski]

Thanks, Fricky the killjoy.

How dare you try to impede my pioneering spirit. :grin:

I think Fricky got it right (not the part about killing your pioneering spirit). My experiences with "faux aging" in mini-barrels (including some I've personally "aged" and others sold by craft distillers) is that the resulting product ends up with a heavy, dead wooden taste.

Aside from the novelty factor, I'd rather have a truly aged bottle of HH bourbon or rye at a lower price.

But, hey, YMMV.

[birdman1099]

good point John.....

I'd also like to confirm the fact of aging in smaller barrels seem not to be as good as full sized barrels. Reference several posts from the craft distillers that are using smaller barrels. Most are not received well here. and they are aging for 2-3 years in 10 gallon, or so, barrels. I bet many here will not do 10 gallon barrels...

And also, of all the "full sized" barrels that a distillery makes, what percentage of the barrels are catergorized as Great Barrels (honey barrles that most us us strive to obtain from distillerys in the form of Speciality bottlings). a very small amount. You know a certain percentage of barrels produced are not that good. I do not know the percentage, but I would venture at least half. And these are professional distillers. So my thinking is, the odds of one of us producing a good, to great, barrel of whiskey, out of one of these 5-10 liter barrels is quite low.

[callmeox]

I think Fricky got it right (not the part about killing your pioneering spirit). My experiences with "faux aging" in mini-barrels (including some I've personally "aged" and others sold by craft distillers) is that the resulting product ends up with a heavy, dead wooden taste.

Aside from the novelty factor, I'd rather have a truly aged bottle of HH bourbon or rye at a lower price.

But, hey, YMMV.

I don't recall asking you to sample my garage aged bourbon, but thanks for the pre-release feedback. :cool:

[jburlowski]

I don't recall asking you to sample my garage aged bourbon, but thanks for the pre-release feedback. :cool:

Gee Scott, I was simply expressing my opinion and experience.... why in the world would you think that my comments in any were directed at your bourbon (which I had no idea even existed)?

[Josh]

I don't recall asking you to sample my garage aged bourbon, but thanks for the pre-release feedback. :cool:

[Hawg73]

I'll give this stuff a try. Why not?

[jbillin]

Count me in on a bottle of each. Let's see what they've got going on.

[dbk]

I'd also like to confirm the fact of aging in smaller barrels seem not to be as good as full sized barrels. Reference several posts from the craft distillers that are using smaller barrels. Most are not received well here. and they are aging for 2-3 years in 10 gallon, or so, barrels.

Interesting, if true. Many folks think Scotch whisky is improved by aging in smaller barrels, as it increases interaction with the wood in a given amount of time. The Laphroaig Quarter Cask is a good example of a well-loved expression matured in small barrels.

Would the differences lie in the fact that American whiskey takes on woody notes more quickly and prominently than your typical Scotch, (usually) being aged in new oak and warmer weather? Or might the small barrel–low quality relationship be mere coincidence?

[Brisko]

Maybe, but Laphroaig QC starts out in full size barrels (they don't say for how long) and then gets transferred to the quarter casks for finishing (again, how long?).

And for what it's worth QC is my least favorite of their expressions (but I am probably in the minority).

[jburlowski]

Interesting, if true. Many folks think Scotch whisky is improved by aging in smaller barrels, as it increases interaction with the wood in a given amount of time. The Laphroaig Quarter Cask is a good example of a well-loved expression matured in small barrels.

Would the differences lie in the fact that American whiskey takes on woody notes more quickly and prominently than your typical Scotch, (usually) being aged in new oak and warmer weather? Or might the small barrel–low quality relationship be mere coincidence?

Likely because bourbon uses new barrels vs used for Scotch.

[Josh]

I am currently aging a pseudo-bourbon (a barrel blend of 100% Corn and 100% Rye from Grand Traverse) on the second floor of my unheated, barely insulated, detached garage in a 5 liter barrel.

It's been in there since mid July and it is definately aging in an unusual way. It has slowed down to virtually nothing over the winter, but it is taking on a lot of barrel characteristics while it still has a raw, corny nose.

Part of the appeal for me is the fun of having a whiskey aging in my garage and being able to taste it along the way. I'm under no illusions that it is going to taste like a quality macro-bourbon, but I am looking forward to tasting it and sharing it with friends. That's the fun part. Maybe I'll even bring some to the gazebo.

Anyway, these HH white dog offerings have me looking forward to getting another barrel and letting the garage work its magic again. It's not Kentucky magic but it's magic nonetheless.

[callmeox]

I am currently aging a pseudo-bourbon (a barrel blend of 100% Corn and 100% Rye from Grand Traverse) on the second floor of my unheated, barely insulated, detached garage in a 5 liter barrel.

That's the pioneering spirit that I was looking for, Josh. Bravissimo!

[cowdery]

Many folks think Scotch whisky is improved by aging in smaller barrels, as it increases interaction with the wood in a given amount of time.

This is probably incorrect. "Some" or "A few" is probably a better word choice than "Many."

For most single malt makers, wood extraction is a secondary part of their maturation approach (whereas it is primary for North Americans). Scotch aging is much more about oxidation and other effects that happen primarily through time itself, not through interaction between the wood and the spirit. It's a very different paradigm.

[dbk]

For most single malt makers, wood extraction is a secondary part of their maturation approach (whereas it is primary for North Americans). Scotch aging is much more about oxidation and other effects that happen primarily through time itself, not through interaction between the wood and the spirit. It's a very different paradigm.

I'll have to stand my ground on this one, Chuck. Not only does the empirical evidence suggest that wood maturation is a vastly important part of whisky development (Scotch or otherwise), but the interest of the Scots in their oak is immense. To many, it has become the variable in making good Scotch (or Japanese) whisky. I have witnessed numerous, involved discussions over the effects of wood among Scotch drinkers, critics, and producers, and many Scotch producers and independent bottlers, such as Compass Box, are putting considerable focus on the wood.

Indeed, to quote Connor, Read, and Jack in Inge Russell's Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing text, "In the production of Scotch whisky, many factors are known to influence the final quality of the product, including the water, barley type, extent of peating, still type, and distillation conditions. The most important contributor, however, is undoubtedly the oak container in which maturation takes place."

[cowdery]

Not exactly the same as my point, which was about wood extractives alone. Most scotch producers, for example, consider 'excessive' wood extracts to be a flaw, in contrast to American producers for whom wood extractives are everything.

[Brisko]

From what I remember, experiments with scotch aged in "virgin oak" barrels haven't been too successful, for what it's worth.

[dbk]

I was a bit quick on the draw in my last post, so apologies if I didn't thoroughly address your point, Chuck. I'll grant that wood extraction is not the only relevant aspect of Scotch maturation, but I would still say that it is indeed the primary one.

The literature carves whisky maturation into two phases: additive and subtractive. Both phases rely heavily on the effects of the cask, though some components can also come from evaporation and oxidation. More importantly, oxidation interacts with the wood: the breakdown of lignins and hemicellulose polymers are a case in point. Moreover, oak lactone and eugenol, which impart a great deal of the aromatic characteristics to the whisky, are the direct result of spirit-cask interaction.

Scotch distillers advertise the use of first-fill casks (i.e. those that were only filled once before, having contained bourbon or sherry, typically) because they are believed to have stronger and more favorable effects on maturation. Virgin oak is also used on occasion—its effects can be strong, so it's generally used sparingly, but Compass Box has had great success in using it. In any case, that Scotch whisky "takes" to first- and refill oak better than to virgin oak is not evidence that Scotch maturation isn't heavily wood oriented. It just means that the wood needs to be "treated" before it is implemented.

I have seen several members of SB worry about a bourbon being too woody at times, and the same is true for Scotch on occasion. More often than not, however, I see people wanting their Scotch aged longer and in fresher casks. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where some commentators think there is too great an emphasis on wood in Scotch. To quote Serge Valentin: "the Scots are beginning to talk way too much about wood in my opinion and not enough about their distillates. Making Scotch is almost becoming an oak-recycling industry!"

[B.B. Babington]

...Scotch aging is much more about oxidation and other effects that happen primarily through time itself, not through interaction between the wood and the spirit. It's a very different paradigm.

This is a point that often gets overlooked. In cask maturation there are three points. Adsorption of some compounds from liquid to the charcoal (google decolorizing charcoal). Desorption of phenolics and other compounds from the wood into liquid. And various intermolecular interactions, such as oxidation and condensation reactions, forming other compounds. Lots of congeners are aldehydes, ketones, phenolics, etc which are all ripe for various interactions to occur to form new compounds on maturation. Adsorption & desorption can be sped up in a number of ways: small barrels, heat/cool cycles, planks of wood in the barrel, etc. But the maturation reactions are difficult to speed up.

[tommyboy38]

I've enjoyed tasting the BT White Dog and always keep a bottle on hand to offer guests a taste. I'll be looking forward to the HH new make. I was able to try it last year along with a wheated version.

P.S. - Enough of the scotch talk

[cowdery]

Our difference is mostly semantic. While I'm talking about scotch being less concerned with wood extractives and more concerned with other maturation effects, you tend to characterize everything that happens in the wood as happening because of the wood. And as Serge rightly points out, talking about wood has become very fashionable in scotch circles recently, to the exclusion of perhaps some equally as important points.

One observation I would make is that while bourbon new make tastes very little like mature bourbon, scotch new make tastes surprisingly similar to the final product.

[dbk]

Our difference is mostly semantic. While I'm talking about scotch being less concerned with wood extractives and more concerned with other maturation effects, you tend to characterize everything that happens in the wood as happening because of the wood. And as Serge rightly points out, talking about wood has become very fashionable in scotch circles recently, to the exclusion of perhaps some equally as important points.

One observation I would make is that while bourbon new make tastes very little like mature bourbon, scotch new make tastes surprisingly similar to the final product.

While I don't think I quite characterized "everything that happens in the wood as happening because of the wood", I'm perfectly happy to say that we otherwise agree here.

[cowdery]

Agreed. What difference there may be is insignificant. And some interesting stuff has been contributed along the way. Thanks, everyone.

[OscarV]

Here's what it looks like.

[squire]

Well, the package is attractive and informative, I'll give 'em that.

[tmckenzie]

We got a bottle of the bourbon and rye new make today. Both were good. Big difference in the new make from bt and makers. I think it is a good education for anybody interested in why bourbon taste different from distillery to distillery. The bt is much cornier because of the mash bill. The hh tastes like a much lighter version of or white dog. Ours is about the same mashbill but pot distilled. I was suprised by the rye. I do not like the taste of our rye white dog but this was not bad. I guess i liked it becuase of the corn it has in it.