Does the ‘perfect’ bourbon exist? Buffalo Trace's quest for "The Holy Grail".

[TNbourbon]

Mark Brown goofed by interjecting the word "perfect" into the conversation. What if he DOES manage to make the best bourbon I've ever had? And, then, next year, he (or someone else) issues something I like better?

Which one's "perfect"? Both? Neither? If multiples are allowed to be "perfect", then maybe something I've already had is already "perfect", no? In which case, what's the big deal if BT manages 'another' perfect bourbon?

Is perfection singular, or can it be plural?

(Just as an aside, there have been 20 "perfect games" pitched in the 135-year history of Major League Baseball.)

[ebo]

Interesting idea... I like the shotgun approach to be able to identify the effects of variables, but I think too much emphasis has been placed on the specific tree. There are so many other variations I would like to see played out (like more variance with mashbills or a couple options with barrel proof). They mentioned different warehouses, but no talk of the how warehouse location could affect thing.

To me, the specific tree is the one variable that you can't duplicate. Sure you might get a honey barrel, but how will the aspects that made that barrel be identified and repeated (beyond ring count and top v. bottom).

I love the vast experimentation in order to find winning combinations, but at the end of the day I think the variables that can be duplicated are taking a backseat to the single tree novelty.

It won't. I know a thing or two about wood. Every tree is different... even the ones growing in the same stand. Minerals in the soil will have a lot to do with it, as will exposure to sunlight, how crowded the stand is, etc...

At the saw mill: is the log being flitch cut, quarter sawn or rift sawn? 6 months of air drying is NOTHING. It can take up to three years to air dry lumber, depending on how thick it was sawn. There are so many variables just in the age of the tree, soil it is growing in, the sawing and drying process............. it is virtually impossible to repeat anything.

It's cool that BT is trying something new, but I seriously doubt they can come up with a consistent product with this "single oak" project.

[dmarkle]

Turn it upside down. What if it was made available solely through 2oz samples, say $4 per, pre-buy as many as you want, mail order only?

Another awesome idea. Or box 'em up in a convenient gift box sampler for the Christmas season.

[dmarkle]

Mark Brown goofed by interjecting the word "perfect" into the conversation. What if he DOES manage to make the best bourbon I've ever had?

Wait, BT is going to be giving away free bourbon? :grin:

[BFerguson]

i do think that what they are doing really is worthwhile. BUt perfection will never be achieved, Even if you polled the audience here, you would get a wide variety of ideas on what perfection is.

Over the years, every distiller has done this, but probably never to such a extent. They knew which yeast batched worked the best, and refined them over the years. The water was always key point too. It had to be of great purity and of the right mineral type. I'm sure they also had particular cooper and farmers that they liked to work with. And on and on and on........

BUt when you really think about it, they are just too many variables to take complete control of to insure the perfect barrel. And now way could you replicate this from barrel to barrel.

In the end I really do appreciate what they are doing. Push the limits, expand upon the conventional notions of what should be done.

In the end, they will probably stumble on a couple of new things that will take products to the next level. It makes it a really exciting time to be a bourbon drinker!!

And besides, it makes for great conversation fodder on the forum.

B

[ebo]

At the very least, I'm sure there will be some great bourbon to come from this. If it could be replicated on a consistent basis, no one would look forward to the next offering. The "unknown" in all of this is what will keep us waiting for the next "single oak" offering. There will undoubtedly be some exemplary bourbon produced... as well as some duds. If nothing else, it will create another "collector" niche.

[cowdery]

I'm not going to go chapter and verse on the posts since my last one. I think what's lacking here is a full understanding of what this project is really about. That's not a criticism of anyone. I just spent the better part of two days wrapping my head around it and talking to the people who have worked on this project for a decade.

I'm sure not there yet. There is no reason you should be.

This thing is really deep and the only reason they're putting it out is to please people like the people on this board. Yes, they are a profit-making business that exists to make and sell whiskey. But this is real science in which they are giving you and me an important chance to participate, so give it a chance.

I don't want to take this too far -- it's also supposed to be fun -- but it's deeply geeky and was created by and for people who care as passionately about American whiskey as you do. It may not be "perfect" (ironically), but it is sincere.

What I experienced today, tasting the first release set of 12, is that they have compressed the number of variables for each release. One bottle teaches you nothing but any two bottles will teach you something really cool. You can, for example, taste two whiskeys in which the only variable is grain coarseness. Everything else is controlled for, and I mean everything, and they do taste different.

Think about this. You can taste two bottles of Blanton's, from two different barrels, and know that any difference you taste is coming from the barrel, but you can't know what it is about the barrel that is causing the difference. With this you know, because the only difference is that one is fine grain and the other is coarse, for example. Everything else about the distillate and barrel is the same. Hell, all of the wood is from the same tree. (That's the point of 'single tree.')

You know what makes a huge difference? Whether the wood came from the top of the tree or the bottom of the tree. Who knew?

That's pretty cool.

I will add this. If you think it's possible to overstate the importance of the barrel to American whiskey, you know very little about American whiskey.

[Neat]

chuck, i was thinking about whether or not to be on the hunt for another limited edition bourbon (VERY limited edition) and you just convinced me to gas up the truck, goto the atm and find another hiding place inside the house!:slappin:

the bt press release says the first release should be in the stores at the end of may. it's only a month from now but the manager at the big store here has not heard anything about the single oak project - he wasn't aware of it until i told him. he's still dealing with ticked off customers venting about the spring pappy release.

that's a cool acorn.

[Leopold]

I'm sure not there yet. There is no reason you should be.

This thing is really deep and the only reason they're putting it out is to please people like the people on this board. Yes, they are a profit-making business that exists to make and sell whiskey. But this is real science in which they are giving you and me an important chance to participate, so give it a chance.

If you don't mind, I'd like to give a perspective on this from a small American whiskey producer.

What they are doing here, and have been doing with their other projects is so....totally... if you'll pardon the expression, badass.

As a fellow craftsman, operating at a much lower level (i've only been at this for 15 years), I don't care about the end result. That doesn't concern me. I look at distilling whiskey as a verb, not a noun. In other words, I'm much more interested in the process than I am what does in the bottle.

This is, in relative terms, one of the largest whiskey distilleries in the world. Yeah, they aren't Diageo, but BT is a large shop. And what they're doing is so very Rock and Roll. They're saying, "right. ***ing watch this, mates", and flexing their formidable creative muscle.

It's so very cool. And I'm so very proud that they're out there showing what American distilling is all about.

My unasked for advice is: enjoy that they're playing their song to you. Not the general market, not on the advice of their bean counters.... but they're doing this for you, and most certainly, themselves as craftsmen.

Unreal.

[dmarkle]

What they are doing here, and have been doing with their other projects is so....totally... if you'll pardon the expression, badass.

And what's really amazing is that it all started over 10 years ago. That's one long project. Kind of cool to see a guy start a project he knows he may not (and apparently did not) see finished. Wow. Making whiskey sometimes seems like building pyramids or something.

[HP12]

As I read thru this thread, it's apparent that distillers demonstrate their fascination, passion, curiosity with research and experimentation in order to create a unique identity with desire to please and strive for perceived perfection in their craft.

This pursuit is no different than what other top end professionals strive to achieve such as entrepreneurs, chefs, liquid chefs and entertainers to name a few examples.

"We don't know what we don't know, but it's worth trying to find out".

[kickert]

What I experienced today, tasting the first release set of 12, is that they have compressed the number of variables for each release. One bottle teaches you nothing but any two bottles will teach you something really cool. You can, for example, taste two whiskeys in which the only variable is grain coarseness. Everything else is controlled for, and I mean everything, and they do taste different.

[sku]

I'm not going to go chapter and verse on the posts since my last one. I think what's lacking here is a full understanding of what this project is really about. That's not a criticism of anyone. I just spent the better part of two days wrapping my head around it and talking to the people who have worked on this project for a decade.

I'm sure not there yet. There is no reason you should be.

This thing is really deep and the only reason they're putting it out is to please people like the people on this board. Yes, they are a profit-making business that exists to make and sell whiskey. But this is real science in which they are giving you and me an important chance to participate, so give it a chance.

I don't want to take this too far -- it's also supposed to be fun -- but it's deeply geeky and was created by and for people who care as passionately about American whiskey as you do. It may not be "perfect" (ironically), but it is sincere.

What I experienced today, tasting the first release set of 12, is that they have compressed the number of variables for each release. One bottle teaches you nothing but any two bottles will teach you something really cool. You can, for example, taste two whiskeys in which the only variable is grain coarseness. Everything else is controlled for, and I mean everything, and they do taste different.

Think about this. You can taste two bottles of Blanton's, from two different barrels, and know that any difference you taste is coming from the barrel, but you can't know what it is about the barrel that is causing the difference. With this you know, because the only difference is that one is fine grain and the other is coarse, for example. Everything else about the distillate and barrel is the same. Hell, all of the wood is from the same tree. (That's the point of 'single tree.')

You know what makes a huge difference? Whether the wood came from the top of the tree or the bottom of the tree. Who knew?

That's pretty cool.

I will add this. If you think it's possible to overstate the importance of the barrel to American whiskey, you know very little about American whiskey.

[cowdery]

When you buy the bottle, all you will know is its barrel number. Then you can go to the website to get the full provenence of that barrel. I have no doubt that when this gets going people will post the provenence of each barrel here.

As for the whole 'perfection' thing, I'm going to blame that more on the Washington Post's Jason Wilson, who wrote the article that began this thread. He was there Thursday and Friday. It's not really his fault but I gave him a lot of shit and told him I was going to blame him for everything, so there it is.

The quest for the perfect bourbon is an over all distillery mission. Nobody expects to get there, but would be thrilled to make progress in that direction. Remember, this is a business where consistency and same-as-it-ever-was is a core value. BT is just trying to say we can be committed to that but also to improvement. Nothing wrong with that.

Let me put the span of this thing in perspective. Yesterday we planted a white oak tree on the grounds at BT in honor of Ronnie Eddins, longtime warehouse supervisior at BT, who died last October. It was Ronnie who went to Missouri a decade ago and selected the trees for this project. Everyone at BT recognizes that they are working on projects that still will be going long after they are not.

[ebo]

Chuck, what do you think is going to happen from all this single oak/tree experimentation? I understand perfectly well how different wood and parts of a particular tree can/would affect the spirit being stored in it.

It is an absolute truth that whatever comes from this can almost 100% NOT be replicated. If the mission is to learn about the various parts of a tree and how it affects the spirit, I can understand that. If they think they can come up with a way to produce a consistent result with this...... not gonna happen.

I'm not against any of what they are doing. I'm all for it. But, I can't see anything that will come of it other than some nice, "unique" bourbon here and there.

I guess what I'm asking is: what does BT hope to gain/do/accomplish with this undertaking?

[Leopold]

What leads you to believe that this can't be replicated? Or, rather, any less repeatable than any other line whiskey out there?

[ebo]

:grin:

What leads you to believe that this can't be replicated? Or, rather, any less repeatable than any other line whiskey out there?

[jinenjo]

Entry proof is entry proof. No change of distillation proof.

[Leopold]

:grin:

Because no two trees are alike. Similar, yes, but not the same. You might get a similar tasting spirit from trees taken from a specific stand in the same general area. But, go a few acres from that specific area and I can almost guarantee you those trees will have a different mineral content and a different grain structure.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but isn't consistency of taste achieved by blending different barrels, at this time? Isn't this why Single Barrel releases very in taste from previous releases... because of the difference in the wood they are stored in? I don't see any difference from that and what BT is doing with single trees. If I'm misunderstanding, I'm all for being set straight! :grin:

[ebo]

You're not misunderstanding, IMHO, and very well put.

Blending is what makes all whiskies, beers, and wines "repeatable".

But I think that BT might "find" something by meticulously stripping down the barrel down to the not only the tree, but the part of the tree. I can tell you that a prominent American cooper chuckles at the notion that there's a consistent difference between #3 and #4 char. When you think about using an open flame that's four feet tall, you realize that the charring is likely to be all over the place, statistically and practically speaking.

So I guess what I meant was that this isn't really less repeatable than any other small barrelling. And in fact, they might figure a few things out regarding barrels and oak along the way by looking at every little thing.

Neat project, don't you think?[/quote]

Yes, definitely a neat project. If the learning from all the "little" differences is the goal, I would say it is a fantastic project.

[cowdery]

The rye recipes ones taste more or less like Buffalo Trace. The wheaters are not quite Weller, but they're good. All of them are good, I liked some better than others.

One thing they plan to do is have consumers review and rate every whisky, so each will have a score, and one will win. They intend to replicate that one, in terms of duplicating its specifications, and that will be the Single Oak Project product going forward (with, I assume, an interlude for proper aging).

Yes, the idea is to learn what variables cause what differences and which combinations of variables are most pleasing to -- you. That's ultimately what they expect to get out of it.

[RyanL]

OK, I gotta admit it sounds a lot better after reading Chuck's posts. I still however, am pretty hesitant to buy these because I feel like it's going to be pretty hit or miss on what I'm buying and how much I will like it and unless I'm getting all 12 bottles(which I wont be) then getting 3 or 4 seems less exciting to me. If a local store did a tasting of all 12 though I would certainly go, as like I stated before, I think its a great concept, its just not very practical or affordable to be able to try more than a couple of these on your own.

[kickert]

OK, I gotta admit it sounds a lot better after reading Chuck's posts. I still however, am pretty hesitant to buy these because I feel like it's going to be pretty hit or miss on what I'm buying and how much I will like it and unless I'm getting all 12 bottles(which I wont be) then getting 3 or 4 seems less exciting to me. If a local store did a tasting of all 12 though I would certainly go, as like I stated before, I think its a great concept, its just not very practical or affordable to be able to try more than a couple of these on your own.

I hear ya... Just as some of these barrels are probably going to be very good, some are going to be not-so-good. I am too pour to buy up a bunch of these hoping to get the good ones. This is the type of experiment I would love to be a part of, but honestly the only way I could do it would be if these came in even smaller sizes than 375. I would gladly pay for a 12 pack sampler of minis!

[Parkersback]

For me personally, this is too complicated. I mean, I really appreciate that this sort of investigation and experimentation and innovation is going on, but I'd rather that it happen behind closed doors, or at least with a small, select group of folks. I sort of assume(d) that this kind of thing is always going on, I'm just curious as to why they've made it so public.

I enjoy the challenge of trying to keep up with new releases, comparing older expressions of a whiskey to the newer expressions of the "same" brand, tracking where things were sourced or bottled, comparing brands within the same distillery (speaking of which, I tried KBSB the other day, and it was OK, but the most interesting thing to me was how much it tasted like the last glass of JBB I had, but at barrel strength). I like learning about and tasting whiskey: as Oscar as wryly noted, it's a pretty fascinating, "hobby."

But if I'm reading all this right, BT essentially just released 192 different "brands" of $70 bourbon, and now they want us to sift through them and tell them which one is the best?

As an illustration, I can tell my wife about the WT expressions: "Hey, here's the standard 101, but this bottle is called Russel's Reserve, it's the 'same' whiskey, but aged 10 yrs, as opposed to 6, 7 and 8 of the standard. RR used to be 101, but now it's 90, etc." It's a little complicated, but I can sort of wrap my head around it, and thus hers.

But 192 bottles with 7 variables or whatever?

It sort of overwhelms me, and does not fill me with fervor to rush out and start buying up these $70 experiments.

[Guest wripvanwrinkle]

Hi Parkersback,

I find your response really interesting in that it codifies 2 issues that I have been thinking about: the complexity and the diversity.

For me, the breaking down of the variables is really neat. I really like that the distillers are acknowledging a set of consumers that increasingly want to understand their product in a more technical way. Although I believe that the sum is more than the whole of its parts, I really enjoy understanding the parts. Is that geeky? Sure, but then again, I’m a geek.

There is going to be an unobtainable number of different releases…but that is fantastic. I won’t be able to try them all, but who cares? I love that sense of diversity! Each experience will be something unique.

Yes, this is a hobby…but people hobby in different ways. The example that I have been thinking of concerns our national parks.

Some people visit each park, enjoy it, get a “passport stampâ€, and move on. Their experience is in comparing the parks.

Some people visit one park, become fascinated by its geothermal and geological aspects and focus forever inward on the subtle details of volcanism and granite formations. Their experience is in how it works.

I think that BT has only missed the mark with respect to the marketing. They should have just targeted this at the geeks. Although the website doesn’t really focus on the “quest for perfectionâ€, I have clearly experienced it through other feeds (such as the Driscoll interview with Harlen Wheatley). This thin veneer of “respectability†does little to widen the audience. It only detracts from what makes it fun.

(By the way, if I have offended anyone that thinks that this is cool effort...but is not a geek...don't worry...you *are* a geek...you just don't know it yet.) :grin: