jefferson 10 year rye

[Dolph Lundgren]

I've got a couple bottles of batch 5. A few have the NCF sticker and two don't have the sticker. The ones without the sticker have a crazy amount of sediment. Going back to what Luther said, they probably put the sticker on so people would buy it - a normal, unlearned consumer would take one look at the bottle and turn away (uh...there's a bug in my whiskey).

I also have a bottle of batch 38, which is CF. The difference is very apparent. So odds are, if your running tests and putting bottles in the fridge / freezer to determine whether its CF, it probably isn't.

The NCF is really awesome (especially at the price it was at), but the CF Canadian is really good, too.

[petrel800]

Batch 11, NCF sticker, looks like a swamp and sediment bomb went off in the bottle. Haven't opened yet.

[jeffrey r]

I've read much of this thread over time, but am still a bit unclear as to the thoughts on the newer batch of rye. My Total Wine just restocked the Jeff Rye, and there is no mention on the bottle of Canada or Non CF at all. I believe it was batch 76 FWIW, but it is surely the newer KY rye. I gather that if I see any of the Non CF Canadian rye at a decent price, that seems like a safe bet. How about the newer Jeff KY rye?

[WAINWRIGHT]

I don't really know if this adds or detracts from the overall value of the thread but I have never seen an UCF'd derivative over batch#9,so it may very well be that batch #10 is the point of it's transition.

[Tucker]

Batch No. 10 - NCF

[WhiskyRI]

The fact they are advertising NCF is huge - hopefully it means we have reached a tipping point where NCF becomes a requirement to be taken seriously. Hopefully others will follow suit

[compliance]

Do the new MGPI bottles say 95% rye on the front instead of 100?

[tanstaafl2]

Do the new MGPI bottles say 95% rye on the front instead of 100?

[RVTsteve]

not sure. I just got a bottle, I assumed to be from the Canadian batches, Batch 49. However, it doesn't say Canada anywhere on it. Just says Bottled for M&K on the side label.

[compliance]

not sure. I just got a bottle, I assumed to be from the Canadian batches, Batch 49. However, it doesn't say Canada anywhere on it. Just says Bottled for M&K on the side label.

That's the same as my batch 52. I was hoping to buy more of the Canadian stuff before it's gone and am just trying to make sure I did.

[tmckenzie]

I just got a bottle of this stuff. No mention of no chill filtering nor Canada. It is to LDI. I bet money it came out of Barton.

[squire]

Perhaps that elusive 100% rye Barton recipe? The only thing we can be sure of is this whisky was distilled more than 10 years ago and things were different then, who knows what sort of contract distilling was going on.

[mbroo5880i]

Perhaps that elusive 100% rye Barton recipe? The only thing we can be sure of is this whisky was distilled more than 10 years ago and things were different then, who knows what sort of contract distilling was going on.

[TunnelTiger]

Just picked up a bottle while out to lunch seeing how I'm out and this is a great rye. None of the bottles on the shelf had the NCF label and are very clear.

But it's damn fine rye.

[GaryT]

I just got a bottle of this stuff. No mention of no chill filtering nor Canada. It is to LDI. I bet money it came out of Barton.

What batch number is it? I was thrilled to find a batch 3 today (no sticker, but clearly NCF). I think the latest batch I've seen is somewhere in the 50s (the other one I have is a 51, which is clearly CF - did the freezer test with no impact). I've yet to see a bottle though without the sticker on the side mentioning Canada. Just curious as the batch numbers are easier to scan when looking at the shelf

[RVTsteve]

Most of the batches I see now are in the 240's and are ~$40-$45. I'm on the hunt for one that actually says Canada somewhere on it.

[KySalesRep]

FWIW, I found a Batch 2 at a local store not too long ago, it was at the back of some newer bottles (Batches 49-52). It did not have a NCF sticker and it looks pretty clear (maybe just a bit cloudy, which means probably CF), but I bought it anyway because it's always good to have another and it's the lowest Batch # I have seen in the wild.

[mbroo5880i]

FWIW, I found a Batch 2 at a local store not too long ago, it was at the back of some newer bottles (Batches 49-52). It did not have a NCF sticker and it looks pretty clear (maybe just a bit cloudy, which means probably CF), but I bought it anyway because it's always good to have another and it's the lowest Batch # I have seen in the wild.

I bought one last week. It was batch 11, bottle 1891. It is NCF and Canadian. It is not real cloudy but you can see floaties in it.

[KySalesRep]

The Batch 2 I bought is Canadian and I can see some floaties as well, but no sticker. It could have fallen off, don't know. I do have a bottle of NCF that a very generous SBer sourced for me, I guess a SBS is in order sometime in the future.

[unclebunk]

Just picked up a bottle a few days ago for $35 (batch 242, bottle no. 2057). The side label simply says "Bottled for McLain & Kyne, Louisville, Kentucky. Two days later I ran into a pair of the "older" bottles with the "Product of Canada" on the side label and non-chill filtered sticker on the front. Those were priced at $36 and will be picked up tomorrow. I plan to do some side-by-side this week to see how they compare.

[PaulO]

I picked up a bottle (low $30s before tax). It has the NCF label, and Canada on the side. It was the only bottle left in a small store, so I don't know how long it sat there. I like it a lot. Is the Canadian NCF the one to get? This is really odd for me, since I'm usually skeptical of NDP products, and Canadian whisky.

[tanstaafl2]

I picked up a bottle (low $30s before tax). It has the NCF label, and Canada on the side. It was the only bottle left in a small store, so I don't know how long it sat there. I like it a lot. Is the Canadian NCF the one to get? This is really odd for me, since I'm usually skeptical of NDP products, and Canadian whisky.

Even less is known about later bottlings so it seems to be the one to get. Not Canadian whiskey in the typical sense of the word. Rather it is 100% rye whiskey distilled and aged in Canada that likely was intended for use with other whiskey in creating the blend for a Canadian whiskey but instead got bottled in its pure 100% rye form by an American NDP.

[squire]

Yes, it was/is intended as a flavoring whisky in blends, just like the 95% rye from MGP.

[unclebunk]

I picked up a bottle (low $30s before tax). It has the NCF label, and Canada on the side. It was the only bottle left in a small store, so I don't know how long it sat there. I like it a lot. Is the Canadian NCF the one to get? This is really odd for me, since I'm usually skeptical of NDP products, and Canadian whisky.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one, Paul. I've tasted both the Canadian NCF labeled one and the non-labeled one and they are virtually identical in aroma and flavor. I even put a couple of friends through a blind tasting and they couldn't taste any real difference either. Having said all that, if I had a choice between the two I would still aim for the Canadian non-chill filtered one, as even less is known about the provenance of the more recent bottlings.

[ramblinman]

picked up a bottle of this today, and on first try I'm really impressed. No mention of NFC or Canada on this one, but if this isn't the same juice as the whistlepig I can't tell, but theres a good bet than I can't tell the difference between 100% ryes?

Edited January 7, 2014 by ramblinman