Small Barrels

[HighInTheMtns]

I've read a lot of threads here about people's experiments with rebarelling young bourbon in small barrels and it seems that their results weren't great. Josh's comments in this thread pretty much sum it up. However, I've never seen a report about a personal rebarreling that was aged for years. Might be that, as you say, the effect of the small barrels would be moderated over time. The trouble with that is that time favors the large barrels. The angel's share is a bigger problem with small barrels.

I do like the Laphroaig Quarter Cask a lot. I think that a small barrel that is not new might work better than a new small barrel. But that whisky has a lot of other differences from regular Laphroaig 10 that might explain why I like it.

[Gillman]

I know Mike Veach can confirm this, but a trawl through Google Books suggests in the 1800's, the standard whiskey barrel contained 40 gallons. Also, there was in commerce in that period something called a "half-whiskey barrel". (Whether the latter was used to age the product or just to send it the merchants and bars I cannot say).

40 gallons capacity is 13 gallons less than the current standard. True, the sweet spot, at least for standard aging periods (say, 4-12 years or more), may be above the typical small barrel size used by craft distillers and below 40 gallons. But I incline still to thinking that the right mix of factors may make small barrels work well within a 2-3 year period. Perhaps they need to be placed in a less active part of the warehouse for example.

This discussion is very interesting and it makes me think, apt as the 53 gallon barrel is for bourbon, maybe the 48 (or 40?) gallon barrel was better. I wonder if despite the apparent industry shift to 53 gallons during WW II, some bourbon continued to be aged in 48 gallon barrels until the 70's. Maybe that is the answer to the vexed question of dusties seeming usually to be better than modern whiskey.

Gary

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gillman

[HighInTheMtns]

53 vs 48 vs 40... now that's an experiment that would have more value to Sazerac.

[StraightNoChaser]

Yes, there are a lot of bad whiskeys produced in small barrels.

There are far more bad whiskeys produced in fullsize barrels though.

The proof IS in the product. Good whiskey isn't determined by barrel size.

[StraightNoChaser]

Does this prove you can make good bourbon using small casks? No, but it inclines me to think it may be possible in the right circumstances, i.e., using well-seasoned wood perhaps with the right char level (not sure what that is), placed in the right section of a warehouse, and of course with appropriate cycling, which again I can't state details of. But the magic solution may well exist, it will take time perhaps to see what it is.

Gary

[LostBottle]

...and let In With Bacchus do the talking with his blog post

http://www.inwithbacchus.com/2012/08/small-barrel-maturation-re-buffalo-trace.html?m=1

Edited September 6, 2012 by LostBottle

[StraightNoChaser]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/237/621/c8a.gif

[LostBottle]

Also extra points for demonstrating how narrow minded the bourbon community can be.

Edited September 6, 2012 by LostBottle

[Josh]

Yes, there are a lot of bad whiskeys produced in small barrels.

There are far more bad whiskeys produced in fullsize barrels though.

The proof IS in the product. Good whiskey isn't determined by barrel size.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Josh

[Gillman]

I agree and the direction forward may have some surprising twists and turns. Maybe two years in large barrels and transfer to a new charred small keg for a year is the answer, where perhaps the small is exposed to some cycling. Maybe the small needs a different kind of oak than hitherto generally used. Or maybe the large does. A combination of science and empiricism should (or might) point the way, it's still early days.

By the way when I said initially that while I haven't had excellent bourbon from small barrels aged 1-3 years but I don't get that from big barrels either, I realize now that is not really an argument since, the big barrel will usually produce good whiskey after 4-5-6 years and even assuming (contra to what BT experienced) the small barrel does, then to what point is that, since the whole object of using small containers is to cut down a lot on aging time?

But I'd still like to have tasted that bourbon from the BT experiment at 2-3 years. For example, how would it compare to Ancient Age, the regular one which today has a 36 month age statement? I find the latter quite young and corn-tasting, was the 2-3 year old bourbon in small kegs worse? Maybe it was, but anyway I think the solution will emerge at one point and again there are so many variables.

Gary

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gillman

[Gillman]

On the matter of historical barrel size, here is a book I've often referred to in the past for its explanation of late 1800's blending techniques:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ABoZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fleischman+liquors&source=bl&ots=VC2rXwsCl4&sig=b7M_MfAU_tvRVPPpypvduRssSrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P5JIUNuqDMW30Q

It wasn't on google books in those years, but now it is. Amongst the many interesting things in the book, e.g. his best grade of bourbon blend which combines two bourbons and one rye, no GNS, it is Grade 11, pg. 27, he states (see page 11) that the standard barrel for whiskey in bond was 45 gallons.

And yet, earlier in the 1800's, there are many many references to a whiskey barrel being 40 gallons.

It seems that the standard has moved from 40-45-48-53, and this makes sense since the drive economically would have been always to store in larger containers provided you can get the results needed. We know you can at 53 gallons, although I suspect it takes longer today to do so than it did when the size was in the 40's, i.e., larger surface area in relation to the liquid meant faster maturation. This is probably why, or IMO, a bourbon like VOB (6 years old for a long time and most still is I think) got its name.

Gary

P.S. It's interesting that he prescribes prune juice for his best bourbon blend. His best rye blend (3 straight ryes) uses an extract too, tea extract. Why the additions if the components are all-straight? I think to lend a uniformity of taste and perhaps the public was used to it from the liberal use of extracts in blends which more typically used GNS. When you read the book as a whole, it is clear that in his mind, the formulas could be extended indefinitely and therefore use of extract was optional for the best grades. This is where I got some of my early ideas on vatting by the way.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gillman

[Josh]

Interesting stuff Gary!

As I've said here and elsewhere, I think where smaller, newer distillers can excell is in doing things the big makers can't or won't do. Smoked whiskeys, finishes, unusual woods, unusual mashbills, infusions, and yes even variations in barrel size are all things that the micros can take the lead in trying.

[Gillman]

I agree, I still feel a non-flavoured or traditional product is possible with small barrels or at least, the search for the right method should continue, but I agree too that smoked, fruited and other tastes will likely becaome a specialty of craft distillers. In truth, you can get great results combining young whiskeys with these flavours. One of my favourite drinks last year was a rye white dog combined with a very sweet cinnamon-flavoured whisky, a commercial brand from a big maker. The cinnamon whisky was so sweet and full of cinnamon, and the whisky element in it so mild and hard to detect, that for practical purpose, or mine anyway, it was like a sweet alcoholic liqueur flavored strongly with cinnamon. (Like one of those flavoured vodkas, say). When you added white dog, the result was really good, spicy and complex, and I am sure you can get a similar result by combining young whiskeys with this spice and many others and fruits, smoke flavors, bacon, etc. So the craft people should I believe and are focusing on that but that doesn't mean they might not come up with the holy grail of young bourbon aging...

Gary

P.S. A thing I just learned thanks to this thread: in the Fleischman book, he states that whiskey (he means bourbon or rye) that is 10-15 years old is considered too old because it takes up too much tannin from the barrel. He states that old whiskey of this type is generally used to mix with younger whiskey to give it a more aged taste, or is blended with GNS for sale in the market (I infer the GNS will lighten and "dilute" the tannins). However, in the last generation (of today), bourbon 10-15 years old has been highly prized, ditto rye. Why? In part some people just like the taste, and that's fine, what Fleischman liked isn't the be all and end all. But also, his barrel was 45 gallons (or less, he refers elsewhere in the book to 40-gallon barrels and I infer they still existed albeit in the process of being replaced by 45 gallon containers).

And so, barrels that were 13 or 8 gallons smaller than today's were making whiskey and it stands to reason that after 10 years, "too much" of that surface area got in. Today, the whiskey can go longer in the barrel because the barrel is larger and it takes more time to get the results of yore, not to mention the higher entry proofs of today, since water takes in more tannin than alcohol apparently.

And so, 12-15 year old bourbon is the new - so to speak - 6-9 year old bourbon. It all makes sense, or to me.

Gary

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gillman

[sutton]

I'm not sure this would make economic sense, but what about re-coopering std. 53-gal barrels once used for bourbon into smaller barrels? Can't be called straight, but given how slowly some SMS seems to pick up barrel notes in used cooperage, maybe you'd get more time in the barrel without getting it too woody too quickly. A used barrel would be cheaper to buy but then would have cost added back to make into 2 or 3 smaller barrels ... but maybe you could go longer in this type of barrel and keep things in balance?

[Leopold]

I agree, I still feel a non-flavoured or traditional product is possible with small barrels or at least, the search for the right method should continue, but I agree too that smoked, fruited and other tastes will likely becaome a specialty of craft distillers.

Perhaps you hadn't tried them, but we've been making Blackberry, Peach, and Apple Whiskies for years (seven or eight years, I think). They're quite fun to make, and nice to drink for a change of pace. The blackberries oxidize in the barrel, yielding currant and plum flavors. The Peach is quite reminiscent of port or sherry, and the apple works quite well with the vanilla and confectioner's sugar barrel flavors.

[cowdery]

I don't understand why people can't just take the BT experience for what it is and move on. They did something, observed what happened, and reported what they observed. I will use the analogy to movies and movie reviews. It is one thing to say someone made a bad movie, something quite different to say they made the wrong movie. The former is normal and right, and potentially even useful. The latter is presumptuous and wrong.

Ever since I took my first shot at micro-distillers, about people who declare themselves 'master distillers' before they've finished uncrating their stills, we have been subjected to a vitriolic apologia from a few micros and their self-declared champions, while other micro-distillers send me private emails of gratitude.

And then there are the ones who consider it a big conspiracy.

The personal attacks on me and others say more about the attackers than they do about us. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

I do appreciate the instinctive protectiveness many feel toward this very young and potentially very significant movement. I certainly don't wish to strangle the baby in its crib. Nor do I want to see it choke on its own hubris.

Edited September 6, 2012 by cowdery

[Gillman]

Todd, I have tasted some of the blended or flavored products you mentioned, and they are excellent: they illustrate the point I was trying to make.

Gary

[HighInTheMtns]

I'm not sure this would make economic sense, but what about re-coopering std. 53-gal barrels once used for bourbon into smaller barrels? Can't be called straight, but given how slowly some SMS seems to pick up barrel notes in used cooperage, maybe you'd get more time in the barrel without getting it too woody too quickly. A used barrel would be cheaper to buy but then would have cost added back to make into 2 or 3 smaller barrels ... but maybe you could go longer in this type of barrel and keep things in balance?

[fussychicken]

I do appreciate the instinctive protectiveness many feel toward this very young and potentially very significant movement. I certainly don't wish to strangle the baby in its crib. Nor do I want to see it choke on its own hubris.