Whiskey and Air

[CoMobourbon]

Perhaps it's all psychosomatic then. Maybe it's just groupthink. I don't know. And I don't know if it's anything that you could even begin to calculate or quantify. But I can name several whiskies, bourbons, what have you that certainly seem to improve with time. And then there are others that I tend to drink faster because they seem to lose a good quality or three the longer they've been opened. So whatever it is, I guess I'll just continue to err on the side of my perception.

This is one of those 'fussy' questions, and people who like that sort of thing will have fun with it, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you like to fuss with things, then by all means fuss. Drinking whiskey is about enjoyment and if fussing enhances your enjoyment, then fuss.

But if you're wondering if aeration is necessary or widely practiced, no and no. Exposure to the air can change how a whiskey tastes to you, so that maybe 10 or 15 minutes in the glass before you take the first drink seems to improve it, but if you let it sit for an hour or two, you probably won't like the result. And if you've ever sampled the dregs from a glass left out the night before, you won't do so again. So if a little air is good, more would be better, is probably poor logic.

Sure, a little air after pouring can be beneficial. But, I draw the line there. This compulsion with some folks' bottles showing epic leaps in drinkability over time as the bottle has been opened, and the continued application of this phenomenom seemingly on every bottle commented on in the past several months...is....well...balderdash. By the way, I thought the same thing with the "excess air" theory that was all the rage of every post for about 1-1/2 years, a couple of years ago. Heck, people were being advised to throw out a bottle because it had oxidized with too much air, if it had been open over 30 days...

We all, I think, try to bring reasoning as to why a bourbon tastes differently from time to time. You want to know the reason? Look in the mirror. We change...a lot. The whiskey, not so much.

Totally agree with Joe that the taster has much more to do how the same whiskey tastes over time. I just recently started having my wife pour a little from each of my four open bottles to taste blind and the results of the same tastings spread out about two weeks were somewhat surprising. Pretty sure that the whiskey was primarily the same over that same period but my palate seems to be constantly evolving.

It could go without saying, I hope, that all of these subjectivity theories apply to the act of drinking whiskey in general (and not just to the effects of air time). In other words, all taste, not just air time disparities, is always all us (personally and collectively), and the whiskey itself has little or nothing to do with it. Really, the practice of drinking fermented-grain-wood-water, not to mention the notion that some versions of it are tastier than others, comes entirely from us and has basically nothing to do with the external characteristics of the fermented-grain-wood-water.

Basically, Chuck has proposed that fussiness with things like air time can maybe improve enjoyment of the whiskey. But is it not more accurate to say that all enjoyment of whiskey is fussiness?

I mean, if we call conversations about the effects of air time silly, could we not call this whole website silly?

[cowdery]

Certainly if one had one of these venturi of which you speak, one probably would try it on some whiskey. Easy enough experiment, what?

It's not silly and it is why this web site exists. I think it's fair to call it fussy. It's certainly not necessary. But it's interesting if that sort of thing interests you and if it doesn't, go read something else.

Edited October 26, 2012 by cowdery

[B.B. Babington]

...all taste, not just air time disparities, is always all us ... and the whiskey itself has little or nothing to do with it. ...the notion that some versions of it are tastier than others, comes entirely from us and has basically nothing to do with the external characteristics of the fermented-grain-wood-water...

I'm guessing you were a philosophy major in college. True, sometimes our judgement of quality is skewed by the society in which we chose to inhabit. True, perceptions of anything are subjective. But there are inherent qualities within each bottle, particular to chemical constituents in solution, that effect sensory receptors (tongue, nasal cavity) in certain ways which in turn have impact on the central nervous system synapses for cognitive function leading to perception and judgement ... such as deciding this whiskey is good and this other one sucks.

[Restaurant man]

In the world of cognac collectors with bottles that have been open forever (20 years ++) they do not worry about changing flavors. Only evaporation.

[luther.r]

I figure this should be easy enough to do a blind test of. Buy two OWAs from the same place, same batch etc. Open one and pour half of it into another bottle. Wait a few weeks. Then open both bottles (one for the first time) on the same night and do some blind tasting. I might just do this myself when my local shop gets their OWA 1B back in.

[CoMobourbon]

It's not silly and it is why this web site exists. I think it's fair to call it fussy. It's certainly not necessary. But it's interesting if that sort of thing interests you and if it doesn't, go read something else.

Just for reference, I in no way meant to challenge you on your assessment or your choice of words; I think you are dead on. I just think that your assessment has a wider scope than you acknowledged in that particular post. I mean, if we can say that air time worry is unnecessary, we can just as easily say that any thoughtful or methodological whiskey drinking is unnecessary. Indeed, the site exists for such non-necessities. (And clearly I for 1 out of thousands find this interesting enough to read.)

I'm guessing you were a philosophy major in college. True, sometimes our judgement of quality is skewed by the society in which we chose to inhabit. True, perceptions of anything are subjective. But there are inherent qualities within each bottle, particular to chemical constituents in solution, that effect sensory receptors (tongue, nasal cavity) in certain ways which in turn have impact on the central nervous system synapses for cognitive function leading to perception and judgement ... such as deciding this whiskey is good and this other one sucks.

No, worse. I was a philosophy major wannabe.

But with my totally faux-intellectualism, I think I can point out that you are still missing a couple points.

First, I think you are describing quite a short-circuit from chemical composition of whiskey to the nervous system to perception and judgement. Lots and lots of stuff going on in "cognitive function" in between chemistry and perception (like "judgement" factors based on "the society we choose to inhabit"). These subjective factors don't influence the process of perception after the fact but rather are integral to the process itself.

More importantly, I think you are missing my proposition about how whiskey in particular has more to do with social influence and subjectivity - and much less to do with chemical composition - than most other things we eat and drink. When it comes down to it, there are really only a few tastes that our bodies (that whole sensory-and-nervous-system you described) have a natural hankering for: saltiness, fattiness, and maybe sugaryness. A peanut chocolate ice cream sundae covers it - and does so in a way that whiskey could never approximate (no matter how sweet we might say that it is). But there are not thousands of bloggers reviewing the fine distinctions between ice cream sundaes (there are probably some, but you get what I am saying here).

There is no natural reason (besides maybe the convergence of alcohol and palatability) that we should like whiskey. But we do. And we do so because we develop associations that transcend what our bodies naturally want. Insert whatever word for these arbitrary subjective interests: fussy, silly, unnatural, unnecessary, connoisseur-ship, etc. Don't get me wrong; these subjective elements are great and everything. I like whiskey. I just think that it is a little ironic to point out that air time worry is unnecessary when, really, all whiskey tasting is (distinctively) unnecessary.

Edited October 26, 2012 by CoMobourbon

[msong]

It's interesting. I just opened a bottle of PVW 15 & 20 and neither taste like what I remembered of my older bottles, however the nose is as I recall. Now, I'm doing a quick experiment myself. I poured both into two smaller bottles with proportionally more air and also two glasses with even more air. I'll let them sit for a few days or a week and see if there is any noticeable difference.

[AaronWF]

I don't pay much if any attention to the effect of air time on the whiskey in my glass, but I definitely pay attention to the experience of drinking a bottle over time. As several people have alluded to, there's something tricky about having an opinion on the matter of whiskey changing in the bottle over time... First, by framing the question as to whether air has an effect on whiskey in an opened bottle or not, you're making an assumption that if you notice a change in the way the whiskey tastes, you have air to thank (or blame). Clearly, that assumption does not hold water with people who also notice the changing taste of a whiskey but instead believe that their own changing palate is responsible for the differing perceptions, and that the whiskey is a constant. Surely, if you believe one or the other, you cannot rule out that both time spent in an open bottle and your own morphing palate are each independent variables that come together to form the experience of tasting whiskey.

I put a lot of value in getting to know a whiskey by drinking through a bottle of it over time, as opposed to, say, reviewing a whiskey based on a small sample. Clearly, with all the variables that can contribute to how you experience a whiskey on a given night, hitting a bottle over time can really be the only way to get a full picture of the juice. I'm still trying to understand the implications of judging whiskey based on a blind-tasted sample, as there's no doubt in my mind that expectations play a HUGE part in influencing your experience. I suppose the best way to divorce oneself from expectations would be to drink through a whole bottle blind, but that would be pretty hard to pull off!

As for using a Vinturi, sounds to me like just another variable to pile on top of all the others. I wonder how drinking whiskey while hanging upside down might affect the taste...

[B.B. Babington]

Caveat: knee deep into comparing 3 different barrels of Evan Williams SB 2012, watching palladium, Joe Bonamassa concert finished & now into David Gilmour.

as AaronWF noted, there are many factors at play in perception of a sip. Take a sip from bottle and it's yech, next week it's lovely. Those that go the next level look at glass, environment, bread or taco for dinner, etc. Some prefer rocks, others hand warmth. A refined palate begins to distinguish multifarious contributors to the experience. If I drink on my back deck in the woods looking at the moon, it's different than if I drink in my front yard looking at the stars. And Aaron's note about blind taste vs label is a real factor. Frankly, I've had Evan Williams SB bottles I'd put next to a Parker's and be happy. Or an ER10 bottle that could be sipped with ER17 and Stagg. But when I see the label, I know I'm drinking something that somebody that knows more than me thinks is good.

Restaurant Man noted cognac collectors with 20+ yr opened bottles. I put parafilm on my tops to keep them fresher because I know simply putting the cork back isn't always enough, because I too have many bottles opened for over a decade and have dealt with very many different types of bottles (not whiskey) over a hundred years old. What I've noticed after having over a hundred premium bottles opened over time, is that when they are first opened they are super OMG unbelievable, but then over time they become merely great. Personal opinion is that there's more than many factors contributing to that, nod again to AaronWF. But one thing for sure, when the bottle's been opened for a while and getting down, it's starting to go into the realm of just real good ... for my taste ... and your mileage may vary.

CoMoBourbon, the natural reason we like whiskey is ethanol works on pleasure centers of brain (as stimulant & etc) and somewhat deadens negative feelings we may have.

Please do not think I'm trivializing the argument with sarcasm; CoMoBourbon is correct that there's lots going on between beverage chemical composition to higher brain function, and if one wishes to peruse hundreds of millions of pages of scientific and philosophical literature, one would begin to get a grasp of the problem. CoMoBourbon is also correct that the masses do perceive quality based on social pressures, as beautifully exemplified with Vodka's success.

Inappropriately beginning a new paragraph to amplify the point: many straightbourbon.com participants are NOT among the masses and can arrive at quality perceptions without much bias from peers. After having sampled tens of thousands of different whiskeys, one begins to develop an educated palate to distinguish more refined concepts/perceptions of what one prefers. Who decides what costs $10/liter and $250/bottle? At one end, it's the refined perceptions of persons at the distillery. Or the learned critic like Chuck Cowdery or John Hansell. Distilleries don't pull all the best juice, and I find an OMG Evan Williams SB that could be better than Parkers. Yes, sometimes it's marketing that gets me to the first bottle; but for the second bottle, there are some bottles I won't take for free and others I'd drop $300 for, and not blink an eye.

[Bmac]

To me, this discussion is similar to debate over whether quality speaker cables enhance sound quality. Some can hear a difference and others cannot. Oddly enough, those with the most influence do not detect a difference and often do not have strong reasons for why it cannot be. Those who can percieve a difference often have strong reasons, often with scientific data as back up, for why it's there.

This debate is the same. Those with the most influence say it doesn't change a crap whiskey into a phenomonal one, while others who've had the experience, swear by it and can back it up with science, and testimony.

We've heard enough reasons for why air oxidizes alcohol. I want to hear reasosn for why air cannot possibly change th flavor of whiskey in an opened, but corked bottle, over time.

[Trey Manthey]

To me, this discussion is similar to debate over whether quality speaker cables enhance sound quality. Some can hear a difference and others cannot. Oddly enough, those with the most influence do not detect a difference and often do not have strong reasons for why it cannot be. Those who can percieve a difference often have strong reasons, often with scientific data as back up, for why it's there.

You are describing that example backwards. Those who supposedly detect a difference claim to have "golden ears", while those who claim no difference will back up their experience with double blind tests and waveform analysis.

It's not so easy to make a snake oil claim when it comes to taste. Analyzing sound pressure's effect on eardrums is a piece of cake compared to measuring the chemical interaction between whiskey and the nose/mouth.

[Bmac]

You are describing that example backwards. Those who supposedly detect a difference claim to have "golden ears", while those who claim no difference will back up their experience with double blind tests and waveform analysis.

It's not so easy to make a snake oil claim when it comes to taste. Analyzing sound pressure's effect on eardrums is a piece of cake compared to measuring the chemical interaction between whiskey and the nose/mouth.

I disagree. Alhough this be a discussion for a non-bourbon thread, but Non-believers in highend cable disprove by saying they used lamp wire and high end cable and couldnt tell a difference. Proponents for use scientific data. Don't beleive me, read all about it at AudioQuests website.

[Restaurant man]

I disagree. Alhough this be a discussion for a non-bourbon thread, but Non-believers in highend cable disprove by saying they used lamp wire and high end cable and couldnt tell a difference. Proponents for use scientific data. Don't beleive me, read all about it at AudioQuests website.

[Bmac]

Lol!!!! My bad there, typing on a BlackBerry PlayBook has a few challenges. I am much better at typing and proof reading on a computer. By the time I realized the grammar error, I couldn't edit the post. Also this device thinks it's neccessary to insert periods at random when you press the spacebar. I will strive to be less careless in the future.

With all due respect, the statement "this be a discussion" is not proper English and far below your normal high standard of grammar. I've always cited bmac as one of the pillars of the SB grammar community. I'm gonna have to meditate on that now. Hopefully my guru can help me put into a universal perspective. I'll be in touch

[GaryT]

What I want to know is how different kinds of air impact the whiskey over time. I mean - if you're in a smog-covered city versus the countryside, or at different altitudes, or proximity to the ocean. Someone needs to take some bottles and coordinate having them opened at the exact same time in different parts of the country, and then all driven to a central location for a blind tasting. Although I'm not sure if the air from the central location will destroy the experiment . . .

[MyOldKyDram]

Coming soon, CEHT Smog Surviving Bourbon.

[Bmac]

What I want to know is how different kinds of air impact the whiskey over time. I mean - if you're in a smog-covered city versus the countryside, or at different altitudes, or proximity to the ocean. Someone needs to take some bottles and coordinate having them opened at the exact same time in different parts of the country, and then all driven to a central location for a blind tasting. Although I'm not sure if the air from the central location will destroy the experiment . . .

Well, if you were being serious then there is only one way to do that. Have someone from a clean air environment open a bottle and let it sit, then take a sample and send it. Then have the smog-ridden person do the same for the exact same amount of air time.

Although I am not a chemist by any stretch, it might help to know if the chemicals that make up smog have an effect on water and whiskey in a similar manner as oxygen.

[WAINWRIGHT]

I have always thought some open time on a bottle may help improve their profile but only slightly and generally wheaters in perticular.I have seen a decline in profile of dramatic proportion once a this was in a Saz 18,not really a loss of overall flavor mind you but of the vibrance of the whiskey.I had a friend bring me a sample to taste blind,of which he would give me no inside what so ever to see if I could name this whiskey or identify in any way.I nosed the sample and could purely pick this as a wheater but from there I was at a loss.I thought maybe BTEC Bernheim or V17 but it was muddled,it was as if it was a overly watered down pour.He was amazed I couldn't name this whiskey,PVW15 was the pour I had just tried to identify.The sample I had was a mere shadow of its former self,it had some characteristics that were still present but in no way the great pour it once was.This was an '08 bottling,low fill that had been open for nearly 2 years.I have never had an experience with oxidation to this extreme and frankly didn't think it was possible to this extent.I have a tendency to keep a lot of open bottles and some with low fill levels,after this eye opening experience I will be sure to monitor my bottles more closely.I have just recently begun to transfer to smaller bottles after I hit the half fill level,I don't know if this was a freak instance but it has surely opened my eyes to the issue of oxidation and proper storage of bottles.

[fussychicken]

This is one of those 'fussy' questions, and people who like that sort of thing will have fun with it, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you like to fuss with things, then by all means fuss.

Did someone call my name?!

Just to add to the conversation FWIW, and also fully aware that memory is a fragile thing, I've found that my open bottles of whiskey hold up pretty well. However, I've had a few Cognacs that didn't seem to keep their rich flavors and also had less of a finish after being open a couple of years.

[RWBadley]

Did someone call my name?!

Just to add to the conversation FWIW, and also fully aware that memory is a fragile thing, I've found that my open bottles of whiskey hold up pretty well. However, I've had a few Cognacs that didn't seem to keep their rich flavors and also had less of a finish after being open a couple of years.

My observation is that most cognac are of lower proof, generally around 80 or occasionally a bit more. They will tend to go soft on the palate sooner with exposure to airtime I should think.

Something I have yet to see addressed, and it is an issue I have considered that is not far off the bottle/air topic- is whether alcohol stratification occurs within the bottle that creates a flavor change.

Logic would follow that since water and alcohol are different specific gravity the upper level of bottle should release more alcohols into the pour than when the bottle fill has been depleted. This could account for some of what we might experience that has mostly been attributed to air/oxidation within the bottle remainder.

If we think the bottle while full pours with a more intense (especially of alcohol) flavor while the last half of the bottle seems more subdued, could some difference in that pour be attributed to the degree with which the upper level containing the lighter alcohol has been poured off leaving the remainder which should contain slightly more water content. Note: Consideration that many of our bottles spend much time stationary upon a shelf waiting for us to return to them, then generally a small pour and carefully returned to shelf.

I have been creating a bit of gentle shaking to happen on some of these bottles to find out if there seems to be any merit to this idea, but I then suppose that at some point it just introduces oxygen and the control is flawed... so now I just drink the doggone stuff.

Cheers,

RW

[Brisko]

One thing I've noticed, in the short term, is that certain hot, sour, woody notes that can be really overpowering (to me, anyway) tend to disappear within a few days of being opened. Off the top of my head the examples I can think of are: KCSB (only one, the rest have been good right off the bat), current Old Fitz BiB, OWA, and a Willett 5-year rye. To a lesser extent, the bottle of ER 10/90 that I used for a recent VBT is a lot less oak driven after a few days than it was the first time around.

This effect is much more pronounced than the long term ones being discussed, but I think it's very real. In some cases these were bottles that were practically undrinkable at first pour.

[bad_scientist]

One thing I've noticed, in the short term, is that certain hot, sour, woody notes that can be really overpowering (to me, anyway) tend to disappear within a few days of being opened. Off the top of my head the examples I can think of are: KCSB (only one, the rest have been good right off the bat), current Old Fitz BiB, OWA, and a Willett 5-year rye. To a lesser extent, the bottle of ER 10/90 that I used for a recent VBT is a lot less oak driven after a few days than it was the first time around.

This effect is much more pronounced than the long term ones being discussed, but I think it's very real. In some cases these were bottles that were practically undrinkable at first pour.

Have you tried 4RSB? For all but two bottles, I had to wait about a month before they were ready. The same goes for the SmB.

My latest SB bottle is a notable exception, but the only other time I felt one was enjoyable right off the bat was one I got from the gift shop. That one started out great and then just died after a few weeks. Go figure...

[Rutherford]

Something I have yet to see addressed, and it is an issue I have considered that is not far off the bottle/air topic- is whether alcohol stratification occurs within the bottle that creates a flavor change.

Logic would follow that since water and alcohol are different specific gravity the upper level of bottle should release more alcohols into the pour than when the bottle fill has been depleted. This could account for some of what we might experience that has mostly been attributed to air/oxidation within the bottle remainder.

If we think the bottle while full pours with a more intense (especially of alcohol) flavor while the last half of the bottle seems more subdued, could some difference in that pour be attributed to the degree with which the upper level containing the lighter alcohol has been poured off leaving the remainder which should contain slightly more water content. Note: Consideration that many of our bottles spend much time stationary upon a shelf waiting for us to return to them, then generally a small pour and carefully returned to shelf.

I think that is an interesting theory, but it does not fit well with thermodynamics. Alcohol and water molecules have a strong affinity for one another (they release heat while mixing, the resulting product takes up less volume than the constituents, the viscosity of the product is greater than the viscosity of the parts, entropy increases, etc), so any significant differences in composition would have to result from a significant gradient in temperature or pressure. I do think it is possible for some of the lighter aromatic flavor compounds to be concentrated toward the top of the bottle, as it is non-ethanol organic molecules which provide most of the flavor and aroma, but probably not to a significant extent given the short height of liquor bottles.

[Brisko]

Have you tried 4RSB? For all but two bottles, I had to wait about a month before they were ready. The same goes for the SmB.

My latest SB bottle is a notable exception, but the only other time I felt one was enjoyable right off the bat was one I got from the gift shop. That one started out great and then just died after a few weeks. Go figure...

Yes, I've noted the same thing with 4RSB. The Small Batch doesn't bother me, though. The last SB I had didn't change much, either, although it wasn't horrible to begin with by any means.

I just remembered another example, an oak-aged slivovitz that was an absolute oak-liquer at first. Whatever it is, this sour, oaky, hot note just numbs the hell out of my tongue, too. And it's not related to alcohol content.

[qman22]

I think this is really interesting discussion and it got me to thinking. What is the difference between the whiskey being exposed to air in the barrel versus being exposed in an open bottle? Barrels aren't air tight or they wouldn't have evaporation, so really the whiskey has been exposed to air for virtually its entire existence. Perhaps the oxidation of the whiskey in the barrel plays a large roll in the aging process, and helps determine when a particular barrel is "ready". Then once that whiskey is bottled, then opened, the oxidation of that whiskey simply continues where it left off.... having variable positive or negative effects depending on the whiskey itself and time opened.