Lot 40 2012 Edition

[MtnDew]

Just tried my bottle of Lot 40 I grabbed last year in Alberta... dang, it's quite tasty. I get a whole crap ton of tropical fruit on the nose, not what I expected from a 100% rye. I am going to grab another bottle or three during the excursion northward.

[ramblinman]

Yall are going to make me go out and buy a sub 90pr bottle for the first time in about a year, shame!

[ramblinman]

Well, I picked up a bottle of this today and one glass in I'm having a little buyers remorse. It's not that it's bad in any way, it's actually quite good , but I find myself comparing it to jeff10 and coming up a little short on that, and tasting a little less intense in the flavor dept.

Looking forward to revisiting it and comparing the two, but for my first pour I'm having trouble understanding the amazing reviews vs other Canadian ryes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhiskyToWhiskey]

..... I'm having trouble understanding the amazing reviews vs other Canadian ryes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to other Canadian ryes, Lot 40 does stand out big (compared to standard crown, cc, wisers, etc). It may get blown out of the water by Jeffersons 10, Mastersons, and Whistlepig....but those are in a whole different class.

[ramblinman]

Compared to other Canadian ryes, Lot 40 does stand out big (compared to standard crown, cc, wisers, etc). It may get blown out of the water by Jeffersons 10, Mastersons, and Whistlepig....but those are in a whole different class.

Seems to me that Jeff/WP/Mastersons are exactly what I should be comparing a > $50 Canadian rye to. Maybe I'm missing a differentiation?

If I don't enjoy my next pour I think I'll just pass it along to my dad, he's a long time crown/canadian club guy so he might appreciate it a bit more than me.

Not a big deal, I've had bigger miss bottles, and every additional tasting gives me more experience to build on, just very surprised at the difference between my expectation and delivery.

Edited February 28, 2014 by ramblinman

[Gillman]

Well, what you are noticing IMO is the difference between new charred barrel aging and reused (or brand new uncharred) barrel aging. The American-made straight ryes use of course the new charred barrel, it gives a warm, sweet, tannic finish. With Lot 40, you don't have that, you get the full minty/chemical taste of unrefined rye spirit but without modification from the new charred barrel - no red layer gums in particular. Masterson's is a better comparison to Yank straight rye because it too is aged in new charred barrels albeit in Canada. It stands between the two extremes so to speak: the Canadian climate and perhaps all-rye grist of the Masterson tend to soften a bit the full-on effect of the red layer, but still you can see the difference vs. the austere taste of Lot 40. I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

[WhiskyToWhiskey]

.....I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

[Gillman]

Well, really the new charred barrel is what makes U.S. straight whiskey what it is. The woody sweetness comes in from the red layer under the thin char crust. Lot 40 is definitely not aged in new charred barrels or not 100%. It is probably a mix of barrels of different kinds. If it was 100% new charred barrel aging the whiskey would be much closer to American rye but the intent in creating it was to go back to the origins of Canadian rye when it was an unrefined drink. (This is why clearly the Canadians devised their own approach to a blended whisky - the typical CC or CR-type taste - because it was felt (or so I conclude) that a drink as assertive as Lot 40 probably wouldn't gain national appeal. So they ended by using (in effect) just a little of the straight unrefined stuff with a whole lot more of fairly neutral but aged spirit and this is what became the Canadian taste. I can see that people still bracket Lot 40 with the other Canadians and after all they are broadly of the same family, but to me they actually taste, side by side, quite different).

The real question I think is why Canada didn't create its own style of 100% new charred barrel-aged straight whisky. I don't know, we have a lot of oak in the country and this was especially so in the 1800's. For some reason the taste didn't go in that direction. Possibly this was due to the Scottish and Irish influences on the liquor industry here, and they never used new charred barrels either - as all here know, in fact their whiskey became known as being aged in reused bourbon and rye barrels, so perhaps Canada just followed that practice.

When all is said and done, while Lot 40 is an interesting product, a historical curiosity, I don't think it can ever displace the regular style of Canadian whisky. The taste is too out there. It does enjoy a good niche position in the market currently. To me Masterson's offers more scope for development as a new national style of whisky since it is new charred barrel aged yet despite that shows some similarity to standard Canadian whisky. I was speculating our climate may lead to that especially if the warehouses are not cycled (artificially cooled and heated). Alberta's very cold winters would result I'd think over 10-12 years in a more restrained palate than Kentucky's which is why perhaps Masterson's tastes different to some of the U.S. straight ryes mentioned in this thread.

So if it was me, I'd put Lot 40 when new in new charred barrels for 8 years and then see. I think it would be an outstanding drink.

Gray

[WhiskyToWhiskey]

So if it was me, I'd put Lot 40 when new in new charred barrels for 8 years and then see. I think it would be an outstanding drink.

Gray

Ya...that would be something for sure. Masterson's 10yr is the best Canadian Whisky I have had. I tried Whistlepig 10yr and imo it is not as good.

[ramblinman]

Well, what you are noticing IMO is the difference between new charred barrel aging and reused (or brand new uncharred) barrel aging. The American-made straight ryes use of course the new charred barrel, it gives a warm, sweet, tannic finish. With Lot 40, you don't have that, you get the full minty/chemical taste of unrefined rye spirit but without modification from the new charred barrel - no red layer gums in particular. Masterson's is a better comparison to Yank straight rye because it too is aged in new charred barrels albeit in Canada. It stands between the two extremes so to speak: the Canadian climate and perhaps all-rye grist of the Masterson tend to soften a bit the full-on effect of the red layer, but still you can see the difference vs. the austere taste of Lot 40. I wouldn't compare Lot 40 to CR or CC though, to me they are night and day different. CC and CR have no chemically detergent-like taste - it has all been refined out of them.

Gary

Gary, I think you might be a little over my head with this. By American-made do you mean American-style? Or am I completely wrong in thinking that WP/Jeff10 are Canadian made ryes?

[Gillman]

Yes American-style, you are certainly right that Masterson's, plus Jefferson's rye apparently, are Canadian-sourced and aged in new charred oak, that is why it is okay to call them straight rye in the States. That practice though to release a whiskey made like that as a straight (not blended with other whiskeys) is an American one, in Canada they have not done this for generations. Generally in Canada, my understanding is the straight-type whiskey made in-house is used only for blending and generally too it won't be aged, or 100%, in new charred barrels, they often use in Canada (whether for the "straight" or blended products - let's call Lot 40 straight for present purposes) a mix of barrel types extending to reused bourbon and new (uncharred) oak barrels. Masterson's is an exception since you can buy it in Canada now, but it was sold in the States first and has an American theme on the packaging. In other words as I see it, Canadians don't see this kind of whiskey as something in general to release on its own (in Canada), that is an American practice.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Gillman

[Jazzhead]

Yes American-style, you are certainly right that Masterson's, plus Jefferson's rye apparently, are Canadian-sourced and aged in new charred oak, that is why it is okay to call them straight rye in the States. That practice though to release a whiskey made like that as a straight (not blended with other whiskeys) is an American one, in Canada they have not done this for generations. Generally in Canada, my understanding is the straight-type whiskey made in-house is used only for blending and generally too it won't be aged, or 100%, in new charred barrels, they often use in Canada (whether for the "straight" or blended products - let's call Lot 40 straight for present purposes) a mix of barrel types extending to reused bourbon and new (uncharred) oak barrels. Masterson's is an exception since you can buy it in Canada now, but it was sold in the States first and has an American theme on the packaging. In other words as I see it, Canadians don't see this kind of whiskey as something in general to release on its own (in Canada), that is an American practice.

From what I understand, Lot 40 is a blend, of 90% unmalted rye and 10% malted rye. While it tastes, of course, nothing like it, I wonder if the proper comparison is to pot-still based Irish whisky.

I've only recently discovered this stuff, and I'm hooked. The rye bread up front is huge, but the overall feel of the sip and swallow is sweet creaminess. It's an amazing contrast, and the best rye I've ever tasted.

[Gillman]

The mash bill is as you describe but that is not (as such) what makes a whisky a blend. A blend is composed in part of a bland whisky distilled out at a high proof. Lot 40 is apparently an all-pot still whisky, i.e., all distilled out at a low proof and therefore not a blend in the usual sense.

The mix of malted and unmalted cereals in Lot 40 can be analogized to an Irish single pot still whiskey but then you could say the same of a bourbon.

Gary

[Jazzhead]

The mash bill is as you describe but that is not (as such) what makes a whisky a blend. A blend is composed in part of a bland whisky distilled out at a high proof. Lot 40 is apparently an all-pot still whisky, i.e., all distilled out at a low proof and therefore not a blend in the usual sense.

The mix of malted and unmalted cereals in Lot 40 can be analogized to an Irish single pot still whiskey but then you could say the same of a bourbon.

Gary

[MtnDew]

Thanks for the clarification, Gillman. Interesting stuff, Canadian whiskey. I had assumed that Lot 40 represented a blend (two separate whiskeys blended together) rather than a mashbill (a recipe for a single whiskey). I know that "blended scotch" is exactly what you describe - malt whiskey blended with (I think the term is) grain neutral spirits. Lot 40, I believe, includes no grain neutral spirits, which is why I was thinking of an Irish pot still - based whiskey, containing malted and unmalted barley.

[squire]

Just a bit of clarification:

American blended whisky is made up of whisky blended with GNS, Canadians do not use GNS.

Blended Canadian whisky uses the same type grain whisky as used in Scotch and is also aged a minimum of three years.

[Jazzhead]

I think I see where the confusion lies. I was equating Gillman's description of "bland whiskey distilled at a high proof" with my description of "grain neutral spirits" It appears they are not the same thing. A "straight" whiskey under U.S. law has to be distilled to no more than 80% ABV. Stuff distilled at higher proofs becomes the "bland spirit" Gillman describes, and under Scottish law (as per my perusal of wikipedia) grains can be distilled to approximately 93 - 94 percent ABV, which apparently produces a more or less neutral spirit. But that's not as high an ABV as true grain neutral spirit can be.

So I guess then that Lot 40 is blended straight rye pot-still whiskeys, malted and unmalted.

Does that make it unique? Are there any other Canadians made this way of a blend of straight rye "flavoring whiskeys" only? There's an excellent American rye I've had recently that sort of compares, with a baseball-bat-upside-the-head whallop of rye bread but still balanced. It's High West's Double Rye, which is a blend of two year and fifteen year straight ryes. They do another blend called Rendezvous Rye, which I'll have to try to find next time I'm in Maryland.

[Gillman]

From what I understand, Lot 40 is not two whiskeys blended, rather, it is one whiskey, distilled out at a low proof (under 160) whose mash bill is composed mostly of raw (unmalted) rye with some malted rye. In this respect it is like Irish pure pot still especially as the latter is aged in reused barrels. It is also like bourbon except that, i) bourbon is aged in all-new charred barrels, ii) bourbon is entered in barrel at maximum 125 proof and I doubt Lot 40 is.

GNS and the part of Canadian whisky blends that is the bland part distilled out at high proof are to all intends and purposes the same thing except that the latter must be aged at least 3 years. It is true GNS can be higher in ABV than Scots grain whisky but the difference in flavour is probably minimal especially after aging.

The key to a Canadian blend, IMO, is that part of the whisky, usually the greatest part, is distilled out at a high proof: it is aged GNS basically. The blending can be done at the beginning of the maturation period or the end from stocks of each whisky type separately aged. I hope this clarifies everything.

Gary

[Jazzhead]

Thanks, Gillman! I guess the bottom line is that Lot 40 is not conventional Canadian rye whiskey. Although I can discern, or at least it pleases me to think so, that it retains a whiff of difference as compared to a good American rye (I compared it the other day with of a bit of my last Van Winkle Family Reserve) that makes for a Canadian signature. Could be the sense of creaminess that dresses the rye up in its Sunday (punch) best.

Another Canadian I've enjoyed recently, actually finished the sucker off embarrassingly fast, is Collingwood. The Nestles Quik of whiskeys, Canadian Mist put through the Lincoln County process, and served in a Zippo. Oh, but I love it so.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Jazzhead

[squire]

Jazz I believe Collingwood is another stand along whisky that is not blended. At the end of maturation in oak casks it is finished for awhile in maple wood barrels but not mixed with any other whisky. Very, very far from Canadian Mist though it comes from the same distillery.

[Gillman]

Lot 40 is not conventional Canadian whisky at all, exactly right. Really it is, or is very much akin to, a flavouring or straight whisky (albeit different from U.S. rye as you said) that would normally be used in a small amount in a blend but that happened to be released on its own. If you blended Lot 40 with 90% aged GNS, it might end up tasting like Seagram VO, say, or… maybe that Collingwood.

Of course, Collingwood 21 years old is a different story - it is a straight whisky essentially, the Collingwood counterpart to Lot 40. Masterson's is another counterpart except aged in new charred oak and thus getting closer to American straight rye in character.

Gary

Edited April 14, 2014 by Gillman

[mbroo5880i]

I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.

[Gillman]

Squire certainly true of Collingwood 21 years old but I am not sure about the regular Collingwood maple-finished whisky. I would think it is a Canadian Mist type product except subjected to the maple treatment.

Gary

[Gillman]

I know I saw a Lot 40 for $39.99 last fall. Even though I had heard of it, I passed because I wanted to research it more. It is normally $59.99 in Indy. I should have bought it.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Gillman

[squire]

Yes, I was restricting my comments to the 21 year old. What's interesting is these Canadian distilleries have the stock to make things like Lot 40, Masterson's and Collingwood 21 regular production items. I understand in the past they occasionally launched an unblended special but it didn't prove viable in the marketplace at the time. Perhaps now Canadian "singles" time has come.