These are the Good Old Days

[Flyfish]

The thread "Good bourbon that has changed the least over the years" got me to thinking about how good we really do have it these days. Consider that not long ago 4R was sending all of their good stuff to Japan. The BTAC is a lineup of outstanding whiskies by any measure you would care to use. At HH, there was no EC18 or PHC. The Beam Small Batch Collection and KCSB were not available. Distillers today are competing for our dollars by offering unfiltered, barrel strength bourbons.

It seems to me that we have a wider choice of truly outstanding bourbon and rye than ever. And there are plenty of really fine options for those of us who might not be able to justifiy spending more than $70 a bottle.

So, what's your nominee for the number one development in bourbon in the last 20 years or so?

[squire]

The internet, or, more precisely, the immediate availability of accurate information that makes us an informed consumer. A 22 year old grad student can go on Straightbourbon.com and over a weekend learn more about Bourbon than the liquor store owner who has been in business for 40 years.

25 years ago an informed consumer was one that had learned to sort out brands by trial and error. Today the informed consumer is aware of the differences in mash bills, yeasts, barrel char, how location in the warehouse affects aging, and who (for the most part) actually made the whisky in the bottle. We are not impressed by claims of special water, only the choicest grains, of being hand made using a secret family recipe that no one else can duplicate or that old canard about being pot stilled when we know it damn well ain't.

What we now have are marvelous whiskys because producers are willing to make them available with a label specifically identifying the whiskys used in the vatting, their mashbill, yeast,when, where and for how long they were aged in specific warehouses even down to rack and barrel numbers. These are the days of Bourbon made for connoisseurs who can appreciate them and are willing to pay for true premium goods.

Edited March 30, 2013 by squire

[OscarV]

Flyfish, you bring up some good points as to why we are in "the good old days" now.

But I think we are past that peak and are backtracking.

The distilleries are running out of good aged bourbon, they are dropping age statements and the "special" releases are just ho-hum bourbons in great packaging and high prices.

They can't keep up with demand or refuse to (MM not building that 3rd still), and we get younger a product.

The good old days were probably the 1980's, '90's and up to the date when Buffalo Trace killed WL Weller Cetennial.

Before then there was a glut and for example you could get a WT101 8yo with 10 or 12 yo bourbon in the bottle.

Same went with a lot of brands.

[squire]

Oscar I don't see where the distillerys are running out of good aged Bourbon. If you have solid inside information to the contrary I would like to hear it.

[OscarV]

I'm just going by what's on the shelfs of retail outlets and the taste of current bourbons.

Age statements are disapearing and the bourbons are tasting younger.

[Trey Manthey]

I have to agree with Flyfish. At no other point in bourbon producing history have distillers had such a demand to release high quality whiskey. Sure, in the 80's and 90's all those dusty bottles that we covet NOW were everywhere, but where was the unchill-filtered barrel proof, extra old stuff? Where were the single barrel selections? Where was Four Roses? Where was RYE?

Sure, inflation, increased demand, and increased cost of production have pushed prices up, but the quality is excellent.

[OscarV]

True, but they are not properly aged, so it's all for nothing.

[Trey Manthey]

In answer to the original question, the regular release of barrel proof whiskey would be my number one improvement. Not that it didn't happen before then, but I don't believe it was something that ever showed up on store shelves.

[WAINWRIGHT]

I would have to agree with both sides of the story here.I think high end limited releases are more abundant and the variety is improving while the mid shelf and down are the ones taking the hit.I think that there are a lot of quality products out there,but you are going to pay for them as well.The fact that products are losing age statements does bother me as well but the days of the glut era have come and gone and cheap age stated beauties,only their dust remains.Hopefully with the resurgence of interest lately we will see more products like the RRSB and ECBP hitting the shelves and bring back some of that quality and value to the market.

[Trey Manthey]

True, but they are not properly aged, so it's all for nothing.

[T Comp]

The internet, or, more precisely, the immediate availability of accurate information that makes us an informed consumer. A 22 year old grad student can go on Straightbourbon.com and over a weekend learn more about Bourbon than the liquor store owner who has been in business for 40 years.

25 years ago an informed consumer was one that had learned to sort out brands by trial and error. Today the informed consumer is aware of the differences in mash bills, yeasts, barrel char, how location in the warehouse affects aging, and who (for the most part) actually made the whisky in the bottle. We are not impressed by claims of special water, only the choicest grains, of being hand made using a secret family recipe that no one else can duplicate or that old canard about being pot stilled when we know it damn well ain't.

What we now have are marvelous whiskys because producers are willing to make them available with a label specifically identifying the whiskys used in the vatting, their mashbill, yeast,when, where and for how long they were aged in specific warehouses even down to rack and barrel numbers. These are the days of Bourbon made for connoisseurs who can appreciate them and are willing to pay for true premium goods.

Couldn't have said it better myself Squire . And prior to, or even during the glut, the limited premium bourbons availabe, when inflation adjusted weren't cheap either. Eagle Rare 10 year 101, introduced in 1975, was at that time the equivalent of $40 a bottle today.

[ATXWhiskey]

I think the golden age is coming in the next ten years or so. The craze is on and they're putting some revolutionary stuff in barrels. There have been some BTEC that, if they could duplicate it and make it regularly available, would be a totally different product from anything on shelves today. I'm excited for what today's demand will mean in ten or fifteen years.

[OscarV]

For example? True, you can't buy WT12 year anymore, but I've got a 14 year old WT sitting on the shelf down the street.

And the last bottle of WTRB I bought was so young I had to pour it out.

MM 6 summers in the wood, that's damn near white dog for a wheater.

[squire]

Well, my golden age is now, think I'll have another tot of Grand Dad.

[OscarV]

I think the golden age is coming in the next ten years or so. The craze is on and they're putting some revolutionary stuff in barrels. There have been some BTEC that, if they could duplicate it and make it regularly available, would be a totally different product from anything on shelves today. I'm excited for what today's demand will mean in ten or fifteen years.

[Trey Manthey]

And the last bottle of WTRB I bought was so young I had to pour it out.

MM 6 summers in the wood, that's damn near white dog for a wheater.

[OscarV]

You can't complain about age statements dropping, and then bring up two NAS whiskeys as your proof.

[GaryT]

I think what you see right now is a surge in demand for older whiskies that is outpacing supply (and since you can't very well make a 12 year bourbon in less than 12 years, the spike in demand creates quite a problem for the producers). They could very well just start to ratchet up the price to curb demand to meet their supplies, but that very well might turn off too many consumers. Or, they could cut proofs with water to keep the age statements . . . or, they could "dilute" with some younger whiskey. Both changes the character some, but I think using younger juice has less of an impact.

If push came to shove, would you rather have ORVW 10 yr/107 drop the age statement and stay at 107 proof (maybe having to put some small percentage of 6 or 8 yr juice to keep the flavor profile) - or keep the age statement but drop the proof to 90?

As to the original question, I think squire nailed it

[MyOldKyDram]

(and since you can't very well make a 12 year bourbon in less than 12 years, the spike in demand creates quite a problem for the producers)

[hectic1]

Oscar I don't see where the distillerys are running out of good aged Bourbon. If you have solid inside information to the contrary I would like to hear it.

[Borchard]

I agree with squire. I think it's the availability of solid information. I truly believe that posters on SB know more about bourbon that almost ANY liquor store owner I've came across

[Trey Manthey]

Hectic:

What percentage of the juice in your impressive bunker was released to the market more than 10 years ago?

[hectic1]

Hectic:

What percentage of the juice in your impressive bunker was released to the market more than 10 years ago?

I'm not sure what your driving at but I can tell you that I don't buy any current releases of the bottles that I listed in my previous post...a comparison between old (a couple years ago) and current on a number of these has shown me enough.

[Trey Manthey]

My mistake, I am trying to highlight the evolution of retail releases from glut era compared to what has been available in the last 5 years or so. That is, I believe the quality and variety of releases has improved in that time.

Maybe we can distill the topic it to a simpler question tuned to each person's taste:

Knowing what you know now, if you could only get the whiskey released in a certain decade (or any continuous 10 year period), which would that be? Taking into consideration factors like pricing, availability, and knowledge. Oscar might say 1985-1995. Sku says 1999-2009 (this is closer to my opinion).

[hectic1]

My mistake, I am trying to highlight the evolution of retail releases from glut era compared to what has been available in the last 5 years or so. That is, I believe the quality and variety of releases has improved in that time.

Maybe we can distill the topic it to a simpler question tuned to each person's taste:

Knowing what you know now, if you could only get the whiskey released in a certain decade (or any continuous 10 year period), which would that be? Taking into consideration factors like pricing, availability, and knowledge. Oscar might say 1985-1995. Sku says 1999-2009 (this is closer to my opinion).

I think they're both right...there is a different profile to the bourbons of the 80-90's then there is of the 2000-to today. I happen to favor the stuff in the late 90's to the mid to late 2000's but I know plenty of others who prefer the earlier stuff. At the end of the day, all of the stuff going on today isn't good for bourbon lovers in the short term...the boom in bourbon has created a shortage of aged bourbon and the only way to cure it is time. Some distilleries can wait, others will just bottle younger juice to keep the stills going.