These are the Good Old Days

[Gillman]

The availability of product information to interested consumers is an important part of the current bourbon scene but my answer to the question is: the development of very-aged whiskeys as a talisman of bourbon quality.

Never in the past was old whiskey lionized to a similar degree. At times in the market fairly old whiskey was available, say, 10-17 years old, there are old mail order ads in Oscar Getz's book which show this for example. But the acme of quality was bonded whiskey that could be as young as 4 years old (itself well-aged by 1800's standards). Only when the bonding period was increased after WW II did 8 year old bonded become available. In any case, 8 year old bourbon is within the 4-8 year range I would say has always characterized the bourbon market as its mainstay of quality. 8 year bourbon is nothing compared to 12-23 year old (and yet older) bourbon seen on the market in the last 20 years and fetching ever-higher prices. Julian Van Winkle IMO is responsible to a large degree for this development, and deserves a permanent place in American whiskey history for that reason alone. He continued what his father (JVW II) started but expanded and rationalized so to speak the category of super-aged bourbon. He really has played a huge role in the bourbon business in the last 20 years and deserves much credit for this IMO.

Others were there too, notably Heaven Hill with its Elijah Craig 12 and especially 18 year old expressions, Sazerac 18 year old rye and William Larue Weller from Buffalo Trace and the plethora of 20 years+ NDM ryes and bourbons, and so forth.

To be sure, many and even most distillers did not seek to enter this market but it doesn't matter: the die was cast and bourbon forever is changed as a result.

Thus, in the 1960's, Charlie Thomasson, long-time distiller at Willett who started in the pre-Pro whiskey business, could write that the best bourbon for the best price with the best bouquet was 4-7 year old bourbon. He opined that much older bourbon tended to have a "punky" taste from deteriorating barrel wood and wanted no part of it. 30 years later, very old bourbon was regularly available for purchase and praised in the whiskey media, most of it much older than even the famed Very Old Fitzgerald or Very Very Old Fitzgerald of the 70's and earlier which was (generally at most) 12 years old. Very old straight whiskey caught the imagination of the whisky-buying public, people liked the taste and became ever on the search for that elusive 18, 20 or 23 year old whiskey.

Now, will this change? Yes, due to the glut disappearing. Hence we don't see EC 18 issued at this time (or I haven't seen it lately). Van Winkle's products will continue though due to careful planning and savvy marketing.

Where do I stand on the quality side of it? Generally I favour bourbon in the 4-7 year range, like Thomasson said. But I do admire some older expressions. Van Winkle Lot B 12 years old is one of the best profiles ever devised for bourbon, it is brilliant. And there are other whiskeys in the 8-12 year range I enjoy from time to time. I believe that for a number of reasons such as the change over 30 years ago in the entry proof maximum and generally higher distilling-out proofs than were typical 50 years ago, you can age bourbon longer than many thought advisable 50 years ago. A lot of it does taste good, up to 15 years for my personal taste.

Gary

Edited March 31, 2013 by Gillman

[T Comp]

I'll take the variety of what is now available from most of the majors, even if in limited releases, as the main reason for these being the good old days. And well aged will always be available just at a much higher price. I expect more mingling of aged with young as in the recent 4R LE. Very well aged bourbon has a once or twice a week place for me just the same as scotch or Irish and other whiskies do and I'm willing to pay for that variety too.

[squire]

Some good points being brought out in this thread, think I'll just sit here in the corner with my luncheon cocktail made with 6 year old Barton and listen to the conversation.

[BradleyC]

Some good points being brought out in this thread, think I'll just sit here in the corner with my luncheon cocktail made with 6 year old Barton and listen to the conversation.

Did the Barton bunny stop by last nght?

[squire]

Let's just say the evening involved a bunny and Barton.

[cowdery]

You can't stop nostalgia. There will always be people who pine for the past, often for a past they never knew. I can tell you this. Back when I was just beginning my own journey of whiskey discovery, about 20 years ago, I asked some old-timers at Heaven Hill if there used to be more variety in the industry. They answered without hesitation. "No," they said, "there were more distilleries but they were all basically making the same thing."

[savagehenry]

Reminds me of Midnight in Paris. Owen Wilson goes back in time to the 1920s because he views that as the Golden Age, but the girl he meets in the '20s thinks the 1890's are the Golden Age etc....

The OP is right, now is the Golden Age of bourbon, because in 10-20 years we will be talking about how great it's used to be and in the 2050s people will talk of the 2030s as the good old days.

[Gillman]

I can show you guys something written in 1760 - 1760, a bare 40 years after the beer called porter or stout was invented! - saying nothing occasioned more dispute than the right way to make it (in other words there was no clear consensus on the right taste, on what was best). Every generation seems to write this for beer, wine, spirits, and of course often you read out and out that the current generation's product is not as good as the former's. With porter and stout again, you start reading this as early as 1820 or so.

However, we are very fortunate in the spirits world to be able to test this out due to whiskey not or hardly changing in the bottle. We read frequently of old bourbons being uncovered, from the 60's or 50's often. Some of the brands still exist or have close counterparts. Give comparative taste notes (I humbly invite). It is the only way to pin down whether things have really changed. Was there a plethora of palates in the old days, or not? Amongst those we can chronicle today, were some so outstanding that it can be said the "true" taste has been lost?

In my own experience of tasting ND OGD and the ditto OT, both of which you could buy off the retail shelf relatively easily (in non-control States) until the last few years, I'd say generally it was better than the equivalents today, yes. But there is a big but: a lot of bourbon was lower shelf back then. I believe the average standard today is as good or better. Plus, that is just two brands, from one company to boot.

A careful shopper indeed can show that these are the good old days, probably. I just bought a OF Signature that is excellent in every way and indeed better than numerous dimpled bonds from 20 years ago I've had. (But as to 40 and 50 years ago, I can't say).

But we need the constant input of taste comparisons, without that it is difficult to really know and memory can be misleading as e.g. recalling things tasted on the fly at a Gazebo not to mention tasting things - as some of us did - 20 and 30 years ago.

Gary

Edited April 1, 2013 by Gillman

[squire]

Chuck I believe distillery workers, like employees of other industrial concerns, are basically beer drinkers who don't make tasting notes.

[OscarV]

Oscar you're spot on...

Thanx Bob, here's more proof that the good old days are in the rear view mirror.

Click below.

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?19710-Another-proof-change-coming

[MauiSon]

I'm firmly in the title camp. I'm not interested in barrel-finishes or white dog, but I do appreciate the range of flavor-profiles and price-points. Not to forget the Rye resurgence, either.

[Dolph Lundgren]

I may be a little too young to reminisce about the "good ole times," but I feel as if times are pretty good right now. I love the experimentation (mashbills, blends, char, etc.) and barrel finishes with single malts. I have constant access to amazing whiskey (beyond PVW) at fair prices (VOB, FRSB, EWSB, HW, etc.).

I'm stocking up now for 20 years down the road...when I start complaining about how things were better "back in the day."

[cowdery]

Chuck I believe distillery workers, like employees of other industrial concerns, are basically beer drinkers who don't make tasting notes.

[squire]

Actually it was a distillery worker who told me that.

[LiveFromLou]

Distilleries employ many different kinds of workers. I wouldn't expect the guy who drives the truck to have any particular taste proficiency. But most people working the still, barreling, warehousing, and bottling know their bourbon in my experience.

[BAO]

Actually it was a distillery worker who told me that.

FIGHT!!!!!!!!!! Extra letters to meet minimum.

[Flyfish]

Starkist doesn't want tuna with good taste. Starkist wants tuna that tastes good.

A factor that no one has commented on is that, as we become older, our ability to smell and taste diminishes. In addition, medications such as beta blockers and our use of tobacco can further impair our taste receptors. That bourbon tasted better back in the day is not just a matter of nostalgia, it is a matter of physiology. Perhaps bourbon tasted better back then because we had better tasting apparatus back then. Of course, it is still possible that bourbon really did taste better back then.

[squire]

I'll take my nostalgia over ice, if you please.