How long does it take to make good bourbon?

[loki993]

Ok there are a few smaller craft distilleries in Michigan and even more coming soon. Most if not all of them either have or are planning on making some kind of Whisky or Bourbon. Here's the deal though how much time should people give it before they actually have good stuff? I figured it needs time in the barrel and things like that and how long does it need to be called straight bourbon? 2 years? Add to the fact that most of these are on at the higher price range due to their small batch mature and I hesitate to take a shot on them unless I know what I'm getting. How long does it really take to make good bourbon, I would imagine time in the barrel has to be a big factor right? I guess though thats where going to tastings come into play.

[PaulO]

If there is no age statement, straight bourbon has to be at least four years old. There are a small portion of bourbons that have age statements above twelve years. So, I would say four to twelve years, with much more being sold on the younger end. Also, we have to consider differences in climate. A cooler climate like MI may take more time.

[cowdery]

This is a subject of much discussion, a lot of which is bullshit. Most micro-distillers are faced with a dilemma. They rarely have enough capital, or patience, to put their product away for four years or more, so they try to come up with ways to make it drinkable at a younger age. At this, some have been more successful than others, but no product has been completely satisfying. The wisdom of the families and companies who have been doing this for a long time--several centuries in some cases--is that in a climate similar to Kentucky, it takes four years in new charred wood to make something you would like to drink. That, in itself, is a short cut compared to the minimum ten to twelve years it takes in chilly Scotland or Ireland. The short cut Americans came up with is new, charred oak. That made a different style of whiskey, of course, as did our use of corn and rye instead of barley malt. Looked at in that context, you can say today's micro-distillers are working on their own new style of whiskey, but it's a work in progress. Some are also trying to do it the old-fashioned way, although few have anything on the market that's more than two years old. Eventually, though, they will.

In Kentucky and Tennessee, the consensus is that four years is the minimum, five to six is better, eight to ten is optimum, and beyond ten you're again getting into a different, wood-heavy style, which is risky but can be superb.

[TheNovaMan]

Round Barn, down in Baroda, MI, has a bourbon they call Divine, and the most recent release was three years old. I haven't had any of that. The upcoming release will be six years old, and I want to try some.

Go here if you want little or no info: http://www.roundbarnwinery.com/distillery.php

The current MI liquor list has it as 90 proof, and 200mL is $5.58

Edit: the mashbill is 70% corn for sure, and I think 15% rye and 15% malted barley.

Edited April 6, 2013 by TheNovaMan

[VT Mike]

Barrel size plays an important factor as well. With smaller barrels there is more surface area (of the wood) relative to the volume of liquid inside, so the whiskey ages faster. I think some of the micro-distillers have taken this too far with unimpressive results, using 5 to 10 gallon barrels, maybe even smaller (the standard size is 53 gallons) and aging for very short time periods, I've heard some are down in the 3 month range.

[TheNovaMan]

That sounds like trying to break in a corncob pipe with a blowtorch.

[JB64]

That sounds like trying to break in a corncob pipe with a blowtorch.

You made me laugh Pete. I have not tried all available micros but all of the ones I have sampled not a one has been able to compare to the quality of the big boys. The micros I have tried have used various barrel sizes in an attempt to hasten the aging process. My opinion is that at least 4 years in a 53 gallon barrel is required to make a drinkable bourbon.

[TheNovaMan]

I think you're probably right, or very close to right. I mean, there's gotta be a little wiggle room, like 3.5 years in a 49 gallon barrel or something like that, but trying to do in three months what normally takes more than three years is more than an order of magnitude off.

[Brisko]

I have had bourbon that was "fully aged for thirty-six months" that was drinkable. Good would be a stretch. Realistically "decent" would be for years and "good" would be more like six to ten years old.

[OutlawSW]

Too long......................

[callmeox]

Barrel size plays an important factor as well. With smaller barrels there is more surface area (of the wood) relative to the volume of liquid inside, so the whiskey ages faster. I think some of the micro-distillers have taken this too far with unimpressive results, using 5 to 10 gallon barrels, maybe even smaller (the standard size is 53 gallons) and aging for very short time periods, I've heard some are down in the 3 month range.

This may sound like I'm picking nits, but small barrels don't age bourbon faster, they impart wood character faster. Interaction between the spirit and the barrel is just one factor in aging bourbon.

In other threads here it's been said that the new make can be tuned to properly age more quickly in smaller barrels, but I've yet to taste an impatient micro with a traditional bourbon profile.

[CoMobourbon]

I have had bourbon that was "fully aged for thirty-six months" that was drinkable. Good would be a stretch. Realistically "decent" would be for years and "good" would be more like six to ten years old.

I agree - exceptions notwithstanding. Like EWBIB, for example: I would claim that as "good" at around 4ish years.

[PaulO]

I enjoyed Early Times 354 Bourbon aged 36 months. As for micros, I have never read a single post with positive comments about anything that came out of a small barrel. If it was such a great short cut, everybody would do it.

[macdeffe]

I reckon its also a matter of number of casks

Having 1 million casks maturing gives you more to work with than having 50 or 100 casks

We all know the random cask can happen to be wonderful at an age you wouldn't expect it to be

From my tasting experience its hard to make a great whisky from a small cask,

There is many microdistilleries out there, but their amount of casks total is not a lot. I reckon we will see some great bourbons in the future, but by statistics it will not be a lot and it might be something not gatting on the radar as few people will actually taste it

I have part in a cask at las Vegas Distillery and I sampled that at 1yo. That was very very good and if it develops to something better its going to be real good at a relative low number of years

Steffen

[p_elliott]

These small barrels don't work you have to age it 4 years in a 53 gallon barrel at the least.

[squire]

Whisky can be made in less than four years but will be better at 6-8 years and there is no shortcut to the process.

[cowdery]

Barrel size plays an important factor as well. With smaller barrels there is more surface area (of the wood) relative to the volume of liquid inside, so the whiskey ages faster. I think some of the micro-distillers have taken this too far with unimpressive results, using 5 to 10 gallon barrels, maybe even smaller (the standard size is 53 gallons) and aging for very short time periods, I've heard some are down in the 3 month range.

This is a myth. Smaller barrels do not 'age faster.' The whiskey gains more color in a certain amount of time, and some of the flavor substances come into the spirit sooner, but the blanket statement that "the whiskey ages faster" is false. This is not to say, as someone did, that small barrels make lousy whiskey, necessarily. Small barrels can be a vehicle for creating this new style. However, a small barrel does not give you a balanced bourbon character in a shorter period of time, no matter how many times the small barrel apologists say it does.

Anything smaller than 10 gallons is a joke. Garrison Brothers gets good results from 15 gallon barrels. Thirty gallon barrels seem to function pretty close to the way 53 gallon barrels do. The problem with small barrels is that the whiskey is about as good as it's going to get in 2-3 years, at which time it might have some very good qualities but still won't taste like most people expect bourbon to taste. Then it starts to get overwooded while still having some white-dog taste in the background.

Edited April 6, 2013 by cowdery

[Parkersback]

The Old Forester BIB I've had that was made at DSP 414 is some of the best bourbon I've ever had and the bottle said that the whiskey "at least five years old." It could be that this was glut whiskey and so quite a bit older, but it reminds me to temper my own inclination to think that whiskey has to be 6 or 8 or even 10 years old to be worthwhile.

[VT Mike]

This may sound like I'm picking nits, but small barrels don't age bourbon faster, they impart wood character faster. Interaction between the spirit and the barrel is just one factor in aging bourbon.

In other threads here it's been said that the new make can be tuned to properly age more quickly in smaller barrels, but I've yet to taste an impatient micro with a traditional bourbon profile.

[SmoothAmbler]

I will tell you that we started in small barrels but haven't put away one in over a year. I prefer the taste of 53 gallon barrels. I do believe there are a few guys that do small barrel aging very well.

[tmckenzie]

we have been good with 10's, but the whiskey has to be made to suit them Most micros distill to much flavor out. That being said, we are putting 99 percent of what we make in 53's.

[PaulO]

... small barrel apologists ...

I think that is a great new phrase. :slappin:

[squire]

Yeah, since when did mine is smaller mean a good thing.

[loki993]

Round Barn, down in Baroda, MI, has a bourbon they call Divine, and the most recent release was three years old. I haven't had any of that. The upcoming release will be six years old, and I want to try some.

Go here if you want little or no info: http://www.roundbarnwinery.com/distillery.php

The current MI liquor list has it as 90 proof, and 200mL is $5.58

Edit: the mashbill is 70% corn for sure, and I think 15% rye and 15% malted barley.

The 6 year sounds like it could be interesting.

It is an interesting dilemma, you all basically said what I figured though. You have something that takes time, usually a lot of time, to make and they don't usually have the money and definitely not the time to have stuff sitting in barrels for years. A lot of them don't start with whisky though either. Vodka seems the be the thing, and we have some good vodkas here I hear. I guess I just thought maybe they start with something like vodka, then drop the whisky/bourbon let it age and release it later. Still that's probably a fair bit of juice and money to sit on for that long.

I've just heard of a few, Traverse city I've heard people say is good. Grand Traverse is making one now and Valentine is also making one now too, but its just in the tasting room right now. Seems like stuff you may want to try at the tasting room or get a pour of but probably not spend the money on a whole bottle.

[cowdery]

I will tell you that we started in small barrels but haven't put away one in over a year. I prefer the taste of 53 gallon barrels. I do believe there are a few guys that do small barrel aging very well.

That's exactly where I have arrived on this subject.

Most of all, though, my complaint is not so much with what people do as it is with what they say about it. Small barrels don't really speed up anything. They age whiskey differently. Describe those differences honestly and you'll have no quarrel with me.