Barrel Proof?

[Jackinbox]

Here's an interview from last year where Jimmy Russell talks about the proof of the barrel entry and then he talks about Rare Breed. Go to about 18:45.

[fricky]

It is unavailable. Can you summarize what he said about Rare Breed?

[smknjoe]

He says "when it's called barrel proof you're not allowed to add any water to it."

Edit: and Rare Breed is one of my favorites too fricky. I like viscous bourbons and RB fits the bill.

Edited October 4, 2013 by smknjoe

[Jackinbox]

It is unavailable. Can you summarize what he said about Rare Breed?

Try this direct link:

In short he says they put WT in the barrel at around 110.

Regarding Rare Breed, he says:

"Our barrel proof bourbon is only running somewhere between 108-112. When it says "Barrel Proof" you aren't allowed to add any water to it. Our next batch, what we've been looking at is going to come out around 111.1"

[Gillman]

I think ti's pretty clear, unless a "fly on the wall" will tell us differently.

Also, I didn't listen to the link, but if Jimmy is talking currently about 110 entry, I believe he is referring to matured stocks that are available for his bottlings, not stocks to be bottled 6-12 years hence (unless what Chuck stated about a switch to 115 entry didn't in fact occur some years back).

Gary

Edited October 4, 2013 by Gillman

[smokinjoe]

Especially when they mix bourbon and rye barrels by "accident" :slappin:

Now, that gave me a good chuckle. Well played.

[kickert]

To be clear, I am not saying that WTRB is cut with water, what I am saying is that it would be possible and legal for a distillery like WT to call something Barrel Proof, even if they were adding water.

Even if Jimmy is telling the truth, I think we all know that Distillery websites, backs of labels, and distillery spokespeople are not always the most reliable source of accurate information. Now... if you will pass me a glass of hand-made Indiana Whiskey carefully crafted in the basement of some warehouse using great uncle so-and-so secret recipe.

[GaryT]

I'm still in shock on the "alleged" news regarding Santa.

Not to insinuate that Jimmy would be less than honest, I would think that it would be difficult to hit that target proof consistently AND have the same flavor profile (maybe they don't?) Is there any age statement on WTRB? He mentions that the proof goes up over time (which in other threads we've talked how that is true in the upper flows, but not necessarily on the lower floors), so if they're going in at 110, adding any barrels that are a couple ricks up or more makes it difficult unless you've got a lot at that lower level (or - unless you're cutting a bit). With 0.2 proof points of variance on either side (so a spread of 0.4), I think it certainly is possible - although if there is no legal requirement to go through that, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that they do their best, and a little water "accidentally" falls into the batch to bring it in that range.

Then again - at the end of the day, I enjoy it so whatever they're doing is fine by me

[Gillman]

It's also worth noting that Jimmy said (I've now viewed it) they have half a million barrels aging in inventory - that's a lot of barrels to choose from. Most too would not be honey barrels and a decent chunk of those would lose proof over time. They would know by location the approximate proof of the barrels before making their batches. Anyway we are agreed clearly RB is an excellent product, their best IMO, which is the important point.

I think it is this interview where he says something very funny, that when he started, quality control wasn't what it is today. At that time (early 50's), the QC was you'd go out to see if it was going to rain, stuff like that.

Gary

[Gillman]

One other point of interest, aside the main discussion here, is where he refers to straightbourbon.com and indicates the main change from the early days is that production is not solely an in-house matter any more. There used to be a dividing line between, as he said, those "in production" and those who consumed. Now, the line is less distinct due to groups like SB which display considerable technical knowledge and interest in the topic. Jimmy Russell is obviously a bright guy with a total commitment to his art, and he gets it across with deep charm and a naturalness which clearly has assisted to keep his career going for so long.

Gary

[Flyfish]

Is there any age statement on WTRB?

NAS on the bottle. The website (reliable information??) says they mingle 6, 8, and 12 YO in WTRB. WT101 is 6, 7, and 8. There is, of course, no indication of how much of which. They probably use as much of the 6 as they can while still coming "close enough" to the flavor profile the market requires.

[jburlowski]

Another possible explanation (although I'm sceptical), is that they "make" WTRB infrequently. Theoretically, you you could vat a big batch at, say 108.2 proof, and tank it for subsequent bottling and sale. Depending on the sales volume, you could then distribute a single batch over an extended period of time ---- possibly over years. (In the video Jimmy talks about "ournext batch" coming in at the higher proof.)

[B.B. Babington]

Another possible explanation (although I'm sceptical), is that they "make" WTRB infrequently. Theoretically, you you could vat a big batch at, say 108.2 proof, and tank it for subsequent bottling and sale. Depending on the sales volume, you could then distribute a single batch over an extended period of time ---- possibly over years. (In the video Jimmy talks about "ournext batch" coming in at the higher proof.)

that's an interesting thought. with a company with large production facilities, doing it that way makes a lot of sense for efficiency and cost savings.

[HighInTheMtns]

that's an interesting thought. with a company with large production facilities, doing it that way makes a lot of sense for efficiency and cost savings.

If this is the case, they are running on 11 years of the same batch, for a widely released item. Besides simple volume, it requires that Wild Turkey would have had enough whiskey all at the same time to make that batch.

[squire]

Perhaps 108.2 is the lowest proof of some of the barrels in the mix.

[callmeox]

Perhaps 108.2 is the lowest proof of some of the barrels in the mix.

Asked and answered upthread. Ben sez bottle proof needs to be +/- .2 units of label proof.

[Gillman]

As I read it, it is actually .15% ABV. See section 5.37((3):

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=33fc0c0194b58b6fe95208945b5c637a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=27%3a1.0.1.1.3;idno=27;cc=ecfr#27:1.0.1.1.3.5.25.10

The Department's "Beverage Alcohol Manual" states the same thing.

That would be .3% proof. It's not a huge amount clearly, but increasingly I'm inclining to John B's view of it.

Gary

[squire]

Thanks Gary, good reference though I lasted but two paragraphs then bookmarked it, I can only take so much law in the morning.

[kickert]

Thanks for pointing us back to the actual regulations. However, I find it is actually a bit more technical that what we have discussed.

TTB is concerned with taxes and they collect those taxes based on proof-gallons leaving a bonded warehouse. As mentioned before, a proof gallon is the equivalent amount of spirit converted to 100 proof. So, a gallon of 80 proof whiskey would be considered .8 proof gallons. Likewise, two gallons of spirit at 150 proof would be considered 3 proof gallons.

Technical, there is no allowable variance in proof. What TTB does allow for is potential loss of alcohol during bottling. You are allowed to lose .15% alcohol by volume. The reason it is not plus-or-minus 0.15% (only minus) is because the variance allowed is only for loss. You are not allowed to gain any alcohol in bottling -- again, they tax alcohol leaving, and they don't believe there is any circumstance where more taxable product should leave your warehouse than what you report.

There are two ways you can have a loss of ABV: loss of quantity or loss of proof -- both of which can happen through evaporation during bottling. So ultimately, this regulation is related to volume and proof. In regards to volume, you are allowed to lose 1.125ml of a 750ml bottle in the bottling process assuming your proof is dead on (750ml x 0.15%). That is true regardless of bottling proof.

In regards to allowed variances in final proof, it actually comes down to the declared proof of the spirit you are bottling. Let's try to keep the math easy. If you have 1L of 100 proof spirit, the label is promising 500ml of alcohol. You are allowed to lose 0.15% of that (0.75ml) which would leave you with 499.25 ml of alcohol. If you fill level was dead on, then your proof is considered acceptable at 99.85 proof (499.25/1000*200). So in this case, you are only allowed a variance of 0.15 proof points. If you do the math with different proofs, you get slightly different allowed variances. For instance if you are bottling 1L of 150 proof spirits, you are allowed to "lose" 1.125ml of straight alcohol (750ml of straight alcohol * 0.15%). That translates into an allowed proof lose of 0.225 proof points. At 80 proof, you can "lose" 0.12 proof points.

It is a complicated set of formulas, but you have to remember how TTB is set up and what they are ultimately concerned about (Proof gallons!).

Of course, I guess I could have just said that "TTB does not allow for variances in proof, expect for in very negligible circumstances."

Ahh the joys of government bureaucracy in the booze industry.

Edited October 8, 2013 by kickert
Typo

[shoshani]

Here's an interview from last year where Jimmy Russell talks about the proof of the barrel entry and then he talks about Rare Breed. Go to about 18:45.

[smknjoe]

OWA was originally sold as a barrel proof if I remember correctly. And weren't some of the VSOFs from 50's and 60's barrel proofers (I know some of them were north of 120 proof)?

[Gillman]

There are barrel proofs (under that name) going back to the Thirties.

Gary

[squire]

Yes, 107 was the barrel proof for Weller back then, wish it still was.

[Gillman]

Another barrel proof was Old Overholt, one was issued in the late 30's and a similar one (in a pine presentation box) in the 60's. They had a "hand-scripted" label. These are very rare and I've never seen one, even at Gazebos, but I've seen pics online.

Gary

[Jackinbox]

Interestingly, Jimmy says that Booker's and Rare Breed were the first barrel proof bourbons. This isn't necessarily so; Old Grand-Dad was selling 114 as barrel proof back in the 1980s. Of course, barrel proof is slightly higher today...

It sounds like Jimmy's a great storyteller, but a tad bit loose with the facts?