The Wisdom of Years

[squire]

Following Gary's suggestion I'm starting this thread on why whisky should be aged. I'll start with an admonition from the late Booker Noe who said, "Bourbon needs to be at least 4 years old to be fit to drink".

[Kyjd75]

Following Gary's suggestion I'm starting this thread on why whisky should be aged. I'll start with an admonition from the late Booker Noe who said, "Bourbon needs to be at least 4 years old to be fit to drink".

Well, of course the common logic or thought is that whiskey derives much of its taste, and all of its color from interacting with the barrel. How long it needs to be in a particular barrel to accomplish the goals of the distiller depends on a lot of other things that are not always controllable by man. I feel more confident that an "aged" whiskey will be more likely to have the taste I am looking for than a NAS whiskey. But I have had NAS whiskeys that are really good. Maybe that is why distilling is still as much an art as it is science.

[squire]

It's certainly not an exact science. In interviews different Master Distillers have opined they believe the barrel contributes most of the flavor of the finished Bourbon and estimates (depending on who you're talking to) range from 60 to 80%.

That's a broad range but it's no exaggeration to say the barrel is what makes it Bourbon.

[Gillman]

I agree with Booker, but is that the optimum time (4 years)? Is everything after to borrow a legal expression, surplusage?

Gary

P.S. Ironically the grammar correction feature of my operating system suggested "surplus age" as a substitute for the legal term surplusage, which simply means, something extra not needed.

[keith18]

All I can say is that I prefer whiskey aged four years or more. There's an upper limit that is highly dependent on a bunch of different variables, but I can't recall really enjoying anything under 4 years. That doesn't mean there is something out there under 4 years that is good.

[Gillman]

I agree. What I find in the <4 year products is not the chemical taste - it ages out in 3 years and perhaps 2 - but a waxy, corn oil taste. This gets transmuted into something different with a year or two further age. But after that, what more is needed/desirable?

Putting the question a different way, is it possible VOB 6 years old was better than VOB when it was 8 years old?

Gary

[Paddy]

In my opinion 8 to 6 did not hurt it at all, as it had the same oily, luscious mouth feel and flavor profile.

[squire]

Gary, Mr. Booker was referring to the minimum age at which he considered Bourbon "fit to drink". His personal preference was for a bit older, say 6+.

[LCWoody]

Bourbon does need some time in the barrel for the taste profile I like, but age stated bourbon is not a must have to me. Yes I do like to know what I'm drinking and how old (but not necessary as long as I like it). One that comes to mind is EHT Warehouse C. I think it was 9 to 11 year bourbon, but to me very good.

It makes me wonder to how the direct sun light effected the taste of that bourbon.

[squire]

Yes, the barrels on the edge of the tier that receive direct sunlight do age differently. I wish the majors would allow some of their experienced warehousemen to post here.

[VAGentleman]

Not all whiskey needs to be aged. I've had some pretty gosh darn good moonshine over the years. Good times