Perceptions and Reality

[squire]

Gary asked why does the public associate long age in spirits with quality and whether that's logical.

I don't think logic enters into it, rather it's intuitive. If someone holds up a bottle of whisky and proclaims 'It's 20 years old and cost a pretty penny' it just seems he is correct because it sounds right.

[Gillman]

Thanks for continuing this discussion here Squire. I mean, we are all agreed I'm sure (except some craft distillers?) that aging of straight whiskey is done to remove the white dog flavour with … something else. But the white dog chemical taste is pretty much absent after about 3 years. After that, what do you get? Wood, char, red layer gums, all good I guess, but how long is proper? Is 20 years the best of them all, 30, 15? Does it depend on the type of straight whiskey?

Gary

[theglobalguy]

Being newish to bourbon (<5 years from first sip of Makers), the marketing seems to imply older = better. And with older also generally costing more, you have that confirmation as a customer that product B must be better than product A since it's both older and they're charging more for it.

Call it product positioning, but without the difference in ages I would have never chosen some of the bottles I did early in my journey.

[Gillman]

Well put, but is that the correct way to approach it, i.e., from a palate point of view? The distillers take this for granted - except when going NAS - but it seems to me the logic of the approach breaks down at a certain point.

Gray

[theglobalguy]

I think the "try it first" approach is becoming far easier. More and more stores with tasting bars and events. More bars stocking whiskey, some of which at reasonable rates.

I wouldn't buy half what I did early on if i was just getting into it. How's that adage go, easy to sell one of anything to someone....a lot tougher to get them to buy a second.

[tylermke]

For those new to whiskey, I believe the perception is imparted by traits which make wine and scotch more desirable. With those two categories, age correlates to quality more seamlessly IMO.

To echo a previous comment, I remember giving preferential treatment to an age-stated bottle early in my bourbon career when looking for something to purchase. My first purchase was an ER10 over a standard BT bottle simply due to the age statement. Both were recommended to me, but the ER10 stood out for that reason.

[393foureyedfox]

based on the 25 or so bourbons ive tried so far, I have come to some conclusions. 4 years is okay, 6-9 years is best (to me), and beyond 10 years starts 'over-maturing it' to me. So, I generally am influenced by the 6-9 year age statements, and those get heavier consideration by me when i am standing in the bourbon aisle looking for something new to try.

I also give some basis to my interpretation of the distillery that produced it. I love the tours and the sightseeing at BT, but they've gotten some black eyes lately in my book, that may unfairly biased me against them when making decisions. How distilleries handle shortages and age statements also affects my decisions. I've pretty much decided against any future NDPs as well.

Im sure everyone judges things by their own priorities and stnadards, and they are likely to differ by what each person determines is the most important, or, of no importance

but yeah, age statements matter, to a point.

If you face shortages as a distiller, you can drop age statements of ration it out. If you drop the age statement, everyone loses. If you ration it out, it is still available, just harder to find, and the prices rise. I support option B.

Edited December 29, 2013 by 393foureyedfox

[oke&coke]

I think cultural preferences also play a big part. For example, in Japan age is more revered in people so that carries over into their thinking with whiskey.

[squire]

Gary I think of the proper aging length of time for a Bourbon as being governed by a complex series of physical, chemical and microbiological changes that occur over a fairly natural period of time. By two years the whisky has received most of it's color, by six it is rounded, smooth and just about as favorable as it's going to get, and by eight it has received all the barrel has to give and is as balanced as it will be.

Of course there are exceptions, barrels in the lowest, coolest spots of the warehouse will age slower, even lose some proof and may become tannic before reaching maturity. Barrels in the hottest, top tiers will sizzle in the summer heat, increase in proof and may be heavy for profile by the time they're four.

[mbroo5880i]

I feel like I have a much better understanding of the impact of aging based on where it is aged. Not sure what 4 years of aging in Oregon means, but I have a pretty good idea what 4 years of aging in Kentucky will produce.

[squire]

Depends on what part of the State the barrel is aged I should think. Oregon has some of the most diverse ecoregions in the Nation.

[compliance]

I'll take the mantle of age whore here if no one else will come out and say it. I believe older bourbons are generally better. Everyone has tasted an over aged bourbon, but that doesn't mean that bourbons can't be better as they get older. There will be mediocre or worse barrels at any age. It's up to the producer to make sure the aged expressions are presenting at their best. I think that the ceiling of how good a bourbon can get is higher when the age gets up around 15 to 20. I like the leathery wood flavors and I've tasted far more bourbon I thought was too young than too old.

Edited December 29, 2013 by compliance

[Gillman]

Sounds right (the Squire's last comments) by my lights but many devotees of very aged whiskeys will demur as e.g. the post immediately below. My question is, why does aging past 8 years, say, improve the bourbon? What does it give it other than more woody taste? (Or is that good unto itself?).

Gary

Edited December 30, 2013 by Gillman

[mbroo5880i]

Let me follow squire's original question with a follow up question. Does whether it is a wheater or rye-based bourbon make a difference?

[squire]

Yes it does, the wheat recipe Pappy used was developed specifically to mature Bourbon faster as he (and others) believed rye recipe Bourbons took longer.

[mbroo5880i]

Yes it does, the wheat recipe Pappy used was developed specifically to mature Bourbon faster as he (and others) believed rye recipe Bourbons took longer.

So would a younger wheater equate to an older rye bourbon (e.g., a 5 year old v. 7 year)? What about an older wheater like PVW20 v. EC18? It seems like EC18 is more hit and miss when compared to PVW20? I seems difficult to compare since the characteristics can differ significantly.

Edited December 30, 2013 by mbroo5880i

[Gillman]

Very hard to say I think, too many variables.

Gary

[sutton]

I don't mind NAS bottlings when distilleries disclose at least something of what ages comprise the bourbon (like Rare Breed), or when distillers will give you more information on generally when a particular brand falls into the taste window (like ETL, which I think they have said is generally around 9 yrs). It gives you some information to calibrate your experience against before making a purchase.

As to whether or not age is relevant - in another thread we discussed barrel entry proof and its effects on aging, barrel extraction, mouthfeel and flavor. Did lower barrel entry proofs come into balance at a younger age than today's higher entry proofs, which might take longer to achieve the same balance?

Perhaps preference for age statements has its roots in that some of those without a long history with the product have not experienced "mature" flavors in young bourbon not only due to the "glut" effect, but that most of us haven't experienced bourbons that had lower barrel entry proofs and thus were quite balanced at younger ages?

[squire]

Yes, lower barrel entry proofs made for an earlier maturing whisky. I don't think higher entry proofs achieve the same effect with longer aging. An approximation perhaps but not the same because higher entry proof means a higher percentage of water being used to bring the finished whisky down to bottling strength.

For instance a whisky entered at 105 will need far less dilution than one enter at 125 if the final bottle strength is 100 proof.

[WhiskyRI]

I like both young and old whisky for different reasons at different times. I've had great 4 year old ryes that I reached for night after night until the bottle was gone. I've also love some older bourbons because their mouthfeel and flavor are simply amazing. I do generally like what age does to a whisky - although I've had private selections of younger brands that blew me away. For me the sweet spot seems to regular be somewhere between 8-12 years for a variety of reasons - flavor and budget being among them. But to be honest I don't focus on age per se all that much.

[PaulO]

Age and proof are two numbers on a label that have to be true. If I didn't know anything about a brand; these two numbers would do a lot to determine how interesting it was. Big numbers don't 100% mean something has to be good, but a lot of good stuff has the bigger numbers. On the other hand, something unfamiliar NAS 80 proof; not very interesting.

[Flyfish]

Age and proof are two numbers on a label that have to be true. If I didn't know anything about a brand; these two numbers would do a lot to determine how interesting it was. Big numbers don't 100% mean something has to be good, but a lot of good stuff has the bigger numbers. On the other hand, something unfamiliar NAS 80 proof; not very interesting.

Wasn't the whole point of the BIB regulations to set some standards? If your bottle says "Bonded," you have a decent shot at getting "the good stuff."

[393foureyedfox]

Wasn't the whole point of the BIB regulations to set some standards? If your bottle says "Bonded," you have a decent shot at getting "the good stuff."

true

but, i imagine we ended up with additional age (VOB 6 year, HH 6 year, OGD 8 year, etc) due to the whiskey glut of days that have passed, since then the distilleries were competing with each other to make their BIB's seem more appealing than that of their competitor. "VOB is making their BIB 6 years? well, we will make ours 6 years, maybe even 8 years".....

now that there is no longer a glut, but instead the opposite, those age statements are dropping and theyre all gonna eventually end up being un-age stated, or basically, back to the original concept of "4 years, 100 proof, guaranteed"

load up

[callmeox]

Wasn't the whole point of the BIB regulations to set some standards? If your bottle says "Bonded," you have a decent shot at getting "the good stuff."

Chuck's book has a great description of the need for the Bottled in Bond act leading up to it's passage. So much of what was being sold as straight whiskey was flavored and colored crap that being "bonded" was the equivalent of a seal of authenticity. Nothing adulterated in the bottle, no wood alcohol colored with shoe polish, etc.

That's how it became known as The Good Stuff.

[theglobalguy]

Nothing adulterated in the bottle, no wood alcohol colored with shoe polish, etc.

Puts things into perspective....here I'm worried it may be a bit younger whiskey, and not whether drinking it kills me instantly