Rare Breed used to be better

[BigBoldBully]

As for when Rare Breed was better, the only bottle I had before 2012 was one I bought around 2005 (not sure how long it had been on the shelf, but it was the contemporary batch number). Still had a little left in 2012, and to my rather inexperienced senses it was both more flavorful and more complex than the newer bottles.

[smknjoe]

Here is a thread with the different batch numbers. It seems like there's another one I'm missing though. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?6443-A-particular-Wild-Turkey-Rare-Breed-question&p=77075&viewfull=1#post77075

[T Comp]

Because it had older whiskey in it back in its older days.

[fussychicken]

While I totally understand why the producer's accountants would want to increase barrel entry proof to the max of 125, I still don't quite get why you would distill past 125. (up to 160) I wouldn't think you would be saving any money there.

If you distill up to 160, you have to come up with a large amount of clean water to use to get your proof back down to 125. Why not use the water that was in the wash to begin with?

A few theories I can think of:

1. Even at 125 proof you actually don't have a "perfect" distillation and still leave some alcohol behind in the doubler

2. This is done on purpose for flavor reasons to make the bourbon more approachable since it has less flavor, aka less intense (mental holdout from the scare from the bourbon glut days when Vodka was king)

I think #2 is highly unlikely, but besides those two I can't figure it out. Can any of the experts help?

[MauiSon]

I'll just move on to the other thread.

Edited February 4, 2014 by MauiSon

[shoshani]

When Bernheim came on line in 1992 it was a state of the art place yet the Master Distiller argued against higher barrel entry proof saying there was no real difference between 110 and 112 and very little difference between 112 and 114 but there was a noticeable difference between 110 and 114.

That would've been Ed Foote. Is he still alive? That's the sort of thing someone should record as a written or oral history and put as a sticky somewhere here.

Site note regarding WT: as I understand it, the reason they increased their barrel entry within the past few years was that they were getting barrels that had lost proof, and were actually underproof. Now that they have a new distillery and warehouses, I wonder if they've gone back to earlier levels. My guess is they haven't, because that sort of change is rarely undone.

[T Comp]

That would've been Ed Foote. Is he still alive? That's the sort of thing someone should record as a written or oral history and put as a sticky somewhere here.

As Mr. Winter sings...still alive and well...at the Kentucky Derby museum on 3/6 with Fren Minnick.

http://www.derbymuseum.org/

[squire]

Site note regarding WT: as I understand it, the reason they increased their barrel entry within the past few years was that they were getting barrels that had lost proof, and were actually underproof.

I believe that's the same reason they gave for using the barrel entry proof of 103 some years ago.

[bingstein]

To me this doesn't seem to be rocket science. It seems that 2 forces are working together to decrease the quality of recent WTRB: younger juice and higher barrel entry proof. I know very little about the latter, but the former is all too common, the only difference being that WTRB was never age stated, otherwise WT would have almost certainly removed it by now. The older RBs I've had tasted much more like WT12 and WT8 at a higher proof. The newer stuff tastes more like a later WT Old No. 8 at a higher proof.

[Oboe Cadobro]

Is there any way to discern later batches of "WT 03RB" from earlier releases? Laser code on bottle, for example?

[squire]

To me this doesn't seem to be rocket science. It seems that 2 forces are working together to decrease the quality of recent WTRB: younger juice and higher barrel entry proof. . . . The older RBs I've had tasted much more like WT12 and WT8 at a higher proof. The newer stuff tastes more like a later WT Old No. 8 at a higher proof.

A little bit of 8, a touch of 12 and a whole lot of 6.

[bingstein]

A little bit of 8, a touch of 12 and a whole lot of 6.

Exactly. The 1997ish WT Old No. 8 tasted like the modern 101 with just a pinch of age on it. The current RBs taste the same to me, but with a bigger kick bc of the higher proof. The older WTRBs tasted like punchier WT8s.

[smknjoe]

It's my favorite Turkey. I haven't had any batches newer than 99 though.

[Oboe Cadobro]

It's my favorite Turkey. I haven't had any batches newer than 99 though.

Sounds like an opportunity to buy a recent release bottle, do a heads-up taste test, and tell us the results! :drinking:

[smknjoe]

I can grab a 50ml the next time I go to the store. I wonder if they put whiskey in there that's younger than 6?

[squire]

If they did they would have to say that on the label.

[bingstein]

If they did they would have to say that on the label.

Thought that was younger than 4?

[squire]

If there is an age statement on the label (Rare Breed states it is a mixture of 6-8-12 year olds) then it must list the age of the youngest whisky in the bottle.

[bingstein]

If there is an age statement on the label (Rare Breed states it is a mixture of 6-8-12 year olds) then it must list the age of the youngest whisky in the bottle.

Oh duh. I didn't even know it said that on the bottle.

[squire]

On the back label.

[gblick]

Is there any way to discern later batches of "WT 03RB" from earlier releases? Laser code on bottle, for example?

[tmckenzie]

While I totally understand why the producer's accountants would want to increase barrel entry proof to the max of 125, I still don't quite get why you would distill past 125. (up to 160) I wouldn't think you would be saving any money there.

If you distill up to 160, you have to come up with a large amount of clean water to use to get your proof back down to 125. Why not use the water that was in the wash to begin with?

A few theories I can think of:

1. Even at 125 proof you actually don't have a "perfect" distillation and still leave some alcohol behind in the doubler

2. This is done on purpose for flavor reasons to make the bourbon more approachable since it has less flavor, aka less intense (mental holdout from the scare from the bourbon glut days when Vodka was king)

I think #2 is highly unlikely, but besides those two I can't figure it out. Can any of the experts help?

Number two is one of the main reasons they do not switch back to lower proof. The stuff started selling again about the time the lighter product became available.

It costs more to run a still at low proof. Two ways to do it. Slow down the beer feed and leaving the steam alone. Or leaving beer feed the same and increasing steam. Both cost money. More steam or taking longer to distill. Or you can design the stills to run low. I can pull straight off the beer still and go to the thumper. Makes beautiful stuff at about 103 proof or so, and will not run much higher no matter what you do.

[squire]

Thanks Tom, your insights are always appreciated.

That brings up a point that occasionally gets touched on around here which is are we in step with the buying public? I think not, actually I believe for the most part modern tastes have turned toward a lighter product, except for the high end of course but I think there most customers are expecting something 'moreish' or are buying a label and accepting what they get.

To get a taste of the real stuff in the future we true believers may have to look to micros such as Finger Lakes.

Edited February 5, 2014 by squire

[shoshani]

That brings up a point that occasionally gets touched on around here which is are we in step with the buying public? I think not, actually I believe for the most part modern tastes have turned toward a lighter product, except for the high end of course but I think there most customers are expecting something 'moreish' or are buying a label and accepting what they get.

To get a taste of the real stuff in the future we true believers may have to look to micros such as Finger Lakes.

Tom's post brought up another point in my mind, which is this: the stills themselves. Small guys like Finger Lakes use all-copper stills, but what's the number of working stills in the industrial plants that are copper as opposed to stainless steel? From what I understand, that in itself makes quite a difference in the flavor of the distillate.

[squire]

That's my understanding as well and unfortunately the all copper column still is a remembrance of the past. What the Kentucky distillers do today (and others around the World I suppose) is load the interior of the stainless columns with scrap copper over which the alcohol vapor flows.

I don't know if the all copper still at Stitzel-Weller is still usable, it will be interesting to see if Diageo refurbishes that along with the distillery.