Effects of Lower Barrel Proof On Aging?

[ramblinman]

The distilling technology post made me curious. In the old days when distillers did barrel entry at much lower proofs there wasn't much in the way of really old bourbon. Back then the age stated stuff ended around 10-12 years, correct?

Does the lower entry proof let the bourbon pick up barrel flavors and age quicker or was the longer aged stuff just something the market wasn't interested in?

Are any of the craft(y) distillers looking at going back to lower entry or are the economics unlikely for that to work for the small time any more than the big time?

[mosugoji64]

The distilling technology post made me curious. In the old days when distillers did barrel entry at much lower proofs there wasn't much in the way of really old bourbon. Back then the age stated stuff ended around 10-12 years, correct?

Does the lower entry proof let the bourbon pick up barrel flavors and age quicker or was the longer aged stuff just something the market wasn't interested in?

Are any of the craft(y) distillers looking at going back to lower entry or are the economics unlikely for that to work for the small time any more than the big time?

From what I gather, it's a little of both. A higher percentage of water in the distillate will pull different flavors from the barrel than alcohol. Some components are more soluble in water than alcohol and vice-versa. Additionally, our collective tastes have changed. People are more interested in the flavor of extra-aged American whiskey than they used to be. The Japanese, however, have long enjoyed extra-aged whiskey and the distillers were happy to send whiskey considered past its prime here over there where people enjoyed more barrel influence.

Some craft distillers are working with lower entry proofs and are producing whiskies that sound promising and should be very tasty when they mature.

Edited February 4, 2014 by mosugoji64

[squire]

Does the lower entry proof let the bourbon pick up barrel flavors and age quicker or was the longer aged stuff just something the market wasn't interested in?

Are any of the craft(y) distillers looking at going back to lower entry or are the economics unlikely for that to work for the small time any more than the big time?

Correct on both counts. Bourbon back then was fully aged between 4-6 years as a number of tastings conducted by members here have shown. Todd Leupold at Leupold Bros and Tom McKenzie at Finger Lakes are making low proof off the still and into the barrel whiskys in the traditional style and I am patiently awaiting the results.

[Pikesville]

The distilling technology post made me curious. In the old days when distillers did barrel entry at much lower proofs there wasn't much in the way of really old bourbon. Back then the age stated stuff ended around 10-12 years, correct?

Does the lower entry proof let the bourbon pick up barrel flavors and age quicker or was the longer aged stuff just something the market wasn't interested in?

Are any of the craft(y) distillers looking at going back to lower entry or are the economics unlikely for that to work for the small time any more than the big time?

Assuming the whiskey coming out of the barrel is "cut-back" to 80-100 proof with water before bottling, I speculate that more molecules of barrel flavor make into the final bottle if you have a lower entry-proof. So for a given aging period, lower entry-proof distillate would give more barrel flavor than a higher entry spirit. Higher-proof going in would need longer to achieve similar barrel taste. It's a theory at least, I've no specific experience to point to.

I recall reading that the higher entry proofs were a question of both simple economics (fewer barrels needed for a given output of 80 proof final product) and posibly some more arcane tax logic as well.

[VAGentleman]

Correct on both counts. Bourbon back then was fully aged between 4-6 years as a number of tastings conducted by members here have shown. Todd Leupold at Leupold Bros and Tom McKenzie at Finger Lakes are making low proof off the still and into the barrel whiskys in the traditional style and I am patiently awaiting the results.

[sailor22]

The proof off the still was much lower as was the barrel entry proof. One would expect the white dog had more grain flavors because of the lower proof. If some of the numbers I have read are correct it's not likely much water at all was added at barrel entry.

Is the ratio of water to spirit going into the barrel higher today? Probably.

[squire]

Yes, there are others, Cheryl at Delaware Phoenix is doing some interesting hand crafted 1830s style stuff but she ages it less than a year. Todd and Tom both post here and they're aging some whisky more to my interest.

[squire]

Assuming the whiskey coming out of the barrel is "cut-back" to 80-100 proof with water before bottling, I speculate that more molecules of barrel flavor make into the final bottle if you have a lower entry-proof. So for a given aging period, lower entry-proof distillate would give more barrel flavor than a higher entry spirit. Higher-proof going in would need longer to achieve similar barrel taste. It's a theory at least, I've no specific experience to point to.

[black mamba]

I think of it as the alcohol is more impervious to change. So the lower the entry proof into the barrel makes the whiskey more changeable by the barrel through time, and the lower the proof out of the barrel means less water has to be added to reach bottle proof, leaving a higher percentage of changed/improved whiskey to water. Both increase flavor.

[Flyfish]

Bourbon back then was fully aged between 4-6 years...

Note that Very Old Barton was only six years old. At that age it was 50% older than "the good stuff" (BIB) that came in at 4YO

[sailor22]

This post over at David's K&L blog titled "Rum Super Geekdom" is on point relative this discussion and about how flavors are created and pulled from the wood. Way more chemistry than I typically enjoy but this is the sort of thing I was hoping we would see more of from Craft Distillers. It's interesting that after all his talk about concentrating flavor molecules and efficently getting more into the spirit the product he is selling is primarily a mixing Rum, not a sipper.

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/

[squire]

After reading that I'm glad Bourbon producers don't use Dunder.

[sailor22]

Gives meaning to the term "Dunderhead".

And new understanding relative the Bat on the Bacardi logo.

Edited February 6, 2014 by sailor22

[squire]

I understand it also makes good fertilizer.

[Pikesville]

Wow, I need to dust off my chemistry textbook. And maybe buy some of that guy's rum.

[HighHorse]

You can though point to guys like Jim Rutledge who do have the experience and agree with you.

Agreed. He tends to lower proofs off the still ... as does Jimmy Russell. They'll each tell you that it cost more to make it that way but they think it a value as it has better flavor.

I guess the drinkers decide.

[Conquistador]

This post over at David's K&L blog titled "Rum Super Geekdom" is on point relative this discussion and about how flavors are created and pulled from the wood. Way more chemistry than I typically enjoy but this is the sort of thing I was hoping we would see more of from Craft Distillers. It's interesting that after all his talk about concentrating flavor molecules and efficently getting more into the spirit the product he is selling is primarily a mixing Rum, not a sipper.

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/

He's also distilling whiskey. Not bourbon, but rather peated whiskey. I suppose he uses similar techniques for distilling and aging his whiskies. I've never had any of Lost Spirits Distillery's products (hmm, just realized their initials are LSD :grin:), but I've heard good things about their whiskies.

The article was informative, to me at least, even though I always got lousy grades in chemistry class. There has been a lot of discussion on this board about how the big boys have increased proof of the still over time, and sacrificed mouth-feel and flavor profile (but partially regaining some flavor by longer barrel aging, and perhaps higher/barrel-proof offerings), with the end goal of increased profits. But after reading the post on the K&L blog, I'm starting to think that the opposite end of the spectrum could offer a better (i.e., win-win) solution. If a distiller takes lower proof off the still, there will be more flavor esters (if you accept the premise of the article), and you will have a more flavorful bourbon in a shorter period of time. You should also theoretically have more distillate to barrel (and therefore more mature bourbon when it is fully aged). Sure, the up front costs will be higher (more barrels, more storage costs, etc.), but you end up with more bottles of booze, right? And these should have a better flavor profile than what we currently have (again, in theory); better booze for us. And the increased volume (less angel's share loss from a shorter maturation process) means more for the distilleries to sell, and that means more profit for them. Sounds like an optimal solution to me.

But I'm not a decision maker.

[squire]

A fine sermon sir, unfortunately it was directed to the choir.

[Conquistador]

Ah, yes, I was afraid of that. Guess I just needed to vent.

[tanstaafl2]

He's also distilling whiskey. Not bourbon, but rather peated whiskey. I suppose he uses similar techniques for distilling and aging his whiskies. I've never had any of Lost Spirits Distillery's products (hmm, just realized their initials are LSD :grin:), but I've heard good things about their whiskies.

According to an earlier post from David D. he lost his entire whiskey operation to TCA or "cork taint".

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2014/1/30/bryan-davis-returns-again.html

[squire]

And the new stuff is referred to as earthy, funky and bizarre as a complement. I am curious though why David D. would say it is well priced for the size and scale of the operation.

Since when does size and scale make a young distillate worth $45.00 a bottle?

[sailor22]

According to an earlier post from David D. he lost his entire whiskey operation to TCA or "cork taint".

http://spiritsjournal.klwines.com/klwinescom-spirits-blog/2014/1/30/bryan-davis-returns-again.html

Chlorine from nearby in ground pools?

[squire]

Perhaps the empty pool is where he was storing his whisky.

[tanstaafl2]

And the new stuff is referred to as earthy, funky and bizarre as a complement. I am curious though why David D. would say it is well priced for the size and scale of the operation.

Since when does size and scale make a young distillate worth $45.00 a bottle?

Funky and bizarre is an objective for some types of rum especailly for tiki use. At least to a degree! It's a counterbalance to some of the bland sweet rums.

[tanstaafl2]

Chlorine from nearby in ground pools?

Yeah, sounded a bit odd but I certainly don't know enough about cork taint to have an opinion on how viable that theory is. A wooden still sounds like a challenge all on its own although they have managed to do it in Guyana for a couple of centuries!