Effects of Lower Barrel Proof On Aging?

[squire]

True, but they know what they're doing.

[B.B. Babington]

...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?

Doesn't change the intrinsic value, but does change the current investment in the bottle. Bigger operations can produce a bottle more efficiently than smaller guy (or gal).

[squire]

I see no reason to subsidize their inefficiency.

[B.B. Babington]

I used to enjoy subsidizing for the sake of art. But getting tired of being taken for a ride. Some are "craft" whisky while others are just "crafty". P.T. Barnum is right and somebody will by it.

[squire]

You can make an awful lot of money if you don't care about repeat business.

[smokinjoe]

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/

So, I read the article....There's 3 hours of my life I won't get back...(coupla naps snuck in thar, too... )

There's always a guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, and tries to prove it by overcomplicating things and using words like benzaldehyde, carboloxylic acids, and hemicellulose...

Here Bryan, hold my drink while I go get you a Pepsi to mix with your dunder...

[squire]

I'm reminded of the opening segments of Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot where he painstakingly crafts a rocking chair which looks great until he sits in it and it breaks.

To me the most notable thing about this craft distiller is he apparently has some money to play with.

[brettckeen]

This is a very interesting discussion, something I ponder when drinking dusty compared to current offerings. I also wonder about changes in filtration methods when it comes down to bottling time.

[Leopold]

My first and last encounter with Lincoln Henderson was when I bumped into him and his entourage at a spirit shop in Denver a couple years back (so forgive me, my details are a bit hazy). I introduced myself as a distiller with a 14 year old shop in town. We started talking shop, and I asked him about entry proof because I'm fascinated by the change that was made to a higher proof, and we barrel at 98 proof at our shop. He told me that he was front and center during the change from 50% to higher proofs, and that he was part of the crew (he was probably being humble) what would raise the entry proof, check the results, raise the entry proof again, check the results, and so on.

He told me that the only problem that they ran into was color. When you're pulling the barrels out for dumping, you're adding so much water that it washes out the color. But other than that, he said the effects were negligible. He then pulled on my elbow, and drew me near, and whispered "but if I had my choice, I'd go in at 50%", and gave me wink and a chuckle. I have no idea if he was just trying to be polite and to make me feel like my choice of low entry proof wasn't a foolish one.

After he said that, I looked up and realized that his entourage of Angel's Envy and local reps had been patiently waiting for us to finish talking for several minutes. Embarrassed, I thanked him for speaking with me, and welcomed him to Denver. When he left, one of the spirits shop staff said "That. Was. Awesome." I pointed out yes, it was, and how it put things into perspective that Mr. Henderson had no clue who I was, but was kind enough to take the time to talk to a young distiller like that. And even though I had been at it for well over a decade…. my experience was a mere blink of an eye compared with all Mr. Henderson had done in his career, and that he had likely forgotten more about whiskey than I have learned.

We all had a good laugh at that.

[tmckenzie]

Yes, he was right there when it changed. At early times. Still proof changed too. Both around 1985 I am told. Low proof, still and barrel is where the taste is. Did I read in this thread that four roses is low off the still? Not from what I have seen.

[brettckeen]

What about addition of artificial enzymes to increase yield of the low malted barley levels in bourbon? Is this going on? I have seen craft distillers messing with this, using a relatively higher malt in a recipe and adding the enzymes too and getting their largest yields.

[squire]

The effort to squeeze more alcohol out of the mash has been going on since the Dawn of Distilling Time. Pappy spoke against distillers setting up labs to develop ways to get further yield from the mash and he felt so strongly about he put up a sign at Stitzel-Weller which said, "No Chemists Allowed". Pappy's answer to the trend was equally terse, "Corn is cheap".