Bottled in Bond's

[dSculptor]

Hey guys, I sort of looked thru the archives for something about this but really did not see a "list of available BIB's",so.. I thought since I really enjoy them and would like to get my hands on all. What's available out there? If it's out there somewhere and I missed it,sorry for bringing it up again.Here's what I know of:

OHH

J.T.S. Brown

T.W.Samuels

VOB

OGD

OF

EW

J.W.Dant

CE.H.T SB

What else?

[squire]

We have a number of 100 proof Bourbons that would qualify as Bottled in Bond, Old forester Signature and Birthday Bourbon, Knob Creek and Rock Hill Farms come to mind, I'm sure there are others. New think in the industry seems to believe the term is a bit old fashioned and no longer understood by consumers.

[393foureyedfox]

I kinda like the class of BIB's and hope the label doesnt drop off. They usually offer great bang for the buck, and its kinda fun to compare them against each other.

KCSB might technically be a BIB since its a single barrel, therefore it has to meet the requirements. But, with regular KC being multi batch pours, might it not meet some of the requirements?

[soad]

Mellow Corn and Rittenhouse if you want to expand to non-bourbon.

[dSculptor]

Forgot Henry Mckenna!

[callmeox]

We have a number of 100 proof Bourbons that would qualify as Bottled in Bond, Old forester Signature and Birthday Bourbon, Knob Creek and Rock Hill Farms come to mind, I'm sure there are others. New think in the industry seems to believe the term is a bit old fashioned and no longer understood by consumers.

I kinda like the class of BIB's and hope the label doesnt drop off. They usually offer great bang for the buck, and its kinda fun to compare them against each other.

KCSB might technically be a BIB since its a single barrel, therefore it has to meet the requirements. But, with regular KC being multi batch pours, might it not meet some of the requirements?

What the heck is a 'multi batch pour'? :skep:

By definition, a NAS or > 4 year old single barrel bourbon bottled at 100 proof is BiB. So RHF and FRSB are BiB even though they are not labeled as such.

I think the BiB labeling being old fashioned excuse is bunk. Old Forester Signature could contain bourbon from multiple distilling seasons which would DQ it from BiB status. I can't believe that BF removed the BiB designation and added Signature just because it seemed old fashioned or misunderstood by consumers...the brand has old in the name for goodness sake. Dropping BiB gives them flexibility...that's my take.

Edited February 24, 2014 by callmeox
Factual error

[Harry in WashDC]

Forgot Henry Mckenna!

Amen. Two in the "remainder bin" now sit on my shelf.

[squire]

I don't buy that explanation either Scott. Losing the statement allows them to mix whiskys from different years and so increase their flexibility.

[mbroo5880i]

Dropping the labeling provides flexibility and reduces cost and storage issues. I believe barrels used for BIBs have to be stored separate from other inventory (bonded warehouse) and you have to pay for the certification. Given that these are typically less expensive plans (more historical than planned), these costs may not seem like much but they are real, especially when you have the flexibility to divert these brands to more profitable products.

As for other bottled in bonds, both the CEHT Small Batch and Single Barrel are BIBs. I believe only one was noted above.

I also believe David Nicholson 1843 is BIB and, while not bourbon, Rittenhouse Rye and Mellow Corn are also BIB.

[393foureyedfox]

What the heck is a 'multi batch pour'? :skep:

By definition, a NAS or > 4 year old single barrel bourbon bottled at 100 proof is BiB. So KCSB, RHF, FRSB are all BiB even though they are not labeled as such.

[squire]

When you think about it BIB is a set of minimum standards. A minimum of 4 years old, at least 100 proof (I know, that's not exactly what the regs state) made at a single place during the same season by one Master Distiller. Not a guarantee of the highest quality but an assurance of being a cut above average.

So any single barrel bottling 100 proof or higher meets the requirements and proof above 100 arguably exceeds it.

[dSculptor]

I think A cut above average is a good thing nowadays, and like stated before are usually priced reasonably,I know when I go shopping I'm always looking for it,you can have that top shelf,just leave some of that bottom shelf for me.I suppose we should keep this hush,hush,or there'll be a shortage down there also.

[Phil T]

KCSB would have to be a BIB.

It can't be. By legal definition, a BIB is 100 proof.

[Phil T]

When you think about it BIB is a set of minimum standards. A minimum of 4 years old, at least 100 proof (I know, that's not exactly what the regs state) made at a single place during the same season by one Master Distiller. Not a guarantee of the highest quality but an assurance of being a cut above average.

So any single barrel bottling 100 proof or higher meets the requirements and proof above 100 arguably exceeds it.

The legal definition does not say at least 100 proof...it says 100 proof

[squire]

Single barrel cask strength is BIB with a graduate degree.

[callmeox]

It can't be. By legal definition, a BIB is 100 proof.

Yep, I was thinking it was 100...120 is a DQ.

[393foureyedfox]

squire, I too thought it was a minimum of 4 years and a minimum of 100 proof. Just looked it up and it does say 100 proof, not a 100 minimum.

[jwacky]

I wish every distillery would put out a BiB offering. Be a good way to show off the 'house flavors', so to speak. In my ideal, hypothetical bourbon world it'd be required.

[callmeox]

squire, I too thought it was a minimum of 4 years and a minimum of 100 proof. Just looked it up and it does say 100 proof, not a 100 minimum.

Did you think it was a coincidence that all BiB offerings were 100 proof?

[dcbt]

Yep, I was thinking it was 100...120 is a DQ.

What does DQ stand for?...

[WAINWRIGHT]

What does DQ stand for?...

Dancing Queen or Disqualified I'm on the fence with this one.:grin:

[Old Dusty]

Dancing Queen or Disqualified I'm on the fence with this one.:grin:

Dairy Queen, of course.

[squire]

I wish every distillery would put out a BiB offering. Be a good way to show off the 'house flavors', so to speak. In my ideal, hypothetical bourbon world it'd be required.

I would like to see the mid shelf offerings hold onto the BIB statement but for the highest range I want the Master to have free reign to choose and vat the best barrels for the purpose.

[393foureyedfox]

Did you think it was a coincidence that all BiB offerings were 100 proof?

nope. I thought it was the MINIMUM, and therefore, just what they'd do to meet the minimum.....just as many BIB's are 4yrs/NAS, but some are older and stated that way.

[Harry in WashDC]

Having nothing better to do with my time (like, wash the dishes which is my next task), I pulled up the Federal Regs re: labeling bonded whiskey. Section 5.42((3)(vi) of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regs says the label can't say "bonded" or BIB, aged in bond, and similar variations unless among other things it is bottled "at 100 degrees of proof." Other parts of subsection ((3) specify that, for the label to say "bonded" etc. the whiskey must be "at least" four years in charred (not toasted) wood and must be produced in the same distilling season by the same distiller at the same distillery.

I can see where the technical requirements of the reg would play havoc with blenders trying to mix product stored at several sites coming off several column stills (BTW,what's the distilling season for a continuous still?) all owned by the same company. Bet they're glad they have accountants with computers.

Of course, they can avoid all that tracking and paper filing by dropping BIB etc. and can play with the proof, too. Still, I hate seeing something changed solely in the name of efficiency.:frown:

,