To much trust being put in age statements?

[Thig]

What I dont care about is 'single barrel's. Some people like the small variations in profile, but I want to know, and not hope, that this month's bottle will taste like the good one I got last month.

So true, I have bought many single barrel bottles but even if I get one I really like what are the chances most of us could get a second bottle from the same barrel.

[squire]

Single barrel was created to compete with single malt back when Bourbon producers were searching for a way to compete in the higher end range. It worked, to an extent, and resulted in some very fine whiskies, but on the whole I think Bourbons benefit more from batching in a sum of the parts sort of model.

[Flyfish]

Single barrel was created to compete with single malt back when Bourbon producers were searching for a way to compete in the higher end range. It worked, to an extent, and resulted in some very fine whiskies, but on the whole I think Bourbons benefit more from batching in a sum of the parts sort of model.

So, bourbon houses should strive to meet the Dewar's Never Varies standard?

[tigerlam92]

I agree and for me, the age statement is only possibly for an impulse buy. But truly I don't buy base on just the age statement at all. It's mostly on taste for repeat buys or on recommendation or some other information from people or sources I trust. Beyond that it will most likely be on who select or bottle it.

Age statement is maybe 3rd or 4th thing I would evaluate upon. This is from someone who normally like aged bourbon.

[393foureyedfox]

proof is the biggest topic, to me. I dont care if it's 10 years old, if it's 80-86 proof. age just is a tipping factor when deciding between similar proof offerings, as it does give you an idea of where the profile may land.

Several of you predicted Id come around to enjoying wheated profiles and whatnot, but I still cant go below 90 proof on anything.

[squire]

So, bourbon houses should strive to meet the Dewar's Never Varies standard?

Hey, that's not a bad idea.

[Restaurant man]

Age statements aren't important to me as long as the bottle says 'four roses' on it I'm down.

[Flyfish]

Age statements aren't important to me as long as the bottle says 'four roses' on it I'm down.

You're a very sensible man. I have finally accepted that 80 proof is quite acceptable in YL, and 90 works for SmB, and 100 is fine for SB, and 100+ is great for the barrel proofs and LEs. There are bourbons of all ages in these but what matters is how they taste. Obsessing about age or proof is a way to cut yourself off from some great bourbon experiences.

[squire]

Right, we should sample them all then sample some more just to be sure.

[Restaurant man]

Right, we should sample them all then sample some more just to be sure.

Then repeat. Hate to reveal My secret but $60 or less for the best barrel proof bourbons in the (current) world. Against a backdrop of overpriced older age stated releases? You guys are looking in the wrong place. Just sayin...

[TunnelTiger]

Then repeat. Hate to reveal My secret but $60 or less for the best barrel proof bourbons in the (current) world. Against a backdrop of overpriced older age stated releases? You guys are looking in the wrong place. Just sayin...

So true and I am guilty of that. When it's all said and done if I could only have one label it would be 4R.

I would miss my ryes though.

[squire]

When all is said and done I usually have more to say.

[TunnelTiger]

When all is said and done I usually have more to say.

I'm guilty of that as well and our new CEO isn't fond of it.

[cowdery]

Age statements are nice. I'm always happier when the producer gives me information about the product. I commend Beam for being the company that provides age statements most consistently throughout its line.

But age statements are only necessary in the extra-old range. You really want anything older than 12 years to have an age statement and most do. That's important because some people prefer that wood-forward flavor profile and age statements are the surest way of finding that. Some people, like me, tend to avoid extra-olds and need age statements to do that.

In the mid-range that I prefer -- 5 to 12 years -- you will miss a lot of good bourbon if you only buy products with age statements. Buffalo Trace and Woodford Reserve, to name two.

[Flyfish]

WT RB benefits from mingling some--now less, evidently--older bourbon in it. Selling it as 6YO might detract from its premium image and price.

[TunnelTiger]

Doesn't have to have an age statement on it for me to try or like it. But if it does hae one, and I like it, and then it gets removed I'll go on to something else

Won't be BT or WR though, just don't care for em.

[tanstaafl2]

Age statements are nice. I'm always happier when the producer gives me information about the product. I commend Beam for being the company that provides age statements most consistently throughout its line.

But age statements are only necessary in the extra-old range. You really want anything older than 12 years to have an age statement and most do. That's important because some people prefer that wood-forward flavor profile and age statements are the surest way of finding that. Some people, like me, tend to avoid extra-olds and need age statements to do that.

In the mid-range that I prefer -- 5 to 12 years -- you will miss a lot of good bourbon if you only buy products with age statements. Buffalo Trace and Woodford Reserve, to name two.

I certainly would not pass on a bottle just because it does not carry an age statement if it was between 5-12 years old. The problem in that group is having some assurance they are in fact in the 5-12 year age group. For the NDPs out there (and possibly some major distillers) where you have no clue what the age is it is helpful to have that assurance of the age statement, whatever the age, so you know if you are getting 6 month old or 6 year old whiskey and can decide accordingly if you want to buy it.

Of course if it is straight you know it is at least 2 years old and if there is no age statement then it must be 4 years old. But now the use of the word straight seems to be fading, even when the product meets the definition, and can we really trust every producer to put the age on when required? I rather think not! Fortunately as for labeling it properly with the age where required we can take comfort that the TTB is there and always insures that everything is labeled properly...

On second thought a requirement for the age on EVERY bottle would be just a tad bit more reassuring! And while we are at it lets put the DSP on every bottle as well!

[squire]

I'll settle for the DSP, at least that's not open to question.

[ModernThirst]

I'm not sure if too much trust is being placed on age statements, but I prefer to have them (and to have them be accurate). It's just one more piece of information available, whether it's the deciding factor on a purchase or not.

[cowdery]

For the NDPs out there (and possibly some major distillers) where you have no clue what the age is it is helpful to have that assurance of the age statement, whatever the age, so you know if you are getting 6 month old or 6 year old whiskey and can decide accordingly if you want to buy it.

I solve that by being very skeptical about all NDP whiskey as well as new products from major producers. This is where I do accept the producer's age claims when no age is stated. If it's more than 4 years old they're entitled to go NAS, but that's when I appreciate a producer who will tell me, "it's a combination of six year old and nine year old whiskey," that sort of thing. Majors will usually tell you the truth about that, as far as it goes (they won't usually tell you proportions, for example). With micros, you come to learn who you can trust and who you can't.

And, ultimately, taste doesn't lie.

[TunnelTiger]

And, ultimately, taste doesn't lie.

Best quote yet!

Consider the way our government is policing labels now what is there that would keep a NDP from putting a 20yr label on a limited bottling?

As we have seen recently with Corsair and their partners, nothing.