Tom's Foolery first bourbon release

[ohiobourbon]

Any chance you will release a barrel proof in the future?

Thanks for asking (again).

Absolutely, we will release a barrel proof. I love barrel proof whiskey. But, what I really love, is a barrel proof that is low, like 100 proof. It might seem odd to have a low barrel proof like that, because most folks might expect a cask strength to be in the 125+ range. But, I think it's worth being an oddball here with a low proof barrel proof ... the flavors are outstanding. Personally, I like it this way because I can enjoy it without adding water at all ... so it's straight from the barrel and into your mouth ... without being too high a proof to enjoy straight ... yum.

Something like Barrel #34 or #60 would be good for that type of release.

http://tomsfoolery.com//barrel-34

http://tomsfoolery.com//barrel-60

By the way, we are selling our first single barrel to a great local bar here in Cleveland called the Winking Lizard.

They choose my favorite barrel. I am a little sad to see it go.

[The Black Tot]

Great! While we've got you, how close is the new place to being open for a visit?

My gf and I are driving up through Ohio in mid-Nov and would drop in if you're up and running.

I tried to find and follow you on Facebook, and I could find a Tom's Foolery Distillery in Ohio, but it has a category of "brewery" and there doesn't seem to be any news on the page. Is that you, or is there another keyword I should use?

[squire]

That's good Tom, of course you know there was a time when barrel proof was 100 or thereabouts. I like to think of what you're doing is a continuation of those distilling traditions.

[ohiobourbon]

That's good Tom, of course you know there was a time when barrel proof was 100 or thereabouts. I like to think of what you're doing is a continuation of those distilling traditions.

How cool is that! I had heard that (about barreling at 100 proof and then later 108 proof) but I hadn't made the connection to releasing a barrel proof at this range. Good idea I think.

[ohiobourbon]

I tried to find and follow you on Facebook, and I could find a Tom's Foolery Distillery in Ohio

The new business page:

https://www.facebook.com/tomsfooleryfarm

The old group, which will be discontinued, but still has some cool stuff:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tomsfoolery/

how close is the new place to being open for a visit?

I am thinking that we will be open to the public in about a year (Fall 2015). But, if you are coming through Ohio before then, send me a message on facebook or on this forum. No promises ... and don't be annoyed if I say "can't do it," but if Lianne or I are around we would try to make time for SB members.

[garbanzobean]

Thanks for asking (again).

Absolutely, we will release a barrel proof. I love barrel proof whiskey. But, what I really love, is a barrel proof that is low, like 100 proof. It might seem odd to have a low barrel proof like that, because most folks might expect a cask strength to be in the 125+ range. But, I think it's worth being an oddball here with a low proof barrel proof ... the flavors are outstanding. Personally, I like it this way because I can enjoy it without adding water at all ... so it's straight from the barrel and into your mouth ... without being too high a proof to enjoy straight ... yum.

Something like Barrel #34 or #60 would be good for that type of release.

http://tomsfoolery.com//barrel-34

http://tomsfoolery.com//barrel-60

By the way, we are selling our first single barrel to a great local bar here in Cleveland called the Winking Lizard.

They choose my favorite barrel. I am a little sad to see it go.

If it makes a difference to you, I feel the same way. One of the first things I look for in something like a four roses private selection barrel proof is a relatively low abv, the closer to 50% the better. Not having to risk drowning a bourbon with water to make it drinkable is a big deal to me, and I generally find them to be more flavorful to boot. Edited October 10, 2014 by garbanzobean

[ohiobourbon]

Not having to risk drowning a bourbon with water to make it drinkable is a big deal to me, and I generally find them to be more flavorful to boot.

We have been shut down for 5 weeks while we bottle (sadly, the wood fermenters dried out in that short time more than we had expected, despite routinely steaming, so it is taking us a few days longer than we had expected to swell them out so we can get production going again).

Regardless, I am seriously thinking about reducing our standard barrel proof from 108 (our current standard) down to 100.

My only concern is this: would a longer-aged product get over-oaked?

With our current inventory (which is mostly under 3-years old), this is not a problem. the lower proof tastes better. But I have wondered about longer-aged products and how they would hold-up to the greater oak-alcohol ratio.

[Paddy]

I'll be the first to volunteer to do a monthly QC barrel tasting for you, you know, just to make sure you get 'em dumped when they hit the sweet spot!:grin:

[squire]

Tom as I understand it the good things we want from the barrel (natural sugars, vanillins, etc.) are more soluble in water than alcohol so an entry proof of 100 will extract more in four years than the same distillate entered at 125 will at six. This is why some of our members have been pleasantly surprised to find an old dusty purchase has a noticeably deeper flavor than recently bottled expressions.

Jim Rutledge has opined about this (he was against raising barrel entry proofs at Four Roses) although that eventuality worked out in their favor (unintended consequences) because the of necessity longer aged Bourbon turned out to be a plus in today's market which values age in whisky.

When the state of the art Bernheim distillery opened in 1992 the Master Distiller was ordered to raise barrel entry proofs and he argued against it (he lost) saying, "there not much difference between 110 and 112 barrel entry proof and not a lot of difference between 112 and 115, but there's a noticeable difference between 110 and 115.

Like making a slow cooked good gumbo, you have to build the flavors from the start because you can't add them at the end. The Scottish influence has some to do with it but we as consumers find it counter intuitive to believe a four year old BIB with a low barrel entry proof can have more, cleaner and better flavor than a 6-8-10-12 year barrel proof brand that entered the barrel at 125. Older and stronger is better, right? Not really, when you understand the process, and there's evidence to the contrary.

Major producers have made production changes for economic and competitive reasons (understandable, I'd do the same thing) but not to make the whisky better, just faster and cheaper, then have to come up with marketing concepts to sell it. A lot of that new, experimental high entry proof Bernheim whisky from the early 1990s remains unsold, just ask Diageo.

It's quite simple really and doesn't require a marketing team, just make it right and the customers will find you.

[KyleCBreese]

Older and stronger is better, right? Not really, when you understand the process, and there's evidence to the contrary. QUOTE]

I know BT did a BTEC with both their wheat and high rye receipe with the different entry proofs. I believe they were 90, 105, 115, and 125. Has anyone ever done a flight of these to taste the differences?

[squire]

Didn't Chuck have an article or two about that? May be there's something on his blog.

[tanstaafl2]

Didn't Chuck have an article or two about that? May be there's something on his blog.

The post I recall is this one. I don't think he tried them himself, just reported what BT releaseed. I have tried the 4 wheated bourbons and preferred the 105 of the 4. Never saw the rye bourbon version.

I would enjoy these kinds of comparisons a lot more if the individual bottles weren't so damned expensive.

[squire]

Ah, that's it, I connected Chuck with it somehow as as he generally has his finger on these pulses. As for the cost I'll save my $46.35 for some Tom Foolery Bourbon.

Edited October 10, 2014 by squire

[mbroo5880i]

Ah, that's it, I connected Chuck with it somehow as as he generally has his finger on these pulses. As for the cost I'll save my $46.35 for some Tom Foolery Bourbon.

I agree. I know BT is working on some innovative things but I really like Tom's approach. I know he wants to supply his own backyard first. Is it available anywhere in Ohio other than the distillery? What is the cost? I ask because I have a friend who makes occasion runs over to Dayton.

[ohiobourbon]

Is it available anywhere in Ohio other than the distillery? What is the cost?

[cowdery]

As for the history, with two years in new charred oak and the sour mash process you're talking 1850s at the earliest.

Kudos on the price point. I shouldn't say this, but you probably could get twice that.

[callmeox]

Sampling in my usual Four Roses glass tonight, there's a nice round sweetness and the beginnings of barrel character checking in. Not the level of heat that I would expect from a 2yo 90 proofer.

I'm not sure what the leading note is on the nose, it's that young grain character but it is the same note that I get off of unaged fruit brandies so it can't be grain.

Tasty stuff for its youth and a great intro bourbon offering from TF.

Now, bring on the BiB!

[Leopold]

We have been shut down for 5 weeks while we bottle (sadly, the wood fermenters dried out in that short time more than we had expected, despite routinely steaming, so it is taking us a few days longer than we had expected to swell them out so we can get production going again).

Regardless, I am seriously thinking about reducing our standard barrel proof from 108 (our current standard) down to 100.

My only concern is this: would a longer-aged product get over-oaked?

No. I think you'll find that the oxidative reactions will occur in balance with the extraction you get at that lower proof. I'm not sure if you recall from visiting our distillery before you started distilling, but we barrel our whiskies at 98 proof. Your mileage may vary.

Regarding your fermenters and having to leave them for weeks at a time, you might find the easiest way to handle that is GNS----buy some dirt-cheap GNS, and fill your fermenters with a few inches of water mixed with GNS. All you'll need is an abv of 15% to keep unwanted bacteria from forming. From there, you can wet the full length of the fermenter with hose water every other day (adding GNS in proportion). This will keep your fermenters sealed for months, if the need arises, and cost you a couple hundred bucks at most.

Cheers, and congrats on your bottling!

[BAO]

I love this thread, this site.

[ohiobourbon]

I think you'll find that the oxidative reactions will occur in balance with the extraction you get at that lower proof...

Regarding your fermenters ... All you'll need is an abv of 15% to keep unwanted bacteria from forming.

Thanks Todd. Yes, I remember visiting your distillery a few years back. You were very generous with your time, and even gave me a ride back to Denver at the end of the day. I can't wait to check out your new place sometime!

I had forgotten that you barrel at 98 proof. A funny thing: as our whiskey matures in our rackhouse, the proof decreases rather than increases. I expect that this is due to the colder climate in northern Ohio as compared to KY. It will be interesting to see how the lower temperature affects aging. Slower extraction from the oak? More oxidation (colder fluid holds more oxygen)? I am thinking that I might want to keep entry proof a few degrees above 100, otherwise proof will fall below 100 and make BIB impossible.

Good idea regarding storing 15% abv fluid in the fermenter. I had not heard of that suggestion before. On a similar note, to keep our freshly-dumped applejack barrels from drying out, we sometimes fill them with an applejack/water mix at 15% abv. This keeps the barrels fresh, but just as importantly it makes a great solution for proofing-down the eau-de-vie for the next fall, which gives the brandy a little jump-start on the aging (I learned that trick in Normandy).

[ohiobourbon]

As for the history, with two years in new charred oak and the sour mash process you're talking 1850s at the earliest..

Thanks Chuck. Yeah, I think that I have read (probably in one of your books) that from about 1850 on industrialization brought us column stills, larger fermenters, etc.

Kudos on the price point. I shouldn't say this, but you probably could get twice that.

The state distribution system in Ohio is a bit crazy. They thought that my price was way too high at $39.95. When I came out with the applejack a few years back, which was Ohio's first brandy since (I don't know when ... Prohibition?), the state told me that they would not carry my product if I charged over $36 (that was 2009). While that answer from the state seems a bit heavy-handed, I welcomed it, because for the two decades before 2009 they just flatly told me "no," they would not carry it at all. Seriously ... I applied for a permit in 1986 and then again in 1993, and gave-up because I would have no way to sell the product that I made (I was also 16 the first time, so there were other problems with my business plan, like I didn't have a car or any money).

[Leopold]

I just think what you're doing up that way is the bees knees. I figured you had forgotten about our barrel proof. I can't remember what I did last week, let alone what I did several years ago!

We're dealing with the same thing regarding loss of proof in the sense that the proof stays the same out here. For our BIB whiskies, I have to barrel at 102 just to be safe. What a crime it would be if you and I hit year four on our BIBs, only to find it's a hair below 100!

What we have done from the start is not dump our barrels at all. We use a simple racking tube with a small spring that holds the "suction" line a few cm above the bottom of the barrel. This leads to few good things. First, we don't have to filter our whiskey, as all the char and sediments are left behind in the barrel. Secondly, we leave behind about 500ml of whiskey, which allows us to leave the barrels unfilled for months without it drying out (of particular important in bone-dry Denver). And thirdly, it makes the brewers who get our barrels ecstatic that they aren't getting bone dry barrels.

I'm interested to see what the practice of rinsing out barrels for the Devils Cut and the like will do to Scotch in the next few decades. I've met a few Scottish distillers this year who have switched from getting barrels broken down into staves shipped to Scottish coopers, to getting whole barrels that aren't dried out.

[shoshani]

When the state of the art Bernheim distillery opened in 1992 the Master Distiller was ordered to raise barrel entry proofs and he argued against it (he lost) saying, "there not much difference between 110 and 112 barrel entry proof and not a lot of difference between 112 and 115, but there's a noticeable difference between 110 and 115.

That would have been Edwin Foote. Stitzel-Weller barreled at or near 100 proof back in the Van Winkle years, with the 107 Weller and 110 Very Old Fitzgerald being either barrel proof at their respective ages, or very lightly reduced therefrom for consistency. (Edwin Foote came to Bernheim from Stitz when it closed. )

Barrel entry of 100 proof to a little higher if necessary was pretty much universal practice way back when. It seems a lot of the old-timers are set on lower entry proof in theory, even if they can't always do it in practice. Jimmy Russell is famous for entering at 105, but Wild Turkey started upping the entry proof a little bit a few years ago because they had problems with barrels being underproof when they were dumped. Maker's still barrels somewhere near 110, as I recall.

[garbanzobean]

I'm interested to see what the practice of rinsing out barrels for the Devils Cut and the like will do to Scotch in the next few decades. I've met a few Scottish distillers this year who have switched from getting barrels broken down into staves shipped to Scottish coopers, to getting whole barrels that aren't dried out.

Fans of Scottish whisky (especially Ralfy) swear they can tell the difference between whiskies that were aged in re-engineered barrels built from semi-random piles of staves and whiskies that were aged in barrels that have been shipped whole. I don't think I can make that fair a distinction, but I know it's a big concern overall with distillers, so I'm assuming someone can. I've read that "wet" barrels don't need sulfur candle treatments with near the regularity that reconstructed barrels do, so maybe that's why they're starting to get particular.

I've definitely started to wonder if Laphroaig's success with keeping quality up and prices down is related to ready access to Maker's Mark barrels from their sister distillery over in America. I wish I could find out how those are shipped.

Again, I can't express enough thanks to all the little guys out there who are putting in work to ferment, distill, and age bourbon the right way, regardless of the increased costs associated with the process. Your hard work will be rewarded with a loyal customer base, and know that there are many of us who would be happy to help out in any way that we can to keep y'all going while you're waiting for your whiskey to mature.

Edited October 13, 2014 by garbanzobean
grammar

[The Black Tot]

I had forgotten that you barrel at 98 proof. A funny thing: as our whiskey matures in our rackhouse, the proof decreases rather than increases. I expect that this is due to the colder climate in northern Ohio as compared to KY.