When does it cease to be what it is?

[Flyfish]

SBers are prone to opining that they would love to have Good Ol' Whateveritis at a higher proof or longer aged or some other "improvement." I never thought that EC 18 was much like EC12. If you doubled the age of Booker's, would it cease to be Booker's because of the dramatically different barrel effects? JB White is aged "twice as long" as the law requires" and its big brother JBB twice as long as that. Now there are Beams aged longer still. When does Beam stopped tasting like Beam? Do you have nominees for bourbons that don't resemble what they purport to be? Or, conversely, bourbons that hold their profile well? (How does ER10 fare, for example, when it becomes ER17?)

[PaulO]

I have two candidates for proof. Take Weller SR and OWA. They are supposed to be the exact same whiskey except SR is 90 proof, OWA 107 proof. It seems to me, even if I added a little water to OWA, it's still way better than SR. I don't understand why SR is so widely available, and the other Wellers so scarce? SR doesn't do much for me. I gave up on it. Leave it in the store. OWA on the other hand, runs from good to great, depending on the batch.

Now regular EC vs. ECBP. I don't know if HH just picks very special barrels for ECBP. ECBP is unique.

[mosugoji64]

Your reference to Beam products seems like a good starting point for this discussion. I've found that I just don't care for the Beam namesake bourbons (JBW, JBB, JBDC) but enjoy their other products (KC, Booker's, Baker's). I don't know if it's just the extra age or if they're selecting for a different flavor profile, but whatever it may be makes a big difference to me. I haven't tried any of the newer bottles (12yr, SB) so I don't know how they fit into this. Given their low proof and assuming they're selecting for the Beam profile, I've passed until I get the chance to try them first.

And Paul, your observations on Weller are spot on. I've done a SBS with those two and even at the same proof I was able to pick out the OWA. Mike Veach pointed out that the lower proof bottles go through additional filtering, so that may account for the difference in flavor.

[GaryT]

Keeping in the Beam thread - while Basil shares the same mashbill as OGD, the two taste nothing alike to me; even if I proof down OGD. We sometimes think of whatever shares the same distillate as being "the same, but different". In the case of WSR and OWA, they were both once 7 yrs old AND had the same mashbill, but I have no idea where they were aged in the rackhouse. That would certainly change the resulting whiskey. With EC12 and EC18, I agree that they have some family resemblence, but I'm thinking that what made it to EC18 were different barrels than made it into EC12 (like those that were picked to grow up to be ER10 vs part of BT). I'm glad that EC18 doesn't taste a lot like EC12, especially since the price differential is about to be significantly higher than in the past.

[393foureyedfox]

Your reference to Beam products seems like a good starting point for this discussion. I've found that I just don't care for the Beam namesake bourbons (JBW, JBB, JBDC) but enjoy their other products (KC, Booker's, Baker's). I don't know if it's just the extra age or if they're selecting for a different flavor profile, but whatever it may be makes a big difference to me.

amen, brother!!!!

[smokinjoe]

A few of us got together a couple of weekends ago for some whiskeying, and one of the bottles that we tasted was the Maker's Cask Strength. The takeaway from the experience was that it tasted exactly like Maker's...except at higher proof. Not a lot of change in any other department. Surprising to me, because personally I find most brands take on additional characteristics with the amping up of ABV to Barrel Strength. More are positive than not, and that ratio is maybe...60:40. But, I usually get a difference, which is why I'm not totally sold on the idea of barrel proofs being better because you "can always take it back to regular" by adding your own water. I think there is something more there, to that equation. Despite that theory, the profile of regular MM was one that hardly budged at Barrel Strength...Just more alcohol oomph. Which wasn't a bad thing, BTW.

[The Black Tot]

Perhaps there wasn't any budge left after the prices and bottle sizes made their moves I kid, I kid.

[sutton]

Joe's experience makes me think a 8-10 year BiB Maker's will be more differentiated and more of a hit than a CS Maker's. What is it going to take to get Maker's to age it a bit longer rather than just bottling it with less water? Seems like turning over the inventory is more important than creating differentiated products.

[GaryT]

Joe's experience makes me think a 8-10 year BiB Maker's will be more differentiated and more of a hit than a CS Maker's. What is it going to take to get Maker's to age it a bit longer rather than just bottling it with less water? Seems like turning over the inventory is more important than creating differentiated products.

[Harry in WashDC]

. . . When does Beam stopped tasting like Beam? . . .

At lunch yesterday while eating lobster (a monthly special at a local restaurant so we plan lunches out a lot in October), I noticed the small batch Beam lineup. Asked for Bookers which I don't think I've had in ten years. Neat, water with no ice on the side. I swear I could still taste that Beam yeast - indeed, I was surprised that I could. Unlike the JBWhite, however, where to me it tastes like mashed peas with honey, I think it added to the complexity of the Booker's - sort of like malt in a chocolate milkshake adds to the shake. If I hadn't been driving, I'd have had a second.

[bourbonv]

Intersting as to what is said about Maker's Cask Strength. The bottle I had came from Bill and i found it quite a bit different from the standard bottle with a taste closer to what I remember Maker's tasted like 25 years ago. Was your bottle part of that first release or do you know?

Mike Veach

[Josh]

It's worth mentioning that, in the case of Beam, the small batch series has a lower barrel entry proof and proof off the still than JB and OC.

[BigRich]

It's worth mentioning that, in the case of Beam, the small batch series has a lower barrel entry proof and proof off the still than JB and OC.

The word we got in April was that this only applied to Booker's not KC or Baker's

[Flyfish]

The word we got in April was that this only applied to Booker's not KC or Baker's

Do you know what the barrel entry proofs are? Enquiring minds want to know.

[squire]

Bookers and Bakers come off the still at 125 proof, Knob Creek at 130 and regular White and Black label at 135. Old Grand Dad and Basil Hayden come off at 127, and all the brands are barreled at 125.

[BigRich]

Bookers and Bakers come off the still at 125 proof, Knob Creek at 130 and regular White and Black label at 135. Old Grand Dad and Basil Hayden come off at 127, and all the brands are barreled at 125.

The word from the Beam folks in April was Bookers 125 and everything else is 135

[squire]

I got it from Chuck who got it from Beam but who knows, they won't even confirm their mash bill.

[BigRich]

I got it from Chuck who got it from Beam but who knows, they won't even confirm their mash bill.

No doubt. Now they are saying the yeast for OGD mashbills is the standard Beam yeast instead of the old ND yeast. I don't know if I would believe Fred Noe at this point. If I was taking to the distillery manager who pulls it off the still then maybe.

[smokinjoe]

Intersting as to what is said about Maker's Cask Strength. The bottle I had came from Bill and i found it quite a bit different from the standard bottle with a taste closer to what I remember Maker's tasted like 25 years ago. Was your bottle part of that first release or do you know?

Mike Veach

Mine was from Batch 14-01. I'll say that current MM is one of my favorite regular pours. It has it's profile, and I enjoy it. Honestly, I have to say its a consistent profile that I have enjoyed for near the 25 years you refer to, Mike. Maybe, a touch thinner now, but to me it has been pretty steady. But, Maker's has never been a thick syrupy whiskey to my tastes, like say, OWA for example. Or, the older S-W wheaters. It's always been sweet, but on the drier side of the spectrum. The Cask Strength maintains the same profile to my tastes, but obviously with more punch. The punch melds very well with the profile, IMO. But, I don't sense that it "changes" the whiskey like other barrel proof iterations many times do to their normal releases. The extra proof makes it "better", because it gives it more guts over the palate. But, that's about it...for me. I do enjoy it. I'm thinking that to get more of the other beneficial characteristics that I might look for in a BP MM would come with a little longer aging, or with a BP MM46. That said, I will continue to be a buyer of this if it does become a regular release.

[Gillman]

SBers are prone to opining that they would love to have Good Ol' Whateveritis at a higher proof or longer aged or some other "improvement." I never thought that EC 18 was much like EC12. If you doubled the age of Booker's, would it cease to be Booker's because of the dramatically different barrel effects? JB White is aged "twice as long" as the law requires" and its big brother JBB twice as long as that. Now there are Beams aged longer still. When does Beam stopped tasting like Beam? Do you have nominees for bourbons that don't resemble what they purport to be? Or, conversely, bourbons that hold their profile well? (How does ER10 fare, for example, when it becomes ER17?)

Just catching up with this discussion. It's a very good question.

I think it depends on the distillery. In some cases, a spirit becomes something almost completely different with additional aging. EC 12 and 18 are good examples. But for Beam which you mentioned, I'd think there are three main factors at work: the yeast, the aging regimen (which means warehouse type and location not just brute time of aging), and the distilling out proof (see Squire's note on the differences and that Booker's which you mention is the lowest).

In my experience with these brands, what I believe to be the yeast is the most important factor. Even though the OGD yeast is apparently differently to the Beam yeast, I find OGD and the Beam line similar in taste, so I believe the yeasts to be similar or perhaps a nutrient or something is used in common which gives them a similar fingerprint. Moreover, I find aging doesn't really matter: I've had Beam bourbons from 4 years to 12 and they always taste similar to me in regard to the "funky" note. In some the taste is less pronounced, but it is always there IMO and I do get it strongly in Booker.

Another way to put all this is the Beam bourbons are remarkably consistent. Their process control is at a very high standard. It happens I don't really like the profile, but that's neither here nor there since millions do. I buy them occasionally just to chart the taste.

Gary

Edited October 25, 2014 by Gillman

[dmarkle]

Keeping in the Beam thread - while Basil shares the same mashbill as OGD, the two taste nothing alike to me; even if I proof down OGD.

Heh, wow. When I give people examples of two almost-identical bourbons, as far as general flavor profile goes, I always compare OGD and Basil Hayden's. Funny how different palates are.

[ebo]

As for the Beam funk/yeast..... I don't get what all the fuss is about. I'm not a big fan of the White label, but I do enjoy the Black label.... And I rarely ever bother with anything 80 proof. I really like their non namesake bourbon quite a bit. I'm a huge fan of OGD and KC. To me, the funk/yeast is what makes Beam different fron the other bourbons, just like BT is different from Heaven Hill. George Dicekel is different from anything else out there. I love the diversity.