Blame the rye? why?

[lakegz]

They say that the rye content in bourbons hinders it from aging gracefully past a certain age, hence why those notorious old bourbons are wheaters. So I wanna know, what's up with the older Straight Rye whiskies? An 18 year old Sazerac here, a 21 year old Rittenhouse there, 22 year old Hirsch, Vintage 23 year rye.

Is the rye really the culprit for hindering bourbon's aging past x amount of years?

Thoughts?

Edited October 26, 2014 by lakegz

[Richnimrod]

Just my own opinion (guess?):

I think wheaters are more forgiving about additional years in the barrel, rather than ryes being less so...

.....If that makes sense to anyone. I'm sure because of tasting some of them, that rye bourbons can be 'extra' aged and come out of the barrel just lovely; but I think greater care must be taken to make that happen.

I think wheaters can be less-carefully-handled and be more forgiving of that extra age.

By "care" I'm thinking of where in the rackhouse they are purposely stored, and maybe; whether or not they get moved at any point.

All this is just my stabbing away in the dark; but that's how I think about it.

[garbanzobean]

Personally, I think there are multiple reasons why most bourbon doesn't generally age gracefully past a certain point. They include the use of charred virgin oak barrels, the climate in which they have been aged, and rick/rack location stored. Scottish whisky, Irish whiskey, Canadian whisky, bourbon, rum, brandy/cognac/armagnac, and rye whiskey are all aged spirits designed to work with the ingredients and climate available. Bourbon is specifically designed to mature quickly because that's what worked for the people who "invented" it. That's great because it means good whiskey is only a few years away, but it does make it challenging to age for long periods. Every older bourbon I've had has oak character that completely overrides the secondary/flavoring grains in the mashbill, which is probably why so many facebook experts tend to declare that JPS21/25/30, orphan barrel releases, Michter's, etc must all secretly be wheaters. And maybe the occasional one is? It's hard to tell over all that oak, at least for me.

If anything, I think the higher rye content of straight rye whiskey might make it a better candidate for long aging, since it has a fighting chance of not being as overwhelmed by the oak as bourbon.

[Gillman]

I don't think people ever said rye hinders long aging of bourbon, and old straight rye has always been well-appreciated here. I think many people who like well-aged wheated bourbons are saying they prefer them to rye-recipe bourbon, that's all.

The taste for rye takes time to acquire, it did for me and many here I think. Some never comes to terms with it, which is fair enough. However the greatest bourbons are made with rye in the opinion of many old hands.

Gary

[Vadertime]

It may just be a historical accident. Pappy gets all the love and admiration and it is aged a bit more than usual for bourbon. But, it is aged in the lower cooler levels of the rickhouses, so maybe it is just that it is aged more "slowly." I have never had any, so I cannot say.

[garbanzobean]

It might be interesting to make survey asking folks tasting prefences regarding rye bourbon, wheated bourbon, and older bourbon. My personal preferences run to rye recipe bourbons 6-12 years in age, though I certainly have outliers (GTS and ER17 being the main ones). I also have to be in a specific mood to enjoy older bourbon, and that doesn't happen all that often. I've not had too much older stuff (JPS 21, PVW 20, PVW 23, Barterhouse, and Blowhard off the top of my head), but I would take a great Four Roses Private Selection over just about any of the ones I've had. Sometimes the old stuff does hit the spot, though.

[squire]

Pappy gets the love because Poseurs need a brand they all can agree is the best. The name doesn't matter (could just as easily be Bookers or OGD 114) so long as it receives anointment from the "right" people. Pappy happened to be in the right place at the right time. Pappy was actually an accident from the beginning because Julian didn't set out to market a super aged whisky, rather his unsold stock just kept getting older. Nor did Pappy start out as a wheat recipe Bourbon. The first Pappy that won all the awards was a rye recipe Bourbon that wasn't made at Stitzel-Weller.

A word about aging. I don't know where the mysterious "they" are getting "their" information but the real experts (the Master Distillers) pretty much agree that aging whisky peaks between 6-8 years after which time the wood becomes dominate and nobody knows exactly why some barrels age more gracefully than others. My own theory is it has to do with tightness of the oak grain which is an individual thing as two barrels made from the same tree will behave differently.

[dmarkle]

Well, I will say this. Younger wheaters are definitely boring and one-dimensional in a way that rye based bourbons are not...

[shoshani]

Pappy gets the love because Poseurs need a brand they all can agree is the best. The name doesn't matter (could just as easily be Bookers or OGD 114) so long as it receives anointment from the "right" people. Pappy happened to be in the right place at the right time. Pappy was actually an accident from the beginning because Julian didn't set out to market a super aged whisky, rather his unsold stock just kept getting older. Nor did Pappy start out as a wheat recipe Bourbon. The first Pappy that won all the awards was a rye recipe Bourbon that wasn't made at Stitzel-Weller.

[squire]

I believe the first issues of Pappy were made at the Old Boone distillery and were offered at 16 years old. Medley was a source for some of the Rye that went into Van Winkle Rye brands (Old Tyme and Family Reserve) supplemented by a supply of Cream of Kentucky Rye.

I think Old Commonwealth was the biggest seller early on, but before Pappy became famous Julian's main business was custom bottling private label brands such as Black Maple Hills.

[ModernThirst]

Some friends of mine run a podcast and interviewed a chemist at the University of Kentucky who explained it. In a very simplified non-scientific nutshell, Rye is a very simple grain. Thus, it breaks down more quickly. Wheat is more complex molecularly, and takes longer to break down. So a younger rye will have interacted more in the barrel in the first 8 years than a wheater. After a while, however, the rye is all broken down. At that point, it begins what most consider to be its decline as it takes on too much barrel quality. Wheat is different. It takes longer to break down. hence, younger wheaters can sometimes taste a little medicinal, as the wheat hasn't had time to interact in the barrel properly. But since it takes longer to break down, it will be a better drink at an older age than rye (theoretically). At the least, it will still be imparting positive flavors on the bourbon well past the average lifespan of a rye bourbon. It's all theoretical, though, since aging times/locations/etc can obviously all affect that too.

[squire]

That's interesting Bill and I've no doubt the gentlemen's findings are correct. However his hypothesis rests on an analysis of the respective grains without taking into account the most important aspect of aging which is the new charred oak barrel.

Master Distillers agree that somewhere between 6-8 years the natural wood sugars and flavoring elements have been absorbed into the whisky (in short the barrel is used up) beyond which the oak has no more to contribute other than a tannic wood flavor. So for aging purposes the barrel is the limiting factor irrespective of the mashbill.

In the 1930s Pappy wrote letters to his distributors in which he described his new formula wheat whisky as being an innovation because it aged faster (thus achieving maturity quicker) than traditional rye recipe Bourbon. There's more than a bit of salesmanship going on here as he was trying to sell them on the idea of young whisky but the point is he didn't choose a wheat recipe because it made a better whisky, rather because it made a salable one faster.

Prior to the mid 1950s the bonding period on Bourbon was eight years so that meant on it's eight birthday taxes were due so the distillers had to get it sold before then to avoid paying taxes on unsold stock. After the bonding period was lengthened the pressure was off, then the distillers found they could hold the stock longer and get a premium for it. They hadn't set out to age it longer and would've been happier to get their profits sooner.

Is older whisky better? A lot of people think so but the mantra 'older is better' has been around for a couple thousand years since the ancient Roman food critic Epicurus waxed rhapsodic about "old Falernian wine". Of course back then they aged the stuff in clay amphora rather than barrels so what they called aging was actually oxidation.

Edited October 27, 2014 by squire

[ThirstyinOhio]

Some friends of mine run a podcast and interviewed a chemist at the University of Kentucky who explained it. In a very simplified non-scientific nutshell, Rye is a very simple grain. Thus, it breaks down more quickly. Wheat is more complex molecularly, and takes longer to break down. So a younger rye will have interacted more in the barrel in the first 8 years than a wheater. After a while, however, the rye is all broken down. At that point, it begins what most consider to be its decline as it takes on too much barrel quality. Wheat is different. It takes longer to break down. hence, younger wheaters can sometimes taste a little medicinal, as the wheat hasn't had time to interact in the barrel properly. But since it takes longer to break down, it will be a better drink at an older age than rye (theoretically). At the least, it will still be imparting positive flavors on the bourbon well past the average lifespan of a rye bourbon. It's all theoretical, though, since aging times/locations/etc can obviously all affect that too.

I am most definitely not a chemist, but if they are saying that the rye molecules break down faster, what is breaking them down? Is there an enzyme within the charred wood or some chemical process that occurs when it moves in and out of the wood pores? Whiskey doesn't change (age) in a closed bottle so I am just trying to figure out how the wood breaks down these molecules.

[callmeox]

An additional variable is the oxidation that takes place over time.

It could be that the wheat components react with oxygen differently than the rye.

[shoshani]

I believe the first issues of Pappy were made at the Old Boone distillery and were offered at 16 years old. Medley was a source for some of the Rye that went into Van Winkle Rye brands (Old Tyme and Family Reserve) supplemented by a supply of Cream of Kentucky Rye.

You're right; it was Boone. (I no longer have the book from which I originally got this information, so I was winging it from memory. Memory being what it is and all. )

[B.B. Babington]

Something might be amiss here? It's yeast breaking down the grains. Distillate goes in the barrel. Distillate is lower alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, certainly little material more complex than carvones and such... but I'm not a distillery chemist but would like to play one on TV.

[squire]

You're right B.B., I got hung up on the molecular thing and didn't think it through. Cooking the mash breaks down the cell walls freeing up starch which is converted by enzymes into sugar which is eaten by yeast producing alcohol. The wash is sent through the still(s) and the distillate going into the barrels doesn't contain any grain particles.

So I still don't know what's going on at a molecular level but there's no grain going into the barrels.

[ModernThirst]

That's interesting Bill and I've no doubt the gentlemen's findings are correct. However his hypothesis rests on an analysis of the respective grains without taking into account the most important aspect of aging which is the new charred oak barrel.

Master Distillers agree that somewhere between 6-8 years the natural wood sugars and flavoring elements have been absorbed into the whisky (in short the barrel is used up) beyond which the oak has no more to contribute other than a tannic wood flavor. So for aging purposes the barrel is the limiting factor irrespective of the mashbill.

In the 1930s Pappy wrote letters to his distributors in which he described his new formula wheat whisky as being an innovation because it aged faster (thus achieving maturity quicker) than traditional rye recipe Bourbon. There's more than a bit of salesmanship going on here as he was trying to sell them on the idea of young whisky but the point is he didn't choose a wheat recipe because it made a better whisky, rather because it made a salable one faster.

Prior to the mid 1950s the bonding period on Bourbon was eight years so that meant on it's eight birthday taxes were due so the distillers had to get it sold before then to avoid paying taxes on unsold stock. After the bonding period was lengthened the pressure was off, then the distillers found they could hold the stock longer and get a premium for it. They hadn't set out to age it longer and would've been happier to get their profits sooner.

Is older whisky better? A lot of people think so but the mantra 'older is better' has been around for a couple thousand years since the ancient Roman food critic Epicurus waxed rhapsodic about "old Falernian wine". Of course back then they aged the stuff in clay amphora rather than barrels so what they called aging was actually oxidation.

I can't really speak to it personally, as chemistry isn't my thing. I'm just passing in what was said in an interview. However, I would argue the notion that the barrel could be used up after 6-8 years. If that was the case, scotch makers couldn't use preused barrels to age scotch unless they just wanted to impart a tannic wood flavor to their distillate, which is clearly not the case.

Regardless, I can't speak to the chemistry personally, as I'm no scientist. I can say that it fits in with my personal opinion that few rye bourbons make it past 15 years without becoming too tannic and woody (really shining from 6-10 years), while wheat bourbons don't hit their stride for me until about 10-12 years. And while the galaxy of longer aged wheaters is a bit limited, the older wheaters (18-20ish years) I've had were mostly very good to excellent, while that would be the exception for longer aged rye bourbons for me.

[B.B. Babington]

White dog sealed in glass bottle will have some aging as congeners react with each other, like condensation reactions producing esters. It's just that one would not see much reaction and it would take time,even though some reactions catalyzed by hydroxyls of glass. Ya just get a whole lot more reactions with charred cellulose, especially when factor in reactives like carboxylic acids contributed by the wood. And yea, new wood ages juice very differently than used wood. I had to use "juice" to see if could get rise from some SB'ers. Been a bad day so being a bad boy.

[garbanzobean]

White dog sealed in glass bottle will have some aging as congeners react with each other, like condensation reactions producing esters. It's just that one would not see much reaction and it would take time,even though some reactions catalyzed by hydroxyls of glass. Ya just get a whole lot more reactions with charred cellulose, especially when factor in reactives like carboxylic acids contributed by the wood. And yea, new wood ages juice very differently than used wood. I had to use "juice" to see if could get rise from some SB'ers. Been a bad day so being a bad boy.

Ironically, one of the major reasons that many now silent scottish distilleries known for "bulk" whisky are considered legendary is that since they were making bulk stuff, they had no compunctions about cask re-use. So these distilleries close and leave all this bulk whisky behind aging in totally worn out casks. 20-30 years later, you have some really nice stuff that's managed to avoid death by "cask poisoning." It's ironic that you see so many older malts proudly trumpeting cask type and which fill it was as of late, yet the "legends" many seek after (Brora, Port Ellen, old Ardbeg, old Ardmore, Rosebank, etc) were sitting in junk for decades. If I ever market a super old whiskey I'm going to proudly proclaim "bulk product subjected to extremely inefficient maturation due to worn out used up old casks that no one else wanted" on the label.

[luther.r]

My theory is that it doesn't have so much to do with some molecular interaction the rye compounds have with the barrel, but more that wheated white dog is less complex (aka more boring) at a young age than rye recipe white dog, so there's more "room" on the palate for the flavors that longer time in the wood can impart to bring complexity.

[squire]

I would argue the notion that the barrel could be used up after 6-8 years. If that was the case, scotch makers couldn't use preused barrels to age scotch unless they just wanted to impart a tannic wood flavor to their distillate, which is clearly not the case.

Then you would argue against the notions of Jim Rutledge, Harlen Wheatley, Booker Noe, Dave Backus, Elmer Lee, and other Master Distillers who in interviews have voiced an opinion contrary to your own.

As for the Scots, well, they're not making Bourbon are they? And what they do make is aged in a cold climate. You may remember the experiment some years back when Bourbon from Makers Mark was sent to Scotland to be aged and in exchange they received some malt from Glenmorangie to be aged in Kentucky. The results were disappointing but not unexpected, the difference in climates caused the Bourbon maturation to slow down to 1/3 of normal while the malt aged three times faster than normal.

The Scots don't want a new barrel rich in wood sugars and flavor because they're not practicing extractive aging. Theirs is a long, cold, slow, oxidative process that doesn't draw tannins from the barrel like a hot Kentucky climate would. As a consequence Scottish malt can slowly age in a refill Bourbon cask without becoming overly woody.

[Vadertime]

My theory is that it doesn't have so much to do with some molecular interaction the rye compounds have with the barrel, but more that wheated white dog is less complex (aka more boring) at a young age than rye recipe white dog, so there's more "room" on the palate for the flavors that longer time in the wood can impart to bring complexity.

This seems plausible. Compare Weller 12 vs EC12 and OF BiB vs HH 4YO BiB. The differences are significant (although there could be some barrel placement differences). MM is plain boring, and Weller 12 is richer, but not groundbreakingly so (to my disappointment). This tread is getting very interesting.

[LCWoody]

Excluding the laws of being considered bourbon, if a distiller takes a barrel in the 6 to 8 year range (when it's considered used up, sugars, the flavor of the wood, before it gets tannic) and transfer to a new charred barrel would the next 6 to 8 years make that bourdon that much richer in flavor (basically a 12 to 16 year). Or is the transferred bourbon saturated and will not take on more flavor.

Now, if it does take on more flavor could a distiller take multiple barrels (I say this because of evaporation) and fill new charred barrels 3 to 4 times over, and have a supper rich bourbon.

[Vadertime]

I wouldn't see why not, I know there were some experiments that someone did with filling a new barrel with some VOB. There is a thread on here about that. Cheers