Craft/Small Barrel vs. KY Straight Bourbon

[wadewood]

So, I recently completed a blind tasting to judge if a craft distilled bourbon aged in a small barrels could compete against traditional aged KY Straight Bourbons.

Blind tastings are challenging. We had several blind tastings with the sb group back in KY over the years. The contest generally ran with participants tasting 6 bourbons from a predefined group of 15 or so. As many past contestants can attest, this challenge can be very humbling. In this challenge there was no pre defined group - I had 6 bourbons to taste from that the only thing I know was they meet the legal definition of bourbon.

Score system setup based on 100 points possible - 25 for nose, 25 for pallette, 25 for finish, 25 for balance. Note, the score system was given to me by organizer, please consider scores in context to each other and not compare to others who judge whiskies on 100 point scale.

My scores and notes are as follows:

1. 40 points, I said young and tasted like Jim Beam White.

2. 60 points , I said flat nose, but solid

3. 50 points, I said craft distilled or way over oaked

4. 40 points, I said bland and flat

5. 0 points, I said no way was this bourbon

6. 75 points, I said balanced and thought Four Roses

The actual products were:

1. 1792, current no age statement

2. Bakers

3. Craft distilled 23 month old bourbon, producer A

4. Basil Hayden, current no age statement

5. Craft distilled, producer B

6. WT Russell's Reserve 10/90.

The downside was the same I find in about every small barrel aged product that I have tried; they are over oaked with a bitter astringent finish.

This was previously posted in another thread that was deleted. I've cleaned up the names and reposting.

Edited January 12, 2015 by wadewood

[HighHorse]

So, was the unnamed craft product bourbon? All in all, a 3rd place finish for a 23 month old product is an eye opener. All BS aside, this was an interesting tasting. 1792 is all over the place in blind tastings. Possibly because it's all over the place in taste.

[clindt]

What happened to the other tread? I hadn't made it to the end before it was deleted.

[wadewood]

As stated, all whiskies were legally bourbon. Thread was deleted by mods here and I'm sure they had there reasons. I reposted my comments because I thought it was worthwhile and would appreciate comments stay on topic and not become about why original was deleted.

[clindt]

What was the barrel size for the 23 month?

[Harry in WashDC]

Thanks, Wade. I note that two of the six were so-called small batch Beam products, and a third was a Barton so-called small batch. It's been years since I had any 1792 so I don't remember what I thought of it, but since I never bought a second bottle, I guess . . .

The over-oaking you find in small barrel products rings true with me - I usually find the same thing. The promise is there on occasion, but the unbalanced wood astringents hang around longer than the caramels in my mouth. I also think Chuck wrote about the small barrel effects on his blog last year maybe. I can understand the small distillers wanting to try out new things instead of trying to replicate products from the major distillers in order to compete, and I'm glad they are. But when I want bourbon . . .

[wadewood]

Producer A used 15 gal barrels. Producer B uses under 30 gal.

[wadewood]

I was very disappointed by the 1792. I have liked this product in the past and Randy Blank bought a barrel pick of it that I really enjoy. I have not bought any since they removed the age statement, nor will I be likely to. As far giving a low score calling Basil Hayden's bland and flat, well that's pretty much what I think of it every time I try it.

[Lost Pollito]

Thanks for posting your notes. I find the same problem with most small barrels. Over-oaked, and painfully astringent. However, I have been finding some amazing small barreled bourbons that I really like from time to time. Again, thanks for posting the results.

[danz]

I was very disappointed by the 1792. I have liked this product in the past and Randy Blank bought a barrel pick of it that I really enjoy. I have not bought any since they removed the age statement, nor will I be likely to. As far giving a low score calling Basil Hayden's bland and flat, well that's pretty much what I think of it every time I try it.

That's too bad about the 1792, if it is now representative of them. For Basil Hayden, it's 40% and has a ridiculous label. The whole thing screams sucker bait to me. I will stick with Old Grand Dad.

0 points? That's a pretty strong statement. Part of me wants to know, even to try it, to see if it really is the worst whiskey ever. There have been some serious contenders.

[n811]

I was very disappointed by the 1792. I have liked this product in the past and Randy Blank bought a barrel pick of it that I really enjoy. I have not bought any since they removed the age statement, nor will I be likely to.

Interesting I just read this was one of Jim Murray's bourbon picks the last three years in a row. I was thinking about the disconnect between what's available now and what he's getting (or what's wrong with his taste buds). Then read it was the 8 year product. [emoji1]

When did the statement get dropped? Is he still nursing the same bottle or is the age statement for export markets only?

[petrel800]

Interesting I just read this was one of Jim Murray's bourbon picks the last three years in a row. I was thinking about the disconnect between what's available now and what he's getting (or what's wrong with his taste buds). Then read it was the 8 year product. [emoji1]

When did the statement get dropped? Is he still nursing the same bottle or is the age statement for export markets only?

Age statement disappeared sometime around the end of 2013. His "bible" is typically about a year behind when he publishes it.

[barturtle]

So, you can't post your personal opinion on a product and name names? What has become of this forum?

[Gillman]

The bourbon, standard Kentucky or craft, should be at least 3 years old, else the comparison isn't fair. Also, using 2 Beams kind of weights it a certain way. I would do:

1) one craft bourbon 3 years old (say, Beer Barrel bourbon)

2) one Kentucky bourbon 3 years old (say, Ancient Age)

3) One craft bourbon 4 years old (say, one of Don Outterson's bourbons)

4) one standard bourbon 4 years old (say, Forester 86 or 100)

5) one craft bourbon more than 4 years old (suggestions?)

6) one standard bourbon ditto (many choices).

And only do one Beam, say the black.

Gary

Edited January 12, 2015 by Gillman

[dcbt]

and with insufficient good craft participation.

Gary

One could argue that's because there is insufficient good craft production...

[Gillman]

One could argue that's because there is insufficient good craft production...

I had said that before editing my post, but I still think that is correct.

There are crafts that meet the bill, it is the job of the tasters to find them. Otherwise, the tasting isn't fair.

Gary

[BigBoldBully]

So, you can't post your personal opinion on a product and name names? What has become of this forum?

Kind of wondering the same thing.

[Quantum]

I was very disappointed by the 1792. I have liked this product in the past and Randy Blank bought a barrel pick of it that I really enjoy. I have not bought any since they removed the age statement, nor will I be likely to. As far giving a low score calling Basil Hayden's bland and flat, well that's pretty much what I think of it every time I try it.

I just finished a bottle of 1792 that was purchased about 3 months after I stopped seeing age stated bottles in the large chain stores. I could not detect any difference from the age stated bottle purchased about a year before that. I should have saved samples from each bottle to check for a progressive slide in quality, but I was not thinking that far ahead. It was never a personal favorite, but it was a solid pour that I felt comfortable recommending others.

[camduncan]

So, you can't post your personal opinion on a product and name names? What has become of this forum?

Kind of wondering the same thing.

I think you guys are 'jumping at shadows' :)

The decision to keep the name 'hidden' was an agreement between Wade and Travis and had nothing to with any forum rules or regulations. You'd have to ask them why they chose not to name the product.

[Richnimrod]

Thanx to Wade (and Travis) for the taste test, along with the detailed scoring.

My assumption regarding those small-barrel-aged offerings is that the tannins may be the first out of the wood (& therefor into the distillate); but the lignins lag far behind and so, don't get the chance to moderate the taste and mouthfeel. I wonder if 30-gallon barrels aged for 4-years would be 'over-aged'... or compare (at least somewhat) to 8-year Bourbon from 53-gallon barrels....? ...But, I guess that assumption isn't necessarily a good one... otherwise how come over-aged Bourbons exhibit similar traits to those small-barrel ones? Just spitballing with my own gray matter.....

[B.B. Babington]

Seems to me the allure of craft is to get a new novel flavor. But it's rare that a craft is going to do well head-to-head with a mid-level bourbon from the boys that have done it for a while. Rare to find a success story for the tricks to "quick age" by using small barrels, chips, pressure, anti-osmosis incorporating paired bi-polar quantum spin. All these tricks do is give wood without maturity. And value? Some of the new guys will price it somewhat fair for the product without thinking quick rich scheme.

[TunnelTiger]

I believe the real lure of "craft" brewers is to make money, lots of money period.

[squire]

Find a marketing 'hook' to sell enough sucker whisky to build up the brand sufficient to attract a major then cash out.

[B.B. Babington]

"whisky?" you ain't dissin' dem dar boyz what wear dem fancy wool dresses aire ye? I'ze knows you ain't insinuatin' craft ain't good enough to get called "whiskey"

[squire]

Some local boys opened a distillery in my hometown and make 'craft' vodka. I bought a bottle (we all did) for about $15.00 or so, it was ok, it's vodka so wasn't expecting much and wasn't disappointed. Didn't buy anymore when I found out they were buying GNS then running it through their still so they could say they 'made' it.

Good thread.