Barrel Age VS Proof

[Sean Bond]

I apologize if this has been covered a bunch (I tried using the search function, but didn't see much), but I've seen it said that focusing on a bourbon's proof is more important than its age. What's the thought process behind this? Is it essentially the idea that the higher proof the bourbon is, the less it's watered-down? I haven't tried many older bourbons, but from what I've read, they tend to be more oaky, which can be an acquired taste, so I guess the idea is, "look for less watered-down bourbon before you go chasing older, more expensive stuff that you might not like."

Does that sound about right? I'm interested in opinions on this, and I'm not offended if you tell me everything in the previous paragraph is wrong!

[dSculptor]

My take on this is that the proof is not necessarily more important than the age, for me it's a balance of both. My proof point is around 100, and my age is around 6 and up,(really for me I tend to like the older ones more, because I like the oaky, rackhouse taste) although there are many BIB's @ 4 yrs. that I enjoy also. The higher the proof means that there is less cutting with water, I'd rather do that part myself if I find it necessary. So find that balance that works for you, it takes a lot of experimenting! Enjoy the journey.. grasshopper, and BTW welcome aboard!

[ramblinman]

you're spot on as far as my tastes go. I almost always prefer barrel proof, but in general 100pf and up, under 90 is just so watered down and 90-100 usually feels very thin to me. Those are alright at a bar, but something I'd seldom reach for at home when I want to really enjoy a glass. It seems like for most bourbons barrel proof in the 6-12 year range just shines and tends to hit all the right notes for me without feeling overoaked.

from reading and talking to old guys, and people with great dusty collections, it seems like this was less of an issue before the distillers started raising their still/barrel proof and juice in the 86+ range could still have good mouthfeel and taste.

Edited March 5, 2015 by ramblinman

[CorvallisCracker]

I like bourbon aged about 10-12 years and about 100 proof. Within a given label (same recipe/warehouse location/etc) I'd take an 8yo 100 proof expression over a 12yo 80 proof. I'd also take a 10yo 90 proof over a 6yo 130 proof.

12yo 90 proof versus 10yo 100 proof would be tougher (I used to have this problem with Weller back when Centennial was available). If I can afford it, I'll buy both and compare them (I ended up favoring Centennial, BTW). If I can't afford it, I buy the less expensive one.

[MTNBourbon]

I tend to look at both. A nice blend of both is very nice.

[Quintilian]

I look at both, but since I've become more of an enthusiast (tried different bourbons), I tend to look more at proof now.

But it can get complicated. For example, I recently bought EWSB, which is at 86 proof and approximately 10 years old. For me, I prefer EWBiB much more--more flavor even though it's younger. Then again, if I had to choose between JBW and JBB, it's JBB all the time (double the age of JBW). Then you can look at BT and ER10. I enjoy both. They're both around the same proof (90 and above), but I really like ER10's oak qualities, which is why I also really enjoy EC12. On the OGD front, I don't buy the 86 but enjoy both the BiB and 114 varieties.

Though I haven't had HHBiB, the BiB varieties are some of the best bargains on the market: EWBiB, OldFitzBiB, J.W. Dant, and JTSBrown. Interestingly enough, all of those are HH products.

But I tend to agree with Ramblinman that the 6-12 year range is what to look for.

[MauiSon]

Age and proof are two factors, but taste profile counts much more in my book. A profile I don't appreciate is never rescued by age or proof.

[garbanzobean]

I apologize if this has been covered a bunch (I tried using the search function, but didn't see much), but I've seen it said that focusing on a bourbon's proof is more important than its age. What's the thought process behind this? Is it essentially the idea that the higher proof the bourbon is, the less it's watered-down? I haven't tried many older bourbons, but from what I've read, they tend to be more oaky, which can be an acquired taste, so I guess the idea is, "look for less watered-down bourbon before you go chasing older, more expensive stuff that you might not like."

Does that sound about right? I'm interested in opinions on this, and I'm not offended if you tell me everything in the previous paragraph is wrong!

There is no one right or wrong answer. I think the only way you'll ever know is to try lots of different stuff. If you're completely honest with yourself, different distilleries are quite likely to to answer the age vs proof question differently. The answer depends on myriad variables: mashbill, method of distillation, proof off the still, barrel entry proof, and rackhouse/warehouse/rickhouse location are some of them. Heaven Hill's rye bourbon mashbill at 6-10 years and 100ish proof might really do it for you, but Wild Turkey might taste a bit hot and too young in that same range. Basically: don't assume every distillery will appeal to you in the same manner.

A personal example I will share is that if I'm really being honest, I prefer Four Roses Yellow Label to the Small Batch. They're both good, but I like YL better. They are probably around the same age (if anything, YL is probably younger), and YL is lower proof. I guess the blend of mashbills and yeast strains is what does it for me there. To me, YL is totally different from, but on equal footing with 4RSB. Contrast that will Buffalo Trace/Age International Mashbill #2 bourbons. I think ETL and Blanton's are fine (don't have much experience with Ancient Age), but Rock Hill Farms is far and away my favorite in that lineup. Their proofs are 90, 93, and 100 respectively. It's anyone's guess as to their ages, and Blanton's seems to be the only one with a designated warehouse. Take it over to Heaven Hill's wheated mashbill now. I think OFBIB is only okay but love Larceny, which is lower proof and a bit older.

Bottom line: some folks seem to take comfort in defining their tastes in bourbon as being "X kind of person", but it's never been that simple for me.

[jackthedog]

Age and proof are two factors, but taste profile counts much more in my book. A profile I don't appreciate is never rescued by age or proof.

I'd say this is the biggest point to me. If I like the bourbon, then I like the bourbon. The other two factors kind of fall by the wayside. That said, I seem to enjoy 90+ proof a bit more. EWB at 80 is great but it doesn't seem to be quite as enjoyable as EWBiB at 100 is to me.

[Sean Bond]

Thanks for all the insight, guys. I know that there are more factors than the two I originally listed, but I'd seen those 2 specifically mentioned, so I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything about the two I wasn't considering.

So far I definitely think I tend towards preferring bourbons with >90 proof, but in terms of age, I'm not sure I have a preference. The nice thing about that is it means I have lots of experimenting to do, and the bad thing about it is I have to explain to my girlfriend why more and more whiskey bottles are showing up on the side table!

[PaulO]

Bourbon that is less than 100 proof is more likely to be chill filtered. This makes it clear in appearance, but takes away some of the flavor and texture. If you think about the differences between non filtered or pasteurized beer, and regular mass produced beer, you get the idea.

[Renegator]

Typically I look at distillery first, proof second and age third. I typically like 90-120 proof and 8-12 years. With age statements disappearing - I have stopped looking for that as much.

[GaryT]

Like others, both have their place in consideration. The one advantage of proof is that it is always listed, where age statements aren't always present - and even when present represent the youngest age found in the whiskey (so it could be older). Preferences depend upon tastes though. For me, I prefer OWA 107 over W12 - but that doesn't mean I prefer 6-7 yr over 12 yr bourbon necessarily.

My recommendation is to start at the bottom shelf, identify what you like (and as best you can - what it is you like about it), and go from there. Try some high proof, young whiskey, some low proof young whiskey, some high proof older whiskey, and high proof young whiskey. When I was trying to sort out my preferences, I gave mashbill as much weight (if not more) than proof or age.

[Richnimrod]

My take on this is that the proof is not necessarily more important than the age, for me it's a balance of both. My proof point is around 100, and my age is around 6 and up,(really for me I tend to like the older ones more, because I like the oaky, rackhouse taste) although there are many BIB's @ 4 yrs. that I enjoy also. The higher the proof means that there is less cutting with water, I'd rather do that part myself if I find it necessary. So find that balance that works for you, it takes a lot of experimenting! Enjoy the journey.. grasshopper, and BTW welcome aboard!

[BigBoldBully]

What dSculptor says is spot on. I'll add my own 2-cents worth to further the conversation as well....

When barrels are dumped and the proof is taken down with water, my understanding is that the more water is added, the more the beverage is chill-filtered. I believe, at least for my taste preference the quickest way to lower the 'taste quotient' of any Bourbon is to chill-filter it.... or by extension; to chill-filter it even more, when adding water. For instance; a brand that is bottled at 100-proof is likely chill-filtered a certain amount; the same Bourbon taken down to 80-proof for a different iteration will be chill-filtered a lot more; about 3-times as much, I understand. So, for me the proof is at least as important as the age, and maybe more so for most brands.

[VAGentleman]

Not sure why a lower proof would be chill filtered more. As Jim Rutledge says here, once the fatty acids are gone they're gone, it shouldn't make a difference what the proof is. Also interesting that most agree that chill filtering isn't needed above 86 proof but most still do it

http://bourbondork.blogspot.com/2011/11/q-2-with-four-roses-master-distiller.html

More from Julian VanWinkle here

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-168.html

[garbanzobean]

Not sure why a lower proof would be chill filtered more. As Jim Rutledge says here, once the fatty acids are gone they're gone, it shouldn't make a difference what the proof is. Also interesting that most agree that chill filtering isn't needed above 86 proof but most still do it

http://bourbondork.blogspot.com/2011/11/q-2-with-four-roses-master-distiller.html

More from Julian VanWinkle here

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-168.html

As usual, Jim R. answers questions I didn't even ask. I've got a bottle of Michter's 10 from 2013 that I was assuming was corked because it has what looks like white fluffy mold floating in it. All the non chill filtered whiskey I've had (which is a lot) just gets haze in it, never seen the "cotton" before now. Though if it is just NCF or less chill filtered, I would assume that bringing it up to room temp for several days and then agitating the bottle would have made the fatty acids go back into solution, which they haven't. So maybe still corked . . .

[BigBoldBully]

As usual, Jim R. answers questions I didn't even ask. I've got a bottle of Michter's 10 from 2013 that I was assuming was corked because it has what looks like white fluffy mold floating in it. All the non chill filtered whiskey I've had (which is a lot) just gets haze in it, never seen the "cotton" before now. Though if it is just NCF or less chill filtered, I would assume that bringing it up to room temp for several days and then agitating the bottle would have made the fatty acids go back into solution, which they haven't. So maybe still corked . . .

I do not believe you can see cork taint in the liquid. The tainting components e.g. TCA are present in minute quantities.

[garbanzobean]

I do not believe you can see cork taint in the liquid. The tainting components e.g. TCA are present in minute quantities.

Fair enough. Whatever it is looks super gross.

[Josh]

I agree with pretty much everything everybody has said here. To put it another way, to me higher proof is always good (less of my money going toward water and more toward whiskey) but higher age isn't always good. Everybody's tastes are different but mine are in the 6-12 y/o range with some some exceptions on either end but fewer and fewer as one goes up or down. The only way I learned what my tastes are is by drinking a wide variety of stuff.

[amg]

I don't think it's so much "barrel age versus proof" since these are non-competing factors (among other things) that should be considered when making your selections.

[jeffrey r]

There are many good bourbons that veer more towards one end of the proof vs age spectrum, but this question does argue for the benefits (and in some cases, superb price point) of some of the well-balanced products, such as HMcK BIB (10/100), Old Ezra (7/101), Kirkland (7/103), SAOS (7/99 and 10/100), and FRSB (around 9/100).

[wyllisx1]

With me it's my kids making these comments.:slappin: