Less folk lore, more facts on wheated grain bills

[TheSkinFlautist]

It has been my experience that for many - perhaps even most - whiskey drinkers, interest in production methods is quite superficial; so long as they know whether the flavor grain is wheat or rye and how long it spent in a barrel their curiosity is satietated. Through the time I have spent lurking here as well as conversations I've had with some of you in person I have come to realize this is not the case within your community. I have a tendency to become obsessive, especially in my hobbies, and when my interest in piqued I want to learn everything there is to know about it and feel a sense of the same here. Regarding my interest in grain bills, I believe knowing the ingredients of those whiskies you prefer provides you with at least a basic measuring stick with which to compare others. That and I think it's just neat to know

But I digress - the reason for this post is to ask if detailed information is available regarding the legendary Wheaters and their ingredits:

- When Ancient Age/Buffalo Trace aquired the Weller brand, did they also aquire the Weller grain bill? I have consumed a fair share of the Wellers of old, some back to the 70's, and though they are in a whole other league than any ever dumped from Buffalo Trace, I would not be surprised if they began life as very simmilar soups which makes me wonder if perhaps the curgent Buffalo Trace wheat mash is based upin the old Weller recipe.

- My primary interest lies in whether any any detailed information has ever emerged about the standard Buffalo Trace wheated grain bill and/or yeast used in their Weller products, whatever it's origins may be

- When Buffalo Trace aquired the Van Winkle brand, did they also aquire and, more importantly, begin to employ the original Van Winkle [bourbon] recipes (of which I belive there are two though am probably mistaken)?

- Has any detail emerged regarding these recipes, however many there may be?

[amg]

- When Buffalo Trace aquired the Van Winkle brand, did they also aquire and, more importantly, begin to employ the original Van Winkle [bourbon] recipes (of which I belive there are two though am probably mistaken)?

I can definitely answer this one. The Van Winkle line was always sourced whiskey, and it wasn't always wheated. There was never any proprietary "Van Winkle recipe".

[TheSkinFlautist]

Ah, yes! I think I knew that. Thank you, that answers most of my questions, actually. Were the sources made public?

[tanstaafl2]

Ah, yes! I think I knew that. Thank you, that answers most of my questions, actually. Were the sources made public?

[amg]

Ah, yes! I think I knew that. Thank you, that answers most of my questions, actually. Were the sources made public?

[luther.r]

The recipe wasn't consistent at S-W either. It purportedly went through several changes through the years, including a switch from jug yeast to bagged in 1972 and a reduction in malt and use of enzymes later. Also entry proofs edged upwards through the years at S-W.

[TheSkinFlautist]

Thank you all for your answers. They weren't quite the answers I was hoping for though my questions were a bit optimistic and that is nothing against those who answered them.

luther.r, your comment regarding jug yeasts touched on something I've always been curious of; can you elaborate on any theory you may have surrounding the difference in flavor profile resultant from this switch? I have always maintained that lactic souring due to the inevitably of lactobacillus and/or pediococcus finding their way into that jug-o-yeast combined with the high whiskey fermentation temperatures which are favorable to their activity played a role in the complexity of those gilded age bourbons we don't see today. Furthermore, both of those bacteria produce esters the beer geeks refer to as "funky" and I don't think it's too much a stretch that the degradation of such esters could contribute some of the nostalgic "basement funk" whiskey guys are familiar with.

[squire]

Flautist I wish it were that simple, that X recipe using Y jug yeast run off the same still by the same experienced workmen at the same proof entered straight into barrels without dilution would produce the same product. You can do that with vodka, or rum, or other unaged spirits, but years in the barrel simply introduce too many variables. The Master Distillers who have given interviews over the years have commented that two barrels of the same day's run aged side by side in the warehouse can produce radically different tasting whiskys.

Just the nature of the thing, natural processes are consistently inconsistent. As well as fine tuning the industrial production of beverage alcohol the major distillers have become expert at blending these inconsistencies out to produce their house profiles.

The Stitzel-Weller mashbill is no secret, anyone with the time, money and facilities can reproduce it but it won't be exactly the same whisky. It might be as good, it can even be better (witness what Heaven Hill has done with their Parker Heritage wheat expressions) but won't be the same. I'm mindful of a recent comment made by Jim Rutledge who said that if they reproduced the Beam mashbill exactly at Four Roses the different water at Four Roses would make a different whisky.

[Flyfish]

I'm mindful of a recent comment made by Jim Rutledge who said that if they reproduced the Beam mashbill exactly at Four Roses the different water at Four Roses would make a different whisky.

It seems to me that mashbill gets way too much attention. Some of us can't recognize a wheater without a hint let alone a high rye from low--whatever "high" and "low" mean. Many respondents to the BTEC surveys clearly had no idea what they were drinking until BT posted the results.

Yeast strain, in comparison, tends to be under appreciated IMHO.

[sku]

Yeast strain, in comparison, tends to be under appreciated IMHO.

Bingo. If you taste the same mashbill with different yeast, they can taste completely different.

[meadeweber]

Bingo. If you taste the same mashbill with different yeast, they can taste completely different.

I think Four Roses has done a good job proving that with their private selections.

[shoshani]

I don't think that BT continues to use the old S-W yeast, though Maker's Mark supposedly was started up with the S-W yeast and mash bill if you're to believe the "history" there.

That "history" seems to have some solid ground beneath it, from Stitzel-Weller themselves. In But Always Fine Bourbon, Sally Van Winkle Campbell relates:

Norman Hayden recalls being present the day Bill Samuels came to see Pappy. “We were having lunch in the cafeteria—in the Buckboard Room. I’ll never forget it. Mr. Samuels said, ‘Pappy, I’d sure like to make some whiskey like Fitzgerald.’ Pap said, ‘I don’t know why not. We’ll give you the formula and some yeast’—which he did—big as you please,†says Norman. “Then Pappy sent our master distiller, Andy Corcoran, down there to Loretto to get them cranked up, and he brought their distiller up to Stitzel-Weller to give him an education.†Rip, too, remembers Bill Samuels, Sr., coming to Pappy for help. “Bill always said that they could never have gone back into the business if Pappy hadn’t given them the yeast.â€

[shoshani]

I'm mindful of a recent comment made by Jim Rutledge who said that if they reproduced the Beam mashbill exactly at Four Roses the different water at Four Roses would make a different whisky.

At least one Scottish distillery (Clynelish, I believe) discovered that when they started a second distillery right across the street from the original one, the resultant whisky was different. One reason I'm rather nervously watching Wild Turkey as their new distillery's whiskey starts coming of bottling age in a few more years; it could be better than the old distillery's product, but it could be very much inferior. Only time will tell.

[shoshani]

But I digress - the reason for this post is to ask if detailed information is available regarding the legendary Wheaters and their ingredits:

- When Ancient Age/Buffalo Trace aquired the Weller brand, did they also aquire the Weller grain bill? I have consumed a fair share of the Wellers of old, some back to the 70's, and though they are in a whole other league than any ever dumped from Buffalo Trace, I would not be surprised if they began life as very simmilar soups which makes me wonder if perhaps the curgent Buffalo Trace wheat mash is based upin the old Weller recipe.

- My primary interest lies in whether any any detailed information has ever emerged about the standard Buffalo Trace wheated grain bill and/or yeast used in their Weller products, whatever it's origins may be

- When Buffalo Trace aquired the Van Winkle brand, did they also aquire and, more importantly, begin to employ the original Van Winkle [bourbon] recipes (of which I belive there are two though am probably mistaken)?

- Has any detail emerged regarding these recipes, however many there may be?

All of the current major league wheated bourbons are descended from a recipe developed by the Stitzel family in Louisville, KY. Very likely this recipe was in existence before Prohibition, possibly as early as the distillery's beginnings in 1872, but documentation is scant. Michael Veach would be the person most knowledgeable about that aspect.

The Stitzel distillery was the major supplier for W. L. Weller's line of sourced whiskeys, and it was with Stitzel that Weller would later merge, with Arthur Philip Stitzel owning one-third of Stitzel-Weller. The wheated recipe in the Stitzel-Weller heyday from 1935 through the early 1970s was 70% corn, 18% wheat, and 12% malted barley.

By the time UDV (predecessor to Diageo) closed Bernheim and sold that distillery (and Old Fitzgerald) to Heaven Hill, and sold the Weller line to what was then Ancient Age (now Buffalo Trace), the mashbill had been changed over time to 75% corn, 20% wheat, and 5% malted barley. As to which version of the mashbill went to HH or BT, I don't think any of that is public. It's quite possible that BT revised their wheated mashbill to the earlier version, under Van Winkle influence, but BT is famous for secrecy regarding their mashbills.

The Van Winkle family memoirs relate that Pappy sent the Stitzel-Weller master distiller, as well as the mashbill and yeast, to Maker's Mark to get them started making their own wheated bourbon. Maker's Mark today uses a mashbill of 70% corn, 16% wheat, and 14% malted barley - only 2 percentage points different on each of the small grains from the Stitzel-Weller recipe.

But recipes, and even yeast, aren't the whole story. Pappy espoused certain ways of doing things in his print advertisements, but he did not distill. His master distiller, Will McGill, was very particular about how Stitzel-Weller whiskey was made; they used spring/lake water, milled the grain in roller mills, used open fermenters, did not mash under pressure, used liquid yeast kept and propagated on-site, barreled at something like 105 proof, and used barrels with thicker staves (supposedly for a very very deep char) that required 8 hoops instead of 6.

Of the three inheritors, so to speak, of the Stitzel-Weller mashbill, Maker's Mark keeps the highest number of these practices alive, but even they don't use the kind of barrels Stitz did. And there's no guarantee that any distillery today has access to the same particular breeds of grain that Stitzel-Weller did decades ago.

[squire]

I think yeast and mashbill are equally important, with the barrel being about three times more important than mash and yeast combined.

[flahute]

I think yeast and mashbill are equally important, with the barrel being about three times more important than mash and yeast combined.

I can't find the quote or article I saw it in, but I recently read something in which Harlan Wheatley stated that aging had the biggest effect on the final outcome and by that he meant both the barrel itself as well as where in the warehouse it was aged.

[squire]

Believe that was in a K&L Podcast interview and Harlen said something along the line the barrel contributes 60-70% of the flavor. Other Master Distillers have said the same thing, I've heard/read others say as high as 75%. Really brings things into perspective what with all the talk about mashbills and special water.

[squire]

Also, what kind of warehouse, brick, masonry, metal clad, heated, sited on top of the ridge or down in the valley, what floor, whether the windows are open or closed, quite a lot of variables.

[flahute]

^^^That's the one I was thinking of squire.

And it only makes sense when you consider that these distilleries have only one or two mashbills and the same yeast (not counting Four Roses here) and end up with quite a bit of variation just from the aging.

[shoshani]

Also, what kind of warehouse, brick, masonry, metal clad, heated, sited on top of the ridge or down in the valley, what floor, whether the windows are open or closed, quite a lot of variables.

Hilltop or valley, also urban vs rural. Stitzel-Weller used to age in the city, as does Brown-Forman and probably one or two others; the rest all age theirs in the countryside. The current new offering from Wild Turkey, Master's Keep, was aged in valleys where the proof decreased, instead of their normal hilltop sites where proof goes up.

As as an aside, WT does a great job of marketing production anomalies.

[shoshani]

^^^That's the one I was thinking of squire.

And it only makes sense when you consider that these distilleries have only one or two mashbills and the same yeast (not counting Four Roses here) and end up with quite a bit of variation just from the aging.

Jim Beam especially comes to mind. With the exception of the Basil/OGD line, everything they bottle is the same yeast and mashbill. All the variations come from time and warehouse location. Similarly BT with their two mashbills; Elmer, Rock Hill Farms, and Blanton's are all the same mashbill as Ancient Age, yet none of them taste like each other.

[dboland]

All of this has got me to thinking: What kind of aging stuff will we see in the future? There's the boat stuff and funny things with the barrels - how long until a distiller send a couple barrels to age on the International Space Station? How about in a submarine?

Bourbon is limited by the standards which we define bourbon, but what about maple or other woods for barrels, and then age them in Death Valley?

[TheSkinFlautist]

Ah yes. Squire, I think you may have misinterpreted the focus of my comment. I am aware of the relatively minimal effect the actual ingredients have on final flavor compared to that of barrels, storage conditions, weather, water, etc. I was only pontificating on some specific differences between the production methods of 'jug yeast era' bourbon compared to the more sterile conditions we see today and how they relate to flavor both fresh from the barrel and after 40 to 50 years in a bottle.

Edited August 26, 2015 by TheSkinFlautist

[GrPeMi]

All of this has got me to thinking: What kind of aging stuff will we see in the future? <snip> how long until a distiller send a couple barrels to age on the International Space Station?

Wait...you mean like this?

http://time.com/4009456/international-space-station-whiskey-experiment-japan/

[TheSkinFlautist]

Mars, bitches.