Question re a Woodford Reserve

[Gillman]

A batch 65 tasted at a relation's seems pre-Versailles make, can anyone confirm? It is signed by Lincoln Henderson, and still has Labrot and Graham name on label.

It has a faint "candle wax/fat" note that reminds me of current WR, so I'm wondering if the Shively make still used to mingle for the brand possibly was never the regular Old Forester recipe aged at Versailles but was a purpose-distilled column still distillate intended specifically for the brand. Comments?

Gary

[Gillman]

I'll answer my own question, the pre-batch 90's with Lincoln Henderson are not Versailles whiskey but All old Forester honey barrels.

So that's what I have but I do still find a slight modern character to it, a very alight waxy note that Forester/Signature don't have.

Maybe aging at Versailles imparted this although I still wonder if the make distilled in Louisville for WR even when it was all column still Louisville was a different stilling than regular Forester.

It's very good bourbon either way. I have the bottle now, gifted to me.

Gary

[squire]

Gary I suspect that subtle note is something present but not apparent in the regular Forester line as the brands share the same mashbill and yeast. Back at the beginning Lincoln commented early Woodford (Labrot & Graham) was made up of hand selected honey barrels from Forester stock so he certainly had a profile in mind when creating the brand.

[fishnbowljoe]

Sorry I'm late to this thread Gary. Yes you did answer your own question. The first batches of WR were from honey barrels of Old Forester. I've had a couple of bottles from early batches of WR. (Still have one left) They tasted great to me. After my first taste of one, my immediate thought was that it reminded of some of the older "dusty" Old Forester BIB's I've had.

Cheers! Joe

[Gillman]

Thanks gents and repeated tastings suggest to me you are both right.

Whatever (small) connection to current WR comes I think from the aging of those honey barrels at Versailles. Which raises a question: how did they know it was honey barrels since white dog was sent to Versailles for aging?? Can there be honey barrels of new make?

Gary

[amg]

Thanks gents and repeated tastings suggest to me you are both right.

Whatever (small) connection to current WR comes I think from the aging of those honey barrels at Versailles. Which raises a question: how did they know it was honey barrels since white dog was sent to Versailles for aging?? Can there be honey barrels of new make?

Gary

Were they sending white dog to Versailles at the beginning? I was under the impression that those barrels were aged with the Old Forester stock.

[Paddy]

Gary, I don't think the original distillate ever saw the morning dew on a Woodford country rackhouse. It was all OF honey barrels, but I doubt any of those were actually aged at the distillery. They may have trucked it in for bottling though...

P. S. That candle/wax fat note you mentioned made me think of a lot of the older distillate, like when it used to come off the still and go into the wood under 110p. I've got an old ER101 that it seems to drip off of...:yum:

Edit to add: makes me want to dive into it!

[Gillman]

Thanks again. I was always under the impression that the first WR bottled, up to Batch 90, were all-Louisville distillate that was exclusively aged at Versailles. Maybe that's not right, maybe it was only once they starting mingling the two makes that the Louisville distillate used had been all-aged at Versailles.

The "mutton fat" note is present in the honey barrel version but much muted compared to the Versailles distillate's contribution in the mingled version.

Your point about low entry of older bourbons is a good one, I don't think it's the stilling out proof since Versailles make comes off very high actually, about 159. But clearly Versailles make when aged 5-6 years still has that big waxy note, not sure why exactly. Net net I really much prefer the "OF" version of WR, it just tastes much better. (The reason I "know" it's the Versaille contributing this is in the all-Versailles bottlings that have been done that note is even stronger...).

I should add the post-90 WR IMO again is ideal for Manhattans and other mixing, even more than the "OF" version. But for neat sampling I do prefer the OF or Birthday profile.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Gillman

[Gillman]

Just a further or connected thought, I always thought the post-Batch 90 profile would be superb aged another 3-5 years. Those tallow-like notes would age and transmute into something really complex and good I think. That would be best of all possible worlds: there is OF and Birthday for those who like that; there is current WR for Manhattans and mixing; and there would be a current profile aged 8-10 years for a truly luxury bourbon. My sense is none is kept that long though because they can sell all they make when matured to its current bottling point!

Gary

[Paddy]

Yes Gary, they certainly have no problem moving that distillate here. Lexington votes Woodford Reserve as its #1 bourbon on an annual basis. When it came to fruition, it replaced the former 'standard bearer' Maker's Mark, which now is voted #2 on an annual basis. I guess the Coke mixers outvote the neat drinkers.:skep:

Go figure...:confused:

[squire]

Those cola heads are who keep the big boys in business.

[Gillman]

It's the Coke crowd, for sure. And it does go well with Coke, and red vermouth. But neat, not so much.

Here's something funny, a post of mine from 2008:

"... I left two bottles [in Providence, R.I.] with some friends I couldn't bring back. One was a batch 65 WR from the Henderson era. Another was a DSP 31 Old Fitzgerald BIB. The BIB was actually from a previous trip and I can't recall where I got it. The WR though I got on this trip, on Route 1 in the Somerset area on the right side as you would be driving towards Fall River. I think it was called Somerset Liquors or Wine and Liquors. It was a reasonable size, a smaller warehouse-style place. They had one more batch 65 (that I saw) and 4 or 5 batch 69's, for $28.00, an excellent price. We may go back in November or December, I'll contact you then if we do".

That was on a SB thread, a message to MikeK, Mike I hope you're still reading. I keep forgetting to write you, you need to remind me.

I was just back at the same house in Providence - 7 years later. The Henderson WR #65 was still there, unopened, and kindly given (back) to me by my host. The BIB Fitz was still there, unopened, and I was gifted that back, too.

I have them now in Toronto. I believe that BIB, which I had indicated was already in the host's bar from an earlier trip where I left it there, was from 2005, 10 years ago. I have a post from 2005 on SB where I talk about that BIB in general terms and that I got it in Providence.

The Fitz is actually DSP 1 Bernheim bottled at DSP 31, so my memory, writing from Toronto after returning from Providence, was almost right in the quote above but not quite.

The bourbons are in perfect condition, they were stored in a warmish small room in a bar with other liquors. The Fitz has a good treacly note to it,but the roughish finish which HH Fitz always had. It's very good though.

Gary

[cho]

anyone here happen to know what year VIP batch #5 was released? It was under Henderson but that is about as much as I can gather.