Vatting of the Month (VOTM) #2: Fozzy's BT/114 Blend (Oct. 2015)

[BigBoldBully]

Starting a little early this month, due to a fear of getting too distracted by work over the next couple of days and forgetting.

This month, it's a vatting that seems to be rapidly gaining popularity, due at least in part to the efforts of one particularly fuzzy bear. The default ratio is a 50:50 of Buffalo Trace and Old Grand Dad 114.

I have not yet tried this vatting, but have mixed up two small bottles of it and hope to add my two cents sometime over the next few weeks. I will say that, upon sniffing the concoction, the OGD 114 seems to dominate the nose. (Not a bad quality IMO.)

Along with all the usual comments and discussion, one thing that might be useful is specifying what batch number your OGD came from, given that this brand is known to exhibit considerable variation. It can generally be found in white on the lower part of the bottle glass, as opposed to the lot number listed on the paper label, which apparently never changes.

[meadeweber]

Variation in OGD 114? I had not heard that. Luckily, I have also not experienced it. Every bottle has been darn good and since I found a great price on them this year, my bunker is stocked with them!

[smokinjoe]

Variation in OGD 114? I had not heard that.

I was puzzled by that comment, too.

[Harry in WashDC]

Well, when I mixed up my 1:1, 6 oz. in-the-aggregate today for consumption later this week, I got out my magnifying glass, got close to a strong light bulb, and wrote down on the mixing jar label (so I don't confuse the contents with salad dressing in a similarly-shaped jar) the laser-etched numbers appearing on the bottom of the front of my OGD 114 bottle just in case I need them. Also, I did what Meadeweber did and loaded up when they were REALLY discounted in the W-MD-VA area a short while ago. I've not really noticed a difference in OGD 114 batches but also not really looking for one or even caring whether they were from different batches so maybe they are all from one batch. I am NOT walking downstairs to the basement to check. And, when I do go to the basement, odds are I'll have forgotten I'm supposed to check.

[meadeweber]

Well, when I mixed up my 1:1, 6 oz. in-the-aggregate today for consumption later this week, I got out my magnifying glass, got close to a strong light bulb, and wrote down on the mixing jar label (so I don't confuse the contents with salad dressing in a similarly-shaped jar) the laser-etched numbers appearing on the bottom of the front of my OGD 114 bottle just in case I need them. Also, I did what Meadeweber did and loaded up when they were REALLY discounted in the W-MD-VA area a short while ago. I've not really noticed a difference in OGD 114 batches but also not really looking for one or even caring whether they were from different batches so maybe they are all from one batch. I am NOT walking downstairs to the basement to check. And, when I do go to the basement, odds are I'll have forgotten I'm supposed to check.

Why would you go to the basement? Just look in the trashcan.

[Harry in WashDC]

Why would you go to the basement? Just look in the trashcan.

That's where I put the newly opened BT. Halloween's coming up, and I just love candy apple.:skep:

[BigBoldBully]

As to the batch variation comment, I will try searching later for some of the forums in which significant variation was discussed. Personally, I have had three bottles of OGD 114 open at once to study the variations. If I recall correctly, it all started when I opened a new bottle mistakenly thinking the first was empty (it was still half full). Surprised by the differences, even after some air time, I opened another. One batch was full of tropical fruit, another was all burnt brownie, and the third was more of a spiced cardboard. This is what led me to search out and take note of the batch markings. Since I favored the tropical one, I bunkered several more with that number, and fortunately each bottle with that number has been just like the first. (Burnt brownie is nice too, though.)

[DonutsNBourbon]

One batch was full of tropical fruit, another was all burnt brownie, and the third was more of a spiced cardboard. This is what led me to search out and take note of the batch markings.

[BigBoldBully]

well, I think I got one that was the spiced cardboard. Mind sharing the batch numbers you have, maybe I can compare and see what I got to see if it was the same batch.

[kjbeggs]

Variation in OGD 114? I had not heard that. Luckily, I have also not experienced it. Every bottle has been darn good and since I found a great price on them this year, my bunker is stocked with them!

[smokinjoe]

I've heard it a good bit, and noticed it slightly myself (before reading about it), but it was such a minimal difference, I just attributed it to my palate at the time.

I've read posts that claimed variations all over the place, but the only time I've seen any major difference was pours from bottles that were several years apart.

[kjbeggs]

You heard it, here?

[smokinjoe]

Mostly Facebook posts.

guess i should consider the source...:shocked:

[BigBoldBully]

All right guys, we know Joe's skeptical about the existence of differences between batches, between bottles open for various lengths of time, and probably between pumpkins and basketballs. (He he, no disrespect intended, Joe, honest. :grin:) Now can we see if we might manage at least one post about the blend at issue before we hit the third page? :skep:

[smokinjoe]

All right guys, we know Joe's skeptical about the existence of differences between batches, between bottles open for various lengths of time, and probably between pumpkins and basketballs. (He he, no disrespect intended, Joe, honest. :grin:) Now can we see if we might manage at least one post about the blend at issue before we hit the third page? :skep:

[BigBoldBully]

I do actually enjoy your skeptical perspective, Joe, and am glad to be taken to task–although I am occasionally frustrated by how less-than-falling-off-a-log-easy it can sometimes be to locate various posts I fondly recall reading on this site. For now, though, I will simply offer (in support of my position that OGD 114 has been known to display considerable variability) the following two tidbits of evidence, marked for identification purposes as Exhibits A and B:

Exhibit A - In his review published on the L.A. Whiskey Society site, at http://www.lawhiskeysociety.com/whiskey-profile/2341/Old-Grand-Dad-114-,

our very own Sku gives his bottle of OGD 114 a lowly “C” and concludes: “I’ve liked this in the past, but the bottles seem to vary.”

Exhibit B - This post from smokinjoe made last January, at http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?21499-OGD-114-Being-Discontinued-%28Rumor%29/page9:

“I've had a lot of 114 in my day, too, and the bottle I described up-thread is more than just a small or subtle shift in profile. It is markedly different. I won't go as far to say it's an entire brand profile shift, as the bottle is a '12, but I assure you it is very different than the standard 114 that I am accustomed to. I will say this, though, the difference is not the result of a 'bad' or 'tainted' bottle, as the whiskey is not bad tasting. It's more like something is...just plain different. Lacking totally the 'burnt nt corner of the brownie pan' signature that I have known and loved. Again, I hope it was just an odd lot, . . . .”

Based on these and other reports of significant/marked differences between bottles, I would contend that we have learned OGD 114 displays considerable variability. Further, based on my own experience that bottles marked with the same faint white numbers taste the same, I suggest this variability is likely correlated to these numbers, which apparently tell us from which batch the bourbon arose. Finally, I propose that, therefore, it may be helpful to share information as to these tough-to-see numbers when supplying impressions. (I've actually proposed this in times past as well, but as I get older I tend to repeat myself a lot. )

[DonutsNBourbon]

Sure, the one I had liked best was 3102. The "spiced cardboard" was in the 5000s--I will be sure to look for the empty, which might still be around. I poured most of that one into a mason jar of raisins, and the result is a nice liqueur. The burnt brownies (a flavor mentioned by others on here, and instantly recognizable) seem to be more common, and have characterized most of the other batches I have tried.

I don't see any numbers like that on my bottle of OGD114:

[fozzy71]

Thx, I was about to ask for pics since all of my open and closed bottles are downstairs at the moment.

[amg]

I've never noticed anything resembling a batch number either.

Back on topic, I mixed a little bit of this up today so that I can try it after it mingles for a bit.

[fozzy71]

Having a pour from my heavy antique decanter (it must weigh twice what the cheap amazon decanter weighs) and enjoying it after having a flight of 3 barrel proofers and a pour from last pours decanter. I don't do 'tasting notes' but I still love this blend a ton.

[smokinjoe]

I do actually enjoy your skeptical perspective, Joe, and am glad to be taken to task–although I am occasionally frustrated by how less-than-falling-off-a-log-easy it can sometimes be to locate various posts I fondly recall reading on this site. For now, though, I will simply offer (in support of my position that OGD 114 has been known to display considerable variability) the following two tidbits of evidence, marked for identification purposes as Exhibits A and B:

Exhibit A - In his review published on the L.A. Whiskey Society site, at http://www.lawhiskeysociety.com/whiskey-profile/2341/Old-Grand-Dad-114-,

our very own Sku gives his bottle of OGD 114 a lowly “C†and concludes: “I’ve liked this in the past, but the bottles seem to vary.â€

Exhibit B - This post from smokinjoe made last January, at http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?21499-OGD-114-Being-Discontinued-%28Rumor%29/page9:

“I've had a lot of 114 in my day, too, and the bottle I described up-thread is more than just a small or subtle shift in profile. It is markedly different. I won't go as far to say it's an entire brand profile shift, as the bottle is a '12, but I assure you it is very different than the standard 114 that I am accustomed to. I will say this, though, the difference is not the result of a 'bad' or 'tainted' bottle, as the whiskey is not bad tasting. It's more like something is...just plain different. Lacking totally the 'burnt nt corner of the brownie pan' signature that I have known and loved. Again, I hope it was just an odd lot, . . . .â€

Based on these and other reports of significant/marked differences between bottles, I would contend that we have learned OGD 114 displays considerable variability. Further, based on my own experience that bottles marked with the same faint white numbers taste the same, I suggest this variability is likely correlated to these numbers, which apparently tell us from which batch the bourbon arose. Finally, I propose that, therefore, it may be helpful to share information as to these tough-to-see numbers when supplying impressions. (I've actually proposed this in times past as well, but as I get older I tend to repeat myself a lot. )

Indeed. I do remember that bottle and 2014 post, and almost referred to it, but based on how far back that went, I didn't think it germane to the wording in the OP. Contrarily, I have not seen a significant showing of opinions expressing the variability you suggest. But yes, that 2012 bottle was way different, and I'll endorse your inclusion of it for your purposes.

[BigBoldBully]

DonutsNBourbon, try holding your bottle up to the light and looking below the rear label (not underneath the label, just below it on the clear glass). The print on the ones I have is white, and can be a bit faint.

To Joe: Since bottles in our bunkers and even on store shelves oftentimes date back a few years (personally I have OGD from at least '12 through '15 in my cellar, and recently bought some that had been on the shelf at least a couple of years), I consider reports of variability over this time period germane. As to "a significant showing of opinions" mentioning variability, I will compile a longer list later but wanted to start the ball rolling with a couple of examples (and one more tossed in below) in hopes of persuading those who don't know me that I am not crazy. (Those who do know me tend to be unpersuaded by my efforts along these lines.)

Exhibit C, a second-hand report from WhiskeyWonka2013, who despite being new to OGD 114 has heard about the variability:

“I only discovered OGD114 last year, so I can’t really comment on batch variation from personal experience. I have, however, read about variability from other drinkers of the stuff.”

Edited October 1, 2015 by BigBoldBully

[smokinjoe]

Really, on Aaron's blog comment? Can I use the remainder of his comment, and his immediate comment above it that you didn't cite, as my own Exhibit A in support of no noticeable variation?

Regardless, I apologize for derailing your thread further. I know you believe strongly in this, as you have brought it up before in various threads. I am afraid I don't agree, as I have just not seen it. I'll acknowledge, however, that my denial and skepticism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think it's also possible that I may have misunderstood what you meant by asking for Batch #'s to identify differences in profiles as the "brand is known to exhibit considerable variation". I took that to mean that a bottle one may have purchased today is measurably different than one purchased 4 months ago, which was different from one that bought in another state 6 months before that, which was different from the bottle bought across town 5 months before that. Instead, I'm wondering if the batch variation you speak of, is really just a possible overall profile change that may have occurred in 2012. This is something that I thought and reported in my post that you cite, as well as the time period of the Sku and WhiskeyWonka posts. There seemed to be much talk of that possibility at that time. Support for an overall profile change could even be supported indirectly through a Chuck Cowdery blog post around the same time that reported on the dropping of the 86 proof OGD to 80. http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/03/beam-cuts-old-grand-dad-proof-without.html . Though not directly mentioned, one could infer that this statement says much in what it doesn't say:

Asked to comment, Beam provided the following statement: "This was an adjustment that happened mid-year 2012 to address certain factors particular to the Old Grand Dad brand, including maintaining a competitive retail price amidst higher input costs, while continuing to meet surging demand among bartenders and consumers in Old Grand Dad Bonded – which is 100 proof and one of very few bonded products out there. It should also be noted that Old Grand Dad’s signature high-rye mash bill – which has certainly set the brand apart from most other Kentucky Straight Bourbons in the last few decades – has not changed (and will not change)."

That is, possibly the reasons given for the change in the 86 to 80 was also a reason for a potential change in 114. This of course, is only conjecture, for I have no idea if any change took place on the 114 at that time.

However, my own experience on the brand beyond that one bottle mentioned above, has been very good consistent burnt corner of the brownie pan for me and I have been hard pressed to find many posts, reviews, blog commentary, etc that supports any ongoing inconsistency in individual 114 batches. The brand generally seems to be beloved for it's wonderful quality along with great price. (Somewhere a manager at Google is going to get a report when he walks in this morning that the search engines were nearly shut down last night do to over searching on this mysterious OGD /114/variation/reviews... from two guys in Wisconsin and Atlanta...) And, Finkelstein is wondering why his blog is suddenly so popular!

I'll get out of the way now, and enthusiastically follow the reports of this vatting of the month.

Edited October 1, 2015 by smokinjoe

[BigBoldBully]

I guess the promise of a longer list later once I had more time to research it was not tolerable. If you have had many bottles since that 2012 example, have noted different numberings on these specimens, and in your judgment they have been consistent in aroma and flavor, then that is also evidence I am happy to consider. (Although I wish you’d been around my parts for a tasting of the three bottles I mentioned above.)

At any rate, my main point was that inclusion of presumed batch number information may be helpful, in the event differences in the blend might correlate to variations in batches. I will go a little further now and say that it would not be a bad idea to include such identifying information about every whiskey we discuss, when it can be found on the bottle. Part of my purpose in posting here and elsewhere about these numbers is to raise consumer awareness of a possible source of information that is usually not even noticed or known to exist. More info is better than less, imo, and could lead to future discoveries.

[BigBoldBully]

Got around to sipping a little of the Fozzy BT/OGD 114 blend. Although the nose seems dominated by OGD, the flavor is certainly more rounded out. Have a cold coming on, so will have to wait to evaluate it further.