Mature wheaters (or lack thereof)

[Sean Bond]

Obviously bourbon doesn't lend itself quite as well to aging as something like scotch, so there just aren't as many older bourbons in general, but what's with the lack of older wheaters? I would think with the success of the Pappy brand, WLW, etc., more people would be trying to jump on this particular train. I apologize if there's some logistical reason, or if the answer is as simple as "almost no one makes wheaters, and the guys who do are already releasing mature ones," but I figured I'd ask, and perhaps expand my knowledge a little!

[Jace]

Could be it just isn't ready. The boom started in what? 2005? That's only 10 years ago.

I've never had Pappy, but from what I hear, most people who actually drink it prefer the 15 and the younger ones. So maybe there just isn't a market for old wheaters.
Remember, a lot of the popularity surrounding PVW is only because of the name.

Or maybe there's a third reason...

[Sean Bond]

14 minutes ago, Jace said:

Could be it just isn't ready. The boom started in what? 2005? That's only 10 years ago.

I've never had Pappy, but from what I hear, most people who actually drink it prefer the 15 and the younger ones. So maybe there just isn't a market for old wheaters.
Remember, a lot of the popularity surrounding PVW is only because of the name.

Or maybe there's a third reason...

Yeah, I considered the boom portion, so you're definitely right that people might not have realized there was a market for wheaters.

 

I've only had PVW15, and while I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of bourbons, I think it's pretty superior to the other ones I've tried (Weller Antique and 12). I can't really compare it to WLW because 1) WLW is oakier/older and 2) I've only had WLW neat, and it was a little hotter than I'd like, so I'd probably throw a little water in next time. Either way, though, I think that there's something to be said about getting into the mid-double digits on these bourbons, and would love there to be something comparable (an older Maker's Mark Cask would work).

[jaxn slim]

Yeah, I think it's just going to take some time for the distilleries to catch up.  We will probably see some more roll out over the next decade or two.

[ramblinman]

7 hours ago, Jace said:

Could be it just isn't ready. The boom started in what? 2005? That's only 10 years ago.

 

There may have been some growing interest then, but the boom didn't come into its own until 2010, maybe late 'oughts if we're stretching it.

[flahute]

The obsession with aged wheaters is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of bourbon. The older Pappy Van Winkles were never intended to be that old. They weren't selling everything they made (had made for them) so those barrels sat around and got older and older until there was some interest in them. The only other distillers that had older wheaters sitting around sold them to KBD some time ago before things really took off. Now that were solidly in the boom and still ascending, nobody can get wheaters aged that long because they can sell it all out at 12 years or younger. BT can't keep up with demand for OWA and it doesn't even have an age statement. Heaven Hill might have some stocks, but most of their wheated bourbon goes into Larceny now. 

[tanstaafl2]

20 hours ago, Sean Bond said:

I can't really compare it to WLW because 1) WLW is oakier/older

WLW may be oakier to the palate for you as that is an individual thing. But it is rarely older. For about the last 10 years for example it has been in the 12yo range or less. The last time it was 15yo was the 2006 release.

Basically it is cherry picked barrel proof Weller 12!

[Sean Bond]

11 minutes ago, tanstaafl2 said:

WLW may be oakier to the palate for you as that is an individual thing. But it is rarely older. For about the last 10 years for example it has been in the 12yo range or less. The last time it was 15yo was the 2006 release.

Basically it is cherry picked barrel proof Weller 12!

Well sheee-yoot! Yeah, I'm not really sure why I thought it was older, since I've definitely read up on the 2015 version (which is what I had, and is 12 yr. as you said). It's entirely possible that high proof + (as you also said) cherry-picked barrels yielded the longer, oakier finish than standard W12. With that being the case, I guess I wish they released a barrel proof Weller 12 (a more general version, like MM Cask).

Edited December 3, 2015 by Sean Bond

[tanstaafl2]

Yes, the distillery no doubt picks the WLW each year to meet a particular profile and probably from a particular area of specific warehouses (although I have no first hand knowledge of how WLW gets selected!).

Problem with making a barrel proof W12 is that it would 1) instantly become another hard to find "just like Pappy" bottle and 2) BT/Sazerac seem to be unable/barely able to meet demand now as it is and selling BP Weller 12 would only decrease available stocks.

[Sean Bond]

47 minutes ago, tanstaafl2 said:

Yes, the distillery no doubt picks the WLW each year to meet a particular profile and probably from a particular area of specific warehouses (although I have no first hand knowledge of how WLW gets selected!).

Problem with making a barrel proof W12 is that it would 1) instantly become another hard to find "just like Pappy" bottle and 2) BT/Sazerac seem to be unable/barely able to meet demand now as it is and selling BP Weller 12 would only decrease available stocks.

Yeah, you're definitely right about that. However, the way I look at it is, Weller 12 is already pretty impossible to get (relatively speaking, at least in my area), so if I'm going to have to chase this stuff, it might as well taste as good as it possibly can (or at least be as strong as possible). Who knows, maybe they also don't think Weller 12 is better at barrel strength (at least, the non-WLW barrels).

[SebastianLloyd]

I know this isn't bourbon but has anyone tried Dry Fly 100% wheat?

[Louisiana]

Older wheaters may be rarer, but not necessarily better!

Depending on the barrel location and weather 10-15 years is ideal IMO!

There are always exceptions, but not many.

 

 

 

 

[Frodo]

On 12/8/2015, 11:40:10, SebastianLloyd said:

I know this isn't bourbon but has anyone tried Dry Fly 100% wheat?

Yup. I was bored to tears. Nice enough manners but just didn't have any complexity. 

[SebastianLloyd]

4 hours ago, Frodo said:

Yup. I was bored to tears. Nice enough manners but just didn't have any complexity. 

That's sad to hear, I hope it wasn't overpriced at the LCBO like how it's here at the BCL.

I think I'm just more so curious in an all wheat whisky because it makes me think that it would taste like a warm slice of bread. I won't purchase Dry Fly because it's far too pricey for no justifying reason (and I think it's only 2 years old) but next time if I see an all wheat at a bar I'll give it a try, perhaps a Bernheim, which seems to be the general recommended one.

[GAbiker]

On 12/2/2015, 3:05:48, Sean Bond said:

Obviously bourbon doesn't lend itself quite as well to aging as something like scotch, so there just aren't as many older bourbons in general, but what's with the lack of older wheaters?

As compared to Scotch, bourbons aren't aged as long.  But that has very little to do with the White Dog itself and much more to do with the climate.   The seasonal temperature fluctuates in KY (can be 100 degrees in the summer and 0 in the winter) plus the humidity are completely different than say Speyside, where there is a mild temperate climate year round.  

I'm sure a barrel of bourbon aged in Speyside (wheater or not) wouldn't reach it's "sweet spot" until it was 20-30 years old.

 

[squire]

On 12/2/2015, 2:05:48, Sean Bond said:

Obviously bourbon doesn't lend itself quite as well to aging as something like scotch . . . .

Quite true and there are reasons why.  Bourbon, being aged in new barrels as opposed to second, third or more refill casks cannot stay in the barrel more than 8-10 years before the wood becomes a dominate note.  Exceptions of course (warehouse location primarily) but one cannot expect new make Bourbon whisky to last much longer aging in the Kentucky climate without changing character beyond the traditional Bourbon flavor profile. 

Climate is telling here as experiments some years ago have shown.  Bourbon sent to Scotland to age slowed down to about a third of the time they would've aged back home while barrels of single malt sent to Kentucky sped up aging about three times faster.  None of the barrels, here or there, made a product worth bottling.  Just the nature of things.  Rum doesn't age very long at close to sea level in the Caribbean islands (barrels will evaporate) so to age rum 10 years or longer they have to move the stock up into the mountains.

Older is better is more for bragging rights than an actual indication of quality.

 

[SebastianLloyd]

1 hour ago, squire said:

Older is better is more for bragging rights than an actual indication of quality.

I wish this site had a "thumbs up" button to press.

[Sean Bond]

9 hours ago, squire said:

Quite true and there are reasons why.  Bourbon, being aged in new barrels as opposed to second, third or more refill casks cannot stay in the barrel more than 8-10 years before the wood becomes a dominate note.  Exceptions of course (warehouse location primarily) but one cannot expect new make Bourbon whisky to last much longer aging in the Kentucky climate without changing character beyond the traditional Bourbon flavor profile. 

Climate is telling here as experiments some years ago have shown.  Bourbon sent to Scotland to age slowed down to about a third of the time they would've aged back home while barrels of single malt sent to Kentucky sped up aging about three times faster.  None of the barrels, here or there, made a product worth bottling.  Just the nature of things.  Rum doesn't age very long at close to sea level in the Caribbean islands (barrels will evaporate) so to age rum 10 years or longer they have to move the stock up into the mountains.

Older is better is more for bragging rights than an actual indication of quality.

 

You know, it's interesting, when I started this thread, I mostly had bourbons like WLW and Pappy in mind when I asked why there weren't more "mature" bourbons. However, as was pointed out, this year's WLW is only 12 years old (which, while I'd still call that mature, it's not as old as I was thinking). Having had both WLW and Weller 12 recently, it's pretty clear that really what's making the difference is: 1) Barrel selection (location in warehouse, etc.) and 2) higher proof (barrel/cask strength). I haven't had 20 or 23 year Pappy, so I can't comment on what such significant age does to a wheater (although I've had Jefferson's 18, which is obviously pretty close age-wise), but it certainly seems like age isn't quite as important as I was initially thinking.

I suppose the best example of this that I can currently come up with is Maker's Mark vs. MMCS - I don't even particularly like regular MM, but MMCS is one of my go-tos. The nice thing is that this means I don't have to wait on really uncommonly old stuff, the downside is obviously that higher proof wheaters are also much less common. 

[starhopper]

I had my first taste of MM the other day - I must say I prefer WL Weller Special Reserve over it.  For one, it seems that the Weller has a stronger flavor (MM seems very bland to me), and two, it's $10 cheaper!  I have yet to try the MMCS.

[Sean Bond]

5 minutes ago, starhopper said:

I had my first taste of MM the other day - I must say I prefer WL Weller Special Reserve over it.  For one, it seems that the Weller has a stronger flavor (MM seems very bland to me), and two, it's $10 cheaper!  I have yet to try the MMCS.

I honestly can't even remember if I've had WSR, but I agree that MM is relatively bland to my tastes. You'll probably want to check out Old Weller Antique 107 if you like Special Reserve, and yeah, give MMCS a shot. Still not as packed with flavor as something like a WLW, but it's very nice.

[starhopper]

Well, after tasting MM and finding it so bland (let alone, astringent), I'm kinda hesitant to spring for the $59 they want for the MMCS! 

Edited December 17, 2015 by starhopper

[Sean Bond]

14 minutes ago, starhopper said:

Well, after tasting MM and finding it so bland (let alone, astringent), I'm kinda hesitant to spring for the $59 they want for the MMCS! 

That's understandable, although like I said, I don't really like regular MM either. The other thing to keep in mind is that MMCS also comes in 375mL bottles, and those retail closer to $35-40. Or, obviously just grab a pour at some bar.

[starhopper]

Haven't seen those 375ml bottles here - just the 750ml.  Maybe I'll give in to the dark side and buy it for myself for Christmas lol.

[b1gcountry]

Look around at sales flyers. It had been marked down everywhere in StL.

[starhopper]

4 minutes ago, b1gcountry said:

Look around at sales flyers. It had been marked down everywhere in StL.

So far, $59.95 IS a markdown from the normal $65-69 I see it! lol  But, I'll keep looking.