Why Do Old Bourbons Sell Out?

[SebastianLloyd]

Old bourbons, they get a bad reputation generally for their quality, being referred to as bitter, too oaky, burnt, dry and so on. I've noticed that people generally buy them only because of the age on the bottle. The oldest bourbon I've tried was a 12 year but I do have a 20 year in my cupboard that I'm anticipating. I personally love the taste of oak so some of the flavour descriptors don't worry me.

What are your opinions on the older stuff?

[mbroo5880i]

I think there is some romantic concept that older bourbons are better because they were made well before today's lower quality stuff.  Older has to be better, right?  Much like with life itself, age is just a number.  It doesn't necessarily define complexity or the experience.  Personally, age is but just one factor in my enjoyment of a bourbon or any whiskey for that matter.  My sweet spot tends to be in the 9 to 11 year range.  However, I have found some bourbons in the 7 to 9 year range exceptional and, similar so, some bourbons in the 12 to 15 year range.  

I would say, as a general rule, I find most bourbon older than 15 years to be a little too woody but that depends on the bourbon.  Therefore, age alone doesn't pique my interest.  However, if the profile (brand) is one I like, then age might enter into the equation.  For example, a 15 year old Heaven Hill or similarly aged rye would be of interest.  I just don't buy it because it is old.

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by mbroo5880i

[Louisiana]

Weather, location, and mashbill have a lot to do when any whiskey reaches its peak.

I agree with mbro's comments on the sweet spots.

Mine are 10 to 15 with some exceptions either way.

Taste is always is my indicator of a really good bourbon. Not rarity so much!

 

[flahute]

Old bourbons sell out because those who don't know any better believe that older is better. Also, older bourbons cost more, and there are those who don't know any better who believe that higher cost always equals higher quality and some people simply want "the best" in any category no matter the cost and regardless of any information that supports it being the best.

[squire]

Sebastian the "older is better" mantra has been around as long as spirituous liquors have been written about. Over 2000 years ago the Roman food critic Epicurus was describing "old Falernian wine" as being choice over younger vintages.  In more recent literature Bilbo was offering Gandalf some choice stuff "laid down by my Grandfather".

There's more than a grain of truth in this, Grand Crus Burgundy and Premier Crus Bordeaux do require aging to reach their peak.  As does Cognac and Single Malt.  Just the nature that some things get better with age, up to a point.  Country ham can be very good at nine months of age but at three years reaches something more complex and so refined that it becomes superlative.  Wouldn't buy a five year old ham though, way past prime by then.

Bourbon is a corn based distillate that when aged in a new charred oak barrel matures wonderfully in the climate of Kentucky.  I'm reminded of the words of H.L. Mencken who described "old Bourbon, mellow, pungent, robust, warm and jovial as the handshake of an old friend".  Being a spirit of different base than malt or brandy (which are aged in reuse barrels in colder climates) Bourbon peaks by about 8 years or so and after that takes on woody influences that change it's character.  Some barrels in the cooler recesses of a warehouse age more slowly but across the board 8-10 years is about tops.

So with Bourbon older is not better, just older.  When Elijah Craig 18 year old was introduce 20 or so years back I bought a bottle, liked it, and went back the next day to buy a case.  The store manager said, Mr. Pickett, we only got a single case and you bought one so we've only got 11 bottles left.  Fine, I'll take those and of course you guys will give this regular customer a case discount.  Yes sir, he said.

It was about half way into the third bottle when I (buffeted by my regular tasting group) decided EC18 was more like a Cognac than a Bourbon.  Good, but certainly leaning in a different direction.  Gave the rest of the bottles away as Christmas gifts to friends and clients who believed "older is better" which gifts were well received.  I've no doubt most of it was drowned away in cola or ginger ale but hey, that bottle looked cool on their home bar.

Oddly, in today's understanding, that first bottle of EC18 I bought was next on the shelf to Pappy 20 and 23 which were collecting dust because nobody was going to pay $39.95 for a bottle of Bourbon with an unknown hokey label no matter how old it was.

[SebastianLloyd]

9 hours ago, squire said:

It was about half way into the third bottle when I (buffeted by my regular tasting group) decided EC18 was more like a Cognac than a Bourbon.  Good, but certainly leaning in a different direction. 

It's interesting that you say cognac. I had my friend try a Lot B a week ago and even tho it isn't that old he said it reminded him of a cognac compared to the Jim Beam and Wild Turkey 81 he's tried.

Also thank you for the wonderful reply.

[SebastianLloyd]

10 hours ago, flahute said:

Old bourbons sell out because those who don't know any better believe that older is better. Also, older bourbons cost more, and there are those who don't know any better who believe that higher cost always equals higher quality and some people simply want "the best" in any category no matter the cost and regardless of any information that supports it being the best.

What is your "sweet spot" for age preference?

[petrel800]

This has been hit on already but put me in the belief category that most people relate older with better, more expensive with better, and fancy packaging with better. 

Also don't discount the fact that in today's age of instant information . . . everyone can be an instant expert. No need to figure out what you like when you can buy the best right off the bat with a simple internet search from your phone.

[The Black Tot]

I like the older ones, but not all of 'em. It is NOT purely a numbers game.

I think the key is if the bourbon was PLANNED to be long-aged - ie located in the cool lower portions of the rack house for the majority of its life, and perhaps rotated close to its release, then the results can be spectacular.

...or they can fall flat. If all I cared about was the number on the bottle, I'd absolutely lose my cool about EC22 no matter how it tasted - I didn't like it at all. I also didn't and don't care for Barterhouse 20yr.

But I am one of those people who like PVW23 and, even rarer, one who liked OBH26 - not that it's much of an issue anymore as I'll not likely get any more of the VW for at least the next several years

Most people who trash high aged bourbons on the high number alone aren't being much more objective than those who praise them based on the high number alone. It's how they're done.

Hell, I don't read about many people sassing Parker Beam's 27yr old PHC release. That one had some pretty high praise levied in its direction.

...and I'm not saying no to anyone who wants to try to pour a 17yr old GTS into my glass.

I also think the "splinters" guys are exaggerating a bit, but hey, maybe I just like me some oak sap!

Generally I like my bourbons and ryes 10yrs or older. But I've had some great 7s, and I'm ALSO not saying no to a 6yr THH pour (a rye, I know, but still relevant)

Edited December 27, 2015 by The Black Tot

[squire]

True, it doesn't even have to be the best, just the perceived best.  I won't squawk though, let the label hunters have at it.  I'll be out the door with my BIB while they're still tapping.

[flahute]

2 hours ago, SebastianLloyd said:

What is your "sweet spot" for age preference?

Generally 8-12 years, though TBT answers the question very much like I would.

Any time you get above 12 years (very generally speaking) the chance of there being too much wood influence goes up considerably, unless, as TBT noted, the barrel has been managed properly with the expectation of it being released at an old age. I have a WFE 23yr old that is absolutely fantastic and which has less wood influence than others in the mid to high teens age range. EC21 on the other hand tastes like sawdust to me. (No, I've never eaten sawdust, but it you take what it smells like and imagine what that smell would taste like, that's what I get.) The recently re-released EC18 does not have too much wood for me. Some of the Orphans do. Stagg, at 15-16 years old generally doesn't give me any of the wood notes that others do (and is my all time favorite).

On the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of 4,5,6, and 7 year olds that also work for me. Handy at 6 years old is a perennial favorite. WT101 (rumored to be a mixture of 5,6,and 7 year olds) is also a perennial favorite value bourbon.

Basically, you have to try them all to determine what works best for you, and that's a good thing because that means you get to drink a lot of whiskey.

[shoshani]

On 12/27/2015, 12:16:08, flahute said:

I have a WFE 23yr old that is absolutely fantastic and which has less wood influence than others in the mid to high teens age range. EC21 on the other hand tastes like sawdust to me.

I'm reminded of Jim Murray's review of the original bottling of Pappy 20 in one of his books, in which he describes one note of sweetness going it alone against the chewy pencil ends. He reacted to its high ranking by some august institute with horror and "come on guys, get real". 

That being said, I'm trying to think whether I've regularly bought anything older than EC12. I had ORVW 15 once. Once. Didn't care for it. 10-12 is probably my upper limit, but most of what I have on hand is likely 4-6 but NAS. 

[kjbeggs]

There's smart marketing to consider, and the fear some people new to the game have of possibly missing out on the Next Big Thing. (I'll admit to occasionally grabbing a bottle before it disappears without the benefit of the knowledge of my fellow SBers).

They read/hear how "Pappiez is da' bomb", and see that the 23 YO retails for around $100 more than the 20YO, so of course older is better.

Then you've got the Scotch guys jumping into Bourbon/Rye, who have spent years in an older IS better reality.

The last big lottery I attended, it was clear I was in the company of guys who really knew their stuff, as I watched a Pappy 23 sit, while it's younger siblings and several BTAC bottles were taken ahead of it. (I took a WLW instead, myself).

 

[SebastianLloyd]

8 hours ago, kjbeggs said:

There's smart marketing to consider, and the fear some people new to the game have of possibly missing out on the Next Big Thing. (I'll admit to occasionally grabbing a bottle before it disappears without the benefit of the knowledge of my fellow SBers).

They read/hear how "Pappiez is da' bomb", and see that the 23 YO retails for around $100 more than the 20YO, so of course older is better.

Then you've got the Scotch guys jumping into Bourbon/Rye, who have spent years in an older IS better reality.

The last big lottery I attended, it was clear I was in the company of guys who really knew their stuff, as I watched a Pappy 23 sit, while it's younger siblings and several BTAC bottles were taken ahead of it. (I took a WLW instead, myself).

 

The way I see it now is that I would like a couple of older bourbons in my collection to try for knowledge, experience and variety but they wouldn't be a daily sipper. So far I've enjoyed those aged around 10 years the most (give or take a couple years).

At my lotto experience EVERYONE was there for Pappy, there were equal amounts of 23 and 20 yr at the store, those getting the 20 got the 23 because "why not".  I got a WLW too, haven't opened it yet tho.