A.H. Hirsch 16 vs. Van Winkle Lawrenceburg Rye?

[sbsbsb]

NOT SPAM....let's call this a hypothetical...would you consider these two unicorns equal from a trade perspective?  Both irreplaceable, from defunct distilleries and both carrying a good bit of hype.  What's your choice between the two?

[mosugoji64]

No contest. VW  rye is delicious and Hirsch tasted like moldy leaves both times I tried it. 

[LCWoody]

VW Rye, hands down

[petrel800]

I'm convinced that bourbon has now become the new baseball cards.  Let me get out my Becket Magazine to see if the values on this trade make sense.

If you have one and you want the other, and someone else has the other and wants your one, and you both are willing to give yours up to the other person, then its a good trade.  At that point, who gives a whoop what anyone else thinks.  

Final word of advice, don't know what you have or what you want, but the grass isn't always greener.  In fact, it rarely is, and if it is greener, its a pain in the ass to keep green.

Edited February 26, 2016 by petrel800

[The Black Tot]

Yup, and I can't wait until the market falls flat on its ass, just like the old baseball cards.

There'll be some drinking done then, my friends!

[b1gcountry]

When the bourbon market colapses I predict a run on manishevitz...

[tanstaafl2]

9 hours ago, The Black Tot said:

Yup, and I can't wait until the market falls flat on its ass, just like the old baseball cards.

There'll be some drinking done then, my friends!

Have to say, as much as I would like to be able to find what I want to find on the shelf at a fairly reasonable price, I am in Joe's camp in hoping it is more of a gentle decrease to a more manageable demand than a relatively quick, hard fall. However history tends to tell a different story unfortunately.

[The Black Tot]

It does indeed. Excess and crash seems to be tied historically to the national consciousness.

We can hope against it, but we are wise to expect it, nonetheless.

[sbsbsb]

Ummm...

 

So any more opinions on AHH16 compared to the Lawrenceburg Rye?

There's no investment aspect to this trade...the juice is gonna get drunk!  I just was curious as to 1) different opinions with respect to taste/preference and 2) Wanted to make sure it wasn't a huge imbalance and I wasn't getting ripped off.  Why do I have the second concern?  Because I *DON'T" really track values (you know, like all those baseball card collectors) since I drink this stuff. 

 

Sorry if I've caused anyone any distress by inadvertently evoking musings around "the boom" and the associated factors.  Not my intent.

[flahute]

45 minutes ago, sbsbsb said:

Ummm...

 

So any more opinions on AHH16 compared to the Lawrenceburg Rye?

There's no investment aspect to this trade...the juice is gonna get drunk!  I just was curious as to 1) different opinions with respect to taste/preference and 2) Wanted to make sure it wasn't a huge imbalance and I wasn't getting ripped off.  Why do I have the second concern?  Because I *DON'T" really track values (you know, like all those baseball card collectors) since I drink this stuff. 

 

Sorry if I've caused anyone any distress by inadvertently evoking musings around "the boom" and the associated factors.  Not my intent.

You'll have to pardon everyone's reticence to fully participate in a discussion about these two whiskies. 

Given the way the market is these days, as noted above, far too many people new to the hobby treat whiskey as a collectible instead of the consumable that it is. Rare and limited bottles become trophies to be "hunted", showcased, traded, and, at its worst, sold for a profit. That's a discussion for a different thread. The point is, though, that when someone brand new to the board immediately jumps in with a question about the relative trade value of two over hyped unicorn bottles, we get suspicious. You may not be new to bourbon, but you are new to us so we don't know anything about your character and motives. We don't know if you are a veteran bourbon enthusiast or a new guy who jumped immediately to the most rare and expensive bottles because you assume them to be "the best". Without that knowledge or any history with you, most guys will stay away from these threads. Don't be offended by that. Too often, new members show up wanting to sell something limited (even though there are rules against buying and selling here), or want to know what the best bourbon is so they can rush out and buy it without undertaking the journey of finding out what they actually like instead of they think they are supposed to like.

I'm not saying this is you. But until we know you better, and your motives, the guys who really know the answers to your questions might not be that forthcoming because they don't want to add any more fuel to the fire.

P.S. - I know you joined in June of last year, but with only 9 posts you are still an unknown quantity to most of us.

[sbsbsb]

47 minutes ago, flahute said:

You'll have to pardon everyone's reticence to fully participate in a discussion about these two whiskies. 

Given the way the market is these days, as noted above, far too many people new to the hobby treat whiskey as a collectible instead of the consumable that it is. Rare and limited bottles become trophies to be "hunted", showcased, traded, and, at its worst, sold for a profit. That's a discussion for a different thread. The point is, though, that when someone brand new to the board immediately jumps in with a question about the relative trade value of two over hyped unicorn bottles, we get suspicious. You may not be new to bourbon, but you are new to us so we don't know anything about your character and motives. We don't know if you are a veteran bourbon enthusiast or a new guy who jumped immediately to the most rare and expensive bottles because you assume them to be "the best". Without that knowledge or any history with you, most guys will stay away from these threads. Don't be offended by that. Too often, new members show up wanting to sell something limited (even though there are rules against buying and selling here), or want to know what the best bourbon is so they can rush out and buy it without undertaking the journey of finding out what they actually like instead of they think they are supposed to like.

I'm not saying this is you. But until we know you better, and your motives, the guys who really know the answers to your questions might not be that forthcoming because they don't want to add any more fuel to the fire.

P.S. - I know you joined in June of last year, but with only 9 posts you are still an unknown quantity to most of us.

 

I totally understand that, and truly appreciate your comments.  My post wasn't a reaction to the lack of participation/amount of replies, but rather, the shift of topic.  After two replies regarding the relative merits of/preference for the VWFRR, it took a hard left turn in discussion around "the boom", the "market" and the inevitable "collapse".  Those threads certainly have their place.  I just wanted to get this particular one back on track.

 

Look, I get it...people have LE, Van Winkle, Hirsch, etc fatigue.  But for those that would still like to weigh in on the topic at hand, I'd very much welcome a substantive discussion.

[fishnbowljoe]

Unfortunately, when/if the word trade comes up in a topic, many of us here immediately think one of two things. Flipping, or selling. It's been an ongoing problem, and it's only gotten worse given the current state of the bourbon world. Many people come here to try and get a value placed on something. If they don't get the answer they're looking for, they either move on to "other" spirit sites, or fade away into obscurity, and usually don't ever post again. Another thing that triggers what might be considered a defensive reaction to your post, is that buying, selling and trading of sprits without a license is illegal. That's why we don't allow it here on SB. Sorry, but that's just the nature of the beast.

Now, on to the topic at hand. Personally, I'd pick the VWFR Rye. It's one of the very few ryes that I actually like. Yes it's a rye, but it drinks almost "bourbony" to me. I think there's a slight sweetness to it, and it doesn't have the dryness that I seem to notice in most ryes. I have to be honest and say that I've never bought or owned any Hirsch 16, but through the graciousness of members here, I was fortunate to taste it a few times. They were good, and had a thicker, viscous mouthfeel that many folks look for, especially in older or dusty bourbons. But, I also remember there was a slightly medicinal, astringent flavor that was noticeable. Anise maybe? Many people might like this flavor, but not me. FWIW, a few years ago I had the chance to purchase some Hirsch 16's on sale, at what was then, a very good price. I passed, mainly because I remembered the medicine like, anise flavor. Just my two cents. Good luck.

Joe

[Kyjd75]

I have consumed several bottles of the Van Winkle Rye and I can say that IMHO it is the best rye I've ever had, and I actually like rye whiskey.  I have tried just about every rye out there, and the VW Rye is the best that I have had.  Now I do have a bottle of the A H Hirsch 16 yr bourbon that my wife gave me for Christmas a couple of years ago.  Been waiting for a good reason to try it (like a UK final four) so for the moment no opinion as to how it tastes.  For the dollars involved, I would have to say it would be hard to beat the VW Rye if you can get it for anywhere near retail.

[sbsbsb]

Thanks so much for all the replies, much appreciated.  Looks like the VW Rye is universally preferred amongst the two.  While I've had more recent bottlings of the VW Rye, I've not yet tasted the earlier, Lawrenceburg version...which I understand to be 100% Medley distillate.  Any of you who have shared your preference...are you familiar with this particular version, and is that what you're referencing?

[LCWoody]

Yes.....and......Yes

[RWBadley]

OK, I'll chime in.

A few days ago I refreshed my memory of what the early 13 yo rye tastes like. I also had a sip of the Lawrenceburg 107 10 yr. I have to say the current stuff put out by BT is all of that. They really do a great job.

I also have consumed more Hirsch 16 and 20 yo than probably anybody. Blue and Red wax. Not gold foil.

They are all very good. The 16 blue wax was fresher than the 20. It had more mint going on, less wood and apparent age; and was an excellent pour.

The Red wax was smoother, woodier and obviously older. It was also an excellent and flavorful pour with a finish that would go on for days.

The early series of 13 yo rye from a fresh bottle was seeming hotter and spicier than either of the other two. A different animal really.

I remember back then tasting all the van Winkles and comparing them to the 16 and 20 Michters Hirsch. (in the mid to latter 90's) At that time the Hirsch would consistently beat out every one of the Van Winkles tasted. We all (me and my beer/bourbon friends)  noticed it and it wasn't really even a close decision. Having said that, I would add that during that general time period I had a substantial collection of Scotch and cognac. The Hirsch would always eclipse just about anything and everything else. Except a 1964 Bladnoch, a 1970 Glen Garioch, and a 1963 27 yo Glen Scotia. Those I remember would hang with it. And probably some that have been from my hazy memory. I had a pre war cognac that was incredible, but just too smooth for words and it had to be served on it's own, as the bigger whiskeys walked over the pretty little thing

Given all that I would take the Hirsch 16 or the 20 over the early VW13 rye in a heartbeat. No Contest. 

Since that time there have been several current whiskey I thought hit the mark like that. 2009 PVW15 for one. 2012 GTS with a little water. Some of the WLW. Vintage rye 23 yo. Sazerac 18 rye. Still mostly all unicorns these days.

If you can find these now: Pikesville 110 proof rye. ECBP (some of them- or any of them) even some of the Stagg Jr's- the 3rd and 4th were pretty good. Some of the EH Taylors are pretty darn good.  1792 if you get a great store pick can be amazing and it's cheap! So too the Old Weller if you get a good barrel pick. Some of the Orphan Barrels have been excellent- in fact the Barterhouse reminds me a lot of the 20 yo Hirsch. These are all mostly attainable and for character 90% of any of the best of the last 30 years imho. That extra 10% is the hard to find and increasingly expensive part. Drink the current good stuff and enjoy- some dusties may eclipse them for sure, but for the most part we have some of the best ever available these days

 

I hope this helps. Let us know what you end up with

Cheers,

RW

[flahute]

Fantastic notes RW. Thanks for taking the time.

[sbsbsb]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2016‎ ‎2‎:‎51‎:‎35‎, RWBadley said:

OK, I'll chime in.

A few days ago I refreshed my memory of what the early 13 yo rye tastes like. I also had a sip of the Lawrenceburg 107 10 yr. I have to say the current stuff put out by BT is all of that. They really do a great job.

I also have consumed more Hirsch 16 and 20 yo than probably anybody. Blue and Red wax. Not gold foil.

They are all very good. The 16 blue wax was fresher than the 20. It had more mint going on, less wood and apparent age; and was an excellent pour.

The Red wax was smoother, woodier and obviously older. It was also an excellent and flavorful pour with a finish that would go on for days.

The early series of 13 yo rye from a fresh bottle was seeming hotter and spicier than either of the other two. A different animal really.

I remember back then tasting all the van Winkles and comparing them to the 16 and 20 Michters Hirsch. (in the mid to latter 90's) At that time the Hirsch would consistently beat out every one of the Van Winkles tasted. We all (me and my beer/bourbon friends)  noticed it and it wasn't really even a close decision. Having said that, I would add that during that general time period I had a substantial collection of Scotch and cognac. The Hirsch would always eclipse just about anything and everything else. Except a 1964 Bladnoch, a 1970 Glen Garioch, and a 1963 27 yo Glen Scotia. Those I remember would hang with it. And probably some that have been from my hazy memory. I had a pre war cognac that was incredible, but just too smooth for words and it had to be served on it's own, as the bigger whiskeys walked over the pretty little thing

Given all that I would take the Hirsch 16 or the 20 over the early VW13 rye in a heartbeat. No Contest. 

Since that time there have been several current whiskey I thought hit the mark like that. 2009 PVW15 for one. 2012 GTS with a little water. Some of the WLW. Vintage rye 23 yo. Sazerac 18 rye. Still mostly all unicorns these days.

If you can find these now: Pikesville 110 proof rye. ECBP (some of them- or any of them) even some of the Stagg Jr's- the 3rd and 4th were pretty good. Some of the EH Taylors are pretty darn good.  1792 if you get a great store pick can be amazing and it's cheap! So too the Old Weller if you get a good barrel pick. Some of the Orphan Barrels have been excellent- in fact the Barterhouse reminds me a lot of the 20 yo Hirsch. These are all mostly attainable and for character 90% of any of the best of the last 30 years imho. That extra 10% is the hard to find and increasingly expensive part. Drink the current good stuff and enjoy- some dusties may eclipse them for sure, but for the most part we have some of the best ever available these days

 

I hope this helps. Let us know what you end up with

Cheers,

RW

RW, wow, thanks for such a substantive and informative response!  I think we have very similar tastes, as two of my absolute favorite pours of the last few years are 2009 PVW15 and Sazerac 18!  I hate to bring up the PVW15, as it's been so over-hyped, but the 2009 15 year remains the pinnacle of bourbon for me...I've tasted none better.  And I should add that I typically prefer rye mashbill bourbons, with Four Roses and Wild Turkey being my long standing favorites.

Maybe a more appropriate question to ask you, given your obvious preference for the Hirsch, is in the standalone overall quality of the early VW Rye.  Frankly, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, it sounds like you're not a fan?  I've always wondered if the 80's CoK distillate in the Saz 18 was just a higher quality rye than the 80's Medley?

[RWBadley]

Well, it's not that I am not a fan, but the earlier stuff was in fact closer to the 13 year age statement and the later rye was older , but also became a blend of distillery as I recall.

It may be at that earlier time it was all put out at a fairly low cost (yet still premium) price point, later the stocks had aged and maybe they had more flavor profiles to work with, especially with other ryes to work with. The early rye seems hotter and less complex-more linear; as opposed to the later years when I think it really started to stand tall as a world class well aged and complex spirit. Tasting a '12 VW rye next to the early A, B, C type series they are not the same for sure. By a wide margin for drinking I prefer more recent versions.

As a bit of history the early rye gives great reference point to the evolution of the series, but also shows the incredible testament to J Van Winkle brand building, business acumen and ability to create world class whiskey utilizing stocks available in a prudent manner. It could be argued he and his associates almost single handed revived the bourbon market. Cheers to him, 

[jsrudd]

4 hours ago, RWBadley said:

Well, it's not that I am not a fan, but the earlier stuff was in fact closer to the 13 year age statement and the later rye was older , but also became a blend of distillery as I recall. 

There are lots of archived postings about this, but in general:

The VWFR Rye get's older every year until letter code F (maximum of 19 years). It was also at letter code F (2004) that the CoK and Medley were mixed and the whole batch was placed in stainless steel tanks. There shouldn't be any difference in the annual releases after this point.

Any of the Lawrenceburg bottlings would have only been Medley distillate.      

[RWBadley]

Yes, thanks for the clarification. That mirrors my general recollection also. 

The advanced bottlings were in fact progressively older. They were also from different barrels year to year. Each years release would be different from the last.

I don't know if all Medley only was labeled Lawrenceburg, or if some Frankfort label may have been all Medley also. 

Whether (all) stainless is effective for long term storage is another topic entirely. Many variables remain that can influence content stability. I have heard reports the gold foil Hirsch was different from the wax Hirsch.  John H of Malt advocate claims the Saz 18 was slightly different year to year after tanking. I have no doubt. I am not surprised as different quality stainless exists combined with any air space or even the possiblility of some stratification over time. Using inert gas in tank should be common, but I have seen enough variable in 'stainless' quality to raise questions there.

Fun points to ponder and it reinforces why we see differences in product over time,

Cheers,

RW

 

 

[jsrudd]

21 hours ago, RWBadley said:

I don't know if all Medley only was labeled Lawrenceburg, or if some Frankfort label may have been all Medley also. 

That's right, Lawrenceburg stops at letter code C (2001) so it is all 100% Medley. 

[RWBadley]

So in that case there should be two or three years of Frankfort labeled 100% Medley before the switch in 2004 with letter code F to the blend of 19 year Medley and whatever age CoK batched together into stainless.

After 2004 bottlings would be the tanked blend. Are the current releases still tanked blend? or a combination of BT at some point...

As I recall some of the Pappy (15 or 20 yo or both) from a number of years ago was removed from tank and bottled to await incremental distribution over the next several years allocation. This may have been when the SW juice was getting towards the last and BT and other juice started to kick in.

Anyway, it's all interesting as a point of historical reference. Many twists and turns in creating a product. Reinforces my admiration for what JVWIII has accomplished over the years.

How it drinks is a priority concern, otherwise it's just so many Beanie Babies taking up bunker space

 

[tanstaafl2]

21 hours ago, RWBadley said:

So in that case there should be two or three years of Frankfort labeled 100% Medley before the switch in 2004 with letter code F to the blend of 19 year Medley and whatever age CoK batched together into stainless.

After 2004 bottlings would be the tanked blend. Are the current releases still tanked blend? or a combination of BT at some point...

As I recall some of the Pappy (15 or 20 yo or both) from a number of years ago was removed from tank and bottled to await incremental distribution over the next several years allocation. This may have been when the SW juice was getting towards the last and BT and other juice started to kick in.

Anyway, it's all interesting as a point of historical reference. Many twists and turns in creating a product. Reinforces my admiration for what JVWIII has accomplished over the years.

How it drinks is a priority concern, otherwise it's just so many Beanie Babies taking up bunker space

 

As I have mentioned before here, Harlan Wheatley said rather matter of fact-ly at a public bourbon dinner that I and some other SB members attended that BT make was going in the VW rye already. This was about 2 years ago. I remember it well because I was the one who asked him the question (and was surprised by the matter of fact answer with no attempt to dodge it!).

Perhaps it coincides with the fact that I think they started the bottle numbers over at A again around that time?

[jsrudd]

Given all the discussion, I thought I'd post this table. I made it a few years ago when I was trying to date a couple of dusty bottles that I found. It's based mostly on old SB posts. (Even though I do things like make tables about VWFRR annual releases, I promise I'm still alright to have a drink with).