Old Forester 1897 BIB vs. Bonded Old Forester

[mosugoji64]

When BF announced they were releasing a BIB expression as part of their Whiskey Row series, I was immediately interested. I'm a big fan of BIB whiskies and see them as an opportunity for distilleries to show off their house styles. I'm ALSO a big fan of the defunct Bonded OF as, to me, it was a whiskey that served to exemplify good bourbon: an inexpensive, workhorse of a whiskey that was easygoing enough to be a daily drinker but offered a delicious flavor and just enough complexity to keep it from being boring. Having been recently gifted a liquor store gift card, the time was right to grab a bottle of 1897 and see how this new premium expression would fare against the old everyday bottle. 

The differences were apparent immediately with the nose. While not oaky, Bonded OF came off as more mature. Though the label states that the whiskey inside is four years old it is likely older and the age comes through with sweet brown sugar, a hint of tobacco, vanilla, and alcohol. The 1897 smelled immediately of young, corny white dog. The nose was all grain and alcohol with a bit of fruit tucked off to the sides. Those differences carried through on the palate. Bonded OF tastes like liquid spice cake to me and is just about the perfect Fall/Winter pour with that delicious, robust baking spice flavor. I made a pumpkin pie spice infused bourbon last year and Bonded OF is very similar to that but without the work. 1897 tasted pretty much the same as it smelled but with a bit more fruit and some astringency. Not unpleasant, but definitely young. The mouthfeel of 1897 is also thinner and lighter where Bonded OF has some heft and coats nicely. The finish of 1897 was short, as expected, with alcohol and grain being the lingering characteristics. Bonded OF has a much longer finish with a faint, lingering hint of Juicy Fruit gum.

Given the premium market position and price, I had high expectations for the new bottle. Yes, I know that a BIB whiskey is only required to be four years old but I expected BF to put forth more effort with this expression and offer up something special. I also thought that it may not be fair to compare what was likely glut whiskey with a new bottle, but 1897 is a premium expression and priced as such. I don't think it's unfair to expect a lot from such a bottle, but the times in which we're living make it unsurprising that a distillery can command (and get) $50 for a bottle of 4-year-old whiskey. I noted several complaints when Beam introduced their JB BIB at a significantly higher price than what they charged for JBW but, IMHO, that expression was also a significant jump in quality that justified the hike in price. And that one is half the price of 1897. I haven't tried OF Original Batch and haven't picked up any other OF in some time given that I have a stash of Bonded OF that I've been nursing for a while and with this experience and reports recently from PaulO and SmokinJoe of disappointing experiences with OFSig, I likely won't. Hopefully, some air-time will be good for this bottle and I'll report back if that's the case but for now I don't recommend splurging on 1897 BIB.

[Richnimrod]

Brian, save yourself; regarding the 'Original Batch'.    If you were disappointed in the 1897, you'll really be set back with the first taste (and all subsequent ones) of the OB.    I found the bottle, upon which I foolishly splurged, when it was first released, to be nearly undrinkable.    I blended it with nearly equal parts David Nicholson BIB, and that improved it immensely.     That should tell you something right there.

This struck me as a total ripoff.    As if BF had a large amount of awful Bourbon languishing somewhere, and some marketing genius put forth the idea that anything could be sold (AND at a premium price) in this new era of Bourbon-rexia-nervosa, if properly packaged as a 'historically significant' 'limited release'... never to be repeated.    Never repeated, because nobody who bought and drank one would ever buy another.    Just my own experience, and my own opinion, of course.

[LCWoody]

Thanks for taking the time to post this comparison, good read. 

[PaulO]

The OF Sig before the package was re-designed was always nice.  The new package stuff was good for a while, then seemed to really go down hill.  The brand was supposed to be a mingling of bourbons of different ages.  My guess is the older component got significantly reduced or omitted in recent batch.  The other possibility is something in the process of making it changed.  Even at 4 year age statement, the discontinued BIB was much better than this.

 

I see the Whiskey Row series in nearly every liquor store since it's come out.  I think it's sitting around like the limited releases of Woodford. 

[MOwhisky4me]

I have to qualify my comments up front by saying I'm an unabashed fan of Old Forester and so I'm sure some bias plays into my opinions...

 

I haven't noticed the down turn in quality of OF Sig that has been noted by a few here. I'm hoping that there were a few "bad batches" and what others have experienced doesn't become the norm going forward. I've picked up a number of bottles over the past few months and have opened all but one with no unpleasant surprises to greet me as I work my way through the bottle. I've even compared side by side with an older bottle that I had stashed away with my hunting equipment.

 

As to the OF BiB 1897, I have a bottle but haven't opened it yet. Need to pop it open and give it a try. I have tried the OB 1870 however, and thought it was good. Lots of butterscotch and dark, maybe overcooked caramel and some cherries. But it's not spectacular, and definitely not worth $20+ over OF Sig! My complaint would be that it's not a good purchase at $45-50... It's a solid $35 bourbon in my opinion.

[PaulO]

All the lame bottles of OF Sig came from the same grocery store, that had only recently started to carry it.  So I can't really say if it was a bad batch, or if this is the new OF Sig profile.  One thing for sure, Joe's tasting notes sound like he was tasting the exact same thing as I.  At this point, I would take some convincing to buy another bottle, unless I luck into some dusty bottles with the older label.

Most of the time, brands that I'm familiar with tend to be consistant.  Two times in the past I've gotten funny batches.  Once I got some JW Dant that tasted really young.  I think Brian even commented on this too.  Another time it was OWA.  After it went NAS, the next few batches seemed good.  Then they came out with a thin batch that seemed sub-standard for that brand.  In both cases, later batches of JW Dant and OWA seemed return to normal.  

[mosugoji64]

Thanks for the feedback on OB, Rich. Based on past experience with OF I thought the Whiskey Row series might be a good thing. Now, not so much. Echoing your observations, Paul, the last time I had OF Sig was before the label change and I thought it was solid. Soon after is when we found that stash of Bonded and stocked up. Might give Sig another shot once the Bonded is gone but I won't be running out to buy one. MOWhiskey - it's good to hear you had a positive experience with OB. Maybe quality control is an issue with their releases. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on 1897.