Younger Elijah Craig vs. EC12 - I must eat crow

[flahute]

I've been as vocal as anyone here about my displeasure with EC12 losing it's age statement. Like many, I bunkered up when the news dropped. I tried and finished my first bottle of the NAS a few weeks back and did not like it as much as the age stated. Of course my biases were front and center and I did not try them sbs much less blind.

Well it's time for me to give the NAS another chance. Why?

 

I participated in a barrel pick the week before last and we had three barrels to choose from. Two of them were from Deatsville (the former TW Samuels Distillery that HH uses for aging. Some of their best stuff has come from here).

The group always tastes blind so we did not know the ages or warehouse origins until after we chose. 

Barrel #1 was the clear winner at both barrel proof and when proofed down. It was vibrant, full and well rounded.

Barrel #2 had a great mouthfeel but was flat and thin compared to the others.

Barrel #3 was not quite at the same level as #1 but had enough of it's attributes to be a fine pick in it's own right.

 

Barrel #1 - 8yrs from Bardstown, 7th floor.

Barrel #2 - 11yrs, Deatsville, 5th floor.

Barrel #3 - 10yrs, Deatsville, 4th floor.

 

We chose both barrels #1 and #3.

I was impressed with how good 8yr Elijah Craig can be. All the usual caveats about single barrel variation apply of course.

Larry Kass told us that the issue they were having trying to keep the age statement on standard EC is that due to supply pressures they were being forced to use any and every barrel they could scrounge up that was 12 yrs old whether it was up to normal standards or not. Removing the age statement gives them flexibility to mix in younger but still high quality bourbon. (All skeptics do with this what you will).

If they can find barrels like the one we chose, EC will be OK.

 

Time for me to eat crow and do a blind sbs with NAS and 12yr.

[lcpfratn]

I have bunkered quite a bit of EC12, but I also have a bottle of EC NAS that I have tried several times and it's pretty good. I have also not done a SBS comparison, so can't comment on that either. I'm still glad that I bunkered the EC12 that I did, but I am hopeful that HH will be able to continue to produce EC 1789 that compares well with the original EC12.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paddy]

Good report.  Greater artistic freedom for the distiller can work to our advantage when the distiller keeps the focus on quality vs quantity.  Unfortunately, some do appear to be focused on the latter.    

 

Jim Rutledge sure spoiled us while he was plucking those hidden jewels (of all ages and proof points) from the nooks and crannies of his rackhouses.  My wish is that every distillery would follow his lead, pull good barrels when they're ready, and sell them at barrel proof (or at least as single barrel) expressions of the house profile for the given brand.

 

I want to keep age statements as much as anyone, but I'll take good to great bourbon over a fair age stated bourbon any day of the week!      

[Kepler]

Count me as a holdout skeptic.  The single barrel comparisons prove nothing.  At the batch level, I wonder how the NAS compares to the 12 year minimum batches?  I recently tried NAS and going by memory alone, which I know is not reliable, it wasn't as good as my memory of the 12  year.  I'll be doing a fair comparison myself in the coming month or so. 

 

Another thing to remember before drawing any permanent conclusions is not only how the NAS tastes now (when Heaven Hill realizes that all eyes are on the taste of the new NAS juice) but rather how the NAS tastes a few years down the road when nobody pays attention anymore....

[flahute]

13 minutes ago, Kepler said:

Count me as a holdout skeptic.  The single barrel comparisons prove nothing.  At the batch level, I wonder how the NAS compares to the 12 year minimum batches?  I recently tried NAS and going by memory alone, which I know is not reliable, it wasn't as good as my memory of the 12  year.  I'll be doing a fair comparison myself in the coming month or so. 

 

Another thing to remember before drawing any permanent conclusions is not only how the NAS tastes now (when Heaven Hill realizes that all eyes are on the taste of the new NAS juice) but rather how the NAS tastes a few years down the road when nobody pays attention anymore....

All fair points.

You'll notice that I did say "caveats about single barrels apply". 

Some members on this board were reporting that late batches of the 12 year age stated were not living up to expectations. This would support what we were told about scrounging for any barrel they could find.

What I do know now is that EC at only 8 years can taste pretty dang great - better than any 12 year batch I've had. This gives me hope that they can continue to support the brand with younger whiskey mixed in. Of course, blind sbs's are necessary. Now as well as a few years down the road.

This is a core brand for them so I don't think they will let it go downhill. Cheaper brands will likely go first.

[Kepler]

12 minutes ago, flahute said:

All fair points.

You'll notice that I did say "caveats about single barrels apply". 

Some members on this board were reporting that late batches of the 12 year age stated were not living up to expectations. This would support what we were told about scrounging for any barrel they could find.

What I do know now is that EC at only 8 years can taste pretty dang great - better than any 12 year batch I've had. This gives me hope that they can continue to support the brand with younger whiskey mixed in. Of course, blind sbs's are necessary. Now as well as a few years down the road.

This is a core brand for them so I don't think they will let it go downhill. Cheaper brands will likely go first.

True, you did fairly point out the caveat about single barrels.  Everything you wrote is possible, I am just skeptical when it comes to removing age statements.  You know, HH could have chosen to change the age statement from 12 to 8, but they chose no age statement at all.   

[mosugoji64]

It's funny how comparisons can sway our perceptions. I'm a big fan of HMBIB 10yr but when drinking it side by side with EC12, HM comes off as too sweet. Your findings are encouraging so I'll have to do a SBS with the NAS and 12 to see what HH is up to with the brand.

[GaryT]

If only there was a community of whiskey geeks somewhere that we could challenge to do a blind SBS comparison and post detailed notes on what differences they found

 

Great post Steve.  I didn't bunker, but honestly EC12 wasn't one of my favorite bourbons (I absolutely LOVE ECBP which is also 12 yrs, but for whatever reason just didn't love EC12).  Hell, I might prefer the NAS version if it has just slightly younger stuff!  I haven't bought the newer offering, but feel inspired to do so in the name of science

[BourbonGuy]

I stopped at Heaven Hill in my recent trip to Kentucky.  They addressed this at the end out tour tasting.  They said even the employees made a fuss when they removed the age statement.

They said they gave employees blind samples and it was virtually impossible to tell them apart.  Now, as GaryT hinted, I would the members here over anyone else in a blind tasting.  Unfortunately I

didn't bunker any 12 year.

[garbanzobean]

One thing I have learned in life is that implementation matters as much or more than rules, idea, or plan.  A good team can succeed in just about any operating environment.  As long as they are picking great barrels that meet the EC profile for their batches, age doesn't matter (though one might argue that taking information away from customers is uncool regardless).  Four Roses has proven time and again that age statements are totally irrelevant when you have the right people making decisions about the product.

 

Buffalo Trace is also an interesting case study, as they have so many brands that, whether or not they kept the age statement, dropped in quality for a time and have since rebounded significantly.  They may not be quite as good as glut era versions in some cases, but that's a pretty small downside compared to no having to worry about bourbon dying out 

[Gentleman Racer]

I also had initial skepticism followed by cautious optimism in the EC1789 (is that what we're calling it now, with the new bottle and all).  I bunkered 1.75s of EC12 because it's one of my favorite every-days.  And I had my first taste of the new small batch/1789 the other week at Heaven Hill's connoisseur's tasting.  Two things surprised me:  1) The profile of the 1789 seemed right on target and very enjoyable.  2) I preferred it significantly over the Henry McKenna BiB that I tasted beside it.  

 

Let's hope the quality holds up.  

[dSculptor]

I was pretty ticked off when they made the change and also bunkered, but my stash is down to 3 bottles, guess I will have to try one of the NAS before my stash is gone so that can do a SBs,.....and why are we calling it 1789?

[Kpiz]

33 minutes ago, dSculptor said:

and why are we calling it 1789?

 

The 1789 date is displayed somewhat prominently on the front label of the new bottle. I prefer ECSmB, but 1789 seems to have taken off!

[dcbt]

I never bothered to stash EC12 mainly because I had stopped buying it.  Not because I don't like it, but I prefer to just dilute down ECBP for an even more flavorful EC12.

[Flyfish]

6 hours ago, BourbonGuy said:

I stopped at Heaven Hill in my recent trip to Kentucky.  They addressed this at the end out tour tasting.  They said even the employees made a fuss when they removed the age statement.

They said they gave employees blind samples and it was virtually impossible to tell them apart.  Now, as GaryT hinted, I would the members here over anyone else in a blind tasting.  Unfortunately I

didn't bunker any 12 year.

I did bunker a couple bottles of EC12. The plan is to open one in, say, four or five years because by then it will have evolved into the best bourbon I ever put in my mouth. There are those who claim that, unlike wine, bourbon does not improve in the bottle. The scientific evidence to the contrary is that a dusty that was perfectly ordinary (or even quite a bit less than ordinary) when bottled is always stellar after being discovered in the basement of a defunct country store. Then about every 6 mos. I will post a tasting review of my carefully rationed EC12 just to impress the newbies who never had and never will have this elixir of the gods. 

I got all teary eyed when VOB 6YO went NAS. It had been one of my top three daily pours. Then it occurred to me that VOB 6YO had never been more than an affordable, easy drinking bourbon in the first place. And that's what VOB NAS is now--an affordable, easy drinking bourbon.  Is EC NAS the same as EC 12? Maybe not. But it has also not turned into swill overnight. I'm betting that most of us paid little attention to the subtle distinctions among the batches of Booker's. Until, that is, Beam started putting names on them. Now we want to know the "best" batch of Booker's even though when they had numbers instead of names we just wanted our Booker's to taste like Booker's. So, regardless of what I said in the beginning, I'm going to continue enjoying EC as long as I enjoy EC. When I don't, I won't buy any more. 

[Flyfish]

1 hour ago, dSculptor said:

.....and why are we calling it 1789?

Isn't it EW1789? Still from HH but a different iteration. 

[Thig]

I never bothered to stash EC12 mainly because I had stopped buying it.  Not because I don't like it, but I prefer to just dilute down ECBP for an even more flavorful EC12.

I get this but ECBP is as rare as unicorns around here.

[dcbt]

2 minutes ago, Thig said:

I get this but ECBP is as rare as unicorns around here.

It's pretty rare here too but becoming a bit easier to find (though still difficult and certainly not easy).  But it's definitely more prevalent than when it first came out (but, again, it is all relative).  I know they stated this would happen when they stripped EC12 of the 12, and it seems like that might be true.

[dcbt]

36 minutes ago, Flyfish said:

Isn't it EW1789? Still from HH but a different iteration. 

I think it's EW1783...

[MeAndMyWhiskey]

EC12 had always been a staple for me and I was all kerfuffled about them dropping the age statement. But when an 8 year barrel outshines two 11 year barrels and NONE of them would qualify for the 12 year age statement, it does give me pause. Other than grousing, I think the option left for me is, as Flyfish said, I will continue to enjoy it while it is enjoyable and when it isn't, I won't buy it. In the meantime, Flahute has given me the perfect reason to uncork my last remaining EC12 for a SBS with what I find on the shelf at the store tonight. Now, if I can just get rid of this cold so I can taste something.

[Wedelstaedt]

I think I am as big of fan of Heaven Hill bourbon as anyone. They produce and sell very enjoyable-drinkable bourbon at very affordable prices. I am a big fan of EWBiB & EWSiB, as well as FC103 6yr. 

 

That being said, the change of EC12 to a EC NAS, has been a public relation disaster with bourbon enthusiasts. HH must realize this, so they likely will put an effort to regain trust with us. Bottling good EC NAS & releasing higher quantities of ECBP for a couple of years, will go a long way to achieving this goal. We get more  ECBP & good ECNAS. Win-win. We tell ourselves. 

 

The test will be 5 years from now, not today. Anyone remember how Good WT101 was right after the 8yr age statement was dropped?  But WT101 today is not to the level  of 8yr from those days. 

 

I am with Kepler, HH could have just as easily moved age statement to 8yr, but NAS frees them to make EC a bourbon made of 4 or 6 yr when our eyes and tastebuds are not on them. 

 

Lastly, do you think it is not above HH to give a well known bourbon enthusiast a great honey barrel 8 yr, to empress him?  Hmmm...

[ken_mays]

If a barrel is ready and up to standards, regardless the age, I'm no stickler for the age statement.   I hope that they keep picking barrels that fit the profile instead of just tossing any old swill in the EC bottle.  An optimist would say something like, well, maybe the AS was a hindrance since barrels that might be good at 8-9 years are on the downhill slope at 12 years, so the profile should be more consistent.   I'm not an optimist much of the time, but it's not in HH's interest to damage a brand reputation by putting inferior whiskey on the shelf, so I like to think the move to NAS isn't as big an issue as we might first believe.

[Whiskeythink.com]

I had a bottle of the 12 earlier this year, & it just wasnt up to snuff. Perhaps because of the using any-and-all 12 principle. Maybe the NAS can improve overall quality. Time will tell.

[meadeweber]

1 hour ago, Wedelstaedt said:

 

 

The test will be 5 years from now, not today. Anyone remember how Good WT101 was right after the 8yr age statement was dropped?  But WT101 today is not to the level  of 8yr from those days. 

 

 

 

 

You have a good point there.  I have a semi-dusty WT 101 and it is completely different than the current stuff.  It's darker in color, richer, thicker mouthfeel, and generally better.  In other words it's most likely significantly older.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wedelstaedt said:

 

 

I am with Kepler, HH could have just as easily moved age statement to 8yr, but NAS frees them to make EC a bourbon made of 4 or 6 yr when our eyes and tastebuds are not on them. 

 

Lastly, do you think it is not above HH to give a well known bourbon enthusiast a great honey barrel 8 yr, to empress him?  Hmmm...

I don't think they are going to start bottling 4-6 yr old.  The taste would most likely change significantly and people would stop buying it.

 

And lastly, I think you are really stretching on that last point.  Sorry.

[Wedelstaedt]

Meadeweber,

 

My points are to remind us, how bad of a PR hit HH took with the change of age statement. 

Enthusiasts are a smaller segment of HH brands consumers.  But we are kind of the watch dogs. Therefore, making us happy can help with PR problems. Simple modern day marketing practices.