OId Forester 100 proof--is it BIB?

[dgonano]

Hello to my fellow bourbon enthusiasts. This is my

first post so bear with me.It is my pleasure to be among

all of you.

I am a fan of Old Forester 100 and none of my bottles state

BIB. It is my impression from speaking to an East Coast

supplier of Old Forester that the whiskey is indeed older than the 4 years stated on the label. I was told it was

8 years old. I was also told that they ferment the mash longer? Could this be true? As for the BIB the bonded warehouse theory was the reason given to me, although

I read above that Chris Morris at BF gives a different

story.

Also I was told that Old Forester distributed the Fall

Birthday Bourbon to certain states and the Spring version

to other states,no states received both versions. Is this correct? I had great difficulty obtaining the Fall version

as Maryland was alotted only the Spring '90. However,I was

in New York this past weekend and although Park Ave Liquors believed they only carried the Spring bottle, they and I were surprised that the new shipment that just arrived was indeed the Fall version.

[cowdery]

You are having a problem getting a precise response to your question because you are asking a question about (presumably) scotch in a bourbon forum, and the situation you describe simply doesn't happen with bourbon labeling.

The law and practice with bourbon is as has been amply described here already. I would only add that labels have to be registered and approved so if you decide to put "8 years old" on your label, you have committed yourself to putting nothing in those bottles that is less than 8 years old for as long as you use that label. Getting labels registered and approved is a time consuming and costly process, so makers try to do it as seldom as possible.

It's arguable that the regs prohibit, for any whiskey sold in the US, the type of label you describe, since the form for age statements is dictated as "The age statement shall read substantially as follows: '___ years old.'" However, it could be argued that the information you described is not an "age statement" per se and since age statements are optional except in the specific case of straight whiskey aged less than four years, there's nothing wrong with providing that information in that form.

The only situation in which this would be a problem would be if a bourbon label said "distilled 1999, bottled 2003," since that would give the impression that the whiskey might be four years old (and, therefore, wouldn't require an age statement) but it might be younger, although again one could argue that if, in fact, the whiskey is more than four years old, then a form-correct age statement is optional and this label is legal. It only would be illegal if the whiskey were actually less than four years old and then a form-correct age statement would be required.

Speaking directly to the situation you describe, I wouldn't consider that sharp practice. If one supposes the whiskey is 22 years old when, in fact, it is 21 years and 7 months, so what? Maturity is a function of more than raw age (in whiskey no less than in people). If someone tells you they can taste the difference between 21 years and 22 years in wood, slap them.

The facts stated on the label are (presumably) accurate. More precise dating likely would be either cumbersome or impossible, given normal dumping and bottling practices. Only single barrel products can really provide that type of precision.

[voigtman]

Many thanks for the responses, which I think have answered my question just fine! I'm glad to hear that bourbon does not have this kind of situation (no explicit age statement on the label, just years of distillation and bottling). Cheers, Ed V. BTW, apologies for that "foreign" stuff example: it was the only bottle I have seen with this kind of info on it, so I started wondering about its age. It was also purchased in the USA, so evidently it is legit, at least for its category.

[OneCubeOnly]

I'm glad to hear that bourbon does not have this kind of situation (no explicit age statement on the label, just years of distillation and bottling).

I hate to throw a wrench into this closure , but this situation *CAN* happen with bourbon products. Check your OFBB '02 bottle: Nowhere (including the PR pamphlet) is there an age statement of any kind, just the distillation year and bottling year. So Ed's scenario of 'short-changing' could possibly occur here.

[bobbyc]

First let me say welcome to the board, dgonano.

I was also told that they ferment the mash longer? Could this be true?

I don't know the jest of what you were told , but once the yeast stops working that's it.Generally that's a 3 day affair. Only of late did I become aware that Maker's claims to Send the fermented mash to the still with some potential alcohol left in the Mash ( fermentation incomplete). They claim at a lower yield they get a better product and is one of the reason's Maker's is Better than other brands. I also know that Wild Turkey lets the fermentation run its' full Course.

Also I was told that Old Forester distributed the Fall

Birthday Bourbon to certain states and the Spring version

to other states,no states received both versions. Is this correct

Not so for Kentucky, we got both versions. Good find on the Fall I give it the go ahead over the Spring and I like the Spring a lot.

Hope this helps and again Welcome!

[voigtman]

Ah, well, all I can say is ARRGGHH! But, seriously, thanks for the information on the OFBB 02 situation. Funny how complicated these rules and regulations turn out to be. Anyway, I think I'm done going down that dark alley ... Cheers, Ed

[bluesbassdad]

See my review of Kentucky Pride in the Tasting forum for a related situation. However, in that case they understated the age by more than a full year.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield (The Original "DaveM")

[voigtman]

Kentucky Pride

...

Age Stated as 10 years; however, the neck label states that it was put into the barrel on 3-14-86 and bottled on 9-21-98.

Nice example! We know that the 10 years old means the bourbon is at least that old. So the difference between the two dates is about 12.5 years and the 10 years old age statement is fine. Another possibility, though, is that a bourbon can be dumped from its cask(s) into some sort of tank (like the Hirsch 16 and 20 presumably were) and then get bottled later on, whenever the bottler gets around to it. Then the age statement refers to how long the bourbon was aging in the cask, rather than to the difference in bottling and distillation dates. In the case of, say, Hirsch 16, the label says it was distilled in the Spring of 1974 and is 16 years old. But the last bottles were only bottled last Fall and the bourbon was definitely not in casks since 1974: that would make it a whopping 29 years old! I wonder when it was taken out of the casks? Anyone know? On another note, any one know the world record oldest bourbon? Cheers, Ed

[Paradox]

Ok, first let's say barrel's not casks.

Once the product is dumped like the Hirsch, it doesn't age anymore in the stainless it is put into, so there's no whopping 29 yo age involved there.

Oldest bourbon I have heard of is 28 year old Heaven Hill, but near impossible to find. It was a very rare thing. The oldest aged bourbon I have is Old Man WInter 25 year.

[voigtman]

Ok, first let's say barrel's not casks.

Right! Sorry!

I'm amazed at the existance of 28 year old bourbon! And your 25 year old one as well! Have you actually tasted any sample of the 25 year old? Or seen tasting notes by anyone?

As for the Hirsch 16, Gabanyi, in his book "WHISK(E)Y", says on page 13 that "In 1990 the trading firm of Cork 'n' Bottle took over the whiskey, contracting Van Winkle ... to bottle it." So I have assumed that the barrels were dumped summer (or later) in 1990. Or maybe 1991 sometime. Julian, of course, knows for sure. And then the bourbon that went on to be the Hirsch 20 (and that rare Hirsch 19) was in barrels that were dumped later still. Anyway, it shows that bottling date does not always mean anything if there is a significant time elapsed between dumping the barrel(s) and the bottling of the bourbon. Thanks for the info on the old bourbons! Cheers, Ed

[boone]

The label...

I found one for a friend not too long ago. I am working on another, that still exists. Rare? Yes. Extinct? Almost...

I was in the warehouse not too long ago. Warehouse "Y". There was a barrel of bourbon in the "Milestone Row". I can't remember the exact date but I know it was over 30+ years old. I could kick myself for not tapping on it to see if there was anything in there. I could almost bet that it was total evaporation. The next time I am there I am going to check to see if there is product in it...

Bettye Jo

[voigtman]

Thanks for that great pic of the label! All I can say is wow! Cheers, Ed

[TNbourbon]

Do the Oriental-looking markings at the bottom of the label indicate, perhaps, that this bottling was shipped overseas -- probably Japan?

[TNbourbon]

The neatest thing at a tour (not the hard-hat one) at Buffalo Trace last summer -- aside from getting to stick my hand into the stream of a barrel pour and licking my fingers -- was a display which showed several barrels at varying ages with transparent endpieces so that one could see the product inside them. The oldest one was, I think, either 20 or 23 years old -- that would make in Pappy, of course -- and the tour leader (forgive me for not remembering his name; he was very informative) noted the 23-year-old Pappy would evaporate down to about 5 gallons by the time it was tapped. The more I think about it, maybe $180 a bottle isn't so much for a drink the angels like so much!

[boone]

Sure nuff does Export only--Japan--.

It has the beautiful foil label but then, there is is "awful" looking dipped wax neck. It's not the prettiest bottle I've seen.

Bettye Jo