Bottled In Bond, 100 proof goodness

[OldFitzWithTheGoldLabel]

Have access to a couple bottles of Old Fitz BIB but have not pulled the trigger -- read a review or two here on SB that suggested it was very similar to Larceny but not quite as good...???   But my curiosity is piqued by this thread.  Thinking it might be worth going and grabbing some, just to satisfy my curiosity.  ...And add another BIB to the collection.

I recommend buying those bottles. I like Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond more than I like WSR and HH BIB. Also, it is getting tougher to track down. It should be quite a bit cheaper than Larceny, so I don't know if they are highly comparable. Here in Lexington, a handle of Old Fitzgerald BIB is about $31 and a fifth of Larceny is $23 and up. Regardless, I love Old Fitzgerald BIB, it has a uniqueness to my taste buds.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[flahute]

2 hours ago, bourbon-n00b said:

Yes, I understand that.  But why does the law allow for flexibility on age but none on proof?

The law was written at a time when proofs were much lower than we enjoy today. Back then, 107 proof generally was barrel proof. A small amount of water added to bring it down to 100 was an easy standard to set for as pure as possible a product.

[Spade]

Being sort of a sucker for history, I've always been drawn to BIBs. It doesn't hurt that they're often really good and a great value! I think Rittenhouse and McKenna 10 year are probably my most consumed whiskers over the last few years. 

[fishnbowljoe]

10 hours ago, HopVol said:

Noob question here. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption but if BIBs are higher proof (always 100) and higher quality why are they so cheap?

 

10 hours ago, Richnimrod said:

SHHHHHH!   That is a question nobody wants the distilleries to see asked!    Just accept that they (mostly) are great bargains.    As my dear departed Daddy always used to say; "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!"

 

What Rich said. Basically, to cut to the chase, BIB's are usually pretty decent offerings, and in most cases, for fairly decent prices too. FWIW, that's one of the reasons I started this thread.  

 

Cheers! Joe

 

 

[Agalloch]

This got me thinking and I came to the realization that Ive only had OGD and ritt BiB. I dont often spend over 35$ for a bourbon so BIBs are very much in my favor but unfortunately  this state doesnt carry many. I have seen mckennaBIB but the price is always up around high 30s or 40s which always kills me because I know that bourbon would be right up my alley. Hh BiB, VOB, EW BiB, Old Fitz, JTS Brown all nope.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Agalloch

[Whiskey Dick]

the benefits of living in the motherland!..............

 

 

 

 

still never tried at JTS BIB. I'll have to fix that soon

Edited February 24, 2017 by Whiskey Dick

[kaiserhog]

Bottled in Bond is the best value in the spirit world.  I hope the collectors and dabblers don't ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[KrispinD]

Chiming in with OGD and Rittenhouse BiB - great stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTNBourbon]

The one's I've enjoyed the most:

 

CEHT Small Batch

CEHT BP

CEHT Straight Rye

Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whisky BIB

 

Have some Henry McKenna 10 Yr. Old SB that I've not yet tried.

Edited February 24, 2017 by MTNBourbon

[PaulO]

I'm a huge fan of the bonds.

Here's another requirement.  As far as age - it all has to be from the same "season".  When the law was written, there were two distilling seasons a year.  It must be at least 4 years old, can definitely be older and qualify.  I guess in practical terms for us; the barrels dumped together in a batch are all within a few months or less the same age.

I gather that back in the day, the real high end whiskey was the 8 year old bottled in bond.  

[CardsandBourbon]

4 minutes ago, MTNBourbon said:

The one's I've enjoyed the most:

 

CEHT Small Batch

CEHT BP

CEHT Straight Rye

Rittenhouse Straight Rye Whisky BIB

 

Have some Henry McKenna 10 Yr. Old SB that I've not yet tried.

When you open that bottle of HM make sure you let it open up before your first sip.  I didn't and was really turned off at first.  After giving it about 5 minutes the taste was completely different.  Ended up liking it quite a lot.

[Tony Santana]

11 hours ago, dSculptor said:

Love me some JTS Brown BIB, just wish I could find it around here! I can find the regular but not the BIB, it's been over a year since I had one, and the last one I got was muled back from the motherland.

 

Don, I've found it at Woodman's.

[Golzee]

BIBs are great all around and I go through them the fastest.  Good quality bourbon that is perfect for any style you are drinking.  I really enjoy JBBIB, JWD BIB and VOB BIB.  But, I would not turn down any BIB iteration.  Mckenna and EH Taylor I don't think of as true BIB due to their price and I think they are using it as more of a marketing strategy to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.  

[flahute]

52 minutes ago, Golzee said:

BIBs are great all around and I go through them the fastest.  Good quality bourbon that is perfect for any style you are drinking.  I really enjoy JBBIB, JWD BIB and VOB BIB.  But, I would not turn down any BIB iteration.  Mckenna and EH Taylor I don't think of as true BIB due to their price and I think they are using it as more of a marketing strategy to differentiate themselves in a crowded market.  

Taylor maybe, but not McKenna. McKenna is not that expensive for 10yrs and a price hike is warranted above the typical 4yr age for BIB's.

[The Black Tot]

It's a wonderful tradition and I'm glad they're out there.

 

Would love to see more of 'em on bar shelves.

 

I'm much more a fan of the 107-110 traditional proof range though. That's my sweet spot.

 

The only ones I buy are the CEHTs. I've got a few of the HHs too.

 

Still, every now and then I buy a bottle at 90 proof, and certainly do wish it were bonded...

[Golzee]

8 hours ago, flahute said:

Taylor maybe, but not McKenna. McKenna is not that expensive for 10yrs and a price hike is warranted above the typical 4yr age for BIB's.

I understand that reasoning, and I do buy Mckenna (and think it is a great value).  But, I think it is a little gimmicky to call it BIB, we would be buying it regardless of the BIB designation.  It is very good, but, IMO it isn't what BIBs are/were meant to be.

[dSculptor]

11 hours ago, Tony Santana said:

 

Don, I've found it at Woodman's.

Hey Tony, Thanks for the heads up -it's not at the Woodman's down here, I'll have to check out the one near you, next time I head up north.

[tanstaafl2]

25 minutes ago, Golzee said:

I understand that reasoning, and I do buy Mckenna (and think it is a great value).  But, I think it is a little gimmicky to call it BIB, we would be buying it regardless of the BIB designation.  It is very good, but, IMO it isn't what BIBs are/were meant to be.

 

Not sure what your thoughts on what BIB whiskies are meant to be. It was originally created as a means to guarantee that the whiskey in the bottle was really what it claimed to be without any additives or blending with other whiskey or different spirit as was common, or at least not unheard of, by rectifers over 100 years ago. But there was never any limitation on how old it could be as long as it was at least 4 years old. You could have a 20 year old BIB if you wanted to.

 

Since there is (a little) less concern that people will try to put something in the bottle, especially something potentially harmful, it has less value than it once did. But most distillers probably don't have a desire to bottle at 100 proof and possibly don't want the obligation to include a DSP (certainly not NDPs!) which is a requirement of labeling for BIB.

 

I am always happy to see a distiller who is willing to put a BIB designation on their product.

[Harry in WashDC]

On 2/23/2017 at 10:31 AM, bourbon-n00b said:

Since we are on the topic, this may be a good time to ask something that's puzzled me.  For BiB designation, the whiskey must be at least 4 years old, but can br asl old as the producer desires.  However, it must be exactly 100 proof and no more.  Does anyone have any ideas or speculation why a higher proof bottling that met all other requirements could not be called BiB?  

A couple other people already commented on this, but here is some additional info.  The Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 set out explicit requirements in order for a distilled spirit to put "bottled in bond" or "bonded" on the label.  The Act was passed at a time when bottlers could put just about anything on the label as well as IN the distilled spirit.  In an attempt to distinguish "good" spirits from "bad" spirits, Col. E.H. Taylor (patron of the namesake bourbon) and others worked to pass the BIB Act.  Thank goodness they were successful; it means that we know that we are getting an unadulterated, "standard" product at exactly 100 proof.  The rules re: standards for lesser proofs came later when the definitions for "whiskey" "straight whiskey", etc., were set down.  THOSE were the variants from the BIB Act.  Mike Veach and some others have written histories of that Act's drafting and passage, and some of those writings can be found on older threads on SB.

 

Also, Mike wrote a wonderful article on the Taft Decision which was the precursor to those later definitions.  See: http://www.gobourbon.com/the-taft-decision/

 

  The current requirements are embedded in the federal regulation governing labeling.  It is at 27 CFR § 5.42(b)(3) and says:

 

(3) The words “bond”, “bonded”, “bottled in bond”, “aged in bond”, or phrases containing these or synonymous terms, shall not be used on any label or as part of the brand name of domestic distilled spirits unless the distilled spirits are:

(i) Composed of the same kind of spirits produced from the same class of materials;

(ii) Produced in the same distilling season by the same distiller at the same distillery;

(iii) Stored for at least four years in wooden containers wherein the spirits have been in contact with the wood surface except for gin and vodka which must be stored for at least four years in wooden containers coated or lined with paraffin or other substance which will preclude contact of the spirits with the wood surface;

(iv) Unaltered from their original condition or character by the addition or subtraction of any substance other than by filtration, chill proofing, or other physical treatments (which do not involve the addition of any substance which will remain incorporated in the finished product or result in a change in class or type);

(v) Reduced in proof by the addition of pure water only to 100 degrees of proof; and

(vi) Bottles at 100 degrees of proof.

 

End of bloviation - thanks for the use of the bourbon box.

[tanstaafl2]

12 minutes ago, Harry in WashDC said:

 

(iii) Stored for at least four years in wooden containers wherein the spirits have been in contact with the wood surface except for gin and vodka which must be stored for at least four years in wooden containers coated or lined with paraffin or other substance which will preclude contact of the spirits with the wood surface;

 

The part about putting gin and vodka in a barrel coated in paraffin so it COULDN'T contact the wood was always a bit curious to me!

 

The use of 100 proof also was a convenient way to make figuring out the tax bill on your booze easier as I recall. It always comes down to taxation...

[Harry in WashDC]

14 minutes ago, tanstaafl2 said:

The part about putting gin and vodka in a barrel coated in paraffin so it COULDN'T contact the wood was always a bit curious to me!

 

The use of 100 proof also was a convenient way to make figuring out the tax bill on your booze easier as I recall. It always comes down to taxation...

As I recall, you are recalling correctly.

 

RE: gin and vodka in barrels coated with wax or paraffin - I guess this exception allows a distiller that wants to label its gin or vodka as "bonded" a means of doing so; it would HAVE to put it in a wooden barrel, and if there was no barrier, stuff would leach from the wood, and the spirit would no longer meet the definition of gin or vodka.  I didn't go looking for some OTHER place in the regs for rules re: bonded gin or vodka, but I don't remember seeing any on previous readings.  Also, I don't ever remember seeing a bonded gin or vodka.

 

EDIT - Now, you've got ME curious.  I may PM Aaron Knoll (theginisin.com & author a a great book on gins) and ask him about this.  Don't hold your breath, though, I sometimes forget what I'm going to do.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Harry in WashDC

[Kpiz]

I think Joe summed it up well: "100 proof goodness". I remember the first time I heard them referred to as "bonded" rather than "bottled-in-bond" or "BIB", I was at a swanky new bowling alley for a friend's birthday. I asked the bartender for an Old Grand Dad neat, and she asked "regular or the bonded?". Naturally, I went with the BIB.

 

Laird's apple brandy, when it was BIB, was very nice as well and an absolutely incredible value IMHO.

 

I'm glad a few of the newer distilleries have begun releasing BIB products as well, and I hope more continue to do so. They're not quite the bargain that the mainstays are but it's still nice to have more products in the category. Tom's Foolery BIB Bourbon, Rye, and Applejack come to mind.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Kpiz

[tanstaafl2]

1 hour ago, Harry in WashDC said:

As I recall, you are recalling correctly.

 

RE: gin and vodka in barrels coated with wax or paraffin - I guess this exception allows a distiller that wants to label its gin or vodka as "bonded" a means of doing so; it would HAVE to put it in a wooden barrel, and if there was no barrier, stuff would leach from the wood, and the spirit would no longer meet the definition of gin or vodka.  I didn't go looking for some OTHER place in the regs for rules re: bonded gin or vodka, but I don't remember seeing any on previous readings.  Also, I don't ever remember seeing a bonded gin or vodka.

 

EDIT - Now, you've got ME curious.  I may PM Aaron Knoll (theginisin.com & author a a great book on gins) and ask him about this.  Don't hold your breath, though, I sometimes forget what I'm going to do.

 

Perhaps so for vodka although there is no particular prohibition on barreled aged gin, at least these days. May not have been the case 100 years ago. But rectifiers could have been messing with gin as much as whiskey back in the day I suppose. And I am not certain when this particular version of the code was written. To mention vodka, which was not well known in the US before the 40's, suggests it was written after that.

[Limegoldconvertible68]

I like that the DSP numbers are required with BIB. You know exactly where it comes from(unless it's DN1843????)

Edited February 24, 2017 by Limegoldconvertible68
Didn't see 2nd page and comment is redundant

[Kpiz]

2 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

 

Perhaps so for vodka although there is no particular prohibition on barreled aged gin, at least these days. May not have been the case 100 years ago. But rectifiers could have been messing with gin as much as whiskey back in the day I suppose. And I am not certain when this particular version of the code was written. To mention vodka, which was not well known in the US before the 40's, suggests it was written after that.

 

The section regarding gin and vodka strikes me as further protection for consumers. If that section wasn't there, a producer could age gin or vodka in oak and have something physically resembling whiskey (i.e. a brown spirit) and then proclaim largely "BOTTLED IN BOND" on the label, making it more difficult for to distinguish between a BIB whiskey (or brandy) and a BIB vodka/gin.

 

Quite possible I'm missing something though.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Kpiz