Four Roses 2017 Small Batch LE

[kevinbrink]

1 hour ago, Kpiz said:

 

Thank you much. Yes, he did an excellent job distilling that down for his site.

 

 

This makes me wonder what happens to the leftover bourbon in the partially-used barrels for the blend. If they stick strictly to the reported proportions, they will likely have to use some (but not all) of a few barrels. For example, if they find that they only need 3.5 barrels of 23yo OBSV to get 5% of the blend, what happens to the remainder of that fourth barrel? Let it keep aging? Gift shop release? Blend it into something else?

 

Also, are the proportions they list based on straight volume or are they based on proof gallons? Not entirely important, just curious.

Why would you assume there would be leftover whiskey between evaporation and using multiple years for some Ages/recipes I can see them coming to these percentages, though I'm not sure exactly how many bottles to a cask to do the math. Also I don't like doing math.

[flahute]

3 hours ago, ThirstyinOhio said:

The 23yr OBSV has my interests peaked, even if it is such a small portion, as the 16 and 17yr OBSV gift shop bottles were some of the best whiskey I've ever had.

Keep in mind that those 16 and 17yr old bottles were distilled with the mutant yeast that was no longer a true V yeast. That's what made those barrels extra special.

That said, 23 year old OBSV is still very compelling because it's so unusual for that brand.

[tanstaafl2]

1 hour ago, Kpiz said:

 

 

This makes me wonder what happens to the leftover bourbon in the partially-used barrels for the blend. If they stick strictly to the reported proportions, they will likely have to use some (but not all) of a few barrels. For example, if they find that they only need 3.5 barrels of 23yo OBSV to get 5% of the blend, what happens to the remainder of that fourth barrel? Let it keep aging? Gift shop release? Blend it into something else?

 

Also, are the proportions they list based on straight volume or are they based on proof gallons? Not entirely important, just curious.

 

If they have a barrel or barrels of 23yo whiskey, given the current market for high end whiskey, one kind of wonders why at least some of it didn't get released on its own. The answer may be it is not very good on its own. But in a blend it adds some oak spine to the younger elements and makes for a (potentially) great whiskey. Judgment on how great I will reserve until I have some for myself!

 

And If they did have some left over I have to think it went in the belly of some Four Roses employees and close associates PDQ!

[Kpiz]

13 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Why would you assume there would be leftover whiskey between evaporation and using multiple years for some Ages/recipes I can see them coming to these percentages, though I'm not sure exactly how many bottles to a cask to do the math. Also I don't like doing math.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question, and mine may not have been entirely clear either, so let me try to rephrase. It's my understanding that they came up with the percentages of each component (23yo OBSV, 15yo OBSK, 13yo OESV, 12yo OBSF) by drawing representative samples from those barrels and then blending them together in varying proportions (by volume) to find what tastes the best. I think this is the usual way for a distillery to come up with a blend. The chances seem infinitesimally small that the percentages they chose for the final blend, which translates into an exact quantity of whiskey for each component, equals an even number of barrels with no fractions.

 

I previously used the 23yo OBSV as my example, but this could be the case with any of the components. I'm just curious what they would do with that extra fraction of a barrel.

[Kpiz]

3 minutes ago, tanstaafl2 said:

 

If they have a barrel or barrels of 23yo whiskey, given the current market for high end whiskey, one kind of wonders why at least some of it didn't get released on its own. The answer may be it is not very good on its own. But in a blend it adds some oak spine to the younger elements and makes for a (potentially) great whiskey. Judgment on how great I will reserve until I have some for myself!

 

And If they did have some left over I have to think it went in the belly of some Four Roses employees and close associates PDQ!

 

Ha, yeah I didn't consider that option, but employee consumption probably is the most likely scenario! 

[Paddy]

^^^^Party in the QC Lab! 

[tanstaafl2]

I guess it is no surprise that this is being listed as having a $150 MSRP but the prices are really getting painful (and not just FR of course. I think I will blame Beam just because I can!). 95% of it is what was in bottles from just a couple of years ago that were under $100. Sheesh.

[OldFitzWithTheGoldLabel]

Why would you assume there would be leftover whiskey between evaporation and using multiple years for some Ages/recipes I can see them coming to these percentages, though I'm not sure exactly how many bottles to a cask to do the math. Also I don't like doing math.

Fifeman has earned several degrees in math and he teaches math for a living. Maybe he can do this math for us.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[A-Bar]

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fishnbowljoe]

5 minutes ago, A-Bar said:

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Cool! Thanks for posting the pic Anne, and thanks also for giving us a little more insight into Four Roses too. It's much appreciated.

 

Cheers! Joe

[A-Bar]

 
Cool! Thanks for posting the pic Anne, and thanks also for giving us a little more insight into Four Roses too. It's much appreciated.
 
Cheers! Joe

Glad to help [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoeTerp]

5 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

I guess it is no surprise that this is being listed as having a $150 MSRP but the prices are really getting painful (and not just FR of course. I think I will blame Beam just because I can!). 95% of it is what was in bottles from just a couple of years ago that were under $100. Sheesh.

It's just the reality of the current market. They likely could have priced it at double like the Bookers Rye and it would have still sold out. 

Edited March 11, 2017 by JoeTerp

[OldFitzWithTheGoldLabel]

It's just the reality of the current market. They likely could have priced it at double like the Bookers Rye and it would have still sold out. 

I will happily pay $150 for a bottle, if I can find one after it is released.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[b1gcountry]

They likely only have one or four barrels of the 23yo whiskey. You can't really release that by itself.

It probably wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea either.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[A-Bar]

They likely only have one or four barrels of the 23yo whiskey. You can't really release that by itself.

It probably wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea either.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Your right and if you think about it there are 2 things to think about: 1) volume of the Barrels and 2) at 23 the flavors are likely very strong and concentrated and may not take much to impart a fingerprint in a batch. In one article that I read on the release Brent said that Al wanted to use an older bourbon so after several test blends they ended up on 5%. So people many jump to conclusions but I think it is simply sticking true to building on flavor profiles rather than popularity of age statements


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flahute]

I've told this story before about the blending exercise I did at Bulleit last year where there was a 23yr old bourbon that not good on its own. It did great things for the blend however and it doesn't take much to make a positive impact. 

[garbanzobean]

16 hours ago, A-Bar said:

In case anyone hasn't seen it yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to admit that this is a gorgeous bottle, likely with some tasty contents.  I am kind of glad that I am unlikely to see it in a store for retail so I don't have to decide if this release is worth $150 or not.

[LCWoody]

Love the bottle, looks like a through-back bottle. Hope to get a couple.

[tanstaafl2]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:13 PM, JoeTerp said:

It's just the reality of the current market. They likely could have priced it at double like the Bookers Rye and it would have still sold out. 

 

Oh, I know! And I am grateful it is not $300. But it doesn't make $150 any less painful for what used to be one of the best QPR bottles out there in the cask strengthand limited edition Four Roses selections.

[kcgumbohead]

On 3/10/2017 at 11:13 PM, JoeTerp said:

It's just the reality of the current market. They likely could have priced it at double like the Bookers Rye and it would have still sold out. 

 

 Well I will sit this one out along with many others these days. I would certainly like to get a bottle as I am a huge 4R fanboy and imagine this will be very enjoyable but it seems the reality of the current market does not align with my current market reality.

[Don Birnam]

On 3/6/2017 at 1:26 PM, jvd99 said:

Sku posted about how the TTB regs require the percentages be shown on the label - I'm not holding my breath though, the "thimble" of 23 year old line is the best

 

http://recenteats.blogspot.com/2017/03/why-doesnt-four-roses-follow-labeling.html

 

Yes he did, and unfortunately the reading and comprehension skills of SKU and his commenters are lacking.

What he is basing that entry on pertains to the regulations for blended and under aged whiskeys, not straight (greater than four year old). I doubt he will offer a retraction though.

[VAGentleman]

1 hour ago, Don Birnam said:

Yes he did, and unfortunately the reading and comprehension skills of SKU and his commenters are lacking.

What he is basing that entry on pertains to the regulations for blended and under aged whiskeys, not straight (greater than four year old). I doubt he will offer a retraction though.

I disagree.  This is pretty straight forward in my reading.  It says nothing of underaged or light whiskies

 

(ii) If more than one straight whisky and no other whisky is contained in the blend: “__ percent straight whiskies __ years or more old.” The age blank shall be filled in with the age of the youngest straight whisky. In lieu of the foregoing, a statement may be made of the ages and percentages of each of the straight whiskies contained in the blend: “__ percent straight whisky __ years old, __ percent straight whisky __ years old, and __ percent straight whisky __ years old.”

[Charlutz]

I think you have that out of context VA. We know that you are not required to state the age of straight bourbon if it's four years old. It's not stated in the section you pasted but I don't think there's an argument that age statements are not required of four year old straight bourbons.

 

As to the section you posted, it says you 'may' make a statement of age and percentage. When interpreting statutes or rules, courts look specifically at the word 'may' as opposed to 'shall' which is used when something is required. 

 

Lastly, we know Four Roses has been doing this for years. High West does it. I think Blade and Bow also but don't have a bottle to see. 

 

Interesting topic. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Charlutz

[kevinbrink]

24 minutes ago, Charlutz said:

I think you have that out of context VA. We know that you are not required to state the age of straight bourbon if it's four years old. It's not stated in the section you pasted but I don't think there's an argument that age statements are not required of four year old straight bourbons.

 

As to the section you posted, it says you 'may' make a statement of age and percentage. When interpreting statutes or rules, courts look specifically at the word 'may' as opposed to 'shall' which is used when something is required. 

 

Lastly, we know Four Roses has been doing this for years. High West does it. I think Blade and Bow also but don't have a bottle to see. 

 

Interesting topic. 

Well the "may" follows "In lieu of the foregoing" so an argument could be made that if you don't choose to go with the lowest age the other option would be what follows.

[Kpiz]

Well I'm just a small town pizza lawyer, but I'll throw my opinion in here...

 

Since the blend is all straight bourbon >4 years old, Four Rose doesn't have to list an age statement at all. However, since they've chosen to put an age on there, they must format it as the TTB dictates. Sku cites chapter 8 of the TTB Beverage Alcohol Manual. The first page through the top of the second page (including the rum example) addresses this and it's pretty clear that percentages are required if the ages of multiple components are listed. To summarize all this:

• Since all components are straight whiskeys >4 years old, Four Roses does not have to include an age statement on the label
• If they choose to include an age statement, it must be in one of two formats as @VAGentleman said. Either:
  • If using the youngest age in the blend: "___ years old" or "Aged ___ years"
  • If listing the components and ages: "___% straight bourbon ___ years old" or "___% straight bourbon aged ___ years" (this must be done for each component)
• They have chosen to list the ages of the components, so they must also list the corresponding percentages of the blend (in terms of proof gallons I believe)