How can Stagg reach 147?

[wrbriggs]

Hmm, it's interesting to hear... I was under the impression that almost all used bourbon barrels were sold to Scotch distillers to age their whisky, and that these made up a large part of the barrel stock. I know that some single malts may advertise that they are exclusively aged in bourbon or sherry casks, but my understanding is that with any single malt you buy, a good portion of the whiskey may have been aged in a bourbon barrel.

Keep in mind that the definition of "single malt" does not mean that all the whiskey has to be aged in the same type of barrel. I am sure your whisky knowledge is far greater than mine, but I will see if I can dig up some of the references I've seen regarding the aging of Scotch...

[TNbourbon]

I believe that most of the 'sherried' single malts are 'sherry finished' -- that is, they are rebarrelled in sherry butts or casks (which also are almost exclusively oak, by the way) for only the last 2-4 years of aging. The earlier aging, by and large, is in used oak, mostly from bourbon distillers.

[dgonano]

According to Charles MacLean in his book "Malt Whiskey"

whisky(Scotch) is matured almost entirely in American White Oak. New oak imparts a dominant woody flavour-undesirable in Scotch whisky. As for imported casks, which is the norm, ex-bourbon barrels account for 93% of such imported casks. Sherry casks account for 7%. However the number of sherry casks in use exceed such percent since they can be used more times than those which previously held bourbon. Sherry casks also cost 10 times that of bourbon.

Other than Macallan I know of no other producer predominately using sherry casks.

[Gillman]

On the part of this thread dealing with barrel proof whiskeys (I mean American ones), it occurs to me now that Rare Breed might predate Booker's. I am not sure when Rare Breed was issued. And possibly, a small distillery here or there might have issued a barrel proof version of its bourbon in the 1950's or 1960's. But certainly it is noteworthy that a barrel strength rye was issued in the 1930's and advertised as such on the bottle. So again the practice is not new.

Gary

[dougdog]

The distillery "Glendronach" uses sherry casks for most of its' malt...

Best regards, dog

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

I have read that aging whiskey in charred barrels somehow removes impurities like fusol oil. It said that the char absorbs it, and other toxins/hangover agents. Anyone know if there is any truth to this? If so, how does it take place? Are they absorbed, seperated out as the older posts here talk about in relationship to alcohol and water?

Ed

[AVB]

Very good point, and I will stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my knowledge.

I believe that most of the 'sherried' single malts are 'sherry finished' -- that is, they are rebarrelled in sherry butts or casks (which also are almost exclusively oak, by the way) for only the last 2-4 years of aging. The earlier aging, by and large, is in used oak, mostly from bourbon distillers.

[Gillman]

Through exposure to oxygen and trace amounts of copper in the spirit the fusel oils are changed into compounds such as esters and other aromatic substances.

Gary

[sharkman]

Doug, if you see any 15 year Glendronach (or any age for that matter) in your travels, buy them. The distillery was closed in the late 90's I believe. I have a few bottles of the 15 year 100% Sherry Cask Single Malt which is very hard to find. They are a good find and very drinkable. I've seen bottle of it go for $170 and up since the distillery stopped operation.

[TNbourbon]

...I am not sure when Rare Breed was issued...

According to the history portion of the Wild Turkey website, Rare Breed was introduced in 1991, or almost simultaneously with Booker's.

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

According to Chuck's book Old Granddad 114 wass created long before Booker's or WT Rare Breed. He didn't give an exact date, but he said it was introduced in the 70's or 80's

Ed

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Thanks Gary.

I know that copper has a big effect on the spirit during distillation. It hadn't occurred to me that it might play a continuing role during aging. Is it a catalytic process, do you know? Would a bit of cooper foil in the barrel have a positive effect? Has any whiskey producer, bourbon or other types, tried this?

Ed

[AVB]

Glendronach reopened in 2004 after being mothballed in 1995. The 15 yo Sherried is considered one of their best malts and is much better then the 12 yo replacement. A small amount of the 15 was just bottled and is available in the UK at about £29.

Doug, if you see any 15 year Glendronach (or any age for that matter) in your travels, buy them. The distillery was closed in the late 90's I believe. I have a few bottles of the 15 year 100% Sherry Cask Single Malt which is very hard to find. They are a good find and very drinkable. I've seen bottle of it go for $170 and up since the distillery stopped operation.

[Gillman]

Good questions... I think adding any copper to the barrel would not be allowed under bourbon regulations (although maybe they could get around that by putting some copper hoops on the inside:)). A U.K. scientist called Dr. Jim Swan has done some major research on whisky maturation and the roles of oxidation of fusel oils, and trace copper amounts, in the process. This gets complicated because it is has always been known that copper improves spirit even in its unaged form: moonshiners knew this but Jim Swan has focused on reactions from copper in long-matured spirit. (The information about Dr. Swan's research is from an early edition of Michael Jackson's Malt Whisky Companion). The oxidation of congeners has been known for a century at least but I believe it is true to say that despite the sophisticated methods of modern science much about whisky maturation is an unknown quantity.

This leads to a thought I have been entertaining for some time: Since aging is (primarily, at least) for the purposes indicated, the fact of whisky attaining an oaky taste is a side-effect. Yes, it is appreciated by many but is not the main reason to age whisky: the main reason is (or was originally) to break down the fusel oil content of low-proof spirit and otherwise mature the whisky (e.g. said effects of trace copper). So why 100 years after Canadians discovered they could rectify spirit to perfection by advanced distillation (column distilation), do they insist on aging their whisky? Why not simply add caramel and (maybe) wood extract and avoid the cost of years of storage? Remember, there are no fusel oils to transform in Canadian whisky - they are gone from the beginning. American whiskey (blended whiskey) to my mind makes much more sense - just flavor clean spirit with some young and aged real whisky and maybe some flavoring and sell it right away (some American blended is probably aged but it doesn't have to be).

I think in Canada it was felt not so much that whisky becomes better with long barrel aging (some would argue it just becomes more woody), but that an aged product would appeal to a public who held an unshakeable belief that to be palatable whisky had to be long aged. The public got this idea originally from a time when there was no rectified spirit but (as for many popular beliefs and despite scientific evolution) the idea has endured that aged whisky is better, and the Canadian distillers (I am speculating) appealed to that. True, today people accept (quite readily) vodka but I think vodka is something different in their minds than whisky. Or putting it a different way, distillers around the world did finally find a way to sell rectified whisky to people in large quantities: they called it vodka and gave it a romantic image (the Slavic connection, James Bond, etc.). But for those who still wanted "whisky" it had to be aged and whether high proof or low, aged is what people got. Canadian whisky has always as far as I know had to meet a minimum aging period (currently 3 years). And surely, the distillers wrote the law.

See what I mean? An apparent paradox: Canadian whisky is (when new) almost entirely circa 96 alcohol by volume pure, tasteless spirit. Yet it is aged for years before sale and that fact is trumpeted on whisky labels. I just saw a Canadian Club released again that advertises 20 years of age. (I may get that for next Gazebo).

Gary

[jbutler]

Guys, we're heading way too far afield here. If you want to discuss your favorite scotch, we've got a forum for that.

[Gillman]

Ed, Grandad 114 is not barrel proof.

Gary

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Maybe, maybe not.

It says barrel proof on the label and in Chuck's book. I myself don't know.

Ed

[Gillman]

Happy to be proved wrong. Will check my bottle when I get home.

Gary

[bluesbassdad]

Gary,

[stop me if I've told this before. It seems familiar, but I didn't find anything similar when I searched.]

Perhaps the fact that the effect of copper is/was common knowledge is reflected in the song "Copper Kettle", as follows:

"Get you a copper kettle, get you a copper coil

Fill it with new made corn mash and never more you'll toil

You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright

Watch them jugs a-filling in the pale moonlight."

Although the song is credited to one Albert Beddoe, it's not clear whether he wrote it from scratch or built upon fragments from the folk tradition. IMO the song fails to reflect the difficulty of the work involved, but that could be deliberate irony.

Historically in the USA I would guess that initially copper was used to build stills because of its malleability as compared to other metals and its widespread use for utensils. (Do you suppose famed coppersmith, Paul Revere, ever made parts for whiskey stills?) I can't help but wonder at what point the postive effects of copper's interaction with the whiskey was discovered.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

Thanks, Dave, no, I have never heard of that song, most interesting.

I would think the beneficial effects of copper were discovered early on, through experience, so that by the late 1800's it was understood by large operations and practical distillers that contact with copper improved spirit.

In Chuck's current newsletter he tells some of the fit-out history of Bernheim and quotes Dave Pickerell as stating that equipment used by distilleries that had operated earlier on the site [was one Belmont??] was adapted and reinstalled at Bernheim by UDV (Bernheim opened in 1992). Those stills (there were in fact two) were all-stainless steel and when UDV adapted them for Bernheim new top sections were added made of copper. In a recent issue of Whisky Magazine, in an article about Woodford Reserve there was extensive discussion about copper. Distillery personnel stated that loose copper parts are placed on the stainless steel trays and when reduced almost to nothing are replaced with new ones - the copper literally dissolves into the spirit. Again in Chuck's newsletter, it is noted that the still at Maker's Mark is all-copper, as was (or is, it is still there) the one at Stitzel-Weller. This is interesting as I don't find Maker's Mark has a huge, "whiskey" character, so maybe copper only has a limited effect on spirit, or maybe the wheat recipe or other factors explain why Maker's Mark is a relatively restrained bourbon (in taste, I mean).

Anyway, copper is an acknowledged contributor to the character of any fine spirit, certainly of whisk(e)y and cognac.

Gary

[TNbourbon]

...It says barrel proof on the label and in Chuck's book...

Re OGD114: I bought my first bottle of this (still unopened) earlier this week, but can find no reference to "barrel-proof" on either the bottle/label or packaging. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't -- in fact, at 114 proof, gotta figure it's close. But, why wouldn't they state it?

[Gillman]

I just checked my bottle: like Tim's, no reference to barrel proof.

Nor is it likely in my view that this an unproclaimed barrel proof whiskey since how could a sufficient supply of barrels be assured or managed that would over the years hit 114 proof exactly? Doesn't make sense.

The 114 proof number in my opinion comes from the former British proof system in which 100 meant 57% abv, or 114 proof in the American system. It is a harking back to that pre-American proof standard. Noah's Mill also was released as I recall in 114 proof, so it seems to be a traditional proof (albeit rarely used) at which to release whiskey, not a happenstance of a particular barrel's abv content.

This is not to say export or some other bottlings are not specifically identified as barrel proof but the regular issue, shall we say, are not and in my view are the mingling of different barrels where the batch is adjusted finally to the required 114 proof.

Gary

[musher]

Re OGD114: I bought my first bottle of this (still unopened) earlier this week, but can find no reference to "barrel-proof" on either the bottle/label or packaging. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't -- in fact, at 114 proof, gotta figure it's close. But, why wouldn't they state it?

I tend to doubt that it is anywhere near barrel proof. It may have been the case in the past that 114 was barrel proof, but I can't see Beam Brands barrelling their whiskey below the maximum allowed 125 proof. Since barrel proof tends to increase in KY warehouses (as opposed to decreasing in Scotland warehouses), I doubt that 114 is anywhere close to barrel proof.

[TNbourbon]

Probably right, regarding Beam. However, Rare Breed (at least until the suits get ahold of it) is consistently 108 at barrel proof -- though Wild Turkey blends barrels of 6, 8 and 12 years to get that. But, "barrel-proof".

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Hello All,

You all raise good points. I was surprised that your labels don't say barrel proof. Mine does. I will attach a picture of it. 114 certainly resembles barrel proof. It is higher than Rare Breed. Rare Breed is vatted. Tim, you said that it is consistently 108. But my Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible says that batch W-T-02-91 was 110 proof and the W-T-01-95 was 108.4 proof. Does any one know what the latest batch's proof is? One thing we do know, I think, is that no water is added to Rare Breed or Booker's or George T Stagg. It seems likely that water is added to the OGD 114. That would mean that it isn't really barrel proof and that may be why your labels don't use the term. Anyone have an old bottle? I have seen some pictures on the site, I think I will try to find one and check.

Ed

Ps. The bottle has a fake tax stamp that isn't shown.