How can Stagg reach 147?

[musher]

I don't know for a fact, but I assume, based on the proof of Rare Breed, that WT barrels at around 105 proof (resulting in more flavor in their bourbon, since there is less water to be added).

As far as Ed's bottle of OGD 114, I haven't been deep into bourbon long enough to know if that is just an older bottling (pre Beam, even?), or if it is just an export-only thing. What I do know is that it looks nothing like my first bottle of OGD 114 that I bought last month.

[Gillman]

Well, the possibilities are:

i) this bottle contains whiskey that hit 114 exactly in the barrel. The domestic bottles are the same but don't proclaim themselves as barrel proof for some reason.

I would think this unlikely because of what Musher said, though.

ii) this bottle contains whisky that is from a barrel which hit higher than 114 proof but the whisky was diluted with water to 114 proof. This would in a broad sense be barrel proof but not in a literal sense and possibly domestic bottles have the same contents but sensitivity to local (American) regulations means they took off the descriptor "barrel proof" on domestic bottles

iii) the contents are from commingled casks of barrel proof whiskey, like Rare Breed is, and by averaging the company is able to hit 114 and so terms the whiskey barrel proof. This would be fair since each barrel from which the whisky came was barrel proof, so describing the vatting as barrel proof is true (or true enough). This may be the answer since no age statement is given on any of the bottles. But why would the domestic bottles give up the advantage of stating barrel proof...? Maybe the marketers feel they don't need to stress this point. How could barrels be obtained which have a low enough proof to average consistently to 114? Some barrels drop in proof even in Kentucky.

iv) the export and domestic bottles may be different, with each meeting one of the possible formulations given above. It is possible too the domestic bottle today may simply be a regular but high proof bottling (commingled, diltuted as for any bottling). You know, memory now tells me that years ago, minis of Grandad 114 were offered in a bottle that was made to look like a little barrel, which suggests all of it at that time anyway was barrel proof. But I don't recall what the barrel bottle actually stated.

My take is, probably all of it is vatted like Rare Breed is, and for some reason the words barrel proof are left off in the U.S. Maybe B-F's lawyers felt it is going a little far in the domestic market anyway (there may be no similiar regulation in some export markets) to term such a bottle barrel proof. Although personally I'd have no issue with that, if you take 3 barrels, each of which is dumped at its original proof, and combine them, I'd call that barrel proof and isn't that what Rare Breed does? Although, I haven't seen a bottle of that lately, does the Rare Breed label state, "barrel proof" in so many words?

Gary

[Gillman]

Following up on what Musher has just said, maybe this is an older Beam or even a National Distillers bottling, it does look completely different than the current OG 114 in North America. Even the color looks somewhat lighter than the color of the current bottling although that may be the effect of the photography and scanning.

Ed, does the rear label state the name of the manufacturer?

Gary

[kitzg]

bravo to JB

In my humble opinion it would help a lot if at least the subject line was changed when a thread took a new direction

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Right Greg, I was thinking the same thing. I amy not have done anything if you hadn't prompted me though.

Gary, The back label is mostly in Japanese which means it was intended for the Japanese market. Many bourbons that find there way here have a stick on label over the American label.

In English it says;

Distilled and bottled under U.S. govt. supervision by the Old Grand Dad distillery company Frankfort. KY Clermont, KY. That makes it Jim Beam, right? I notice that the bourbon database says that OGD114 is BP, for barrel proof?

I have seen a very similar bottle on the site along with a number of bottles I have not seen here.

Oh, the morning light was behind the bottle when I took the picture. Not direct sun light, but still, that is probably why it looks lighter than your bottle.

Ed

[Gillman]

Yes, clearly Jim Beam manufacture.

My best inference is, it is a vatting of barrel proof bourbons, a la Rare Breed, but for some reason this isn't stated on the label here. That, or they have changed it and future bottles (starting with the batch Tim and I have) are not even minglings of different barrel proofs but regular batches diluted down to 114. I note by the way my bottle states "Batch 1" which is interesting..

Gary

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Mine is, Lot No. 18.

Ed

[jbutler]

I notice that the bourbon database says that OGD114 is BP, for barrel proof?

That's a typo Ed, but thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it shortly.

[gr8erdane]

Another possible explanation might be that the original bottling of 114 proof might have been the barrel proof for that first batch which prompted the name and then all batches since were adjusted to that proof to keep from having to go through all the hassles of getting new labels approved. Could you imagine having to add bottles of Old Grand Dad 115, Old Grand Dad 116 etc to your bunkers?

[ddubb]

Maybe the whole chemistry discussion is moot after all. I'm wondering why God would want the proof of whisky in Scotland to decrease or stay the same while whisky in America gets stronger. Or maybe its the devil wants it that way.

Note to self: don't bother these nice people with posts like this after I drank so much. Its a wonder there aren't more obtuse ramblings on this kind of board.

[kitzg]

Oh I think these decisions are by men

And I think we are very thankful BT (and maybe a few others in the world) are willing to experiment so much!