Bourbon + Air + Time = ???

[GaryT]

There have been a lot of threads/discussions on this (so many that I couldn't pick which past thread to just add to). 

 

I was thinking about how we could conduct a test to determine the impact of air time whiskey.  There are so many different variables in play, any sort of experiment will fall short of the real world in some way.  The goal would be to set something up that is consistent for all samples AND has enough volume at different levels to provide enough samples in order to get the impressions of multiple tasters.  The whiskey itself should be something relatively inexpensive, but enjoyable enough (as you'd need to purchase it in large quantities in order to have the same bottle size/shape, and to have enough bottles to produce sufficient sample size of "low fill).

 

This is what I'm thinking:

• For the whiskey, what immediately came to my mind is Heaven Hill 6-year bottled in bond. 
• For the experiment, I'd purchase 10 bottles - all at the same time (ideally from the same store/case!)  There is certainly some variation from batch to batch, so the idea here is to try to eliminate or at least reduce that (not sure if a HH6yrBIB bought last year would taste any different from one bought today - but why risk it?)
• Have four different groupings:
  • Group A:  Control.  Will leave one bottle unopened.
  • Group B:  60% Full.  Will open one bottle and leave 450 ml in the bottle (decanting the rest elsewhere).
  • Group C:  30% Full.  Will open two bottles; decant one entirely into something else, and move 225 mL of the contents of one into the other, and leave only 225 mL in that bottle (the other 300 mL decanted).  Creates two bottles that are 30% full (and were filled from the same bottle - so less variation).  Also ultimately creates 450 mL of sample content.
  • Group D:  10% Full.  Will open six bottles; decant five into other bottles, and take 75 mL from just one bottle to fill the other 5, and leave only 75 mL in that bottle.  Creates six bottles that are 10% full (again, filled from the same bottle, and ultimately 450 mL of sample content).
• Set all in a box in a closet (similar to how I'd bunker any other whiskey) for . . . 2 years?  

 

Minus any evaporation (and with the screw cap enclosures, hoping that is a non-factor), would wind up with 450 mL (about 15 oz) of whiskey at the three different fill levels.  At the end of 2 yrs, could decant the group C bottles into one, and the group D bottles into one - so there are four bottles to pour from.  Have a blind tasting of those 4 with people who know what they're doing (or in the absence of that, I'm thinking the GBS may be up for the job?)  Ask  participants to jot down their impressions of each sample and to guess which are which.  

 

Ultimately we're looking to answer a couple of questions:

1. Is there a discernible difference of low-fill bottles?
2.  If yes, how significant is the difference from 10% to 30%, 30% to 60%, and 60% to Full?
3.  If there is a difference, describe the difference (expect this to be highly variable as we all have different tastes, but is it more woody, less sweet, wet cardboard?)

 

I know there have been experiments on this topic, such as this one: http://www.breakingbourbon.com/24-month-bourbon-storage-experiment.html, which I thought was pretty interesting - but included a lot of variables and a small number of tasters; not that what I'm proposing is better - just different in that it focuses on just the air and time; not temp or sunlight - and gathering a LOT of impressions.

 

Thoughts?  Suggestions? 

[Richnimrod]

Gary, I have to say this is a very well thought out experiment.

It should show once and for all (or at least for enough folx to represernt a vast majority) that 'air time change' either is not a factor at all; a very limited factor; or a factor worth considering, in Bourbon shelf-life.

(At least for the single brand under scrutiny.....)  

The GBS folx will be asked to do a great service to mankind, at huge personal sacrifice, I know.    But, the ones with whom I'm acquainted should be up for it; I predict.  

The only (obvious) question is who has the space to do this?????  

[Freakdog]

I think there are lots of variables in play. But the biggest one is the bourbon. This will only tell you how air time affects the HH 6yr. I doubt it will have much effect.

Now if you were to use a barrel proofer,say OGD 114 ,Stagg jr,etc...I think you would taste a big change. Usually anything I have that's 80-90 proof range does not 

change much over the course of time, but these are more of my daily pours so the bottle does not linger more than 6 months. The barrel proofers tend to linger longer on the shelf , but I usually notice a change for the better after just a couple weeks air time. After several months to a year, sometimes great things happen.

The only time I had a negative affect was a 1/4 full ETL that just totally lost all its goodness after several months at that level. My rule now is once I have a bottle that gets that low, I drink it up. Or decant into a smaller bottle with no air space if I want to save it. I do however look forward to the results of your experiment . maybe we can get a few of us involved, set some parameters as you have above, and everyone try it with different juice. I'm in. Put me down for OGD 114.

[fosmith]

4 hours ago, GaryT said:

I know there have been experiments on this topic, such as this one: http://www.breakingbourbon.com/24-month-bourbon-storage-experiment.html, which I thought was pretty interesting - but included a lot of variables and a small number of tasters; not that what I'm proposing is better - just different in that it focuses on just the air and time; not temp or sunlight - and gathering a LOT of impressions.

 

Thoughts?  Suggestions? 

GaryT,

 

Here's another similar test.

https://tater-talk.com/2018/02/11/did-my-bourbon-change-in-the-bottle/

 

A couple of thoughts.  One variable your test leaves out is the number of times a bottle has been opened and poured from in order to reach the low fill.  Does repeatedly agitating the spirit and introducing new air cause changes beyond just pouring out 3/4 of the contents and sealing the bottle? 

 

The other is the question, does bourbon "open up" and improve with a few weeks/months of "air time"?  I've experienced this with some bourbons, like Booker's, OGD114 and WT101 but some say this is just because one's palate varies from day to day.  But, there are other bourbons where I've never noticed this at all, such as, ECBP and KCSiB.  This question would probably require a different test protocol and I'm not sure how one would set it up but, it would be interesting to try to answer this question. 

 

Fred

[flahute]

3 hours ago, fosmith said:

One variable your test leaves out is the number of times a bottle has been opened and poured from in order to reach the low fill.  Does repeatedly agitating the spirit and introducing new air cause changes beyond just pouring out 3/4 of the contents and sealing the bottle? 

If you believe in oxidation, than yes.

Introducing a fresh batch of oxygen with each bottle opening and pour is how it works in reality. To know for sure, Gary's decanting would need to occur one pour at a time, each pour occurring every other day or so.

[cdcdguy]

I have always been baffled by this and have tried extreme short periods of oxidation. I believe a whiskey can open a bit like wine. I usually pour my bourbon in a glass but let it sit an hour or two. Then I pour some straight out of the bottle. Some open up a little, and some it seems to make no difference. Really depends on the brand. I realize this is a more complex experience you are describing .

[gurgalunas]

I'll volunteer to take care of the "decanting the rest elsewhere" part.  Seems like you will have a lot of the 10 bottles that need to be disposed of...

 

Who will volunteer to run this with PVW23?

 

I like the idea, and experimental design seems like its pretty sound.  What single barrel could this be run effectively with?  HMcK10?

[GaryT]

On 4/12/2018 at 9:06 AM, Richnimrod said:

Gary, I have to say this is a very well thought out experiment.

It should show once and for all (or at least for enough folx to represernt a vast majority) that 'air time change' either is not a factor at all; a very limited factor; or a factor worth considering, in Bourbon shelf-life.

(At least for the single brand under scrutiny.....)  

The GBS folx will be asked to do a great service to mankind, at huge personal sacrifice, I know.    But, the ones with whom I'm acquainted should be up for it; I predict.  

The only (obvious) question is who has the space to do this?????  

 

Space?  Wait - didn't mom already talk to you about making room?    

Another positive attribute of the HH6yrBIB bottle is a case of 12 is fairly tight.  If I can't clear out enough room in a closet, I'll keep them in our basement (which is finished; same temp as the house, and would be kept in the dark).

 

On 4/12/2018 at 9:18 AM, Freakdog said:

I think there are lots of variables in play. But the biggest one is the bourbon. This will only tell you how air time affects the HH 6yr. I doubt it will have much effect.

Now if you were to use a barrel proofer,say OGD 114 ,Stagg jr,etc...I think you would taste a big change. Usually anything I have that's 80-90 proof range does not 

change much over the course of time, but these are more of my daily pours so the bottle does not linger more than 6 months. The barrel proofers tend to linger longer on the shelf , but I usually notice a change for the better after just a couple weeks air time. After several months to a year, sometimes great things happen.

The only time I had a negative affect was a 1/4 full ETL that just totally lost all its goodness after several months at that level. My rule now is once I have a bottle that gets that low, I drink it up. Or decant into a smaller bottle with no air space if I want to save it. I do however look forward to the results of your experiment . maybe we can get a few of us involved, set some parameters as you have above, and everyone try it with different juice. I'm in. Put me down for OGD 114.

 

Great point - could be that certain types of bourbon or whiskey are more susceptible to changes (maybe a delicate single malt goes south more quickly than bourbon).  I agree - I think a higher proof pour is likely to have more change over time too.  If money wasn't a consideration, I'd go for something else (like a Stagg Jr).  Telling the wife I was buying 10 identical bottles this road trip wasn't met with exuberance, but the price tag helped smooth the way  

 

I'd love for someone else to test with other whiskey!  I also definitely have noticed bottles open up with a bit of air time, although sometimes I wonder how much was because of that, or just that I happened to enjoy those later pours more (since it isn't every bottle, every time - maybe I'm trying to assign cause to just random, daily palate variation).

 

[GaryT]

On 4/12/2018 at 11:14 AM, fosmith said:

GaryT,

 

Here's another similar test.

https://tater-talk.com/2018/02/11/did-my-bourbon-change-in-the-bottle/

 

A couple of thoughts.  One variable your test leaves out is the number of times a bottle has been opened and poured from in order to reach the low fill.  Does repeatedly agitating the spirit and introducing new air cause changes beyond just pouring out 3/4 of the contents and sealing the bottle? 

 

The other is the question, does bourbon "open up" and improve with a few weeks/months of "air time"?  I've experienced this with some bourbons, like Booker's, OGD114 and WT101 but some say this is just because one's palate varies from day to day.  But, there are other bourbons where I've never noticed this at all, such as, ECBP and KCSiB.  This question would probably require a different test protocol and I'm not sure how one would set it up but, it would be interesting to try to answer this question. 

 

Fred

 

Thanks for sharing that Fred.  I need to read @wadewood's blog more often  I thought that was focused on the many ways to fry potatoes!

 

I do think some whiskey opens up, but agree - that would be difficult to test; or at least require multiple tastings.

On 4/12/2018 at 3:13 PM, flahute said:

If you believe in oxidation, than yes.

Introducing a fresh batch of oxygen with each bottle opening and pour is how it works in reality. To know for sure, Gary's decanting would need to occur one pour at a time, each pour occurring every other day or so.

I had given some thought to that, but not enough.  I thought about trying to decant down to the level and just opening the bottles, pouring a pour, and then pouring said pour back in (and maybe doing this once every few months), but I thought "when a bottle gets to 10%, I'm not opening it up regularly without finishing it".  But you're exactly right - to test real-world conditions, I need to schedule out the decanting.

 

So - let me tweak the experimental setup as follows:

 - Upon initial setup, open all (but the control) bottles and pour 2 oz out (into other bottles)

 - Repeat every week until each bottle reaches the designated fill level

 - - For Group B (60%), that will take 5 weeks

 - - For Group C (30%), that will take 8 weeks

 - - For Group D (10%), that will take 11 weeks

 

The last pouring will be more than 2 oz (e.g., Group C would be at 36% at that point), but keeping the weekly pours at 2 oz spares me having to break out the graduated cylinder every week to get it down to the mL

 

Although this raises another question:

 

Should each of these START at the same time?  Or should the schedule be established so that each reaches the ultimate fill level at the same time?  I'm thinking that they should all start at the same time - which means that the 10% full group won't have 2 yrs at 10% full, but at least would have gotten to that only 6 weeks after the 60% full bottles (and the same rate of exchange, etc).

 

Thoughts?

[GaryT]

On 4/12/2018 at 7:28 PM, cdcdguy said:

I have always been baffled by this and have tried extreme short periods of oxidation. I believe a whiskey can open a bit like wine. I usually pour my bourbon in a glass but let it sit an hour or two. Then I pour some straight out of the bottle. Some open up a little, and some it seems to make no difference. Really depends on the brand. I realize this is a more complex experience you are describing .

 

Before typing my post, I thought "Shit - did I do this already but with 2oz sample bottles??"  Looking back (I love this site for that very reason!) I found a post I did many years ago on mingle aging; trying to test "Does a mingle of two whiskies NEED some period of time to properly integrate, or not?"  Sharing below for anyone interested.  Spoiler alert - we found beyond 1 day, wasn't a difference (although just two of us, with very small samples).

 

 

On 4/12/2018 at 9:33 PM, gurgalunas said:

I'll volunteer to take care of the "decanting the rest elsewhere" part.  Seems like you will have a lot of the 10 bottles that need to be disposed of...

 

Who will volunteer to run this with PVW23?

 

I like the idea, and experimental design seems like its pretty sound.  What single barrel could this be run effectively with?  HMcK10?

I have given some thought to "What do I do with all of this HH6yrBIB?"  Once each bottle is decanted to the desired level, there will be 5,400 mL "extra".  I won't got into the gory details, but I've been targeting screwcap bottles recently in order to decant into.  I also have another 5 liter charred barrel that I've been trying to figure out what to do with.  I was pleased with my first batch in that type of barrel, so may wind up just filling that with this (although likely will only leave in there for 3 months or so; I found it started to get too woody at that point).  I think a "double-barreled" HH6yrBIB might be pretty tasty!  And if not - the lost investment is minimal.

[Vosgar]

Gary - Your enthusiasm and quest for knowledge is admirable, but to me it's just too much f'ing work 

 

See you soon in KY!

[Richnimrod]

Soooo... You're actually gonna do this, eh?   

I commend your ambition (as has Gary, The BOTY above); but wonder about the niggling nature of this sort of experiment, and the extended time period needed to complete it.   

In short this would be waaaaay beyond my meager ability to stay focused on the details.   

 

...But, I know you to have the dedication for this kind of long-term detailed sort of undertaking.    You certainly never got the genes for this dedication from me, I can testify!    For me, a study of the next evening's T-V offerings seem dauntingly far into an uncertain future.    Better to pour and enjoy life a dram at a time, I say!   HA!  

Good luck with it!     If I'm still around when it concludes, I shall read the report with great interest.

[GaryT]

It is a bit of work, but I think of it as another aspect of enjoying whiskey that doesn't involve drinking it   

[wadewood]

Follow up on my blog post.  I saved 50 ml samples from each bottle.  John Little from Smooth Ambler just got them a GC/MS tester and he offered to test the samples.  The opened bottle measured lowered in ethanol, 1-propanol, isobutanol and active amyl but not by large amounts.   It was not enough to be detected by the testers.  I have same test going but this time out to a year, ready this June.  I think in that timeframe testers will be able to tell a difference but we shall see.

My advice is to test for a difference which is objective vs. testing to see which is better, which is very subjective.

[Harry in WashDC]

Glad you all are working on this.  But, like Vosgar and some others have noted (and as I noted recently on an other, related thread), it's a lot of work and recordkeeping.  ALSO, for me, having a case or two of HH 6yr BIB in the house would be too tempting - there's no way it'd last six months.

[GaryT]

On 4/15/2018 at 9:58 AM, wadewood said:

Follow up on my blog post.  I saved 50 ml samples from each bottle.  John Little from Smooth Ambler just got them a GC/MS tester and he offered to test the samples.  The opened bottle measured lowered in ethanol, 1-propanol, isobutanol and active amyl but not by large amounts.   It was not enough to be detected by the testers.  I have same test going but this time out to a year, ready this June.  I think in that timeframe testers will be able to tell a difference but we shall see.

My advice is to test for a difference which is objective vs. testing to see which is better, which is very subjective.

Thanks for the update!

 

As to an objective difference, any suggestions?  Taste is very subjective, which is also why I wanted to have a lot of low-fill sample to get multiple opinions.  But maybe asking the tasters to somehow score or rank different attributes for each sample (as well as provide just open-ended comments)?  

 

Everyone's palate and preferences are different, but maybe having some specific tastes will shed some light (e.g., some may love oak while others don't - so not "I like that this has more oak" but just "This tasted like it has more oak").  I'm curious if certain flavor profiles become less intense over time, or stand out more over time with air.

 

Good news is there is a LOT of time to sort out the rating sheet   And I'd be happy to send some small amount of each group off to someone if they have access to some type of chemical analysis equipment (I think that would be really interesting - although I want to somehow connect that to "What does it mean to the drinker?")

 

Also - quick update - all 10 bottles have been acquired, labeled, and 9 of the 10 have had their first 2 oz decanted:

 

A is the "Control" (unopened)

B will be the 60% full (450 mL)

C1 + C2 will be 30% full (giving 450 mL total)

D1 thru D6 will be 10% full (giving 450 mL total)

 

I'll open and pour off 2 oz every Sunday (if I'm away for a weekend, I'll just pour our 4 oz the week after).  I have a spreadsheet with a schedule to highlight when to STOP pouring from each, as well as how much the last pull has to be to get as close as I can.  I'm also weighing the bottles at each step (weighed them all full too) as a sanity check to ensure the removals are all fairly close - and to see if over time how much might be lost to evaporation or a bad seal.

[Old Hippie]

Oxidation is critical to aging bourbon. This is why young bourbons taste green and harsh. There are many ways you can speed up interaction with the wood but so far you can't cheat time. I think the premise of your experiment is spot on and you might notice some subtle differences. The problem is by doing it your way you have a relatively very small area exposed to air so the results will be minimal. As whiskey ages in a barrel the angel's share increases, consequently so does your surface area. I would also wonder if you leave the bottle open, some outside contaminates might interfere. 

[GaryT]

On 5/3/2018 at 2:09 PM, Old Hippie said:

Oxidation is critical to aging bourbon. This is why young bourbons taste green and harsh. There are many ways you can speed up interaction with the wood but so far you can't cheat time. I think the premise of your experiment is spot on and you might notice some subtle differences. The problem is by doing it your way you have a relatively very small area exposed to air so the results will be minimal. As whiskey ages in a barrel the angel's share increases, consequently so does your surface area. I would also wonder if you leave the bottle open, some outside contaminates might interfere. 

Very true - and I've thought that the surface area exposed to air in the SAME shape bottle is the same regardlesss of the fill level?  I'm no chemist/scientist, but curious if it is that the air gets saturated (so the more air, the more it can absorb - and it sorta leeches from the whiskey that isn't right at the surface)?  Or if it is more that the top layer changes, and ultimately it is the ratio of that top layer to the remaining layers that mix when you tip to pour which would give you a different result in a low-fill bottle.  Unfortunately this won't answer that for me   And while the inner geek is curious, I'm mostly looking forward to just seeing the effect at the end. 

[Cranecreek]

On 4/12/2018 at 10:14 AM, fosmith said:

A couple of thoughts.  One variable your test leaves out is the number of times a bottle has been opened and poured from in order to reach the low fill.  Does repeatedly agitating the spirit and introducing new air cause changes beyond just pouring out 3/4 of the contents and sealing the bottle?

 

On 4/12/2018 at 2:13 PM, flahute said:

If you believe in oxidation, than yes.

Introducing a fresh batch of oxygen with each bottle opening and pour is how it works in reality. To know for sure, Gary's decanting would need to occur one pour at a time, each pour occurring every other day or so.

I don't do it often but if I purchase a bottle that seems off than I will decant it 3 or 4 times leaving the cap off for an hour at a time.  I fill to a point where I have the most surface area.  I bought a Johnny Drum "Private Stock" a few weeks ago that was awful, tasted like Grand Marnier with vodka added to it.  Have finished with the decanting and the difference is unbelievable !  Creamy Butterscotch-Vanilla-Pecan Pie now.

 

[GaryT]

14 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

 

I don't do it often but if I purchase a bottle that seems off than I will decant it 3 or 4 times leaving the cap off for an hour at a time.  I fill to a point where I have the most surface area.  I bought a Johnny Drum "Private Stock" a few weeks ago that was awful, tasted like Grand Marnier with vodka added to it.  Have finished with the decanting and the difference is unbelievable !  Creamy Butterscotch-Vanilla-Pecan Pie now.

 

 

I've got a doo-dad that was donated to write up for a site (haven't done it yet), but below is a thread where folks seem to find that works pretty well.  Sounds like the same effect minus the goofy doo-dad!

 

 

 

 

[Cranecreek]

 

5 hours ago, GaryT said:

I've got a doo-dad that was donated to write up for a site (haven't done it yet), but below is a thread where folks seem to find that works pretty well.  Sounds like the same effect minus the goofy doo-dad! 

I might add that I learned this multiple decanting from a Brit some 20 years ago.  In his case it was with Scotch that he would do this.  It is not going to magically turn a poor bourbon into a good one, but only seems to work with a good bourbon that tastes unlike what it should.

Other successes I have had besides the J Drum are Michters,  EWSB, and a few others I don't remember right off.  On occasion it does nothing at all.

[BDanner]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:50 PM, Cranecreek said:

 

I don't do it often but if I purchase a bottle that seems off than I will decant it 3 or 4 times leaving the cap off for an hour at a time.  I fill to a point where I have the most surface area.  I bought a Johnny Drum "Private Stock" a few weeks ago that was awful, tasted like Grand Marnier with vodka added to it.  Have finished with the decanting and the difference is unbelievable !  Creamy Butterscotch-Vanilla-Pecan Pie now.

 

So you get the Orange note from this one too. 

[Cranecreek]

23 minutes ago, BDanner said:

So you get the Orange note from this one too.

I did this time BD.  But it is now just an accompanying flavor.  Just like last time I found this, there was only 1 bottle for $25.99 at a big LS.  So I went for it.  Thought I had made a bad purchase till the decanting trick.