Abraham Bowman Sweet XVI

[JoeTerp]

3 hours ago, Jazz June said:

Seeing as VA ABC has only had one lottery for something that came out this year and other items that were previously lottery (or even waiting list) have just been going out to stores, I'm dubious as to the lottery claim. This one at least has an entry on their website, unlike say Old Fitz 11, but it seems things go on the shelf days before inventory hits the website. Which for something like this is going to be too late.

Product code for Old Fitz is #16370 in case you want to call around. 

[Harry in WashDC]

On 7/21/2018 at 9:02 PM, JoeTerp said:

Thanks for the update Harry. I’m surprised the bottle count is so low. My rough estimate given the release sheet would have been in the neighborhood of 1,500 or so bottles and I think they only distributed 400-500 on release day. I would have thought Virginia ABC would have received a bigger allocation of the remaining. 

I agree.  But, they were setting up for some event and had a handful of people tasting so were pretty busy and I didn't question it.  He distinctly said "about a hundred bottles", and I thought at the time that, maybe, he means "a hundred (6-bottle) cases".  Jazz June's comment above also seems to fit.  Although as a DC resident, I cannot participate in the VA ABC lotteries, I do watch for them because lately, as he said, some things (like this year's GTS) went straight to stores.  The stock number for the Sweet XVI has been up for awhile, but the managers I sort of know (from seeing them several times a year) at several ABC stores I've visited lately say they have no clue what the main office intends to do with it or when it will be released/auctioned.

EDIT - And the conversations with the store managers (located about 70 miles apart) were held not later than last week three days apart.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Harry in WashDC

[JoeTerp]

On 7/23/2018 at 11:43 AM, Harry in WashDC said:

I agree.  But, they were setting up for some event and had a handful of people tasting so were pretty busy and I didn't question it.  He distinctly said "about a hundred bottles", and I thought at the time that, maybe, he means "a hundred (6-bottle) cases".  Jazz June's comment above also seems to fit.  Although as a DC resident, I cannot participate in the VA ABC lotteries, I do watch for them because lately, as he said, some things (like this year's GTS) went straight to stores.  The stock number for the Sweet XVI has been up for awhile, but the managers I sort of know (from seeing them several times a year) at several ABC stores I've visited lately say they have no clue what the main office intends to do with it or when it will be released/auctioned.

EDIT - And the conversations with the store managers (located about 70 miles apart) were held not later than last week three days apart.

For what it's worth, I've been told by a source I consider reliable that when an item is designated for lottery they block it out in the system so that even the back computers have no visibility to what's in the warehouse.  This would leave me to believe that unless they've issued a recent memo (and I know they've done this in the past) to the store managers no one really knows how much they have.  

 

I also believe that the store managers don't know what will happen because it's been clear that VA ABC is still trying to figure out what they're going to do with the releases.

[tanstaafl2]

So is it just me? Got one bottle (that was the total allotment) of this in my store so I agreed to take the hit and buy it so we could taste it. Couple of things struck me as curious. Although descriptions of the whiskey, including apparently Bowman themselves (as noted in the Drinkhacker blog), describe it as bourbon the word bourbon is not mentioned on the bottle itself.

 

Bowman explains the concept:

This limited release explores how barrel entry proof affects bourbon flavor profile over long aging periods. The bourbon was allowed to age for sixteen years prior to bottling. This release is comprised of a bourbon recipe that was distilled to a typical distillation proof. It was then barreled in new charred American white oak barrels at four different entry proofs. The four entry proofs chosen for this experiment were 125, 114, 105, and 90 proof. Each of the barrel proofs were evaluated individually over the course of sixteen years before marrying the barrels together to comprise the Abraham Bowman Sweet XVI bourbon.

 

OK, maybe all Bowman bourbon is just called "Virginia Whiskey". 

 

 

Umm, nope. We know it is a "limited edition". That is the whole point of the Abraham Bowman line.

 

The distilling date and the bottling date are exactly 16 years apart. Did the barrel it immediately after distilling? Did they bottle it as it was dumped? A small distillery so perhaps so. Just seems a bit odd.

 

And if it is the Sweet XVI release why would it be their 17th release? Wouldn't it have made sense to bottle it as their 16th release? OK, that one is not so important, it just seems odd!

 

And did anybody else recall that BT did a BTEC in October of 2001 that consisted of, you guessed it, a wheated bourbon looking at barrel enty proofs of 90, 105, 115 (instead of "114") and 125?

 

 

Sounds like we now know where some of the barrels of that BTEC went...

 

But who cares? It is 16 yo bourbon at 116 proof and while limited it only costs $80 instead of the typical $200+ these days! Whats not to like?

 

But is it really a new instant classic? Seems like only one way to find out...

 

So it is the new Bowman Sweet XVI versus a 2011 20yo PVW, A 2011 12y11m WLW and a Jefferson 18yo which seems like a fair comparison (not to say any of these is a "classic"  (although my money was on the WLW). If the Bowman was a winner it would take on a 2013 Stagg just for fun. 

 

Proof was a problem as two were much higher than the other two. The Bowman and the WLW are also a bit darker overall. All 4 were tasted blind. It was quickly possible to separate the four into two groups. But when comparing the two higher proofs whiskies one was clearly superior to the other. One was a little thinner in mouthfeel and started well but quickly developed a dry, slightly bitter note before the finish fell off a cliff and left you rather sad and disappointed. The other was all that the first one was not and more. And that proved, to no great surprise, to be the WLW. The Bowman was more than a little disappointing. 

 

We will give it another go when I pop open those four BTECs to see what, if any, similarities we find.

 

And yes, we had some of that Stagg anyway!

 

[Harry in WashDC]

1 hour ago, tanstaafl2 said:

So is it just me? . . .

 

     * * * * *

 

The distilling date and the bottling date are exactly 16 years apart. Did the barrel it immediately after distilling? Did they bottle it as it was dumped? A small distillery so perhaps so. Just seems a bit odd.

 

And if it is the Sweet XVI release why would it be their 17th release? Wouldn't it have made sense to bottle it as their 16th release? OK, that one is not so important, it just seems odd!

 

And did anybody else recall that BT did a BTEC in October of 2001 that consisted of, you guessed it, a wheated bourbon looking at barrel enty proofs of 90, 105, 115 (instead of "114") and 125?

 

 

 

Sounds like we now know where some of the barrels of that BTEC went...

 

But who cares? It is 16 yo bourbon at 116 proof and while limited it only costs $80 instead of the typical $200+ these days! Whats not to like?

 

But is it really a new instant classic? Seems like only one way to find out...

     * * * * *

[end quoting]

 

On the one tour I took (just me and the guide), I watched one guy (John IIRC) dumping barrels (destined to become Virginia Gentleman).  He said he sometimes did 60 or 70 a day.  Downstairs from the dump track, we walked past a fiberglass tun below the filters that caught loose char and then entered the "bottling space" which was near the gift shop and the entrance.  Another employee was filling bottles, by hand from another tun - about six bottles were lined up on a movable shelf, and the employee would eyeball the fill, turn off the tun tap, pull the shelf a little so the next bottle was under it, then open the tap (repeat ad nauseum).  So, it could happen that the dump and the fill of Sweet XVI occurred in one 24-hour period, I suppose, if somebody substituted for John on occasion and more than one employee ran the fill line when boredom struck.

 

RE: the rest of your post - I for one really appreciate the time and effort, and especially your recalling of history (which I am finding to be an increasingly difficult task), which you devote to your pursuit of, and evaluations of, bourbons of interest to a larger audience, many of whom may never see let alone taste those bourbons of interest.  The BTEC proof connection NEVER came to mind.  Fascinating.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[JoeTerp]

7 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

So is it just me? Got one bottle (that was the total allotment) of this in my store so I agreed to take the hit and buy it so we could taste it. Couple of things struck me as curious. Although descriptions of the whiskey, including apparently Bowman themselves (as noted in the Drinkhacker blog), describe it as bourbon the word bourbon is not mentioned on the bottle itself.

 

Bowman explains the concept:

This limited release explores how barrel entry proof affects bourbon flavor profile over long aging periods. The bourbon was allowed to age for sixteen years prior to bottling. This release is comprised of a bourbon recipe that was distilled to a typical distillation proof. It was then barreled in new charred American white oak barrels at four different entry proofs. The four entry proofs chosen for this experiment were 125, 114, 105, and 90 proof. Each of the barrel proofs were evaluated individually over the course of sixteen years before marrying the barrels together to comprise the Abraham Bowman Sweet XVI bourbon.

 

OK, maybe all Bowman bourbon is just called "Virginia Whiskey". 

 

 

Umm, nope. We know it is a "limited edition". That is the whole point of the Abraham Bowman line.

 

The distilling date and the bottling date are exactly 16 years apart. Did the barrel it immediately after distilling? Did they bottle it as it was dumped? A small distillery so perhaps so. Just seems a bit odd.

 

And if it is the Sweet XVI release why would it be their 17th release? Wouldn't it have made sense to bottle it as their 16th release? OK, that one is not so important, it just seems odd!

 

And did anybody else recall that BT did a BTEC in October of 2001 that consisted of, you guessed it, a wheated bourbon looking at barrel enty proofs of 90, 105, 115 (instead of "114") and 125?

 

 

Sounds like we now know where some of the barrels of that BTEC went...

 

But who cares? It is 16 yo bourbon at 116 proof and while limited it only costs $80 instead of the typical $200+ these days! Whats not to like?

 

But is it really a new instant classic? Seems like only one way to find out...

 

So it is the new Bowman Sweet XVI versus a 2011 20yo PVW, A 2011 12y11m WLW and a Jefferson 18yo which seems like a fair comparison (not to say any of these is a "classic"  (although my money was on the WLW). If the Bowman was a winner it would take on a 2013 Stagg just for fun. 

 

Proof was a problem as two were much higher than the other two. The Bowman and the WLW are also a bit darker overall. All 4 were tasted blind. It was quickly possible to separate the four into two groups. But when comparing the two higher proofs whiskies one was clearly superior to the other. One was a little thinner in mouthfeel and started well but quickly developed a dry, slightly bitter note before the finish fell off a cliff and left you rather sad and disappointed. The other was all that the first one was not and more. And that proved, to no great surprise, to be the WLW. The Bowman was more than a little disappointing. 

 

We will give it another go when I pop open those four BTECs to see what, if any, similarities we find.

 

And yes, we had some of that Stagg anyway!

 

As for why it's not labeled bourbon.  My thought is that has to do with the Abraham Bowman line.  Every release in that line has the exact same bottle with a different sticker having the specific release details.  While this release was a bourbon, there were others that were clearly not Bourbon.

[JoeTerp]

6 hours ago, Harry in WashDC said:

     * * * * *

[end quoting]

 

On the one tour I took (just me and the guide), I watched one guy (John IIRC) dumping barrels (destined to become Virginia Gentleman).  He said he sometimes did 60 or 70 a day.  Downstairs from the dump track, we walked past a fiberglass tun below the filters that caught loose char and then entered the "bottling space" which was near the gift shop and the entrance.  Another employee was filling bottles, by hand from another tun - about six bottles were lined up on a movable shelf, and the employee would eyeball the fill, turn off the tun tap, pull the shelf a little so the next bottle was under it, then open the tap (repeat ad nauseum).  So, it could happen that the dump and the fill of Sweet XVI occurred in one 24-hour period, I suppose, if somebody substituted for John on occasion and more than one employee ran the fill line when boredom struck.

 

RE: the rest of your post - I for one really appreciate the time and effort, and especially your recalling of history (which I am finding to be an increasingly difficult task), which you devote to your pursuit of, and evaluations of, bourbons of interest to a larger audience, many of whom may never see let alone taste those bourbons of interest.  The BTEC proof connection NEVER came to mind.  Fascinating.

 

Thank you.

 

 

This release was from 12 barrels so I wouldn't be too surprised that it was bottled in one day.

[tanstaafl2]

Mostly a curiosity I admit and it probably is bourbon as Bowman notes. Although I am increasingly unwilling to give companies, large or small, the benefit of the doubt these days. If ain't on the label it ain't so unless I have personal knowledge otherwise! The price of being a realist I suppose... 

 

18 hours ago, JoeTerp said:

As for why it's not labeled bourbon.  My thought is that has to do with the Abraham Bowman line.  Every release in that line has the exact same bottle with a different sticker having the specific release details.  While this release was a bourbon, there were others that were clearly not Bourbon.

A fair point that the Abraham Bowman line uses the same bottle for each release. Except when they don't! At least one example below I could locate with a quick scan of the "liquor store"  in my basement. They also have several examples of where they state bourbon on the attached label as shown. Why they chose to omit it here is, for me at least, still a bit of a curiosity.

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by tanstaafl2

[Jazz June]

Virginia got 150 bottles, to be in a lottery next month.