Where Is Your Proof ?

[PowderKeg]

On 6/26/2018 at 7:29 AM, Richnimrod said:

Off hand, which distillers enter their Bourbon into barrels as low as 114 to 118?    I'm unaware of any that do that (other than crafters).    Educate me, please? 

Peerless and C&K both barrel at 107.  Will be at least a few more years to taste C&K's results.  Yes, I suppose C&K is craft-y now, but once they install the 2nd cs (36"), they'll rocket up ahead of Dickel in theoretical capacity (still plate area of 24" and 36" cs)

[WhiskeyBlender]

5 hours ago, Cranecreek said:

  Appreciate your input on this topic..We had another topic here a few weeks back where this was the focus titled "Musings of Wild Turkey 101"  It was kind of left undecided, without having the kind of firsthand knowledge that you have.  Perhaps you could glance it over ?

@Cranecreek, I'd be happy to take a look at the "Musings of Wild Turkey 101" topic and give some feedback. Sounds like fun.

 

Do you happen to know what category it is in so that I can find it? 

[Cranecreek]

27 minutes ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@Cranecreek, I'd be happy to take a look at the "Musings of Wild Turkey 101" topic and give some feedback. Sounds like fun.

 

Do you happen to know what category it is in so that I can find it? 

 

[Cranecreek]

On 6/17/2018 at 10:47 PM, Kane said:

At the same time, there are so many awesome whiskeys at ~90-100 proof that I'm not sure whether they simply benefit from their lower proof, or if they are specifically selected to fit a certain profile.

How true ! Even the high proof drinkers would not turn down a Van Winkle lot B...proof = 90.4

And from their website  " Van Winkle Special Reserve is the perfect combination of age and proof. "

[kevinbrink]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:11 AM, Cranecreek said:

How true ! Even the high proof drinkers would not turn down a Van Winkle lot B...proof = 90.4

And from their website  " Van Winkle Special Reserve is the perfect combination of age and proof. "

I would, I don't like it much. I can think of many 90 or lower proof bourbons for $30 or less that I would rather drink. 

[CUfan99]

On 6/22/2018 at 6:10 PM, Kepler said:

101 proof.   Y'all know why.

There’s just something about 101 that seems just right. 

[petrel800]

Throw me in the there is a proof for all occasions.  

 

Summer in Atlanta is hot and humid, sucking down 140+ proof GTS doesn't really hit the spot for me if its 95 degrees and 100% humidity.  Even in an air conditioned home.  Sign me up for some EWSB or AAA 10 yr at 86 proof during those times.  As the weather cools off, I'll tend to go back up on the proof.  

[lcpfratn]

Hence the word "proof" considered a benchmark for "good" distillate back then.  (a mix of gunpowder + the whiskey -ignited) if it burned with a flame it was "proof" the whiskey was decent. About 100 proof or 50 %.  Like smokinjoe said.  A lot of the water that goes to steam condenses right back to water making a weak distillate.

Actually, I believe the proof test was for at least 80 proof. If the wet gunpowder (black powder) would ignite (flash burn) after the Whiskey had burned off, then the proof was at least 80. My high school science project was on alcohol and I performed this test several times as one of my project demonstrations.

[uncork_it_already]

Each whiskey is different. I’ve had batches of ECBP in the high 130’s that I thought were fantastic. Same with GTS and even Jr (in the low 130’s). Then other batches in the 120’s seemed a little hot.

 

Then there is the OF1920 at 115 and some 13yr KC store picks at 120 that are excellent sippers.

 

The latest Parkers is what 122.5? It’s perfect.

 

Then there is RHF at 100, W12 even lighter. Hancock’s even lighter! All the EHT at BiB.

 

In short, I can’t identify the perfect proof.

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 6/27/2018 at 10:36 AM, Cranecreek said:

  Appreciate your input on this topic..We had another topic here a few weeks back where this was the focus titled "Musings of Wild Turkey 101"  It was kind of left undecided, without having the kind of firsthand knowledge that you have.  Perhaps you could glance it over ?

@Cranecreek, I FINALLY had a chance to read through the "Musing of Wild Turkey 101" thread. What an enjoyable read! I also read Minnick's article on "The Secret Science of Proof" for the first time. So, in general, as that article relates, I tend to agree with WT's Eddie Russell and Michter's Andrea Wilson that lower proof bourbons have more wood sugars and less tannic astringency and fewer resins/piney notes. Thus, again generally speaking, a lower entry proof will draw out more of the water soluble notes and higher entry proofs tend to draw out more of the alcohol soluble ones. That is certainly what I would consider the basic rule. 

 

However, basic rules tend to have lots of exceptions and caveats. Both the Minnick article and the "Musings on WT" thread point out the greater complexities to this rule, such as how yeast, mash bill, distillation proof, warehouse location, type of warehouse (i.e., concrete vs. brick vs. metal-clad vs. stone, etc.), location in warehouse, temperature, humidity, amount of ventilation, etc., all affect the final aromatic outcome of the bourbon. But to focus on just one of these factors for a moment- the mash bill- over the years I've found from my own work that the type of small grain used can make a world of different as where the entry proof should be located. So, for instance, I find that a bourbon that uses rye as the small grain in the mash bill (or even just rye whiskey for that matter) can in general be barreled at a higher entry proof than a bourbon that uses wheat as the small grain. This would be very much in line with the BT Experimental Collection findings of a higher entry proof for their rye-based recipes at 125 and their wheat-based recipes at 115. (On a personal note, even for a rye recipe bourbon, I like to draw out a little more of the water soluble wood sugars, so I wouldn't ever enter the whiskey in the barrel as high as 125. I find the "sweet spot" for this recipe to be somewhere between 118 and 122, depending on a whole host of factors.)

 

At any rate, to take this a little further, let's stick with the mash bill factor for a moment. Even though wheat recipes bourbons tend to be best when entered somewhere between 110 and 115, I do think it is entirely possible to enter into the barrel TOO low, so that you get very few of the alcohol soluble aromatic aldehydes (i.e., vanillin). Part of this will depend upon the climate where the distillery is located. To take a concrete example, when I first started blending and consulting for Wyoming Whiskey back in the fall of 2014, they were entering their wheat-recipe bourbon into the barrel at 110. This is what Steve Nally had mandated, as he took this low entry proof directly from his time and experience at Maker's Mark. Well, what we found was that for the Wyoming climate, which could have short, very hot, dry summers but extremely cool, dry winters, that entry proof didn't work for them. If anything, it severely retarded the maturation of the barrels, so that they tasted a lot younger than they really were, and the balance of the bourbon wasn't quite right. Thus, I had them slightly increase the entry proof to 114, which, given their very cool, dry (and for a short period hot and dry) conditions, works much better and helps to bring the whiskey back into balance. I won't get into all the other issues that we worked on at that distillery, as I know there have been long threads on it, but just to say that climatic conditions also play a big factor as to where the proper entry proof should be located. 

 

Thus, my experience has taught me that finding the right entry proof for a particular bourbon, with its unique mash bill, yeast strain, maturation conditions, etc., also comes down to where the "sweet spot" is for each particular bourbon made at each particular distillery. While general rules might apply, what works for Buffalo Trace may not necessarily be right for a bourbon distillery in Texas, or Wyoming, or Maine, or Florida, or for that matter, even another distillery in Kentucky. 

 

I could go on and on with this topic, but I would be interested in hearing other's takes on proof. What an incredibly fun topic! 

 

Cheers, and in good spirits,

Nancy

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by WhiskeyBlender
grammatical errors

[Cranecreek]

On 7/18/2018 at 8:25 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

@Cranecreek, I FINALLY had a chance to read through the "Musing of Wild Turkey 101" thread. What an enjoyable read! I also read Minnick's article on "The Secret Science of Proof" for the first time. So, in general, as that article relates, I tend to agree with WT's Eddie Russell and Michter's Andrea Wilson that lower proof bourbons have more wood sugars and less tannic astringency and fewer resins/piney notes. Thus, again generally speaking, a lower entry proof will draw out more of the water soluble notes and higher entry proofs tend to draw out more of the alcohol soluble ones. That is certainly what I would consider the basic rule. 

 

However, basic rules tend to have lots of exceptions and caveats. Both the Minnick article and the "Musings on WT" thread point out the greater complexities to this rule, such as how yeast, mash bill, distillation proof, warehouse location, type of warehouse (i.e., concrete vs. brick vs. metal-clad vs. stone, etc.), location in warehouse, temperature, humidity, amount of ventilation, etc., all affect the final aromatic outcome of the bourbon. But to focus on just one of these factors for a moment- the mash bill- over the years I've found from my own work that the type of small grain used can make a world of different as where the entry proof should be located. So, for instance, I find that a bourbon that uses rye as the small grain in the mash bill (or even just rye whiskey for that matter) can in general be barreled at a higher entry proof than a bourbon that uses wheat as the small grain. This would be very much in line with the BT Experimental Collection findings of a higher entry proof for their rye-based recipes at 125 and their wheat-based recipes at 115. (On a personal note, even for a rye recipe bourbon, I like to draw out a little more of the water soluble wood sugars, so I wouldn't ever enter the whiskey in the barrel as high as 125. I find the "sweet spot" for this recipe to be somewhere between 118 and 122, depending on a whole host of factors.)

 

At any rate, to take this a little further, let's stick with the mash bill factor for a moment. Even though wheat recipes bourbons tend to be best when entered somewhere between 110 and 115, I do think it is entirely possible to enter into the barrel TOO low, so that you get very few of the alcohol soluble aromatic aldehydes (i.e., vanillin). Part of this will depend upon the climate where the distillery is located. To take a concrete example, when I first started blending and consulting for Wyoming Whiskey back in the fall of 2014, they were entering their wheat-recipe bourbon into the barrel at 110. This is what Steve Nally had mandated, as he took this low entry proof directly from his time and experience at Maker's Mark. Well, what we found was that for the Wyoming climate, which could have short, very hot, dry summers but extremely cool, dry winters, that entry proof didn't work for them. If anything, it severely retarded the maturation of the barrels, so that they tasted a lot younger than they really were, and the balance of the bourbon wasn't quite right. Thus, I had them slightly increase the entry proof to 114, which, given their very cool, dry (and for a short period hot and dry) conditions, works much better and helps to bring the whiskey back into balance. I won't get into all the other issues that we worked on at that distillery, as I know there have been long threads on it, but just to say that climatic conditions also play a big factor as to where the proper entry proof should be located. 

 

Thus, my experience has taught me that finding the right entry proof for a particular bourbon, with its unique mash bill, yeast strain, maturation conditions, etc., also comes down to where the "sweet spot" is for each particular bourbon made at each particular distillery. While general rules might apply, what works for Buffalo Trace may not necessarily be right for a bourbon distillery in Texas, or Wyoming, or Maine, or Florida, or for that matter, even another distillery in Kentucky. 

 

I could go on and on with this topic, but I would be interested in hearing other's takes on proof. What an incredibly fun topic! 

 

Cheers, and in good spirits,

Nancy

 

As you say there are so many variables and control of them can only go so far, the time spent in the barrel and its effect on the final product being the somewhat unknown factor.  I think distillers (like Wild Turkey & the rest) after many years have a process that "works" for them and they, for good reason are reluctant to mess with it.  If those processes are producing a whiskey that has a following and the profits are there than it's don't fix it if it isn't broken.  They may do experimental releases or adjust proof or age occasionally but always have their flagship expression in the forefront.  

Thanks for your input !!

[The Black Tot]

Like Bruce, when I open a bottle I've never had before, I'll always try a few noses and a sip at full strength, for reference.

 

But after that first test sip, anything over 115 proof gets an eyeballed random splash of water such that it becomes around 115.

 

I got this from Chuck:

https://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2011/12/be-careful-with-high-proof-whiskey.html

 

Who says in the comments that he does the same but shoots for 110. I took his lead and have found it very wise.

 

I like having control of that process and prefer in every case to buy cask strength spirits. They also help the potency and flavor density of my cocktails.

 

When you proof down, you have more sips to enjoy.

 

I think of water addition like a focus control on a camera, or a volume control on a stereo. I don't always shoot at infinity focus and I don't set the volume on 10.

 

There's a proof where the flavor density matches the sensor density on your tongue. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by The Black Tot

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 7/22/2018 at 11:57 AM, Cranecreek said:

As you say there are so many variables and control of them can only go so far, the time spent in the barrel and its effect on the final product being the somewhat unknown factor.  I think distillers (like Wild Turkey & the rest) after many years have a process that "works" for them and they, for good reason are reluctant to mess with it.  If those processes are producing a whiskey that has a following and the profits are there than it's don't fix it if it isn't broken.  They may do experimental releases or adjust proof or age occasionally but always have their flagship expression in the forefront.  

Thanks for your input !!

I think you are absolutely right, @Cranecreek. As the old adage says, "don't fix it if it ain't broke." However, the practice of higher entry proofs historically had to do with saving money (i.e., not having to buy so many barrels) and space in the warehouse. For instance, studies were conducted by Hiram Walker and other distilleries in the 1940's and onward on the effects of entry proof on barrel maturation. These studies tended to show that you could enter into the cask as high as 125 proof before there were adverse affects to the flavor of the bourbon, such as too much pine & resin notes, etc. If I recall correctly, it was in an industry circular in 1962 when they officially changed the regs, so that there was now a ceiling entry proof of 125 so that distilleries could save space and money. However, the practice of entering into the barrel at higher proofs didn't come into effect into the early 1980's. I digress.....at any rate, Charles Cowdery and Mike Veach have written extensively on this topic, and if you want some great reading on it, check out their writings. 

[Harry in WashDC]

On 7/18/2018 at 9:25 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

   * * * * *

 

I could go on and on with this topic, but I would be interested in hearing other's takes on proof. What an incredibly fun topic! 

 

Cheers, and in good spirits,

Nancy

 

After reading what C. Cowdery and M. Veach, and some others (Adam Rogers' "Proof" first among several technical books) said about the effect of "proof" entry and exit on whiskey, I do, indeed, have a take on it.  An anecdotal observation -- The smoothness and complexity of WT MK 17 in spite of its "low" entry/bottle proof combined with its lack of over-oak/tannic/astringent overtones convinced me that age in a barrel is not a dominant parameter; rather, it is just one variable and can be accounted for by adjusting others.  My overall conclusion that age does NOT always equal wood-sucking dominance was borne out by extensive trial and error experimentation complete with written notes on outcomes, many of which are illegible I must admit.  Thus, my position matches well with more learned persons with careers at stake who have opined that higher entry proofs, while enriching economies of scale, may result in a less than exceptionally admired product.

 

[WhiskeyBlender]

20 hours ago, Harry in WashDC said:

After reading what C. Cowdery and M. Veach, and some others (Adam Rogers' "Proof" first among several technical books) said about the effect of "proof" entry and exit on whiskey, I do, indeed, have a take on it.  An anecdotal observation -- The smoothness and complexity of WT MK 17 in spite of its "low" entry/bottle proof combined with its lack of over-oak/tannic/astringent overtones convinced me that age in a barrel is not a dominant parameter; rather, it is just one variable and can be accounted for by adjusting others.  My overall conclusion that age does NOT always equal wood-sucking dominance was borne out by extensive trial and error experimentation complete with written notes on outcomes, many of which are illegible I must admit.  Thus, my position matches well with more learned persons with careers at stake who have opined that higher entry proofs, while enriching economies of scale, may result in a less than exceptionally admired product.

 

That is very well-said, @Harry in WashDC! I couldn't agree with you more.