Jump to content

Blended Bourbons


Jazzhead
This topic has been inactive for at least 365 days, and is now closed. Please feel free to start a new thread on the subject! 

Recommended Posts

What do folks here think about the relatively recent phenomenon of blended bourbons?    As a bourbon geek, does it interest you as a category?  

 

By blended bourbons,  I mean bourbons (or ryes)  created from the blending of separately-distilled distillates with distinctly different mashbillls,  that aren't necessarily from the same distillery.

 

I've been dabbling in such blends,   including Outryder (combination of a high-rye four grain and a traditional corn/rye bourbon),  and  Stoll and Wolfe (5-year MGP with 2-year craft rye).   Right now I'm sipping a Jefferson's Reserve,  which  I understand is a blend.   High West built its reputation on blends - their Bourye is excellent.  

 

Blends are commonplace in scotch,  but rare with bourbon,  where a single mashbill is typical.   (Blending takes place  only with respect to differently-aged barrels of the same distillate.)    Blending is what separates Canadian from American distilling.  Recently Crown Royal has issued aged versions of single mashbills,  showing the component parts of the separate distillates that are blended so expertly in Crown Royal.   It's interesting to sample Canadian whiskey as it would be presented American style.

 

The task, I think, with a blend, is to appreciate how well the blender's goal has been achieved.   Typical aesthetic goals are balance,  or mouthfeel, or producing a unique juxtaposition of grains, or ages, or both.   (At the same time, there may be practical goals as well,  such as to be able to sell some younger whiskey by blending it with older stock. )   That's the strategy some of the craft distillers are using, like Whistlepig or Smooth Ambler or (with their double rye) High West.  

 

Thoughts?   Which blends are killers?    Do you think the trend is a good one?    Where are the abuses and best practices?   

Edited by Jazzhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jazzhead said:

     *   *   *   *   *

 

Thoughts?   Which blends are killers?    Do you think the trend is a good one?    Where are the abuses and best practices?   

Our vattings are blends, and I really like the SB Blend and the Grandpa Weller 4 Grain.  On the commercial side, I was skeptical of the Joseph A. Magnus attempts until I tasted them.  If High West had not sold blends I liked, I probably would have stayed away from the JAM blends, and that would have been a shame.  With the success of JAM's blends (and finishes), and Kentucky Owl's, I suppose the trend is "good".  Consumer education is a best practice so that persons don't confuse a blend of bourbons with blended whiskey.  Indeed, I just went to the TTB website to read up on when the label must say "blend" and got really confused.  THAT suggests abuse is inevitable.

 

EDIT - But then, I only spent about five minutes trying to parse the regs on "blended straight bourbon whisky" which consists of and how it differs from a "straight bourbon whisky" that is "a mixture of two or more straight bourbon whiskies provided all the whiskies are distilled in the same state".  I think the former must be used when the straight bourbon whiskies being combined do NOT come from the same state.  Maybe TTB should start requiring that BOOKLETS be attached to each bottle explaining what the heck is inside.

Edited by Harry in WashDC
  • I like it 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

High West has to me has been highly successful with their blending, one of my favorite ryes is Hochstadter's vatted and I'm intrigued with Barrell's move towards blending after they have had success with their past single distillery releases. I have found some to be less successful, even High West made some bland blends as Bourye releases, WT Forgiven was boring as well. Overall I like the idea of distilleries trying new things and being creative. Probably worth noting that before the boom lots of brands on the shelf from NDP's were actually blends of bulk whiskey purchases from different distilleries and mash bills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Probably worth noting that before the boom lots of brands on the shelf from NDP's were actually blends of bulk whiskey purchases from different distilleries and mash bills. 

Certainly a key aspect of a blend's appeal, to me, is transparency.    Knowing the components of a blend - as folks like High West and Stoll and Wolfe are pleased to reveal - lends enjoyment in the same way fans of single-mashbill offerings appreciate information about aging, barrel char, chill-filtering and the like.     Taste and enjoyment are inherently subjective, and are influenced by knowledge (or lack thereof) of a whiskey's provenance.    Because I know that JB Distiller's Cut is non-chill filtered,  I look for evidence in the mouthfeel and think I find it.   NDPs and craft distillers that rely on artifice and made-up stories have taken a drubbing, but those who are upfront about what's in the bottle get my patronage, at least to try.   

  • I like it 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

even High West made some bland blends as Bourye releases, 

Just want to make sure I parse this correctly. Are you saying that some batches are bad, or all Bourye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kane said:

Just want to make sure I parse this correctly. Are you saying that some batches are bad, or all Bourye?

None were bad to me but some were bland/boring at least to my taste buds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fellas, sorry I saw the title to this post and couldn't resist. I'm not trying to push any products that I've created, blended, consulted on or whatever, but I just want to add a little something to the conversation about what to call these bourbon "blends". 

 

First of all, @Jazzhead, I totally appreciate and understand what you mean by "blended bourbon" as being bourbon that is sourced and blended from different mash bills, and perhaps even from different distilleries (maybe even different states). However, I would caution using the term "blended bourbon" for what you are describing, as that is a legal category that describes a very particular type of whiskey. The Standards of Identity describe "blended bourbon whisky" or "bourbon whisky- a blend" is "bourbon whisky produced in the U.S. containing not less than 51% on a proof gallon basis (excluding alcohol derived from added harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials) of straight bourbon whisky." See TTB/gov/spirits Beverage Alcohol Manual chapter 4. 

 

@Harry in WashDC is spot on in calling the type of blends you describe as "A Blend of Straight Bourbon Whiskies" or "Blended Straight Bourbon Whiskies." This allows for different mash bills to be blended together, as well as bourbons from different distilleries or even from different states. A perfect example of that would be Smooth Ambler's Contradiction. 

 

I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here before, so I don't mean to be redundant, but since you've been drinking some Outryder, there's a good story behind how that blend came to be. That blend had to go into the category of "Straight American Whiskey." This was because when the "rye-ish" whiskey component was originally distilled, the distiller at the time was so upset that he was being asked to make a rye (he hated rye) and only used 48% rye in the mash bill, instead of the legally required 51%. The owners didn't realize that he had done this until after he left the distillery and they were ready to bottle it. Well, you can imagine that this created a conundrum because it couldn't legally be called rye whiskey. The solution we came to was to blend about 1/3 of the "rye-ish" whiskey with the rye-recipe bourbon that had been distilled at the same time. The rye-ish whiskey's mash bill is 12% malted barley, 48% rye, and 40% corn, while the rye-recipe bourbon has a mash bill of 12% malted barley, 68% corn, and 20% rye. 

 

While I'm obviously biased because I really like the blends I made with Outryder, I have to admit that because it is in the category of Straight American Whiskey, it is harder to sell than if the "rye-ish" whiskey had been properly made with 51% rye, and the straight rye-recipe bourbon has been its own product instead of going into one big blend. 

 

At any rate, I obviously have a personal creative interest in working with bourbons (or other whiskeys for that matter) that use different mash bills, come from different distilleries, different states, or heck, even different countries. Its sort of like being an artist and being able to use all manner of colors, mediums, etc., for your art. Being able to do those things with your blending allows for so many new, unique flavors and aromas to develop, perhaps which never existed before. Basically, as long as you stay within the legal parameters, as a blender the sky is the limit on what you can create. You're just limited by your own imagination. Now I don't know how all of that translates to connoisseurs, or if there is that same interest in all the cool whiskeys you can create, but certainly it keeps things a lot more interesting if you have to work with this juice everyday. 

 

My two cents.....

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

Edited by WhiskeyBlender
  • I like it 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

Hey Fellas, sorry I saw the title to this post and couldn't resist. I'm not trying to push any products that I've created, blended, consulted on or whatever, but I just want to add a little something to the conversation about what to call these bourbon "blends". 

 

First of all, @Jazzhead, I totally appreciate and understand what you mean by "blended bourbon" as being bourbon that is sourced and blended from different mash bills, and perhaps even from different distilleries (maybe even different states). However, I would caution using the term "blended bourbon" for what you are describing, as that is a legal category that describes a very particular type of whiskey. The Standards of Identity describe "blended bourbon whisky" or "bourbon whisky- a blend" is "bourbon whisky produced in the U.S. containing not less than 51% on a proof gallon basis (excluding alcohol derived from added harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials) of straight bourbon whisky." See TTB/gov/spirits Beverage Alcohol Manual chapter 4. 

 

@Harry in WashDC is spot on in calling the type of blends you describe as "A Blend of Straight Bourbon Whiskies" or "Blended Straight Bourbon Whiskies." This allows for different mash bills to be blended together, as well as bourbons from different distilleries or even from different states. A perfect example of that would be Smooth Ambler's Contradiction. 

 

I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here before, so I don't mean to be redundant, but since you've been drinking some Outryder, there's a good story behind how that blend came to be. That blend had to go into the category of "Straight American Whiskey." This was because when the "rye-ish" whiskey component was originally distilled, the distiller at the time was so upset that he was being asked to make a rye (he hated rye) and only used 48% rye in the mash bill, instead of the legally required 51%. The owners didn't realize that he had done this until after he left the distillery and they were ready to bottle it. Well, you can imagine that this created a conundrum because it couldn't legally be called rye whiskey. The solution we came to was to blend about 1/3 of the "rye-ish" whiskey with the rye-recipe bourbon that had been distilled at the same time. The rye-ish whiskey's mash bill is 12% malted barley, 48% rye, and 40% corn, while the rye-recipe bourbon has a mash bill of 12% malted barley, 68% corn, and 20% rye. 

 

While I'm obviously biased because I really like the blends I made with Outryder, I have to admit that because it is in the category of Straight American Whiskey, it is harder to sell than if the "rye-ish" whiskey had been properly made with 51% rye, and the straight rye-recipe bourbon has been its own product instead of going into one big blend. 

 

At any rate, I obviously have a personal creative interest in working with bourbons (or other whiskeys for that matter) that use different mash bills, come from different distilleries, different states, or heck, even different countries. Its sort of like being an artist and being able to use all manner of colors, mediums, etc., for your art. Being able to do those things with your blending allows for so many new, unique flavors and aromas to develop, perhaps which never existed before. Basically, as long as you stay within the legal parameters, as a blender the sky is the limit on what you can create. You're just limited by your own imagination. Now I don't know how all of that translates to connoisseurs, or if there is that same interest in all the cool whiskeys you can create, but certainly it keeps things a lot more interesting if you have to work with this juice everyday. 

 

My two cents.....

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

Good info here, Nancy...

I had formed my opinion before I got to your post & you set my thoughts in stone. Because some blends would be harder to sell, I would definitely have to get a taste or opinions of the brotherhood/sisterhood, here, before I would go out on a limb. There are just too many variants and possibilities of total bombs. It's got real potential, but some failure is inevitable and I don't care to be that guinea pig.

 

Of course since you are a blender, you get to say yay or nay about what goes in the bottle and that's got to be a lot of fun as well as your reputation. When reputation is on the line, trust follows. Too bad that some distilleries are just about the money.

 

P.S. Keep up the artwork. The J-Mag is beautiful... XOXOXO

Edited by bayouredd
  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2019 at 9:09 PM, Jazzhead said:

What do folks here think about the relatively recent phenomenon of blended bourbons?    As a bourbon geek, does it interest you as a category?  

 

By blended bourbons,  I mean bourbons (or ryes)  created from the blending of separately-distilled distillates with distinctly different mashbillls,  that aren't necessarily from the same distillery.

 

I've been dabbling in such blends,   including Outryder (combination of a high-rye four grain and a traditional corn/rye bourbon),  and  Stoll and Wolfe (5-year MGP with 2-year craft rye).   Right now I'm sipping a Jefferson's Reserve,  which  I understand is a blend.   High West built its reputation on blends - their Bourye is excellent.  

 

Blends are commonplace in scotch,  but rare with bourbon,  where a single mashbill is typical.   (Blending takes place  only with respect to differently-aged barrels of the same distillate.)    Blending is what separates Canadian from American distilling.  Recently Crown Royal has issued aged versions of single mashbills,  showing the component parts of the separate distillates that are blended so expertly in Crown Royal.   It's interesting to sample Canadian whiskey as it would be presented American style.

 

The task, I think, with a blend, is to appreciate how well the blender's goal has been achieved.   Typical aesthetic goals are balance,  or mouthfeel, or producing a unique juxtaposition of grains, or ages, or both.   (At the same time, there may be practical goals as well,  such as to be able to sell some younger whiskey by blending it with older stock. )   That's the strategy some of the craft distillers are using, like Whistlepig or Smooth Ambler or (with their double rye) High West.  

 

Thoughts?   Which blends are killers?    Do you think the trend is a good one?    Where are the abuses and best practices?   

There is a long history in American whiskey, stretching back to the 1800s, of blending straight whiskies. I promoted it years ago on SB, but had simply read the history of American whiskey. It's not new or exotic, and rather than buy expensive bottles, or in addition, you can do it yourself from straight (unblended) bourbons and ryes in your bunker. There is nothing Canadian about it, as that suggests use of an aged grain or neutral spirit in the mix. The history I'm referring to makes amply clear that blends of all-straight whiskey were considered top of the line.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think blends of straight bourbons or ryes are really a lot more common than many of us think of initially. As an example, Four Roses yellow label, small batch, and LE small batch are all blends of mashbills. Many vintages of Van Winkle products have been blends as well, including blends from multiple distilleries and different mashbills. PHC Blend of Mashbills comes to mind as well. Smooth Ambler has sold some blends like Contradiction. Woodford Reserve is a blend of column still juice from one distillery and pot still juice from another distillery. And of course the High West/Barrell/Magnus/WT Forgiven stuff that has already been discussed. And, the whole rabbit hole of what the NDPs that haven’t been transparent have mixed up. I think we can assume that Michter’s and Bulleit released stuff that was blended. 

 

The reality is if it isn’t a BIB or single barrel product, it certainly could be a blend. Now, I have no problem with blending either, as some of the best drama I’ve ever had were confirmed or assumed to be blends. I’ll just say I tip my hat to those producers that are a little more transparent about it.

 

 

  • I like it 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nancy for the Outryder story. While professionally challenging/frustrating for you (sorry), it’s plenty entertaining to read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Charlutz said:

Thanks Nancy for the Outryder story. While professionally challenging/frustrating for you (sorry), it’s plenty entertaining to read. 

@Charlutz, glad you liked that story. That was a really vindictive, if not ballsy move on the distiller's part. You just can't make this stuff up! (LOL) 

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bayouredd said:

Good info here, Nancy...

I had formed my opinion before I got to your post & you set my thoughts in stone. Because some blends would be harder to sell, I would definitely have to get a taste or opinions of the brotherhood/sisterhood, here, before I would go out on a limb. There are just too many variants and possibilities of total bombs. It's got real potential, but some failure is inevitable and I don't care to be that guinea pig.

 

Of course since you are a blender, you get to say yay or nay about what goes in the bottle and that's got to be a lot of fun as well as your reputation. When reputation is on the line, trust follows. Too bad that some distilleries are just about the money.

 

P.S. Keep up the artwork. The J-Mag is beautiful... XOXOXO

@bayouredd, you are absolutely right, there are so many variants and possibilities both for turning out fantastic blends, but there's also the possibility of making total bombs. Just because you CAN blend two or more whiskeys with different mash bills, or from different distilleries, or different states, etc., doesn't necessarily mean that those flavor profiles will work together. Heck, even when you're blending barrels from the same distillery, same mash bill, with the same cooperage, etc., there are so many factors that come into consideration in making a good blend just with that alone. I'm sure I've said this many times before on this forum so pardon the redundancy, but in blending, 2+2 rarely equals 4. It is more like -5, or 12. 

 

I'm sure a lot of people on this forum put together their own home blends, or have infinity bottles, etc., like Joe's famous "Weller Blend." This story is personal and not from my professional life. I've been keeping my own "home bourbon blend/infinity bottle" for a number of years, which is normally very tasty. Well, a year ago, I added about 25 mL of WLW, which is one of my all-time favorite bourbons, to my home blend, thinking that it would augment the home blend that much more. Even though the WLW component was exceptional by itself, it completely ruined my home blend. It just didn't work in the least, and although I've tried to make some adjustments to the home blend, it hasn't been quite the same since I did that. I even had a bourbon buddy taste it, just to see if it was me or the blend, and he agreed that it didn't work. In my professional life, I would always test everything out with prototypes to make sure it would work, but I wasn't that careful at home. I could kick myself for being so careless with my home project! 

 

At any rate, it just goes to show that even though you have great components in and of themselves, they may or may not work together to create something even better.

 

Cheers,

Nancy

Edited by WhiskeyBlender
  • I like it 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 7:38 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

Hey Fellas, sorry I saw the title to this post and couldn't resist. I'm not trying to push any products that I've created, blended, consulted on or whatever, but I just want to add a little something to the conversation about what to call these bourbon "blends". 

 

First of all, @Jazzhead, I totally appreciate and understand what you mean by "blended bourbon" as being bourbon that is sourced and blended from different mash bills, and perhaps even from different distilleries (maybe even different states). However, I would caution using the term "blended bourbon" for what you are describing, as that is a legal category that describes a very particular type of whiskey. The Standards of Identity describe "blended bourbon whisky" or "bourbon whisky- a blend" is "bourbon whisky produced in the U.S. containing not less than 51% on a proof gallon basis (excluding alcohol derived from added harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials) of straight bourbon whisky." See TTB/gov/spirits Beverage Alcohol Manual chapter 4. 

 

@Harry in WashDC is spot on in calling the type of blends you describe as "A Blend of Straight Bourbon Whiskies" or "Blended Straight Bourbon Whiskies." This allows for different mash bills to be blended together, as well as bourbons from different distilleries or even from different states. A perfect example of that would be Smooth Ambler's Contradiction. 

 

I'm pretty sure I've talked about this on here before, so I don't mean to be redundant, but since you've been drinking some Outryder, there's a good story behind how that blend came to be. That blend had to go into the category of "Straight American Whiskey." This was because when the "rye-ish" whiskey component was originally distilled, the distiller at the time was so upset that he was being asked to make a rye (he hated rye) and only used 48% rye in the mash bill, instead of the legally required 51%. The owners didn't realize that he had done this until after he left the distillery and they were ready to bottle it. Well, you can imagine that this created a conundrum because it couldn't legally be called rye whiskey. The solution we came to was to blend about 1/3 of the "rye-ish" whiskey with the rye-recipe bourbon that had been distilled at the same time. The rye-ish whiskey's mash bill is 12% malted barley, 48% rye, and 40% corn, while the rye-recipe bourbon has a mash bill of 12% malted barley, 68% corn, and 20% rye. 

 

While I'm obviously biased because I really like the blends I made with Outryder, I have to admit that because it is in the category of Straight American Whiskey, it is harder to sell than if the "rye-ish" whiskey had been properly made with 51% rye, and the straight rye-recipe bourbon has been its own product instead of going into one big blend. 

 

At any rate, I obviously have a personal creative interest in working with bourbons (or other whiskeys for that matter) that use different mash bills, come from different distilleries, different states, or heck, even different countries. Its sort of like being an artist and being able to use all manner of colors, mediums, etc., for your art. Being able to do those things with your blending allows for so many new, unique flavors and aromas to develop, perhaps which never existed before. Basically, as long as you stay within the legal parameters, as a blender the sky is the limit on what you can create. You're just limited by your own imagination. Now I don't know how all of that translates to connoisseurs, or if there is that same interest in all the cool whiskeys you can create, but certainly it keeps things a lot more interesting if you have to work with this juice everyday. 

 

My two cents.....

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

Thanks,  Nancy,  for your response!    I understand that the term "blended whiskey"  carries with it connotations of additives and grain neutral spirits;  you'll note I used the term "blended bourbon" to describe the phenomenon of American whiskeys like Outryder,  High West and Contradiction.   Perhaps an even better term is "transparent blended bourbon",  where the blender has been more or less upfront in describing the elements of the blend.   Most scotch blends, of course,  lack such transparency but rather trade on the reputation of the blender.    But reputation, in the American context, is a product of transparency - I like to know the provenance of what I am drinking.    I resisted Jefferson's for years because I hadn't the foggiest what was in the bottle (it is, certainly the Jefferson's Reserve, quite excellent stuff).     But I totally buy into your conception as blending as art -  so long as a whisky maker gives me something to go on,  I am quite willing to try a new bottle and give it an honest shot.     I guess my predisposition is to trust the blender - why would a blender who's serious about his or her craft put out anything other than his/her conception of a valid and unique experience?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that my palate is experienced enough but I don't tend to enjoy them.  Definitely good as a mixer but not on their own, at least, not for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jazzhead said:

Thanks,  Nancy,  for your response!    I understand that the term "blended whiskey"  carries with it connotations of additives and grain neutral spirits;  you'll note I used the term "blended bourbon" to describe the phenomenon of American whiskeys like Outryder,  High West and Contradiction.   Perhaps an even better term is "transparent blended bourbon",  where the blender has been more or less upfront in describing the elements of the blend.   Most scotch blends, of course,  lack such transparency but rather trade on the reputation of the blender.    But reputation, in the American context, is a product of transparency - I like to know the provenance of what I am drinking.    I resisted Jefferson's for years because I hadn't the foggiest what was in the bottle (it is, certainly the Jefferson's Reserve, quite excellent stuff).     But I totally buy into your conception as blending as art -  so long as a whisky maker gives me something to go on,  I am quite willing to try a new bottle and give it an honest shot.     I guess my predisposition is to trust the blender - why would a blender who's serious about his or her craft put out anything other than his/her conception of a valid and unique experience?   

The right term for quality American blends is probably "A Blend of Straight Bourbons" or "A Blend of Straight Whiskeys", what the Scots tend to do well is sticking with known categorization, Single Malt, Blended Malt, Blended Whisky, etc...

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The well-grade blended whiskey set should be required to be labeled correctly as Distilled Spirit Specialties and carry ingredient statements. The use of NLEA panels is coming into vogue— so it won’t be long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marekv8 said:

The use of NLEA panels is coming into vogue— so it won’t be long. 

"NLEA"? :wacko:  What do it mean?       Is this some 'next gen' Knotty Pine? HA!  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Richnimrod said:

"NLEA"? :wacko:  What do it mean?       Is this some 'next gen' Knotty Pine? HA!  :lol:

From the new Mortlach 16 secondary carton… they don't use the term Nutrition Facts on alcohol for obvious reasons.

 

IMG_0127.thumb.jpg.1c4e39801ee0465141e1bec70b2a4382.jpg

 

 

  • I like it 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Richnimrod said:

"NLEA"? :wacko:  What do it mean?       Is this some 'next gen' Knotty Pine? HA!  :lol:

The acronym stands for the Nutrition Labeling & Education Act 

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is there are some talented folks out there making all sorts of Whiskeys (Whiskies). If they are making a straight Bourbon with one Mash bill, and generally one yeast strain then their creativity is mostly limited by aging and bottling proof. Usually these distilleries have a signature taste profile that flows through all variants, which typically causes us to like or not like their finished product. 

Personally I would be open minded and welcome blending to achieve a new desired profile that would show off the distiller's or blender's palate and skill. In truth it would not necessarily have to be a blend of straight bourbons for me as long as there was transparency. If you have have enjoyed Michter's American Unblended, which uses used cooperage, then you know what I mean. 

I once took a customer to Woodford for them to blend their own barrel. Chris Morris took us through the exercise. We tasted 8 barrel proof samples. The group voted on their 4 favorite and Chris made two barrel blends out of those four then the customer selected 2 of those for their 2 private select barrels. 

One of the ones I liked but the group did not had some pine notes to it. Chris remarked afterwards that he would have chosen that as it would be interesting to play with. 

Fast forward to this last week. I was in Louisville and tasted for the first time, the Masters Collection Batch proof that was released last fall. It was the best Masters Collection that I have had and it had notes of pine in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this... blending yourself at home?

 

For example... To me ECBP has a ton of classic bourbon flavor but is just too hot. EC23 is nice but its spent too much time in the barrel and lost all of sweet vanilla and maple flavors. It does have a refined taste and the woody oak flavor. So I took them and mixed them together in a glass. If its an even amount, they balance out to manageable 110 proof. You get the flavor bomb of ECBP with less heat, and the age and oak of the EC23. It ends up being what you would imagine a higher proof EC18 would taste like.

 

I made an in home four grain one time from HH product. I took a Bernheim and mixed it with a Pikesville. Now of course in mashbill terms you have doubled up in corn and barley so the mix isn't what you would find in a EHT 4G... but it was still cool. 

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

If they are making a straight Bourbon with one Mash bill, and generally one yeast strain then their creativity is mostly limited by aging and bottling proof.

Do not short change all the other steps in the process. Everything matters. How you cook, the grains you use, how you ferment and how you distill all matters quite a bit. When Jim Rutledge started contract distilling at Castle and Key it took him some time to get all the processes dialed in that resulted in a distillate that he liked. It's not easy and is why so many craft distillate sucks.

7 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

I once took a customer to Woodford for them to blend their own barrel. Chris Morris took us through the exercise. We tasted 8 barrel proof samples. The group voted on their 4 favorite and Chris made two barrel blends out of those four then the customer selected 2 of those for their 2 private select barrels.

 

I did this a few years ago. We tasted and chose from the 8 samples blind. When the barrel info was revealed it was an eye opener because I had rated all of the pot still samples as nearly undrinkable while the column still samples scored highly.

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, flahute said:

 We tasted and chose from the 8 samples blind. When the barrel info was revealed it was an eye opener because I had rated all of the pot still samples as nearly undrinkable while the column still samples scored highly.

What a great experience! I'd love to try it even though I'm not a big Woodford fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vosgar said:

What a great experience! I'd love to try it even though I'm not a big Woodford fan.

You might be if it was column still only!

  • I like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.