BT rye mash bills

[Jazz June]

Now that Sazerac 18 and VWFRR appear to be Buffalo Trace distillate, is there more than one rye mash bill in use at Buffalo Trace?

 

As far as I know they make five ryes - Saz, Saz 18, THH, CEHT rye, and VWFRR. I have seen suggestions that CEHT rye is a different mash bill with a higher rye content, but that seems odd to me. I'm not sure what the source for this claim is.

 

 

[kevinbrink]

I suspect that CEHT is actually Barton Rye, at least the bottle I have references both DSP KY 113 (BT/Frankfort) and DSP KY 12 (Barton/Bardstown)

[tanstaafl2]

I was recently told in confidence by a Barton employee who seemed to be in a position to know (well ,it was strongly implied but not outright stated) that all CEHT rye is made at Barton. Mashbill is supposedly about 90% rye and with no corn. The DSP as noted seems to possibly support this and I presume it is bottled at BT (since all the rest of the CEHT line is bottled there) which perhaps explains the 2 DSPs.

 

But while I feel this is accurate I don't know it for a fact.

 

Rumor seems to be that new VWFRR (presuming we ever see one in the wild...) will be all BT so basically a 13 yo Sazerac between the regular Saz Jr bottle (and THH) at around 6 years and the Saz 17. A shame because a blend of the two mashbills might be interesting and almost certainly different than either by themselves.

[kevinbrink]

1 hour ago, tanstaafl2 said:

I was recently told in confidence by a Barton employee who seemed to be in a position to know (well ,it was strongly implied but not outright stated) that all CEHT rye is made at Barton. Mashbill is supposedly about 90% rye and with no corn. The DSP as noted seems to possibly support this and I presume it is bottled at BT (since all the rest of the CEHT line is bottled there) which perhaps explains the 2 DSPs.

 

But while I feel this is accurate I don't know it for a fact.

 

Rumor seems to be that new VWFRR (presuming we ever see one in the wild...) will be all BT so basically a 13 yo Sazerac between the regular Saz Jr bottle (and THH) at around 6 years and the Saz 17. A shame because a blend of the two mashbills might be interesting and almost certainly different than either by themselves.

Well aged Barton Rye has worked for me in every instance where I've had the opportunity to try it, on the other hand CEHT Rye comes off as kind of bland to me.  I'd be interested in a blend myself I think it could potentially be better than the sum of it's parts. 

[LCWoody]

6 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

I was recently told in confidence by a Barton employee who seemed to be in a position to know (well ,it was strongly implied but not outright stated) that all CEHT rye is made at Barton. Mashbill is supposedly about 90% rye and with no corn. The DSP as noted seems to possibly support this and I presume it is bottled at BT (since all the rest of the CEHT line is bottled there) which perhaps explains the 2 DSPs.

 

But while I feel this is accurate I don't know it for a fact.

 

Rumor seems to be that new VWFRR (presuming we ever see one in the wild...) will be all BT so basically a 13 yo Sazerac between the regular Saz Jr bottle (and THH) at around 6 years and the Saz 17. A shame because a blend of the two mashbills might be interesting and almost certainly different than either by themselves.

 

5 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

Well aged Barton Rye has worked for me in every instance where I've had the opportunity to try it, on the other hand CEHT Rye comes off as kind of bland to me.  I'd be interested in a blend myself I think it could potentially be better than the sum of it's parts. 

Can it be a blend and still be BiB rye (from 2 different DSP's)

[Harry in WashDC]

1 hour ago, LCWoody said:

 

Can it be a blend and still be BiB rye (from 2 different DSP's)

The two DSP references on CEHT are for where it was distilled and where it was bottled, I think.

 

To call it BIB, it ". . . must be the product of one distillation season (January–June or July–December) by one distiller at one distillery.  It must have been aged in a federally bonded warehouse under U.S. government supervision for at least four years and bottled at 100 (U.S.) proof (50% alcohol by volume). The bottled product's label must identify the distillery where it was distilled AND, IF DIFFERENT, WHERE IT WAS BOTTLED.  Only spirits produced in the United States may be designated as bonded."  Copied from Wiki after checking the Federal regs re: labeling and advertising of distilled spirits at 27 CFR Part 5.  Footnotes and highlights omiitted but CAPS added.

[Jazz June]

Good info, thanks guys. Not sure how I missed the two DSPs on the CEHT rye (I have a bottle around somewhere). Does Barton still make a Fleischmann's straight rye? At least among "enthusiasts" Barton rye seems to have quite a good reputation, so it seems odd to me that they don't have a widely distributed rye that is clearly from Barton. But there are plenty of things in the whiskey industry that seem odd to me, so not really that strange.

 

As for the CEHT rye, I go back and forth on it. At times it has seemed excellent to me, but other times I would agree with the "bland" characterization. It is now very difficult to get so I haven't really had to consider whether another bottle is worth the asking price.

 

Is it not confirmed that the 2018 re-introduction of the VWFRR was Buffalo Trace distillate? I thought the off year was because the Buffalo Trace stuff needed another year of aging to get to the 13 year statement after they ran out of the tanked stuff they had been bottling as VWFRR.

 

Another question I have had for a while is, did baby Sazerac ever carry a 6 year age statement on it? It is constantly referred to as a 6 year old (even in some Sazerac company materials), but I'm not aware of it carrying an actual statement.

[kevinbrink]

3 hours ago, Jazz June said:

Good info, thanks guys. Not sure how I missed the two DSPs on the CEHT rye (I have a bottle around somewhere). Does Barton still make a Fleischmann's straight rye? At least among "enthusiasts" Barton rye seems to have quite a good reputation, so it seems odd to me that they don't have a widely distributed rye that is clearly from Barton. But there are plenty of things in the whiskey industry that seem odd to me, so not really that strange.

 

As for the CEHT rye, I go back and forth on it. At times it has seemed excellent to me, but other times I would agree with the "bland" characterization. It is now very difficult to get so I haven't really had to consider whether another bottle is worth the asking price.

 

Is it not confirmed that the 2018 re-introduction of the VWFRR was Buffalo Trace distillate? I thought the off year was because the Buffalo Trace stuff needed another year of aging to get to the 13 year statement after they ran out of the tanked stuff they had been bottling as VWFRR.

 

Another question I have had for a while is, did baby Sazerac ever carry a 6 year age statement on it? It is constantly referred to as a 6 year old (even in some Sazerac company materials), but I'm not aware of it carrying an actual statement.

As far as i'm concerned baby Saz is 4 years old the last bottle I bought didn't taste any older than that for sure, I have a problem with all of the implied age statements on BT products they used to (don't know if they still do) have statements on their website and in sales literature IIRC but not the bottles. 

[tanstaafl2]

For a long time baby Saz was noted to be 6yo on the Sazerac website (might still be) but no, to my knowledge, it has never said it was 6yo on the bottle.

[kevinbrink]

13 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

For a long time baby Saz was noted to be 6yo on the Sazerac website (might still be) but no, to my knowledge, it has never said it was 6yo on the bottle.

If age statements on the back of a bottle don't mean anything, something on a website has basically zero value.  

[Clueby]

9 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

If age statements on the back of a bottle don't mean anything, something on a website has basically zero value.  

Are you referring to something specific about age statements on back of a bottle?

[kevinbrink]

12 hours ago, Clueby said:

Are you referring to something specific about age statements on back of a bottle?

Wade and Chuck Cowdery explained the idea of "conspicuous statements of age" better than I can. 

https://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2018/04/wild-turkey-takes-broad-swipe-at.html

https://tater-talk.com/2018/04/26/age-statements-on-straight-whiskies-are-now-meaningless/?fb_action_ids=2126688504014318&fb_action_types=news.publishes

[BottledInBond]

22 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Wade and Chuck Cowdery explained the idea of "conspicuous statements of age" better than I can. 

https://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2018/04/wild-turkey-takes-broad-swipe-at.html

https://tater-talk.com/2018/04/26/age-statements-on-straight-whiskies-are-now-meaningless/?fb_action_ids=2126688504014318&fb_action_types=news.publishes

 

 

22 hours ago, kevinbrink said:

If age statements on the back of a bottle don't mean anything, something on a website has basically zero value.  

 

I’m a pretty big hater of many labeling practices for whiskey. However, location on the front or back of the bottle has nothing to do with the validity of an age statement. Eagle Rare has a clear age statement, and it is on the back of the bottle. Chuck’s post doesn’t have anything to do with the location. 

[kevinbrink]

7 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

 

 

 

I’m a pretty big hater of many labeling practices for whiskey. However, location on the front or back of the bottle has nothing to do with the validity of an age statement. Eagle Rare has a clear age statement, and it is on the back of the bottle. Chuck’s post doesn’t have anything to do with the location. 

Suppose it depends on how you define conspicuous. That being said I think at this point it seems quite valid to ask why a distiller would choose to move an age statement something that definitively has value to the consumer to the back of the botte in small print. 

[BottledInBond]

19 minutes ago, kevinbrink said:

Suppose it depends on how you define conspicuous. That being said I think at this point it seems quite valid to ask why a distiller would choose to move an age statement something that definitively has value to the consumer to the back of the botte in small print. 

It’s fair to question why BT took the ER10 neckband off, and it was discussed quite a bit on this site when it happened. Clearly quite a few people feared it would be the same path as EC with the move to the back only, and then subsequent removal off the back. That could certainly still happen but I’m glad that it hasn’t so far. Time will tell. BT is pretty bad with other stuff they’ve done for sure. 

[kevinbrink]

6 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

It’s fair to question why BT took the ER10 neckband off, and it was discussed quite a bit on this site when it happened. Clearly quite a few people feared it would be the same path as EC with the move to the back only, and then subsequent removal off the back. That could certainly still happen but I’m glad that it hasn’t so far. Time will tell. BT is pretty bad with other stuff they’ve done for sure. 

Yep agreed clearly they have done some things that can easily be construed as misleading with Old Charter, and VOB BIB. WT historically isn't great ether with this current issue and the switch from 8 years to Old No 8 Brand back in the late 90's. 

[flahute]

On 4/1/2019 at 7:09 PM, kevinbrink said:

If age statements on the back of a bottle don't mean anything, something on a website has basically zero value.  

kevinbrink is fired up.

And I like it.