Jump to content

Old Forester 150 Batch Proof


Old Hippie
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

Just tasted the OF 150 Batch Proof. While a bit pricey at $150, I thought they were excellent. There are 3 different batches and they are in the 126 to 128 proof range. they are distinctly different. I have had a lot of OF at barrel proof in my line of business and have found that like most well made whiskies, OF performs very well at high proof. I found the OF 150s to be a good bit more complex than the barrel proofs I have had in the past.  with a limited, one-off release these might be a bit hard to find and even harder to part with the bucks to get some, but if you find some at your favorite watering hole I suggest you try it (them). I suspect collectors will snap up much of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

Just tasted the OF 150 Batch Proof. While a bit pricey at $150, I thought they were excellent. There are 3 different batches and they are in the 126 to 128 proof range. they are distinctly different. I have had a lot of OF at barrel proof in my line of business and have found that like most well made whiskies, OF performs very well at high proof. I found the OF 150s to be a good bit more complex than the barrel proofs I have had in the past.  with a limited, one-off release these might be a bit hard to find and even harder to part with the bucks to get some, but if you find some at your favorite watering hole I suggest you try it (them). I suspect collectors will snap up much of these.

What is your line of business?

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

Any age statements on these?  As much as I love OF, I can't see paying $150 for something I know nothing about.  My two cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2020 at 8:22 PM, geclbxf said:

What is your line of business?

I am a, for lack of a better term, a whiskey ambassador for a spirits wholesaler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PhantomLamb said:

Any age statements on these?  As much as I love OF, I can't see paying $150 for something I know nothing about.  My two cents...

No age statements, I would think the barrels in these are 6-7 years old. I agree that $150 is a big ask, particularly when you can find a single barrel OF at barrel proof for half the price. I suspect these will be purchased mostly by collectors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old Hippie said:

No age statements, I would think the barrels in these are 6-7 years old. I agree that $150 is a big ask, particularly when you can find a single barrel OF at barrel proof for half the price. I suspect these will be purchased mostly by collectors. 

When we did the distillery tour back last summer, they stated that OFSBs are a mix between 6-8 year old barrels.  I see no reason aside from the higher proof to buy this.  If it was priced slightly above like OF1920, I'd bite, but not for $150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PhantomLamb said:

When we did the distillery tour back last summer, they stated that OFSBs are a mix between 6-8 year old barrels.  I see no reason aside from the higher proof to buy this.  If it was priced slightly above like OF1920, I'd bite, but not for $150.

Yeah, my understanding is 6-8 year barrels for this release.  It's funny how on the one hand I don't want to be an age snob and refuse to buy something without the age statement.  On the other I hate to support inflated pricing for bourbons that are in my opinion too young to demand that premium, regardless of quality.  Mostly because it sends the message to crafts and the public that its normal and ok for that type of high pricing even when the quality is substandard.

 

All that said, I think I would tater up for this one with a strong preference for Batch 1 based on the reviews I have read.  I have really enjoyed BF over the last year or so and find that they are doing a great job of releasing quality daily drinkers at very affordable prices.  Both the OF 100 and Rye are fantastic at $25.  They are also listening to what WE want by tweaking the SiB program and now including a cask strength option (albeit at a fairly high price point).  Finally, I think of all the legacy distillers BF does have the most proven track record of younger whiskeys that punch well above their age.  I do hear claims that this is due to how BF uses heat cycling.  Thinking specifically of 1920 which I believe is around 4-6 years (not sure, someone can correct me).   But not sure they heat cycle at JD and JBSiBBP which is in the 4-5 year age range  and also just phenomenal whiskey.   

 

Yes, this one is overpriced for sure, but I also think a decent amount of price is due to the packaging, fancy tube, new tinted bottle to match what the old style bottles looked like, etc . . .  Do I need these bells and whistles?  Absolutely not, but I understand why they would do it for a major anniversary release and also given the current market.  

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

On 10/23/2020 at 12:38 PM, Bob_Loblaw said:

Yeah, my understanding is 6-8 year barrels for this release.  It's funny how on the one hand I don't want to be an age snob and refuse to buy something without the age statement.  On the other I hate to support inflated pricing for bourbons that are in my opinion too young to demand that premium, regardless of quality.  Mostly because it sends the message to crafts and the public that its normal and ok for that type of high pricing even when the quality is substandard.

 

All that said, I think I would tater up for this one with a strong preference for Batch 1 based on the reviews I have read.  I have really enjoyed BF over the last year or so and find that they are doing a great job of releasing quality daily drinkers at very affordable prices.  Both the OF 100 and Rye are fantastic at $25.  They are also listening to what WE want by tweaking the SiB program and now including a cask strength option (albeit at a fairly high price point).  Finally, I think of all the legacy distillers BF does have the most proven track record of younger whiskeys that punch well above their age.  I do hear claims that this is due to how BF uses heat cycling.  Thinking specifically of 1920 which I believe is around 4-6 years (not sure, someone can correct me).   But not sure they heat cycle at JD and JBSiBBP which is in the 4-5 year age range  and also just phenomenal whiskey.   

 

Yes, this one is overpriced for sure, but I also think a decent amount of price is due to the packaging, fancy tube, new tinted bottle to match what the old style bottles looked like, etc . . .  Do I need these bells and whistles?  Absolutely not, but I understand why they would do it for a major anniversary release and also given the current market.  

All very good points. No Jack does not do heat cycling. I think heat cycling started at BF due to many of WR warehouses being made of limestone and only one or two stories tall. They don't get as hot in the summer so the heat cycling gives them the penetration into the oak. 

Another thing I admire about B-F is that they pay homage to the history of the bourbon industry with the Whiskey Row series of OF and with WR releasing the Straight Malt and Straight Wheat, and also WR use of pot stills and open top Cyprus fermenters.

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

I was offered a Batch 03 bottle this weekend at $145.00 and bit. Maybe it's my strong “comfort food” relationship with Old Forester via Delta— but I have good faith that I'll enjoy the contents and the associated emotional trigger.

 

IMG_5341.thumb.jpg.952d6b0766e768530af10aca53afcdbd.jpg

  • I like it 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marekv8 said:

I was offered a Batch 03 bottle this weekend at $145.00 and bit. Maybe it's my strong “comfort food” relationship with Old Forester via Delta— but I have good faith that I'll enjoy the contents and the associated emotional trigger.

 

IMG_5341.thumb.jpg.952d6b0766e768530af10aca53afcdbd.jpg

beautiful package - I hope the liquid inside is even better!   I would have bit too, LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting discussion here with quite a bit on lack of an age statement and price. Before I make my next comment I will clarify by saying that I do prefer more info, including the age of the juice, especially as the price point goes up. And, I don’t think many bottles of American whiskey are worth $145 or more.

 

But, if I want just play a little devil’s advocate or point out some double standards some of us tend to have as we praise one distillery or product and rip another, NAS and high prices doesn’t seem to be a problem for everyone clamoring for everything that comes out of BT. The general public as well as many of us fall all over each other to buy most of their allocated products. Barely any of them have an age statement, and many are expensive (either at MSRP or just what retailers are charging of course, plus the secondary). I mean, the only products coming out of BT with an actual age statement these days are ER10, ER17, Saz18, the VW 10-23 bourbons, Weller 12, and a few of the EHT LE releases. Forgive me if I’ve missed one. But the other 3 BTACs don’t have an age statement on the bottle, nor does VWFRR, Stagg Jr, EHTBP, EHTSB, EHT rye, OWA/WSRETL, Blanton’s (including gold or SFTB), RHF, baby Saz, BT, etc. 

 

I’m not trying to make a point that this OF150 is going to be good or worth $145. I’m just saying we don’t all apply the same criteria about age statements or price uniformly. I just used BT as an easy example. Just as much as the next guy for example I’ll fairly happily spend $145 on a bottle of THH which has no age statement on the bottle, and is often similar proof to this OF150. When BT puts out info sheets or whatever, THH is generally about 7 years. 
 

Again not trying to argue about the merits of OF150, just food for thought in general. 

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

13 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

Some interesting discussion here with quite a bit on lack of an age statement and price. Before I make my next comment I will clarify by saying that I do prefer more info, including the age of the juice, especially as the price point goes up. And, I don’t think many bottles of American whiskey are worth $145 or more.

 

But, if I want just play a little devil’s advocate or point out some double standards some of us tend to have as we praise one distillery or product and rip another, NAS and high prices doesn’t seem to be a problem for everyone clamoring for everything that comes out of BT. The general public as well as many of us fall all over each other to buy most of their allocated products. Barely any of them have an age statement, and many are expensive (either at MSRP or just what retailers are charging of course, plus the secondary). I mean, the only products coming out of BT with an actual age statement these days are ER10, ER17, Saz18, the VW 10-23 bourbons, Weller 12, and a few of the EHT LE releases. Forgive me if I’ve missed one. But the other 3 BTACs don’t have an age statement on the bottle, nor does VWFRR, Stagg Jr, EHTBP, EHTSB, EHT rye, OWA/WSRETL, Blanton’s (including gold or SFTB), RHF, baby Saz, BT, etc. 

 

I’m not trying to make a point that this OF150 is going to be good or worth $145. I’m just saying we don’t all apply the same criteria about age statements or price uniformly. I just used BT as an easy example. Just as much as the next guy for example I’ll fairly happily spend $145 on a bottle of THH which has no age statement on the bottle, and is often similar proof to this OF150. When BT puts out info sheets or whatever, THH is generally about 7 years. 
 

Again not trying to argue about the merits of OF150, just food for thought in general. 

The BTAC bottles do get released with a detailed description sheet that contains age information and quite a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, flahute said:

The BTAC bottles do get released with a detailed description sheet that contains age information and quite a bit more.

Yep, but there isn’t one info sheet provided with every bottle, so most consumers that get a single BTAC bottle aren’t receiving that, nor is a person getting a pour from that bottle at a bar seeing that. I’m just a stickler for technicalities here. If the bottle itself does not list an age statement, it is an NAS product as far as any court would rule if it was litigated. I’ve always hated that people refer to Baby Saz as a 6 year rye when there is no age statement on the bottle. And to be fair, my criticism of age statements (or lack thereof) of various types goes beyond BT. Again, just making an example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

Yep, but there isn’t one info sheet provided with every bottle, so most consumers that get a single BTAC bottle aren’t receiving that, nor is a person getting a pour from that bottle at a bar seeing that. I’m just a stickler for technicalities here. If the bottle itself does not list an age statement, it is an NAS product as far as any court would rule if it was litigated. I’ve always hated that people refer to Baby Saz as a 6 year rye when there is no age statement on the bottle. And to be fair, my criticism of age statements (or lack thereof) of various types goes beyond BT. Again, just making an example. 

All true but I think the people who care about this the most are people like us and we know where to find the info. The average person get lucky at retail or buying a pour at a bar are simply chasing LE's no matter what information is or is not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

nor does VWFRR,

I think this one says 13 years on the label.  Oh and also you can add the Old Charter Oak releases to the list with an age statement!

 

I think the difference between the OF150 and the BT allocated products you reference is many of those NAS allocated products like ETL, EHBP etc are regular annual releases and not a jacked up special and expensive release.  However, to back up your argument we did have the ETL 100th which was indeed very expensive with no indication (other than proof) that it was anything more (or less aged) then regular ETL.  I think Amaranth was also NAS, while 4G and Marriage had ages.

6 minutes ago, BottledInBond said:

 If the bottle itself does not list an age statement, it is an NAS product as far as any court would rule if it was litigated. 

I am not sure this would be true in our fictional bourbon court.  Let's appoint @Kyjd75 to make a ruling!  I would argue that it is an NAS label (so they do not have to re-apply every year) But the product itself is clearly age stated.  Each vintage can be easily differentiated by proof and release year on the label and combined with the fact that the age of the bottles ARE actually released by the producer I think the BTAC line would be considered an age stated release.  In fact, it is one of the most specific ones out there!  I think it would be nearly impossible to find a podcast and/or blog review that did not list the age of the release.  To your point that the average consumer would have no idea by looking at the bottle along I would agree. Then again, I would say the average consumer would never splurge on a pour of BTAC at a bar without knowing something about them in advance.  

 

I do kind of agree on Baby Saz, Do they still list that on their website as 6 year?  I thought it as removed.

 

All for conversation here, no bones to pick or axes to grind in case anything is taken that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bob_Loblaw you’re right on VWFRR, I was thinking they were going to take the 13 off when they brought it back after the hiatus but they did not. All for friendly conversation for me too.

 

@flahuteabsolutely the people out buying BTAC are generally the types to look into the details that are available. I just don’t like a lot of the general age statement shenanigans and I wish they would put an age on the bottle when they can. They certainly could but don’t with the 3 BTACs. They certainly could but don’t with all the single barrel products. On Blanton’s they list the barrel dump date. Clearly they could put the barrel fill date on the label as well, but they don’t for whatever reason. 
 

How about another gem from BT: the WLW back label (maybe they’ve changed this by now?), at least used to say, that Weller does not sell any whiskey younger than 7 years, many years after the 7 year age statement had vanished....... I can’t understand how they kept saying that on a label for years when it was not accurate at all. 
 

Again, my age statement annoyances go well beyond BT. The TTB shares plenty of blame because they don’t apply their own rules well, approving labels they shouldn’t, but I digress 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kyjd75 said:

Obviously, if this is submitted for a trial decision, much sampling will be required!!

Indeed. I shall clerk for you.

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

1 hour ago, BottledInBond said:

@Bob_Loblaw you’re right on VWFRR, I was thinking they were going to take the 13 off when they brought it back after the hiatus but they did not. All for friendly conversation for me too.

 

@flahuteabsolutely the people out buying BTAC are generally the types to look into the details that are available. I just don’t like a lot of the general age statement shenanigans and I wish they would put an age on the bottle when they can. They certainly could but don’t with the 3 BTACs. They certainly could but don’t with all the single barrel products. On Blanton’s they list the barrel dump date. Clearly they could put the barrel fill date on the label as well, but they don’t for whatever reason. 
 

How about another gem from BT: the WLW back label (maybe they’ve changed this by now?), at least used to say, that Weller does not sell any whiskey younger than 7 years, many years after the 7 year age statement had vanished....... I can’t understand how they kept saying that on a label for years when it was not accurate at all. 
 

Again, my age statement annoyances go well beyond BT. The TTB shares plenty of blame because they don’t apply their own rules well, approving labels they shouldn’t, but I digress 

There seems to be a several year lag between Sazerac dropping an age statement and them updating their labels to reflect that. But has the WLW label changed even now? It has been more than a few years since WSR or OWA were 7 years old (much less Weller Full Proof and SiB, which will likely never have an age statement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jazz June said:

There seems to be a several year lag between Sazerac dropping an age statement and them updating their labels to reflect that. But has the WLW label changed even now? It has been more than a few years since WSR or OWA were 7 years old (much less Weller Full Proof and SiB, which will likely never have an age statement).

I’m not being snarky with you JJ. Really, I swear I’m not. ?  Age statements or not, as long as my Wellers taste good, I could care less about an age statement. Now if the quality starts becoming questionable....... ? Fair warning to my friends at BT,  “Don’t poke the Weller Whore.” ?
 

Biba! Joe

  • I like it 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jazz June said:

There seems to be a several year lag between Sazerac dropping an age statement and them updating their labels to reflect that. But has the WLW label changed even now? It has been more than a few years since WSR or OWA were 7 years old (much less Weller Full Proof and SiB, which will likely never have an age statement).

When did OWA lose the age statement? Wasn’t it like 2009? Not sure if they have corrected the WLW label yet. The open WLW I have is from like 2015 or something, so I’d have took at a newer bottle to verify. I’m sure someone else here knows definitively though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BottledInBond said:

When did OWA lose the age statement? Wasn’t it like 2009? Not sure if they have corrected the WLW label yet. The open WLW I have is from like 2015 or something, so I’d have took at a newer bottle to verify. I’m sure someone else here knows definitively though? 

Yes, I believe it was 2009. My 2017 WLW has that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, fishnbowljoe said:

I’m not being snarky with you JJ. Really, I swear I’m not. ?  Age statements or not, as long as my Wellers taste good, I could care less about an age statement. Now if the quality starts becoming questionable....... ? Fair warning to my friends at BT,  “Don’t poke the Weller Whore.” ?
 

Biba! Joe

Agreed Joe, if it tastes the same then the absence of a number on the label doesn't matter. I don't have enough experience with age stated Weller to give an educated opinion, but I do with Elijah Craig 12 and then small batch. I'd say the profile of that product has changed, although not necessarily for the worse. It is just different (the 12 could be quite oaky sometimes I thought). But I believe you if you tell me that WSR and OWA have not changed; if anyone would notice it would be you! However, I also don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that dropping an age statement could lead to a different (maybe worse) product. And for the record, I like OWA quite a bit (not so much WSR).

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

On 10/27/2020 at 1:03 PM, Jazz June said:

Agreed Joe, if it tastes the same then the absence of a number on the label doesn't matter. I don't have enough experience with age stated Weller to give an educated opinion, but I do with Elijah Craig 12 and then small batch. I'd say the profile of that product has changed, although not necessarily for the worse. It is just different (the 12 could be quite oaky sometimes I thought). But I believe you if you tell me that WSR and OWA have not changed; if anyone would notice it would be you! However, I also don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that dropping an age statement could lead to a different (maybe worse) product. And for the record, I like OWA quite a bit (not so much WSR).

I can't speak to OWA changing before/after age statement but I can attest to a change between 2015 or 16 and today. Just did a sbs between an older (16 I think) bottle and a 2020 non ps bottle. There was no contest that the older bottle was significantly better. Way more depth of favor, better feel. Just all around better. And I LIKED the 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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