cowdery Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 A week from today, I'm going to be visiting with Chris Morris at Woodford Reserve, to get to the bottom of some of the questions many of us have about Woodford Reserve Distiller's Select. Specifically, what exactly is in the bottle and what are they doing with all the whiskey they're making there in Versailles? (Which, for the uninitiated, is pronounced "ver-SALES.")Are there any particular questions you erstwhile bourbonians would like me to pose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Chuck, my question is, what does the pot still whiskey taste like on its own? Perhaps Chris Morris will give you a taste in the interest of whisky research. I suspect that whiskey may be heavy-bodied, perfumed and with a marked taste of "Turkish delight" because I feel I can distinguish these traits in the current WR. I surmise they derive from pot still distillation.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 And, as many of us have speculated -- what, if anything, do the batch numbers signify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 in addition to the batch numbers, how about a status report on the 4 grain bourbon they have been working on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneCubeOnly Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Are there any particular questions you erstwhile bourbonians would like me to pose? My question goes hand-in-hand with the batch-number one: How can I know if I'm getting the "good stuff" and not the horrible bottle I had with Batch 99? (I know that doesn't sound diplomatic, but I can't think of any way to sugar-coat it! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_in_Canada Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 what exactly is in the bottle 1. Yes, I want percentages of pot still spirit and when is it going to be pure pot still, if ever2. How old is the pot still component (ideally)3. How many bottles to the batch are they producing NOW4. Are they using a wort in the pot stills5. Any plans for a single barrel or barrel proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I don't have any concern about Woodford Reserve but if you could glean a nugget or 2 about any extra proofed or extra aged Birthday Bourbon for next year, I'd be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdelling Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Does the post-stilled spirit mature differently than the column stilledspirit? Slower? Faster? Does it do better in different warehouse conditionsthan the column stilled?Have they changed the recipe (mashbill, exact type of each grain, fermentationconditions, etc... basically everything up until the distillation step) forthe pot-stilled stuff, or is it the same as they use for the continuous stills?Have they tried separating the grains from the mash before distilling?What happened? Did it reduce the oily sludge that often occurs whenpot-distilling corn?How did they go about learning to use the pot stills? Bring in Scotsmento show 'em how? (I've read that the stills were made in Scotland). Whatkind of test batches did they run? Have they tried anything just for fun?How long does it look like these stills are going to last? (Physically,copper pot stills "wear out" and need to be replaced periodically... typicallythe lyne arm every (ten?) or so years, and the stills themselvesevery (fifteen?) years. Much of this is the copper eroding off... so thestills literally get thinner and thinner. I might imagine the all that cornsludge speeds up the process... but that's just a guess.)(For those who might have missed it, there was a Lew Bryson article aboutcopper and its use in distillation, along with some good quotes from Morristalking about his pot stills, in the Malt Advocate:http://66.148.42.205/html/am_cop.html )Tim Dellinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Didn't some members of this group get to taste barrel proof potstill Woodford at L&G two years ago? I did get a taste from another souurce and posted some notes, but can't seem to find them. My recollection was tons of fruity/flowery aromas, coconut on the entry, rich vanilla and tannin, but a short hot finish. Mind you this was uncut and barrel proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Oh my this sounds very close to what I am sensing in WR, and specifically that is different from the first bottles released. Except no heat, but that could be because of further aging and/or lower bottling proof.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Based on Bobby's comments, I asked Chris Morris what was up with the cut in proof and age, when I was at the Gala. He was very clear about two things. Age does not equal quality and proof impacts balance. A vintage bourbon has certain attributes that the master distiller selects. This year's expression is unique, and in his opinion, high quality. His logic continued. Why produce a vintage product if its going to be the same or only marginally different. (He didn't say it, but he was pointing fingers at EWSB). I'm not saying I agree, but he felt pretty strongly about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyc Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Age does not equal quality Perhaps. The cynical side of me is now wondering if they are so sure of that, when can we expect to see a 4 year Birthday Bourbon, and furthermore, why do the inaugural bottling at 13 years and spring the lower aged bottling on us later, Next time bring it out at 4-6 or 8. I'm sure someone will pay 30 bucks for it!...........Yeah, Right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNbourbon Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Age does not equal quality...And, while perhaps true, we've always been told that age is at least one of the factors in price (longer aging, more taxes and overhead costs, et al). Yet, if I recall correctly, the reduced age of this year's Birthday Bourbon did not impact its price, although it should have favorably impacted its cost to produce. (Not that I'd expect it to go down in price -- but, if something ain't so, don't tell us it's so!). Stagg went down this year when its proof was reduced, even with longer aging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Chris Morris countered this older whiskey is more expensive premise with this explanation. The cost of materials and labor for new whiskey is considerably higher than older whiskey, such that 7YO whiskey cost more to produce than 10 year old whiskey. I didn't say I agree, but I see his point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepcycle Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I guess we'll have to wait and see. Chris was armed with answers when I posed the question. Several other folks, including Beverage Tasting Instiute guys were listening. Chris suggested that next year's could be less or more years, greater or lesser proof. He did indicate that "vintaging" is expensive to produce, bottle, label etc. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgonano Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 The cost of materials and labor for new whiskey is considerably higher than older whiskey, such that 7YO whiskey cost more to produce than 10 year old whiskey. This is most likely correct, but what of warehouse taxes. Isn't a yearly tax levied on all barrels in the rickhouse.Plus warehousing costs and maintenance, etc. BF can price its products as they please, but don't insult us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 I had a similar conversation with Chris and it's obvious he has caught some heat. Adding to what you reported, he said the vision of Birthday Bourbon is to select something he thinks is very good that people will enjoy, not to keep to some arbitrary age or proof level that just happened to be what the earlier versions were. This was his first time picking the BB on his own and I think he wanted to make his own mark. His argument, and I think it's a good one, is judge the whiskey, not the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgonano Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 And as you and others mention in other threads , 8 yr old bourbon is in a class by itself. I have no problem with the whiskey age, proof or pricing. These vintage products allow the master distillers to select their best whiskeys regardless of age , character and taste differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdelling Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I really like the Chris Morris vision... although maybe it would behelpful to, say, change the color or layout of the label in some wayjust to make it a little more clear that this is not the same aslast years' whiskey.Tim Dellinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr8erdane Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Let's see, bourbon that is made three years later has to absorb three years of inflation in the form of cost of living increases and raises to the employees, raw material price increases, utilities rate increases, tax increases, and probably the price of cooperage. I can see where the 7 yo whiskey cost a little more than the 10 yr, but not that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 I think the bottom line of this discussion is that cost is always irrelevant to price, always has been, always will be. Or, perhaps to be a little more complete, cost is only relevent to price if it is greater than the price. Otherwise, it is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts