Over-empasis on rare/expensive items?

[Gillman]

Gary, I knew someone would raise that. Truth is, I was really making that Blanton a regular Blanton by adding a dash of water (because I don't have any regular at the moment). I used Blanton because I believe the Benchmark may have been brewed at Trace, to get a complementarity of flavors (albeit Blanton is the better bourbon).

By the way I find when I dilute the Blanton barrel strength it is quite similar to the other Blantons out there, so I don't see the fuss about it really (and maybe that is why it is not sold in the U.S.).

Gary

[Hedmans Brorsa]

By the way I find when I dilute the Blanton barrel strength it is quite similar to the other Blantons out there

Well, it should be. Did you expect it to resemble Wild Turkey?

Granted, I have only tried one bottle of Blanton´s straight from the barrel but it wasn´t that dissimilar to Stagg, which shouldn´t come as a big surprise, really.

[Gillman]

Well, what I meant was, if the Barrel Strength Single Barrel was truly unique in flavor, dilution to the strength of the other Blantons, especially Blanton Original, would not result in a similar drink. But the result is similar and therefore I conclude strong Blanton is different only (essentially) by being stronger. I realise some here like the extra undiluted strength. I don't drink whiskey at anything over 80-90 proof, generally, so that aspect of the drink does not really appeal to me. I realise the bottles still will be different one from the other and from the other Blantons depending on the barrel and year, but I find the differences fairly restrained.

Stagg (which I have had a few times in recent years) has a much bigger character than Blanton's. It is about twice as old and much more concentrated and massive in character. Blanton even at its highest proofs must be styled by my lights Stagg Lite. Which is not to slight Blantons in any way, it is a fine bourbon on its own terms. Although generally I'd say I prefer the flavour of Elmer T. Lee and the mocha-like taste of Buffalo Trace. In my time I've tried to come up with a mingling of all of these to improve on each and have succeeded on occasion. But the minglings never last, they end up getting changed or rocked and ryed or something.

Gary

[mbanu]

All I am saying is, I don't think very aged product should become the industry norm, to me they are specialty items to enjoy on occasion.

If 8 year old bourbon became the industry norm at the distillation and barelling that they have going right now, that would be wonderful. But chances are, they wouldn't leave well enough alone, and they'd start releasing 20, 30, 40 year bourbons to meet the consumer demand for older whiskey. The problem is that how much age will make a bourbon better depends a lot on the distillation proof and barreling proof; whiskey doesn't always improve with age. When the customer doesn't know that, he'll head for the older bourbon even when it isn't appropriate, drive up the demand for needlessly old bourbon, and unless the distillers adjust the distillation proof and barreling proof to adapt, he'll end up with an expensive bourbon of a poorer quality than it could have been.

I think there is an untapped market here, for someone to put out a blend of straight bourbons which incorporates very old bourbon but also (more) younger bourbon.

There's a few things that make blending bourbon tricky.

The first thing with blending is that you need a whiskey with something wrong with it. Unless there's something off about your whiskey, what good will blending do? The idea behind blending is to blend together a bunch of less expensive whiskeys with minor flaws to replicate the flavor of a higher-quality product, passing on the savings in the form of quality whiskey for less money, or not passing on the savings and having a cheaper quality whiskey for a higher profit.

The second thing with blending is that it's much harder to learn from scratch than it sounds. It's not a case of if you luck out you'll make great whiskey even better and if you don't you'll still have great whiskey; it's a case of if you luck out you'll make ok whiskey great whiskey, and if you don't you'll make it worse.

The third thing is that without microdistilleries, there's very little to work with. The major blending traditions with scotch and cognac started because there were a bunch of microdistillers in those countries pumping out a lot of different spirits of widely varying types and quality. With the bourbon industry, almost all the bourbon being produced comes from a handful of companies.

When you combine these facts together, it makes blending on more than a minor scale (like for small batch bottlings) an unlikely future prospect.

[bobbyc]

The first thing with blending is that you need a whiskey with something wrong with it.

Once I questioned Jimmy Russell about the 12 year Wild Turkey which as far as I'm concerned they make nothing better than, he said a lot of it was being used along with 10, and 8 year stock to create Rare Breed. I would say they were balancing inventories of different aged bourbons, in that case.

I'm sure your scenerio plays out in other circumstances, as well.

[Chaz7]

Has anyone been totally blown away by bottom shelf (not just for the money or bang for the buck, but beating out a middle shelfer in flavor and quality)?

AAA while it lasts in VA.

EW 1783 is ranked very highly by Tina - on sale this month for $10.

Tim, Dave-Thanks! To expand my palate,as well as my horizons, I want to seek out come bottom shelf treasures. I have confidence in Heaven hill, so that will probably be my first pick up. Chaz

[Gillman]

I don't agree with your assertions regarding blending.

The object of blending/mingling, as I practice it and many distillers do, is to make a group of bourbons, not equal a non-blended one, but better it. I do not regard, say, Knob Creek, or Hirsch 16 or what have you, as the acme of bourbon production. I find few bourbons entirely satisfying on their own. I do find a careful blend of different ages and qualties more balanced and interesting than most bourbons as commercially released.

Also (or what is sayng the same thing) I don't regard young bourbons (within acceptable parameters) as being better than older ones, just different.

You say blending is harder to do than it seems. I feel this is untrue based on reading manuals of how it is done and examining current industry practice. Look e.g., at Rare Breed, that is a typical mingling, in that case of 3 Wild Turkey bourbons of different ages. Or look at how Four Roses approaches mingling. The company hasn't hid how they do it, they mingle bourbons made from a fixed number of different mash bills and yeasts. This is not rocket science. Anyone can do it provided you have a group of bourbons of different ages and qualities. Don't assume the pros know more than we do, they don't, necessarily.

As for the availability of whiskeys to mingle/blend, distillers/wholesalers don't need to buy stock from competitors, they need only use their own stock to do so. E.g., I gave the example that VW could make a mingling of its 10, 15 and 20 year olds if it chose to. In fact, distillers do mingle and batch produce, it happens all the time. And anyway if they wanted to they could buy whiskey in bulk from across town or elsewhere in the state. Why wouldn't Beam sell some surplus whiskey to say HH?

Gary

[Gillman]

This is a good example. I don't view the 12 year old as better than Rare Breed, on the contrary. That is why I think Pernod Ricard makes Rare Breed. If it felt WT 12 year old was better it would make much more of that and sell it at a good price. It would make it its Johnnie Walker Black Label. It doesn't, because (I infer, and believe) the market prefers Rare Breed. That is in effect the black label scotch - the most popular luxury label - of WT and a fine bourbon it is. When Jimmy Russell was asked why they blended 3 whiskeys, he said (see Waymack and Harris) "because we like it that way". He's got it, and there's a hundred years of experience behind that statement. I've been mingling and blending for only, say, 20 years, but I've figured out what they have.

Gary

[Hedmans Brorsa]

Well, I tried them side by side yesterday for the first time in yonks. I normally don´t pair these two since they are pretty overpowering on their own but with this thread it somehow felt relevant to put both my nostrils and tastebuds to the test.

It´s a semi-blind tasting and after warming the glasses sufficiently I manage to separate them but only just! Stagg ( the 142, 7 version, it´s the only one I´ve managed to track down) has a fresher nose compared to the SFTB (131, 7 proof) which displays a light streak of corn.

To taste, they´re initially very different. STFB displays a delicious corn/honey dominance in contrast with the fresh citrus-ey character of Stagg. After around 20-30 seconds, though, the Stagg starts to more or less resemble the SFTB.

The SFTB has, somewhat surprisingly, a more heavier and (in my view) a lot more exciting finish than the Stagg. This is the only part where I feel that it excels the Stagg.

Stagg (which I have had a few times in recent years) has a much bigger character than Blanton's. It is about twice as old and much more concentrated and massive in character

Are you sure about this? When I first got into Blanton´s I learned that they were around 6-8 yo, then I think Ken wrote something on this very forum that all BT Single barrels were around 10 yo but my SFTB feels older still. There is among other things, that heavy presence of menthol on the nose. Maybe it is the high proof that deludes me?

[Gillman]

Interesting test although when you said "semi-blind" I was reminded of the old saying that there is no such thing as being a little pregnant.

I thought Ken said Blanton (any version) was 6-8 years old and Elmer T. Lee was around 10 years old and BT was closer in age to Elmer T. Lee.

Blanton is good but as I said earlier diluted to 100 or 90 proof it seems to be similar to the Blanton's issued at that strength (and some barrels not as good).

I don't know Stagg as well but I doubt many Trace bourbons can improve on the current Elmer T. Lee, and again, if it iss rocket power that is wanted, that is one area that does not attract me in whisky.

Gary