Evan Williams Single Barrel 1996 Vintage

[wku88]

Try Heaven Hill 10 Y/O Bottled in Bond.

It may be just a tick below the single barrel in flavor, but its well worth the $12.

Agreed. I just can't say enough about this whisky! Definitely is in the top 2 or 3 for bang for the buck! I have had a bottle or two that were off from others, but the full, butterscotch taste is very satisfying. Back to back with OC12, you'll use the OC for charcoal starter. In fact, the much vaunted EC12 is kinda pale in comparison.

[JeffRenner]

Try Heaven Hill 10 Y/O Bottled in Bond.

It may be just a tick below the single barrel in flavor, but its well worth the $12.

I agree, and it's only $9.99 (including tax) at The Party Source in Bellevue, KY.

But this past weekend I also picked up a Heaven Hill 6 y/o Bottled in Bond there for only $8.79, and have to say that this is perhaps even better. Not as much wood, of course, but more nimble, with nice spice and honey and less burn.

The wonderful thing is that this would apparently be from the Bernheim distillery in Louisville that HH bought to replace their Bardstown one that burned in 1996. This bodes wonderully well for the future HH products.

I plan on doing a proper tasting of the 6 y/o shortly, perhaps along with the 10 y/o, and posting notes.

Jeff

[Gillman]

Jeff that is a great idea, the HH-branded whiskeys as far as I know (or some of them together) have never received a full description here. I bought the regular white label in Bardstown recently (4 years old presumably) and found it a little young and feisty. The 6 year may hit the sweet spot for balance and flavor. Not sure about the 10, I bought it some years back and wasn't knocked out, but it seems too the bottles vary a bit. The 6 year BIB offers I think the chance to see to the max the seasonal character now issuing from Bernheim. Next time I'm in Bardstown I'm going to buy every HH-branded bourbon and line them for a tasting but your remarks would be helpful. I know Jim Murray is a big fan of these bourbons and considers they offer much traditional character.

Gary

[cowdery]

I am looking forward to the 1997 vintage, because the source of every previous EWSB was destroyed in November of 1996. Will the 1997 be older than the usual 9 years so they can stay with whiskey made in Bardstown? If it's 1997 whiskey, will they tell us where it was made? I haven't heard anything about how they are going to go, nor have I asked, but I am curious.

[jburlowski]

the HH-branded whiskeys as far as I know (or some of them together) have never received a full description here.

Gary

So maybe one of them should be the next BOTM...?

[Gillman]

I am looking forward to the 1997 vintage, because the source of every previous EWSB was destroyed in November of 1996. Will the 1997 be older than the usual 9 years so they can stay with whiskey made in Bardstown? If it's 1997 whiskey, will they tell us where it was made? I haven't heard anything about how they are going to go, nor have I asked, but I am curious.

Sam Cecil in his book states that HH was distilling temporarily at Jim Beam and Early Times when deciding whether to rebuild its distillery destroyed in the 1996 conflagration. I suppose HH could continue to issue whiskey distilled at the old distillery and still use the successive designation years ('97, '98, etc.) until they catch up to whiskey made at Bernheim (I guess from 2001). Legally one is allowed to understate age, in other words. I would think however they won't do that. My thinking is, each year's character is different anyway to a degree, so why not offer something which may be even a little further from last year's palate for EWSB, something distilled at Beam or by B-F? This would be interesting, but as Chuck says who knows what HH will do and if it will say? Sam Cecil wrote that the whiskey made under contract for HH was made under its, "supervision". I wonder what that means, exactly? Would HH have allowed its yeast and mash bills to be used at another plant?

Gary

[cowdery]

Sam Cecil in his book states that HH was distilling temporarily at Jim Beam and Early Times when deciding whether to rebuild its distillery destroyed in the 1996 conflagration. I suppose HH could continue to issue whiskey distilled at the old distillery and still use the successive designation years ('97, '98, etc.) until they catch up to whiskey made at Bernheim (I guess from 2001). Legally one is allowed to understate age, in other words. I would think however they won't do that. My thinking is, each year's character is different anyway to a degree, so why not offer something which may be even a little further from last year's palate for EWSB, something distilled at Beam or by B-F? This would be interesting, but as Chuck says who knows what HH will do and if it will say? Sam Cecil wrote that the whiskey made under contract for HH was made under its, "supervision". I wonder what that means, exactly? Would HH have allowed its yeast and mash bills to be used at another plant?

Gary

Considering the "vintage" concept, it would be disingenuous if not flat out dishonest to label whiskey actually distilled in 1996 as having been distilled in 1997 just to keep up appearances. Their first vintage at Bernheim will be either 1999 or 2000.

As for the whiskey made for them in the interim, I think they can fairly state that it was "made by Heaven Hill at Jim Beam" or "made by Heaven Hill at Brown-Forman." The two Beam plants and the Brown-Forman plant in Shively are perfectly capable of using a different mash bill, different yeast, even variables like fermentation temperature (hence time) could have been adjusted to Heaven Hill's specifications.

[jeff]

Considering the "vintage" concept, it would be disingenuous if not flat out dishonest to label whiskey actually distilled in 1996 as having been distilled in 1997 just to keep up appearances. Their first vintage at Bernheim will be either 1999 or 2000.

As for the whiskey made for them in the interim, I think they can fairly state that it was "made by Heaven Hill at Jim Beam" or "made by Heaven Hill at Brown-Forman." The two Beam plants and the Brown-Forman plant in Shively are perfectly capable of using a different mash bill, different yeast, even variables like fermentation temperature (hence time) could have been adjusted to Heaven Hill's specifications.

Chuck,

When you say "made by Heaven Hill at..." do you mean that Jim Beam and Brown-Foreman contract distilled the whiskey for them, or that Heaven Hill employees phisically ran the stills and barrelling facilities during off hours?

[Gillman]

They could say all that on the label, e.g., made by HH at Beam, but they won't (IMO). I don't think it is disingenuous to offer a '96 or '95 distillate as a '97 unless the label states specifically it was distilled in '97. If the label doesn't say that but just that the spirit is "vintage '97", I have no problem with that. The fact that the law allows understating of age is an implicit recognition of the validity of such approach. Old is gold, in other words...

Gary

[cowdery]

As I understand it, Jeff, Parker Beam was on hand to monitor and supervise, although the other employees were from the respective distilleries. Yes, that technically is "contract distilling," but having a guest master distiller oversee the process is not typical. I know that in the case of Brown-Forman, they saw it as making Heaven Hill's whiskey for Heaven Hill, and not as Heaven Hill merely buying their whiskey.

As for Jim Beam, remember that when there were Beams running both shops, first cousins at that, the two companies bought much of the same equipment and ran their stills in a pretty similar manner. David Beam, the last of the Beam family distillers at Jim Beam, had just retired in 1996, the same year as the fire.

Also, though I can't get anyone to confirm this, I always have believed that Beam and HH are using the same yeast, just based on stories I have heard and putting two and two together. Anyway, the idea that HH could make "its" whiskey at BF or JB is no stranger than the notion that it can make "its" whiskey at Bernheim.

No one would claim identical, but close.

As for the labelling, Gary, the EWSB front label says "Put in Oak 1995" (or whatever). To say "Put in Oak 1997" when the whiskey was, in fact, put in oak in 1995 would be a lie. Maybe they'll put "Already in Oak by 1997."

Like I said, I don't know what they're going to do, but I'll be interested to see.

[Gillman]

Chuck, of course I agree regarding the labelling aspect. I am simply saying if they choose to use whiskey made before 1997 and label it with some general reference to 1997 or 9 years aged (etc.) without stating it was distilled or put into the barrel in 1997, I'd have no issue with that. They may not continue to use the same labelling (or exactly) as before, in other words. If they do however for the 1997 EWSB, one can conclude it was contract whiskey.

Gary

[Sijan]

I sure hope they stay honest with the next few vintages.

If anyone would like to trade for some EWSB 1988, let me know.

[wku88]

Just cracked my bottle of '96 ( barrelled 01/15/96, bottled 03/31/06, barrel 247)

WHO PUT THE 2X4 OF GREEN OAK IN MY WHISKEY??????

Hope it is just the first taste...I'll definitely be coming back to make sure this is an anomoly (I hope!)

[photogjunkie]

Nope...the '96 EWSB won't improve in later tastings. For some reason, something went wrong...very wrong. I had to get the bottle I purchased out of my sight since I was so disappointed with it. So I fed it to some friends of mine who dropped by one night and take their bourbon with ice and COKE. They didn't say a bad word about their drinks and were very happy to be sipping on such a preceived high-end pour, compared to their usual JD or JB experience. Maybe somebody liked the 1996, but I didn't.

[scopenut]

In view of the recent postings of displeasure with the EWSB 1996, I've been holding off getting a bottle. I've not had any of the vintages of EWSB, and recently came across, in addition to the 96, a 95 and a 93. Can anyone offer an opinion on the relative merits of these other 2 vintages?

Thanks....

Kevin

[smokinjoe]

In view of the recent postings of displeasure with the EWSB 1996, I've been holding off getting a bottle. I've not had any of the vintages of EWSB, and recently came across, in addition to the 96, a 95 and a 93. Can anyone offer an opinion on the relative merits of these other 2 vintages?

Thanks....

Kevin

Kevin:

I really like the 95, but wasn't thrilled with the 93. The 93 seemed funky to me. My favorite has been the 94. You can still occasionally find it on the shelves. If you do, I'd recommend getting that one. IMO the 95 is definately worth picking up too. A very nice pour.

Cheers!

JOE

[cowdery]

I don't dislike the 1996. In fact, I'm drinking some right now. But given the choice of those three, I would go for the 1993. If you happen to see some 1994, that would jump into first place. Of the whole series, I would say the 1992 and 1994 are the best, especially if you like your bourbons big and flavorful.

[scopenut]

Thanks for the recommendations and insights.

Kevin

[TimmyBoston]

At my local liquor store they have both the 95 and 96. I've never had any EWSB, but I'm considering buying a bottle. I'd like to hear which one you'd recommend? Opinions for both are welcome and encouraged. Also how do they compare to the EW 1783? Or am I better off just drinking my 1783?

[BourbonBalls]

At my local liquor store they have both the 95 and 96. I've never had any EWSB, but I'm considering buying a bottle. I'd like to hear which one you'd recommend? Opinions for both are welcome and encouraged. Also how do they compare to the EW 1783? Or am I better off just drinking my 1783?

In my opinion....if you are only able to get the '96, then you are better off drinking your 1783.

As has been said here before, the '94 is excellent and still get-able in some areas.....If you can find the '95, I don't think you'll be disappointed. If you try the '96, then you most certainly will.

[jspero]

Or am I better off just drinking my 1783?

I think it's worth a try one time for the '95 (I haven't had the '96 yet). Having said that, I like the 1783 just fine, especially at half the price.

Jay

[elkdoggydog]

I liked the '95 a lot. I'd give it a try, just to give it a try. I haven't had the '96 yet, but my wife found a nice BevMo coupon in the paper today, and I think I'll apply it toward that EWSB.

[cowdery]

The 1995 is superior to the 1996, but you might actually be better off with the 1783, which even the people at Heaven Hill consider the best value of anything they make.

[TennBourbonMan]

In reading some of the responses on this thread I am surprised by the number that feel the 1996 exceeds the 1995 in quality. To me the 1996 lacked the complexity, the length of finish, and just the overall impression was a bit of a let down in relation to the 94 and 95. That said, both the 94 and the 95 are in my top 10 so the fact that the 96 didn't meet their perfection, doesn't mean I felt it a bad bourbon, just not quite as pleasing for me as the previous offerings.

[FlashPuppy]

Coincidentaly enough, I was out last night and had a pour of the '95, which finished off the bottle. I went back for another, and the next bottle was a '96. It was a nice comparison for being at a bar. I must say, I did like the '95 better.