Woodford Reserve Renumbered?

[Gillman]

On another whiskey site it is reported Woodford Reserve is appearing in bottles whose batch numbers have been restarted at one. The reason apparently is to indicate the batches being put together by Chris Morris. This would mean the bottles will bear the same batch numbers successively as when the first WRs were issued, at least until the last of the old numbers (circa 160?) is surpassed. This is a good catch and I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen such new bottles and if so what batches have been released, just No. 1, 1 and 2, etc.? Thanks

Gary

[TNbourbon]

On another whiskey site it is reported Woodford Reserve is appearing in bottles whose batch numbers have been restarted at one. The reason apparently is to indicate the batches being put together by Chris Morris. This would mean the bottles will bear the same batch numbers successively as when the first WRs were issued, at least until the last of the old numbers (circa 160?) is surpassed. This is a good catch and I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen such new bottles and if so what batches have been released, just No. 1, 1 and 2, etc.? Thanks

Gary

If so, could backfire. Personally, I would NOT buy a Woodford Reserve bottle for which I did not know the 'make' of the bourbon inside. Considering the inconsistencies they've been having with the pot stills, a 'new' Batch 1 and an original Batch 1 (which I have on the shelf, by the way) would be notably different.

So, I hope it's not so.

[Joeluka]

I have a picture of my bottle but I cant get the picture small enough to be uploaded. It is true though. I have a bottle of Batch 1, signed by Chris Morris not Linciln Henderson.

[nor02lei]

If so, could backfire. Personally, I would NOT buy a Woodford Reserve bottle for which I did not know the 'make' of the bourbon inside. Considering the inconsistencies they've been having with the pot stills, a 'new' Batch 1 and an original Batch 1 (which I have on the shelf, by the way) would be notably different.

So, I hope it's not so.

Tim,

I agree with you 100% and I also have the “real†batch number 1 at home. The diffuse labelling when you often don’t even know in witch distillery it is distilled is the one thing I don’t like about American whiskey.

Leif

[jeff]

Gary,

I have seen the new 1.75 size with batch #1 recently. It was along side the "regular" sized bottlings of batches 150+. Maybe they are only starting over with the large bottle?

[Gillman]

Thanks Jeff, Joe had mentioned that also re the 1.75. Maybe it will be restricted to that large format. If this is so it will be easy to distinguish it from the original batch 1 and the following ones. There was an oversize bottle in the original series but it wasn't as big as 1.75 litre and it didn't accompany each batch issued (I think).

Gary

[TNbourbon]

Gary,

I have seen the new 1.75 size with batch #1 recently. It was along side the "regular" sized bottlings of batches 150+. Maybe they are only starting over with the large bottle?

Ah, now THAT beings to make sense -- I have purchased (and a few still remain on the shelf locally) a couple of VIP Batch 1 bottles that were produced in June 2000, designated on the case. That was the first year of VIP bottles. Apparently, each new size/issue begins at 'Batch 1'.

[bobbyc]

I need to look at those again myself. I did notice Chris Morris signature rather than Lincoln Henderson on some of the bottles.

[Rughi]

Yesterday I saw a standard 750ml bottle with Batch #188 stated, and had Lincoln Henderson's signature. Has anyone spied a 750ml with Chris Morris' signature? If so, what batch number was it?

Also, what is the current batch number? If #188 is in El Cerrito, Louisville would seem to be in the 200s.

Roger

[Jazzhead]

I picked up a 750 ml bottle about two weeks ago in Cherry Hill, NJ. I haven't cracked it yet. It's batch #209, signed by Chris Morris.

What exactly is a "batch" anyway? Is this supposed to be "single barrel" bourbon, or is it something else?

[Gillman]

My understanding is a number of barrels of Louisville-made and Versailles-made whiskey are mingled for a particular bottling and this batch gets a number. All the whiskey is aged in Versailles. In each batch, there are varying amounts of the whiskey from the Versailles stills (pot stills), anything from only 25% to half or more. The idea is not to work to fixed proportions but to get rather a certain taste profile. This is a quality whiskey any way you look at it, which is not to say that each batch tastes exactly the same, in my view there is some variance but this is to be expected with bourbon (any bourbon which is partly a natural product and can't be standardised 100%) and a WR offers a particular craft approach. Anyway this is my take on it.

Gary

[TNbourbon]

I noticed in Chicago stores this week that Wathen's, too, is back to Barrel 1 with its San Jose-bottled issue. I'm assuming, till someone disabuses me of the notion, that that means it's not the same whiskey it used to be.

[Rughi]

I noticed in Chicago stores this week that Wathen's, too, is back to Barrel 1 with its San Jose-bottled issue. I'm assuming, till someone disabuses me of the notion, that that means it's not the same whiskey it used to be.

Wow,

My local liquor store just got Wathen's (only the second store I've seen in California to have it) and received bottles from Barrel number 256, bottled just over a month ago on 2/17/06. Did you notice the bottling date in Chicago?

I also have Wathens #228 barreled 3/21/05 and #203 barreled on 10/4/04 (my birthday!). So it appears that Frank-Lin of San Jose has been bottling about 25 barrels every 6 months to a year. I wonder if a new numbering system implies greater availability as well as perhaps a new source for the whiskey...

Roger

[TNbourbon]

...Did you notice the bottling date in Chicago?...

Roger

Roger, I'm afraid all I checked was the label to note the bottling location -- just in case it happened to be a 'real' Barrel 1 from Owensboro. They had a row all the way to the back of the shelf -- I didn't check every one of them, but I DID reach back to pluck a single rear one and confirm it said the same thing.

[ThomasH]

I was at my local liquor store yesterday and they received a case of Woodford Reserve 1.75's. They are batch 1 and had Chris Morris signature on them. They also had some 750's that were from batch 194 and had Lincoln Hendersons signature on them. Maybe they start over when they have a new master distiller. Just a thought. They also received some 1L bottles that honor this years Kentucky derby and these did not have a batch number on them.

Thomas

[Nebraska]

I ran into a couple of woodford reserve 750ml that are signed today. I came back and found this thread to try and figure out if this was something that generally thought of as a better bourbon others here on the board and if the signatures were somewhat rare. Both bottles had Chris Morris's signature, one had 2005 written on it and the name of the city here along with the signature. Would be curious to know what you guys are seeing these for in your area of the country. The shelf tag here said $29.98. That seemed reasonable if this is better grade of bourbon.

Mark/Nebraska

[Nebraska]

Today was really bizarre. I went back for the two bottles I saw (I also figured out the signature all of you were talking about and the signature I'm talking about are completely different). Turned out there were actually three bottles signed in some kind of white permanent marker on the back, Council Bluffs, 2005, Chris Morris, Distiller. I might go back and get the other, depends on if I actually like the stuff or not. Either way, it will be kind of fun to have with the master distiller's autograph.

The bizarre thing was that I stopped at another place and picked up two more bottles for $19.99 each. I asked if the price was right, the store owner pointed to a big orange sign that said 750ml/$19.99 SALE. I figured for that price, why not.

Mark/Nebraska