August release of BTEC

[Jake_Parrott]

Chill-filtered and watered again, I presume?

[cowdery]

Chill-filtered and watered again, I presume?

Don't know for sure, but probably.

[Frodo]

It's BT's business, so I don't care what they do with their experiments as long as it adds to their knowledge and helps them make great bourbons.

Randy

Exactly my thoughts!

[Gillman]

If we think back to the 1800's, after bourbon became more or less what it is today but before regulations and commercial practices had standardized it, there must have been a profusion of bourbon styles.

I am sure each maker, or wholesale dealer, had his own way of aging it. Some probably specified barrels of different types, maybe charred barrels that had held wine before (caramelize some of those grape sugars), maybe woods of different types. Probably always charred barrels were used but maybe not exclusively charred barrels, and some were probably recharred, some whiskey would have rebarrelled, or dumped and vatted in open vats for months, etc.

Add to this the diversity of stilling equipment and mashing methods, and no doubt the widespread use of non-highly bred top yeasts that produced fruity fermentations, and the range of bourbon flavors must have been very large.

BT is just doing the same thing today in its own way.

Gary

[cowdery]

If we think back to the 1800's, after bourbon became more or less what it is today but before regulations and commercial practices had standardized it, there must have been a profusion of bourbon styles.

You would think so, but I have asked old-timers that question over the years and they say no, bourbon in the past was actually more standardized than it is today.

[barturtle]

I can see both arguments having merit:

While the distilleries themselves were probably not producing mulitple mashbills, and the wheated recipe had not yet been created, the role of the rectifier may have made for a bit more variety. Tavern owners were able to buy barrels and create their own house blends. But what you wouldn't have seen going on (with the exception of Col Blantons "party barrels") was going through the warehouse to hand select barrels based on a brand profile. So while you may have gone to one tavern over another because the owner there blended batches more to your liking, the differences in a store for sale would have been more limiting. You definitely wouldn't have seen, for example, four different proofs of VOB, 6 different bottling of Weller, or 4 bottlings of Beam. However, none of them would have been chill-filtered!

[Gillman]

Chuck, re:

This is not my experience based on some years now of Gazebo tastings including a number of pre-Pros. In saying this, I am assuming that whiskeys made into the 1960's were broadly representative of those made in the 1880's even allowing for regulations being tightened in the 30's for identity definitions. I have found, say, the butterscotch taste of NDOT rather different from the big fruity rye hit of NDOG which was different from the deep nuttiness of S-W whiskeys in their day which was different from the plummy richness of that 50's Glenmore, not to mention the aldehydes in that Juarez bourbon from the 30's (I think that was Bill Friel's opinion expressed to me at the last Sampler)...

Why today, they are all so similar I could hardly tell a group of 6 apart at Bettye Jo's last week.

Gary

[Gillman]

Tim, re:

If you look at the old colour ads in Sam Cecil's book, you see (I think one brand is Cyrus Noble) bourbons and ryes being offered from one distillery in multiple ages and, no doubt, proofs. This is in the pre-1914 era and I have to think bourbon in the later 1800's was broadly similar. Also, there was a tremendous age range then, everything from white whiskey to 21 year old whiskey at least. In the Van Winkle family history I am reading now by Sally Van Winkle, she cites early ads stating that whiskey was not suitable for drinking before 8-10 years of age. An exaggeration perhaps, but it proves that many people in the old days sought out well-aged whiskeys. In the 1800's, the survival of pot stills in many quarters would have made for congeneric whiskeys which really needed the extra years in the barrel to mature properly.

In any case, I was speaking more of flavors than age or proof. Which bourbon today has a deep nuttiness of S-W from the 60's, 50's, 40's, etc.? The deep plumminess of the 50's Glenmore at Gazebo? The rum-like taste of the Black Gold? The strange taste of the Bourbon Supreme of the 70's? I could go on. I think there is more uniformity today but also (as I've said in other threads) overall a very high standard.

Of course, there were more distilleries in the old days but I don't think (and this is really a matter of impression, nothing can be demonstrated) that alone explains the stylistic variety of 1880-1980.

Gary

[barturtle]

Very true Gary (I had forgetten to check Sam's book). On pg 25 you will find a price list showing 3 ages for Laurel Spring and 2+BIB for W.A.Gaines products. However this is 1914, and though I didn't state it, and probably didn't consciencely pick a date myself, I was thinking mid century, the period from which sales were transferring from bulk to taverns and rectifiers, to prepackaged, bottled by the distillery. But then this is the very beginning of the modern production and distribution of whiskey in the Americas, pressed glass bottles had just become available cheaply, the L&N railroad was formed in '49. Guess I should have aimed a little more toward prohibition.

On a production note, I was rereading through Grossman's Guide to Wines, Spirits, and Beers (copyright 1940, 1943, 1955, 1964). Looking at some of the practices in this era versus the current, is a bit interesting. Grossman says that American whiskies are barreled at 100 to 103 proof, whereas now most are barreled at much closer to the legal max of 125. Also he states a minimum of 1/3 of the volume of mash is backset, the only other reference I can find in a newer book (Regans) is more than 20%.

A cool thing I hadn't noticed in the book before is a list of distilleries and by each one is who it is a subsidiary of (Schenley/National/Seagram/Fleishmann/Hiram Walker). I think I could date this list quite easily with some light research: United Distillers of America is listed but they don't seem to own anyone else yet and Geo. A. Dickel is listed in Lexington...for that matter there are no distilleries in TN.

[cowdery]

One of things that stimuated me to research and eventually write about whiskey and other spirits products was Grossman's Guide to Wines, Spirits, and Beers; specifically, how bad it is.

Bad as in wrong.

Although the facts Timothy quotes from Grossman happen to be right, he got lucky. Grossman is wrong a lot of the time. The first tip off for me was when he wrote that Southern Comfort is a mixture of bourbon whiskey and peach brandy, which I knew was wrong because I was working on Southern Comfort at the time and know how it is made, which is without a drop of whiskey or brandy of any kind.

Because I got it into my head that "Grossman is always wrong," I haven't looked at a copy in years. Certainly some of those old lists would be great to have in an old edition. Although I don't think Dickel was ever located in Lexington. It could be even the lists are mostly wrong.

[barturtle]

Ah, yes. I realize this is the case with many texts on the whiskey industry. Especially older ones.

I really love the fact that in this book there is this lovely detailed drawing of how a distillery works, right down to the evaporators and driers to make feed out of the spent grains, but there is no doubler to be found.

There is also a description of sweet vs. sour mash, that I'm not sure sounds entirely right, but having never seen a detailed write up on sweet mash technique I can't totally discount, but I'm not going to be spouting it as fact either.

Oh and Chuck, I forgot to buy your book from you at Bettye Jo's! Darn it!

[Gillman]

In thinking further about this (standardised vs. diverse tastes), I think in the past, each distillery probably made only one kind of bourbon and rye (if it made rye) albeit made available in different proofs and ages. The former bulk business model would have favoured that. Buyers would have commissioned specific types from different distilleries and possibly blended them.

Today in the consolidated industry the distilleries own most of the brands, many acquired from other companies, and most sales are of these brands in bottles. Therefore, I think the distilleries are thinking more of how to multiply their brand equities, they are running more horses to increase the chances of getting a big winner. Some distilleries use multiple rye-recipe mashbills, some use both wheat and rye mashbills, one distiller uses both column and pot stills, unusually high ages are being released, BT is experimenting ever more, etc.

So, from a distiller's standpoint, the nature of the production may have gotten more diverse, I can see that.

However in the past also, there were many more distillers than today. That fact alone would increase variety in my view, it would have to even if the products were largely similar in make-up. Add to that the more diverse technical factors I mentioned (the yeast variety, the sweet mashes alongside sour in the 1800's, the wooden vats and peculiarities resulting, the many pot stills still in operation in circa-1900, the different kinds of beers stills then in use and lack of a rectification tower for some, possibly the diversity of grain types vs. today, etc.). Add to that the fact that the ubiquitous wholesalers or even some distillers through blending and mingling would come up with distinctive brands for the wholesalers' customers.

I think the result was a greater difference amongst the products than today from the consumer's standpoint even though each bourbon was (generally) a same- or similar-recipe product.

I really meant my comments from the consumer perception point of view.

Gary

[brewcrew]

Didn't see this on the sight so I thought I would mention it if any Chicago people are reading about the BTEC. Sorry for the late notice but I just found out about this last night.

9/21 - 7pm - Delilah's 2771 N. Lincoln

(Taken directly from the flyer)

Only $10

Buffalo Trace Distillery's Experimental Collection

Taste All Three + Straight B.T.

These are extremely rare and this is the only official tasting being held in the world

[ratcheer]

There is also a description of sweet vs. sour mash, that I'm not sure sounds entirely right, but having never seen a detailed write up on sweet mash technique I can't totally discount, but I'm not going to be spouting it as fact either.

It is my educated guess that the only difference between sweet mash and sour mash is that, with sour mash, some of the previously used mash batch is added to each new batch. This is called the "set back". Sweet mash is when this is not done, i.e., each new mash batch is entirely new.

May the pot shots commence. :duel:

Tim

[barturtle]

That was always my guess to. He lists an extreme difference in ferment times and something about letting the fermenter dry and "sweeten" between batches. I guess letting the fermenter dry a little may have made a difference back when they were all cyprus, but it could just be a load of crap too. He lists the sweet mash ferment time as much shorter...well that in itself will make the mash sweeter as there will still be more unfermented sugars remaining....hmmm that and not adding in the backset that would add in sour notes....now that I type it out it seems plausible that he is correct....

What to do? I guess I'll wait for an expert opinion to verify or nullify this information.

[JeffRenner]

Grossman ... states a minimum of 1/3 of the volume of mash is backset, the only other reference I can find in a newer book (Regans) is more than 20%.

Jim Murray gives details about various distilleries in his Classic Bourbon, Tennessee and Rye Whiskey(1998) on pp. 48-56. He gives these values:

AA (now BT) 33%, Barton "fraction under 25%", Beam not divulged, Bernheim 25%, ET "just 10%" (surprisingly low!, but see below), Four Roses 25%, L & G (now Woodford) 20%, MM 32%, WT not given, JD 28%, Dickel 30%, Seagram (Indiana) 25%. (He doesn't give HH's since this was after the fire.)

The Regans' The Book of Bourbon (1995) gives these values:

AA 33%, Barton "about 20%", Beam "an extrodinary amount ... - about 41 percent of the entire mash, according to Jerry Summers", Bernheim "up to 25%", ET 20%, Four Roses 25%, HH 25%, MM 32%, WT 33%, JD 20%, Dickel "over 25%".

The discrepancies show that we can't take any of this as gospel, but it looks like about 25% is right.

Jeff

[barturtle]

Interesting that BT FR and MM were consistant in both books (and embarrasing that I couldn't find it in Regan's book). But my questoin would be: Which mashbill at BT and FR? They wouldn't have to be different percentages for each mashbill, but it seems likely that it would be.

[cowdery]

Oh and Chuck, I forgot to buy your book from you at Bettye Jo's! Darn it!

It's always available at bourbonstraight.com. Buy it there and it can be autographed. You can also get it at Amazon.com.

[cowdery]

From an efficiency standpoint, you should use as little back set as you can to get the job done, since the space taken in the fermenter by the back set is essentially wasted from the standpoint of fermentable material.

Are there advantages to using a higher back set percentage that offset the disadvantage of lower yield?

Percentage of back set is important in that if you change it, you likely will change the flavor profile of your product, but whether or not using more or less than a competitor makes your product "better" than the competitor's product? That part is dubious.

Marketing people quiz production people for differences. What do we do differently from our competitor. Unless the difference is a clear negative, the marketing people will figure out a way to make it a positive, when it's actually only a difference.

The common range for back set seems to be between 20% and 30%.

Back set can be introduced at the cooking stage, in the yeast tanks, in the fermenters, or in all three.

It's part of what makes the study of this stuff fun, that everyone does it a little differently, but part of the reason there is so much diversity is because there isn't consensus about best practices.

[OscarV]

I have wondered about the percentage of backset used.

If asked, I would have guessed at around 5%.

[boone]

I have wondered about the percentage of backset used.

If asked, I would have guessed at around 5%.

We recently toured Maker's Mark...

Dave told us their backset was 32%.

I took this picture of a monitor that was right behind us (in the fermenting room) as we talked to Dave over the big tubs...

[Russellc]

They had all three of the original release as well as a couple of extra bottles in a liquor store here in Nashville as recently as three weeks ago.

I am in Nashville regularly, where is your place of business?

Russellc

[Pappy's Friend]

I got my collection of three from New Orleans. My nephew scored them for me, and I just got them in my possession this week - can't wait to open them!:bowdown: