Van Winkle Family Reserve 13 rye

[DeanSheen]

Bunk,

For $40 each there is no need to worry about the quality. Your already buying them at a discount.

[JamesW]

Bunk,

For $40 each there is no need to worry about the quality. Your already buying them at a discount.

[unclebunk]

Hey guys, I grabbed the last three VWFRR at $42 each (went up $2 due to Illinois' ridiculous new "sin" tax on alcohol). They are "I" bottlings, so hold old is the juice again? Can't wait to sample tonight.

[Skunk]

Anyone know if it's really an 18yr old rye (as I've heard mentioned) and that the VW's are waiting for their barrels to mature to 13 yrs before swapping in that juice.

how old is this juice again?

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=154482&postcount=77

[unclebunk]

Thanks for the info, Skunk. To get 19 year old whiskey for $42 is a great deal any way you cut it. I had two pours of the VWFRR last night and was really knocked out. I know that age statements must reflect the youngest aged whiskey in the bottle, but I'm curious why Mr. Van Winkle would label the VWFRR as a 13 year old whiskey if the contents of the bottle are a mix of 19 year old Medley and, at least from what I gathered reviewing the other thread provided by Skunk, COK juice that has been identified as being either 17 or 19 years old. So why 13 then?

[Skunk]

So why 13 then?

As Vange said in the first post in this thread: "From what I understand, this has to do with having to register new labels for each state, pay each state's licensing fees, etc., so why print new labels and go through all that expense and hassle every year?".

I suppose you could argue that once it became the 19yo blend it is now, they could have made a new label and gotten 13 years of use out of it without re-registering etc. The only problem would be that in 2017, when the BT distillate is ready, it would go from a 19 year age statement back to 13 year. The consumers would then say 'we were getting 19yo for x amount, and they still want x amount even though it's only 13yo now, what a rip!' Instead, those of us in-the-know can enjoy what Julian Van Winkle described up-thread as "a hell of a deal", and probably with less scarcity than if it were on shelves for <$60 with a 19 YEAR OLD VAN WINKLE FRR label.

Anyway, I'm _really_ enjoying my H version, but at 59.97 I don't think I'll be replacing it any time soon. I feel fortunate just to have tasted it and hope that my memory will suffice. $42 dollars really is a hell of a deal though.

[smokinjoe]

As Vange said in the first post in this thread: "From what I understand, this has to do with having to register new labels for each state, pay each state's licensing fees, etc., so why print new labels and go through all that expense and hassle every year?".

I suppose you could argue that once it became the 19yo blend it is now, they could have made a new label and gotten 13 years of use out of it without re-registering etc. The only problem would be that in 2017, when the BT distillate is ready, it would go from a 19 year age statement back to 13 year. The consumers would then say 'we were getting 19yo for x amount, and they still want x amount even though it's only 13yo now, what a rip!' Instead, those of us in-the-know can enjoy what Julian Van Winkle described up-thread as "a hell of a deal", and probably with less scarcity than if it were on shelves for <$60 with a 19 YEAR OLD VAN WINKLE FRR label.

Anyway, I'm _really_ enjoying my H version, but at 59.97 I don't think I'll be replacing it any time soon. I feel fortunate just to have tasted it and hope that my memory will suffice. $42 dollars really is a hell of a deal though.

I believe that the same rationale can be made for the Michter's 10 yr rye. At least, up until a year or so ago. If I have the story correct, it is from the same 17-19 yr old COK juice, but the bottler (Chatham, I believe?) kept the 10 yr designation because of the label re-registration issue. Anyone, please correct me if I'm off, here.

I was lucky to pick up a couple of bottles a few years ago at $29. Most savvy retailers have learned of the story, and have them in the high $70-80's, now. Which leads me to really belive that changing labels must be a royal Pain in the Arse.

[ErichPryde]

I could be completely off base here, but Julian did say that it was 13 year old whiskey that was being stored in a stainless steel tank, right? so saying that it is getting older and older- that you're basically buying 18 year old rye, and it's such a great deal- that's not exactly right, is it?

My understanding is that once you remove the whiskey from the oak barrels and put it in a stainless steel vat, it isn't technically aging anymore. Any changes will occur because of the amount of oxidation occuring in the whiskey. the greater amount you remove, the greater amount the surface area (which is oxidizing) accounts for the remainder, and therefore, the more the newer bottlings will change until you have to start the cycle over. Changes may and probably will occur, but they wouldn't be related to aging...?

ON this same note, because it IS being stored in stainless, wouldn't it be... somehow improper, false advertising, or even "against the rules" to call it 16, 17, 18. or 19 year old whiskey?

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought that once the whiskey was out of the barrel and quit cycling in and out of the oak, it was done aging. calling it "19 year old rye" would be like saying that because it's been in a glass bottle for X years it's actually X + Y year old whiskey.

Sorry. I have no really good explanation of why we went back to A on the label.

Just wanted to keep you guys on your toes!!

All the bottlings from the last 6 years have been the rye we have stored in a SS tank to stop aging. It's really 19 years old whiskey. So you are getting a hell of a deal-for now.

Julian

[nor02lei]

I could be completely off base here, but Julian did say that it was 13 year old whiskey that was being stored in a stainless steel tank, right? so saying that it is getting older and older- that you're basically buying 18 year old rye, and it's such a great deal- that's not exactly right, is it?

My understanding is that once you remove the whiskey from the oak barrels and put it in a stainless steel vat, it isn't technically aging anymore. Any changes will occur because of the amount of oxidation occuring in the whiskey. the greater amount you remove, the greater amount the surface area (which is oxidizing) accounts for the remainder, and therefore, the more the newer bottlings will change until you have to start the cycle over. Changes may and probably will occur, but they wouldn't be related to aging...?

ON this same note, because it IS being stored in stainless, wouldn't it be... somehow improper, false advertising, or even "against the rules" to call it 16, 17, 18. or 19 year old whiskey?

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought that once the whiskey was out of the barrel and quit cycling in and out of the oak, it was done aging. calling it "19 year old rye" would be like saying that because it's been in a glass bottle for X years it's actually X + Y year old whiskey.

[ErichPryde]

I think you are right in everything except the age of the whiskey when it was tanked on steel Erik. As I have heard it directly from Julian and from several posts here it was tanked at an age of 19, 5 years.

Leif

[tommyboy38]

Looking over a few of these posts, I think it's time to crack open a bottle of VWFRR. I've seen it in a few outlets but have only seen the 2007 "I" series bottling for some reason.

[cowdery]

The Van Winkle iterations that are described as 18- or 19-years-old were in wood that long. Then he put them in stainless steel. He also never changed the label. I don't believe anyone is counting time in stainless as 'aging,' although Julian was concerned about the affects of oxidation in stainless and speculated about using an inert gas as an air seal, but I don't know if he ever did it. Nothing has ever officially been claimed to be 18- or 19-years-old, but it was commonly known that some of the whiskey he bottled was that old. When Julian thought it was too old he sold it to KBD, who bottled it up as various very old ryes and in at least one case, Julian admitted that if he had known the whiskey was going to go that way with additional aging, he wouldn't have sold it.

[JamesW]

Thanks Chuck. I have to say drinking a "G" bottling that it certainly tastes like it has aged 18 yrs or so. I don't know if these bottlings are in fact that old but I am stunned by how good it is for certain.

[unclebunk]

Thanks Chuck. I have to say drinking a "G" bottling that it certainly tastes like it has aged 18 yrs or so. I don't know if these bottlings are in fact that old but I am stunned by how good it is for certain.

[ErichPryde]

The Van Winkle iterations that are described as 18- or 19-years-old were in wood that long. Then he put them in stainless steel. He also never changed the label. I don't believe anyone is counting time in stainless as 'aging,' although Julian was concerned about the affects of oxidation in stainless and speculated about using an inert gas as an air seal, but I don't know if he ever did it. Nothing has ever officially been claimed to be 18- or 19-years-old, but it was commonly known that some of the whiskey he bottled was that old. When Julian thought it was too old he sold it to KBD, who bottled it up as various very old ryes and in at least one case, Julian admitted that if he had known the whiskey was going to go that way with additional aging, he wouldn't have sold it.

yeah.... I mis-read something and stuck my foot deep into my mouth. this happens occasionally, and I cough up bits of shoe for the next couple of weeks thereafter typically. Eh, I figure it's good for me, not like I get a rubber intake very regularly anyway. :drinking:

[nor02lei]

I did have a side by side of an I and a K bottle a couple of weeks ago. They were quit different despite coming from the same tank. The I bottle had a better nose and a much chewier and sweeter taste, but was over woody in the finish. The K bottle was lighter in general and had a lot of citrus notes. The finish was long and appetising. I did like the K slightly better due to the nice finish.

Leif

[gblick]

I had to come and reread this thread, since I just picked up my very first bottle of VWFRR. It turns out that my bottle is somewhat of a dusty....D2883. It tastes very good!

[tommyboy38]

And I recently picked up a new "A" bottle and enjoye it as much as the other bottles i've tried recently.

[SMOWK]

And I recently picked up a new "A" bottle and enjoye it as much as the other bottles i've tried recently.

All 3 bottles that I've picked up in Maryland over the past year or so have an A on them. Have they really been on the shelf, or sitting around a warehouse, since 1999?

[BourbonJoe]

All 3 bottles that I've picked up in Maryland over the past year or so have an A on them. Have they really been on the shelf, or sitting around a warehouse, since 1999?

NO The lettering system started over again. Nice try Julian.

Joe :usflag:

[p_elliott]

NO The lettering system started over again. Nice try Julian.

Joe :usflag:

Be nice, Julian and Preston are the only ones that will talk directly to us.

[unclebunk]

My "I" bottles have been terrific, but I flew through all four of them and the bunker is now down to one!:bigeyes:

[tommyboy38]

The new "A" bottles aint so bad either!

[JamesW]

My "I" bottles have been terrific, but I flew through all four of them and the bunker is now down to one!:bigeyes:

Me too. I'm treading lightly on the 1/4 btle I have left as only one soldier remains to take its place. :bigeyes:

[JamesW]

(I have the "I" bottling--four to be exact--which should hold me a while.)

I guess it didn't hold long enough! At $42 I'd drink it fast too. Hopefully you can get more in your parts.