Hirsch Selection American Whiskey 20

[Gillman]

A corn spirit distilled at a low proof (under 160) and aged in used barrels would taste like one of the Heaven Hill corn whiskeys, e.g., Mellow Corn (or at least that is one type of such taste). The barrel does not do that much for the whiskey, its grain and oily tastes are preserved more so than if a bourbon barrel had been used.

For rye aged in such a barrel, the Old Potrero 18th Century-style rye whiskey gives an example.

Even Early Times gives a partial indication since it uses both new and reused barrels in maturation.

I think the reused barrel, as for Scots, Irish and Canadian whiskies, just doesn't do that much for the whiskey. It imparts a light woody note and with very long maturation, assists to create some fine tastes, but overall gives much less to the spirit than new charred wood. The latter gives the rich wood gums, caramelised by the heavy charring and that works a different (and faster) kind of maturation on the spirit.

That 20 year Hirsch whiskey aged in reused wood would be interesting since it is a chance to see if such long storage can result in something of the quality of the best long-aged malt whiskies.

The same would be true of any long-aged corn whiskey, which was available 100 years ago but not today, all corn whiskey is 4 years old maximum at sale I believe. A partial exception is Hotalings rye aged 11 years or so in reused wood, from Anchor Distilling - it is good but still pretty pungent and forward - I wonder what 5 more years in the barrel would have done.

I think the new charred wood approach for American straights came about because the wood was plentiful and cheap, it flavored the whiskey nicely and (most important) the whiskey became saleable at a relatively young age (2-8 years of age generally) - you didn't have to put it away for 12-20 years like malt whisky to get optimum results.

Gary

[B1bomber]

I have to agree with Vange. I found it average at best. And bearing the great "Hirsch" name had me expecting much, much more. Truth is, it doesn't even deserve to be associated with Hirsch, given the standard set by the impeccable 16 y.o. bourbon.

I probably won't buy it again. There are much better options at that price.

[Gillman]

This may suggest that a bourbon or rye mash just doesn't have much potential in re-used wood beyond 4 years or so, i.e., sale at the younger stage is suitable because much of the grain character is preserved (which some people want), but beyond that the wood doesn't seem to do much for it unlike the case with long-aged malts. This may be why the quality end of American whiskey was and remains such mashes aged for a not over-long time in new charred wood.

Gary

[fenderbender4]

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but worth it or not worth it at $79?

[jaxn slim]

2 hours ago, fenderbender4 said:

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but worth it or not worth it at $79?

I came across a bottle recently at the same price and pulled the trigger.  I haven't opened it, yet, though.  I'm also curious.

[garbanzobean]

I like the nose on it.  It does not taste particularly good to me, but I have had success blending overly young or oaky whiskies with this and making something not only better than the sum of its parts, but legitimately very good and even engaging.  I just poured the last of it into my cask ends/mixer decanter this past holiday weekend, actually.

[fenderbender4]

23 hours ago, garbanzobean said:

I like the nose on it.  It does not taste particularly good to me, but I have had success blending overly young or oaky whiskies with this and making something not only better than the sum of its parts, but legitimately very good and even engaging.  I just poured the last of it into my cask ends/mixer decanter this past holiday weekend, actually.

 

Interesting!  Thanks for the info.