Stitzel & Weller.... Why is it special??

[cigarnv]

After being introduced to some early/mid-80's Stitzel & Weller made old Fitz by the Bourbon Brothers (thanks Mark and Greg) it is clear that something special was in place to make whiskey that is/was so unique in any number of ways. So what is it that makes the Stitzel & Weller so unique..is it the grain they had access to, something unique about the still, the recipe, barrels that were different in some way, the special touch of the master distiller, location of the aging barns, ????

So what is it that made Stitzel & Weller unique among it's peers?

[OldJack]

I don't know the answer, but I do know that the Weller Antique being made by Buffalo Trace is great, but the old bottle from the 80s my father opened up two years ago was better.

[mozilla]

After being introduced to some early/mid-80's Stitzel & Weller made old Fitz by the Bourbon Brothers (thanks Mark and Greg) it is clear that something special was in place to make whiskey that is/was so unique in any number of ways. So what is it that makes the Stitzel & Weller so unique..is it the grain they had access to, something unique about the still, the recipe, barrels that were different in some way, the special touch of the master distiller, location of the aging barns, ????

So what is it that made Stitzel & Weller unique among it's peers?

IMO, there are hundreds of factors that guide a bourbon to its flavor profile...maybe even more. Each one pushes or detracts the product in its direction to finality. What the SW facility created can't ever be recreated by another facitlity, because no one will ever be able to recreate all the minor factors that were available to SW back then(pre 1972). They made many choices that were not cost effective to the bottom line. Remember they made bourbon at a loss...if necessary. Find a CEO who will admit to that these days.

In short, they did things with love and care. It really showed in the final product.

[mgilbertva]

I'd like to add to Jeff's comments.

Part of S-W's uniqueness was the dedication to quality put in place by Pappy Van Winkle. For instance, he used higher quality barrels made in such a way as to increase the bourbon's exposure to the wood. So part of the answer is a set of procedures and priorities that presumably anyone similarly motivated could duplicate, or at least mimic given enough experience, difficult though that may be. Unfortunately, that kind of dedication is rare today.

Then, of course, there's the recipe and yeast. Both are industrial secrets carefully guarded. But again, something that presumably could be duplicated if someone got ahold of that recipe and a sample of the yeast.

But there's more to it than that. Each distillery has a unique flavor profile that is a function of all the individual parts, the micro-chemistry if you will. These are matters of accident: a still was made one way as a result of the manufacturing process, imperfections or slight variations that weren't planned but nevertheless contribute to the final product. (It's the same thing with wine: the micro-changes in climate, harvesting methods and so on all contribute to the final product making the difference between a good and an exceptional vintage.) Overhaul the column still and the flavor unavoidably changes. This means that flavor changes over time even for a single distillery.

Of course, it's not just mechanical imponderables that determine the end product. Part of it is the unique "genius" of the master distiller. What the Van Winkles picked out and blended is going to be different than someone else.

Add all of this up and you get something that may be utterly unique and probably unrepeatable.

Herein lies the origin of our collective insanity. :crazy:

[StraightNoChaser]

I wonder this exact same thing so often. I've heard stories like low distillation and barrel entry proof, specialized cooperage and high wheat mashbill, etc, but I've never been able to verify any of them

[BourbonJoe]

I agree that many factors influenced the S-W taste profile. Whatever the combination, there will never be a bourbon like Stitzel-Weller again. Such a pity. Drink 'em if you got 'em.

Joe :usflag:

[cowdery]

The still design was unusual, and copied by Maker's Mark, but it can never be narrowed down to any one thing. Other key factors were low distillation and entry proof, and the wheated recipe.

[Tom Troland]

I’ve tasted a number of Stitzel-Weller whiskeys; for example, a bottled-in-bond Very Very Old Fitzgerald 12 year old, a 16 year old Van Winkle Family Reserve, and the more recent Pappy bottles. They were certainly very good (the 16 year old was my favorite). But I question the notion that Stitzel-Weller is a notch above current production, or even significantly different, given the normal range of taste profiles in the bourbon industry.

As we all know, each distillery has a characteristic taste profile (or profiles) that are fascinating to compare. And these differences surely result from myriad variables in the distillation and aging processes. But how might one argue (for example) that Wild Turkey bourbons are superior to those from Buffalo Trace? Or vice versa? It is all a matter of personal taste, of course. Just as some people’s personal taste might favor Stitzel-Weller bourbons over those of Buffalo Trace. Or Wild Turkey. Or Coke over Pepsi.

Most of the commotion about Stitzel-Weller, I am convinced, is nostalgia coupled with scarcity. Just like the Hirsch (aka Michter) bourbons from Pennsylvania. I’ve tried these, too. Again, good stuff, but not obviously superior to, or wildly different from, current production. At least to my taste. Also, was the famous Pappy Van Winkle more concerned about quality than current distillers like Jimmy Russell or Harlen Wheatley? Was Van Winkle more of a genius? I doubt it. But it is always fun to talk nostalgically about the good old days when men were men, dogs were dogs, and distillers took a cost-be-damned attitude to their whiskeys. But the good old days, I suspect, were no better than the present, and they were generally worse.

I have occasionally had the experience of trying a bourbon (or other spirit) bottled long ago. Frequently I have found that the older bottle tastes better. The best example in my experience was the pre-Prohibition bourbon offered by Mike Veach at a bourbon tasting. I was astonished by how good the old bourbon was. Mike speculated that the difference might be low barrel entry proof. But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding? If so, then this effect might also explain claims on this forum that older Maker’s Mark tastes better. Even though folks at Maker’s Mark swear it is the same stuff down through the years.

So I’m looking forward someday to comparing two Buffalo Trace Single Oak Project bottles with different barrel entry proofs (105 vs. 125). Then I’ll know if barrel entry proof makes a big difference, as Mike Veach suggests. (Chuck mentions the same thing in his book.) If barrel entry proof does not matter, then I’ll guess that age in the bottle likely improves a spirit. Sometimes at least. If barrel entry proof does make a big difference, then I hope distillers will provide more low entry proof whiskeys to the market. Just as, according to Chuck’s book, they did before Prohibition.

Has anyone already made the barrel entry proof comparison with BT Single Oak Project bottles? The third release offers this opportunity.

[StraightNoChaser]

I also noticed that older bottlings I've had the opportunity to taste share a distinct roundness and fruitiness to them that just doesn't exist in currently produced offerings. This includes an OC7BiB from the 80's, Weller Centennial, a '84 FC7/103, '88 DSPKY16 OFBiB, etc

[birdman1099]

But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding? .

[T Comp]

And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!

[stevegoz]

Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?

[Brisko]

Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?

[soad]

But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding?

[tigerlam92]

Discussion are getting very interested. Thanks for people's input. I am very much interested.

While I do not know what is special in term of production wise, I know that in term of my tastes and preference, I really like the good SW over anything current. It's just different and better. Even the 8 years aged all blow away anything current (even well aged) in terms of nose, color, taste profile, balance, smoothness, etc. Perhaps the key here is the balance and that all aspects are great.

It's perhaps all the millions of minute details that happen to click into place and with someone with the magic touch to recognize it and believe in it's greatness.

If we can identify the 10 major most impactful factors and which has degraded since then that would be a great intellectual exercise. However, likely, we may not be able to repeat SW and that would be unfortunate.

Cheers

--Hugh

[ggilbertva]

Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?

It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.

[StraightNoChaser]

It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.

4R, IMO, is the closest thing we have today that resembles the old school style.

[DeanSheen]

And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Special dispensation because it is of course Stitzel Weller! :bowdown::deadhorse:

[p_elliott]

It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.

[MacinJosh]

I'm currently reading But Always Fine Bourbon and it is certainly an educational asset on the old SW distillery and the way they operated back then.

A must read for any SW enthusiast.

Josh

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cowdery]

It is my understanding that some if not all the distilleries refuse to use GM corn. Reason being that if a few years down the road it's determined that GM is unsafe they would have to dump all their aging and aged bourbon. This would be financially disastrous.

They mostly use non-GM because the export market expects it. To the extent concerns about GM corn are absurd, double that for corn-based distillates.

There are enough real things in this world to worry about.

[Josh]

And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!

[Brisko]

It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before).

Doesn't have to be GM-- they've been tweaking it for years through traditional breeding.

[cowdery]

What protein there is in corn has no impact on the whiskey-making process. It all winds up in the spent grain. What the yeast, and thus the distillers, want is starch that can be converted into sugar and thus into alcohol. So from our standpoint, anything that increases the starch content is good.

[ILLfarmboy]

Even if a genetically modified product was determined to be unsafe, unfit for human consumption or use in animal feed, what biological remains in a distilled spirit. I mean, if there was enough glucose stored in a cow brain infected with BSE couldn't you use it to make a distilled spirit and that spirit would be perfectly safe to drink?

There are enough real things in this world to worry about.

Dang, I actually agree with Chuck. That's unusual.