Journeying Bourbon Road - Many Questions

BTW, I'm currently trying to catch up (via Wiki) on info about Bourbon. I'm a little concerned about additives as I am with Canadian whisky. I'm exploring what is named "Straight Bourbon", a wee bit confusing.

To get you started, here's a bit of info:

-Anything labeled straight bourbon (or straight rye) has NO additives. That's one thing we Americans got right ;-) -Most bourbons are filtered, though. Chill-filtration is common even in higher-proof bourbons, and charcoal filtration is also used. Some non-chill filtered bourbons include Booker's and Jack Daniel's Single Barrel, and many premium offerings. -It is all aged in new charred oak - no refill casks. A few bourbons are now appearing with wine-cask finishes, but still very rare. -Primary difference (akin to scotch regional styles) is mashbill: what percentages of grains make up the spirit? All bourbon contains at least 51% corn, and usually 5-10% barley just for the enzymes. The rest could be filled with wheat or rye (and/or more corn). "Wheaters" (e.g. Maker's Mark) are the minority and have a softer, less spicy flavor profile. Rye-recipe bourbons can have a moderate amount of rye (around 10-15%, e.g. Eagle Rare, Knob Creek) or a high amount of rye (around 30%, e.g. Four Roses Single Barrel).

Hope this helps to get you started coming over from a scotch mindset!

To be clear, the higher amount of rye typically equates to more peppery spice.

@valuewhisky Thanks.

I came across an interesting calculator this morning. Basically, it was the mount of water needed to change the proof of a bourbon.

I notice that many bourdons are above 40 % . "Proof" is a word that I haven't usually associated with purchasing whisky.

With Scotch, water can play a significant role. Adding a teaspoon to a dram might "open up" more or different flavours. Or too much might "drown" your drink.

Is there a "role" for water in bourbon that is similar?

@SlowPuffs I don't think there is a major difference. The water keeps opening the whisky and revealing more flavors. This is chemistry and works for Scotch, Bourbons and whisky from the rest of the world. Btw. 100 proof means 50% in the US (and Canada?) and 40% for Scotch as far as I know. Just as an information.

@valuewhisky not only corn, rye, wheat and barley, Bourbons also include all other kinds of grain or am I wrong here?

@Wills and @SlowPuffs, legally, bourbons can contain other grains than corn, rye, wheat, and barley. In practice, that is at this time extremely rare. The typical bourbons are made with around 10% malted barley, for, as valuewhisky correctly points out, the enzymes involved. In my experience it is next to impossible to taste barley in any American whiskey, because the flavours of rye, new oak, and wheat are so much stronger and more dominating. Corn gives a lot of body to a whiskey, and often some oiliness, but for flavour it also generally takes a back seat, that is, if you can taste it at all. Bourbons are all about the flavours of rye and new oak 95% of the time, and in the other 5% of the time, wheat and new oak.

Bourbons only need by law to be 2 years old. Four years is a basic standard and was the basis for the Bottled in Bond status (four years old, 50% ABV, and distillate production within the same year) which the US Government enforced until about 50 years ago. Most bourbon observers believe that bourbons rich a sweet spot in aging around 6 to 9 years. Because of the climate in much of bourbon aging country, especially Kentucky, the undiluted barrel proof (aka 'cask strength') bourbons (and rye whiskeys) can reach rather great % ABV in the barrels of the older whiskeys. I recently reviewed a 73.75% ABV bourbon, and I see that Mr. Murray has turned up some bourbon at 82.7% ABV. As you might imagine, the flavours can be extremely concentrated.

Apart from the distiller's skill, and the master distiller's judgment regarding the relative maturity and quality of barrels, the biggest merit of American whiskeys in general can be summed up in two words: NEW OAK.

@SlowPuffs As for water, what @Wills said was correct. However, I think that adding water would not be considered part of the typical bourbon culture. I rarely hear of American bourbon drinkers adding a few drops of water to try and open up flavors; more just to tame a high-proof whiskey if at all. Maybe I'm off-base here and Connosr members might disagree.

@Victor - not to be picky, but there is no minimum age for a whiskey to be called bourbon. As long as it is put into a new charred barrel, it can be called bourbon (assuming it meets all the other requirements). The 2 year minimum age is the requirement for it to be called Straight Bourbon.

@TomH, not picky at all. You are correct, that was my oversight. It is indeed STRAIGHT Bourbon Whiskey that is required to be aged 2 years.

@Victor @TomH now there's an interesting area... "age statement" Just a glance at my cabinet, most of the Scotch has an age statement. There seems with Scotch, that the older age statement, the more cherished the bottle is. I get the impression that if you had a 30 y.o. there was a "special wow" factor. Am I correct is the beginnings of my research, that there is point of deminishing returns with aging Bourbon. That 20 y.o is pushing the upper limit.

@SlowPuffs Taste is obviously a subjective thing, but you are right about a large difference in acceptable age between scotch and bourbon. Many master distillers will tell you the sweet spot for aging is around 6-8 years and pooh-pooh those of us that chase the older stuff (though they seem to find some older barrels that they're comfortable selling to us at higher prices .

My personal taste favors 15-17 YO bourbons....I think most bourbons older than that are too woody for my taste (though I have friends that love the older woody stuff). I have tasted (and still have a bottle) of a 27 YO Barrel Strength Stitzel Wller (bottled by Willett) that was not too woody. I have found that the few bottles 20 YO that I enjoy need to be cask strength......adding water brings out more wood.

I have found that older Ryes handle wood better and I have some 21 and 23 YO ryes I like....the 25 YO's I've tried have too much wood for me.

@SlowPuffs, just as taste is individual, so are individual barrels. An old bourbon can be too woody or not too woody. My favourite bourbons are typically 18 years old and 68 to 69 % ABV. In the case of older (eg more than 10 years old) bourbons, it is the skill of the master distiller deciding on when the maturation time is ideal that will determine how well the final product tastes.

If you are looking for the ages associated with the highest quality, that will in my book be anything from 6 to 18 years, but it could be longer in some cases.

And yes, many of those old Rittenhouse and Willett Ryes are terrific beyond 20 years. Jim Murray's comments on the 21 and 25 yo Rittenhouse Ryes are right on the money. Many of those are a trip and a half in a good way. But some of them don't work. It is a matter of the individual barrel.

As to @TomH's comments about water undesirably bringing out too much wood, or weaknesses in the wood, I made that exact comment in my recent review of 17 yo Abraham Bowman Bourbon, bottled May 11, 2012, at 73.75% ABV. Fantastic bourbon, but I won't be drinking it with water.

@Victor and @TomH are certainly right about the age thing - yes bourbon gets very woody much faster than scotch. Some work and some don't, and it's a matter of taste as well. I think the 6-8 year range really is the point of optimum balance in most cases. Once you get older, you tip the scales and the bourbon is generally quite oaky. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just no longer balanced (usually). Balance isn't a necessary thing, however. Ardbeg 10 isn't balanced - it's a peat-bomb. But people still love it. Elijah Craig 12 year old isn't balanced - it's oak heavy - but it's still good. Go try Booker's bourbon for an example of exceptional balance - it's aged 6-7 years. What makes a truly special bourbon is one that is older but still retains its balance. Probably the best bourbon I've had was a 14 y.o. Wild Turkey special release - it was oaky yet somehow less oaky and much more balanced than many younger bourbons.

Thx to all of your great comments I have to pour a Bourbon right now!

And I like your statement @valuewhisky, balance isn't everything.

I'm not sure where to start. I read in one place that a nice approach might be to do a side by side of wheaty and a rye bourbon and compare. I don't think I'm ready to go "high proof". Is Buffalo Trace wheat or rye? Knob Creek 9 wheat or rye? With scotch, it seemed fairly logical: Aberlour 10, The Glenlivet 12, HP 12 and Laphroaig QC. I remember the Laphroaig QC initial experience - what have I done! Now Laphroaig is near the top of my likes... So I have the time & patience... but need a gentle but rewarding starting place :)

@SlowPuffs, this is pretty straightforward with bourbons: just get started sampling. The only tricky thing for you in Vancouver is having lesser selection available, and usually having to play Canadian prices for them. Down here it is literally true that it is cheaper for me to buy a 750 ml bottle of some lower shelf bourbons for a sample than to buy one drink of them out at a nice bar or restaurant.

About 95% of bourbons are made with rye and not wheat. The big brands of wheaters are Weller, Van Winkle, Maker's Mark, Old Fitzgerald, and Rebel Yell.

The reviews on Connosr give a lot of information. It's easy to find out about all of these things.

My suggestions for a very first bourbon: Evan Williams Single Barrel or Eagle Rare 10 Single Barrel. Those two are very easy for malt drinkers to access.

@SlowPuffs If I had to come up with a bourbon starting point analogous to your scotch "starting 4," I would have to say: Buffalo Trace (medium rye), Four Roses Single Barrel (high rye, not overly oaky, very smooth despite 50% abv), Maker's Mark (wheater, could substitute Weller 12), Rittenhouse Rye (a low-rye straight rye, i.e. more rye than a high-rye bourbon), Knob Creek (medium rye, heavy oak). So, that's 4 bourbons plus one rye. There's certainly plenty of substitutions you could make if you want.

@Victor @valuewhisky Well I jumped the gun. My intention was just to go look around at a couple places nearby and come back and ponder. I guess I am not as patience as I thought. Here's what I came home with: Eagle Rare single barrel, Jefferson's Reserve and Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit. These will go with the Buffalo Trace I got yesterday. Why I choose these is basically because of some reading I have done the last few days and availability locally. I see I got a couple that you folks suggested and hopefully the other two will be adventurous and enjoyable. Thank you as I open the Eagle Rare for a try now...

@SlowPuffs, your lack of patience is very commendable. Now you have a good bit to chew on.

I survived !!

Actually from years of assessing pipe tobacco varities, I have become quite deliberate in my approach and firmly believe that one needs to give a "fair" time for an evaluation. One pipeful sample isn't nearly enough. For me, it's a 2oz tin.

With spirits, there is the added effect of alcohol consumption.

Anyway I ventured forward and dipped my toe in the waters with Rare Eagle Single Barrel. I jotted down notes for a "possible" future review. I've never written one before so I hesitate. Especially after one dram. Besides my taste buds are not keen, like others IMHO. But I will be keeping notes and share them in some manner.

I really want to compare other bourbons before going into detail. I'll just share my approach. I poured one small dram in a Glencairn glass and let it sit while nosing it occasionally. After a period of time, I ventured forward with one sip. Then added just a wee bit of water and eventually finished the dram, jotting drown a few notes along the way. Appromimately an hour with it. I share this as a way of saying, I feel my approach will be "fair". I quickly realized that I had no comparative reference point, i.e a side by with another bourbon. This will happen as I delve into other bourbons over the next few days. If you can suggest something that might be helpful to add to this approach, please feel free to share.

Question: where does the sweetness in bourbon come from?

@SlowPuffs, answering your last question first: the sweetness in all bourbon without additives, which is maybe 97% of bourbons by numbers of labels, near 100% until very recently, comes from NEW OAK. New oak is full of sugar, and it dumps into the whisky. Until all of that recent Honey-this and Red Stag- that crap of the last few years of trying (successfully, in the US) to win over women drinkers, there was almost never anything ever added to a bourbon. If there are additives they have to be declared on the label. You can be certain that there are no additives in Eagle Rare bourbon. This is not Canadian whisky where anything goes with 9.09% potential additives, and they won't tell you what's in it.

One time comment on Eagle Rare 10: it opens up a lot with some time and oxidation also. I didn't greatly love my bottle of it right at first, but after some months I really did and do love it. Many like it better at first than I did, however.

One other general comment: any new taste profile will take a bit of time to adjust to. For me, I am in completely different mindsets when I alternate my cravings for the 6 or 8 major different sets of flavour profiles among all styles of world whisky.

@Victor Yeah and European new oak is again another story. Do I understand you right that up to 9% in Canadian whisky can be anything?

@Wills, 9.09% of Canadian whiskies can be additives, unspecified, not necessarily whisky or whisky-related. Caramel is common, of course, as is sherry, I believe. What else is there? Who knows? The Canadian distillers know, and really only the Canadian distillers know.

Thx. Well I am not eager to try them then. There are so many other interesting drams to taste.

@Wills @victor - re: Canadian whisky - that may be unfair. True, many of the bottom shelf Canadian whiskies are, quite frankly, awful, but there are some superlative Canadian whisky that is 100% rye (Alberta Premium) or 100% corn (Century Reserve 21). With some of the newer whiskies - such as Alberta Premium Dark Horse - the distillers have been pretty open about what kind of grain whisky has been blended together (winter wheat, rye, corn, barley, etc.), although they haven't given out the exact percentages. With Dark Horse the proportion is 8.5% bourbon, 0.5% sherry, and the remaining 91% is is 100% rye whisky with no additional additives.

@Wills - it would be a mistake to pass up something Alberta Premium 30yr, Danfields 21yr, or Century Reserve 21yr if you had the opportunity.

@YakLord The 0.5% sherry is an interesting comment. I wonder what percentage of "sherry-finished" scotch is really just added sherry? I think those wine-finished scotches really are just an excuse to put a little wine into the whisky, but I have a feeling whisky enthusiasts wouldn't like seeing "sherry added 0.5%" rather than "sherry cask finished."

Sorry we're off the original discussion topic here.

At one time, I have a massive collection of Canadian Whisky, but most of it gone now. I usually keep a Forty Creek on the shelf. When I first joined whiskyconnosr, I read through most of the past posts. I was quite taken that Victor had/is spending so much time exploring Canadian Whisky. On the whole, I think Victor has been spot on in his assesments IMHO. I admire him for bringing his curiosity to the Canadian scene. I, for one, haven't come across this kind of critique of Canadian whisky anywhere else. Usually, all I have seen are general dismissals of Canadian Whiskey as a "whole". There are some gems, but IMHO, there are too few.

This is an update. The Bourbon journey is an interesting and fascinating adventure, and if you have the time and patience, well worthwhile. It is far more complex than I could have ever imagined.

Bourbon is a breed unto itself. With my first serious “neat dram” at 90 Proof, I encountered unfamiliar territory of pronounced floral notes, bold sweetness and burn, burn, burn, burn. Looking back, I can smile and look at this as a “rite of passage”.

I’m very early in the process, but have sampled 7 different bourbons. In reading and in bottle labelling, I have encountered a whole new vocabulary. Here are a few words or phrases: Hand-Bottled in Limited Quantity; Hand Selected by our Master Distiller; Hand-Made Kentucky Bourbon; BIB (bottled in bond) Genuine Old Line Sour Mash; Very Small Batch; Proof; Age Statement: simply states “Very Old”.

I have literally shed blood by cutting my finger while trying to get the wax seal off one bottle, before I realized there’s a proper way to get the cork out.

I have developed a “personal review” template that is helpful in my assessments, and I am nearly finishing my second “dram” for each bottle, using a different colour print for each time tried. The reviewers here should be commended as this is very helpful.

At this stage, the two qualities that I have appreciated are balance and smoothness. By balance, I mean between sweetness and burn. When this is achieved, I am very pleased. I am not concerned, at least at this point, about complexity or identifying and naming specific tastes. Three Bourbons stand above the others in this area so far: Jefferson Reserve, Old Rip Van Winkle 10 y.o. (90 proof) and Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit.

After more time and experience, I may attempt a review or two. I just admire those who have that “gift” in detecting so many nuances in a dram, both through nosing and tasting.

@SlowPuffs...How is the Bourbon Road treating you, three months later? I would repeat Victor's suggestion that, if you can get your hands on it, a bottle of Evan Williams Single Barrel (the distillation year is shown on the front label, and the handwrite the specific distillation and bottling dates on the back label) is a very worthwhile acquisition. To me, it presents the essence of the bourbon profile (wood, vanilla, other sweet notes, some spice, etc.) in a very balanced and clear manner. It is a little unusual in that it is bottled at only 43% (very low by bourbon standards), but I think this is actually a benefit in this particular case.

When you're ready to 'step up' to barrel proof bourbons, Booker's Small Batch is my favourite so far in the 'fairly easily available' category.