An Old Rye

Talk about Tennessee, American and Rye Whiskey here.

Moderator: Squire

An Old Rye

Unread postby Bourbon Joe » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:54 pm

I took along a 1916 version ( bottled in 1930) of 100 proof Old Overholt to the Bistro gathering on the Wednesday before the KBF. I asked Mike Veach to honor us by opening it.
It was shared with friends here in Louisville and also at the "Gazebo" table in Bardstown. It was one fine rye whiskey. When the bottle was empty, I donated it to the Getz Museum. Attached is a photo of Mike opening the bottle.
Joe
Attachments
image1.jpg
image1.jpg (83.59 KiB) Viewed 10520 times
Colonel Joseph B. "Bourbon Joe" Koch

Bourbon, It's cheaper than therapy!
User avatar
Bourbon Joe
Erudite Bourbonite
Erudite Bourbonite
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania

Unread postby EllenJ » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:52 am

Nice photo, Joe! By the way, does anyone know if the brand is pronounced "Doe-er-ty", "Dower-ty", or "Docker-ty"? The company, which was very prolific and marketed several kinds of liquors under their name, was similar to S.S. Pierce, Mr. Boston, or Austin, Nichols, in that they presented their idea of the "best of the best". One important difference is that Dougherty made a point of identifying who actually made the whiskey. I think they may have been unique in that.
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:05 pm

I was lucky enough to taste this at the subsequent Gazebo.

(I think the name in question, which sounds classically Irish to me, is pronounced "dougherty's", the dough sounding as in bread dough).

It tasted quite vanilla- and wood-like with an overtone of shellac (in a good way!). I did not notice much charred wood taste. There had been some evaporation so the tones I am referring to may have been intensified as compared what was bottled, but that is really neither here nor there.

With John I tasted recently his pre-Prohibition Old Overholt, so-labelled. There was a definite connection to the Dougherty's version. John's had a spearmint-like top note which I don't recall from the Dougherty's, and was slightly hotter than the latter. It was a privilege of course to taste both.

In terms of a modern whisky that comes close to these, I would say Lot 40 is fairly close. If Lot 40 was bottled unfiltered at 100 proof it might be even closer.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby EllenJ » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:05 am

gillmang wrote:... with an overtone of shellac (in a good way!).

This is an example of why I have so much difficulty with tasting notes, as we discussed at the Cracker Barrel. I'm totally positive that you know what you're talking about, but there's just no way I can understand how an "overtone of shellac" can, in any way, shape, or manner, be thought of as "in a good way". Similarly, the description I usually give of Buffalo Trace (especially the earlier versions) as tasting "musty" or "earthy" is most certainly misinterpreted by those who consider that to be a negative assessment.
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby gillmang » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:00 am

John, I think the answer is, we become habituated to certain flavors. In the well-known phrase, these are acquired tastes.

Why do we like the taste of smoke in a well-cured ham? Originally when meat was smoked to preserve it smoke must have been regarded as a taint. Now it is a mark of a good smoked product.

Same thing with a good Islay whiskey, or with cheese (the taste of a controlled decomposition), etc.

In whiskey, there are a multitude of tastes that we (some people, not all) accustom to. I find the "shellac/varsol" taste, which is whiskey mash fusel oils or other congeners, a trait of most straight whiskeys (and low proof alcohols in general). In some it is stronger than in others, however. I like the taste when it is well balanced by good wood extract, alcohol and the natural solids of an aged drink. If the taste is not there at all, the whiskey seems bland to me.

I find (as e.g. Chuck does in his book) regular Jack Daniels to have a shellac-like taste and smell, it seems part of its character (together with candy and anise notes, charred and fresh wood flavors, etc.). Personally I have not accustomed to the taste of regular Jack but I like the single barrel version a lot. I think this is because the various notes just get a better balance in that form.

I don't drink much malt whisky these days but when I do, and regardless of type, I generally note "lanolin oils" to a degree. Again, that is an acquired taste for most malt whisky fans. They may not choose that term to define the taste although many people do or use similar expressions (waxy, polished leather, etc.).

Of course, an overwhelming taste of solvent or other waxy notes might be unpleasant. I do not find this in the old ryes I've had, and some seem to have hardly any of it, e.g., I think the Baltimore taste tended more towards sweet, fruity tastes. Maybe originally this was done to cover over the taste of the natural whiskey. But I think the Monongahela style was enjoyed, well, unvarnished. :) Do you remember at the end of the Bready article he offered a taste note (I think actually it was his wife's) that used an expression similar to shellac or wax polish to describe the taste of a circa-1918 rye?

There are again other tastes of traditional rye, e.g., mint or spearmint, a bread-like taste, a roses-like taste, a certain fruity quality, etc.

Lot 40 and some of the Old Potrero products to my taste offer a lot of the waxy-like element of straight rye whiskey. In the more "commercial" ryes (WT's, Rittenhouse's) it is there but in a much lesser amount. I find the taste relatively strong in Pikesville rye. Jim Murray called the smell a mix of new car interior and English cider. I wouldn't use those terms but I know what he means!.

The whole idea of Canadian whisky was to moderate that taste by blending it with lots of (ultimately aged) high proof spirit, and the original makers hit on a great formula in commercial terms. American whisky, the blended article, is the same idea.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:52 am

Joe,
This was a very good rye whiskey. The longer it breathed, the better it tasted. It took some time for some of the best flavors to work themselves to the front of the taste. I find this interesting because I read something in Taylor's letters that stated that a bourbon, like a wine should be decanted and allowed to breath before serving. He was talking about decanting it from the barrel at the time, but I have to wonder if the same would be true for a bottled product. In those days their filtering systems were very simple paper filters designed to catch the loose charcoal and they left a lot of the vegtable oils that are removed today. It could be that a little air time is needed to let some of the less pleasant oders from these oil to dissapate.
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby scratchline » Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:45 pm

Mike or Gary or anyone else, do you know how and when the filtering processes have changed through the years? I ask because when we tasted our ryes last night (details to follow in another thread) the Pennsylvania-distilled Old Overholt 86 came out very close to the Classic Cask 15 yr 90 proof. This is the same 70's Old Overholt that we tried at the Bistro, Mike. It's labeled "four years old". But the color and flavor were much closer to the older rye than I expected. I'm wondering if the filtering of the whiskey may have changed even since the 70's? Thanks.

-Mike
"There exist mighty dogs, the dangerous kind who take hold of your heart and do not let go."

-Vicki Hearne
scratchline
Registered User
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:13 pm
Location: NYC

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:42 pm

Mike,
The use of chill filtering is fairly recent - I want to say sometime in the late 60's early 70's. It was probably the 1980's before it became widespread. It is funny you should ask that question because John Lipman was stating the same thing to me just the other day. The change in taste for bourbon probably is a result of 1) the use of chill filtering, plus 2) the increase in barrel proof. Both changes happen at about the same time - the early 1980's.
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby cowdery » Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:42 am

Chill filtering probably came in as part of the trend to lower proofs. Whiskey bottled at 100 proof or higher generally doesn't show any chill haze, only lower proof bottlings do. When retailers complained about the haze, the producers looked into it, figured out what it was and came up with chill filtering to correct it. Before sub-100 proofs came in, there wouldn't have been any call for it.
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago

Unread postby EllenJ » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:10 am

What I've learned recently from Jay Erisman, Drinks Magazine feature writer and spirits guru for Party Source in Bellevue, is that chill-filtering, while arguably unnecessary for proofs above 100, are, in practice, universally applied regardless of the bottling proof, and have been since around the early 80s. With the exception of a very few single malt scotch whiskys and three American bourbons (Geo.Stagg, Booker, and Tho.Handy) all whiskey is chill-filtered. Okay, Handy isn't bourbon, but you get the idea.

What does chill-filtering do? If you have a bottle of either of those three you can tell in a minute. Using Chuck's formula for adjusting proof (it's in his book, Bourbon, Straight -- available at http://cowdery.home.netcom.com), reduce the 8-9 year old Booker to 100 proof. Now do a side-by-side with Knob Creek. Reduce the George T. Stagg to 90 proof and compare to Elmer T. Lee (allowing for the fact that the ETL is probably somewhat younger). Thomas Handy, diluted to the same proof as Sazerac Rye (I prefer it even lower, myself) has twice the flavor, and tastes a lot like the way old Pennsylvania and Maryland rye used to taste. That's what chill-filtering does for whiskey.

Jay suggests that whiskey-lovers adopt a motto: Drink it Proud and Cloudy!
I heartily agree.
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:36 pm

John,
You forgot William LaRue Weller on your list of Barrel Proof, Unfiltered products.

It should be noted that the lower the proof, the more chill filtering has to be done to prevent the cloudiness, thus the more flavor removed.
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.


Return to Non-Bourbon Whiskey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests