gillmang wrote:This was 1875 and the question is, did the same occur in 1775? I think it did on a small scale.
I wouldn't be so cavalier about the extent to which things can change in 100 years.
My personal belief is that the benefits of aging in wood were not unknown in the 18th century or even earlier, either generally or on the western frontier. That aging would have been generally practiced in 18th century Pennsylvania, Kentucky or Tennessee is unlikely simply because the supply/demand curve was such that aging was a luxury they couldn't afford. My contention all along has been that speculation about when aging was "discovered," at least in the context of the western frontier in the 18th century, begins with the false assumption that it was "discovered" in that place and time.
We shouldn't be talking in terms of knowledge. Let's take as a given that the benfits of aging were known, if not universally, then at least widely.
The more I learn, the more convinced I become that the benefits of aging in wood were known, if not to all then to many, but aging was not generally practiced until the mid-19th century for a variety of reasons.
Taxes or no, the producer wanted to sell the product as soon as possible after it was made. If we want to talk about aging
by producers, we're talking about something that didn't become universal until the end of the 19th century, when people like Taylor began to see the benefit of the producer, rather than the distributor, controlling the product.
With distributors, it is very had to separate aging from doctoring.