BourbonEnthusiast.com

I have a bottle of Jim Beam that was bottled in 1976 after aging 8 years.
It has a gold label.

I was wondering if anyone had a clue if it was worth anything.

Thanks

I personally like Beam from this era. As to what your bottle may be worth, I think possibly not too much as Beam decanters from 1976 are sold all the time on E-Bay for between 10 and 20 bucks. My suggestion is to drink it.
Joe

Thanks for the reply but the bottle is just a standard bottle...not a decanter.

These days they sell it as Knob Creek.

jlinder wrote:These days they sell it as Knob Creek.

That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that? I take it this product is also 100 proof?

Does the label say "Jim Beam" or "Beam's" something?

Beam has always been an interesting company. Back before the National Distillers acquisition (1987) they made a vast array of different products, whiskey and others, all with "Beam" in the name, including my favorite, Beamero Tequila.

I say they would call it Knob Creek now because of the year in which it was barrelled, 1968...and the year in which it was bottled, 1976.

I haven't checked the proof in a while so I'm not sure.

I apologize for posting again...but it looks like the standard Jim Beam Label but for the fact that the backround is gold and the lettering is predominately black.

Other that that it looks like the standard squarish Jim Beam 5th.

I may not have mentioned that the Bicentennial Decanters contained 100 month old Beam whiskey (quite good).
Joe

Knob Creek is nine years old and 100 proof. Beam's Black Label, predecessor to the current Jim Beam black label, was generally 8 years old (though sometimes 7) and 90 proof.

Part of my curiosity is because, when Jim Beam Black Label was launched, the company stated that it was the first time any product other than white label had carried the Jim Beam name. Prior to that, every "other" product had been named "Beam's" something-or-other, i.e., Beam's Black Label, Beam's Five Star, and so on.

Therefore, the bottle you describe is at least an anomaly.

A picture would be nice.

How did I know that a picture would be the next request?

I will have to actually transport the bottle and get a picture of it to post.

Hopefully I can do that tonight!

I can't get the guy with the camera but I found a similar bottle on-line.

The color scheme is the same but my bottle says "BONDED BEAM" and the design is a little different.

I will post a picture as soon as I can get a camera.

Thanks

Well that that DOES blow everything to bits, doesn't it?
What you've got is Bonded Beam, a fine product that, at 100 proof and eight years, may well have been a precursor to Knob Creek. But that's exactly what Chuck was saying -- it says "Beam" but not "Jim Beam".
Then you show us a photo you think of as similar, but that isn't Bonded Beam at all, even though it's obviously Jim Beam Bonded Bourbon. I've never seen a label like that. I suspect the website you found that on is in Asia or Europe.
Here is a photo of Bonded Beam that I have;
Is this more like the one you have?
And for Chuck, the second photo is Jim Beam Rye. I don't know when the black label came out but this was bottled in 1978 and says Jim Beam. Interestingly, though, although it says that on the label, the neckband just says "Beam Rye"

John,
The question is which came first - Jim Beam Black or Jim Beam Rye? If the black label came out before 78 then what Chuck says is completely accurate. I do believe that it did come out while I was in High school, about 1975, because I believe we drank some Beam Black at a party one night my senior year - 1976.

Mike Veach

Finally,

Here is a picture of my bottle and the tax stamp.

tax stamp...sorry about that.

Jim Beam Black Label is fairly recent, last ten years, maybe less. Before that there was "Beam's Black Label," a similar product.

As for the "Jim Beam Rye" from 1978, putting the lie to the statement that nothing was ever labeled "Jim Beam" except the white label until Jim Beam Black Label, I will write that off to the people at Beam (my source for the statement) being notoriously cavalier about their own history.