Age versus Maturity

[bourbonv]

Many people think thet age and maturity are the same thing. I think they are totally different animals. Brown Forman and Buffalo Trace heat their warehouses in the winter because they think it matures the whiskey quicker. Others believe only time can bring about the ripening of the bourbon. There are some people that think older is better. Here are some of my observations on the subject.

Brown Forman and Buffalo Trace bourbons are different from the bourbons aged without heated, and usually iron clad instead of brick, warehouses. An Old Forester aged for 8 years does seem to have more age than an 8 year old from Beam so there does seem to be some validity to their theory.

I have had bourbons made 30 or more years ago that were only 4-8 years old that also had more barrel flavor than their modern counterparts. Lower distillation and barrel proofs found back then also seemed to mature a bourbon faster.

Not all bourbons get better with age. A 15 year old Pappy is a very good product and his 20 and 23 year old versions proves that a long age can be very bourbon, but you have wonder how many barrels he rejects to find the bourbons for these products that are longer in the barrel. There are many other bourbons being bottled now at 12 or more years, which I think are past their prime and should have been bottled sooner. The majority of prohibition era bourbons are prime examples of over aged bourbons.

I think that knowing when a bourbon is "ripe" as Col. Taylor used to say in the 1890's, is the key to making a good bourbon. I would rather have a 4 year old bourbon that was determined to be ripe by someone who knows what they are doing than a 15 year old that was left in the barrel simply to get the required age for a product.

Mike Veach

[WhiskyPete]

very good theory and I woul agree. Lots of the time you get whisk(e)y which may be old but tastes young and younger spirits that taste older.

This is why I never agree with the theory the older it is the better it is?

I have to admit to being a newby to aged bourbons / american whiskey in general. what older whiskeys would you suggest i try.

Regards

Pete

[bunghole]

You've got that right Professor Veach! Maturity & Age can be one and the same, but as often as not maturity is a barrel by barrel selection process. Look at all the great 'six' year olds on the market; Wild Turkey 101, Maker's Mark, Virginia Gentleman's Fox, and Buffalo Trace to name a few. I doubt that anyone would taste these bourbons and say "Put them back in the barrel. They're not ripe yet.".

Older isn't better - just older. I think that distillers have known this all along and that is why there are so few age statements on the labels.

Scottish whisky, on the other hand, often takes four or five hundred years to properly mature. I for one never drink sc**ch under one thousand years of age. Ususally the casks have dried out by then or the distillery has been struck by lightening and burned down. I really enjoy the 1,000 year old McDonald's that is a nearly empty bottle that contains a simple hand written note - "Filtered By God.". Devine intervention never tasted better!

Pants Away!

Linn -

[angelshare]

We may be novices, but we agree with you Mike. By way of recent example, ER 17 tastes perfectly ripe to us, while Johnny Drum 12 year tastes like somebody forgot about it for a couple of years until they needed something to bottle. I would argue that EC 18 has sat in the barrel so long past ripeness that it really has become an entirely different beverage on my palate - not bad, but not exactly bourbon to my taste, either. Tina loves it, but agrees that it is not a traditional "bourbon" taste.

There are many other bourbons being bottled now at 12 or more years, which I think are past their prime and should have been bottled sooner.

Care to name names?

[TNbourbon]

Ken Weber at Buffalo Trace says that that brand is between 8 and 9 years old.

[bourbonv]

I would place Noah's Mill on the top of that list myself. Corner Creek is another. I am not fond of Elijah Craig at any age, so I don't know if that would be a good example or not.

I think the Birthday Bourbons are a good example of what I am saying as far as maturity. The last version caused an uproar because it was not as old as prvious versions, but I would argue that it was still very good and had reached its maturity. Any older and it may have gone downhill.

I would suggest that you don't let age be your yardstick for trying bourbons. If you want a good bourbon try Old Forester 100 proof, Old Fitgerald 1849, Buffalo Trace, Very Old Barton Bottled in Bond or Wild Turkey 101. These are very good bourbons that don't cost a lot of money, but have tons of flavor.

Mike Veach

[Chris]

To ask a related question, does anyone know if when distilling/barreling bourbon if you intend to have the bourbon 'peak' at a later age, is there something different that is done? Now with Julian working with BT, are they doing anything special to make the pappy 20 that will be bottled 20 years from now, or is it just ''make a lot of bourbon, and have Julian pick the bottles that he realizes will mature nicely in a long time"?

I would imagine that you would want to put the barrels low in the warehouse so there isn't extreme heat, maybe barrel at a higher proof?

I definitely realize the reason a lot of people seem to go for the 'age' thing... It's all marketing and prestige... I think lots of people drinking older beverages (port, bourbon, scotch, whatever) probably wouldn't actually taste the difference between older and younger versions, but they 'feel' better drinking the older beverage because of the 'prestige' and 'exclusivity' of it... You're always going to get people wanting the older stuff who know nothing about it, just like you get people who had to have george t. stagg because it was a high proof, they saw it in a magazine, and proceeded to mix it with coke

what we really need are some crappy older bourbons so those types of people will buy those bourbons and leave the Pappy Van Winkle for the rest of us

[gillmang]

The only reason originally to age whiskey was to modify much of the congeneric taste. Generally that can be done at 4-6-8 years of age. There is no "reason" to age it longer and bourbon often loses its "juicy" quality after 10 years. But some people like the extra-aged taste, there is a market for that. Van Winkle in particular age their whiskeys for very long periods, they are as Julian once said in my presence "designed" for that, which in my opinion derives from their being wheated bourbons. Wheated bourbons acquire a rich candied taste with long age and it is interesting that the market for extra-aged bourbon is pretty much Julian's. Rye-recipe bourbon doesn't, one can conclude, generally age well past 10 years. Some do, e.g., EC 18 year old is one I like but most other rye-recipe bourbons I have had older than 8 or 10 years strike me as being too old. The exceptions as Mike suggested will often be found in distilleries that don't use artificial heat.

Wheated bourbon is interesting in that it shows well at all ages (i.e., past 4 years old). At young/medium ages, it has less aggressive congeners than rye-recipe bourbon; at quite old ages it has a candied sweetness that many find appealing. Sort of a win-win proposition..

Gary

[Whiskme]

Interesting topic and one I've wondered about myself. I've read that maybe the optimum age for bourbon is 12 years. But it does absolutely seem to depend on the iteration. As you've mentioned, some are very good at 4 while others are wonderful at 21. I wonder if they could all be listed according to the optimum age? It seems the majority of the audience here are people interested in learning and this might be a wonderful guideline for participants. Even if the collaboration were simply opinions, they would be a fair assessment and might save some of us the pain of spending a gaggle of money on an old worn out bottle, past it's prime.

[angelshare]

I wonder if they could all be listed according to the optimum age? It seems the majority of the audience here are people interested in learning and this might be a wonderful guideline for participants. Even if the collaboration were simply opinions, they would be a fair assessment and might save some of us the pain of spending a gaggle of money on an old worn out bottle, past it's prime.

Aside from my own amateur attempts at reviewing, I find the user reviews here very interesting and helpful. If you have a dusty, questionably priced bottle that you've been considering, maybe there's a review for it here you could read before you part with your cash.

Otherwise, I bet if you name a bottle you've been considering, there are some folks here who will weigh in on it.

[OneCubeOnly]

I'm going to be a mild voice of dissent in this thread. I'm a fan of aging. For me, for the most part anyway, older = better. I recognize the main point being made here, which is obviously that aging just for the sake of aging or just for the sake of the label is not a good thing for bourbons. However, I can't think of many equivalent bottlings in which the younger version prevails. I can name LOTS of equivalent bottlings in which the older sibling is superior.

Keep in mind that older bourbons usually become older bourbons because they either weren't ready at the 6-8 year mark, or because they were identified as being ones that would benefit from more barrel time.

Can a bourbon be aged past its prime? Of course. EC18 (at least for me) is certainly pushing the limits of good vs. unproductive barrel-time. But do I prefer it over the 12yo? Absolutely.

This past weekend, Dave & Linn had a similar discussion in which the term "lively" came up. Young bourbons are certainly more "lively" than their older counterparts. But in most cases, I believe the liveliness gets traded for class & distinction.

[White Lightning]

I couldn’t read each response here (at the current time) so forgive me if this point has already been settled.

First I should say that this is a fantastic topic even if some might view it from a philosophical or thinking out loud point…

Mike pointed out that he’d rather a matured and “ripe” 4 year old than a 12 or 15 year old perhaps over ripe whiskey that was saddled just to meet an age requirement.

That said, sort of on the flipside, how often do you think it happens that say for some odd reason a small number of barrels (let’s get stupid and say like 2 or 3 barrels) become “ripe” since we are on that term, but the rest of an anticipated lot in the same range just are not ripe (for what ever reason). Does a distillery typically attempt to hold off on those that are ripe? I assume if it is a large production item there would be a reluctance factor in having a bottling run for 2 or 3 barrels at any given point – No? Does this occur often and if so what do you believe are the likely outcomes?

With specialty products of small scale production the bottle what is ripe seems more plausible. For instance last Fall’s release of Eagle Rare 17 – this probably explains why there were only 9.5 bottles made available!!

[bourbonv]

Many Bourbons made 40 years ago tasted better at the 4-8 year range than many of the same "brands" do now at 10-15 years. Julian would just about kill for some barrels of the low distillation, low barrel proof bourbon made at Stitzel-Weller when it was family owned. These flavorfull bourbons were good at an early age (4-6 years old), could be better at medium ages (7-10 years old) and had the potential of being out of this world at over 10 years old. He brought a bottle of Van Winkle Family Reserve made in 1970 and bottled in 1984 to the Bourbon's Bistro the other day. He said it was the best bourbon he ever bottled and He saved some cases and used some of the bottles for a toast at his daughter's wedding a few weeks back. I have to agree it was a mighty fine bourbon and at 14 years old it was like having candy in your mouth. This was bourbon made when the family owned Stitzel-Weller.

The wheat recipe does seem to age better than the rye bourbons. There are exceptions, but most rye bourbons are trash after 12 years of age in my opinion. In think the spicy characteristic of the rye must clash with the sweet characteristics of the barrel because most seem simply to be woody and hot.

Warehouse position does play a role in the aging of bourbon. The month in which it was made plays a role as well with the winter months making the smoother, better aging bourbons.

Mike Veach

[Chris]

Julian would just about kill for some barrels of the low distillation, low barrel proof bourbon made at Stitzel-Weller when it was family owned. These flavorfull bourbons were good at an early age (4-6 years old), could be better at medium ages (7-10 years old) and had the potential of being out of this world at over 10 years old. He brought a bottle of Van Winkle Family Reserve made in 1970 and bottled in 1984 to the Bourbon's Bistro the other day. He said it was the best bourbon he ever bottled

I hope that he has worked with the people at BT to distill something similar and that it is secretly aging as we speak

Warehouse position does play a role in the aging of bourbon. The month in which it was made plays a role as well with the winter months making the smoother, better aging bourbons.

Is that because the bourbon enters when it is cool and can therefore expand more in the summer? (rather than entering on a hot day, without the potential to 'push' into the barrell much?)

[bourbonv]

Chris,
The time of the year has more to do with the yeast than the aging process. The cooler the better for the yeast and healthy yeast make better alcohol.

Mike Veach