Was there a golden age of bourbon making?

[Mike]

Among the BE members are many who have great experience and knowledge of bourbon. They do no post very often any more, for reasons that are not apparent to me. We have new members who post often, and they are welcomed to do so. But, they often bring up topics that have been explored before, unbeknownst to them. Do not take this as a putdown to new bourbon drinkers, but rather, as an invitation for the older members to share their experience and knowledge on matters bourbon.

So, in the hope that we can engage some of the older, more experienced and knowledgeable members. let me pose this provocative question. Are the older bourbons, which are pretty much unavailable, better than what is coming from the distilleries now?

Let me admit upfront that my experience with older bourbons is limited. A significant part of the argument in their favor is that the entry proof to the barrels was lower that it is today, making the water soluble components from the barrel more prominent. As I understand it, Wild Turkey still sends its distillate into the barrel at around 110 proof (give or take a bit) whereas other distillers send their distillate to the barrel at about 120 proof.

As I understand it, that extra water in the distillate, as in the old days, allows more of the water soluble components in the barrel to enter into the contents of the barrel. Since Wild Turkey still practices in this way, their bourbons all have more barrel flavors and richness than their competitors. They have captured many bourbon lovers.

That difference in barrel, assuming lower proof is really the best at producing excellent whiskey (it is in the economic interest of distillers to send the distillate to the barrel at higher proof since the amount left in the barrel after maturation is a bit greater and at a higher proof, making watering down easier at the end), vs higher entry proof entry distillate whiskey is not trivial. But that is not necessarily the end of that game.

Time in the barrel does more than add barrel sweetners (vanilla, brown sugar, soft spices, etc. etc.). It adds tannins........... which act against sweetness by providing an astringent bitterness. It is thus that I find the 'older bourbons' with a lower entry proof, less interesting than older bourbons which rely primarily on barrel age rather than sweetness for their definitive qualities.

This barrel age adds subtlety and softens sweetness only to add complexity to the bourbon and makes it better than the older renowned bourbons.
This is my true opinion upon this subject.

I would be nice if those who hold different opinions would hold forth. I could be wrong about many of the opinions I have offered here and am in need of correction.

[gillmang]

This has been discussed many times here and in particular on http://www.straightbourbon.com's forum, but not lately.

Entry proof is probably a factor although I understand the Maker's Mark entry proof is notably low, somewhere around Wild Turkey's, and it is (today) hardly distinguished in the view of many. For that matter, I find Wild Turkey fairly ordinary too these last years, excepting Rare Breed - whose ichor derives from a kind of vatting IMO - yay for vatting - and one or two of the highest-end WT products. But nonetheless one would think that lower-proof entry does favour good whiskey since the old stuff was entered for generations at under 115 proof (the limit is now 125) and a lot of good whiskey was made in that time.

So first, I would say, yes, whiskey seemed more full-flavoured in the old days, richer and better than today. I have tasted many oldsters, some I bought myself off the retail shelf in the last 10 years, e.g., 60's and 70's Beam decanters, lots of National Distillers brands too, but most of that is sold off. Still, those who attend SB gazebos can taste many older whiskeys which the members bring to the gatherings. So I've had my share, some of it was a little tired - oxidized or otherwise off - but a lot was great.

But there are many other variables to entry proof, so many that it is hard to say why whiskey is blander today in the estimation of some.

The reasons IMO are:

1) Aforesaid entry proof change although this may be the least important
2) Fewer producing distilleries than 30 and 60 years ago
3) Newer wood being used to make barrels, i.e., the tree stock isn't as old as when virgin forests were still being tapped for lumber
4) Yeasts are cleaner, labs do better work to ensure a consistent yeast and therefore taste anomalies and unpredicted congener content in the ferments are fewer
5) There is less wood in the fermenters and other vessels used in distilling - it is mostly stainless steel today
6) Possibly on average less copper is used in the stills than formerly.
7) Intensively raised modern grains may offer less flavour than in the old days.

These are the main reasons, taken all in all, why flavour has changed. This is not to say good and even great bourbon still isn't made. Of course it is, but the variety is not what it was IMO.

The gent that just posted those photos of the old I.W. Harpers and other vintage bourbons might consider doing a comparative tasting to bourbons of similar age today. Harper was a top brand so he'd need to choose something of equivalent standing and ditto for the others in the line-up. Some are still made e.g. Fitzgerald, and the Van Winkle bourbons are available which aspire one presumes to that character. So do a comparative, rough and limited as it is, and tell us: which is better, older or newer? Or is it a toss-up? So often (almost always that I can remember) people who have these stocks show the pics but don't offer taste notes, perhaps because most of them aren't whiskey connoisseurs I guess, not sure why. There are some exceptions and I recall John L occasionally has done this. But the more often it can be done, the more we can know whether the feeling of many that old is gold is true or perhaps just a chimera, an expression of nostalgia and longing for bygone times...

Gary

[RandyG]

I do not exactly fit into the old fart category here, being just a couple weeks shy of the big five oh, but I personally think that we are in the golden age of bourbon right now. I did not have any experience with whiskeys before the late 70's but I think the quality and variety of the stuff coming out now is head and sholders above what I had available to me back then. Since this last statement is likely skewed by my limited age, I will attempt to give as best a recollection of my life thus far:

I grew up in a small town, so the whiskey selection was limited. It may also be said that the people I associated with with my own age did not really take whiskey seriously, choosing to mix it instead. I do however remember sitting around more than one table, usually later in the evening after the social festivities had subsided, and the host, who was usually 5-10 older than us, would bring out a bottle of his favorite whiskey to share. I do not recall even one of these eliciting a positive response to mine or my friends palates but we tuffed through it. The older gentlemen at the table however, seemed to revell in the flavors and aromas. Maybe it was our age, and/or our young taste buds that just were not ready, I don't know. This was unfortunate for me personally as I did not give whiskey a fair shake until maybe the mid 80's. I was now in tech. school and lived in a small city. One of my friends from my home town actually worked in a well stocked liquor store, and this is when I started trying different bourbons. I was now in my early 20's and and lived with four fellow scholars. We tried many a spirit in those two plus years and I remember some of them as being good, but never "great". It wasn't until maybe the mid 90's that I had a taste of what I thought was a "great" bourbon. That was Woodford Reserve. Finally I had discovered what this was all about, and have never looked back. Bourbon is my drink of choice now, slowly savored over the course of an evening or a relaxing weekend spell.

I wonder if that age thing I mentioned earlier doesn't have something to do with my less than favorable liking of bourbon (and whiskey in general) and would be curious as to how many people on this site are in there early 20's and find whiskey as rich and flavorful as I find them now.

Cheers,
Mr. G

[393foureyedfox]

im almost 38 and it was just in the past year or so that i really started to actually 'like' bourbons. i dont think it is age, though, that did this. I think it was just experiementation with many different bourbons, finding the subtleties and differences, and finding what aspects of them I like. Before, I might try one kind, decide i didnt like it, assume all bourbons tasted like this, and not have anymore for a few years. Had i experimented like i do now in my early 20's, i may have taken to it then. who knows...

[gillmang]

Well, interesting comments. Taste as always is subjective, so speaking only for myself, I would place 1970's-80's Old Fitzgerald, say, far above Woodford Reserve, same for National Distillers Old Gran-dad or Beam's Choice (there was a black label with that name I think and maybe it said 101) or Seagram's Benchmark or ND's Old Tayor. It's a fair comparison because all these were/are about 6 years old, 6-7 range at most.

The straight ryes too of that time and earlier were much ahead of those today, IMO, e.g. Old Overholt as supplied from Michter's vs. the one made today at Beam. I've had 1960's Jim Beam rye and it was much better than the current one. Dickel in the 60's was amazing, and so on.

I am in my mid-60's so my experience range does stretch back further than those above, for what it is worth.

There was cheap and bad whiskey then too of course, and middling. Say Dant, I'd call that middling and WR is superior to it, I'd say. Everyone's experience though is unique and therefore unquestioned (de gustibus) but useful to factor in trying to come to some general conclusions.

Gary

[thomas15]

I know that you are looking for seasoned bourbon drinkers and I really don't qualify. But, I have been drinking bourbon since age 22 now mid 50s. In the past it was always JB and coke. The Beam was mainly out of loyalty and Beam is less expensive than JD.

About 10 years ago I visited a friend in Frankfort KY and for something to do we went to Buffalo Trace for the tour. I think my friend picked BT because it was convienent but I was totally impressed with the operation and brought home a bottle. I thought at the time it tasted better with coke compared to Beam but BT is more expensive and wasn't available in our area at the time. For most of the last 9 years since we moved to PA I bought EW Black and was a little miffed when the age statement started missing from the label but again it was inexpensive and I was drinking it mixed.

One other interesting thing (to me that is) in an effort to expand my horizons I bought a bottle of entry level Jamison and again with coke thought Beam or EW tasted better. Then about 2 years ago I bought a bottle of BT out of state and it sat on a shelf until about 6 months ago when for some reason I decided to start taking bourbon seriously.

So that is where I'm at now, my story is not that interesting but I don't think i ever sipped whiskey until this year. I had been drinking wine for about 3 years and trying all kinds of low end stuff (wine). Actually, in my opinion, it is the same cost or less to drink a mid level $20.00 -$25.00 bourbon everyday than a low end (say $12.00-$16.00) calif wine. I wanted to give up beer because while definatly not overweight who needs the calories?

And I will also say that I now have the money to buy better bottles of bourbon and I want to enjoy my free time more and while selecting/buying/drinking and talking about wine is fun and sophisticated, so is bourbon. There is an allure to the ritual of selecting, pouring, nosing and finally drinking whiskey. I truthfully wasn't sure that I would ever like drinking whiskey neat or if I could even do it. The learning curve for me at least was a little steep. If you would have asked me 2 years ago if anyone could drink EWBL neat I would have said impossible. But in reality I made a conscience decision to get into bourbon on it's own, I really sought it out, it didn't find me, I went looking for it.

So, if bourbon tasted better 50 years ago there is not much I can do about that but I do know that there are a lot of bourbons to spend your money on today and I pitty the person that cannot find one that they truly love to drink. I'm not going to spend any more than $50.00 for a bottle of whiskey so what is there is there as far as I'm concerned. I love history and but I'm not going to pine away for something I cannot have and it doesn't matter as there are many bourbons to buy out there today.

I have about 25 bottles in my bunker and have 4 open at any given time. I try to rotate every day and I have to say that my favorite to date is KC. When I first tried JB Rye I thought it was awful but now I'm thinking about getting another bottle. I enjoy reading what others say about bourbon on this website, the posters here are probably the top 5% of bourbon drinkers that really desire a great drinking experience and appreciate the fine points of the brew.

Gentleman, thanks for having me here.

Tom

[RandyG]

Yeah, I wish I had taken whiskey more seriously back in my 20's and 30's. I remember some of those mentioned by gillmang (OGD, Beam, and Seagrams) but the ones on the shelf in my [very small] home town were their bottom shelf offerings. Besides the OGD, Beam, and Seagrams, there were Windsor, Jack, Old Crow, etc. I bet the upper shelf stuff was around while I was attending tech. school but I never tried these as I was on my own for the first time and living off some savings I had saved up for school. I had a part time job by my second year but spent my money on other things, opting for tequila when the time came to celebrate. I followed this course until somewhere in my mid/late 30's where I discovered how many truly great bourbons there are out there.

It's a good time to be a bourbon drinker!

Cheers,
RG

[Bourbon Joe]

I'm not going to spend any more than $50.00 for a bottle of whiskey so what is there is there as far as I'm concerned.

Tom

Well Tom, you have boxed yourself in when it comes to fine whiskey. I once thought like you but today's 50 dollar bottle costs 80 dollars and going up. I'll spring for an expensive bourbon if it is exceptional. If you stick to your guns, you will drink good whiskey, just not the best whiskey.
Joe

[393foureyedfox]

i agree with thomas 15, im not going to spend over $50 a bottle for anything either. its just my principle. sure, there may be stuff that is better for $100, but is it 4 times better than a $25 bottle....i doubt it. there is some truth to the idea of better whiskey costs more, but its not a hard fast rule. HH BIB is $10 and pretty good, better than a LOT of the stuff on the shelf for $20-30. My favorites, so far though, tend to be the $35-50 stuff, Knob Creek 120 and Bookers being among them. For daily stuff though, i will stick to my $50 rule. If im on vacation or celebrating something and see something that really interests me, i might break the rule, but it hasnt happened yet. fortunately, I seem to prefer 100+ proof and 6-9 years old, so that leaves a lot of stuff on the lower end open to me. If i had a love of 20+year stuff, my $50 rule would leave little to choose from.

I dont know about a golden age of bourbon. Ive been into it for roughly a year. I really really wish I had gotten into it years ago. My grandfather retired from ND in the early 80's, and did practically every job at the distillery. While he wasnt much of a drinker, the stories wouldve been interesting. unfortunately, he passed a few years ago, before I had any interest in bourbon. that still makes me sad; he was the best example of what a man should be I can think of....him and my father.

[bourbonv]

I think I am the target of Mike's subtle hint about "old timers" here, so I think maybe i should take some time to respond to his post. It is as always and excellent and thought provoking post, but I expect nothing less from Mike - he is good at provoking constructive thoughts about Bourbon.

I do like the older bottlings of Bourbon and there are many factors, as Gary points out quite well, that could be responsible for the difference in taste between what is being made now and what was being made 50 years ago. I suspect that the two major items are the barrel entry proof, which was a maximum of 100 until 1964, and the use of hybrid grains. I have had the honor of tasting the E H Taylor, Jr. product that Buffalo Trace distilled based upon the recipe I deducted from the Taylor-Hay family papers here at the Filson. It uses white corn instead of the normal yellow corn and that has had a big change in flavor in both the white dog and the samples of 1 and 2 year old product I have tasted. It was also distilled more like 19th century practice at a very low proof (less than 120) and put into the barrel at a low proof (I don't recall the exact proof, but i believe it was 105). The whiskey does have a lot of the old whiskey flavor as a result. Another product, McKenzie Bourbon from Finger Lakes distillery is also distilled at a low proof and going into the barrel at 100 proof. It also is very good and has characteristics of the older bourbons.

Now as to the idea of a "Golden Age" I posted something on this some months ago after talking with bill Samuels. In my book, I imply that the 1950s were a time of a "Golden Age" for Bourbon and for consumers it was, but as Bill pointed out not so for distillers. The over production by Schenley and to a lesser extent by National and Seagram during the Korean War led to a glut of whiskey in the warehouses of these big companies and they closed many of their small distilleries, never to re-open them. They also kept the price artificialy low causing hardship on the other smaller distilleries, forcing many of them out of the business. It was far from being a "Golden Age" for distillers.

I would say that now is a "Golden Age" if there is one as you see a growth in the craft distilling industry and all of the new products associated with them. You also have the establihed companies producing in larger amounts and consumers have many fine choices in product that will only get better in the near future. As i said above, there are products being made to resemble the older style and this will increase as the public starts drinking them and making money for these distillers. Supplies will increase and prices will level off and maybe even drop some. It is a good time to be a Bourbon Enthusiast.

[Mike]

I did a throwdown twixt E. H. Taylor Bottled in Bond (presumably like what you tasted, Mike) , Pappy 20 YO, A.H. Hirsch 16 YO, and Woodford Reserve Double Oaked.

This and a bottle of Old Forester from the late 80s is the best I can come up with for comparative purposes.

In my opinion, the best of these is the A. H. Hirsch, followed by the WR Double Oaked, followed by the Pappy 20 YO followed by the E. H. Taylor.

The E.H. Taylor, assuming that it follows the recipe outlined by your post, Mike, is my least favorite, but still first rate bourbon....... easy to understand why someone would choose it as a favorite.

This choice means nothing, since it is nothing but my opinion. But ALL these bourbons are superb. The differences, and they are there, require an attention to one's own palate.

Two of these bourbon have an element that disqualifies them from real consideration, that element is unobtainium............ Pappy 20 and A. H. Hirsch.

Two of them go beyond what a couple of people who responded here are willing to pay. The E. H. Taylor sells for about $80 and the Woodford Reserve for about $55.

There are legitimate limits to what people are willing to pay for bourbon. But, as Joe says, if that is your limit, be prepared to miss some of the best bourbons...... nothing wrong in that. Many would, and should, complain about my placing Woodford Reserve Double Oaked among these well known exceptional bourbons, but so be it. I can, and have, defended my palate, and recognized that it is mine.

If you are a BourbonEnthusiast, at the risk that entails (everything in life entails risks), find your palate, who you are, and maybe even why you are here.

I have found that it is extraordinary individuals who persist on BourbonEnthusiast. That is, in my opinion, because they recognize that bourbon is the entry point to a worthwhile kind of self-knowledge............ as opposed to the entry point for hell.

I visit and support this site because I am aware, at my age, that life entails large risks. I have met people on this site who know that, in different ways, respect for life is not best lived in the shadow of risks. Drinking bourbon as a BourbonEnthusiast REQUIRES a measure of self-knowledge and restraint, with a dose of respect for that part of the human spirit that does not want to be controlled, by ideology, by common opinions, by false promises of community, or by religion. BourbonEnthusiast is the home of unique individuals, international in scope, non-political in practice, admirable in tolerance, and non-judgmental as to who participates.

[gillmang]

Nicely put Mike (or rather Mikes, but this reply is meant really for Georgia Mike).

That Taylor bonded which I assume is the current bottling from Buffalo Trace is not similar to what Mike V described. It is simply a selection from their conventional rye-recipe bourbon. Goodish to be sure, but not superspecial. (Unless you meant a bonded Taylor from the National Distillers era but I didn't read it that way).

The Hirsch 16 is pretty good but then too it is 16 years old and the norm of yesteryear was half that age - or less. On top of that, some of the Fraternity will quarrel with you whether Hirsch 16 represents any kind of apogee. It is certainly a superlative one-off, but I'm not trying to be provocative when I say that Seagram-produced Benchmark was better.

Not sure late 80's Forester will equal the best kind of older bourbon I was talking about.

You will just have to make it to John Lipman's sometime so we can do this right.

Or, just show up next April in Bardstown will ya at straightbourbon.com's klatch. We don't throw anyone out unless his dog misbehaves, so keep that (unpredictable) critter of yours home, leave him with a bottle of your current middlin' and we'll show you what the old timey whiskey was like.


Gary

[Mike]

Kind words, Gary, and much appreciated. But, I suspect, like A. H. Hirsch 16 YO, in its being a one off bourbon, I am at best a one off bourbon drinker. I prefer the older, more tannic bourbons over the barrel rich younger ones. Who knows why, just my particular taste, I suppose. I appreciate, like, and drink almost any bourbon, but I especially like older bourbons........... always have, always will. Long ago, I gave up caring how anyone else judges my palate, except as a matter of curiosity and comparison. Long ago, I learned, after much searching, what my inclinations in bourbon taste was......... it is consistent, but not exclusive. I sip and enjoy many bourbons, even some 'cheap' ones.

[gillmang]

Well, by that standard, today's juice wins hands down since in the former generation there was almost no very old bourbon. There was the odd 20 year old rarity (someone just posted a picture of one) and the odd 12 year old Fitzgerald, maybe a 15, one year, but that was it. Whereas until latterly anyway one could get all kinds of old bourbon and rye. The Van Winkles started this trend as a way to capitalize on their name and carve a niche in the market, and e.g. Heaven Hill had its 18 out there for a long time (Elijah Craig 18 years old).

But yes, we come back to whether lots of tannin makes for a good bourbon and have a fundamental disagreement here. But it has to do with palate preference so it's all good as they say..

I'm with those (Charlie Thomasson, Booker Noe, Chas. Fleischman) who held that 6-8 year old bourbon is best but all taste must be acknowledged.

I would allow that with the rising of entry proofs (100-115-125) in the last generations, bourbon may need longer to mature than in its classic era (classic in the sense of when whiskey was America's principal drink). What's interesting now though is that with the revived success of bourbon the old stuff is much harder to find and yet they haven't lowered the entry proof back to what it was. Nonetheless JIm Beam just issued a 12 year bourbon. That 12 would be a natural for you, Mike, you should pick it up.

Gary

[393foureyedfox]

I'm with those (Charlie Thomasson, Booker Noe, Chas. Fleischman) who held that 6-8 year old bourbon is best but all taste must be acknowledged.

I AGREE.......