Early Times

[bourbonv]

I was at the Woodford Reserve Bourbon Academy yesterday and we tasted Early Times white dog and finished product. JD Knaebel and started talking about how this brand is bad mouthed and reviled in a way that it really does not deserve. Yes, they use used cooperage to make it so they can not call it a bourbon or even a straight whiskey, but other than that, it follows the bourbon rules.

The white dog is very tasty and I personally like it the best of of the white dogs tasted at the academy. It is strong in corn flavor - Chris says it is like a corn chip but I don't get the saltiness of a corn chip and think it is more like cornbread. Even so it is a nice clean taste. The finish product still has this corn taste, but it is very light and thin, with a little vanilla sweetness and a hint of pepper. It is too thin for me to enjoy neat, but I can see using it in a whiskey sour or bourbon and coke.

The point is that the product is designed to compete against the other 3 and 4 year old products out there as the bourbon and coke product, and it does that very well. I think I prefer it to Jim Beam White, Old Crow, Tom Moore or the multitude of 3yo Heaven Hill products. It is not a bad product.

Mike Veach

[bourbonv]

Ijust read Mike's review of Early Times and he seems to be agreeing with me - There is nothing offensive about Early Times, just a simple easy drink of whiskey. So Mike, Do you agree it is on the same level as Jim Beam White?

Mike Veach

[Mike]

I do agree with your assessment. ET is not at all bad, but has no great depth or complexity. A pleasant drink though.

I gave the rest of the bottle to Barleycorn and told him that it was a very refined bourbon. So far he is as happy as a pig and has told all his friends that his master gave him some extra good bourbon.

I know you shouldn't lie to your dog (or to anyone else for that matter), but he got on my bad side this week, bringing a dead rabbit into his room and putting it under his bed............the place got rank quickly.

[EllenJ]

This has been a point of discussion often between Mike and I (yes, I do have another BourbonEnthusiast identity; I'm using this one to relate to our web site and to introduce our own readers to BourbonEnthusiast). My question has been, "since the 'flavor characteristic of bourbon whiskey' seems to exist in Early Times, and since Early Times is aged in used or uncharred barrels, doesn't that prove that those flavor characteristics are NOT dependent on the use of new, charred barrels?". In fact, Early Times Kentucky Style Whiskey has more "bourbon" flavor than some straight bourbon whiskeys (Basil Hayden comes to mind), and even if less flavorful, certainly not a DIFFERENT flavor from Brown-Forman's straight bourbon products, Old Forester and Woodford Reserve. I mean, it sure ain't scotch, or rum, or cognac (although I've tasted cognacs with less flavor).

What I'm trying to establish here is the idea that someone with interests in the cooperage industry may have had undue influence on the legal definitions of straight whiskey. The maturation of whiskey can be accomplished in a multitude of ways; can anyone give us another example of where a particular process, to the exclusion of any other process offering the same result, is held as the exclusive legitimate method of production?
By the way, Mike has said he agrees with this. What does Chris Morris ( who is responsible for both straight bourbon whiskey and Early Times, not to mention another non-bourbon whiskey that happens to be the largest brand of United States whiskey in the world) say? Also, is Early Times Straight Bourbon (as sold in Asia and Europe) really different from the Kentucky Style Whiskey, or are the labelling rules simply not the same for exports? We have samples of both, and (when proof-equalized) I certainly can't reliable detect a difference.

[Mike]

I think it would be interesting to know what the criteria is for selecting the used barrels for Early Times. Are they just any barrels that happen to be about, or is there a process to determine which to use? Also, what was the quality of the bourbon that was in the barrels beforehand? Was it Woodford Reserve or some other lesser quailty spirit (could it be JD?)?

Speaking of used bourbon barrels, I think I can detect some bourbon characteristics in Bushmills 16 YO. It is aged in bourbon barrels until the finishing process (then it goes in sherry and port casks).

It is my opinion that the bourbon barrels used in Bushmills 16 YO give it a liveliness and complexity that makes it my favorite of the Irish Whiskies.

I know that many Scotchs are aged in bourbon barrels (e.g. Macallan 15 YO Fine Oak, a very fine spitit), but I contend that the peaty smoke used in the Scotch malting process hides any significant bourbon flavors in Scotch, whereas in the Bushmills (as far as I know, but I could be wrong), I don't think peat fires are used in the malting.

Just some simple speculations from a simple mind.........

[bourbonv]

John and Mike,
The thing to remember is that only about 20% of the barrels used in Early Times is used cooperage. That saves some money and does "lighten up" the flavor of the whiskey, but greatly. The barrels are also only reused once and then sold to someone else. The barrels are probably all Early Times, Old Forrester or Woodford Reserve barrels simply because there are enough of them to meet the demand without the expense of shipping an empty barrel from Tennessee to be filled (that would kind of defeat to cost saving part of re-using barrels).

John, If it says bourbon on the label it has to meet all of the requirements including brand new cooperage, no matter where it is sold. International standards of identity are not only to protect the manufacturer of a product from fake products, but also the consumer.

I was asking Chris some questions about the used cooperage at the last Bourbon Academy and Chris was willing to answer them all. I think I will take this a step further and see if I can get him to add a comparison tasting of used cooperage whiskey to new cooperage whiskey for Early Times.

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

All interesting and useful thoughts. My own opinion is, Early Times does not have the full taste I associate with a traditional straight bourbon. It is quite a bit lighter in flavor although bourbon-like, yes. True, Basil Hayden is quite light too but that I think is related to the light barrel char I assume it is exposed to (kind of a Beam characteristic, none of its whiskeys have a heavy smoky quality to my mind). A light char may mean a whiskey is legally a straight bourbon but it doesn't mean it will taste like many feel a traditional bourbon should. In my view, aging in all-used barrels (subject to one thing I will say below but I mean here in barrels exhausted of their red layer) does not impart bourbon characteristics. The reason Early Times has some bourbon characteristics is the great majority of the barrels used to age it are new charred barrels. But if you don't use any, no or little boubon taste will result (a least as that term is understood today). E.g. one of the current Michter's line is a whiskey that is not called bourbon on the label. It is I understand a bourbon mash aged in reused barrels whether in whole or in part. It is good but does not taste like bourbon to me. To me, the red layer sugars and also a slight burned taste are the bourbon markers and I don't taste that in this whiskey.

Now I agree that if you take some new charred barrels filled with bourbon, empty them and refill them with a bourbon mash, you may end up wth something close to bourbon. If those barrels were only, say, 4 years old when emptied, that might happen. And that explains I think why whiskeys such as Bushmills have a slight bourbon note, plus the fact that that Bush 16 has been in them so long even "exhausted" barrels may have some bourbon character to give the Irish whiskey.

Here we get into the question of how fast a bourbon barrel gives up its essential bourbon attributes to the whiskey. If it gives them up in 4 years, then almost any bourbon barrel re-employed to hold a bourbon mash won't do much for the spirit. If it does not give them up in 4 years, then maybe reusing barrels can give some bourbon character if the barrels when first reused are not too old. E.g. if they are 12 years old, they will likely do nothing for any bourbon mash put in them as refill except to contain the product and mellow it but in a different way (more like what those barrels do for malt whisky perhaps). I suspect that the barrels that held that Michter's whiskey were either older when re-employed and hadn't much to give the spirit in the bourbon way, or were 4 year old barrels (or thereabouts) but were light-charred to begin with so couldn't do much for the new spirit. Maybe, and this is something I am coming to believe, no bourbon barrel has many more wood sugars to give after about 4 years. It may have some, and can impart additional smoky quality as the spirit ages, but I don't think it has that much more sugar to give after 4 or 5 years and it is the combination of the two (smoke and sweet) that typifies bourbon for me. This is why I think malt whisky doesn't taste like bourbon. Most of it is put into 4-5 year old barrels (say ex-Jack Daniel or Old Forester barrels or whatever) and held in them for 10-20 years but as noted little malt whisky tastes like bourbon. True, the peat may hide that taste but not all malt whisky is heavily peated, in fact much of it today is unpeated or almost unpeated.

I think when Mike Veach talks about bourbon having once been aged partly or totally in reused barrels or maybe new uncharred or toasted barrels, he means simply that in that time there was a larger conception of what bourbon is than today. It may be that people who had interests in barrel making plants did push for a definition of bourbon that would restrict it to an all-new charred wood-aged product, I don't know. But personally I believe that the reason the law was written this way is that people knew, or it was handed down as general knowledge, that aging in all-new charred wood makes the best bourbon. A quality standard was being laid down. When you do that you go for the best. I feel that unless bourbon has a faint tang of smoke and a decent amount of wood sugars it isn't a traditional bourbon. It may still be a good drink, and Early Times isn't bad by any means but to me the bourbon character it has comes from 80% of its barrels being new charred wood, you can't get away from that in my view.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Great points Gary. I think you ask many of the questions that I ask myself. That is one reason I really want Chris to give me a chance, either at an academy or some time less public, to sample Early Times of the same age in Used and New cooperage.

The new cooperage comes mostly from the fact that before prohibition the largest amount of bourbon was sold by the barrel as the primary packaging. This meant the distillery did not dump the whiskey and they did not have empty barrels sent back to them from California or Montana or other places they sold whiskey. This meant that most whiskey went into new cooperage. That does not mean that was all they used. I have a report on barrel aging that discusses new cooperage, used cooperage, uncharred cooperage and toasted cooperage with several degrees of char and different mashbills including corn, rye, bourbon and Tennessee process whiskey. This report was done before prohibition and covered all the types of cooperage being used to age whiskey in the U S. The red layer is still there and contributes, but it is a much weaker contribution to the finished product than new cooperage. Actually the red layer is created mostly in the toasting and too heavy of a char can destroy the red layer. That is one reason Brown-Forman uses a No 2 char in Woodford - to get more flavor from the red layer.

I have seen reports of the cooperage industry's effort to lobby Congress when definitions were being established after prohibition. They definitely had a major effect on the "New Cooperage Only" clause in the definition of Straight Whiskey. The depression and the extra jobs created by that clause were a major argument.

Mike Veach

[Mike]

Well, gents, you know way more than I do about these things. I was making the perhaps unwarranted assumption that there was enough bourbon lying within the used barrels to impart nice flavors to whatever was put in them. This, quite aside from the remaining flavoring components left in the wood itself.

I am sure there is a 'rule of thumb' as to just how much spirit is left in the barrel. Even if as little as a couple of quarts could be squeezed from the barrel, that could significantly affect the taste of the rest of the spirit in that barrel.

Some of the Scotchs which are aged exclusively in Sherry casks have a decided Sherry flavor, a flavor that comes from the Sherry itself, not from remaining wood flavorings.

Enlighten me a bit here, gentlemen.

[bourbonv]

Mike,
A typical bourbon barrel absorbs about 3 gallons of bourbon when it is first filled. That amount will stay in the barrel after it is dumped. There are people who will get these freshly dumped barrels and sweat the alocohol out by placing about 5 gallons of water in the barrel, sealing the bunghole, and placing it in a hot place for about a week and then cooling the barrel for several days. The water goes into the wood and alcohol comes out and the person has some very astringent, woody alcohol to drink. You are right, there will be some of this flavor when the barrel is re-used and 50 gallons of fluid dilutes the woodiness to something more pleasurable. The barrel will still give some flavor from the red layer and char as well.

In Scotland they re-char the barrels. This will burn most of the alcohol out of the barrel wood. I will have to ask Chris if they do the same for Early Times barrels.

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

Both Mikes are making excellent points. I forgot that they re-char in Scotland. I wonder why exactly they do this. It might be an old sterilisation technique and as Mike Veach says, it probably burns out the residual bourbon that would flavor more the malt whisky if it was left in. This is entirely possible. Or, it may be an attempt to create MORE wood sugars, it is hard to say! If I am right in my suspicion that most (not all) wood sugars are leached in the first 4 years, they might want to rechar for this purpose. But I agree that if three gallons of bourbon leach into 50 of bourbon mash, that together with residual effects of the red layer might give a degree of bourbon character. But if that red layer has gone and any recharring does not restore it, 3 gallons out of 50 won't flavor the whiskey that much I think. Shucks that's only 6% of the total. But, if as with Early Times some 80% of the barrels are new charred and the other 20% of the barrels are refilled bourbon barrels with their residual bourbon left in, I am sure the 20% would add to the bourbon character of the final whiskey. I think Early Times uses (for the U.S.-release) that 20% to slightly lighten the flavor of the bourbon. It's for the same reason, I think, that I make my 80%/20% bourbon/Canadian rye blends. It's not exactly the same (since that 20% in Early Times is bourbon mash not 190%+ distillate) but same idea I think!

By the way I know that too much char can hurt the red layer (or perhaps make it inaccessible to the whiskey). In Beam's case, I don't know what number of char they use, but whatever it is, I think they do it, and perhaps otherwise adapt their process, so as not to give an overly smoky character to the whiskey. Even Knob Creek (which I like) doesn't really have a charcoal-like palate to me (or very little). But whiskeys from the other distilleries seem to offer more of this taste. Just different house styles. In the Basil Hayden there seems little burned wood character as was noted, the grain tastes come more to the fore there.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
I have always heard they re-char to create more red line as well as to clean the barrel for use. When barrels are sold they are broken down for shipping and the coopers over in Scotland re-assemble them. This means that they staves are mixed and matched in most cases and it is not likely to be the "same" barrel it was in the United States. Hell, they may even mix different bourbon brand barrel staves if they bought from more than one company.

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

Mike, that would suggest something that makes a lot of sense to me; they treat the wood in a way to secure more of its aging benefit but to take out the "made" bourbon in the wood that might unduly flavor the malt whisky. One would think they would want that bourbon in there (because too it's "free") but since they are using different casks all the time, or different staves really as you pointed out, consistency might be an issue. If they get down to the "pure wood", they avoid that problem. So this would mean some wood gums still get into the whisky interacting with it as a"primary" agent, not that is in the sense they would with a corn spirit. I wonder though if it is true that after 4-5 years most of those red lines go. But why should that be? It's all the same wood in the stave. If you burn down deeper you just get closer to the same wood again and should be able to create more red line. Or maybe not, maybe the wood has already changed too much in the first five years of use and you can't "go home again". I know in Canadian whisky, which is as you know based on corn spirit and presumably uses recharred barrels to a significant degree, you don't get a bourbon-like taste even though the "new" red layer is working away at the whiskey for 4-12 years or more. This is partly of course because Canadian spirit is mostly high proof-based but part of it may be because the red line in the recharred barrels is weaker than in the barrel when new.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
Youi have to also consider how old the barrel is when the scotch distillers get it. If it sat around empty for a year, the wood is going to dry out and the bourbon (alcohol and water) will evaporate. I am sure there is some residue of flavor after that, but not a whole lot.

Mike Veach