Declining bourbons

Discuss any bourbon related topics here that do not belong in a forum below.

Moderator: Squire

Declining bourbons

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:25 am

Iwas just reading MikeK's excellent review of an Old Crow bourbon from the late 60's. This review has gotten me to think about bourbons that have declined in quality over the years. I think the main reason for this decline can be linked mostly to the fact that they have new owners who decrease the quality for various reasons, but the reasons are always based on money.

Some examples of declined quality include:
Old Crow
Cabin Still
Old Taylor
Kentucky Tavern
Yellowstone


There are also examples that are still on the decline, but probably have not bottomed out:
Old Fitzgerald 1849
Maker's Mark
Rebel Yell
Ezra Brooks

I would be interested in reading what you think are bourbons that should be on these list and why. I have my ideas for reasons for these declines, but I would rather hear other people's opinions.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Brewer » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:18 pm

Mike,

My bourbon tasting experiences are not nearly as extensive as yours, having just started a few years ago. However, I would agree that Old Crow is about the crappiest bourbon I'd ever had. I can't comment on if there's a decline in this product, although everything I've read concurs with this feeling. I certainly can't say why quality has gone done if in fact this is correct. I could speculate...cheaper/less flavorful ingrediants, poor placement during storage,yeast, water...etc.

I can't compare the current Old Fitz 1849 with that which was available years ago, but it is a bourbon that I do like quite a bit, especially for the price.

I had some old Makers Mark with you a few years ago at the Festival and that was some great stuff! Certainly puts to shame what MM puts out now. I believe that Mark R. has also had some older variety of MM that kicks butt over the current stuff.

Can't compare old vs current Rebel Yell or Ezra Brooks, but I like 'em both.
Bob
User avatar
Brewer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:44 am
Location: LI, NY

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:36 pm

I agree that Old Fitzgerald 1849 is still a fine bourbon at a bargain price. I also think it has declined in quality in the last 6 years or so. The age statement has been removed and the quality of whiskey is not quite as rich and full bodied as it was 15 or 20 years ago.

Maker's Mark never had an age statement but the same can be said for it as for 1849, except it began its decline earlier. Ezra Brooks that was made by Medley was a superior product to what is being made today, but what is being made today is still pretty good.

Any theories as to why these brands have declined in quality?

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:33 pm

Mike, I largely agree with you. And I too enjoyed MikeK's review of the 60's-era Crow. I think part of the "problem" is the way the large companies feel they have to do business. It seems as if all product is put into a category. The product has to meet its criteria which are pre-set. E.g. for rye, probably Beam Brands thinks, there is a small rye market, we can make x dollars still selling rye at 4 years old, therefore Overholt and Beam rye will continue but will not be enlarged or "thought through" in the way some would here. E.g., why not put out a bonded, or 100 proof Overholt? A nod to its history. Why not put out a 10 year old version of Crow? I think they just don't think like that. The premium end is covered by the Knob Creek, Baker's, etc. line (itself not changing at all in some years except I believe the design of the label of Baker's). I think each of these brands has fairly strict return on investment criteria and if these are met the product stays and if not it goes. This seems not to allow the flexibility to produce limited high quality runs although from a business standpoint evidently the current model works for them, or so they view it, and more power to them. Some companies however, especially Sazerac Brands, can show more flexibility, but they are not as big and don't view the issues perhaps as strictly as the big companies. It is the smaller ones that will provide the innovation and new directions, I think. (Even Knob Creek was not really an innovation since up to the 80's Beam had Beam's Choice at 8 years old and other bourbons aged even more). I must say too that Beam offers acceptable quality IMO at the top level but not superlative quality. Again I think it may just be too big to make the best bourbon today. But this general background suggests to me why, say Crow and Taylor are not today what they were. They have become part of the company's "price" category if that is the right term, its lower end I mean, and their taste will therefore reflect that. I think in other words each compnay has a business model, and probably most companies of a certain size have a similar one, and the results we see in the areas you asked about are a function of that.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bunghole » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:22 pm

Mike,

I think that the standard Wild Turkey 101 proof expression has declined markedly from the not too distant past when it was at least a full eight years old.

One of my best friends is a most excellent drummer. He used to drink nothing but Wild Turkey 101. He then latched onto Russell's Reserve 10 year old 101 proof & Kentucky Spirit at my suggestion upon hearing him lament that "Wild Turkey just doesn't taste like it used to."

I finally got him to try several different bourbons, and now he is a hardcore Booker's fan, but also enjoys Ridgemont Reserve 1792 and Knob Creek. He tends to perfer vatted straights over single barrels in general.

:arrow: ima :smilebox:
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby MikeK » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:01 pm

Over the past couple months I have enjoyed three recent bottlings of Old Fitz 1849. One is what is put out now, another was from a year ago - right after they dropped the age statement, and the third is the 8yo from about 4 years ago.

The newest is thin and watery and a shadow of its former self. The "transitional" bottle was quite good, I suspect it was still 8yo or close to it. The 8yo is quite good but with a different flavor, reminding me of S-W bourbon. The older two are a bargain for the price, the current offering is not worth buying.

Two reasons come to mind, industry wide. First, mergers have sucked up smaller distilleries that cared about the whiskey into large corporations that care only about profit. If the product can be made cheaper, and the people still buy it, then great. (Think current Boston Bruins). Secondly, the bourbon glut during the 70's (and 80's?) probably resulted in better bourbon in some instances since older bourbon was getting stuck into bottles to get rid of it. Now we are entering a bourbon shortage and we see many distilleries lowering the age statement or the proof to keep up output on dwindling stocks. This transition can only amplify the perceived decrease in quality.

Mike
User avatar
MikeK
Student of Whiskey
Student of Whiskey
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Eastern MA

Re: Declining bourbons

Unread postby OscarV » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:51 pm

[quote="bourbonv"]

There are also examples that are still on the decline, but probably have not bottomed out:

Maker's Mark



Mike Veach[/quote]

Mike,
Do you have some old tasting notes of Makers Mark?
I would like to hear your thoughts on MM when it was better and some notes on today's version.

Oscar
User avatar
OscarV
Registered User
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Napoleon, Michigan

Kentucky Tavern

Unread postby Geekboy » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:39 pm

I don't mean to disagree but I do find Kentucky Tavern to be still quite excellent considering the price point even though it is at a weak 80 proof.

I find it quite tasty and an excellent choice for an everyday pour.

I wouldn't mind at all taking it on a desert island for my daily drink for the rest of my life.

But that's me.
Geekboy
Registered User
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:35 pm

Unread postby jbohan » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:48 pm

I think gillmang hit the nail on the head about Beam

On the other hand look at what BT has done with acquired brands:

Weller in any of its versions is a better pour than the other major wheated brand and is more reasonably priced.

Old Charter, especially 8 and 10 year old, are excellent pours at an exceptional price. Ancient Age still gets good ratings from folks on this site.
To long ashes and long finishes
User avatar
jbohan
True Friend
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: Atlanta area

Re: Kentucky Tavern

Unread postby TNbourbon » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:42 pm

Geekboy wrote:I don't mean to disagree but I do find Kentucky Tavern to be still quite excellent considering the price point even though it is at a weak 80 proof.

I find it quite tasty and an excellent choice for an everyday pour.

I wouldn't mind at all taking it on a desert island for my daily drink for the rest of my life.

But that's me.


No, it's not just you! I frequently tell people in the liquor store I work at part-time that there is no such thing as 'bad' wine anymore -- if it's 'bad', it won't last in the marketplace. Even the 2@$10 stuff we sell is drinkable.
Same is true for whiskey -- a la, your Kentucky Tavern -- 'bad' bourbon doesn't exist, but a lot of stuff is better than a lot of other stuff.
TNbourbon
Registered User
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:11 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:02 am

Several of you are assuming that a decline in quality equals bad bourbon - that is not the case at all. Several of the bourbon listed are still decent bourbons filling their spot on the shelf, but they used to be better bourbons. Kentucky Tavern is a prime example of this. It is a decent drink of bourbon now but not the "This is great bourbon neat after dinner. I would never mix this with coke" type bourbon it used to be. The 8 year old bottled-in-bond Kentucky Tavern from the 60's was a great bourbon. Now I am not sure they even bottle a Bonded version of Kentucky Tavern and the 80 proof is thin and watery.

As far as the tasting notes for Maker's Mark. I have had several old bottles of Maker's Mark from the late 70's and early 80's. They all were superior to today's product. They had a very rich caramel and vanilla nose with a sweet caramel and nut taste with just a bit of oak in the finish. Today's product is like a distant reflection of those bottles. You can still find hints of those flavors in the product but they are overwhelmed by the thinness of the flavor and heat of the alcohol. Maker's has obviously raised their barrel proof and decreased their age on the product to keep up with demand. The result is likely to be a decline in demand if they keep to this trend.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby White Lightning » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:25 pm

I don't have the sort of history that Mike V does -- hope to some day, so it is harder for me to speak on the subject with the same sort of aptitude.

When I stop and think it over, there are too many reasons and possibilities to contemplate... One thing I think we also might factor in is there has recently been a surge in demand for well aged whiskey.

It is my observation in the past, whiskey with a lot of age was reserved for a select group that appreciated it -- but in essence most of the higher aged stuff simply hadn't made it to market earlier -- meaning it wasn't necessarily made with the intentions of sitting around anywhere near the years it did. Now there is a definite demand for the well-aged segment.

With the increased desire for higher aged whiskey, I think this too has forced concentration away from lower end & standard bottles to devote whiskey to higher end interests and demand. You can't wake up tomorrow and start demanding $35 for Old Forrester 86 or the 100 BIB - instead you need to create something else like the Birthday Bourbon. In doing so you likely raid what would have been the better whiskey shared in the pool of the standards either using it now or reserving it for additional ageing - in doing so, you almost have no choice but to dummy down the things that aren't getting the same sort of attention.

I'll throw the first major stone here... I think Pappy15 is one that is suspect. Some bottles have been for the 'Oak'ridge Boys! Others have been very good - none have held my heart as heavily as the Old Rip 15 did.

Change is inevitible!
ψ£
User avatar
White Lightning
Registered User
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:26 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:24 pm

White Lightning brings out some very interesting points. There is a greater demand for well aged whiskey. At what age do you consider "well Aged"? There is a difference between age and maturity. I have had some 6 year old whiskey that was plenty mature and very tastey. I have also had some 15 year old whiskey that should have been bottled years before it was.

Another point to consider is that lower barrel proof matures quicker than the higher barrel proof products. By saveing money and raising barrel proof, then the quality goes down on your 4, 5 6 or even 8 year old products. Your older products lose subtle flavors and simply begin to taste more like wood.

When Single Barrel whiskey was first introduced by Leestown (now Buffalo Trace), the other distillers argued that this would lower the quality of their other brands as the best whiskey would be saved for the single barrel products. This may be true to some extent. I have to wonder if the discontined brands such as Eagle Rare 101 are not due to the whiskey to support the brand being put into single barrel products.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby OneCubeOnly » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:58 pm

Okay...as long as we're getting controversial here, I'll throw a stone into the pond which might make some waves: I think *ALL* bourbons are declining.

My theory all along has been that bourbon lovers have been spoiled by history--in that the 80's enjoyed a trendiness in the clear spirits. That made even the lower-shelf labels pretty darn tasty due to the overabundance of aged bourbon.

Now, bourbon is semi-trendy. Distilleries are capitalizing on this by making a broader distinction between top and lower shelf products, so the "good" is probably the standard you're used to, and the "bad" is probably worse (or maybe a LOT worse) than you recall. Oh, and let's jack up the price and maybe even lower the proof while we're at it.

I won't even get into the whole quality of wood and increasing barrel proof bit...you guys already know about that. But it cracks me up to hear people calling this the "golden age" of bourbon!
User avatar
OneCubeOnly
Registered User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Virginia

Unread postby White Lightning » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:07 pm

Mike,

I've come to the conclusion long ago that age isn't the same as maturity, (for proof, try dating LOL) - although hopefully with age comes some maturity.

That said, it is essentially my belief that less attention is paid and devoted to old cheaper staples. In reality every American whiskey maker is chasing Jack Daniels... not for taste of course, but for sales. :idea:

What seems to be the trend is to create new higher-end expressions. If you can't sell [x] million cases like your competitor, maybe you can sell 500,000 cases at 3 x the price and still come out rosey.

You are also right about the standards being altered. As I said, change is inevitible. Haven't the standards changed for just about everything else though? To me, food doesn't taste quite as good as it did when I was a kid.

It's like the airlines when a fare war starts... a couple of airlines compete and all the rest have to try to follow suit - in the whiskey trade it doesn't surprise me that most distill and barrel as high as possible... sort of like expecting corporations not to be interested in cutting costs (lowering wages / benefits) possibly sacrificing the quality of the employee attracted, while maximizing profits.

I guess the question I mean to ask is:

Is the whiskey industry any different from most other inudstries at large?
ψ£
User avatar
White Lightning
Registered User
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:26 pm


Return to Bourbon, Straight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests