Bourbon Aging

[bourbonv]

The other night at the Bourbon's Bistro Jim Rutledge discussed an experiment that Seagrams did in the 60's. At that time they experimented with aging bourbon in Scotland and Scotch in Kentucky. There was a huge difference in the amount of time needed for aging the whiskeys. He stated that a 6 year old bourbon was the equivelent of a 22 year old Scotch. Jim stated that the difference comes about because of two factors. The first is that bourbon uses a new barrel. The second is the warmer climate in Kectucky.

I knew there was a big difference, but this is the first time I have heard it was such a big difference. It does prove that with bourbon, unlike scotch, older is not always better.

[Mark]

So Mike, your saying that aging bourbon as we know it in new barrels in scotland for 6 years makes them 'age' like bourbon aged here for 22 years? Or that aging it for 22 years in Scotland only made it like a 6 year product here? Sorry but I just want to make sure I completely understand this experiment which sounds most interesting.

[LogicalFrank]

It would age faster in Kentucky since it's warmer there and most chemical reactions happen faster at warmer temperatures. (Right!?)

I have found this to be true w/ beers that I've aged at my home (which do develop in the bottle like wines). However, I will say that the bottles aged at warmer temperatures tended to be a little less refined in flavor. (This is all done under what I will describe as "semi-controlled" situations at best though.) So perhaps the faster aging of bourbon is something of a mixed blessing.

Has their been any findings as to what proportion of the effect they thought came from the new barrel vs. the increased temperature? I would suspect it's probably mostly the new barrel. Otherwise--why don't Scotch producers just raise their warehouse temperatures? I'd imaging that would cost a pretty penny but certainly it would be offset by only having to age the whiskey a quarter of the time.

I must say I'd been thinking of branching into Scotch and this makes it somewhat less likely. If the money I pay for a twelve year Scotch only gets me the equivalent to a three or four year bourbon, forget it!

[cowdery]

I'm not sure that makes sense. Forget about climate. Put scotch in a new, charred oak barrel and you already have a different animal. In other words, there's no way to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the products are simply different.

However, speaking strictly of time, Kentucky's climate is much warmer. I've often heard it said that scotch is effectively dormant for much of the year, doing nothing in that barrel. Again, that may be true in terms of expansion/contraction, but oxidation and other things are proceeding apace.

Again with the weather, I've heard the same kinds of comparisons made about whiskey in Kentucky/Tennessee versus rum in Jamaica.

Ultimately, to be blunt, I think it's a simplistic comparison for simple minds.

[dgonano]

Chuck,

I don't believe they put scotch in new oak or bourbon in old oak. Perhaps they were just aging the whiskies in a different climate, probably to see why scotch whisky is a lower proof after aging ( as compared to barrel entry ) when aged in Scotland while bourbon whiskey comes out of the barrel at a higher proof in Kentucky.

[bourbonv]

According to what Jim said a 6 yo bourbon is equal to a 22yo scotch in age. They do put a small amount of scotch in new barrels. The experiment as I understood it was to put some bourbon up for aging in Scotland and some scotch up for aging in Kentucky.

[bourbonv]

I am going to respectfully disagree with Chuck here. These experiments are not really comparing apples and oranges because what was being measured is the ability for alcohol and water to absorb the the characteristics of taste from the wood. I don't think that the grain or sugar that the alcohol is made of will have that much of a difference in the ability to take on vanilla and caramel among other flavors.

I do think Jim did simplify the studies quite a bit for the crowd and I also think that he left out one thing that might have made as much of the difference as the two factors he did discuss and that is barrel proof. In the 60's and 70's when these experiments were made by Seagrams the barrel proof was only 110. I am not sure what the legal maximum for scotch is, if there is even a legal maximum, but I do know that most scotch goes in the barrel above the 125 maximum of today's bourbon. I think the high proof of the scotch probably scewed the results as much as the used barrels and the temperature.

[EllenJ]

I'm with Mike on that one.

I know that's a REALLY short comment for me, but Mike made me a believer in the low proof idea, and it's been a cornerstone for me ever since. Jim's experiment just seems to emphasize that view even more.

[TK]

G'day Enthusiasts,

It has been sometime since my last confession, woops wrong place
It's been sometime since I posted here but I'm still here!!

I too have to disagree with Chuck. The reason being is I do my own experiments with rebarrelling and I can totally assure all of you the weather plays a vital part in the maturation of whisk(e)y.
If you live in a timber house or a house that has a lot of timber(not steel framed, brick veneer!!) just listen to all the creaking that goes on...It's the timber expanding and contracting.

Now for a reference to Casks/Barrels...the hotter the barrel gets the more spirit is allowed into the grain of the timber, thus extracting more sugars, etc. As the average temp. in Scotland is a lot lower than that of Kentucky the barrels don't expand as much and so the sugars are not allowed to dissolve into the whisk(e)y as much or for as long.
Australia is a fantastic place!! LOL meaning weather wise...we have both the weather of Kentucky and Scotland...when it gets hot here(Melb), it gets bloody hot!! and when it's cold, it's bloody cold!!!!!
While conducting my experiments I found that over summer the whisk(e)y can change almost from day to day, yet in winter there was only few changes in the taste of my Whisk(e)y experiments.

Chuck I'm rather suprised that you think the weather plays no role...in essence the whisk(e)y is the same...distilled from cereal grain, matured in Oak.
Granted the experiment 'bourbonv' mentions doesn't make allowances for the ABV in each barrel but I can assure you that if the experiment was conducted properly, the difference in climate would show a massive difference!!

Here is what should be done for the experiment...
Take 2 barrels(freshly filled) of Bourbon and set them aside, send one to Scotland...
Same with Scotch...
For the experiment to give a true result, each barrel of Scotch and Bourbon must be sitting next to each other, so they are affected by the same climate. No point in having each barrel in four different places maturing.
I would give everything I own if I am wrong!!(Mind you I don't own much, but on the contrary it's more valuable to me!!)

Cheers and great to be back again amongst the enthusiasts!!

[bourbonv]

Troy,
In your rebarreling experiments, are you using new or used barrels? It would be interesting to put some unaged 100 proof corn whiskey (Georgia Moon) into a new barrel and some into a used barrel and to store them side by side to see the difference in the aged product after 4 years or so.

[cowdery]

I certainly never said "weather plays no role." My sole point was that scotch and bourbon are such different animals that the supposed experiment proves nothing and the supposed conclusion, that "a 6 year old bourbon was the equivelent of a 22 year old Scotch" is just meaningless. Does a 6-year-old bourbon taste like a 22-year-old scotch? No? I rest my case.

[Mike]

Does a 6-year-old bourbon taste like a 22-year-old scotch? No? I rest my case.

Well, shucks Chucks, nobody ever said that bourbon tastes like scotch. I think it is at least mildly interesting to bourbon folks (if not to the Scotch drinkers, who seem to believe that they will be alone in whisk(e)y heaven) that 6 years in Kentucky, in terms of its affect on distilled spirits, is roughly equivalent to 20+ years of Scottish weather. Can any experiment ever prove that proposition...........well, you have a point here........it is quite doubtful.

Still, the fact that Bourbon is considered at its best at a much younger age than Scotch could make for an interesting discussion..........along with the other interesting differences...........different grains, different yeasts, different water, different national characters, different marketing, different histories, and not least, different partisan advocates who seem bent on ignoring the best qualities of each whisk(e)y.

I have no case to rest.

[bunghole]

It's really quite simple, and it has nothing to do with facts or science.

Here it is in all it's simplicity -> -> -> -> ->

Scottish whisky is put up in used cooperage in a cold climate in masonary warehouses. The maturation is very very slow.

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey is put up in new charred white oak barrels from day one. They are stored in warehouses that are very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter.

The color tells the whole story. They both go in white (that is to say -> clear).

Now check out the color of any four year old bourbon. Compare it to the color of any four year old scottish whisky.

Say What!?

No such thing as four year old scottish whisky?! Of course there is! It's just not for sale.

Look at any 12 year old scottish whisky and compare it to any four year old bourbon. The scot is a pale straw color while the bourbon is a rich reddish hue. The body of the four year old bourbon is far thicker than any twelve year old scottish whisky.

They are different. Yes. Anyone can see that bourbon is easilly equal to any scottish whisky by a factor of 3.

Who gives a rat's ass that scottish whisky tastes like shit anyway?!

Soon the entire world will know that any 10 year old bourbon out stripes and outsells any 30 year old sc**ch.

A new day is coming when BOURBON will become the undisputed KING of all whiskies.

Amen

[Mike]

What's that you say, bunghole is a closet Scotch lover..............I would have never believed it if I had not heard it from you!!

[cowdery]

Scotch seems to get most of its flavor from the distillate itself. The barrel is mostly there to hold it while it oxidizes.

Scotch would have even less color if they didn't color it with spirit caramel (which is forbidden for American straights).

American straight whiskey, on the other hand, gets most of its flavor from the new charred barrel and needs the warmer temperatures because it needs that expansion-contraction cycle to pull the flavoring compounds out of the wood.

American straight whiskey is much more "about" the barrel flavors than scotch is.