Is There a Regional Taste in Bourbon?

[gillmang]

I was thinking about this recently when struck by the fact that Old Forester has a marked cherry-like nose and taste. The older Stitzel-Wellers in the past often did too, e.g., 1849. So did Old Yellowstone (strawberry-fruity-like in its case).

I don't think Early Times did (i.e. as a bourbon) or I.W. Harper though, they were lighter and non-estery. But every distiller has a range of tastes.

In Bardstown, I would say that the bourbons tend to stress the rye element: you get a grainy rye taste plus some corn oil in the medium-age HH bourbons and a somewhat assertive, not-dissimilar vegetable taste in most Beam products.

In Lawrenceburg, Four Roses seems to stand alone in its spicy character.

Wild Turkey seems to me to stress the barrel more than anything else.

In Frankfort, Buffalo Trace seems to go for a couple of styles, both non-estery (Elmer Lee once told me he thinks bourbon should not have a fruity taste), with different levels of caramel sweetness with some minty rye quality as well. Both Old Taylor and ND Gran-dad seemed rather individual in their profiles, the former being lightly fruity in a apple-like way and the latter quite caramel rich but non-estery.

I think today all in all, given the reduced number of distilleries and how so many brands have moved camp over the years, it is not possible to say there are surviving regional tastes in Kentucky.

It is my perception that products of a given area tend relatively to resemble each other, probably because they obtain raw materials and equipment from similar sources and sometimes employ personel who worked elsewhere in the area. Just to pick one example, when I've had the chance to taste the beers of a certain area, there seems certain patterns you can draw.

Or was bourbon never regional (or sub-regional) in this sense?

Gary

Gary

[EllenJ]

Well, the barrels are pretty much a non-issue, there being only two cooperages used among the commercial distilleries.

And regardless of what you may hear from PR folks and True Believers, the water actually used in making the whiskey has been conditioned to meet the same uniform GMP standards required of any food-grade process.

And as long as it's #2 yellow and not moldy, it doesn't really matter if the corn comes from the farm next door or from the other side of the country. The barley, wheat, or rye can, and often does, come from other countries. And nobody cares, as long as it meet specs.

Even the production software is standardized and regulation-compliant.

About the only thing that's variable anymore is the yeast.
And there's folks here that will point out that even the yeast used these days is not really as esoteric as it may once have been.

Or is it?

We all know that the integrity of the fermentation is maintained by rigidly controlling the environment in which that occurs. There is, however, a misconception that this is accomplished by (among other factors, of course) ensuring that the distiller's proprietary yeast, and only that yeast, can get access to the goodies in the tank. The fact is, that just isn't so. And you really don't want it to be. As in the real world, there are a variety of yeast strains (families, tribes, ethnic groups, nationalities, races, call them what you will) who set up little territories in the fermenting tank. And like their counterparts in the human world, they "eat" different foods (nutrients in the mash). That has a profound effect on their, uh, well, I'd like to be more delicate here, but I just don't know how to say it any other way, their excretions and their breath. These strains don't always get along real well, either; not unlike their human counterparts. That fermentation vat is a miniature Middle East, just crawling with rapidly-growing civilizations, each trying to eke out a space for its children. Nearly all of these are minority groups, of course. THAT's why the distiller dumps plenty of the signature yeast into the mix, in order that it become the dominant culture. I'll be happy to avoid the obvious political metaphors here as to whether that's such a good idea. Suffice it say that, if left alone, there is a good chance the yeasts indiginous to the area where good whiskey is made are apt to produce some really excellent whiskey. Like they used to. But the mix isn't the same every time and some batches could turn out horrible. When they made it a barrel or two at time that wasn't a big deal, but those who became really successful were those who became really consistent. Some claimed it was the water; other insisted it was their unique recipe. But most agree it was their special yeast.

And it certainly helps to have a good and dependable yeast strain that makes up the bulk of the flavor in your whiskey. But what every distiller knows (and firmly denies has anything to do with anything) is that what makes HIM so special is his ability to gauge just when to add it. Just what temperature to bring, say, half the cornmeal to, and then leave it there awhile, and then you add the rye when the temperature's just right, then the rest of the corn, then the malt. And THEN the yeast. And maybe not all at once, either; maybe some now -- then wait -- then more. And all the while this is going on, wild yeasts, indiginous to the region, are taking hold all over the place. The main yeast will knock most of them out right away, and eventually overpower the rest and dominate the environment. But not before the mash has taken on traces of the unique flavors that each of them provides.

The wild yeasts are everywhere, of course. And barrels of Kentucky whiskey have a knack for finding themselves in warehouses far removed from where they were originally distilled. But the yeasts' relative populations, and their effectiveness in taking hold in a distillery fermenting tank environment, varies considerably within rather small areas. Bourbon from the Franklin/Anderson/Woodford county area tastes different from whiskey made in Jefferson County (Louisville), which, while similar to Owensboro whiskey or Nelson County whiskey, is not exactly the same. This is probably frustrating for distillers like Craig Beam who must try to produce familiar flavors unique to Bardstown with mash he's now fermenting in Louisville. I can picture poor Craig making field trips to Nelson County in search of spoiled berries and other sources of native yeasts to kidnap and bring back to 7th & Breckenridge.

Someday, a hotshot young graduate chemist (who probably drinks flourescent green lime vodka martinis) may come up with a mapping of synthetic yeast flavors that will be capable of slipping through a loophole in the bourbon regulations and allow a distiller to recreate some of the indiginous flavors found along Glenn's Creek, or the Salt River. Or the Monongahela for that matter. Won't that be a wonderful day? But then, it's probably more likely that another young graduate, this one from a law school, will find a way to require distillers to match, without deviation, one of six Federally-approved whiskey flavor profiles and we can then simply depend on the writers of back-labels (and whiskey magazines, of course, except for one red-head I know who would probably quit in disgust instead) to point out the subtle differences that are no longer there and why we should be paying $98 a bottle for it.

I love American whiskey. I'm not ashamed to say I also like soda pop. Coca Cola. Jack Daniel. Pepsi Cola. Woodford Reserve. Royal Crown Cola. Buffalo Trace. Dr. Pepper. Four Roses. Each is highly unique in its flavor. But the soda pop is completely one-dimensional. No undertones; no subtle changing of flavors as one component evaporates faster than the others. Is that the way American whiskey is headed? Simple, instantly-identifiable trade-mark flavors. I hope not, but I'm not optimistic about it.

Gary, I think you're very correct about the regional tastes.
And I think you should try very hard to remember those differences.
Because your grandchildren will probably think you're just telling "how things used to be, back in the day" stories.

[TNbourbon]

To: John Lipman, aka EllenJ and sometimes styled as Strayed
From: Tim Sousley, who somewhat aggregiously calls himself "TNbourbon"

Dear John,
You have heretofore drunk and pronounced whiskey with me, and acknowledged distraction by pronouncement of others toward opinionation (I coulda been a lawyer -- really!).
I call bullshit!
The afore-posted -- well, post! -- is perhaps an astute and useful a dissertation on the vicissitudes of whisk(e)y-making as I have read. And, also, the most revolutionary. If I interpret anywhere near a-right, you are stating that the quality of bourbon/rye/whiskey is somewhat randomly differentiated by the quality of its environment at the time of its making. And, then, its aging.
The simplification of complicated matters is an efficacy and practice too little exercised and/or appreciated by modern culture, which seems to be wedded (as an aside) to complication over simplification.
John, thank you for being simple.

Much regard,
Tim

[Frezo]

Thanks for the great read Ellen. That was excellent. I have a question. Are there specific times of the year when barrels are tapped? I would imagine they would have to be precise in order to maintain a consistent flavor between batches, but are certain times of the year better than others?

Thanks again!
Frezo

[gillmang]

Good points indeed, John. I think it is true that the sourcing of ingredients from all over, the increasing use of standardised yeasts (e.g., dried distillers' yeasts), and development of consistent industrial practices (in response say to environmental laws or international quality standards such as the ISO), probably are uniformising the tastes of bourbon.

In contrast, in the past as you said regional tastes probably derived from the behaviour of yeasts in a local area and how the particular warehouses there affected the product. To this I'd add local practices of equipment selection and operation and in the distant past the characteristics of local grain supplies, but for a long time that has not been the case.

I recall that beers tasted in Portland, Oregon, for example, even from the larger area surrounding, seemed to have a certain quality in common, and this may have been the effects of how yeasts, even diverse in origin, ended up behaving in the tanks there. Plus of course the brewers were tasting each others' products and working in certain preferred styles, e.g., the strong IPA style which has become popular.

At the same time, they were using (most of them) hops grown in the North West which can have common characteristics, so to some degree a regional tradition was in place.

But I agree that in general regional character is diminishing and brewing is an excellent example. In 1978 Michael Jackson chronicled the surviving regional and sub-regional tastes in his book, World Guide To Beer. Today, people all over the world make styles once associated with specific countries or regions: nothing wrong with that, and it has introduced much variety in many areas, but the brewing has become de-anchored from the areas which nurtured it . This is a process that has been going on for some time. The first great (or often not so great in this case) result was the international lager style inspired by the beer of Pilsen in what is now the Czech Republic.

There are still I think some surviving regional tastes in Kentucky bourbon. But surely this is much reduced from former times. I would say a "city" bourbon from Louisville in general is or was more "elegant": often fruity-winy-like and lighter than whiskey from in and around Bardstown, for example, and less rye-influenced. I contrast Bardstown simply because I am more familar with it than say the products associated with Owensboro.

Probably too brick or masonary city warehouses tended to produce a milder drink than metal-clad warehouses which took in more effects of local climate.

Beam, Barton and HH whiskeys all have a vigorous, rye-driven palate, this is part of their charm and individuality. As you say, HH whiskeys for some years are being mashed and distilled in Louisville, which may be altering them somewhat. I actually like the apparent changes, but that is another story.

Of course, Maker's Mark not too far from Bardstown evolved its version of a style one would also associate with Louisville (the use of wheat in a mash instead of rye). So even around Bardstown there never emerged one style or way of making bourbon, at least, not since the 1950's. But even today I'd regard that taste as "atypical" for Bardstown if you see what I mean.

Unless micro-distilling takes off in a big way - and even then, because of what I have seen happen in the beer world - regional differences will become less evident in the future, I agree.

Gary

[Mike]

Gary, I admire your discriminating palate. You often point out things in whiskey that lead to a greater appreciation on my part.

John, I agree with Tim. You were in fine form with your post on the likelihood of 'regional' yeasts contributing to distinct 'regional' flavors.....along with the other personal choices of the Master Distiller during the mashing and distilling processes. Just great stuff, well written, very interesting, and well reasoned.

Your argument also puts the Master Distiller in that same idiosyncratic category with the local yeast. His years of experience in making bourbon count for so much in the overall product. His best whiskey has got to please his palate.

[fussychicken]

Oh come on Gary! Just say it! Terroir! See that wasn't so bad was it?!?

Some of the scotch boys think that the grain terroir does indeed play a part: http://www.thescotchblog.com/2007/04/be ... rroir.html

One quote from Mark Reynier (Managing Director of Bruichladdich Distillery):

At the last Islay Festival, I organised a tasting that 147 members of the public took part in; ‘nosing’ 4 new spirit. The samples were drawn from the spirit safe at 0 age, colourless, identically distilled, same harvest, but from 4 different 'terroirs'. 100% of the tasters – all members of the public - on the nose alone, could tell that the 4 samples were different. The ‘Terroir’ was the only difference between the samples: the fields where the barley was grown. In this case the soil, bedrock, microclimate all played their part. That’s ‘terroir’.

Between the milling, cooking, yeasting, distilling, aging, etc... I'm sure the influence of the grain is diminished. But if we claim we can tell differences between bourbons with different mash bills, surely we should be able to tell the difference between bourbons that source the grains from different areas, no?

Another thought on region differences:
Has anyone been able to compare white dog from Dickel or JD compared to white dog from the Kentucky bourbon boys?

[bourbonv]

Where to start? There are many points here I would like to comment on so I guess I will start with Gary's original question - No there is not a regional style, but there is a distillery style. The same identical mash bill and yeast made at wo different distilleries, even if they are just yards apart, will make different whiskey. I have seen this happen and heard others discuss this. The prime example is the Old Fitzgerald made at Stitzel-Weller is not the same as the Old Fitzgerald made at Bernheim. The different style of column and thumper make a difference.

Each distillery is a unique operation and even with work, it is hard to make the flavor profile match when different distilleries make the same product. Ed Foote tells the story of Seagrams making the same whiskey at different distilleries - Fairfield, Athertonville, Lawrencesburg, Ky, Lawrenceburg, Ind., Louisville, and Shively. You could always tell the difference and which plant made what. Louisville and Shively were only about a mile apart. I have heard the same type of stories from Old Taylor and Old Crow - yards apart.

John, you are guilty once again of over simplifying things. Yes, wild yeast will make a difference, but that is just one of many things. All water is not alike. Yes they are for the most part using water purified by reverse osmosis but there are still trace minerals that will make a difference in the taste of the water and the final alcohol. Grains are very similar but not always. Many distilleries are using malted barley that is treated to increase enzyme production making it possible to cut the malt used in half. Makers Mark is still using the old fashioned natural Malt and the higher percentage. The amount of malt will change the flavor profile and I also expect the engineered malt also taste different. There are many other factors than wild yeast playing a part in a distillery style. Another factor is aging. Whiskey aged in brick or iron warehouse is the obvious difference, but what about warehouse location. I would like to try a sample of whiskey aged in Louisville at Brown-Forman and the same run aged at Woodford. Or even better some whiskey from the same Heaven Hill run aged in Bardstown at the Heaven Hill as well as the Glencoe and the fairfield distillery warehouses. Three locations in the same ten mile radius.

Finally, yes for the last 8 years or so I have tasted Jack Daniels white dog next to Early Times, Old Forester and Woodford Reserve white dogs. You can do this too for the cost of a trip to Woodford and a $125.00 ticket. The Bourbon Academy will be on February 16 and March 22. See the Woodford website.

Gary,
I would not talk regional styles. When I was at United Distillers, Chris and I looked into this quite closely and we determined it was not a factor in Kentucky. There are more similarities than differences, and the differences were more distillery differences.

[gillmang]

I do feel terroir is important. It means not just the land where something is grown but also local practices and habits, or a combination of all these things.

It plays a role in determining bourbon palate, but it is hard to know how far, and without (truly) wanting to complicate things, I am trying to understand and break down the elements of the bourbon palate and its origin to figure out if terroir is as important as it was at the beginning, when bourbon first emerged.

I think its influence is less important than formerly, for the reasons pointed out earlier in the thread.

But it still exists I think. The cherry-like taste of some Louisville bourbon whiskey, where it survives, is an example I think, not not necessarily with regard to the grains but of other production elements including perhaps yeast.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
I have never detected cherry flavor in Early Times or IW Harper or Old Charter or any Stitzel-Weller bourbon. I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to find a regional flavor. It does not exist. Each distillery is too unique and the bourbons they distill are also unique. If there was a regional flavor then Early Times and Old Forester would have to taste similar since they are from the same distillery. They are very different. I find more citrus in the 86 Old Forester than the Old Forester Signature and no citrus at all in Early Times. As a matter of fact Early Times is very strong in corn and caramel with a hint of coconut and if I did not know they came from the same distillery I would not think so. Completely different bourbons. The American Whiskey version of Early Times is similar to the bourbon on the thinner side of taste, but similar to the bourbon.

Bourbon is too complex to fit into something as simple as a regional flavor.

[gillmang]

I said earlier that some Louisville bourbons were not fruity in taste. They were another iteration of the Louisville style, in this case, lighter, less rye-tasting than "country" whiskeys.

I don't know that this kind of thing can be proven or disproven, it is a feeling I have, based on how Yellowstone tasted; how OF 1849 S-W tasted (a S-W flagship arguably); on how Weller 107 tasted and still does; and how OF 100 tastes (a flagship in regard to OF 86 I think).

I never encountered this kind of taste outside of Louisville. True, NDOT was notably fruity, but informed comment on SB suggests this was not the profile of OT before the 1980s.

This is my opinion at any rate.

Gary

[gillmang]

I'd like to suggest also that the fact that whiskeys from the same, much less different, distilleries are not always identical does not affect whether a regional style exists.

As long as they are broadly similar - compared to what can be had in another region - I think a regional style can exist.

Gay

[bourbonv]

Gary,
For me the ultimate cherry flavor is National Distillers Old Grand Dad - any proof but especially bonded. Four Roses also has a yeast version which is very cherry or date fruit. Old Grand Dad was Made in Frankfort and Four Rose in Lawrenceburg. I think the best Stitzel-Weller bourbons are known for their caramel apple and pecan flavors. You also find that in well aged Maker's Mark - say about 8yo Makers Mark. I know you can't get well aged Maker's Mark anymore, but it does exist and is as good as anything produced at Stitzel-Weller.

I still say that bourbon is too complex to be classified by anything as simple as region. The Scotch industry gets away with it because they are a simple product in comparison. Most Scotch regions are defined by the amount of peat in the malt and proximity to the ocean. A Lowland distillery could make a Highland style Malt by adding a little more peat to their malt. Kentucky on the other hand has three grains in the whiskey and Four grains to choose from. The amount of grain used and even the variety of grain used can change the taste. There are no oceans to change the environment and all of the distilleries are really rather close together in a triangle. The geography is really very similar in the triangle.

Now Gary, if you are basing this all upon a similarity between an old bottle of Yellowstone and Old Forester - how do you know Glenmore did not purchase the whiskey in that bottle from Brown-Forman? It happened alot and still does happen today more than people want to think.

[gillmang]

Because I tasted those products over a long period, so I was able to draw a bead on their essential character.

I never found NDOG to be fruity, but rather, richly caramel-like, or predominantly so. I have had many products from Four Roses but none was fruity in the sense I mean.

Gary

[gillmang]

I might go further and suggest that the real hallmark of Louisville whiskey was its relative lightness - maybe the market in an urbanised area preferred that over the vigorous taste of the rural whiskeys. Fruity quality would be a sub-set, but the main characteristics might be lightness and a certain ethereal quality.

Here is my argument, based on personal tasting for 30 years:

- all the marquee brands from S-W were characterised by a mild, elegant taste, assisted in this regard by use of wheat in the mash

- I.W. Harper was a notably light-bodied, elegant bourbon, easy on the rye

- Old Forester also was (is) mild-tasting - and originally it was 90 proof - and in recent decades at least, rather estery (not the bond always perhaps)

- Early Times too was relatively light-tasting, not fruity but with a lightly caramel taste and not too much char (as for the others mentioned above except for Old Fitzgerald 1849 and the oldest Fitzgeralds but the latter were atypical).

- Old Charter also had a lightly fruity (black fruit) taste with once again a low-rye mashbill

- Old Yellowstone had a pleasing strawberry-like fruit quality and the company used a reflux on the still...

Contrast to these, bourbons such as Beam Black (or formerly Beam's Choice); Wild Turkey 101 (or JTS Brown in the 60's, similarly heavy-bodied and smoky-tasting); Heaven Hill's mid-aged brands (heavy on the rye and with some corn taste); Barton's whiskeys (generally full tasting, dryish, the rye prominent); the bourbons from what is now Buffalo Trace - Ancient Age was a fine whiskey but to my taste closer to the Bardstown style than the Louisville one I am positing; and Old Gran-dad (always a big bruiser). Old Taylor perhaps was an anomaly since it had a lightly fruity taste and was not heavy, although the fruity taste apparently did not characterise the brand before the 1970's/80's (see the recent discussion on SB on this).

Four Roses might also be an anomaly - the regular Four Roses is certainly. Also, we know the FR bourbons from their recent re-introduction to the domestic market, I am not sure what the classic FR bourbon taste was before it was turned into a blend in the 50's or 60's.

Medley made Ezra Brooks I believe as its main brand - pretty big-bodied, heavy whiskey.

You can have a local style with some exceptions too, to appeal to a minority taste, in fact this is inevitable, with any product.

The obverse of what I am saying must have existed in Louisville although off-hand I can't think of a heavy-bodied rye-oriented whiskey that was traditional in that market.

Maker's Mark is definitely an exception to the schema I propose, but again, exceptions there always will be. It would be interesting to know what the Burke bourbon was like made on the site originally: I would think closer to the heavy-bodied/heavy-flavored Bardstown/Clermont style than to Maker's, which was the result of a specific business plan and concept.

I never tasted Willett's as a 4-6 year old bourbon but based on Charlie Thomason's 1960's article, I have reason to think it was a sturdy, flavorful country-style bourbon whiskey.

Of course there were hundreds of distilleries and I do not claim one could create a map of regional flavors of scientific accuracy - in any case it is impossible to try since so many whiskeys have disappeared - but what I say above is I think based on something more than impression.

Gary




-