Bourbon vs. time and environments

[Dump Bucket]

I have generated this topic in a couple forms/versions, so I thought I would consolidate it into a possibly more understandable format.

My background/degree is in engineering – specifically I am Chemical [ly dependent] Engineer by degree and a practicing engineer at Raytheon (loose definition of practicing since I am more of a “PowerPoint” engineer now-a-days).

I am interested in the aging effects on bourbon… although I know/understand that bourbon, like all spirits, are distilled and therefore inert, there is still some aging effects on the product due to heat, time, oxidation, and edge effects (bottle [glass, ceramic, wood, metal w/ or w/o lining, etc], cork, cap, etc). These overall environments must alter the way a bourbon will taste and appear over time… (I would expect it to show in color first, then in taste – but again that is why I am asking)

I posted on another topic about the diminishing effects of the tanning’s due to age… and I need to find that and again comment on the response (or just point myself back over hear for some opinions).

I also generated a topic on bourbondrinker.com and got nil on the responses (probably my poor (or the number of pours before) wording on the post, so I am hoping this creates some fodder… there is definitely a little more age and history over hear – but no more enthusiasm

So the question(s):

1) What effects can alter bourbon (good or bad) over time that should be considered (heat, sunlight, vibration, thermal cycles, storage vessel, sealing (cap vs cork), oxidation, pour method (alcohol shock), etc?



2) Wine, albeit an organic, non-inert, non distiller substance will alter over time softening the stronger effects of tannins, oak or other ageing vessels and more prevalent tastes while it increases in complexity (really revealing more of the complexity in a more taste friendly manor). Can the same be said for bourbon under the right conditions?



3) Based on the above responses, what would be the ideal way to store your bourbons for long periods of time? I have ~40-50 bottles (most in some form of being consumed) that I know that will be with me for many years (10+ in some cases I am sure) that I want to ensure I do not damage the product. Currently these are all in my above ground wine cellar standing vertically.


4) With wine, it is known that a screw cap is actually the best way to store wine. It is not the elegant or popular way, but it allows the best breathing, best aging and safest way to age wine so that it is not damaged/corked for long storage. Short term it does not really mater if you use cork, synthetic, metal, old rag, etc. What is the best way to seal bourbon for long term storage ((I assume short term it also does not matter)?



5) If you have a bourbon that does not have the taste that is desired, can you alter it by aging it in new oak (say the Woodfords four grain, Sonoma, etc that have a VERY strong copper taste to them) or adding oak chips/spirals to the bottle for some period of time?

If I have missed this type of topic in the history files, please point me to them and I will review and then re-release this question as appropriate… .

Thanks y’all

Emerald

[cowdery]

These things are discussed here all the time and you probably could answer your questions using the search functions. Most of us are not engineers, however, so we may not have answers that are technical enough to satisfy you.

The aging of whiskey in the barrel is still somewhat mysterious even to the people who do it and study it, but we know there is oxidation going on as well as filtering. And we know the whiskey dissolves certain substances that are in the wood, which then become part of the whiskey.

Various things involving wood chips have been tried. They don't seem to produce very satisfactory results. A few people here and elsewhere have messed around with re-barreling bottled bourbon to see if they can improve its flavor.

I tend to think the best way to improve the flavor of a bottled whiskey is to blend (i.e., Gillmanize) it, or make a cocktail out of it.

As for whiskey in the bottle, most people will tell you that it either doesn't change at all or changes very, very little. It's extremely stable and things such as light, heat and vibration seem to have no effect.

[Dump Bucket]

I have seen snippets of the questions that I have asked, but nothing conclusive, more of field trips around other topics that digress into partial discussion.

My thoughts behind some of the questions stem from the great collections a few of y'all have and consume slowly over many years... I have seen (say http://www.ellenjaye.com for example) wonderful collections that are at ~room temp, some sun light it would seem and being near a window would see temperature fluctuation...

… and the storage of spirits that I have seen at some restaurants & bars where they have their stock sitting in windows that will see extreme temperature cycling and sunlight (some of these places do the same with their wine, some have great wine storage – no consistency with the treatment of spirits vs wine(.

There are a few places I will not drink the sprits (bourbon) because I have had a few that did not taste right and I think it was caused by these environments (Knob creek, MM, Basil, even JD * JB). They all had almost a slight soured taste or an added bitter taste that I have not experience befor.

I am not looking at investing in bourbon, but I do have a couple bottles that I want to store for many years while I enjoy the last of that offering (WT 1855 and Four Roses 1442 as a couple of examples).

The other questions area almost just for curiosity and the generation of discussion... I am not trying to get down to molecular interaction, but do have a fondness of information

[gillmang]

Chuck has coined or certainly popularized a term (Gillmanization) that bears my surname, and I thank sincerely him because coming from one with such a huge knowledge of bourbon recipes, production, aging and its history that is a real compliment.

In order to avoid the bad side of maturation (in casks), i.e., whiskeys that became sub-standard through improper storage (say excess exposure to damp moldy air or water damage from flooding), in some cases mingling was resorted to. That is, the bad characteristics would be weeded out through submerging them in whiskey that did not have these traits. This is a form of blending (although technically that term should be used to describe the mixture of whiskeys of different types or mixing aged or unaged GNS with whiskey). Sometimes not even mingling will save such whiskeys, in which case they are often distilled to form GNS.

Sometimes even without an adverse aging environment, whiskey barrels for whatever reason will vary in taste. It might have to do with where in the warehouse they are stored, the kind of wood and the interactions of the staves (just between themselves) in the barrel, and so on.

Maturation chemistry is very complex and I understand considerable advances have been made, Chuck outlined the main processes at work. I believe texts are available which address numerous chemical interations which occur, in fact Doug Philips, a member of this board, showed me such a book once. Doug if you are reading can you indicate the name of that book?

Dr. John Swan is an English PhD who has a very detailed knowledge of distillation science and the effects of barrel aging. He is one of the figures behind the excellent Welsh whisky called Pendyryn (I hope that spelling is right).

I suspect a note sent to its website (probably easy to find by googling) would elicit some further references.

As to aging in the bottle - whether to good, bad or indifferent end - I agree with Chuck that in principle one should assume it doesn't happen. Most of us do not keep whiskeys long enough to have to be concerned about this. Even a 5-10 year period probably imparts no change to a sealed bottled.

However, what if a bottle is kept for 20-30-50 years? In the 1960's, a British professor named (to my best recollection - it was a Scots name certainly) McDonough did some research which convinced him that the whiskies would improve. I do not know more than this, perhaps John Swan would know of these studies.

I read about McDonough's work in a circa-1970 book called Encyclopedia of Drinks and Drinking by John Martin but that is all Martin said of it (other than that he regretted he would not live long enough to test the theory ).

Oxidation is probably the main factor here and the compounds both changed and created by it included esters production.

We all have all situations where a heel (small amount) of whisky in a bottle can go bad. A characteristic metallic or bitter taste is imparted. When too much air drenches the whiskey, either certain compounds become volatile and change the taste or new compounds are added through the effects of the heavy air saturation. In some cases, bottles in restaurants taste bad because cooking odors get in, but undoubtedly partly full bottles (especially when the bottle is less than half full) left on the shelves for a while can become oxidised. I know this taste very well, it is also a "dirty" taste.

Can light affect the taste? I think it can - adversely. Once in Chicago at a bar where bottles were in window shelves exposed to full outdoors light I had a drink that was off for this reason - but the bottle next to it was fine! A good example of the uncertainty I think of the issues in this area.

But sure tastes will change to a degree over time - sometimes. I've had some older Canadian whiskies where I think I can taste the cork in it. The taste got in the whisky after 40 years or so, even when the bottle was kept upright.

I hope these thoughts assist, I realise they have no science content whatever, but perhaps they contain information from which technical information can be obtained.

Gary

[EllenJ]

A large portion of the what we enjoy about bourbon (all spririts, really) is the mystique, the legends and lore surrounding it. Among those is the idea, highly cherished by some of us (moi certainly included), that the contents of a properly sealed bottle undergo absolutely no discernable changes, ever. That such a bottle filled a hundred years ago will today dispense liquor identical to what your great great grandfather might have poured from it. A quart-sized glass time-machine that allows the spirit drinker -- and ONLY the spirit drinker -- the opportunity to experience history in the first person, rather than just reading about it. Additionally, since a solution containing over 40% alcohol is antiseptic, whiskey doesn't "spoil" even after it's opened, which has led to the idea that the longetivity can be extended nearly indefinitely.

So, is this really true? Well, I can't say "yes", and I won't say "no"; but if asked to say "maybe", I might.

Pour us a little something out of that pre-1900 Maryland rye bottle and I'll expand on this a little...

Logically, there would seem to be no reason to assume that a highly-complex compound such as bourbon whiskey would NOT continually, if slowly, change over time. Alcohol itself may be inert, but the solution of alcohol, congeners, water, and dissolved oak components that make up whiskey was continuing to change right up to when they dumped the barrel. I've never read anything authoritive to indicate that those changes are entirely due to contact with the barrel and that they don't include inter-reactions within the whiskey mixture itself. And those, of course, would indeed continue in the bottle.

And in an empirical sense, I have experienced examples of whiskey-from-days-gone-by that clearly (and sometimes not so "clearly") were not in the same fine condition they must have been when new. Of course, storage plays a part. Probably not in the sense that it does in a wine cellar, but a couple examples that come to mind would be cloudiness and oxidation. Chill-filtering (as done today) is a relatively new process designed to remove the congeners that produce a haze when the whiskey is chilled. It's mostly cosmetic, but bottlers in earlier days didn't do it, so if a bottle has been stored for long periods of time in a cold area there might be a haze. Especially since bourbon used to be distilled at much lower proof levels, so it included congeners that are no longer there today; some of those may have been more susceptible to hazing or even flocking (where solid particles form and settle to the bottom).

Oxidation is another issue. Corks dry out, breaking the seal with the bottle neck. Or are allowed to go soggy, which also allows air to leak. And, contrary to what might seem obvious, screw caps are worse. A bottling machine doesn't screw a cap on the same way you or I would do by hand, turning it until it's tight. The cap is applied in a precise manner, such that it's not so tight as to crack, and not so loose as to leak. There is a gasket layer to take up the slack; now universally plastic, they were originally made of cork. Thin cork. The gasket material is prone to the same drying or crumbling as a full cork, but of course it takes much less adverse conditions to ruin it, making the screw cap ineffective. Oxidation comes into play even more after the bottle is opened. More on that later.

Not everything affecting the integrity of bourbon results from environment. Sometimes the whiskey itself is just different. The subtleties of tasting notes may not be my forte, but even I can easily discern the delightful aroma of camphor (mmmmm, mothballs), which probably wasn't there in nineteen thirty-whatever. Or maybe it was. Perhaps the reason that rare example of pre-prohibition Old Veeblefetzer survived is that it was never any good to begin with and didn't sell well even back then. Before the laws passed in the decades just before and after 1900, the contents of a bottle labeled "Whiskey" (or "Rye" or "Bourbon") may have born little resemblence to what we call those liquors today. Of course there are many stories of those "imitation" whiskies, dismissing them universally as awful-tasting and of insignificant status. That isn't entirely true. Some very enjoyable spirits have worn the name "Bourbon" that would not qualify to be called that today. And some well-respected and popular brands of the time might more accurately be called "manufactured, whiskey-flavored spirit". If one happened to sample one of these, s/he might be excused for believing it's flavor had changed over the years from an imagined "original" bourbon profile.

Problem is, all of the above are exceptions, not the rule. Whiskey isn't made today the way it used to be, but those changes have come mainly within the last thirty years. By far, most examples of Bourbon and Rye from long ago that I've sampled are quite good and differ from one another only as much as one would expect from different brands and ages. That wouldn't be the case if "bottle aging" or "bottle deterioration" were a factor.

Some potentially sad news for those of us who enjoy the experience of historic whiskeys... When we began doing this on a serious scale there weren't a lot of others with whom we could compare notes and advice. About a decade into it, we're beginning to see changes that occur to opened bottles over time, and are studying ways to identify and prevent them. More on this later.

[gillmang]

Excellent observations, John. Of course we are talking about whiskies kept for the most part a very long time.

And yet, I would say, given enough experience tasting current and older whiskeys, one gets a sense finally what they "should" taste like. Well, you do and you don't, but I hope people can see what I mean.

I have tasted through John's kindness a number of his older ryes. I have tasted multiple iterations of every rye currently made and all kinds of one-offs and other forms of the stuff. After a while, you just get to know what rye tastes and tasted like. Sure, there will always be some question marks as John mentioned, but you ... get the lay of the land. To do this extensive tasting experience is required amongst a broad range of current and historic whiskies.

John's ryes that I tasted were amazing and in fine fettle as far as I am concerned. They were also better IMO than most whiskeys that bear the name rye today, but that is a different matter, one of degree.

Gary

[cowdery]

Whiskey in the barrel is one thing. There are all sorts of changes going on there, some of which are better understood than others.

Spirits in the bottle are more than one thing. With straight spirits, if they change at all they change very slowly. With compound spirits, it's a different story.

By straight spirits I mean straight whiskey but also rum, tequila, brandy, or vodka. Anything that is just alcohol and water, with no other additives.

By compound spirits, I mean any of the above plus additives. One reason for changes in some of the very old whiskeys John has is that they contained ingredients that are not as stable as straight whiskey, such as various flavorings and colorings that were commonly added to products called whiskey back before that practice was prohibitted.

So today, some liqueurs and pre-mixed cocktail-type products are very sensitive to light, heat, cold, vibration and just plain time, whereas something like a bottle of straight bourbon whiskey will remain unchanged for decades, assuming a full bottle and a good seal, regardless of exposure to light, temperature extremes, vibration and time.

So, you might want to define some parameters, because the category of spirits includes a lot of products that very definitely do change in the bottle, whereas the subset of that which is straight spirits includes almost no products that so change.

[bourbonv]

Chris Morris was telling me of a study that Brown-Forman did on bottled whiskey. They found that extended periods of exposure to sunlight will cause the whiskey to change and not in a good way. The period he was talking about was measured in years, three years I think but it may have been longer. I am no chemist but the way he described its effect on the wood sugars and tannins reminded me of the effect of UV light on paper, bringing out the acid in the wood pulp paper.

The ideal storage place for a bottle of whiskey would be similar to the ideal archival storage place for paper - dark. cool (about 65 degrees) and a constant humidity of about 60%. The bottles should be stored upright so the whiskey does not touch the cork and if you want to preserve a paper label, removed from the acidic cardboard case.

[Dump Bucket]

Excellent gentlemen - thank you

I was not looking for a scientific explanation with equations to try to explain the chemistry over time, but actual experience with products and history of actual "test" samples.... most diffusion chemistry is still not fully understood with all or the unknowns for aging a product in a pseudo soluble scenario like resins and other flavors in oak barrels

So, you might want to define some parameters, because the category of spirits includes a lot of products that very definitely do change in the bottle, whereas the subset of that which is straight spirits includes almost no products that so change.

... yes, sorry I was loosely using the term... I actually do not consume many other products other than Beer, Wine and Bourbon. I would say that less than 1% of what I drink falls outside that category.....

The ideal storage place for a bottle of whiskey would be similar to the ideal archival storage place for paper - dark. cool (about 65 degrees) and a constant humidity of about 60%

Makes since… I would think that colder 45-60 would not drastically cause any change ether…

[gillmang]

Okay, take the case of Old Overholt. This is a famed rye whiskey brand. I tasted at John's samples from before World War I, the 1930's, and I believe an early post-war one.

I know the current brand quite well and have had in other contexts samples from the 1950's until today. (These can be sampled by regular attendance at "Gazebos", get-togethers of members of http://www.straightbourbon.com of which some here are members, people bring such older items to the gatherings for tasting and historical discussions).

There is no question in my mind that even though the whiskey was made at different times in different places, it was recognisably the same whiskey. It had a grainy taste that was distinctive and older samples (over 50 years, say) shared the classic "peppermint" palate. Were some of these bottles not in perfect shape? Perhaps, but it didn't matter, you could get the full picture.

This won't be the case with every brand because in some cases what is put in the bottle over time will vary dramatically through recipe changes, plant or production changes or other factors. But with some brands you can tell that the oldies are similar to today's and often superior due to having a heavier, more penetrating taste.

Even if a 1950-era Overholt, say, is only 80% of what it was when bottled, you can still "get" its underlying taste. Ditto say a Canadian Park Lane whisky bottled in the 1960's which, to use a wine term, has become "corked". You can get "under" the off-taste to see what the drink tasted like. This partly involves knowing what Canadian whisky tastes like now and what sound samples of 1960's Canadian whisky taste like, this is why I say a broad range of tasting experience is required.

A last example: Mike has a bottle of 1970's-era Jack Daniels, it was perfect when we tasted it recently although even had it been a little moldy or light-struck I think it would have been a useful sample. It was recognisably the same as today's except (in my opinion) much better! It had the same "banana"-like taste but less of it than today's and seemed overall more elegant and smooth. Now, would the Jack of today kept 30 years taste like that? Maybe, but I don't know think so. I can't be sure though. Whatever compound explains the classic banana-like taste of Jack (is it an ester, an aldehyde or higher alcohol? I don't know) perhaps would volatilise with time thereby improving the drink enormously. I might put away a few bottles to find out and will report and truly here in 2037!

Gary

[Dump Bucket]

I think that in part supported my theory that there is some change... but I am not sure

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading about the vintage bourbon discussions on this site to date.... makes me wonder of there really is a degrading quality in bourbon today to meet the high end bourbon demands overseas.

Do y'all have an opinion on whether or not the average quality of bourbon has diminished since the demand for specialty (cask strength, single barrel, small batch, etc) has been generated?

I have not seen a growth in facility size for the distilleries, but have seen a parsing of the best bourbons for special sales…

[bourbonv]

When you are looking at the differences in brands over the years, there are many other factors that help explain the difference in taste. In fact, I would say the aging process has changed the least and has less to do with taste change in itself.

Before 1984 the maximum barrel proof was 110. This lower barrel proof allowed for more grain flavor and allowed the whiskey to react with the wood differently while aging. The more pleasant barrel characteristics are more soluble in water than alcohol, so you gain more of them quicker with lower barrel proof whiskey.

Before 1984 nobody used enzymes and whiskey had a larger ratio of malt in many brands. The lesser amount of malt has changed the flavor of the recipe.

Before 1984 there was still government gaugers on site at the distillery checking individual barrels for outages. This was done to insure that nobody was stealing whiskey and they would pick random barrels and empty them to measure the gallons of whiskey in the barrel. As long as the barrel had losses in line with the guager manual, then everything was OK. The important thing here is that barrels tended to get moved more often and the whiskey exposed to all of the wood as it was rolled out of the rick. This would happen even if the barrel was not the one being gauged but was in the rick in front of the gauged barrel. This i9s the real reason most distilleries used to rotate barrels.

Before 1984 the distilleries would leak hunt the warehouses as well. This was done for the same reason as above - to prevent excess outage. If the barrel contained too little whiskey, the distillery was still taxed to the amount of what the guager manual said it should have. This meant that barrels as a whole were kept tighter with less leaks. This is bound to have an affest on the whiskey in the barrel as less air was getting in as less whiskey was leaking out.

Over the years there has been a change in the water as city distilleries had to give up their wells and use city water. Government regulations even force some distilleries to filter their well water unless the well is very deep. This keeps water from adding to the flavor of the whiskey at its full potential.

Yeast has also changed in many cases as the use of jug yeast has been replaced with dry yeast. I know in the old days Stitzel-Weller used hops in the yeast donna so the lack of hops in the mash would change the flavor some even though that would be a very small amount of hops.

Grains have changed over the years as well as hybrid grains increase yields in the field, but often at a cost in flavor.

In a positive manner, improved quality of glass in the bottle has had some change as well. Often the glass in the old days was colored with chemicals that could leach out into the whiskey. You should be wary of old whiskey from amber or smokey grey bottles in particular. Clear glass is not a problem.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions as to why flavors of brands have changed over the years.

[Dump Bucket]

indeed... very detailed... thank you sir...

[gillmang]

Never knew that about coloured glass in the old days, Mike. How is it known this was a problem? Also, when did the problem end approximately?

Gary

[bourbonv]

I spent a couple of hours traveling in a truck with Doug Philips the other day as we went to John and Linda's for New Years. On the way we discussed this very subject and Doug brought up yet another facter from the mid to late 1980's that I had forgotten - EC's or Ethel Carbonates.

This chemical was linked to cancer and it was required to reduce the amount found in alcohol. I seem to remember from the time that Italy and Italian wine was especially known for this problem, but it did appear in whiskey as well. The changes the industry made to reduce this chemical may also be another piece of the picture that has changed the taste of bourbon. I am not a chemist but those of you that are more knowledgable may be able to shed some light on the subject.