BourbonEnthusiast.com

At http://www.kentuckybourbonwhiskey.com are pictured bottles of bourbon sold into the export market by the Kulsveens. There are 3 bottles labeled KBD. One is called KBD 1976, a second KBD 1980, the 3rd KBD 1983. Most accounts of Willett's Distillery have it operating into the 1970's and bottling much later. When these labels say 1976 or 1980 presumably the whiskey was distilled in that year, altough when bottled (and thus how old) is not clear. It would seem the '76-er at least may be some of the last Willett's production. Would any of the sharp minds here like to offer a guesstimate of the source of this whiskey?

Gary

Gary,


Sorry I have no information on the source of what went into these bottles, but I can tell you this. This last Friday Nov 25th 2005 picked up one each of these from a store here in Louisville KY. They had quite a few hanging around of the 17 and 21 yr offering. I am really new to the bourbon thing, and this forum, and I have never seen these in any store before so I decided to take a gamble . I have opened the '83' 17 year old and it is mighty fine bourbon . I also would love to know more about its origins and sent an email from their web site to that effect but no reply.


Oh yes the store was a store off of Brownsboro very near the highway I-264 and next to a very good German restaurant. In case y'all wanted to know.


Chuck

Many thanks for this information, good to know the products are available domestically. I also wrote the website, but no answer as yet. Thanks again.

Gary

P.S. I note there is some discussion on this brand on the "other" bourbon website, so perhaps useful information will appear there also.

Here are the prices

17yr $39

21yr $59

23yr $89

I hate to say this but considering Pappy 23 is $200+ here in KY this seems reasonable

I've got to say that the 23 year is some great stuff. Chris got me a bottle of it earlier this year as a house warming gift and I was impressed. For its age it is remarkably good, not too woody or methanol like.

These just arrived here yesterday. Drew was gonna have them for a preview at our tasting at the store, but bless his heart, he forgot and left them in the hotel room.

Mark, you had asked me if these bottles were wheaters. I have confirmation that they are not.

Good to know LeNell, and all along I thought that they (well, the export ones at least with the years on the neck not the age statements) that they were wheathers. I thought they were though because it looks like wheat stalks on the label, but hey, what the hell do I know about what a wheat stalk would look like.

Old Man Bourbon,



Let me start by saying I am no athority on this, but I thought that the 1976 was a 23 year old bourbon at bottling time. The 1980 was the 21 year old bourbon and the 1983 was the 17 year. What is the proof of your bottles? The three bottles pictured (ones with the age. 17, 21, and 23) are 94 proof.


17 yr -- Green Wax top

21 yr -- Red wax top

23 yr -- Brown

On the two bottle picture

1980 -- Red wax

1976 -- Brown wax


I am not sure if this is coincidence or not but you may just be missing the 17 year edition.


Drew I am sure can answer this question


Chuck

On the one hand, it's always interesting to taste a 17, 21 or 23-year-old whiskey. On the other hand, it's much more interesting if you know where the whiskey is really from. Buffalo Trace has set an admirable example by always revealing the source of its whiskey, even when it is not the source.

cowdery wrote:Buffalo Trace has set an admirable example by always revealing the source of its whiskey, even when it is not the source.

Chuck,


That is a good point , and I agree, BT does do an excellent job of letting us know the details. In the case of the Antique collection we get proof off of the still, botteling proof, years in the barrel, warehouse and floors the barrels came from, evaporation loss, # of barrels dumped etc. It is almost overkill but it is exactly the kind of information us bourbon and whisky lovers thrive on. I really hope it prompts the other manufacturers start doing the same thing. One can always dream of a perfect world.


ChuckMick

ChuckMick wrote:It is almost overkill but it is exactly the kind of information us bourbon and whisky lovers thrive on. I really hope it prompts the other manufacturers start doing the same thing. One can always dream of a perfect world.

Providing detailed, factual information is easy enough for the distillers to do and I don't see any downside, even in those rare cases where they might be selling something they didn't make. Sure, somebody has to actually do the work, compile the facts, make the photocopies and stick them in the cases, but if you want to be perceived as a premium producer of premium products, that is the sort of thing you do.

Unfortunately, many of the "small batch," extra-aged bourbons out there are from bottlers, who like to foster the illusion that they are distillers. Often they will aver that they are prohibited from revealing who made what but I doubt that's really true. (Why would Heaven Hill care?)

cowdery wrote: even in those rare cases where they might be selling something they didn't make.

I really enjoyed the 17 yr old bourbon and I would like to know the details about this bottling. However, when someone can choose a mixture of barrels, from some other manufacturer, and get a product this tasty that is an art worthy of praise. My hat is off to them for giving me the opportunity to sample some very well aged bourbon.


Mr Cowdery i liked the HH reference.


ChuckMick

I prefer the 17 out of the threesome of 17, 21, and 23. Better balance, IMHO. I understand Chuck's point of revealing information. I like to have all those juicy details, too; however, I will soon be one of those doing something for the store with a bottler.