Why is Four Roses Single Barrel bourbon so good?

Talk about rare, export, annual release and other types of similar bottlings here.

Moderator: Squire

Why is Four Roses Single Barrel bourbon so good?

Unread postby Mike » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:22 pm

Anyone who has read my reviews on FRSB knows that I think this is not a good bourbon........it is a great bourbon! I also know that many others find this bourbon to be first rate, including my good friend George, who has a better palate than I do.

If I am not mistaken it is only about 6 years old (someone correct me if I am wrong about that). Why does its taste not belie it youth? Obviously, Mr Jim Rutledge at Four Roses has devised a masterful formula that combines the essential ingredients of bourbon (corn, rye, malt, water, yeast, and oak aging) beautifully. And, for a price that is more than reasonable for the product ($29 when my son bought me two bottles recently in Lexington).

I don't see how the aging can play a very big role here, but FRSB doesn't seem to give up anything by its short time in the barrel. Is it the yeast that takes the edge off the alcohol? It is obviously a high rye recipe, how does that effect the richness and smoothness in addition to imparting the spice and fruity flavors? In so short a time spent with the oak (relatively speaking), how did it become so viscous and creamy? What was the proof when it went into the barrel, how much does it gain if the entrant proof is lower in terms of the water soluble barrel components?

You can see that my time as a Bourbon Enthusiast has given me enough knowledge to be dangerous, so some of you much more knowledgeable folks help me understand what FRSB has going for it (aside from the obvious talent of Mr. Rutledge).

Speaking of talent, our Master Distillers are every bit the equivalent of France's best chefs and spirit makers. These are the ones you see mentioned so often on this website in one context or another, and our extraordinary Julian Van Winkle (clarify for my, oh, savants, what is his role if he is not a Master Distiller). These fellows (are there women Master Distillers?), both living and dead, are National Treasures. Thank goodness for our Mike Veach, Chuck Cowdery, John Lippman, Gary Gillman, and others who professionally and as amatuers keep these candles burning.

I remain a student of bourbon, a lover of bourbon, and a 'Bourbon Enthusiast'!!
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby cowdery » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:46 pm

This may not answer your question, but one of the tragedies of the demise of Seagram's is that they had a devotion unequalled by any other company, certainly in the American whiskey business, to research and development, and the training of distillers. There is a big difference between the way Seagrams-trained distillers operate and the way distillers operate at other distilleries. I'm not saying one way is wrong or even that one way is better, but they are very different. Seagram's people are kind of the epitome of "scientific" distillers, whereas at the other end of the spectrum are the "practical" distillers, of which the Beams generally are the exemplars.

A big part of the Seagram's "way" is blending, even with straight bourbon, hence the standard Four Roses contains ten different bourbons (two mash bills, five different yeasts), as well as whiskey at different maturities.

Then you have single barrel which, of course, has none of that, but there you have the ability to very carefully select. The flathouses help because they age more consistently, with less variation, than conventional rackhouses.

So a simple but perhaps not very satisfying answer is, they really know what they're doing.
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago

Unread postby Mike » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:51 pm

Actually, your answer is probably the only one that, in the end, will be satisfactory..............they know what they are doing.

It is my opinion that with so many variables to contend with, making great whiskey is more 'art' than science. In the end, it is that attention to detail, experience, and love of one's craft that must make the difference.

The application of science to learn as much as possible about the ingredients and processes in the distiller's art is a very worthwhile endeavor. But, we are, after all, talking about human taste when we are discussing bourbon, so humans must be the final arbitors of when things are 'just right'. And, that 'just right' will never suit everyone.

Making great bourbon is challenging..........and so is being human, but both have many rewards!
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby fricky » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:03 am

Four Roses Single Barrel is an outstanding bourbon. Process control and careful attention to detail were quite evident during my tour of their distillery and I believe they are significant factors in their success.
User avatar
fricky
Registered User
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:10 pm
Location: PA

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:06 am

I can only echo these thoughts. I've met Jim Rutledge and it was evident from that alone that he knows bourbon inside out.

Others do, too, of course, and we get the results of each, all good but some outstanding.

The blending of straights for the Four Roses brand undoubtedly contributes to its fine quality, which is a perfumed, mild, flavorful quality.

FRSB usually is superb. Sometimes I have found the selected barrels a little "fresh wood" in character. That is a sign I think of relative youth of the bourbon. But generally they are a big fruity, rye-oriented taste which is mature but without excessive char or fresh wood flavor.

I think the flathouse method mentioned by Chuck probably assists the quality too, faster aging, maybe more uniform aging. It just seems to make sense that a single barrel will mature faster than a whole bunch of them, tiered, even if the latter are in a warehouse not artificially cooled and heated.

Finally, the science mentioned by Chuck is important. Seagram were scientific distillers from very early days, as was Canadian distilling in general. What you are seeing with FR is an application of that concept to an advanced degree to the area of straight whiskey. I have long bruited here the idea of blending straight whiskeys. As Chuck said, FRSB is not a vatting, but the overall approach of FR seems informed by careful attention to the role each component of the bourbon mash plays, and we see the results.

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


Return to Enthusiast Bottlings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests