Old Forester Birthday Bourbons -- Aging

[Strayed]

I'm in the middle of an email conversation with a friend about the differences in the OFBB expressions. We were discussing how well they show the effect of aging. Yes, Chris Morris, your training is not forgotten.

So I'm reading and quoting from the neck tags and I notice that, on the current (2004) bottling "was entered into the Old Forester brick Warehouse L during a cycling period", and goes on to describe how the warmth and humidity contributed to this version's unique flavor profile.

And I'm thinking to myself, "Hey John, isn't the whole point of climate-controlled brick (or stone) warehouses to eliminate 'hot spots' and 'cool spots'?" and "Aren't ALL the warehouses at Brown-Forman/Early Times climate-controlled brick?" Well the answer to both of those is YES, and if there are imperfections in how even the environment is in a given warehouse, they certainly wouldn't have waited 14 years to address them.

So does that mean these barrels (at least 2002 and 2003) were aged in metal-sheathed wooden rickhouses? If so, does B-F normally age some of their product in leased ironclads? Or could the bourbon for those years have originated somewhere other than at the EarlyTimes/Brown-Forman distillery?

And why the five-year gap in age? What happened between 1990 and 1994 that might affect bourbon aging at B/F?

Mike? Julian? Drew?
Glenn?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[cowdery]

When I was at Woodford Reserve recently, the point was made that they move the Jefferson County-made "honey barrels" from Shively to Woodford after about four years, "to take advantage of the warehouse cycling at Woodford."

Wait a minute, said I, aren't the warehouses at Shively cycled?

"Yes, but it is much more effective in the well-insulated Woodford building. It also works better here because we have only the one warehouse and we baby it,” Dave Scheurich told me.

The limestone rackhouses at Woodford, built in 1890 by E. H. Taylor, have walls that are two feet thick. Taylor patented a heat cycling system in 1874 and designed those rackhouses to take full advantage of it.

The rackhouse at Woodford is a limestone shell with a wooden rick structure inside it. The warehouses at Shively are reinforced concrete faced with brick. Each floor has a system of steel ricks three or four barrels high (I forget exactly). The Shively warehouses have lots of windows. The Woodford house has none.

I have at other times heard comments from folks at both Brown-Forman and Buffalo Trace that the heat cycling systems at both facilities, "don't work that well." I vaguely recall being told that Buffalo Trace doesn't even use theirs anymore.

At any rate, that's what I know.

[bunghole]

John that sounds like something only Chris or Lincoln could answer. Are you sure that Brown-Forman leases ironclads? If so where?

I really like all of the Birthday Bourbons, and enjoy the differences between them.

ima

[angelshare]

And why the five-year gap in age? What happened between 1990 and 1994 that might affect bourbon aging at B/F?

I have not yet had the 1995 bottling, but I just assumed that either:

1) The eight or nine year old whiskey used was felt to be good enough to be Birthday Bourbon. I respect this philosophy. I don't know for sure, but I bet Blanton's, RHF, Hancock's, and ETL from BT are ten years old or less, and those are all dang good.

OR

2) The profit's higher on younger whiskey. That's awfully cynical though.

I wonder if it might be mostly number one with a LITTLE number two. After all, if number two weren't a factor at all, they COULD have decided to drop the price a bit.

I'm just speculating; I have no inside info.

[Strayed]

I really like all of the Birthday Bourbons, and enjoy the differences between them.

Me too. I really appreciate the differences, as well as the whiskey. I'm just curious about how they got there.

As long as I can remember learning about bourbon I've heard that the great ironclad warehouses (read, Stitzel-Weller) produced bourbon with so much more character than the uninspiring, dreary brick warehouses (read, Bernheim), and they especially surpass fancy-dancy "modern" climate-control systems. Well, I'll put Old Forester Birthday Bourbon up against any of the tin-shed variety for distinctive flavor variations and for general quality.

So unless the whiskey in the 2002 and 2003 OFBB bottles didn't come from B-F's warehouses, I think we can dispense with that old standby theory.

Angelshare mentioned a couple of good reasons for why they select the barrels they do, but that wasn't really my point. I was wondering why, when it came time to select barrels for the 2004 bottling, they didn't go to where the 1991 barrels were aging, or the '92s. Maybe they did and didn't like anything there until they got to the '95s? So what happened during just those years that made them seem unsuitable for the Birthday bottlings?

I haven't seen Lincoln or Chris Morris on this forum (at least by their names), but I've talked to them about other things and I don't think they'd tell me; certainly not in public. Like you or me or anyone else, I don't expect the people working for the distillery (or any other corporate outfit) to talk much about why they chose NOT to use some of their product. Or whether all the "good stuff" during those years might been "select"ed to be "reserved" for another brand. But the whole point of a discussion forum is to be able to ask difficult questions like that.

Sort of like how every time I see Jimmy Russell I ask him what proof Wild Turkey comes off the still at. I know he'll never tell me. Every time he just grins and winks at me. But I always ask anyway.

[angelshare]

Angelshare mentioned a couple of good reasons for why they select the barrels they do, but that wasn't really my point. I was wondering why, when it came time to select barrels for the 2004 bottling, they didn't go to where the 1991 barrels were aging, or the '92s. Maybe they did and didn't like anything there until they got to the '95s? So what happened during just those years that made them seem unsuitable for the Birthday bottlings?

Ahhh...sorry, I didn't completely appreciate your question. I never really thought about the possibility that they tried barrels from those years and found them unacceptable as choices for OFBB. I just envisioned someone within B-F advocating the younger product due to personal preferences in taste or the economics involved, not because the ten to thirteen year old whiskey didn't make the OFBB grade at all.

[Strayed]

I just envisioned someone within B-F advocating the younger product due to personal preferences in taste or the economics involved, not because the ten to thirteen year old whiskey didn't make the OFBB grade at all.

That's a good reason, and makes perfect sense... except that it's the extra age that distinguishes the Birthday Bourbon from regular Old Forester, which, as quality goes, is right up there with the biggies in its own right. Old Forester is (I believe) between five and eight years old, tops, or just a warehouse climate cycle away from the current Birthday edition. I don't believe Brown-Forman markets ANY other bourbon in the ten to fifteen year range. And for some reason, that now includes the Birthday bourbon as well.

A couple of possibilities come to mind, but the one I think I like best is this...

Remember that Old Forester was a cult classic afficianado's bourbon back when Labrot & Graham was nothing more than a pile of snake-infested old rocks. It makes perfect sense to me that the "best of the best" from those 1991-1995 years ended up becoming the debut Woodford Reserve and so there wasn't any laying around waiting for Birthday Bourbon to be dreamed up.

[Strayed]

That might also explain the character of last year's dual issue. Here's the scenario...

Imagine you're Lincoln Henderson. It's 1989 and you know that the brand new Labrot & Graham bourbon will be coming off the still about 1996. You know that the plan is to use the best of the Old Forester bourbon to develop the Woodford Reserve brand, and you have a general idea of what the new L&G whiskey will taste like. But you can't be certain, and you won't even have an acceptably accurate idea for a couple of years or so after it begins aging. You need there to be enough range in the Woodford Reserve whiskey to be able to "bend" its profile to make a smooth transition. What do you do? You intentionally divide this year's Old Forester output into discrete groups and age them differently in order to create extremes in the the flavor profiles. That will give you the flexibility you'll need to make the transition work. You do the same with the next year's production. And the next. It happens that when the time comes to make your mixes, you start with the 1991 barrelings. You probably don't know it yet, but years later, those 1989 and 1990 batches will allow you to create Birthday Bourbon. But you won't have any more of that distinctive stock after 1990, because that whiskey will be bottled as Woodford Reserve. Oh well, by the time the original barrels are gone the new distillery's product will take over (with maybe SOME of the premium Old Forester to augment it) and you can just use the best of the much younger barrels along with whatever older whiskey is needed to give it that special flavor. Win-win.

[angelshare]

Remember that Old Forester was a cult classic afficianado's bourbon back when Labrot & Graham was nothing more than a pile of snake-infested old rocks. It makes perfect sense to me that the "best of the best" from those 1991-1995 years ended up becoming the debut Woodford Reserve and so there wasn't any laying around waiting for Birthday Bourbon to be dreamed up.

Hmmm...that would explain a lot. That's a pretty good theory. I also didn't know that regular OF was 5-8 years old, which does indeed make the extra young birthday bourbon a bit odd, unless the 7-8 year old whiskey makes up only a very small percentage of the product.

Here's another variable to throw in, perhaps. I seem to remember Mike Veach saying there was a rumor afoot that a 135 month old bourbon was in the works for a 135th anniversary bottle. (Mike, forgive me if I'm remembering that incorrectly.) IF that is true, and IF most of that 91-94 whiskey became WR, maybe B-F didn't want to use any that was left until the anniversary bottle is done.

If I understand things correctly, to call a bourbon 135 months old, the youngest whiskey in it is 135 months old, but there can be older whiskey in it, right? If so, the whiskey in that 91-94 range would be about the right age to use in the next year or so.

[OneCubeOnly]

My only problem with that theory is this:

OFBB = spectacular.
WR = mediocre at best.

Does anybody taste a niche in the WR flavor profile where OFBB might reside!? I sure don't, but I *WISH* it did!!!
Just my opinion of course, although all the numbers & dates seem to fit!

[Strayed]

Excellent idea

[angelshare]

OFBB = spectacular.
WR = mediocre at best.

I think you like WR less than I, but I agree that OFBB is a ton better based on my tasting of the 2002 and Spring 03. I haven't had the others.

[cowdery]

Here's an interesting voice to add to the iron clad v. masonry debate, and not my own. As most of you probably know, Heaven Hill now owns Bernheim and not just the distillery but the warehouses there as well. What is in them? Christian Brothers brandy. Parker and Craig Beam refuse to age bourbon in them.

[bourbonv]

John,
I think you are missing Brown-Forman's (read Chris Morris here) point. It is not all about age, but maturity. If a bourbon has a great taste profile at 8 years of age, why not bottle it, especially when the extra age may even be a determent to the end product. I don't think the point of the Birthday Bourbon is to have a "set profile" but to be something different and interesting every year. There is no big secret supply mystery here - Chris just wanted to make a point and I think he did. This year's Birthday Bourbon is a damn good bourbon even if it is younger than last year's version. Older is not always better and 8yo bourbon can be excellent in its own way.

By the way, Mike did a very good tasting of the 2002 version in the whiskey reviews for those who are interested.

Mike Veach

[Strayed]

John,
I think you are missing Brown-Forman's (read Chris Morris here) point. It is not all about age, but maturity

I use the terms interchangeably; by "age" I MEAN maturity, not years.
But I do appreciate your pointing that out to folks who might not have understood it that way.

...This year's Birthday Bourbon is a damn good bourbon even if it is younger than last year's version...

I'm certainly not disputing that, either. If you read it that way then you're missing MY point, which was:

If, in the warehouses of a distillery that doesn't bottle thirteen year old whiskey, there are barrels of 1991 bourbon good enough to be Birthday Bourbon, and Chris chose to use barrels from 1994 instead, what was he planning to do with the 1991 barrels? Or the ones from 1992 or 1993? Were they inferior product? I doubt it. Are they intentionally letting it age even longer? I doubt that, too. What happened to three years worth of B-F product? And, as Chuck Cowdery dedicated virtually an entire issue of Bourbon Country Reader to, what's really in those bottles of Woodford Reserve?