Moderator: Squire
Strayed wrote:And why the five-year gap in age? What happened between 1990 and 1994 that might affect bourbon aging at B/F?
bunghole wrote:I really like all of the Birthday Bourbons, and enjoy the differences between them.
Strayed wrote:bunghole wrote: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?
angelshare wrote: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.
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.
OneCubeOnly wrote:OFBB = spectacular.
WR = mediocre at best.
bourbonv wrote:John,
I think you are missing Brown-Forman's (read Chris Morris here) point. It is not all about age, but maturity
...This year's Birthday Bourbon is a damn good bourbon even if it is younger than last year's version...
Return to Enthusiast Bottlings
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests