Quickies Dept: Evan William, OGD, Buffalo Trace et al

What is feckin whiskey doing on the net's leading independent rum website? There's a reason, read on, but it's not my fault! Honest...
Post Reply
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Quickies Dept: Evan William, OGD, Buffalo Trace et al

Post by Capn Jimbo »

I don't know about you...


...but the best time for a "quickie" is in the morning. That's when my taste buds are at their best. For some reason I've been enjoying a bourbon in the morning, along with my coffee. Of late it's been either Evan Williams 1783 or Old Grand Dad 80. At a point Sue Sea awakens and wanders out to greet me and on at least two occasions noted "Hmm. Something smells awfully good".

That would be the 1783.

I too have noted that a new pour quickly fills the area with a lovely fruitiness. So this morning, I said to myself: "Self, about this fruity aroma, why don't you - self - do a quickie comparison?". A fine idea and at my best time of the day. First a woodie, now a quickie...

The booze: The EW is 43%, the OGD (which used to be) is now 40%.

Color: The EW is a true clear amber; the OGD a lighter gold. A notable difference for two bourbons that are both labelled "Straight Bourbon Whiskey". What this means is that both of these are at least four years old - any younger and the age must be stated (neither does). The EW presents a bit more body.

Nose: As noted in the intro, the EW presents a full fruity tone, some darker (like the color) and over a nice leathery background. The OGD seems just the reverse, less aroma forward, with leather and rye over the background fruit.

Palate: Perhaps no surprise, but for the EW, absolutely consistent with its lovely nose. As its palate develops the background leather rises to a nice heat/sweet black pepper finish. Altogether lovely. At its ridiculously low price, I'd buy or recommend this one anytime. Likewise, the OGD doesn't much surprise, with the leather forward nose transitioning into, yup, a leather forward palate throughout. The OGD is notably drier, with just a hint of finishing light honey but mostly a white and black pepper finish that lingers longer and the place where the rye really makes itself known. If you like rye you'll enjoy OGD. It's a classic.

Why the difference: Two reasons. First, I believe that extra 3% of the 1783 is meaningful. Second though is the fact that the OGD is a "high rye" mash bill, the main factor in pushing back the corn sweetness.

The big question: which is better? Answer: none of yer fackin business, lol. Now we get into the matter of personal taste. Rye back, or rye forward? That's your gig. I will say that I really regret not having access to and OGD 86. At Times the OGD is $12.99, the 1783 at $10.99 - both offer a lot of quality for very little money.

It's a shame the mega's are going to screw up the 150 year purity of bourbon, the old tradition being exemplified by these two. You know what's coming: the marketeers will see to it that some of this great pure spirit will get a dunk in ex-sherry, used barrels (probably oloroso or whatever is around), have our design student create a new bottle, and sell it with an unlawful label for at least five times the price.

You've been warned.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hassouni
Minor God
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:58 pm

Post by Hassouni »

Just a clarification - "straight" whisky must be minimum 2 years aged, "bonded" must be >4 (plus 100 proof and aged in a bonded warehouse). It's a fair guess that any whisky that says "straight" but with no other age statement is the minimum 2 years...or at least my cynical self says so!
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Good eye Hass, but as for the other one, lol...


You are absolutely right about the SID (definition) of "straight" whiskies, namely 2 years in the barrel (charred, new oak for bourbon). All of the standards of identity are in section §5.22 "The standards of identity". But the labeling and statement of age is in another section, namely:
§5.40 Statements of age and percentage:

(a) Statements of age and percentage for whisky. In the case of straight whisky bottled in conformity with the bottled in bond labeling requirements and of domestic or foreign whisky, whether or not mixed or blended, all of which is 4 years old or more, statements of age and percentage are optional. As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following:"
Right again re BIB's (which these are not). But the last sentence "As to all other whiskies there shall be stated the following: immediately following is "(1) In the case of whisky, whether or not mixed or blended but containing no neutral spirits, the age of the youngest whisky. The age statement shall read substantially as follows: “___ years old.” but in the very next paragraph (2) states "...If all the straight whisky and/or other whisky is 4 years or more old, the age and percentage statement for such whiskies is optional."

The latter (paragraph 2) seem to be key to the issue. This is also addressed in the Wiki:
"Bourbon has no minimum specified duration for its aging period.[19] Products aged for as little as three months are sold as bourbon.[20] The exception is straight bourbon, which has a minimum aging requirement of two years. In addition, any straight bourbon aged less than 4 years must state the age of the spirit on the bottle.[21]

Bourbon that meets the above requirements, has been aged for a minimum of two years, and does not have added coloring, flavoring, or other spirits may (but is not required to) be called straight bourbon.[22]

Bourbon that is labeled as straight that has been aged under four years must be labeled with the duration of its aging.[23]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_whiskey

This position - that straight bourbon of less than 4 years must carry an age statement (of the youngest bourbon) - is also addressed by Chuck Cowdery in his book "Straight Bourbon", p.16:
Cowdery:

"One factor that pushes distillers to age their product for at least four years is the requirement that younger whiskey must reveal its age somewhere on the label. You may have to hunt for it, but it will be there, probably stated in months. If there is no age statement, then you know the whiskey is at least 4 years old and probably not much older."
Hope that helps.


Flat Ass Bottom Line

1. To be labelled straight the bourbon must have been aged at least two years.

2. Straight bourbons of less than 4 years, must be labelled with the age of the youngest bourbon (and percentage of the blend, if it so applies).

3. Straight bourbons or blends of at least 4 years do not have to state age (though older ones usually do, but for marketing reasons).

4. Thus an age-unlabelled straight bourbon can be assumed to be very close to 4 years old.




*******
Note: to make matters worse, the TTB is VERY inconsistent - no surprise here - and allow younger whiskies to get away without the mandated age statements. Although I rarely link the ADI, here's a rousing discussion:
http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5186
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Another "quickie"...


...this am, prime tasting time, it's Buffalo Trace NAS Straight Bourbon. I'm sure Bear likes this one - Jim Murray surely does. If there is one distiller that seems to take their wood and experimentatin seriously, it's Buffalo Trace. This one is also likely to be 4 years or a bit more, but as a "quickie", the less I know about it the better.

My impression: if the 1783 presented with a roomfull of fruity aromas, the BT does as well, in spades. As is typical the first dram out of a bottle can be edgy, and this was no exception. But since I was also attending to the site, it had plenty of time to air, as did the next dram. A beautiful medium amber, darker than the 1783, and way darker than the gold OGD.

Now as you may recall the 1783 seemed to be at different ends of the rye continuum, with the OGD a true high rye, and I'd believe the 1783 to be rather average at best. Thus the 1783 was more fruit forward and a sweetie, while the OGD was clearly drier and spicier, with leather and rye forward.

The Buffalo Trace seemed to display the best of both, and in lovely balance and integration. It didn't hurt that this one is delivered at the highest proof - 45% - and it shows. OGD's 80 proof - while very nice - just lacked those tasty cajones of the 1783, and especially the Trace.


The quickie:


There's not a doubt in the world that BT knows their wood, as it presented with a stunning vanillan, sweet corn and fruit, but the leather and spice is wafting around too. The integration is hard to describe, and is lovely. All of the above transition into the palate, and deepen as this full bodied spirit clings and develops to our favored sweet/heat and lingering finish. And there's quite enough leather astringency to keep it interesting as well. To my mind a mash bill, distillation and wood in near perfect balance.

For $19.95 this one is hard to beat. For the moment I'd buy this one again...
Post Reply