...where distraction is the main attraction.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Eagle Morning Single Malt has landed


Four months ago, I wrote about my rye spirit aging experiment, The Rye Storm.  To recap, I had poured two litres of Corsair's Wry Moon into a two-liter cask (an awesome gift from my brother in-law and his wife!) then monitored it as it matured for five-and-a-half months.


One result was an enormous hot fragrant woody rye-thing.  The other result was a hands-on education about the speed of the angel's share as I lost 61.5% of my batch to some drunk-ass angels in less than a half-year.

But one batch (er, one bottle) of aged rye spirit was never my lone, final intent.  An extra-matured single malt was the endgame.


The single malt I'd use was never in question.  I wanted something that had its own character, but was historically flexible enough to dance with fancy finishes.  I wanted a malt whose simple creamy orangey character might meld well with the cinnamon and peppercorn burst of the aged rye.  I wanted a malt whose Master Distiller/Blender was zany about oak but had yet to drop a rye-finished version onto the market.  Finally, I wanted something that would cost me less than $90 for three bottles.


Immediately upon the decanting of the single bottle of The Rye Storm, I poured two liters of the single malt into the barrel.


My main goal -- aside from creating a palatable whisky -- to lessen the liquid evaporation rate.  So I did three things differently with this barrel:

1.) Secured the spigot into the barrel more tightly.
2.) Replaced the bung plug with a newer tighter version.
3.) Kept the whisky barrel in a cooler darker corner of the condo.

And then I left it to do its thing on July 13th, rotating the barrel once a week.




From my notebook:

Day 31 - 10.2% loss to the angels.  The daily loss rate is 6% slower (.328% vs .350%) than The Rye Storm's at this point.  Potentially a good sign or potentially too soon to judge.  On the nose, a big charred oak burst, followed by some of the rye, along with citrus and anise.  The palate feels drier and more tannic than the Original malt, mostly similar though.

Day 60 - 22.6% loss to the angels.  The daily loss rate has jumped almost 50% from the first month's.  The room is only a couple degrees warmer, so perhaps evaporation speeds up as more air enters, a sort of self-perpetuating thing?  The loss rate is likely similar to the rye's rate now.  The whisky's color has begun to look slightly darker than its Original form.

The barrel's previous occupant has made a big impact on the nose.  And the Original's citrus fruits are gone.  Now there's cinnamon, vanilla, banana, dried herbs, and a little bit of floral bathroom spray.  With agitation, an orange oil note arises.  Surprising amount of heat on the palate.  Lots of vanilla, gone are the oranges.  The rye notes make the whisky seem spirity and younger now.  It finishes quietly with vanilla and rye.

Day 64 - I've made the decision to bottle it now.  With the loss rate now climbing to almost 0.5% per day (the sample's volumes are not part of the loss, fyi), which is more than the rye's around this point in time, I want to make sure I can still secure two bottles of this stuff.  Also in just four days, the whisky's character has already changed again.  I don't want this to get too oaky now.



September 15th.  The bottling begins...



I did not let one drop go to waste.

I had actually originally intended it to mature for two months, so I was okay with the timing.  The lack of change in the whisky after in the first month had me wondering if this was going to need three or four months instead.  The angels wasted no time in correcting that theory.

Yes, the slowing of the evaporation worked at first.  Then at some point during the second month it propelled upwards.  Its storage spot was five to eight degrees cooler than the rye's storage area from July-September, but......the rye was stored from January-July.  The rye was in a warmer corner during cooler weather and the malt was in a cooler corner during warmer weather.  If we compare the actual maturation periods, the night temperatures were likely very similar, but it's possible that while the malt may have experienced more consistent temperatures it may have been two to four degrees warmer during the day.

Again, there might be cooperage issues.  Or this was some very porous oak.  Or the surface is very thin.  If there's going to be a third and final fill, I'm going to wrap the barrel in plastic.  At the moment, I'm keeping the barrel filled with water to make sure the insides aren't compromised.  Even though it is mid-November now, the temperatures remain in the 80s (actually 90s today), so I'm going to wait a few more weeks in the hope that things cool off around here.


Oh yeah, I also had to name the thing.  As you may have noticed I have not named the distillery whose malt I used (but yes there are pictures of it).  Let's pretend for just a moment that I'm an actual independent bottler (WOOHOO!).  Indies aren't allowed to put the name of the distillery on their bottles unless they have permission from the distillery, thus Old Malt Cask's Talisker is Tactical, Exclusive Malt's Ledaig becomes An Island Distillery, and Caol Ila's and Lagavulin's draff becomes Finlaggan.

My whisky's name would be an anagram of the distillery's name.  My whisky's name would include a little bit of Americana being that it was extra-matured the US, within a cask that had formerly held an American spirit.  My whisky's name would promote something fresh and new after the tumult of The Rye Storm.

My whisky is The Eagle Morning.  Let's taste it tomorrow.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Single Malt Report: Octomore 10 year old (First release)

On Tuesday, the 3.1.
On Wednesday, the 5.1.
Today, the first release of the Octomore 10 year old.  Many thank yous go out to reader Eric S. for his generosity and yet another awesome sample bottle:


Five years ago, Bruichladdich released an Octomore Futures bottle, sort of an Octomore-before-1.1 edition.  It was from their first batch of very heavily peated malt.  Its ppm levels (80.5) were considerably lower than future editions (up to 169), but it still had the highest peating levels of any single malt next to Ardbeg Supernova (approx. 100ppm).  The Futures edition was five-and-a-half years old and aged in former Buffalo Trace barrels.

Scoot forward five years and now some of the barrels from that original Octomore batch were ready to be barreled at 10 years of age.  All previous versions of Octomore were 5 years old.  With more maturation time, lower ppm levels, and a lower ABV, this was a genuinely new approach to the whisky.


Daniel and I were looking forward to this one.  Because I was short a Glencairn glass, we went with a stemmed nosing glass instead.  The glass still delivered the goods.

OCTOMORE 10 YEAR OLD, FIRST EDITION


Distillery: Bruichladdich
Brand: Octomore
Ownership: Remy Cointreau
Region: Islay
Type: Single Malt Whisky
Maturation: Bourbon barrels
Age: minimum 10 years
Alcohol by Volume: 50%
PPM: 80.5
Limited release: 6,000 bottles

The color is a light gold. It's darker than the 5.1, but lighter than the 3.1.  The nose starts out almost floral.  There's licorice, perfumed hand soap, gingerbread, and candied orange peel.  There are also hints of sugary breakfast cereal (that might have been Daniel's note) and vanilla beans.  With some time and air, the whisky develops notes of apples, almond paste, mint leaves, dried herbs, baked squash, and beets.  Peated sweet bread leads the palate.  There's a little sugar, and a little salt.  Not much smoke, but rather a leafy forest floor.  The sweetness remains light with further notes of mint, white fruits, and vanilla.  The finish gets toastier and ashier, with grimier peat.  It's very oceanic and extensive.

Ignoring price and whisky politics for a moment, I think this was the best of the three Octomores we tried.  Allowing it ten full years of maturation gave it a whole new set of characteristics and complexity (oh that word).  I wouldn't doubt that the lower peat levels made a difference as well, but we'll have to see how future batches turn out.

Now, here's where things get sticky.  I've been growing disgruntled with my ratings system and will be making changes in the new year.  While I have no regrets in giving this four stars -- it would register about a 90 out of 100 -- I agree with SKU from Recent Eats that this could have been even better had they released it at full cask strength as they had with the rest of the Octomores.  Instead they watered it down to 50%.  And charged nearly $300 for it.

A ten year old, not at full strength, with a $300 price tag.  That makes this a four-star whisky that is difficult for me to recommend.  At the same price, (with some research) you can buy two bottles of full-strength Port Charlotte PC7 and two bottles of Kilchoman Machir Bay -- all of which are also young small batches, all of which are comparable in quality to the Octomore 10 or possibly better in a blind tasting.

If finances are an issue for you (as they are for me), then you can feel safe knowing the Kilchomans and some of the cask strength PCs can stand their ground against the Octomores at a fraction of the cost.  If finances are not a issue for you then this is good stuff, unique stuff (until the second edition, I guess).  It's also easy to find since folks still haven't rushed out to swoop it off the shelves en masse.  Having now tried five of the Octomores, I can say that this one, with its age and somewhat lower ppms, registers as the least stunt-like of the range, and is my favorite.

Availability - Most specialty retailers worldwide
Pricing - $240-$300 (US); $320-$400 (Europe)
Rating - 90

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Single Malt Report: Octomore 5.1 / 5_169

Continuing with the Octomore three-for-all:


Yesterday, I reviewed the third Octomore release and gave a little background on the Octomore whiskies themselves.

Today, let us take look at the fifth release, weighing in at 169ppm.  If you're keeping track of the numbers, this release has the highest peated malted barley of all the Octomores so far.  Also, even though there's a ".1" after the "5", I haven't seen any subreleases.  Like the rest of the regular releases, this is a five-year-old whisky.  It sells for $200 (wut?) and had a "limited" release of 18,000 of its monolithic bottles.

Unlike the 3.1 end-of-bottle sampling from yesterday, this one came right from the top.  Daniel generously waited to open his bottle of 5.1 for this Taste Off.  He did make a very good point that because of the bottle's unique opaque glass, no one can tell what the heck the fill level is nor where drinky level is during its life after opening.  The style is cool -- and I guess it's there to help soothe one's mind about the price tag -- but it's not as useful as plain old cheap glass.  It's a whisky bottle, damn it!

OCTOMORE 5.1 / 5_169

Distillery: Bruichladdich
Brand: Octomore
Ownership: Remy Cointreau
Region: Islay
Type: Single Malt Whisky
Maturation: Bourbon barrels (likely re-fill)
Age: 5 years (bottled 2012)
Alcohol by Volume: 59.5%
PPM: 169
Limited release: 18,000 bottles

The color is the palest of the three.  The oak notes are the mildest as well which makes me think there are more refill casks in this batch than in batch 3.  The nose delivers a much sharper peat than the 3.1. One gets the smoke, the farmy veg, and fresh seaweed versions of peat notes.  A clean beach whiff.  Some fresh apricot and red hots candy.  Very spirity.  After some time opening up, the whisky releases a tiny bit of oak character in mild vanilla and caramel.  The palate starts out hot and needs some air.  It holds the farmy peat, but it's subtler than in the 3.1.  There's a sugary sweetness, that I believe comes from the spirit rather than the oak.  Lots of salty oceanic notes.  But still, most of the peat notes remain mild.  The finish gains a peppery spice.  More the of the salt and ocean.  A little vanilla and burnt wheat bread.  The peat gets mossier.

Where yesterday's 3.1 was loose and soft, likely from some oxidation, today's 5.1 is very tight, likely due to being from the start of the bottle.  I've been finding this top-of-the-bottle tightness from all of the young high strength whiskies I've owned.  I do think think the 3.1's larger oak presence also has a lot to do with its roundness, that's why I keep tying o-a-k in these paragraphs.

Still, the peat will not destroy your palate.  As Jordan mentioned in yesterday's comment section, Bruichladdich's tall stills may be responsible for softening and developing the phenols -- and actually Ralfy has a similar thought in his review of this 5.1, which I just caught this morning..

Like Kilchoman's products, Octomore is a young whisky that tastes and noses very well.  The financial quandary is this, you can buy 5-year-old Kilchoman single cask bottlings ($100, limited to 200-300 bottles each) twice over for the price of the regular 5-year-old Octomores ($200, limited to 18,000 bottltes each), and while a very small business runs Kilchoman, a large international corporation operates Bruichladdich.  Not sure if that influences your choices, but I think about that sort of stuff all the time.

Tomorrow, I'll review the Taste Off's concluding Octomore.  One that is not quite like the others...

Availability - Many specialty US liquor retailers
Pricing - $160-$220
Rating - 86

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Single Malt Report: Octomore 3.1 / 3_152

Octomore 3.1 / 3_152.  Its name looks like a eight-limbed military robot prototype.  But it ain't no war machine, it's a peat machine.  Let's break down that name.  Octomore is named after a farm that sits on a hill above Port Charlotte on The Rhinns of Islay (the peninsula on the west coast).  In the early 1800s, a distillery was built on the farm that utilized their own barley for malt whisky.

Today, "Octomore" is being produced at the Bruichladdich distillery by the same folks who make the "Port Charlotte" whiskies.  This particular version of Octomore is the Third Edition, thus the "3".  Many of the editions have sub-editions, usually with different maturation techniques, thus the ".1" designation.  "3_152" says that this third edition has a phenol level of 152 parts per million.

The Octomores are the most heavily peated single malts in the world.  That's been their calling card.  The ppm levels for the six regular editions have ranged from 131 to 169.  Compare that to the standard Lagavulin and Laphroaig levels of 35-40ppm.  Ardbeg's malt has 55ppm and their own peat experiment, Supernova, reached 100ppm.  I've been told the key to Octomore's extra high peat levels is moisture.  Manipulating moisture levels in the peat and barley allows more smoke to be generated and phenols to be absorbed.  (By the way, if anyone knows that I've been given erroneous info on this last part, please let me know.)

To me, the Octomores are a stunt.  They are experiments.  But they are also VERY expensive whiskies, as in $200 for a five year old.  And it's not a single cask whisky.  There are 18,000 bottles released for each expression.  My feelings about the pricing have, in the past, influenced my opinion of the whisky itself.  Also, my previous three Octomore tries have been in circumstances that did not lend themselves to full appreciation of any sort of whisky.

Thanks to two different readers, I was able to look past the pricing issues, sit down with THREE different Octomores side-by-side in my dining room and suss them out.  Daniel, a professional DJ and a well-versed whisky man, brought over two of the Octomores.  Eric S., a very generous anorak from the Lone Star State, sent the third Octomore I brought to the table.

Daniel and I dug into the Octomore three-for-all...

courtesy of Daniel's camera
OCTOMORE 3.1 / 3_152

Distillery: Bruichladdich
Brand: Octomore
Ownership: Remy Cointreau
Region: Islay
Type: Single Malt Whisky
Maturation: Bourbon barrels
Age: 5 years
Alcohol by Volume: 59.0%
PPM: 152
Limited release: 18,000 bottles

The color, a medium gold, is actually the darkest of the three, leading me to consider there's a large factor of first-fill or heavier-charred casks in the mix.  The nose is the most farmy of the three as well.  Quite some manure.  Ocean notes arise, but not of a clean clear ocean, rather something more like Long Beach: the waters of an industrial port.  There's a friendly back-and-forth between sugary lemon rinds and something meaty-savory.  Maybe some roasted nuts in there too.  A veggie peat note pops up at the end, reminiscent of bean sprouts.  Some very palatable peat on the palate, considering its levels.  Vanilla peat perhaps?  A little mild cheese, pleasantly bitter black tea, and a green herbal note as well.  Give it some time for some rich toasted oak and yeasty bread notes to appear.  The finish is mellow, but very long.  There's the vanilla and caramel from the oak, toasted peat from the malting floor, and a bright herbal-ness from the spirit.

Keep in mind, this sampling came from near the bottom of the 3.1's bottle.  It had been decanted into a smaller bottle, but there's a chance a little bit of oxidation was involved which may have made the ABV feel softer.  So that's my disclaimer.  Otherwise, this was darned good.

One thing I've noticed with all the Octomores I've tried is that despite their extreme PPMs, the drinker isn't cloaked in smoke nor blinded by iodine and medicinal sharpness.  You can actually experience more peat aggression in the official Laphroaig CSs or some Port Charlottes or The Corryvreckan.  It's almost as if there's so much peating going on with the Octomores that the drinker goes right through the peat wall and into the other side, finding a controlled, mossy, coastal, toasty Islay malt.  We'll see this happen with the next two Octomores as well...

Availability - Getting tough to find, maybe a dozen retailers around the world
Pricing - $170-$250 (still, unforgivable)
Rating - 88 (after further consideration, I've adjusted the rating from its original four stars)

Thursday, October 31, 2013

A Very Very Dusty Whisky Monday Night: Ye Olde Scots

After Tuesday's and Wednesday's posts, I shall wrap up this week's little series about an epic Monday evening.  The blended Scotch Whisky:


Now a little bit of disclosure...

While I did drink the American whiskies at the event, I took these two pours to go.  I was facing an extended drive home.  Sobriety was something I held in higher esteem than immediate dusty dramming.  Having my two little samples bottles here also allowed me to focus on the whiskies in what has become my regular tasting nook.  Last night I put on some crackly Django Reinhardt in honor of when these whiskies were distilled, then some particularly silly Sinatra for when the booze was bottled.  It was a good evening.



In these two reviews, I'm going to be mentioning a "funk".  This is a funk similar to that of my dusty Johnnie Walker Black bottle, though the JW has a higher funk content.  What is the funk?  It's a dank, moist, dirty note that I think is a combination of old damp sherry casks, paxarette, and old bottle effect.  While it can be found on the palate, it hits bigger on the nose.  And so far, it's been specific to old Scotch whisky -- haven't found it yet in bourbons -- so it may have something to do with the malt itself.

I find it very difficult to compare dusty Scotch with contemporary Scotch.  The processes that lead to the liquid have changed so much.  Barley types have changed, as have the yeast strains.  Maltings were once small and localized, the barley more often dried by peat smoke.  The loss of direct-fired stills may have changed the texture; and I've heard some secondhand stories that this change in still heating has resulted in molecular changes as well.  More malt was used in the blends.  Subtract today's chillfiltration and e150a colorant, then replace it with the paxarette additive.  The cask structure was often different, since actual former European oak sherry casks were easier to come by in earlier decades.  Blend recipes have changed per expenses, palates, and available product.  Heck, many distilleries within the blends have vanished.  Then there's that funk.

Old and new, it's all whisky.  But things have changed, as Dylan once said.

First came the Ambassador:
I did have to doctor up this photo so these words were legible:
"Federal law forbids sale or re-use of this bottle"
Ambassador 25 year old blended Scotch whisky; bottled late 1940s to early 1950s, distilled in the 1920s.  86 proof, 4/5 quart bottle.

Ambassador appears to have been around as early as the 1900s.  The brand has since passed from hand to hand, from Bloch Brothers Distillers Ltd to Taylor & Ferguson Ltd to Royal Wine Corp.  There seemed to have been about a half dozen different importers as well.  Their last US hurrah was in the 1990s, and one can still find a handle of NAS Ambassador for $20 or so.  The 25yo was selling in the $60ish range during its final go 'round.  Fancy stuff!

But let's take a look at the label.  Check this out:
The red text says "Distilleries", then the black text reads Glen Scotia and Scapa.  Pretty awesome to have a blend actually name some of its components!

I found a couple of photos of Ambassador 25 bottles from the 1970s and only Scapa is named.  The aforementioned Bloch Brothers who blended Ambassador when this bottle was filled, also owned Glen Scotia and Scapa at the time.  By the '70s, they'd sold both distilleries and the blend.  It appears as if when Taylor & Ferguson took over the Ambassador brand, they were able to keep Scapa in the recipe, but not Glen Scotia.

How about the whisky itself...

The color was a deep gold.  The nose started with a piney peat, seaweed, pencil lead, and "the funk". Here it's a dank, metallic, chocolate, moldy sherried funk.  Fresh stone fruit notes brightened it all up.  Maybe some peach taffy too.  With some more breathing time toasted grains, caramel, figs, and oak pulp developed.  The texture was surprisingly a little thin.  The palate held more smoke than peat.  Think cigarette smoke and burnt wood.  Unsmoked tobacco too, actually.  Cocoa powder and baking chocolate bitterness.  Felt like there's quite a bit of mild grassy caramelly grain whisky in the recipe.  Lots of smoke remained in the finish, as did the bitter cocoa.  In fact, the tougher parts hung around the longest with just a little caramel in there to soften things up.

Then there was the Ballantine's:
Ballantine's 30 year old blended Scotch whisky; bottled around 1954-1964, distilled mid 1920s to early 1930s.  86 proof, 4/5 quart bottle.

Unlike the Ambassador brand, Ballantine's is still alive and well today.  It is the second bestselling blend in the world, following only Johnnie Walker.  It was founded by George Ballantine in the mid nineteenth century.  The Ballantine family sold it to Barclay & McKinlay in the 1910s.  They in turn sold it to Hiram Walker after the end of Prohibition.  Hiram Walker Gooderham & Worts was sold to Allied Lyons in 1987, which then became part of Allied Domecq a few years later.  Finally, in 2005 Ballantine's went to Pernod Ricard in the purchase of Allied Domecq.

The 30 year old blend entered the market in 1930 and it is still bottled today (with a slight price increase).  The distillers mentioned twice on this bottle's labels were located in Glasgow and Dumbarton.  Around the turn of the century there were at least seven distilleries in Glasgow, many of which produced grain whisky.  Today only one distillery exists on the outskirts of Glasgow, Auchentoshan.  As for Dumbarton, a number of Lowland distilleries once existed nearby.  In 1938, Dumbarton grain distillery was built by Hiram Walker, but its whisky would not have made it into this bottle.  So it's possible that many of the distilleries in this particular 30 year old's recipe no longer exist.  And if many of the components did come from Glasgow and Dumbarton, that means much of the whisky was from the Lowlands.  Of course, it's also possible that Ballantine's main offices were in Glasgow and Dumbarton......as they are today.  Let us now depart from speculation and commence with the drinking.

The color was darker than that of the Ambassador, with some red hues around the edges.  The nose was calmer.  Less peat in play, though it's still there.  The funk was quieter with less of a sherry character.  Some fresh apples, old rum, and early morning body odor in there.  Sweetened grapefruit juice, vanilla, maple syrup.  It got more sugary with time, more caramels and dessert wines.  The texture was thicker than the Ambassador's.  The palate was very straightforward.  Tangy peat, burnt wood, and LOTS of tart grapefruit.  The grapefruit kept going and going and going.  A little generic vanilla in the back.  Just a little sweetness, but mostly tart and tang.  The grapefruit continued into the finish, both the tart and the tang.  Then followed dark chocolate, smoked vanilla bean pods, peat smoke residue, and a restaurant's smoking section (remember those?).



It's difficult to quantify these oldies as I have very little frame of reference.  While the Ballantine's felt more substantial in the mouth, it actually became very one note (grapefruit!).  While the thinness and graininess of the Ambassador weren't points in its favor, it made for a more interesting drink.  The peating was more substantial, the fruit notes were nice, and I liked the bitterness.  Yet with its seemingly higher malt content, denser character, bold sherry wallop, and funkadelic fun, my '70s Johnnie Walker Black Label would be my selection over these two......if in some fantasy world I was offered the choice of the three bottles.  But I would never trade away this amazing opportunity to experience whiskey history.  Many thank yous to Chris and Michael of the Southern California Whiskey Club!



Ambassador 25 year old (bottled late '40s - early '50s)
Availability - ???
Pricing - ???
Rating - 84

Ballantine's 30 year old (bottled 1954-1964)
Availability - ???
Pricing - ???
Rating - 84

(Sources: http://www.whisky.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76, http://booze-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ambassador-deluxe-scotch.html, http://www.lionswhisky.com, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-03-19/features/0603190483_1_zeller-schwarze-katz-wine-cabernet, http://www.ballantines.com/, http://www.whisky.com/brands/ballantines.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gooderham_and_Worts_Distillery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Domecq, http://www.maltwhiskyyearbook.com/)

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

A Very Very Dusty Whiskey Monday Night: Ye Olde Americans

Focusing on the middle four bottles today.  See yesterday's post for more photos!
These six lovely old bottles greeted the tasters upon our entrance into Seven Grand's back room.  To make sure everyone was comfortable with the authenticity of the bottles, Chris waited to open them until the tasting began.  It's difficult to open very old dusties without breaking the cork, so Chris also brought along coffee filters to strain out any crumbles that dropped into the whiskey.  He actually only had to use them twice.  I think the guy has opened his share of old bottles.

Three of the four American whiskies were quart-sized, as opposed to 750mL.  They all had reasonable neck/shoulder fill levels.  For lower proof whiskies (80-86 proof), low neck fills are more of a concern than they are for higher proofs, as the creeping oxygen will make quicker work of the weaker ones.  Just something to keep in mind for those of us eyeing the markets for an oldie.  It is of my personal estimation that none of these were negatively oxidized.  But they were definitely old.

I kept two Glencairns going at once, switching back and forth between glasses, seeing if a little breathing time changed the whiskies.  Because a couple of the whiskies required cork filtering, we had the opportunity to take our time (and/or socialize) if we chose to.

The first one up:
Old Sunny Brook 4 year old Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whisky; bottled in 1941 -- thus distilled in 1937 or earlier; 93 proof.  One quart.  Fill level - 3/4 up the shoulder.

Old Sunny Brook distillery was likely built in the early 1880s but went by a number of different names during its first half century (Associated Distilleries of Kentucky, Old Kentucky Distilling Company, Old Times Distilling Company, Willow Creek Distillery, etc.).  The Rosenfield family bought it in 1892, then in 1914 it became Sunny Brook Distillery.  The Rosenfields sold the distillery in 1933 to American Medicinal Spirits (which itself was owned by National Distillers), just in time for post-prohibition distilling to start.  Though National Distillers closed the distillery in 1975, bourbon under the brand's name was still being bottled long after that, distilled elsewhere.  In fact Beam, who bought National twenty-five years ago, may still be producing a blended whiskey under the Old Sunny Brook brand name.

(Sources: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST357, http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1716)

What we had here was from the National Distillers era.


True to the back label's quip, the nose was indeed the most cheerful of all the whiskies sampled.  It started with hazelnuts, maple syrup, milk chocolate, dark cherries, walnuts, and vanilla beans.  With some air, notes of tree bark, chocolate eclairs, and peanut brittle emerged.  The palate was less expressive.  There were sugary candied notes, a little bit of the peanut brittle, some toffee, and a bit of alcohol bite.  Its finish was mild.  Toffee and ethyl burn.

I really enjoyed the nose.  Whether it's due to time, oxygen, storage, mashbill, or changes in production processes, the sniffer far exceeded that of any four year-old bourbon I've ever tried.  If oxidation did have any negative affect on the Sunny Brook, it would have been on the palate.  But perhaps that's how it tasted back in the day.

The second whiskey:
Old Hillsboro Reserve 5 year old Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; bottled in 1942 -- thus distilled in 1937 or earlier; 100 proof.  One quart.  Neck-fill low shoulder.

This was distilled by Bernheim Distillers Company (which was actually sold to Schenley Distilleries Inc in '37), but as you'll see in the picture below it is listed as Registered Distillery #1.  Bernheim Distillery was #9 in its region at this point.  But Warwick Distillery, formerly Old Times Distillery, was RD #1 in its region, and was bought by Bernheim in 1906.  Today, American distilleries use DSP (distilled spirits plant) numbers instead of RDs; Heaven Hill's Bernheim distillery is DSP #1.  I'm not sure how much that info helps, but on an interesting note take a look at the bottom of the front label.  This batch of Old Hillsboro was specifically bottled for an individual or family in North Hollywood, CA.  So we drank it close to home.

(Sources: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST298, http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_distillery.php?did=DST405, http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1660, http://www.bourbondrinker.com/index.php?topic=1501.0)


The nose was strikingly similar to a contemporary mid-shelf wheated (or very low-rye) bourbon.  Caramel, vanilla, orange peel, and cinnamon were the main notes.  Only the hints of peanut butter and clay made it feel somewhat different.  The palate was bright yet light for a 50% ABV.  And it was chock full of corn and soft vanillin.  Its finish was very brief and oaky.

Though I don't have a lot of notes for the palate, I did enjoy it more than Old Sunny Brook's flavor.  Perhaps the softness was brought on by oxidation, as this bottle did have the lowest fill level.  But again, the smoothness may have been the style, as bourbon is usually made for drinking.

The third whiskey was a fun one:

G.R. Sharpe 4 year old Old Style Whiskey; bottled in 1917 -- thus bottled in 1913 or earlier; 100 proof.  One quart.  Neck-fill 3/4 up the shoulder.

Yeah, you're reading that right.  1913.  And it had one of the better fill levels on it too.

Chris did some research into this whiskey and found out its juice was from Elk Run Distillers (click here for a distillery photo from 1913).  My snooping turned up very little, other than the fact that Elk Run Distillers Co. was shortlived, 1906-1919.  You'll notice no mention of "Bourbon" on the bottle.  This may have been blended whiskey or bourbon.  Chris mentioned that as the reality of impending national prohibition was gaining steam, and as individual states went dry, many companies rushed to bottle as much whiskey as possible as long as it was legal to do so.  This very bottle may have been one of the results.

(Source: http://www.pre-pro.com/midacore/view_vendor.php?vid=SDF18525)


Mothballs!  Mothballs on the nose.  Furniture stain, old lady perfume, definitely grandma's closet.  Some chlorine in there.  Maybe some slightly stinky cheese.  But with some air (like 20-30 minutes worth), a big rich caramel candy note bursts forth.  And also mothballs.  Mothballs again on the palate, followed by a lighter floral perfume than was on the nose.  A smidgen of caramel.  The finish held the light perfume and caramel.  A little bit of palatable bitterness.  No mothballs.

This one caused all sorts of negative exclamations, hyperbole, and outcries from much of the crowd.  All of which seemed very goofy to me.  I'm not sure why everyone was being so sensitive.  This is whiskey, damn it, and ancient stuff at that.  I enjoyed this one.  I even snuck a second pour.  This was different from the rest.  It felt old.  I'm thankful for the opportunity to have tried an American spirit distilled 100 years ago.

The fourth whiskey, and last of the Americans:

Old Forester Bourbon Bottled-in-Bond; distilled Spring 1952, bottled Fall 1957; 100 proof.  4/5 Quart.  High neck fill level.

Ah yes, the lava rocket sex toy.  The Fifties of The Future!


Before 1890, Brown-Forman was JTS Brown & Brother.  Their first brand, back in 1870, was Old Forester.  It's been theirs ever since.  Right around 1959, they lowered the proof of OF to 86 for a little while, so this was one of the last of the 100 proofs for a while.

(Source: http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1758)

The nose was full of maple syrup and black pepper.  Lots of warm baking spices too -- possibly from the rye content -- like cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves.  Also some walnut cookies and raisins in the mix.  There was more corn than rye on the palate.  A mild easy drinker, another one that seems contemporary.  The finish became much more fragrant and warm with the baking goodies returning.

When I reference the "contemporary" thing, I mean that I'd bet most folks would never know that this was distilled over sixty years ago if they weren't told so.  I count myself among those folks.  To me it would fit in with Old Forester's current range, though maybe a little better.  :)



As you'll note, I'm not dishing out ratings for any of these four.  The atmosphere was not suited for grading, it was suited for the group experience.  Of these four noses, I enjoyed the Old Sunny Brook best.  The palates were mostly even.  But overall, the G.R. Sharpe is the unforgettable one.

Next up, the two Scotch blends...