Antiquing and Bottle Dating: Four Roses and Related

Due to a recent sickness I’ve been talking about buying old bottles and how I go about figuring out a little about what I’ve just bought. How old it is, what’s the story of the company, etc. I couldn’t end this little series without a look at the bottles I picked up from one of my favorite brands of whiskey: Four Roses.

Once again I’m presenting a little bit of how I got to where I gave up with each bottle and this time I show that the results you come up with aren’t always as firm as you’d like them to be.

Paul Jones Whiskey Bottle

Picked up for $8 at a bottle and advertising show.

If you are a Four Roses fan, you’ve probably heard the name Paul Jones. He is the man who they credit with starting the brand. Less well publicized is that Four Roses was just one of Paul Jones’ brands. One of which was just named: Paul Jones Whiskey.

I found this bottle at a Bottle and Advertising show here in the Twin Cities. It was being sold by the man who dug it up, I believe locally. Being a Four Roses fanboy, I noticed it right away in the mess of bottles he had on his table. Unlike most of the tables, he hadn’t really spent a lot of time polishing the years of age off his bottles. They looked like they were dug up and washed, still containing all the scuff marks that time and elements had put on them.

Once I got home, it was time to see what I had. I opened my usual bottle dating site and found that to my surprise, it was no help. Bottle dating as is done on that site depends on a lot of small features: mold seams, embossing, makers marks, etc. The problem was this bottle had no marks, no seams, no embossing. The only thing it had was a glass seal containing the name of the whiskey and the words Louisville, KY. This seal had been applied to the shoulder of the bottle after the bottle was formed. Other than that, nothing. It’s a very well made, cylindrical and symmetrical bottle of uniform thickness that was somehow made without seams, or the seams had been polished off either during production or after. In either case, it was of no help to me.

So knowing that this whiskey was from one of the most well known historical whiskey men, I turned to my next favorite site for help in dating bottles: Google. And there I found a lot of interesting information. Those Pre-Pro Whiskey Men has a great write-up of the man Paul Jones and his business interests. Pre-pro.com has another that contains similar, though slightly different information. But the biggest bit of information came on an image search. There I found tons of examples of this or very similar bottles for sale. All of them said they were from the 1880s or 1890s. How did they get that info? No idea. But it is all I have to go on so I’ll have to tentatively go with that. If I ever see the bottle seller again, I’ll need to see if he has any further info.

Four Roses Embossed Bottle

Picked up for $10 at a bottle and advertising show.

Speaking of Four Roses, the other bottle I picked up at the same seller was a bottle from Four Roses itself. The amber bottle is embossed on the front with four roses on vines and space for labels. In the upper space is the battered remnants of a label. On the label are the words: “Four Roses, Spiritus Frumenti, 100 Proof, An Alcoholic Stimulant Made From The Fermented Mash of Grain.” Along the tattered edges of the label are a few leaves.

I have an inkling that this bottle was a medicinal whiskey bottle as it looks a lot like others I have found online. Right down to the threads for the screw on “shot glass cup” that others in much better shape still have. So let’s see if I can glean any info from the bottle itself.

The “FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS SALE OR REUSE OF THIS BOTTLE” statement is not on the bottle so the bottle is either pre repeal or post 1964. Other than that, the bottle dating site isn’t of much help. There is a scar on the bottom of the bottle, the statement: TM REG U.S. PAT OFF, PAT PENDING,” what looks to be a 7 and what looks to be a Diamond makers mark. Unfortunately, the scar runs right through the diamond obscuring if it has an I inside if there was, it is an Illinois Glass logo if it is empty it would be the Diamond Glass company. Either could be in use during Prohibition. So no help. 

Once again Google image search is my answer on this one and this particular Pinterest pin by friend of the blog Coopered Tot makes me think I was correct all along. The label is the same (though in better shape), the metal cover matches where the screw threads are on mine. I’m calling it. Prohibition-era medicinal whiskey pint.

Four Roses Mini

Picked up for $10-$20 at an antique mall in Southern Minnesota.

This little miniature bottle of Four Roses was purchased about a year or so ago so I’m not quite sure on the price, but I’m thinking it was in the $10 to $20 range. I picked it up both becasue I am a Four Roses fanboy and because I noticed that there happened to be something in it. Now I’m not quite crazy enough to put something in my mouth that has been sitting in a partially full bottle for half a century or more, but I will smell it. And it smells pretty tasty.

Miniatures can be a bit harder to date as it seems many of the federally mandated features that allow me to date a bottle of whiskey are allowed to be missing. Those features only being mandated on items over 8 ounces.

Starting with the basics. I notice this bottle has both a state and federal tax stamp. This little guy came to southern Minnesota by way of New Mexico. I often wonder about things like this. Why did a mostly empty bottle of whiskey travel from New Mexico to Minnesota? How did it end up on that shelf in the store? These bottles only have about 2 ounces in when full. Why leave two-thirds of an ounce or so behind and why not return later if it was good or at least dump it out if it wasn’t? I picture all sorts of stories when I think of things like this. Maybe one day I’ll write one of them down.

The bottle is amber with a metal cap and a black foil label. The label reads: “Four Roses Bourbon, A Blend of Straight Whiskies. Blended by Frankfort Distillers Incorporated, Louisville KY Baltimore MD.” The back label is intact as well reading: “Four Roses, Reg U.S. Pat Off. 100% Straight Whiskies • 90 proof. Blended by Frankfort Distillers Incorporated, Louisville KY. A Blend of Straight Whiskies. 90 proof. 1/10 Pint. The Straight Whiskies in this Product Are 5 Years or More Old. Contains not less than 51% Straight Bourbon Whiskey.”

The bottom of the bottle is stippled and includes the Owens-Illinois logo. To the left of that is a 6. To the right is a 41 and below it is a 5. If the placement of everything is as usual, the 41 should be the date code. The description of the state tax stamp for that time period matches so I’m pretty confident in that being the date. Meaning that this little guy was made in 1941. Purchased in New Mexico. Partially consumed. Sealed back up and left to sit for almost 75 years. Somewhere along the way it made its way halfway across the country before ending up in rural southern Minnesota where I found it. I know the story is probably mundane, but I wish I had a way of knowing it. Thoughts like these are what keeps me going back to antique stores.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Antiquing and Bottle Dating: Two Old Fitzgerald Bottles

So I’m feeling great! The antibiotics are gone, the cough is almost gone, the tastebuds…well I guess you could say that they are gone too. I’ve had whiskies I normally love taste like pure ethanol and ones I think are normally find just ok seem quite good. 

In other words everything is out of whack. Until I get my little tasters back in line I’m presenting an educational series based around some antiquing I’ve done lately. This is the second in the series. In it I’m showing what can be found for relatively little money and showing how I go about finding out more about the items I pick up. For me these are not only items that will look cool on the shelf, but stories waiting to be uncovered. 

Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond Empty Mini: 

Picked up for $1 at an antique mall in Southern Minnesota.

This is the cheapest thing I’ve purchased recently. It was in a box of small empty bottles each selling for $1. This was the one bourbon one in there or I might have purchased more. I wasn’t expecting much out of this. In fact, I was thinking it might make a fun addition to my party lights. What I wasn’t expecting was that this would be one of the hardest things to date that I purchased that day. 

As with any time I try to date a bottle, the first thing I do is look at it to see what clues it will give me. I know from the label that this was Bottled in Bond, 100 proof, distilled and bottled at Stitzel-Weller. I also notice that there is a Wisconsin Tax Stamp, a fragment of a green Bottled in Bond Federal Tax Stamp, a painted label and a legal statement. 

There was no UPC and the volume was given in imperial measurements so we can put an upper limit of somewhere in the late 70s. The bottled in bond statement referenced Sections 5205 and 5233 of the Internal Revenue code which puts the lower limit at about 1959-60. So I’ve narrowed it down to about 20 years. Now I need to to do a little digging. 

I know that tax stamps change over time so I tried to find examples of when this style was used. Luckily there are very fanatical people on the internet willing to give us this information. In this case though, the info I received wasn’t lining up. The tax stamp seems to be in a 1949-1950s design, but the serial number style is that from the 1960s. So that’s a clue. Maybe some sort of transitional style? At this point I’m just lining up evidence. 

Now I turn to the label design itself. Surely there is a photo of this design online somewhere. After a couple hours of searching I stumbled onto an auction selling a full mini just like the empty I picked up. As Bottled in Bond tax stamps tell when it was distilled and when it was bottled, I’m going to trust them to be telling the truth in their description. They say theirs was bottled in 1965. 

Finally I turn the darn bottle upside down. In a normal case, I would have done this first. But this one was a bit hard to decipher. Due to which letters and the logo that happened to be embossed in the glass, I couldn’t tell which was was up. The bottom has a 9 (or six) the Owens-Illinois glass company logo (an O with an I inside it), a zero, and a 6 (or nine) below (above?) it. So I did a little digging. One of those numbers on either side of the logo should be a plant code the other should be the year. The one on the right is the year the one on the left should be the plant. On the Society for Historical Archaeology website I found a list of bottle maker permit numbers and sure enough neither permit 6 or 9 was owned by Owens-Illinois. Shoot. It was probably too much to hope for since that requirement was for bottles 8 fluid ounces or larger, but you never know until you look. They did have plants numbered with both a 6 and a 9 in use during the time I was considering. Plus nobody has a permit zero, which is what really gave me a clue as to which was was up and which number was the year. In this case the zero should be the year the bottle was made…maybe.

So the evidence is piling up to point to 1960 or at least the early 60s. The post-1959 Bottled in Bond statement, the zero date code, the late 1950s/early 60s tax stamp and a bottle design that was in use during the time frame. It wasn’t easy, but I think I have this one puzzled out as far as I’m going to. That was a lot of fun for $1.

Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond Decanter-style Bottle:

Picked up for $15 at a bottle and advertising show.

This is something that I might or might not have picked up if I hadn’t just picked up the mini the day before. I thought they might look nice displayed together since even though the design painted on the label is different, the shape of the bottle is similar. It is a decanter-style glass bottle with a painted label.  The closure is cork with a glass pull screwed into it.

So what do we know about it that can help me figure out when this is from? There is no UPC and the volume is listed in imperial measurements so we know that it is from before the late 1970s. The bottled in bond statement references sections 2903-9…which isn’t referenced in the helpful site I referenced above. So no help there. 

Looking at the base, though I hit a treasure trove of information. First off, the post-Prohibition statement “Federal Law Forbids Sale or Re-Use of This Bottle” is present. This gives us both an earliest date and a hint as to the latest date it could be. This statement was mandated on all liquor bottles produced from the end of Prohibition until 1964. Though due to the cost of changing the molds it was phased out after that point. So this should be in that range. So we now have a 29 year range to work with. But there is more information there so let’s narrow that down a bit further.

In the center there are three lines of information that will help me narrow this down further. After Prohibition, it seems that everyone who made anything that touched liquor needed a permit. And it all needed to be in the glass. The top line says D-379. The D stands for distiller and the number is Stitzel-Weller’s code to have liquor bottles created for them. The next line could be arranged in a few ways. In this case it is a two digit code a dash and another two digit code. Below that is the logo for the bottle maker (other arrangements have the logo between the two codes instead of a dash). 

Referencing the SHA.org website manufacturer logos table pdf, we can determine that the logo shows the bottle was made by Owens-Illinois Glass Company. It also shows that this bottle is pre1960-ish as that is the end of the usage of that logo (Owens-Illinois changed their logo in the early 1950s but continued to use mold plates until they wore out). The liquor bottle permit pdf shows that Owens-Illinois had permit number 58, but not 53. I know that the left code is normally the permit number and the right is normally the year, but it is nice to get confirmation since the arrangement seems to have been a matter of custom not enforcement.

That means this is a 1953 bottle of Old Fitzgerald. Looking at ads online I see there should have been a paper label around the neck and possibly a key draped around it. But in any case this one still looks good and it was fun to find the answer so easily. 

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Antiquing and bottle dating: Old Quaker and Hayner Whiskey

I’ve been sick. Like go on vacation, ride in an airplane, get the flu and have it turn into pneumonia sick. As such, I’ve had no tastebuds to do tastings for the last few weeks. But last weekend, after a few days of antibiotics, I was feeling better. And I was sick of being in the house. So what to do when you finally feel good enough to leave the house, but still sound like you’re dying? 

Go antiquing and scare some old folks into think they will catch their death from you. And when I say antiquing, I obviously really mean go buy old whiskey advertisements and bottles…sadly mostly empty. 

But it isn’t just the liquor inside that I would want in any case. I really like old bottles and advertising. Someday, I’ll have a good place to display them all. But for now, I love discovering the stories behind these bottles or memorabilia. Discover a little about who made them and when they did it. Dating a bottle is a puzzle. One that isn’t always easily solved. Or at least as completely solved as we might like.

And as I still have no tastebuds for tasting, I’ll be breaking this up into a few posts until I get them back, and then I’ll throw one in here or there as well just to keep things interesting. 

Old Quaker Bottle: $3

Picked up at an antique mall in Southern Minnesota.

So here’s the thing, the type of antique stores I favor can’t always be trusted to tell you the age of the thing you are buying. Not that they are lying or anything, but often they just don’t tell you. Some dude rents a shelf and fills it up with things that might be really old…or just from a few years ago. In this case, there was just a bottle on a shelf with a price on it. Knowing that the Old Quaker brand was around both pre- and post-Prohibition means that at best I have something quite old and at worst I have something a little older than me. Either way I liked the look of the bottle and it was only three bucks. 

Ok so what do I have here? This is a colorless glass bottle embossed with the name Old Quaker, an image of an old man in a hat and a couple bundles of grain under that. The bottle looks to have had a cork closure. There is still a dried up cork in the bottom of the bottle, but even if that was a latter addition the top looks similar to other cork closure bottles I’ve run across. Obviously this was, at some point, filled with Old Quaker – a brand owned by Schenley for many years. (Schenley being one of the companies that went on to be acquired by companies that merged to become Diageo.) But at what point was is filed with Old Quaker? That it the question I’m most interested in. 

Looking at the front of the bottle, you get your first clue as to the age of this bottle. Right across the shoulder is the statement: “FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS SALE OR RE-USE OF THIS BOTTLE.” This was mandated to be on every liquor bottle from the end of Prohibition until 1964. So we have a range of of about 30 years to play with, somewhere between 52 and 82 years ago. After that things get a little less obvious and Google becomes my best friend. 

After doing a bit of searching online, I found a very nice article from 2010 that detailed how a group of bottle daters determined who made a certain Old Quaker Bottle. Reading some of their notes, I determined where the date code on the bottle should be. It looks like it is a 6 which means that this particular bottle should be from 1936 as they didn’t think about using 2 digit date codes until they realized that if they didn’t, they would need to repeat them in 10 years. That was at some point in the early 1940s. And though apparently some companies slipped in a single digit through the mid 40s, it was apparently unusual enough that I’m just going to go with 1936 on this bottle. Pretty cool and it was well worth the $3 to me since it’ll look very nice on the shelf once I get it cleaned up.

Two Hayner Whiskey Bottles: $12 & $5

Picked up at an antique mall in Southern Minnesota.

The Hayner Distilling company was a mail-order whiskey company in business from 1866 until 1920 when Prohibition forced them out of business. They operated out of Ohio but had branch offices around the country including ones in St. Louis, MO, St. Paul, MN and Atlanta, GA. From what I can gather even though they went out of business almost 100 years ago, Hayner bottles are pretty common due to both the increasing number of states that were going dry during their heyday and from the very attractive price their whiskey was sold for (I’ve seen an advertisement for four quarts of 7 year old rye whiskey for $3.20 postage-paid). The Hayner business took a big hit in 1913 when the Federal government passed the Webb-Kenyon Act which prohibited the shipment of liquor to dry states from wet ones. 

Both of these bottles are made of very slightly purple glass with a fluted neck and embossing on both the body and the base of the bottles. The base of each states: “Design patented Nov 30th 1897.” As seen above.

The two bottles I bought are a bit different from one another. Even though these are both likely to be mouth blown bottles, one looks as if it had a much more refined mold used to create it as the type on both the body and the base is crisp with more flourishes. Evidence of a more refined mold continues on the neck where the flutes end in nice crisp rounded edges. The first bottle reads “Hayner Whiskey Distillery Troy, Ohio.”

The second bottle reads “The Hayner Distilling Co. Dayton St. Louis Atlanta St. Paul Distillers.” The flutes just sort of fade out and the typefaces on both the body and the base have no flourishes. The second bottle does have a cork still stuck in the neck so I’m going to assume that both of these used a cork closure.

Because the bottles state that the design was patented in 1897 I’m going to assume they are younger than that and since the company was out of business by 1920 that is our end date. According to the Society of Historical Archaeology most of these bottles date from 1905 to 1917 and that will have to be close enough for me. 

Due to the sheer number of these bottles, I didn’t really have to do any dating on these myself. There are quite a few pages that detail the history of the company and their bottles including a history of the company by Cecil Munsey, a site where the Society of Historical Archaeology details their bottles as an example on a “How-to-date-your-bottle” page (it’s about halfway down), Pre-Pro.com has a company history and a lot of examples of company bottles and advertisements, Bottlepickers.com has another illustrated history, and there is even the page of a Hayner museum in Troy, OH that I totally plan to visit if I am ever in the area.

I spent $20 on these three bottles and got much more than that in enjoyment so I’m completely happy with the purchase.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016: Championship Rounds

Here we are: the Championship rounds! We’ve made it through the opening rounds and tonight we find out which of our Bottom Shelf Challengers will graduate to the Fancy Shelf. 

Once again, I am struck by just how good the competition has been. Most years we’ve had a clunker or two that made it in. This year, I liked every bottle that made it into the competition. I blame this on the fact that we were just able to find better bourbons in the price range this year. 

In fact, I’d say that the story of the year was certainly the “Total Wine effect.” Total Wine sells their national brands at as close to cost as they can get away with while marking up their store brands with a higher margin. This has had the effect of driving up the selection and driving down the price at many of their local competitors. Prices have been driven down to the point where many of the bourbons I included this year, wouldn’t have qualified last year. 

Normally I have to scramble to find eight items to include. This year, I didn’t have that problem. The increase in local competition has made it such that I actually had plenty of choices and was able to be a little choosier about what I included (leading to that lack of clunkers mentioned above). By way of example, three of the four of the finalists either used to be sold at a higher price or weren’t in the market at all before Total Wine came in. 

Yep. The Total Wine Effect is in full swing. And right now spirits consumers are winning in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. To this point, unlike the many dire predictions from before Total Wine showed up, there have been few liquor store closings that I have noticed. If anything I find more reasons to spend money at more liquor stores than I did before. I now shop at seven-eight regularly instead of the three-four I visited in years past.

So here we go. The Championship Rounds. These were tasted blind again. And remember as with previous years, these were not formal tasting notes, just impressions to let us decide which one we liked better.

Round 2: Down to Four

Division 1: #4 seed Buckhorn vs #2 seed Evan Williams 1783

Thoughts: Bourbon A has a slightly richer nose and gets the nod there. A is sweeter on the mouth while B is more grain forward by comparison. Toss in a relatively and enjoyable finish on both and seems that A is fitting our palates better.  

Winner: So which is which? Very much to our surprise, Bourbon B was Evan Williams 1783 while Total Wine house brand Buckhorn was Bourbon A. Buckhorn moves on. 

Division 2: #1 seed JW Dant Bottled in Bond vs #2 seed Very Old Barton (86 proof)

Thoughts: Both of these have nice sweet noses. If forced to choose a favorite, I’d say A for being slightly sweeter. In the mouth A is slightly more grain forward while B has slightly more depth to it. These are both tasty and are well matched to on another. In the end Bourbon B gets the nod by a hair.  

Winner: So which is which? Once again to our surprise Bourbon A was previous winner JW Dant Bottled in Bond and Bourbon B was lower proof VOB 86 proof. Very Old Barton 86 proof moves on. 

Fancy Shelf Championship

Buckhorn vs Very Old Barton 86 proof

This is the first time we haven’t had at least one Heaven Hill product in the Championship round. Instead we have a couple Sazerac products competing. Buckhorn is the Total Wine Exclusive made by Sazerac under the Clear Spring Distillery name and Very Old Barton is made at Sazerac’s Barton 1792 distillery. In a break from every other year, both of these beat out higher proof competition to make it to this point. Which is a testament to the quality of the bourbon that Sazerac/Barton/Buffalo Trace is putting out even at lower proofs.

Thoughts: The nose on Bourbon A is fruitier and a little sweeter while Bourbon B brings a little more cinnamon red hots to the party. The mouth follows the nose with A being fruitier and B being spicier with a little more oak presence. This is close but in the end I gotta give it to Bourbon B, but just barely.

Winner: So which was which? Bourbon A was Buckhorn and our winner Bourbon B was Very Old Barton 86 proof. 

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016, Round 1: Very Old Barton 86 vs. Jim Beam White

Round 1d of the 2016 Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets features Number 2 seed Very Old Barton 86 proof versus Number 3 seed Jim Beam White. 

Very Old Barton is a product of the Sazerac company produced out of the Barton 1792 Distillery in Bardstown, KY. Depending on where you live, Very Old Barton is sold in one of four proof levels: 80, 86, 90 and 100. I've had all four and have enjoyed them all. I ran across the 86 proof at a really good price this year as the "Total Wine effect" brought it into the realm of this competition.

Jim Beam white label is one of the most popular bourbons in existence. It's in almost every bar on the planet. Of course this does not mean it is actually good. I've run into very few people that count Jim Beam white as their favorite bourbon. Jim Beam produces some very good bourbon, but this expression normally gets buried in coke or slammed as a cheap shot.

These were tasted blind in the following order. My thoughts on each are from before the reveal.

Jim Beam White Label 

Purchase Info: $12.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN

Details: 40% ABV, No age statement

Produced by: Jim Beam

Nose: Light on the nose, delicate. Dusty wood, mint leaves and corn bread.

Mouth: Thin and a bit watery. Vanilla, bitter oak and cooked cereal.

Finish: This has a burn that comes back up for a visit but otherwise doesn't have much of a finish to speak of. There are fleeting bitter oak tannins but they fade quickly.

Thoughts: “Thin, watery and a tad bitter. Not really a fan.”

Very Old Barton 86 proof

Purchase Info: $14.99 for a 1L bottle at Ace Spirits, Hopkins, MN.

Details: 43% ABV, No Age Statement

Produced by: Sazerac/Barton 1792 Distillery

Nose: Sweet with a hint of fruit. Mint caramel and bubble gum.

Mouth: Sweet and warm. Vanilla, caramel, some oak and grain flavors.

Finish: Warm and of medium length. Lingering spices and cinnamon red hots.

Thoughts: “Sweet and tasty. though nothing to write home about. This would be nice while playing cards.”

Who wins?

After the reveal it was no surprise that Very Old Barton won this one handily. It not only had more flavor, but they are flavors that I actually like. I'm on record as not being a fan of the flavors that show up in low-proof Beam products. And it held true in this case. Very Old Barton won almost by default. I'm curious to see how it does against real competition.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016, Round 1: Evan Williams 1783 vs. Wild Turkey

Round 1c of the 2016 Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets features Number 2 seed Evan Williams 1783 versus Number 3 seed Wild Turkey. 

Evan Williams 1783 is a product of Heaven Hill Brands. Heaven Hill tells us that it is a small batch version of Evan Williams made from only 80 barrels in a batch and that it is “extra aged.” Of course there is no hint as to what that actually means, but we can assume they are claiming a woodier profile with a few more of the complexities of flavor that get smoothed out by blending a larger batch of barrels together into Evan Williams Black. It is bottled at 86 proof. 

Wild Turkey until recently was known as Wild Turkey 81 proof. It might be a fairly smart rebrand since it before the rebrand they were essentially saying “Wild Turkey Weaker Edition.” Not a sentiment that most companies would like for their products. Of course it also positions Wild Turkey 101 as the line extension…meaning it may not be the main priority moving forward? Speculation on my part, of course. I’d never had Wild Turkey 81 and I tend to be a Wild Turkey fanboy so I’m thankful for the “Total Wine Effect” for bringing this into the price range.

These were tasted blind in the following order. My thoughts on each are from before the reveal.

Evan Williams 1873 

Purchase Info: $19.99 for a 1 L bottle at MGM Wine and Spirits, Burnsville, MN

Details: 43% ABV, No age statement

Produced by: Heaven Hill Brands

Nose: Alcohol hits you initially. After it dissipates I get grain, mint, vanilla, oak and a hint of ripe fruit.

Mouth: Hot, spicy and sweet on entry. Sweet grains, caramel and cloves.

Finish: Gentle burn that last a nice while. Lingering fruit, cloves and sweetness.

Thoughts: “Good solid bourbon that hits all the “bourbon” notes I want it to.”

Wild Turkey

Purchase Info: $12.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN*

Details: 40.5% ABV, No Age Statement

Produced by: Wild Turkey

Nose: Dusty oak like the inside of a rick house. Cotton candy sweetness. A hint of fruit.

Mouth: Gentle and drying. Sweet apple, citrus, white sugar and a hint of mint.

Finish: Short, gentle finish. Lingering citrus, apple and baking spices.

Thoughts: “While there is nothing wrong with this, it’s just a bit too gentle for what I’m looking for in a bourbon.”

Who wins?

Like all of them so far, this is a close one. The Evan Williams 1783 gives you a better overall experience. The flavors of the Wild Turkey would be better if there was a little more heat. Honestly I’m shocked. I wouldn’t have expected anything with the Wild Turkey name on it to be so gentle. That said, I’m kinda glad I now know I can pick up a bottle of the Evan Williams 1783 for less than $20. Thanks again Total Wine Effect!

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016, Round 1: JW Dant Bottled in Bond vs. Blue State

Round 1b of the 2016 Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets features Number 1 seed, and winner from two year ago, JW Dant Bottled in Bond versus Number 4 seed Blue State. 

JW Dant Bottled in Bond is a product of Heaven Hill Brands. It was initially chosen as a part of our initial competition where it eked out a split decision victory over Sazerac’s Old Charter (8 year old). Last year it was back to defend it’s crown and lost in the second round to corporate cousin Evan Williams Bottled in Bond. Unless it wins, this year is the last time it will compete since I’m cutting off previous year winners at two years so we aren’t overrun by them in the future.

Blue State was released by Heaven Hill in 2012 (along with identical product Red State) as a gimmick to play off that year’s Presidential elections. Even though it is once again a Presidential year, I’m guessing it is no longer an active brand since they’ve pulled down the website listed on the back of the bottle and didn’t even bother to redirect it anywhere. I found it along with it’s alternate hidden on the bottom shelf of a local retailer and decided to pick it up since I’d never bothered to originally.

These were tasted blind in the following order. My thoughts on each are from before the reveal.

Blue State

Purchase Info: $14.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Ace Spirits, Hopkins, MN

Details: 40% ABV, No age statement

Produced by: Heaven Hill Brands

Nose: Strong oak presence, cola, black tea and fleeting hints of brown sugar.

Mouth: Cinnamon candies, mint sugar sweetness and some oak.

Finish: Cola, black tea and baking spices anchor a warm finish of decent length.

Thoughts: “I like this a lot. I’m excited to find out which it is.”

JW Dant

Purchase Info: $14.99 for a 1 L bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN*

Details: 50% ABV, No Age Statement

Produced by: Heaven Hill Brands

Nose: Butterscotch, cinnamon candies and oak. 

Mouth: Spicy. Butterscotch, vanilla and baking spices.

Finish: Oaky tannins transition to sweet, baking spices that hang around a while.

Thoughts: “This is a sweet one, but has enough oak to balance the sweetness and keep it from overpowering.”

Who wins?

This is a close one. Closer than any 1-4 matchup we’ve had to this point. I like the complex nose of Blue State better. I like the sweet and spicy nature of the mouth of the Dant. So it comes down to the finish and whether I like the yummy flavors of Blue State or the spicy heat of Dant better. Man this is a tough one. After stepping away for a little while and coming back to them we had to give the nod to the JW Dant. The heat was too good to pass by. That said, even though it was a "gimmick" bourbon, I ran back to Ace the next day and picked up two more bottles as this will make a great inexpensive “every-day” bourbon while supplies last.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016, Round 1: Fighting Cock vs. Buckhorn

Round 1a of the 2016 Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets features Number 1 seed, and last year’s winner Fighting Cock versus Number 4 seed Buckhorn. 

Fighting Cock is a product of Heaven Hill Brands. It was initially chosen as a part of last year’s competition where it eked out a narrow victory over Heaven Hill’s Evan Williams Bottled in Bond. Of course when it competed last year, it had an age statement of 6 years old. This year, when it comes back to defend it’s crown against new competition, it is sporting no age statement. Can it become a two time winner even with that handicap?

Buckhorn is a Total Wine exclusive.* It is sold to them by the Clear Spring Distilling company, an assumed name that Sazerac uses to make house brands. It is 80 proof and carries no age statement so it is at least 4 years of age. I was leery about including it in the competition since you’ll need to be near a Total Wine to get one, but I’m going assume that if you substitute another NAS house brand made by Sazerac under the Clear Spring name, you might get fairly similar results.

These were tasted blind in the following order. My thoughts on each are from before the reveal.

Fighting Cock

Purchase Info: $14.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN

Details: 51.5% ABV, No age statement

Produced by: Heaven Hill Brands

Nose: Bubble gum, mint, cooked cereal

Mouth: Hot and grainy. Hints of caramel and a touch of oak underneath.

Finish: Hot and grainy with a lingering dried corn bitterness

Pre-Reveal Thoughts: “If this is the fighting Cock, it took a huge dip when it went NAS last year.”

Buckhorn

Purchase Info: $12.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Ace Spirits, Hopkins, MN*

Details: 40% ABV, No Age Statement

Produced by: Clear Spring Distilling Company (Sazerac)

Nose: Herbal. Brown sugar, mint and oak.

Mouth: it basically follows the nose. Herbal, brown sugar, mint and delicate oak notes.

Finish: Middling finish with a bit of heat but not much length. Lingering herbal notes.

Pre-Reveal Thoughts: “Nothing offensive on this one, I’d take a glass if offered.”

Who wins?

The finish on Fighting Cock is better heat wise but falls way short on flavor. I’m not a fan of really grain forward finishes. In the mouth it’s the same. Fighting Cock is hot but Buckhorn is more flavorful in the ways I like my whiskey. If Buckhorn had some of Fighting Cock’s heat, this contest would be a no brainer. As it is, I’m leaning Buckhorn but could understand why others with different tastes would go the other way. But I’m the judge so it looks like we’ve just had the first upset in the history of the Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets because 4 seed Buckhorn just knocked off last year’s champ. 

Well a non-age stated version of last year's champ. Apparently after removing the age from the product, Heaven Hill was hoping that the high proof would cover the degradation of the aged flavors. They were wrong. Last year I advised not to add water to it as it minimized the oak and the heat and left you with just grain flavors. Now you can get that without adding water. It's too bad. This used to be a hidden gem as little as a year ago. 

*Not so exclusive. By a quirk of Minnesota law, liquor stores are prohibited from carrying exclusive products. This means many local stores buy the exclusives and then undercut Total Wine’s price. Which is nice since these products tend to have the highest markup at Total Wine. Everyone wins…well except the massive megaretailer. As an example, I bought this one at Ace Spirits.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!