Johnny Drum Private Stock, 101 proof

April 28, 2016 Eric Burke

For some reason or another, I've never really tried a lot of the non-single barrel, non-"Willett Family Estate Bottled" products put out by Willett. It's not like I don't like Willett. I like them quite a bit. I've gone on record as stating that you should go into the gift shop with a budget, buy the most expensive one that is within that budget and you will never regret that purchase. And I've had a glass of the Willett Pot Still here and there and given bottles of it as gifts to people that are impressed by pretty bottles.

But for the products that don't bear the Willett name on the label? I've just never gotten around to it. I've decided that it is time to remedy that. Last month I reviewed the 80 proof Johnny Drum Green label. It was fine, but nothing special It was enough to make me want to take a look at it's higher proof label-mate the Johnny Drum Private Stock as the next step in my exploration of all things Willett.

Johnny Drum Private Stock

Purchase Info: $27.99 for a 750 mL bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN.

Details: 50.5% ABV

Nose: Mint, grain, honeydew melon and allspice

Mouth: Dry and fairly grain-forward with mint, brown sugar, oak and spice baking that up.

Finish: Warm and spicy with a decent length.

Thoughts: While I normally don't like grain-forward bourbons, this is one I'm ok with. There are nice flavors of spice and mint that help it to present itself as a well-integrated whole. I like this and would recommend it to people who prefer bourbons that aren't oak bombs.

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!

A Tale of Two (Wild) Turkeys

April 26, 2016 Eric Burke

A miniature bottle of Wild Turkey 101 proof from 1979.

A few weeks ago I ran across something a little too good to pass up. I was out antiquing and found a seller who had a bunch of miniature liquor bottles for sale. Full, sealed bottles. They were only available as a set so I took the entire lot. Out of that lot I got three bourbons of varying antiquity. A early 1970s IW Harper, a Blanton’s (can’t be older than the early-mid 1980s when the brand debuted) and the one I was most excited about a Wild Turkey from 1979.

Since I am a lover of most things Wild Turkey, and constantly have a bottle of 101 on my shelf, I thought it might be fun to taste this along side of the current release. The 1979 version is eight years old and both are the 50.5% ABV that Wild Turkey built their reputation on. I was initially going to do the comparison blind. Unfortunately for the plan (but fortunately for me) the 1979 juice was so much darker that I had no trouble picking out which was which. So I decided to just taste them side-by-side and compare them that way.

The 1979 pour needed a lot of time to breathe before we got down to business. Upon pouring it was very strong with the scent of nail polish remover. After about a half hour or so that dissipated and instead there were thick notes of maple, brown sugar and oak with a lovely fruitiness underneath. By way of comparison, I found the 2016 pour presenting an anise note that I had never picked up in it before.

Back to the 1979. The mouth had a nice thick mouthfeel with herbal hints of mint, spice, brown sugar and oak. It reminded me very much of a barrel proof Four Roses Q yeast bourbon. The finish was warm and long.

Moving over to the 2016, the mouthfeel was thinner but retains a nice velvety texture. There were fewer sweet candy flavors from the oak and the rye flavors were more pronounced. The finish was warm and while shorter than the 1979, was still of decent length.

I found this to be a fascinating process. While I would have said that the 1979 pour was tasty if tasting it by itself, I don’t know that I would have had quite as much fun if I hadn’t had the current release to contrast it off of. And as for the current release, I might not have found the interesting anise notes in the nose or realized how pronounced the rye notes were on the palate if I hadn’t had the older one to contrast it with. Overall this was just fun. And honestly, isn’t that why we do this?

Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Rye

April 21, 2016 Eric Burke

It sometimes seems that, as people, we spend our whole life being too young.

For the first quarter century of your life it seems you are constantly being told you are too young. Too young to hang out with your older siblings, too young to stay up late, too young to drive, too young to vote, too young to drink, too young to have discounts on car insurance.

But then, all of a sudden you wake up one day to realize that other people are no longer telling you that you are too young. You still hear it, but now it’s coming out of your own mouth. I’m too young for this pain, I’m too young to be this sore, I’m too young to repeat myself this much, I’m too young for my kid to be old enough to do this, I’m too young to have pop stars from my youth die (RIP Prince).

A few years ago it was announced that Jack Daniel’s was going to start distilling rye whiskey. As a tease, they released bottles of unaged distillate, which was obviously too young. A few years passed and they put out the “rested” rye. Not fully aged, but getting older, getting closer to being old enough. Finally early this year, it was old enough to be released as an actual product and we got Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel Rye. Unlike me, it is no longer too young.

Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel Rye

Purchase Info: $64.99 for 750 mL bottle at Ace Sprits, Hopkins, MN

Details: Barrel #: 16-0838, Bottled on 2/2/16, Rick #: L-3. 47% ABV

Nose: There is a good hit of alcohol right off the bat, but after letting that settle for a bit I get rye notes of spearmint and grass, brown sugar, caramel and oak.

Mouth: Drying with lots of mint and spice

Finish: This has a nice long, warm finish with lingering rye spice notes

Thoughts: This is a delicious rye. As I write this, my bottle isn’t even half gone (though it's much more than half gone as I post this) and I’m already planning to grab another. Jack Daniel’s doesn’t get a lot of love from whiskey geeks but this could very possibly start to change that. Delicious.

My Wandering Eye: Mount Gay Barbados Rum: Black Barrel

April 19, 2016 Eric Burke

As we all know, Bourbon prices are creeping up. So much so that even average products have hit the range where they compete price-wise with other types of aged spirits. There was a time when Cognac in a snifter was visual shorthand for rich luxury. But these days a $50 750 ml bottle of Cognac or Armagnac doesn’t sound outrageous next to a $50 Old Forester 1870 or a $50 375 mL of the Jim Beam Harvest collection. As a response to this, my eye has started wandering down other aisles of the liquor store just to see what I thought price had kept me from checking out.

When my eye first wandered down the rum aisle, I found an inexpensive rum that sadly tasted like an inexpensive rum. After checking in with a friend of mine who is a rum aficionado with what I should be looking at for a rum that might appeal to a bourbon drinker he quickly told me about the Mount Gay Black Barrel.

By a strange coincidence my wife, who was unaware of the previously mentioned conversation, was looking for a gift for me. She was talking with one of the employees at my local liquor store. The guy is pretty knowledgable and so she asked him what she should pick up for a bourbon drinker who was looking to branch out. He recommended the Mount Gay Black Barrel and so she bought it.

Well that was enough for me. The question was asked twice, to two very different people, and the answer was the same both times. I had to try it and I had to share the findings.

Mount Gay Black Barrel Rum

Purchase Info: ~$35 for a 750 mL bottle, Viking Liquor Barrel, Prior Lake, MN

Details: 43% ABV, Bottle number: AZ 86491

Nose: Molasses, caramel, wood and hints of banana

Mouth: This tastes like a soft, warm ginger/molasses cookie in a glass. Ginger spice, molasses, sweetness and yum.

Finish: Continues the mouth. Fades gently.

Thoughts: This is really tasty. I wouldn’t call it a bourbon replacement—if I want a bourbon I won’t reach for this—but if I’m not feeling particularly specific on what I’m looking for then this will certainly be in the conversation. It tastes like one of my favorite cookies without being too sweet about it. Big fan of this one.

Antiquing and Bottle Dating: Four Roses and Related

April 14, 2016 Eric Burke

Spiritus Frumenti. Four Roses medicinal whiskey bottle.

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.

Glass seal affixed to the shoulder of 19th Century Paul Jones Whiskey bottle.

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.

Prohibition era Four Roses Medicinal Whiskey bottle

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 a Four Roses miniature bottle from 1941 as seen by the 41 date code.

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.

Antiquing and Bottle Dating: Two Old Fitzgerald Bottles

April 12, 2016 Eric Burke

Old Fitzgerald Decanter from 1953 and a miniature from the early 1960s.

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.

Antiquing and bottle dating: Old Quaker and Hayner Whiskey

April 7, 2016 Eric Burke

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 Pre-prohibition Bottles from Hayner Whiskey Company.

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.

the bottom of the nicer Hayner Whiskey bottle.

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.

Bottom-Shelf Bourbon Brackets 2016: Championship Rounds

March 31, 2016 Eric Burke

The Championship rounds: Buckhorn, Very Old Barton 86 proof, Evan Williams 1783 and JW Dant

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.

Blog