“You’re not going to ruin that 30 year old whisky with water, are you?”
(sigh) I expect as long as there are people drinking whisky, there will be people with strong opinions on HOW to drink whisky. Whenever I’m asked this question in various formats (“Do you like water in your whisky?”, “Should I add water to my whisky?”, “Doesn’t adding water to whisky ruin it?”), I try to understand the context and include a disclaimer that what I think matters a sh!t-ton less than what they think.
There have been some extensive experiments on the topic (Bjorn Karlsson and Ran Friedman of the Linnaeus University Center for Biomaterials Chemistry published their results in Scientific Reports 7 in 2017; here’s a link if you’re interested). I won’t try to summarize their findings, other than to say it proves that adding water alters the flavor. In itself that isn’t news – anyone who had added water to whiskey could attest to that. Although I thought they nailed it with the following statement: “Overall, there is a fine balance between diluting the whisky to taste and diluting the whisky to waste.” Where that line is I believe varies by the individual.
In my experience, the perfect amount of water is entirely dependent upon the whisky drinker (first!) and the whisky. There are many whiskies where I find that adding water doesn’t improve it, and may negatively impact my enjoyment of the spirit. There are also many whiskies where I find the spirit speaks to me best at some proof lower than what it was bottled at. I personally prefer whisky bottled at cask strength as it gives me the opportunity to find that sweet spot. But even that sweet spot can be tricky – today I may prefer my 120 proof Knob Creek Single Barrel proofed down to 110ish (a 1 oz pour with a half-teaspoon of water added is just under 109 proof). Another day I may find it really hits me perfectly closer to 100 proof (a 1 oz pour with a teaspoon of water added is just under 100 proof).
Do I sit there with a teaspoon and measure it out? Nope – usually I have a bottle of water on hand, and will use the cap to measure out a few mL at a time. The proof itself isn’t that important – at least to me – since I know it may vary from one day to the next. If there was one specific proof where a bottle just nailed it, and that never changed it – I’d probably invest the time/energy to figuring that out initially, and then bringing the entire bottle down to that point. Thankfully, that isn’t how it works – at least for me.
If I could offer any advice, it would be this: Try adding water to see what you think – but do it slowly. If you find it isn’t helping – STOP! If it seems to be getting better, keep going. Or not. Ultimately – drink how you want to, and not how other people (me included) tell you.
All of the bottles are now at their destination fill levels! Well, technically many hit their level before today, but let’s call this the “start date” for purposes of the air-time/age equation. The six bottles in Group D: 10% Full all were brought down to that level yesterday. The two Group C: 30% Full hit their target on 6/24/2018, and the one Group B: 60% Full was done on 5/19/2018.
From this point on, I’ll visually check the bottles from time to time. If the Group D: 10% Full bottles start to look like they are clearly taking a downward turn (like looking murky or something, which I don’t expect to be the case), that will be when we pull the trigger. Our hope is that doesn’t happen, and we’ll have a tasting to collect results in during the summer of 2020, and be prepared to post results shortly thereafter!
Next step – to device the scoring/assessment approach. Will share some thoughts/ideas here in the coming months, and look forward to feedback.
With over 600 reviews (and counting!), decided it was time to try to make some improvements and organize our Review Archive. Thanks to the United States declaring independence (and more to the point – having a holiday about it to provide some free time!), we’ve added a Table of Contents at the top so you can quickly jump to a section rather than scrolling. The categorization isn’t perfect (yes, there is North American whisky under the “Other” category) but with 17 categories – not planning on making more granular until it makes sense. For example – with a whopping 2 Corn Whiskies, not creating a new segment there (although with growth, an ‘American Single Malt’ category may make sense).
Hope this helps everyone find what they’re looking for a little easier/faster!
“Bad” is highly subjective, and can mean many things. If you mean does it become unsafe to drink, I’d say that if it is stored properly (room temperature, out of direct sunlight) and in a glass bottle with a decent enclosure – than probably not. If you mean does it taste like crap if you leave a couple pours in a bottle for many years . . . well . . . let’s find out!
There are a lot of different thoughts on this. Conventional wisdom is that oxidation will certainly change the flavor of whiskey over time. I’ve heard multiple reports that the end result isn’t good – while also hearing folks talk about a bottle “opening up over time” and improving. In both scenarios – folks report some change, which isn’t a surprise as oxidation is one of the forces altering a whiskey’s character as it ages in the barrel (and if you’ve been fortunate to sip some fine, really old Scotch; there’s something magical about what time does to the spirit!) But – how much influence is from oxidation over time – who knows.
One challenge is if you have a bottle that’s pretty low, and it sat for several years that way, likely you don’t have one that is full to compare it to. Sure, if it is available you could go and buy one, but while the consistency in whiskey is laudable, if you’re pulling a bottle today – who is to say if it is the same as one bottled many years ago.
This seems like a question ripe to be answered with an experiment, which means not only having some whiskey spend time in partially full containers (a lot of time), but having a control sample to compare to. Thankfully, time (hopefully!) is something I have, so why not!
What I’m looking to uncover is:
Does a whiskey materially/substantially change if left for years in a bottle that is . . .
60% full?
30% full?
10% full?
IF it does change, does that change vary in the above scenarios?
IF it does change, how has it changed? (is it more woody, less sweet, more astringent, etc)
Taste is individually subjective and highly variable. Hell, in most reviews where multiple apostles provided their take, they were different. The key to this experiment is having enough whiskey at these varying levels to get multiple opinions on each. A 10% full bottle is just under 2.5 oz (75 mL), so taking one such bottle – you wouldn’t have much of a sample to get multiple tasting impressions. And by multiple tasting impressions – I’m talking about the impressions of multiple TASTERS. Any one opinion is just that, but wouldn’t it be interesting to see if there is any consensus on the effect over time?
To have enough volume of whiskey that aged for some period of time with only 10% left means . . . yeah, a lot of bottles. And a lot of bottles means selecting something that I can buy in bulk all at once without having to sell an organ. Thinking about that prior to a trip to Kentucky this spring, the selection seemed obvious: Heaven Hill 6 Year Bottled-In-Bond. This is a delicious bourbon at a respectable age and proof, and all for only $13 a bottle (my only complaint is that I can’t get this in Atlanta!)
Here’s the setup: I bought 10 bottles all from the same store at the same time (so as close to the same “batch” as I could reasonably get). Those have been split into four different groupings: Group A: Control. This bottle will sit in the same box with the rest, but will remain unopened until the end. Group B: 60% Full. This bottle will be opened, and I’ll pour out 2 oz a week until there is roughly 450 ml left in the bottle. Group C: 30% Full. Two bottles (C1 & C2) will be opened, and I’ll pour out 2 oz a week until there is roughly 225 mL left in each bottle. Why two bottles? This provides 450 mL of whiskey that has sat in a 30% full bottle for the allotted period of time (which is roughly 15 oz). Group D: 10% Full. Six bottles (D1 – D6) will be opened, and I’ll pour out 2 oz a week until there is only 75 mL left in each bottle. Six bottles with 75 mL will provide 450 mL of whiskey that sat in a 10% full bottle.
Just a quick note – when I say “pour out”, I’m not “throwing away” any bourbon (no whiskey will be harmed in this experiment!) All of the excess that is poured out is being decanted into other empty bottles. That’s leaving me with a lot of HH 6yr BIB, but I’m confident that I’ll think of something to do with it.
All of these bottles will be stored in a box in my (finished) basement, out of any direct sunlight. Once they hit their target fill levels, I won’t open them again for . . . I’m not sure? 2 years seems like long enough, but we’ll see what is going on in 2 years. I’m open to comments/thoughts/suggestions on the timing (or other facets of the experiment). When the experiment does “end”, I’ll decant the two Group C bottles into 1, and the six Group D bottles into 1, so I’ll have 4 bottles – the control, and 3 bottles with about 450 mL left.
After decanting, I’ll gather some whiskey friends to help with the measurement step. I’d conduct a blind-tasting, asking each participant to complete an ‘assessment form’. This will be tricky, and I don’t have it nailed down yet (thankfully have a couple of years to figure it out!) I want to have quantitative measurements of each sample on different aspects. For example – maybe a 10 point scale across things like “Oaky”, “Caramel”, “Vanilla”, “General Sweetness”, “Bitterness”, etc. Whether one person picks a 7 and another picks a 4 on the same sample/aspect isn’t necessarily important. The key is if there seems to be any consensus on what changes (is anything increasing or decreasing in terms of taste, mouthfeel, etc).
I want to avoid “better” or “worse” since that is highly subjective to each person’s preference (although will allow open comments on each sample from each participant). If the sweeter notes are less pronounced, it might be that it seems more oaky over time – which some may like and others may dislike. And it may be that the difference is perceived quite differently across the board.
If you have suggestions, please feel free to share in the comments. And remember to check back in a few years 🙂
When thinking about private selections, it left me pondering about how much they’ve changed in recent years. 8 years ago, these private selections were less frequent to come upon (not including stores with a long history of them), but today there are pretty readily available. While I’m excited to see more of those selections, I’m also afraid that the odds of getting a great barrel may be decreasing. Several years back, if you went to a distillery for a private selection, they’d roll out maybe 7-10 barrels for you to try – and if you didn’t find something special enough to buy the whole barrel – you could walk away without buying anything (or so I’ve heard; I haven’t personally experienced a complete sh!t show among that many barrels where my group has walked away). Today, more and more distilleries are providing far more limited choices – like three barrels – and some are requiring an up-front commitment to buy one of those three before you sample any of them! That bothers me, as I think it significantly reduces the chance for finding that unique barrel, and increases the odds of private selections being mediocre.
The first private barrel selection I was fortunate enough to participate in was at Buffalo Trace in 2013. They rolled out 9 barrels of bourbon, which were destined to be bottled as Elmer T Lee. They had all been distilled and barreled on the same day (9 years prior to our pick) – and were all from the same rick in the rickhouse. A few members of our barrel-picking team were disappointed with the lack of variability, and voiced that with the barrel manager Beau. For me, I was just thrilled to be trying barrel proof Elmer T Lee! Of those 9 barrels, the team (which was 20+ people!) was split between two barrels, that everyone thought were really special. There was also a consensus that at least 2 of those barrels shouldn’t even be considered for Elmer T Lee, and that they should consider blending those into Ancient Age or something else. The other 5 were good, but not especially great. I walked away with a greater appreciation for the consistency we get as consumers when it comes to whiskey, as well as just how much each individual barrel influences the whiskey. When 9 barrels as similar as they could possibly be had that much variation, I wondered how in the world they maintain the same flavor profile in a standard label.
When I think back to that first selection, I wonder “What if they’d rolled out the two dud barrels and one that was just average?” Or “What if they rolled out one dud and two that were average?” In either scenario, we’d have picked what we thought was the best (and thought it was amazing!); but in a blind tasting with a standard label Elmer may have found it wasn’t really special.
To be clear – I’m not suggesting that they would intentionally push sub-par barrels out to a group that is now locked in. First – the folks I’ve met in the bourbon industry have all been straight shooters, and the effort needed to coordinate a deception like that seems too far-fetched to me. Second – if a store is willing to buy an entire barrel (which isn’t an insignificant up-front investment), they want that store to be happy with the selection, to be able to move the bottles timeline, and ultimately – to buy more in the future!
What I am suggesting is that with limited options, the role of the picker is somewhat reduced – and the odds don’t favor finding that truly special barrel. This doesn’t necessarily make me avoid private selections, but I do plan to pay attention to see if there is a downward trend – while hoping that isn’t the case.
