New Goose Island Bourbon County Brand Stout 2018 Variants

Yep. After Elijah Craig Barrel Proof was named Whiskey Advocate's Whiskey of the Year in 2017 the demand for it went through the roof.

 

According to EC marketing, it is special, in that they found this particular bourbon to be special enough to hand label it, whatever that means, and it won awards.

Ergo, from HH's perspective, what came out of these barrels in particular was better than what came out of other barrels.

And from GI's perspective, we could have used less awesome barrels that didn't have bourbon that went straight to the "Barrel Proof" bottles, but we didn't.

I think it's pretty obvious that has an immeasurable value of perception and draw for some people that aren't full on bourbon snobs.

 

No, in bourbon, the differentiation between barrel proof and not does mean something substantive. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof bourbon hasn't had any water added to it -- it is bottled at whatever proof it was at when it came out of the barrel (which depends on time, location, etc.) Regular Elijah Craig has been pulled from the barrel and then had water added to it, until it reaches 94 proof. So, sure, the barrels themselves aren't different, but the final product of bourbon that you drink is very different. EC Barrel Proof isn't just a brand; it's a process that substantively affects the final product.

But GI isn't using bourbon in their beers -- just the barrels. And, again, the barrels aren't substantively different, IMO. So, it's disingenuous to sell them as something special, when they're no different than any other Elijah Craig barrel (much less other Heaven Hill barrels, as @Squire suggests).

Indeed, and I guess mostly just wanted to complain about this The seemingly crass move on GI's part to suggest these barrels are any more special than any other barrel that contained Elijah Craig.

 

I agreed up to a point.

Although I have no idea how they sample and choose bourbons to market differently, it only makes sense from a business perspective that they would taste everything before deciding that “these barrels, all racked st the same time, etc. taste superior in some way. This is a great candidate for a barrel proof bourbon!” Thus, despite others being aged the same time, others don’t taste as superior and deserve to be bottled as barrel proof.

Thus, that does suggest there is something special about those barrels (or st very least what is remaining in those barrels after being dumped) that is worth noting about BCS sucking up.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

Understood, but either way, the actual barrels used to pull bourbon for Barrel Proof are actually different than barrels used to pull bourbon for proofing. They may not be "substantively" different, but they are specifically different.

What's wrong with specificity, in stating these specific barrels were indeed those responsible for this award winning bourbon? Even if you're 100% right and another barrel that wasn't used for Barrel Proof might have maybe been just as good, some people actually like knowing specifics. Unless you're saying they're lying and they made this all up, and well they could have used any damn barrel and who cares if they did...?

 

While I don't have much evidence to back this up apart from being told it in passing at Heaven Hill, I believe Heaven Hill uses particularly good barrels to create batches of Elijah Craig for the Barrel Proof releases, a practice they also employ for the higher aged ones. This is similar to how Knob Creek and Bookers are the same bourbon as Jim Beam White Label (and most other Jim Beam bourbon products that aren't Basil Hayden's) when it's in the barrel, but certain barrels are deemed special and go into the batching process for the higher tier products. Same for Wild Turkey 101 vs. Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit vs. Russell's Reserve vs. Rare Breed, all of which are technically the exact same bourbon when in the barrels but are in fact appreciably different. It's not just marketing that separates these different brands of technically the same distillate, and while they may have different proofs, it's not just that either. The liquid inside one barrel even right next to another can be appreciably better or worse, as anyone who has had the opportunity to taste directly from different barrels in a rickhouse in Kentucky will tell you.

I see @Beer_Economicus made a similar point above.

I'm surprised we are stuck discussing this extremely minor nitpick rather than the lack of BCBCS and the "red herring" nature of the Neopolitan and Horchata meaning we are no longer getting them (I couldn't care less about the latter two, but no Coffee this year is really disappointing).

 

Typically the experienced-with-barrel-aging brewer makes a point of using "wet" barrels for a variety of reasons.

https://beerandbrewing.com/prepping-used-barrels-for-aging-beer/

Also, according to one brewery tour I was on, different locations in the barrel house will have barrels of the original distillate maturing differently, i.e., with noticable differences to the trained blender, so there is a selection and/or blending process that takes place. Thus not all barrels of whiskey contain the exact same flavor profile of aged Bourbon.

(On that same tour I learned that Frat boys in the Lexington area used to buy a wet barrel shortly after emptying, put in a gallon or so of water, then roll the barrel around a lot until they could pour some drinking whiskey from the barrel. )

 

FT: Two 2017 BCBCS, ISO: Vanilla 2018

 

I didn't say I didn't want the Vanilla.

 

One difference is that the EC barrel proof barrels held whiskey for at least 12 years while the standard EC is no longer aged for 12 years.

 

I think Hoppedelic hit the nail on the head. EC 12 year and EC barrel proof are 2 different products. Regular EC 12 year is no longer produced but the Barrel Proof is and is still aged for 12 years.

 

Truly good Bourbon is the product of skill and experience. Unfortunately a lot of hokum has been employed in it's marketing over the years by producers across the board. A common ruse is naming a brand after some long dead person from Bourbon history and by association imply there is some connection between that person and the modern product when in fact there isn't.

Now, let me be clear, Heaven Hill makes some truly good Bourbon and their limited selections are some of the best in the industry. Yet the aging effect on beer from any of their barrels depends entirely on the age of the barrel itself and not the label bottled from it as Bourbon. The primary flavors we associate with Bourbon, char, smoke, caramelized barrel sugars, vanillins, etc. found in new charred oak barrels are completely depleted between 7-8 years after which the barrel is simply an aging vessel for further mellowing of the whisky.

I believe the salient point regarding aging beer in a second use Bourbon barrel is how long the barrel was used the first time. A barrel used to age Bourbon for four years still has 40-50% of it's flavorings remaining whereas a barrel that aged Bourbon for 12 years will have very little flavoring left to impart to beer. Counter intuitive but true, the younger barrels have the most Bourbon character to contribute to the aging beer.

 

Damn, this new lineup is weak af. Outside of Bramble, Vanilla and Reserve, it's a poor lineup, IMO. Just chocolate in prop? wtf? come on man.. That's weak... no coffee or barleywine, but a coffee barleywine? gtfo. orange doesn't belong in a stout.. gross

 

Good thoughts, all, including the one about ECBP still being 12-year (I thought it, too, had gone the way of EC12, so I stand corrected there.) I'll simply say that I'm not convinced ECBP barrels may have produced particularly good bourbon, but that doesn't mean that the barrel itself is the cause of that, nor does it mean that tasty bourbon will be able to impart much on a beer.

Besides all of that, I'm now going to lobby that all barrel-aged beers specify that they used barrels containing barrel-proof whiskey, since they all did before some of those whiskies were altered with water

And, even more so, it definitely shouldn't be assumed that barrels used for regular Elijah Craig are inferior -- on the contrary, those barrels are blended to fit a particular profile, so that while some may indeed have been very good whiskey on their own, they also may have been out of the flavor profile range of Elijah Craig, so they get blended back in with other very different tasting barrels to create a final product that fits the profile of the brand.

But, in the same way that Pappy barrels make all beer better, so too must the recently awarded ECBP

 

Sorry, forgot to add to my previous post, it should be remembered that not all of the whiskey in EC is < 12 years old, only some of it, which precludes the guarantee of the old age stated EC. I was reading an interview w/ Bruce Russell of Wild Turkey, and he mentioned this year's batches of 101 include 7, 8, and 10-year old barrels, just because they have some extra stock and have elected to use it.

Anyway, good point on the ECBP still being officially 12, though. Whether older barrels are better for barrel-aging beer, that I cannot say!

 

Finally, maybe more on topic, I'll take some BA wheatwine, but orange stout sounds godawful.

 

Yeah, I’m thinking the barrels they choose to go the full 12 years to become the barrel proof brand are the honey barrels. Should be good.

 

Keep in mind that the experienced blender at the distillery does think the contents of those barrels for the BP are different from and worth the extra effort required to bottle and label them.

As to whether the barrels are physically superior or not, that is not the only issue. Another issue is whether the whiskey left behind when the barrel is emptied is different (or better in the judgment of the blender) from the standard version. A brewer using a wet barrel ensures that some of the whiskey will be there in the beer.

 

Or they were aging in a "sweet spot" in the warehouse.