Woodford Reserve - was it better before no. 90?

[sevenmag]

I just polished off a bottle from batch 106 and I think it's quite possible I'm done with Woodford's for a long while. Could be permanent.

[bourbonv]

Gary,
Have you tried recent batches of Woodford? I think it is making an upswing in quality lately. I think the pot still whiskey made after the first year is a better quality.

Mike Veach

[OneCubeOnly]

I'm not sure which Gary you're asking about the WR, but I'm assuming it's the other one!

In case that was for me, no I haven't tried the latest batches. My only opportunity lately to try it again was at my in-laws', and lo and behold their bottle is that same wretched Batch 99! I didn't have the heart to tell them how foul I think it is, but I did drink BT instead.

I'd be willing to taste somebody else's bottle, particularly if the concensus is that it's better now, but I'd be hard-pressed to invest $31.95 for another potential 750ml ginger-ale victim.

[Joeluka]

I've noticed that they went back to Batch 1 now that Chris Morris is Master Distiller. I also noticed they are making a 1.75 size bottle. I'll be honest I bought one to put next to my Eagle Rare 10 SB 1.75 . Mike's endorsment makes me want to open it now but I have a Batch 12, 122, & 191 open already. I'll figure it out sooner or later.

[gillmang]

The latest batch I had was 140. I found it a little musty, from the cork I think. I must say I did not much enjoy the ones from 126 or so to 140. The peak was 125 and anything before was generally good.

Have they really started at 1 again??

This would mean two series of the same whiskey marked with same batch numbers, is that right??

Gary

[Joeluka]

The name though is different where the master distiller signs it. This will make it easy to figure out the new numbers.

[gillmang]

Where did you see this Joe? Did you see only batch no. 1 or other early numbers?

Gary

[Joeluka]

I have a 1.75 bottle that is numbered batch 1 with Chris Morris's signature where Lincoln Henderson's used to be.

[gillmang]

Many thanks. I plan to pick up a batch 141 which is the current in our market.

I have a high regard in general for WR and what they are doing (i.e., the mingling of all-column still with pot still product). While some batches seem less good than others, I will always buy the product. In fact I'll post a review soon of no. 141.

Gary

[bourbonv]

At the Woodford Academy yesterday we tasted some barrel proof Woodford, distilled at Woodford in the potr stills, that was wonderful with a rich apricot fruitiness, caramel and vanilla with a touch of nutmeg. It was very good and if that is the pot still whiskey they are now putting into the mix, then I can see why I think the brand has improved in the last few months.

When United Distillers opened the new Bernheim Distillery it took about 6 months before any whiskey made there went into the barrel and not shipped out to be re-distiiled as vodka. It took that long to figure out the new system and that was a column still system. I believe that Brown-Forman had even more difficulty figuring out the pot still system and the batches with that first pot still whiskey reflected that fact. I think the whiskeys made there now and in the future will be much better tha those first distillations. I am also looking forward to some of the new experimental products they are making there.

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

I can understand the commercial imperatives but in one sense I wish they had released the pot still on its own. That would have resulted in a very defined and unique (not to mention historical) flavor, like what you described, Mike. The mingling of Louisville column still and Versailles pot still whiskeys is inevitably a compromise, I suppose. I like some but not all batches, and I guess I would have liked some but not all of the pot stills on their own, but the best of the latter would have been sensational I think.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
There are people at Brown-Forman who wanted to keep the Woodford Reserve brand as honey barrels made at Early Times and bottle the pot still as a different brand. That was over ruled by Mr. Brown so they had to put the pot still in the brand. I think that it was a pretty good choice in the short run, since, in my opinion, the first couple of years of Woodford pot still was lacking. I think that once they figured out how to work those stills, they are making some great whiskey. The problem would have been that first couple of years bottled by itself could have killed the potstill brand before it really had a chance. Look at the reaction many people had to the Four Grain. They were expecting some kind of super bourbon and really bad mouthed it when it was not. The same thing would have happened with the less than stellar pot still bourbon. Mixing it in was the only option unless they wanted to turn it into fuel additives.

I know that they have some experimental products in the warehouses today. I know that Chris Morris is always looking for new experimental products. The fact that he turned a corner of his basement into a malting floor has me wondering what he is working on now. I suspect a 100% rye whiskey that can be labeled "Pure Rye". In any case, you will get some pure pot still product in the future.

Mike Veach

[MikeK]

Mike,

What is in the rickhouses at Woodford? Is it all the new potstill, or do they age column still there as well? At last spring's Bourbon Academy we had a number of tastings from the barrel, and they were quite good.

Mike

[bourbonv]

Mike,
This was a sample from the barrel that was in the bottling house with the Woodford Government head. I assume it was pot still. They do age the column still whiskey at Woodford, but I believe that is only after they put it in the barrel so that would mean a Louisville government head. However if they bring the bulk whiskey from Louisville to Woodford to put it in the barrel, then it would have the Woodford government head as well. The bonding period starts when the whiskey goes in the barrel, not when it comes off the still, so the distillery where the whiskey goes into the barrel is the DSP No. of the whiskey. When I was at UD there was some I W Harper made at Brown-Forman but put into the barrel at Bernheim, thus had a DSP No.1 on the government head (and on later bottles of Bonded Harper).

Mike Veach

[Kyjames]

I have been following this post and decided to try WR again. It had been a while since I last tried it and that batch (I didn't write down the number) was not so good. The batch I have now is #209 in the 750ml bottle. I think it is quite good. It reminded me more of the early batches than the last one. I have a few questions though. Is there a way to match the batch numbers of the 750ml bottles (now in #209) to the 1L bottles (# of 53 and 55)? What would be a similiar batch in the the 1L bottle to the #209 in reference to age in barrel and distillation date? Has anyone tried Batch 53 or 55?

BTW, MikeK
I enjoyed your webpage of the WR Bourbon Academy. I'm the person in the Hawaiin shirt.