What's new

NAS Bonded Bourbons

Over the past few years, we've seen several new, bottled-in-bond bourbon offerings from a number of our friends in Kentucky. Those that sell in the budget friendly, under $25 dollar category are typically NAS (non-age stated). Since the bonded rules require all the whiskey to be from one distilling season, it seems fair to assume that, given no stated age, these bourbons are very likely comprised entirely of whiskey aged for the bonded minimum of four years.

I have to wonder if, in that price category, bottling in bond really makes sense, for us consumers that is. Because all of the whiskey has to be the same age, it precludes the opportunity to blend in some older whiskey, as is typically done with un-bonded offerings. And that blending, done skillfully, can definitely improve the overall character of a bourbon that is otherwise comprised mostly of younger stock. The prototype of a budget offering that uses that approach is Evan Williams Black, which though NAS, definitely punches above its weight, tasting much more like a bourbon older than the 4-year minimum for straight. I can't say the same for their bonded offering, or a few other NAS bonds I have tried.

It seems to me that the current spate of BIB bourbons represents something of a fad, rather than an actual step up in quality. I get the concept for the the producers: they give a nod to the history and tradition of bonding, put a nice old-timey label on it, and it makes a good marketing strategy to sell some of their youngest bourbon at price point higher than what it would otherwise command.

What do you other bourbon guys think?
 
The two..specifically BIB that I have purchased:

1587851016282.png

1587851055881.png
 

tankerjohn

A little poofier than I prefer
I look forward to reading what the real experts think, but it seems to me you hit the nail on the head. BIB is kind of a specific thing. You either like it or or you don’t. Preferring other blended non-BIB bourbons is a perfectly valid opinion.
 
The two..specifically BIB that I have purchased:

View attachment 1091903
View attachment 1091905
Both excellent choices. I love McKenna 10-year old, but alas, VOB is not available where I live. But these are both age-stated bourbons, and so are almost certainly older than the stuff I am thinking about. My comments were really directed toward the NAS stuff like Beam Bonded, Early Times Bonded, Evan Williams White, Old Overholt bonded (I know, rye not Bourbon, but same idea). It seems to me that almost by definition, this stuff will have a younger character, all things equal, than a comparable NAS non-bonded expression. But I get that this is definitely not true of age stated products, since we know by the label that they are older.
 

kelbro

Alfred Spatchcock
The marketing folks have really latched onto the latest bourbon boom. Trust your instincts. Not to say there are not good youngster blends but those oak casks really do the job and that doesn't often happen in 4 yrs.
 

TexLaw

Fussy Evil Genius
Do you really think that much older whiskey makes its way into "budget" offerings? That sounds somewhat contradictory.

Evan Williams White is my choice for bourbon cocktails, and I even like it for sipping. I prefer it over the Black, which I don't keep around. It's hardly priced out of line, either. Around here, a fifth of White runs only four bits more than a fifth of Black. Sold.

On the other hand, while I thought the BiB Dickel was excellent, I don't see why it's nearly double the price for a fifth (or about 35% more for a handle).
 

FarmerTan

"Self appointed king of Arkoland"
Following. I have always appreciated beer, never developed a taste for any of the hard stuff, unless it was mixed with Coke. There was a time when I really liked Rum and Coke.
 
Do you really think that much older whiskey makes its way into "budget" offerings? That sounds somewhat contradictory.
Not a lot, but definitely some. It is how the producers maintain some semblance of consistency and "house style" for their various labels. For example, in the case of EW Black, it originally carried a 7-year age statement, which meant that the youngest whiskey allowed in the blend had to be at least seven years old; there was also (presumably) at least some older stock as well. Heaven Hill dropped the age statement from EW Black quite a while back, but has (IMO) maintained the style of the label fairly well. This definitely requires some additional aged stock in the blend. How much is of course impossible to know for certain.

In answer to an inquiry a few years back by one of our members, HH said that NAS EW Black was "mostly" stock of about 7 years old, with some younger and older whiskey also in the blend. Since it's NAS, we can't know the veracity of that statement, but based on color and flavor, I'd say that is not far off.
On the other hand, while I thought the BiB Dickel was excellent, I don't see why it's nearly double the price for a fifth (or about 35% more for a handle).
I agree, the Dickel BIB is excellent. The price reflects age, as it is 13-years old. For a bourbon with that kind of stated age, the price is actually pretty reasonable, IMO.
 

tankerjohn

A little poofier than I prefer
Following. I have always appreciated beer, never developed a taste for any of the hard stuff, unless it was mixed with Coke. There was a time when I really liked Rum and Coke.
That was me until last year. Then a buddy gave a dram of his "good stuff" at a BBQ. I don't remember what it was, but it was one of those "only available in Kentucky" kind of bourbons. Let's just say its been all downhill since then...
 
For the NAS BIB bourbons, the Evan Williams white label BIB is actually quite good. There is nearly always a bottle on my bar.
 
Well, WT 101 has trended older lately, or at least tastes it. Same with Old Forester 100. I do think there's value in getting some older whiskey in the mix.

That said, OGD BIB is, IMO, always perfect. I have had some of the National Distillers stuff from the 1980s that was aged 8 years or more (during the bourbon glut when everything sat around in barrels forever), and it was fine, but actually killed some of the rye character of that recipe with all the oak. I prefer the current BIB to the (perceptibly older) 114, too, for a regular pour. Early Times BIB also has a lot of character, and it is not as complex as its cousin OF 100, but it's not too young IMO.
 
I read somewhere that many of the newer, "standard" bourbons (if they are 100 proof) would fit the definition of BiB; they just aren't locked away. The introduction of BiB was to ensure that you were getting actual whiskey and not some whiskey flavored concoction. I don't feel like the bonding adds anything special to any of the whiskeys that follow it...other than as mentioned being 100 proof and at least 4yo. Regarding the older whiskey in budget offerings...I'm sure there's SOME in there, but I don't believe it's very much.
 
I must have missed this thread earlier and I am sure no expert. And worse, I have not tried many of the less expensive B-in-B bourbons. Bottled in bond or not, and I have had, and probably own both, my opinion of Old Overholt rye is very low.

Am I miss remembering or doesn't all bourbon that is less than four years in the barrel have to be labeled with its age, which is defined as the youngest whiskey in the bottle?

I guess in this day and age, if one knows what they are looking at and is not concerned as we once should have been about an adulterated product, bottled-in-bond is kind of a gimmick. It is a nice quick look to know it is 100 proof. I suspect that a distillery is not going to put bad production out as bottled in bond. I personally like that there is less blending going on with it. I suspect bottled in bond has more character that most cheap whiskey.

I do know that Laird's bottled-in-bond apple brandy is way ahead of any other of Laird's apple brandy expressions to me. But I do not know the ins and outs of apple brandy in relation to bottled in bond or otherwise.
 
Top Bottom