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?
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?