Barrel Size

[WI Distiller]

I'm getting toward the end of my business plan, and wanted to hear some of your opinions on barrel size for aging spirits. You hear a lot of different things out there, from "one year in a 15 gallon barrel is like 5 years in a 53 gallon barrel" to people saying only full sized barrels will do. I will be making whiskey, apple brandy and a barrel aged gin. My plans at this point have me using 10 gallon barrels (fresh barrels for a year with the whiskey, once used barrels from whiskey production for a year with the brandy, and a mix of fresh and used barrels for a few months with the gin). What do all you whiskey and brandy makers out there use? What do you see as the advantages of your system?

Thanks for any opinions.

[Robert Morey]

I don't have much of a suggestion other than for tequila but thought I would suggest that you consider using oak alternatives like chips if you would like to use neutral barrels and save on the production costs. As for size, I believe that it only has to do with the volumes you are producing: if you don't have 60 gallons of something, use smaller barrels. Part of the reason I mention this is that smaller barrels are typically much more expensive, per capita, than larger barrels.

Robert

[Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle]

Well, I'd like to get myself in trouble here by saying that I have never tasted a whisk(e)y that was good that was not aged in the common manner for a requisite amount of time.

So, No, Mr. WI Distiller. If you (or anyone else) can let me know what whisk(e)y has tasted AS GOOD OR BETTER that was aged in one of the smaller casks, or that had extra chips/blocks/staves, then I will stand corrected, but in my overreaching opinion - pushing whisk(e)y makes for bad whisk(e)y. Sure, it's tough to start a distillery and then have to wait two to four years to come to the market, but what else can you do? Put out a crappy product and then bluff your way to good press? Call your whisk(e)y "Emperor's New Clothes Bourbon"? No, in my overestimation of opinion, you can choose to have possibly a good product a few years from now or a probable bad one sooner...

So. There.

OK!

[WI Distiller]

Liberty Bar,

I guess "as good or better" is impossible without tasting the same spirit being subjected to different barrels, but as far as simply "good," I think the Tuthiltown (Hudson) stuff is aged in small barrels, and I quite like their stuff. There's also a guy in Madison (Old Sugar Distillery) who had put out some nice rum from smaller barrels. These two are the extent of my experience with small barrels, which is why I'm looking for opinions. I'll put a check in the "big" column.

[The Barrel Mill]

Liberty Bar,

I guess "as good or better" is impossible without tasting the same spirit being subjected to different barrels, but as far as simply "good," I think the Tuthiltown (Hudson) stuff is aged in small barrels, and I quite like their stuff. There's also a guy in Madison (Old Sugar Distillery) who had put out some nice rum from smaller barrels. These two are the extent of my experience with small barrels, which is why I'm looking for opinions. I'll put a check in the "big" column.

No Doubt

Sick of people w/o the proper knowledge commenting on this topic and others

Robert-

-your company does not make small barrels, only commodities like 53's and chips

-Doubt if you realized that a 30 gallon barrel is 30" tall, while a 53 is 35", hence the greater surface area to volume ratio using smaller cooperage, it is exponential

-Most craft/artisan distillers prefer top of the line ingredients- even organic, and the very best oak for aging

-Would recommend the Sales section of the forum to promote your chips

Liberty-

-"an intent to start a distillery" does not qualify you on this subject

-I'll let the experienced distillers comment on the question from the gentleman in WI

We are not your grandfathers cooperage

God Bless American Craft Distilled Whiskey, Bourbon, and Rum! brandy, tequila etc

[absaroka]

Although this doesn't specifically cover small casks, this interview with John Glaser of Compass Box about "pushing the boundaries" and "tradition" as well as oak selection has a direct correlation to some of what has been said...

http://www.connosr.com/distilled/issue-2/compass-box-whisky-born-of-obsession/

[coop]

Although this doesn't specifically cover small casks, this interview with John Glaser of Compass Box about "pushing the boundaries" and "tradition" as well as oak selection has a direct correlation to some of what has been said...

http://www.connosr.com/distilled/issue-2/compass-box-whisky-born-of-obsession/

A barrel is a barrel is a barrel. Cost wise nothing beats a 53 gallon barrel. Mine cost me a little over $115.00 per barrel plus shipping which we all have to bare. If you are a licensed bonded facility then you need to be making enough product to supply the demand. A 53 gallon barrel of 80 proof will fill just about 250 750ml bottles. You cannot make any money or supply your demand by putting up a 10 gallon barrel a week. Barrel cost alone will eat you up. If you are producing 10 gallons a week then keep it till you have enough to fill a 53 gallon barrel. Two years of aging is two years and no matter what size barrel you are using the rules are minimum of two years in a new oak barrel before you may call it bourbon. The TTB does not care what size the barrel is only how long you age it. In two years you would have or should have 1040 ten gallon barrels. or you would have about 24 53 gallon barrels. There is no way I would not be using the 53 gallon barrels. Just my 3 cents worth. Coop

[Denver Distiller]

....... the rules are minimum of two years in a new oak barrel before you may call it bourbon.

Respectfully, this is incorrect.

[coop]

Respectfully, this is incorrect.

What part did I miss?? Or was it in labeling?? Coop

[delaware_phoenix]

It simply has to be new charred oak containers — for say more than 60 seconds — to qualify as bourbon. Likewise for rye whiskey, wheat whiskey.

If stored for two years in new charred oak containers, then it becomes straight bourbon, straight rye whiskey, straight wheat whiskey as the case may be.

If it is stored in used cooperage, you have to call it whiskey distilled from bourbon mash, whiskey distilled from rye mash, whiskey distilled from wheat mash as appropriate.

There are a number of reasons why someone might not want or be able to use 53 gallons barrels. An empty barrel weighs a hundred pounds. If you're a wimpy weakling girl like me, that's quite a weight to manipulate. And if your storage facility has old stairs (like mine) it may be difficult to get such barrels up those stairs.

And there are unexplored possibilities for reusing barrels, though the TTB regs for labeling aren't in your favor, even if the juice is good.

Just some thoughts.

[coop]

OK, mine is a Straight Bourbon Whiskey and labeled as so. Sorry, some of the rules are so confusing. Coop

[WI Distiller]

Glad to hear lots of differing opinions.

Just to keep the conversation going, has anyone ever had this: Laphroaig Quarter Cask

The folks at Laphroaig seem to think smaller casks have a positive effect on whiskey.

Discus.

[JohninWV]

We are producing bourbon in 15 gallon barrels and in 53 gallon barrels. We buy the small barrels from Richard (above). As a new guy, we haven't had enough time to find out how good our bourbon can be in a big barrel, but I will tell you that I just pulled some bourbon from a 15 gallon barrel thats 6 months old and I really like where it's at. 53 gallon barrels sure make more sense on a cost per gallon storage basis, but there's also something to be said for being able to bring out product sooner.

[The Barrel Mill]

I regret the tirade in my earlier post-was fired up

If I offended anyone, I apologize

Bottom line-

I think for some folks 53's is the way to go, and for others, smaller cooperage make more sense

Really depends on your business plan, cash flow, time (ROI), desired flavor profiles, etc

Gonna stay outta this one from here out, obviously I have a bias

R

[MikeW]

Coop,

Where the heck do you get 53 gallon barrels for $115?

[coop]

Coop,

Where the heck do you get 53 gallon barrels for $115?

My error on price, they were 133.50, this is what happens when you start to get old. They came from Independent Stave Company in Missouri. They are listed in ADI directory. Sweetest barrels I have ever seen, wrapped right for shipping, tight.

[TonyRC]

Apologies first as I'm new to this but the question about barrels fascinates me and I've been doing a little research over the last couple of months. Another interesting factor to all of this is the temp and humidity at which they are stored. In Taiwan they have to bottle after 3 years as the evaporation is about 15% (The Angels must be very happy)and any longer also makes it too 'woody'. It's also a ovely drink. Somewhere there is an equation of volume to surface area, which is time bound but also includes temperatue and humidity. (and wood type etc). So European Quarterdecks in a warm humid environment shoud be ready in ....?

Tony

[Jonathan Forester]

The Laphroig Quarter Cask is pretty good stuff. I can't remember the exact flavor profile, but my bottle was gone within three days.

Glad to hear lots of differing opinions.

Just to keep the conversation going, has anyone ever had this: Laphroaig Quarter Cask

The folks at Laphroaig seem to think smaller casks have a positive effect on whiskey.

Discus.

[cowdery]

As this thread indicates, there are many issues involved in barrel choices and alternatives. Here are my 2 cents.

Of all the information you will receive and all of the claims you will hear, there is one bona fide piece of bullshit, and that is any product which claims to be an aging shortcut. If someone tells you that such-and-such a product or process will "produce in 6 months the equivalent of 2 years aging," or some similar claim, put your hand on your wallet and move carefully but swiftly toward the exit. Some people making those claims may sincerely believe them and have no intent to defraud but what they are telling you is bullshit nonetheless. There are many possible aging outcomes and many ways to achieve them but there are no shortcuts that work. Burn that fact into your consciousness and you will be a much happier small distiller.

[absaroka]

Laphroaig and Springbank both have (and still do) used smaller barrels to age. I know of a few major bourbon players also doing the same thing. Maturation is intensified and so are the characteristics of the wood notes, but the angels also get a larger than average share compared to larger barrels/butts/pipes/hogsheads/etc.

Glad to hear lots of differing opinions.

Just to keep the conversation going, has anyone ever had this: Laphroaig Quarter Cask

The folks at Laphroaig seem to think smaller casks have a positive effect on whiskey.

Discus.

[WI Distiller]

Laphroaig and Springbank both have (and still do) used smaller barrels to age. I know of a few major bourbon players also doing the same thing. Maturation is intensified and so are the characteristics of the wood notes, but the angels also get a larger than average share compared to larger barrels/butts/pipes/hogsheads/etc.

A few major bourbon players? Some of the big boys? If you are at liberty to say, I'd be very interested in which distilleries you are referring to and which products utilize smaller barrels. Are they still aging for four years in a smaller barrel?

[Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle]

Liberty Bar,

I guess "as good or better" is impossible without tasting the same spirit being subjected to different barrels, but as far as simply "good," I think the Tuthiltown (Hudson) stuff is aged in small barrels, and I quite like their stuff. There's also a guy in Madison (Old Sugar Distillery) who had put out some nice rum from smaller barrels. These two are the extent of my experience with small barrels, which is why I'm looking for opinions. I'll put a check in the "big" column.

An interesting debate, to be sure. So interesting that [someone] deleted my account here which I have had for years. Thanks for that. That was good of you.

This should not be a point of anger. To discuss the various pros/cons of aging should not cause such an angry response. This forum is for discussions just like this one. Discussions like this help our industry.

To the main point though - while you are surely correct that, "[it] is impossible without tasting the same spirit being subjected to different barrels,...", we are lucky enough to have whisk(e)y available to taste going back...well, a long time. I've tasted whisk(e)y from pre-prohibition and whisk(e)y straight out of the still, and while "[it] is impossible without tasting the same spirit being subjected to different barrels,...", I've yet been able to taste a small-barreled whisk(e)y that matches the taste of a distillate which has been aged in larger barrels, no matter how much time in the smaller barrels.

Now, this is MY opinion. Yes, people were pissed about this issue before, they took it personally - even reacted by deleting an account or tossing around insults ("-"an intent to start a distillery" does not qualify you on this subject") - I have to say that the answer perhaps is in the results? Now, Richard, I am not a distiller yet, for sure, you are quite correct about that. But, I am somewhat educated about distilled spirits. I have tasted a number of them in my life, I have professionally led discussions on the topic of spirits on occasion, I am amongst the founders of two industry-related organizations and president of one of them, and this cumulative effect I think allows me to voice my opinion at least, does it not? And, since my comment was on the TASTE of the spirits, not the PROCESS of distillation, of the cooperage or of aging - I do believe that my history and experience qualifies me to some small degree to at least offer my opinion without fear of censure or insult.

So, this discussion led me to think a lot about this issue. Why is it that some of the great American distillers and their head distillers/scientists choose to NOT use smaller barrels to push the process? Why is that? If it's so agreeable in terms of taste, why not? Lucky enough for me, I happen to know a number of these people, and - while not giving names - the great consensus is that the reason that they DO NOT use smaller barrels to push the aging is that...they don't believe that a quality product would be the result. MORESO, some of those distilleries that use the smaller barrels? They are ALSO aging in larger barrels, and will (for the most part) flee from the smaller barrels once their research is done and volume product is available. IF it's an equally-quality product...why then abandon the smaller barrels?

That's not to say that it's impossible to make a good product in a smaller barrel. I have tasted some tasty whisk(e)y from pushed aging processes, but I wonder if I could ask anyone here if they have ever had a great product of a (+/-)2 year whisk(e)y that was pushed to be 4-6 years that was better than a great product that was genuinely 4-6 years old and aged in the more common method? I've asked a number of very experienced people this question and not one of them has ever had a product aged in small barrels that was of equal quality. 'Good', yes. 'Interesting' and 'Enjoyable', sure. Equal? Not so far.

So, all insults aside, all sacred cows abandoned...anyone want to opine?

Ah, as I read through this thread, there are lots of opinions. Good to see an actual discussion past the acrimony and insults.

Concerning the Laphroaig Quarter Cask, I do believe that this is a secondary-matured whisky. They take a commonly-barreled Laphroaig, and then bring the whisky to term after switching to the 'quarter', or smaller cask. So, we're talking about a standard-process, perhaps less-aged whisky which is then post-matured in the quarter cask for effect.

But, I'm sure that a distiller here will know more about that...(kidd'n! kidd'n!)

[grehorst]

An interesting debate, to be sure. So interesting that [someone] deleted my account here which I have had for years. Thanks for that. That was good of you.

This should not be a point of anger. To discuss the various pros/cons of aging should not cause such an angry response. This forum is for discussions just like this one. Discussions like this help our industry.

Just a side note- not sure what happened to your account, Jonathan Forester and I are the only admins. I didn't delete your account and I doubt he did either. If it was deleted by either of us it would have been an accident. There was certainly nothing in your posts that would have caused us to delete it. Glad to see you back.

Guy

[Max Action]

I am not qualified to comment on barrel aging. I also cannot comment on someone's personal tastes. However I do understand logic, and just because someone has not experienced a good quick-aged whiskey is not proof that a quick aging process cannot produce a good whiskey.

[Phil]

I found this study while doing a bit of research on barrel aging. Of course it was done with scotch, but I think it's interesting none the less. The PDF was too big to upload, but below is the conclusion.

From: COMPARISON OF SCOTCH MALT WHISKY MATURATION IN OAK MINIATURE CASKS AND AMERICAN STANDARD BARRELS

By S. J. Withers, J. R. Piggott, J. M. Conner and A. Paterson - Received 16 April 1995

CONCLUSION

The composition of the final distillate from maturation in miniature and full-size casks differed significantly. An increased surface to volume ratio of the miniature cask, and increased oxygen concentration, appeared to enhance both extraction and further transformation of wood components, resulting in the dominance of a single characteristic, sweet,after 21 months of maturation. Earlier work has shown that wood lignins have a limited number of bonds susceptible to cleavage and exhaustion of these in the staves of the miniature casks, prior to the completion of the maturation process, may account for the subsequent reduction in concentration. Spirit matured in miniature casks was free from the pungent and sour notes present in that from the full-size casks in the absence of wood charring. Maturation of Scotch malt distillate in miniature casks did not enhance the sensory quality of the final product, nor did miniature casks provide a suitable model of an accelerated Scotch whisky maturation process.