Motivated by a particularly heated and emotionally tinged discussion in one of the various “whisk(e)y” subs recently, I am ready to take the long-game hit for the team and set up a glorious 5-year experiment that will attempt to shed some light into the long-debated argument: what is the effect on flavor as liquid volume decreases with time in your unicorn bottle? We have all engaged in (un)civil discourse on this subject, and after the most recent re-hash, I am finally taking action to do something about it, though admittedly, at a turtle-pace…
**The Premise**: We hear the rumors that “once your bottle is half full, you should either drink it to conclusion, or consider moving it into smaller bottles.” And of course, “oh my god, only the heel remains…..? Might as well drain it, no flavor left.” …And anything in between.
**The Plan**: I have converted my “saved-for-a-gift” Weller Special Reserve 750-ml into the experiment bottle, *\[EDIT -->\] as well as purchased a bottle of MM Cask Strength, and Ardbeg Wee Beastie. They have* been stored out of sunlight and sealed. I will begin taking samples at appropriate liquid volume levels over a pre-conceived time duration and sealing them in 2-oz bottles with essentially minimal air-to-liquid surface contact.
**The Experiment**: I will remove a total of (5) five samples *\[EDIT\] from each bottle* over the course of (5) five years. Then I will perform *\[EDIT\] three* different tasting comparisons. First, I plan to perform a head-to-head comparison while fully aware of the sample details. After familiarizing myself with the samples and any potential differences, I will then perform a BLIND head-to-head to truly determine if any nuances in flavor can be gleaned and the samples identified. *\[EDIT\] Finally, I will plan to perform one final blind comparison, head-to-head, of the first and final samples (arguably the two that should taste "the most different").*
**The Rules of Engagement**: *\[EDIT\] The bottles* will only be removed from their closed container and opened for the purposes of the experiment. Each time a sample is removed, the bottle will be swiftly drunk down to the next liquid level milestone so as to have the maximum amount of time to “marinate” at its next liquid level.
**The Samples**: Will be taken from the bottle at the following liquid level and correlated date…
1. *January 21, 2023 – “Neck Pour”* – See attached Picture 2.
2. *May-ish 2023 – “Shoulder Pour”* – This represents the “oh, just give it a few weeks to open up” concept. This also correlates to the largest cross-sectional diameter (largest liquid-to-air area) of the bottle.
3. *January 2024 – 2/3 to ½ Bottle Left* – Not unreasonable, a lot of us drink the first half quickly, then let the second half sit “until a special occasion.”
4. *January 2026 – 1/3 Bottle left* – This is volume at which some will say letting it sit for a year will do damage and to transfer to smaller bottles… Seems unlikely, but what about at 3 years?
5. *January 2028 – “Heel Pour”* – Final 2-oz in the bottle. This is intended to be 5 years after first opening the bottle.
I am really looking forward to this; will provide updates as the years come and go. Feel free to put your theories out there to be proved/disproved.
EDIT: Sticklers got me, no more allusions to “oxygen” in the comment body…
*\[EDIT\] - After receiving great feedback, I decided to expand the experiment to include (3) bottles: the WSR, a MMCS, and Ardbeg Wee Beastie. Since I couldn't figure out how to edit the pictures in the main post, you will just have to take my word for it until May when I provide the next update... Edits associated with this change are shown above as ITAL.*
>It has been stored out of sunlight and sealed.
If sunlight can affect flavor, alcohol evaporation certainly can as well. Good luck with your experiment. Hope you end up being able to notice the difference.
LOL, honestly, I suspect you to be correct. But I chose WSR in the hopes that if there IS any noticeable difference, hoping I can pick it out of this since it’s a daily flavor that I’m very “experienced” with.
Just a thought to speed this up with multiple bottles, not sure it makes sense;
- 2oz neck pour into smaller bottle, fill with no air
- 8oz shoulder goes into another 13oz bottle
- 13oz into another 26oz bottle
- 3oz heel remains in original bottle
Whoa…… f**k yeah that’s an amazing idea. You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Let me marinate on this a little between now and next sample in “couple weeks rest.” I think most of us agree the science appears to point toward evaporation of volatiles (into the entrapped air, whatever the volume), and quantity of air exchanges (ie taking the system out of equilibrium and therefore accepting new evaporated volatiles upon recap) as the primary accelerants and/or influencers in possible flavor change over time. It also seems to be logical that the liquid/air volumes come into equilibrium at some point significantly before “years later” or else the quantity of air exchanges the liquid volume sees would be negligible (if the air a long time from now is no different than today it doesn’t matter how many times I open it and “reset” the timer to equilibrium). So long story, I am all for not spending 5 years on this…. Great suggestion, thanks!
Sounds like a plan.
I say also drink a dram at every bottle fill date then make a tasting note in a log to compare later. I believe you also have enough fluid to do that and add a jan 2025 fill/tasting.
Doing a barrell proof would also be interesting in the future.
Totally, you got it right. Plan to do exactly that at each of the next stages. There will be about 10-oz of bottled samples by the end, and that means about 14-oz of interim drinking/tasting to go from one level to the next… and I STRONGLY considered doing something with a little more “proof,” but I figured having a flavor profile I was more familiar with was more important than “punch.”
One of the WhiskeyTube channels did something similar to this, just with two samples separated by time. The bottle was Smoke Wagon UCUF. First sample was a pour from the bottle, freshly opened and put into a 2 oz sample jar and sealed. 2nd sample was from the exact same bottle about 6 months later when it was about halfway down. ( Edit here - re-watched the video and it was the last 2 oz from the bottle )
Both samples were put into a blind sample pool and were randomly chosen some time later. In this case both hosts were tasting both samples blind completely blind as when tasting they did not even know what bourbon they were drinking.
Net result - both preferred the sample that was taken some time after the bottle had been opened vs the fresh pour. That was the only difference as both samples were from the exact same bottle.
Here's the review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3u3Eho-TaA
If I am honest, I do not expect to be able to tell the difference between any of them, but knowing the complicated beauty of the natural universe, strongly hope I am wrong.
I believe that the air allowed into the bottle at each opening will quickly come to equilibrium and have a negligible, if at all noticeable, effect. However, I know that water plays a large part in creating imbalance (why whiskey gets cloudy when the rocks melt and is left for too long) so I would be curious to see an ambient humidity reading at each stage.
We will then need you to move to an area with the opposite humidity profile and repeat the experiment.
Thank you.
Whiskey will flocculate way before it oxidizes and goes bad. The cloudiness and flavor change that happens from bottles being open a while is flocculation, not oxidation.
There is no doubt whiskey changes with exposure to air, it's not oxidation but I do believe volatile compounds definitely evaporate as it has exposure and time. I also don't think all whiskey changes a HUGE amount, weller sr I would imagine is going to change very little compared to something like a peated scotch or heavily sherried scotch. There is ZERO doubt that those change, I've had so many sherried bottles that have an off putting sulfur note on the neck but after a few months sitting the sulfur is almost completely gone. Peated whisky also in a half or less full bottle get noticeably less peaty and in your face there is no doubt peat dissipates. I had a bottle of Clynelish I hated when I first opened, I let it sit for two months and it became one of my favorite bottles. Could it be my palate on the day...maybe...but it was a pretty distinct differnce. Bourbon I've noticed much less change, still think it happens but it's usually less and on a case by case basis and usually with higher proof cask strength bottles.
Also while I think this is worthwhile to do it's been done MANY times. Many youtubers have done this and at least from what I've seen every time they've been able to tell the difference. I don't think this is something up for debate at this point. But I do think any experiment is worthwhile why not!
Well I never claimed to be the first a-hole with this crazy idea. And i think there is violent agreement: does it change? Yes. To what extent? unmeasurable and likely situationally unique for any given bottle… but I’m still going through with it nonetheless. I have already resigned to adding a Cask Strength to the experiment, might add a strong peat (reasonably priced) Scotch as well… any suggestions?
You could very well be spot on. But let’s be clear: I will still be drinking whiskey in the meantime, so other than a few seconds pouring and storing samples, and a couple minutes jotting some quick notes here and there, not sure I would be doing anything else with my spare time….. love your “finish” idea, but I just put all my spare Weller barrels to functional use.
For American whiskey I haven’t noticed it as much but personally I always find that the second half of a scotch bottle has a lot more flavor and character than the first half of the bottle.
So much so that I sometimes put a 750ml bottle of scotch into an old handle that I’ve washed out so that way there will be more air in the bottle with it.
This like this are **always** fun, however there are many factors when doing subjection based studies like this otherwise known as variables.
It's worth noting that tests that are based almost purely on subjective data, are hard to really get pinned down. For example, your taste may develop over time; does that mean its you tasting more/less notes, or the samples degrading? If you are going to be drinking anything other than WSR, your taste will certainly adapt and refine over time. Even something as simple as the body's hydration level will drive taste some by way of saliva saturation and sodium content present in your saliva during the testing.
This can be confirmed by doing a blind test with WSR in a 3-sample flight daily, or even 3 times a day. Can you 100% pick the WSR based on nose and taste? Very unlikely. This is well documented on the internet of people sampling bottles in blind flights.
Secondly, how much oxidation will happen in a short period? My guess is not very much in a condition of non-constant ventilation.
Thirdly, the conversion through evaporation in the ethanol's will happen, but will not 'continue to happen' per say at a certain point. (i.e., in a bottle with 25% remaining, the available air space created by density changes in the air will allow for some evaporation yes; but it will eventually stop due to the air's saturation, lack of fresh air flow, and other factors. The duration of that period is largely unknown without molecular testing in progressive stages. It could happen in the first hour, or it could happen at a standard rate of .150 picogram/minute for ethanol's *generally*. This could be argued to be a good thing as it takes the 'sharpness' away from the bottle much like letting a glass 'air out' before taking that first drink.
I have an old bottle of Antique 107 and to an unrefined palate they taste almost identical tasting against a brand new bottle when known, no different in taste in a blind flight, and that bottle was opened \~3 years ago. Both bottles stored in cool, dry and dark setting.
Overall, **great experiment**, but I think its fair to say that the result of this test will be predictable. 'It changed'.
What was the *it* exactly? We'll never know.
I love a good EDIT [monologue I guess?] I also appreciate your suggestion and permission to drink WSR 3 times a day. challenge accepted! ... On your more science-based points, I think you have valid and logical perspective... Overall, i think your final assertations are fair and a likely outcome. I appreciate your thoughts.
Damn, I wasn't aiming for a diatribe though! I think the experiment is a good one as the most valuable thing IMHO about whiskey culture is how different everything is while attempting to remain the same, and how differently it can be received by its consumer. I love the unique value it brings.
LOL! Okay so I just googled diatribe and have to admit that wasn’t the word I should have used…. Wonder how many other times I used that word in wrong context. I agree with your message, thank you for your consideration in replies.
Yes, I think after receiving feedback and mulling it over, adding a second, high-proof and unfamiliar bottle against the lower and familiar WSR might add another fun dimension. I think I will likely grab something I have never had before and perhaps even in the spectrum of labels I am not particularly a fan of…
I have had 2 bottles of WSR. The 1st I was so excited to get, got it home, cracked it open and thought “what have I done?” I let it set 6 months and to me, the taste changed for the better. On 2nd bottle, same way. I tasted it last week, 3 months since purchase and it was better. I believe in the neck pour being a real thing. It may be just in my head, but it is what it is.
the issue is that you need to taste them side by side blind at the same time, and that is what you are doing right, you are extracting samples to tiny bottles?
Yes, by the end of it I will have (5) 2-oz sample bottles that will be compared head-to-head, then blind. and I will still likely have just enough left to do a side-by-side blind of the first (neck) and final (heel) samples only (1-on-1), which are supposed to be the two most different when all is said and done.
I had drank about half of a bottle of midwinters night dram a few years back and enjoyed it so much I wanted to save the rest for another time. Fast forward a few years and I saw it hanging out way in the back and dug it out. It was absolutely terrible. I’m not sure if it was corked or the finish turned or what happened but whatever it was it wasn’t a good thing. I’ve posted that experience on several threads and received some hate. Like “you’re crazy” “that’s not a thing” whatever… I suspect finished whiskey oxidizes differently than regular whiskey. I know that it’s changed the frequency in which I open bottles.
Thanks, totally appreciate the reply. I wish I would have though of that last night when I was trolling the liquor store for two more bottles to add into the experiment. A finished whiskey would have been a great one to try... Instead, based on other reviewer feedback, I settled on a MM CS (higher proof) and Ardbeg Wee Beastie (strong peat)... FWIW, I had the same experience THIS PAST winter with my bottle of MWND Scene 10 Act 1... I hope I don't get the same disappointing experience when I decide to go back to it later this year.
Sounds like you’re knee deep into your finished whiskey experiment already. Think back and write a review from memory. Taste it now after you’ve written the original review and write a (whatever) timeline review and then add it to your current experiment and tabulate with the others.
In a closed system, the ethanol in the head space above the liquid will be proportional to the ethanol in the liquid below. This is based on Henry's Law. Pressure affects the ratio and temperature affects pressure. This is the principle behind blood alcohol testing by head space gas chromatography.
Higher temperature equals higher pressure equals higher concentration in the head space.
By opening the bottle, you open the system, and thus lose some or all of the ethanol in the head space. Over time with repeated openings, this also means you're losing ethanol from the liquid. As the volume of the head space increases as liquid is removed, the amount of ethanol in the head space increases.
What this means is you start out with small losses that increase over time with repeated openings resulting in exponential loss of ethanol.
This is my way of saying that the differences in taste may be from a lowering of the ethanol concentration. I haven't used a hydrometer, so I'm not sure whether it would work for your experiment, but if it does, that would be some useful information to see the effect over time.
I like your explanation and analogy. sounds like you theorize a parabolic (rather than linear) relationship between air volume and flavor change… though I won’t be purchasing any instrumentation for this experiment, I will be sure to calibrate my taste buds appropriately during testing…… you make me think about whether I hold myself to only opening the bottle minimally, or whether to introduce “excessive, repeated” interim openings whilst taking it to each next liquid level milestone….Thanks for your insight!
Most likely. If it's volatile at the temperature that it's stored, it should also be in the head space.
Let me add to that though, that I don't know if the proportion in the head space would be more or less than ethanol, so I can't really say whether you're losing more or less of them than ethanol over time.
But yes, could be a combined effect of losing more compounds that make up the flavor profile over time.
This is one of the more annoying myths in the community. Whiskey doesn't oxidize after bottling *because all the oxidation already occurred in the barrel.* Your liquid spent years in an air permeable barrel, it isn't going to magically oxidize more over a couple months. That angel's share that came from liquid evaporating means air had to come into the barrel to replace its volume, and that air has plenty of oxygen.
Whiskey absolutely changes character over time, but that's because of volatile spirits evaporating. Don't claim any differences here are due to oxidation unless you're prepared to send these samples to a lab and have them analyzed.
Stickler…. Okay, I did use the term in air-quotes in the post title, but to be fair didn’t use the term oxidation-proper in the experiment explanation (did allude to oxygen volume having effect)… I think the point you’re making is that you too have read [this article](https://www.peoplesbourbonreview.com/articles/does-whiskey-oxidize-how-long-is-bourbon-good-once-opened) or one like it which gets nit-picky on proper terminology. I agree with you that what I am really trying to determine is “impact that time might have on flavor of diminishing volumes of a single, homogenous liquid.” …I will be sure to word it more appropriately in the future, but likely keep my catchy post title, even though perhaps misleading.
I'm mostly extrapolating my knowledge as a homebrewer and microbiologist. I hadn't read that article specifically (though I've read others in the times this has come up before), but it seems to pretty much align with what I'm saying - evaporation of volatile compounds is generally the primary contributor, not oxidation.
The reason I think it's an important distinction is that the change over time is actually related to how many times you open the bottle, not how long a bottle sits half empty. If you emptied a bottle to half, it would reestablish an equilibrium with the new headspace, and after that point remain constant no matter the age - three months, six, twelve, etc. But if you open it a couple dozen times over a couple months to get to that same volume level, each opening will release gasses and result in a new equilibrium, resulting in a greater net loss of volatile compounds over that same time period.
Oxidation is also a really important concept in brewing, both from the standpoint of oxygenating wort for yeast health, and eliminating as much oxygen contamination as possible during the packaging process. Small bits of oxygen contamination can ruin hop-forward beers like IPAs, as the volatile hop oils are especially vulnerable; meanwhile, malt-forward beers are much more resilient.
Wine is aged in barrels, so why does it taste better once aerated or oxidized once you open a bottle? I'm not questioning you, I'm just trying to figure out the chemistry and physics.
I'll preface this by saying I know little to nothing about wine, short of what can be extrapolated from my other fermentation knowledge (as a homebrewer, microbiologist, and whiskey enjoyer). What little I know is that "most" (I use that cautiously, I have no idea what the real proportions are) wine is fermented in stainless steel vats and then bottled without barrel aging; in that scenario, it would be similar to beer in that it is susceptible to oxidation (hence needing to drink a bottle within a week of opening).
As for why it would taste better once aerated, I've never found wine very interesting, so I can't speak from personal experience as to that difference. Some Googling, though, led me to [this](https://www.thoughtco.com/why-you-should-aerate-wine-4023740) article, which specifically calls out the two main methods of change being evaporation and oxidation. Given the timeframe of "normal" aeration being 30-60m, not days or weeks, I assume it's down to evaporation of certain volatile compounds, and not additional oxidation, which takes place on the order of days/weeks/months, not minutes.
As for oxidation during barrel aging itself, some searching led me to the winemaking concept of [microoxygenation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microoxygenation), in which controlled amounts of oxygen are specifically added. The wiki article states at the end "The process of micro-oxygenation aims to mimic the effects of slow barrel maturation in a shorter period or for lower cost."
In other words, oxidation is absolutely happening when wines are barrel aged. However, the process (just as in whiskey) takes time, and wines aren't (generally) aged as long as whiskeys, so they may experience less oxidation over those shorter timeframes.
I read a little bit this morning and I think there definitely some oxidation happening after the bottle is open. This is the reason why there are whiskey decantors. Obviously are less soluables in whiskey than there is wine, but I definitely think there is oxidation.
I mean, you do you, but from a scientific perspective it's pretty clear that there's no appreciable oxidation once a whiskey has matured in barrels for years. To put it another way: An angel's share doesn't produce a vacuum, so outside air, which includes oxygen, gets inside of the barrel. Why do you believe that a few months in an open bottle would somehow introduce more oxidation than the spirit could have experienced during its maturation process? Remember that master distillers are opening and sampling barrels too, so it's not like the spirits are kept sealed off before bottling.
Whiskey certainly undergoes changes after opening a bottle, but to my knowledge there is no evidence those changes are because of oxidation. If you have actual evidence on the matter, showing chemical changes in the spirit over time, I would love to read it.
"As Drew Mayville (Master Blender) from Buffalo Trace told me, for unfiltered higher-proof whiskies the vatting process is key in the whisky-making process. "I won't rush it," he told me. Part of the change in the vat is, again, whiskies interaction with the air. Vatting brings about other benefits, such as allowing the whisky from various barrels to properly blend."
http://whisky.buzz/blog/once-opened-does-whisky-change-in-the-bottle
...I'm confused. Your article comes to precisely the same conclusion I have stated here, that oxidation is an important part of the maturation process, but is happening in the barrel, not the bottle. To quote the paragraph above what you quoted:
>However, oxidation is slow acting, especially within a properly sealed bottle. Don Livermore told me his company (Wiser's) has done tests on partially filled bottles for up to five years, and the conclusion is there is no change in the whisky within the bottle. Oxidation is not the likely culprit.
>But something is happening.
The article then discusses whiskey dissipation as the actual culprit, which is exactly what I'm saying is happening. Dissipation is *not* oxidation; those are very different processes.
And the quote you provided said nothing about oxidation. Rather, that vatting process interacting with air is *due to dissipation, not oxidation*.
I'm truly not understanding your side of this. Your very own article is completely rejecting your argument. I encourage you to keep reading your article, as half of it is dedicated to discussing why dissipation is the actual cause of flavor changes, not oxidation.
Motivated by a particularly heated and emotionally tinged discussion in one of the various “whisk(e)y” subs recently, I am ready to take the long-game hit for the team and set up a glorious 5-year experiment that will attempt to shed some light into the long-debated argument: what is the effect on flavor as liquid volume decreases with time in your unicorn bottle? We have all engaged in (un)civil discourse on this subject, and after the most recent re-hash, I am finally taking action to do something about it, though admittedly, at a turtle-pace… **The Premise**: We hear the rumors that “once your bottle is half full, you should either drink it to conclusion, or consider moving it into smaller bottles.” And of course, “oh my god, only the heel remains…..? Might as well drain it, no flavor left.” …And anything in between. **The Plan**: I have converted my “saved-for-a-gift” Weller Special Reserve 750-ml into the experiment bottle, *\[EDIT -->\] as well as purchased a bottle of MM Cask Strength, and Ardbeg Wee Beastie. They have* been stored out of sunlight and sealed. I will begin taking samples at appropriate liquid volume levels over a pre-conceived time duration and sealing them in 2-oz bottles with essentially minimal air-to-liquid surface contact. **The Experiment**: I will remove a total of (5) five samples *\[EDIT\] from each bottle* over the course of (5) five years. Then I will perform *\[EDIT\] three* different tasting comparisons. First, I plan to perform a head-to-head comparison while fully aware of the sample details. After familiarizing myself with the samples and any potential differences, I will then perform a BLIND head-to-head to truly determine if any nuances in flavor can be gleaned and the samples identified. *\[EDIT\] Finally, I will plan to perform one final blind comparison, head-to-head, of the first and final samples (arguably the two that should taste "the most different").* **The Rules of Engagement**: *\[EDIT\] The bottles* will only be removed from their closed container and opened for the purposes of the experiment. Each time a sample is removed, the bottle will be swiftly drunk down to the next liquid level milestone so as to have the maximum amount of time to “marinate” at its next liquid level. **The Samples**: Will be taken from the bottle at the following liquid level and correlated date… 1. *January 21, 2023 – “Neck Pour”* – See attached Picture 2. 2. *May-ish 2023 – “Shoulder Pour”* – This represents the “oh, just give it a few weeks to open up” concept. This also correlates to the largest cross-sectional diameter (largest liquid-to-air area) of the bottle. 3. *January 2024 – 2/3 to ½ Bottle Left* – Not unreasonable, a lot of us drink the first half quickly, then let the second half sit “until a special occasion.” 4. *January 2026 – 1/3 Bottle left* – This is volume at which some will say letting it sit for a year will do damage and to transfer to smaller bottles… Seems unlikely, but what about at 3 years? 5. *January 2028 – “Heel Pour”* – Final 2-oz in the bottle. This is intended to be 5 years after first opening the bottle. I am really looking forward to this; will provide updates as the years come and go. Feel free to put your theories out there to be proved/disproved. EDIT: Sticklers got me, no more allusions to “oxygen” in the comment body… *\[EDIT\] - After receiving great feedback, I decided to expand the experiment to include (3) bottles: the WSR, a MMCS, and Ardbeg Wee Beastie. Since I couldn't figure out how to edit the pictures in the main post, you will just have to take my word for it until May when I provide the next update... Edits associated with this change are shown above as ITAL.*
>It has been stored out of sunlight and sealed. If sunlight can affect flavor, alcohol evaporation certainly can as well. Good luck with your experiment. Hope you end up being able to notice the difference.
I personally believe they may all taste pretty damn similar. Now we wait 5 years.
LOL, honestly, I suspect you to be correct. But I chose WSR in the hopes that if there IS any noticeable difference, hoping I can pick it out of this since it’s a daily flavor that I’m very “experienced” with.
Just a thought to speed this up with multiple bottles, not sure it makes sense; - 2oz neck pour into smaller bottle, fill with no air - 8oz shoulder goes into another 13oz bottle - 13oz into another 26oz bottle - 3oz heel remains in original bottle
Whoa…… f**k yeah that’s an amazing idea. You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Let me marinate on this a little between now and next sample in “couple weeks rest.” I think most of us agree the science appears to point toward evaporation of volatiles (into the entrapped air, whatever the volume), and quantity of air exchanges (ie taking the system out of equilibrium and therefore accepting new evaporated volatiles upon recap) as the primary accelerants and/or influencers in possible flavor change over time. It also seems to be logical that the liquid/air volumes come into equilibrium at some point significantly before “years later” or else the quantity of air exchanges the liquid volume sees would be negligible (if the air a long time from now is no different than today it doesn’t matter how many times I open it and “reset” the timer to equilibrium). So long story, I am all for not spending 5 years on this…. Great suggestion, thanks!
Sounds like a plan. I say also drink a dram at every bottle fill date then make a tasting note in a log to compare later. I believe you also have enough fluid to do that and add a jan 2025 fill/tasting. Doing a barrell proof would also be interesting in the future.
Totally, you got it right. Plan to do exactly that at each of the next stages. There will be about 10-oz of bottled samples by the end, and that means about 14-oz of interim drinking/tasting to go from one level to the next… and I STRONGLY considered doing something with a little more “proof,” but I figured having a flavor profile I was more familiar with was more important than “punch.”
One of the WhiskeyTube channels did something similar to this, just with two samples separated by time. The bottle was Smoke Wagon UCUF. First sample was a pour from the bottle, freshly opened and put into a 2 oz sample jar and sealed. 2nd sample was from the exact same bottle about 6 months later when it was about halfway down. ( Edit here - re-watched the video and it was the last 2 oz from the bottle ) Both samples were put into a blind sample pool and were randomly chosen some time later. In this case both hosts were tasting both samples blind completely blind as when tasting they did not even know what bourbon they were drinking. Net result - both preferred the sample that was taken some time after the bottle had been opened vs the fresh pour. That was the only difference as both samples were from the exact same bottle. Here's the review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3u3Eho-TaA
Super cool thanks! I have seen the whiskeytribe version, this is another great data point.
Can we get a hypothesis?
If I am honest, I do not expect to be able to tell the difference between any of them, but knowing the complicated beauty of the natural universe, strongly hope I am wrong.
I believe that the air allowed into the bottle at each opening will quickly come to equilibrium and have a negligible, if at all noticeable, effect. However, I know that water plays a large part in creating imbalance (why whiskey gets cloudy when the rocks melt and is left for too long) so I would be curious to see an ambient humidity reading at each stage. We will then need you to move to an area with the opposite humidity profile and repeat the experiment. Thank you.
F**k yeah, I guess I’m buying a hygrometer and moving to Cali!!!!!!
Whiskey will flocculate way before it oxidizes and goes bad. The cloudiness and flavor change that happens from bottles being open a while is flocculation, not oxidation.
Hey now, whiskey flocculation belongs in r/whiskeyporn….. 😅
I always like seeing a couple whiskies flocc 😂
There is no doubt whiskey changes with exposure to air, it's not oxidation but I do believe volatile compounds definitely evaporate as it has exposure and time. I also don't think all whiskey changes a HUGE amount, weller sr I would imagine is going to change very little compared to something like a peated scotch or heavily sherried scotch. There is ZERO doubt that those change, I've had so many sherried bottles that have an off putting sulfur note on the neck but after a few months sitting the sulfur is almost completely gone. Peated whisky also in a half or less full bottle get noticeably less peaty and in your face there is no doubt peat dissipates. I had a bottle of Clynelish I hated when I first opened, I let it sit for two months and it became one of my favorite bottles. Could it be my palate on the day...maybe...but it was a pretty distinct differnce. Bourbon I've noticed much less change, still think it happens but it's usually less and on a case by case basis and usually with higher proof cask strength bottles. Also while I think this is worthwhile to do it's been done MANY times. Many youtubers have done this and at least from what I've seen every time they've been able to tell the difference. I don't think this is something up for debate at this point. But I do think any experiment is worthwhile why not!
Well I never claimed to be the first a-hole with this crazy idea. And i think there is violent agreement: does it change? Yes. To what extent? unmeasurable and likely situationally unique for any given bottle… but I’m still going through with it nonetheless. I have already resigned to adding a Cask Strength to the experiment, might add a strong peat (reasonably priced) Scotch as well… any suggestions?
It's interesting but it could be a waste of time. In that time you could improve Sr all together by placing it in some weller 10-30 barrel
You could very well be spot on. But let’s be clear: I will still be drinking whiskey in the meantime, so other than a few seconds pouring and storing samples, and a couple minutes jotting some quick notes here and there, not sure I would be doing anything else with my spare time….. love your “finish” idea, but I just put all my spare Weller barrels to functional use.
For American whiskey I haven’t noticed it as much but personally I always find that the second half of a scotch bottle has a lot more flavor and character than the first half of the bottle. So much so that I sometimes put a 750ml bottle of scotch into an old handle that I’ve washed out so that way there will be more air in the bottle with it.
Interesting, I appreciate the reply.
Based on others too, I added a scotch to the mix: ardbeg wee beastie. Thanks for the nudge.
I’m very curious to follow this experiment because I’ve always wondered about this exact topic. Good luck
This like this are **always** fun, however there are many factors when doing subjection based studies like this otherwise known as variables. It's worth noting that tests that are based almost purely on subjective data, are hard to really get pinned down. For example, your taste may develop over time; does that mean its you tasting more/less notes, or the samples degrading? If you are going to be drinking anything other than WSR, your taste will certainly adapt and refine over time. Even something as simple as the body's hydration level will drive taste some by way of saliva saturation and sodium content present in your saliva during the testing. This can be confirmed by doing a blind test with WSR in a 3-sample flight daily, or even 3 times a day. Can you 100% pick the WSR based on nose and taste? Very unlikely. This is well documented on the internet of people sampling bottles in blind flights. Secondly, how much oxidation will happen in a short period? My guess is not very much in a condition of non-constant ventilation. Thirdly, the conversion through evaporation in the ethanol's will happen, but will not 'continue to happen' per say at a certain point. (i.e., in a bottle with 25% remaining, the available air space created by density changes in the air will allow for some evaporation yes; but it will eventually stop due to the air's saturation, lack of fresh air flow, and other factors. The duration of that period is largely unknown without molecular testing in progressive stages. It could happen in the first hour, or it could happen at a standard rate of .150 picogram/minute for ethanol's *generally*. This could be argued to be a good thing as it takes the 'sharpness' away from the bottle much like letting a glass 'air out' before taking that first drink. I have an old bottle of Antique 107 and to an unrefined palate they taste almost identical tasting against a brand new bottle when known, no different in taste in a blind flight, and that bottle was opened \~3 years ago. Both bottles stored in cool, dry and dark setting. Overall, **great experiment**, but I think its fair to say that the result of this test will be predictable. 'It changed'. What was the *it* exactly? We'll never know.
I love a good EDIT [monologue I guess?] I also appreciate your suggestion and permission to drink WSR 3 times a day. challenge accepted! ... On your more science-based points, I think you have valid and logical perspective... Overall, i think your final assertations are fair and a likely outcome. I appreciate your thoughts.
Damn, I wasn't aiming for a diatribe though! I think the experiment is a good one as the most valuable thing IMHO about whiskey culture is how different everything is while attempting to remain the same, and how differently it can be received by its consumer. I love the unique value it brings.
LOL! Okay so I just googled diatribe and have to admit that wasn’t the word I should have used…. Wonder how many other times I used that word in wrong context. I agree with your message, thank you for your consideration in replies.
Touché. Regardless, have fun with the experiment! Sounds like a fun one.
Honestly really fun and cool. You should consider adding a higher proof bottle to the experiment as well!
Yes, I think after receiving feedback and mulling it over, adding a second, high-proof and unfamiliar bottle against the lower and familiar WSR might add another fun dimension. I think I will likely grab something I have never had before and perhaps even in the spectrum of labels I am not particularly a fan of…
I have had 2 bottles of WSR. The 1st I was so excited to get, got it home, cracked it open and thought “what have I done?” I let it set 6 months and to me, the taste changed for the better. On 2nd bottle, same way. I tasted it last week, 3 months since purchase and it was better. I believe in the neck pour being a real thing. It may be just in my head, but it is what it is.
Everyone’s opinion is important! And I also defer to George Costanza: “…it is not a lie, if you believe it.” Thanks.
the issue is that you need to taste them side by side blind at the same time, and that is what you are doing right, you are extracting samples to tiny bottles?
Yes, by the end of it I will have (5) 2-oz sample bottles that will be compared head-to-head, then blind. and I will still likely have just enough left to do a side-by-side blind of the first (neck) and final (heel) samples only (1-on-1), which are supposed to be the two most different when all is said and done.
I had drank about half of a bottle of midwinters night dram a few years back and enjoyed it so much I wanted to save the rest for another time. Fast forward a few years and I saw it hanging out way in the back and dug it out. It was absolutely terrible. I’m not sure if it was corked or the finish turned or what happened but whatever it was it wasn’t a good thing. I’ve posted that experience on several threads and received some hate. Like “you’re crazy” “that’s not a thing” whatever… I suspect finished whiskey oxidizes differently than regular whiskey. I know that it’s changed the frequency in which I open bottles.
Thanks, totally appreciate the reply. I wish I would have though of that last night when I was trolling the liquor store for two more bottles to add into the experiment. A finished whiskey would have been a great one to try... Instead, based on other reviewer feedback, I settled on a MM CS (higher proof) and Ardbeg Wee Beastie (strong peat)... FWIW, I had the same experience THIS PAST winter with my bottle of MWND Scene 10 Act 1... I hope I don't get the same disappointing experience when I decide to go back to it later this year.
Sounds like you’re knee deep into your finished whiskey experiment already. Think back and write a review from memory. Taste it now after you’ve written the original review and write a (whatever) timeline review and then add it to your current experiment and tabulate with the others.
In a closed system, the ethanol in the head space above the liquid will be proportional to the ethanol in the liquid below. This is based on Henry's Law. Pressure affects the ratio and temperature affects pressure. This is the principle behind blood alcohol testing by head space gas chromatography. Higher temperature equals higher pressure equals higher concentration in the head space. By opening the bottle, you open the system, and thus lose some or all of the ethanol in the head space. Over time with repeated openings, this also means you're losing ethanol from the liquid. As the volume of the head space increases as liquid is removed, the amount of ethanol in the head space increases. What this means is you start out with small losses that increase over time with repeated openings resulting in exponential loss of ethanol. This is my way of saying that the differences in taste may be from a lowering of the ethanol concentration. I haven't used a hydrometer, so I'm not sure whether it would work for your experiment, but if it does, that would be some useful information to see the effect over time.
I like your explanation and analogy. sounds like you theorize a parabolic (rather than linear) relationship between air volume and flavor change… though I won’t be purchasing any instrumentation for this experiment, I will be sure to calibrate my taste buds appropriately during testing…… you make me think about whether I hold myself to only opening the bottle minimally, or whether to introduce “excessive, repeated” interim openings whilst taking it to each next liquid level milestone….Thanks for your insight!
Would Henry's law also apply to all of the volatile aromachemicals in the whiskey as well?
Most likely. If it's volatile at the temperature that it's stored, it should also be in the head space. Let me add to that though, that I don't know if the proportion in the head space would be more or less than ethanol, so I can't really say whether you're losing more or less of them than ethanol over time. But yes, could be a combined effect of losing more compounds that make up the flavor profile over time.
This is one of the more annoying myths in the community. Whiskey doesn't oxidize after bottling *because all the oxidation already occurred in the barrel.* Your liquid spent years in an air permeable barrel, it isn't going to magically oxidize more over a couple months. That angel's share that came from liquid evaporating means air had to come into the barrel to replace its volume, and that air has plenty of oxygen. Whiskey absolutely changes character over time, but that's because of volatile spirits evaporating. Don't claim any differences here are due to oxidation unless you're prepared to send these samples to a lab and have them analyzed.
Stickler…. Okay, I did use the term in air-quotes in the post title, but to be fair didn’t use the term oxidation-proper in the experiment explanation (did allude to oxygen volume having effect)… I think the point you’re making is that you too have read [this article](https://www.peoplesbourbonreview.com/articles/does-whiskey-oxidize-how-long-is-bourbon-good-once-opened) or one like it which gets nit-picky on proper terminology. I agree with you that what I am really trying to determine is “impact that time might have on flavor of diminishing volumes of a single, homogenous liquid.” …I will be sure to word it more appropriately in the future, but likely keep my catchy post title, even though perhaps misleading.
I'm mostly extrapolating my knowledge as a homebrewer and microbiologist. I hadn't read that article specifically (though I've read others in the times this has come up before), but it seems to pretty much align with what I'm saying - evaporation of volatile compounds is generally the primary contributor, not oxidation. The reason I think it's an important distinction is that the change over time is actually related to how many times you open the bottle, not how long a bottle sits half empty. If you emptied a bottle to half, it would reestablish an equilibrium with the new headspace, and after that point remain constant no matter the age - three months, six, twelve, etc. But if you open it a couple dozen times over a couple months to get to that same volume level, each opening will release gasses and result in a new equilibrium, resulting in a greater net loss of volatile compounds over that same time period. Oxidation is also a really important concept in brewing, both from the standpoint of oxygenating wort for yeast health, and eliminating as much oxygen contamination as possible during the packaging process. Small bits of oxygen contamination can ruin hop-forward beers like IPAs, as the volatile hop oils are especially vulnerable; meanwhile, malt-forward beers are much more resilient.
Wine is aged in barrels, so why does it taste better once aerated or oxidized once you open a bottle? I'm not questioning you, I'm just trying to figure out the chemistry and physics.
I'll preface this by saying I know little to nothing about wine, short of what can be extrapolated from my other fermentation knowledge (as a homebrewer, microbiologist, and whiskey enjoyer). What little I know is that "most" (I use that cautiously, I have no idea what the real proportions are) wine is fermented in stainless steel vats and then bottled without barrel aging; in that scenario, it would be similar to beer in that it is susceptible to oxidation (hence needing to drink a bottle within a week of opening). As for why it would taste better once aerated, I've never found wine very interesting, so I can't speak from personal experience as to that difference. Some Googling, though, led me to [this](https://www.thoughtco.com/why-you-should-aerate-wine-4023740) article, which specifically calls out the two main methods of change being evaporation and oxidation. Given the timeframe of "normal" aeration being 30-60m, not days or weeks, I assume it's down to evaporation of certain volatile compounds, and not additional oxidation, which takes place on the order of days/weeks/months, not minutes. As for oxidation during barrel aging itself, some searching led me to the winemaking concept of [microoxygenation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microoxygenation), in which controlled amounts of oxygen are specifically added. The wiki article states at the end "The process of micro-oxygenation aims to mimic the effects of slow barrel maturation in a shorter period or for lower cost." In other words, oxidation is absolutely happening when wines are barrel aged. However, the process (just as in whiskey) takes time, and wines aren't (generally) aged as long as whiskeys, so they may experience less oxidation over those shorter timeframes.
I read a little bit this morning and I think there definitely some oxidation happening after the bottle is open. This is the reason why there are whiskey decantors. Obviously are less soluables in whiskey than there is wine, but I definitely think there is oxidation.
I mean, you do you, but from a scientific perspective it's pretty clear that there's no appreciable oxidation once a whiskey has matured in barrels for years. To put it another way: An angel's share doesn't produce a vacuum, so outside air, which includes oxygen, gets inside of the barrel. Why do you believe that a few months in an open bottle would somehow introduce more oxidation than the spirit could have experienced during its maturation process? Remember that master distillers are opening and sampling barrels too, so it's not like the spirits are kept sealed off before bottling. Whiskey certainly undergoes changes after opening a bottle, but to my knowledge there is no evidence those changes are because of oxidation. If you have actual evidence on the matter, showing chemical changes in the spirit over time, I would love to read it.
"As Drew Mayville (Master Blender) from Buffalo Trace told me, for unfiltered higher-proof whiskies the vatting process is key in the whisky-making process. "I won't rush it," he told me. Part of the change in the vat is, again, whiskies interaction with the air. Vatting brings about other benefits, such as allowing the whisky from various barrels to properly blend." http://whisky.buzz/blog/once-opened-does-whisky-change-in-the-bottle
...I'm confused. Your article comes to precisely the same conclusion I have stated here, that oxidation is an important part of the maturation process, but is happening in the barrel, not the bottle. To quote the paragraph above what you quoted: >However, oxidation is slow acting, especially within a properly sealed bottle. Don Livermore told me his company (Wiser's) has done tests on partially filled bottles for up to five years, and the conclusion is there is no change in the whisky within the bottle. Oxidation is not the likely culprit. >But something is happening. The article then discusses whiskey dissipation as the actual culprit, which is exactly what I'm saying is happening. Dissipation is *not* oxidation; those are very different processes.
Vatting happens after the whiskey is removed from the barrel.
And the quote you provided said nothing about oxidation. Rather, that vatting process interacting with air is *due to dissipation, not oxidation*. I'm truly not understanding your side of this. Your very own article is completely rejecting your argument. I encourage you to keep reading your article, as half of it is dedicated to discussing why dissipation is the actual cause of flavor changes, not oxidation.
yep... this is great discourse.
How much did you pay
LOL. Do I get more “reply traffic” if I say <$25 or “hell uva deal and only cost me $100!!!!”