Our Red Ironbark and Blackwood whiskies - yes they're 2 year old - were finished in a shiraz barrels sourced from the high country north of Bathurst. Both whiskies are soft and luxurious on the mouth and great drinking. 700ml and at 48% / 46% respectively, they are brilliant value.
$75 is actually very sharp pricing for boutique Australian whiskey. I don't know how good this is, but most decent local products are a lot more than that.
Fair enough it is a pass from me but if people are keen go for it
48 and 46% abv , not 40% so already 10% more for tax …
You're advertising them as malt spirits, and the labels match this, but you're saying they're actually whisky now? Seems sketchy.
$150 for 2 dubious Australian spirits that may or may not legally be even allowed to be called whisky doesn't sound like a bargain.
In Australia, the law states that whisky must be aged for a minimum of two years.
Thefong is saying that the product label does not say the spirit is a whisky, nor how many years it's aged. The product itself only mentions that it's a 'single malt'. However, the poster mentions on OzBargain that the product is 2 years old, and is a whisky.
Yeah that's why I'd want to see the products labelled and advertised clearly as being whisky, not just a "trust me bro" from some faceless rep
Yeah I believe this is the company that advertises really strongly to look like australian single malt whisky, but it actualyl isn't (hence the malt spirit). The wood cubes I don't believe count as barrels. So somewhat misleading in my opinion.
These may differ, they might have got actual barrels and be releasing the youngest legal age whisky you can in Aus now, but will require clarification from them.
They are great whiskies. We sell both Malt Spirits, and whiskies. With our production technology the differences are not that significant. My view is, if it tastes good, it is good. And please, it is legal to sell single malt spirit in Australia. In The USA, most 'whiskies are less than a year old. Ditto Japan. Our law states that nyou can only call a whisky a whisky if "it has aged two years on wood". Just trying to clear things up, not start an argument!
OP please include savings -
Normally $80 each + delivery $11 to Metro QLD.
So $171 down to $150
Here I was thinking it was a local brewer. Connection is less than tenuous.
I've never heard of you guys, but had a look at your site. I don't think either of your spirits are "whisky". Two years old is fine, but you say you use Australian hardwood cubes to speed up the maturation of the new make. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have to use oak? I'm not 100% on Australian whisky laws. What wood do you use and how many litres are the cubes? If they are over 2 years old and properly matured, you should label them as whiskies. I'm not usually a fan of gimmicky maturation techniques, but I do like different oak types like Hungarian, Mizunara etc. and I like the ABV of your spirits (maybe whisky)
Then I'll buy a pack to try, and remove my neg.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/whisky-business-the-120-year…
Goodradigbee was already stretching it for me……..
Seems OP needs to remove the reference to whisky
That's even more confusing because according to the article, the juice only needs to be aged in "wood" for 2 years, but if these guys are using probably 50-100L cubes, and they're claiming these "whiskies" are aged for 2 years or whatever and then finished in Shiraz, but the article says the magic cubes can make a "single malt" in a few weeks (I can't remember the exact details and I'm not going to re-read the article), then I can't imagine what the finished product will taste.
That's why I don't buy any new Aussie whisky unless someone I can trust vouches for it, like Spring Bay.
I have a sizable stash of old Sullivans juice Heartwoods, Overeem, Lark, Bakery Hill, Southern Coast Distillers, Smith's Angaston, Belgrove. All the OG shit. Everyone decided they can make whisky, most cannot, and there's over a hundred new distilleries in less than 20 years. Most have amazingly inspiring stories, fancy packaging, 500ml bottles at $200+, release shit at 2 years old because they need the cash flow, not because the whisky is ready, low ABV, and maybe 1 out of 10 are actually good.
So unless I get to taste it first, or it is recommended to me by someone I trust, fck the modern Aussie whisky industry.
Most cubes are 200 litres FYI. Maturation varies subject to weather.
As for not trusting Aussie whisky, 99% of it is a direct copy of scotch, so why wouldn't you. We are just different and more so, prepared to rest on the awards we win. Our hardwoods age whisky completely differently to used oak barrels. If you're local drop in. If not connect with me if you feel it worthwhile and I am happy to talk it through. To be frank, I am an open book about what we do, so just ask.
John
Goodradigbee
@Goodradigbee: What hardwoods do you use? What characteristics to they impart on the new make compared to a similarly sized ex-bourbon American oak hogshead? A 200L cube would have more surface area than a hogshead, but not by a significant amount. Besides weather, how does the hardwood speed up maturation?
What are the specs of your stills? How wide/narrow are your cuts? I assume you use pre-malted barley from Coopers?
Some Aussie whisky is a 99% direct copy of Scotch. Your's clearly isn't because maturation (wood type, barrel size, provenance etc) is a huge part of the whisky making process. It's not like you're growing your own barley and floor malting. You're just doing whatever everyone else is doing; getting stuff from Coopers or Cascade or whatever, distilling it in your stills, BUT using hardwood cubes rather than oak barrels; which is kinda smart because they would be easier and cheaper to make, rather than importing bourbon or very expensive sherry casks and recoopering, and I'd imagine easier to stack.
But saying your shit is 99% the same as Scotch is objectively false. I don't care about awards, but good for you. I'm always open to trying new things, as long as the producer is transparent. You can use a pine tetrahedron for all I care. Like you said, if it tastes good, it's good.
With our production technology the differences are not that significant.
Then why make this your sales pitch if you don't explain why, except essentially, "trust us bro."
Seems OP needs to remove the reference to whisky
Apologies to OP. I failed to read your description.
Please see below.
John
Goodradigbee
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea190…
"Wood" is in the definition on the excise act so I guess they can use any tree they like and call it whisky, as long as it's for 2+ years. I hope they've moved away from that "single malt" labeling mentioned in the SMH article Igaf has linked. That is misleading.
These are two years old. Much or what we sell is not, but with what we do, it doesn't matter. As I have said above, if it tastes good, it is good. We use (single) malt barley from Coopers, and distill in our Aussie made still. But from there, we are innovative in what we do.
OK. For everyone online here. THEY ARE BOTH WHISKIES New labels going on the product today, which say WHISKY. They are aged in our Aussie hardwood cubes for 20 months, and then finished in a shiraz barrel from Bathurst. We are different, and these whiskies are delicious, PLUS and great value. To set the record straight, if you have any questions, call me on 0410841007, or email [email protected]
Apologies for not getting onto this earlier.
Good luck with the business and production. I hope you succeed. We need more Australian whisky producers and distributers. I have already spent over $2000 these past two months on whiskies but I will make sure to try this out when I get some more financial breathing space :D
Rosebank
If you want to go forensic into the technicalities of our cuts and process, call me. Ditto the cubes. But the short version is these whiskies were matured in 200 litre Red Ironbark and Tasmanian Blackwood cubes. then finished over three - four months in new oak barrels that had high country shiraz in them.
If you think I am saying 'Trust me bro" you don't know me. I'm an open book, but I wont spend hours writing chapter and verse about what we do and why, when you can garner that information with a quick call. Fair? 0410841007
@Goodradigbee
What makes the Tasmanian Blackwood only product priced so much more than the 2yr aged Rosewood/Tassie Blackwood considering the one linked below is not classified as whiskey and thus only matured within 8 weeks I (presume)?
I'm not going to call you, you also need to learn how to respond to comments on here because I did not receive a notification.
I asked a few questions which you can answer in an open forum. So you use Red Ironbark and Tassie Blackwood hardwood cubes and then finish them in (American oak/French oak?) ex-shiraz casks for a few months. That answers half of my first question.
What characteristics to they impart on the new make compared to a similarly sized ex-bourbon American oak hogshead? A 200L cube would have more surface area than a hogshead, but not by a significant amount. Besides weather, how does the hardwood speed up maturation?
So what's different? "Both whiskies are soft and luxurious on the mouth and great drinking" means nothing to me.
Some Aussie whisky is a 99% direct copy of Scotch. Your's clearly isn't because maturation (wood type, barrel size, provenance etc) is a huge part of the whisky making process.
"99% of it is a direct copy of scotch, so why wouldn't you. We are just different and more so, prepared to rest on the awards we win. Our hardwoods age whisky completely differently to used oak barrels."
Then
"With our production technology the differences are not that significant"
You claim your whisky is a 99% a direct copy of Scotch, which is patently false. You say your hardwoods age whisky completely different to oak, then say that with your production tech the differences are not significant.
So yeah, you're pretty much saying "trust me, bro". No need to go forensic, these are very basic questions.
@kickling you heard of these geniuses?
Yo. Yeah, I heard of them back when they were doing the 2 week fast maturation and causing a stir as per the news article. I remember seeing them very cheap around the time starward was pumping at its peak and looking into it. But stayed away after what would have been 2 week newmake.
Now that it is 2 years, I guess due to the definitions (or lack thereof) it's not incorrect to can this a malt whisk(e)y. But yes, 99% similarity to scotch malt whisky is probably a stretch.
Keen to try first though… For research. If they want to send one to us for analysis…
The two week fast maturation was not us. Different company.
@Goodradigbee: Oh sorry, that was Mountain Distilling. Got confused with your Mountain related info.
I think it's a hard pass for me. Inability or reluctance to answer simple questions while claiming to be an open book. Blatant lies. Contradictory info on their magic cubes and maturation. Mislabeling of bottles. This is amateur hour shit. I'd rather buy a random IB CS single cask of any distillery, instead of this 2 bottle combo.
But can't knock the hustle, good luck to OP.
@rosebank: I'm just getting confused with all the info.
In January 2024 John says "This is not a whisky, what we’ve uncovered is a new spirits category through how we mature our single malt spirits."… but now it is a whisk(e)y because it's 2y old?
Is the only difference then (hence calling it 99% same as Scotch) being the cube barrel vs hogs?
Also, achieving the same colour and flavour in 8 weeks (sorry, not 2 weeks like I remembered) as similar to something needing 10 years… So how woody and tannic must it be after 104 weeks?
And isn't (more) time required to subdue that new make metallic funk (subtractive maturation)? Instead of masking it (over oaking) with cask influence? Which I hate in many Aus whisky…
@kickling: They also finish their shit in shiraz casks for extra tannins.
Any distiller worth their salt can answer these questions off the top, but apparently you need to call this one, like on the phone, for basic info.
@rosebank: Yeah. I think the only successful Shiraz cask I've had is from Ian and Vic. But still, I guess we still need to taste this IRL to really pass judgement
Good question. I have plenty of stock of both, but I put the Shiraz barrel aged twin pack (both Ironbark and Blackwood) out there at the $150 price point because I was curious to see what would happen. It went well. We haven't been selling much Blackwood Malt spirit since but, there you go.
FYI the aging of Blackwood is really dependent on temperature. It generally takes 6 months to 12 months to be ready for sale. The 8 week maturation happened ONLY with my trial product when I was working / learning at Streathern in Scotland. The cubes were virtually hidden in the office of the owner, not the distillery. It was freezing over night, then the heaters would go on during the day. The temperature variation was massive, and hence 8 weeks. But we cant duplicate that here in our distillery, nor would we want to.
@Goodradigbee. Not sure I understand how that answered my question.
I am asking what makes the Blackwood (6-12mth) $118ea where the single price of the whiskey malts (2yrs) $80ea
I ran a special.
@Goodradigbee
The deal here is 2 for $150.
The normal price from what I see is $80
So you are saying that the individual price of $80 is also a special price? What is the normal price of the Whiskey Malts then? Is it closer to $120 or more?
As far as I can tell I'm comparing the normal price of the Blackwood $118 to the normal price of the Whiskey Malts $80
they are on special. In this market, anything over $100 is slow to glacial to sell. It's that simple. They - these two whiskies - are in-market for a (very) special price. Ordinarily they would be over $130.
Cheers mate. I appreciate your patience. I'll give it a go.
goodradigbee are you able to send samples?
$75 dollars ea for 2 years old! That is bloody expensive
Surely that is a typo for 12 years?