It was the press release heard ’round the whiskey-world: In 2012, Buffalo Trace said that it had been experimenting with small barrels and that it had confidently concluded that small barrels made inferior bourbon. Whiskey writer Chuck Cowdery put it bluntly, compiling information and his own thoughts on the matter in a booklet titled, “Small Barrels Produce Lousy Whiskey.” (Yes, he put an actual period in the title—a writer’s version of the mic drop.)
The fallout was … not that bad, honestly. A few distillers got their briefs in a bunch, but by and large the folks who were using small barrels to make their products continued to do so. Many went on to produce products that outscored Buffalo Trace in competitions and reviews. (I should also point out that the distillery’s experiment design was deeply flawed, apparently designed to give them the answer they wanted.)
Many writers—including me—have pontificated on the topic of small barrels over the past 15 years. One of the things that has always bothered me about the debate is that, historically speaking, small casks represent a more accurate interpretation of older whiskey styles. In fact, the large distilling houses have forsaken a number of practices from 120 or more years ago—things such as warehouse conditions, entry proof, and (yes) barrel size have all changed dramatically over the past century or so.
And so has the whiskey.