Posts

Posted on

Woodford Reserve “Four Wood” Master’s Collection

Ahh, Woodford Reserve, what are you up to? Your Master’s Collection is an intriguing idea in principle – one limited release every year or so that focuses on playing with one of the “five sources of flavor – grain, water, fermentation, distillation, and maturation.” This is the seventh edition, and the twist this time is that the Woodford Reserve bourbon was aged in four types of wood – American oak as the original aging barrel to maturity, then maple, Sherry barrels, and Port barrels for finishing before blending together. It’s a small release, and pricey at that – about $100 retail per bottle.

So how does that intriguing idea play out? Master Distiller Chris Morris says, “The batching ratios of the three finishing barrels were painstakingly chosen so that no one character dominated the final product.” Based on a small sample that Woodford Reserve was kind enough to send, I agree with that, though the Port and Sherry definitely make their presence felt. He goes on to say, though, that the result is “so balanced that the palate effects of each of the four woods plays a discernible role in the final flavor presentation.” Which is where I take exception – the result, to me, seems anything but balanced.

Before I share my tasting notes, I have to say I agree almost 100% with Jason’s take on this whiskey over at Sour Mash Manifesto. I was hesitant to even publish these notes given how close my thoughts are to his, but the more voices the better for folks out there considering a purchase of this whiskey.

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Four Wood
Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Matured in Oak and Finished in Maple Wood and Wine Barrels
94.4 Proof
Approx. $100 retail
Tasting dates: October 30 – November 4, 2012

First impressions are a good thing for this whiskey, but they don’t tell the whole story. The nose on the Four Wood is wonderful, a deep bouquet that makes you think of peach pie coming out of the oven, a bit of orange zest highlights, hints of maple syrup and brown sugar. But first impressions aren’t always true…

A sip of the Four Wood makes you wish you had just spent time taking in the aromas instead. Imagine four wooden paddles hitting you in the face. It would leave you a bit out of sorts, right? OK, that’s a bit (way) too harsh, but harsh wood does dominate the experience, quickly overpowering everything, backing off a bit in the mid-palate, then coming back with a bite in the finish. The time in Port and Sherry barrels is evident in a positive way as well, but that depth sits behind the negative effects of the wood, not on top of it, and seems elusive – popping up in the middle, then falling off. Balance or harmony are simply not words I could use to describe this. And where’s that peach pie? Where’s the orange zest? Where’s the maple syrup? They must be stuck in the barrel still. The finish is long but it’s the harsh wood that continues to dominate.

I played with this and some water quite a bit, finding that a touch of water tames the wood slightly, but doesn’t take away the disjointed feel of the whiskey. An excess of water, taking it down to roughly 70 proof, finally seems to bring things into balance, but by then the flavors are too watered down to have much impact.

Hate to say it, but my grade is merely Fair* (with a caveat – the nose warrants an Excellent, the whiskey is full of flaws on the palate, though, that knock it down a few notches). If you’re eager to taste this experiment in barrel finishing and have plenty of cash sitting around, go for it. Otherwise, I have a hard time recommending the Woodford Reserve Four Wood.

*******************************

* Thirsty South Rating Scale:

Wow – among the very best: knock-your-socks-off, profound, complex liquid gold!
Excellent – exceptional in quality and character, worth seeking out, highly recommended
Good Stuff – solid expression of its type/varietal, enjoyable and recommended
Fair – fairly standard or exhibiting obvious though minor flaws
Avoid – move away folks, nothing to see here, a trainwreck

Posted on

Larceny: Who Gives a Wheat?

 

As I was reading up on the new John E. Fitzgerald Larceny bourbon from Heaven Hill, I saw it suggested that this was developed to compete with Maker’s Mark since both are “wheated” bourbons. Think about it… do most whiskey drinkers have any clue if their bourbon is “wheated” or not??? (The term “wheated” refers to bourbons whose mash bill includes wheat instead of rye as a secondary grain after the primary corn – and there are relatively few wheated bourbons on the market.) I’d bet only a very small fraction of Maker’s Mark drinkers know or care that their whisky is a wheated one. And if they do know that and/or care about it, there’s a good chance they’re pretty into their Maker’s Mark and not likely to switch to Larceny.

Now, W.L. Weller drinkers are a bit more likely to have a clue that their bourbon is wheated, since Weller actually talks about being “the original wheated bourbon” on their label. And some folks probably know that Pappy Van Winkle is a wheated bourbon since they’re investing a lot of time and money into obtaining a bottle, but I bet there are just as many people that have a bottle of Pappy and only know that it’s damn good bourbon (Pappy also bears no mention of wheat on their label).

It seems the team behind Larceny at Heaven Hill agrees with me – since you will not find the word “wheat” anywhere on their front or back label. It’s clearly not a primary selling point to consumers. What Larceny is pushing is the fact (or a not-quite-fact?) that Larceny is “small batch” and “smooth,” since those are words that either mean something to consumers or at least lend an air of desirability to the bourbon.

Heaven Hill has also gone fancy with their marketing of this new brand, with a much more contemporary look and a rather elaborate backstory. The story goes that one Mr. John E. Fitzgerald was not actually distilling bourbon, but was pilfering from the best barrels of bourbon under his watch as a treasury agent long ago (thus the name “Larceny”). Old Fitzgerald, the bourbon brand that Mr. Fitzgerald started, dates back to the late 1800s, and was for some time made at the renowned  Stitzel-Weller distillery (AKA the source of the golden age of Pappy Van Winkle production) before changing hands and moving over to the (also famous) Bernheim Distillery as part of Heaven Hill.

It looks like Heaven Hill is trying to launch a brand that will resonate with today’s consumers more than their not-very-well-known Old Fitzgerald, and it’s likely that they’re using the same mash bill and production stock for the two lines. It’s been stated that the bourbon in Larceny ranges from six to twelve years of age (there’s no age statement on the label), which gives Heaven Hill a lot of flexibility to still work within the nebulous notion of “small batch” (they have said that each batch comes from “100 or fewer barrels that have been selected from the 4th, 5th and 6th floors of Heaven Hill’s open rick warehouses in Nelson County, Kentucky”) and keep a consistent taste profile for Larceny.

My local liquor store has Larceny at $18, with a $10 rebate, so for $8 I didn’t mind taking a shot at this at all. If you want to talk wheated bourbon comparisons, I think Larceny’s closest competitors are likely the W.L. Weller Special Reserve and 12 year old, both of which are priced very competitively and are very good bourbon values.

With that said, how does Larceny taste??? Is it exceptionally “smooth”? Is it a “steal” at $8 with the rebate? At $18?? How about $25???

John E. Fitzgerald LARCENY
Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Very Special Small Batch
92 Proof
Approx. $18 – $25 retail (currently available with a $10 rebate)
Tasting Dates: October 18-28, 2012

Larceny pours a pale pumpkin brown in color (it’s October, I’m allowed at least one pumpkin reference). Let me say up front that this bottle took a few days after initial opening to get going – my first few tastes were not very impressive, but with each successive tasting over the past week and a half, Larceny got a bit better.

When you give it a sniff,  you’ll find some nice notes along the lines of a spiced chai tea, cinnamon, cardamom, honeyed undertones. Raisin and prune notes are hiding in the background. I do get a somewhat unpleasant whiff of wood that kicks things out of balance, though. “Smooth” is not the word I would use to describe Larceny based on the nose, but maybe I just don’t care for wheated bourbons of this age range since I think the same of the Weller Special Reserve nose, too.

Larceny pours a bit thin – that’s not a knock, just the way it is. Sipping this, I get an overall impression of butterscotch and cinnamon red hots, starting right at the entry and then building as it warms through the finish. There’s a deep caramel in the middle, and sharp hits of resin-y wood notes here and there, which I find a bit harsh, almost astringent. Again, as I’ve tasted this over time, those harsh notes have mellowed out and the red hot butterscotch has strengthened, but there’s still something to this bourbon that does not shout “smooth” to me. And, overall, I don’t find it as complex as I would like for a bourbon priced around $20.

One way to amp up the smoothness of Larceny is to add water or ice, and I must say that I prefer to do so with Larceny rather than sip it neat. 92 proof is not that high, but a bit of water helps smooth things out and pushes the butterscotch more to the forefront, not adding complexity, but definitely bringing out the smooth sweetness. I also see this is a better cocktail bourbon (also like the Weller Special Reserve) than a sipping bourbon.

You can probably tell I’m not overly impressed with Larceny, so I’ll give it a Good Stuff. And if you can nab a bottle while it’s on rebate, I do think it’s worth a shot to see if you like this style of wheated bourbon. For a similar price, I definitely prefer the Weller Special Reserve, and it’s actually several bucks cheaper (unless you have that Larceny rebate, which makes it more of a wash).

So is Larceny a steal? At $8 after rebate, yes. At $18? Not quite a steal, despite the name.

*******************************

* Thirsty South Rating Scale:

Wow – among the very best: knock-your-socks-off, profound, complex liquid gold!
Excellent – exceptional in quality and character, worth seeking out, highly recommended
Good Stuff – solid expression of its type/varietal, enjoyable and recommended
Fair – fairly standard or exhibiting obvious though minor flaws
Avoid – move away folks, nothing to see here, a trainwreck

Posted on

Two $10 Bourbons: Old Charter 8 & W.L. Weller Special Reserve

Weller Bourbon

After posting my favorite picks for “best value bourbons,” suggestions for bourbons I didn’t mention came flooding in, of course. The most emphatic was from a local liquor store owner who boasted that at $9.99 (at his store, of course), W.L. Weller Special Reserve is “the best value on the damn planet. Hands down… no arguments… FACT.” You’ve got to give him credit for offering a great price – I’ve seen W.L. Weller SR for up to $16 elsewhere. And his insistence spurred me to pick up a bottle of W.L. Weller SR to taste again. While I was at his store, he also pointed out that the 8 year old Old Charter was up there, too, in terms of value. It was also priced at $9.99 (and also goes for up to $16 elsewhere), but had a $4 rebate hangtag on the neck, so that made it $6 for an 8 year old bourbon. Now, when I find a bourbon whose price is lower than its age, I basically have to give it a shot, right?

So, with these two bottles, we have two inexpensive bourbons, around $10-$15 depending on where you buy them, both distilled by Buffalo Trace. One uses Buffalo Trace’s wheated mash bill (W.L. Weller – “The Original Wheated Bourbon”) and the other uses their  mash bill #2 (Old Charter). W.L. Weller shares its mash bill with a bourbon that goes by the name of Pappy, not to mention the older Wellers, so it is in VERY good company. Meanwhile, Old Charter shares a mash bill with Buffalo Trace, Eagle Rare and George T. Stagg. Again, damn fine bourbons.** (How does Buffalo Trace keep these so affordable??? I don’t know, but I thank them.)

While the W.L. Weller removed its 7 year old age statement not too long ago in favor of a Special Reserve label without any age statement, it’s pretty safe to assume that this is roughly 7 year old whiskey. Old Charter proudly shouts out its 8 years of age, though the fact that the label reads “gently matured for eight seasons” might lead an inquiring mind to wonder whether it might only be two years old! (Or does Kentucky only have one season per year??)

In any case, the point of all this is to put them head to head in a taste-off, and see if either would make my list of best value bourbons. Here we go….

W.L. Weller Special Reserve Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
90 Proof, $10-$16 Retail

Old Charter Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, Aged 8 Years
80 Proof, $6 (with rebate good through the end of 2012)-$16 retail

First off, both of these bourbons show a similar, lovely orange-bronze color, the W. L. Weller is just a touch deeper. They each pour with some good body, not too thin.

On the nose, I’ll start with the Weller, and have to say I’m not really loving it – it’s a bit hot for 90 proof. There’s some banana, nutmeg, caramel undertones, then a touch of green/young grain. As for the Old Charter, the nose here is definitely smoother, deeper, with more caramel and oak, though not in a heavy way. There’s a sharpness to it that hints at the rye component, but not overtly. Old Charter definitely beats the Weller in pre-sipping impressions.

On to tasting, the Weller shows a nice balance on entry, good mouthfeel, plenty of buttery toffee and a bit more of that banana in the background along with some baking spice. This has a nice bite to it, with a long, pleasing warm finish. I have to say, it delivers much better than the nose would indicate. A bit of water or some time with an ice cube smooths things out on the Weller considerably, into a buttery, soft caramel that is nice though not very complex. The water also takes the heat off the nose, but mutes the other notes as well.

Meanwhile, the Old Charter carries a thicker mouthfeel, a bit flabby really. Butterscotch is the primary note when you taste it, less balanced and nuanced than the Weller, but with good drinkability. It’s a bit too one dimensional to me, with some slightly unpleasant sharpness on the finish. Not bad, but nothing that grabs your attention, and at only 80 proof, I wouldn’t add any water to this for sipping, though it would do just fine in a cocktail.

Overall, I give both a rating of Good Stuff* – in large part because they are both great for the price. If you’ve only got $10 to spend on a bourbon, these two are great options, and I lean to the Weller, with the caveat that it could use a touch of water or ice for sipping. Both are well suited for cocktails (in fact, Holeman & Finch, among the most esteemed cocktail bars in Atlanta, uses W.L. Weller Special Reserve as a well bourbon behind the bar).

It’s worth pointing out that both of these bottles are entry points for their respective brands, and for Buffalo Trace’s family of bourbons more broadly. From the Weller Special Reserve, you can step up to Weller Antique 107 proof or W.L. Weller 12 year old for older/stronger expressions; and from the Old Charter 8 year old, you can go to Charter 101 proof or 10 year old – all at a higher price, of course. It’s all about finding the bourbon that delivers best for your tastes AND your wallet.

*******************************

* Thirsty South Rating Scale:

Wow – among the very best: knock-your-socks-off, profound, complex liquid gold!
Excellent – exceptional in quality and character, worth seeking out, highly recommended
Good Stuff – solid expression of its type/varietal, enjoyable and recommended
Fair – fairly standard or exhibiting obvious though minor flaws
Avoid – move away folks, nothing to see here, a trainwreck

** As for the Buffalo Trace mash bills, there is a bit of differing info from various sources online, none of which are 100% definitive. I’ve corrected my original post to reflect what I think is right for these two – any further corrections much appreciated!

Posted on

Tasting Notes: 2012 Sazerac 18 Year Old Rye

Sazerac 18 year old rye is an interesting spirit, a rare spirit, an epic spirit. It’s released just once a year as part of the equally epic Buffalo Trace Antique Collection, with just 28 barrels per bottling.  Since at least 2006, the single source for this bottling has been a distillation completed way back in 1985  and put into stainless steel tanks sometime in (or after) 2003. So each year, the Sazerac 18 is the exact same whiskey, with the exact same time aging in oak barrels, but just a year older in the tanks. John Hansell over at Whisky Advocate reported on the details of this case a few years ago, pointing out that it was originally stored in a 13,500 gallon tank, then moved to three individual 2,100 gallon tanks to lessen the interaction with oxygen (though not treated with inert gas to completely stop oxidation).

Clearly, there is still interaction with oxygen – each year, the Sazerac 18 tastes a bit different, and each year, there is a bit more loss to evaporation, even in stainless steel. In 2007, the net loss from original barreling was 51.9%. In 2008, it jumped up to 54.1% (maybe that was when they moved tanks??). Then 56.1%, then 56.5%, then 57.3%, and now 57.6% with this 2012 release. Even still, the annual Sazerac 18 bottlings are kept at a constant 90 proof.

This is the one bottle I’ve secured so far out of this year’s Antique Collection, and it is, as expected, mighty impressive. Here are my notes, and a final thought at the end comparing the 2012 Sazerac 18 to my favorite well-aged rye.

Sazerac 18 Year Old
Kentucky Straight Rye Whiskey,
Fall 2012 Release
90 Proof
Approx. $70 Retail
Tasting Dates: 10/08/2012-10/17/2012

Sazerac 18 carries a deep, red amber hue and an intoxicating smell that speak well to its age – deep and full. The most prominent notes on the nose are of dark brown sugar and the oil of an orange peel, that burst of slightly bitter but bright citrus you get when you squeeze a peel over a cocktail. Clove comes in to complement the dark sugar and citrus, and a vanilla-leather mustiness underlines it all. The interesting thing is, the age on the Sazerac rye mellows much of the rye character in the nose. Just a sniff reassures that this is no doubt a beautiful, mature, American whiskey, but the time in the barrel (and the tank) has dialed down the spicier rye notes.

Once you take a sip, that rye character does start to reemerge. The entry is sharp, the orange peel turns towards bitter orange, and evergreen-ish herbaceous notes assert themselves a bit more. There’s still a strong core that reminds me of Bit-o-honey candy, full of caramel-honey-almond, but this is not an overly sweet whiskey by any means. Also, it’s worth pointing out that, despite the advanced age, the oak here is fully in check. Sure, you pick up charred wood, but it in no way dominates the conversation.

The finish on the Sazerac 18 sings long and warm, with that sharp rye entry coming back to visit the roof of the mouth, a touch peppery, a bit grassy even. There’s that chewy Bit-o-honey quality also, lingering throughout.

As I’ve tasted this over the course of the last week and half, I’ve become more impressed with the 2012 Sazerac 18. It’s full of character and a fascinating and delicious drink for any whiskey lover, especially those who dig well-aged whiskey (without the overbearing oak that many well-aged whiskies tend to develop). Overall, I give it a full-on Wow* and highly recommend grabbing a bottle if you ever see it.

Now, as for how this stacks up versus other similarly aged ryes – my benchmark is the Van Winkle Family Reserve Rye, which I’ve compared previously to some other fine ryes. Tasting these two side by side is a treat, but I still give the edge to Van Winkle, which has a bit more rye character on the nose, and ultimately delivers a more harmonious balance through the palate and on to the finish. Either way, I wouldn’t pass up the chance to buy either of these epic ryes.

For a great deal of detail on this 2012 Sazerac 18 year old rye, please see Buffalo Trace’s excellent and much-appreciated info sheet.

*******************************

* Thirsty South Rating Scale:

Wow – among the very best: knock-your-socks-off, profound, complex liquid gold!
Excellent – exceptional in quality and character, worth seeking out, highly recommended
Good Stuff – solid expression of its type/varietal, enjoyable and recommended
Fair – fairly standard or exhibiting obvious though minor flaws
Avoid – move away folks, nothing to see here, a trainwreck

Posted on

Drinking Blue: The Aviation and the Blue Moon

I blame it on Boozehound. The fact that I have a bottle of Crème de Violette, that is. I never knew I needed it until I read Jason Wilson’s account of the Aviation cocktail, a classic that apparently lost its way and fell from the sky. Until a few years ago, most recipes for an Aviation called for gin, maraschino liqueur, and lemon juice. Few had any clue why it was called an Aviation. Then someone dug up the fact that the original called for Crème de Violette, a deep purple-y blue bloom of floral intensity that does indeed turn the cocktail the color of a pale, hazy blue sky. (That’s a fairly crappy photo of a Blue Moon pictured above, not an Aviation – hold your horses, we’ll get to that in a minute). Turns out, Crème de Violette was practically non-existant for decades until being revived in the past several years, and we have Eric Seed of Haus Alpenz to thank for bringing Rothman & Winter Crème de Violette back into obsessive bars all over.

The Rothman & Winter Crème de Violette is distilled in Austria by Destillerie Purkhart, a maceration of two types of violets  in “weinbrand,” a liqueur distilled from grapes, with some cane sugar added. It’s worth pointing out that the color is not fully derived from the violets – there is coloring added, too. This Crème de Violette is intense, perfumey stuff – it doesn’t have the easy appeal of the honeysuckle sweet St. Germain Elderflower Liqueur – so it needs to be used in small, careful doses. Also, it seems to work especially well with dry gin – the Aviation and the Blue Moon are both gin-based cocktails, as are a few other lesser known cocktails like the Jupiter and the Yale cocktail (beware blue Curacao, be true to Crème de Violette).

So, back to the Aviation. The recipe in Boozehound calls for:

1.5oz gin
3/4oz fresh lemon juice
1/2oz maraschino liqueur
1/4oz Crème de Violette

It stirs up into a pale, cloudy, lavender-blue that lets the
light shine through in an appealing way. Despite the fact that the Crème de Violette is a minor ingredient, a floral smell dominates the nose. Cherry is there, as is the angular spice of the gin, but it’s those violets that jump to the forefront. As you taste the cocktail, a tart, crisp, mouth watering, citrusy burst hits first. Then the cherry rolls in, the flowers come in again at the end, and the gin provides a steady bass line throughout. Rothman & Winter’s rendition of the Aviation recipe calls for less lemon juice, less maraschino, and MORE Crème de Violette (not surprising, really, they love the stuff!). Personally, I prefer to up the gin to 2oz (following the rest of the recipe in Boozehound) to pull back the floral notes and cherry into more of a balanced dance with the gin. It’s a lovely drink, unique, but rewards playing around with the ratios to suit your tastes.

As for the Blue Moon (pictured up top), it’s very similar to the Aviation, but with more gin (2oz), 1/2oz each of the lemon juice and Crème de Violette, and NO maraschino. The color stays roughly the same strange lavender-blue hue, but the gin is indeed more prominent on the nose here. On the outset, I find the Blue Moon a bit more balanced overall, with the lemon acidity in check. But that gin seems to come on a bit too strong towards the finish, throwing that balance off. When I was playing with this one, I went back and added the maraschino into the mix, and really felt that kicked up the body, complexity, and nuance of the drink, actually propelling the floral notes forward in a positive way. So, yes, I prefer a ride on the Aviation, keeping the maraschino in.

Of course, if you’re not into gin (what, are you crazy?), there’s the basic Violette Royale – 4oz Champagne and 1/2oz Crème de Violette. Now, if you’re not into Champagne either, don’t bother buying that bottle of Crème de Violette.