whiskey – Page 6 – Thirsty South

November 4, 2013November 19, 2013

Woodford Reserve Straight Malt & Classic Malt Whiskey

Woodford Reserve just did something very interesting, on the verge of awesome. For this year’s Master’s Collection release, they introduced TWO malt whiskeys – one aged in charred new oak (as is typical of bourbon), one in used (as is typical of Scotch). That’s right, these are malt whiskeys, which is highly unusual in the US and basically unheard of in Kentucky. AND they offer the chance to experience the difference that used vs. new barrels have on that malt whiskey.

While I haven’t loved some of the previous Woodford Master’s Collection releases, this one definitely had me intrigued. Both of these are made from a 100% malted barley mash. Both are triple distilled in Woodford Reserve’s copper pot stills. Both are bottled at 90.4 proof. Both are aged around the same as regular Woodford Reserve, 6-8 years, though there’s no age statement on the bottles. In fact, per Woodford, the two “are only one week apart in age in the barrel.” It’s only the nature of the barrels used for aging that distinguishes the two.

As for the the labeling on these two – I find it confusing as heck. One is labeled as “classic malt” and the other as “straight malt” – do you have any idea what that means? I sure don’t. Do either of those names do anything to convey the difference in barrel aging? Nope. Do either of them lead you to believe that the whiskey in the two bottles actually started off the same before going into barrels? Nope.

Luckily, once you have both of these in front of you, a quick glance or a quick sniff tells you all you need to know about which one saw time in new oak vs. used. They are like night and day. And that’s the thing that just might hook whiskey enthusiasts out there into dropping a hundred bucks each for these two bottles. (Full disclosure: I was sent tasting samples from the distillery.) So, how are they? Let’s review these one by one, then I’ll do the obligatory compare and contrast.

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Classic Malt Whiskey
100% Malt Spirit Matured in Used Cooperage
90.4 Proof, Approx. $100 retail
Tasting dates: Oct 20 – Nov 3, 2013

The color here is your first glimpse into the fact that the barrels used are… used. They’ve already been tapped out for maximum interaction between the whiskey and the wood, so the impact on color and flavor will be less dramatic. This “Classic Malt” is a pale but clear and bright gold color, think Chardonnay.

On the nose, there’s a green character fairly prominently – you could say green wood, or green grain, but the thing that kept coming to mind for me was the smell of tomato vine. You definitely get the malt character on the nose as well, but it’s fairly subtle. Also subtle is the fruit – there’s a bit of something like candied lemon peel or lemon marmalade – but it’s not overtly citrusy or sweet.

Sipping neat, there’s a good deal of heat for 90 proof – but it’s a tingly, mouth-watering heat. I felt from the first sip that this could benefit from water or ice. Grain is indeed the prominent flavor, that green character from the nose fades away for the most part, but comes back in a very pucker-y finish. It definitely shouts Scotch rather than Bourbon. And… at this point… not great Scotch.

Adding a touch of water smooths things out considerably and brings out some fruit as well. A cube of ice does even better, making a pretty dramatic transformation, for me at least. The nose becomes more grain-centric, the green tomato vine dials back, and a crisp, buttery pear tart note comes out. On the palate, the ice does wonders. That pear tart profile comes through strong now, though it’s not at all sweet (so maybe a tart isn’t the right descriptor – think of a tart without any sugar added). The body and finish smooth out significantly as well. Really nice. The pear character here and overall grain profile reminds me of the St. George Single Malt whiskey out of California, which is a very good thing.

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Straight Malt Whiskey
Kentucky Straight Malt Whiskey, Matured in New Charred Oak Barrels
90.4 Proof, Approx. $100 retail
Tasting dates: Oct 20 – Nov 3, 2013

The color is typical of bourbon of some age – a bright, full amber. The nose, too, heads in bourbon direction – bold, with some baking spice and vanilla coming through, a bit of orange zest, but mostly I get something like brown sugar oatmeal – a toasty, grain-driven nose with just a bit of caramelization. The sweetness is minimal, though, compared to bourbon.

Sipping neat, this is fairly smooth stuff. All the way through the finish. Again, the malt grain is very present, but its bathed in orange rind, cinnamon, a bit of crisp pear fruit. I wouldn’t call it wood-y, but you definitely get the impact of that charred oak in the baking spice profile. A touch of water brings out the butterscotch, but interestingly… it also brings out the Scotch! That sounds like two different directions, and it is, but I really like how a bit of water manages to accent both the wood and the grain here.

With a cube of ice, I’m digging this even more. It takes on a fuller, chewier feel in the mouth. Orange, baking spice, pear come more to the front ahead of the grain. The finish is warm and steady, though veers a bit into a tart and tannic direction at the end.

Going back to comparing these two, which is the most interesting thing to me about this release – the impact of new, charred oak is very apparent. Even though these are both malt whiskeys, I think the new vs. used comparison also helps demonstrate one of the major general distinctions between bourbon vs. Scotch. You can really see how the new oak imparts color, aroma, sugar, flavor in a way that is dramatically different than what typical Scotch gets from its used barrels. For this “Classic Malt,” the used oak simply allows the grain to shine through to a greater extent.

I like both of these, though my personal caveat is that they need the ice or a bit of water to show well. If I had to pick one, I’d actually go with the “Classic Malt” – because the combination of malt and used barrels is simply more unique for a Kentucky/US whiskey, and I just love that pear tart character that comes through with some coaxing.

In a lineup of Scotch, would I call these stellar whiskeys? Probably not. But for their adventurous spirit, their uniqueness, and their education value as far as the impact of the barrel, I’ve gotta give them both an E for EXCELLENT.

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

* 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

September 9, 2013September 9, 2013

Old Forester Birthday Bourbon 2013: Review and Tasting Notes

Old Forester is old. 140+ years old. They’ve certainly earned the right to celebrate birthdays. For the past twelve years now, Old Forester has released a special “Birthday Bourbon” to celebrate founder George Garvin Brown’s September 2 birthday. I had never actually tried one until this year’s limited edition, which has been getting some really good word of mouth. Jason over at Sour Mash Manifesto called it a “must try” – and he’s not the only one that seems to be enjoying this birthday celebration immensely. John Hansell over on the Whisky Advocate blog called it, “the best tasting (and best balanced) OFBB release in many years.”

Old Forester Birthday Bourbon, 2013 Limited Bottling
98 Proof
Approx. $55 Retail
Tasting Dates: August 16-September 7, 2013

This small batch limited release was all barreled on a single day in 2001, and it’s evident that this has some good age on it. The color is a nice medium amber, on the way to maple wood. The nose is a knockout, no doubt – warm and sweet, like brown sugar caramel brownies with a healthy hit of vanilla, and a bit of peachy fruit adding some elegance.

Neat, there’s a sharp bite at first when this hits the tongue, but that mellows out pretty quickly to fall in line with the aroma. Good body, long finish, it really reminds me of those cinnamon-dusted, candied almonds that they sell at ballparks or street festivals – the kind where they give you a sample because they know you’ll find it hard not to buy a whole bag. This is nice stuff, for sure, but I don’t think it delivers nearly as well in sipping as it does just for sniffing. Mainly because it feels a bit harsh. Some may say that’s necessary to keep the dark sugar notes in check, but it feels just a touch out of balance to me, especially for the first few seconds of each sip.

With ice, the sharp bite cools down considerably at first, but then jumps back in after a second. It also does well with a touch of water, still assertive, and less overtly sweet.

Thirsty South Rating: Excellent* – I’m a bit torn on this – the nose is a “wow,” but my overall impression actually falls just short of “excellent.” It’s a nice, limited edition bourbon for $55, but I’m not sure it delivers the kind of value at that price that would get me really excited.

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

* 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

Full Disclosure: Tasting sample provided by Brown-Forman.

December 13, 2012December 15, 2012

Epic Tasting Night: rare bourbon & whiskey

What is one to do when a friend sends samples of six rare whiskies? Savor just one at a time, patiently focusing on one a night? Or line ’em up, compare and contrast, push and prod (and yes, savor, too)? I chose the latter, and it made for an epic tasting night.

I won’t go into great detail here on the backstory of each of these whiskies – for the most part, these are not bourbons you are going to find on the shelf of your local store – some were direct from the distilleries’ gift shops, some are limited releases that barely see the shelf, and one is a very special release celebrating the 30th anniversary of one of America’s leading craft distillers. I (almost) feel bad even talking about them, since there’s not much you can do other than to make a mental note in case you ever come across one of these bottles.

In addition to the samples pictured above, I also threw in two comparison bottles – good old Pappy Van Winkle 15 year old (bottled in 2008) and a last year’s version of the William Larue Weller, just to see how these samples stacked up against two proven bourbons.

To help compare and rate these whiskies, a friend (Decatur Wine & Food Dude) and I split them up into two groupings of four – one grouping with the wheated whiskies and a wheated/rye blend, and another grouping with the other whiskies. We sipped and circled back to compare these outstanding whiskies to each other. Here are a few quick notes, with each whiskey listed in order of personal preference on this particular night. I must say, we were surprised at how well some whiskies came across, and at how others couldn’t quite keep pace:

William Larue Weller Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 2011 Release, 133.5 Proof, approx. $70 retail
Rating: WOW*
The bourbon of the night – this William Larue Weller came across as a class above, with a nose that sings with power, citrus in the background keeping it real. It is STRONG but in balance. Staggeringly good bourbon of the highest degree. Showing even better now than it did when I first opened this bottle last year.

St. George Single Malt Whiskey, 30th Anniversary Edition, Bottle 689/715, 94.6 Proof, approx. $400 retail
Rating: WOW
This is an incredibly unique whiskey, and one that stands apart from any bourbon as a wholly different animal. The nose is that of an aged riesling auslese (seriously, if you told me this was an old riesling, I would have believed you), floral, nutty and sweet, with a prominent note of pears. The pear brandy barrel aging dominates here (in a very good way), like a great caramel pear dessert. Unique and delightful.

Four Roses Single Barrel, 13 years and 10 months old, Warehouse NS, Barrel 16-4B, OBSK (35% rye), 126 Proof, approx. $70 retail
Rating: WOW
This Four Roses is very refined, with a somewhat shy nose, but one that speaks of elegance and harmony. There’s a bit of wood here, but baking bread comes to the fore, subtle candied orange, floral notes, and a fruity sweetness that holds the heat in check. This is pretty, lively stuff, not nearly as powerful as the Weller mentioned above, but almost as impressive in its own way. Beautiful.

Elijah Craig, 12 years old, Barrel Strength, Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 128.5 Proof, approx. $75 retail
Rating: WOW
This one outperformed expectations, even though I am a fan of Elijah Craig. Heavy spice and gingerbread on the nose. With some water, the caramel and orange notes emerge more strongly. Deep brown sugar/caramel, the strength is well integrated, and with water (again) becomes velvety smooth and thick. This is a prototypical/textbook great bourbon. Very impressed.

Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 15 Years Old, 2008 bottling, 107 Proof, approx. $70 retail
Rating: WOW
Well, Pappy didn’t win on this night, but still showed well. Not dissimilar to the ’11 Weller, this Pappy showed a darker, deeper harmony, but didn’t reach the same heights.

2012 Parker’s Heritage Collection Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 131.6 Proof, approx. $80 retail
Rating: Excellent
A notch below the previous whiskies, the 2012 Parker’s has a hot, cinnamon nose that is dominated by the heat of its barrel proof. Candied apples and a fruity profile set it apart, though, as a nice bridge between sweet and spicy.

William Larue Weller Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 2012 Release, 123.4 Proof, approx. $70 retail
Rating: Good Stuff
The 2012 did not show nearly as well as the 2011, with a more muted nose. Sweeter up front, and sharper through the finish than the 2011. Water brings it into balance, but this simply did not compare to the 2011 version. Still good, but not up to expectations.

Four Roses Single Barrel, 17 years old, Warehouse QS, Barrel 78-2C, OBSV (35% rye), 101.6 Proof, approx. $70 retail
Rating: Good Stuff
Maybe the most disappointing sip of the night, this one felt a bit tired, with a much more muted nose and an herbal/cough-drop quality. It starts out very smooth, with mint and fruit notes, but the finish is hot and tannic. Too much time in the wood?

So, an epic tasting night. Some amazingly good and rare whiskey. Thanks especially to Jason at Sour Mash Manifesto for his generosity.

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

* Thirsty South Rating Scale:

October 30, 2012April 18, 2016

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 4^th, 5^thand 6^th 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:

October 22, 2012April 18, 2016

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

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:

** 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!