Evan Williams Single Barrel 12 Year Vertical - Second 4 years

This next set of bourbons really didn't fare any better than the first four years. For reference, I'll be using the same rating scale

95-100 A Classic Whiskey

90-94 Excellent

85-89 Good, Clearly above average

80-84 Average

75-79 Fair

74 and below - pass

Year: 1992

Barreled on 7/22/92
Barrel # 220
Bottled on 6/17/02

This year was not a favorite by a long shot. Average score was only 79.8% and the dominant feedback on the 1992 was "ethanol", "medicinal", "funk" and "bitter". Not a good list of descriptors for any whiskey. The '92 release was named "Spirit of the year" by Food and Wine Magazine and Wine Enthusiast named it "Best Bottling". Moving on.

Year: 1993

Barreled on 12/13/93
Barrel # 449
Bottled on 11/24/03

The 1993 was a step in the right direction with an average score of 82.1%. I liked this one at first but then the finish ruined it for me knocking my score down to an 80 (low end of average). Feedback included "minty" (a HH quality), "oak", "berries", "bitter finish". The 1993 falls right in line with the overall average of the first 4 years. Still waiting for the stand out. Spirit Journal said "SJ Rating * * * * */Highest Recommendation. Next.

Year: 1994

Barreled on: 10/24/94
Barrel No: 464
Bottled on 9/23/04

Ok, now we're headed in the right direction as this year breaks away from the middle with an average score of 85% making this the best of the bunch after 7 years. Feedback on this year included "summer fruit", "vanilla", "menthol", "caramel" and "raisins". The finish was much better on this one than any previous version. Enthusiasts who have enjoyed the EWSB over the years claim 1994 as one of the best. We'll see as we still have the 1995 to talk about.

Year: 1995

Barreled on: 5/19/95
Barrel No: 290
Bottled on: 4/28/05

The last of the second bunch, this year scored just under the 1994 with an average of 84.7%. For me, this one exhibited great potential but still fell a little flat about mid palate. Not totally disappointing but wish there was more of the good qualities that popped out. Some feedback included "vanilla custard", " vanilla bean ice cream", "sweet citrus", "burnt sugar and spice". Everyone agreed this was a good bourbon but just not as good as the 1994.

We have 4 more years to review so I'm still holding out for one bottle to break out as a classic single barrel. These first eight years are all pre-fire distillate. Only the 1996 remains as pre-fire. From 1997 through 1999 they are post-fire and include bourbon from Jim Beam and Brown Forman. We'll see what shakes out. Overall, this second bunch only scored .5% higher than the first batch with an overall average of 82.9%.

Industry reviews –crooked or clean?

I'll admit in the spirit of full disclosure, I've purchased things based solely on what someone else said about it; e.g. the whiskey experts. I'm not sure the whiskey tasted better because someone else said so and I'm not sure in the end, it was a good buy. In some cases maybe so but I'd have to say I've been disappointed too many times. Whose fault is it? Mine. After years of buying and tasting I've come to one conclusion and that is the worlds best whiskey expert is………me. That's right, when it comes to who I listen to time and again, it's me and me alone. I know what I like and no matter how many taste descriptors an expert puts in their review to jazz up the anticipation, I read every review with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I'm not a conspiracy theory nut job but I have to ask the question. When a distillery or Micro reseller sends a sample/bottle to be reviewed, is it picked blind or are the selections handpicked? Based on some reviews, I'd almost have to assume the latter. Obviously reviewers always know what they are drinking. I would also argue that in some cases there is going to be unwanted influence of marketing dollars. I’ve seen some reviewer’s state emphatically that their reviews are not influenced in any way. Ok, I’ll take your word for it. But there are cases where a whiskey is “highly rated” or “ 4 out of 5 stars” or “Best of class” only to find out that it doesn’t ring my bell and when speaking to other enthusiasts, that’s the going consensus.

Here would be my challenge to any expert reviewer. Receive a blind sample and tell us the following: Approx proof, age and mashbill (Rye, Wheat) and distillery. If you're good at what you do, those 4 questions should be fairly easy to answer. How many comments of a similar nature have you seen in reviews?

"Tastes young" or "spent too much time in wood"

"This bourbon doesn't drink like its stated proof"

"This is classic <fill in the distillery name> taste profile"

"A big high rye whiskey (or bourbon)"

So, my challenge would be this. Reviewer man/woman, take a blind sample and tell us what it is relying solely on your palate, experience and subsequent impressions. I throw down that challenge because I've done this many times and I’m certainly no expert. To get a true impression of what you are drinking, do it without any pre-conceived notions or information of any kind on the sample and see what shakes out. My bet would be nobody would be bold enough to take on that challenge (any takers????).

The title and posting are meant to be somewhat provocative and was done to generate some discussion on industry reviews. So, what's your take on experts’ reviews and how do they influence where you spend your dollars? I'm going to follow up this post with some examples of tastings I've participated in to give you flavor of what it means to taste open and blind and how our group stacked up against the experts. By the way, see here for my last posting with respect to expert reviews.

Evan Williams Single Barrel 12 Year Vertical - First 4 years

As I mentioned, I'm hosting a vertical tasting with 12 enthusiasts participating. We've completed the first 4 years; 1988 through 1991. So far, there hasn't been a standout bourbon in the lot but I'm hopeful something will pop up as worthy of discussion among the group. I've found this tasting to be interesting for one simple reason. Two of the years we've tasted through received high ratings from industry reviewers. Our rating system used is as follows:

95-100 A Classic Whiskey

90-94 Excellent

85-89 Good, Clearly above average

80-84 Average

75-79 Fair

74 and below - pass

Year: 1988

Year Barreled: 11/16/88

Barrel Number: 263

No Bottling Date

Rating and overall impressions: The collective rating for this year was 81.4 which is average. This bourbon didn't impress the group with some stating is was thin, hot on the finish and uninspiring. Yah, I agree.

Year: 1989

Year Barreled: 10/26/89

Barrel Number: 161

No Bottling Date

Rating and overall impressions: The collective rating for this year was 79.75, fairing worse than 1988. The group indicated the nose being light almost to the point of no aroma at all. One really had to breath in deep to discern anything on this one. The group also indicated this particular year had a cereal or grainy quality to it making this one just fair.

Year: 1990

Year Barreled: 12/20/90

Barrel Number: 140

No Bottling Date

Rating and overall impressions: The collective rating for this year was 80.6. For the first three years, we're within less than a point from lowest to highest rating. The tasting notes had positive things to say about the entry profile containing caramel, floral and orange notes, mint and brown sugar. I thought this was better than the two previous years but the finish was a little drying to me. Here's the kicker, Spirit Journal dubbed this 1990 bourbon "Whiskey Of The Year". Go figure.

Year: 1991

Year Barreled: 10/18/91

Barrel Number: 003

No Bottling Date

Rating and overall impressions: The collective rating for this year was 82.4, the best so far but still just average based on the rating system. Interesting the tasting notes from the group overwhelmingly included notes of citrus. Other qualities included oak, brown sugar and corn. For me, this one was the best second best of the lot as I like the '90 slightly better. From the Heaven Hill Bourbon Heritage Center website "Like a fine wine, each bottle of Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage Bourbon contains a vintage date telling the exact day it was put in an oak barrel to age. Every year, a new vintage of Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage is released to critical acclaim. The 1990 Vintage was the first Bourbon to be awarded "Whiskey of the Year" by The Spirit Journal. The 1991 Vintage was awarded "Domestic Whiskey of the Year" by The Malt Advocate and "Spirit of the Year" by Wine & Spirits."

So far nothing has jumped out as worthy to bunker but we still have 8 years to go so let's hope subsequent years are more inviting.

The 12 Year Vertical

I'm in the middle of hosting a Vertical Tasting Event (VTE) using 12 years of Evan Williams Single Barrels starting with 1988 and going through 1999. These being single barrels, there's going to be variances from bottle to bottle for the same years. The more interesting aspect of this tasting is to determine the differences of the various mashbills throughout this timeframe. Let me explain.

On November 7, 1996, Heaven Hill experienced a devastating fire that destroyed the production plant and several warehouses containing 90,000 gallons of bourbon. In order to continue product releases, Heaven Hill was able to contract with Brown Forman and Jim Beam to distill bourbon to Heaven Hills standards. So, drinking through these 12 samples give's the tasters a variety of masbhills under the same label. Why is this important? Well, the recipe isn't just the grain and yeast, it's also all the equipment involved in the distillation process from the mash tuns to the column stills. As such, the flavor profile will be very different because multiple distilleries were involved in the distillation of this label.

All the Evan Williams Single Barrels are approximately 10 years old and 86.6 proof. When lining up these bottles side by side, the color variances in some bottles were quite remarkable; going from very light to moderately dark. The results aren't in yet as we've only tasted through 1988 and 1989. As we progress, I'll provide updates. Finally, I haven't heard of anyone doing a 12 year vertical tasting of the EWSB so this might be a first, but if you have, let me know, I'd be interested in hearing the results.