Port City Porter - Beeralicious

Residing in my own back yard is Port City Brewing in Alexandria ,VA. Shopping at my local Wegmans the other day, I noticed a large beer display of numerous Port City beers with two catching my eye; Optimal Wit, a Belgian White Ale and the Porter. I decided to grab the Porter since my preference recently has run toward the darker beers.

I had not seen Port City beers before so being a local brewery, I was intrigued. The next day I pulled a chilled bottle and aggressively poured the Porter into a tulip shaped glass which produced a nominal mocha head of about one inch. The beer was dark mahogany in color and the smell coming off the head was malty and toasty. The nose on this beer was somewhat subtle but the aroma profile was noticeable with roasted malt, creamy chocolate and dark coffee.

On entry, those aromas turn into very appealing flavors as with the roasted malt and slight bitter coffee coming to the front with chocolate complementing from the background. Low hop content and virtually no alcohol coming through on the palate. This beer is medium to full bodied with very little carbonation.

I was very pleased with this beer and am especially pleased it’s a hometown brew. This beer comes in at 7.5% ABV and can be purchased in six packs for around $10.

Bernheim Original Wheat Whiskey – Blind Tasting

I remember when I first saw Bernheim Wheat Whiskey on the shelves of Virginia's monopoly called Alcohol and Beverage Control. At the time, they charged the premium price of $40 for a 750ml bottle. I thought it must be something special since the bottle is unique and the price is kinda up there. Well, for some it is great and for others, it's not worth a plug nickel.

To be honest, I think the nose of the Bernheim is quite enticing but that's about where it stops for me. The entry is somewhat astringent and the finish is too short. The whiskey does have a nice sweet char component to it about mid palate. This is a whiskey I will likely pass over in the future, but that's just me. For others that are new to bourbon or American whiskey, I would actually encourage someone to pick up a bottle. Various American whiskey's have differing mashbills; e.g. varying percentages of corn (at least 51% for bourbon by law), rye (at least 51% by law), and wheat. So, in the case of Bernheim the dominant grain is wheat, then corn and about 5% barley. This mashbill produces a very sweet, smooth and light whiskey. Some folks don't like the harshness of a rye bourbon like Old Grand Dad so starting off with something like Bernheim or Makers Mark is usually a good place to begin your American whiskey journey.

My tasting panel again consists of 11 participants who tried this whiskey in the blind. This particular whiskey produced no bell curve as tasters loved it, liked it, disliked it or hated it. Some reviewer comments were:

"Very light on the palate. Pay close attention and you'll find some caramel, cinnamon and a hint of cocoa. Clean but not very exciting."

"….a little lackluster overall and could be much more if the flavors were a bit bolder"

"The body was very heavy, but it was more creamy than oily. I don't think it was high alcohol, but it was delicious."

"A short and uninteresting finish. This is a disappointing whiskey"

"A happy balance of oak that makes it very drinkable. Medium-Full body"

As you can see, the experience for the tasters were all over the map ranging from delicious to disappointing.

After the reviewers found out what it was, many were surprised and in some cases stated that they would now buy a bottle based on the revelation. This is how this particular whiskey broke down among the participants

95-100 A Classic Whiskey	0
90-94 Excellent	2
85-89 Good, Clearly above average	2
80-84 Average	1
75-79 Fair	4
74 and below - pass	2

This is how the industry has viewed this whiskey over the last couple of years:

Gold Medal, 2009 International Spirits Challenge

Silver Medal, 2009 and 2010 San Francisco World Spirits Competition

"Great stuff: a superb addition to the American whiskey lexicon … an immediate classic" Jim Murray, Author of Jim Murray's Whiskey Bible

Final note, see that 1 in the 80-84 Average column…..that's mine.

Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond 6 year – Blind Tasting

As I mentioned I've been participating in or hosting blind tastings. Following on the heels of my (provocative) Industry Reviews posting, I'm going to be posting results from a number of tastings that have been going on for the last number of months.

To set the stage, these participants are spread out across the country and conducted their tasting at their leisure over the course of a week. There was no cross-talk about the samples so each entry was submitted without knowing the brand, proof, mashbill or age. To me, this kind of tasting gives an unadulterated impression of what's being tasted and in the end, provides a more true review of the whiskey.

First up is Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond, a six year old bourbon (there's also the standard 4 year version). This bottle is a good base bourbon from Heaven Hill and is actually quite good in my opinion and for about $15, it's a real value to boot. Feedback from participants included:

"Nice mouthfeel, sumptuous, not overwhelming"

"I like it and would buy it"

"Sweet pumpernickel. Where is the ham, swiss, and mayo? Then a little fruit and maybe chocolate come through" (I told this particular joker that this is a serious bourbon tasting, not a deli counter)

"Sweet with a nice thickness. Caramel and more fruit. A nice balance of both"

This is a bourbon that can serve two purposes; mixer and drinker. First, because it's bonded (100 proof) it provides the zip to mixed drinks like a whiskey sour or Manhattan. Second, this bourbon can be served neat, bourbon and branch or rocks. Don't let the price fool you, at 6 years old, this is a good bourbon at a great price. Another Heaven Hill offering for about the same price is Fighting Cock which is 6 years old at 103 proof. Another one I use for mixing but not to drink neat. For some reason, the Fighting Cock is a little hot. If you have a home bar, this makes a good rail whiskey.

The final results broke down as follows out of 11 participant:

95-100 A Classic Whiskey	1
90-94 Excellent	1
85-89 Good, Clearly above average	6
80-84 Average	2
75-79 Fair	0
74 and below - pass	1

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.