4 days in Bourbon Mecca - Thursday

I made sure I didn't stay up too late on Wednesday as we had an early start to Four Roses on Thursday morning. We were due at Cox Creek, the warehousing facility at 9:00 a.m. The drive to Cox Creek was short from the hotel and we arrived shortly before 9:00. The guard waved us on through and we proceeded to the bottling house. I'll tell you that Four Roses does a magnificent job putting together tastings. They are very attentive to detail and the presentation is very nice. Due to the size of our group, we had to double up and share tasting stations which wasn't a problem; unless you're next to the guy with a fever blister.

In attendance from Four Roses was the warehouse manager, brand ambassador and master distiller Jim Rutledge. Jim did an awesome job hosting the tasting and sampled while he talked to the folks as we worked our way through 9 samples. Three of each recipe was brought out; OBSV, OBSQ and OESK. The three recipes break down as follows:

OBSV – 60% Corn – Delicate, fruity, spicey, medium body

OBSQ – 60% Corn – Floral (rose petal), spicey, medium body

OESK – 75% Corn – Spicy, full body

Tasting through these samples at 9:00 in the morning is an interesting venture. To be honest, probably the best time to taste would be early morning as the palate is at its best, unadulterated condition (I'm not suggesting this become a normal routine). We took our time and after about an hour began to collect the tasting notes and scores in order to rank the 9 barrels.

I think I've mentioned before that Four Roses is not a favorite of mine although a small group of us selected a barrel last year that turned out to be one of my favorites. The standard Four Roses Single Barrel offering is the OBSV recipe and surprisingly, this ended up the being the group pick at 70% of the tasters preferring barrel #3, OBSV recipe. This barrel yielded 126 bottles and came out of the barrel at 116.7 proof. The one thing I do like about Four Roses is the low slung warehouses which allows the whiskey to age at a more graceful pace which many times yields a bourbon at a lower proof.

After we finished up the tasting, we all piled back into our respective rides for the 50 mile trip to the Distillery in Lawrenceburg. It should have been an uneventful ride with the exception of one wiseacre feeling the need to offer the obligatory mooning on the Blue Grass Parkway….nuff said about that.

We arrived at Four Roses and gathered at the Gazebo which overlooks the Distillery and gift shop. The fine folks at Four Roses set up a nice boxed lunch as well as a well stocked bar of various Four Roses products. While the group munched and sipped away, Jim Rutledge provided an oral history of Four Roses and took questions as needed. After lunch, we broke up and the group headed out on a distillery tour….except for a couple of us that cornered Jim for additional conversation. We asked some follow up questions which Jim was more than happy to answer.

All in all, it was a great time and my hat is off to Jim and the fine folks at Four Roses for their graciousness and generosity in spending a whole day with a group of folks who are nothing more than enthusiasts of all things bourbon.

4 days in Bourbon Mecca - Wednesday

About two weeks ago I spent four glorious days in Kentucky doing what a good bourbon enthusiast would do. Drink bourbon. A quick summary of what transpired

Wednesday – Driving 10 hours from Northern Virginia to Bardstown Kentucky. Dumb jokes, cigars and frequent bathrooms stops. Besides the 4 of us were 28 other bourbon dorks from all over the U.S. joining in on the fun with one participant coming all the way from Sweden; now there's dedication for you.

The plan for the evening was a one off tasting of single barrel whiskeys. We had a total of 44 bottles and the criterion for the bottle being included in the tasting was you had to have had a role in the selection process. Amazing that out of 32 participants, we ended up with 44 bottles of pretty darn tasty whiskey (both Rye and Bourbon were represented). I personally had a hand in the selection of 6 out of the 44 which means I bypassed my own stuff and concentrated on selections that up to that evening, I had only heard about. I'll admit that I sampled maybe a third of the bottles as there was just too much to sit and enjoy in one evening, although there were a few brave souls who attempted it. It was a great evening and I was able to meet some folks that I had never met in person yet chatted with many times in various bourbon forums. My two favorite of the evening was a 21 year old Rye and a 12 year Van Winkle Lot B that was Stitzel Weller bourbon.

Next up: Four Roses tasting and luncheon.

Evan Williams Single Barrel 12 Year Vertical – Final 4 years

Here we are with the final four years of the EWSB tasting. For me, this kind of confirmed how I already felt about this particular bourbon; it's an average bourbon. I find this somewhat interesting since this is a 10 year old bourbon, I would think the variations from year to year would be more extreme but the reality is, among the dozen or so tasters, this bourbon broke to the middle as an average bourbon.

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: 1996

Year Barreled: 10/18/96

Barrel Number: 723

Bottled on: 11/17/06

Rating and overall impressions: The collective rating for this year was 83.5% which is on the high side of average. One taster stated "The EWSB profile, coupled with the low 86 proof seem to be a very safe, unambitious platform."

"A good bourbon that runs in the middle of the pack"

"This, along with the 1995, is one of the best of them so far"

"Nice average bourbon with no flaws"

"So for this year, looks to be same same"

Year: 1997

Year Barreled: 1/16/97

Barrel Number: 556

Bottled on: 6/8/07

Rating and overall impressions: The bell curve on this one was pretty much non-existent. This year EWSB broke high to low with 40% rating is average or above average by an even split and then 60% rating it fair to pass on this one. Comments included:

"Nothing special….."

"Bitter, young tasting, simple"

"Solid Bourbon"

"Bitter but still thin and watery"

Year: 1998

Year Barreled: 11/23/98

Barrel Number: 827

Bottled on: 10/22/08

Rating and overall impressions: Again, this year lacked a curve whatsoever. In fact, two tasters rated this excellent all the way down to two more rating is as a pass. Overall rating for this year was 81.3%, barely making it into average territory.

"Flawed and I question whether this is drinkable. Worst of the tasting…."

"This is nice stuff. I'd buy a handle"

"I think I'm starting to repeat myself….drinkable but nothing exceptional"

"…the best by far for me, dyno!"

Year: 1999

Year Barreled: 6/21/99

Barrel Number: 234

Bottled on: 3/9/09

Rating and overall impressions: This final year rated a 82%....I know, shocking! This last couple of years I believe were Jim Beam bourbon although it could have been Brown Forman. Some comments…..

"Apple cider meets lemonade…..mild and satisfying"

"….flat, some heat…pedestrian bourbon flavor"

"…this last of the sampling is my favorite. It is a very pleasant pour…"

"Evan Williams has gotten better over the years"

"….nothing there really to enjoy"

So there you have it. The overall score for all 12 years was an astounding 81.7%. 12 years of single barrel bourbons that in the end break to just average overall. To be honest, I really thought there would be some stars in this line up but guess it wasn't to be. I'll say it again; taste is subjective so if you like this particular bourbon, it's a great value at about $24 a 750ml. For the most part it's simple, unassuming and consistent. Not a resounding thumbs up for the EWSB brand. There were a number of years that rated very high with industry reviewers but here among us mere pedestrians, we gave 66% of the years an average rating. Now that this tasting is done, let's drink something better than average.

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.