For many years, eBay allowed the sale of bourbon, as long as the seller posted a disclaimer saying that "The value of this bottle is the bottle, not the contents" or something similar. It was laughable, but it gave people a secondary market for bourbon. Unfortunately, it was illegal--spirit sales are fairly tightly controlled you can get yourself into trouble by selling or trading privately. Six months or so ago, eBay cracked down on the issue and since then, they have not allowed the listing of whiskey on its site. It was probably a good decision for eBay, but predictably, a new site has popped up; the Facebook group titled "Bourbon Exchange."
Before I get into my thoughts on Bourbon Exchange, I'd like to comment on the insanity of the three tier system of alcohol distribution. You cannot go to the website of your favorite distillery and buy a bottle of their whiskey. That's because the whiskey has to travel through the producer, distributor, and the retailer before you can get your hands on it. (A partial exception applies to sales at the distillery, but even so, if I understand correctly, the distillery still has to do the paperwork. So in practice, they become their own distributor for on-site sales.) The system makes very little sense and it is a relic of prohibition era moralism. In many states, the state government owns the retail stores--Virginia for example. Spirits distribution is pretty clearly not a "free" market in any sense of the word.
All of this creates a perfect scenario for a secondary market. I can't prove this, but it has been alleged that some retailers were putting up their allocations of hard to find whiskies like Pappy van Winkle on eBay because they could connect with a buyer with more money than sense. Some private collectors were hoarding good whiskey and selling it to the same people. More honest retailers, like K&L out of California ran auctions on their own site, just to point out the absurdity of prices people were paying. (Jefferson's Ocean went for over $1,000.)
Whiskey, and bourbon in particular, is in a bubble situation. More experienced bourbon aficionados remember when Pappy would sit on the shelf untouched. People newer to bourbon hear how great Pappy is and pay hundreds of dollars just to get their own bottle.
Which brings me to the Facebook bourbon exchange. It is almost perfect that Facebook is the end point to the bourbon insanity. In a very slightly veiled way, people are posting bottles for sale on the site, similar to the way they posted bottles on eBay. It's all probably illegal, but not entirely surprising. I have some very conflicting thoughts on the issue.
On the one hand, after a lot of work, I'm sitting on a bunker of bourbon that could fetch up to, say, $2,000 if I were willing to sell it on Bourbon Exchange. On the other hand, I didn't pay near that amount for the bottles and to sell it for $2,000 would be a rip off for the buyer. I want to be clear here--I don't blame any of my bourbon friends for selling their bottles via Bourbon Exchange. It's been highly tempting to me, and $2,000 would more than pay for my bourbon consumption for a year; maybe two. (Many of my bourbon friends have bunkers that exceed mine by a factor of 100.)
But I just can't bring myself to do it. I'd be a terrible business man--I don't want to rip people off, especially the people that share my hobby. But again, I won't blame you if you do.
My mother used to tell me the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Here's a piece of advice for the guys buying stuff via Bourbon Exchange: Don't. Put your time in. Search for the Pappy on store shelves. Experience the frustration of visiting 30 stores over the weekend after a Pappy release and finding nothing. Then find easily available bottles that YOU like. Better yet, find bottles that YOU like that are under $20. Don't act like bourbon is a status symbol. And goodness gracious, if you are thinking of buying a bottle from Bourbon Exchange, at least do the research to find out if you can still find that bottle on a shelf somewhere!
Monday, May 27, 2013
Blind Sample #6: Maker's 46
Maker's 46 is the "other" product produced by Maker's Mark. It is slightly higher in proof than the regular offering and Maker's inserts French oak staves into the barrel for several months before bottling. The addition of the French oak gives the bourbon a little more depth of flavor.
I famously rated this whiskey 96 in a blind tasting in 2012, so I was interested to see how it came out this time.
Average: 85
Jason:
Color and nose: Golden with depth and bit of murkiness. The nose is quite sweet dominated by both candy and yellow corn. There are some hints of florals (rose?) among others lurking, but the sweetness drowns anything that attempts to surface.
Taste and finish: The candy and yellow corns continue into the tasting. Some grains bubble up, but I just can’t get a firm grip on them to determine what they are, they, too, being sunk by the sweetness. Not particularly boozy (on the contrary), this whiskey hits the tongue on the forward flanks. The finish is strongly of corn which dissipates into a gentle oakiness.
Overall: After a promising color, I was a quite disappointed with the lack of depth in this whiskey. The corny sweetness tyrannizes any and all potential competing flavors into submission no matter how much they might add to this pour. This one sits at the low end of average: it’s not unpleasant, there’s just not much to it. 80/100.
Brett:
nose: bright with a little bit of an alcohol punch; almost tropical - berry and coconut
taste: velvety mouth feel that is richer than I would have expected from the aroma; some corn sweetness but not cloying
finish: warm and smooth finish; the sweetness lingers while chocolate cherry and tobacco emerge as well
overall: 92
Keith:
Nose: Corn stalk and popcorn, peanuts, copper and a whiff of vanilla
Taste: Some barrel flavors, vanilla, cinnamon and some chewiness. There's a thickness to this bourbon.
Finish: Mild heat and spice. Short.
Overall: 83. This is what a bourbon made by committee would taste like. It hits all the notes, but doesn't do any one of them very well. There's some barrel, some sweet, some spice, an interesting nose, and a half-decent mouth feel. It just didn't work very well for me.
Gulliver, Kyle, Jon
MIA
I famously rated this whiskey 96 in a blind tasting in 2012, so I was interested to see how it came out this time.
Average: 85
Jason:
Color and nose: Golden with depth and bit of murkiness. The nose is quite sweet dominated by both candy and yellow corn. There are some hints of florals (rose?) among others lurking, but the sweetness drowns anything that attempts to surface.
Taste and finish: The candy and yellow corns continue into the tasting. Some grains bubble up, but I just can’t get a firm grip on them to determine what they are, they, too, being sunk by the sweetness. Not particularly boozy (on the contrary), this whiskey hits the tongue on the forward flanks. The finish is strongly of corn which dissipates into a gentle oakiness.
Overall: After a promising color, I was a quite disappointed with the lack of depth in this whiskey. The corny sweetness tyrannizes any and all potential competing flavors into submission no matter how much they might add to this pour. This one sits at the low end of average: it’s not unpleasant, there’s just not much to it. 80/100.
Brett:
nose: bright with a little bit of an alcohol punch; almost tropical - berry and coconut
taste: velvety mouth feel that is richer than I would have expected from the aroma; some corn sweetness but not cloying
finish: warm and smooth finish; the sweetness lingers while chocolate cherry and tobacco emerge as well
overall: 92
Keith:
Nose: Corn stalk and popcorn, peanuts, copper and a whiff of vanilla
Taste: Some barrel flavors, vanilla, cinnamon and some chewiness. There's a thickness to this bourbon.
Finish: Mild heat and spice. Short.
Overall: 83. This is what a bourbon made by committee would taste like. It hits all the notes, but doesn't do any one of them very well. There's some barrel, some sweet, some spice, an interesting nose, and a half-decent mouth feel. It just didn't work very well for me.
Gulliver, Kyle, Jon
MIA
Monday, May 13, 2013
CBC Blind Tasting #5, High West Son of Bourye
High West is a "micro-distillery" located in Park City, Utah. They distill their own juice, but Bourye, and it's successor, Son of Bourye is sourced whiskey. Bourye and Son of neat little blending experiments as they are blends of a straight bourbon and a straight rye. According to High West, Son of Bourye is made with a 5 year old bourbon (75% corn/20% rye/5% malted barley) and a 3 year old rye (95% rye/5% malted barley). As a quick aside, I hold High West in high regard for publishing the mash bills and ages of what goes into the bottle. Too many micros are secretive about that information.
On to the notes (46% ABV):
Average: 80.8
Jason:
Color and nose: The color consists of a very light brown instead of the typical amber. Drinking from a bourbon tasting glass, it is significantly darker in the bowl than through the meniscus which presents as a pale yellow instead. This looks like a thin whisky. The nose is fruity with cherry and grape leaping to the fore. In their wake come corn (very gently), anise, salty caramel, and rhubarb. This is not a whisky with a high ABV.
Taste and finish: The initial taste is very earthy, mainly a revisit of the corn of the nose with a hint of grass and mint. Lower in alcohol than what I normally prefer, #5 is felt along the longer axis of the tongue albeit mildly. It has lost the fruits of the nose and the caramel has decomposed into a pure sugariness, indicative of an all-too-high wheat content. The finish takes earthiness, crescendos the mint before collapsing into a fit of dill.
Overall: This thin, simplistic whisky seems to have been in the barrel too long for its own good. It has no depth or complexity. However, it is not unpleasant. Drinkable, yet I would not seek it out nor pay too much for it. I give this whisky a high fair rating: 79/100.
Jon:
Nose is a orange with a hint of caramel. A very full bodied bourbon. Spicy with nutmeg and cinnamon. There's just a tiny hint of char as well. The finish develops slowly, but becomes very smooth with a nutty aftertaste. I really enjoyed this one. Not quite celebrating fatherhood, but maybe not an every day bourbon either. 90
Brett:
Nose: sweet; vanilla and lavender
Taste: sweetness is there but nothing new emerges
Finish: far from offensive but this one never really comes together in the end; corn and little bit of oak
Overall: 81
Chris:
Nose: bright, peppermint
Taste: smooth drinking: almost too easy going down. Would guess this is 80 proof. Little bit of woodiness, some rye spice. No strong, defining flavors.
Finish: short and undistinguished.
Didn't love this: found it to be pretty light and unexceptional. 76/100
Keith:
Nose: Heavy corn, sweet, sort of funky.
Taste: Soft sweetness, corn some woodiness. No spice. Thin mouth feel and flavor. Just sort of lacking in character.
Finish: Mild sweetness and a funk that sort of hangs around.
Overall: 78. I did not like this whiskey. I took multiple sips trying to find something I liked about it. I failed.
Last words: This did not rate very highly in the group, and I think the reason is pretty obvious. The component whiskies that make up this whiskey are too young. I didn't think the rye was assertive enough as I would not have guessed there was any rye in there.
The four grain whiskey thing is something of a chimera in the bourbon world. Parker's Heritage Collection released a four grain in 2012, and I reviewed it here. I liked it, but I think it falls behind other PHC releases. Hudson also puts out a Four Grain regularly. Hopefully distilleries like High West will continue to push the issue on new blends and styles of whiskey. While Son of Bourye falls short, this sort of experimentation can only lead to higher quality options for the whiskey consumer.
On to the notes (46% ABV):
Average: 80.8
Jason:
Color and nose: The color consists of a very light brown instead of the typical amber. Drinking from a bourbon tasting glass, it is significantly darker in the bowl than through the meniscus which presents as a pale yellow instead. This looks like a thin whisky. The nose is fruity with cherry and grape leaping to the fore. In their wake come corn (very gently), anise, salty caramel, and rhubarb. This is not a whisky with a high ABV.
Taste and finish: The initial taste is very earthy, mainly a revisit of the corn of the nose with a hint of grass and mint. Lower in alcohol than what I normally prefer, #5 is felt along the longer axis of the tongue albeit mildly. It has lost the fruits of the nose and the caramel has decomposed into a pure sugariness, indicative of an all-too-high wheat content. The finish takes earthiness, crescendos the mint before collapsing into a fit of dill.
Overall: This thin, simplistic whisky seems to have been in the barrel too long for its own good. It has no depth or complexity. However, it is not unpleasant. Drinkable, yet I would not seek it out nor pay too much for it. I give this whisky a high fair rating: 79/100.
Jon:
Nose is a orange with a hint of caramel. A very full bodied bourbon. Spicy with nutmeg and cinnamon. There's just a tiny hint of char as well. The finish develops slowly, but becomes very smooth with a nutty aftertaste. I really enjoyed this one. Not quite celebrating fatherhood, but maybe not an every day bourbon either. 90
Brett:
Nose: sweet; vanilla and lavender
Taste: sweetness is there but nothing new emerges
Finish: far from offensive but this one never really comes together in the end; corn and little bit of oak
Overall: 81
Chris:
Nose: bright, peppermint
Taste: smooth drinking: almost too easy going down. Would guess this is 80 proof. Little bit of woodiness, some rye spice. No strong, defining flavors.
Finish: short and undistinguished.
Didn't love this: found it to be pretty light and unexceptional. 76/100
Keith:
Nose: Heavy corn, sweet, sort of funky.
Taste: Soft sweetness, corn some woodiness. No spice. Thin mouth feel and flavor. Just sort of lacking in character.
Finish: Mild sweetness and a funk that sort of hangs around.
Overall: 78. I did not like this whiskey. I took multiple sips trying to find something I liked about it. I failed.
Last words: This did not rate very highly in the group, and I think the reason is pretty obvious. The component whiskies that make up this whiskey are too young. I didn't think the rye was assertive enough as I would not have guessed there was any rye in there.
The four grain whiskey thing is something of a chimera in the bourbon world. Parker's Heritage Collection released a four grain in 2012, and I reviewed it here. I liked it, but I think it falls behind other PHC releases. Hudson also puts out a Four Grain regularly. Hopefully distilleries like High West will continue to push the issue on new blends and styles of whiskey. While Son of Bourye falls short, this sort of experimentation can only lead to higher quality options for the whiskey consumer.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Blind Tasting #4: Elijah Craig 12
Heaven Hill's Elijah Craig is a small batch bourbon bottled at 12 years old at 84 proof. It's a standard Heaven Hill product--to my knowledge it is the same mash bill that goes into Evan Williams, it just ages longer in Heaven Hill's Bardstown rick houses.
It's a bourbon that is easy enough to find and at 12 years old and around $38, it is a fairly good deal. On to the notes:
Average: 85.5
Brett:
Nose: very sweet with orange and vanilla; hint of cinnamon
Taste: starts out a little nutty and bitter with some pepper on the tongue
Finish: rounds out nicely to a warm sweet finish; raisin bread
overall: 85
Maybe not for special occasions but this would be an excellent pour to enjoy on any given day.
Gulliver:
Nose: sweetness
Taste: burnt sugar, vanilla
Good if unexceptional. Scent of vanilla and nice sweetness. Good heat in finish but not overpowering. Woody finish.
84/100
Jason:
Color and nose: A pale amber color that slightly refracts red light. It looks like a whisky that has a bit of verve and character, but won’t put hair on your chest if taken in voluminous amounts. It has a well-balanced nose of caramel, corn, and charcoal, favoring the caramel slightly.
Taste and finish: Not exceptionally boozy, the initial hit is predominately earthy: corn, grass, soil. It progresses through a bit of leather and oak with a surge of cotton candy and a hint of charcoal before the finish. The finish is elliptic; it’s not noticeably round nor is it pointed. This is mainly due to the latent effect of the alcohol that mildly abrades the back of the tongue as it goes down. The flavor is again full of corn intermixed with tannins.
Overall: While tasting, I thought to myself that this whisky tastes like what a baseball game ought to taste like and I think the analogy is apt. Beyond the elements of its flavor (grass, leather, wood), this is a whisky that takes its time. It doesn’t move fast or much at all. There is a bit of action between the nose and the taste and the finish, but the action is short and not at all violent. This is a pastoral whisky that through its grace is simply pleasing to drink. What more could you ask for? A solid 89.
Keith:
Nose: Cherries & Fruit, corn sweetness
Taste: Dry. Fruit builds from the front to back. Starts cornstalk and gets fruity. Some spice. Not an assertive bourbon. Mild wood
Finish: Warm tingle, jolly rancher, medium length
Overall: 84, solid but not spectacular. Needs more oomph.
This one has the reputation of varying a great deal from batch to batch. This seemed like a middling batch. As always, your mileage may vary.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Blind Tasting Sample #3: Four Roses, OESK, Cask Strength Single Barrel
I've made no secret of my love for Four Roses, so I had to include a sample in the tasting. Of the 10 Four Roses recipes, I picked OESK because I had only had it once, but I thought it was amazing. The barrel in which this bottle originated was picked as a private selection by maybe the best liquor store in the US, The Party Source. It clocked in at 116 proof and was aged for nine years. The "E" designation means it is the low-rye recipe (higher in corn) and the "K" yeast provides a spicy, full bodied flavor. On to the tasting notes:
Overall: 85.4
Gulliver:
Generally speaking, I loved this one. I'm going to try to pick apart the individual elements for the sake of giving thorough notes, but the bottom line is that I think this is absolutely delicious. It's the first of the three that I was floored by in all aspects: nose, flavor, finish, everything.
Nose: dark fruits maserated in alcohol. (Yes, I know how ridiculous that sounds.) Banana pudding with those little bready cookie pieces. Totally un-boozy. Delicious.
Taste: Full and syrupy mouth feel. More wood than you'd expect from the scent, but still incredibly mellow. A hint of spice but not much.
Finish: Little more spicy than it is on the tongue, the alcohol comes through a bit more here. Dried cherries. Touch of oak.
Overall: 91
Brett:
nose: bright - vanilla and orange
taste: custard with burnt sugar; big and sweet
finish: smooth texture that fades slowly with slight burn like candied ginger
WOW!
overall: 91
Kyle:
This is a light easy drinking Bourbon. The initial nose is almost minty, the taste has a very light spice, not a strong body but with a soft vanilla finish. I would guess this is a rye in the 80 proof range.
88/100
Jon:
Nose was astringent with caramel. Taste and finish were not very neat or clean. It was kind of messy, actually, and noticeably thicker than, say, Sample #2. Was unable to discern much in the way of actual flavors. Not very good. 75.
Keith
Nose: Corn stalk and sweet corn, heat, with a hint of peanut
Taste: Very Sweet, slightly cloying. Some grassiness here.
Finish: Sweetness lingers awhile, but it fades into a weird funk.
Overall: 82
Jason:
MIA
Final words: I was highly disappointed in my palate on this one. I made the cardinal sin of blind tastings--I tried to guess the bourbon rather than just trying to decide if I liked it. Like I said in the intro, this is a recipe I've liked in the past (and last weekend in Kentucky I had a lot of it and loved it), so I'm not sure what my palate was doing here. It was highly sweet, but that's to be expected with the E recipe. One thing that stands out was how easy this was to drink, despite the 116 proof. That's one thing I experienced at the Four Roses barrel tasting last week--even at barrel proof, there's very little heat with a well aged Four Roses.
Anyhow, despite my low rating (and Jon's too), this one scored pretty well. It's one I'd definitely like to spend some more time with.
Overall: 85.4
Gulliver:
Generally speaking, I loved this one. I'm going to try to pick apart the individual elements for the sake of giving thorough notes, but the bottom line is that I think this is absolutely delicious. It's the first of the three that I was floored by in all aspects: nose, flavor, finish, everything.
Nose: dark fruits maserated in alcohol. (Yes, I know how ridiculous that sounds.) Banana pudding with those little bready cookie pieces. Totally un-boozy. Delicious.
Taste: Full and syrupy mouth feel. More wood than you'd expect from the scent, but still incredibly mellow. A hint of spice but not much.
Finish: Little more spicy than it is on the tongue, the alcohol comes through a bit more here. Dried cherries. Touch of oak.
Overall: 91
Brett:
nose: bright - vanilla and orange
taste: custard with burnt sugar; big and sweet
finish: smooth texture that fades slowly with slight burn like candied ginger
WOW!
overall: 91
Kyle:
This is a light easy drinking Bourbon. The initial nose is almost minty, the taste has a very light spice, not a strong body but with a soft vanilla finish. I would guess this is a rye in the 80 proof range.
88/100
Jon:
Nose was astringent with caramel. Taste and finish were not very neat or clean. It was kind of messy, actually, and noticeably thicker than, say, Sample #2. Was unable to discern much in the way of actual flavors. Not very good. 75.
Keith
Nose: Corn stalk and sweet corn, heat, with a hint of peanut
Taste: Very Sweet, slightly cloying. Some grassiness here.
Finish: Sweetness lingers awhile, but it fades into a weird funk.
Overall: 82
Jason:
MIA
Final words: I was highly disappointed in my palate on this one. I made the cardinal sin of blind tastings--I tried to guess the bourbon rather than just trying to decide if I liked it. Like I said in the intro, this is a recipe I've liked in the past (and last weekend in Kentucky I had a lot of it and loved it), so I'm not sure what my palate was doing here. It was highly sweet, but that's to be expected with the E recipe. One thing that stands out was how easy this was to drink, despite the 116 proof. That's one thing I experienced at the Four Roses barrel tasting last week--even at barrel proof, there's very little heat with a well aged Four Roses.
Anyhow, despite my low rating (and Jon's too), this one scored pretty well. It's one I'd definitely like to spend some more time with.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
My Old Kentucky Home!
On Wednesday I'm flying to Louisville, Kentucky to attend my first bourbon sampler. Each year about this time, bourbon afficiandos from all over the country decend on Bardstown, KY to eat, drink bourbon, and be merry. (and drink some more bourbon!)
I'm lucky enough to be participating in some bourbon private barrel selections at Four Roses and Buffalo Trace. It's hard to put into words how excited I am to take part. Since I'm a rookie at barrel selections, I'll be leaning heavily on veterans like Greg the Bourbon Dork, @iMacinJosh and bunch of other fellow bourbon drinkers I have a ton of respect for. The group is also tasting some barrels at Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, but sadly I'm missing that event.
I hope to post some pictures and a summary when I return. I'll likely live tweet some pictures--basically bourbon porn--so if you're so inclined, you can follow me @keithb18.
I'm lucky enough to be participating in some bourbon private barrel selections at Four Roses and Buffalo Trace. It's hard to put into words how excited I am to take part. Since I'm a rookie at barrel selections, I'll be leaning heavily on veterans like Greg the Bourbon Dork, @iMacinJosh and bunch of other fellow bourbon drinkers I have a ton of respect for. The group is also tasting some barrels at Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, but sadly I'm missing that event.
I hope to post some pictures and a summary when I return. I'll likely live tweet some pictures--basically bourbon porn--so if you're so inclined, you can follow me @keithb18.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Blind Tasting Selection #2: Willett Straight Rye, Aged 4 Years
The Willett brand is released by Kentucky Bourbon Distillers located in Bardstown, KY. They recently started distilling, but for a number of years they occupied an interesting segment of the bourbon
market: They purchased barrels of whiskey from other distilleries and released them as single barrel, cask strength selections under the Willett brand or blended them to create something (hopefully) greater than the sum of its parts. They release a number of of these brands, including Noah's Mill and Johnny Drum.
This barrel of straight rye is from Indiana based distiller MGPI (former LDI). MGPI does not sell any of its whiskey at the retail level, but you've probably tasted it. Many micro-distilleries are buying MGPI juice to fill their bottles while their own new make ages.
Anyhow, this bottle straight rye was 110 proof and aged 4 years. Let's see the notes:
Average: 85.75
Gulliver:
Appearance: Slightly pale in color
Nose: sweet white grapes, vaguely like a dessert wine; hints of leather on second extended sniff after tasting
Taste: toffee, nice sweetness without seeming cloying or syrupy, quite hot. Rounds out some as I taste it more.
Finish: short with a kind of apple tartness
Thought this one was generally quite good, though something keeps me from loving it. Maybe just a bit tart for my tastes. Lot of its good qualities are similar to Pappy 15. That (and especially a nice mellow sweetness mid-palate) makes me suspect it's a wheater, guessing around 100 proof.
88/100
Jon:
Bubblegum, a little bit of vanilla. Very thin and sweet. No spice. Some tropical fruit (I can't figure out which) and bubblegum. Medium finish, sweet, fruity favors linger. 89
Brett:
nose: rich, smooth, sweet, almost chocolaty
taste: same sweet and chocolate notes carry over to the taste; little bit of burn on the tongue and some oak, too
finish: finish is warm but never really develops beyond the initial impression; still the oak
overall: first swirl in the glass had me hoping for something big; in the end, not bad, not great - 82
Keith:
Nose: Caramel & butterscotch, hint of barrel char and sweetness. Thought it was an outstanding nose
Taste: Velvet and soft mouth feel, nicely balanced vanilla and cream. Some mustiness on the front end
Finish: Some toffee, but fades too quickly.
Overall: 84, loses points for mustiness.
Not Tasting: Kyle, Jason
Interesting result here as no one picked out the minty note typically associated with MGPI juice. Interesting enough to wonder if there was a labeling mistake here. I don't think that's the case, but we'll know if we get a mint bomb in a subsequent sample.
That said, it could be that we got a bottle from a barrel that didn't develop that way. 85.75 isn't a bad score for a four year old whiskey--given a few more years in a barrel this MGPI juice could really develop nicely.
 |
| Sample pic, because I wasn't smart enough to take pics of the bottles before I tossed them. |
This barrel of straight rye is from Indiana based distiller MGPI (former LDI). MGPI does not sell any of its whiskey at the retail level, but you've probably tasted it. Many micro-distilleries are buying MGPI juice to fill their bottles while their own new make ages.
Anyhow, this bottle straight rye was 110 proof and aged 4 years. Let's see the notes:
Average: 85.75
Gulliver:
Appearance: Slightly pale in color
Nose: sweet white grapes, vaguely like a dessert wine; hints of leather on second extended sniff after tasting
Taste: toffee, nice sweetness without seeming cloying or syrupy, quite hot. Rounds out some as I taste it more.
Finish: short with a kind of apple tartness
Thought this one was generally quite good, though something keeps me from loving it. Maybe just a bit tart for my tastes. Lot of its good qualities are similar to Pappy 15. That (and especially a nice mellow sweetness mid-palate) makes me suspect it's a wheater, guessing around 100 proof.
88/100
Jon:
Bubblegum, a little bit of vanilla. Very thin and sweet. No spice. Some tropical fruit (I can't figure out which) and bubblegum. Medium finish, sweet, fruity favors linger. 89
Brett:
nose: rich, smooth, sweet, almost chocolaty
taste: same sweet and chocolate notes carry over to the taste; little bit of burn on the tongue and some oak, too
finish: finish is warm but never really develops beyond the initial impression; still the oak
overall: first swirl in the glass had me hoping for something big; in the end, not bad, not great - 82
Keith:
Nose: Caramel & butterscotch, hint of barrel char and sweetness. Thought it was an outstanding nose
Taste: Velvet and soft mouth feel, nicely balanced vanilla and cream. Some mustiness on the front end
Finish: Some toffee, but fades too quickly.
Overall: 84, loses points for mustiness.
Not Tasting: Kyle, Jason
Interesting result here as no one picked out the minty note typically associated with MGPI juice. Interesting enough to wonder if there was a labeling mistake here. I don't think that's the case, but we'll know if we get a mint bomb in a subsequent sample.
That said, it could be that we got a bottle from a barrel that didn't develop that way. 85.75 isn't a bad score for a four year old whiskey--given a few more years in a barrel this MGPI juice could really develop nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)