Author Topic: Whisk[e]y  (Read 428 times)

tgm

  • Guitar Addict
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 3642
  • Karma: +46/-18
Re: Whisk[e]y
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2018, 11:40:26 PM »
So I picked up a set of new stuff to try and have some initial impressions. I've been watching the "bourbon night" youtube channel a bit lately and have been inspired to do some of my own blind flight tastings and needed some options. I stuck to stuff that I thought I'd like so stuff like Maker's and such are still something to come later, I'm just not a huge fan of wheated bourbons.

Anyways tonight's arrivals are:

Jim Beam Double Oak
I don't recall drinking any Jim Beam in the past so this was a first for me. It was dirt cheap ($15) at the Total Wine nearby so it was more of a "why not" kind of purchase. It was also the same price as the white label and from what I've seen most people think they're similar with this being a bit smoother and a bit more character, but not much. I liked it, and if I needed to drink something at a bar with limited select this might work fine. It's very smooth and uneventful for me though. The flavor is fine and but it disappears fast and isn't memorable. Some people said it's a cheaper Woodford Double Oak but I wouldn't say they're close. Woodford DO is much richer and sweeter and has much more character and complexity. But for $15 it decent enough. Kind of reminds me a bit of Maker's from what I remember, smooth but uneventful. Good budget bourbon though, but I wish the finish lasted longer. Maybe that's intentional to get you to drink more though.

Clyde May's Straight Bourbon
This one reminded me of Knob Creek a bit, but better. It's got that same kind of kick to it in the profile but it's smoother and more rounded with the fruity hints. I think if Knob Creek is your thing this would be right up your alley and I'll probably end up keeping a bottle around to fill that spot. While the Knob Creek 120 I recently picked up was interesting, I like this one better in the spot. I still need to spend a bit more time with it though since it does seem to have a nice full body flavor to it and there's enough complexity in there that it might take some time to learn the nuances of. This was a direct snag from watching the Bourbon Night videos. It was available as a 375ml so I figured it was a bit less of a commitment in case it didn't turn out to be to my liking, and I'll have a nice smaller bottle for some self blends of other stuff later.

Old Forester 100
I've been looking for something to fill in the regular Woodford's spot since I'm kind of stuck on Double Oak now. Since these are from the same family of whiskies I figured it was worth a shot. The 86 is OK, but kind of boring. This is pretty good for about the same price as Woodford ($25). It's definitely got some kick to it and more body than the 86. It has some nice sweetness like the Woodford but definitely has more kick to it. I tried it with a little water and it held its own but I think I prefer neat. Ice might be good too. I'm sort of liking these 100 proofs lately though.

Old Forester 1920
The winner of the new arrivals and what I'm actually sipping on tonight. Even more body than the 100 proof and some cherry or something in the flavor. The nose is very nice on it and the taste delivers as well. You notice the high proof but it's very drinkable at the same time. It's a little hot going down but finishes long and lovely, it fades nice. It's odd but I get a hint of peanut butter out of it, like a couple other's I've had recently. It's like it starts out with corn notes and then moves over towards oily peanut butter, like the natural kind. Maybe that's what they mean by "nutty" I keep hearing them say.  It's a bit more spendy at just over $50 but should complement my Double Oak for when I'm looking to vary it up a bit. If I was trying to save some money though between all of the Old Foresters I've tried I think the 100 proof is the bang for buck, but this is my favorite. Perhaps the Statesman (I tried a few of the others in a tasting this Spring), but I think this one might be easier to find.


My wife said she'd help me setup a blind tasting flight so I can try and see how well I can guess the bourbons and do a less bias kind of assessment. I'm curious how well I'll do and how the order of them or what's in the group might affect what I think are my favorites. I'll keep you posted just how terrible of a whiskey sommelier I am, but I have hopes...
This signature intentionally left blank.

Jake

  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 8137
  • Karma: +83/-16
Re: Whisk[e]y
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2018, 11:03:44 AM »
My drinking choices are changing - I wouldn't say they are evolving - just changing. I've tried expensive whiskey and scotch and it is not my cup of tea. These days I enjoy a common Jameson with ginger [beer] or a sweet Canadian whiskey with Coke. But I'll take good ol' clear and chilled vodka like Titos or Finlandia over any colored stuff.
Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

micah

  • A man on the Internet.
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 6479
  • Karma: +55/-55
  • Good man. Nixon's pro-war and pro-family.
    • micahj.com
Re: Whisk[e]y
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2018, 12:56:23 AM »
I think I knew something similar before, but tonight I learned, "eight companies produce over 99% of the whiskey made in the U.S."

I guess its kinda like how coke and pepsi own 60% of the soda market and Atria and Reynolds run 86% of the cigarette sales in the US. 

Its just weird I guess because, with so many individual whiskey brands, it feels to me like they are in more competition with each other but really, they're all (practically) the same company.  Some products conjure more brand loyalty then others. Whiskey has always seemed like one of those things products.

"I possess a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man.  I use it to look at pictures of cats and get in arguments with strangers."

tgm

  • Guitar Addict
  • Jackass In Charge
  • Posts: 3642
  • Karma: +46/-18
Re: Whisk[e]y
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2018, 08:32:41 AM »
This signature intentionally left blank.