The Immortal Old Fashioned

"Spirits, bitters, water, and sugar" is how the first published definition of word cocktail appeared in the early ninetenth century. In our house, three specific cocktails rule the roost - Trader Vic's Original 1944 Mai Tai, the Mojito, and the Old Fashioned. The Mai Tai's recipe is sacred and as such, honored quite literally. We flex a bit more poetic license with the Mojito, experimenting with various aged and spiced rums. The Old Fashioned however has always been a free form canvas of experimentation and exploration.

Officially, an Old Fashioned is comprised of whiskey, bitters, water, and sugar. We have tried countless variations of whiskey, bitters, and sweeteners through the years but have settled on the following permutations:

Bitters: Peychaud's OR half Angostura, half Bittermens Orange Cream Citrate OR half Woodford Reserve Spiced Cherry bitters, half Bittermens Xocolati Mole chocolate bitters
Sweetener: Pure Maple Syrup OR Brown Sugar Syrup OR Agave Nectar
Whiskey: Equal parts - straight rye whiskey, feisty bourbon whiskey and smooth bourbon whiskey
Rye Whiskey: I tend not to fret too much over which rye I use here. Knob Creek, Wild Turkey, Rittenhouse, and Old Overholt have all worked well for us
Feisty Bourbons: Old Grandad 114, Knob Creek Single Barrel, Wild Turkey 101, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond, Fighting Cock
Smooth Bourbons: Four Roses Small Batch, Buffalo Trace, Larceny, Russell's Reserve 10 year, Eagle Rare

Typical Proportions and Technique
In a cocktail shaker, I pour a tablespoon of sweetener (just under a tablespoon if using agave nectar). I then add 3/4 of an ounce of each - rye whiskey, feisty bourbon, smooth bourbon - for a total of 2.25 ounces of whiskey. Five to six dashes of bitters and give everything a good stir and taste.

If it's too sweet, add a bit more whiskey and bitters; if it's not sweet enough, a bit more sweetener. Personally, I like the concoction to taste bold and assertive in terms of alcohol and bitters and not leaning towards the sweet side. Once you are pleased with the taste, add a handful of ice and, my apologies Mr. Bond, stir vigorously for thirty seconds.

I prefer my Old Fashioned served straight up, so I strain the mixture into a glass. If you prefer a bit more dilution as the cocktail spends time in the glass, feel free to leave a few cubes in the glass. An orange twist is the traditional garnish but only one garnish is necessary in my glass - a skewer of three Luxardo cherries (and maybe a dash of the luscious syrup they reside in).

Mayday, Mayday!

Though he be but little, he is fierce.

Whisky #4 - Caol Ila 12 Year

Classification: Single Malt Scotch Whisky
Country: Scotland
Region: Islay (Port Askaig: 55.854°N -6.109°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Malted Barley
Strength: 43.0% ABV (86.0° Proof)
Color: Artificially Colored
Filtration: Unknown (most likely chill filtered)
Maturation: 12 years in 100% ex-bourbon casks
Price: $54.99 (Lueken's Liquors)

Overview

First things first - how in the heck do we pronounce the name of this malt?! I have heard two pronunciations - cull-EE-la or cool-EYE-lah - with the emphasis on the second syllable in each. Introductions out of the way, welcome to what I am betting is the first truly polarizing sample in the lineup. So polarizing I feared this sample would be, that it almost never was. It was the steadfast insistence of my much better half however that ensured the group would indeed get to sample a peated single malt from Scotland's fabled island of Islay.

If you think back to Whiskey #3's reveal, we delved into what the malting process is for barley - starting, but halting the germination process to expose the barley's critical sugars and enzymes. Most distilleries halt the germination process by drying the germinating barley using a coal-fired kiln. Islay however has a problem - they have no naturally occurring coal. What Islay does have is lots and lots of peat bogs. Peat, when cut and dried, not only burns just fine but it imparts that distinctive campfire smell and taste that permeates whisky sample #4.

Personally, I have always felt that peated Islay malts are to whisky what blue cheese is to the cheese world. There is no middle ground, people either love or loathe them. It is worth noting that Caol Ila is on the light end of peatiness; some of Islay's other malts - Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Lagavulin - will contain twice as much (or more) peat influence than Caol Ila. A rather humorous tidbit that I have yet to find conclusive proof of is that during Prohibition, clever importers brought Laphroaig whisky into the United States labeled as 'disinfectant'. Customs agents upon inspection allowed the whisky entry based off smell alone feeling no one would voluntarily drink a whisky that smelled as Laphroaig did.

Islay is not the only Scotch region that uses peat, some Highland, Speyside and Lowland distilleries do as well. Highland peat however tends to be more mineral than Islay's vegetal peat, so there is near-zero grassiness to Highland peated malts. Glen Moray, Cragganmore, and Balvenie all produce specific releases featuring Highland peat and are certainly worth exploring.

If curious, more about peat and whisky can be found here.

As for Caol Ila, the brand and distillery are owned by beverage giant Diageo. Diageo owns more Scottish distilleries than any other entity at the moment as well as the powerhouse brand of Johnnie Walker. If you have ever noticed a peaty/smokey note to any of Johnny Walker's blends, you can almost certainly thank Caol Ila as that is Diageo's go-to malt for imparting such an influence. Unbelievably, it is estimated that approximately 95% of Caol Ila's 6.5 million liters of annual production is sent for blending in Johnnie Walker. Caol Ila does produce occasional un-peated releases that while difficult to track down by the bottle, can sometimes be found on whiskey menus of various upscale eateries, definitely worth a sample if so inclined.

It's not just Scotch that Diageo dominates however. From beer (Guinness and Harp) to vodka (Ketel One and Smirnoff) to tequila (Don Julio and Casamingos) to rum (Captain Morgan) to non-American whiskey (Crown Royal), Diageo is a giant in every sense of the word. An interesting footnote that no one truly understands - Diageo in the 1990s correctly predicted American Whiskey would significantly grow both domestically and internationally. Correspondingly, Diageo went on a purchasing spree acquiring both labels as well as distilleries in the United States. Then for reasons that remain unclear to this day, Diageo abandoned almost all their American Whiskey assets in the early 2000s retaining only Bulleit and George Dickel.

Tasting Notes

One fun experiment to try at home - if you have a mediocre whiskey, regardless of type, try adding just a splash of a peated malt to the glass. After letting it rest for a few minutes to marry, see how that peat can liven up what was originally a ho-hum whiskey.

Group Impressions

I suspected month four's impressions would be fun to compile and fun to read. For those that had never experienced an Islay whisky, congratulations, you are now forever imprinted. Like those who knew immediately what was in the sample bottle, you too will be able to instantly recognize this aroma for the rest of your life. Thanks to all for humoring a trip to the smokey side. Where o where will Month Five take us...

Admiral Hawkes
As has become my custom, the first thing I did upon receiving this month’s sample was to unscrew the top and take a whiff. Usually, it is just to get a sense of what type of whiskey (or whisky, for that matter) we were dealing with. This time, the unique and powerful aroma could only have come from one place: Islay. I told the two people in the room with me that I knew exactly what it was, but that can wait.

The tarry, medicinal nose born of peat smoke is certainly not for the uninitiated. If you told a non-scotch drinker that it was turpentine, you’d probably not get much pushback. I did that once with a stranger at a restaurant bar. No push back.

Drinking this beauty requires no ice, no drops of water… it is all-in or nothing at all. The taste at first is certainly consistent with the nose, but as you breathe (and it does as well), you begin to get notes of honey, as bizarre as that sounds next to turpentine. For sure this is an acquired taste, but as you punch through the sensual impact driven by the hand cut peat and floor malted barley, you are rewarded with a depth of flavor and a sense of place that is unique in my experience.

While there are a number of Islay beauties including the famous Lagavulin, I have only had one, and I am quite sure that one is what I was drinking: Laphroaig 10 year old. I was only introduced to it 2 years ago but it is a memorable and pleasurable dram.

Waldo Norris
Ok wow! I wasn’t expecting something smelling so off-putting to be so interesting in flavor.

Appearance:
A nice medium amber color

Oooh that smell, Can’t you smell that smell:
This is about as not pleasing to me, as you can get it. It smelled of strong smoke, alcohol mixed with turpentine Those nose was really setting me off on what to expect from this.

Taste:
So, this is where this shocked me. I was pleasently surprised, that this didn’t follow the nose completely. I wasn’t overwhelmed with an overly strong sip. It certainly had a good amount of alcohol, as I certainly had a nice warmth, but it really seemed quite balanced.  This had a tremendously smokey flavor. I basically felt like I was chewing on a cigar (not in a bad way, if that is possible).  I could taste the oak as well, and some dark fruits, plumbs.

After taking the first few sips neat, I added my drops of water, let it sit for a moment (smell didn’t change much, although it probably lightened up a tad), and I thoroughly got to enjoy this. It was certainly one of the more interesting tastings I have had.

Finish:
Well, this thing stuck around for a long time. Much like smoking a cigar, the smokiness just sat on the palette for some time. The good amount of zip from the alcohol calmed pretty quickly, left the dried fruits to sit on the tongue, and then the smokey. I would say this stuck with me for a good 5 minutes after drinking.

General Thoughts:
Let’s put it this way: I’m glad I’m this club, because otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to try this this. I believe this to be a double barreled, scotch. Aside from the smell, which I still can’t really get over, I thought this was a really interesting glass. I found this to be best when I had this neat, but I am also not much of a mixed drink person, so I would probably prefer most of my drinks neat.

Apollo
Smell:
This one had a very distinct aroma. There was a strong smell of peat which was quite dominant. I wasn't able to detect any other scents over the peat smell.

Appearance:
It was relatively light in color, sort of golden, with very long lasting legs.

Taste:
The taste was very interesting and memorable. The flavor of peat was overpowering to me, but it’s such a unique flavor that I still enjoyed it very much.

Finish:
To me the flavor didn't change much after swallowing but it lasted a long time. The taste stuck around for a minute or so after taking a sip. It did have some lingering tongue tingle as well. I would guess this one is closer to 100 proof.

Summary:
I’m pretty sure this whiskey was one that I'm familiar with called Laphroaig. Probably the 12 year. If it wasn't that then it has a very similar taste. I find it very enjoyable. So much so that, I keep a bottle of Laphroaig on hand most of the time. I currently have their 18 year and that seems to be a bit smoother than this one was.  That's why I guessed that this was the 12 year. Either way, this was a great whiskey with a very strong flavor that I really enjoyed.

Keoki
Ah, another month, another tasting. Before even opening the sample I had already smelled peat. So I'm fairly certain we're going with a Islay region sampling.

Now, six months ago, I could've told you that I was not going to enjoy this month. I had tasted peaty/smoky whiskies in the past and hated them. I was always a Speyside-type enthusiast --- delicate, somewhat sweet and fruity --- and smooth. I wasn't jumping into the deep end of the scotch world.

However, upon sampling a wide range of Scotches with family, I started to get acclimated with Laphroaig. Now, mind you, I didn't enjoy the first quarter of the bottle --- I tolerated it. But after I kept trying it, I loved it -- and now it's my go to.

So, this whiskey hit me with its smell right up front. It was a light gold color that hugged the glass.
The first taste is definitely peat. There's no questioning that. However, when it washes over your mouth it isn't sharp or as intense as the smell says it should be. Truth be told, it is as smooth as a Fiddich or Morangie. I really enjoyed this offering.

If I were going to introduce someone to the world of Scotch ---- I would not use this. However, if I was introducing someone who liked a more mild variety to the world of peat/smoke, this would be it.

This scotch is a great way to see if you are ready to get into the complexities of the Islay region.

I would buy this scotch again. Unfortunately now that I like Laphroaig, I want dive deeper --- like Lagavulin. This is a great teaching scotch in my estimation.

Zeus
Appearance:
Light amber. I'm starting to get the hang this color thing.Smell: Ouch, that burns my sinuses. Not pleasant, turpentine comes to mind initially. Some more sniffs brings out some better characteristics. Light woody smell. I got this pegged as a high proof batch from that burn smell alone.

Taste:
Ouch ouch OUCH! The tip of my tongue burned in a way I never experienced before on the first sip. Felt like I had a paper cut and lemon juice was immediately applied. Not much flavor characteristics on that first sip, probably the burning on my tongue distracted from anything else. Additional sips was a slight improvement. This needed some ice bad to improve it for me. After I dropped a couple of cubes it was way more satisfying. It was not very strong on flavor but had a huge improvement on mellowing out.

Finish:
Much better finish then the initial taste. Does not fade fast at all. The woody taste becomes more apparent after a few seconds. After dropping some ice into the finish was not as strong and faded quicker. I lost the woody finish with the cubes. Damn, I can never be completely satisfied. The more I sipped the more I started to detect the woody taste again in the finish.

General Thoughts:
I love Scotch. Scotchy scotch scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly. I would be shocked if I got this one wrong. On the rocks is required on this guy for me. I was ready to hate on this based on my initial smell and taste, but this sucka grew on me fast. He went from arch enemy to happy puppy in 3 minutes flat.I loved how much I changed on it in such a short period of time. Complex if I had to give it one word to describe this whiskey.

Colonel Buck Greene
Color:
Light, lighter than the previous samples.

Nose:
A Peat Smell, not too strong of alcohol intensity. Vanilla tones.

Initial Taste:
Very smooth. tasted like a Scotch Whiskey. Flavor was nice.

Finish:
Very smooth, didn't hang out too long on the palate. Had a very slight alcohol tingle late in the finish.

Proof:
Low 80's? Hard to tell but seemed very "low".

Overall:
This was the nicest, smoothest Scotch I believe I have tried. Did not taste like a bourbon. Of course, I've said that for the previous 2 tastings, so who knows! I would drink it again, and most likely order it by name.

Carol Baldwin
Appearance:
Pouring in the glass, the whiskey had a light to medium golden color. Swirling the glass, thin long legs quickly developed.

Smell:
Very sharp and peaty. I immediately thought that this was a scotch.

Taste:
As always, the first taste I take is neat. My first taste confirmed what my nose suspected, and this is a scotch. There is an alcohol burn upon first sip, leading me to believe this whiskey has a higher alcohol content. It is nicely balanced and full flavored however; after the initial burn I detected honey and grassy notes, mellowing into a peaty richness, and finishing with a bit of astringency.I was enjoying the warmth and flavors so much that I was reluctant to add ice, but I did so for the sake of this review. The addition of ice did of course reduce some of the burn but the flavors that I detected before were still very much present. Very very nice.

Finish:
The finish is mildly astringent, mellowing into a pleasant warm peatiness in the mouth that complements the warmth in the belly.

General Thoughts:
So I've been on a bourbon kick lately, and I haven't had scotch for a while. I was a little surprised at how much I really enjoyed this sample. It had a good amount of burn but that was well balanced by the complex flavors which enhanced the overall experience. Very warming and comforting, it was akin to cuddling up on the couch in a favorite blanket when it's cold outside. A nice pick for this month.

Michael Doheny
You're riding high in April...

House rules are as follows, first sample, straight. Second sample, splash of water to keep you honest, and lastly on the rocks, as God intended.

Just when I thought I'd landed an Ace, he slipped me a Joker, and they ain't wild, baby.

The color looked like dehydrated straw, pale and flat. When I caught a whiff of the sample it was biting and angry, lacking any invitation. It was alcohol mixed with turpentine, something they’d use to strip the paint off a battleship.

The first taste was like pennies in a stream, no burn or initial heat, but it was profoundly unpleasant. It wasn’t sour, but there was something off tasting about the drink. A second swig and i was left with a burnt licorice taste that soaked my whole mouth. A late burn set in , but the foul flavor was still there. The final sips were like filing your taxes with Uncle Sam, it’s painful but you gotta get through it.

At first reflection, I thought this might be some type of prank. Some terrible concoction meant to weed out those members of the club that weren’t made of sterner stuff.

We moved to the water round. I said a little prayer to the big man upstairs, Tell me I needn't fear, please be kind. The color was like yellow from an Italian fresco that has just been power washed. The smell was still astringent and formidable; more akin to binding a wound than ordering at your favorite watering hole. 

The water took the bitterness out of the bite, but the uncouth flavor and heat persist. I did a quick swallow, to let the vapors tell their tale, but it seemed to be burning through the bottom of my jaw. There was a flavor of burnt cloves, like a damn beatnik. Also, uneven pepper flavor botching up the works.

As poured myself a glass of proper bourbon to wash the taste out my mouth, I was left to reflect on the contents of this vile vial. It seems to me, this is the type of booze that will get a fella to swing at another fella just for looking at him.

Let's take it nice and easy, ice, baby, do your thing. It smells like something out of a backwoods still; all thunder and no lightning. I stacked the deck and doubled up on the cubes and let it linger like cranberries in a bog. The color turned brackish as the ice did its work.

Dear God, it tastes like apple juice born of some demon Johnny Appleseed. The smell is still potent, but the flavor is much calmer. There are some earthy tones in there, as well as that damn clove. The flavor would be like if you wrung out one of those urinal cakes in the men’s john.

After two more agonizing sips, it was almost over. In the end, it was more water than spirit, but it hung in their like a battered prize fighter, waiting for the one last take down.

This was, by every measure, an evil that was put upon me. I suffered, and am changed. I have no idea what this could be, besides distilled wickedness and pain.

Jonathan Quayle Higgins
Appearance
Medium to dark straw color. A very slight green tint when viewed at certain angles. Unfortunately, all Diageo malts are artificially colored to ensure color consistency from batch to batch. That being said, Caol Ila 12 does not have that classic orange suntan that heavily colored malts have, so I am guessing there is very little coloring added. If that is indeed the case, then why color it in the first place?! Oh well, let’s get on with the good stuff.

Nose
Peat, sweetness, no harshness, mild alcohol punch. A wisp of pine perhaps. On the scale of peated malts from Islay, Caol Ila is below Laphroaig 10/Quarter Cask and Ardbeg 10. I would not consider this a peat bomb like Laphroaig or Ardbeg. This is a very elegant nose - sultry, inviting, warming. The initial smell has the strongest alcohol punch, subsequent smells the punch is gone and the nose is deliciously perfect.

Taste
Peat right off the bat, a bit of effervescence from the alcohol. Peat lingers throughout the taste and there is a nice tingle from the alcohol. The tingle is strong enough that I feel this tastes above its proof. A bit of sharp bitterness in the middle, not offensive however. There is a crescendo of peat and tart citrus (lemon) that coat the mouth. The peat gives way for a moment yielding to the lemon on the tail end.

Finish
Mouth coating peat. Faint lemon. Very warming in the mouth and sinuses. This is a great way to unwind after a full day.

Overall
Full disclosure - I have always loved peated Islay malts. From my earliest Scotch exploration days, I fell immediately in love with Islay’s offerings. While Ardbeg and Laphroaig are the boisterous peat stars on my shelf, Caol Ila is the refined, svelte gentleman; the Cary Grant to other’s Humphrey Bogart. The price is higher than I like and ideally the malt should be offered without coloring and non-chill filtered. But I keep buying bottles and so long as the quality and age statement stay where they are, I shall continue to do so.

Foolishly Eager?

The first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days of the year
-Mark Twain

The meaning of it all is that there is no meaning.

Whiskey #3 - Green Spot & Redbreast 12

Bottle #1 - Green Spot
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (estimated 60% malted barley, 40% un-malted barley)
Strength: 40.0% ABV (90.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (most likely artificially colored)
Filtration: Unknown (most likely chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown (estimated 7-10 years in 75% used bourbon barrels and 25% Oloroso sherry casks)
Price: $57.99 (Total Wine)

Bottle #2 - Redbreast 12 Year
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (estimated 50% malted barley, 50% un-malted barley)
Strength: 40.0% ABV (90.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (most likely artificially colored)
Filtration: Unknown (most likely chill filtered)
Maturation: 12 years in unknown proportion of used bourbon and Oloroso sherry casks
Price: $69.99 (Total Wine)

Overview

Happy belated St. Patrick's Day!

As cliched as it is, I could not resist sending Irish whiskey for March's sample. Because I have never tried Irish Whiskey, I selfishly chose two different examples that were consistently recommended by the various whiskey blogs I frequent. Both of these whiskeys are produced by Irish Distillers (which is owned by Pernod Ricard) and distilled at their New Midleton Distillery on Ireland's south coast.

So what makes a whiskey an Irish Whiskey? There are four main types of Irish Whiskey - Malt, Pot Still, Grain, and Blended; what delineates each of the four can be found here. Month 3's samples are from the Pot Still variant and have the further distinction of being Single Pot Still as they were produced entirely at one distillery.

By law, a Pot Still whiskey must be entirely distilled in a traditional pot still (as opposed to a column still) and can be produced from a mash bill containing up to 5% of cereal grains other than barley. Both Green Spot and Red Breast however use 100% malted and un-malted barley. The un-malted barley is the first of two characteristics that separate Irish Whiskey from its Scottish counterpart. The second is Irish Whiskey is traditionally triple distilled whereas Scotch is almost always double distilled (three runs through a still vs two). Generally speaking, that extra pass through the still robs the distillate of some flavor but produces a 'smoother' tasting final product than a double-distilled whiskey.

So what about this un-malted barley business, what is that all about? Well since we are on the cusp of our beloved Federal Income Tax Day, here is rebellious reason to sip some Irish Whiskey in April - it represents a cheeky tax loophole exploited by Irish distillers in the 19th century.

Before we get to the loophole, a bit of backstory on barley. Virtually every whiskey made contains some percentage of malted barley. Why? Because barley contains a critical enzyme called amylase and it's amylase that converts the starches of the grains into fermentable sugars. There is an asterisk though - to get access to the barley's amylase, you must expose it by partially germinating the barley but halting germination before all the grain's resources are consumed by the germination process. This partial germination process is called 'malting'.

Back to the loophole - overwhelmingly, the only reason one would malt barley is to make booze. As such, in the late 1800s the British Government, who already taxed whiskey, decided to impose additional taxes on malted barley.

Maybe my dad's 'they get you coming and going' tirades were right all along...

Anyway, distillers in Ireland decided to revolt through experimentation - replace some of the taxed malted barley in their mash bills with untaxed un-malted barley. Yes, there would be a loss in distilled output as there would be less alcohol to distill in each run, but they quickly determined the loss in output was dwarfed by the tax savings. A pleasant side effect was the grassy note the un-malted barley infused into the finished product's flavor. And like that, Irish Whiskey was born.

So popular proved the delivered flavor of Irish Whiskey, that when tax laws were revised through the years removing the extra taxation on malted barley, producers did not change back to 100% malted barley in production. And so it is that today we can sip a spirit born as a middle-finger to the tax man. I can think of no finer legacy to the noble distillers of 19th century Ireland. Erin go Bragh.

Tasting Notes

Green Spot Unofficial Tasting Notes

Redbreast 12 Tasting Notes

Group Impressions

A huge thank you to all for pulling double duty in this month's tastings. Personally, I love the idea of A/B type tastings. Aspects of a particular whiskey that normally would go unnoticed can jump out when sampled alongside a second (or third, or fourth) whiskey.

Reading through each impression, clear trends emerged. Bottle #2 - Redbreast 12 year - seems to be the crowd favorite here. In terms of 'street-cred', Redbreast 12 is the big dog and Green Spot is the underdog. As one of the contributors accurately stated, there was nothing wrong with Green Spot, it would have been completely enjoyable if served alone. A second trend of tremendous interest was numerous impressions feeling Redbreast 12 was actually a bourbon, something that I detected as well. Certainly this speaks to the barrels used to mature Redbreast.

Thanks again to all - Month Four is up next!

Waldo Norris

Bottle #1 and Bottle #2 almost looked identical by appearance, had similar legs and had very similar flavor compounds. A light Vanilla, with a good oak on it.  

When tasting Bottle #1, I did notice a stronger alcohol content, as it really give me a nice burn in the throat when it was taken neat. Of course, as most do, it mellowed out with a few drops of water.  I tried to pick up on any new flavors, and while the mouth feel was nice, vanilla and oak is all I had. 

Bottle #2, smelled much different from the bottle, almost sweet, but certainly didn't carry as strong of an alcohol sniff or taste to it. When I first smelled the bottle (#2) I really thought you were going to have us compare a bourbon to a scotch, but after tasting them both, I really can't imagine that these are anything but 2 very similar regions in Scotland, perhaps brother's that live on a different side of the same grassy hill. 

Perhaps due to the date and positing of this write-up we will get a good laugh out of some April Fools joke.  

Should I be forced to prefer one over the other, I wanted to say that Bottle #1 was slightly nicer for me. I do like the alcohol, as it was present but it wasn't overwhelming. I also wanted to say that the Vanilla was a little stronger as well.

Zeus

Appearance:

#1 has that amberish color all whiskeys look like to me. Looking at the chart, I'd put this as medium amber. Slightly lighter Color then #2. I put #2 as a dark amber.

Smell:

#1 has a bite to the smell. That made me think it has a high proof. Maybe a scotch? #2 does not have as much aroma as #1. In fact, it's seems incredibly weak in comparison. I had to really breath it in to get any sense of it. Woody smell is what I picked up. Not smoky. I suspect #2 is a bourbon.

Taste:

Took it neat initially. #1 has a nice initial taste, scotch seems most likely. Very smooth. Not as high proof as I thought based in the smell. Added some rocks, the flavor was washed out a lot, I don't think this would play well in a mixed drink. #2 had some big surprises for me in the flavor. Somewhat fruity initial taste. Really confused now what this is, #2 could still be a bourbon but it's not screaming that.

Finish: 

#1 has a slight burn in the finish. Apricots come to mind. Lingers for 10-15 seconds, which I enjoy a lot. #2's after taste dissipates far faster than #1. Maybe a caramel or brown sugar after taste, but it fades really quick. 

General Thoughts

#1's taste is nice. I think I enjoyed the after taste more than when it was lingering in my mouth. #2 goes down a lot easier than #1. I could destroy a bottle of #2 pretty quick. I dislike how #2's after taste dissipates so fast.

#1 I got pegged as a scotch with moderate confidence. #2 I think is a bourbon with weaker confidence. I like how the flavors contrasted with each other in comparison. I'm not sure I would think of either the same way without that contrast. I like #1's long after taste. #2 tasted better but was too short lived to really savor it. If I had to buy one I would go with #2. Might make for an excellent old fashioned.

Carol Baldwin

Appearance:

#1, dark golden color. #2, amber.

Smell: 

#1, warm and mellow, slight vanilla notes. #2, sharp with caramel and wood notes.

Taste:

#1, First impression, this is a scotch. The first sip had a bite; quite astringent and bitter. Subsequent sips were more assertive and astringent, with a bitter aftertaste. The addition of ice lessened the sharpness, however the flavor profile remained much the same.

#2, I think this one is a scotch as well. Sharp and astringent at first sip. Definitely more complex and rich in flavor than #1, however; I detected some wood and a light hint of peat. Adding ice allowed the peat and wood flavors to intensify, and mellowed the astringency a bit.

Finish:

#1. Sharp and astringent. Adding ice lessened the sharpness a bit, although the finish remained astringent. 

#2. Bitter finish when sipped straight. Adding a little ice mellowed the flavors and smoothed the finish.

General Thoughts:

#1 was sharp and bitter, even with the addition of ice. In my opinion this whiskey may be best used in a mixed drink, as I found it to be sharp and astringent on its own with not much complexity of flavor. #2 however, did improve with addition of ice and a nice complexity of flavors came out. I preferred #2 when comparing these two.

Apollo

Smell:

1: I couldn't smell much beyond the alcohol. Maybe a slight wood smell.

2: This one had a rich aroma. I could smell a bit of caramel along with wood and the alcohol. There were also a variety of other smells that I couldn't really identify.

Comparison: The second one had a much more interesting smell. It had a complex aroma that seemed to incorporate many different smells. The first one didn’t really smell like much to me.

Appearance:

1: It had a light amber color and long lasting legs.

2: It had a light amber color and long lasting legs.

Comparison: The appearance of these two was very similar. Both the color and the legs were almost identical.

Taste:

1: After the first ounce I couldn’t really pick out any flavors. It wasn’t bad, fairly smooth, probably an 80 proof scotch if I had to guess. But as far as interesting flavors, I wasn’t getting much. I dropped an ice cube in for the second ounce and that brought out the flavor a little more, but still nothing I could really identify.

2: This one had an interesting flavor. It was smooth and I could taste caramel and wood. It was slightly sweet which makes me think it might be a bourbon, but I’m not sure. It seemed like something around 80 proof to me.

Comparison: I liked the taste of the second one better. It seemed to have a richer blend of flavors that lasted longer than the first one. The first one was ok, but I definitely preferred the second.

Finish:

1: It didn't have a lot of lingering flavor. There was some tongue tingle that lasted for a few seconds.

2: This one had a long lasting flavor that evolved for several seconds after swallowing.

Comparison: The second one had a much better finish thanks to the flavors that reveal themselves on your tongue as the seconds pass.

Summary:

When I first heard that we were getting two different samples this month, my first thought was that it would be two different ages of the same whiskey, since I always thought that would be an interesting comparison. That being said, I don’t think that’s what we have here, unless the aging process makes a much bigger difference than I realized. I’m not entirely sure, but I think we may have one bourbon and one scotch (I’ll supply my own one beer, heheh). Outside of the appearance, which was identical to my eye, these were very different samples.

Overall, for me, the second one was quite a bit better than first. It's not that the first one was bad or anything, it's just that they were very different and the second seemed to have a lot more character. I would have enjoyed the first one just fine if I hadn't tasted the second one right afterwards.

Keoki

This was an interesting tasting. We had two samples, and upon visual only, they looked exactly the same. I honestly thought I was getting the same drink. Both were a nice light gold color. I thought it may be different batches, or maybe bought at different times/states.

However, upon tasting them, they were vastly different.

Number one tasted very balanced to me. Nothing really stood out; it was almost as if the distiller was trying to make a non-offensive batch. This isn't necessarily a bad thing---some people like that. However, it isn't something I look for in Scotch. I'd rather have something poke my tastebuds to let me know it's there.

Number two tasted entirely different. There was a balance, but there was also some punch to this one. I'm wondering if it is an older version of the first batch --- or maybe aged in a different type of barrel. I can't really describe the taste well --- it wasn't fruity or peaty. It just had a certain flavor profile that is better for sipping (both were tasted neat).

Now, I don't consider myself even proficient at tasting scotch. However, if you do taste enough of them, you can start to taste the differences in the styles. For instance, my wife would say that they taste the same --- both bad! However, just like someone who is into another type of drink --- there are vast differences in Scotches that seemingly look the same.

So, my money would go to #2. Hope it's not too expensive.

Admiral Hawkes
When this month’s assignment and samples came down, I instantly thought this has to be a throw-down between two rival whiskeys. Our fearless leader would no doubt want to have us weigh in on a long and glorious debate. I had my money on Jameson vs Bushmills.  Nothing I tasted took me off this track. I used a bottle of Jameson Black Barrel as a reference point to make sure I wasn’t’t crazy.  Pretty sure these two are as Irish as Conan O’Brien. And yeah, I know Conan is from outside of Boston, not Dublin.

I tasted these whiskeys three times… each time neat, and not always in the same order. Number 1 had a nose reminiscent of a Scotch, some decent heat both on the nose and in the mouth, with a slickness and a hint of caramel apple that was really pleasant. Liked it.

Number 2 had a bit less heat on the nose and in the mouth… actually had a silkier mouth feel that was more “Irish” to me and it flavor notes were stronger on the caramel with perhaps a hint of vanilla. It was smooth, and I enjoyed it more.

I vote for number 2. Though I am somewhat of a Jameson loyalist, I am guessing that it is actually Bushmills, since I am all-in on my Irish showdown theory.

Slainte!

Michael Doheny

Look at me, I'm drinkin' again.

House rules are as follows, first sample, straight. Second sample, splash of water to keep you honest, and lastly on the rocks, as God intended. 

I received my monthly stipend in the usual way, except I knew there was an extra treasure inside, like when you got an extra tattoo in your Cracker Jack box. I shut my eyes to realize this grand surprise is true, a second vial of mystery sample was inside.

I elected to do a side by side comparison of the drinks, assuming that was our benefactor’s intent. But you know what they say when you assume, you make make an ass of you and me. I apologize for the salty language ladies and gentlemen, let’s keep this party polite and get back to this thing.

Color was similar enough they should be on the same paint sample card. A slightly sunburnt yellow, it would have a fancy name, like Bumblebee. I cracked the seals and tried to catch a whiff, but there wasn’t much there in either sample. 3-1 had a little honey with a smile, but maybe that was left over from the bumblebee. 3-2, I thought I caught a caramel, but it didn’t stick around long. Their legs swirled like tsunamis, bold and with sudden velocity.

3-1 had a low burn, mild by any standard. There were definite hints of botanical origins layered in the liquid. Further tasting stuck me like old cinnamon that has turned dark and moist in the forgotten corner of the spice cabinet. It stayed balanced and smooth throughout, with a vein of young wood, hidden in the last gasps of the finish. 

3-2 had bloomed somewhat since I first put my nose to it. There was a sticky sweet scent to the drink, it wasn’t heavy, like those fancy sugar cocktails the dames get; no, this was something different. It was a wisp of recollection of happy yesteryears on the air. The taste had an underpinning of vanilla, with a gain mixed in. Wheat, maybe. Despite the subtle flavoring, it tasted youthful and fresh, like a hot towel and a shave at the barbers. Except here, I left with a taste of a toffey on my lips and humming on the gums. The last swig was different, it had almost an apple ginger sas and smacked my mouth with a light, savory kiss, and was gone.

I bled the water into each of the samples, and the bumble bee formidably kept it’s color, but the legs kicked with the speed of a Moulin Rouge show girl. There was a soft apricot hint to the smell of 3-1, where 3-2 had nothing left to the nose. 

Tasting 3-1 was like drinking a muted caramel ice cream. Sweet and soft flavors, with a smooth finish. No burn at all. Really enjoyed this tasting and it is among my few regrets that it was over so soon.

It isn’t fair to say I tasted the 3-2 sample with water. I imbibed the concoction, and there was nothing. I rolled the sample around my mouth, chewed it in an effort to unlock something, but there was nothing hiding there. 

3-2 and 3-1 reacted like opposite sides of Berlin with ice being the wall between them. An ice wall, can you imagine such a thing? 3-1 was like a young Jack Kennedy, limber and light. A controlled temper of a warmth without ignition. It had hints of butter laced with flecks of pepper. Meanwhile Khrushchev on the 3-2 side was made indignant by the ice. A roiled burn defused and the water overwhelmed it. There was a sweetness hidden beneath the ice, like rich earth from the siberian tundra.

Both were low ABV, and are siblings of some kind. Their similarities were too close for them to be distant. I don’t think they are bourbons, at least they didn’t match when I did a follow-up tasting with Evan Williams, though my guess is I’m getting fooled by the ABV. I would wager a hard 8 at a craps table that 3-1 is from a non-distiller producers label and the 3-2 is from the label of the suspected bottler.

Either way, both were a delight and I look forward to entertaining both again.

Fr. Paddy McGuiness
Bottle #1
Smell
Definite barley on the nose. Gentle, no sharpness/harshness. There is a fresh cut grass aspect to the smell as well. A bit of lemon candy and at times tropical fruit like mango and guava. Bit of rubbing alcohol. Very subtle nose, it does not overpower at all.

Taste
Wow, surprisingly a bit harsher than I was expecting based off the smell. A bit more ‘raw’ or ‘sharp’ alcohol than flavor, perhaps this is a bit young or maybe the maturation barrels are not overly fresh? A bit of grass on the taste, definitely barley, but not much barley sweetness. In fact, I would say there is a tinge of bitterness in the mid to late taste. This definitely does not taste like a Scottish Single Malt.

Finish
Short to medium finish. No particular flavors stand out to me. The bitterness persists on the finish.

Bottle #2
Smell
Oh an interesting smell. Definitely barley there but something else too. Vanilla, cherry. Gentle, no sharpness/harshness. This does have a bourbon vibe to it but the hit of barley betrays its nod to American whiskey.

Taste
Grass, mild barley sweetness. Some fruit, no harshness, the punch of bottle #1 is not here. This alcohol is smoother and less prickly. Vanilla, perhaps a bit of fruit. Some baking spice.

Finish
Medium length. Pleasant warm finish.

Overall Comparison
Bottle #2 all day for me. I would definitely procure a bottle. I have read they release a cask strength version of this each year that is entirely untouched - no chill filtration, no artifical coloring, and best of all, 50+% ABV. I am betting that a cask strength version of #2 is the Spinal Tap 11 of the normal bottling sampled here.

Beware the Ides of March!

Why build one when you can have two at twice the price

Whiskey #2 - Evan Williams Single Barrel Straight Bourbon

Evan Williams Single Barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon
Classification: Straight Bourbon
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky - Louisville (Distillery): 38.2448, -85.7815, Bardstown (Maturation): 37.7948, -85.4661
Mash Bill: 78% Corn, 10% Rye, 12% Malted Barley
Strength: 43.3% ABV (86.6° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Unknown (Most likely Chill-Filtered)
Maturation: 8 years in 100% New Charred Oak (2009 Vintage)
Price: $24.99 (Total Wine)

Overview

Welcome to American Whiskey y'all!

American whiskey is a large, diverse family of whiskey that is strictly regulated in how it can be made and matured. In terms of sales volume, Mr. John Daniels, as Lt. Col. Frank Slade calls him, is the king of American whiskey. But in terms of enthusiast credibility, what you sampled in month two, bourbon whiskey, is the king of the American whiskey family.

By law, a bourbon's mash bill must contain at least 51% corn, be distilled to no higher than 80% alcohol (160° Proof), and be stored in a new charred oak container at no higher than 62.5% alcohol (125° Proof). To earn the 'straight' qualifier, a bourbon must meet the previously mentioned requirements as well as spend at least two years in that new charred oak container and not be blended with any other type of whiskey. If the straight bourbon has been aged less than four years, the age of the whiskey must be stated on the label. A bit of cocktail party trivia, it is believed that rye whiskey, not corn whiskey, was the first whiskey distilled in the United States.

The next time you are shopping in your favorite bottle shop, take a moment to gaze upon the huge variety of bourbon labels on the shelf. In most bottle shops you will notice that the quantity of unique bourbon labels is fairly comparable to the quantity of unique Scotch labels. There is one important distinction however - while Scotland currently has over one hundred distilleries of significant size, the United States of America only has eight bourbon distilleries of significant size. Incredibly, the vast majority of bourbon bottled under all those bourbon labels comes from just eight distilleries.

So who are these magical eight? Here is the rundown along with a sampling of their brands/labels:

• Brown-Forman - Old Forester, Woodford Reserve (oh and a little hooch called Jack Daniels but Jack is not a bourbon, it is a Tennessee Whiskey)
• Buffalo Trace - Buffalo Trace, Blanton's, E.H. Taylor, Weller, Pappy Van Winkle, Stagg
• Four Roses - Four Roses Yellow Label, Four Roses Small Batch, Four Roses Single Barrel
• Heaven Hill - Evan Williams, Elijah Craig, Larceny, Old Fitzgerald
• Jim Beam - Jim Beam, Knob Creek, Old Grand-dad
• Maker's Mark - Maker's Mark and Maker's 46
• Midwest Grain Products - MGP does not directly bottle their bourbon, instead they sell barrels to entities that then bottle and sell under their own labels
• Wild Turkey - Wild Turkey 101, Rare Breed, Russell's Reserve

What muddies the water, err bourbon, a bit is the proliferation of non-distiller producers (NDPs in acronym speak). A NDP is an entity that owns a bourbon label but has no means to produce the actual bourbon. As a result, an NDP enters a contractual agreement with a distillery where the NDP purchases bourbon then bottles said bourbon under their label. Unfortunately, these agreements are usually made with the guarantee of complete secrecy so the consumer will never truly know exactly who made the bourbon. Note that this does not mean the whiskey is inferior, its just not transparent.  If so inclined or interested, the various bourbon blogs on the Internet usually offer well-educated guesses as to who produced a specific sourced bourbon.

The bourbon enjoyed in month two is a product of Heaven Hill Distillery which has the proud distinction of being the lone major bourbon distillery that is still owned by a single family - the Shapira family. Evan Williams Single Barrel debuted in the mid-1980s and was created by Heaven Hill's legendary master distiller Parker Beam. If the last name seems familiar, yes, Parker Beam is a relative of Jim Beam. Delving into Kentucky bourbon history, you will find the Beam family has a prolific and all-encompassing footprint in bourbon production starting with the first Beam in Kentucky - Johannes 'Jacob' Böhm who changed his surname to Beam when emigrating from Germany in the late 1700s.

Parker Beam created the Evan Williams Single Barrel label in the mid 1980s as a riff on the wine industry - each year's bottling would be a vintage denoted by the year the distillate was put in the barrel. Being a single barrel bourbon, there will be subtle variations in bottles that come from different barrels, even within the same vintage year. In the two phases of bourbon production, distillation is pure chemical engineering where identical results can be obtained through science and process; maturation on the other hand is pure art as no two barrels mature identically. This is where a quality distillery displays their skill in picking barrels that while not identical are *very* close to the taste profile they are looking for.

Costing half as much as Month One's single malt, it is a pleasure to find a quality bourbon that is readily available and affordable. Granted, coming in under 45% alcohol, this bourbon is not a proof-bomb nor is it an overly complex, nuanced bourbon. What this bourbon is though is a reliable, quintessential bourbon that is well aged and just at home in a cocktail as it is served neat. This is a bourbon you can keep on hand and not fret about pouring it for family, friends, or yourself on some idle Tuesday night.

One final note, when shopping for a bottle of this bourbon, what I personally recommend is to pay attention to the age on the back label. I have noticed that subsequent vintages have been younger and younger with the first bottles of the 2010 vintage coming in at 7 years.  Personally, I would look for a 2009 vintage on the shelf that is 8+ years old and then keep an eye on subsequent 2010 vintage bottles later this year that could start to crack the 8 year old mark.

Tasting Notes

Heaven Hill's Evan Williams Single Barrel Tasting Notes

Group Impressions

Well month two was very well received by the group. Bourbon notes were universally recognized but how fascinating that a few also detected Scotch impressions as well. Referencing the official tasting notes above, you will see everyone detected at least one 'official' note as well as several others. Sweetness, fruit, and vanilla ruled the day. The sweetness due to the corn, the vanilla from the charred barrel and the fruit almost certainly from the yeast used during fermentation.

One interesting tidbit - Heaven Hill's mash bill for their bourbon has very low rye, so I am a bit surprised to see 'spicy' in their official tasting notes. It typically takes a higher rye content in the mash bill to produce a spicier tasting bourbon. Correspondingly, not a single impression denoted a spicy taste or smell; this is why all tasting notes, regardless of source, should be taken as subjective rather than objective.

Thanks to all for a terrific month of impressions, month three is right around the corner!

Jonathan Quayle Higgins
Color
Medium Amber

Nose
Brown sugar, caramel, wood resin. Immediately recognizable as a bourbon. Low alcohol punch. Faint vanilla. Cherry and chocolate after some time in the glass. I am not sure if this is a sign of needing help, but smelling this makes my mouth water. As Bender says - let’s get drunk!

Taste
Very mild wood resin. Sweetness mid-taste. Near-zero tongue prickle. Brown sugar, pecan pie, honeyed sweetness, vanilla... this, this is how an honest bourbon should taste. No perceptible spice. Mild spearmint, cooling finish. Refined bourbon. Sinus filling ethanol evaporation.

Finish
Medium length. Very slight tannic bitterness.

Overall
This is a basic no-frills bourbon, but unlike most low-cost bourbons, this example has spent enough time in the barrel to smooth out the majority of its rough edges. It could be offered at a higher proof, but I am betting that would induce a disproportionate amount of punch/burn. In fact, Heaven Hill’s Elijah Craig Small Batch is higher proof and about the same age yet is much feistier and has far stronger wood notes on the tongue than Evan Williams Single Barrel. This bourbon is just about perfect as it is from the bottle.

Colonel Buck Greene
Appearance - A classic bourbon brown. Not too dark. The legs were slow to develop after a swirl.

Smell
A sweet bourbon initial hit. The intensity of the alcohol to the smell was bold. It was hard to retain the smell for deep analysis as the alcohol was overpowering. There is something sweet to the smell that I could not place. The typical adjectives/flavors of vanilla and cinnamon didn't quite fit. It was something more along the lines of honey. Sweet, but not like sugar. A natural, mellow sweetness. I've probably smelled this sample at least 10 times, and my brain just doesn't have an entry for the type of sweet I am smelling. My final last smell was perhaps identifying a slight slight hint of licorice, or anise. Perhaps the only relation I have to that sweet smell is that of Metaxa Ouzo, for those Greek spirit lovers out there.

Taste
Not a strong tingle at all on first intake. The flavor was immediately strong. The licorice smell really seemed to come out in the taste. The flavor retained for a long while. The tickle from the alcohol hit only after several seconds from the full flavor. This was really nice, as I drank the sample neat, and could taste the flavors for a full amount of time before the prickle from the alcohol kicked in. On the second taste, I did perceive there to be more of a smokey finish. Not peaty, but mild smokey. Although my appearance and smell claimed bourbon, I am starting to second guess myself, and won't be surprised if this was actually a scotch.  As for alcohol content, this seems lower than the previous. My guess is this is somewhere around an 80-90 proof.

Finish - The finish of this sample was lighter in intensity than the previous. It also faded much quicker and wasn't as residual, yet still warm.

General Thoughts
This sample was very contradictory. My appearance guess was a bourbon, as well as the smell. The taste countered my first estimation. I would have to say that I could drink this again. It did remind me of a Balvenie Caribbean Cask that a friend bought for me long ago. In summary - I'm on the fence about it being a bourbon or a scotch, however, I've only got 1 foot on the bourbon side and the rest of my body on the scotch side.

Michael Doheny
[Editor's note - Sinatra lyrics in italics!]
With this tasting, I'm gonna make a brand new start of it; but still  holding to the format from the first sampling: 1st ounce served up neat, 2nd ounce minced with a splash of water, and the final two ounces over a pair of dice sized ice cubes.

Prior to the first pour the liquid looked an inviting strawberry gold color. Not quite artificial, but something unnatural winking from deep within it’s breast. Once I distilled the portion into my glass it had the legs of an MGM Starlett, long, curving, and stained by the sun. There was little initial aroma at all, almost as if it was a secret waiting to be unbuttoned.

The first sip was like the night of black snow against my tongue. Rough, unhinged fire burned across my mouth. Slashing at my cheeks and gums, it incinerated any delicate  flavors and as the heat burnt into me, it was as if Rome had salted Carthage anew, there would never be anything to taste again. My palate was reduced to a barren, flavorless wasteland.

This did not deter my second sip. Although I sat back for a minute, reminiscing on the differences between our last sample. Who was this strawberry Mata Haril beckoning me to continue? If Sample 1 had been the leather loveseat combo you and the misses were eyeing at Levitz, then this was a curvy pleather couch in Woolworth’s masquerading as it's pricer cousin; not cheap, but definitely not top of the heap.

Second sip was a kinder invasion. There was a tender trap of vanilla or caramel muddled between the folds of the spirit. I chewed the liquid, hoping to unlock another clue, nothing but latent fire came forth to reward my efforts.

I fired the final sip into my mouth and forced the fluid to charge from one side to the next before an abrupt swallow. I opened my mouth and let the air ruddy the flavors and heat until I tasted not milk or cream, but some distant relation, hanging on to my taste buds.

Overall this was a fight with the angry alcohol burn and the secret flavors that it kept.

The second sample was laced with a teaspoon of spring water and as I allowed the measure to diffuse into the drink I was struck by the scent of deep, angry, woods. Dry and dark, but alive with hints of evacuating aromas. It was like I’d given the flower water to drink.

Her legs were a golden wave now, roaring across the glass with only an occasional stray streak. A ruddiness to her color from the contaminant was noticeable, but not off putting. It seemed if spring had sprung in the glass as the water kissed cocktail awoke.

A sip revealed a vitality to the spirit. Despite sharing the glass, it would not be reduced or cowed, the heat roiled in my mouth and as i exhaled and awoke to cascading flavors. Something soft, not butter, but smooth and pastoral like before.

Another sip and it was a rich burn with and pine and sap, maybe a molasses. As I exhaled I imagined dried heather, heaped on a fire with straw, thatch, and kindling.

Her final sip was a warm bath sloshing about my mouth, the cream and field sensations, more muted and fading until none remained.

Second tasting was still formidable, seemed younger and more open.

It would be the ice that would be this spirit’s undoing.

The relatively small, cloudless, cubes rested at the bottom of the glass, awaiting the final 2oz. I poured the offering evenly across the ice, a wicked crack  echoed from vessel as the differential expansion ruptured the outer ice core.

I swirled the drink cautiously, looking to see what magic i’d see. The legs were a gross version of their previous life, weak and runny against the glass. Her color had softened and was getting lost amongst the ice.

Dispensing with the frivolity, I took a strong sip, and the ice had melted away any remaining pretence. It was Woolworth’s exposed. There was tang of copper here, beneath the stamped out heat. There was an hint at flowers or fields, but the deluge of ice was wiping them into oblivion.

As I took another drink it was clear the day was lost. Completely unhinged now, the flavors were a mess in my mouth, not fire, not ash, but something in between. Maybe it was the taste of a charcoal briquette; available in isle 9 at your local Woolworth’s.

Ice was a wolf pack to this spirit, torpedoing it, and leaving it to consumed by the rising tide.

Apollo
Smell:
The smell was nice. There wasn't much of an alcohol smell. It was sort of a sweet, slightly fruity smell

Appearance:
It had a fairly dark, amber color with very thick legs that stuck to the glass for a long long time.

Taste:
This whiskey was very smooth. It tasted familiar but I couldn't quite place it. It was hard to identify individual flavors. I thought I detected a hint of oak, or some sort of wood. The flavors did blend together very nicely however, and the overall effect was quite enjoyable. It seemed to be a more mature, probably more expensive whiskey than the previous one. I thought it was probably right around 80 proof. If I had to guess I’d say it’s a bourbon but I’m not sure.

Finish:
It had a slight tongue tingle that disappeared quickly but the flavor lasted quite a while.

Summary:
I enjoyed this one quite a bit. It was really smooth with a nice flavor. Even though I couldn't pick out too many individual flavors, the combination was very interesting. I could see this one being in my regular rotation.

Waldo Norris
A medium amber, with long legs. The sugar level in this is pretty high, both detected on the nose and the tongue.

The aroma on this glass immediately shines with Caramel and Vanilla, and a soft oak flavor, with crisp fruit. The caramel and vanilla, being the forefront players, give a pleasing nose, that I am finding to be hard to stop smelling.

While tasting, I found it to be Rich in flavor, but really soft on tongue. The flavor was mostly observed on the front of the tongue, but as it moved down to the sides, I could taste the sour. There was a mild warmth as it moved to the back of the mouth to the throat. The flavor lingered for quite awhile, which was crisp and clean, but still had a subtle bite.

On my second glass, I added a few drops of water, and noticed that the vanilla and caramel became even more prominent. I would say however, that I was just as pleased both before and after adding the drops of water. I was however hoping for a little more complexity with the water being added. That said, should I not be able to find water in the future with this bottle, I will be just fine.

Overall, this is a great smelling, and good tasting bourbon. It was a little light when it came to anything that really stood out as special. But it was very drinkable. While I don’t have it often, this would pair well with a mixed drink or even a cola.

Any chance we have a Jim Beam White here?

Keoki
Well, I always thought of myself as a scotch guy. Bourbon was generally the cheap stuff we bought in college to mix with some soda. However, after trying this bourbon, it may open up a new world for me.

Appearance
Medium to dark bronze in the glass.  Didn't notice any major legs in glass, about the same as last test.

Smell
Like I said, once I smelled this I knew it was bourbon.  It reminds me of molasses cookies being baked.  The alcohol doesn't overwhelm the smell at all.  In fact, as pungent as the bourbon is, I barely noticed it.

Taste
It's hard to be unbiased in any situation. Going into the taste, I had preconceived ideas of what I thought this would taste like. I'm not a huge lover of bourbon because it seems too sweet to me (certainly compared to scotch).  However, I tried to go in with an open mind. I'm glad I did. I really enjoyed this bourbon. The thing I was dreading (the sweetness) was not overpowering. This was not sickeningly sweet, it had a good balance of flavor.  As with many bourbons, it reminds me of brown sugar.

Finish
One thing I appreciate about this bourbon was that it did not linger for a long period. It tasted great, and the alcohol was not overwhelming. I was able to sip this in a relatively short amount of time.

General thoughts
I tasted this bourbon neat. One of the things that is nice about these taste tests is that it opens up new possibilities.  I'm not sure if I'll ever be a bourbon guy, since I still love scotch so much. However, my aversion to bourbon has been lifted with this tasting.

Zeus
Appearance: Noticeable legs, light amber color. Ok, I said that last time about the color and I fear I might be repeating this line as most whiskeys look light amber to me. I think my perception of whiskey color ranges are a bit lacking. Is there some whiskey paint chip card things I can get to help amateurs like me identify the color range?
[Editor's note - two color guides, one on Breaking Bourbon's tasting template and another with more flowery language from Whiskey Magazine]

Smell: Sweet, slight woody and/or flowery scent. Not harsh at all. Very compelling smell. First thought on the type is a bourbon.

Taste: Minor burn, very mellow taste. I had trouble pulling out specific flavors out of this one. Maybe a very vague vanilla taste in the background. Tasted very well balanced.

Finish: The taste dissipates pretty quick after swallowing. I get a nice aftertaste that fades after a second or two then I am left with a minor burn that is gone in 10 seconds or so.

General Thoughts: This is not a high proof whiskey, not nearly as much burn as the last sampling. I suspect a bourbon, but its not as sweet as some bourbons I have had.  So I think it could be a mild scotch, but less probable then a bourbon. Its not exploding in flavor, but most of the time I want something smooth and mild like this. It is almost too smooth. If I really wanted to drink this pretty fast there is no major burn to it that would encourage me to slow down a bit. This would probably make for a very smooth old fashioned.

After making an old fashioned with this sample, holy smoothness batman. Yes, it is one of the smoothiest old fashions I ever had.

I could see myself buying this. I feel this would be a nice casual whiskey to have on hand. Would taste again.

Carol Baldwin
Appearance: Nice amber color.

Smell: mmm. Vanilla and light wood notes.

Taste: Vanilla again! Very vanilla, with a pleasant heat on the tongue. And do I detect a bit of fruit?

Finish: Smooth, and surprisingly clean, with a light lingering heat.

General Thoughts:
This was a surprisingly light and smooth whiskey to my palate. Vanilla notes at the forefront, and golden oak flavors came out the more I sipped and savored. Maybe even some fruity notes as well? Was this possibly aged in wine barrels? I do enjoy drinking whiskey straight up and this is a really good one for that. Did I say it is smoooooth? I have to know what this is, cause I wanna buy it. I'm thinking it's a bourbon.

P.S. - I did also taste this in an Old Fashioned, and while it was very smooth, it almost seemed a waste to drink this excellent whiskey this way. Straight up I would say is the way to go.

Admiral Hawkes
Upon receiving the second mystery bottle, I immediately opened it and had a whiff. My first reaction was, “there’s a lot of corn in that mash bill!”. I believed I was going to be tasting a bourbon when I got home.

Before the first taste, I compared its nose to Blanton’s and a Four Roses Single Barrel I had in the house, both of which I like very much. It registered closer to the Four Roses  on aromatics. The first tumbler, taken neat, delivered some overtones of caramel and a bit more fire than I expected. I did not detect some of the earthiness I was anticipating. I felt like it drank more like a scotch than a bourbon. So much so that I questioned my initial reaction and wondered if my trusty schnozzola needed calibration.

When tasted the next day on the rocks, the earthiness emerged along with the mellowness I associate with bourbon. Yet I still could not shake the idea that this one drinks like a scotch in the way it feels, yet breathes like a bourbon.

As I write this, I have the empty bottle with a drop or two of whiskey still inside. It is most decidedly not a scotch, and is actually giving me floral overtones today. So I am guessing it is perhaps a higher proof bourbon, which might explain the mouth feel. I liked it and could find room in my cabinet near the Blanton’s and Four Roses.

Robin Masters (smell with a very small taste)
Initial smell of wood, sap, and mild alcohol. After a few minutes in the glass the alcohol subsided (or my nose was sufficiently numbed) and caramel and vanilla emerged. This smells like a very sweet bourbon.

The first small taste had a slight alcohol burn with a taste of licorice. Subsequent sips yielded orange and apple. There was an oily mouthfeel, buttery, and smooth. Brown sugar and honey came shortly after. I would guess this is not a high proof bourbon, most likely around 80 proof. Very nice.