Day #1 - 2022 Whiskey Advent Calendar

 

A few housekeeping notes before we kick things off. The whiskey Advent calendar I am working through came with the spiffy Glencairn glass seen above and each whiskey sample is 50 ml (~1.7 ounces). I'll record my impressions in a stream of consciousness style, jotting down thoughts as they come to mind. Once satisfied with my impressions, I'll reveal the whiskey and conclude with some final thoughts on the dram. I am interested to see how attuned my Spidey-senses are in profiling and predicting what it is I am enjoying. Let's get to sipping!

Immediately upon pouring, my initial sniff took me to Scotland and a malted barley based whiskey. By the time I made it from the kitchen to the living room chair, my mind had shifted drastically however. Grassy spearmint aromas soon whisked me away from Scotland and towards North America; specifically rye whiskey. As time has passed, my mind further solidified on the rye whiskey guess. Unlike most American whiskies, this sample does not have a pronounced oak or corn influence. The classic hallmarks of an American whiskey are bold vanilla, oak, and lumber aisle aromas, none of which are present in this dram. There is zero astringency or solvent aspect to this whiskey. It smells like a moderate, but not high proof spirit.

The taste further convinces me this is indeed a rye - very low sweetness, grassy, mint, some herbal/floral savory notes, and definite pepper spice all waft over my tongue. There are no sharp edges to this whiskey, it feels aged sufficiently long enough to buff out the harshness. The barrel has been gentle here - very little oak influence to my tastes. There is a pleasant bitterness towards the end of the sip, further pushing me to the rye side of the spectrum. As for proof, I'm sticking with my initial 'moderate' assessment. Above 40% but below 50%, let's split the difference and go for 45% ABV.

The finish is moderate in length with spearmint and pepper spice lingering the longest. This is a dry whiskey, very little sweetness to my tastes but also not a drying whiskey, the tannin levels seem low.

The conundrum for me is virtually every United States produced rye I've had tends to have a significant percentage of corn (upwards of 39%) and that heavy corn influence produces a rye whiskey that is much sweeter than what I am tasting here. I'm thinking this whiskey has a very high rye percentage but because there is not a significant oak influence, it has not been matured in new oak barrels.

My Guess

Type/Style: Rye Whiskey

Region: North America (Canada)

Age: 6 to 10 years old

Maturation: Oak, no wine influence, not first fill

Strength: 45% ABV

Producer: No idea, but I'll go with a wild-ass guess of Alberta Premium

Sip, Mix, or Skip?: Mix. A bit too dry and herbal for me to want to sip, but those qualities will lend scads of character to a cocktail. A Black Manhattan comes to mind as a lovely destination for this whiskey.

 

Reveal

Name: Fistful of Bourbon

Type/Style: Blend of five Straight Bourbons

Region: North America (USA)

Age: Non-age stated (minimum of 2 years)

Maturation: New charred oak

Strength: 45% ABV

Producer: William Grant & Sons

Price: $25

 

Official Tasting Notes

 

Why Fistful of Bourbon, you ask? They're probably fans of spaghetti westerns over there, but the official version goes like this: Each finger represents a different Whiskey that went into the final blend. That's five fingers and five juices. One that's sweet & smooth, a green & floral one, a warm & spicy one, a creamy toffee one, and a cinnamon & licorice one, all of them proper Straight Bourbons. Take it neat or mix it up, you have William Grant & Sons' blessing each way. Here's hoping it turns into a trilogy ― we'd love to see a few Fistfuls more. 

Final Thoughts

Whoa. I am gobsmacked. I truly thought I was sipping on a rye here, but it is indeed a blend of straight bourbon whiskies. How amusing that my initial thoughts took me to Scotland when this is produced by the folks who own/operate the legendary Balvenie and Glenfiddich scotch distilleries. Sadly, nothing is officially known in regard to which bourbons make up this blend, nor how old they are. Given its price, I presume each whiskey is fairly young, but not so young that the whiskey reeks of immaturity. The lack of oak and vanilla steered me away from the United States, but bravo to the folks who blended this, they produced a very well (too well?) controlled whiskey in regard to its oak influence. I think this bourbon is a cracking good deal considering its $25 MSRP. I've consumed far less enjoyable/interesting bourbons that cost much more than this.

 

On the upside, I did manage to zero in on the floral, grassy, spicy nature of this whiskey and I did nail the strength of the whiskey perfectly. Back in my younger years I played a lot of golf. Now golf is a notoriously humbling game where the bulk of one's time on the links is often filled with frustration and disappointment. No matter how miserable one's round is however, the golfing fates will often inject a stroke or two of miraculous awesomeness that proves to be just the elixir to woo you back to a game you had earlier forsaken. So it shall be with nailing the strength for me tonight. Oh sure, I totally shanked on the vanilla and oak, but hey, I aced the proof like a guy with a Green Jacket or two hanging in the closet. Ha! Until tomorrow night.

Challenge Accepted - 2022 Whiskey Advent Calendar

 

Happy December y'all! After years of hemming and hawing, I succumbed to curiosity and procured a whiskey Advent calendar. Twenty four sequentially numbered whiskey samples intended to be consumed on consecutive days. As someone who does not drink whiskey daily, who does not remotely come close to drinking whiskey daily, the proposition sounds daunting.

 

While I cannot guarantee I’ll keep to the daily schedule, I can promise that I’ll work my way through all twenty four. Each shall be tasted blind and celebrated with its own post capturing my impressions in real time. At a minimum, I'll take a guess at the type of whiskey as well as its proof. If truly inspired, I'll try to name the distillery/producer of each, but at a minimum I'll be sure to relay exactly what each sample was after my tasting is complete. Let's get to sipping!

The Frisco Sour

 

One housekeeping note: Going forward, I am shaking up the layout of cocktail recipe posts. Lately, I've come to abhor the trend of cooking blogs wrapping a recipe in a detailed, verbose dissertation of personal discovery, often with a corresponding photo essay. Invariably the actual recipe, you know, the list of ingredients, their proportions, and preparation techniques becomes a footnote to a otherwise lengthy post. Adding insult to annoyance, countless dynamic inline advertisements are injected into the page as you scroll down which not only slows the whole scrolling process, but often interrupts attempts to instantly transport your view to the bottom of the page to get to the recipe. So, in the spirit of leading off every impressions post with a 'tl;dr summary' before delving into the nitty gritty, I shall lead off cocktail-centric posts with the recipe, then the commentary follows. Let's get to mixing!

Ingredients

• 2.0 ounces bourbon or rye whiskey (bourbon tilts to sweetness whereas rye tilts to herbal savoriness)
  
• 0.5 ounces Bénédictine
• 0.5 ounces lemon juice
• Lemon Twist
  

Composition

Place all ingredients in a cocktail shaker, add ice, and shake well until the drink is thoroughly chilled. Strain into your preferred glass and squeeze the lemon twist over the surface of the drink, optionally dropping the twist in for garnish.

 

Commentary

Oftentimes a cocktail's deliciousness is proportional to its ingredient list. Few and far between are the libations whose tastiness dwarfs its components, but today's concoction, the Frisco Sour, is just such a drink. I came across this recipe while researching a cocktail mentioned in a chapter of Lew Bryson's enjoyable 'Tasting Whiskey'. Lew's book mentions the Frisco cocktail and after a bit of Google research, I learned of the Frisco Sour variant. Both versions contain rye (or bourbon) and the herbal French liqueur Bénédictine. A Frisco contains only one additional ingredient, a lemon twist, whereas a Frisco Sour adds an equal measure of lemon juice matching the Bénédictine.

Personally, I opted for the Frisco Sour as I always gravitate towards cocktails containing fresh citrus. As for the primary spirit, many recipes call for a rye whiskey, but using a bourbon also works quite well. The bourbon version tends to be a bit sweeter and sips like a nicely spiked lemonade whereas the rye version tends to be a bit more savory and lessens the lemon's presence. While I've found this drink is fairly consistent regardless of which bourbon is used, it's a different story when using rye. By law, all rye whiskey produced in the United States is distilled from a mash containing a minimum of 51% rye grain. Many producers stick fairly close to that 51% requirement, but some opt for a mash containing upwards of 95% rye. The difference between a 51% rye and a 95% rye is noticeable. Both are delicious but know, as the rye percentage increases, the sweetness decreases and the grassy/herbal influence increases. Tailor your whiskey selection to your preferences but don't be afraid to experiment.

 

A half-ounce of Bénédictine may seem like a strong pour given Bénédictine's unique honey/herbal vibe, but it is amazing how seamlessly the French liqueur melds with the whiskey and the lemon juice. Keen readers will note that the Frisco Sour is really nothing more than a spin on a Whiskey Sour. While true, I've been reading about folks tinkering with further variations, including substituting Chartreuse for the Bénédictine. Also some use a combination of lemon and lime juice, though I would not recommend solely using lime juice as this drink definitely requires a bit of lemon in my opinion.

That's all for now, until next time, cheers!

 

“And I like large parties. They’re so intimate. At small parties there isn’t any privacy.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

The Royal Bermuda Yacht Club

 

First referenced in Trader Vic's 1947 Bartender's Guide, the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club is a delicious variation of a traditional Daiquiri. While there is indeed an actual namesake establishment, I am unsure how and why the drink came to be named. Perhaps a bit of field research is needed, meanwhile, what is totally devoid of uncertainty is the complimentary cohesiveness of this concoction. Like a spiked, spiced limeade, fans of the citrus world's green gem are sure to be delighted. While lime is the dominant flavor, the rum and falernum bring an interesting mix of spice and sweet. Tying the whole experience together is the curacao, which while never dominant, is always detectable.

 

Ingredients

• 2.0 ounces aged rum (see Rum Minutiae note below)
• 0.75 ounces lime juice
• 0.50 ounces falernum
• 0.25 ounces dry curacao
• Dash of simple syrup (optional, only if needed)
  

Composition 

Place all ingredients in a cocktail shaker, stir, and taste. If too bitter/citrus-heavy for your tastes, add a dash of simple syrup. Once satisfied, add ice to the shaker and shake, rattle and roll for a good 15 to 20 seconds. Strain into a glass, traditionally stemware, but you can use whatever tickles your fancy. Sit back, sip, and give a silent nod of thanks to the tiki enthusiasts around the globe that not only created but preserved these concoctions through the years.

Rum Minutiae

Most recipes call for a Barbados rum, which I too echo. I've also quite enjoyed using Guyana rums, particularly El Dorado. You will want a rum with 3-10 years of age under its belt. Unlike a traditional daiquiri, I'd avoid a rum younger than 3 years of age. 

 

Recently I've enjoyed a hybrid approach to the rum selection - using an ounce of 5-year El Dorado and an ounce of a finished Barbados rum, either Doorly's XO or Mount Gay XO. The Doorly's hails from the Foursquare distillery and spends 6 years in ex-bourbon before being finished for a short period of time in ex-sherry barrels. The Mount Gay XO is a blend of rums aged 5 to 17 years with components of the blend spending time in ex-American whiskey barrels (both bourbon and non-bourbon) and ex-Cognac barrels. These finished rums from Barbados inject a nice dash of added complexity to an already satisfying libation.

 

The final rum note is the recommendation to avoid using aged Jamaican rums in this drink. While I personally adore Jamaican rums, the funk they bring to cocktails clashes more than it compliments in this particular cocktail. Don't fret though, Jamaican rums have plenty of other concoctions where their presence is mandatory, simply store the funk for use another day. Cheers!

 

Montrose & Sons Caol Ila 10-Year

Classification: Single Malt Scotch Whisky
Country: Scotland
Region: Islay (Port Askaig: 55.854°N -6.109°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Malted Barley
Strength: 47.1% ABV (94.2° Proof)
Color: Unknown (suspect natural color)
Filtration: Non-chill Filtered
Maturation: 10 years in 100% ex-bourbon casks
Price: $64.97 (Total Wine)

 

Tl;dr summary - A remarkably enjoyable Caol Ila from an independent bottler that little is known about. Whisky hailing not only from a single cask but an independent bottler can oftentimes be quite unique from official offerings from the source distillery, but not here. Caol Ila’s signature profile of modest peat, lemon peel, and vanilla is instantly recognizable proving that this particular cask was no oddball being discarded by the distillery. Priced fairly and bottled with little alteration, this malt is a great representation of not only Islay’s largest distillery but the splendid potential of independently sourced barrels of whisky.

While Ardbeg, Lagavulin, and Laphroaig usually garner the lion’s share of the Islay spotlight, I’ve always been enamored with the malts from Caol Ila. Whiskies from Islay are renowned for their peat smoke influence and while Caol Ila is indeed peated, the magic of Caol Ila to me is how the smoke is more co-star than scene-stealer in the malt.

This particular bottle came into my life courtesy of Total Wine. Despite having never heard of Montrose & Sons (and Google not returning any compelling brand history), I took a leap based on the transparency of the whisky being offered: name of the distillery, age, higher than standard strength, non-chill filtered, and maturation cask details. Oh and all of the above offered at a reasonable asking price. There is always a risk that an independent bottling will not match the standard of official bottlings from the respective distillery, but in my anecdotal experience, I’ve never experienced a ‘bad’ independent whisky. What these independent whiskies tend to be is different from official bottlings. Personally I find this exciting and have stumbled across genuine gems of one-of-a-kind whiskies. And therein lies the rub - being an independent bottling and typically from a single-cask, these whiskies are destined to be one-and-done, never to be repeated affairs. Once the bottle is drained, that particular shooting star of a malt is gone forever. Don’t be sad that it’s over, be happy that it happened at all …. or something like that.

This 10-year old independent bottling does not stray too far from the Caol Ila I fell in love with all those years ago, the 12-year old. The majority of Caol Ila, particularly their younger offerings, is matured exclusively in ex-bourbon barrels. I suspect that commonality, combined with the independent only being two years younger than its official counterpart, play a large part in the similarities between these two. Where the Montrose & Sons example gains a significant edge however is in its bump in strength, 47.1% vs 43.0% to be precise. That extra 4.1% ABV may seem small, but does it ever amplify the experience. Flavors are more vibrant and reverberate longer. The malt has more margin for tinkering with dilution and is not as easily washed out as the standard offering. That last point is a bit moot however as this malt drinks beautifully at its full strength, indicating that the whisky spent all ten of its years in a quality barrel. I do suspect that Montrose & Sons diluted this Caol Ila down a bit before bottling - I’d wager the malt drained from the barrel at least 10% higher in strength. While I’d love a true cask-strength offering, I do applaud Montrose & Sons for leaving the proof above the standard offering’s 43%.

One final note - while Montrose & Sons do not state this whisky is natural in color, one look at the bottle and I feel safe in saying it is indeed au natural with no added artificial coloring. The same cannot be said for the official bottling of 12-year old Caol Ila. One of the sad realities of many Diageo whiskies is that they do indeed contain artificial coloring to make them appear darker. Also, the official bottling is chill-filtered to ensure perfectly clear whiskey, even when water/ice is added. Montrose & Sons gratefully did not chill-filter their Caol Ila and I believe their offering is stronger for it. Perhaps this difference in filtering also contributes to the 10-year being more vibrant and bright. In the past decade I’ve seen more and more producers abandon the use of both artificial coloring and chill-filtration as consumers become educated to both practices and realize that neither is needed to produce a quality whisky. Here’s to hoping that Caol Ila’s official offerings ditch both and let their signature malt sing its song unhindered.

Nose
Peat-smoke (shocking, I know), lemon, caramel/vanilla. A bit of seaweed/seashore. Passing scent of pine and mint.

Taste
The peat is more prominent in the taste than in the smell. Once acclimated, lemon oil begins to emerge. One of my favorite cocktails is a Sazerac which I garnish with a lemon twist that I drop in the drink (some will think that blasphemous for a Sazerac, to each their own). Anyway, after finishing a Sazerac, I usually eat that lemon twist, chewing and extracting the soaked-in remnants of the Sazerac combined with an intense hit of lemon oil, damn I find that tasty. I say all this to say that Caol Ila always makes me think of that lemon twist - every sip of Caol Ila I’ve had delivers that awesome lemon oil note. In addition to the lemon, there is a vanilla/caramel note, even a salted caramel note. This is not a dark caramel, more like a blonde caramel that has just started its turn from white/clear to light brown.

Finish
Dominated by citrus and peat smoke in equal parts. Vanilla and mint make an appearance, but this is a lemon-infused smoke show first and foremost. The finish is long and the peat smoke can linger in my sinuses for a number of hours. Really quite remarkable how that component sticks around for the long haul.

Overall
As I said, I’ve always enjoyed Caol Ila’s whisky. Happily their standard offerings are fairly easy to find and there are numerous independent bottlings of their whisky. I have yet to be disappointed by any of them, but keep in mind if you do not like peated whisky, then you will not like peated Caol Ila. Four years ago when our whiskey tasting group was knocking out monthly group tastings, Caol Ila 12-year was month #4’s mystery whisky. It was in that tasting that Caol Ila’s legend grew exponentially for me as one participant penned one of the finest set of whiskey impressions I’ve ever read. It was the first peated whisky this taster had ever tried and boy oh boy did they hate the experience. Their concluding sentence has stuck with me to this day such that whenever I see a bottle of Caol Ila in the wild, their words reverberate in the ole noggin:

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.

Simply brilliant, and a vibrant reminder that oftentimes it’s the disappointments in life that tend to provide the greatest insight, humor, and hope for our future endeavors. As always, trust your senses, seek out what you like, and learn from the rest. Until next time.

Group Taste-off No. 14!

After a two year sabbatical (and what a couple of years they were), the band has reunited for yet another group tasting. This time around, two mystery whiskeys were sent out, one labeled as 'Green' and the other as 'Yellow'. The standard instructions for this tasting were augmented with the following additions: describe how these two whiskeys directly compared to each other, did each taster prefer one over the other, and lastly, would the taster purchase a bottle of either with their own hard-earned.

Unsurprisingly, the two whiskeys sent out were indeed closely related to each another and the group's whiskey-spidey-senses were all over it. But before we get to the group's impressions, let's remove the cloak of mystery and reveal our two whiskeys. Both Kentucky straight bourbons hailing from Brown-Forman's Old Forester distillery in Shively, Kentucky.

Whiskey 'Green':

Old Forester 1910 Old Fine Whisky
Classification: Kentucky Straight Bourbon
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky (Shively: 38.242N, -85.817W)
Mash Bill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, and 10% Malted Barley
Strength: 46.5% ABV (93.0° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Unknown (most likely non-chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown duration in new charred American oak followed by unknown duration in a new, heavily charred American oak barrel
Price: $54.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

 

Whiskey 'Yellow':

Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style
Classification: Kentucky Straight Bourbon
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky (Shively: 38.242N, -85.817W)
Mash Bill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, and 10% Malted Barley
Strength: 57.5% ABV (115.0° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Unknown (most likely non-chill filtered)
Maturation: Unknown duration in new charred American oak
Price: $59.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

 

Established in 1870 by George Garvin Brown, as in the Brown of today's beverage giant Brown-Forman, Old Forester bourbon has been offered without interruption in the United States since its debut. It is the longest continually offered bourbon available today. By comparison, both 1910 and 1920 are but wee pups when plotted on Old Forester's historical chronology. While junior in terms of brand tenure, both 1910 and 1920 are members of Old Forester's Whiskey Row series which debuted in 2014. 1920 Prohibition Style joined the series in 2016, accompanying the 1870 Original Batch and the 1897 Bottled in Bond entries. Two years later in 2018, the 1910 Old Fine Whisky completed the series and all four are year-round standard offerings from Old Forester. One pedantic note: while unusual in American whiskey, Old Forester, like Maker's Mark, label their whiskey as 'whisky' in a nod to the Scottish ancestry found in the respective families of each product's founder.

 

Each of the four entries in the series is accompanied by a story explaining the historical significance of the respective product in Old Forester's lineup. The 1920 version celebrates the fact that the Old Forester distillery was one of only six distilleries permitted to remain in operation during the dark, dark days of Prohibition in the United States. Old Forester states during this period, whiskey was barreled at 50% ABV which would rise during the years of maturation as water evaporated from the barrels. The final result after maturation was a whiskey whose ABV was in the 57% range. Hence, the 1920 offering, labeled as a 'Prohibition Style' of Old Forester, is bottled at 57.5% ABV.

 

The 1910 offering has a similarly compelling story. According to Brown-Forman, on October 22, 1910, a fire on the bottling line halted production of Old Forester. Mature whisky that was in vats on the bottling line had to evacuated and was quickly transferred to secondary barrels and rolled to safety. When the rescued whiskey was eventually bottled, its taste was distinct enough to merit being bottled under a brand new label from Old Forester - Old Fine Whisky, making it the first official bottling of a double-cask matured bourbon.

 

Today's 1910 offering pays tribute to this history by taking standard Old Forester, proofing it down to 50% ABV, and transferring to a second heavily charred American oak barrel. Brown-Forman states that the second barrel used in 1910’s production is by far the heaviest char they have ever applied to a barrel. A standard Old Forester barrel receives ~22 seconds of flame exposure whereas the secondary barrels used in 1910’s production receive ~50 seconds. The folks at Old Forester have said in interviews that 1910's second barrel is charred almost to the point of incineration.

 

Coincidentally, Brown-Forman produce another whiskey that has very similar characteristics to 1910: Woodford Reserve Double Oaked. Like 1910, Woodford's Double Oaked begins life as a standard offering from its respective distillery that is then transferred to a new second barrel for a period of time. There are a few differences however. For starters, Woodford Reserve bourbon is actually a blend of pot-distilled whiskey produced at the Woodford Reserve distillery and column-distilled whiskey produced at the Old Forester distillery. Also, unlike the heavily charred barrel of 1910, Woodford's Double Oaked is transferred to a heavily toasted, but not charred second barrel.

While neither 1910 or 1920 disclose any age statements, there is some scuttlebutt and speculation guessing at each whiskey's age. It is believed that 1910 is a standard 4-year old Old Forester that is proofed down to 50% ABV and then spends 6-9 months in that heavily charred second barrel. The 1920 by comparison is thought to be a bit older, but not by much with speculation placing its age in the 5 to 6 year range. Both products are produced from Brown-Forman's standard bourbon recipe which is also used at Woodford Reserve, though as stated above, Old Forester is 100% column-distilled whiskey whereas Woodford Reserve is a blend of pot-distilled and column-distilled whiskey.

Official Tasting Notes

Old Forester 1910 Old Fine Whisky (courtesy of Old Forester)

 

 

Old Forester 1920 Prohibition Style (courtesy of Old Forester)

 

Group Impressions

I've long envisioned this tasting as I've always been intrigued by the effect maturation has on whiskey. To me, a whiskey's lifecycle can be divided into two phases. The first phase, progression from grain to beer to distillate, is pure chemical engineering. Highly consistent results can be obtained in this phase by the application of sound, thorough procedures and processes. The second phase, progression from freshly distilled ethanol to mature bottled whiskey, is just as much art as it is science. No two barrels are alike nor do they influence a whiskey in an identical manner. Factor in different barrel types and different locations where those barrels are stored and you have the potential for wildly diverse results in matured whiskey.

In this tasting, we have two whiskeys that are subjected to identical production techniques up until the point the Old Forester 1910 is transferred to a second charred oak barrel. How does this seemingly simple deviation change the end product? Significantly it turns out, but not so profoundly that it overwhelms the whiskey's foundational roots. As for the group's overall impressions, many immediately recognized both were bourbons, particularly a bourbon with a strong rye component. So pronounced was the rye, that a few tasters even theorized they were dealing with a rye whiskey. Impressively, some in the group displayed their keen senses speculating both whiskeys shared the same mash-bill and possibly hailed from the same distillery.

 

In regard to personal preferences, Green (Old Forester 1910) received 5 votes to Yellow's (Old Forester 1920) 3 votes making Old Forester 1910 the preferred whiskey in this tasting. It is worth noting however that two of the tasters, while willing to pick a preference, also stated that they would not purchase either for their home shelf.

 

Great stuff all around, and a special nod of appreciation to those who mixed some of their mystery whiskey into a libation and reported back!

Admiral Hawkes
Upon receiving these bottles I immediately held them both up to the light and observed that they had the exact same color.  Hmmmm... were we dealing with different treatments of the same mash bill? Then I opened each and had a sniff. They seemed to have the same aroma as well. I ruled out scotch but could not discern what type of whiskey we were dealing with. That had to wait.

I drank each of them neat twice.

Mr Green, in the kitchen, with a highball glass: The nose on this was quite different in the glass than it was confined in the small bottle. I kept thinking orange fruit, and settled on apricot as the dominant note. I knocked back the first taste, and noted a pretty good alcohol burn and a delightful finish. The note I wrote was, "not sure what it is, but I like it". I kept asking myself what I was tasting and thought maybe that this one was aged in a charred cask. As the glass was emptied, the aromatic notes intensified, presumably from the remnants on the side and bottom of the glass. If I were to bet, I'd say this whiskey was a rye, or had a good amount of rye in the mash bill. Liked it, and have enough left for a Manhattan, which may happen this evening.

Colonel Mustard, in the Conservatory, with a Candlestick: The yellow labeled sample confounded me. I had ruled out scotch from the sniff test, but this one had the mouth feel of a scotch to me. It was nutty on the nose, perhaps almonds were suggested. It has less of an alcohol burn than Mr. Green, and had a lightness to it that made it an enjoyable drink. If I were to guess on this one, I'd probably swerve and say Irish Whiskey based upon its Scotch-like character which I just couldn't dodge. The remnants of this one will go in a cup of coffee when I feel so inclined. If I am wrong, who cares? It is still kicked-up coffee (no whipped cream, please)!

Both were nice, and if I had to choose my taste leans toward Mr. Green.

Apollo
For this review I started with the green one. The color was a nice amber, on the dark side. It smelled strongly of alcohol and some spice and sweetness. I found it to be pretty harsh on the tongue, which led me to believe that this might be a higher proof whiskey than most. Honestly, I didn’t much care for this one. It was too sweet for me, which leads me to believe that it’s a bourbon. I didn’t care for the alcohol burn but when I tried it with an ice cube, that just brought out the sweetness even more.

The yellow one one was next. That seemed a little better to me. It was almost exactly the same color as the first one. The smell was a bit more gentle but it still had a sweetness to it. The taste confirmed the smell. It didn’t have as much burn as the green one but it was still too sweet for me.

Personally, I don’t think I’d buy a bottle of either one, but I’m not a big bourbon fan (I do enjoy bourbon-based cocktails, but if I’m drinking whiskey it’s normally scotch). I did prefer the yellow one to the green, though, since it was smoother. I got the impression that these were both bourbons and that the green one was probably higher proof or less mature.

Bottom line, I thought yellow was better than green. But they both get a pass from me.

Francis 'Icepick' Hofstetler
Yellow Label
My first impression was that this whiskey had a high alcohol content. Upfront it had a sweet taste, and I thought I tasted vanilla. The finish was more boozy. I tried the whiskey neat, but my larger pour was over a large ice ball. This is how I tend to drink any whiskey.

There wasn't anything I disliked about the whiskey. However, I tend to prefer whiskey's that are in the 40% alcohol range, and this seemed higher than that.

Based on the sweetness, I think this is bourbon. Possibly Colonel Taylor Small Batch.

Green Label
Like the Yellow Label one, this whiskey also had a high alcohol content. I didn't find this whiskey as sweet as the Yellow one, and it wasn't quite as smooth. It seemed more middle of the road. Not sweet and not too smokey either in taste or smell. I do think it is an American Whiskey, so I'm guessing it was a Rye. I drank this over an ice ball.

I preferred the Yellow Label, but I don't think I would purchase either due to what I deemed the high alcohol content. I simply find them a bit too harsh on my stomach, frankly.

 

Jonathan Quayle Higgins
Green: 1910
Smell: Wood resin, nail polish remover, medium charred oak. The addition of water eliminates the nail polish remover vibe. Cigar humidor

Taste: Faint fruit, sawdust, gentle alcohol, gentle brown sugar, near-immediate tannin sensation (drying). The addition of water brings out more wood.

Finish: Medium-length, sawdust, very gentle sweetness.

Yellow: 1920
Smell: Chocolate coated cherries, brown sugar, distant barrel char, vanilla, medium-light ethanol

Taste: Stronger alcohol, mint, strong fruit sugar, gentle wood, cinnamon candy

Finish: Oak, leather, vanilla, brown sugar, ethanol, cool mint, fermented corn mash. Long length.

General Notes

• Green is a touch darker than Yellow
• Both have an inherent sweetness on the nose.
• Green smells, tastes, and finishes drier and less sweet than Yellow
• Yellow is fruit, Green is wood.
• Neither is crap whiskey, the ethanol is well controlled in both and neither has any wood astringency. Both could be considered sippin’ whiskeys
• Yellow has a longer finish than Green but Yellow’s finish is much punchier with the ethanol
• Green aged well - the longer it sat in the glass, the more I enjoyed it. Yellow did not evolve as much, its experience stayed consistent, but green morphed and improved the longer it sat.
• Time in the glass plus water is Green’s best friend
• Green lacked the length of finish, but did have more complexity than yellow

Would I purchase either bottle? Yes, 1910 for sipping and 1920 for cocktails
Did I prefer one over the other? I’d say 1910 simply for how well it evolved in the glass with time

Waldo Norris
First impressions when I poured these 2 samples neat were on the noser. Both came out sweet, heavy vanilla, yellow had a slightly more spicy note to it than the green bottle. Green almost smelled like a candy corn. These 2 glasses however are incredibly similar in smell and while I am no connoisseur of smelly things, despite my years of trying to smell what those sommeliers of wine could smell, my nose is not good enough to pick up on the differences between these aside from the yellow bottle having slightly earthiness to it.

My first pour was neat, and this is where I picked up on the differences between these two... although still amazing is how different and similar they are. The Yellow was spicier, coated the tongue nicely and had a good amount of heat that stuck around for a good many seconds after. The green bottle is smoother, has almost no burn aside from a subtle amount on my lips. The green bottle despite it being spicy was a bit grassier and the yellow bottle had maybe a little orange peel type of feel to it.All that said again, had it not been for the difference between the spice differences between these 2 pours, they are super similar.

Mixed drink time! I decided to make 2 small, but enjoyable manhattans. Nothing fancy, and I avoided the sugar (ya know, to be healthier) and went with a lemon spritz and peel. The Yellow bottle had a nicer balance with the drink and I could pick up on the spice a little more than the green bottle. Both are quite enjoyable, but if I were to pick, I would go with the yellow bottle over the green. I just tend to want the whisky to stand out unless I am going for something very sweet.

I very much think we have a Rye in the Yellow bottle and a Bourbon in the Green.  

Because I am currently in more of a mixed drink phase lately, I would likely choose the yellow bottle over the green bottle.  I simply enjoyed the drink more. If I were going to drink neat or with an ice cube, I would enjoy the sweetness of the green more.

 I would say they came from the same distillery or even from the same label, but where's the fun in that.

Zeus
#1 Green
Appearance: Dark amber, looks like maple syrup

Smell: Slight sweet woody smell, reminds me of Woodford bourbon. Does smell maple like but it might be my subconscious throwing that in there due to the color.

Taste: Ohhh, much sweeter then I expected. Definitely a bourbon. Slight caramel taste. Is that maple? I think I taste maple. Damn you subconscious!

Finish: Slight bite a few seconds after sipping. Burn lasts way longer than a normal 80 proof, thinking it's 90 or 95 proof

General Thoughts: Very tasty! I'd like this as a base in a old fashion, which I promptly made into an old fashioned. It was as delicious as I had hoped for.

#2 Yellow
Appearance: Amber, slightly lighter than batch green

Smell: Whoa, much more burn in the smell than green. Not picking up much else other than my nostril hairs screaming at me

Taste: Holy moly, that seemed smoother than green on the initial taste. Another bourbon. Getting a more brown sugar taste out of yellow.

Finish: Burn does not last as long as green. Slight bitter taste that lingers.

General Thoughts: Pretty good!  I didn't like the finish  as much as green but it was very comparable.

How are these two whiskeys similar and/or dissimilar to each other?
Both are bourbons. Green is a bit darker. Green is sweeter, yellow is smoother. Maple notes always win with me. Some day they will perfect a whiskey that combines maple, butter, bacon, and waffles for a complete breakfast experience.

Did you like one more than the other?
Green would be my choice, but marginally so. The initial taste of yellow was better but green won on the finish. Might be less of a difference if they were in an old fashion.

Would you buy a bottle of either (or both or neither)?
Yes, either would be get Zeus's seal of approval.

Was one a clear-cut favorite or did you enjoy (or not enjoy) both fairly equally?
Only marginally like green better, enjoyed them both.

Carol Baldwin
#1 Green
Appearance: Dark caramel color

Smell: Sharp, sweet, slightly floral, green, caramel, alcohol.

Taste: Texture is smooth, somewhat viscous and rich. Taste is green and sharp, mellowing into warm caramel vanilla with an astringent finish.

Finish: Alcohol, astringent with a warming after-burn.

General Thoughts: This whiskey had an interesting evolution of flavors.  The sharpness seems to dominate on my palate, yet I keep sipping to get that progression from sharp green into warm vanilla caramel.

#2 Yellow
Appearance: Butterscotch caramel color

Smell: Slightly sharp alcohol, butterscotch caramel.

Taste: Smooth, rich toffee, butterscotch vanilla

Finish: Pleasantly smooth and rich, warm alcohol.

General Thoughts: Just a nice sipper all around. All of the flavors you expect with bourbon. I expect this would be nice in a cocktail as well.

How are these two whiskeys similar and/or dissimilar to each other? .
The Green labeled whiskey had a very pronounced sharpness and greenness to it (was this a hint regarding the contents?) with just a slight promise of mellow warm vanilla flavors. The finish was quite astringent. The Yellow labelled whiskey was noticeably more smooth on the palate, with pronounced warm vanilla flavors. The finish was smooth and warm.

Did you like one more than the other?
Yes, I prefer the Yellow labelled whiskey.

Would you buy a bottle of either (or both or neither)?
The Yellow!

Was one a clear-cut favorite or did you enjoy (or not enjoy) both fairly equally?
While the Green label was an interesting sip, I did prefer the Yellow overall.

Robin Masters
#1 Yellow   #2 Green

#1 has an orange-amber glow, is slightly more translucent and leaves a stationery ring of liquid behind at the crest of the swirl.

#2 is a slightly darker amber giving the impression it has either aged longer or been in a darker charred barrel. When swirled, it leaves a thicker coating of liquid behind producing a show of lazy cascading drops down the side of the glass. There is a slight bit more opaqueness to #2.

#1 starts out with smells of butterscotch, softer varnish, leading into ginger snap, grass, mint, verbena and finally into cinnamon red hot candy. There is a strong, sharp bite with a minty and buttery finish.

#2 starts out with a strongly sugary caramel smell and then shifts into coffee cake. A surprising strong wood varnish note overwhelms and fades into a recently blown out candle smoke. There is a softer bite, but a longer finish. Soft sweetness on the front end with a very delayed buttery end.

Both feel like a higher proof. Water was added after 3 sips. #1’s addition of water turned this one into a mean, and angry prickler. #2’s addition of water kept it nice, and a salt water taffy, salted dark caramel note surfaced. #2 is still leading in the sweetness category and the cascading drops show goes on completely unaffected by the water.

#1 is starting to turn more perfumy. #1 with water and time is starting to soften the sharp edges, and is getting smoother to drink, but still punchy. Vanilla.

#2 is mimicking characteristics of a high proof sherry whisky. Pile of aging autumn leaves. Banana. Sugary sweet finish. I would choose #2 if I had to pick between the two.

Redbreast Iberian Series: The PX Edition

Redbreast Iberian Series: The PX Edition
Classification: Single Pot Still Irish Whiskey
Country: Ireland
Region: County Cork (Midleton: 51.913°N 8.170°W)
Mash Bill: 100% Barley (mixture of malted and un-malted barley)
Strength: 46.0% ABV (92.0° Proof)
Color: Unknown (Internet speculation claims natural color)
Filtration: Unknown (Internet speculation claims non-chill filtered)
Maturation: No Age Statement (Internet speculation claims 8-10 years in ex-bourbon and ex-sherry then 12-22 months in Pedro Ximénez sherry hogshead casks)
Price: $104.99 (Total Wine)

Tl;dr summary - Another stunner from the folks at the New Midleton Distillery. While unique enough to justify its existence among other Redbreast offerings, this PX Edition of the Iberian Series to my tastes is most reminiscent of the fabled 12-year. The aroma of the whiskey steals the show, relegating the finish and taste to second and third place respectively. Honey, toasted macadamia nuts, vanilla latte, gentle white pepper, raisins, and ripe plum all make appearances at various points. Like the Lustau Edition, the sherry influence is elevated from the standard 12-year yet is understandably quite different thanks to the usage of Pedro Ximénez in this version. Safe to say this whiskey will be a regret-free purchase for fans of both Redbreast as well as Pedro Ximénez finished whiskeys.

What we have today is the second entry in Redbreast’s ‘Iberian Series’. The series was launched to pay homage to the various styles of sherry whose barrels are so treasured for their delicious influence on Redbreast’s Irish whiskey as it matures. Unlike the first entry in the series, the Lustau Edition which is now a permanent entry in Redbreast’s portfolio, this second entry, called the PX Edition as it utilizes Pedro Ximénez barrels, is meant to be a limited one-time release.

Like every limited release from Redbreast that has come before, I knew the odds would be against me when it came to procuring a bottle from a local retailer. Frustratingly, Redbreast availability in my area has been spotty for the past few years, especially for anything other than their standard 12-year offering. Imagine my delight when seven(ish) weeks ago while perusing a reputable online retailer’s inventory I was able to place an order for a bottle of the PX Edition. Being able to nab a limited release whiskey from an online retailer at MSRP is a tremendous stroke of luck and not a typical experience for me. As it turned out, things were indeed too good to be true. Two weeks after placing the order, I received a notification that fulfilling the order would take longer than anticipated due to the vague, yet common refrain of ‘supply chain issues’ and ‘COVID-related delays’. “Okay, a delay is no big deal” I thought, “after all, I am still getting the whiskey”. Two and half weeks after that, I received a second notification, this one telling me that my order was being canceled and refunded in full due to unforeseen issues on the retailer’s side. I was disappointed and a tad dejected as I presumed this was going to be one Redbreast I would not be able to try, but King Brian must have been looking out for me because a St. Patrick’s Day miracle was on the horizon.

On that most Irish of holidays, I stopped off at my local Total Wine not for whiskey, but to replenish a recently depleted bottle of Appleton Estate 8-year. As I made my way past the whiskey aisle en route to the rum aisle, I noticed, expectedly I suppose, that the Irish whiskey section had been dutifully well stocked. Imagine my delight when I saw the particular shelf housing the Redbreast offerings not only had a full complement of their standard products, but a complete row of the harder-to-find entries like the 21-year, the 27-year and yes, miraculously, this new PX Edition of their Iberian Series. How fitting to find this crock of single pot still Irish gold on St. Paddy’s day. Thanks King Brian, I am forever grateful.

Normally I collect my impressions and opinions of a given whiskey spread across numerous pours enjoyed through the better part of a month. That tradition was broken for this set of impressions, so giddy was I at my Irish good fortune that I felt compelled to post earlier than I normally would. Should my impressions of this whiskey change in the coming months, I’m sure an update will be posted. With that disclosure in mind, let’s get to sipping.

Nose
Roasted macadamia nuts, prune/raisin, faint fresh cut green grass, very slight ethanol, cinnamon spice, a smell that reminds me of a vanilla latte as well as a mocha latte.

Taste
Strong ethanol punch at first. A good bit more oak in the taste. Cinnamon, nutmeg, candied fruit (like that found in a fruit cake), gentle brown sugar. Definite sherry vibe, but a good sherry vibe consisting of raisins and currants.

Finish
Medium to medium-long in length. Oak, cinnamon, raisin, and gentle vanilla.

Overall
The nose steals the show here. Ranking the experience, it is Nose > Finish > Taste for me. I am not implying that the taste is disappointing or bad, it’s just not as special as the smell and finish for me. In fact, I think the taste of the 12-year Cask Strength is substantially more interesting than the taste of the PX Edition. The Pedro Ximénez influence is definitely noticeable and happily quite different from the Lustau sherry influence in the Lustau Edition. While this whiskey has no age statement, there is no doubt in my mind that it is aged for a sufficient period of time as there are no rough, prickly alcohol edges. The oak is pronounced, but controlled. The sherry influence is strong, but not dominant. My personal benchmark for Redbreast is their 12-year Cask Strength and while this PX Edition is similar, the extra boost of Pedro Ximénez diverts this whiskey into a different (and enjoyable) direction.

While enjoyable, this PX Edition does not top the 12-year Cask Strength to my tastes. While I think this whiskey is worthy of its asking price, I will not be seeking out a second bottle to squirrel away for a future zombie apocalypse. Enjoyable, but not as enjoyable to my tastes as the fruitier, grassier, and nuttier 12-year Cask Strength. Considering this whiskey’s MSRP is comparable (note: many retailers are tacking on ~$20 kickers), my biggest criticism is its price - it costs the same(ish) as a superior offering in Redbreast’s lineup. Ultimately, an enjoyable whiskey with no critical flaws, a whiskey that fans of Pedro Ximénez finished whisky should seek out, but for fans of the 12-year Cask Strength, it is not worthy of moving heaven and earth to procure. For those customers, should King Brian snap his fingers and a bottle spontaneously appears in your path, by all means scoop it up, otherwise don’t fret for a moment if you never encounter a bottle in the wild. Cheers to Redbreast - you folks produce an outstanding lineup of Irish whiskey, nary a dud in the bunch.