It was June, and the world smelled of roses

If on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut

Whiskey #5 - Woodford Reserve Double Oaked

Classification: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Finished In A Second Oak Barrel
Country: United States of America
Region: Kentucky (Shivley: 38.207°N -85.795°W and Versailles: 38.113°N -84.812°W)
Mash Bill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, 10% Malted Barley
Strength: 45.2% ABV (90.4° Proof)
Color: Natural Color
Filtration: Non-chill Filtered
Maturation: No Age Statement in 100% New Charred Oak (twice)
Price: $49.99 (ABC Fine Wine & Spirits)

Overview

What better whiskey to send during Kentucky Derby month than a whiskey from a distillery that is recognized as the oldest remaining distillery in the Bluegrass State. Incredibly, month five brings the fourth unique whiskey classification sampled into the spotlight - a finished bourbon whiskey.

The laws regarding labels found on American Whiskey are notoriously stringent and exact. In a nutshell, a bourbon whiskey is only allowed to go from the still to a new charred oak barrel to a bottle. One mildly pedantic note - between the still and the barrel and the barrel and the bottle, you can put your bourbon into proofing vats where water is added to bring the bourbon to a desired proof. Also, bourbon can be filtered - gently (strained) or aggressively (chill-filtration) - between the barrel and the bottle.

If your bourbon's journey deviates from that formula, then you cannot legally label it as bourbon. The solution - producers apply for a label disclosing precisely how the whiskey's journey deviated from the legally approved journey and definition. Popular finished bourbons include Angel's Envy (bourbon finished in Port casks) and Maker's Mark 46 (bourbon finished with seared French Oak staves). Perusing the shelf of your favorite bottle shop, I am betting you will see numerous finished bourbons from other producers, specifically bourbons finished in ex-wine barrels. Finishing techniques afford producers great creative avenues in offering additional whiskeys without having to change the base distillate; this simultaneously preserves the pedigree and authenticity of their straight whiskey while allowing flexibility in catering to different tastes and preferences.

As for Month 5, Woodford Reserve is one of three bourbons produced by Brown Forman; Early Times and Old Forester complete their bourbon portfolio. Brown Forman proudly state that Woodford Reserve Bourbon was engineered to be a perfectly balanced bourbon with no one aspect dominating the overall whiskey. Double Oaked begins life as standard Woodford Reserve Straight Bourbon. While standard Woodford Reserve has no age statement, Brown Forman have verbally stated that the bourbon is around seven years old. At this point, some Woodford Reserve is sent to the bottling line while the remaining Woodford Reserve is put in a second, brand-new barrel that has been deeply toasted and lightly charred. The whiskey spends approximately one year in its second barrel resulting in Woodford Double Oaked.

When you think about it, Woodford Double Oaked is a very expensive way to produce a whiskey - Brown Forman pays for not one, but two barrels to produce Double Oaked. And if that were not enough, last year Woodford Reserve debuted a Double Double Oaked - rather than bottle a finished Double Oaked, they instead poured it into yet another toasted and lightly charred barrel for an additional year of maturation. And since the law dictates bourbon must go into a brand new barrel, none of the barrels involved can be used again to produce bourbon. There is of course a voracious Scottish appetite for used bourbon barrels, so not all is lost for Brown Foreman as they are able to sell their old barrels to house aging single malts across the pond.

The Woodford Reserve distillery itself really is a thing of beauty and is the oldest operational distillery in the state of Kentucky. Elijah Pepper established the distillery in 1780 and his son Oscar Pepper hired a legendary Scottish chemist - Dr. James Crow - to run the distillery in the early 1800s. Dr. Crow is regarded by some to be the first distiller to document and standardize the various chemical engineering aspects of whiskey distillation. He is often credited with being the first to show analytically why the sour mash process (adding fermented mash from a previous batch to the current batch's fermentation) produced superior and consistent whiskey. While no one individual can lay claim as the creator of bourbon and a conclusive, exhaustive history of who did what and when in regard to bourbon will never be known, Dr. James Crow is held in the highest regard and is considered an undisputed titan in the early days of bourbon production and acceptance.

Should you ever visit the Woodford Reserve distillery, you will see they operate three traditional copper pot stills rather than a column still. Bourbon distilleries overwhelmingly utilize continuous column stills rather than pot stills. Woodford explains their deviation as a nod to the traditional production techniques employed at the distillery upon its founding long before the continuous column still had been invented. There is one subtlety buried in the fine print however - almost all Woodford Reserve bourbon is actually a combination of pot and column distilled whiskey with the column distilled component coming from Brown Foreman's Early Times/Old Forester Shivley Kentucky distillery. There is no official word on the proportion of pot-distilled to column-distilled whiskey in Woodford Reserve but un-aged column distillate is shipped in and mingled with the pot distillate and then put in barrels to begin its maturation. The lone exception - any whiskey released under Woodford Reserve's Master's Collection has to date been produced exclusively using distillate from Woodford's traditional pot stills.

One final Woodford tidbit - Lincoln Henderson was Woodford's first master distiller when the distillery was un-mothballed in the early 1990s. During his forty year tenure with Brown Foreman, Lincoln Henderson not only created Woodford Reserve but also Gentleman Jack and Jack Daniel's Single Barrel. One of Lincoln's rejected proposals during his time at Woodford's helm was an ex-port barrel finished variant of Woodford Reserve. A few years after retiring, Lincoln and his son Wes decided to resurrect that port-finished bourbon idea and open their own distillery - Angel's Envy.

Tasting Notes

Group Impressions

Yet again another month of fantastic and intriguing impressions. Many noted sweetness and wood. Spice and/or alcohol burn was noted to wildly varying degrees which illustrates just how subjective taste is - there are no wrong impressions here. Interestingly, water and ice was considered to wash the whiskey out far too much with most enjoyment yielded by sipping neat. Thanks again to all, we'll celebrate by raising a glass of Month Six's sample in June!

Jonathan Quayle Higgins
Color
Yowzers, the color is incredibly dark brown/copper. Knowing this is a bourbon where artificial color is illegal, it is staggering to see the color achieved here and really shows the color-inducing power of new charred oak barrels.

Nose
Surprisingly no woody resin at all. Carmel, big caramel hit right off the bat. Caramelized sawdust. A green lumber (mild). Mocha, chocolate. A wisp of coffee. A wisp of cherry. A wisp of apple. My oh my what a delightful nose, really inviting.

Taste
Whoa, rush of spice, unexpected rush of spice, peppery. Amazing rush of spice considering I did not get a whisper of it on the nose. Like being surprised by a black racer while walking through your yard. No harshness. Medium-high prickle. Coffee note persists on the taste. The initial rush of spice/pepper hides the bourbon taste until the mid-palate. Half-way through the taste, the bourbon comes through though. Amazing sensation - it’s like the bourbon is wrapped in a pepper shell that you have to break away. There is a buttery smoothness on back-end of the sip, this is a testament to the whiskey not being chill-filtered I suspect. On the tail-end of the taste, just a tad of tannic bitterness comes out; not surprising given this whiskey’s ferocious wood exposure.

Finish
Medium length. No kentucky hug. No drying finish. Coffee and a bit of brown sugar. Mild pepper. Some mocha/chocolate as well; reminds me of Mexican chocolate with chili peppers.

Overall
Before this sample, I had only ever consumed a half-ounce pour of Woodford Double Oaked. This is quite an interesting whiskey and not what I was expecting before popping the cork. I feel the nose runs circles around the taste - it is a heavenly smell coming from the glass. The spice/pepper on the taste was unexpected and I dare say a bit too powerful for my tastes. The sweetness battles the spice with the spice going all 12 rounds and getting the unanimous decision at the end.

It’s easy to roll your eyes at the pedantic and exact nature of labeling laws, but this whiskey cemented in my mind the importance of said labeling laws. This does not taste of a traditional bourbon to me and if it were allowed to be labeled as a bourbon alone, it would be quite confusing to me as a consumer. I tasted the Double Oaked alongside normal Woodford Reserve (on Derby Day no less!) and it really was staggering how significant an impact that additional year in a new barrel had on the bourbon. Normal Woodford had a fraction of the spice influence found in Double Oaked. I would love to know the chemistry behind how the second barrel acts as an amplifier for the spice.

For my second pour, I used the Double Oaked in an Old Fashioned (two parts Double Oaked, one part Knob Creek Rye, one tablespoon of pure maple syrup, and six dashes of Peychaud's bitters) and kudos to Woodford - the Double Oaked’s character stood up tall and proud in the cocktail. It was a delicious cocktail but I have to ask myself - why would I use a $50+ whiskey in a cocktail? Personally, I have zero issue spending premium dollars on a premium whiskey, but my one rule is a whiskey that commands a premium price must be enjoyable neat first and enjoyable on ice or in cocktails second. I cannot say today that I enjoy Woodford Reserve Double Oaked neat. That rush of spice is a tad off-putting to me and I say that as a straight rye whiskey fan.

For my money and personal tastes, I will be sticking with normal Woodford Reserve. I enjoy sipping normal Woodford neat and I use it in conjunction with a feistier bourbon when making cocktails. That is not to say that I dislike Double Oaked, it’s just not worth the price premium over normal Woodford to my tastes and use. Really a fun whiskey to try and I am certainly grateful that Brown Forman go to the expense to produce Double Oaked.

Waldo Norris
Appearance:
This is certainly the darkest of the samples we have received. A deep copper color, certainly lend to some of the flavor compounds.  It seems that the legs run quite fast down the side of the cup and don’t stick around long.

Smell:
Smells of dark fruits (or dried fruits) come across strongly on the nose. Plums, raisins are mixed with a strong smell of vanilla.

Taste:
I really liked this, and my immediate thought was how I could see this being a great addition to my collection. It is very drinkable neat, and was even better with a few drops of h20. I also added an ice cube to this, as I really enjoy a single small ice cube in many of the whiskeys i drink, but I did find that it watered it down, where much of the goodness was lost. This has a very soft flavor up front, a good overall bite, not too strong, and a soft finish. It disappears from the palette quite quickly after the swallow.

Overall:
As I hinted, I enjoyed this, albeit, not in my normal way with a single ice cube. I preferred this neat, it simply gave me the most flavor, and given the great balance to the spice, I felt this was more than adequate for this particular whiskey. I do believe we have a bourbon, but given my relatively new foray into this Whiskey learning process, I could easily have picked a scotch as well. Most of my experience with scotches have been heavily peated scotches, and I’m not picking up on that here. I would guess this is a fairly youthful whiskey, with a middle of the road 80 proof. After last months sample, overall I would say this is a simple, straightforward whiskey, nothing terribly unique about it, but given the sample last month… anything is.

Apollo
At first glance this one looked interesting. It had a very dark brown, almost reddish color and long-lasting legs. After a whiff, though, I wasn't so sure. It had a strong smell of alcohol and and it smelled rather sweet, which, for me, wasn't very appealing.

I sampled it neat, as usual, and was initially unimpressed. It tasted just as sweet as it smelled, and that's a lot more sweetness than I like in a whiskey. As far as the tasting notes, I noticed a caramel flavor and possibly something fruity. It had a pretty strong alcohol burn at first, but that lessened as I worked my way through the glass.

I'm thinking this was either a higher proof whiskey, or a young one, because of the burn. Based on the color and the sweetness, I'm going to guess that this one was a bourbon.

While I initially thought that I didn't like it at all, it did grow on me a bit as I drank it. I don't think I would choose to drink it very often, but it was interesting how my impression had improved by the end of the sample. Then again, that might just be another indication that it's higher proof!

Keoki
One of the great things about food and drink is how it ties us to memories.  Some foods take me back to childhood. It's a nice little reminder of the past.

However, bourbon and I have a checkered past.

Cheap bourbon was drunk on way too many college nights---generally the cheapest rotgut I could buy.

Because of this, I have an aversion to the smell. Or at least I thought I did.

Upon smelling the sample I immediately knew it was bourbon, not Scotch. Bourbon has a unique, almost yeasty smell to me. Now, I generally don't enjoy bourbon because I feel it is too sweet.

This months sample had a darker color than most scotch color. It held to the glass well. I decided to drink it neat.

I'll tell you, it wasn't bad. Bad college memories didn't surface. I actually enjoyed the drink---not as much as scotch, mind you---but still, not bad. Sometimes when I tell people who don't drink scotch or bourbon how sweet (most) bourbons are (especially compared to scotch), they don't believe me. It is, however the first thing I tasted. It almost needs a little water to cut through the intensity. Besides that, I tasted brown sugar and vanilla on the nose/tongue.

Before the tasting, I would never go for bourbon at a party if scotch was not available. This may change my mind. Certainly not every time, but I'm not opposed to it either.

What will be interesting is if I can distinguish any differences between other bourbons in the coming months---it's a new world for me.

Michael Doheny
We're drinkin', my friend, to the end of a brief episode.

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.

Her body was a perfect copper, like the skin of a dame you may find sunbathing at the beautiful Cal Neva Lodge and Casino in Tahoe. She had a sweet and exotic scent to her. Like when your Pop would bring back a candy from when he’d been on the road. Her legs were long a sweeping, like a golden wave receding from the shore.

First taste had a smack of a hot toddy, a toffy, or bite of caramel met with a rush of warmth. I steeped the drink in my mouth and then down the gullet it went. A sharp burn accompanied the liquid as something inside of me started a symphony of heat and definitely had me intrigued. A couple more sips and the flavors danced in my mouth. There seemed to be a soft oak or woody flavor whispering to my tongue. When I drew air into my mouth it unbuttoned a tobacco scent of taste. The last taste was smooth, with virtually none of the burn, just a glowing warmth between my gums.

Second sample, after the water did that crazy witchcraft, was like a whole different cat. Her color was no longer that Coppertone knockout, this was some floozy at a gin joint on the outskirts of Vegas. I wafted it towards me an wondered Why doesn't the breeze delight me? Even that sweet scent was vacant. The legs were runny, weak, and all over the place. The splash of water took the starch right out of this sample. Any heat was eratidaced and the flavor was washed out, like favorite, faded shirt. It reminded me of flavored ice cream, like when my mom would get me a scoop of rum raisin as a kid. I can't believe it, it's hard to conceive it, the spirit had no fight left in it all.

Would ice make this dame sparkle or sink her like the titanic? I poured the 2oz over the ice. I still get the same old tingle that I feel inside when I hear that ice crack. Her color was like a skin of some young philly who was on her first day by the pool, with liberal dose of sunscreen. Smell was overwhelmed by the diffusing ice. Then, something that simply mystifies me, the flavor was completely changed. It wasn’t exotic or tasty, it was like burnt popcorn. There was a bitterness that stained the liquid and was augmented by a sharp and lasting burn. It was like licking batteries a kid. I let the ice and water tame it a bit, but in doing so the flavor was sunk like that White Star liner. It was almost tasteless by the end. The final swallows were a mercy for the once proud dame.

What do I think this is, well I got plenty o'nothin'.

Since it reacted similarly to ice the way Deanston had back in tasting number one, I’m going to say it is a Single Malt Scotch Whisky

Zeus
Appearance:
Dark amber, perhaps the darkest from the samples. Decent legs.

Smell:
Woody, sweet, spicy are my thoughts when I first breathed it in. Fruity seemed to come through. Maybe a raisin smell. Very nice, almost my ideal scent.

Taste:
Nice taste on touch down. No major burn. Very balanced. Woody taste was not as apparent as I thought it would be based on the smell. Not terribly strong taste. Almost like water was already added to it. Wait a minute, did someone WATER DOWN MY SAMPLE?!!?!!!

After adding rocks it weakened the taste more. Far more then I like.

Finish:
After a few seconds I did get a much stronger burn then I expected.  Woody taste came through a little more. It fades quick, maybe 5 seconds top.

After adding rocks it had no noticeable burn.

General Thoughts:
I'm pretty confused on what this could be. I think it's probably a bourbon. However, it could be a very smooth mild Scotch. Overall this is an excellent sipping whiskey. Most whiskeys have me yearning to put rocks into shortly after taking it neat. This guy made me finish it without wanting to nab some ice cubes on my first pour. Adding rocks was far too much. Definitely not a high proof whiskey.

Carol Baldwin
Appearance: golden brown

Smell: butterscotch, wood, tobacco, leather

Taste:
Neat, first sip was very sharp with a strong alcohol burn. In subsequent sips the initial sharpness remained, but the hint of woody butterscotch background flavor peeked through.

Finish: Astringent, woody.

General Thoughts:
The smell drew me in; it seemed lucious and decadent with warm butterscotch and hints of wood and leather. I was surprised that the taste when sampled neat was not so complex on my tongue. The flavor was immediately sharp with a fiery alcohol burn. The finish was bitter and astringent. A single ice cube brought out a hint of the flavors I smelled. It seems this whiskey's flavor profile does improve with a tiny bit of dilution. The finish remained astringent.

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.