Gillman
01-04-2012, 18:06
This is one of the most interesting bourbons I've had.
A friend brought this for a tasting from London.
The label states (apart from what the Title above indicates) that it is "Bourbon", not straight bourbon that is, from one barrel, at cask strength just under 60% ABV.
Colour was a rich russet sherry, somewhat different to most U.S. bourbons or ryes I've seen, it looked more like Macallan 18 years old.
And here's the thing, it tastes a lot like it, too, or any other sherried, well-aged malt. I'm not sure I would know it was bourbon if included in a flight of top Scots malts especially again sherry-aged ones. It was very soft and rich, smooth as butter on the palate with an intriguing but hard-to-define flavour. I sampled it at about 45% ABV, I should add.
Obviously the barrel was U.S.-origin and new charred wood (hence the "bourbon" moniker).
My inference is, the red layer conferred the colour and rich sweet taste, but due to long aging in Cadenhead's warehouse in Scotland, the whiskey didn't cycle deeply into the barrel beyond that layer because of the cold climate there. Hence lack of evident tannins and a tan colour. Yet, it did mature, and very well, but in a different way to Kentucky bourbon.
I would guess further the whiskey was sent over very young, under two years and possibly when just a few months old.
It shows I think that the Kentucky climate does confer something unique, or at least a climate like it.
It's a fine product and very distinctive.
Gary
P.S. The other possibility is it acquired malt whisky-like character through sitting in a warehouse for years surrounded by barrels of fine malt whisky but I incline against that theory. Tom Moore's bourbon, some of it, is aged in warehouses that also contain American brandy but it doesn't taste somewhat like brandy, it tastes like Kentucky bourbon. I think the effect of the Scots climate, interacting with the new charred barrel, explains the soft, rich, fruity, malt whisky-like taste, but I could be wrong.
A friend brought this for a tasting from London.
The label states (apart from what the Title above indicates) that it is "Bourbon", not straight bourbon that is, from one barrel, at cask strength just under 60% ABV.
Colour was a rich russet sherry, somewhat different to most U.S. bourbons or ryes I've seen, it looked more like Macallan 18 years old.
And here's the thing, it tastes a lot like it, too, or any other sherried, well-aged malt. I'm not sure I would know it was bourbon if included in a flight of top Scots malts especially again sherry-aged ones. It was very soft and rich, smooth as butter on the palate with an intriguing but hard-to-define flavour. I sampled it at about 45% ABV, I should add.
Obviously the barrel was U.S.-origin and new charred wood (hence the "bourbon" moniker).
My inference is, the red layer conferred the colour and rich sweet taste, but due to long aging in Cadenhead's warehouse in Scotland, the whiskey didn't cycle deeply into the barrel beyond that layer because of the cold climate there. Hence lack of evident tannins and a tan colour. Yet, it did mature, and very well, but in a different way to Kentucky bourbon.
I would guess further the whiskey was sent over very young, under two years and possibly when just a few months old.
It shows I think that the Kentucky climate does confer something unique, or at least a climate like it.
It's a fine product and very distinctive.
Gary
P.S. The other possibility is it acquired malt whisky-like character through sitting in a warehouse for years surrounded by barrels of fine malt whisky but I incline against that theory. Tom Moore's bourbon, some of it, is aged in warehouses that also contain American brandy but it doesn't taste somewhat like brandy, it tastes like Kentucky bourbon. I think the effect of the Scots climate, interacting with the new charred barrel, explains the soft, rich, fruity, malt whisky-like taste, but I could be wrong.