PDA

View Full Version : WR introduces new "Double Oaked"



StraightNoChaser
01-18-2012, 13:50
LOUISVILLE, Ky., Jan. 18, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Woodford Reserve® announces that it will introduce its first permanent line extension with Woodford Reserve Double Oaked.http://www.marketwatch.com/story/woodford-reserve-introduces-first-permanent-line-extension-in-15-year-history-2012-01-18

Cliffs: WRDO is WR finished in a new barrel with a heavy toast and light char

cowdery
01-18-2012, 14:43
We had a preview taste of this when I was there in October. It was after lots of other tasting, but it was good. It reminded me a little of the seasoned oak masters collection bourbon.

StraightNoChaser
01-18-2012, 15:08
That's funny. I just drank 1/4 bottle of the Seasoned Oak on Monday and I thought it was trash. I just can't get over those &(%^!$ banana flavors

Why did I drink a 1/4 bottle of something I thought was trash? Because the next best option was Finlandia Grapefruit vodka :lol:

camduncan
01-18-2012, 15:58
I'm a big fan of the Seasoned Oak, so here's hoping this one makes it Downunder :skep:

keith18
01-18-2012, 16:05
I am underwhelmed, as I had the doubled oaked Pritchards recently and didn't like it much.

I get that the barrel process is different in this case, but I guess I was hoping for something a little bit different from Woodford. It just doesn't strike me as all that creative. But then again, what do I know?

silverfish
01-18-2012, 16:22
The WRDO was mentioned in a Dec. 25, 2011 NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/bourbons-all-american-roar.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bourbon&st=cse):

For Woodford Reserve Double Oaked, he said, “we take a batch
of mature Woodford Reserve, reduce the proof to 110 proof and
rebarrel in a second brand-new barrel.” The barrels are stored in
the Versailles, Ky., warehouse for a year, batched together and
bottled.

He held up a sample and pointed to the rich dark color. “Now you get
honey, butterscotch notes,” Mr. Morris said, sampling it. “Woodford
has nice citrus notes, the balance of many flavors. This is going to be
out of balance on purpose. At 90.4 proof, it will be even smoother,
softer than Woodford. Woodford is known for being smooth.”

Josh
01-18-2012, 17:54
I for one liked the Seasoned Oak.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to trying the double oaked. It was on the most recent Michigan supplemental list so it should be hitting the stores by summer.:rolleyes:

RegChumpington
01-18-2012, 22:08
I for one liked the Seasoned Oak.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to trying the double oaked. It was on the most recent Michigan supplemental list so it should be hitting the stores by summer.:rolleyes:

I liked the Seasoned Oak as well, but then I went back to my bottle the other day which has been open for a while and somehow that oak note lost its oakiness in favor of a less pleasant popsicle stick note and now that bottle is looking awfully huge.

I'll be interested in WRDO for a try but my expectations are nonexistent.

camduncan
01-18-2012, 23:29
It doesn't sound like it will be in international markets anytime soon, so hopefully I'll come across some in Hawaii when I vacation there in May.

Gillman
01-19-2012, 06:05
One thing I'd lke to try, is regular WR aged longer, say another two years.

Gary

Restaurant man
01-19-2012, 06:18
That's funny. I just drank 1/4 bottle of the Seasoned Oak on Monday and I thought it was trash. I just can't get over those &(%^!$ banana flavors

Why did I drink a 1/4 bottle of something I thought was trash? Because the next best option was Finlandia Grapefruit vodka :lol:
You should have vatted them 1:1 ratio. Its magic!

SmoothAmbler
01-19-2012, 11:26
One thing I'd lke to try, is regular WR aged longer, say another two years.

Gary

How long is the standard WR aged?

Gillman
01-19-2012, 11:36
I'm not sure but I believe about five years.

Gary

PyroMedic
01-19-2012, 12:32
looking forward to this but I'm a WR fan.

silverfish
01-19-2012, 14:15
sidetrack - I didn't see a post in "New To SB" forum so
lemme welcome PyroMedic to the group. Always nice
to have another member help carry the "You guys got
enough snow up there?!" load.

Have another pour and fire up the snow-blower!

BigRich
01-19-2012, 14:40
There's supposed to be a bottle of this on the way from BF. I'll let you guys know what I think.

jcg9779
01-19-2012, 14:42
There's supposed to be a bottle of this on the way from BF. I'll let you guys know what I think.

So the next GBS meeting is at your house then? Jimmy will bring the fireworks!

smokinjoe
01-19-2012, 21:20
So the next GBS meeting is at your house then? Jimmy will bring the fireworks!

Great! I'll bring George The Mascot...

BigRich
01-20-2012, 07:42
I'll start preparing my wife on what to expect!

Bourbon Boiler
01-20-2012, 19:33
One thing I'd lke to try, is regular WR aged longer, say another two years.

Gary

And at barrel proof.

Clavius
01-20-2012, 19:55
Not a big fan of WR. But I'll definitely give this a try when it comes out here in Lexington.

smgrey24
03-14-2012, 16:52
Double Oaked has finally made it to Georgia! Woo hoo !:woohoo: Had my first pour of this nectar of the Gods last night. OMG! Velvety smooth with more character and complexity than the original. The oak was present but not in an aggressive,“in your face” way. More toasted than charred. An unexpected bite and finish –with each swallow taunting your taste buds with “who’s your daddy now”? Well worth the $54. A keeper! Any one else had a chance to sample? Am posting a pic of my new bunker addition along side 2 of my other passions (watches & pens). :grin:

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/smgrey24/DSC_0030.jpg

Kyjd75
03-14-2012, 17:20
Bought a bottle of WRDO yesterday in Bardstown. I just tried it. My initial impression is not good. I am not a WR fan, however, so this may be a carryover of that dislike. I will give it a fair shot and then make my final opinion. Lots of oak is present for sure. For $45, kind of disappointed.

Clavius
03-14-2012, 17:57
Double Oaked has finally made it to Georgia! Woo hoo !:woohoo: Had my first pour of this nectar of the Gods last night. OMG! Velvety smooth with more character and complexity than the original. The oak was present but not in an aggressive,“in your face” way. More toasted than charred. An unexpected bite and finish –with each swallow taunting your taste buds with “who’s your daddy now”? Well worth the $54. A keeper! Any one else had a chance to sample? Am posting a pic of my new bunker addition along side 2 of my other passions (watches & pens). :grin:

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/smgrey24/DSC_0030.jpg
A Rolex Submariner and an IWC? Come on, where's the Blancpain or the Vacheron-Constantin?

Just kidding. Nice watches.

Bourbon Boiler
03-14-2012, 17:59
Mine arrives tomorrow. I've yet to experience "too much oak".

Bourbon Boiler
03-15-2012, 11:19
Fedex just arrived, and I touched this to my lips. I really like the initial taste. Very, very good flavor with a lot of oak, but some complexity. The finish was good, but not really as long as it could be. I expected a stonger finish with the extra barrelling. Like regular Woodford, it could stand to be bottled at a higher proof.

There are the thoughts on less than a full sip, maybe a full finger would change my mind a bit. All in all it's a pretty good bottle, but there are better options at this price point.

smgrey24
03-15-2012, 17:27
A Rolex Submariner and an IWC? Come on, where's the Blancpain or the Vacheron-Constantin?

Just kidding. Nice watches.

Will a Rolex Red Sub and an IWC Portugese Jubilee work? As the pic shows, beauty and the beast ... you pick which is which:bowdown: As for me, they all are priceless!

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/smgrey24/DSC_0073-1.jpg

Clavius
03-15-2012, 21:06
Will a Rolex Red Sub and an IWC Portugese Jubilee work? As the pic shows, beauty and the beast ... you pick which is which:bowdown: As for me, they all are priceless!

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/smgrey24/DSC_0073-1.jpg
Gonna have to go with the Jubilee!

mosugoji64
03-15-2012, 21:55
I've had the opportunity to revisit my bottle of WRDO and still find it to be some good stuff. Definitely better than standard WR, which was just "okay" to me. I think they did a good job with this one and made a good choice for a new regularly-available bottling.

Bourbon Boiler
03-15-2012, 22:12
Fedex just arrived, and I touched this to my lips. I really like the initial taste. Very, very good flavor with a lot of oak, but some complexity. The finish was good, but not really as long as it could be. I expected a stonger finish with the extra barrelling. Like regular Woodford, it could stand to be bottled at a higher proof.

There are the thoughts on less than a full sip, maybe a full finger would change my mind a bit. All in all it's a pretty good bottle, but there are better options at this price point.


After sipping a few ounces, there is little to change my mind. It's unusual how powerful the first taste is, but it disappears quickly rather than a slow fade which would have put this drink near the "elite" catagory. Still a good pour, a good comparison to WR, but not the best value at ~$50.

bigtoys
03-17-2012, 16:13
picked up a bottle at Liquor Barn today. Gonna try to recreate the Gibson's Manhattan that I had Tuesday with my lunch, but use the D. Oaked instead of regular WR. Just gotta guess the proportion with the Heering and add some orange bitters.
gonna imitate smgrey's photos and show a few of my favorite watches. I had to show his photos to my wife to show I'm not alone.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/penswriwcs.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/gtspammilgs.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/IMAG0524.jpg
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/6a156575.jpg

Bmac
03-17-2012, 18:02
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/penswriwcs.jpg



Any old Esterbrooks in there?

bigtoys
03-17-2012, 20:46
Any old Esterbrooks in there?

Nope. All modern. And rollerballs (a few ballpoints) for me; FP's seem to dry out. The reds are an Aurora (far right) and a Nettuno (by Aurora, too) and the tortoise is Montegrappa.

and I made a small version of the drink--not bad, but that Heering really reminds me of cough syrup.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/bigtoys335/etoh/IMAG0530.jpg

smgrey24
03-18-2012, 16:34
gonna imitate smgrey's photos and show a few of my favorite watches. I had to show his photos to my wife to show I'm not alone.


Great pic of the 5001. I own one too ... I consider that watch to be the George T. Stagg of watches: big, bold and in your face. Oh, and that Portifino ain't exactly chopped liver either. (BTW, I am a chick..only mentioning that because of the recent gender drama).:banghead:
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/Moose859/My%20IWC/DSC_6335.jpg

bigtoys
03-18-2012, 20:24
Great pic of the 5001. I own one too ... I consider that watch to be the George T. Stagg of watches: big, bold and in your face. Oh, and that Portifino ain't exactly chopped liver either. (BTW, I am a chick..only mentioning that because of the recent gender drama).:banghead:


I can honestly say that as I typed my post including "his" that I knew I was taking a chance. I went back to your PM to see if you signed your name so I could use it; lack of a sig made me think even more. Given the material, including what are (typically) men's watches, I figured I had a 95-99% chance of being ok. :shocked:
Hmmmm.....should I tell my wife?

smokinjoe
03-19-2012, 07:22
Paging Masterphotog...Paging Masterphotog...Chuck, help us out here please. I can't take anymore of this.

mosugoji64
03-19-2012, 18:56
Paging Masterphotog...Paging Masterphotog...Chuck, help us out here please. I can't take anymore of this.

I think he could make me want to buy a watch. This thread, not so much. :rolleyes:

Jwilly019
03-19-2012, 19:19
I think he could make me want to buy a watch. This thread, not so much. :rolleyes:

I disagree, but to each his own.

smokinjoe
03-19-2012, 19:37
I'm just trying anything to get away form the flowers, pens and watches...:rolleyes:

bigtoys
03-22-2012, 00:06
I'm just trying anything to get away form the flowers, pens and watches...:rolleyes:

hey, I followed it up with a picture of a cocktail made with the thread's title bourbon.

just thought the other stuff was a coincidence worth noting

drunk
03-22-2012, 12:41
I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. Lady... "lady"... enough with the pictures, comic sans, OMG's, who's your daddy's.... it's just not jiving around here. See my avatar? I'm making that face at you.

CorvallisCracker
03-22-2012, 14:14
I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. Lady... "lady"... enough with the pictures, comic sans, OMG's, who's your daddy's.... it's just not jiving around here. See my avatar? I'm making that face at you.

Indeed, feeding the trolls can be entertaining for a while, but eventually becomes tedious.

We did get that great post from Rod (on Monday) out of it. That was probably the high point, however, and it'll be all downhill from here.

callmeox
03-22-2012, 14:46
I am afraid that it is just trolling as performance art. Perhaps the poster is related to the "blogger" last year who was entertaining for about a week with incorrect information and bluster about bourbon.

Either way, it is easy to ignore.

Josh
03-23-2012, 06:18
I am afraid that it is just trolling as performance art. Perhaps the poster is related to the "blogger" last year who was entertaining for about a week with incorrect information and bluster about bourbon.

Either way, it is easy to ignore.

If so, it's pretty bad. These trolls these days just don't take pride in their work.

cbus
03-23-2012, 11:08
In other news... I picked up a bottle of this and opened it yesterday. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It was like regular Woodford, but deeper and richer. I'm not sure it was $20 deeper and richer, but I did enjoy it.

smokinjoe
03-27-2012, 18:12
In other news... I picked up a bottle of this and opened it yesterday. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It was like regular Woodford, but deeper and richer. I'm not sure it was $20 deeper and richer, but I did enjoy it.

My thoughts, as well. Firstly, I will admit that I am a fan of regular WR. I've written often of my appreciation for it's distinctiveness, and acknowledge that exactly that leaves room for some to dislike it. That is that un-ripened cantaloupe rind/copper penny thing going on. Then, there is the whole QPR thing to think about, too.

But as I've worked through my initial trials of it this evening, this DOWR definitely rounds off the edges of regular Woodford that one might not find to their liking. As Cbus says, it is noticeably richer and deeper. The rebarrelling successfully kicks up the "perceived" age, and fills it out, without just tannining it up. Is tannining a word? :skep: The "distinctiveness" aspect is certainly reduced, particularly on the nose, which does allow for more chewy caramel, toffee, and traditional bourbon notes to work through. This whiskey is silky smooth over the tongue. Lots of toasted marshmallow, which stays with the finish to the very end.

I like this whiskey. Very much. 50 bucks ain't cheap, but I'll keep a bottle around. To me, it's kinda like Elijah Craig 18. I love that bourbon too, but at its price level, I steer away from it as an everydayer. I suppose this will fall into that same category, and like the EC18, I'll really enjoy it when I do go to it.

smgrey24
03-28-2012, 16:59
My thoughts,as well. Firstly, I will admit that I am a fan of regular WR. I've written often of my appreciation for it's distinctiveness, and acknowledge that exactly that leaves room for some to dislike it. That is that un-ripened cantaloupe rind/copper penny thing going on. Then, there is the whole QPR thing to think about, too.
I too am a fan of WR and have discovered that you either love it or leave it… not many in-betweeners. As a newbie, I have a question. What is the “whole QPR thing to think about” that you mentioned in your post? Am afraid my ignorance is showing :blush: … but am willing to learn – especially if it concerns my beloved Woodford.

JayMonster
03-28-2012, 17:05
I too am a fan of WR and have discovered that you either love it or leave it… not many in-betweeners. As a newbie, I have a question. What is the “whole QPR thing to think about” that you mentioned in your post? Am afraid my ignorance is showing :blush: … but am willing to learn – especially if it concerns my beloved Woodford.

QPR = Quality to Price Ratio.

This is a measurement of how good a particular bourbon may be when taking into account you paid.

For example Bourbon A is $20. Bourbon B is $100. It is probably no surprise if Bourbon B is better than bourbon A, but is it 5 times better?

bigtoys
03-28-2012, 17:43
QPR = Quality to Price Ratio.

This is a measurement of how good a particular bourbon may be when taking into account you paid.

For example Bourbon A is $20. Bourbon B is $100. It is probably no surprise if Bourbon B is better than bourbon A, but is it 5 times better?

It is if it's Pappy 20 ($99, almost 100, is what's it's been going for around here, thus the reply)

Fullbuck
03-28-2012, 18:37
Went to a tasting of this in Louiville where the head distiller was present. Was not crazy about it, but took the opportunity to purchase a signed bottle. Opened it tonight and I really am not impressed. Actually, I am fairly disappointed at the results. I will let it sit for a few weeks and revisit. Tasted like really really bland granola. Not a tasting expert, just my thoughts.

JayMonster
03-28-2012, 19:13
It is if it's Pappy 20 ($99, almost 100, is what's it's been going for around here, thus the reply)

I wasn't suggesting any particular brands,just using simple numbers for simple demonstration purposes. If it is great, then that is a bottle that can stand on its own in regards to QPR. But that really wasn't the point.

StraightNoChaser
03-28-2012, 21:04
I finally got to try this on Monday and was not disappointed.

Because I already knew that WR sucks.

BarrelChar
04-26-2012, 20:52
I finally got to try this on Monday and was not disappointed.

Because I already knew that WR sucks.

Right on. It's my leading contender for "Worst Whiskey of the Year." Repugnant, offensive swill, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to get through a bottle it would be like the "Fear Factor" equivalent for bourbon drinkers. It's so heinous it's not even worth trying. Luckily, this was a free tasting at a local store, though I wish I had kindly refused.

If the distillers at Brown-Forman has any shame left, this bourbon should stir those feelings.

gburger
04-26-2012, 21:34
Soooo your saying you did not like it?

Bmac
04-27-2012, 07:03
Right on. It's my leading contender for "Worst Whiskey of the Year." Repugnant, offensive swill, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to get through a bottle it would be like the "Fear Factor" equivalent for bourbon drinkers. It's so heinous it's not even worth trying. Luckily, this was a free tasting at a local store, though I wish I had kindly refused.

If the distillers at Brown-Forman has any shame left, this bourbon should stir those feelings.
Wow, that's harsh. I had put Old Grandad 86 and Rebel Yell in that category. WR DO is not bad, at least not the bottle I bought. The nose is awesome. Creamy caramel toffee. The arrival matches the nose. I like everything about this except the finish which is white-hot for such a low proof whiskey. It's the only thing that keeps this whiskey from my epic category.

Also, regular WR takes time to open up. I didn't like WR when I first cracked it. It was the exact same for WR MC Maplewood finished. Some time later, WR improved significantly and WR MC MW is actually amazing and had considered getting another bottle.

JayMonster
04-27-2012, 11:38
Wow, that's harsh. I had put Old Grandad 86 and Rebel Yell in that category. WR DO is not bad, at least not the bottle I bought. The nose is awesome. Creamy caramel toffee. The arrival matches the nose. I like everything about this except the finish which is white-hot for such a low proof whiskey. It's the only thing that keeps this whiskey from my epic category.

Also, regular WR takes time to open up. I didn't like WR when I first cracked it. It was the exact same for WR MC Maplewood finished. Some time later, WR improved significantly and WR MC MW is actually amazing and had considered getting another bottle.

It has been pretty clear (to me anyway), that Woodford is a love it/ hate it proposition.

I would never waste $50 on the Double Oak because I cannot stand the Distillers Select. I gave it months to "open up, " I tried ot neat, with water, with ice, in a Manhattan, vatted with Devil's Cut to various ratios (at least one of which is probably pretty close to the DO thanks to the extra wood), and nothing could make this an enjoyable bourbon.

I'm going to be honest, after tasting Woodford, I laughed when I heard that Chris Morris runs a class to teach distilling, because I couldn't help but wonder who would want to learn from someone who makes bourbon that tastes like that?

It is truly one of the most polarizing examples of, "to each their own. "

So, is BarrelChar being harsh? To me... Only slighty.

Bmac
04-29-2012, 07:31
It has been pretty clear (to me anyway), that Woodford is a love it/ hate it proposition.

I would never waste $50 on the Double Oak because I cannot stand the Distillers Select. I gave it months to "open up, " I tried ot neat, with water, with ice, in a Manhattan, vatted with Devil's Cut to various ratios (at least one of which is probably pretty close to the DO thanks to the extra wood), and nothing could make this an enjoyable bourbon.

I'm going to be honest, after tasting Woodford, I laughed when I heard that Chris Morris runs a class to teach distilling, because I couldn't help but wonder who would want to learn from someone who makes bourbon that tastes like that?

It is truly one of the most polarizing examples of, "to each their own. "

So, is BarrelChar being harsh? To me... Only slighty.
I have a tendency to agree with you. However, there is some common ground. I love PVW15 (SW). I have yet to meet someone (other than my wife) who doesnt like it. I am in concensus with GTs, WLW, and FR SB as well. So there is some commonality in what tastes "good" across the whiskey community.

I wanted to like WR...but I found I could not. At each milestone my pallete reached I re-tasted WR. It took far too long, almost a year before I could taste what was good about WR. Then I got the MC. Same experience. With DO, I didnt have the problem.

Here's a theory, if I may be so bold. WR by rights is considered small batch. Although variances should be minimal, they are present. Do you think it is possible that a inferior batch was purchased by some and based on that initial experience stated that WR was no good? I have heard this about Elijah Craig 12. This might explain somw of the love it/hate it variance that we see. Can you conceed that it is possible to buy a good bottle of WR?

JayMonster
04-29-2012, 11:50
I have a tendency to agree with you. However, there is some common ground. I love PVW15 (SW). I have yet to meet someone (other than my wife) who doesnt like it. I am in concensus with GTs, WLW, and FR SB as well. So there is some commonality in what tastes "good" across the whiskey community.

I wanted to like WR...but I found I could not. At each milestone my pallete reached I re-tasted WR. It took far too long, almost a year before I could taste what was good about WR. Then I got the MC. Same experience. With DO, I didnt have the problem.

Here's a theory, if I may be so bold. WR by rights is considered small batch. Although variances should be minimal, they are present. Do you think it is possible that a inferior batch was purchased by some and based on that initial experience stated that WR was no good? I have heard this about Elijah Craig 12. This might explain somw of the love it/hate it variance that we see. Can you conceed that it is possible to buy a good bottle of WR?

While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

Rutherford
04-29-2012, 13:15
While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

I consider myself in the "melon" group above. Normal WR shares this particular note with some Irish whiskies I've enjoyed, as well as having the nice rye backbone and OF character. Is it good? I'd say so. Is WR worth the price? Probably not, but it would be for $5 less, or if some other products I like became more expensive. I'd say "no" for most of their special releases.

Bmac
04-29-2012, 19:17
While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

Yeah, you're right, I have heard that before. For me I call it the green apple flavor. Its.a.tart.like flavor that sneaks in and out of the flavor profile. The typical burn hides any hint of it in the finish.

Although this statement should really be in the tasting threads; I have found that if I sip a high proof/barrel strength whiskey prior to 90 proof and below, they are all smoother and I get more of the flavor profile. I havent tried this technique on WR because I usually taste it neat from the get go. I think I need to pull out all my WR products and pin down the flavors.

DeanSheen
04-29-2012, 20:07
I had a pour, thankfully not a bottle. Not something I plan to buy. I think I rail dumped it.

cowdery
04-30-2012, 13:15
This new product is catching some hate here, from some of the usual haters. About the only bourbons I've had in the last several years that I felt as hostile toward are modern Yellowstone, Old Crow, McCormick, some micro stuff, some of the overaged KBD bottlings, and that's about it. Even then, not hyperbolically, just 'don't bother.'

I had a taste of WR double-oaked last fall at the distillery and it was my first pour at the Gazebo Saturday night. It's extra wood without the bitterness. That's about the best thing I can say about it. Don't hate it, don't love it, but if the faint praise above sounds good to you, give it a try. I'll probably try it again if I have a chance.

I didn't pour it out.

It's a little like Jim Beam Devil's Cut, a similar effect, except the way Beam does it there's more burn and sootiness. Compared to something that is just long aged, it is extra wood without the sweetness. I miss the sweetness.

In terms of what they set out to do it's pretty well balanced and shows that style in its best light, which does you no good if you don't care for that style, but some people do and they shouldn't be scared away from trying this by people who are mostly just having some fun with creative writing.

Gillman
04-30-2012, 13:58
I tried it too and it was okay, but I wouldn't try it again. There was a sort of woody sheen, it reminded me of Makers 46. But I certainly don't hate it, it's decent enough.

The good part about the wood addition is, it seems to disguise part of the assertive pot still taste (waxy, metallic) WR can have from its Versailles component. I wonder if this may have been a strategy when the new product was devised.

Gary

camduncan
04-30-2012, 14:24
I'm really enjoying reading (most of) the different opinions here, and am looking forward to trying this new product and forming my own opinion. I usually enjoy standard Woodford (I've had maybe 2 of the 10 bottles I've purchased over the last 10 years taste bad)
Apparently we won't see Double Oaked in Australia anytime soon, so I'm going to be on the lookout for a bottle in Hawaii in a couple of weeks.
Does anyone know if there are half size bottles or minatures of this floating around? I wouldn't mind 'trying' it before I outlay $50 on a bottle.

cowdery
04-30-2012, 14:51
I've never gotten the copper penny taste from standard Woodford. I've only gotten it from the MC 4-grain bourbon, a lot in the first release, a little in the second. If there's any of that in standard Woodford, I guess I must like it at that level. Copper is a high note, similar to citrus, nice in the right amount.

They have a very rigorous process for developing new products and as the first permanent line extension (i.e., not a one-off), they obviously think they have something. I suspect one driving factor was their desire to leverage that Brown-Forman is the only producer that makes its own barrels.

camduncan
04-30-2012, 16:55
I also find it interesting that Double Oaked, Makers 46 & Devils Cut all products that utilise extra 'wood time' hit the market within a small window of time.

clingman71
05-01-2012, 07:49
I've never gotten the copper penny taste from standard Woodford. I've only gotten it from the MC 4-grain bourbon, a lot in the first release, a little in the second. If there's any of that in standard Woodford, I guess I must like it at that level. Copper is a high note, similar to citrus, nice in the right amount.

They have a very rigorous process for developing new products and as the first permanent line extension (i.e., not a one-off), they obviously think they have something. I suspect one driving factor was their desire to leverage that Brown-Forman is the only producer that makes its own barrels.


The metallic flavor is something that I only began noticing the past few years. Going back a decade, I really liked WR. I have since learned of the story of early Woodford being B-F "honey barrels" until the WR pot-stilled bourbon was ready to mix. I don't know how much of this is the whiskey changing, or how much is my palate, but there is a definite difference to me between eras of WR. I've only had one small taste of WRDO, and while an improvement, it wasn't enough to justify a bottle, especially at its pricepoint. But, I am not opposed to trying it again in the future as I am beginning to see how products and tastes evolve over time. I am recently on an upswing with my on again off again relationship with Maker's.

Chuck, I know you said that you don't get the copper penny tatse in Woodford, but I am asking for an educated guess. What do you think contributes most to this taste for the people who do find that flavor:
high still proof, pot stills, B-F barrels?

I am not familiar with other B-f products to know what similarities may exist with the rest of the line and WR.

StraightBoston
05-01-2012, 09:53
The metallic flavor is something that I only began noticing the past few years. Going back a decade, I really liked WR. I have since learned of the story of early Woodford being B-F "honey barrels" until the WR pot-stilled bourbon was ready to mix. I don't know how much of this is the whiskey changing, or how much is my palate, but there is a definite difference to me between eras of WR.

My experience is exactly the same. Once upon a time (and not just at the beginning of my whiskey tasting journey) WR was my top selection. Over time, I was exposed to even better products -- and dusties reset my palate preferences -- but I believe that the introduction of the pot still whiskey made a noticeable change to the profile.

cowdery
05-01-2012, 11:22
Chuck, I know you said that you don't get the copper penny tatse in Woodford, but I am asking for an educated guess. What do you think contributes most to this taste for the people who do find that flavor:
high still proof, pot stills, B-F barrels?

I am not familiar with other B-f products to know what similarities may exist with the rest of the line and WR.

Presumably, it's the copper pot stills. A side-by-side with Old Forester should show you the Woodford contribution. WR is older than OF but otherwise the pot still component is the only difference.

Gillman
05-01-2012, 11:48
I agree but I think it is low distillation proof (159 proof, in fact, high end for the bourbon standard but still meeting it) that explains it, not copper residues.

Gary

Bmac
05-01-2012, 12:09
I agree but I think it is low distillation proof (159 proof, in fact, high end for the bourbon standard but still meeting it) that explains it, not copper residues.

Gary
I agree, I don't think it's copper. I have 2 Irish Whiskey's that were made in copper stills that do not have a "metallic" taste. In fact, i don't taste any metallic note in WR. I do taste that green apple tart like flavor. I suppose if you don't like tart green apples, that might explain it.

In regards to proof, i have learned that the low proof introduction to the barrel equates to more flavor but fewer bottles per barrel. Introducing higher proof to the barrel reduces flavor but increases the number of bottles per barrel. I suspect that is why the government put a cap on proof for bourbon, so you couldn't just make a supremely high proof white dog so you could extract 600 bottles a barrel at 80 proof ;)

Gillman
05-01-2012, 12:33
I think it must be certain co-products of fermentation that subsist in the Versailles spirit that explain that taste. I think we are all talking of the same taste but using different terms, to me it often is waxy-like, tangy or metallic. (Single pot still Irish often has it too, and there too you have 3 runs in a pot still with a mash largely composed of raw grains).

Why would those congeners stay in at 159 proof whereas after two column still and a doubler run you get a much milder spirit at approximately such proof? (I'm thinking of Virginia Gentleman, the Fox and the newer brands made that way at the former Smith Bowman distillery in VA). It's because a pot still, even 3 runs, works differently to column stills, or so I infer.

I think it's good that Versailles whiskey has this individuality, otherwise what would be the point to use pot distillation? But I've often wondered what it would taste like at 8, 10 and more years of aging...

Gary

cowdery
05-01-2012, 17:48
I don't get where you're going calling 159 a low distillation proof when, by law, no one can go higher for bourbon, and most go lower.

Because WR uses a recirculation pump in their beer still, solids in the mash abraid the copper, which puts minute amounts of actual copper into the solution. That's where I assume the copper penny taste comes from, but that's speculation.

Chris Morris and Dave Scheurich always said the main difference they tasted, in the new make, was a nuttiness or creaminess.

BourbonJoe
05-01-2012, 18:05
I tried some Double Oak. I thought it was horrible.
Joe :usflag:

Gillman
05-01-2012, 18:09
It's a low distillation proof in relation to GNS-level, and thus the character of whiskey is imparted to it, enhanced in this case by the pot still.

Gary

BootFNBD
05-10-2012, 14:44
It has been pretty clear (to me anyway), that Woodford is a love it/ hate it proposition.

I would never waste $50 on the Double Oak because I cannot stand the Distillers Select. I gave it months to "open up, " I tried ot neat, with water, with ice, in a Manhattan, vatted with Devil's Cut to various ratios (at least one of which is probably pretty close to the DO thanks to the extra wood), and nothing could make this an enjoyable bourbon.

I'm going to be honest, after tasting Woodford, I laughed when I heard that Chris Morris runs a class to teach distilling, because I couldn't help but wonder who would want to learn from someone who makes bourbon that tastes like that?

It is truly one of the most polarizing examples of, "to each their own. "

So, is BarrelChar being harsh? To me... Only slighty.


Woodford Reserve is a great pour. Usually what I order if a restaurant has it. The Double Oaked is different, but, still a great bourbon.

Regarding Chris Morris, I feel he is a great distiller and innovator. He has forgotten more about Bourbon than you will ever know.

I guarantee you are probably a Twinkle or Buffalo Chip. If you want bad bourbon, try their experimentals, retailers can't give them away.

Boot

weller_tex
05-10-2012, 15:24
I haven't had the Double Oaked, but I have never understood the hate for standard WR. Over-priced maybe, but I like it just fine.

Josh
05-10-2012, 16:43
I had a sip or two at my favorite bar recently. It wasn't bad. Not fantastic or worth $50, but not bad. Like a diluted WRMC seasoned oak. Glad I got it comped!:cool:

bad_scientist
05-10-2012, 17:48
I haven't had the Double Oaked, but I have never understood the hate for standard WR. Over-priced maybe, but I like it just fine.

Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.

weller_tex
05-10-2012, 17:50
Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.
Yeah, I've read that. I generally agree with him, but not on that point.

luther.r
05-10-2012, 18:18
Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.

I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.

bad_scientist
05-10-2012, 18:46
I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.

Hey, by the time I'm done reading his posts on BF, I have no criticism of them because he's used all the harsh words I know and I'm completely burned out.

weller_tex
05-10-2012, 19:28
I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.
I agree, I like reviewers to be straightforward...it's just in this case I happen to like standard Woodford Reserve

StraightBoston
05-10-2012, 19:50
A member graciously forwarded me a sample that I tried for the first time tonight -- don't love yet, certainly don't hate. Pretty sure it's not worth the premium over standard WR (which itself is pretty low on the QPR scale.)

Not finding any copper, which is a good thing.

JayMonster
05-11-2012, 07:43
Woodford Reserve is a great pour. Usually what I order if a restaurant has it. The Double Oaked is different, but, still a great bourbon.

Regarding Chris Morris, I feel he is a great distiller and innovator. He has forgotten more about Bourbon than you will ever know.

I guarantee you are probably a Twinkle or Buffalo Chip. If you want bad bourbon, try their experimentals, retailers can't give them away.

Boot

Opps, I'm sorry, I apparently missed the meeting where you were anointed Grand Exalted Grand Poobah of Bourbon and that the only opinion that now mattered was yours.

I'm happy for you that you like Woodford Reserve. No, really... I am. That being said, it doesn't make your opinion any more right than mine or anybody else's.

Regarding Chris Morris or any other distiller. If you like their product, then it would make sense you would think highly of him. And yes, any master distiller, by provenance of their experience would know more than me... or anybody else that is not in the industry. That really goes without saying. But, that doesn't change the fact that if I was going to take a class to learn about bourbon... for MY MONEY (I have no personal animosity towards him), I wouldn't waste it on somebody that produces a product like Woodford, whether it is the reserve or the much maligned (as you correctly point out) experimentals.

I am not going to judge you, because you find that copper tasting swill to be a "great pour." That is the reason there is more than one bourbon... people all have different tastes. And I would suggest that rather than trying to judge me, you stick with agreeing to disagree. As the old saying goes, Your Mileage May Vary.

BootFNBD
05-12-2012, 13:21
Jaymonster,

Must have hit a nerve, and got it right that you're a Twinkle and/or Buffalo Chip!

Other than Stagg, ER10, ER17, Barton (VOB 100 and 1792) and Bowman the rest of the Buffalo Trace products are pure rotgut and one time buys if that.

How would you know what any good bourbon tastes like living in the "Garden State" where the refinery smell and pollution is overwhelming everywhere.

Oh, and I meant the Buffalo Trace Experimentals!!!!!!!

Boot

Trey Manthey
05-12-2012, 13:52
I just Googled "buffalo chip".

JayMonster
05-12-2012, 20:23
Jaymonster,

Must have hit a nerve, and got it right that you're a Twinkle and/or Buffalo Chip!

Other than Stagg, ER10, ER17, Barton (VOB 100 and 1792) and Bowman the rest of the Buffalo Trace products are pure rotgut and one time buys if that.

How would you know what any good bourbon tastes like living in the "Garden State" where the refinery smell and pollution is overwhelming everywhere.

Oh, and I meant the Buffalo Trace Experimentals!!!!!!!

Boot

Well, thanks for making it obvious that I wasted my time with you. Since the only thing worse than your deluded sense of self-importance is your lousy taste in whiskey, you truly are of no consequence.

callmeox
05-13-2012, 07:10
A couple of thoughts on this thread:

Attack the issues and not each other, folks. There is no reason to resort to ad-hominem jabs.

I tried the double oaked in Bardstown and found it to be nothing special. Another pass.

If Woodford Reserve was the only bourbon on the market, I would switch to fruit-tinis.

With point three understood, point two shouldn't be a surprise.

ebo
05-13-2012, 07:41
Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

I like WR just fine. I don't think it's all that special, but I do drink it from time to time when I want something a bit different. I do think it's over priced, though. I haven't tried the double oaked, but I'll get around to it.

fricky
05-13-2012, 07:57
I had an opportunity to taste the double oaked product and was very happy that I did not have to pay for it. It was undrinkable. It had a solvent-like taste. I would equate it to paint thinner or acetone. Of course, I never tasted paint thinner or acetone.

CoMobourbon
05-13-2012, 08:31
Attack the issues and not each other, folks. There is no reason to resort to ad-hominem jabs.


Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

While I understand the sentiment, guys, I really think that these comments are completely unfair toward Jay. They suggest a 'false equivilence' (10 cent term for the day) in which it seems like both parties are equally at fault because both are involved in the dispute. This is clearly not the case. Boot either refused to read or cannot read anything more than 'WR IS BAD' in Jay's post despite the very conscientious distinctions Jay made between personal taste and quality. He proceeded to accuse Jay of discounting the absolue quality of WR and the expertise of its distiller, which Jay did not do, and accused him in an extremely (and entertainingly) juvenile way. Whether or not he mostly meant to be funny, still a pretty shitty example of human behavior. Jay's only major mistake has been bothering to respond at all (which he really probably should not have done). While a little unnecessarily personal, Jay basically just clarfied his pretty fair first position. Rinse and repeat, more or less, on the second round of posts.

Ad-hominem attacks are always stupid, but just saying "hey guys, both of you stop fighting" is kind of a false, half-way response. Call it like it is.

And in any case, post's like Boot's first post exemplify the kind of horseshit that moderators (if they were somehow omniscient) should deal with quickly and decisively before whole threads become like this one has become.

ebo
05-13-2012, 08:47
While I understand the sentiment, guys, I really think that these comments are completely unfair toward Jay. They suggest a 'false equivilence' (10 cent term for the day) in which it seems like both parties are equally at fault because both are involved in the dispute. This is clearly not the case. Boot either refused to read or cannot read anything more than 'WR IS BAD' in Jay's post despite the very conscientious distinctions Jay made between personal taste and quality. He proceeded to accuse Jay of discounting the absolue quality of WR and the expertise of its distiller, which Jay did not do, and accused him in an extremely (and entertainingly) juvenile way. Whether or not he mostly meant to be funny, still a pretty shitty example of human behavior. Jay's only major mistake has been bothering to respond at all (which he really probably should not have done). While a little unnecessarily personal, Jay basically just clarfied his pretty fair first position. Rinse and repeat, more or less, on the second round of posts.

Ad-hominem attacks are always stupid, but just saying "hey guys, both of you stop fighting" is kind of a false, half-way response. Call it like it is.

And in any case, post's like Boot's first post exemplify the kind of horseshit that moderators (if they were somehow omniscient) should deal with quickly and decisively before whole threads become like this one has become.
I don't recall calling out any one person, and I agree with your last paragraph.... if that gives you an indication of where I stand.

CoMobourbon
05-13-2012, 11:48
I don't recall calling out any one person, and I agree with your last paragraph.... if that gives you an indication of where I stand.
Exactly - that's the problem. All I am really saying is that if one person is clearly the instigator and is much more at fault than the other, we need to call it like it is.

callmeox
05-13-2012, 11:54
Exactly - that's the problem. All I am really saying is that if one person is clearly the instigator and is much more at fault than the other, we need to call it like it is.

I wasn't taking sides, determining fault or trying to ID the instigator. I was simply reminding folks to be civil.

Not a moderator, don't play one on TV.

ebo
05-13-2012, 13:19
I wasn't taking sides, determining fault or trying to ID the instigator. I was simply reminding folks to be civil.

Not a moderator, don't play one on TV.
:toast:...... I did stay at a Holiday in, once.:cool:

smokinjoe
05-13-2012, 13:47
I have been known to be Jim Butler a time or two...so...Knock it off!! ;)

JayMonster
05-13-2012, 14:04
I 'm sorry for taking the bait and falling into that trap.

As far as I am concerned it was and is over.

Lost Pollito
05-13-2012, 14:05
Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

My thought exactly. No need for nastiness when we're talking about Bourbon.

kyrocklover
05-13-2012, 18:08
Back to the topic.

I have had a couple tastes of it and thought it was much improved over the standard WR, much like MM46 is much improved over the standard MM. Even more so for the same reasons, the additional woodiness. However, my problem is just that. All I got was additional wood, but not additional barrel flavors or depth to the current flavors.

I would like to commend WR and Chris Morris on providing a new product.

That being said, WR Double Oaked is $20 overpriced and regular WR has always been overpriced in my opinion.

TIFWIW.

Restaurant man
05-13-2012, 21:51
To me it's a shortcut to a new product line. Crown royal black (as if bourbon barrel finished whiskey is anything new) was first to market (for the majors) then makers 46 and now DO. The funny thing is is that most consumers see it as a "top shelf" version of the regular. So they are egar to lay more cash out to associate their "high end" tastes and lifestyles with their whiskey. Either that or they just like the taste.

BootFNBD
05-14-2012, 07:54
It appears to me that there is a "Buffalo Trace Clique" on these forums that attacks any Bourbon that is not a product of that company.

Four Roses, Wild Turkey, Heaven Hill and Brown-Forman et al, all produce fine Bourbons and deserve their just due!

The last thing I will say in regards to Jaymonster is: The attacks on Chris Morris were totally unwarranted and the remainder of his comments (which I did read!!) were condescending and in my opinion untruthful.

Boot

Rutherford
05-14-2012, 08:21
There are some fantastic liquors on the market finished in a different cask. Scotch makers (Glenmorangie in particular) have been doing this for quite some time with great commercial success, as have some rum makers (the cognac-finished Plantation line is sublime) and a limited number of American whiskeys (PHC cognac comes to mind).

It certainly makes sense to me for distillers to continue this trend to create new flavor profiles. There are people who don't like the WR line, whether due to the pot distillate character, high rye mashbill, or BF barrels. This product isn't for them. I'd like to try this product, as I find WR interesting. It's probably overpriced, but not nearly so much as the BT oat bourbon.

I'd agree with restaurant man... With new more expensive products, there area always some who consume them for the image associated with the product, and some who like the product for its intrinsic characteristics. Both groups are good for us in the long-term, as stimulated demand for an increased diversity in products will bring suppliers to make them.

mosugoji64
05-14-2012, 08:27
It appears to me that there is a "Buffalo Trace Clique" on these forums that attacks any Bourbon that is not a product of that company.

Four Roses, Wild Turkey, Heaven Hill and Brown-Forman et al, all produce fine Bourbons and deserve their just due!

The last thing I will say in regards to Jaymonster is: The attacks on Chris Morris were totally unwarranted and the remainder of his comments (which I did read!!) were condescending and in my opinion untruthful.

Boot

You've apparently missed the discussion on the E. H. Taylor line. BT takes as many hits as any other distillery here. From what I've seen, FR gets the most love.

Brisko
05-15-2012, 07:57
All rancor aside, I wonder how many of the "undrinkable" comments are coming from a freshly opened bottle: in other words, might Double Oaked benefit from breathing? I have had a few bourbons lately that were just godawful at first blush-- and not all from the same distillery or even the same style. Off the top of my head, KCSB, EC12, OWA, Old Fitz BiB, and to a lesser extent, 4RSB. All improved significantly after just a few days. But if had to base my opinion on the first pour alone, I would have dumped the KC, OWA and Old Fitz.

ShewDawg
05-15-2012, 08:15
You've apparently missed the discussion on the E. H. Taylor line. BT takes as many hits as any other distillery here. From what I've seen, FR gets the most love.

It's a perception thing. BT makes a good line of bourbons, the euphoria on the boards for their products (in particular Van Winkles/BTAC) seems greater than the other distililleries. The complaints on BT target more their marketing and price increases than their juice. I am glad that BF/HH/FR support appear quieter due to my preference for their products, so each their own.

I did get a good chuckle out of "Twinkles", it does articulate the madness of Van Winkles direct and to the point (which I enjoy, but hate the shortage).

fishnbowljoe
05-15-2012, 17:58
I'm gonna add my two cents FWIW. I think regular WR is okay. It's not great, but it's not bad either. That being said, I won't go out of my way to buy another bottle. The bourbon itself hasn't changed any in a number of years, yet the price keeps going up. Yeah I know. The price of all bourbon has gone up, but a couple of years ago you used to be able to find a bottle of WR around here for $28, give or take a couple of bucks. The price has jumped up to $38-$45 a bottle now. Just not worth it IMHO.

As for the WR Double Oaked, I was going to buy a bottle just because I was curious. What the heck, I bought a couple of bottles of MM46. :grin: I even bought a bottle of Old Crow Reserve, but I won't go into that. :skep: Anyway, I thought I may as well get a WR Double Oaked. I just happened to be at a place that had a bottle open, and got to taste it. It wasn't at all what I expected. A lot of wood and smoke, plus an earthy, grainy flavor that was very odd to me. Sad to say, but I just didn't care for it at all. I'm glad I got to taste it first, 'cause I saved myself $60.

Everyone has different tastes. I happen to prefer wheaters. Some folks prefer FR, or WR, or HH, or BT, or JB, or VW, or MM, or WT, or etc...... I always try and enjoy what I can from every bourbon I try or buy. Sometimes it's just not in the cards. :frown:

Cheers y'all! Joe

Bmac
05-16-2012, 04:02
All rancor aside, I wonder how many of the "undrinkable" comments are coming from a freshly opened bottle: in other words, might Double Oaked benefit from breathing? I have had a few bourbons lately that were just godawful at first blush-- and not all from the same distillery or even the same style. Off the top of my head, KCSB, EC12, OWA, Old Fitz BiB, and to a lesser extent, 4RSB. All improved significantly after just a few days. But if had to base my opinion on the first pour alone, I would have dumped the KC, OWA and Old Fitz.

My sentiments exactly. I only.have a handful of bourbons that tasted great from first pour right out of the bottle. About 80% of the remainder all needed air to reveal their true form.

White Dog
05-16-2012, 09:37
You've apparently missed the discussion on the E. H. Taylor line. BT takes as many hits as any other distillery here. From what I've seen, FR gets the most love.

That's exactly what I was thinking. BT gets plenty of hate on this board, but try criticizing FR and you will feel the wrath.

StraightBoston
05-22-2012, 18:52
Back to the topic at hand...

I've tasted three times now and still don't find $20 of improvement. No copper evident in any of the attempts, but tonight I got Bananas Foster like crazy on the nose when first poured into a wide-mouth "Canadian" Glencairn, and the acetone/nail polish remover on the nose at the bottom of the pour. At any stage, I find the wood to be drying to the point where there's not much taste there.

Unlike some of the commenters on this thread, I wouldn't pour it out, but I won't be buying a bottle.

LostBottle
05-23-2012, 13:25
I knew this bourbon was not for me when I saw it was not "Triple Oaked". My thoughts were that a "Triple Oaked" Woodford whiskey might just have enough sheer wood taste to cover up the actual WR product profile. Plus, I would have been willing to pay more for a NAS bourbon were it labeled "triple" something, instead of just merely "double".

Restaurant man
05-23-2012, 20:55
I knew this bourbon was not for me when I saw it was not "Triple Oaked". My thoughts were that a "Triple Oaked" Woodford whiskey might just have enough sheer wood taste to cover up the actual WR product profile. Plus, I would have been willing to pay more for a NAS bourbon were it labeled "triple" something, instead of just merely "double".

And the milk shot out of my nose :slappin: :lol: :grin: :slappin:

cowdery
06-06-2012, 11:28
Was in a bar that had it over the weekend and had two glasses. It starts sweet and ends sooty. Much like the MC Seasoned Oak from a couple of years ago, it should appeal to people who like a lot of wood in their whiskey. That's the signature. It's not totally my cup of tea but I found it very drinkable. Obviously, I ordered a second one.

This is much like Maker's 46, a compromise for consumers who want to have 'their brand' which is what they drink 99% of the time, but who also occasionally like a change of pace. This lets them have that change of pace within the brand family.

boss302
06-06-2012, 19:26
For those of you who have regular access to both spirits:

How does the Woodford Reserve "Double Oaked" compare with Prichard's "Double Barrell" Bourbon?

Phil Prichard (a friendly acquaintance of mine) has been using a similar process for years, albeit with (possibly-- I didn't work up the nerve to ask) Heaven Hill juice.

cowdery
06-07-2012, 13:39
For those of you who have regular access to both spirits:

How does the Woodford Reserve "Double Oaked" compare with Prichard's "Double Barrell" Bourbon?

Phil Prichard (a friendly acquaintance of mine) has been using a similar process for years, albeit with (possibly-- I didn't work up the nerve to ask) Heaven Hill juice.

No comparison. The Prichard (it is HH) is very good, especially as compared to the actual micro-distillery products against which it often competes, but it doesn't have nearly as much wood as the Woodford. That's not a flaw. The Prichard is very rich and full-bodied, but not especially woody. The Woodford says "WOOD" in capital letters.

Trey Manthey
06-11-2012, 17:40
I finally tried the Double Oaked this weekend. I expressed my curiosity to my favorite bartender at the Columns, who didn't hesitate to pour me a half a finger to taste. I had a full glass of Blanton's to compare it to, which is about the same proof and price level.

I don't think this is as bad as people make it out to be. One of the main complaints I've heard is that the Double Oaked is "weird", so I was ready to taste something really strange. Surprise! I didn't have to run to the bathroom or immediately spit it out. I found it very smooth and sippable, but there was a combination of vanilla sweetness combined with a faint musty bitterness that I've never tasted in a bourbon. I decided that it wasn't bad, it was just different.

Imagine a longtime bourbon drinker who tries an Islay whiskey for the first time; he may love it, he may cock his eyebrow, or he may think that someone has tainted his drink and spew it back into the glass. Not everyone will like this.

Is the Double Oaked expression a bourbon drinker's nightmare? It might be for some. I don't feel that way, but at $40-$50 a bottle, I'll take the Blanton's every time.

cowdery
06-12-2012, 12:40
So is the bar at the Columns still that little thing tucked back under the stairs on the first floor, or do they have a proper bar now?

Trey Manthey
06-12-2012, 13:06
So is the bar at the Columns still that little thing tucked back under the stairs on the first floor, or do they have a proper bar now?

Ha! That must have been before my time. It's a proper bar alright: a looming wooden monstrosity that looks like it's been there for a century, with multiple bartenders and waitresses at hand. The whiskey selection is lacking, as it's more of a college/yuppie place than a high end bar. Anything more complicated than a gin and tonic tends to throw off the bartenders and will probably be terrible. On the upside, the pours of wine and whiskey tend to be quite generous, especially if you make friends. Also, the front patio on St. Charles might be the perfect place to enjoy a balmy summer night in New Orleans.

cowdery
06-12-2012, 13:30
I'm talking about 1990-1991. The place was still pretty shabby. Shabby elegance. The front porch is great, though the upper one is even better.

For those who don't know, The Columns is this great old house/inn on St. Charles St. in the Garden District. It played the whorehouse in the movie "Pretty Baby."

Ejmharris
01-15-2013, 18:52
Is this stuff really that popular? I know it is not on this board but but did from a retail store perspective did it sell well. One if the larger local stores sent a newsletter today saying it was coming back out but with limited distribution. Just seemed strange to me. Think it is just someone making hype for a product? The newsletter also mentioned the price was going up, which just means I will stay farther away from it.


Mike

VAGentleman
01-15-2013, 22:20
I believe they released it in limited quantities. There were only a few per ABC store in Virginia and they disappeared pretty quickly. I happen to like it a lot. But then I don't mind woody bourbon.

squire
01-15-2013, 22:54
I like that WR is doing this but I'm not curious enough to seek it out.

petrel800
01-16-2013, 06:43
Is this stuff really that popular? I know it is not on this board but but did from a retail store perspective did it sell well. One if the larger local stores sent a newsletter today saying it was coming back out but with limited distribution. Just seemed strange to me. Think it is just someone making hype for a product? The newsletter also mentioned the price was going up, which just means I will stay farther away from it.


Mike

I don't run a liquor store, so I can't tell you actual sales numbers, let me just say, I've never seen a hole on a shelf with a double oaked label underneath it here in GA. That's not anything factual outside of what I see around here. It's not running off the shelves in my opinion.

bigtoys
01-16-2013, 19:52
I thought it was regular production, not limited.
Anyway, fwiw, I like to use it in Manhattans and my variations.

Restaurant man
01-16-2013, 21:51
I don't run a liquor store, so I can't tell you actual sales numbers, let me just say, I've never seen a hole on a shelf with a double oaked label underneath it here in GA. That's not anything factual outside of what I see around here. It's not running off the shelves in my opinion.

And you rarely see it sold in a bar or restaurant here in GA Although I have over 30 bourbons on offer at all times, I wasn't gonna carry this or makers 46. There's just too much stuff out there. I do sell a shit-ton of woodford and makers. When I have had the makers 46 it has sold fast. Funny thing is(or great marketing) people don't really know what it is, they just consider it a "high end makers"

VAGentleman
01-16-2013, 22:24
I thought it was regular production, not limited.
Anyway, fwiw, I like to use it in Manhattans and my variations.

Correct it is regular production but when I did the tour at WR they said it was taking a while to get it ramped up and it was a limited first run with production ramping up over time. Thats what I meant.