StraightNoChaser
02-27-2012, 16:10
I have some RHF that was bottled in 2001. While I haven't gone and compared it side by side with the bottle currently on the shelves, I have tried RHF previously and found it completely underwhelming, in the same way I feel about most of BT's bourbons. I tend to taste a sour, acidic note in just about everything else they make that isn't BTAC. It's a complete turnoff.
I drink bourbon more than I "taste" it so I'm not the type to take tasting notes and make obscure descriptions about what I'm drinking. I am more likely to simply observe the nose, flavor and finish and determine whether or not it is pleasurable. There are varying degrees of "goodness" to me as well, so I do have a way of distinguishing what I like more and less.
I find that this 01 bottle of RHF has a lot more goodness to it than more recent ones I've tried, by a long shot. The texture and spice level are right at my sweet spot. I couldn't say this compares at all to the RHF I've had before.
I'm susceptible to believe that this is old bottle effect. While I do like this now, I don't remember caring for it much when I opened it nearly 8-9 months ago. It didn't have the character BT sourness I am inclined to pick up but it wasn't for me. It certainly didn't hit my mouth with a luscious spicy texture like it does now.
I am also curious to know if there were any major equipment or production technique changes in the 90s that would have altered the character of the bourbon we see on the shelves today. I believe this RHF was distilled in winter of 93 so it would have been after that.
It will be interesting to hear opinions on this phenomenon. If the consensus leans towards OBE then I'll be somewhat tickled as I've never really been able to notice it before. If you guys emphasize production changes... I might have to seek out some more older BT distillates...
I drink bourbon more than I "taste" it so I'm not the type to take tasting notes and make obscure descriptions about what I'm drinking. I am more likely to simply observe the nose, flavor and finish and determine whether or not it is pleasurable. There are varying degrees of "goodness" to me as well, so I do have a way of distinguishing what I like more and less.
I find that this 01 bottle of RHF has a lot more goodness to it than more recent ones I've tried, by a long shot. The texture and spice level are right at my sweet spot. I couldn't say this compares at all to the RHF I've had before.
I'm susceptible to believe that this is old bottle effect. While I do like this now, I don't remember caring for it much when I opened it nearly 8-9 months ago. It didn't have the character BT sourness I am inclined to pick up but it wasn't for me. It certainly didn't hit my mouth with a luscious spicy texture like it does now.
I am also curious to know if there were any major equipment or production technique changes in the 90s that would have altered the character of the bourbon we see on the shelves today. I believe this RHF was distilled in winter of 93 so it would have been after that.
It will be interesting to hear opinions on this phenomenon. If the consensus leans towards OBE then I'll be somewhat tickled as I've never really been able to notice it before. If you guys emphasize production changes... I might have to seek out some more older BT distillates...