View Full Version : Weller 12 y/o vs. Weller Centennial

11-03-2004, 21:26
I've been alternating between these two for the last few nights.

Am I the only one who prefers the 12 y/o at half the price of the Centennial?

I grant that the Centennial has a more interesting nose, with both the bite of freshly cut apple and the sweetness of banana oil, layered with a woody flavor that reminds me of Jefferson's Reserve (the wooden pencil thing again). The direct sweetness of the 12 y/o is almost cloying by comparison.

However, on the palate the Centennial is not just apple, but green apple -- much too tart for my taste, and the finish is dry to the point of being flinty.

In contrast, the simple sweetness of the 12 y/o carries through to the palate and lingers longer than it has any right to.

I'm glad I satisfied my curiousity and picked up a bottle of the Centennial at Hi-Time before I left L.A., but I'm even gladder that I picked up a 1.75 liter of the 12 y/o on my trip to Houston.

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

11-03-2004, 21:35
My favorite pour of all time is the 12yr old VVO Weller in the mid-late 60s.

11-03-2004, 21:39
I still thought I liked Michelob and Jack Daniel's in those days. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif (Now I think the attraction back then was probably all in the images.)

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

11-03-2004, 22:02
Dave, I like them both a lot -- but, I probably prefer the Centennial. However, it should be noted that I'm drinking the older, Louisville bottlings, of which I still have a couple bunkered. I haven't compared it recently with the newer Frankfort/BT bottlings.
Also, I recently heard (via someone who'd talked to BT's Mark Brown directly), that Weller 12 is likely closer to 15 years old right now. I can't help but wonder whether it will change when the stock from which it's made returns closer to its stated age. Perhaps not -- that's what master distillers are for, to keep a taste profile consistent -- but it's something to watch for.

Ken Weber
11-04-2004, 07:28
For what it is worth, I prefer the Weller 12 over the Centennial. It justs has a sweetness that the 10 year 100 proof lacks.


11-05-2004, 14:18
I may be in the minority here, but my favorite of the Weller line is the Antique, 7 YO 107. I am working on a bottle of Centennial right now - and it does lack the sweetness of the others.



11-05-2004, 14:43
I am a lover of all things "Weller", Except the Antique 107. I know that I am in the minority here, but all I get from this bourbon is "hot and astringent". Now I'll admit I have only had one bottle two years ago, but it left an impression such that I would pass up a free drink of it. Maybe I should try it again. Who's got that free drink? http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif

Now, I know I sound like a broken record but Weller 12yo is one of the best bourbons on the market, bar none. http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/yum.gif It has such a deep, rich fruity-sweetness that I can't get enough of. It's obscene how good it is for the price. Damn, I'm salivating just thinking about it http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif

11-08-2004, 12:06
Weller 12 all the way! After a long day of pushing drugs, the only cure that matters to me is a tall bourbon and rocks. Weller 12 is #1 and 1849 is next. cheers to everyone!

12-23-2004, 12:42
A curious thing happened last night after I did the Jim Beam white label tasting.

It occured to me that I had used some of the same words in that tasting that I had used in regard to Weller Centennial in this thread. However, I recalled the Centennial with restrained fondness, in sharp contrast to the Jim Beam. I decided to revisit the Centennial.

To my surprise I found it to be much tastier than I had recalled. I think my experience reinforces the idea that our (or at least "my") taste apparatus is easily confused by what has gone before.

Whereas Centennial struck me as unpleasantly dry and edgy when tasted in conjunction with the much sweeter Weller 12 y/o, it became very appealing when tasted immediately after Jim Beam white label.

In the past I have resorted to comparison tastings as a way around my inability to find the right words to describe a particular bottling on its own terms. I now see a drawback to that approach. Perhaps a series of head-to-head, comparative tastings would be less apt to produce misleading results.

Yours truly,
Dave Morefield

12-23-2004, 13:29
I generally have more than one bourbon anytime I have more than a single pour -- and, generally, I have two a night -- so I use the wine-guide theory: lighter-to-heavier, white-to-red.
In bourbon-speak, I drink lower-proof first, and/or wheat before rye (the rye can show itself after the wheat, thought the wheat suffers after very heavy rye, I think). Usually, though, I stick to rye or wheat, and don't cross over.
It doesn't always work (nor does it always with wine, either) -- your appreciation for the Weller wheater after Beam, for example (though I'd argue that Beam-then-Centennial does amount to lighter-to-heavier) -- but I find it works well enough to keep doing it.