PDA

View Full Version : Evan Williams Single Barrel, 1997



NickAtMartinis
10-26-2007, 19:36
I purchased this last night for $32.99. For the first time tonight, I tried Evan William Single Barrel, 1997 and it was horrible.

Now, my feelings could change on this, I know. As an example, I said Wild Turkey Tribute wasn't very good and then I turned out to love it. So, yes, my feelings could change. However, will it do a 180? Doubt it. Maybe I'll go from hating it to not minding or liking it somewhat but not the point of love.

Okay, I'm not one of those tasting geeks that's going to break down flavor in a bourbon, i.e., the first sip rolls atop my tongue like a sparrow sauntering in the restless wind, and with a stiff swallow the flavors of orange zest on a summer's eve accompanied by tanglewood wrapped in English leather just off the shore of a Brazilian monclave in late July with a whisper of wind enchanting the silk finish...etc. No, I'm not one of those. And, you know what, bully for you if you are. I give you credit for doing so. But here, I will give my weak rendition of the flavor that ever so subtly tinkled on my tongue (that's right, tinkled not thingled): A very weak flavor did arise after the initial dull taste of stagnant water, it was that of a fresh pile of dirt being pushed in a wheel barrow gently falling as it goes, onto my tongue. What followed was a weak spattering of alcohol, followed by a total hollowness, like sucking on a piece of parchment paper and expecting great flavor to explode on my pallate.

Dang, this stuff is just horrible. I seriously do not want to revisit it but, alas, I probably will once all other bottle are depleted. Oh well, such is life in the wallet of a modern day, blue collar every man.

Cheers,

The other Mark Brown

Barrel_Proof
10-26-2007, 19:49
I have long objected to the characterization of the EWSB Vintages as a solitary lot. There are just too many barrels bottled each year to achieve consistency. (I know I am in the minority on this.) And don't get me wrong; I love the EWSB Vintage project, just don't think every barrel from a given year can be lumped together as though of one inviolable profile.

So, which 97 barrel so offends you?

NickAtMartinis
10-26-2007, 20:23
I have long objected to the characterization of the EWSB Vintages as a solitary lot. There are just too many barrels bottled each year to achieve consistency. (I know I am in the minority on this.) And don't get me wrong; I love the EWSB Vintage project, just don't think every barrel from a given year can be lumped together as though of one inviolable profile.

So, which 97 barrel so offends you?


Good question. Barrel # 404. To be honest, I sincerely doubt that another barrel tagged to be EWSB would be so vastly different that I'd feel crook-armed to purchase it. But, that's just my feeling.

NickAtMartinis
10-26-2007, 21:02
A quick note: thank goodness for my purchase of Weller Antique. Darn fine bourbon.

polyamnesia
10-27-2007, 19:15
A quick note: thank goodness for my purchase of Weller Antique. Darn fine bourbon.

same here. today. and am still trying to figure out what's going on with it. but i know i like it!

i relate to your 'change' of mind regarding a bottle.

i've hit some kind of level in my whiskey tasting that i find AMBIVALENCE asserting itself in an intriguing way...

just last week i discovered my (thus far, and surprisingly) favorite pour: Russell's Reserve 90. i know the 101 is supposedly better. etc. but i am a WT fan and, upon my first two pours of RR90, i found a let down. i tried again and, oddly, was reminded of something that wasn't even a bourbon: APPLEJACK. the RR90 seemed thin as Applejack...

then, third pour on (another day later) and the complexities and subtle aspects became assertive. even the thin-ness disappeared. so, i learned a lesson (now further impressed upon me by your own experience) to give a bottle a few chances. our tongues shift just as the sun and weather and earth-spin and (etc etc etc) do!

of course, i know it gets more complex. does what we eat (even after our palates are quite cleansed) and take into our bodies ultimately affect our abilities to detect nuances? what about moods? enjoying a pour is relaxing, but darn complicated!:confused:

Hedmans Brorsa
10-28-2007, 03:13
Havenīt been keeping up lately. Is the -97 a Jim Beam product? I ignored the -96 due to the fact that it wasnīt made at HH.

All in all, though, I regard EWSB pre 1996 as one of the best that the bourbon industry has on offer. It is certainly one of the brands I would pick if I were to challenge a non-convert. Professionality is the keyword here.

As for complete turnarounds: my most extreme case was the Isle of Jura Superstition which I deemed as undrinkable when I opened it. After half a bottle I adored it. These things happen from time to time and I can never predict it.

craigthom
10-28-2007, 05:27
There was some 1996 that went into the barrel in December, so that wasn't made at Heaven Hill, but most of it was. The fire was in November of that year.

pepcycle
10-28-2007, 08:07
"Okay, I'm not one of those tasting geeks that's going to break down flavor in a bourbon"

You're right.

Hedmans Brorsa
10-28-2007, 10:06
There was some 1996 that went into the barrel in December, so that wasn't made at Heaven Hill, but most of it was. The fire was in November of that year.

I see. Well, thanks for that info. I was under the impression that all -96 bottlings were from Jim Beam.

Rughi
10-28-2007, 10:14
I see. Well, thanks for that info. I was under the impression that all -96 bottlings were from Jim Beam.

Here are two threads you may find of interest:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=89234&highlight=fire#post89234
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6861&highlight=Evan

Roger

Hedmans Brorsa
10-28-2007, 11:42
Here are two threads you may find of interest:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=89234&highlight=fire#post89234
http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6861&highlight=Evan

Roger

Thanks! I have been partly inactive during parts of the year and from time to time the finer details of some issues must have eluded me.

Perusing the above-mentioned threads I thought the 95 was in for a somewhat rough ride. I thought it was really, really good. Not as impressive as the the 92, which is my favourite, but still.

NickAtMartinis
10-29-2007, 15:36
does what we eat (even after our palates are quite cleansed) and take into our bodies ultimately affect our abilities to detect nuances? what about moods? enjoying a pour is relaxing, but darn complicated!:confused:

Definitely. What we eat/drink certainly affects our tastebuds. For example, I had a cheeseburger with onion and then an hour later had some PVW20 and it didn't care for the taste as much. Of course, that was due to the onion flavor. Another quick example is when I had Evan Williams the other night and upon realizing my complete and utter disdain, I quickly changed over to Weller Antique, but for the rest of the night my tastebuds were tainted by EWSB so the Weller wasn't as great as usual.

NickAtMartinis
10-29-2007, 15:39
"Okay, I'm not one of those tasting geeks that's going to break down flavor in a bourbon"

You're right.


Ed, I hope I didn't offend you by that statement. It certainly was my intent, if so. I believe I provided a disclaimer prior to that sentence.

craigthom
10-29-2007, 15:43
You may not think "geek" is an insulting term, but most people do. Some people may self-identify with the word, but that doesn't grant a general license to use it.

NickAtMartinis
10-29-2007, 16:06
You may not think "geek" is an insulting term, but most people do. Some people may self-identify with the word, but that doesn't grant a general license to use it.

Certainly, that wasn't my intent. Though, it is very easy to sometimes misunderstand the intent/undertone of someone's written ramblings (such as my very own).

Again, my apologies to all those that were offended by the term geek. I certainly wasn't using the word in a malicious way.

pepcycle
10-30-2007, 07:10
I wasn't offended. In fact, I strive for Geek status.
(Wanna see my slide rule and pocket protector collection?)

I just find it interesting that some people are determined not to become "geeks" and afraid they'll be ruined by knowing too much about flavors and styles.

Some are content to stay in the cave of hedonic evaluation.

I for one, am not.

Power to the Bourbogeeks!!!!

NickAtMartinis
10-30-2007, 07:34
I wasn't offended. In fact, I strive for Geek status.
(Wanna see my slide rule and pocket protector collection?)

I just find it interesting that some people are determined not to become "geeks" and afraid they'll be ruined by knowing too much about flavors and styles.

Some are content to stay in the cave of hedonic evaluation.

I for one, am not.

Power to the Bourbogeeks!!!!

:grin:

Great post! I'm glad you weren't offended. And, I do admire those who can break down the different smells and flavors. It's a talent that I obviously do not have.

polyamnesia
10-30-2007, 18:37
i don't mind geek. everyone's some sort of geek...

but i prefer egghead...:rolleyes:

TNbourbon
10-30-2007, 18:55
There was some 1996 that went into the barrel in December, so that wasn't made at Heaven Hill, but most of it was. The fire was in November of that year.

I believe it's been determined that that was a labeling error. You'd have to be better at searching these forums than I am to find the reference, but I remember it plainly.
I don't think there is ANY 1996 EWSB made at Beam.

Oops -- Roger's already on it! Op cit 'Rughi'.

craigthom
10-31-2007, 04:11
According to those threads the label error was the DSP-KY 31 for all the 1996. Nobody challenged the December barrel dates being post-fire.