PDA

View Full Version : Stitzel & Weller.... Why is it special??



cigarnv
05-28-2008, 04:48
After being introduced to some early/mid-80's Stitzel & Weller made old Fitz by the Bourbon Brothers (thanks Mark and Greg) it is clear that something special was in place to make whiskey that is/was so unique in any number of ways. So what is it that makes the Stitzel & Weller so unique..is it the grain they had access to, something unique about the still, the recipe, barrels that were different in some way, the special touch of the master distiller, location of the aging barns, ????

So what is it that made Stitzel & Weller unique among it's peers?

OldJack
05-28-2008, 07:25
I don't know the answer, but I do know that the Weller Antique being made by Buffalo Trace is great, but the old bottle from the 80s my father opened up two years ago was better.

mozilla
05-28-2008, 07:42
After being introduced to some early/mid-80's Stitzel & Weller made old Fitz by the Bourbon Brothers (thanks Mark and Greg) it is clear that something special was in place to make whiskey that is/was so unique in any number of ways. So what is it that makes the Stitzel & Weller so unique..is it the grain they had access to, something unique about the still, the recipe, barrels that were different in some way, the special touch of the master distiller, location of the aging barns, ????

So what is it that made Stitzel & Weller unique among it's peers?


IMO, there are hundreds of factors that guide a bourbon to its flavor profile...maybe even more. Each one pushes or detracts the product in its direction to finality. What the SW facility created can't ever be recreated by another facitlity, because no one will ever be able to recreate all the minor factors that were available to SW back then(pre 1972). They made many choices that were not cost effective to the bottom line. Remember they made bourbon at a loss...if necessary. Find a CEO who will admit to that these days.

In short, they did things with love and care. It really showed in the final product.

mgilbertva
05-28-2008, 09:21
I'd like to add to Jeff's comments.

Part of S-W's uniqueness was the dedication to quality put in place by Pappy Van Winkle. For instance, he used higher quality barrels made in such a way as to increase the bourbon's exposure to the wood. So part of the answer is a set of procedures and priorities that presumably anyone similarly motivated could duplicate, or at least mimic given enough experience, difficult though that may be. Unfortunately, that kind of dedication is rare today.

Then, of course, there's the recipe and yeast. Both are industrial secrets carefully guarded. But again, something that presumably could be duplicated if someone got ahold of that recipe and a sample of the yeast.

But there's more to it than that. Each distillery has a unique flavor profile that is a function of all the individual parts, the micro-chemistry if you will. These are matters of accident: a still was made one way as a result of the manufacturing process, imperfections or slight variations that weren't planned but nevertheless contribute to the final product. (It's the same thing with wine: the micro-changes in climate, harvesting methods and so on all contribute to the final product making the difference between a good and an exceptional vintage.) Overhaul the column still and the flavor unavoidably changes. This means that flavor changes over time even for a single distillery.

Of course, it's not just mechanical imponderables that determine the end product. Part of it is the unique "genius" of the master distiller. What the Van Winkles picked out and blended is going to be different than someone else.

Add all of this up and you get something that may be utterly unique and probably unrepeatable.

Herein lies the origin of our collective insanity. :crazy:

StraightNoChaser
11-21-2011, 20:48
I wonder this exact same thing so often. I've heard stories like low distillation and barrel entry proof, specialized cooperage and high wheat mashbill, etc, but I've never been able to verify any of them

BourbonJoe
11-21-2011, 21:23
I agree that many factors influenced the S-W taste profile. Whatever the combination, there will never be a bourbon like Stitzel-Weller again. Such a pity. Drink 'em if you got 'em.
Joe :usflag:

cowdery
11-22-2011, 08:43
The still design was unusual, and copied by Maker's Mark, but it can never be narrowed down to any one thing. Other key factors were low distillation and entry proof, and the wheated recipe.

Tom Troland
11-22-2011, 10:51
Iíve tasted a number of Stitzel-Weller whiskeys; for example, a bottled-in-bond Very Very Old Fitzgerald 12 year old, a 16 year old Van Winkle Family Reserve, and the more recent Pappy bottles. They were certainly very good (the 16 year old was my favorite). But I question the notion that Stitzel-Weller is a notch above current production, or even significantly different, given the normal range of taste profiles in the bourbon industry.

As we all know, each distillery has a characteristic taste profile (or profiles) that are fascinating to compare. And these differences surely result from myriad variables in the distillation and aging processes. But how might one argue (for example) that Wild Turkey bourbons are superior to those from Buffalo Trace? Or vice versa? It is all a matter of personal taste, of course. Just as some peopleís personal taste might favor Stitzel-Weller bourbons over those of Buffalo Trace. Or Wild Turkey. Or Coke over Pepsi.

Most of the commotion about Stitzel-Weller, I am convinced, is nostalgia coupled with scarcity. Just like the Hirsch (aka Michter) bourbons from Pennsylvania. Iíve tried these, too. Again, good stuff, but not obviously superior to, or wildly different from, current production. At least to my taste. Also, was the famous Pappy Van Winkle more concerned about quality than current distillers like Jimmy Russell or Harlen Wheatley? Was Van Winkle more of a genius? I doubt it. But it is always fun to talk nostalgically about the good old days when men were men, dogs were dogs, and distillers took a cost-be-damned attitude to their whiskeys. But the good old days, I suspect, were no better than the present, and they were generally worse.

I have occasionally had the experience of trying a bourbon (or other spirit) bottled long ago. Frequently I have found that the older bottle tastes better. The best example in my experience was the pre-Prohibition bourbon offered by Mike Veach at a bourbon tasting. I was astonished by how good the old bourbon was. Mike speculated that the difference might be low barrel entry proof. But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding? If so, then this effect might also explain claims on this forum that older Makerís Mark tastes better. Even though folks at Makerís Mark swear it is the same stuff down through the years.

So Iím looking forward someday to comparing two Buffalo Trace Single Oak Project bottles with different barrel entry proofs (105 vs. 125). Then Iíll know if barrel entry proof makes a big difference, as Mike Veach suggests. (Chuck mentions the same thing in his book.) If barrel entry proof does not matter, then Iíll guess that age in the bottle likely improves a spirit. Sometimes at least. If barrel entry proof does make a big difference, then I hope distillers will provide more low entry proof whiskeys to the market. Just as, according to Chuckís book, they did before Prohibition.

Has anyone already made the barrel entry proof comparison with BT Single Oak Project bottles? The third release offers this opportunity.

StraightNoChaser
11-22-2011, 11:43
I also noticed that older bottlings I've had the opportunity to taste share a distinct roundness and fruitiness to them that just doesn't exist in currently produced offerings. This includes an OC7BiB from the 80's, Weller Centennial, a '84 FC7/103, '88 DSPKY16 OFBiB, etc

birdman1099
11-22-2011, 11:58
But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding? .


I am becoming more are more of a beliver that is a factor....

T Comp
11-22-2011, 14:43
And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!

stevegoz
11-22-2011, 15:44
Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?

Brisko
11-23-2011, 06:45
Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?


I think so, but I don't really have much proof. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, but especially in the 80s, corn hybrids really became yield driven, which may or may not have an effect on flavor. They've also managed to tweak the oil and starch content in some (which would affect flavor)-- whether those particular hybrids are going to the distillers, I have no idea.

soad
11-23-2011, 10:56
But I wonder if time spent in the bottle does not sometimes improve a spirit, conventional wisdom notwithstanding?

I've often wondered this as well. It seems that bourbon drank today from the 1970's is referred to as 'great' FAR more often than not.

Of course there is no way to drink 1970's bourbon that has not been in a bottle for over 30 years, so there is no way to prove it either way.

tigerlam92
11-23-2011, 13:18
Discussion are getting very interested. Thanks for people's input. I am very much interested.

While I do not know what is special in term of production wise, I know that in term of my tastes and preference, I really like the good SW over anything current. It's just different and better. Even the 8 years aged all blow away anything current (even well aged) in terms of nose, color, taste profile, balance, smoothness, etc. Perhaps the key here is the balance and that all aspects are great.

It's perhaps all the millions of minute details that happen to click into place and with someone with the magic touch to recognize it and believe in it's greatness.

If we can identify the 10 major most impactful factors and which has degraded since then that would be a great intellectual exercise. However, likely, we may not be able to repeat SW and that would be unfortunate.

Cheers
--Hugh

ggilbertva
11-23-2011, 16:21
Is it possible that, even in some small way, the ongoing march from family farms to agri-business and some of the ways in which the production of corn, wheat, rye and barley has been juiced up has had an effect? That the corn from the first half of the 20th Century is in some small way different than more modern crops?

It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.

StraightNoChaser
11-23-2011, 16:28
It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.
4R, IMO, is the closest thing we have today that resembles the old school style.

DeanSheen
11-23-2011, 21:17
And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Special dispensation because it is of course Stitzel Weller! :bowdown::deadhorse:

p_elliott
11-24-2011, 08:13
It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before). My experience has been that older, out of production bourbons (e.g. SW offerings, Old Forester) have a coating effect on the palate that is not found much in today's offerings. Not to say it doesn't exists. The recent Rutledge pick for SV is has a very creamy mouthfeel and coats the palate reminiscent of older production.

It is my understanding that some if not all the distilleries refuse to use GM corn. Reason being that if a few years down the road it's determined that GM is unsafe they would have to dump all their aging and aged bourbon. This would be financially disastrous.

MacinJosh
11-24-2011, 14:35
I'm currently reading But Always Fine Bourbon and it is certainly an educational asset on the old SW distillery and the way they operated back then.

A must read for any SW enthusiast.


Josh

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cowdery
11-25-2011, 12:04
It is my understanding that some if not all the distilleries refuse to use GM corn. Reason being that if a few years down the road it's determined that GM is unsafe they would have to dump all their aging and aged bourbon. This would be financially disastrous.

They mostly use non-GM because the export market expects it. To the extent concerns about GM corn are absurd, double that for corn-based distillates.

There are enough real things in this world to worry about.

Josh
11-25-2011, 21:28
And obviously Stitzel Weller is special enough (to answer the thread title's question) that it could be posted on after three years of inactivity!


Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

Special dispensation because it is of course Stitzel Weller! :bowdown::deadhorse:

Bump

:fish2: :fish2: :fish2: :fish2: :fish2:

Brisko
11-28-2011, 06:42
It's my understand that corn decades ago was more protein based but due to the introduction of GM, corn is now starch based (or more so than before).

Doesn't have to be GM-- they've been tweaking it for years through traditional breeding.

cowdery
11-28-2011, 07:46
What protein there is in corn has no impact on the whiskey-making process. It all winds up in the spent grain. What the yeast, and thus the distillers, want is starch that can be converted into sugar and thus into alcohol. So from our standpoint, anything that increases the starch content is good.

ILLfarmboy
11-29-2011, 21:10
Even if a genetically modified product was determined to be unsafe, unfit for human consumption or use in animal feed, what biological remains in a distilled spirit. I mean, if there was enough glucose stored in a cow brain infected with BSE couldn't you use it to make a distilled spirit and that spirit would be perfectly safe to drink?



There are enough real things in this world to worry about.

Dang, I actually agree with Chuck. That's unusual.

jasonh
11-30-2011, 21:33
Over the years, I have frequented a number of online forums that dwell on various specific spirits. Whether it's tequila, rum or some other type of whisk(e)y, there are always discussions on why the present day offerings of some quality brand are not as good as old bottlings, even though the process hasn't changed. To see these same discussions span over all types of spirits makes me believe there is something to bottle conditioning. Some of it might just be due to a little lowering of the alcohol content (without adding water) from evaporation. Something along the lines of what happens when you do a reduction in cooking. It would interesting to know what he actual alcohol content is for old bottles, compared to what is written on the label. Some of it might might be due to a break down of volatile compounds that will inherently be in any distilled spirit, that once neutralize, allow a spirit to really shine.

With people willing to pay a lot more for artisanal distilled spirits today, probably more than ever in the history of mankind, I find the argument that "cost cutting is the reason nothing can be as good as the old stuff" to be very hard to believe. Granted a lot of the artisanal efforts out there are still pretty young. However, we are likely going to enter into a new golden age in whiskey here in about 5 to 10 years, once all this white dog on the market has had a chance to age.

I also highly doubt humanity knows less about distilling as a whole today than they did 50 to 100 years ago. Knowledge worth it's salt gets passed on.

ILLfarmboy
11-30-2011, 22:18
Over the years, I have frequented a number of online forums that dwell on various specific spirits. Whether it's tequila, rum or some other type of whisk(e)y, there are always discussions on why the present day offerings of some quality brand are not as good as old bottlings, even though the process hasn't changed. To see these same discussions span over all types of spirits makes me believe there is something to bottle conditioning. Some of it might just be due to a little lowering of the alcohol content (without adding water) from evaporation. Something along the lines of what happens when you do a reduction in cooking. It would interesting to know what he actual alcohol content is for old bottles, compared to what is written on the label. Some of it might might be due to a break down of volatile compounds that will inherently be in any distilled spirit, that once neutralize, allow a spirit to really shine.

With people willing to pay a lot more for artisanal distilled spirits today, probably more than ever in the history of mankind, I find the argument that "cost cutting is the reason nothing can be as good as the old stuff" to be very hard to believe. Granted a lot of the artisanal efforts out there are still pretty young. However, we are likely going to enter into a new golden age in whiskey here in about 5 to 10 years, once all this white dog on the market has had a chance to age.

I also highly doubt humanity knows less about distilling as a whole today than they did 50 to 100 years ago. Knowledge worth it's salt gets passed on.


But the process has changed, in a manner of speaking.

At least where straight American whiskeys are concerned ( I don't know about other spirits) the distillation proofs and barreling proofs have gone up in the last 30 years.

Also, I think those who atribute same changes to the use of younger trees for making the barrels may have a point.

These two factors, the former more so than the latter, combined with the fact that there was a whiskey glut back in the 70's perhaps on into the early 80's wich led to the use of stocks a bit older than what the age statements were (you wouldn't see anyone doing that today) acounts for a lot of the "they don't make 'em like they use to" argument.

Josh
12-01-2011, 05:07
Over the years, I have frequented a number of online forums that dwell on various specific spirits. Whether it's tequila, rum or some other type of whisk(e)y, there are always discussions on why the present day offerings of some quality brand are not as good as old bottlings, even though the process hasn't changed. To see these same discussions span over all types of spirits makes me believe there is something to bottle conditioning. Some of it might just be due to a little lowering of the alcohol content (without adding water) from evaporation. Something along the lines of what happens when you do a reduction in cooking. It would interesting to know what he actual alcohol content is for old bottles, compared to what is written on the label. Some of it might might be due to a break down of volatile compounds that will inherently be in any distilled spirit, that once neutralize, allow a spirit to really shine.

In addition to what Brad said, what many people forget about is THE GLUT. IMO the biggest reason why most dusties seem to taste better is because American Whiskey makers overproduced in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, there was much older whiskey going into bottles on all shevles in the 80s and into the early 90s.


Granted a lot of the artisanal efforts out there are still pretty young. However, we are likely going to enter into a new golden age in whiskey here in about 5 to 10 years, once all this white dog on the market has had a chance to age.

Assuming it's going to be any good and that these distillers are putting back whiskey to age for 5-10 years which are open questions. The so-called artisanal efforts are expensive not necessarily because they take more care or are higher quality but because all these small start-ups are in need of cash to keep themselves above water.

Gillman
12-01-2011, 07:58
In this beverage science text, the statement is made that a flavor difference results from using metal vs. wood fermenters:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=13Eyp2p2mPkC&pg=PA416&dq=bourbon+%2B+consumer+preference+%2B+bacteria&hl=en&ei=5aLXTuLKFonq0gGt5eTsDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepa

Of course, this alone may not explain anything for a specific whiskey profile over time, but it is one of the factors IMO, amongst others, which may explain changes of flavor in bourbon generally from one generation to the next.

Gary

tommyboy38
12-01-2011, 08:02
Maybe it's not that special.
I do enjoy a good wheater but I also enjoy whiskey from many distilleries from times past. It's not just SW, It's BF, OT and OGD.

There was apoint made previously that something could change in the bottle. Maybe we need a mass spectrometer to test whiskey as it sits in the bottle and see what changes.

Maybe the current Old Fitz will taste great if you let the bottle sit until 2031. I'll start that experiment now and post on this 12/1/2031

Josh
12-01-2011, 08:10
In this beverage science text, the statement is made that a flavor difference results from using metal vs. wood fermenters:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=13Eyp2p2mPkC&pg=PA416&dq=bourbon+%2B+consumer+preference+%2B+bacteria&hl=en&ei=5aLXTuLKFonq0gGt5eTsDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepa

Of course, this alone may not explain anything for a specific whiskey profile over time, but it is one of the factors IMO, amongst others, which may explain changes of flavor in bourbon generally from one generation to the next.

Gary

Jim Rutledge seems to think otherwise.


In the 1960's and `70's long-term experiments proved that it doesn't make a difference if fermentation takes place in wood or steel or any container. The construction of the fermenter and the materials used have no impact on the chemical process.... These experiments were again confirmed in the `90's. We use both red cypress and stainless steel fermenters, and one's not better than the other.
http://bourbondork.blogspot.com/2011/11/q-34-with-four-roses-master-distiller.html

Gillman
12-01-2011, 09:32
What does he mean by "chemical process" though, does it include taste?

Just as an example, I've read that chemically, highly rectified GNS is the same regardless of the feedstock used to provide the fermentables it is distilled from. Yet, many would claim (correctly or not I don't know) that vodka from grapes doesn't taste exactly the same as vodka from corn, or that vodka from corn tastes different to vodka from rye, etc. The difficulty is that the water makes a lot of difference too to the taste, so it's hard to know what explains what, at least from consumer standpoint.

Gary

Gillman
12-01-2011, 09:41
We will never know the actual answer IMO because this wood-metal aspect, even if it means something, is just one variable. There are so many variables in the process, and they must surely change over time to a degree, that I doubt any one of them can explain a detectable change.

Gary

Josh
12-01-2011, 10:07
What does he mean by "chemical process" though, does it include taste?


That's a good question.



Just as an example, I've read that chemically, highly rectified GNS is the same regardless of the feedstock used to provide the fermentables it is distilled from. Yet, many would claim (correctly or not I don't know) that vodka from grapes doesn't taste exactly the same as vodka from corn, or that vodka from corn tastes different to vodka from rye, etc. The difficulty is that the water makes a lot of difference too to the taste, so it's hard to know what explains what, at least from consumer standpoint.

Gary

I have tasted a wheat and a rye vodka from the same distillery side by side and I have noticed a slight difference between the two, but it was so slight that I wasn't sure if it was really there or just the power of suggestion. I've had a grape vodka too, and it did taste different from what I remember Stoli or Smirnoff tasting like, but again there wasn't enough of a difference to be sure.

Gillman
12-01-2011, 10:21
I recall a grape vodka too Josh, from France in this case. I felt I could taste a slight effect from the grapes, of course it may have been intentional in that case.

It's an interesting issue but again very difficult to pin down. Still, that statement from the beverage science text was worth recording here I thought...

Gary

DeanSheen
12-01-2011, 13:45
I don't know about taste but I did meet a guy at a party last year that had brought potato vodka because he was allergic to wheat.

Josh
12-01-2011, 14:00
I recall a grape vodka too Josh, from France in this case. I felt I could taste a slight effect from the grapes, of course it may have been intentional in that case.

It's an interesting issue but again very difficult to pin down. Still, that statement from the beverage science text was worth recording here I thought...

Gary

Round Barn Winery on Michigan's SW coast makes (or gets someone else to make) a vodka called Divine, made from grapes. That was the one I tried.

ILLfarmboy
12-01-2011, 14:02
I don't know about taste but I did meet a guy at a party last year that had brought potato vodka because he was allergic to wheat.

I have no words..........................

StraightNoChaser
12-01-2011, 16:27
I recall a grape vodka too Josh, from France in this case. I felt I could taste a slight effect from the grapes, of course it may have been intentional in that case.

It's an interesting issue but again very difficult to pin down. Still, that statement from the beverage science text was worth recording here I thought...

Gary

European vodka standards are fairly lax. It's common practice to use additives that enhance flavor characteristics to achieve a house profile

tmckenzie
12-02-2011, 02:20
we make a grape vodka and it does taste a little different. In fact that is what we are running this week. 24 hours a day. Got 6000 gallons of wine to run. 300 gallons at the damn time. I am so ready to get back on whiskey.

cowdery
12-02-2011, 10:44
Although virtually all vodka available for sale in the United States is made from grain, U.S. rules allow vodka to be made from any raw material. The raw material used must be disclosed on the label. Circoc is the best known grape vodka. Chopin is the best known potato vodka.

I think most people believe all vodka is made from potatoes. Funny that. Even historically, in the vodka heartland of Poland and Russia, potatoes were used only when grain was scarce. Potatoes are native to the Americas so they are relatively recent arrivals in Europe.

Periodically, Poland and Russia try to get the EU to declare that vodka must be made from either grain or potatoes, nothing else.

In addition to grain, potatoes, and grapes, vodka may also be made from sugar cane.

smokinjoe
12-02-2011, 11:41
Although virtually all vodka available for sale in the United States is made from grain, U.S. rules allow vodka to be made from any raw material. The raw material used must be disclosed on the label. Circoc is the best known grape vodka. Chopin is the best known potato vodka.

I think most people believe all vodka is made from potatoes. Funny that. Even historically, in the vodka heartland of Poland and Russia, potatoes were used only when grain was scarce. Potatoes are native to the Americas so they are relatively recent arrivals in Europe.

Periodically, Poland and Russia try to get the EU to declare that vodka must be made from either grain or potatoes, nothing else.

In addition to grain, potatoes, and grapes, vodka may also be made from sugar cane.

The potato thing is interesting. I know that as a kid/young adult, I was told that vodka was made from potatoes. Heard this from several sources. But, primarily I can remember my dad telling me this in a thick and somewhat believable, though, fake Russian accent. :) I wonder why many people thought/think that? Any idea? Maybe, a readily available and cheap source to make moonshine by early European immigrants to this country, and it just carried over somehow?

cowdery
12-02-2011, 15:38
I'm sure that's what I 'learned' as a kid too and believed until I began to work in the business and learned the truth. I don't know where it comes from but it is pretty universal. I do know that the word and drink were virtually unknown in the USA until after Prohibition, when Smirnoff was introduced, so the tale is of fairly recent vintage. It was, perhaps, a rumor started by the competition to undermine vodka sales.

tmckenzie
12-02-2011, 16:16
I tell folks at least 10 times a week that it is not from potatoes. I remeber my dady saying it came from potatoes. But he also thought you could drink it to hide that you were drinking, becuase it had no smell.

jburlowski
12-02-2011, 17:12
I tell folks at least 10 times a week that it is not from potatoes. I remeber my dady saying it came from potatoes. But he also thought you could drink it to hide that you were drinking, becuase it had no smell.

Wasn't it Smirnoff that advertised the fact that it has no smell?

cowdery
12-02-2011, 19:19
"Smirnoff Leaves You Breathless."

smokinjoe
12-05-2011, 19:20
Very old S-W (pre-sale) is special. Very special. The dribs and drabs that have been released over the last several years...not so special, IMO.

Lost Pollito
12-05-2011, 20:09
IMO, SW is special because it tastes great, and is no longer made. Simple.

Rughi
12-07-2011, 19:49
IMO, SW is special because it tastes great...

Less Filling!

Roger