Tom, Gary, would the unmalted rye grain have anything to do with it.
Printable View
Tom, Gary, would the unmalted rye grain have anything to do with it.
The Rum Howler blog offers up a review and scores it 93/100.
The blogger's notes are a bit far reaching (I don't think wet Poplar smells much different from other deciduous trees in the forest and mature grain on the ground after harvest actually has no scent) but the information from Dr. Livermore is very interesting.
I have to say I find his reviews routinely a little over the top. I don't know him personally but he is a regular reviewer of rum and he seems a little over enthusiastic at times, at least with rum. I guess we just don't have the same palate.Quote:
Originally Posted by squire
Not only that, but pretty much everything he reviews are from comp bottles - though unlike many bloggers he doesn't hide the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl2
Sounds like a good gig.
No doubt, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by squire
To be fair, one doesn't just start getting free bottles of booze to review - it takes time, work, favorable reviews, and some ... errr ... networking, before distributors* start sending you bottles to .... hummmm, errrrr, market on their behalf.
* Being in Canada, given the archaic liquor laws, it is virtually impossible for distillers to send you alcohol from outside the country.
Yeah, I guess that was kinda what I was trying to say about his reviews!Quote:
Originally Posted by portwood
Just on the point of the kerosene-like tastes I get in some whiskeys, I think it's a trait of younger whiskeys, not just ryes, distilled-out at lower proofs. I believe too (to answer a question Squire had) that raw grains tend to enhance the effect, not just for rye grain but corn or wheat too (or raw barley, as e.g. in some Irish whiskey). I don't get the taste in most Canadian whiskies though, perhaps I am used to it in small amounts.
I agree with Smithford that it would probably age out in products 10 years of age and over. In the States, given the new charred barrel is used, anything four years or over usually doesn't have the taste: the charred barrel and Kentucky climate have taken care of that. In Canada, generally used charred barrels are employed, so it will take longer, IMO, for a spirit to lose that taste than for a U.S. straight whiskey.
A little of the taste is okay, and the current Lot 40 strikes a good balance for me.
Gary
I brought the bottle of Lot 40 I got in January in Knoxville to Joe's for the GBS event and we compared it to one he has had for some years and is presumably from the first batch. Outwardly the bottles look nearly identical and there doesn't appear to be any way to tell if they are from different batches. The tastes was a little different but didn't seem to be significantly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillman
I now notice the new release says "2012 Edition Release" on the label (Duh!) so apparently I have a bottle of the first batch. It isn't bad but I am a little disappointed as I thought it was the new one when I bought it. Will have to be more careful in the future!