John:
> Alas, I'm afraid I've also given my hair, I just can't remember to whom...
Man, you guys did drink a lot at the Bourbon Festival, didn't you? Have you looked in, say, Virginia yet?
Stotz
Printable View
John:
> Alas, I'm afraid I've also given my hair, I just can't remember to whom...
Man, you guys did drink a lot at the Bourbon Festival, didn't you? Have you looked in, say, Virginia yet?
Stotz
Oh my gosh! Maybe THAT's how I came to acquire this pair of pants that will never fit me!
=John=
http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey
Thank You Gents! Twenty five years ago I *was* a centerfold! I've never been a cover boy though, but I'll take the job if anyone offers. I'll also write you a short story for a reasonable fee. I don't do "articles".
Linn Spencer
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
Right you are sir! It's just oatragous!
Linn Spencer
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
John:
> That's kinda what I mean by different interpretations. Of course you don't
> need to explain that to a technical expert.
Ah. My interpretation of the "High proof usually makes for high flavor remark" was within a distilling context; that is, bourbons distilled out at higher proof have more flavor, which, needless to say isn't true. AAMOF, I believe a few of us noted on our bourbon wish lists here a while back that we'd like to have a bourbon distilled to a lower proof for that very reason.
If we're talking bourbons bottled at higher proof, I'd have to agree with them. This only speaks to my problem with their writing. They should have made the context clearer. Unless I'm being particularly dense on this or something.
> Suppose you name for us a single bourbon which is bottled above 100 proof
> which is NOT high in flavor?
Stumped.
Stotz
"> Suppose you name for us a single bourbon which is bottled above 100 proof
> which is NOT high in flavor?
Stumped."
Ditto! That's why I challenged. I think that's what most end consumers would have understood them to mean, and from that viewpoint they're right on target. Sometimes we bourbomaniacs forget just how "into it" we really are, which, of course, means how "out of it" we can become to ordinary citizens. Strangely, you don't hear the folks who are really insiders, like say, Jimmy Russell or Elmer Lee, make that mistake.
=John=
http://w3.one.net/~jeffelle/whiskey