http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html
Craig
Printable View
interesting, but seems less informative than it is at attempted entertainment...
i didn't like the way he continued the stereotyping of bourbon drinkers (as if that was possible) while acting like the stereotype was soon to vanish. not after this article.
not bad. but Wild Turkey didn't make their 'cut' ???:rolleyes:
The article states: Bourbon is also not corn whiskey, which by law cannot be stored in charred oak containers. A whiskey can be distilled 100 percent from corn, but if it so much as kisses those charred oak containers it becomes bourbon.
Shouldn't that read: NEW CHARRED OAK CONTAINERS?
As far as the stereotype, what do you expect? Its the NY Times.
Gee all I wanted to do was play "Name That Bottle" with their picture...sadly I lost, as I couldn't place them all.
Heh, I came here to post that article. Quite a nod to Knob Creek. I guess any perceived positive press is better than none?
I find it of note that the New York Times is devoting so much coverage recently to bourbon and craft distilled spirits. This is a good article and will continue the trend of establishing bourbon - or re-establishing it - as one of the world's great spirits in what might be termed the official food and wine culture. I did wonder about or disagree with a couple of comments in the article: I was puzzled by the suggestion for example that the current spate of quality brands seems different, e.g., less corn-oriented, than in times past. My own tastings of bourbon from past decades suggests the palate of bourbon has remained the same overall. If anything some products of a generation ago achieved a smoothness and range of flavors not obtainable today (e.g., the output of the S-W still, the National Distillers Old Grand-dad and Old Taylor).
I think the reality is that the greatness of bourbon was overlooked in the broader culture: it was assumed something home-grown could not be world class. This is a common attitude found in many countries about their national produce: real ale was viewed without special interest in the U.K. even though it ranks with the greatest Chateau wines (IMO) for interest and complexity of flavor. The French were different about their great drinks, they boosted them and (quite properly) convinced themselves and the world of their greatness. But the French have always been different in this regard, they have a particular interest and indeed passion for "la table" (food and wine in general) which makes them view these things in a different light. This attitude has now transplanted to major urban centres such as New York and to sub-cultures around the world who know when they have something good: a recent example in Canada is the craze for ice wine which has established a niche in high end wine markets around the world.
But anyway all this coverage is only to the good.
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDS
On the other end of the spectrum, the author made it a point to go out of his way to stomp on Maker's Mark, remarking, "it didn't even come close [to making the cut]."
I was not impressed with the article. Just because you can drink
bourbon and write about it does not mean you know what you are talking about. If you like the taste, why worry what anyone else thinks. Maybe that is why there are so many choices. Makers Mark is very good for the money. Corner Creek is, by far, my least favorite choice of bottles. i currently have 30 botles in a fast growing collection.
Actually I was pretty impressed by the article in that the panel was definitely not bourbon drinkers and their palettes differed in much the way bourbon drinkers like us differ in our opinions. How many articles have you read where they only discuss the findings of the panel as a whole ignoring personal observations? Bottom line is that it was very positive for our favorite beverage.
Kendall, obviously from your post and avatar you are a Maker's Mark enthusiast. I like it but disagree it's good for the money as I feel it's overpriced for what it is. That's my opinion. I think more than stomping on the brand they are making reference to the fact that it's probably the most advertised and recognizable brand name out there other than maybe Beam and saying that just because it's well marketed doesn't make it superior. And as far as WT is concerned, it was probably the regular 101 they tasted and not one of the premium bottlings like Kentucky Spirit or RB. And the average non-bourbon drinker is used to 80 proof liquors so the 101 proof to them was probably over the top. Obviously we would disagree.
Bottom line is that they made an effort and because they are not as well endowed in bourbon lore as we are they probably had little to go on when selecting their tasting lineup. Having a spirits sommelier as part of the group should have helped but even he would tend to have a little knowledge on every spirit and may have been limited in his bourbon knowledge. You can't know everything about everything.
Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8erdane
I thougth the article was excellent, taking into consideration that it was written from an outsiderīs view. The writer appeared to have done his homework, seeing as he was aware of, for instance, the pecularities of Virginia Gentleman.
The only thing I was a bit unsure about, was the comment that corn whiskey became bourbon as soon as it "kissed" new barrels. I thought corn whiskey could be aged both in new and used "containers".