Here's the thing.
I didn't bother getting on the video and reading EVERYTHING on the Laird's bottle because... I am on a time limit and there are 15 minutes where I have to condense information, and it's a bottle... been there, seen it, done that... reading everything online takes time and can make the vid a bore. I went .. hey this is Laird's ok... next.. Tom's blah blah blah blah, etc... make in cocktail... edit.. etc...
I did read the Tom's because it was not a product people have probably heard of so I thought I should read everything it said on the bottle.
A similar thing happened in another tasting I did where I "wrote" the wrong distiller for 1792... stuff happens yes chalk it up to experience (I was able to edit that information luckily, and the error occurred because I spent a LOT of time editing and putting this together and got my notes mixed up).
Here on SB, people really care and its important to get it right, will I note this sure absolutely, cause I care also. If I didn't I wouldn't even be on this forum with other whiskey and spirit fans.
I try to walk a line between being strongly accurate and promoting the importance of product and good drink, but also not getting to heady and nerdy as well. It's a fine line, sometimes hard to balance to keep myself well happy.
The reality is the small amount of people who would even look at this video would probably not even know what GNS is... but I agree that is a big difference between the two products mentioned, so it is noted.
So that's how I look at it.
Ironicaly after having done the tasting I want to actually compare it to a bottle of Christian Drouin Calvados I have, and then perhaps a true 100% Laird's product as Chuck has mentioned.
Dang you guys are making me busy with ideas I can't keep up
Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across the Internet so I don't take this as a slight or personal.
Thanks to all and cheers.
The way I look at it is that as a writer, I am educating people. If I don't think my audience knows what GNS is, for instance, then it's my job to tell them what it is. They may not need a dissertation on the subject, but they should know. If I can't give them a succinct description, then I shouldn't be in the game. But that's just my philosophy. YMMV, as they say.
A bit more explanation is useful I think, for our non posting readers.
I wonder if the fact that it is a blend allows them to add coloring?
My name is Joel Goodson. I deal in human fulfillment.
I grossed over eight thousand dollars in one night. Time of your life, huh kid?
Good question but it wouldn't matter to me if the addition is just cosmetic.
A couple of years ago I tried Laird's Old Apple Brandy 7 1/2 yr old. I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't too sweet. My assumption was incorrect. I liked it. I'll probably buy another bottle for a change.
Unfortunately, many people who want to try an American apple brandy go for the Laird's blended applejack, which contains neutral spirits and just isn't as good as a true apple brandy, but it's a lot cheaper. Because of the price point that's the product that is most readily available. True apple brandy tastes more like (grape) brandy than it does like apple juice or cider.
There are a few microdistillers besides Tom who are making applejack. It was, after all, America's first distilled spirit. I think it has a lot of potential. More people should try it.
Maybe it'll be the next big thing.
Col. Charles K. "Crotchety" Cowdery
"Whiskey Don't Keep."
I gotta put in a plug for Oregon's own, Clear Creek.
Their apple brandy comes in two age choices. The two-year-old (OR price $25.45) is very fresh, with pronounced apple aromas and flavors. It's great on the rocks, or combined with Martinelli sparkling apple cider. My wife also cooks with it.
The eight-year-old ($40.45) is serious stuff, and worthy competition for Calvados.
"Remember that your sense of humor is inversely proportional to your level of intolerance."
- Serge Storms