4 Roses Single Barrel 2011 Limited Edition

[Josh]

The 2011 and the 100th are the only two I've had but the 100th definitely wins in a huge way for me.

Well if you are craving some, I know a guy with an unopened bottle.

[StraightNoChaser]

Well if you are craving some, I know a guy with an unopened bottle.

Damn, I just found a bottle online for only $42 but they won't ship to TX Anyone in NJ wanna hook me up?

[DreamTheater]

At all costs, understand that I am not being either huffy or obtuse about the situation. Someone here brought into question my palate. I'd sound juvenile if I were to trumpet up how masterfully I understand whiskey, etc.

But dammit, i know my stuff. Really I do.

I highly suspect something is off. It simply has to be. All, and I mean ALL my other single-barrel, cask strength whiskeys are my favorite. From the four special editions from Buffalo Trace (Eagle Rare 17; William Larue; George T Stagg) to the Woodford Reserve to Jack Daniel Single Barrel (dont think that's cask strenght though) to my 40 bottles of scotch cask strengths. I typically enjoy them both uncut and then cut.

This one tastes like crap. I refuse to believe this is possible.

[White Dog]

Really? YMMV of course, but I thought the 100th anniversary was all wood. Hands down my least favorite of the bunch.

I liked the 100th. It was woody, but after 17 years in barrel, I'm willing to accept some chards of oak slicing my throat.

The 2009 really did it for me. Cut slightly, it was extremely hedonistic, for my palate at least.

[DreamTheater]

So i just called 4 Roses and I owe it to them very much to make a quick report here.

I got a guy by the name of Brent on the phone. He was incredibly courteous and heard my story about the 2011 Limited Edition and agrees that it sounds more like a problem with the whiskey. He suspects cork rot.

He mentioned that with cork rot the whiskey will taste very sharp but it IS possible to cut it to a palatable level. That describes my experience exactly. When cut it isnt good at all but I can drink it.

And one last thing I pointed out to him is, in my collection of 50 bourbons from Cabin Still's $12 bottle to my collection of $80-$150 cost bourbons that I've already enumerated, I like them all. Yes, some taste cheap but they all taste at minimum "good". This one is not even on its best day meeting that which speaks to me of prima facie evidence that it is defective.

Brent and 4 Roses is going to make this thing right and I for one am looking forward to picking up a different bottle of theirs sometime tonight.

[bad_scientist]

To me, sometimes it tastes like chewed up aspirin mixed with rubbing alcohol (like you noted), and other times it's like delicious fruit. I can't figure it, but it's really, really dependent on what I've had that day or something about my body chemistry. What's the info on your bottle?

[smokinjoe]

At all costs, understand that I am not being either huffy or obtuse about the situation. Someone here brought into question my palate. I'd sound juvenile if I were to trumpet up how masterfully I understand whiskey, etc.

But dammit, i know my stuff. Really I do.

I highly suspect something is off. It simply has to be. All, and I mean ALL my other single-barrel, cask strength whiskeys are my favorite. From the four special editions from Buffalo Trace (Eagle Rare 17; William Larue; George T Stagg) to the Woodford Reserve to Jack Daniel Single Barrel (dont think that's cask strenght though) to my 40 bottles of scotch cask strengths. I typically enjoy them both uncut and then cut.

This one tastes like crap. I refuse to believe this is possible.

Eagle Rare 17 is not barrel proof.

[wripvanwrinkle]

At all costs, understand that I am not being either huffy or obtuse about the situation. Someone here brought into question my palate. I'd sound juvenile if I were to trumpet up how masterfully I understand whiskey, etc.

I don't mean to speak for Josh...but I don't think that he was trying to be critical. I think that he just meant that you should wait a little while and give it another try. We all have nights/weeks where something just doesn't work for us for one reason or another.

[Josh]

I don't mean to speak for Josh...but I don't think that he was trying to be critical. I think that he just meant that you should wait a little while and give it another try. We all have nights/weeks where something just doesn't work for us for one reason or another.

What he said.

I meant that something might have altered your palate at that time. If I eat certain things or drink whiskeys in a particular order or have the sniffles or change a particularly funky diaper that day it can change the way I taste. My advice was to give it some time to open up or your palate to shift back to normal and it might taste better. Sorry for coming across as condescending.

For the record, I don't believe this business of certain people having better palates than others. Everybody's palate is different. In my experience, people who claim to have better palates than others are usually trying to sell me something.

[Josh]

I liked the 100th. It was woody, but after 17 years in barrel, I'm willing to accept some chards of oak slicing my throat.

The 2009 really did it for me. Cut slightly, it was extremely hedonistic, for my palate at least.

I have a bottle of the 2009 open right now and hedonistic is the perfect word for it. It's downright debaucherous!