Welcome to the Straightbourbon.com Forums.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    302

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    I generally agree with the above poster. I work in the wine business - where critics & scores are even a bigger deal.

    The most important thing in wine/food/spirit criticism should be the tasting note. If the reviewer is able to reasonably & accurately relay the experience of the bourbon, then the job is done and down well. Is the alcohol prominent? Is the barrel influence too strong, not strong enough? If you can also provide the mashbill, you are my new favorite critic.

    I personally find scores helpful within the context of a certain winery or distillery. If I like 4 Roses and a critic I follow and respect says the 2013 4R 1B is the best yet, I'll be sure to look for it. I like Redbreast -- and the scores/feedback on the CS made me actively seek it out. Ultimately, a score or tasting note is only an impression of a certain thing at a specific moment in time. Not truth, never gospel.
    tl; dnr

  2. #12

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Four Roses SB is my least favorite expression of theirs. The first FR expression I ever purchased was the standard Yellow Label, which I quite enjoyed. Having tried their cheapest option, I then stepped up to SB, which I thought was ok but not great at the price point. Since trying the standard SB, I recently purchased the TPS SB Barrel Strength OESK, OBSK, and OESO, all of which are FANTASTIC, and I am now a true FR convert.

    I think if you're going to compare to something like Stagg, at least compare one of the barrel strength offerings, although even then I feel like even that comparison on point scale is like comparing apples and oranges.

  3. #13
    Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mesquite, TX
    Posts
    619

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Also you're comparing an 18 year old, cask strength, non-filtered, bourbon's bourbon to an 8 - 9 yr chill-filtered and watered down to 100 proof.

    There can't be a comparison even if you get the cask strength single barrel. GTS still has age over it. I think therewas an over aged 4R release some years ago that comes close to matching in age....but I dont know if it was barrel proof.
    |-o-| [-o-] |-o-| "I'm on the leader"

  4. #14
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    5,218

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    I've said this before, but I think Mariage 2009 is the best whiskey I have ever tasted. The 40th, 120th and 2009 ltd ed single barrels are also right up there.

    Four Roses is an idosyncratic distillery. Stagg is great, but Stagg is Stagg. Four Roses is a whole 'nother kettle of monkeys. Or something like that. They are such different styles, I don't think there's much use in comparing them.

    And not to be Captain Obvious, but Four Roses Single Barrel is a single barrel. There is a lot of variation from barrel to barrel. I've had some that were mind-blowing and some that were just good. But all in all, I think 4R SB is the best non-special release bourbon available.
    bibamus, moriendum est
    Sipology Blog

  5. #15
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    255

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Quote Originally Posted by Josh View Post
    I've said this before, but I think Mariage 2009 is the best whiskey I have ever tasted.
    It's up there for me, but I might put the recent Rutledge selection of 16 yo OBSV barrels ahead of it. That is a wonderfully mature Four Roses bourbon with all the classic FR rye and fruit, and a nice mellow oakiness that rounds it out.

    I find the flavor profiles and the overall experience of drinking Four Roses to be like no other bourbon. That doesn't mean it's better or worse, but I find it in its many variations to be very unique and coming from a distillery that still has the benefit of the enthusiast in mind. It's a great time to be a Four Roses fan.
    Ryan

  6. #16
    Advanced Taster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Danville, Ky
    Posts
    170

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Barrel 2 of the 16YO OBSV is the best bourbon I have ever tasted.

  7. #17
    Disciple
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    DelMarVa
    Posts
    1,867

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Why does anyone care so much about what others think about a whiskey? Four Roses...

  8. #18
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    255

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Quote Originally Posted by kyrocklover View Post
    Barrel 2 of the 16YO OBSV is the best bourbon I have ever tasted.
    That's the exact barrel that I was speaking of, as well...
    Ryan

  9. #19
    Disciple
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Posts
    1,633

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Quote Originally Posted by tommyj1986 View Post
    First off, I personally am a big fan of all of the Four Roses products and feel they all have there place.

    That being said I am not a believer in any way in the 100 point rating system for any type of beverage. There is a number of reasons.

    First and foremost, everyone tastes things differently than everyone else. Unless you find a reviewer who tends to rate things the same way you would there scores are not helpful.

    Second, taste is subjective and many factors, including what you ate that day and even what time of day you are tasting will effect your tastes. Trying to translate your experience into two numbers seems to undermine the very experience.

    Third, it isn't even a 100 point system, what is the range from lowest score to highest, 70 to 96 or 97 ? its actually more like a 30 point system.

    And forth, and I mean no offense by this, but people who aren't experienced drinkers may buy products that aren't right for them, because the scores say they are the best. What do I mean by this, just because Jim likes something and gives it a 95 or 96, doesn't mean that you will like them (back to point two). The whole rating system is another form of marketing, meant to help consumers make purchasing decisions, by providing them the quick and dirty. Thats not how it works and I don't think we should pretend it is. It is going to take trial and error for everyone to find out what they like and don't like.

    Personally I like products of all types in almost all price ranges and I don't care one bit what Jim Murray thinks about them. If you like a whiskey, by definition its a good whiskey for you. Nothing is better just because its rare, more expensive, older, or has a higher score, thats just not how it works.

    But thats just my 2 cents.
    Quote Originally Posted by yountvillewjs View Post
    I generally agree with the above poster. I work in the wine business - where critics & scores are even a bigger deal.

    The most important thing in wine/food/spirit criticism should be the tasting note. If the reviewer is able to reasonably & accurately relay the experience of the bourbon, then the job is done and down well. Is the alcohol prominent? Is the barrel influence too strong, not strong enough? If you can also provide the mashbill, you are my new favorite critic.

    I personally find scores helpful within the context of a certain winery or distillery. If I like 4 Roses and a critic I follow and respect says the 2013 4R 1B is the best yet, I'll be sure to look for it. I like Redbreast -- and the scores/feedback on the CS made me actively seek it out. Ultimately, a score or tasting note is only an impression of a certain thing at a specific moment in time. Not truth, never gospel.
    We've had some discussions on ratings here before...but continued discussion is a good thing too :

    http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...ad.php?t=14400

    http://www.straightbourbon.com/forum...ad.php?t=14400

    I love most 4Rs (Yellow label definitely not) but don't you find it really unbourbon like? I know enough scotch drinkers who find it the most likeable of bourbons for them but I'm not saying it's scotch like either. SMOWK has talked about 4R having some Slivovitz similar tastes and I think I know what he means. I have a friend thinking the Binny's #3 bottling, a few years back, was a Grand Marnier knock off...of course what's that saying bout nothing good happens after midnight...especially when dumb-ass friends are powering through your bourbon .
    Thad

    BTOTY-2011

  10. #20
    Advanced Taster
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    124

    Re: War of the (Four) Roses: Single Barrel

    Quote Originally Posted by smgrey24 View Post
    Yeah…we did. However, I have two friends that are die-hard Jim Murray believers. (They even have his book and iPhone app). As a result, his ratings are continuously being bantered back and forth. My take has always been that Jim may know his scotches but bourbon is not scotch. They seem to disagree with me. Was hoping to use these posts as my rebuttal.
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyj1986 View Post
    First off, I personally am a big fan of all of the Four Roses products and feel they all have there place.

    That being said I am not a believer in any way in the 100 point rating system for any type of beverage. There is a number of reasons.

    First and foremost, everyone tastes things differently than everyone else. Unless you find a reviewer who tends to rate things the same way you would there scores are not helpful.

    Second, taste is subjective and many factors, including what you ate that day and even what time of day you are tasting will effect your tastes. Trying to translate your experience into two numbers seems to undermine the very experience.

    Third, it isn't even a 100 point system, what is the range from lowest score to highest, 70 to 96 or 97 ? its actually more like a 30 point system.

    And forth, and I mean no offense by this, but people who aren't experienced drinkers may buy products that aren't right for them, because the scores say they are the best. What do I mean by this, just because Jim likes something and gives it a 95 or 96, doesn't mean that you will like them (back to point two). The whole rating system is another form of marketing, meant to help consumers make purchasing decisions, by providing them the quick and dirty. Thats not how it works and I don't think we should pretend it is. It is going to take trial and error for everyone to find out what they like and don't like.

    Personally I like products of all types in almost all price ranges and I don't care one bit what Jim Murray thinks about them. If you like a whiskey, by definition its a good whiskey for you. Nothing is better just because its rare, more expensive, older, or has a higher score, thats just not how it works.

    But thats just my 2 cents.
    I agree with many points here. I'll add that the 100 point system would benefit from all reviews being done blind. I'd be dramatically more interested to see their commentary and rating if they didn't know what it was when they tasted it.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Four Roses Single Barrel or WT RB
    By kress in forum General Bourbon Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-12-2006, 04:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top