Early Times

[Gillman]

Very interesting bottle, Bettye Jo. A rare example of a post-war "straight whiskey", i.e., as you noted it is neither a bourbon nor (presumably) a straight rye. Maybe its grain bill was 50% corn, the rest rye and barley malt, or 50% rye, the rest corn and barley malt. If aged two years it would qualify for the straight designation but could not be called straight bourbon or rye. I am sure it is very good. Maryland used to sell "straight whiskey" and sometimes "a blend of straight whiskeys", but it was less common after WW II in Kentucky. In this era, it seems distillers experimented with non-bourbon mash bills, of which a well-known one, devised by your uncle Everett for Michter/Pennco, was 50% rye, 37% corn, remainder barley malt. Maybe Early Times was experimenting with something similar at the time.

Gary

[mrt]

I still like ET bourbon! Might seem weird, but I prefer this bourbon to Jack Daniels. I liked JD at the beginning, but now I think there's sth. wrong with it, it lacks sth. about flavour, aroma, etc. Nowadays, ET comes second for me, after Jim Beam Black. But remember, I can't see any WR, ORVW, Knob Creek, etc. bottles here, yet.

[Isoflex]

Not to insult anyone here but to me ET is just that... alien (bitter, harsh, medicinal). It is one of only two whiskeys I have not enjoy or appreciated something about. The only thing I disliked more than ET was a bottle of Jameson Irish Whiskey. I am very glad ET is not Bourbon (I thought is was when I first bought it) as it would be the 1st bourbon I didn't at least like enough to finish the bottle! But like many say, to each his own.

[wadewood]

Early Times currently sold in the US is whiskey, not bourbon. But they still sell Early Times bourbon in export markets, which is probably what mrt was commenting on.

[pepcycle]

I've just started a 1.5 L of Dusty Early Times Bourbon that was previously available in the U.S.
This is pretty good whiskey. Nice floral nose, medium body and a fair finish.
I put it right in the middle of the pack, compared to modern mid-shelf bourbons.

Unique enough to continue study.

(PS: Thanks Doug)

[cowdery]

What MRT is getting in Turkey, as ET bourbon, is probably very close to what we get here (in the USA) as Old Forester, which is made at the same distillery. Old Forester contains a little more rye, but my guess would be that export ET bourbon tastes more like Old Forester than it does like the ET "Old Style Kentucky Whisky" we can get here.

As for the age statement, the law says that you have to state the age of the youngest whiskey in the mix if the youngest whiskey is less than four years old. If the youngest whiskey is four years old or older, age statements are optional but must, of course, be true. In either case, whether mandatory or optional, the age statement must give the age of the youngest whiskey in the bottle.

Most straight whiskeys (i.e., bourbon, rye or Tennessee) will contain whiskey of various ages. This is one advantage of a bottled-in-bond straight whiskey, which must all be from the same vintage,

[Isoflex]

Most straight whiskeys (i.e., bourbon, rye or Tennessee) will contain whiskey of various ages. This is one advantage of a bottled-in-bond straight whiskey, which must all be from the same vintage,

I for one am enlightened, just yesterday I was wondering why a whiskey would be BIB and what difference it made. Thanks!!

[mrt]

Those at ET say that ET bourbon sold in the export markets and the ET Kentucky Whisky sold in the US are made from exactly the same mashbill, and the only difference between them is that "%20" of the ET Kentucky Whisky is matured in "used" charred oak barrels, the reason to be labeled as "Kentucky Whisky" and not bourbon. Does this make such a big difference between the two that one can enjoy the bourbon and hate the other? Although I know that it's the barrel that makes a bourbon, probably the role of the barrel is even much more important than I guess...

[Gillman]

Most of the taste typically associated with bourbon whiskey is imparted by the new charred barrel. Even 20% aging in barrels that are not new charred wood would make a noticeable difference. Tasting corn whiskey proves this since, say, Heaven Hill's Mellow Corn, aged for a few months in reused wood, is something quite different to bourbon. If it was aged in new charred wood it would be recognisable as and indeed legally bourbon, but denuded of the new barrel it is something quite other. True, this corn whiskey may have little or no rye in it, but that is not the point: it is the barrel that makes the difference to bourbon.

Gary

[cowdery]

While I'm sure they are telling the truth that all ETs sold everywhere use the same mashbill, there could be other differences, such as more older whiskey in the export bottles. Remember, the most important factor in a whiskey's taste is the profile, i.e., a whiskey tastes the way its maker wants it to taste, and they select and combine barrels to achieve the desired taste, i.e., to match the profile. It's possible the export bourbon is using the same profile as the domestic KY whiskey, but it's also possible it is not, and (for example) the export expression contains a higher percentage of older whiskey.