Leaders & Followers

[funknik]

I've been formulating this idea for a while and have been meaning to write it down and get y'all's feedback. Here it goes:

Many bourbons for me fall into one of two categories: Leader or Follower.

This is not to say all . . . I think their plenty of pours that are equally good (or not) all the time. Some, however (increasingly more for me, seemingly), I notice I enjoy more either first with a clean palate or others are much more enjoyable as the second (or third, or fourth) drink.

The best example I have is Weller Antique and Lot 'B' . . . to me, the Wellers (all of them, come to think of it) are Leaders. But Lot 'B' as the first pour of the night doesn't do it for me . . . it is a Follower: after a Weller Antique, the Lot 'B' is the best thing I can think of to drink.

I think Wild Turkey products because of their robust nature are born Followers, but they also work as Leaders.

So . . . does anyone else feel this way and, if so, what pours would you put in each category?

[OscarV]

I understand what you are saying.

When I try something new I like to a "Leader".

But there have been times when I try it as a "Follower" I am more impressed.

[ElasticalGomez]

ha! this is funny. i do the same thing, including starting the night with Weller Antique (usually) and moving on to the BT, ETL or ER (depending on what i've got on any given day).

[DeanSheen]

What confuses me is pours that are their own best followers.

It's like when you need to take 2 sips of most alcoholic beverages to get their character, some pours I need 2 pours until the taste gets built up on my palette for full enjoyment.

[RWBadley]

So . . . does anyone else feel this way and, if so, what pours would you put in each category?

Absolutely. Generally lighter body and flavor before heavier. Not just for Bourbon....

As an example Light to Dark beers. Lighter wine to heavier etc. In the Scotch world you'd go with a Rosebank before Highland Park before Lagavulin.

Me- I just drink 'em all at the same time :grin:

[Josh]

Interesting thread! I would say something more dry, low proof or subtle works as a leader. ELT, 4R, OC 10 would work. Followers would be VOB, OF Sig, EC 12, 4RSB.

I would add finishers...really rich bourbons. 1792, OFBB, EC 18, (older) WTKS. Interesting idea.

[ggilbertva]

As a couple of posts have already touched on, light to heavy seems to be a good way to taste. When conducting a tasting, low to high proof, young to old, etc. For me, I'm totally eclectic when it comes to purchasing and drinking whiskey. The only exception is Scotch where I stick to Highland SM offerings.

My decision making process on what to drink is simply what looks, feels our sounds good. Now, if I happen to have something high proof like a Stagg or WLW, I would probably end my evening with that single pour or if I plan on having two, I'll start with something lower proof before moving to the monster.

[funknik]

What confuses me is pours that are their own best followers.

I would add finishers...really rich bourbons. 1792, OFBB, EC 18, (older) WTKS. Interesting idea.

Funny, WTKS is the bourbon that made me put some serious thought into this because the first pour always strikes me as bland, but the second is usually remarkable. It is its own best follower.

I am gratified that I'm not alone in this. Like Oscar, I always like to try something new with a fresh palate, but often later find I am more impressed with it following something else.