Jefferson's Reserve Presidential Select 17yr

[BourbonJoe]

Does anybody have a batch higher than #8?

Joe :usflag:

[cigarnv]

The Jefferson 17 is the kind of product that is sold essentially to the followers of this board. I would say the verdict here was lukewarm, a buy signal but a tepid one. So people who might otherwise buy a case of something like this if they have the money and the chance bought a bottle or two instead. Zoeller probably thought that if he said the words "Stitzel-Weller," no price would be too high. I might have made that same decision put in the same position, yet it turned out (apparently) to have been wrong.

There are no sure things in business.

[ggilbertva]

I never purchased a bottle but did try a few pours from a friend and was glad I didn't pull the trigger on that one. Maybe various batches are better than others, but I'll never know. Head to head, I would take the Pappy 15 over Jeff 17.

[BourbonJoe]

Well I love the stuff and will buy all I can get. This is probably the last of the S-W juice.

Joe :usflag:

[smokinjoe]

I never purchased a bottle but did try a few pours from a friend and was glad I didn't pull the trigger on that one. Maybe various batches are better than others, but I'll never know. Head to head, I would take the Pappy 15 over Jeff 17.

I agree with you, Greg. I did buy a bottle of the JRPS 17, and although it's OK, I don't think it's anywhere close to Pappy 15.

[jburlowski]

I never purchased a bottle but did try a few pours from a friend and was glad I didn't pull the trigger on that one. Maybe various batches are better than others, but I'll never know. Head to head, I would take the Pappy 15 over Jeff 17.

I'm with Greg, the JRPS is one-dimensional and way over-oaked. I'd take any VW over it any day.

I wonder how well the JRPS would have sold (and at what price to clear the market" without the S-W provenance.

[BourbonJoe]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

[silverfish]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

Maybe the Batch 1 he reviewed was a factor?

In addition to the 96 rating, he said of JR17 "So far this year

[August, 2009] , this is one of my top two new bourbons..."

I'm glad I grabbed a few more bottles regardless of batch #.

[ggilbertva]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

Joe - I didn't say it was lousy and I provided a caveat that maybe some batches are better than others. I love SW bourbon, but the Jeff 17 just didn't ring my bell, maybe my taster was broken that night. I would never turn down a pour from other batches to see if one is better than another.

[callmeox]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

Not to dredge up the past, but John also gave the Woodford Reserve Four Grain a 95. If you want to portray John's ratings as the end-all, then you must agree that the WRMC4G is better than the following:

Wild Turkey American Sprirt

Wild Turkey Tribute

4 of the 5 W.L. Weller BTAC releases

6 of the 7 Stagg releases

All 10 Four Roses expressions that he's reviewed

Anything he's ever tasted with Eagle Rare on the label

Every Evan Williams Single Barrel release except the most recent

Pappy 15, 20 and 23

And a bunch of others

Or you can just be honest and say that John's ratings tell you what he likes and really don't say what is lousy/good/better/best.

Now, if I was in your position I would be happy that others don't like The JRPS enough to hoard it as that leaves more on the shelf when SV drops the price again. :grin:

[nor02lei]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

With all respect for John, he is just one guy with his own taste and favourites Joe. I tasted batch 1 and 3 at the Houston gathering and I thought they were ok but not much more. Not in the same league as the Lawrenceburg bottle of ORVW 10/107 that was on the gathering table to my personal taste.

Leif

[cigarnv]

I just went back and revisited my open Jeff17 which is Batch #1.... still does not ring my bells. Just a matter of personal choice. Also tried my open 2007 Pappy 15 which is delicious!!

As for the "experts" who rate stuff... cigars, bourbon, wine,etc".... well lets just say that IMO they provide a nice service for the novice as well as keeping us informed of new "stuff" but are of little use in doing much more than separating the good from the bad in products. Once a product hits the "good" bar it all becomes a matter of personal choice, again IMO, as to what is a 85 and what is a 90 on the rating scale.... can anyone really separate a 93 form a 94 scoring???? And you gotta love the descriptions..... how do they fit all that stuff in one bottle or one cigar..LOL!!!

My palate is pretty pedestrian... but I know what I like which at the end of the day is all that matters.....

[OscarV]

For what it's worth (probably not much btw) but the ratings are not 100 points, they are basically 30 or even 20 points.

Nothing is hardly ever rated below 80.

[cigarnv]

He did that after I posted. :slappin: Good catch though!

I only have one bottle of the Old Fitz that I am interested in trading for at this time and wanted to give Joe first option (which is why I edited and added the under score to the word "you" to my original posting for emphasis). Since Joe has not indicated an interest I will open this up and swap the Old Fitz for a Pappy 15 even up... first PM gets it if anyone is interested...

PS... continental US only......

[BourbonJoe]

I realize what the rating system is and the preferential tastes that go with it. The point I was trying to make is that Hansell likes the JRPS better than Pappy 20. THAT, in itself, tells me something and got me to try JRPS in the first place. I take rating systems qualitatively, not quantitavely. That fact that Hansell likes JRPS better than PVW 20 means something to me cause Pappy 20 is pretty damn good.

Joe :usflag:

[jburlowski]

If it's so lousy, why did John Hansell give it a 96 rating where Pappy 20 only got a 93?

Joe :usflag:

I'm going to guess he liked the JRPS over the Pappy (by a slight margin).

I respect John and enjoy his publication and blog a lot. But his opinion of a particular pour is, just that: his opinion.

I read his reviews because our tastes are generally in alignment and I appreciate his experience and insight. But sometimes, like with 4R4G we diverge significantly. And I'm sure John is OK with that.:toast:

[cigarnv]

We have a MAWLS bourbon tasting this afternoon and we will do a blind tasting of the Jeff17 Bottling #1 against the Pappy 15 which I have dropped to 94 proof as well as a 107 Pappy 15. We will have at least 4 well known SB members with what I consider excellent palates tasting (I do not include myself in that group).

Lets see what the boys think...

[BourbonJoe]

We have a MAWLS bourbon tasting

[callmeox]

That fact that Hansell likes JRPS better than PVW 20 means something to me cause Pappy 20 is pretty damn good.

And the fact that John likes the WRMS4G better than the list of whiskies that I provided means something because the list of whiskies that I provided has some pretty damn good bottlings included.

Do I have that right?

[BourbonJoe]

OK, what else do we have to argue about (I mean discuss).

Joe :usflag:

[cigarnv]

Good morning,

We did the Jeff 17(batch #1) / Pappy 15 (2007) taste out (blind) at our MAWLS gathering yesterday. The Pappy was dropped to 94 proof to go head to head with the Jeff 17. Tasters were Stoopsie, dgonano, ggilibertva, mgilbertva and myself.

All tasters seem to agree that the Pappy had a much better nose with the Jeff 17 showing a very muted nose. 3 tasters preferred the Pappy and two tasters preferred the Jeff 17. All tasters agreed they were similar and both were good bourbons. Howie felt the Pappy was far more SWesque than the Jeff 17. Dave brought along a Jeff 17 Batch #4 which 4 out of 5 tasters felt was better than Batch #1.

All in all a very good head to head taste out.

[cigarnv]

It appears the Old Fitz / Pappy 15 swap is a done deal... Thanks

[scratchline]

Okay, I finally pulled the trigger on this one. Out the door for under 70 bucks. I'll vote, "Yea". Batch #8. The nose was very good. Not huge, but I didn't find it bashful. The taste has age but it's not overdone in this bottle. There's a hint of must but it just adds to the complexity. I actually get some kind of licoricey spice. Long ago, Christian pointed out a sarsaparilla flavor in a bourbon to me, and this has some of that. And the finish was quite durable and, though woody, not bitter. Compared favorable to Old Crow 10 from the 60's, Virgin 101 (which was pretty damn good), and SW Old Fitz Bond.

Let's put it this way, not as good as some 70 dollar (or way less) bottles that I could pull from the bunker, but as good or better than 70+ bottles I could pull from liquor store shelves right now. And given the current, and likely ongoing, madness for all things SW, at this price and this batch, a good investment.

Glad I tried it. Will buy at least one bottle more and one for a friend.

-Mike

[chefnash51]

Picked up 2 bottles, I after having a few pours... I am happy to have paid $65 for each bottle. Very tasty! :grin:

[bourbonNOOG]

I drank a 1/4 of the bottle this eve while cooking a pizza on the grill and watching the TN/NC music city bowl (boo on the outcome). My first bottle of this stuff and I must say with all the bad reviews on this board, I quite enjoy this juice. If I ever saw another bottle I'd buy it.