2011 World Whisky Awards

[silverfish]

2011 World Whisky Awards from Jim Murray's Whisky Bible:

2011 World Whisky of the Year - Ballantine’s 17 Years Old

#2 Whisky in the World 2011 - Thomas H Handy Sazerac Rye (129 proof)

#3 Whisky in the World 2011 - William Larue Weller (134.8 proof)

Bourbon category results:

No Age Statement (Multiple barrel) – William Larue Weller (134.8 proof)

9 Years & Under – Knob Creek

10-17 Years (Multiple Barrels) – Parker’s Heritage Collection Fourth Edition

10-17 Years (Single Barrel) - Willett Aged 17 Years Barrel Proof

18 Years & Over - Evan Williams 23 Year Old

Full results at whiskyintelligence.com.

(mods feel free to move to Industry News forum if desired.)

[bourbonNOOG]

Where does one get an Evan Williams 23 year?

[doubleblank]

HH gift shop and overseas. Expensive IIRC.

Randy

[silverfish]

Where does one get an Evan Williams 23 year?

You can find it at Master of Malt for £109.95 ($174. USD) in the UK.

MoM also sells a 3 cl sample for £6.25 ($10.00 USD).

Shipping costs not included.

It's also at Royal Mill Whiskies, and others via a google search for Evan Williams 23.

[spun_cookie]

Where does one get an Evan Williams 23 year?

Japan

At HH

Or on eBay... The price is high no mater which way you go.

[bourbonNOOG]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I shall use them wisely. Also, has anyone had this stuff? Is it worth the price tag? $350 is a whole lot of money for a bottle of bourbon, in my opinion.

[OscarV]

Looks like the Americans did alright.

[ErichPryde]

Looks like the Americans did alright.

Interesting that the young and middle-aged whiskeys took it this time around. Where's GTS?

[OscarV]

Where's GTS?

Hopefully a secret.

I say don't let the rest of the world know about GTS.

[BigRich]

Hopefully a secret.

I say don't let the rest of the world know about GTS.

I'll second that!

SHHHHHHHHH

[unclebunk]

Interesting that THH Sazerac Rye should place second in Mr. Murray's "Whiskey Of The Year" rankings when, on another current thread, one SB'er after another (though by no means all) expressed that it's highly over-rated and/or highly over-priced. I happen to love it myself but agree that it should be priced under $50.

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I shall use them wisely. Also, has anyone had this stuff? Is it worth the price tag? $350 is a whole lot of money for a bottle of bourbon, in my opinion.

In reference to the Evan Williams 23, I've never had it but $350 is a ridiculous price in my opinion. If you've got money to burn, buy yourself a couple of bottles of Pappy 15 (or even Pappy 20) and give the rest of the dough to your local soup kitchen. It would be money better spent.

[doubleblank]

Since no one else has chimed in, I'll hit that big softball.

IMO, tasting the EW 23 is a chore. Its like chewing on a barrel stave with just a trace of typical flavors found in bourbon. I don't recall getting even a hint that HH made it....ie some mentholyptus flavors and/or aromas. The first bottle I tasted from was owned by Jim Butler (the Boss). It was terrible and he didn't like it at all either. That was many years ago. I tasted another repatriated bottle a year ago and it was the same. But there could be a fair amount of variability between bottlings ..... so maybe a recent bottling might have been an improvement over the older ones. But I wouldn't risk that kind of money on something that might be completely undrinkable.

Randy

[smokinjoe]

We can all disagree on anyone's ratings. Heck, that's our job. But, I'll always give credit to Jim Murray for not giving short shrift to American whiskies. IMO, most every other "world whiskey" writer seems to address American whiskies as an afterthought. Like, "Oh yeah, I guess I have to rate this bourbon, because I think they're having that Fair...uh, Festival now, down there..." My sense of Murray, is that he is the only one that starts his ratings process with the idea that all whiskies start at the same level, and none are inherently superior. IMHO, of course.

[sailor22]

Interesting that THH Sazerac Rye should place second in Mr. Murray's "Whiskey Of The Year" rankings when, on another current thread, one SB'er after another (though by no means all) expressed that it's highly over-rated and/or highly over-priced.

[nor02lei]

Since no one else has chimed in, I'll hit that big softball.

IMO, tasting the EW 23 is a chore. Its like chewing on a barrel stave with just a trace of typical flavors found in bourbon. I don't recall getting even a hint that HH made it....ie some mentholyptus flavors and/or aromas. The first bottle I tasted from was owned by Jim Butler (the Boss). It was terrible and he didn't like it at all either. That was many years ago. I tasted another repatriated bottle a year ago and it was the same. But there could be a fair amount of variability between bottlings ..... so maybe a recent bottling might have been an improvement over the older ones. But I wouldn't risk that kind of money on something that might be completely undrinkable.

Randy

[barturtle]

Hopefully a secret.

I say don't let the rest of the world know about GTS.

[ErichPryde]

Interesting that THH Sazerac Rye should place second in Mr. Murray's "Whiskey Of The Year" rankings when, on another current thread, one SB'er after another (though by no means all) expressed that it's highly over-rated and/or highly over-priced. I happen to love it myself but agree that it should be priced under $50.

[barturtle]

I think that's a little bit harsh, Tim. :grin: Year to year GTS has always been a solid whiskey.

[unclebunk]

Many people seem to assume that extra age = extra quality, and it doesn't always. I'm sure every single one of us can think of a whiskey that simply had too much oak or age to be that enjoyable.

[ILLfarmboy]

I agree with Erik. Thomas Handy is excellent whiskey. I wouldn't want it older. Pricey? I'll go along with that. Just don't age it more to justify the price.

I'd rather BT tinker with Baby Saz, upping the proof and age just a bit than have anyone mess with Handy.

[unclebunk]

I agree with Erik. Thomas Handy is excellent whiskey. I wouldn't want it older. Pricey? I'll go along with that. Just don't age it more to justify the price.

I'd rather BT tinker with Baby Saz, upping the proof and age just a bit than have anyone mess with Handy.

My sentiments exactly. Handy is terrific exactly as it is and consistently holds its own with older ryes in the blind tastings we've done. Baby Saz, on the otherhand, could be kicked up a notch proof and/or age-wise IMO. I find it tasty enough but lacking a tad in the spice department, but that's just me.

[nblair]

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that instead of actually picking quality barrels of flavorful whiskey, they just pick the highest proof stuff they can find.

Is this really true?