What is your favorite year for Evan Williams Single barrel?

[chefnash51]

EWSB 2000 has been very good. Interestingly enough, I've had barrels # 652 and 989. Just found barrel #55 and it head and it's definitely the best of the group.

[camduncan]

A bottle of 93 was my first experience with EWSB, and it still tends to be my favourite. I'll test this in a taste-off soon when I open a bottle of each vintage from 93 to 97 or 98 to taste side-by-side.

[Josh]

For those who haven't read this thread, it's worth taking a look at http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13742

[Medicfrost]

For those who haven't read this thread, it's worth taking a look at http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13742

Great thread. In the past month while out on my weekly adventures, I've come across quite a few bottles of older EWSB, and have bunkered a few bottles of 95 and 97, as well as a bottle of 96 and 98 on the cheap. I haven't opened the 97 yet, but the 95 is superb, but I still like the 2000 more.

[spy247]

A bottle of 93 was my first experience with EWSB, and it still tends to be my favourite. I'll test this in a taste-off soon when I open a bottle of each vintage from 93 to 97 or 98 to taste side-by-side.

Looking forward to hearing about the results of this test Cam.

Personally 1996 is my favourite with 1998 being my least.

[lrochau]

Found a store in my travels that has a few bottles of 1993. Reading through this thread, looks like I better go pick a couple up!

[Young Blacksmith]

I've done a few side by sides with the 2001 version, barrel 399, and EWB. I like EWB much better.

Not giving up on the 2001, but just barrels around 400.

[unclebunk]

I really haven't come across any duds but particularly enjoyed my 1997 and 1998 bottles.

[unclebunk]

Found a store in my travels that has a few bottles of 1993. Reading through this thread, looks like I better go pick a couple up!

What do they want for those, anyway? Get 'em while you can!

[mosugoji64]

I really haven't come across any duds but particularly enjoyed my 1997 and 1998 bottles.

I'll second the 1997. That one's very good. I currently have '93, '96, '97, '98, & '00 open. To me, the '00 tastes most like EWB.

Just for fun, I pulled out all of my EW one evening and did a vertical tasting. I compared the green, black, BIB, 1783, and '00 (as the SB representative) to get an idea of how they compare, with black being the standard. As I said, the '00 was most similar to black in flavor, though they all contained familiar flavor elements. The BIB was probably least like black. The higher proof seems to put forth a lot more rye spice that nearly obscures the EW flavor, but it's still there. The green label is pretty much worthless to me - watery and thin with very little flavor at all.

[Buffalo Bill]

I remember it took the 91' forever to open and it was very cognac-like. That was the Malt Advocate year... then I had a bottle of 93' that was highly memorable. I couldn't put it down... but I missed the 94' ~ damn it!

[T Comp]

... The BIB was probably least like black. The higher proof seems to put forth a lot more rye spice that nearly obscures the EW flavor, but it's still there. ...

[Gillman]

Brian, interesting tasting there. I wonder what result there would be if you combined all the ones you tasted, say a half-ounce each.

Also, you could combine them in unequal proportions, to get a specific flavor. The combinations are virtually unlimited, even with such a small group.

It might be interesting to re-do the tasting blind but adding as a last whiskey this vatting.

Gary

[Phil T]

In my short travels (3 months), I've come across '96,'97,'98,'00, and '01. While they all have been really good, the '97 and '00 are my favorites

[mosugoji64]

That's what I taste too but I find balance with a lot of other flavors and why the EW BIB is preferred by me over the more recent single barrel releases...and of course not available in this area either.

Not available here either, and my favorite as well :grin: I think it's a great whiskey, but interesting in that it's so different from its namesake.

[mosugoji64]

Brian, interesting tasting there. I wonder what result there would be if you combined all the ones you tasted, say a half-ounce each.

Also, you could combine them in unequal proportions, to get a specific flavor. The combinations are virtually unlimited, even with such a small group.

It might be interesting to re-do the tasting blind but adding as a last whiskey this vatting.

Gary

I tried a 2:1 vatting of black to BIB thinking it would bring out the best in both, but the BIB overwhelmed the glass. I think vatting the different years of SB would be a fun experiment. Your idea is intriguing. I may have to try that this weekend :grin:

[Cranecreek]

Looks like this topic died out several years ago, of course that was about the time the Bourbon Craze shifted into high gear.  Evan Williams still bottles these each year although the original releases were 9 years + they are now at 7 years +.  I never kept track of quality before 2004.  But since then only a few have been objectionable. 

2004 : Good to very good

2005 :  Excellent  (voted best bourbon value under $100 - Whiskey Advocate Fall 2015 )

2006 : Average at best

2007 : Too woody

2008 : Much better after the 2007, would score about 85

2009 : Very Good but a bit on the dry side

2010 : ??

 

If you are a little tired of dropping $40 on NAS sourced whiskey than this might be worth a try again.  Especially when it's priced at $20 if you look around.

 

The 2010 aged 7 years and 4 months.  The corks out now and it's a keeper...more to come in a few days.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Cranecreek

[lcpfratn]

Looks like this topic died out several years ago, of course that was about the time the Bourbon Craze shifted into high gear.  Evan Williams still bottles these each year although the original releases were 9 years + they are now at 7 years +.  I never kept track of quality before 2004.  But since then only a few have been objectionable. 

2004 : Good to very good

2005 :  Excellent  (voted best bourbon value under $100 - Whiskey Advocate Fall 2015 )

2006 : Average at best

2007 : Too woody

2008 : Much better after the 2007, would score about 85

2009 : Very Good but a bit on the dry side

2010 : ??

 

If you are a little tired of dropping $40 on NAS sourced whiskey than this might be worth a try again.  Especially when it's priced at $20 if you look around.

 

The 2010 aged 7 years and 4 months.  The corks out now and it's a keeper...more to come in a few days.

Wow...talk about reviving an old thread! Actually, I think it was a good time for a revival. The thing with EWSB is that you can't really just go by barrel year. They are all single barrel bourbons, and multiple barrels are released in each year class. So, there will be some variation from barrel to barrel. The best barrel I've had since I started buying them (starting with the 2005 vintage) was actually a barrel from 2008 that was almost 9 years old. I bought at least a half case of that particular barrel. I also noticed with the 2009 release last year, that bottles released later in 2017 came from barrels that were more than eight years old. I wonder whether the same thing will happen with the 2010 year release this year.

 

Pricing is around $30 in my area and has been for several years, so if you can find it for $20 that's a great deal. Henry McKenna is probably the better value in my area now, so I don't buy much EWSB anymore.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cranecreek]

I never noticed that some releases of the same vintage could have significantly longer age.  That is something I will watch for.  I never experienced much if any difference in barrels but like you said since they are single barrels that could happen.  I believe it's the same mash bill that is used for EC.  The bottle I bought is barrel #34  Barrelled on : 7/23/2010  Bottled : 11/22/2017

[KyleCBreese]

I have a 2002 bottling that is over 10 years old and it is excellent. Lots of oak and cinnamon. I noticed this years bottlings have been just over 7 years. For just a couple bucks more, you can get the extra age and extra proof from Henry McKenna.

[Cranecreek]

I agree that Henry Mckenna is also a great choice.  But the allure for me is trying each years release of this EWSB.  Quotes below from these two gentlemen explain it well.

On 1/19/2011 at 10:14 PM, jmpyle said:

This is very true. For me it's a staple whiskey in my cabinet. I love that it's clearly and detectably different year in year out. In talking with Craig Beam at the Beer Bourbon and BBQ fest, I told him I thought the 2000 was the best in a number of years. I asked him if he could attribute that to anything. His response, "We just do the same thing." It truly is a vintage.

 

On 1/16/2011 at 1:54 AM, cowdery said:

The great thing about this series is that while the basic profile stays the same there is enough variation from year to year so that you look forward to each new release. EWSBV is an annual harvest of the best 9-year-old bourbon in Heaven Hill's warehouses. Because of that it is much more true to the traditional meaning of 'vintage' than most other annual releases.

 

I wish it was still aged to 9 years but that is a reflection of the times.  And the proof at 86.6 is acceptable to me as my preference is to drink at about 90ish.  Why they don't bottle it at 90 proof heaven only knows (pun intended).  I may be lucky in my area to be able to buy it at $19.99 at "Woodman's Grocery" (stores throughout Wisconsin and a few in the Chicago area)  and also the last two years Costco has had it for the same price.  The 2010 vintage i am enjoying now has turned out to be quite good, very similiar to the old EC12.

[LCWoody]

1999, and 2000 were two of my favorite years. I have a 1996 bottle that is very good also, and a 2005 from the newer batches that is very good. I quite buying them when the age dropped below 8 to 8 1/2 years. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by LCWoody

[Charlutz]

I’ve not had much of this. Had a 2004 that I really liked.  I currently have a 2005 open and know where I can get more of it from same barrel but it is not very good. Strongly acetone tasting and thin. I mix it and try to put it on the table when I host poker or some other gathering where people aren’t so discriminating. The experience with the 2005 has put me off a bit from trying another. 

[Cranecreek]

23 hours ago, Charlutz said:

I’ve not had much of this. Had a 2004 that I really liked.  I currently have a 2005 open and know where I can get more of it from same barrel but it is not very good. Strongly acetone tasting and thin. I mix it and try to put it on the table when I host poker or some other gathering where people aren’t so discriminating. The experience with the 2005 has put me off a bit from trying another. 

 

Reading from the posts above and this one from Charlutz, plus my own experience makes me wonder how much care is put into selecting barrels for these releases.  The 2005 that Charlutz dislikes won editors pick in W.A. fall 2015 issue.  The 2007 which was so bad I could not drink it and ended up mixing with a partial bottle of RoyalC black (which turned out real good !), well that one was scored 90 points by the magazine.  When dealing with SiB's there is always the chance of getting a bottle from an inferior barrel.  It does not occur often but I have had both a Blantons once and another time a McKenna that were way off.

But it would seem that it's much more prevalent with this EWSB for whatever reason.  Anyhow, the 2010 vintage is a pretty good easy drinking 7+ year bourbon with tastes reminiscent of EC12........or at least barrel 34 is.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Cranecreek

[Paddy]

^^^^It's the the single barrel vintage for their flagship brand (Evan Williams), so I can assure you that quite a bit of care is put into selecting the barrels.  So much so, that the master distiller actually selects the barrels that will be used for the 'vintage profile'.

 

To add, it's a given that the vintages will be different each year.  Each year the MD selects the barrels that best represent the profile that they want to present the brand.  Having said that, that is exactly why you see so much discussion (and variety of opinion) from vintage to vintage.  They are not supposed to be the same, only similar and familiar.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Paddy