Single Oak Project - spoiler thread

[callmeox]

I am planning on picking up a number of bottles from the Single Oak project and I think it would be a good idea to keep some information separated from the main thread.

Since the bottles are only identified by number and not by mashbill or any of the barrel variables, can we place specific spolier information here?

I would like to see that those who wish to evaluate without prejudice can do so without happening upon the information accidentally.

Objections?

[Barrel_Proof]

Spoiler information is already posted in the other thread. Those of us who plan on tasting them blind need to avoid that thread, too.

[callmeox]

MODS: can we get this stickied in the Premium/Specialty forum?

[Virus_Of_Life]

MODS: can we get this stickied in the Premium/Specialty forum?

I am not sure I understand exactly what is going on, but sure we'll sticky it for a while.

[callmeox]

Thanks, Christian.

If you have comments on the specifics of any of the Single Oak releases, please post them here. Many of us are looking forward to evaluating these blind.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[Virus_Of_Life]

Thanks, Christian.

If you have comments on the specifics of any of the Single Oak releases, please post them here. Many of us are looking forward to evaluating these blind.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Management here will keep and eye out to remove any spoiler info shared in any other threads. PLEASE be respectful and ONLY post the info here. You can talk about 'liking" bottle whatever but no info about what it is please.

Your cooperation is appreciated. :thankyousign: :thankyousign:

[cowdery]

I'm going to keep even my 'liking a bottle' here. I was particularly fond of #99 (big Barbara Feldon fan), which is top and wheat with an average grain.

[silverfish]

John Hansall offers up some thoughts. Caution - SPOILERS at link.

[StraightNoChaser]

yet another collection to eat away at my wallet :grin:

[gburger]

My store finally got some in, gonna buy some Friday.

[Ian S.]

My store finally got some in, gonna buy some Friday.

Be sure to leave some for me, good sir. :grin:

[gburger]

Just picked up # 35 #67 and #99

Have not tried them as yet.

[angler82]

Just picked up my first bottle of this today- bottle #99.

Looking forward to trying it out for the first time this weekend with some fellow bourbon fans.

[Res/st-or]

Picked up a barrel 35, an 8 yo wheater from the top trunk. I rated it overall 7 out of 10. Here is my assessment. Maybe it won't get deleted.

• 1) Describe the color of this whiskey. Choose all that apply,
  Straw, Amber
  
• 2) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate the color of this whiskey? (Larger number is better)
  6
  
• 3) Describe the aroma of this whiskey. Choose all that apply,
  Butter, Candied Fruit, Cinnamon, Leather, Raisins, Toffee, Vanilla
  
• 4) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate the aroma of this whiskey? (Larger number is better)
  7
  
• 5) Describe the mouth-feel of this whiskey. Choose all that apply,
  Smooth, Thin
  
• 6) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate the mouth-feel of this whiskey? (Larger number is better)
  6
  
• 7) Describe the flavor of this whiskey. Choose all that apply,
  Candied Fruit, Leather, Nutmeg, Oak, Pepper, Raisins
  
• 8) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate the flavor of this whiskey? (Larger number is better)
  7
  
• 9) Describe the finish of this whiskey. Choose all that apply,
  Earthy, Short, Smooth
  
• 10) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate the finish of this whiskey? (Larger number is better)
  5
  
• 11) Describe this whiskey overall. Choose all that apply,
  Dry, Flat, Light, Oaky, Oily, Satisfying, Smooth, light floral essence
  
• 12) Based on your personal preferences, how would you rate this whiskey overall? (Larger number is better)
  
  7

[fishnbowljoe]

I picked up a bottle of Barrel #4 a few weeks ago. I wish I would have grabbed the bottle of Barrel #100 instead. :crazy: Right after I bought the #4, I saw that barrel #100 was a wheater. Oh well. Cheers! Joe

[silverfish]

David Driscoll from K&L offers up his tasting notes.

[RegChumpington]

Completed my run through the first round last night. For the most part, I agree with Driscoll's reviews, plus or minus a few percent here or there.

Of the 12 there were a handful that I liked.

- 131: Probably the best in my opinion. It had some nice spice and fruit; good wood, some nice tannins that were more black tea than wood. Quite nice. I think this would be the only one of the 12 I'd actually buy a bottle of.

- 36: Pointed right towards what I love. Black cherry, toffee, vanilla, light pepper, a bit of an earthy clay/play-doh note. Really enjoyed it. (I thought 35 was OK but the difference between 35 & 36 was pretty severe).

- 68: Again with the earthy, clay/play-doh note. Marshmallow, rye, toffee, oak, clove, orange, cinnamon. Lacked some complexity but in the ballpark for sure.

- 132: Because it was an oddball one to me. It was a little piney on the nose to me; very spicy and young rye to me; a bit thin, but it picked up: a note of bubblegum next to cinnamon and wood. A weird flash of french fries (!?). Then the finish had this strange meaty note in amongst everything. I included it for the sheer weird factor.

So my tastes skew towards the rye recipe; generally bottom cuts but the best of the bunch was a top cut. Definitely coarser growth. (IMO 3 & 4 were my absolute least favorites.)

Very fun experiment. Looking forward to round 2.

[Tucker]

A review of round 2 by drinkhacker.com -

http://www.drinkhacker.com/2011/09/07/review-buffalo-trace-distillery-single-oak-project-bourbon-round-two/

[RegChumpington]

I just finished my trip through Round 2 today. In short, I thought it was better than round one. Certainly there were no "must avoid" barrels as there were in round 1.

My favorites were barrel 61 (I'd buy a 750mL bottle of this), 29, and 31. That's a marked preference for tight grain (29 & 31); rye recipe. 61 was a wheater and just intense with fruit notes but had a lot going on.

I thought #3 chars were better than #4 (something about #4 chars so far have been just too pencil-shaving woody for me in this experiment). On the flip side, I think the #3s have been a little underdeveloped, but this could be a result of low entry proof for the #3s in this round.

It's been interesting and honestly I think the most fun part is trying to improve by making your own blends after doing tastings. I did better last time; my blends this time (191+61+127; 189+157+29; 31+95+159; 63+93+125) were all worse than their constituent parts. I guess some skill goes into blending barrels!

If you're interested I've got full notes on my blog (linked in sig) but it's a lot to digest so I don't want to blow out the board with my long-winded notes.

[Buffalo Bill]

I'm going to keep even my 'liking a bottle' here. I was particularly fond of #99 (big Barbara Feldon fan), which is top and wheat with an average grain.

"99" I love her... don't be stealing my gal!

[Bourbon Boiler]

Completed my run through the first round last night. For the most part, I agree with Driscoll's reviews, plus or minus a few percent here or there.

Of the 12 there were a handful that I liked.

- 131: Probably the best in my opinion. It had some nice spice and fruit; good wood, some nice tannins that were more black tea than wood. Quite nice. I think this would be the only one of the 12 I'd actually buy a bottle of.

- 36: Pointed right towards what I love. Black cherry, toffee, vanilla, light pepper, a bit of an earthy clay/play-doh note. Really enjoyed it. (I thought 35 was OK but the difference between 35 & 36 was pretty severe).

- 68: Again with the earthy, clay/play-doh note. Marshmallow, rye, toffee, oak, clove, orange, cinnamon. Lacked some complexity but in the ballpark for sure.

- 132: Because it was an oddball one to me. It was a little piney on the nose to me; very spicy and young rye to me; a bit thin, but it picked up: a note of bubblegum next to cinnamon and wood. A weird flash of french fries (!?). Then the finish had this strange meaty note in amongst everything. I included it for the sheer weird factor.

So my tastes skew towards the rye recipe; generally bottom cuts but the best of the bunch was a top cut. Definitely coarser growth. (IMO 3 & 4 were my absolute least favorites.)

Very fun experiment. Looking forward to round 2.

I have enjoyed it as well. I tried (among others) 132 & 3 that you mention here. I initially reviewed 132 well and 3 poorly, just as you did. However, they have the same mashbill, distillation date, bottling date, entry proof, bottling proof, warehouse location, char level, and tree harvest location.

3 was aged in a barrel made from the top of the tree, and 132 the bottom.

3 has 16 growth rings / inch, 132 has 8.

3 uses 44 staves, 132 uses 65.

3 had an entry weight of 513, 132 weighed 525 (not sure of the unit)

After learning this, my drinking partner in the experiment challenged me to identify the difference between the two blind, and I could not do it.

[RegChumpington]

I have enjoyed it as well. I tried (among others) 132 & 3 that you mention here. I initially reviewed 132 well and 3 poorly, just as you did. However, they have the same mashbill, distillation date, bottling date, entry proof, bottling proof, warehouse location, char level, and tree harvest location.

3 was aged in a barrel made from the top of the tree, and 132 the bottom.

3 has 16 growth rings / inch, 132 has 8.

3 uses 44 staves, 132 uses 65.

3 had an entry weight of 513, 132 weighed 525 (not sure of the unit)

After learning this, my drinking partner in the experiment challenged me to identify the difference between the two blind, and I could not do it.

Hah! That's an interesting experiment. To me, the bottom cuts had a pronounced earthy flavor that was lacking in the top cuts, and was in short supply in release 2. (still a great release, but an element I really enjoyed).

I don't have any left to retaste and maybe #3 benefits from some exposure to air... I'd believe it because my impression was that #3 really only had room to improve.

I think my biggest surprise so far is that the grain has had no real discernible pattern of influence on my preferences thus far. When I read what was going into the project I'd assumed it'd be one of the most pronounced variables.

[Bourbon Boiler]

Hah! That's an interesting experiment. To me, the bottom cuts had a pronounced earthy flavor that was lacking in the top cuts, and was in short supply in release 2. (still a great release, but an element I really enjoyed).

I don't have any left to retaste and maybe #3 benefits from some exposure to air... I'd believe it because my impression was that #3 really only had room to improve.

I think my biggest surprise so far is that the grain has had no real discernible pattern of influence on my preferences thus far. When I read what was going into the project I'd assumed it'd be one of the most pronounced variables.

I only had #100 as a wheat mashbill, and it was noticably weaker. (I'm not a wheat guy.) I would have guessed it was lower proof if I didn't already know the proofs from the bottle.

[RegChumpington]

I only had #100 as a wheat mashbill, and it was noticably weaker. (I'm not a wheat guy.) I would have guessed it was lower proof if I didn't already know the proofs from the bottle.

[Bourbon Boiler]

Sorry, unclear on my end. Wood grain density was what I meant having no strong influence on my tastes which I expected to have more influence.

Wheat vs rye doesn't have a real strong pattern yet - rye may be ever so slightly ahead which is no surprise... I tend to prefer older wheaters. But even with that said, I don't have a strong preference on wheat vs rye anyway.