WR introduces new "Double Oaked"

[Fullbuck]

Went to a tasting of this in Louiville where the head distiller was present. Was not crazy about it, but took the opportunity to purchase a signed bottle. Opened it tonight and I really am not impressed. Actually, I am fairly disappointed at the results. I will let it sit for a few weeks and revisit. Tasted like really really bland granola. Not a tasting expert, just my thoughts.

[JayMonster]

It is if it's Pappy 20 ($99, almost 100, is what's it's been going for around here, thus the reply)

I wasn't suggesting any particular brands,just using simple numbers for simple demonstration purposes. If it is great, then that is a bottle that can stand on its own in regards to QPR. But that really wasn't the point.

[StraightNoChaser]

I finally got to try this on Monday and was not disappointed.

Because I already knew that WR sucks.

[BarrelChar]

I finally got to try this on Monday and was not disappointed.

Because I already knew that WR sucks.

Right on. It's my leading contender for "Worst Whiskey of the Year." Repugnant, offensive swill, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to get through a bottle it would be like the "Fear Factor" equivalent for bourbon drinkers. It's so heinous it's not even worth trying. Luckily, this was a free tasting at a local store, though I wish I had kindly refused.

If the distillers at Brown-Forman has any shame left, this bourbon should stir those feelings.

[gburger]

Soooo your saying you did not like it?

[Bmac]

Right on. It's my leading contender for "Worst Whiskey of the Year." Repugnant, offensive swill, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to get through a bottle it would be like the "Fear Factor" equivalent for bourbon drinkers. It's so heinous it's not even worth trying. Luckily, this was a free tasting at a local store, though I wish I had kindly refused.

If the distillers at Brown-Forman has any shame left, this bourbon should stir those feelings.

Wow, that's harsh. I had put Old Grandad 86 and Rebel Yell in that category. WR DO is not bad, at least not the bottle I bought. The nose is awesome. Creamy caramel toffee. The arrival matches the nose. I like everything about this except the finish which is white-hot for such a low proof whiskey. It's the only thing that keeps this whiskey from my epic category.

Also, regular WR takes time to open up. I didn't like WR when I first cracked it. It was the exact same for WR MC Maplewood finished. Some time later, WR improved significantly and WR MC MW is actually amazing and had considered getting another bottle.

[JayMonster]

Wow, that's harsh. I had put Old Grandad 86 and Rebel Yell in that category. WR DO is not bad, at least not the bottle I bought. The nose is awesome. Creamy caramel toffee. The arrival matches the nose. I like everything about this except the finish which is white-hot for such a low proof whiskey. It's the only thing that keeps this whiskey from my epic category.

Also, regular WR takes time to open up. I didn't like WR when I first cracked it. It was the exact same for WR MC Maplewood finished. Some time later, WR improved significantly and WR MC MW is actually amazing and had considered getting another bottle.

It has been pretty clear (to me anyway), that Woodford is a love it/ hate it proposition.

I would never waste $50 on the Double Oak because I cannot stand the Distillers Select. I gave it months to "open up, " I tried ot neat, with water, with ice, in a Manhattan, vatted with Devil's Cut to various ratios (at least one of which is probably pretty close to the DO thanks to the extra wood), and nothing could make this an enjoyable bourbon.

I'm going to be honest, after tasting Woodford, I laughed when I heard that Chris Morris runs a class to teach distilling, because I couldn't help but wonder who would want to learn from someone who makes bourbon that tastes like that?

It is truly one of the most polarizing examples of, "to each their own. "

So, is BarrelChar being harsh? To me... Only slighty.

[Bmac]

It has been pretty clear (to me anyway), that Woodford is a love it/ hate it proposition.

I would never waste $50 on the Double Oak because I cannot stand the Distillers Select. I gave it months to "open up, " I tried ot neat, with water, with ice, in a Manhattan, vatted with Devil's Cut to various ratios (at least one of which is probably pretty close to the DO thanks to the extra wood), and nothing could make this an enjoyable bourbon.

I'm going to be honest, after tasting Woodford, I laughed when I heard that Chris Morris runs a class to teach distilling, because I couldn't help but wonder who would want to learn from someone who makes bourbon that tastes like that?

It is truly one of the most polarizing examples of, "to each their own. "

So, is BarrelChar being harsh? To me... Only slighty.

I have a tendency to agree with you. However, there is some common ground. I love PVW15 (SW). I have yet to meet someone (other than my wife) who doesnt like it. I am in concensus with GTs, WLW, and FR SB as well. So there is some commonality in what tastes "good" across the whiskey community.

I wanted to like WR...but I found I could not. At each milestone my pallete reached I re-tasted WR. It took far too long, almost a year before I could taste what was good about WR. Then I got the MC. Same experience. With DO, I didnt have the problem.

Here's a theory, if I may be so bold. WR by rights is considered small batch. Although variances should be minimal, they are present. Do you think it is possible that a inferior batch was purchased by some and based on that initial experience stated that WR was no good? I have heard this about Elijah Craig 12. This might explain somw of the love it/hate it variance that we see. Can you conceed that it is possible to buy a good bottle of WR?

[JayMonster]

I have a tendency to agree with you. However, there is some common ground. I love PVW15 (SW). I have yet to meet someone (other than my wife) who doesnt like it. I am in concensus with GTs, WLW, and FR SB as well. So there is some commonality in what tastes "good" across the whiskey community.

I wanted to like WR...but I found I could not. At each milestone my pallete reached I re-tasted WR. It took far too long, almost a year before I could taste what was good about WR. Then I got the MC. Same experience. With DO, I didnt have the problem.

Here's a theory, if I may be so bold. WR by rights is considered small batch. Although variances should be minimal, they are present. Do you think it is possible that a inferior batch was purchased by some and based on that initial experience stated that WR was no good? I have heard this about Elijah Craig 12. This might explain somw of the love it/hate it variance that we see. Can you conceed that it is possible to buy a good bottle of WR?

While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

[Rutherford]

While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

I consider myself in the "melon" group above. Normal WR shares this particular note with some Irish whiskies I've enjoyed, as well as having the nice rye backbone and OF character. Is it good? I'd say so. Is WR worth the price? Probably not, but it would be for $5 less, or if some other products I like became more expensive. I'd say "no" for most of their special releases.

[Bmac]

While I certainly agree that there can (and often is) variation from bottle to bottle of both Small Batch and Single Barrel products, I think it is more about style with Woodford.

For Example that distinct flavor that is most explained to be because of the pot-still process used by Woodford. I have seen it described as "Unripe Melon Skin" by those that like it, whereas people like me describe it more like "oxidized copper penny." We are describing the same thing, but it is HOW that flavor is perceived (and whether it is considered "pleasant") by the drinker has a lot to do with how they see the product overall. The "Melon" people like Woodford, the "penny" people do not. I think that goes beyond the simple "bad bottle."

[DeanSheen]

I had a pour, thankfully not a bottle. Not something I plan to buy. I think I rail dumped it.

[cowdery]

This new product is catching some hate here, from some of the usual haters. About the only bourbons I've had in the last several years that I felt as hostile toward are modern Yellowstone, Old Crow, McCormick, some micro stuff, some of the overaged KBD bottlings, and that's about it. Even then, not hyperbolically, just 'don't bother.'

I had a taste of WR double-oaked last fall at the distillery and it was my first pour at the Gazebo Saturday night. It's extra wood without the bitterness. That's about the best thing I can say about it. Don't hate it, don't love it, but if the faint praise above sounds good to you, give it a try. I'll probably try it again if I have a chance.

I didn't pour it out.

It's a little like Jim Beam Devil's Cut, a similar effect, except the way Beam does it there's more burn and sootiness. Compared to something that is just long aged, it is extra wood without the sweetness. I miss the sweetness.

In terms of what they set out to do it's pretty well balanced and shows that style in its best light, which does you no good if you don't care for that style, but some people do and they shouldn't be scared away from trying this by people who are mostly just having some fun with creative writing.

[Gillman]

I tried it too and it was okay, but I wouldn't try it again. There was a sort of woody sheen, it reminded me of Makers 46. But I certainly don't hate it, it's decent enough.

The good part about the wood addition is, it seems to disguise part of the assertive pot still taste (waxy, metallic) WR can have from its Versailles component. I wonder if this may have been a strategy when the new product was devised.

Gary

[camduncan]

I'm really enjoying reading (most of) the different opinions here, and am looking forward to trying this new product and forming my own opinion. I usually enjoy standard Woodford (I've had maybe 2 of the 10 bottles I've purchased over the last 10 years taste bad)

Apparently we won't see Double Oaked in Australia anytime soon, so I'm going to be on the lookout for a bottle in Hawaii in a couple of weeks.

Does anyone know if there are half size bottles or minatures of this floating around? I wouldn't mind 'trying' it before I outlay $50 on a bottle.

[cowdery]

I've never gotten the copper penny taste from standard Woodford. I've only gotten it from the MC 4-grain bourbon, a lot in the first release, a little in the second. If there's any of that in standard Woodford, I guess I must like it at that level. Copper is a high note, similar to citrus, nice in the right amount.

They have a very rigorous process for developing new products and as the first permanent line extension (i.e., not a one-off), they obviously think they have something. I suspect one driving factor was their desire to leverage that Brown-Forman is the only producer that makes its own barrels.

[camduncan]

I also find it interesting that Double Oaked, Makers 46 & Devils Cut all products that utilise extra 'wood time' hit the market within a small window of time.

[clingman71]

I've never gotten the copper penny taste from standard Woodford. I've only gotten it from the MC 4-grain bourbon, a lot in the first release, a little in the second. If there's any of that in standard Woodford, I guess I must like it at that level. Copper is a high note, similar to citrus, nice in the right amount.

They have a very rigorous process for developing new products and as the first permanent line extension (i.e., not a one-off), they obviously think they have something. I suspect one driving factor was their desire to leverage that Brown-Forman is the only producer that makes its own barrels.

The metallic flavor is something that I only began noticing the past few years. Going back a decade, I really liked WR. I have since learned of the story of early Woodford being B-F "honey barrels" until the WR pot-stilled bourbon was ready to mix. I don't know how much of this is the whiskey changing, or how much is my palate, but there is a definite difference to me between eras of WR. I've only had one small taste of WRDO, and while an improvement, it wasn't enough to justify a bottle, especially at its pricepoint. But, I am not opposed to trying it again in the future as I am beginning to see how products and tastes evolve over time. I am recently on an upswing with my on again off again relationship with Maker's.

Chuck, I know you said that you don't get the copper penny tatse in Woodford, but I am asking for an educated guess. What do you think contributes most to this taste for the people who do find that flavor:

high still proof, pot stills, B-F barrels?

I am not familiar with other B-f products to know what similarities may exist with the rest of the line and WR.

[StraightBoston]

The metallic flavor is something that I only began noticing the past few years. Going back a decade, I really liked WR. I have since learned of the story of early Woodford being B-F "honey barrels" until the WR pot-stilled bourbon was ready to mix. I don't know how much of this is the whiskey changing, or how much is my palate, but there is a definite difference to me between eras of WR.

[cowdery]

Chuck, I know you said that you don't get the copper penny tatse in Woodford, but I am asking for an educated guess. What do you think contributes most to this taste for the people who do find that flavor:

high still proof, pot stills, B-F barrels?

I am not familiar with other B-f products to know what similarities may exist with the rest of the line and WR.

[Gillman]

I agree but I think it is low distillation proof (159 proof, in fact, high end for the bourbon standard but still meeting it) that explains it, not copper residues.

Gary

[Bmac]

I agree but I think it is low distillation proof (159 proof, in fact, high end for the bourbon standard but still meeting it) that explains it, not copper residues.

Gary

[Gillman]

I think it must be certain co-products of fermentation that subsist in the Versailles spirit that explain that taste. I think we are all talking of the same taste but using different terms, to me it often is waxy-like, tangy or metallic. (Single pot still Irish often has it too, and there too you have 3 runs in a pot still with a mash largely composed of raw grains).

Why would those congeners stay in at 159 proof whereas after two column still and a doubler run you get a much milder spirit at approximately such proof? (I'm thinking of Virginia Gentleman, the Fox and the newer brands made that way at the former Smith Bowman distillery in VA). It's because a pot still, even 3 runs, works differently to column stills, or so I infer.

I think it's good that Versailles whiskey has this individuality, otherwise what would be the point to use pot distillation? But I've often wondered what it would taste like at 8, 10 and more years of aging...

Gary

[cowdery]

I don't get where you're going calling 159 a low distillation proof when, by law, no one can go higher for bourbon, and most go lower.

Because WR uses a recirculation pump in their beer still, solids in the mash abraid the copper, which puts minute amounts of actual copper into the solution. That's where I assume the copper penny taste comes from, but that's speculation.

Chris Morris and Dave Scheurich always said the main difference they tasted, in the new make, was a nuttiness or creaminess.

[BourbonJoe]

I tried some Double Oak. I thought it was horrible.

Joe :usflag: