WR introduces new "Double Oaked"

[Gillman]

It's a low distillation proof in relation to GNS-level, and thus the character of whiskey is imparted to it, enhanced in this case by the pot still.

Gary

[BootFNBD]

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.

[weller_tex]

I haven't had the Double Oaked, but I have never understood the hate for standard WR. Over-priced maybe, but I like it just fine.

[Josh]

I had a sip or two at my favorite bar recently. It wasn't bad. Not fantastic or worth $50, but not bad. Like a diluted WRMC seasoned oak. Glad I got it comped!:cool:

[bad_scientist]

I haven't had the Double Oaked, but I have never understood the hate for standard WR. Over-priced maybe, but I like it just fine.

Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.

[weller_tex]

Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.

Yeah, I've read that. I generally agree with him, but not on that point.

[luther.r]

Have you read some of Sku's posts on here or on his blog about WR and BF in general? Comes off like a spitting cobra. I've never seen so much hate for a distiller.

I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.

[bad_scientist]

I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.

Hey, by the time I'm done reading his posts on BF, I have no criticism of them because he's used all the harsh words I know and I'm completely burned out.

[weller_tex]

I like reviewers who don't feel they need to candy-coat things. Most reviewers only post reviews of things they like. A little vehemence can be good, even if you don't agree with it.

I agree, I like reviewers to be straightforward...it's just in this case I happen to like standard Woodford Reserve

[StraightBoston]

A member graciously forwarded me a sample that I tried for the first time tonight -- don't love yet, certainly don't hate. Pretty sure it's not worth the premium over standard WR (which itself is pretty low on the QPR scale.)

Not finding any copper, which is a good thing.

[JayMonster]

Woodford Reserve is a great pour. Usually what I order if a restaurant has it. The Double Oaked is different, but, still a great bourbon.

Regarding Chris Morris, I feel he is a great distiller and innovator. He has forgotten more about Bourbon than you will ever know.

I guarantee you are probably a Twinkle or Buffalo Chip. If you want bad bourbon, try their experimentals, retailers can't give them away.

Boot

[BootFNBD]

Jaymonster,

Must have hit a nerve, and got it right that you're a Twinkle and/or Buffalo Chip!

Other than Stagg, ER10, ER17, Barton (VOB 100 and 1792) and Bowman the rest of the Buffalo Trace products are pure rotgut and one time buys if that.

How would you know what any good bourbon tastes like living in the "Garden State" where the refinery smell and pollution is overwhelming everywhere.

Oh, and I meant the Buffalo Trace Experimentals!!!!!!!

Boot

[Trey Manthey]

I just Googled "buffalo chip".

[JayMonster]

Jaymonster,

Must have hit a nerve, and got it right that you're a Twinkle and/or Buffalo Chip!

Other than Stagg, ER10, ER17, Barton (VOB 100 and 1792) and Bowman the rest of the Buffalo Trace products are pure rotgut and one time buys if that.

How would you know what any good bourbon tastes like living in the "Garden State" where the refinery smell and pollution is overwhelming everywhere.

Oh, and I meant the Buffalo Trace Experimentals!!!!!!!

Boot

Well, thanks for making it obvious that I wasted my time with you. Since the only thing worse than your deluded sense of self-importance is your lousy taste in whiskey, you truly are of no consequence.

[callmeox]

A couple of thoughts on this thread:

Attack the issues and not each other, folks. There is no reason to resort to ad-hominem jabs.

I tried the double oaked in Bardstown and found it to be nothing special. Another pass.

If Woodford Reserve was the only bourbon on the market, I would switch to fruit-tinis.

With point three understood, point two shouldn't be a surprise.

[ebo]

Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

I like WR just fine. I don't think it's all that special, but I do drink it from time to time when I want something a bit different. I do think it's over priced, though. I haven't tried the double oaked, but I'll get around to it.

[fricky]

I had an opportunity to taste the double oaked product and was very happy that I did not have to pay for it. It was undrinkable. It had a solvent-like taste. I would equate it to paint thinner or acetone. Of course, I never tasted paint thinner or acetone.

[CoMobourbon]

Attack the issues and not each other, folks. There is no reason to resort to ad-hominem jabs.

Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

While I understand the sentiment, guys, I really think that these comments are completely unfair toward Jay. They suggest a 'false equivilence' (10 cent term for the day) in which it seems like both parties are equally at fault because both are involved in the dispute. This is clearly not the case. Boot either refused to read or cannot read anything more than 'WR IS BAD' in Jay's post despite the very conscientious distinctions Jay made between personal taste and quality. He proceeded to accuse Jay of discounting the absolue quality of WR and the expertise of its distiller, which Jay did not do, and accused him in an extremely (and entertainingly) juvenile way. Whether or not he mostly meant to be funny, still a pretty shitty example of human behavior. Jay's only major mistake has been bothering to respond at all (which he really probably should not have done). While a little unnecessarily personal, Jay basically just clarfied his pretty fair first position. Rinse and repeat, more or less, on the second round of posts.

Ad-hominem attacks are always stupid, but just saying "hey guys, both of you stop fighting" is kind of a false, half-way response. Call it like it is.

And in any case, post's like Boot's first post exemplify the kind of horseshit that moderators (if they were somehow omniscient) should deal with quickly and decisively before whole threads become like this one has become.

[ebo]

While I understand the sentiment, guys, I really think that these comments are completely unfair toward Jay. They suggest a 'false equivilence' (10 cent term for the day) in which it seems like both parties are equally at fault because both are involved in the dispute. This is clearly not the case. Boot either refused to read or cannot read anything more than 'WR IS BAD' in Jay's post despite the very conscientious distinctions Jay made between personal taste and quality. He proceeded to accuse Jay of discounting the absolue quality of WR and the expertise of its distiller, which Jay did not do, and accused him in an extremely (and entertainingly) juvenile way. Whether or not he mostly meant to be funny, still a pretty shitty example of human behavior. Jay's only major mistake has been bothering to respond at all (which he really probably should not have done). While a little unnecessarily personal, Jay basically just clarfied his pretty fair first position. Rinse and repeat, more or less, on the second round of posts.

Ad-hominem attacks are always stupid, but just saying "hey guys, both of you stop fighting" is kind of a false, half-way response. Call it like it is.

And in any case, post's like Boot's first post exemplify the kind of horseshit that moderators (if they were somehow omniscient) should deal with quickly and decisively before whole threads become like this one has become.

I don't recall calling out any one person, and I agree with your last paragraph.... if that gives you an indication of where I stand.

[CoMobourbon]

I don't recall calling out any one person, and I agree with your last paragraph.... if that gives you an indication of where I stand.

Exactly - that's the problem. All I am really saying is that if one person is clearly the instigator and is much more at fault than the other, we need to call it like it is.

[callmeox]

Exactly - that's the problem. All I am really saying is that if one person is clearly the instigator and is much more at fault than the other, we need to call it like it is.

I wasn't taking sides, determining fault or trying to ID the instigator. I was simply reminding folks to be civil.

Not a moderator, don't play one on TV.

[ebo]

I wasn't taking sides, determining fault or trying to ID the instigator. I was simply reminding folks to be civil.

Not a moderator, don't play one on TV.

:toast:...... I did stay at a Holiday in, once.:cool:

[smokinjoe]

I have been known to be Jim Butler a time or two...so...Knock it off!!

[JayMonster]

I 'm sorry for taking the bait and falling into that trap.

As far as I am concerned it was and is over.

[Lost Pollito]

Why the nastiness toward each other over a difference of opinion?

My thought exactly. No need for nastiness when we're talking about Bourbon.