BOTM: 5/12 Evan Williams Single Barrel

[thezenone]

I generally like this release so I picked up the 2002 last week to try. It's not bad, but I feel like it doesn't have the strong wood flavor I look forward to. Seems a little sweeter and more restrained the the previous two years, though I have never directly compared. I think I know where I can still grab last year's release, so maybe I'll do just that.

[weller_tex]

Of the 3 EWSB's I have had, even mundane Old Ezra 7 year 101 is better, I know it's not stated that it's HH whiskey, but it's widely known to be.

[redbear]

I've been working through my first EWSB, a 2000. Based on everyone's comments about the 2000, I was disappointed with the earliest pours out of the bottle. They had a watery start and low complexity.

As time passes, I feel like the bottle has matured some. The wateriness is no where near as prominent. Instead, I get a bit of honey and vanilla. Later I get moderate wood, and yes, some mintyness. It's grown on me.

I look forward to the additional bottles I've been able to find. I have multiples from 1995 and up. I always keep an eye out for the older bottlings.

[McKinney]

I've not yet picked up a 2002. I have a 2000 and a 2001. I enjoy the 2000 more than I liked the 1998 and 1999. I agree with other posters that you can really tell the difference between years, however I can't say much about bottles within a year as I've only purchased two from the same year: 2000.

Even though it's all HH whiskey, I do not like EC12 neat (but it does make a great julep base) but like the McKenna BIB. As for EW I have to say I look forward to the EWSB each year. It's different and meant to be different. Some years are better, no years are bad, and all years are worth discussing, especially at this price point.

So this discussion thread simply moves up my timeframe for buying a 2002 and comparing against my 2000 and 2001.

[Flyfish]

Had some EWSB 1996 and EW 1783. The 1996 went into barrel 39 on 2/19/96 and was bottled on 11/22/05. If my history is correct, this makes it pre-fire Bardstown juice.

The nose was rather tight at first but opened up with honey, leather and citrus. On the palate, I was struck by the balance. Nothing really jumped out the way you sometimes get overhwelmed by an initial hit of caramel or vanilla. It was a lot drier than I expected based on other EWSBs. With a drop of water, it opened more but kept its balance. Great legs and a nice, full mouthfeel. Long, dry finish.

The 1783 was neither as complex nor as well balanced but the family resemblance to EWSB was clear. It was just plain good! A lot of corny sweetness at first. Very easy sipping neat. Undemanding. Nothing harsh or jarring to disturb the pleasure. The QPR is simply outstanding at only a dollar more than EWBL. I'm tempted to rank it with VOB, and AAA as a value pour but I'll need to sample a couple more bottles before making a definitive judgment.

[Clavius]

Tasting the 2002 neat right now. This bottle is from barrel #91, barreled on 2-18-02 and bottled on 12-01-11. Nose is nice, kind of "dark". Taste is kind of unimpressive. Notable oak and some cinnamon notes. Dry and a little "hot" as well. Not bad considering the price. But I probably won't pick up another one. Just my opinion.

[thezenone]

Had a little bit of the newest release again last night and I think a little time with air has gotten rid of the sweetness I was getting when I first opened the bottle. Getting more wood and spice character now, and it did seem to taste a little hot. It's a little more in line with the previous years I have had, but I agree that it is unimpressive. Not bad by any stretch, but I wouldn't purchase the 2002 release again.

[Crowes]

What is the general consensus for the 2001? A store by me has one last bottle, guessing I should pick it up. I have a 2002 right now, which I like. And managed to find a bottle of 2000 this weekend. What a huge difference between the two. I love the overall balance of the 2000, but I also like the more straightforward punch of the 2002, although not nearly as refined as the 2000.

[Young Blacksmith]

The 2001 I tried was flat and weak, almost watery. I actually preferred EWB over it. But, different barrels will be different so my experience may be totally different than yours.

[michaelturtle1]

After reading this thread I decided to kick open my '99 vintage, for the price I find it to be a decent drink and might have to go and pick up a few other years just to taste the differences

[Crowes]

Boy, I didn't care for the 2001 at all. I am going to revisit it this weekend but after tasting it last night, along with the 00 and 02 (I love both of these), I was terribly disappointed. It had none of the richness of the 2002, and none of the balance of the 2000. It was somewhere in between the two in overall flavor profile but not in a good way. A very astringent mid palate and finish. For me, the Rye and Woodiness is not kept in check and runs rampant from the get go with an almost bitter quality.

I know I am late to the party on these but I am a noob after all.

Cheers

[redbear]

I was just going through my inventory, and I noticed that one of my 97's is probably mislabeled. It says Distilled on 11/18/97 and bottled on 7/26/05. This would make it less than 8 years old.

I have a feeling that because it is batch 655 they had the number 5 on the brain when they wrote in the bottling date.

Anyone else seen something like this? Is EWSB always ~10 years old?

[p_elliott]

I was just going through my inventory, and I noticed that one of my 97's is probably mislabeled. It says Distilled on 11/18/97 and bottled on 7/26/05. This would make it less than 8 years old.

I have a feeling that because it is batch 655 they had the number 5 on the brain when they wrote in the bottling date.

Anyone else seen something like this? Is EWSB always ~10 years old?

Things aren't collectible except when they aren't that might be something to hold on to as a fluke.

[weller_tex]

I have had three different EWSBs and they weren't bad, but not great all. I think Ezra Brooks 7 year/101 (also HH whiskey) is much better.

[JLH3]

This was put in the cask on 4/1/02 and says specially selected for Total Wine & More by Craig Beam. 86.6 proof.

Color - Light color. About like tea.

Nose - Vanilla. Honey. Banana. Sweet.

Taste - Oak up front. Spice. Cinnamon. Slightly oily.

Finnish - More oak and vanilla.

[Bourserker]

I’m a big fan of this stuff, and think its great bourbon for the price. I have had the 2001 and 2002 vintages and I have a couple of bottles of the 2000 vintage in my bunker that I’ll get around to at some point. I also saw a couple of 1997 vintage bottles sitting in a store that I may try to snag if they are still there next time I’m in the area.

At any rate, like I said I really like this stuff. One of my favorite bourbons is the standard Four Roses Single Barrel and this might be kind of an odd comparison, but I found that the 2001 bottle of ESWB (barrel 368 if anyone cares) that I had tasted similar to FRSB with some minor differences. I actually had them one after the other multiple times just to confirm, and I guess that’s how that bottle of 2001 liked to roll...at least for my palette.