Thomas H Handy

[timd]

Could you imagine a 10 or 12yo THH at barrel proof? Wow!

[GaryT]

I can see that.

THH is kinda frustrating too, the first one I had I thought it's not only the best rye I've ever had but one of the best whiskies also.

Then about a third down the bottle the youngness of it kicked in for me and that's why I say it's frustrating.

Could you imagine a 10 or 12yo THH at barrel proof? Wow!

[timd]

Wait a minute - I'm on my first THH ever, and probably 1/3 of the bottle down, and it is hands down my favorite rye (and to your point - one of my favorite whiskies). I'm depressed to think that it is heading downhill from this point on :cry:

[HP12]

That would be those TPS Bowman Rye's from a few years back - nectar of the gods is what they are. 10+ years, uncut, unfiltered - easily in my Top 10 all time whiskies.

[DeanSheen]

Yeah, that's basically what it is. But since the last price hike, it's no longer a good buy even based on proof. It is easy to find in Michigan, tho, so that's something.

I like it a lot but don't buy it at $70+. $65 was about it for me.

[GaryT]

That's the downside of living in Atlanta. IF you can find it, you're almost always paying $70+ for the privilege. I figure since I go through less than a bottle a year, the extra few dollars don't bug me too much (I reckon I could spend time driving further out to maybe find it for less, but I can't picture spending a few hours to save $10; although I completely understand when you're buying multiples!)

[The Boozer]

I agree w/u Oscar that Handy tends to lose some its its "punch" the longer the bottle sits around. Ironic that VWFRR improves greatly with a little age and air time in the bottle after opening while Handy goes the opposite way. I guess the lesson is to open one of each, drink the Handy quickly first and savor the VWFRR more over time.

I haven't seen a bottle of Handy on any shelves in the last 9 months so Josh you must be shopping some of the stores in the questionable areas of town. :grin:

[DPPSmoker]

Same here. If it was $50 I'd spring for a few. At $69 it's kind of a special occasion purchase.

Just ran into this - 2010 Handy at Binny's for $50.

http://www.binnys.com/spirits/Thomas_Handy_Cask_Strength_Straight_Rye_Whiskey_193205.html

[Lost Pollito]

Just ran into this - 2010 Handy at Binny's for $50.

http://www.binnys.com/spirits/Thomas_Handy_Cask_Strength_Straight_Rye_Whiskey_193205.html

[BourbonJoe]

What was the age and proof of the 2009 Thomas Handy Rye?

Joe :usflag:

[compliance]

Opened my 2011 Handy on Saturday. First bottle I've had. Nose was really strong orange juice and tasted of mandarin orange that first day. I still get those notes today but not as much. The proof gives it a lot of power that I like, but I don't think it's that complex beyond that. Needs more age. I'd love this at $40 to $50, at $80 it's over priced. Will probably not buy again.

[Tucker]

What was the age and proof of the 2009 Thomas Handy Rye?

Joe :usflag:

[Bmac]

I wasnt very imprrssed with it. I have the 2011 release. It's been a long time, maybe it's changed due to some air time. Although I am not sure why it's considered "antique" next to an 18, 17, and 12 yr old whiskey @_@

[HP12]

2011 THH is Jim Murray's Whisky Bible - 2013 "Whisky of the Year".

[macdeffe]

Any mention of JM belongs in the PHC subforum :-)

Steffen

[oke&coke]

Try getting a bottle of it now. This should be the real test of the e-bay ban.

[compliance]

Tonight I put Handy up against Willett 5 year rye in a blind taste test. The Willett has been open months, and the Handy about 4 days, so that might not be fair, but I preferred the Willett. The nose is much more open on the Willett and the palate is spicier and richer. Handy is a bit sweeter but with less developed flavors. My wife preferred the nose on Handy, but thought the Willett tasted better. I might try some water in the Handy next.

[JLH3]

Tonight I put Handy up against Willett 5 year rye in a blind taste test. The Willett has been open months, and the Handy about 4 days, so that might not be fair, but I preferred the Willett. The nose is much more open on the Willett and the palate is spicier and richer. Handy is a bit sweeter but with less developed flavors. My wife preferred the nose on Handy, but thought the Willett tasted better. I might try some water in the Handy next.

[macdeffe]

Anyone one who believes there's a correlation between whisky bible ratings and the quality of a whisk(e)y hasn't tasted a lot. The book is a total waste of money

Some of the high rated whiskies are indeed good, but a lot of them are just as good as the next bottle, which might be good, but not worth above 90 ratings. Most of his ratings seems very very random to me.

Here is my guide to the whiskybible :

The Whisky Bible Guide

96+ JM is a fan of this distillery or the die came out 6

90-95 It's not sulphured. The die throw was 3, 4 or 5

86-90 It's not sulphured. The die throw was 1 or 2

-85 It might be sulphured

http://www.random.org/

It's a shame the bottlers of high rated products feel flattered, as their whiskies might, but not necessarily, be somewhat mediocre.

A fat woman also get flattered by compliments, but she is still fat

Steffen

Edited October 12, 2012 by macdeffe

[HP12]

It's all subjective, isn't it? No matter what the rating scale is, who's it is and what the ratings results are, in the end it's one's own palate that trumps all else.

[Josh]

^What he said. Jim Murray might think she's fat, I might say she's voluptuous. YMMV.

[macdeffe]

Random<>Subjective

Nothing wrong with being subjective and having different tastepreferences

Steffen

[Jonny.Applebury]

It's a shame the bottlers of high rated products feel flattered, as their whiskies might, but not necessarily, be somewhat mediocre.

A fat woman also get flattered by compliments, but she is still fat

[smokinjoe]

^^

What both HP and Josh said + 1. Damn the ratings. There is no "consensus". Don't read about it first to see if it's worth trying. If you like it, that's all that counts.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I love Jim Murray. He's the only "World Whiskey Writer" that doesn't give short shrift to American whiskies, and he's been on the American Whiskey Renaissance since the beginning. It's only been in recent years that the other WWW's have begrudgingly begun to give American whiskies the attention that they deserve, in a transparent attempt to widen their own customer base(s). But even still, these guys spend an inordinate amount of their focus on cutsey craft distilleries that make bad...or no whiskey, hip mixologists, and acting like they have been here all along. I swear, I don't think most of them could find Kentucky on a map.

:soapbox:

[oke&coke]

I think one thing we should look at is his decision is why Handy is deserving of the award beyond just the flavor. Some of it may be the quality of the product over the makers normal lineup or that it has improved considerably since the previous tastings.

I personally use the Whiskey Bible for the tasting notes and have on more then one occasion looked at the scoring when having to choose one whiskey over another because of budget. While I have decided that some whiskies were not worth a repurchase do to taste preference or pour value(something the book doesn't go into), I have never found a highly rated product to be lacking in quality.