2003 Evan Williams Single Barrel

[Dolph Lundgren]

Figured I'd start a thread about the 2003 EWSB. Personally, I'm really digging this years release. It sweetened up real nice after a little air time. I put it up against a 1995 EWSB Mini I had (which I thought was a real good year), and I prefered the 2003.

On an unrelated note, I poured some FRSmB into the glass after the 1995 EWSB - without washing it out - and man, it tasted like total crap (actually, Pine Sol to be specific). It was a complete (and unintentional) blending failure.

[Clavius]

I got 3 bottles from barrel #21, bottled on 12-12-12. Bought one, liked it a lot, then went back and picked up the last two on the shelf from the same barrel. A real solid bourbon for around $25.

[T Comp]

Barrel #7, Binny's pick bottled on 11/28/12. Noses quite nice but turns into a mint monster extrordinaire...which I can't get past. That mint hangs on too. Not a fan of the regular EW black for this same reason. I get little to none in all other current HH releases. If somebody doesn't want the remaining 700 ml that will be available to any and all Sampler weekend, it'll work as my traditional Mint Julep the following weekend...no need to add the mint :grin:.

[cowdery]

Here's a reference point for those of you keeping score at home. Barrel #1 was bottled on 11-28-12. About 1/3 of my bottle is now in my belly.

[tanstaafl2]

Here's a reference point for those of you keeping score at home. Barrel #1 was bottled on 11-28-12. About 1/3 of my bottle is now in my belly.

Unless you just drank it if it is still in your belly you may want to get that checked out!

[JohnHansell]

Another reference point: Half my bottle (also Barrel #1) is gone. Delicious stuff!

[T Comp]

And because of what the big boys here have opined :cool: I tried another 45 ml last night and what can I say. Some of us geeks don't like the sulphur they detect in their scotch and I don't like mint in my bourbon...except F yeast 4R bottlings :grin:. I also wonder if the mint in barrel #7 and in the EW Black, that is no longer present in other current HH products, is now more a result of which of the 4 rick house locations (Bardstown, Nazareth, Fairfield and Deatsville) they're pulling these barrels from versus yeast etc.? They certainly put out enough great other whiskey, without mint overtones, to satisfy me.

[Josh]

And because of what the big boys here have opined :cool: I tried another 45 ml last night and what can I say. Some of us geeks don't like the sulphur they detect in their scotch and I don't like mint in my bourbon...except F yeast 4R bottlings :grin:.

[cowdery]

I don't know that Heaven Hill designates brands prior to the selection of barrels for bottling, as Jim Beam does with at least some of its brands. I don't believe they do. Therefore, their rye-recipe bourbon is their rye-recipe bourbon and, presumably, gets put in the next warehouse up. Typically, and all distilleries do this, the whiskey made in any given day will be put away into several different warehouses, so every warehouse will contain a variety of recipes (rye bourbon, wheat bourbon, rye, and wheat) at different ages. That way, if you lose a warehouse, every segment of the inventory is affected more or less equally.

The only reason to barrel to brand is so you can manage barrels intended for long aging differently than you do barrels intended for standard aging. That's why Beam does it with the Small Batch Collection. The barrel entry proof also varies. Heaven Hill has so many different brands that while I doubt they do this by brand, they may well do it by recipe, for barrels intended to age ten years or more. But if I had to guess, I'd say they don't.

Also, even if they did barrel to brand, T.W. Samuels and Henry McKenna are way too small to fill up the five or so warehouses Heaven Hill owns at Deatsville. It would be cool if they did use only bourbon aged at Deatsville for T.W. Samuels, since that's where the brand originated, but that seems a bit too romantic for Heaven Hill, especially for such an insignificant brand.

Edited January 31, 2013 by cowdery

[jburlowski]

Finished a bottle a week or so ago (didn't record the barrel info). Thought is was OK but unremarkable --- fairly standard HH taste profile.

[Dolph Lundgren]

Barrel #7, Binny's pick bottled on 11/28/12. Noses quite nice but turns into a mint monster extrordinaire...which I can't get past. That mint hangs on too. Not a fan of the regular EW black for this same reason. I get little to none in all other current HH releases. If somebody doesn't want the remaining 700 ml that will be available to any and all Sampler weekend, it'll work as my traditional Mint Julep the following weekend...no need to add the mint :grin:.

Thad - how long has your bottle been open? I had a Binny's barrel, too, and found that a couple days of air really tempered the HH mint. It might be worth revisiting.

[theglobalguy]

Barrel #46, just a great pour for that much $. Haven't let the bottle sit much yet, so not sure how much it will change, but very happy so far.

[wadewood]

Hansell and Chuck - would love to see you do a review of something other than barrel #1 of EWSB. I'm guessing this was a bottle sent to you for review. My theory is barrel #1 is a honey barrel. But since most of us will never get the chance to buy a bottle from this barrel, how about trying something random off the shelf EWSB?

[cowdery]

I'm a fan of the series and though I don't necessarily do this every year, I frequently obtain additional bottles, at my own expense, from different barrels. I don't detect a meaningful difference. I've had more bottles of the 1994--a particular favorite--than I can count and I have found them all to be distinctively of the 1994 vintage, but without much difference among them. Then why, you might ask, have single barrel? Why indeed? Because with single barrel every barrel is a honey barrel. The non-honey barrels are going into Evan Williams black label and everything else.

When they select barrel number one, they're doing it after selecting the batches that will account for the first few hundred barrels, at least. (I'm speculating, but this is how I believe they do it.) I believe they select barrel number one to be representative of the selection. Of course it's going to be excellent. Excellence is the whole idea of the series. That's why I like it so much. Heaven Hill has millions of barrels in storage and it picks the best 1,000 or so each year to be EWSBV. After that, how can you gild the lily further?

[The Boozer]

After that, how can you gild the lily further?

[weller_tex]

Hansell and Chuck - would love to see you do a review of something other than barrel #1 of EWSB. I'm guessing this was a bottle sent to you for review. My theory is barrel #1 is a honey barrel. But since most of us will never get the chance to buy a bottle from this barrel, how about trying something random off the shelf EWSB?

I made the same exact comment a few days ago for John Hansell over on Maltadvocate (under his Top 10 Spring Whiskeys). Every year John puts EWSB near the top of his list, and then nobody else ever thinks the stuff is that good. I think it's always because he is tasting Barrel #1 which HH likely hand-picked. It completely invalidates the review for the great unwashed masses that won't get Barrel #1.

[wadewood]

After that, how can you gild the lily further?

PHC gilds it more.

No doubt that HH has some great whiskey hidden away in all those rickhouses. I still think EWSB barrel#1 bottles are the super sweet spot. I'll challenge you at the Sampler for a blind tasting. I'll bring an on the shelf 2003 EWSB and you bring a your bottle of EWSB. Maybe we throw in a few other years as well and then have someone pour us unmarked samples and then let's score the whiskey.

[smokinjoe]

I made the same exact comment a few days ago for John Hansell over on Maltadvocate (under his Top 10 Spring Whiskeys). Every year John puts EWSB near the top of his list, and then nobody else ever thinks the stuff is that good. I think it's always because he is tasting Barrel #1 which HH likely hand-picked. It completely invalidates the review for the great unwashed masses that won't get Barrel #1.

As if HH only has 1 great barrel out of what ...900 selected?! Come on. And, "nobody" else thinks the stuff is that good? Come on.

I never get Barrel #1. And, I did shower today...

My opinion of the Series is that it is, like semmingly all HH products, a tremendous value. Nicely aged, Vintage dated, single barrel, nice presentation. That's a lot to offer in anybody's book, and a steal at the under $30 that I typically see it. I've enjoyed many of these bottles, and indeed, have my favorites...and not so favorites. But, I look forward to it's release every year, always buy a bottle as soon as I see it, and most years I end up buying multiples.

:toast:

[squire]

I don't buy it every year (used to) but did for enough years to say I've never been disappointed.

[T Comp]

I just find it to be a very average (80 to 85) American whiskey and the debate on its merits goes back a while. Ten years ago in 2003 the now relatively quiet bluesbassdad/Dave Morefield in a discussion of a Pacult EWSB rating that year said "Anyone who ranks EWSB ahead of VWFR rye is simply not to be taken seriously. Heck, EWSB isn't even the best Heaven Hill has to offer, IMO. I'd take both bottlings of Elijah Craig, as well as Henry McKenna Single Barrel over it, any day. On most days, I'd even take Old Fitz 1849, or even the hotter BIB, over it." http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?1818-Pacult-s-2003-Spirit-Journal-100-picks

In 2013 I'd add Larceny, EW BIB, HH 6 year 90 to the list to what I'd take over it too. John (not Lew) has Larceny at an 86 and EWSB at a 93 and as much as I respect his palate and descriptive terms I can't find justification for that 7 point gap. I'm more in line with Bourbon Dork/ggilbertva's write up of his 12 year vertical tasting of EWSB and 81 something score.

[Josh]

I agree that I would choose Elijah Craig 12 over most EWSBs, but luckily I don't have to choose between one and the other. I've said this before, but I really think EWSB is best consumed from a Glencairn or similar glass. In a standard rocks glass, it sometimes falls flat on account of the low proof. In the Glencairn, the nose is amplified and becomes much more interesting.

[sailor22]

The high ratings that EWSB gets from pro tasters has always surprised me. I have always assumed that either they got a honey barrel to sample and it didn't match up with the one I bought off the shelf or our preferences regarding Bourbon were significantly different. Either one seems plausible.

Recently some friends - who I know can select a great single barrel - did a blind tasting that included EWSB. It didn't fare nearly as well as its number rating generated by the pros. That seems to lend a bit more credence to the former.

[tanstaafl2]

PHC gilds it more.

No doubt that HH has some great whiskey hidden away in all those rickhouses. I still think EWSB barrel#1 bottles are the super sweet spot. I'll challenge you at the Sampler for a blind tasting. I'll bring an on the shelf 2003 EWSB and you bring a your bottle of EWSB. Maybe we throw in a few other years as well and then have someone pour us unmarked samples and then let's score the whiskey.

I would be curious to see how the EWSB off the shelf stood up to the #1 barrel but I didn't think Chuck was coming to the Sampler since WhiskyFest was in Chicago that same weekend?

[Josh]

It's a conspiracy.

[cowdery]

Reviews are just opinions. 'Experts' are just people with a forum and maybe a little more experience than the average taster. There is one thing no reviewer or taster or expert can ever tell you and that's what you like. Ultimately, I only know what I like and even that's a moving target. Will you like what I like? I have no idea. If you tend to like what I like, then my recommendations might be useful to you. If you tend not to like what I like, then maybe you can use my recommendations in reverse. Since the investment to see for yourself if you like any given year or barrel selection of EWSBV is pretty low, that's what I recommend. And if trying to discover what other people like about it feels to you like beating your head against a wall, then stop beating your head against a wall. We all talk about something being good or great or lousy but all we ever really know is whether or not we like it. If you, for example, think barrel number 342 of the 2001 vintage is the greatest whiskey ever made, but barrel number 710 from 1999 is bilious, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think they vary that much, but hey, I respect your opinion.

I tend to like best bourbons that are nine to twelve years old. I like some older ones, but find many too woody. Sometimes when people here list their absolute favorites, they mostly list stuff I don't really care for. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. I value balance very highly. Other people don't value balance and instead look for boldness. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. I tend to like 100 to maybe 105 proof as the highest I'll drink straight. I like the idea of higher proofs, because I'd rather add the water myself, and sometimes I cut whiskey that's below 100-105, depending on my mood, and I don't have any trouble enjoying something that comes out of the bottle at 80 proof, though I'll rarely cut that further. Many people here are big on the higher proofs and, presumably, drink that way. Other than to say be careful, don't hurt yourself, there's no right or wrong to it. One of the best tasters on this board is a guy who never drinks his whiskey neat, it's always on the rocks. That's his preference. There's nothing wrong with it.

People will argue about many ridiculous things. I can think of few more ridiculous things to argue about than whether X whiskey is better than Y whiskey, since it's all just personal preference.

I wrote a chapter in Bourbon, Straight about why I don't like ratings. I had a discussion about it with Jim Murray and without disputing my points, he made a very good one. "We owe it to people to give them some kind of guidance," he said. Okay, fair enough.

When someone argues that my opinion about a given whiskey is 'wrong,' they are efffectively saying that I should like what they like and dislike what they dislike. Even if I could do that, why would I, and who besides that idiot would want me to?

Edited February 23, 2013 by cowdery