2012 lot 40 release

[tmckenzie]

Somehow I managed to get a bottle the new release of lot 40. Just as fine as the first release is. Amazing stuff, the mint is more muted than anything from lDI which is about the closest thing you could compare it too. If you get to Canada, pick some up.

[tanstaafl2]

Somehow I managed to get a bottle the new release of lot 40. Just as fine as the first release is. Amazing stuff, the mint is more muted than anything from lDI which is about the closest thing you could compare it too. If you get to Canada, pick some up.

Found one in Tennessee so it must be around in at least a few States. Might be good one for the upcoming GBS gathering!

[Gillman]

I'd recommend purchase and IMO it is considerably better than version #1, of course it depends what you are looking for but to me this current bottling is richer and less congeneric than the first, more on the vector of straight whiskey as understood at SB.

Gary

[squire]

Well that's good news, if it's available in TN it will probably be at Busters in Memphis.

[tmckenzie]

I'd recommend purchase and IMO it is considerably better than version #1, of course it depends what you are looking for but to me this current bottling is richer and less congeneric than the first, more on the vector of straight whiskey as understood at SB.

Gary

I finally got into it last night and was trying to find words to describe it, and you nailed it. The last bottling had more mint taste to it. This stuff is heavy bodied to say the least. I get a scotch like phenolic quality to it. Now the bottle says pot distilled. I was told by somebody who should know, that is was ran off a beer still at low proof and not doubled. And with the way it tastes, I would have to agree. Rye is a funny thing. Hard as hell to make right. Unlike bourbon, rye, in my opinion has got to be run off at a higher proof. That is if you want the spicy minty notes to come through. But if you want a lot of body with not a lot of spice to it, you run it at a low proof, that is what I get with this bottling of lot 40.

[tmckenzie]

just let me add, to simplify, the congeners that make rye spicy, come off at a higher proof.

[Gillman]

Tom, by less congeneric I meant less of the "varsol", cleaning fluid-like taste the first one had too much of IMO. I like the minty flavour of good rye whiskey and to me the most successful ryes are those which minimize the former and accentuate the latter. One thing I'm not clear on is, is that varsol something you can separate in the distillation or does it have to be aged out. In other words, if you distill at under 160 proof will you always get that taste in young spirit? A lot of corn-based white dog has it too...

Gary

[tmckenzie]

I am not familiar with varsol, but I think I see what you are saying. More spirity in taste?

[Gillman]

No rather a kerosene, waxy or oily taste.

Gary

[Smithford]

Interesting conversation. I've noticed a similar varsol/kerosene note in many Canadian Whiskies and always assumed it came from the nearly-neutral base spirit component of the blend. Reason being that I don't detect it in most of the top shelf blends which are assumed to contain higher proportions of "flavouring"/straight-style whiskies (Wiser's Legacy/Lot 40, etc...).

But if I'm reading you right Gary, you're saying that it's present in the distilled to under 160 proof whiskies, and it's something that diminishes with age. Which also could explain why it's not present in those more expensive blends.

[squire]

Tom, Gary, would the unmalted rye grain have anything to do with it.

[silverfish]

The Rum Howler blog offers up a review and scores it 93/100.

[squire]

The blogger's notes are a bit far reaching (I don't think wet Poplar smells much different from other deciduous trees in the forest and mature grain on the ground after harvest actually has no scent) but the information from Dr. Livermore is very interesting.

[tanstaafl2]

The blogger's notes are a bit far reaching (I don't think wet Poplar smells much different from other deciduous trees in the forest and mature grain on the ground after harvest actually has no scent) but the information from Dr. Livermore is very interesting.

[portwood]

I have to say I find his reviews routinely a little over the top. I don't know him personally but he is a regular reviewer of rum and he seems a little over enthusiastic at times, at least with rum. I guess we just don't have the same palate.

Not only that, but pretty much everything he reviews are from comp bottles - though unlike many bloggers he doesn't hide the fact.

[squire]

Sounds like a good gig.

[portwood]

Sounds like a good gig.

No doubt, it is.

To be fair, one doesn't just start getting free bottles of booze to review - it takes time, work, favorable reviews, and some ... errr ... networking, before distributors* start sending you bottles to .... hummmm, errrrr, market on their behalf.

* Being in Canada, given the archaic liquor laws, it is virtually impossible for distillers to send you alcohol from outside the country.

Edited February 23, 2013 by portwood

[tanstaafl2]

No doubt, it is.

To be fair, one doesn't just start getting free bottles of booze to review - it takes time, work, favorable reviews, and some ... errr ... networking, before distributors* start sending you bottles to .... hummmm, errrrr, market on their behalf.

Yeah, I guess that was kinda what I was trying to say about his reviews!

[Gillman]

Just on the point of the kerosene-like tastes I get in some whiskeys, I think it's a trait of younger whiskeys, not just ryes, distilled-out at lower proofs. I believe too (to answer a question Squire had) that raw grains tend to enhance the effect, not just for rye grain but corn or wheat too (or raw barley, as e.g. in some Irish whiskey). I don't get the taste in most Canadian whiskies though, perhaps I am used to it in small amounts.

I agree with Smithford that it would probably age out in products 10 years of age and over. In the States, given the new charred barrel is used, anything four years or over usually doesn't have the taste: the charred barrel and Kentucky climate have taken care of that. In Canada, generally used charred barrels are employed, so it will take longer, IMO, for a spirit to lose that taste than for a U.S. straight whiskey.

A little of the taste is okay, and the current Lot 40 strikes a good balance for me.

Gary

Edited February 24, 2013 by Gillman

[tanstaafl2]

Just on the point of the kerosene-like tastes I get in some whiskeys, I think it's a trait of younger whiskeys, not just ryes, distilled-out at lower proofs. I believe too (to answer a question Squire had) that raw grains tend to enhance the effect, not just for rye grain but corn or wheat too (or raw barley, as e.g. in some Irish whiskey). I don't get the taste in most Canadian whiskies though, perhaps I am used to it in small amounts.

I agree with Smithford that it would probably age out in products 10 years of age and over. In the States, given the new charred barrel is used, anything four years or over usually doesn't have the taste: the charred barrel and Kentucky climate have taken care of that. In Canada, generally used charred barrels are employed, so it will take longer, IMO, for a spirit to lose that taste than for a U.S. straight whiskey.

A little of the taste is okay, and the current Lot 40 strikes a good balance for me.

Gary

I brought the bottle of Lot 40 I got in January in Knoxville to Joe's for the GBS event and we compared it to one he has had for some years and is presumably from the first batch. Outwardly the bottles look nearly identical and there doesn't appear to be any way to tell if they are from different batches. The tastes was a little different but didn't seem to be significantly so.

I now notice the new release says "2012 Edition Release" on the label (Duh!) so apparently I have a bottle of the first batch. It isn't bad but I am a little disappointed as I thought it was the new one when I bought it. Will have to be more careful in the future!