How do you win Best Bourbon at a tasting?

[Fred Minnick]

Maybe we can influence change.

[squire]

Bear with me Fred, I believe if I hand an expert a glass of white wine and only tell him it's from Germany he should be able to spot the grape, region and then get more specific or else he's not an expert.

If I hand an expert a glass of whisky and tell him more than it's a Bourbon then he will be tasting on information rather than expertise.

[Fred Minnick]

Bear with me Fred, I believe if I hand an expert a glass of white wine and only tell him it's from Germany he should be able to spot the grape, region and then get more specific or else he's not an expert.

If I hand an expert a glass of whisky and tell him more than it's a Bourbon then he will be tasting on information rather than expertise.

Great statement, Squire. I think the answer is it's complicated. Germany is a great country to bring up with whites, because you're mostly looking at two grapes--Riesling and Gewürztraminer--for whites. A marginal palate could detect a sweeter Riesling over the dryer Gewurztraminer. But, what if you threw in an airen? Could they detect this mostly Spanish variety? I know about 2 percent of the wine professionals could. They are the Masters of Wine and Master Sommeliers, the Navy Seals of wine. The rigorous training they go through is amazing. Just because somebody can't spot the grape does not mean they're not an expert. It just means their palate at that moment could not detect it. Plus, there are so many variables in wine. The fermentation styles, the higher tannins in French oak, the coconut in American oak and the various toasting methods. I saw a Spanish winery that used square barrels. Who could taste that?

So your point about bourbon is accurate. The taster will no doubt go on the information given. But, I don't want to taste bourbon up against Canadian whisky or Scotch before I taste against other bourbons, because there are different rules and traditions in making these. I hope I understood your statement correctly and properly addressed it.

Can whiskey tasters ever get to the point where we can spot the exact warehouse of a product line the Masters of Wine can with Riesling? I don't know if we ever will, because I only know what the distillers release. Wine is mostly transparent, but whiskey companies often call themselves a distillery when they're not even a distillery.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Fred Minnick

[Bourbon Boiler]

I don't really like this procedure either, but no information can bias as well. I'm sure everyone has taken a bite of some food in their life, that they thought was something else. When that has happened to me, I've never liked the immediate taste. However, when I take a second bite knowing what it is, I like it. Granted, bourbon is so tightly defined that there isn't a whole lot of room for variety. However, if someone made an extremely aged, high proof bourbon, if it didn't taste like what the judge expected to taste I could see a negative result.

I'd still take this over knowing exact age and proof, but I don't think there can be a perfect methodology.

[squire]

Good point about the MWs Fred, I wasn't shooting quite that high. What I had in mind was Gewrtz-Riesling, Moselle-Rhine, that sort of thing.

I would like to sit down with the taster who can distinguish a Rye whisky with 53% rye, 35% corn, 12% malt as opposed to a Bourbon with 58% corn, 30% rye, 12% malt.

Other than the social aspects I'm not interested in another distillery tour but would greatly like to spend a morning in the tasting room with the Master Blenders nosing samples.

Edited March 29, 2013 by squire

[Leopold]

FWIW, I agree with Squire. You knew that the whiskey in question was 11 or more years old, you knew it was 107 proof, and you were fairly sure from palate that it was a wheater. "Please don't be Pappy?" You already knew it was Pappy; no other bourbon fits that description. It simply wasn't a blind tasting. I don't question your ability to judge spirits, but calling this a blind tasting is nonsense, and your definition of double blind is even worse nonsense.

A blind tasting is an impossibility. Witness Beefeater's Gin winning "Best Gin" two years in a row at the competition Mr. Minnick is describing (well deserved as it's a fine, fine Gin). Even an amateur Gin fan could pick out Beefeater's with one simple whiff. So what does the judge do? Pretend it's not Beefeater's? And you can say the same thing about Cointreau, or Bailey's, or Grand Marnier Liqueur, and on and on.

This is as good as it gets for this sort of thing. And by the way, if this "blind" stuff bothers some of you, you should be outraged that not one single Whisk(e)y publication evaluates Bourbon, Rye, or Whisky blind. To a person, they know exactly what they are tasting. Obviously this affects their ratings, for good or ill.

In the end, there isn't a perfect method for this sort of thing. And each competition/whiskey publication chooses the path that suits them best. There's nothing wrong with that.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Leopold