New Bourbon Drinker

[jimbo]

Mouth feel: Big, Smooth, Like melted butter or Maple Syrup.

It is in no way that I disbelieve what you think about the bourbon, I just find it interesting how different two peoples impressions of the same thing can be sometimes.

TomC

Well, I just couldn't get past that cedar/peppermint flavor. I don't remember any sweetness, just that strange minty flavor. Maybe it was a bad sample? Maybe this is another one that I will give a second try since so many rate it very high.

Regards, jimbo

[OneCubeOnly]

Well, I may have to give Booker's another try. The thing that I didn't like was the high alcohol content.

Even the high-proof junkies here on SB.com won't think any less of you if you add a little water or even some ice to your Booker's. I think you'll find Booker's has multiple layers of flavor (very similar, at least conceptually, to the Islay single-malts you claim to like!), but sometimes it takes a little dilution to bring them out.

[OneCubeOnly]

I value other people's opinions and advice. But I don't need or want someone else to tell me what I should like or dislike.

That was never my intent. It was just a friendly suggestion.

[TNbourbon]

I didn't realize the high alcohol content when I first tried Booker's, but it was the only thing I noticed on first tasting. I had the same first impression, Jimbo: I didn't like it. I, too, will try it again someday, but just haven't gotten around to it yet. But, at it's price, I'll buy one or two 50 ml bottles first, and drink it diluted -- and, if that's not enough to give me a reasonable impression, well, tough. I'll either like it or dislike it on that basis. There are a lot of bourbons out there I know I like, so no point worrying too much about disagreement on the matter of a single one of them.

[MurphyDawg]

I really would suggest trying it again, I remember seeing 50ml bottles of it around, so if you can get one, that would be a good way without breaking the bank, I dont remember any mintyness in my recent bottle, but I may just have to pull out another sample to re-verify. Ah, the things one must do. . .

TomC

[Buckky]

I find Booker's to be good over a small amount of ice...the slow dilution seems to bring out more flavor. Booker's is often sold in up-scale restaurants so you can try it by the glass rather than pay full freight of about $50 for a full bottle.

[ratcheer]

There are a lot of bourbons out there I know I like, so no point worrying too much about disagreement on the matter of a single one of them.

Precisely.

I personally like Booker's just fine, but not so much that I care to spend $50 per bottle for it. There are plenty of $30 to $40 bourbons that I enjoy much more, so why worry about it. In fact, there are even some in the $15-20 range that I like better (e.g., EC 12).

Tim

[jimbo]

Even the high-proof junkies here on SB.com won't think any less of you if you add a little water or even some ice to your Booker's. I think you'll find Booker's has multiple layers of flavor (very similar, at least conceptually, to the Islay single-malts you claim to like!), but sometimes it takes a little dilution to bring them out.

Well, in "foreign whisky" I like Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Ardbeg and Talisker, all full bodied and full flavored without high alcohol content. One of the reasons that I tried Booker's was that Jim Murray said it was "like the Islays." But, for me it was too much alcohol.

So, I tried an experiment with water. I added exactly enough water to decrease the proof to 100. For me, all that did was to dilute the flavors and the alcohol. I really don't think you can add water to a whiskey and hope for anything but dilution. If the whiskey is properly balanced when bottled, then it has to be unbalanced when diluted with water. I think Booker's is balanced as bottled, but for me the balance includes too much alcohol.

That said, I will still consider a second bottle just because so many rate it so highly.

Regards, jimbo

[bobbyc]

Booker's wasn't real high on my list, but then.... When at the sampler in May,attended by a few of SB.com members. I spent most of my time near the Jim Beam setup and Downed a few With the legend himself, Booker. Now that really did influence my thinking about it. There were other distilleries well represented but for a while it was as if no one else was there.

I realise that experience doesn't come from the bottle and was in and of itself unique. It did cast a whole new light on Booker's Bourbon for me.

They have it at a reasonable 39 or so dollars at Liquor Barn.

What matters to you is what counts. There are Bourbons that I don't get what the fuss is about, there are Bourbons that I can't figure why everyone else isn't breathless like myself because of.

<font color="red"> Good God Give Stanley Jordan Some </font>

[jimbo]

I went to Seattle for Thanksgiving and while there I visited a few of my favorite stores. I bought Elijah Craig Single Barrel 18 yr, 90 proof, Old Rip Van Winkle 15 yr, 107 proof, W.L. Weller 12 yr, 90.4 proof, W.L. Weller Centennial 10 yr, 100 proof and Eagle Rare 10 yr, 101 proof, all bourbons that I haven't tried yet. In fact, I have over a dozen different bottles that I haven't tried yet. And I bought second bottles of Ezra B. Single Barrel 15 yr, 99 proof, Old Rip Van Winkle 10 yr, 90 proof, Elijah Craig 12 yr, 94 proof and Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 yr, 90.4 proof. I passed on Weller Antique 107 proof and another Weller that was very low cost. (I can't remember any details about it.)

So much bourbon, so little time. I am going to be in Salt Lake City for the winter and I don't know how the selection is there so I have stocked up while the stocking is good.

Regards, jimbo

[Gillman]

Booker's is big and potent but I don't get much balance or richness out of it, and it has the trademark citric, "dry yeast" flavour I detect in most Beam bottlings. I would cite Birthday Bourbon as a modern classic of a rich, well but not over-aged, complex bourbon whiskey. We often disagree about many whiskeys but I doubt very many tasters would say they don't care for Birthday Bourbon.

Gary

[bobbyc]

I doubt very many tasters would say they don't care for Birthday Bourbon.

Good point, Gary. When Birthday is in my cup, it's a favorite. I don't find myself thinking of anything else in those moments.

<font color="blue"> Good God Give Robert Fripp Some </font>

[Gillman]

Well put Bobby, and funny you should mention Robert Fripp. I was just reading, in a classic rock magazine, articles and a series of comments by well-known musicians on the importance and legacy of Jimi Hendrix. The only comment that could be read as negative was by Robert Fripp. He said Hendrix' technique was "inefficient" and he (Jimi) was not the best guide for aspiring guitar players. I thought this was a rather odd take on the greatest rock guitarist ever, and what does inefficient mean, anyway? Great rock is many things, but efficient isn't one of them, IMHO. So I'm not sure I'd give Mr. Fripp some Birthday Bourbon.

Gary

[OneCubeOnly]

If the whiskey is properly balanced when bottled, then it has to be unbalanced when diluted with water.

The key word above is "if". Unlike most distillery products, Booker's is noted for NOT having any tinkering, balancing, diluting, filtering, or mixing done to it. Imagine popping the bung on a bourbon barrel, dumping it and bottling it as is. It's bottled at barrel proof, whereas every other bourbon you've tasted has had water added at the distillery.

So feel free to add your own water. Just don't assume there's any "balance" in the bottle. Quite the contrary: consider it raw and unadulterated.

Still don't like it? There's plenty of cheaper "balanced" bourbons out there. But after you sift through all these new bottles and get some experience under your belt with bourbon, come back to this one.

Enjoy!

[Dave_in_Canada]

Very interesting and insightful response.

The bourbons we drink from the bottle are only those that are presented to us by the particular distillers (ie. brand marketers, bottlers, etc. etc.). Let us not fool ourselves that a particular bottling is any more "pure" than any other.

[ratcheer]

So much bourbon, so little time. I am going to be in Salt Lake City for the winter and I don't know how the selection is there so I have stocked up while the stocking is good.

Sounds like a good plan.

Tim

[MurphyDawg]

I was curious to folks opinions on a similar question myself. Does the "distiller's art" include deciding what proof the bourbon goes into the bottle? I have an example. Many of the folks at the Bourbon Festival went to the BT tasting, and tried the three barrel proof bottlings that they presented us, ET Lee, Buffalo Trace, and Blantons. And it seemed the majority of the folks I spoke to were quite undewhelmed with Blantons at barrel proof. I overheard a very insightful conversation that included Mark and Bobby discussing whether they thought that the proof point had a lot to do with Blantons characteristic smooth richness, and that at barrel proof it was to bold and alcoholic for folks used to the retail model. I think they may have a point. While in some cases (ie Stagg, you have something great when you just let it fly), many times a great bourbon is the right mashbill, in the right barrel, at the right time,and at the right proof point. It would be very interesting to do a tasting of the same bourbon at say 80, 90, 95, 101, and barrel proofs, to see how different the reactions are.

Just an idea, anybody else have an opinion??

TomC

PS Jimbo, if you want to try a very similar bourbon to Booker's IMHO at a lower proof and price, give Jim Beam black a try, much less alcohol presence.

[jimbo]

It would be very interesting to do a tasting of the same bourbon at say 80, 90, 95, 101, and barrel proofs, to see how different the reactions are.

Just an idea, anybody else have an opinion??

TomC

PS Jimbo, if you want to try a very similar bourbon to Booker's IMHO at a lower proof and price, give Jim Beam black a try, much less alcohol presence.

Every time I have tried adding water to whiskey, all I have gotten is dilution. And I have tried a few drops, a precise amount to decrease the proof to a target and up to 1/4 water. So, from my personal perspective, there is a lot more to how a distiller/bottler decides on bottling proof than just choosing a proof and then adding a measured amount of water. I would imagine that by bottling time each barrel has a different proof and that the difference is huge from barrel to barrel. Some of those barrels will be balanced as is, and some will need water and some will be great for mixing with other barrels, etc.

Anyway, you could complete your experiment by taking a high proof whiskey and adding precise amounts of water to the other proofs that you want. But, from my experiments, all I would expect is dilution. And I think the reason is that the distillers/bottlers don't market whiskey that is much out of balance.

And last, thanks for the suggestion about Jim Beam Black.

Regards, jimbo

[Gillman]

You can try distiller-approved whiskey at different proofs (certainly 86, 90, 100 and maybe 80) with Very Old Barton. Funny thing is, I think the house's 86 is the best. I have bought the 90 and 100 proofs and added just enough water to create 86 proof and the house's version always trumps mine. Part of this may be the type of water they add, also, the resting of the whiskey (in vat or cistern, in bottle) after the house's dilution may marry the tastes. Theoretically it should not matter who adds the water, but in practice, it seems to.

I have found 100 proof whiskey sometimes has the right balance to be taken neat but rarely is this so with whiskey over 100 proof.

Gary

[pepcycle]

In response to Murphy Dawg's BT notes. I noticed the tannin and alchohol kick in the Barrel Proof Blanton's to be unacceptable. Adding some Room Temp water in small doses turned the whole flavor profile around. At some point, it became too dilute and lost most of the flavors. There is defnitely a sweet spot for that bourbon. It was differenct for the ELT. ELT was more approachable at barrel proof and pleasant straight and sl. diluted. Elmer himself commented that's part of what makes'm different. Although our little tasting was anything but scientific, it pointed out the balance points between the three whiskeys. (IMHO)

[jimbo]

Funny thing is, I think the house's 86 is the best. I have bought the 90 and 100 proofs and added just enough water to create 86 proof and the house's version always trumps mine. Part of this may be the type of water they add, also, the resting of the whiskey (in vat or cistern, in bottle) after the house's dilution may marry the tastes. Theoretically it should not matter who adds the water, but in practice, it seems to.

That is the point I was trying to make in a previous post. The different bottled proofs are not just the result of adding more water to the same "whiskey". Each proof from the distiller/bottler has been crafted from different starting "whiskeys". My use of the word "whiskey" means the differences between barrels or groups of barrels that are used in the various labels.

Regards, jimbo

[Gillman]

I agree in turn. For example the 100 proof VOB may well be taken from "better", possibly older, barrels than are used for the 86 or 90.

I once had this down to a fine art with regard to the Ancient Ancient Age of about 10 years ago. It was available in both 80 and 86 proof. The 80 was always better in my view: rich and rounded, perfect to take neat, and try as I might I could not duplicate it using (different) waters to dilute the 86. Someone mentioned on the board recently buying some half-pints of AAA with tax strips. I suspect those are 80 or 86 proof AAA's from a time when it was in its prime. The current candidate is good but a little rough-edged (spirity, which the old AAA never was) and not with the smooth dark caramel savour of yore. I suspect some of quality aged stock that would have gone into triple A is being used in Buffalo Trace or Stagg or some of the company's other quality brands. I am a big BT fan in general but my last two tastings of AAA did not impress..

Gary

[TNbourbon]

Right you are, though I didn't even bother to note it until your post: the AAA 10yo tax-stamped half-pints I discovered at the back of an older store's shelf recently indeed are 80 proof. And, though I don't have any of the current product with which to compare it, I do consider it "prime".

[MurphyDawg]

Well put. that is what I came away from the tasting most interested in. While the BT single barrel may have been the most interesting, it is not a Single barrel in the market. But the fact that ETL and Blantons are single barrels, and (save the filtering) our samples were not all that diferent than what goes to market, it really enlightened me to how important proof can play in a profile.

TomC

[Blackkeno]

I managed to get a bottle of barrel proof Blanton's shipped from Europe. It was very good, but a slight disappointment. I would have rated both Stagg (by a substantial margin) and standard Blanton's as better. This Thanksgiving I had poured this BP Blanton's again along with ('03) Stagg and my newly opened VW 20 (BP). Even though, I love wheaters (especially VW) and have previously stated I thought Stagg may be the best bourbon ever, that evening, the BP Blantons really wowed me and would have got my top ranking. More research is needed...