KySalesRep Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Having a pour of the same, WTR 101. Did a SBS with the new version and the current "dusty". I much prefer the dusty to the new release, just seems like more rye spice in the "older" version. Not saying the new one is bad, just like the older one better. I will bring the new release to the Gazebo if anyone would like to try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dusty Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Having a pour of the same, WTR 101. Did a SBS with the new version and the current "dusty". I much prefer the dusty to the new release, just seems like more rye spice in the "older" version. Not saying the new one is bad, just like the older one better. I will bring the new release to the Gazebo if anyone would like to try it.And I will bring the "dusty" version so folks can compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KySalesRep Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 And I will bring the "dusty" version so folks can compare.Very cool, thanks Eric! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG87 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 2 fingers of Michters US1 while catching some late NBA action and trying to figure out my braket for the Tourney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerlam92 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 A good size pour of 2 part HW Rendezvous with a part H25 rye. Why not and it was really good. Nose and taste was still stellar while the wood is mellow down a notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcheer Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Bulleit Rye on the rocks. A very clean tasting drink while preparing dinner, last evening.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdwester Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Having a couple of pours of GD rye reallying enjoying this bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Manthey Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Had some VWFRR after dinner. So creamy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAO Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Lot 40 2012 and a McKenzie Rye from 2013. Both outstanding. I like the McKenzie more- very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFerguson Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Lot 40 2012 and a McKenzie Rye from 2013. Both outstanding. I like the McKenzie more- very different.Nice, haven't had the McKenzie but love the Lot 40. Planning on picking some up tomorrow on a fun day out with the misses sans children!!!!She is a keeper boys, for the first stop of the day she suggested that we stop by a store that I happen to like. Gotta love that when she is making the suggestion!B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I've been on a Dickel run this week and plan on continuing same tonight. Best bang for the buck rye in the land IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Dickel also, pretty good stuff, vigorous, honest whiskey.But question: is this stuff straight rye? The label speaks of rye mash, which suggests aging in new or reused barrels. I know the whiskey gets the maple charcoal hit at the end before bottling, which would lend a little surely, but certainly not all, the character a straight would acquire from new charred aging.I'm sure this has been discussed before (or has it?) but I can't find trace of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnelTiger Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Dickel also, pretty good stuff, vigorous, honest whiskey.But question: is this stuff straight rye? The label speaks of rye mash, which suggests aging in new or reused barrels. I know the whiskey gets the maple charcoal hit at the end before bottling, which would lend a little surely, but certainly not all, the character a straight would acquire from new charred aging.I'm sure this has been discussed before (or has it?) but I can't find trace of it.Well we know it comes from Indiana but the way GD processes it after they receive does give a unique taste when compared to others sourced there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Dickel also, pretty good stuff, vigorous, honest whiskey.But question: is this stuff straight rye? The label speaks of rye mash, which suggests aging in new or reused barrels. I know the whiskey gets the maple charcoal hit at the end before bottling, which would lend a little surely, but certainly not all, the character a straight would acquire from new charred aging.I'm sure this has been discussed before (or has it?) but I can't find trace of it.The typical MGPI straight rye 95% rye mashbill found in many things that is aged at MGPI and then filtered through maple charcoal before bottling. The Dickel rye is not called Tennessee rye presumably because it is not made there and never even makes it to Tennessee. The filtering is apparently done in Illinois at the Diageo bottling facility after the whiskey is tanked over from MGPI. Although supposedly the maple charcoal is made at Dickel in Tullahoma and then trucked to Illinois. Such is the way with the multiheaded beast that is Diageo I suppose. The filtering tends to take a bit of the typical MGPI rye herbal minty quality away to me but in a good way.Different from standard GD whiskey which is filtered when it comes off the still before it is barreled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Right, but Bruce, how do we know this particular whiskey was aged at MGPI in new charred barrels?Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 We don't know, come to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryT Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Nice pour of Ritt BIB (DSP-1). Just a great pour for the price :yum: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskeyagonzo Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Sipping on some WTR 101 this evening. Mmm. Gobble gobble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callmeox Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Right, but Bruce, how do we know this particular whiskey was aged at MGPI in new charred barrels?GaryWe don't know that the Canadian version is, but the US version most definitely is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Right, but Bruce, how do we know this particular whiskey was aged at MGPI in new charred barrels?GaryTrue enough I suppose. Since most rye products out of MGPI have been straight rye I suppose it is easy to presume it all is. But Dickel makes no mention being a straight rye on the bottle or the website and Chuck did not make it clear either in his blog post about it. So I suppose it could be something else intended as a blending rye since that is what Seagram's/LDI/MGPI used to do. I am inclined to think not but have no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 We don't know that the Canadian version is, but the US version most definitely is.Yes, certainly. I was referencing the Canadian "version" and did not realize initially (in other words) the U.S. label read differently. I set up another thread to discuss the separate Canadian one.Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillman Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Bruce, as Scott noted, the U.S. one would be aged in new charred barrels because the U.S. label states "rye whiskey" (albeit not straight rye whiskey, but I'd think it is at least 4 years old).Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Bruce, as Scott noted, the U.S. one would be aged in new charred barrels because the U.S. label states "rye whiskey" (albeit not straight rye whiskey, but I'd think it is at least 4 years old).GaryAh, yes. I still mess that up on occasion thinking it would say straight rye whiskey rather than just rye whiskey. But the straight just means it is at least two years old and I guess there is no requirement to say straight on the bottle if you don't want to even if it qualifies. I agree it would quite surprising if it was less than 2 years old so I presume they just didn't want to say it was straight rye for what ever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl2 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Bruce, as Scott noted, the U.S. one would be aged in new charred barrels because the U.S. label states "rye whiskey" (albeit not straight rye whiskey, but I'd think it is at least 4 years old).Gary Picking through the regs for no particular reason I came across the rules for straight whiskey (interestingly spelled "whisky"). (iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs ((1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as “straightâ€; for example, “straight bourbon whiskyâ€, “straight corn whiskyâ€, and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph ((1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as “straight whiskyâ€. No other whiskies may be designated “straightâ€. “Straight whisky†includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=21224b7c634d83e0fa329bfd18bb85dc&rgn=div8&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.3.3.25.2&idno=27 Bold font is mine. Now not being a member of the fine legal fraternity I am a bit confused. "Shall" seems to imply to me that you "must" do so rather than saying you "may" do so. It doesn't sound like it is an option that can be used by the producer at their discretion. So is any 2+ year old whiskey that doesn't say "straight" on the label in violation of the regulation? Or does "shall" have some element of legal wiggle room that I am woefully ignorant of? If not then I know one shouldn't have much confidence in the TTB in terms of consistent application of their own regulations but if a spirit is at least 2 years old and NOT labeled as "straight" isn't this in violation of the regulations? Or is Dickel rye in fact less than 2 years old? I am more curious than anything else. Or at least more confused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbt Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Wikipedia references that same passage with the conclusion that the liquor MAY be called straight, but is not required to be. FWIW, since the internet never lies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts