What Bourbons Have Been The Biggest Disappointment To You?

[mosugoji64]

2 hours ago, BourbonDude said:

I've never been a fan of the regular Woodford Reserve. Too much oak not balanced by other flavors. Sort of the bourbon equivalent of an overly oaked California Chardonnay. I liked the Woodford Reserve Distillers Select better.

 

I've never found WR too oaky, not even the Double Oak. The only thing that keeps me from keeping WR on hand is the grainy, copper-penny flavor I get from it. It's not bad at all, but I'm either in the mood for it or I'm not and I'm usually not when it comes time to buy a bottle of something.

[hn4bourbon]

1 hour ago, mosugoji64 said:

 

I've never found WR too oaky, not even the Double Oak. The only thing that keeps me from keeping WR on hand is the grainy, copper-penny flavor I get from it. It's not bad at all, but I'm either in the mood for it or I'm not and I'm usually not when it comes time to buy a bottle of something.

I also do not enjoy WR by itself because of that metallic component. However, I always have a 375ml of WR at home for the times I feel like a mint julep. A little honey/sugar syrup, a little mint, and that metallic component takes care of the experience of not having a mint julep cup. I quite enjoy WR this way. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by hn4bourbon

[BourbonDude]

Interesting. I missed that metallic component; I'll look for that next time. 

 

I actually didn't mind the double oaked because it was overall a more elegant and integrated experience. (Of course, it should be at almost twice the price). For me, spirits that are a bit one-dimensional need to have at least some support from other flavors and components for me to them a pass.

 

For example, I recently tried the Garrison Brothers Texas whiskey. It's basically a huge cinnamon monster with nothing much else going on. Or if there is, good luck finding it. I mean, I'm tempted to try it next to the standard Ardbeg 10 yr. single malt peat monster, which can overwhelm just about any other single malt on the planet, and I bet even an Ardbeg couldn't kill that cinnamon flavor.

 

Makes me wonder what would happen if I blended a couple of shots together to see what sort of over the top monstrosity I'd get. (After all, it's said "...the Queen of England likes to lace her Claret with scotch, thereby ruining two of the world's greatest drinks." And who am I to disagree with the Queen? :-)) I suspect I'd like it better than the overpriced juice I've been tasting lately from the Blood Oaths and Jeffersons Grand Selections. ;-(

Edited July 30, 2017 by BourbonDude

[flahute]

8 hours ago, BourbonDude said:

I've never been a fan of the regular Woodford Reserve. Too much oak not balanced by other flavors. Sort of the bourbon equivalent of an overly oaked California Chardonnay. I liked the Woodford Reserve Distillers Select better.

What do you mean by regular vs. Distiller's Select? As far as I know, it's one and the same.

[EarthQuake]

4 minutes ago, flahute said:

What do you mean by regular vs. Distiller's Select? As far as I know, it's one and the same.

 

Yeah that is correct. Distiller's Select is the standard, there is also Double Oaked, Double Double Oaked, and a few other special editions.

[BourbonDude]

59 minutes ago, EarthQuake said:

 

Yeah that is correct. Distiller's Select is the standard, there is also Double Oaked, Double Double Oaked, and a few other special editions.

Oops, meant to say the double oaked (as in my other post).

[JoeTerp]

12 hours ago, BourbonDude said:

I didn't think the Whistlepig rye 12 yr. at $129 was worth the extra freight over the 10 yr. at $79. The flavors were considerably more muted despite the extra two years contributing some extra smoothness. But I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of extra smoothness and elegance for flavor. Haven't tried the 15 yr. which is a lot more expensive. Anybody else tried it?

They're also different distillate, as the 12 year is MGP 95% rye with different cask finishing and the 10 year is Alberta distillers 100% rye. 

[BourbonDude]

Ahh. Could be that's some of it.

 

For me, though, I think that isn't as important as the extra age.

 

I have the same issue with some single malts, for example, the Laphroaig Islay 15 yr. compared to the standard 10 yr. The 15 might be a perfectly good malt, but it's so tame compared to the 10 that it's just not worth the extra money, because that's not what I go to Laphroaig for.

 

I go because it's a big, unsubtle, kick-ass of a dram. If I want something softer and more elegant I can try a Lowland, one of the lighter Highlands, an Irish Whiskey, or a cognac.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by BourbonDude

[Kane]

Two I can think of:

 

FRSmB LE 2014. I opened it back in 2015, and found it to be one stubborn whiskey that won't let you nose or taste anything but oak, spice, and intense alcohol burn. Not a lot of fun at 115.2 proof. I put aside a sample back that day as I always do with LEs , and never gassed the original bottle. Fast forward, and as I am writing this I'm doing a sbs with the last pour from the oxidized bottle, and my first-day sample. Frankly, not much has changed, and water does nothing to open it up either. A very one-dimensional whiskey this is, what a disappointment.

 

Not bourbon, but close enough -- Parker's Wheat (purportedly the inferior batch of the two). This was all right, but nothing close to the gushing praise it received for me. It was kinda like a toned-down bourbon, nothing special, relative to the hoops I had to jump through to acquire the bottle. I did finish and enjoy it, but it was quickly demoted from "sip and contemplate its complexity in a dark quite room" to "drink while watching game of thrones" grade.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Kane

[kemosabe]

I've got a few that I tried once - didn't like - and have passed over ever since-->

Eagle Rare

Smooth Ambler 7 year

ETL

EC 18 is too oaky & thin for my tastes too - but I love EC12 & ECBP

 

There's so many other bourbons that taste great to me, that I have plenty to enjoy without giving these another chance.

[lcpfratn]

I've got a few that I tried once - didn't like - and have passed over ever since-->
Eagle Rare
Smooth Ambler 7 year
ETL
EC 18 is too oaky & thin for my tastes too - but I love EC12 & ECBP
 
There's so many other bourbons that taste great to me, that I have plenty to enjoy without giving these another chance.

Wow! Goes to show you how different each of us perceive different things. I really like ER and ETL, especially at their normal retail price point. I haven't tried the other two, but I do have a bottle of SAOS 7yr in my cabinet to be opened someday soon. I've never seen EC18 in the wild, except for the Bardstown gift shop, and I wasn't willing to pay $200 for it there.

[Radioyada]

Most recently the ECBP B517 really let me down.  After buying a bottle of the A117 and liking it enough to purchase a backup, a friend gave me a sample of the B517 he had.  On both the nose and taste all I could think about was oak.  It had enough wood in it to produce, direct, and star in as the lead male of a porn movie.

 

Glad I have not purchased a bottle.

[BourbonDude]

Haha!

[BourbonDude]

On 7/30/2017 at 9:49 PM, lcpfratn said:

Wow! Goes to show you how different each of us perceive different things. I really like ER and ETL, especially at their normal retail price point. I haven't tried the other two, but I do have a bottle of SAOS 7yr in my cabinet to be opened someday soon. I've never seen EC18 in the wild, except for the Bardstown gift shop, and I wasn't willing to pay $200 for it there.

 

I like the ER too, but I could swear that many years ago they changed the recipe and toned it down quite a bit. This would have been 30 years ago, I don't recall exactly, but it was at the time ER brought out the new fancier bottle, whenever that was. MM had been making waves as a boutique bourbon (back when it still was), and ER followed suit, using a more sophisticated, elegant looking bottle, and the juice was more sophisticated and elegant too, but not as powerful and flavorful. 

 

Anyway out there notice this? Or is it just my deranged taste buds? 

[Paddy]

^^^^Your taste buds aren't lying.  The original 10 year old, non single barrel, 101 proof was discontinued in 2005.

 

 I enjoy the current Eagle Rare, but isn't what it once was!  

 

 

[HoustonNit]

 

I like the ER too, but I could swear that many years ago they changed the recipe and toned it down quite a bit. This would have been 30 years ago, I don't recall exactly, but it was at the time ER brought out the new fancier bottle, whenever that was. MM had been making waves as a boutique bourbon (back when it still was), and ER followed suit, using a more sophisticated, elegant looking bottle, and the juice was more sophisticated and elegant too, but not as powerful and flavorful. 

 

Anyway out there notice this? Or is it just my deranged taste buds? 

 

Bourbondude not sure if your just messing with everyone but what your describing from 30 years ago is something completely different, only thing they have in common is name. The old bottle was made by Seagrams and 101 proof, introduced as a competitor to Wild Turkey. Never had it but only heard positive comments on it.

 

 

[Kepler]

3 minutes ago, HoustonNit said:

 

Bourbondude not sure if your just messing with everyone but what your describing from 30 years ago is something completely different, only thing they have in common is name. The old bottle was made by Seagrams and 101 proof, introduced as a competitor to Wild Turkey. Never had it but only heard positive comments on it.

 

 

Someone's really been doing some homework

[HoustonNit]

Someone's really been doing some homework

Need some dusties of of ER101. I find old Seagrams bourbon fascinating. Would love some Benchmark or anything from them, ER101 due to proof being most interesting.

[flahute]

The Eagle Rare of today (which I like just fine) does not hold a candle to the 10yr 101 proof which preceded it, in my opinion.

[BourbonDude]

58 minutes ago, HoustonNit said:

 

Bourbondude not sure if your just messing with everyone but what your describing from 30 years ago is something completely different, only thing they have in common is name. The old bottle was made by Seagrams and 101 proof, introduced as a competitor to Wild Turkey. Never had it but only heard positive comments on it.

 

 

Haha! You mean there were two bourbons named ER, but from different makers? Well, I'll be a wild turkey's uncle. I knew something was up. :-) 

Edited August 1, 2017 by BourbonDude

[Fat Boy]

Bulleit - it left an after taste like medicine or cough syrup. This one is going in the drain after I finish my comparisons of rye bourbons. I hope I don't buy another bourbon with this taste.

 

[BottledInBond]

7 hours ago, BourbonDude said:

Haha! You mean there were two bourbons named ER, but from different makers? Well, I'll be a wild turkey's uncle. I knew something was up. :-) 

Different owners of the same brand. There have been so many mergers and acquisitions of brands and distilleries over the years that it really is hard to trace some of the lineage over the decades

[Paddy]

^^^^What BIB said. 

 

It's always been one brand, introduced by Seagram's (created by none other than Charles L. Beam) in the mid 70's.  Later sold to Sazerac, where it was produced at the Geo. T. Stagg Distillery (now known as Buffalo Trace), who subsequently reduced the proof and turned it into a single barrel (in '05). 

[Richnimrod]

2 hours ago, Paddy said:

^^^^What BIB said. 

 

It's always been one brand, introduced by Seagram's (created by none other than Charles L. Beam) in the mid 70's.  Later sold to Sazerac, where it was produced at the Geo. T. Stagg Distillery (now known as Buffalo Trace), who subsequently reduced the proof and turned it into a single barrel (in '05). 

Single Barrel?    None of the bottles I have of 'regular' ER 10-year mention 'Single Barrel' anywhere on their labels, so I assume they are "batched". 

Was this SB phenomenon something that came and went quickly?     ...OR is there a line extension of ER 10 SB, I've yet to see?   (Other than Store Picks, which I HAVE seen.)

[tanstaafl2]

4 minutes ago, Richnimrod said:

Single Barrel?    None of the bottles I have of 'regular' ER 10-year mention 'Single Barrel' anywhere on their labels, so I assume they are "batched". 

Was this SB phenomenon something that came and went quickly?     ...OR is there a line extension of ER 10 SB, I've yet to see?   (Other than Store Picks, which I HAVE seen.)

ER was noted as a single barrel for a long time. It was on the front label until fairly recently as I recall. It was only relatively recently that BT/Sazerac indicated they couldn't keep it as a single barrel because of the nature of their bottling process (which always seemed a bit hinky if you ask me! Some discussion noted in the link as to whether this is just a "technicality"). So it is no longer a single barrel bottle (unless it is a store pick). It does remain an age stated 10yo which is now typically noted on the back label as of the last bottle I saw. Used to be on the neck band I believe.