What's the wackiest thing you've heard about bourbon?

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

I don't know about that. I am only twenty-one. I just have a serious problem with dumb bartenders.

Glad to hear there are young people with taste and knowledge on our board.

Really glad.

Ed

[ratcheer]

When I worked in a restaurant, I had a debate with my supervisor over whether Jack Daniels, Crown Royal and many other canadian Whiskeys were bourbon. He insisted they were and no matter what I said to the contrary; I was wrong and stupid.

Couldn't you have just shown him the bottles and asked him to show you the word "bourbon" anywhere on them?

Since he was the stupid one, I don't imagine it would have helped.

Tim

[Frodo]

I was in Dallas and asked the bartender what the best selling bourbons were.

#1. Jack Daniel's

#2. Crown Royal

#3. Southern Comfort

#4. Jim Beam

When I said only one was a bourbon he informed me that I was obviously new to the business and needed to learn a lot more before I lost what little credibility I had. Oh well........

Ken

I had the same reaction as Ed. That's too funny...

[cowdery]

In Ken's case, unfortunately, the customer is always right and, by extension, always not stupid.

In Tim's case, the right response would seem to be, "if it doesn't say bourbon on the label, it's not bourbon," although I guess the boss is always right too.

[tmas]

What is the wackiest thing you’ve heard about our favorite libation?

[abills]

Jack Daniels.. not bourbon, right? It's TN Whiskey... it's fine TN Whisksy, but not really considered bourbon, right?

[BourbonJoe]

Right.

Joe

[gothbat]

Jack Daniels.. not bourbon, right? It's TN Whiskey... it's fine TN Whisksy, but not really considered bourbon, right?

Haha, I was just in Wegmans and they had Jack Daniels on sale, the tag on the shelf said "Jack Daniels Bourbon". But yeah, although similar it's technically not a bourbon.

[Scooby]

What is the wackiest thing you’ve heard about our favorite libation?

That it needed to take a back seat to Scotch. Tom V

I've been collecting and drinking SSMW for about 25 years now, and while I think that there isn't much better than a good Single Malt...I think exactly the same about Bourbon, and TW! :yum:

Not much can compete with GTS, or Bookers, or many premium Bourbons, and the same can be said about a 1972 Brora, or a 1974 Ardbeg, or..., and the same can be said about Sazerac 18yo or about Jack Daniel Barrelhouse One...:icon_pidu:

Why, on God's great earth do people feel the urge to let these drinks compete? They are as different from each other, as "Batida de coco" is from "Cointreau"...!

One of my best friends is an avid Scotch Lover, and his proverb is: "Life is to short to waste on Bourbon"... :horseshit:

My finest day was the one where I had him taste 7 different whisky's (whisky is defined here as: a distillate made from a fermented grain or grains) blind... 3 of which were Bourbon or Rye (GTS, Sazerac and William Larue Weller)... and the 3 Americans were deemed very good whiskies, and came out on top!... He classified them as Scotch! :bowdown: He will hear that till the day he dies! :slappin: That 'll shut him up! :grin:

Good thing about it... It changed his view on the matter drastically! :cool:

So, I enjoy a good grain distillate, and I do not compare (as in better or worse) the styles...be it Single Malt Scotch, Straigth Bourbon, TW, Straight Rye or Single Malt Rye.... They all have their superb versions, and they all are more equal then each other.... :skep:

Scooby.

PS. The other whiskies in that tasting: Single Malt Glen Moray Mountain oak (matured in virgin american oak), Single Grain North British 17yo by Cadenhead's, Single Grain Japanese Nikka 'Coffey' Grain 10yo , and Glen Scotia 17yo by signatory, ex bourbon barrel... al of them were single cask and cask Strength...

For those who think that should be an easy task...these were presented blind, out of neutral brown Bottles, and poured into Dark blue 'official' tasting glasses....And no clue whatsoever was given about the nature of the drink in the glass. The tasters were only asked to give there opinion on quality and to venture a guess on what exactly they were drinking. (sort, region, name if possible) Out of 10 people attending only 2 completed the latter part of the tasting faultless (meaning: they identified the drinks as bourbon, rye, single malt, single grain, scotch or japanese) .... and all 10 of them were experienced tasters with more than 10 years experience!

No easy task, I can assure you! Even if the whisky's seem to be vastly different from each other!

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Not exactly wacky, but...

Several times Japanese drinkers have told me that bourbon is 'kusai' or, in English, Bourbon stinks. It is true that most native Japanese spirits are rather mild on the nose and palate. Usually low proof, 20% to 30 %, is normal. Of course, not all Japanese whiskey drinks think so. But it is telling that the some of the most popular bourbons are also rather mild. And also strange that more really old bourbons, some would say overaged, find a home here.

My wife says that it smells like puke. I think you can guess where she got that idea.

Ed

[Gillman]

I wouldn't call the Nikka malt whisky Koji brought to the second-to-last Gazebo mild either in ABV or taste. I've found some sakes too have a pungent, forward taste. On the other hand, a product like bourbon probably culturally is different from what has been experienced historically and its "differentness" has lead to this interesting name. Maybe in an odd way it is a term of endearment because as Ed noted Japan innovated by asking American producers to send over older and therefore more pungent examples of the type.

Gary

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

I wouldn't call the Nikka malt whisky Koji brought to the second-to-last Gazebo mild either in ABV or taste. I've found some sakes too have a pungent, forward taste. On the other hand, a product like bourbon probably culturally is different from what has been experienced historically and its "differentness" has lead to this interesting name. Maybe in an odd way it is a term of endearment because as Ed noted Japan innovated by asking American producers to send over older and therefore more pungent examples of the type.

Gary

I don't know what Koji brought to the Gazebo, but I think it might have been Nikka's Yoichi 10 yo. Or maybe it wasn't, the Yoichi 10 is 40% ABV, unless he had a cask strenth version. It is a nice smoky dram with out being over the top about it. Interestingly, I had brought a bottle of Yoichi 10 to a wake I attended last weekend. The person there who said bourbon 'stinks' lapped the Yoichi 10 up. He didn't like the sample of ELT I poured him. Maybe I should have offered him a taste of Elijah Craig 12...

Ed

[Gillman]

Yoichi 10 year old it was, and as I recall it was cask strength. This was a well-flavoured Scots-style whisky, it would meet with approval by anyone who admires a good dram of assertive malt. But even mildly peated whisky is an acquired taste. Whisky gained acceptance starting in the 1920's and probably earlier in elite or influential circles.

I think bourbon in time will achieve a similar status but it is a much newer drink there (as indeed in Britain). I would think Blanton and other bourbons that do not show a heavy barrel character are likely to be more appreciated than whiskeys showing a good barrel char effect. Anyway I think it may take a decade or two more before the taste for bourbon, in whisky circles, achieves the acceptance and prestige of Scots and Japanese whiskies. In my view this is not because bourbon has a strong or unusual taste relatively speaking. It takes time anywhere to implant the taste for something different.

In Canada, bourbon is termed very often "sweet". I can't count the times I've heard that.

Gary

[kbuzbee]

But even mildly peated whisky is an acquired taste.

While I think you are generally right about this, Gary, for me, that acquisition time was .0001 sec I loved that smokey/peatey flavor of Laphroaig and Lagavulin on my very first sip of each. Just wonderful. The thing I "acquired" was the bottle at the local store. The taste for it, I already had. I just didn't know it yet. I had read comments similar to yours for some time before trying these and was prepared to spend some time learning to appreciate them (some descriptions of Laphroaig actually "scared" me:shocked: ). I needent have worried!:grin:

Ken

[Gillman]

No question, Ken, that some people acquire the taste quickly. Generally though it is my understanding this is not so. The evolution of Scotch in its homeland shows this because steadily malts have gotten (with exceptions and you mentioned some great ones) less peaty and briny. Michael Jackson has made the point that Speyside whiskies used to have a definite smoky edge that is much less frequent today. And of course blending tends to blunt the effect of peat.

Gary

[kbuzbee]

100% Gary. Speysides are to the point I don't even buy them. Even the folks at Laphroaig IMO erred with their Quarter Cask offering. The recasking muted the raw peat too much for my likeing... It was "less" whiskey than their standard 10yo, IMO. CS on th other hand... Wow! That stuff is amazing! Hope to pick up another one today. It's sure pricey compared to their base offering though. Fortunately, a little goes a LONG way. Similar to GTS it's a quality over quantity thing.

Ken

[Scooby]

No question, Ken, that some people acquire the taste quickly. Generally though it is my understanding this is not so. The evolution of Scotch in its homeland shows this because steadily malts have gotten (with exceptions and you mentioned some great ones) less peaty and briny. Michael Jackson has made the point that Speyside whiskies used to have a definite smoky edge that is much less frequent today. And of course blending tends to blunt the effect of peat.

Gary

While you are right Gary, that generally Speysiders became less and less peaty/smoky, the reason is not that it was an acquired taste! It was wrongly assumed by the people in the industry that peaty-style whisky's would be found undrinkable, because the reason for the rise in fame of Scotch were blended whisky's... Blends were designed to fill the gap that was created by the demise of Brandy and Cognac when Phyloxera hit the vineyards in France... those were pretty smooth and sweet in style (as they still are) and Blends were created to match that profile.... Because of their huge succes and taylor-made style the retroverse assumption was made that peaty and/or smoky whiskies would/could not be succesfull... Hence most distilleries tried to change their profile in order to fit in that assumption! I am Lucky enough to know some people who were involved in Bottling Scotch Single Malt, before it became the hype it is now, and they litterally told me that they thought at the time (late 50-ties early 60-ties) that people would find Islay style whisky's undrinkable... but they never checked that assumption against reality! They were very surprised to see Bowmore and Laphroaig succeeded and were much sought after in the 60-ties. Only then did they take the risk to try to bottle some peaty malts out of the highlands and speyside (most noticably Glen Garioch and Ardmore) and they were well received allso. I friend of mine has a liquor-store (www.whiskycorner.be) and he tells me very often that people do like their first sip of a peaty Scotch, provided they were not indoctrinated beforehand by tastings where they learned that peat is an acquired taste...

I think it is not! How many people say that barbequed meat is an acquired taste? How many people still (unfortunately) smoke or like the smell of smoke (campfire, aso) ... a lot! It's like doing your first completely blind tasting... most people will pick another favorite than they would if they knew what they were drinking. Perception is a mighty pliable thing!

The trend of non smoky whisky is declining... people like some character in their glass! Which is why SMSW became the hype it is, in the first place... Blends were to bland!

Just my 2p,

Scooby :toast:

[brian12069]

I once offered a friend some bourbon and he said, "no thanks, I don't like hard liquor" and then asked me for a rum and coke.

What is "hard liquor"?

Isn't rum liquor?...the "hard" part is what I found wacky

[ratcheer]

Well, yes, certainly rum is "hard liquor". Although, after mixing it with Coke, maybe not. :skep:

Tim

[full_proof]

Without a doubt, the story of my grandmother taking partially-empty bottles, in varying degrees, of my grandfather's Irish whiskey, (KY) Bourbon, Tennessee, Scotch and Canadian drams and "consolidating" them into fewer bottles so she could "clean up" his study and conserve shelf space. :cry: And even more whacky, their marriage (and my grandmother) survived.

[melting]

Too much of that will make you go blind. Wait a minute I think that was something else.

[Nebraska]

...and Gilmanizing was born.

[Gillman]

Actually Mark, I have standards.

This is not to say the said combination could not work but great care would have to be taken.

Actually when you think that Johnnie Walker is composed of so many different (albeit) Scotch whiskies, and that Scotch whiskies very dramatically amongst themselves, why could an adroit blend of the world's whiskies not be suitable or even very good?

Gary

[Rughi]

...why could an adroit blend of the world's whiskies not be suitable or even very good?

Gary

Most Scotch is blended with Bourbon already; Scottish distilleries leach the flavors out of all the old bourbon barrels that didn't end up as flower planters in Kentucky.

Roger

[Gillman]

Thanks Roger; how could it hurt to add more?

Gary