JeffRenner Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 This evening while rummaging through the cabinet for a preprandial drink, I ran across a liter bottle of Stephen Foster rye that I bought in Wisconsin a couple of years ago while visiting my sister. At that time, I simply picked it up to complete a survey of all of the available staright ryes. I didn't expect much based on reviews, and in that regard, I wasn't disappointed. When I tasted it neat, it seemed rather young and raw, a distinct contrast to Fleischmann's, a similarly priced whickey. Now, I'm quite a fan of young rye whiskey. I love Fleischmann's and Jim Beam, and the new Rittenhouse 80 proof. (I think I've posted comments on these previously.) But this one seemed all at sorts with itself, and all-in-all, just young, too light, and feinty. Why drink it when better ryes are available? Well, one reason is my Scots ancestry (despite my name, although Germans are also notoriously cheap, err, frugal) - I'm too cheap to toss it. So I tried it first in a Manhattan. No-go. The vermouth overwhelmed it. Down the drain. (Although in retrospect, maybe I should try less vermouth, as when I make a Canadian Manhattan.) So how about simply on the rocks? Well, now here we have something! Rather like a really nice Canadian whisky. Recognizably a rye, but not as bold as a typical US one. And really, quite and utterly charming! Much lighter than most US ryes. I think that my Canuck friends who are put off by bombastic ryes (such as I am always thrusting on them) would like this one. It all goes to show two things (to me, at least) - one, that there are really no really bad US whiskeys, only better ones; and two, that some whiskeys show better in some presentations than in others. We really are living in a golden age of American whiskey. Now, I suppose I really ought to finish preparing dinner. Cheers. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrispyCritter Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Well, today was a beautiful day for a road trip. Somehow, I found myself being drawn inexorably northward to Wisconsin. While I didn't find any VWFRR like I did the last time I was up that way, I did replenish my Fleischmann's Rye (the store had no shortage of it), and I also picked up a handle of Stephen Foster Rye.The Foster bears an age statement of three years, making it the youngest rye I've had. I'm now sipping some, and I'm finding that I like it. To me at least, it doesn't seem any lighter than the other 80-proof ryes I've tried, and to my taste buds it seems a bit more assertive than Fleischmann's - I guess I don't find a touch of feintiness to be objectionable.It would be very interesting to see what this would be like with extra aging and higher proof, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 It would be very interesting to see what this would be like with extra aging and higher proof, though.It would be Rittenhouse BIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrispyCritter Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 It would be Rittenhouse BIB.Good point - I did notice "Bardstown" on the Stephen Foster label - and I also noticed a similarity to Rittenhouse on further review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts