YMMV: Where to you veer off from the conventional wisdom?

[bobbyc]

I'm looking forward to trying it again at the Sampler in April to see if my opinion changes

Unless you know something I don't and that's entirely possible, Brown Forman is yet to make an appearance at the sampler. I could handle a taste of Woodford or OFBB between all the other offerings!

[TNbourbon]

...Since the thread is about what we don't like...

No, it isn't -- it's about deviation from conventional wisdom, which can be either positive, neutral, or negative. For example, I'd say conventional wisdom on this forum is that Stitzel-Weller/Van Winkle is very fine bourbon (a positive thought); that Maker's Mark is overrated, but okay (a neutral thought); and that Woodford Reserve Four Grain is abominable (a negative thought). If you would argue with any of those statements, you counter conventional wisdom.

[TnSquire]

I never could understand Basil Hayden, I like KC,Bakers,Bookers.

If I were gonna pick between Basil Hayden and JB Black at the same low

price Black is my choice.

FR Small Batch is a question for me too, I would happily buy the Single FR.

In either case of these bourbons, I would drink them and enjoy if they were

the last bottles of bourbons left around me.

After 3 to 5 drinks they are all good bourbon to me.

Koji

There is not much that is just undrinkable.

In my younger years when I was short of cash we would buy a six pack of Michelob and a case of Mil. Best. Same principle I think!

[ILLfarmboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

...Since the thread is about what we don't like...

No, it isn't -- it's about deviation from conventional wisdom, which can be either positive, neutral, or negative. For example, I'd say conventional wisdom on this forum is that Stitzel-Weller/Van Winkle is very fine bourbon (a positive thought); that Maker's Mark is overrated, but okay (a neutral thought); and that Woodford Reserve Four Grain is abominable (a negative thought). If you would argue with any of those statements, you counter conventional wisdom.

Keeping with the spirit of 'going against conventional wisdom' I would also add I simply don't like any high proof bourbon or whiskey of any kind with Ice. It blunts the flavor so I get mostly "cold ethanol" Oddly however, lower proof whiskeys like Jameson's 12 yr, standard Jameson's and yes even Redbreast on rare occasion's, are quite enjoyable on the rocks.

It is standard advice to newbies who are working their way toward drinking neat to bridge the gap between mixing and sipping neat by drinking "on the rocks" gradually reducing the amount of Ice. I wonder if any of the many newbies who come here for advice share this quirk of mine and are turned off of bourbon by trying to drink it this way.

[cowdery]

I was in a bar last night enjoying some Russell's Reserve, the new lower proof version, which I prefer to the old 101 proof version, contrary to most posters here.

[full_proof]

Quote:

It is standard advice to newbies who are working their way toward drinking neat to bridge the gap between mixing and sipping neat by drinking "on the rocks" gradually reducing the amount of Ice. I wonder if any of the many newbies who come here for advice share this quirk of mine and are turned off of bourbon by trying to drink it this way.

That's precisely the advice I followed and it didn't turn me off at all, but helped me advance toward enjoying some of the more intense drams neat. I wasn't able to enjoy Bookers neat very much when I first started sampling bourbons. Now, I pour it straight from the bottle into my sippy cup, no ice, no water.

[Stu]

Unless you know something I don't and that's entirely possible, Brown Forman is yet to make an appearance at the sampler. I could handle a taste of Woodford or OFBB between all the other offerings!

This will be my first sampler. Since they were at the gala at KBF last year I assumed they would be at the sampler. Yes, I do know what assume means, and this may be a good example of it.

[JeffRenner]

OK, confession time.

1) I really like Jim Beam rye. In general, I am fond of sufficiently aged young whiskeys, and I find this one to be that, with lots of assertive character. It isn't a big whiskey, but it has lots going on.

2) I water most whiskey down to about 70 proof, although I always taste a new one at full strength. I figure I have a good example for this - Booker Noe reportedly liked his barrel strength cut half with water, which would take it down to a similar strength or less.

I am sure there are more examples I can't think of just now.

Jeff

[TNbourbon]

OK, confession time.

1) I really like Jim Beam rye. In general, I am fond of sufficiently aged young whiskeys, and I find this one to be that, with lots of assertive character. It isn't a big whiskey, but it has lots going on...

Yo te absolvo, Jeff. I don't hate it, though I like other, more expensive ryes, better. I have a bottle open right now, and use it in mixed drinks as often as anything. 'Sufficiently aged' is a major proviso, but I tend to agree, in spite of generally preferring 10-12yo whiskeys.

...I water most whiskey down to about 70 proof, although I always taste a new one at full strength. I figure I have a good example for this - Booker Noe reportedly liked his barrel strength cut half with water, which would take it down to a similar strength or less.

Well, I'm not going to argue with Booker, either. But, I don't especially like watered-down (or 'cubed') whiskey -- instead, I'm as likely to do essentially the same thing with a diet Coke or ginger ale.

[TimmyBoston]

I find that my taste buds are very tempermental, sometimes a bourbon will taste astringent and mediocre at best and another pour from the same bottle in the same glass will be bliss.

On another note, I just don't get Jim Beam products. Any of them. I just don't enjoy them.

[smokinjoe]

I'm not sure this goes away from conventional wisdom, but my own preconceived notions have been tested in regards to "tax stamped" or dusty bottle bourbons. I am beginning to question the idea of these being somehow superior to todays bourbons. I have purchased dozens, and dozens, and dozens, of these over the last couple of years. And, to tell the truth, the majority have been duds. Fun to find, yes, but painful to drink. Maybe, that's the reason it's still on the shelf? Because the people who frequented that store years ago found out it stinks, and never bought any more? Or, are there other variables such as storage conditions that have imparted a negative effect? Whatever it is, I am much less giddy today when I stumble across a dusty, than I was when I first started hunting.

JOE

[Rughi]

I am much less giddy today when I stumble across a dusty, than I was when I first started hunting. JOE

I agree, smokinjoe. I've done my part to propose that dusty bottles are often superior, but it indeed isn't always true.

Some brands I have found to be hit and miss. Charter, Harper, and Kentucky Tavern, for instance, have been very variable in my experience, from great to barely drinkable. Brands that were bottom shelf in the '70s aren't necessarily great now, but might still be interesting (and then you cook with them). Many lower shelf SW whiskeys have been duds for me in the sense that when SW didn't have some great things going on in the bottle they were often just...mild... not bad, but boring. And Walker's, well the only bottle I've really liked of it was because of a perverse fascination with the out-of-control wood character, not anything they tried to make happen.

On the other hand, my taste buds tell me that neither Brown-Forman nor Jim Beam makes anything today that's as good as what they made in the '80s and earlier - especially comparing Beam's version of ND products to real ND. Old Forester's current offerings get good press on this forum, but I still can't find the bottles that compare favorably to dusties; my first love was Old Forester and I still do love what they had back then - maybe they just can't do the same things anymore due to wood availabilities, dogma about high proof stilling and aging, whatever. Ditto for Old Grand Dad. Every source says that Beam has completely respected the yeast and mashbill, yet... the body, the orangey fruitiness, the vanillins and the sweet oak that took the edge off the high rye is no longer there for me. And Old Taylor or Old Crow (I lower my voice).....

There is definitely a risk in dusty bottles, but for 1/2 or 2/3 the price of current whiskey that is somewhat ho-hum because I already have some and can buy more anywhere, anyday I think that the risk of having another kitchen bottle or mixer bottle isn't so high.

Also, I don't actually _need_ to buy whiskey for 5-10 years at the rate I drink, so the only reasons for me to buy are if it's a special edition, there's a new expression, I want to track how a brand's flavor profile might be changing, or I see a bottle I may never see on a shelf again.

Roger

PS - All that said, the only dusties left on the shelf in my area do seem to be the ones that smokinjoe warns us about. There's a reason everyone has passed most of them up.

[jinenjo]

Here's my confession: I like very much the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection (i.e. Stagg and Weller), however, where I am right now in my one year+ bourbon exploration I find the extreme high ABV content hard to get past.

I like the pours, but as far as a tasting experience goes I have to add water to even gather a sound sense of the palette.

With the Weller, for example, I find the Pappys to be much tastier. As for the Stagg, I've only finished one bottle but I can't say it's my favorite by any stretch.

This is how it is for me so far. It may change as I grow. I certainly do seem to prefer well-aged bourbons and ryes, but when I taste an EC18 or Saz18 compared to the BTAC barrel proofs straight I lean toward the former pours instead.

[TNbourbon]

...This is how it is for me so far. It may change as I grow...

Lear, it's not necessary to 'change' or 'grow', in my opinion. We all get to experience our bourbon from our own perspectives.

I guess that was my motivation when I started this thread -- to understand that our differences are what make our agreements meaningful. If we all liked, tasted, described, appreciated the exact same things, bourbon would be pretty boring beyond the first tasting note. That would be it, no more explication needed.

As it is, because we don't agree on everything -- nor does everyone agree on anything -- it's pretty remarkable and telling when we DO find broad consensus.

I've become increasingly comfortable with my likes and dislikes, even when they don't match everyone else's, because I often concur with the wide-ranging agreements here -- e.g., Weller 12 is a great value, the WR Four Grain isn't very easy to drink, Jack Daniel's is an awfully expensive young mixer. Precisely because I understand why so many hold those viewpoints, I'm able to accept those instances where my opinion "veers off from the conventional wisdom". It's not because I'm crazy, but because I'm me.

[jinenjo]

Well said, Tim.

I only mentioned growth to mean that my palette may develop and I might come to appreciate the more subtle complexities of a Stagg or Weller. If it doesn't happen, that's fine too. I still know what I like and can usually tell right off the bat.

Great topic.

[OscarV]

YMMV -- "

What's your 'poison' -- the whiskey everybody else loves for reasons you can't figure out?

For me Jim Beam Black Label.

I have seen it here on this board many times, people saying they do not like JBWL but they love JBBL.

I just don't get it, I'll pass on both.

[HighTower]

For me Jim Beam Black Label.

I have seen it here on this board many times, people saying they do not like JBWL but they love JBBL.

I just don't get it, I'll pass on both.

I'm with you, Oscar. I don't like Jim Beam white or the black. I do, however, like the Beam's Choice 5yo, it makes a very nice mixer. The version we have in Australia is 37%:skep:(same as our white label).

Scott

[HighTower]

Here's my confession: I like very much the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection (i.e. Stagg and Weller), however, where I am right now in my one year+ bourbon exploration I find the extreme high ABV content hard to get past.

I like the pours, but as far as a tasting experience goes I have to add water to even gather a sound sense of the palette.

Lear, I remember times where I used to try and sip Booker's neat, and had much difficulty in doing so. I don't know when that passed but last week Cam and I went to a bourbon tasting and I had Stagg for the first time (yeah I was a Stagg virgin!) It was 131.8, and although we had a few things to warm the palette beforehand like Saz 18 and Blanton's Gold, I found it very easy to drink, and I would also go as far to say I have a new favourite! Can't wait to open my 06 Hazmat, along with the WLW and Handy! I also found it helped to have a glass of water handy, and almost drink a glass for every glass of bourbon. It was also helping open to bourbon up (what was left on the tongue). I also think I owe it to this practice for how good I felt the next day considering I had around 15 bourbons/ryes.:bigeyes:

Scott

[Edward_call_me_Ed]

Not exactly a veering, but...

You know what I like? Beam's Choice with a dribble of JB Black. That is the nearest I have been able to get to the 80s JB White I remember liking so well.

Ed

[TBoner]

I'm not sure this goes away from conventional wisdom, but my own preconceived notions have been tested in regards to "tax stamped" or dusty bottle bourbons. I am beginning to question the idea of these being somehow superior to todays bourbons. I have purchased dozens, and dozens, and dozens, of these over the last couple of years. And, to tell the truth, the majority have been duds. Fun to find, yes, but painful to drink. Maybe, that's the reason it's still on the shelf? Because the people who frequented that store years ago found out it stinks, and never bought any more? Or, are there other variables such as storage conditions that have imparted a negative effect? Whatever it is, I am much less giddy today when I stumble across a dusty, than I was when I first started hunting.

JOE

I agree with your sentiments in a general way, as I have had some dud bottles (but they're always cheap). A few caveats:

ND OGD is always better at every proof point than the current bottlings.

Ditto Old Crow and Old Taylor. (That said, the current OGD are all great products, and I don't find great differences in going for older bottlings of bourbons that have not changed hands.)

If there have been proof changes (as in JB Black, Evan Williams, etc.) there are differences, and usually the older (higher-proof) version is better, but not always.

I guess what I'm getting at is, if it's a known quantity that's not available anymore (WTRR101, Old Forester BIB, etc.), it's probably a worthy buy. But if it's bottom-shelf and it's stuck around, there's usually a reason. Bottles of AA, HH, Sunny Brook, Walker's Deluxe, Bellows, and others have been, in the end, $10 bourbon. Not a bad thing, but not worth the gas money to go out and search for.

All that said, I'm still a dusty-bottle junkie, because you never know when the early-70s OGD or OFBIB or whatever is going to turn up.

[cowdery]

It's always good when we can help people dispel certain notions, such as that more aging is always a good thing, or that products made a long time ago are inherently better than products made recently.

The appeal of dusties is primarily in finding something you shouldn't be able to find and, therefore, having something you wouldn't have expected to be able to have. If the whiskey in the bottle happens to be really, really good, that's a bonus.

It's always hard to see a "Golden Age" when you're in the middle of it. Things were always either better in the past or we're hoping they'll be better in the future. I think the case can be made that we're living through the best possible time to be an American whiskey enthusiast.

[CrispyCritter]

It's always hard to see a "Golden Age" when you're in the middle of it. Things were always either better in the past or we're hoping they'll be better in the future. I think the case can be made that we're living through the best possible time to be an American whiskey enthusiast.

I'd agree heartily - even though I'm a latecomer to whisk(e)y. I have yet to come across an ND-era OGD, for instance, but I love the current-edition OGD BIB and 114.

I may sound like a heretic here, but I'm not going to go out of my way to look for old S-W stock when there are so many good current bottlings out there. Sure, I might luck out (like that VSOF I found), but I tend to concentrate on current offerings and relatively recent "dusties" that have a chance of still being on the shelves.

As for Jim Beam, while I wouldn't buy the white label, I wouldn't turn it down, either. I definitely like the black label and the rye, though.

[Old Lamplighter]

In moving back to the original question posed, the one borubon that jumps out for me thus far in my journey is Buffalo Trace. I am sure this will raise quite a few eyebrows for it seems to be a favorite here.

I just don't know what it is, how to describe it, nor am able to put my finger on it exactly in terms of why I cannot develop a liking to BT. I have tried several bottles and the one currently open I usually reserve for non-discriminating company or the wife. It is about half empty and I have tried it at different points in time since the original opening but it is always the same. In any event, for those who do enjoy BT it is definitely a bargain. For me though, I will instead spend the $20 on WT101, Weller Antique or JB Black. The nutty thing is - I dearly enjoy other BT offerings from the same mashbill. For that matter, I cannot think of anything else from BT that I do not enjoy - except their flagship bottle. Crazy, isn't it?

[SBOmarc]

I'll let you know after I taste it.

[Old Lamplighter]

the one currently open I usually reserve for non-discriminating company or the wife.

Well, spoke too soon. Tonight, my wife wanted a nightcap of bourbon so I handed the BT to her as I continue to slowly & deliberately liquidate the contents slowly but surely. Much to my dismay, the wife described the BT as 'old tasting.....too old'. She is about the last person that I know who would ever be able to tell a difference between one bourbon or another. Not being a frequent partaker like myself, I would dismiss any idea that she is developing a more discriminating palate for bourbon. So, all I can assume at this point is that perhaps I have just had the bad luck of getting several lower quality bottles of BT, or, something happens to BT when it crosses my threshold. In any event, I can no longer pass off the remainder of the BT bottle to my wife. Oh well, there are always the neighbors!