New NY Times article

[cas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/dining/28bour.html

Craig

[polyamnesia]

interesting, but seems less informative than it is at attempted entertainment...

i didn't like the way he continued the stereotyping of bourbon drinkers (as if that was possible) while acting like the stereotype was soon to vanish. not after this article.

not bad. but Wild Turkey didn't make their 'cut' ???

[ILLfarmboy]

The article states: Bourbon is also not corn whiskey, which by law cannot be stored in charred oak containers. A whiskey can be distilled 100 percent from corn, but if it so much as kisses those charred oak containers it becomes bourbon.

Shouldn't that read: NEW CHARRED OAK CONTAINERS?

As far as the stereotype, what do you expect? Its the NY Times.

[barturtle]

Gee all I wanted to do was play "Name That Bottle" with their picture...sadly I lost, as I couldn't place them all.

[MikeDS]

Heh, I came here to post that article. Quite a nod to Knob Creek. I guess any perceived positive press is better than none?

[Gillman]

I find it of note that the New York Times is devoting so much coverage recently to bourbon and craft distilled spirits. This is a good article and will continue the trend of establishing bourbon - or re-establishing it - as one of the world's great spirits in what might be termed the official food and wine culture. I did wonder about or disagree with a couple of comments in the article: I was puzzled by the suggestion for example that the current spate of quality brands seems different, e.g., less corn-oriented, than in times past. My own tastings of bourbon from past decades suggests the palate of bourbon has remained the same overall. If anything some products of a generation ago achieved a smoothness and range of flavors not obtainable today (e.g., the output of the S-W still, the National Distillers Old Grand-dad and Old Taylor).

I think the reality is that the greatness of bourbon was overlooked in the broader culture: it was assumed something home-grown could not be world class. This is a common attitude found in many countries about their national produce: real ale was viewed without special interest in the U.K. even though it ranks with the greatest Chateau wines (IMO) for interest and complexity of flavor. The French were different about their great drinks, they boosted them and (quite properly) convinced themselves and the world of their greatness. But the French have always been different in this regard, they have a particular interest and indeed passion for "la table" (food and wine in general) which makes them view these things in a different light. This attitude has now transplanted to major urban centres such as New York and to sub-cultures around the world who know when they have something good: a recent example in Canada is the craze for ice wine which has established a niche in high end wine markets around the world.

But anyway all this coverage is only to the good.

Gary

[NickAtMartinis]

Heh, I came here to post that article. Quite a nod to Knob Creek. I guess any perceived positive press is better than none?

On the other end of the spectrum, the author made it a point to go out of his way to stomp on Maker's Mark, remarking, "it didn't even come close [to making the cut]."

[Kendall]

I was not impressed with the article. Just because you can drink

bourbon and write about it does not mean you know what you are talking about. If you like the taste, why worry what anyone else thinks. Maybe that is why there are so many choices. Makers Mark is very good for the money. Corner Creek is, by far, my least favorite choice of bottles. i currently have 30 botles in a fast growing collection.

[gr8erdane]

Actually I was pretty impressed by the article in that the panel was definitely not bourbon drinkers and their palettes differed in much the way bourbon drinkers like us differ in our opinions. How many articles have you read where they only discuss the findings of the panel as a whole ignoring personal observations? Bottom line is that it was very positive for our favorite beverage.

Kendall, obviously from your post and avatar you are a Maker's Mark enthusiast. I like it but disagree it's good for the money as I feel it's overpriced for what it is. That's my opinion. I think more than stomping on the brand they are making reference to the fact that it's probably the most advertised and recognizable brand name out there other than maybe Beam and saying that just because it's well marketed doesn't make it superior. And as far as WT is concerned, it was probably the regular 101 they tasted and not one of the premium bottlings like Kentucky Spirit or RB. And the average non-bourbon drinker is used to 80 proof liquors so the 101 proof to them was probably over the top. Obviously we would disagree.

Bottom line is that they made an effort and because they are not as well endowed in bourbon lore as we are they probably had little to go on when selecting their tasting lineup. Having a spirits sommelier as part of the group should have helped but even he would tend to have a little knowledge on every spirit and may have been limited in his bourbon knowledge. You can't know everything about everything.

[Hedmans Brorsa]

Actually I was pretty impressed by the article in that the panel was definitely not bourbon drinkers and their palettes differed in much the way bourbon drinkers like us differ in our opinions. How many articles have you read where they only discuss the findings of the panel as a whole ignoring personal observations? Bottom line is that it was very positive for our favorite beverage.

Good point!

I thougth the article was excellent, taking into consideration that it was written from an outsider´s view. The writer appeared to have done his homework, seeing as he was aware of, for instance, the pecularities of Virginia Gentleman.

The only thing I was a bit unsure about, was the comment that corn whiskey became bourbon as soon as it "kissed" new barrels. I thought corn whiskey could be aged both in new and used "containers".

[craigthom]

Corn whiskey can be aged in used or uncharred new barrels. Charred new barrels makes it bourbon.

[squire]

I picked up a tidbit from my wine tasting friends regarding a spirit tasting they attended. The winner in the Bourbon category was Makers Mark because, as it was explained to me, the wine aficianados didn't really care for spirits and Makers won because it was the least offensive. Thats to say it tasted best because it tasted least.

Regards,

Squire

[TNbourbon]

Funny, though, that while aware of the 'peculiarities' of Virginia Gentleman, the author seemingly is not aware that Michter's has been closed for two decades, and that the label is used by a NY-based company, Chatham Imports, using whiskey distilled in Kentucky. The claim that current Michter's is disitlled in PA is an outright falsehood -- and has no legitimate place is a news story, feature or otherwise.

We call that 'sloppy' reporting.

[ILLfarmboy]

I picked up a tidbit from my wine tasting friends regarding a spirit tasting they attended. The winner in the Bourbon category was Makers Mark because, as it was explained to me, the wine aficianados didn't really care for spirits and Makers won because it was the least offensive. Thats to say it tasted best because it tasted least.

Regards,

Squire

I wonder what those wine aficionados would think if a bunch of non wine drinkers pronounced Arbor Mist 'the best' because it tasted the least like wine?

All of this begs the question; why would folks who don't like spirits attend a spirit tasting? I can understand if it was to broaden their horizons. But they might have been honest about it and gave their rating with the caveat that because of their inexperience or general distaste for spirits they really aren't qualified to judge one whiskey from another. Then again perhaps this is just what happened.

[Joeluka]

I wonder what those wine aficionados would think if a bunch of non wine drinkers pronounced Arbor Mist 'the best' because it tasted the least like wine?

Probably the same thing you said. Who the hell cares what a bunch of Bourbon drinkers think is good wine!!!!!

[whiskeyhatch]

Funny, though, that while aware of the 'peculiarities' of Virginia Gentleman, the author seemingly is not aware that Michter's has been closed for two decades, and that the label is used by a NY-based company, Chatham Imports, using whiskey distilled in Kentucky. The claim that current Michter's is disitlled in PA is an outright falsehood -- and has no legitimate place is a news story, feature or otherwise.

We call that 'sloppy' reporting.

Are we reading the same article? The author clearly states that the A. H. Hirsch 16 yo "was among the last batches of whiskey distilled at Michter's Distillery in Schaefferstown, Pa., which closed in 1989. The name Michter's lives on as a brand, but is distilled in Kentucky." While not providing precise details, I think he covered this important note within reason. Did I miss something?

[squire]

Hi Brad, they attended because they were invited. Actually the tasting was a prelude to dinner with wine which followed. I've hosted a number of wine tastings myself (wasn't at this one) and will sometimes use a vertical sampling of something stronger (port, cognac or the like) to add dimension to the evening.

Regards,

Squire

[craigthom]

I had a tasting over the holidays with my brothers, my sister in law, her brother, and his wife. Mostly because, thanks to you guys, my rate of purchase is far exceeding my rate of consumption, and I had to do something to cut down on the quantities.

We did a flight of wheaters first, with Weller Antique 107 (a couple of the nine year old single barrels), OF BIB, Maker's, Lot B, and WLW '07, and the Maker's was the favorite of the majority. Part of that was probably proof, but I think the "unoffensiveness" was the biggest factor. That's exactly what they are trying to do.

(After we got to the rest the "I'm going to buy some of that!" choices were the Stagg '07, ND OGD BIB, and Rittenhouse BIB. As it should be.)

[barturtle]

Mostly because, thanks to you guys, my rate of purchase is far exceeding my rate of consumption,

You're welcome:cool:

[craigthom]

I'm working on it (right now, in fact, and next week looks to be fairly bourbony), but I think I just need to quit buying so much.Now that I think about it, the Maker's may also have done well because those six were our first straight whiskeys of the days, and I doubt many of the crowd were used to that. By the time we got to the ryes everyone had gotten used to the base taste and were ready to find nuances. And ready to take a nap.

[gr8erdane]

My vote is for Mogen David 20/20. It has a consistency that doesn't matter which direction it's going in your gullet.

[squire]

Good one Dane and good luck in your 'dusty' hunting. Last time I was in Denver was a decade ago and didn't find much in the way of Bourbon in the several stores where I looked, did find some great beers though.

Regards,

Squire

[Hedmans Brorsa]

I find it hard to believe that wine aficionados, if these people really fit that description, would have such limited scope. This is not the impression I´ve gotten from experienced wine tasters.

Sweden´s No. 1 wine expert, Bengt-Göran Kronstam (who has won many international prizes) loves whisk(e)y. He even did an excellent write-up of Buffalo Trace in Sweden´s biggest morning paper, a couple of years ago.

Let´s face it. MM tends to receive high accolades from people without preconceived notions (The NY Times team were an exception, though). Also, it always gets high scores from notable writers like Jim Murray and Michael Jackson.

MM is nowhere near my top 5 (although my latest bottle saw a dramatic increase in quality) but it is simply not as bad as so many here wants it to be. I am unable to pinpoint the problem, however. Peer pressure, perhaps? High visibility?

[squire]

Hedmans I'm not talking about professionals, the people in my anecdote are my friends and neighbors. Neither are they dummies, quite the opposite in fact, as they are all well educated professionals. I would not presume to criticize them personally just because they don't share my interests in distilled spirits. We who consume whiskey straight and then discuss and write about it are very much in the minority of consumers in general.

The point of my story is that these are precisely the affluent sort that Makers has targeted by providing a Bourbon that doesn't challenge the palate and arrives in a classy package. I'll give you an example, last Christmas a friend of mine who drinks only single malts brought me a bottle of Makers as a gift. He knew I liked Bourbon so he picked out what he perceived to be the best. A fellow who can afford anything in the market bought into the illusion created by Makers marketing because he simply doesn't think about Bourbon and so follows the common perception. This also put me in an uncomfortable position because I could not correct his perception without also criticizing his gift.

That and Makers pricing itself as the best when in fact it isn't is my gripe.

Regards,

Squire

[polyamnesia]

good point, squire.

i actually don't think MM is terrible at all. i'd love a free bottle myself! but i do wonder, is MM really all about making great bourbon? or are they really comfortable with selling decent stuff that does allow others to continue to pull the wool over their own eyes...those bottles ARE attractive.

i would hope every bourbon maker would be going for quality. but then, i do slip into mega-naivete at times...

anyways, the article is good for bourbon in general.

i still, though, read it as being more entertaining (and poor at that) than informative (average at that).