TNbourbon Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Been thinking to get around to comparing these couple of 375ml bottles I've had awhile, and finally poured them side-by-side tonight. Diageo/Dickel has done a good job, aesthetically, of imitating the No. 8 with the 3yo Cascade Hollow -- they are virtually identical in color. (By the way, this is a former 'imported' No. 8, from when it was bottled in Canada. I think it's bottled domestically again, so this is likely much older, from before the 4-year distilling hiatus.)From the nose, however, they become distinct. I wonder if Dickel's still was re-coppered before startup, because the CH is very pungently aromatic, and the obvious aroma is akin to Woodford Reserve Four Grain. The No. 8 nose is lightly wooded, displaying nothing of that high note CH is playing.The Cascade Hollow is very hot on the tongue, spirity for an 80-proofer. It displays the coppery-penny doughiness of the Four Grain, too. Odd, I never expected that, and don't know how to relate them except by the above speculation. The No. 8's palate is much mellower. Still, there's not a lot of 'there' there -- it's a subtle taste profile, showing some traces of oak at the finish, hints of rye, but a buttery mouthfeel that shows some grace.These are different animals. If Dickel drinkers don't/haven't detect(ed) and comment(ed) on the differences, they're not a very discriminating lot, or they use a lot of Coke! Compared to the (deservedly) much-maligned WR Four Grain, the Cascade Hollow is a great value for some of the same flavors. Compared to the old Dickel No. 8, however -- well, Hollow is an appropriate naming word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BourbonJoe Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Thanks Tim, you saved me some money.Joe :usflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts