Page 1 of 1

Comments on bourbonv's review of Johnny Drum 15 year old

Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:36 pm
by forumadmin
This is an automatically created topic for discussion about bourbonv's review of Johnny Drum 15 year old;.

Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:36 pm
by bunghole
I agree that Johnny Drum is some sour bourbon that is very over aged and not worth the price of admission. I would rate it as a bottling to avoid. Save your money and spend it more wisely elsewhere.

Unread postPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:19 am
by bourbonv
Linn,
I think the Johnny Drum would be well liked by John Lipman. He likes Elijah Craig 18yo and this has a very similar taste. I personally would place it in Chuck's Cult of Oldness whiskeys though. The wood is very tannic to me and and I prefer a younger product. I would rather have one of Kentucky Bourbon Distillers Old Bardstown bourbons myself.

Unread postPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:29 am
by scratchline
This is the first whiskey I can remember having and thinking "That finish is not to my liking." It was positively astringent. Gave it to my girlfriend to try and she had the same reaction. It occurred to me that maybe my palate was developing. I think the Classic Cask 15 yr. rye is far superior. Good tasting notes, Mike.

Unread postPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:23 pm
by bourbonv
I think the Kentucky Bourbon Distillers make many fine products - I just don't think this is one to my taste. It has too much wood and a sour finish. One of the members at the Bourbon Society meeting the other day suggested a cola bean flavor and it did remind me of the cheap cola flavored drink powders they made when I was a kid. I did not like that flavor then and I don't now. I agree about the Classic Cask 15 - it is a very fine bourbon that I like better than the older versions.

Unread postPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:07 pm
by EllenJ
I have two (open) bottles of this. Both are 15 years old, and come in squat bottles, although the shape is not identical. And the labels are very similar... but not exactly alike. The one I bought a few years ago is really pretty good and fits the Kulsveen profile of that time pretty well. A little like Peter Jake's, if you're familiar with that one, but richer and deeper. The label printing is crisp and clear and the metallic trim parts have a slight shine to them.

The newer bottle's label looks almost like an Asian counterfeit. The printing is dull and not as perfectly aligned, and the character fonts themselves have more of that "Taiwan user's guide" look to them. The edges of the colors aren't as sharp as on the first bottle, either. In the photos below, the shiney print looks grey, but it's more gold-ish. The obviously mustard-colored printing on the other label is not shiney.
The whiskey inside is nowhere near as good. In addition to being way to old (yes, sometimes it can go even beyond MY limits!) and really sour, there is the distinct herbal flavor that I think of as the trademark HH yeast profile.

(Holy Moly! Am I doing tasting notes? Eeeeooooooo)[/i]