Prichards Double Barreled

Discuss any bourbon related topics here that do not belong in a forum below.

Moderator: Squire

Prichards Double Barreled

Unread postby Vital » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:03 pm

Got a glass of it at the bar las night since I never even seen it before and LOOOOVED it!

Not going to do an actual review (yet) since it was only one drink in a crowded and loud bar overpowered with wood/bbq smoke (it was one of those "Texas style" meat places) so senses were defiantly off a bit but everything from nose to taste to finish just blew me away. My wife who never drinks anything neat tried it and loved it as well. Very tasty and smooth.

So this morning I go online to look it up and all I see are bad reviews. No nose, dull diluted taste, ok mixed but not neat, too much charcoal.... What the hell??? As I mentioned senses were probably a little bit off due to environment I was in but not THAT much off!! At the time I already had this whisky on my TOP 5 list.

The only way I can make sense of it is that most (if not all) of those reviews are from 2008-09 years, nothing recent. So maybe this new round of bottling (2012-13?) was made significantly different??
Have you guys tried it? Have you tried it recently?? What are your thoughts on it?
Vital
Registered User
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Prichards Double Barreled

Unread postby EllenJ » Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:18 pm

A smoky, meaty steak-and-chop shop is a perfect place for any good bourbon.

On most bourbon-oriented forums (and this one is BY FAR not the worst example) you will run into a great deal of commentary from people for whom anything not in the pop top ten is "beneath them" socially. The most ignorant of these have never -- and will never -- even taste anything not already "approved" by those whom they consider cognoscenti. I know; I'm one of those people whose "blessing" is often sought. I deal with that by being honest with folks like you, and giving purposefully silly information to some others, especially the more pompous ones. That got me kicked off another too-well-known forum some years ago and I haven't been back there since.

I would take with a large grain of salt any opinion that considers a whiskey to be inferior if a factor in that judgment is rectification. By definition, nearly all aged whiskies are "rectified", as -- legally -- the mere action of storing a barrel of whiskey for more than two years is a form of rectification. Often -- in fact usually in the case of the major brands -- the "rectifier" is the same company that distilled the whiskey in the first place. However, due to some totally ignorant conceptions, left over from the early 1900s, the idea that someone NOT the distiller who rectifies whiskey is somehow "illegitimate" is ingrained into some people's minds. And along with that comes the "certainty" that the end product must be inferior. That concept is wrong, of course, but that would'nt be so bad except that these people are often quick to offer their opinions on forums (and in bourbon bar discussions, as well). In fact, some of the folks whose opinions you might otherwise respect without question fall into this category.

The TRUTH is (oh boy, how pompous is THAT?): "Whiskey" is the stuff in the bottle, and a producer of fine whiskey is one who takes responsibility for that product and is offering you something s/he thinks you will treasure and enjoy. Where they get the raw materials for that product is of no more concern to you than where BMW sources its seatcovers from. If the bottle says "Van Winkle" on it, you know you're getting the real deal. No one seems to (nor should) question the fact that Julian Van Winkle doesn't distill any of the whiskey he sells. So what?

The late Truman Cox, as well as Joe Dangler before him, re-distilled Buffalo Trace whiskey in Virginia and made a completely different bourbon out of it. Most consider Joe and Truman distillers, which they are, and Bowman's or Virginia Gentleman Fox to be outstanding examples of fine bourbon. But you'll find some who vehemently disagree. I would NOT be among those.

Phil Pritchard is a distiller in Kelso, Tennessee. Phil distills mostly rum, and some of the finest rum ever made anywhere. He also distills corn whiskey, but he markets that both aged and unaged -- the way distillers intend whiskey to be. Pritchard's double-barreled bourbon, on the other hand, begins its life in Kentucky (Phil won't say just where, but does it matter?) and barreled at 125 proof like nearly all Kentucky bourbon. It is aged for 9 years before he gets it. Then he dumps it (probably at over 130 proof by that time), brings it down to 90 proof, and then re-barrels it -- in NEW charred oak barrels -- and then he RE-ages it for ANOTHER 3 to 5 years. He bottles it just the way it comes from the second barreling. The result isn't exactly the same as distilling it out at low proof and barreling it that way to begin with (which is what Phil does with his aged Tennessee whiskey), but it's a big improvement.

Bottom line: Disregard negative reviews from folks who simply don't like different products and use your own taster as your guide.
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Re: Prichards Double Barreled

Unread postby WhiskeyBro » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:30 pm

http://www.drinkhacker.com/2010/11/12/r ... d-liqueur/

Not all negative. This guy loved it and does reviews that I generally agree with.

Also, who gives a hoot about the reviews? If you like it then that's all that matters.
WhiskeyBro
Registered User
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:10 am


Return to Bourbon, Straight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 35 guests