The 'Finish' of any alcoholic drink retells the story

[gillmang]

The Mariage precedent is interesting, but really it's all up for grabs. Any one barrel might be great, any two, or three, or between 4R and something else. It's all good - if it's good!

Gary

[JPBoston]

Great post, Mike.

I agree with all your points here, especially the that as a 'noob' I didn't quite understand what was so important about the finish. "Does it taste good?" is all I understood, only after sampling several (dozen -- hehe) bottles did I start figuring out when the mid-plate ended and the finish took over.

One of my favorite examples, partly because it's such a value-pour is Fighting Cock. It starts as possibly the sweetest (caramel) bourbon I've tasted, then moves on to a nice rye kick in the mid palate. Then in the finish, the rye lingers and the caramel sweetness somehow returns. Great, great stuff... even if my less-than-perfect palate could only detect two different flavors, they were clearly defined and of a pleasing quality.

Also, your point hits home because I just tried a very cheap non-bourbon for the first time, in Early Times. It almost gets away with its 'cheapness' until the finish, than the scam falls apart and all you're left with is cheap vodka/ethanol. The nastiest stuff I've had the displeasure of tasting... yet somehow it's basically the same price as Evan Williams Black Label? Gimme a break. Hats off to HH for producing such a quality pour at the same price as cheap swill like ET. Why anyone would choose ET over EWB at the same price boggles one's mind, doesn't it?

[393foureyedfox]

marketing.....

JD, MM, ET.....they all are more popular and cost more than they really deserve to be due to marketing

[EllenJ]

Mark Twain once said, "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Ya drinks Early Times (or JD, or Dant, or Echo Springs... or Old Taylor-Crow-Grandad or even Fighting Cock for that matter) on account of that's what Dad used to drink, and now that you're old enough to buy your own you want to "bond" with him and his generation. That might sound silly to some, but it's very true for millions of new drinkers, especially whiskey drinkers.

None of those brands tastes like they used 'ter. And none of them were ever anything but blue-coller whiskey to begin with. That doesn't make them bad, though. The Evan Williams Black-Label that I remember (and have examples of, too) was a 90-proof whiskey that was far superior to what you find in that bottle today. So was Early Times, although you have to go back further to find it when it was a true straight bourbon. If we ever get together somewhere, remind me first and I'll bring a bottle of 1950s ET that will blow your socks off in comparison to any standard-level bourbon you'd find today. And if you're a young-enough man to stash away a few bottles of Beam Black, AAA10yr, Knob Creek, Barton, or Old Forester and hang onto them for a decade or two, you'll enjoy the thrill of amazing your younger, newbie friends with how much better the whiskey was "back then, before the marketers f#cked it all up". which is exactly what I get to enjoy with some of those old brands (such as Early Times) today.

[GBrough]

So much wisdom ellen, i am going to get a bottle of Macallan 25 year or Kentucky Spirit for my first child so when he/she turns 21 we can enjoy it.

[393foureyedfox]

i am 37, so i still have, hopefully, plenty of time to bunker some. i figure i have a few years supply of KC 120 already, and i plan to hold onto at least one for longer than that, just to see how it is or is not different in 10 years or so. ive thought about grabbing an AAA 10 year and bunkering it just for that reason, but then i see the proof level and put it back. damn sub-100 proofers....

at the rate its going, there may be fewer 100+ proofers in a few decades. but hopefully not

[GBrough]

I plan to bunker down some WT101, Knob Creek Single Barrel, Four Roses Single Barrel, and some willett family estate rye,

[EllenJ]

i am 37, so i still have, hopefully, plenty of time to bunker some. i figure i have a few years supply of KC 120 already, and i plan to hold onto at least one for longer than that, just to see how it is or is not different in 10 years or so. ive thought about grabbing an AAA 10 year and bunkering it just for that reason, but then i see the proof level and put it back. damn sub-100 proofers...

I plan to bunker down some WT101, Knob Creek Single Barrel, Four Roses Single Barrel, and some willett family estate rye,

Sheesh, Four-Eye. When I was 37 you were not only not smarter than a fifth grader, you were just starting 2nd grade!

Bunkering some examples of premium quality whiskey is certainly a good idea, but it's different from what I had in mind. You might want to add a few individual bottles (not cases) of regular mid- to bottom- shelf brands. Those are the ones that you can amaze your friends with. The only reason those whiskies are bottled at 80 proof is because that's the legal minimum. Once the 37%ABV minimum already allowable in Australia and New Zealand catches on with the EU crowd (the way 700ml bottles already have) you'll start seeing that happening here, too.

Of course, the OTHER side of that story would be to start collecting examples of craft bourbons and ryes. Some of those will become well-known, widely distributed and respected "standard" products some day, and a sample of how awful they were when they first started out would be a lot of fun at a party or gathering.

[GBrough]

I am 21 now man, meaning i was not alive then

[EllenJ]

When I was 21, they spelled it "XXI"

[393foureyedfox]

i dont think sub 80 proof will ever catch on in the bourbon world. seeing as its a legal rule to be 80 proof to call yourself 'bourbon', i seriously doubt companies would cut back 6 percentage points to save a few bucks when they realize that they could no longer call themselves 'bourbon' anymore, and fall into the crowd of 'whisky' labels.

[EllenJ]

i dont think sub 80 proof will ever catch on in the bourbon world. seeing as its a legal rule to be 80 proof to call yourself 'bourbon', i seriously doubt companies would cut back 6 percentage points to save a few bucks when they realize that they could no longer call themselves 'bourbon' anymore, and fall into the crowd of 'whisky' labels.

I am positive that you are right.
What I mean, though, is that, while the craft distillers manage to get around the existing rules a lot more than some of us think they ought to, the Big Boys are big enough to actually influence changing those rules. In 1964 they managed to have the maximum barreling strength allowed by the CFR 27:1:5 increased from 110 proof to 125. That is one major reason why today's straight whiskey doesn't have the flavor complexity of the older styles. There are other changes, but that's one I have documentation for. If enough economic incentive is provided to Congress to lower the minimum bottling strength standard, I have no doubt that they will.

[GBrough]

So why is rare breed 108 proof, i have heard that WT has a lower proof in barrel

[393foureyedfox]

if we stop buying it, theres no financial benefit to any distiller

[EllenJ]

GBrough - That's one reason Rare Breed has the flavor it does. And Wild Turkey has been one of holdouts for lower-proof barreling, although I would bet that the regular 101 dumps at a higher proof today than it used to.

Fox - If we stop buying it we don't get good bourbon. Not a very happy solution in my mind.
The fact is that "we" make up a very small part of the total buyers of liquor. And, in fact, since all of the Big Boys are divisions of beverage conglomerates that make lots of liquor that costs less to make than straight rye and bourbon, every bottle of bourbon chosen by a beverage buyer is a bottle of costlier-to-produce product. It's not like folks are gonna quit drinking; the financially beneficial thing to do would be to discourage straight spirit sales! Yes, it's a weird world.