Recently I uncovered in my library a favorite book on spirits called, "The Signet Encyclopedia of Whiskey, Brandy & All Other Spirits" by E. Frank Henrique published in 1979. Father Enriques was (or is, I do not know if he is still living) an Episcopal priest in Sutter Creek, CA, in the Sierra foothills. He wrote a well-known book in a similar format on wine in 1975. Father Henriques had an engaging style, a freewheeling idiosyncractic approach seemingly at odds with his religious vocation; he was certainly an original and I learned a lot from his books. His notes on bourbon are interesting. He has entries on all the major distillers of the day and I find under the individual entries he shows a good detailed knowledge of straight whiskey and an apparent appreciation for the merits, or no, of individual brands. For example, under Yellowstone he notes the higher-than-normal stills used by that distiller, the fact that its barrels used unusually wide staves (important in aging he notes) and a heavy char in the barrels which helped give the characteristic red colour to the spirit. On Jack Daniels, he notes accurately after repeating its storied history and some of the hype that it is "smooth, rather light-bodied, almost sweet" (still true today). Under Old Taylor (and he is talking about the very whiskeys Mike Veach just summarised so well) he states it is "exceptional whiskey even among premium bourbons. It seems to get a mite extra TLC on the way".
Of Old Fitzgerald he says, "a prestige whiskey almost from the day of its birth, and it still is". This isn't just "bumph", he says this after giving an accurate short history of the Stitzel-Weller distillery. To show he knows that value-priced whiskeys are different from the best his encomia are restricted, e.g., of Bellows he states, "good, reliable... economically priced". Of Jim Beam he notes that it is "good bourbon, yea - super-superlative bourbon, nay. In fact in one important bourbon tasting, Jim Beam had the lowliest ranking of all; merely 'acceptable' (see 'The Consumer's Union Report on Wines and Spirits', Consumers Union, Mount Vernon, N.Y., 1972 pg. 134". [It would be interesting if someone could pull that one from the archives!].
So my sense of reading this polymath in the area of spirits and wines is he knows the brands and their differences. Yet there are hints as I leaf through the book that he is skeptical if the whiskeys are all that different. In his entry on Benchmark Bourbon he states, "an unusual bourbon, some say unique in the land...most bourbons are indistinguishable one from another, but in one well-publicised professional tasting a few years ago ... this whiskey was given a higher rating ("Very Good") than any other of the forty-odd bourbon tasted". [He cites again the aforesaid 1972 Consumers Union report].
Under the heading "Bourbon" in the book, he states unequivocally:
"Here are America's leading 'bottled in bond' straight bourbons, in increasing order of price. These are the most bourbonish whiskeys you can buy. Be advised: BUY THE MOST ECONOMICAL! There is no appreciable difference in taste between them".
Or again:
"Listed here are America's leading straight (nonbonded) bourbons. Again: buy the most economical. It would take a professional taster - with divine guidance - to distinguish between most of them".
In another part of the bourbon entry he claims bourbon is best at 4-6 years of age and most people can't tell the difference between bourbon that age and older bourbon.
Hmmm...
I recall that at a tasting at a straightbourbon.com member's home last year of some dozen bourbons, the group, which included some experienced tasters, at most only got two brands right in the first round. True, the tasting included whiskeys some of us hadn't tasted before, but still...
Could it be the redoutable Father Henriques, who had a sensitive palate and a great knowledge of a broad range alcoholic drinks, was right after all? Or is it more perhaps that while he diligently read up on and tasted the leading bourbons and straight ryes of his day, he wasn't really a bourbon fan and therefore did not take the time to note the many differences between the straight whiskeys that many of us here talk about on a daily basis.
Opinions?
Gary