Does All Bourbon Really Taste "The Same"?

[gillmang]

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

[bourbonv]

Gary,
A very interesting post. First, I would like you to review the book for the library with its publisher, date author etc... in case someone would like to try to find a copy for themselves.

The good Father has a point. I would say that 60% of the people drinking bourbon would not have any clue as to the differences between bourbons. Of course most of them are drinking bourbon and coke so there really isn't much point to trying to distinguish between Evan Wiliams and Cabin Still. Price usually is their determining factor and that is why there are so many cheap products that are only 3 or 4 years of age on the market.

I think the good Father would have a hard time justifying his statements in todays market with single barrel, extra aged and small batch styles being introduced into the market. The improvement of quality in these super premium brands do make them standout from the crowd in most cases. What does he say about the extra aged Old Fitzgerald products (Very Old Fitzgerald, Very, Very Old Fitzgerald, Very, Extra Old Fitzgerald, etc...)? How about the extra aged Old Charters? They would have been around for him to review in this book.

Mike Veach

[Mike]

Thanks for posting this most interesting information, Gary!

As far as I am concerned, I would never want to defend the statement that all bourbons taste the same. They simply do not.

However, as I have said elsewhere, I no longer believe that the differences between the 'super' premium bourbons and the middle priced bourbons, and yes, even some lower priced bourbons is all that great. Let me hasten to add, though, that difference IS there, in my opinion.

Van Winkle's Pappy 20, Wild Turkey's Tribute, A. H. Hirsch's 16 YO, and a handfull of others are different and offer a superb taste experience. I find them almost, note I said almost, as close to cognac in their delicacy as they are to bourbon in their robustness.

Are these 'super' premium bourbons better than other bourbons? I will duck that question by saying that it depends on your tastes, and maybe on your ability to taste and smell.

As to the Good Father's tasting skills, did he mean that all these bourbons taste the same or that they were essentially equal in taste? If he meant they taste the same, then I question his tasting abilities. I might be a bit more sympathetic to his claim if he meant they were essentially equals. But, alas, I don't even really know whether my own taster is of very high quality. All I can say is that I do detect distinct differences in bourbons in regard to aroma, taste, and finish. I like the variety that is available to me in bourbons. I say that because I like the DIFFERENT taste experiences offered by that variety.

I now have a few more than 50 bourbons available to me in my stash at this very moment. I know of only a few that will lie there indefinitely waiting for me to take them up again.

If we take the frequency of my bringing out each of the bottles as representaive of my 'favorites' list, then Pappy 20, A.H. Hirsch (while I can still get it), Tribute (while I still have some), Old Rip Van Winkle 15 YO (while I have some) are way up there, along with Russell's Reserve (in both incarnations), my Kentucky Spirit/Eagle Rare 10 YO concoction, Sam Houston, Old Grandad BIB, Old Fitz 1849, Bookers, GT Stagg, etc, etc.

[gillmang]

Thanks gentlemen for these comments, most interesting.

I think Mike Veach's point about there being many more truly premium whiskeys in the market today than then is a good one, and Mike of Conyers is really saying something similar by mentioning the names of the older (over 12 years) specialties so many here admire.

There is no entry for Old Charter in the book, a sad omission. But here in part is what he says about Old Crow: "Old Crow is still fine bourbon whiskey, but it's heavy-bodied and full-flavored, and those qualities are out of fashion these days [1979]". He goes on to say it is a pity that sales are falling because the brand is very reasonably priced. But here in part is what he says about Forester: "Is Old Forester as good as its reputation? A bold and unequivocal yes and no! Yes, it is a good, medium-bodied slightly sweet, full-flavored Kentucky straight bourbon. No, it is not so outstanding that you could select it, tasting blindly, from other bourbons of the same type".

I think he is saying, bondeds are the most bourbonish (his word) but amongst each other are very hard to tell apart. Ditto for 86 proof non-bonded, etc. He recognises some differences, therefore, but does not seem to assign them much worth overall. I think today he might view things somewhat differently because of the plethora of single barrel brands and other specialties as mentioned by both Mikes.

Yet, note this statement of the Father (again, in 1979) in regard to aged bourbon whiskeys: "... Americans have paid millions of extra dollars for those extra years the label proudly proclaims. They are mostly squandered dollars. ... Beyond four years or six at the outside, it's mostly wasted effort. ... Expert tasters have been consistently unable to detect any taste difference between aged bourbons and youthful ones".

I must say the latter statement seems to go too far, yet there it is, one man's opinion. It is not as if aged spirits could not recommend themselves to Father Henriques as his comments on brandies make quite evident.

I think he felt that the bourbons did not all taste the same but were very similar, both in their respective categories and across the board (and recall too he was necessarily addressing a generalist audience).

But finally I come back to the thought that he just wasn't a bourbon man, I think in spirits he admired brandy and malt whisky more and just was not concerned to take the time to work out the differences that do in fact exist in bourbon. The book too might have been more complete in the straight whiskey coverage than it is, e.g. I cannot find any reference to Maker's Mark. However there is extensive coverage of blended whiskey both American and Canadian and of course of Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey. I think he felt he covered enough of what he needed to in bourbon. His comment about Benchmark was interesting and of course today there are many bourbons with the quality or distinctiveness Benchmark had in the 1970's, which brings us back (in part anyway) to Mike Veach's comment mentioned above.

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
It is interesting that with every quote you bring out, there seems to be something that makes me think 1970's. When he was reviewing these whiskeys for his book they were coming to an end of an era when barrel proof was 110 and the bonding period was 8 years. These changes - barrel proof to 125 and bonding period to 20 years - will change the whole taste of bourbon. He was closer to being right about the age in 1979 than today because they still had a lot of lower barrel proof whiskey on the market. This whiskey would age better, quicker than today's products. That meant 6 years old was plenty old for most bourbons.

The fact that the bonding period - the amount of time allowed before the taxes had to be paid - was only 8 year up to the late 1950s also effacted the flavor profile of most bourbons. After 8 years most bourbons were dumped so they could be guaged and the distiller paid the taxes. Very few would then put that whiskey back into the barrel, where the future angelshare was already tax paid, for further aging. The result was that there really was not a market for extra aged products. The market did not really develop until Regean de-regulated the industry.

Great Posts Gary!

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

Thanks Mike, and good point about 6 year old whiskey being fully aged then. Even though the bonding period and barrel entry limit had changed when the book came out much of the whiskey still on the market probably was made "the old way". In any case he would have been influenced in his tastes by whiskey from, and probably did much of his research in, the earlier period (60's). Thus, 5-6-7-8 year old whiskey in '79, with 110 entry still being practiced by some or represented in many bottles on the shelves (older inventory) would have tasted like 10-12-15 year old whiskey today so that 10 year old whiskey then might have tasted like EC 18 year old today. While I like EC 18 year old I can understand that some people think that is too old! But as for his inability to detect much difference in the bourbons themselves, I put it down to his not being a bourbon man. E.g., in the section on rye whiskey you can tell he doesn't like the flavor of straight rye, so I think he may have taken a "they all taste the same" stance and not pursued the palate of bourbon with the same intensity as for other spirits.

That said, it remains true that blind tasting can be a humility-inducing experience.

Gary

P.S. In leafing through the book further I see Father Henriques tends even in the scotch area to consider the subject by "types". E.g. in blends he says there are three kinds, light-, medium- and heavy-bodied blends and within each category there is (he has various amusing formulations for this) no "humanly discernible way of telling the difference". He lists for example Teacher's and Johnnie Walker Black Label in the same category, heavy-bodied, and therefore would consider their taste very similar although many people might disagree (then too I have never tried a blind sampling of these). I think it may be more accurate to say that apart from some of the brandies he was not really a spirits devotee. Probably his main interest was wine and his Signet wine book from 1975 shows a great knowledge of world wine styles of the time including a detailed understanding of Calfifornia vintages. However the 1979 Signet book is still of great interest because apart from offering his well-considered opinions on straight and blended whiskies of all kinds it contains much information on allied subjects such as cocktails and their accoutrements.

[bourbonv]

Gary,
Unfortunately most writers of books on the world's whisky are basically Scotch Whisky writers and this prejudice often shows in the reviews of American whiskey. Even so they often have some interesting insights and different takes on the whiskey. I think one of their biggest prejudices is age induced. Just because Scotch has to be aged at least a decade, they think all whiskey should be as well. It is not a good premise for bourbon and rye.

The other day at the Bourbon's Bistro, Gayle Hack had a booklet from one of the premium Scotch whiskies that described how it was made. The most amusing point in the booklet was they handled the fact that they use used bourbon barrels to make their whisky. They implied that bourbon, since the barrels are always new, takes the bad, undesirable properties or the wood out of the barrel, thus making them fit for use for Scotch. It was pure marketing BS!

It is that kind of marketing that needs to be ignored, but often comes through when a book is written about the whiskies of the world!

Mike Veach

[gillmang]

Very true in general and I've read that thing before about bourbon taking out the undesirables in the barrel. The current Whisky Magazine has an article by malt whisky specialist Philip Hills in which (in an article not even on bourbon) he states that bourbon is not as subtle a drink as malt whisky. I don't agree with him and I think that everything is relative. Bourbon has to be judged on its own merits and it is a world-class drink by any standard including the one he was focusing on in the article (analysis and appreciation of the many taste differences manifest in the different malt whiskies).

Of course Henriques was an American, and a very "American" one at that so a foreign perspective was not the issue in his case. I think in fact he had the attitude of the typical sophisticated American consumer even to this day, which is that wine is king and spirits are at most for specialist tastes, e.g., regional, ethnic or other specialised palates.

Gary

[gillmang]

I regret to advise that some web searching disclosed that Father E. Frank Henriques who authored the Signet books on wine and spirits passed away some years ago at age 82. He was at work on a book at his death but I do not know what it is or whether it dealt with wine. It may have been a further edition of his Signet wine book, which went through numerous printings and was issued in a second edition in 1984. We all have influences and while I have learned a lot from many sources his were quite influential especially in my earlier years of learning about spirits and wines. I wa saddened to see he is no longer with us. On the other hand, he had a long life and was able to combine his scholarly interest in alcoholic beverages with the life of a man of the cloth which is unusual. He must have been a one-of-a-kind of idiosyncratic temperament and he has shown that a religious vocation is not necessarily inconsistent with the moderate use of, and a refined interest in, alcoholic beverages.

Gary