Low Cost Pour - How do You Define That?

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

Moderator: Squire

Low Cost Pour - How do You Define That?

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:49 am

MikeK in a review of Heaven Hill 6 year old BIB stated it was well worth the money and enjoyable for what it was but said it was still a "low cost pour" in taste and one can't confuse the taste with a mid-price range bourbon. I'm curious how MikeK and others would sum up the taste of such a pour. What is common to each of them?

Gary
Last edited by gillmang on Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:56 am

Gary,
A very interesting question. For me it is a combination of cost and quality. Having a cheap taste of whiskey is not enough - I have to enjoy what I am tasting. For example - Mellow Corn is cheap - less than $10.00 for a 750, and a flavorful drink a good low cost pour. Heaven Hill Ultra DeLux is about the same price but in my opinion, very weak and the only flavor found is unpleasant to me, so not a good low cost pour.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:58 am

Why is that taste unpleasant though, what are the markers of a "poor" low-cost pour?

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:35 pm

Gary,
Very interesting again. Everybody is going to have their own list as to dislikes. For me the lack of taste is very strong on my list here. I desire to taste something that is not weak flavored and little more than a brown vodka. Next on my list of dislikable taste is mustiness. I dislike musty whiskey. Next for me is a sour aftertaste. I don't mind the sourness in the taste itself, but if it lingers into the finish, I don't like it.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Re: Low Cost Pour - How do You Define That?

Unread postby MikeK » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:11 pm

Gary,

Let's see if I can explain myself.

First we rule out "broken" whiskey. This includes anything musty, tainted, off tasting etc. that would be caused by a fault in production or storage.

Next we have "bad" whiskey. This is subjective. Price is not a factor. Sam Houston, the current Mitchters 10yo line, and certain Scotch with a barrel finish that should not have been done fall into this category.

So now we are left with whiskey that is as it was intended, and does not offend me.

The next cut is made by nose/flavor/finish. I don't care how cheap the bottle is, if it is not enjoyable to drink, why bother? I expect a high priced bottle to have more flavor, etc. than a cheap bottle, but even the cheap bottle has to reach a certain threshold or I don't want it.

AAA and "Very Rare Old HH BIB" are classic examples of an excellent low cost pour. They have a very nice body and flavor. You are happy to have a glass anytime and wouldn't mind drinking it all night long. I particularly like this class of bottle when I am visiting with "infidel" friends. They are very enjoyable but don't require too much contemplation.

If a Bourbon is thin or watery tasting, then I can't be bothered, no matter how cheap. Even HH BIB at $6 per 750ml has an interesting nose and a nice bold flavor. It has a good amount of body / mouthfeel.

Now what makes it a good "low cost pour"? Let's contrast AAA with BMH 16yo rye or Hirsch 16yo. Both of these have much more depth and complexity. They cost a lot more, but you know where the money went. They deserve your concentration and reward you for it.

OK, I need to wrap up my novel. A good low cost pour is one that meets my minimum standards of flavor and body, but does not have the depth and complexity that come with longer years in the barrel and careful selection.

You need both kinds in your bunker, for different moods and occasions.

Mike
User avatar
MikeK
Student of Whiskey
Student of Whiskey
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Eastern MA

Unread postby angelshare » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:17 pm

I don't consider weakness or wateriness necessarily the "cheap flavor," although a lot of cheap whiskey can be weak.

Mustiness is not the flavor I think of, either, but cheap whiskey can be musty.

I think of the "cheap flavor" as more like Mike's description of sourness that lasts too long. I would maybe say it's less like a flavor and more like heat. Or maybe a specific combination of sourness PLUS heat. Very few flavors in whiskey make me grimace, but the cheap flavor can.

I also think of the "cheap flavor" as very much a HH product flavor, too, but I think it's because I've had more cheap HH products. However, I recall Old Crow having it somewhat, as well as Kentucky Gentleman. But Benchmark and even Bowman's don't strike me as having it, at least as I recall.
Dave & Tina
angelshare
Registered User
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:09 pm
Location: Luray, VA

Unread postby OneCubeOnly » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:14 pm

To me, cheap flavor DOES tend to go hand-in-hand with wateriness, probably because the cheap pours tend to be 80 proof. For me, the quintessential "cheap flavor" is found in Virginia Gentleman (the non-"Fox" 80 proof). It's raw, young, and watery.

I also taste it in Ancient Age (standard) and Beam White. If I'm 'slumming it', the lowest I can bring myself to go is Old Forester. Anything that tastes worse than that isn't drinkable straight and I'd classify as having "cheap flavor".
User avatar
OneCubeOnly
Registered User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Virginia

Unread postby bunghole » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:56 pm

Although we are talking Bourbon here, I think the cheapest tasting stuff are those with little flavor and very monodimensional and no real finish. Early Times is a good example.

Every blended whisk(e)y I've ever had also falls into this category be it American; Canadian, Scottish, of Irish. I don't care how expensive some of these blends may be, as they all taste cheap to me.

Vodka has no flavor and is the cheapest of the cheap stuff. How marketers have hoodwinked the public into paying big bucks for a dollar's worth of gasahol is beyond me.

I would argue that Gin was the very first flavored Vodka, and a dismal failure at that. :shock: The only thing worse than no flavor is anything that tastes like gin! Nasty And Repulsive :!: :evil: A $7 bottle of Old Crow tastes far better than anything with the word 'gin' on the label. :roll:

:arrow: ima :smilebox:
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby BourbonBalls » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:21 am

All of the above for me . . . let me add, that what jumps out for me as a low-cost pour is a young whiskey. If I can't taste barrel or some aging, I'm really missing something which everyone seems to be describing as complexity, finish etc.

ALTHO, look at young bourbons like JB---at 4 years old...nothing low cost about that but tastes so very young and flavorless. When Evan Williams was 7 years old, for me that was a good example of a low-cost pour that flavor and finish.
User avatar
BourbonBalls
Registered User
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:45 am

Thanks gents, excellent thoughts and very helpful. I agree with most of you, in fact all of you. Cheap whiskey can be tasteless, weak, watery, too sour, musty. Sometimes I notice in it a raw taste, the cereal grain flavours haven't been modified enough by the barrel. A good low cost pour has enough body and taste and none of the negatives noted. I think we've scoped this one.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby bourbonv » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:02 am

Gary,
I think I know what you mean when you say grain, but maybe not. I do not mind grain taste, but do dislike and uncooked dough flavor that can be found in some products. Is that what you are talking about? I often decribe it as raw cornbread batter - very yeasty and strong corn grain.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby Mike » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:42 pm

My low cost input (2 cents worth) is that cheap whiskey 'aggravates' rather than pleases my palate. I tend to use the word 'raw' to describe poor quality whiskey. I would almost say bottled before its time, but I suspect there is more to it than that.

I suspect cheap whiskies use cheap ingredients, cheap barrels, and were never intended to be particularly good. I have known more than a few people who expected whiskey to taste bad and almost took it as a matter of pride to drink it anyway. These are the same people who throw their heads back and drink a 'slug' of whiskey in one gulp. Anything more than cheap whiskey is wasted on them and they know it. And, by the way, some of these folks are great people, so I am not inferring anything about their character here. Early Times, the regular Ancient Age, Old Crow, and some others are made for them.

What surprises me more than the number of poor quality bourbons, is the number of quite good bourbons at what I consider to be very reasonable prices. I am sipping some AAA 10 YO that is a very nice bourbon with no serious flaws that cost me $13. I could have spent almost $40 for a bottle of Basil Hayden and that would have made me angry!

And, while I am on my soapbox, I include Maker's Mark among the poorer quality (little complexity, not enough body, lack of richness, and a bust in the finish) overpriced bourbons! Every single Wild Turkey product just plain tramples it! Now, do you want my opinion on anything else?
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:36 pm

Mike V, I've noticed the "raw cereal" taste in the current Benchmark and HH white label 80 proof (admittedly inexpensive whiskeys). And also, in (this was mentioned too by another poster) the regular Virginia Gentleman especially in the former packaging (not, again, the Fox which I think is very good). I think what it is is a certain congeneric quality that might age out with time. Raw cereals is the best I can say it, but I think what you are referring to is what I mean too. But on the other hand there are some matured flavours I just can't accustom to, e.g., the Dickel so-called vitamins taste in the black label (I am not as familiar with the no. 12 but the Single Barrel that was part of the UDV release years back had it so maybe the 12 does also). It is not an inexpensive taste, but I can't warm to it.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby HondoJohn » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:53 pm

Honored Gentlemen,

I am just an ol' country boy and have not acquired the sensitive taste you fellers describe. (I make this a statement of fact with no malice intended!)
Since I am on Social Security with no extra income to indulge myself with the higher priced bourbons available, my bourbon of choice is JTS Brown.
I also like Jameson Irish and Wild Turkey Rye(when I can find and afford it!) I have never cared for Jack Daniels(black or green) as it always had a burn to it. Maybe its the way I drink my bourbon...........so help me to understand just what you folks are describing..please!

In my glass I pour a shot (1.5oz or so), I then add cold well water about 8oz..........and sip...........JTS Brown has always given me a consistant nice taste and after taste......no burn, just smooth.

Please be kind enough to give me your comparisons and thoughts on JTS Brown as compared to other whiskys you enjoy. Now ifn' you can't stand ol' Mr Brown.........say so.....and why..........you ain't agonna hurt my feelings............Really enjoy this forum......just can't afford the bourbons you folks describe......but if I get an extra $50 to spend on the elixer of life........sure would like to purchase something I might enjoy!

Best regards,

Ol' John
HondoJohn
 

Unread postby Bourbon Joe » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:00 am

HondoJohn wrote:In my glass I pour a shot (1.5oz or so), I then add cold well water about 8oz..........and sip...........JTS Brown has always given me a consistant nice taste and after taste......no burn, just smooth.


Well John I must say I'm surprised that you taste much of anything with that much water added and you'll never get any burn, although you may drink your whiskey any way you want to. I drink em neat or with just a small splash of water. At these levels it is easier to pick out the nuances such as those that are described here. Just my 2 cents.
Joe
Colonel Joseph B. "Bourbon Joe" Koch

Bourbon, It's cheaper than therapy!
User avatar
Bourbon Joe
Erudite Bourbonite
Erudite Bourbonite
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania

Next

Return to Bourbon, Straight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests