Drinking Bourbon, chasing rabbits and other important things

[Mike]

Now, I ain't expectorating everysinglebody to agree with me about this, but I got a complaint agin 'blind' tasting that I want to air.

The tasting of bourbon is a spiritual experience and should be given the same respect as a 'tea ceremony' is given in Japanese Zen practice. But, that being said, I have noted in my own self that my tastes differ quite a bit as to my temperment, time of year, what I have been eating, time of day, etc. etc. (Mike Veach has noted the same things many times).

So I almost never do a blind tasting, especially if I am under the illusion that it will reveal anything of lasting interest about my 'true' taste or my 'real' favorites in bourbon. Any given moment is but a snapshot that is no more final in its evaluation of our tastes than most any other. No only should we be allowed to change our moods, opinions, and tastes, we should demand the right to do so.

Now, I will spout something of the opposite of what I have been saying by asserting that there are some constants in our tastes. I happen to like many things about bourbons that I consider 'constants'. I like what I call, at different times, 'creaminess', or 'richness', or 'thickness', or 'viscousness', along with 'fruitiness', 'spicness', 'rye bite', and other descriptors. Things that seems to make the flavors last longer by coating the mouth and giving character to the taste experience.

So when I taste a bourbon that is 'new' to me, I almost never do it 'blindly' in an attempt to be 'fair' and 'unbiased' in my judgement. I will initially approach it without benefit of any 'baseline' bourbon against which to compare it. But knowing my preferences in bourbon, and knowing that momentary circumstances are just as biasing in their effects as are knowing the brand that you are tasting, I will end up comparing the 'new' bourbon to an old standby that over time I have come to love and trust. Not only do I believe that this 'contextual' tasting is better for me, I have come to depend on it, and find absolutely no merit in 'blind', or 'clean palate', tasting. It proves nothing to me, may completely mislead me, and leaves me say saying..............SO WHAT? Next week's tasting might very well be a completely different story.

Speak your piece, tell me where I am wrong. But I have a nice little stable of bourbons that are favorites to me and I will continue to use them as 'baselines' unless and until I can be shown that this method is inferior to 'blind' or any other kind of tasting.

[EllenJ]

Ooooh!! Are you ever going to open a can of worms with this topic!

Okay, I'll jump in and help.

First, I need to reassure my fellow whiskey-enthusiasts who are into producing and studying tasting notes...

Please understand that I do respect y'all.
I really do.
I fully understand that this forum is dedicated to whiskey-tasting. That the majority of folks here enjoy the hobby of tasting and comparing notes on various expressions of American bourbon (and rye) whiskey. I consider myself a guest here, and I certainly don't want to offend either my hosts or the other guests, many of whom are more appropriately involved in this forum than I.

So I DO hope y'all understand that the quasi-disrespectful statements to follow are offered in light of the fact that I'm only a visitor making (hopefully) humorous remarks with the intention of offering an (equally hopefully) acceptably deviant point of view...

I am neither Catholic nor Jewish, but I have friends who are devoutly Catholic and others who are Jewish. Their beliefs are as foreign to me as they are to each other, but I have no trouble accepting and respecting them. Likewise, I have friends who are True Believers in Flavor-Science-As-Applied-To-Bourbon-Whiskey. And I can accept the maxim that there is a lexicon of standard taste elements which can be used to communicate information about flavor. I have to admit, however, that I have some difficulty understanding the science behind why the elements most commonly used (caramel, oak, figs, coconut, chocolate, apples, peaches, are examples) are ones with at least as wide a range of flavors as whiskey itself.

"This bourbon has a strong caramel flavor, with ripe apples and oak tones". Wonderful! Would that strong caramel flavor be Halloween apples, or peanut brittle, or English candy cubes, or burnt sugar?

Would those ripe apples be Granny Smith, or Red Delicious, or Fuji?

More importantly, why would I place any validity at all in a description of whiskey made by someone who seems completely unable to distinguish the differences in the tastes of these elements?

And, outside of it's obvious role in flavoring whiskey, has anyone ever actually eaten oak?

And then, of course, we always see references to "dark, pitted fruit".
What is that?
Prunes?
Olives?
Avacados?
I don't want whiskey with any of those flavors. Do you?

And are those "pitted" fruits different from simply plain Dark Fruits (which, for me, usually means bananas by the time I get around to eating them).

When I hear a taster speak of "cinnamon", I want to ask, "Uh, would that be Indian cinnamon?
Mexican?
Vietnamese?
RedHots?

I applaud John Hansell, publisher of Malt Advocate Magazine, for (among many things) taking, and maintaining over at least the last year or so, the stance that numeric rating of whiskey is nothing more than hocus-pocus for ignorant followers of whiskey fashion. This despite the fact that his magazine's existence depends upon both those very subscribers and the distilleries who are being "rated". Both of those groups demand the numeric ratings, and John continues to publish them. Apparently the readers who skip immediately to the ratings pages rarely stop along the way to read John's editorial page.

The opinion of a qualified, professional wine-taster is important, because the better wines must be purchased (a year's consumption worth) some years before they'll be mature for drinking. People with wine cellars, may, for example, be looking this year for a cabernet that they'll actually be drinking in 2011 or 12. And that will be the only cabernet (or one of only a few) that they'll drink that year. That way, they're always enjoying (and serving, since this certainly also applies to restaurants) only wines that are at their peak of flavor. Since there are major variations among vinyards and locations from year to year, the advice of an expert is highly recommended.

To an extent, that also holds true for brandy, but for spirits distilled from grain it's not such a big deal. Corn quality, at least for good ol' Number 2 Yellow (otherwise known as pig-food) doesn't really change much from year to year, nor even from region to region, which is why we don't see Estate-Grown Bourbon. Any deviation in the quality or flavor of bourbon whiskey (and we've certainly come to know and expect such) is actually a negative as far as distillers are concerned. Whether we like to admit it or not, the consistancy that we find in Jim Beam, Old Forester, Ancient Age, and on a higher level, Maker's Mark and Buffalo Trace, is what distilling is all about. Not how different this year's such-and-such is from last year's. For standard whiskeys, just find the brand you want and keep buying it.

Of course, most of us conn-noise-ers don't waste our money on standard issue. We want the cutting-edge stuff. And the variations are what we live for. So, for that reason, we like to compare notes. But your take on tasting notes is totally the right way to think about it. Anyone who puts the same faith in someone else's tasting notes (or really, even their own from another tasting) is just asking to be disappointed. Worse... if the notes they're relying on say a bourbon wasn't worth drinking (that particular tasting), they may never try it again. Their loss.

There is, of course, another, more sinister angle. There always is.

For some people (too many, in my humble opinion) the whiskey one is seen drinking becomes a statement of the value of their opinion. That's bad enough, of course, but there's also a corollary: The opinions of those we are expected to respect must be accepted as gospel, lest we cast some doubt upon our allegiance and membership in the community. In my opinion, that's why certain brands (I'll use Michter's as an example, although it's certainly not unique in that respect) are singled out as being unassailable, while others (I'll use Thedford Reserve as the example here) are almost universally panned, even by people who have never actually drunk them on more than a single occasion (and we all know who they are, even as we praise them).

The fact is (as I see it; your mileage may vary) that most whiskey drinkers have one or two, maybe three, bottles open at any given time. Since any comparison they make must therefore be entirely by memory, and since we have maybe four people here who are actually trained experts on whiskey tasting (myself most assuredly NOT among them), I hold that none of the rest of us are any more qualified than you or I to make any statement at all that would be of real use in guessing what whiskey to invest a few thousand dollars worth of your hard-earned money in.

I think the best idea to come down the pike lately in that context has been the "partnerships" for buying whole single barrels. Pretty much, that's what "laying down a vintage" of wine would equate to. And you'll probably notice that some people wouldn't dream of doing such a thing without they get to sample from the various barrel choices themselves, while others are completely confident that someone else (who they respect because they read their postings on an internet forum) is qualified to make that decision for them. I have no quarrel with either group... but I'm not likely to solicit the opinion of the latter folks in deciding what's the best brand of whiskey for me.

You, either, I'll bet.

If I can't open a bottle and taste it repeatedly over a period of weeks, I sure can't say whether I really like it or not.

So, again I want to make it clear that this is not a put-down of people who find pleasure in discovering and identifying flavor notes in their whiskey. Such people have my respect, especially as regards their ability to do something that I'm not able (or particularly interested) to do.

Just as my fascination with how all this industry came about may not be of more than passing interest to them.

This forum is beneficial to all of us, and I applaud Mark and Chris for making that happen.

But that's the direction that I come here from, and I can see you've travelled that highway a time or two yourself.

[Mike]

Well, John, you are most as full of shit as me be. A quick aside, I have tasted oak and dry oak and they have an interesting taste too.......not good like food to be sure.......but interesting.

Earlier on I took my tasting notes more seriously, now I do it more for the fun of it because I realize I am sometimes just plain winging it. I have always added a touch of humor to many of my reviews because I don't want people to take them too seriously. I have made repeated disclaimers on this very site about not being particularly astute as a taster and also about being full of shit.

It is fun for me to do reviews and being a very ordinary human being, I like for people to like my reviews. But when I am thinking rationally (which does occur from time to time), I realize that my notes should only be taken as 'impressionistic' in nature and I see nary a thing wrong with that. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with taking whatever liberties I want in my postings and reviews so long as the spirit of truth is honored (not necessarily the letter of the truth).

I do find the aromas and tastes I give in my notes, but they may be very fleeting and I am often struggling to put my finger on what I am smelling or tasting. Tastes and smells are very powerful memories and often produce strong images that cut across sensory boundaries. That is why I use musical associations, or will personify bourbon and its qualities. As much as anything I am trying to convey what I enjoy about bourbon. That will connect with some people and not with others.

Mike Veach, JoeBourbon, Gary Gillman, and others approach the tasting/reviewing process differently........ which is great. I have relied on and do rely on their opinions in helping me decide what to look for, even in a bourbon I have a good deal of experience tasting. Like these fellows, I enjoy bourbon drinking and have a strong impulse to share that pleasure with others. Isn't that exactly what being a Bourbon Enthusiast is about?


If those quys want to do 'blind' tasting, or 'clean palate' tasting or whatever, that is fine by me, but I do want them and others to continue to give their impressions as to what they taste. I don't doubt that they have extensive taste memories from which to draw and can make comparisons from bourbons past. That is something I can't reliably do, so I think 'blind' tasting, if it is put forward as superior to any other kind of tasting, ain't all it is sometimes cracked up to be.

I am an amatuer and speak without any real authority and I make no claims to do so. However, I think it is unfortunate that so many folks these days flock toward people who present themselves as authorities or are taken as such. Like you, I have a streak of being a bit contrary at times (just ask my own Goddess), but I think you go even farther down the road as a skeptic of tasting notes and its descriptors than I do.

But, as always, I respect your opinions and know that BE would be a poorer site without you and your unique point of view.

Now, back to the game..............'Send me in coach, I can do it, I know I can!'

[gillmang]

After all is said and done, taste notes help many people understand whiskey better. Most can understand what caramel means, or dry oak, and it doesn't need to be a precise definition.

I understand that many people aren't interested to discuss whiskey in these terms, and that is fine.

One can appreciate quality (and its opposite) without taste description or analysis, in other words.

One corned beer sandwich may be better than another because it is richer-tasting (less lean), not as salty, hotter in temperature, and better-spiced (say, bay leaf is used as a top-note and the other uses a muddle of spices), and some people are interested to analyse it in that way.

Others would say simply, "this is much better than that sandwich I had at Joe's Diner last week".

That's it in a nutshell.

Gary

[EllenJ]

Thanks, Gary. Excellent analogy.

And thanks, Mike and other friends, for understanding and accepting (and even appreciating -- shit, what am I, Sally Fields?) what I hope is my own contribution to the forum. I feel honored that folks who are able to discern all these subtleties find value in what I bring to the party, too.

I do, however, kinda feel like the guy who points out to his friends who are discussing Hugh Hefner's Playboy philosophy and how it affects American politics in the New Age... "uh, hey guys? Didja see the boobs on that babe?"

[EllenJ]

Mike (or are you really Euell "ever-eat-an-oak-tree?" Gibbons)...

One comment I think needs to be made...

When in the company of Mister Marvin Frantz, who I consider to be an absolute MASTER of whiskey-tasting...

Or his Goddess, Evelyn, who I consider to be THE absolute master(ess) of whiskey-tasting...

I find that, whatever they describe, I taste.
Period.
It's like being on dope.
I don't taste anything...
Evelyn says, "Do you notice the lemon grass in there?"...
Suddenly, the world explodes with the undeniable flavor of lemon grass.

If that's true of you as well, can you see how tasting notes can create a reality that's really the result of a single person's ability to create a flavor in your mind?
In the non-bourbon-enthusiast world, we have a name for such folks... marketers.

[cowdery]

The merits of blind tasting and the use of similes in tasting notes are both interesting subjects.

I don't do blind tastings, in part because I don't have anyone handy to set them up for me. (Damn, I knew there was some reason I was supposed to get married.)

I do find them useful for judging competitions, much like a teacher grading an essay test blind. Better you should have no preconceptions.

The tasting game at Bettye Jo's is fun.

Otherwise, I don't see the point of blind tasting. No criticism of anyone who does it is intended or implied. It just doesn't interest me.

Tasting notes in general and specifically the use of similes in tasting notes, I see merit in both. Even if you just do them for yourself, having a record to jog your taste memory can enhance future tastings. Sharing tasting notes can be helpful to others, though you never know what it is someone else will get benefit from. It might be from your simple endorsement or lack thereof, but I think some of the descriptive stuff is useful too. Ultimately, though, you need some way to decode the writer's impressions and expression of those impressions into language that is meaningful to you. That's why I don't think it's very useful to read tasting notes at random and certainly utterly useless to read anonymous tasting notes put up by a producer, but if you read somebody regularly and get to know how that person's modes of expression translate into your own, then you can make use of those notes in terms of deciding whether or not you want to try something.

Then again, consider this: "Nose: aromatic, with a bruised mint/peppermint note. Musky, heading towards camphor. Rose petals and, with water, a toasty/sawdust note. Palate: a hint of soapiness, then comes vanilla and spices. Water softens things but it retains a sparkling sweet zestiness. Clean and fragrant. Finish: Sweet wood sugars. Raspberry. Comments: All very light and clean and highly quaffable, but just lacks a little mid-palate depth."

Oh, never mind, that's Dave Broom talking about 80 Strong in WHISKY Magazine. I guess it's all BS after all.

[EllenJ]

I don't remember his name, but he was a cartoon dog with just exactly the kind of sniggering (Bevis/Butthead) laugh I want to use here....
Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh
Yep! That's exactly what I was trying to say.
Thanks, Chuck!

[Mike]

Mike (or are you really Euell "ever-eat-an-oak-tree?" Gibbons)...

can you see how tasting notes can create a reality that's really the result of a single person's ability to create a flavor in your mind?
In the non-bourbon-enthusiast world, we have a name for such folks... marketers.

John, one reason that the Flurbage Indians lived such long and full lives is that they ate oak, sometimes they cooked it (hence the charred oak in their barrels) and sometimes ate it raw. All my experience is with raw oak and I intend to live and live and live and then live some more.

As to the influence of someone else's taste comments on our own palate, all I can say is 'of course'. That is one of the reasons we tell other people what we taste, we do want them to look for that taste.

In the best of cases you might say, 'Yep, you are right, I do taste that' and you might even enjoy the bourbon more as a result.

In the worst of cases you might say, 'Bull shit, that is just your overactive imagination'.

In another case you might say, 'Am I really tasting that or has the power of suggestion led me to think I am tasting that'.

If it was two such reasonable fellows as you and I doing the tasting together, it would not matter one whit. We would nod and smile and enjoy the whiskey.........and in your mind you would say, 'poor Mike, he has gone off the deep end in his tasting again by claiming that he tastes cow shit from the cow eatin bluegrass'.......... and in my mind I would say, 'poor John, his taster is a bit dull at times, he must never have tasted any cow shit, let alone bluegrass'.

[bourbonv]

John,
I have always said that tasting notes are not to be taken too seriously. They only apply if you have a sense of taste similar to that of the person doing the tasting notes. Still they do play a role and that role is actually quite important. The distillers use tasting notes to keep their product consistant. I think that is one of the reasons why my tasting notes do seem to be short and to the point because I learned to take notes from people in the industry. They would be just as happy if their taster simply checked of a list of flavors they found in the product without a lot of fluff. There even comes a bit of humor in this process from such people as Al Young who quipped that "they say that there is tempura and seaweed flavors in their but I have not trained myself to find them yet" when discussing some of the flavors found in the yeast/mash bills at Four Roses. It really is simply training yourself to recognizing a flavor and matching it to a flavor that someone else recognizes in the product.

With that said, I think the most valuable lesson to be learned about tasting whiskey comes from our mutual friend Marvin Franz. He says the first thing he looks for from a whiskey when he tastes are things he does not like because they are easy to recognize. If he does not find any of those things, then he moves on to the serious tasting of the whiskey. I find tasting notes most valuable when the taster does find something they find objectionable about a whiskey and has the courage to right it down. If I taste that same whiskey and also find the same taste, then I have a better understanding of the taster and a common ground.

Blind tastings are tough. Lord knows I have been subjected to a lot of them. Still they can be very enlightening. Just don't take them too seriously. Taste change. Whiskeys change. The world does not end if you did not recognize one of your favorite bourbons in a blind tasting.

[EllenJ]

John, one reason that the Flurbage Indians lived such long and full lives is that they ate oak, sometimes they cooked it (hence the charred oak in their barrels) and sometimes ate it raw.

Yeah, yeah. I know.
And, if they wanted to produce "straight oak" they had to age it for at least 2 years in barrels of corn/rye whiskey.

... ..In the best of cases you might say, 'Yep, you are right, I do taste that' and you might even enjoy the bourbon more as a result.

My problem, Mike, is that I ALWAYS taste that.
I'm just too danged impressionable.
Ask anyone who's ever made up a few tasting notes while we sipped together and s/he'll tell you...
"Oh, John? He'll taste any ol' thing you say is in there".

Now, since you mentioned cow pies, I'll have to admit I've never actually, in real time, tasted a cow pie.
I've tasted my share of chicken sh^^, of course.
After all, I TOLD you I was in the Navy.
And as a proud American, (not to mention an active member of this forum) I must say that I'm certainly quite familiar with BULL sh^^t.
Nevertheless, if you said you tasted Cowpucky Canapes in the Cream of Kentucky we were sampling, I'd probably agree with you hun onedred percent.
Then again, I've tasted Cream of Kentucky, and even if you DIDN'T mention it, I'd probably feel the same way.

[Mike]

Touche John!

Now, for my last comment on this subject. John, for someone who is as independent minded as you, it seems a bit of a stretch that you are quite as impressionable as you say, but have it your way.

Writing about, taking notes on, and discussing bourbon and its history is NOT the same thing as enjoying the drinking of whiskey. Bunghole makes this very point periodically and I am sure that this thread has him antsy.

There are people who regularly visit this very site, enjoy bourbon, and who know and love bourbon every bit as much as the 'big mouths' among us (I am referring to myself here).

They don't get confused between putting down words about bourbon and drinking it. I hope they will allow that some of us enjoy BOTH drinking and writing and will not take too seriously what I write and will be amused at times by my excessive language and silly metaphors (and maybe even learn something useful?).

My 50 ml ration today will be in honor of John and Bunghole, two of the world's great lovers (of bourbon)................Saaa-Lute!!

[bourbonv]

MMMmm.... Drinking Whiskey.

Oh, wait where was I, oh yeah, Mike, you are right in that discussion of historical aspects does not change the way a whiskey tastes. It does bring some deeper appreciation to the heritage that brought about the whiskey, but if the whiskey taste like crap, then all of its pedigree don't change a thing.

[bunghole]

Writing about, taking notes on, and discussing bourbon and its history is NOT the same thing as enjoying the drinking of whiskey. Bunghole makes this very point periodically and I am sure that this thread has him antsy.

...edited...

My 50 ml ration today will be in honor of John and bunghole ................Saaa-Lute!!

ima antsy? Nope not me. I used to enjoy taking down tasting notes, and then writting tightly focused reviews with a musical spin to them. I think the few that I have posted here are worth reading and are quite accurate minus spin doctoring.

Thanks for the salute! Here's one back atcha

[EllenJ]

... ..Writing about, taking notes on, and discussing bourbon and its history is NOT the same thing as enjoying the drinking of whiskey. Bunghole makes this very point periodically and I am sure that this thread has him antsy... ...My 50 ml ration today will be in honor of John and Bunghole, two of the world's great lovers (of bourbon)

I'm (and I suspect Ima's) deeply honored.

Thank you, Mike!

By the way, although both myself and Linn are fascinated by the history of the whiskey, Da Bunghole is no slouch at writing tasting notes. In fact, his writings are among the best you'll ever read, and he's been a real inspiration to my own style (such as it is).
I don't even LIKE reading tasting notes and yet I'll read his -- just to pick up on some unique way of describing stuff that he might include.

Again, thanks for the toast. I'm returning it now with a drink of 1939 Mount Vernon Straight Maryland Rye (Nat.Dist.) to you and Da Bunghole both.