Ridgemont Reserve Reviews

Talk about rare, export, annual release and other types of similar bottlings here.

Moderator: Squire

Ridgemont Reserve Reviews

Unread postby bourbonv » Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:35 pm

Bunghole and Mike have both done reviews of this product recently. The thing that is striking is the opposite opinions voiced in the reviews. Both are well respected tasters and what E H Taylor, Jr. would consider "whiskey men". Yet they differ in their opinions of this product even though they both seem to notice some of the same characteristics. This is great example of differing tastes and a prime example of the fact that there is no wrong answer with bourbon.

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 kbuzbee » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:21 pm

I saw that, Mike. I personally agreed with Bunghole. I like Ridgemont Reserve 1792 a lot. Nothing thin or watery in there for me. Oh well, to each their own. I always figure reviews like that mean there will be more left for me :)

Cheers,

Ken
kbuzbee
 

Unread postby bunghole » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:23 pm

Thanks Mike. I would invite anyone that has a bottle of 1792 to participate either here on this thread, or by posting their own review, or both!

HUZZAH!

Linn - :smoke:
User avatar
bunghole
Registered User
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Stuart's Draft, Virginia

Unread postby Blue » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:48 pm

I just bought one on sale yesterday at my local PLCB. I'll post a review over the weekend.
Blue
Epi-curious
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:15 pm
Location: Wayne, PA

Unread postby Mike » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:38 am

Well, me and bunghole disagree on several bourbons. I like ORVW 15 YO a great deal and he doesn't much care for it. We also disagree on Noah's Mill, which I enjoy and he doesn't.

This one surprises me a bit, however. I have gone back to Ridgemont Reserve 1792 three times since my original review and have done side by sides with several bourbons. It still seems thin and has a poor finish to me, so I stand by my review. In fact, I find RR so poor I can't help but wonder if I somehow got a 'bad' bottle. This seems unlikely, however, since it is small batch.

I guess, as bourbonv pointed out above, it is just a case of strongly differing tastes.

Just so as to demonstrate that this ain't got no nothing to do with anything but different tastes (I still gots lots of respect for bunghole and what's more, I even like him), Imo send him a free, gratis, no fees or charges of any kind, bottle of Ridgemont Reserve 1792 bourbon for his very own enjoyment. Take note bunghole, that this here bottle ain't quite full up. They's been a wee bit sipped right out of it. Drink it in full health and happiness!

I was athinking of having my dog 'Barleycorn' deliver it (yep, he is back from his Kentucky rambles). But no, when I brought up the idea to him, he set up such a howl, that I said just forget it. He allowed as how he wasn't ever gone leave home again and I could just forget trading him for anything.

So, next week he is gone start reading me the second volume of Shelby Foote's History of the Civil War (he is a slow reader, but I ain't in no hurry). 'Barleycorn' swears that his ancestors fought in that war just like mine did, and if ever there is a mention of a dog in Foote's books, why he immediately claims it as an ancestor......without no proof whatsoever!! Sometimes the nerve of that dog amazes me....... but then I realize ain't nothing unusual 'bout him.
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 bunghole » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:23 am

Thanks Mike! Don't worry about your take on 1792. Given the fact that you've been indulging in some of the very finest extra-aged bourbons such as Wild Turkey's 15 year old Tribute, and the 16 year old A.H. Hirsch amoung others I can see where the finish of any 8 year old bourbon might seem thin, and short. Plus there are some folks that just don't care for Barton whiskey. Either way I wouldn't let it bother you.

Don't send that bottle off too quickly until you try a blind comparison between some bourbons of roughly the same age and proof. I think that 1792 comapres very favorably to; Knob Creek, Buffalo Trace, Russell's Reserve, Woodford Reserve, and the 12 year old Elijah Craig. Of those I would just pick out two that you like best, and then do a three way blind shootout. Better yet have your wife pick out two so that you don't know what's in the glass other than you can be sure that one of them is 1792.

Be sure to use identical glasses. If you don't own a fleet of fancy-assed tasting glasses that's OK. Three shot glasses will do just fine. Then just rank each one to your liking; 1st, 2nd, & last. Then see if you can name each bourbon. This is always a fun and often humbling experience.

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

Unread postby Mike » Sun Sep 04, 2005 10:32 am

bunghole wrote:
Don't send that bottle off too quickly until you try a blind comparison between some bourbons of roughly the same age and proof. I think that 1792 comapres very favorably to; Knob Creek, Buffalo Trace, Russell's Reserve, Woodford Reserve, and the 12 year old Elijah Craig. Of those I would just pick out two that you like best, and then do a three way blind shootout. Better yet have your wife pick out two so that you don't know what's in the glass other than you can be sure that one of them is 1792.

Be sure to use identical glasses. If you don't own a fleet of fancy-assed tasting glasses that's OK. Three shot glasses will do just fine. Then just rank each one to your liking; 1st, 2nd, & last. Then see if you can name each bourbon. This is always a fun and often humbling experience.

:arrow: ima :cheers:


Well bunghole, them's a good idea. Imo do just that and I will report back (but only if I like the result and it makes me look good and smart and wise and knowledgeable and experienced and handsome and will make me rich and allow me to live 'til I die!!!!!!!!!).
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 kbuzbee » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:02 am

bunghole wrote:Then just rank each one to your liking; 1st, 2nd, & last. Then see if you can name each bourbon. This is always a fun and often humbling experience.

:arrow: ima :cheers:


It is indeed. I did exactly this with 4 of my favorites (didn't normalize for prrof, probably a big mistake). Didn't come out anywhere near what I thought. My wife is still laughing so hard it hurts. "You think you know so much about this stuff! Ha!" Okay, maybe not fun, just humbling.

Cheers,

Ken
kbuzbee
 

Unread postby bunghole » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:59 am

Ken,

Just so you won't feel too badly about your tasting skills, I offer this true story.

Jerry Dalton told this one at one of the last (if not the last) Master Distiller's Discussions that Mike Veach used to organise for the Bourbon Festival.

Jerry would not disclose this famous whiskey writter's name, but gave enough hints that it seemed clear to me that it was none other than Jim Murray.

Jerry had his panel of professional quality control tasters pick out five different, but identical tasting samples of the standard Jim Beam recipe. Jerry then gave all five to this famous whiskey writter to taste. One sample was declaired something like magnificent! And one was something like atrocious or abominable. The others fell inbetween. Yet they were all the same!

We are all human and therefore fallible. We need to be humble, but often aren't. The most arrogant always fall the hardest. Wives are kind enough to remind us of our place in the universe so that we do not fall so hard as to hurt ourselves. :wink:

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

Unread postby Mike » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:16 pm

Ah wives.....................now there is a story in itself.

How is that this woman, my lovely wife, who ain't as smart as me for sure, can be so right all the time?

Even 'Barleycorn' gives me that 'you wrong again, dude' look when she delivers herself of an opinion.
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 » Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:02 pm

That's a very interesting story about blind tasting. But I think too, without trying to over-rationalise, that this could happen almost to anyone including some professional (industry) tasters. And I say this as someone who considers all the well-known whiskey writers to have accurate palates and whose writings I refer to for additional information about bourbon. Here is the deal. When someone presents you with an unidentified sample, you have in your taste memory hundreds of possible flavors to relate it to. Since bourbon flavors operate within a fairly narrow spectrum, it is inevitable that it will be difficult to spot the exact source for a given taste without visual or other clues to help the sense of taste and smell. Also, who would think that 5 samples presented as different would be the same one, especially someone who regularly tastes a wide range of whiskies (not just bourbon)? So even if resemblance amongst the 5 was noted one might think it was one's palate that day that was fallible, not that a practical joke was being played. I know when I sample a whiskey I automatically connect it to the label, not in terms of prejudging it, but in the sense that the label helps "keys" me in to the taste. E.g., tonight I had some Knob Creek and immediately I remembered that taste, a kind of robust, oak-influenced taste that I know is KC but could I spot it blind in a flight? I don't know, I don't have it all that often and I might confuse it for another bourbon or even perhaps for some ryes. This may sound contradictory but it isn't, really, and I doubt many professional tasters presented with a wide variety of bourbons would do much better than many non-industry tasters.

If it was Jim Murray who was involved at that episode it does not change my high regard for him one bit. I have his Whiskey Handbook and it is superb, he has a very accurate palate and is not afraid also to praise many bourbons which are low cost and not usually ranked in the 80's or 90's by many people (which cuts across any suggestion that he is suggestible based on non-relevant factors). In summary, blind tasting is a valid and sometimes humbling experience but it is not the be-all and end-all of the sampling experience and its data are limited in value in my view. A more relevant way to taste blind would be to tell the tasters which whiskeys are before them and ask them to pick them out. I believe I could amongst a group I regularly taste.

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

Blind Tastings

Unread postby Bourbon Joe » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:36 am

We have a bourbon tasting group of 6 people, who meet every Wednesday and taste 3 bourbons. All tasting is blind. I can attest to all that blind tasting is the way to go. Very rarely do we agree on anything.
Joe :smilecigar:
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

Unread postby kbuzbee » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:47 am

bunghole wrote:Ken,

Just so you won't feel too badly about your tasting skills, I offer this true story.

Jerry Dalton told this one at one of the last (if not the last) Master Distiller's Discussions that Mike Veach used to organise for the Bourbon Festival.

Jerry would not disclose this famous whiskey writter's name, but gave enough hints that it seemed clear to me that it was none other than Jim Murray.

Jerry had his panel of professional quality control tasters pick out five different, but identical tasting samples of the standard Jim Beam recipe. Jerry then gave all five to this famous whiskey writter to taste. One sample was declaired something like magnificent! And one was something like atrocious or abominable. The others fell inbetween. Yet they were all the same!

We are all human and therefore fallible. We need to be humble, but often aren't. The most arrogant always fall the hardest. Wives are kind enough to remind us of our place in the universe so that we do not fall so hard as to hurt ourselves. :wink:

:arrow: imahumblebunghole :sunny:


Thanks Bunghole, great story (and better analysis!). I haven't revisited the experience but I'm sure I will oneday.

Ken
kbuzbee
 


Return to Enthusiast Bottlings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests