Speculations on 'Great' bourbons - a work in progress

[Mike]

First off, let's level set.

(1) If you believe that all tastes are completely subjective you are excused from reading any further.

(2) If you believe that MIKE is too full of shit to write anything of interest to you, you are excused from reading any further.

(3) If you believe that bourbon drinking is a something to which words add little enjoyment, my hat is off to you! You are further along the road of maturity in life than I am and I will add nothing to your bourbon satisfaction with my musings.

(4) If you believe that, in spite of the fact that some things can never be settled (e.g. greatness in bourbon), it is either fun or interesting to discuss them, read on.

I have been thinking about 'old' bourbons, 'dry' bourbons, and why I think some 'old' and 'dry' bourbons are great.

I have been comparing several bourbons which to me are 'dry'. Most of these are 'older' bourbons too. My definition of a 'dry' bourbon is pretty much as Mike Veach described it to me a couple of years ago. It leaves your mouth quite dry, like when the dentist blows the air in the back of you mouth.

I will say that 'dryness' in bourbon is not a front of the mouth experience, it happens in the back of the mouth and can, in my opinon, be a good experience or a flavor killing experience.

Bourbon is a wonderfully complex concoction that is enthralling to all who have continued to read this work in progress. I profess no special knowledge about it and hope I will be enlightened by people who know way more than I do.

There is no doubt that the wood can and often does yield up its treasures to distilled spirits (bourbon and rye is what I am interested in here). Just how long to leave it in the wood takes someone like our Master Distillers who have the knowledge and experience to make those judgement calls.

But I believe that we, as consumers, owe it to these Master Distillers to verify their judgements and vote with our dollars (assuming we are able), so that they will stay employed and continue to pursue the distiller's art (it is an art..........a computer cannot decide these qualitative questions, they are much too subtle for full bore logic, they can never achieve that degree of sophistication, absent God's computer........hmmm, does He have time for such silly endeavors?........if He is God, of course He does). So, if this interests you, bear with me.

The bourbons that I am considering, and sipping here, are as follows, Rowan's Creek 12 YO. G T Stagg Spring '05 (KY), G T Stagg '06 (outside KY), Wild Turkey 12 YO, Pappy Van Winkle 20 YO, Pappy Van Winkle 23 YO, and Woodford Reserve Master's Collection Four Grain (a special case because of its unique flavor profile but still a quite 'dry' bourbon).

I consider the Rowan's Creek 12 YO to be an example of a bourbon that starts with a wonderful rich creamy and sweet mouthfeel that becomes so dry in the finish that it cannot be considered a 'great' bourbon. The wood takes over, creating a 'half great' bourbon (some may find that perfectly OK...........but not me).

Some examples of 'great' bourbons are 12 YO Wild Turkey, '05 KY release of G T Stagg 15 YO (I believe), and Pappy Van Winkle 20 YO. Examples of bourbons that are not 'great', but are excellent, are Pappy 23 YO and Woodford Reserve Master's Collection Four Grain, and G T Stagg '06 (outside KY), and.............it just slips in here, Rowan's Creek 12 YO.

In each of the examples of bourbons that reached 'excellent' status, but failed to be 'great'...........in my opinion.........it was because the too 'dry' character of the whiskey abbreviated the finish and unbalanced the bourbon taste. Some folks find a 'bitterness' in bourbon from the wood, but I have to admit that I rarely find real bitterness, even in dry bourbons...........which may be a shortcoming in my palate.

I will say, as I have said in my reviews of Pappy 20, the extra years in the wood were spent productively. Some subtle qualities were achieved with the aging of Pappy 20 that are not present in the other bourbons. If it is to your taste, as it is to mine, it puts Pappy 20 in a different category of bourbon whiskey. The character is from the wood, not from the distillate, nor from the yeast. But it is a delicate sweetness that is perfectly balanced with the dryness that 20 years in the wood provide. It can be missed if one's senses are not at their acute best.

'Older' and 'Drier' bourbons are not always succesful and are, no doubt, sometimes simply the result of available stashes of aged bourbon. 'Older' and 'Drier' is not the equivalent of 'better' by any means, but when done well by an experienced judge of these things, they are superb and 'great' whiskies!

[TNbourbon]

• Tastes (aka, personal tastes) are subjective, of course, but taste characteristics ARE identifiable and describable.
• ibid.
• If you don't put words to your bourbon, might I suggest you're a drunkard?
• They race horses, don't they?
  
  Generally, Mike, I'd accept (with, say, 85%-90% agreement) your exigesis of 'dryness' and its provenance (the barrel -- I have a DVD here of Elmer somewhere where he states as much as 80% of the flavor of a long-aged bourbon comes from the wood) and importance. I won't quarrel, either, with your designations for the whiskeys you're drinking -- I might differ here and there, but they are nonetheless reasonable.
  However, I would add an element -- balance -- that also allows a select few (think "Van Winkle" primarily, but not exclusively) 'fruity' bourbons also to reach the "Greatness" plateau. To me, balance -- and you touch on this regarding Pappy 20 -- means a continuation of interest (not necessarily uniformity) and continuity from palate entry to after-finish. Nothing bores me, or keeps me from concentrating on the pour as it passes over my tastebuds.
  Thus, I'd also proclaim the original, rye-bourbon Pappy 23 (I wish everyone could try it, but you'll just have to take my word for it, I guess) as great, too -- it is ever-so-much reminiscent of maple-syrup-drenched pancakes in the mountains on a frosty morning. Randy Blank's (doubleblank's) Lot B "Van Blankle" single-barrel is nothing but buttery caramel, but it is inexpressibly contagious. I have a couple of pours left of a '50s-era Old Grand-Dad BIB that has the trademark National Distillers fruitiness that I would classify as 'great', as well as the very sweet and rich, undiluted/unfiltered barrel-sample of 21yo Stitzel-Weller I obtained in a trade with Preston Van Winkle.
  On the 'dry' side, I'd suggest the Willett #1 barrel-proof rye. Although I don't care for every single taste sensation it displays, its ever-changing nature keeps in interesting and rivets attention to it.
  Well, by now, I've forgotten whether I'm agreeing or arguing with you, Mike. But, there are plenty of great whiskeys out there -- the joy and goal of all of us is to identify them!
  
  

[Bourbon Joe]

• If you don't put words to your bourbon, might I suggest you're a drunkard?
  

Now there you go calling me a drunkard because I rarely describe all the nuances in bourbon. There is a reason for that. I have severe sinus trouble which, about 95 % of the time, prevents me from picking out such things. BUT, I can still judge a bourbon with the best of them.
Joe

[TNbourbon]

• If you don't put words to your bourbon, might I suggest you're a drunkard?
  

Now there you go calling me a drunkard because I rarely describe all the nuances in bourbon. There is a reason for that. I have severe sinus trouble which, about 95 % of the time, prevents me from picking out such things. BUT, I can still judge a bourbon with the best of them.
Joe

Now, Joe -- you know that I know you can describe a bourbon both expansively and precisely.