What I mean when I say I like something (and more)

July 18, 2017 Eric Burke

The germ of this article comes from one I originally posted in February of 2013. I think it's time to surface it again. I've cleaned it up a little since I think I've gotten better at writing in the last four years, but the basic idea behind my reviews haven't changed.

Everyone who writes about whiskey approaches things differently. Some reviewers like to use numbers. Numbers make a review feel scientific because you've done some math. Some reviewers like to use stars. Stars are easy to visualize and are familiar to Amazon shoppers everywhere. I like to use various cartoon faces and hearts because I'm silly. Probably too silly for my own good. The point is that any and/or all of these are correct. They all adequately represent how much or how little a reviewer liked any given whiskey. But no matter how a writer presents it, we as readers need to remember that the rating is still just a subjective opinion.

It probably goes without saying, but I like bourbon. I enjoy it in many different ways. Sometimes I enjoy thoughtfully tasting bourbon. I pour it into a nosing glass, sit down, concentrate, and try to tease out all the little smells and tastes that are hidden inside the glass. And if it is interesting, I'll probably like it. Other times, I want to enjoy bourbon in a rocks glass while playing cards or watching tv or conversing with friends. I'm not paying a lot of attention to it, but if it tastes good and it's acting as a social lubricant, I'll probably like it. Sometimes I enjoy it in a cocktail. Even if it isn't great neat, if it makes a killer Manhattan, I'll probably like it. And if I like it, then I'll tell you I like it. And I'll put a little smiley face next to it.

Sometimes I find a bourbon that doesn't taste good and isn't all that interesting. Needless to say, I don't like these. I've gotten pretty good at knowing what I like, and since I buy most of the whiskey reviewed on the site, the odds are that I'm not buying too many duds. But occasionally one slips through, or I buy one specifically for research purposes. When that happens, I'll tell you I dislike it and put a frowny face next to it.

Of course, some whiskeys are just...meh. There is nothing offensive about them. They don't taste bad. I don't dislike it, but I don't like it either. It's just sort of in the middle there for me. In such a case I'll just drop a neutral face on it.

Very occasionally I'll drop a heart on something. This means I love it. No ifs, ands, or buts. I'd take this whiskey over almost any other.

So to recap:

A heart means I loved this whiskey. I'd have to pause and think (briefly) if forced to choose between it and my wife. (shhhh... don't tell her)

A smiley face means I liked the whiskey or I found it interesting while tasting it. Or I enjoyed myself while drinking it. Or I enjoyed the company I drank it with. Or I was having fun. Most bourbons and ryes will be in this category because, on at least some level, I like most bourbons and ryes I've tasted.

A neutral face means meh. I didn't particularly like this whiskey, but I didn't hate it either. It wasn't for me. But you might like it.

A frowny face means I really disliked this. I probably dumped it out or at least thought about dumping it out.

We all have different life experiences that color our perceptions. I taste JuicyFruit gum when I taste Four Roses. Other people might taste Jackfruit, but I've never had a Jackfruit, so I say JuicyFruit. Some people might taste almond in a whiskey. I'm allergic to nuts, so I only have an academic idea of what almonds taste like. If I use it as a tasting note, it will have come from my wife (we do the notes together). The point is that everyone will like different things and has had different experiences to inform their tastes. And that's pretty cool. It gives us something to talk about.

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Winchester Straight Bourbon

July 11, 2017 Eric Burke

There are times, dear reader, when I go out of my way to try things just because I have a sneaking suspicion that they will be less than tasty. I consider it to be part of the job that I have assigned myself not just to try things that are amazing, but also those things that may appeal on price alone. To see which of the inexpensive bourbons are hidden gems and which are just fossilized dog turds.

Winchester Straight Bourbon Whiskey is a TerrePURE bourbon from Total Wine. TerrePURE whiskeys are whiskeys that start with whiskey of a certain age. In this case, two years old. They then subject them to a "rapid aging process" that supposedly makes them taste like an average "commodity" bourbon of a greater age. The goal is better tasting bourbon without spending the time and money to wait it out.

I've had one TerrePURE bourbon in the past. Needless to say, Hayes Parker Reserve was not a big hit in this house. So why on Earth would I go back to that particular well again? Well, unlike the last one of these I tried, this one has "straight" on the label, meaning that it is at least two years old. And I was curious if starting with an older whiskey would help the process out. It's easy to make broad conclusions based on a single data point, but honestly, we all know it needs more than one piece of data to start to define a trend.

Winchester Straight Bourbon Whiskey

Purchase Info: $1.99 for a 50 mL bottle at Total Wine, Burnsville, MN

Details: "Aged a minimum of two years in new oak." 45% ABV.

Nose: Grain, bubble gum, menthol, and cinnamon.

Mouth: Cinnamon red hot candies and honey.

Finish: Medicinal menthol notes combine with cinnamon spice and bubble gum.

Thoughts: I was fully prepared to admit that I was wrong about this. That I was wrong about how not awful this was. But then I swallowed. And I felt like I was tasting oral anesthesia mixed with candy. The finish kills this one, which is too bad because the nose and mouth, though young, aren't bad for a two-year-old whiskey. I don't know if it is the whiskey they started with or the fact that it is then "uniquely ultrasonic filtered" that introduced the medicinal anesthetic flavors to the finish. Because they note how the process changes the finish, I'm willing to blame the process, but that is just a guess.

So I got a lot of blow-back the last time I reviewed a TerrePURE whiskey. Folks had purchased it because it was an attractive price and I was essentially called a snob for not liking it. So here's the thing about Winchester. At the store where I bought this, a 750 mL bottle of Winchester runs $24.99. At that same store, I can get the same size bottle of Four Roses Yellow, Evan Williams (Black, Bonded, and Single Barrel), Elijah Craig, Old Weller Antique, Larceny, Bulleit, Woodford Reserve and Old Forester for less than this. I can get Knob Creek for the same price, and I can buy 1792, Maker's 46, Eagle Rare and Four Roses Small Batch for just a buck or two more. I can honestly find no reason to recommend trying this. If you have tried it and you love it, great! That just means more traditional bourbon for the rest of us.

Cask & Crew Blended Rye

June 29, 2017 Eric Burke

I state in my Statement of Ethics that if I accept a review sample, I will disclose it at the beginning of the article. Please consider it disclosed. I’d like to thank Intralink Global for providing this sample to me with no strings attached.

I'm a big fan of taking various whiskeys and mixing them to see if I can't put together something that is greater than the sum of its parts. I do it at home all the time. My thought is that I can increase the variety of the whiskey I drink if I view the juice I buy not only as an end product but also as ingredients in something new.

I like to think of it as making a cocktail, except every component is whiskey. I make it by the glass, and if I get a good combination, I write down the recipe. And I don't just stick to bourbons. I've mixed bourbon and rye, bourbon and malt, rye and corn, and probably others that I am completely forgetting.

But it's not like I'm the first to do this. Various U.S. producers have blended Bourbon and Rye, High West and Wild Turkey come to mind. High West also has a Bourbon/Rye/Scotch blend as well. And heck, practically the entire output of Canadian Whisky is created using separately aged whiskies made from 100% corn, 100% rye, etc. which are then blended to capture the desired flavor profile.

So, on the face of it, the subject of tonight's post should be pretty interesting. I mean, it's an interesting idea, take Canadian Rye Whisky and mix it with Kentucky Corn Whiskey and see what happens. If done right, the result should blend the spice of rye and the smooth mouthfeel of corn. And if I were the one doing it, I'd use a bold 100% Canadian Rye, I'm thinking something like Lot No. 40.

Of course, Canadian Rye means different things to different people. To many in Canada, Rye is just a synonym for Whisky. It really doesn't matter if there is rye in it at all. (Think Coke in place of Soda or Pop in some parts of the U.S.) And if it is just a Canadian Rye that contains little to no rye, then this is effectively the equivalent of a low-rye Canadian whisky that happens to use corn whiskey from two countries.

And so I asked the PR person three questions:

Canadian Rye. What is meant by that? Because Canadians use the term “Rye” for all Canadian Whisky, even if it has little to no fermented and distilled rye grain in it. Is this a Rye Whisky by U.S. standards or by Canadian standards?
If it is a rye by US standards, can you disclose the percentage of rye used in the Canadian whiskey portion of this blend? For example, many people source 100% Rye Canadian Whisky and sell that in the US. (Canadian Club, Whistle Pig, Masterson’s, etc.)
Can you disclose the distillery and/or the province that the Canadian Rye was sourced from or the distillery that the Kentucky Corn whiskey was sourced from?

Out of these questions, they could confirm that the Canadian whiskey they bought would meet the 51% rye standard of a U.S.-style rye whiskey. Beyond that, they were not at liberty to discuss the rest. Which really is too bad. They give so much information on their website, that missing out on what could be some of the more important bits is a bit disappointing. At least as far as knowing just what it is that you are putting in your mouth.

Cask & Crew Blended Rye Whiskey

Purchase Info: Intralink Global generously provided this 750mL sample and two 50 mL Flavored Whiskey samples.

Details: This is a blend of 51% Canadian Rye and 49% Kentucky Corn Whiskey. Both aged three years.

Nose: Sweet with almond, rye bread, and unsweetened cocoa powder.

Mouth: Velvety mouthfeel with some spice at the tip of the tongue. Slight sweetness with almond and a hint of citrus.

Finish: Medium length. Subtle sweetness that quickly fades to be replaced with bitter almond and a lingering spice.

Thoughts: To me, this is an ok whiskey with a pretty terrible finish. I'm just not digging the bitterness of it. If I were tasting and spitting, I'd find the whiskey to be perfectly fine. But since most people who drink whiskey swallow, I'm having a hard time recommending this one.

Of course, drinking this neat may not be what this was intended for. Two-thirds of the company's line-up is flavored whiskey. And more to the point, it is this whiskey, flavored. So maybe this is what was needed to get those other two offerings correct. I don't know, I got samples of the flavored whiskey, but one is flavored with walnuts, something I am allergic to, so I'm not taking chances with either of them.

So for me, this is a hard pass. If you are not as sensitive to bitter finishes as I am, you might like it. I mean the price isn't terrible, as it looks to sell for around $25.

Kentucky Gentleman, or "Don't Get Distracted at the Liquor Store"

January 3, 2017 Eric Burke

Sometimes I go into a liquor store, and I know exactly what I want. Other times, I know roughly how much I want to spend. When I visited the Party Source with a fellow blogger back in September, neither of these were true.

I was in Kentucky to stock up for a few months of blog posts, see some friends and drink some bourbon. And when we made plans to visit the Party Source, I knew I would probably be picking up a few things that I had on the list to bring home. I figured this would be a good time to get some of the non-limited, everyday items out of the way. What I didn't expect to do was get so carried away with tossing things into the cart that I didn't bother to read the labels...either that or I was too busy chatting and wasn't paying close attention. In any case, I found myself with two miniature bottles of Kentucky Gentleman in my cart.

Now if you know what Kentucky Gentleman is, you are probably wondering what could have caused me to pick that up? To you I will say, please see above. If you don't know what Kentucky Gentleman is, be assured you are not alone. I knew it was a cheap whiskey brand and I knew that it probably wasn't worth buying a full bottle of.

It turns out that Kentucky Gentleman is not a bourbon. It is: "A Blend of Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey and Spirits from the Finest Grains." In other words, it's bourbon mixed with neutral grain spirits (NGS or as it is more commonly known unfiltered vodka). It's an American-style Blended Whiskey made from 51% three-year-old bourbon and 49% NGS. And to be honest, it's the first one I've reviewed and possibly the first one I've had since I got serious about whiskey.

So...yay? There's learning to be done here.

Kentucky Gentleman

Purchase info: $0.99 for a 50 mL at the Party Source, Bellevue, KY.

Details: 51% three-year-old bourbon and 49% neutral grain spirits.

Nose: Delicate with light mint and faint baking spices.

Mouth: Flat in the mouth with faint mint and baking spices.

Finish: Short and unbalanced. Medicinal vodka and whiskey notes fight for prominence (and the loser is my mouth).

Thoughts: So...this is not the worst whiskey I've ever reviewed. That honor still goes to the Hayes Parker Reserve. But this is really close to the worst I've reviewed. To be fair, I'm tasting this neat in a Glencairn, which is just the opposite of what it was intended for, which brings me to my major problem with this whiskey.

I'm just not sure what it actually is intended for.

I know that this style of whiskey has long historical roots. I know that it was a way to stretch supplies after prohibition. I know that Seagram's built their business on it. And I know that maybe 40 years ago, people may have hoped it would compete favorably with vodka.

But today, why does anyone buy this stuff? If I want ok whiskey, I have plenty of ok whiskey to buy, much of it sold at the same price point. If I want vodka, same thing. Hell, if I want something that has just a little more flavor than vodka to put a spin on a vodka cocktail, I can buy plenty of new make spirits.

I'm sure that this fills a hole for someone, but I think I've learned that there isn't a hole in my life that an American-style Blended Whiskey can fill.

Are you one of those people that get money for Christmas? If so, how would you like to get yourself something nice and support BourbonGuy.com at the same time? Head on over to BourbonGuyGifts.com to check out some of the fun hand-made items that I create and sell.

Jack Daniel's Gentleman Jack

August 2, 2016 Eric Burke

I’m on vacation this week and am giving you a little bit of whiskey content while I’m off galavanting around the Rocky Mountains. Tonight I should be arriving in Estes Park to spend the rest of the week so if I don't get to approving your comments right away, my apologies.

I’d like to bring up a little pet peeve of mine. Jack Daniel’s. Not the company, they are what they are. For marketing reason Jack Daniel’s chooses not to call their product bourbon. That’s fine by me. They could be the best selling bourbon in the world should they choose, but they don’t they leave that to Jim Beam.

No, the people who bother me are those who make a big deal out of whether it is a bourbon or not. On one side you have folks who claim that it is bourbon in all but name since Jack follows all the same rules as bourbon, they just run it through a big pile of charcoal before they put it into the barrel. The claim is that there is nothing in the rules for bourbon that prohibit this. The other side likes to say that the very act of running it through the charcoal is enough to flavor the whiskey. Some of these, at times, include the folks pouring you a sample of Jack Daniel’s at your local liquor store. They claim the maple charcoal adds sweetness or smoothness or whatever.

Personally, I tend to lean toward the could be bourbon side as, to quote a former Kentucky Master Distiller, “ I never saw a filter add anything to anything.” But honestly, whatever. It’s really none of my concern. It seems to be working out for them so who am I to judge.

Due to the aforementioned pre-filtering, Jack Daniel’s is known for it’s smoothness. The charcoal essentially jump-starts the aging process by getting rid of some of the chemicals that the barrel would end up removing. Regular Jack is pretty gentle. A little too gentle for me. So it was only because I had never reviewed it and because it was on sale that I even picked up the bottle of Gentleman Jack that I am reviewing tonight.

Gentleman Jack is crafted to be even gentler than regular Jack. It is still run through the charcoal filter before aging, but then it gets a second round through it after aging as well. What this does, is strip out a lot of the barrel flavors that they were patient enough to wait for the barrel to put into the whiskey. Most American whiskey is filtered after dumping. Some lightly, some very heavily. When used heavily, it’s often a way to try to remove some of the off-flavors from a whiskey that has become a bit over-aged. But what does it do to a whiskey, that presumably, was similar to the stuff they were putting into another bottle? Let’s find out.

Gentleman Jack

Purchase Info: G-Will Liquors, Andover, MN. Regular price: $21.99 for a 375mL bottle (on sale for $10.99).

Details: “Double Mellowed” 40% ABV

Nose: Grain forward with delicate spearmint, a light fruitiness and just the tiniest hints of oak.

Mouth: Thin and a tad peppery. Fake banana flavor, grain, mint and just a touch of oak.

Finish: Short with banana bread, mint and a rougher burn than I would have expected from something labeled “Double Mellowed.”

Thoughts: While I will admit to not being a fan of regular Jack Daniel’s, there have been a few of their higher-end products that I have really liked. This is not one of them. In fact, I don’t like this at all. I just can’t get past the fake “banana candy” flavor (though for the record, I don’t like banana candy either).

My Wandering Eye: Dusty Cognacs from the 1970s

June 28, 2016 Eric Burke

This post is only part of the My Wandering Eye series as a tangent. It wasn’t cheap. It isn’t readily available. But it was inspired by the exploration of other aged spirits that I conducted as part of the My Wandering Eye series. You see I was trolling eBay looking for photos of old bottles for a project that I’m working on when I happened across a listing from Canada that was offering old miniature bottles from the collection of the seller's deceased parents. In that lot were bourbons, scotches and cognacs. To be honest, the price wasn’t bad…until I got into a bidding war with another person. At which point emotion took over and I ended up dropping about $100 for 15 minis from the 1970s. Of which nine were still full and sealed.

I’ve already reviewed the Wild Turkey I received in the lot, but I was really interested to see what the cognacs in the lot would taste like. I’ve had good brandy and I’ve had terrible brandy. But when I was a kid, cognac in a snifter was visual shorthand for wealth. I was a kid in the 1970s. The fact that these were from that timeframe (even if they were possibly the lower shelf versions) was interesting. So let’s get into it.

Courvoisier V.S.

Details: Pre-1975 is as close to a date as I can figure. The top was dipped in paraffin by the previous owner. Sealed. 80 proof.

Nose: Dried, dark fruit (raisins or figs), sweet baked goods. Basically this has the nose of a Fig Newton.

Mouth: Sweet and rich with a ton of fruit present. There are some baking spices on the back end.

Finish: Short with lingering fruit.

Thoughts: Overall, this is ok. Nothing to write home about and I wouldn’t seek out another, but it was interesting to taste a bit of history. It is sweet and fruit forward. A bit too sweet for my tastes.

Marnier-Lapostolle Cognac

Details: Sept 1972 is printed on the back of the label so I’m going with that for an age. Sealed. 40% ABV

Nose: Birdseed, rubber and a hint of spoiled fruit juice.

Mouth: Sugar sweet with an unpleasant spoiled fruit undercurrent to it.

Finish: Short with lingering spoiled fruit.

Thoughts: There are two options here. One is that maybe there is a reason that, here in the US, Marnier-Lapostolle is known more for their Grand Marnier liqueur than they are for cognac. Maybe they aren’t good at this whole unflavored spirit thing. The other option is that this little bottle has seen some hard times over the last 44 years and the juice just didn’t hold up. I don’t know which it is and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since, of it’s 40 plus years of history, I only know that this bottle was made in France and ended up in the collection of a Canadian collector before coming to me. But wow. This is downright bad.

Hennessy Fine Cognac

Details: Pre-1975 is as close to a date as I can figure. The top was dipped in paraffin by the previous owner. Sealed. 80 proof.

Nose: Ripe peaches along with floral and oak notes.

Mouth: Very sweet. Caramel, dried flowers and hints of baking spice.

Finish: Fairly short with lingering dried fruits.

Thoughts: This was hands down the best of the three. Mostly on the strength of the nose. Peaches are one of my favorite fruits and that ripe peach note grabbed me and wouldn’t let go. Once it got into my mouth though things fell off and since ultimately the point of the liquid is to be consumed, that’s where I judge it. Once again it was ok. There wasn’t much that would lead me to seek it out again though if a friend were pouring, I wouldn’t turn it down. I will say it was much better than the modern day release of the same that I have on hand for making cocktails.

This was an interesting exercise for me. It’s fun to taste what our parents or grandparents tasted. And it’s good to be reminded from time to time that not everything that comes from prior to the time we were born is necessarily as good as we are sometimes lead to believe...it’s just harder to come by.

The Worst American Whiskies I've Had

March 1, 2016 Eric Burke

A Great Big Frowny face because I dislike all of these.

I’ve said it before. I don’t review a lot of bourbon that I don’t like. You might think I am too Minnesotan and don't want to say anything mean or that maybe I don’t have a discerning palate. You might think that I’ve been bought off or that I’m hoping to get free whiskey. You might think a lot of things, but unless you are a long time reader, you’d probably be wrong.

You see, there is a very simple explanation for why I don’t review a lot of bourbons I dislike. I buy almost all of the whiskey I review and I really don’t want to spend money on things I’ll dislike. I’m experienced enough at buying American Whiskey that I kind of know what I like and what I don’t. Of course, that doesn’t mean I haven’t had a stinker or two slip through. And just because I didn’t buy it doesn’t mean that I haven’t tried it.

So in the name of helping you to avoid the stinkers, and because I do get asked this on occasion, tonight I’m presenting you with my list of the 5 worst American Whiskies I’ve had. To qualify, I had to have had it and I have to have wished I hadn’t.

My 5 Worst American Whiskies

(as decided by me and in alphabetical order.)

Hayes Parker Reserve: Terre Pure bourbon aged at least six months. I made the mistake of picking up two minis of this. I think my wife’s comments sum it up perfectly: “You can’t make me put more in my mouth.”

Masterson’s Straight Wheat and Straight Barley Whiskey: These are technically a set of Canadian whiskies, but since they are sold by a US company I’m going to include them here. When these were released, I made a comment about buying them and these are so bad that I had someone in another country volunteer to send me a sample of each so that I didn’t waste my money on them. To this day, I consider that lady to be a very good friend. I tried my samples in nosing glasses in a nice hotel room while feeling very relaxed. A good set up for being forgiving to a whiskey. It didn’t help. I struggled through half a sample of each before dumping them out and finding something tastier to get the flavor out of my mouth.

Rebel Yell: I bought this bourbon as part of the Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets the first year I did them. It lost in the first round to Old Crow Reserve. At the time, I said I didn’t know what I would do with the bottle because I wasn’t going to drink it. I’ve tried blending it, I tried cooking with it. Nothing worked. Eventually I did find a use for it. It became “Prop Bourbon.” When I need to take a photo for a review, but already finished the bottle, I pour my prop bourbon into the empty bottle for the photo. Afterward I dump it back into the Rebel Yell bottle and stick it back in the closet.

Town Branch Bourbon: I have never purchased this bourbon, but I’ve given this a shot on numerous occasions. I keep thinking that it must just be me. But no matter how many times I come back to it, I just don’t like it. It’s a very pretty bottle, but what’s inside I find repugnant.

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Double Malt Selection: This release was two different Malt Whiskies that needed to be purchased separately. I had them at a friend’s house in Louisville. We were both extremely excited to try them and well…he dumped his out. I tried to be polite and finish mine, but was convinced to do the same. This might be the worst thing Woodford has ever released under their name.

Dis-Honorable Mentions

These were also very bad whiskies, but for one reason or another I decided to drop them out of the main category. Either they weren’t quite as bad as the ones above or they are no longer available or available in such limited quantities that they won’t be much help to anyone.

11Wells Rye: This is a small craft distiller here in the Twin Cities. I tasted this at a local retailer along with a group of friends after an event. I also tasted it again at Whiskey on Ice, a local whiskey festival. It’s…not good. Hopefully after some time it will get better but I’ll need to be convinced of that when it happens.

Fleischmann’s Straight Rye: Only available as a plastic handle in Kentucky and Northern Wisconsin, this is not a whiskey to seek out. In fact, it’s not available even in those two places as a “straight” whiskey anymore, that part of the label having been changed. When I bought it, it was less than $12 for a 1.75 L bottle and it was over priced.

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Sonoma-Cutrer Pinot Noir Finish: This is bad. If the Double Malt is the worst thing that Woodford ever put their name on, this is the second worst. I’ve had people tell me I’m crazy, but I found this to be terrible.

Yellow Rose Bourbon: I had this at a tasting event that was held at a local chain a couple years ago. My notes at the time mentioned musty, wet corn flakes. And unfortunately, the $70 price tag on a bottle won’t let me give them another chance. There is very little chance you’ll be seeing this on the site as a full-blown review.

So there you have it. Your list will probably be very different. We all taste things differently and we all like different things, but for me these are the worst American whiskies I’ve ever had. What about you though? What’s the worst you’ve had? Let me know in the comments.

UPDATE: So, after fourteen hundred and some odd days after I first made my opinion known on Rebel Yell, I finally got around to trying it again. Here are my updated thoughts: Rebel Yell: Revisited.

Woodford Reserve Distillery Series: Sweet Mash Redux

February 9, 2016 Eric Burke

Sour mash fermenting is the process of adding a little bit of the leftovers from a previous batch of fermented and distilled mash (called variously: backset, stillage, slop, all that mash that wasn't alcohol, etc) to your current fermentation run. It’s done to adjust the pH so that the little yeasties have a slightly more ideal environment for eating, growing, procreating and excreting precious, precious alcohol.

But what happens at the beginning of the cycle when there isn’t any leftover sour mash left? Well then you’d do a non-soured, or sweet, mash batch (or you'd just adjust the pH in some other manner). By not adjusting the pH you adjust how both enzymes work during cooking and how yeast does its gobbling, procreating and alcohol production during fermentation. Either of which could very possibly lead to different flavors being produced in the end product.

A few years ago, Woodford Reserve released a Sweet Mash bourbon under their Master’s Collection label. They must have thought enough of the effort that they decided to try it out again and released Sweet Mash Redux as one of their first releases in the gift shop only Distillery Series.

Woodford Reserve Distillery Series: Sweet Mash Redux

Purchase Info: $50 for a 375 mL bottle at Woodford Reserve Gift Shop, Versailles KY.

Details: 45.2% ABV. Uses a non-soured mash. Summer 2015 release.

Nose: Corn flakes, warehouse dust and the usual Woodford/Old Forester latex paint note.

Mouth: Strong perfumed grain presence with spearmint, citrus, raisins and a hint of baking spices.

Finish: Baking spices, raisins, citrus and a nice tingle that hangs around a while.

Thoughts: I’m not a huge fan of this one. It is fairly similar to regular Woodford, but with a much stronger perfumed grain and raisin presence that I am finding more than a bit off-putting. The difference is interesting and if you are more interested in being interested by a bourbon than in keeping your $50 for something tasty, feel free to grab it. But otherwise I have a hard time recommending this one on taste alone.

Blog