The Obligatory Robert Parker Post

When Dave Driscoll posted that Robert Parker decided to tackle bourbon, my reaction was a Tourette's attack that I don't feel comfortable repeating here. Most of the writing in the bourbon world has been negative, as exemplified in the thoughtful article by Tim Read at Scotch and Ice Cream. Everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon in decrying this move by Parker, mainly citing his reductive rating system and apparent ignorance of bourbon before reviewing them (to be fair, the article was really hilarious in its ignorance.)

My reaction was somewhat different. I don't actually think Bob is evil. There, I said it. This article from 2000 in the Atlantic paints a very human picture of a guy that discovered he really enjoyed wine and food and made his own business writing his opinions of wines that he tried. He seems to both be a pretty regular guy at base and is also possessed of an almost savant-like power to remember and describe wines. 

Over the years, he has become an unlikely arbiter of wine taste in the world. He has also been demonized for "Parkerizing" the appreciation of wine, and for the increasing trend of winemakers to put out (over)exctracted, aggressively-oaked, high-alcohol wines, in preference to the traditional styles that get fewer "parker points." The silly thing here is that no one is making anyone do anything. The guy likes wines of a certain style and pretty much put the Southern Rhone on the map for this reason. But who said that Bordeaux had to break down and produce black-colored wine that tastes like vanilla ice cream? No one made them, they did it because Parker likes that sort of wine, and wines he likes sell.

Here is the problem. It is us. We, the consumers, are too impressionable by opinion, expectation and peer pressure. Not you and me in particular, obviously, but certainly our friends and acquaintances. When some douchey friend shows up with a $200 bottle of wine that got "98 points" in Parker, we are all impressed. Even if we are not, we can never discount that information enough. Sure, we might not think it was nearly perfect or worth that kind of money, but we are likely to have a positive experience, and our douchey friend will probably buy a case, his friends will do the same, and soon Chateau Petrus is $8000 a bottle.

This is exactly the same thing as happened to Pappy. It was, for many of us, a really nice treat of a bourbon at $50 dollars or so that we loved to share with our friends as an example of how good a bourbon could be. Then the hype machine then took over. We then made it worse by buying all we could as we saw availability declining and prices rising, creating a feedback loop that ends with assholes selling Pappy for $800 in Craigslist.

My fear is that we are going to let this happen to other bourbons (Blanton's seems to have been rated scarily high at 97) that we like. There is only one solution to this: we need to educate each other and our friends better about our favored hobby in an accessible way. We need to create an alternative for the confused guy in the liquor store that is being drawn to the "95 points!" shelf talker. We also need to spread the word that, if his last article is indication, Parker knows very little about bourbon and we don't have to listen to him. This is the reason that he doesn't even try to review Burgundy anymore: he made a number of bad calls and embarrassing mistakes early on, no one listened to him about Burgundy, and now he doesn't even review it anymore. We have to encourage the same thing.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof and Parker's Heritage Collection 2012

Water, lipids and alcohol.

The last 2 variables of bourbon experience we will deal with in this series are the effects of chill-filtration and proof. Often "barrel-proof" and "unchillfiltered" are proudly marked on bottles, and like all "extra" designations ("small batch," "limited," "handmade") these can often motivate higher prices. But what do they really mean, and what effect to they really have.

Proof

This one is pretty easy. The current standard US proof is equal to 2 x ABV, so a bottle containing 50% alcohol would be 100 proof. The term itself was an English one and used to refer to 7/4 the ABV, making 100 proof 57.14% ABV. This was the minimum ABV that spirit mixed with gunpowder would ignite, this providing a handy test for 18th century British captains to "prove" the strength of the rum they used as payment to sailors.

On of the main practical considerations of proof is an economic one. In most places some variation on proof X gallons (or proof gallons) is used to calculate taxes due on whiskey. As such, the tax on the barrel is fixed and can be mitigated by watering down the stuff to the legal minimum. This is why barrel-proof whiskies are not priced as the "bourbon concentrates" that they essentially are, but rather a little higher.

This leads to the first effect of ABV: concentration of flavor. When you tap the barrel it has all of the flavor molecules it is going to have and watering it down, well, waters it down. This is not to say that all whiskey should be drunk at barrel proof (which I do not believe), but that having the producer water it down for you saves them money and prevents you from trying it at full strength or deciding how much water to add. The legal minimum proof is 80, and for American whiskey I find very few examples that taste good with this much water.

So concentrated it blocks out the sun!

That said, water can improve the experience of a whiskey, and this is because there are a number of lipophilic (fat soluble) molecules that impart flavor. Anyone who has ever made bacon infused bourbon can attest to the solubility of fatty flavor compounds in alcohol; these are often not soluble in water. This is highly dependent on alcohol concentration: as the ABV drops, these compounds come out of solution and are easier to taste and smell (hence some of the "opening up" talked about when adding water to spirit). If there are enough of these compounds in the solution, they will cloud the liquid as water is added and they precipitate out. This is what is responsible for the dramatic louche seen when dropping water into absinthe.

That this is not always apparent in whiskey is due to the following variable.

Chill Filtration

People apparently don't like buying cloudy whiskey and they don't like their whiskey to cloud up when they add ice (these are apparently the same evil people that prefer their wine to be clear). In order to prevent this aesthetic disaster, distillers often subject whiskey to chill filtration. In addition to alcohol/water ration, the other thing that effects solubility of fatty acids in whiskey is temperature. So, the distiller proofs down the whisky to the desired strength, chills it until it is cloudy and then filters out all the cloudy stuff. This leaves you with a spirit that will not cloud up when cold or watery, but is also without a number of its flavor compounds. You may like the flavor better after filtration, but it is definitely different.

PHC6 left, ECBP right; both with water

All of that said, then, it would be my preference that all whiskeys be offered at barrel proof and unfiltered because 1) I like their unprocessed flavor and 2) I have access to water and don't mind a touch of cloudiness. That we don't have these is due to 1) the ATF and 2) people who drown their stuff in ice but still want it to look pretty. 

Anyway, today we will finish up with our Heaven Hill series with the Elijah Craig Barrel Proof and the (premsuably barrel proof) Parker's Heritage Collection 2012.

The ECBP is a new offering that is essentially a barrel proof and unfiltered version of the EC12 reviewed in the last post. This offering is 12 years old, but the fact that this is relegated to the back label makes me suspicious that it will always be so. The most recent PHC is a blend of an apparently similar 11 year-old bourbon (we'd have to guess the usual 75/15/10) and an 11 year-old wheated mashbill bourbon (as seen in Larceny and Old Fitzgerald). 

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof 12 years old, 67.1% ABV ($40)
A new offering from heaven hill, this is essentially the EC12 presented at full strength and unfiltered. A you can see from the photo above it is ridiculously concentrated in terms of color, and the alcohol is very high, making us think that it lost a lot to evaporation, especially water (it likely entered the barrel at 62.5%). I would have to guess by this that it came from fairly high up in the warehouse. Tasted uncut:
Nose: Starts of with ethereal notes and very obvious alcohol. Then caramel, dry attic, maple syrup and a hint of charcoal.
Palate: Numbingly high alcohol. Should probably not be put into the body in this form. Popcorn, caramel, cloves and maple with caramel toward the end. Heavy bodied and medium sweet.
Finish: Warming as expected, but clean. The caramel and spice flavors are joined by apple and fade over abour 2 minutes.

 This is interesting and very intense stuff. While I find this easier to drink neat than Bookers, it is just too hot undiluted and actually anesthetizes the palate. As such, I think to drink this at full proof is a mistake as many of the flavors are lost.

Diluted to 107 Proof
Adding distilled water at room temperature produces a glass like the picture above. I've really never seen a whiskey cloud up to this degree before. It even leaves a film of fatty compounds on the walls of the glass. Having watered it, the nose becomes much fruitier and adds apple and pear notes to the above aromas as well as butter; the ethereal quality is also enhanced, leading to a more EC18 like nose in this regard. The palate also improves, adding cherries and anise to the previous flavors. The finish is not notably different.

Overall
As long as you are willing to water it down to a reasonable proof, this is a powerful, hugely flavored version of Heaven Hill's well-liked EC12. To be honest, I think the lack of filtration is more of a draw than the proof, but either way this is excellent stuff for $40 and I have to recommend it highly.
91/100

Parker's Heritage Collection 6th Edition (2012), "Blend of Mashbills" 66.6% ($90)
The yearly PHC releases are considered to represent the best that Master Distiller Parker Beam can put forth from Heaven Hill. Previous releases, such as the 27 year-old bourbon, the Golden Anniversary, and the 10 year-old wheater have been very well received. The most recent offering is a blend of 11 year-old wheated bourbon with 11 year-old standard mashbill bourbon, presented at barrel strength and unfiltered. This move is unusual, and presents us with what is essentially a barrel-proof four-grain bourbon. I can't think of many other examples of that (maybe some versions of Noah's Mill?). In any case, this all sounds interesting, as well as expensive.
Nose: This is an incredible nose. Loads of caramel. Caramel for days. Then cloves/cinnamon and other "spices" and buttered corn. This really smells delicious.
Palate: Much easier, despite proof. Butter, caramel, pastries, cinnamon toast. Noticeable bitterness (the same I find in lot B... maybe a wheater thing?). Sort of boring and disjointed. Neither a wheater nor  a rye bourbon in profile, and the alcohol is pretty high still.
Finish: Still a bit bitter, some wood pops up here as well. Fades quickly.

Watered to 107 proof
Watering this down, as expected, produces cloudiness, though not to the extent of the ECBP (see comparison photo above, in controlled conditions at home they are actually more similar). Something really cool happens here, though. The nose goes from being a classic wheater at full proof, to smelling very like a rye with water. This has notes of wood, maple, strong rye spices,  and even rye bread. Still a very nice, but completely different nose. The palate, unfortunately does not improve and tastes more like an Evan Williams and Old Fitz cocktail. The finish dissappears other than the alcohol burn.

Overall
This is one of the more interesting noses in a bourbon I've run across lately, and the magic change with water is really pretty cool. However, do not find it pleasant to actually drink. The palate seems disjointed and dilution does not really help. I think it would have been interesting if they had marketed this as two, 375 ml bottles and let us try to blend it ourselves, but no one is asking me. Sadly, I think this stuff does not deliver what it should for twice the price of either the 18 or the Barrel Proof.
88/100

So, thanks for joining us on our tour of the Heaven Hill Bourbons and some of the non-mashbill variables that affect our whiskey. In closing, I would recommend buying at least one ECBP. It will last you a long time due to the proof and, even if it is not an every day drinker, it's certainly worth trying out. I would also suggest EC12 as a fine all-rounder that totally over-delivers for $23. I would recommend trying the PHC before you buy it (I still see it on shelves), but I can't really recommend it for the price. For the EC18, I can only suggest you buy as many as possible and send them to me.

Elijah Craig 12 versus 18: The Effects of Aging

Next up in our series is this comparison of Elijah Craig 12 year and Elijah Craig Single Barrel 18 year. The most obvious and most dramatic difference between these two is their age. The 18 is from a single barrel and is 2% lower in ABV, but otherwise these guys start off as the same 75/15/10 distillate at DSP-KY-1. (Thanks Eric, I totally forgot that this 18 was distilled in 1990 and so would have been made at DSP-KY-31; the 12 was at the new plant).As such, these provide a good example of the effects of barrel aging.

When bourbon is aged in its required charred oak barrels, a number of things happen: flavors are extracted from the wood, very slow chemical reactions take place, and evaporation occurs. All three are important, which is why just putting the stuff in a small barrel (as many start-ups do) or mixing it with wood chips does not result in good whiskey as oak flavors are extracted, but little else occurs. (Thanks to my fellow reddit users, especially the flavor chemist, “Flavorless” for expanding this. I have also heavily relied on the text and references from the excellent blog Whisky Science)

Charred Oak Extracts

All bourbon and straight rye whiskies are aged in new, charred oak barrels. Charring is a process where flame is applied to the inside of a barrel to form a layer of charcoal. This can be done for varying lengths of time, resulting in the different “char levels” used by different distilleries. Burning the oak in this way produces reactions that form free sugars that react with proteins. Well these sugars burn (caramelization), they form a lot of the aromas that we associated with caramel, bread, burnt sugar, beer, coffee etc. This burning process has made a lot of new chemical species that are released through smoke, but after the charring is done some compounds remain in the charred wood.

Some of the compounds related to flavor are as follows:

Hemicellulose is broken down by heat of charring and time to furfural (nutty aromas), hydroxymethylfurfural (musty, waxy, caramel aromas), maltol (malty aromas) and cyclotene (maple, caramel, licorice).

Lignins are polymers (long and chain-like molecules) that in the case of oak lignins, have different sugars and aldehydes attached to them. These compounds break down during charring or toasting, but also over time in the native wood to provide a number of characteristic aromas like smoke, spice or floral notes. Most notably, though, are the vanillins, which lend the characteristic vanilla flavor to bourbon.

Lactones occur in a number of conformations and impart coconut-vanilla aromas or a more incense-like aroma; I love the latter when I come across it.

In addition to imparting beneficial flavors to the spirit, the char layer also serves to reduce unpleasant and immature ones. Simplistically, charcoal tends to bind and draw some off flavors out of the whiskey (like your Brita filter), while others are extracted into it.

Native Wood Extracts/Reactions

Beneath the char layer of the barrel, native, uncharred wood remains. As you might predict, this contributes flavors and aromas that one would expect from dry wood, specifically oak. The compounds in this layer contribute to the "oakiness" of the whiskey over time. Oak from different areas and of different species may contribute different flavors. In wine this is why American oak (much more vanilla flavor) is very different than French oak (spicy as well as dill-like flavors). For the whiskey to extract compounds from the native wood, the liquor needs to first pass through the char layer. It is a slow process for the spirit to diffuse through the char layer, and again a slow one for it to extract native wood flavor compounds.  

Most of these compounds are actually bound to polymers (such as the lignins above) that do not readily extract into the spirit, and so must be liberated by hydrolysis reactions that “clip” them off the chains of larger molecules to which they were bound. Once freed, these compounds can be incorporated into the spirit, which must then diffuse back through the char layer (which may filer out other compounds, see below).

As the spirit slumbers away in the wood, seasonal variations in temperature cause the barrel expand and contract and spirit is drawn in and out of the wood, allowing passage of the spirit through the char layer as discussed above. The rate at which this occurs is dependent on a number of factors, including the humidity and temperature of the warehouse as well as the temperature shifts that occur; the more dramatic the temperature changes are, the greater the transit of the spirit in and out of the wood will be. The tightness of the oak grain and the species of oak can also affect this (though American whiskey uses almost exclusively the Quercus alba species).

Other Reactions

In addition to extraction of the charred oak flavors there are other, slower reactions that take place in the barrel. Notably are those involving tannins; familiar to anyone who drinks red wine. These compounds lend mouth-drying astringency to red wine and this effect can also be found in whiskey. Tannins are also involved in a number of chemical reactions that break down unpleasant flavors in the spirit and oxidize alcohols to the ethereal top notes so valued in extra-aged bourbons (the acetone or ether-like aromas in Pappy or Stagg, for example). Tannins also serve to stabilize color.

The important thing about all of these factors is that they take time. The extracted flavors (lactones, vanillins and others) actually come out of the wood relatively quickly (likely by the time a standard 4 year-old bourbon is dumped), but the breakdown of polymers and the reactions with tannins are not very fast at warehouse temperatures and are actually slowed down by alcohol, so it is not unreasonable to expect years or even decades worth of continued flavor evolution from a barrel of spirit, accounting for the increasing complexity of extra-aged whiskies.

Evaporation
In addition to imparting wood flavors, the barrel also serves as a semi-permeable membrane that allows passage of water and alcohol but little else. As such, part of the contents leave the barrel as the "angel's share" each year; about 8% the first year and about 3% per year thereafter. If this occurs in hot, dry environments (high warehouse floors), more water is lost, leading to higher proof spirits (like Stagg); lower floors and higher humidity lead to more alcohol loss (e.g. barrel-strength Four Roses at near 100 proof). Either way, the flavors are concentrated. This typically leads to a more intense spirit, and also one that is significantly more expensive (by our math an 18 year-old barrel will have lost 60% of its original volume)!

So, there really seem to be two phases of barrel maturation: an initial, extractive one and a longer maturation phase. Most young bourbons on the market are basically bottled after the extractive phase (they have pulled out a lot of oak flavors and have had new-make flavors tamed by the charring). However, the truly special whiskeys make it through many years of concentration and chemical reactions that lead to much more complex complements if volatile chemicals and thus more complex aromas and flavors. That said, it is actually an art to produce such whiskies, as there is a reasonably high risk that too much time in a barrel can lead to whisky that is just too "woody."

Anyway, on to the reviews at hand:

Elijah Craig 12 year-old KSBW 47%ABV ($24)
Nose: Lots of caramel and honey, some corn and vanilla, no overt oak.
Palate: Very smooth, medium sweetness, some popcorn, lots of caramel, touch of oakiness
Finish: Simple: predominantly again vanilla and caramel, but clean and nicely warming.
Overall: 90/100

Elijah Craig 18 year-old Single Barrel KSBW 45%ABV ($43) Guest note by Greg

Nose: volatile, acetone, vanilla, nutty

Palate: possibly the weakest part, slight astringency and a little alcohol poking through, nice buttery and vanilla notes (I like the tannins here, however)

Finish: long but subtle finish, the flavors and tannins coat the mouth and are slowly released over time or after a drink of water, very nice.
(Bottle was from Barrel #3893)
Overall: 92/100

Both of these bourbons were far and away better than their Evan Williams cousins. The 12 year just exceeds the EWSB in every way and is the same price, higher proof and is easier to find. Everyone should go buy one of these that has not tried it and should give it serious consideration for official bourbon of the summer: it is great neat, actually handles rocks well and is cheap enough to share with your friends that want to put coke in it.

The 18 year was for many years the most affordable extra-aged bourbon and is now universally missed. It has become, in Greg's words, the girl from high school that you never really noticed until she was gone. I will pull a hipster and assert that I liked it before it was cool: I thought it stood up well to Pappy and was criticized for this. But even I took for granted that I could pretty much wait for the periodic sales when it would dip below $40 and not give it too much of a second thought. Now it is off the market in favor of the $130, 20 year version. God I wish I had bunkered a case of this stuff. That said, your experience may vary a bit as with all single barrel products, but definitely buy this if you can find it. If you do not enjoy it I will happily dispose of any unused portion.

Overall, I think these are two excellent examples of the best features of Heaven Hill: very well-made, very well priced, and very classically styled bourbons. These may not be the absolute pinnacle of bourbondom, but I'm pretty sure that if you don't like these, you don't like bourbon.

Greg's Thoughts
Elijah Craig 18 year is not a current product.  This makes me sad.  I had only had it two times before it got the axe - presumably to make way for the MUCH more expensive 20 year version on shelves now - and was underwhelmed the first time, and modestly impressed the second.  The second experience motivated me to grab 3 bottles when I heard it was being retired, and that is what makes me sad.  I should have gotten more.  A lot more.  The EC 18 is somewhat similar to the Eagle Rare 17, and that is a great thing.  While the 2011 and 2012 ER 17 needed a few months of air to transform into something wonderful, this bottle has been great from the first pour.  It has those wonderfully interesting tannins that you only get from a long time in barrel and I love it.  I am not as good with flavor descriptions as Ryan, so I will sum up my review thusly: my Evan Williams vintage 2000 has been open for over a year and is 40% full, the EC 12 open for a year and is 25% full, the EC 18 was opened 2 weeks ago and probably won't make it to a month old.  The only caveat is that the EC 18 is a single barrel product and I have read reviews of variable quality.  That being said, if I can find any lightly dusty bottles still on the shelf for sub $50, I will not hesitate to purchase more.

Next: Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, PHC 2012 and Chill-Filtration

Heaven Hill and the Variables of Bourbon

I have been thinking for a while about the different influences that lead to the profiles of our favorite bourbons. Almost everyone goes on about mashbill (the complement of grains), but while this is very important to the final flavor, there are a number of other important factors.

Wanting to explore this further, wanting to talk about something more interesting than a straight review, and really wanting to drink some of these, my friend Greg and I dipped into our hoards for a very diverse set of bourbons that (with one exception) start off as the exact same whiskey and end up very different. It is also time for Greg's long overdue entry into writing about whiskey.

For our first comparison, we evaluated 2 bottles of Evan Williams Single Barrel, bottled in 2000. What makes this comparison potentially interesting is the variable known as barrel selection. The reason "single barrel" bourbons are potentially fun (but not always superior) is that they can show off just how different seemingly identical barrels can become. Bourbons distilled identically and aged for the same amount of time can differ for a few reasons. Warehouse placement may lead to a barrel experiencing more heat (often in the higher floors of the warehouse) leading to an increase in water evaporation and thus a concentration of flavor, color and alcohol. They may also be exposed to more dramatic temperature changes: this leads to more dramatic wood influence as the spirit is drawn more deeply into and out of the barrel staves. Differences in the barrels themselves may also impart differences (they are from non-identical trees after all); apparently the grain of the wood can also impact flavor. And sometimes, there seems to be no real way to know why one barrel is different from another. Here's a great video  on Drink Spirits by Heaven Hill's Larry Kass about the subject. But on to the bourbons:


Evan Williams Single Barrel 2000, Barrel 655 vs Barrel 192 (Both 86.6 proof, 9 years old, $25)

This is an annual release from Heaven Hill, adhering to their standard 75/15/10 mashbill. Notably this is not actually a limited release as such; they continue bottling to meet demand each year. It has regularly been around 9 years old is reasonably priced and is a darling of critics, especially the 2000 vintage we opened: John Hansel gave it an incredibly high 95 points in Whisky Advocate, and most other reviews followed suit.

In this case, barrel 192 went to sleep in the wood 11/8/2000, while 655 stayed up until 12/16/2000

Barrel 655
Nose: Oak and polished furniture first, then vanilla buttercream, faint cloves, cinnamon and dried herbs.
Palate: Medium weight, obviously corn-heavy: popcorn, vanilla, some caramel. Hint of butter.
Finish: Flavors from the palate persist briefly,  fading over 30s. Some roasted nuts and bitterness (hazelnuts?).
Overall: 80/100

Barrel 192
Nose: More muted. Corn and light vanilla predominate with a hint of sawdust.
Palate: More interesting with an incense spiciness, more cinnamon and cloves and more caramel. Some tannins here as well.
Finish: Nearly identical to the 655
Overall: 80/100

Sitting in the corner 

These bourbons are "correct." Really they most evoke the thought: "Yep. That's bourbon." This is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a really boring thing. If this were a student it would get a "C." The kind of "C" where you really want to give a "D," but you know they will just go bitching to the Dean for an appeal... I really wanted to like these.

Anyway if there is some interest that can be wrung from this experience is how different they are: the nose on the 655 was actually rather nice, while the palate on the 192 had significantly more wood and interest for me. We have no idea where the 95 point rating came from, but I suppose that it may illustrate how different single barrels offerings can be.

Given that the nose of 655 excelled and the palate of 192 won, we decided to vat them together and see what happened. While this was certainly no scientific experiment, we decided our "extremely small batch" bourbon was actually a small improvement, which I think argues for the potential benefits of "vatting" or "batching" (just don't say mixing as it implies the addition of neutral spirits), but more about that  another day.


Greg's Thoughts:

As Ryan mentioned, these two are clearly bourbon, but just that.  I think Heaven Hill deserves a good deal of respect on the consistency front as both barrels were very similar.  As for differences, 655 had a slight edge in the nose, and 192 a slightly better palate, but both were pretty boring.  In general, I have found that I prefer older American whiskey (old wheated bourbon and really old rye) that are at least 90 proof and neither of these bottles changes my opinion.  At 9-ish years old there is plenty of age here - the vanilla and tannic notes are present and really nice - but I can't help but think that these bourbons would be much improved with a slight bump in proof to say 90-95 (all the Evan Williams single barrels that I have from 2000-2002 are 86.6).  Oh yeah, and let's drop the cold filtration as well and leave in some of those possibly delicious fatty acids.  Both are tasty and inexpensive whiskeys that would be excellent introductions to those new to bourbon - they are lower in alcohol and have no burn when drunk neat and offer very typical bourbon flavors.

But let's move on to why I am so critical of the Evan Williams bottles: Elijah Craig.  More specifically, Elijah Craig 12 year and the recently departed Elijah Craig 18 year (more about that soon).  The 12 year version is routinely available for sub $30 in my area while the 18 year was purchased for $42.  Herein lies the issue.  The EC 12 and Evan Williams can be had for the same price, and I liked the EC 12 more in every way. The additional age and proof gave it a better nose and longer finish.  Plus, the 94 proof makes it a great candidate for a few ice cubes on a hot summer day.  Now, if you are very sensitive to the drier notes that come from extra oak - they are definitely present here - then this may be a negative, but for me this is one of the great values in bourbon.
-----


Anyway, it gets better. This was only a warmup. Next we will look at the effects of aging (Elijah Craig 12 versus 18), the effect of proof and chill-filtration (EC12 versus Elijah Craig Barrel Proof), and just for fun we'll compare ECBP to Parker's Heritage Collection Mix of Mashbills.

Evan Williams Black Label Review

While preparing my upcoming series on EWSB, Elijah 12, 18, barrel proof and PHC, I realized that I had not had the regular old black label in many, many years. Picked up a 200ml at a really sketchy place while dusty hunting (found a WT American Spirit!), so I thought I’d give him a shot for a quick review as the basic prototype of the whole Heaven Hill Range. For comparison is a bottle of EWSB 2000 (barrel 655).



Evan Williams KSBW, 43%ABV ($4.59 the 200ml, just found out it’s on sale for $11.50/ 750mL in PA)

Nose: Classic Heaven Hill and reminds me most of the Current VSOF. Mint, cinnamon lime rinds, caramel
Palate: Relatively thin, sweet entry. Lots of cinnamon and caramel. Vanilla is here but only a touch of actual “oak” flavor. Hint of light roast coffee.
Finish: Sweet and about 45s long. Echoes the palate and then finishes minty and with a very faint hint of gummy candy Overall I am shocked by how good this is. Where was this in college? Why would anyone drink JBW? Anyway, this will be my go to recommendation for anyone looking to save money and have a nice drink. 83/100

What is most notable is that this earns 3 points more than the EWSB for my palate (that review is upcoming). While the black is fresh and has a lot going on (especially like the cinnamon), the single barrel I have just tastes like very generic and watery bourbon (though the nose is trending toward nice.)

Beam Bourbons Part 2: Small Batch Collection

Sorry for the short break, but I'm back, it's Friday and I finally have time for a  tasting session.

Having started tasting the "Small Batch Collection" with the comparison of Basil Hayden's to its younger, OGD brethren, it is only natural to finish out the Small Batch Series. Unlike "single barrel," "small batch" is a term in the whiskey industry with no mutually agreed-upon definition. Operationally, it tends to mean a product produced in significantly smaller batches than the base level product (in this case "Jim Beam"). Also presumed (sometimes incorrectly) is the idea that these smaller batches allow the distiller to target a more specific profile through barrel selection favoring characteristics that might be otherwise obscured if they just mixed them all together.

The term and marketing idea itself was created by Booker Noe, then the master distiller at Jim Beam in 1987, and began with his namesake Booker's, a barrel-strength and unfiltered bourbon aged around 7 years. This was in the early days of premium bourbon offerings and was likely in response to offerings like Blanton's, the first single barrel bourbon, itself released in 1984. Since the release of Booker's, the Small Batch series has expanded and now includes:

• Booker's: aged 7 years, 120–129.2 proof (60–64.60% ABV)
• Baker's: aged 7 years, 107 proof (53.5% ABV)
• Basil Hayden's: aged 6-8 years, 80 proof (40% ABV); recently lost it's age statement.
• Knob Creek: aged 9 years, 100 proof (50% ABV), with a 9 year, 120 proof (60% ABV) single barrel expression.

As noted in the Basil Hayden's post, that bourbon uses the OGD mashbill of 27% rye, while Booker's, Baker's and Knob Creek all share a traditional high-corn mashbill with 15% rye (the same as Jim Beam). The latter 3 will be the subject of this review and will serve, I hope, to illustrate how important barrel selection and aging can be in imparting a flavor profile to bourbon. As I've said before, mashbill is important but I think we can get too hung up this one variable. These will be tasted in order of proof so as to avoid burning out my palate unfairly.

Knob Creek KSBW 9 years old, 50% ABV ($32/ 750mL)

Nose: Oak, vanilla, earth and citrus first, then noticeable cinnamon candy. No trace of acetone or other volatile aromas. Intense overall and here the earthy yeasty quality is well matched by the other aromas.

Palate: Medium bodied with noticeable alcohol on the attack despite the 9 years. The palate brings more earth, lots of oaky/vanilla flavors, cinnamon, cloves and small amounts of orange. A bit hotter than would be preferred for a 9 year 100 proofer.

Finish: The initial finish continues the palate quite pleasantly and is rather warming, but then trails off quickly, leaving a faint and less than ideal bitterness.

On Ice: Interestingly, this is one of they few bourbons that I have had that can not only stand up to ice but improves on the rocks. Perhaps this should not be surprising as I'm sure most of the KC made is drunk in this fashion. I find that ice fixes the hot palate immediately, and brings much more prominent vanilla and clove notes to the fore. Apparent sweetness also increases. The only part that suffers is the nose, which becomes predictably more muted.


84/100 (but a champion on ice will be my go to once temperatures dictate ice in my drinks this summer)

Baker's KSBW 7 years old, 53.5% ABV (~$40/ 750mL)

Nose: Notable for much less Beam yeastiness. Very prominent caramel here as well as oak, honey, cloves and a wisp of acetone. More of a dry attic/ furniture oak aroma here.

Palate: Thinner than the Knob, but apparently less hot despite the increased alcohol. The palate here is much more balanced with caramel, toasted bread, and popcorn along with caramel, honey and vanilla. Very well balanced.

Finish: The finish is more focused on vanilla, has less of the bitterness I found in the Knob and fades gradually and more cleanly, leaving a note of apples.


Overall I like this one, and find it far more refined and pleasant to drink neat than the KC. It is on the generic side, but it is clear that this batch was selected from barrels than show an impressive degree of balance, versus the more raw intensity of the Knob Creek. This, as has been said elsewhere, seems a good crossover for brandy drinkers and I am now sad I missed the PA closeout sale of this ($25). For the full list price, though, it is a bit generic: it has no real flaws, but has little of special interest. I like the departure from the Beam house style into something more elegant, though.


87/100

Booker's KSBW 6-8 years old, 63.7% ABV, ($50)

Nose: Much more intense; round. Lots of earth, lots of vanilla. Seriously lots of vanilla. Otherwise more similar to the Knob than the Baker's, but I can't overstress how powerful the vanilla is here.

Palate: Good Christ. This is anesthetic at full proof, and while vanilla, oak and toast flavors arrive, they are fleeting and lost in the alcohol.

Finish: Alcohol and maybe some apples. Really just feels like GERD.

So, this is not really pleasant at full proof, as I think tends to be the case with most barrel strength American whiskies that reach into the 120s. Some bottles of Stagg are an exception; this is not. However, while I rarely enjoy a mouthful of alcohol like this, I do favor high proof bottles for the reason that you can taste them undiluted, and then make your own decision about how much water to add. And so:

Watered to 107 proof and rested for 5 min:

The nose remains very pleasant, with the vanilla toned down a bit and a bit more nuttiness coming forward along with some honey and citrus. Smells more like dessert than a bottle of vanilla extract and is really rather nice. The palate is really much improved as well and is very different from the Baker's despite similar age and proof. This is much more forward, still hotter, but sweeter and more focused on desert-like flavors than spices or oak. The finish too is more manageable and fades into apples, vanilla and a cooling sensation that I usually associate with good distillation.

87/100

Tasting these together, as I had hoped, has been an interesting exercise in the effect of barrel selection and (maybe) aging on flavor, considering they all enter barrels as basically identical spirits. The Knob Creek seems like it was designed to be iced, and in this capacity I will likely see it again this summer; even with the extra 2 years in oak factored in, this seems a very different bourbon from the other two.

The Booker's and Baker's comparison at 107 I think is the most illustrative: they are totally different. Baker's has a much more refined and balanced profile, though maybe to the point of boring, while the Booker's is much more aggressive if rough.

Overall these are all well-made and pleasant bourbons, but other than waiting for a sale to buy some Knob to drink in the rocks on my roof deck this summer, I probably won't buy these again. I like the other 2, but I just don't think they represent a good value at the prices for which I usually see them listed. The Booker's and Baker's are about equal to each other in price per proof, but the former is too rough and too much a vanilla bomb, while the latter lacks interest. There is just too much good competition for these to move me to spend $40-50. At a 15-20% discount, however, I might be swayed.

Transparency in the American Whiskey Industry

For better discussion, this has been moved to r/bourbon. See you there.