Whiskey Review: Wild Turkey 101 Bourbon

What more is there to say about this bourbon that hasn't been said before? One of the classics of the American market, it has become even more popular lately as the prices for new releases and once dependable staples have risen precipitously while Turkey has remained affordable.

I've reviewed this one before from a miniature, so maybe it's appropriate that I'm now going in the other direction by reviewing it from a handle. They were under $40 at my local Trader Joe's a while back, which was a deal I couldn't pass up. It's largely gone into cocktails since then, but it also feels important to see what it's like neat.

Wild Turkey 101 Bourbon

Nose: classic bourbon corn notes, bread dough, strong oak and vanilla, fresh berries. After adding a few drops of water the alcohol heat initially expands, but it eventually settles down and the profile remains roughly the same.

Taste: barrel, grain, and alcohol sweetness up front, big berries and raisins in the middle, fading into moderately hot but not overly tannic oak with a touch of rye at the back. After dilution the heat fades a bit, the berry notes in the middle massively expand, and the oak is less tannic.

Finish: a hot mix of corn, rye, berries, and oak

Well, nothing overly complex, but a solid example of a medium rye bourbon. While it comes off as a bit hotter now, the strong berry notes are enough to keep me engaged. More complexity would be welcome, but my expectations are calibrated by the price. With so many American whiskeys of dubious value rolling out, it's comforting to know that something decent can be had without splashing out a ton of money.

Black-ish Manhattan

1.5-2 oz bourbon
0.5-1 oz amaro
1 dash Angostura bitters
1 dash orange bitters

Combine all ingredients, stir with ice for fifteen seconds, then strain into a chilled coupe. Garnish with cocktail cherries (and a splash of syrup if you want a sweeter drink).

The nose is dominated by the bourbon's oak, plus some flashes of aromatic bitters and mint from the amaro. The sip opens with bourbon and amaro sweetness, then fades into an herbal cola bittersweetness at the back. The finish is balanced between oak, bitterness, and herbal dark cherry notes.

I made this drink two different ways - once with a 3:1 ratio and once with a 2:1 ratio. The former was rather lean and even more oak driven, good for folks who like their Manhattans dry. The cherry syrup almost felt necessary just to give it some body. The 2:1 version is much more plush and approachable, though it will depend a lot on which amaro you use. I ended up using Lucano because that seemed like the closest thing I had to Averna. It'd be fun to try with something more assertive like Ramazzotti, but you could also go with something easier like Cynar. Overall I'm a fan, though I felt like it needed to warm up a bit before I got the full flavor.

Whiskey Review: Henry McKenna 10 Year Single Barrel #2064

Until pretty recently Henry McKenna Single Barrel went largely under the radar. While other single barrel bourbons flew off the shelves and rose in price, it was almost always available with no markup. All of that changed after it won an award, which seems to be red meat for a certain kind of bourbon customer. Whiskey nerds and flippers fanned out across the country, buying up every bottle they could lay hands on. I now regularly see posts with people crowing about their finds.

I bought this one long before the madness set in, so let's find out if it's worth the hype.

This whiskey was barreled on February 7th, 2005, then bottled at 50%.

Henry McKenna 10 Year Single Barrel #2064

Nose: a little on the hot side with a fair bit of alcohol, rich caramel/toffee and American oak, milk chocolate, corn, mint and berries in the background. After adding a few drops of water the heat significantly diminishes, but the overall structure remains much the same.


Taste: sweet and fruity with berries up front, a sweet corn and vanilla undercurrent throughout, fading into moderate oak with mint in the background. After dilution the heat mostly fades up front to reveal more pronounced sweetness and less bitter oak at the back, but some of the complexity drops out to give a simpler profile.

Finish: balanced corn sweetness, oak, and mint with some berries in the background

While not life-changing, this is a really good bourbon that didn't cost me an arm and a leg. I first tried it at an OMSI After Dark event and managed to find a bottle locally, on sale, for $30. Since then I've been slowly drinking it down, enjoying it without finding it spectacular. With the more recent hype I've found myself wryly amused, unclear what everyone is falling over themselves to buy. While I think it's always been a quality bourbon, I'm not sure that it's really head and shoulders above more readily available releases from the likes of Four Roses. Back at MSRP I would have reached for it ahead of Four Roses Single Barrel, but now the choice would be much easier. I hope everyone is enjoying the bourbon they paid stupendous markups for, but until the market calms down I think I'll let this one be.

Can the Compass Box Model Work With Other Spirits? Pt. I - Distillery Profiles

As most of the revival of scotch whisky focused on the abundant single malts available in the 1990s and early-2000s, blends continued to be seen by many as bland and uninspired. John Glaser made it his mission to change that perception. Founded in 2000, Compass Box emerged from the roles he had played in the wine trade and at Diageo as the marketing director for Johnnie Walker. This gave him exposure the process of blending, a background in wood management, and the relationships needed to access casks. The company's first release, Hedonism, was an unheard of before luxury blended grain whisky. Subsequent blends and blended malts (whatever term they were known by) continued to expand the approach by creating new flavor profiles from distilleries that, if not named directly, were strongly hinted at.

I asked myself why this model hasn't been replicated in many other spirits, especially rum, from a question posed by Josh Miller on Twitter. While many other spirits have long traditions of producing multi-distillery blends - think of British navy rum or the large cognac houses - few have managed to make the process and results of blending exciting in the way Compass Box has done for scotch whisky blends.

Much of this comes out of the particular history of malt whisky production in Scotland - while it was blend-centric for much of its existence, independent bottlers and eventually the distilleries themselves made the profiles of individual distilleries popular in their own right. These created known quantities that John Glaser was able to riff on, twisting expectations in ways that made the results thrilling. Clynelish is at the core of many of their blends, ranging from the standard GKS Artist's Blend, Oak Cross, and Spice Tree releases, to one-offs like Eleuthera and the Lost Blend. Similarly Laphroaig and Caol Ila have been at the heart of many of their peated blends such as Peat Monster, Flaming Heart, and GKS Glasgow. These more well-known profiles are inflected with less well-known malts and grain whiskies from the likes of Teaninich, Dailuaine, Invergordon, Cameronbridge, Ledaig, or Ardmore.

For most of the spirits world these individual distillery profiles simply haven't penetrated the consumer consciousness in the same way. There are exceptions, such as the profiles of American bourbon and rye distillers, though their origins are often obscured. There is also growing awareness of Jamaican, Guyanese (well, really the sub-marques of DDL), and Martiniquaise r(h)um distilleries or, in a far more limited fashion, Armagnac farm distilleries.

The bottler who has most closely approached the Compass Box model is High West. Founded in 2006, it has taken a similar approach to blending, primarily bourbon or rye, to create new profiles. While this began in no small part as a way to produce cash flow while starting up a distillery from scratch, they have become famous for their blending skills as much as for their own production. A major difference is that High West, at least at the beginning, was significantly constrained in how much information they could divulge. The American whiskey market had no history of independent bottlers revealing their sources, preferring instead to cloak them in veils of fake history. This led to customers attempting to suss out sources from the reported mash bills and other clues. In a sense, High West performed almost the opposite function by making profiles such as those of LDI/MGP or Barton rye famous that had otherwise been completely unknown.

In the rum world what we have seen more of so far are blends from multiple named countries, rather than multiple named distilleries, such as Banks or Plantation. These approach the spirit of Compass Box, but also serve to flatten the diversity within individual countries. While the distilleries of Jamaica or Barbados may share similarities, much as the classic Scottish regions may once have, this doesn't have the same kind of granularity. As Linkwood is not Craigellachie or Glenfarclas, Hampden is not Longpond or Worthy Park. Clément is not Depaz or Neisson.

One release closer to the mark comes from the armagnac bottler L'Encantada. They have done a significant amount of work bringing attention to armagnac farm distilleries, creating excitement about their individual profiles, albeit through single casks. Their XO bottling was a blend of a handful of different single casks from distillers that they had previously bottled casks from. This closely approaches the Compass Box model of riffing on known quantities to create new and exciting profiles.

In many ways this is a chicken and egg problem - without widespread knowledge and appreciation of individual distillery profiles there is less drive for blenders to highlight them, but without engaged customers seeking to discover those individual profiles there is little incentive to put them front and center. We can see glimmers within other spirits categories that this may come about with time and increasingly curious customers, but it may be that relative ignorance will prevent blenders from operating in quite the same mold as Compass Box.

The Physics of Double Retort Pot Stills and Thumpers

Pot stills are the oldest form of distillation and continue to be used across the world, but one of their main limitations is that the maximum ABV that can be attained in a single distillation is ~45% from standard 8-10% ABV wash. The small amount of high proof spirit from the first distillation will also be highly contaminated with low boiling compounds that range from unpleasant to unsafe, so it has traditionally required at least two pot still distillations to produce flavorful, drinkable spirit.

But double distillation is slow and expensive. Each run requires charging the still, consuming lots of fuel to heat it up, and cleaning out the remains in the pot after a run is complete. It also requires complex logistics to balance the flow of raw material through mashing, fermentation, and distillation so that equipment is being efficiently utilized. Distilling has always been a volume-driven business, so the more time it took to produce marketable spirit the less money a distiller was making on the vast amount of capital they had sunk into their plant, inputs, and labor. Somewhere in the 17th or 18th century distillers had the clever idea of hooking multiple pot stills together to perform multiple distillations simultaneously in series.

These types of stills are now uncommon, but can still be found in a number of rum distilleries across the Caribbean such as the double retort systems at DDL in Guyana (both the Port Mourant wooden 'double' pot still and John Dore high ester still), Appleton, Hampden, and Worthy Park in Jamaica, and Foursquare and Mount Gay on Barbados. They can also be found in many bourbon distilleries coupled to column stills under the title of 'doubler' or 'thumper'. All perform a secondary or tertiary distillation to boost the ABV of the output without having to manually perform a second or third distillation.

I've written before about the physics of pot stills and that background will be important for understanding what happens when they are connected to a retort. In essence all of this comes down to a bit of plumbing - while the lyne arm of a traditional pot still is connected directly with a condenser, a retort pot still passes the lyne arm into a additional pot still. This can either direct the hot vapor into liquid where it bubbles through and heats the contents through residual heat or the vapor can first be condensed then passed into the next pot where it is heated again and undergoes another distillation. In either case some portion of the liquid has to be passed back to the previous pot to maintain the liquid level as water and feints are left behind from the increasingly enriched vapor. Importantly, when this is a batch process being fed by a pot still all that is being changed is how many times the vapor is being redistilled. The distiller still makes heads, hearts, and tails cuts just like with a simple pot still.

Double retort pot still with rectifying column at the Worthy Park distillery from The Floating Rum Shack

One of the most important parts of this process is what goes into the retort. If you put pure water in the retort the ABV of the output will not be significantly boosted, but some of the more water-soluble compounds may be scrubbed out, kind of like a hookah or bong. At many distilleries that use these systems, the retorts are loaded with what are called 'low wines' and 'high wines' (see labels on retorts in photo of Hampden Estate below), which are respectively the tails and heads from previous distillations diluted to differing degrees depending on the desired output. Others, such as DDL, combine the heads and tails together before loading them into the retort. This replicates the practice in many distilleries with simple pot stills of recycling feints back into the wash still for redistillation. A visual description of that process can be found here. For more flavorful spirits, stillage or dunder (what remains in the pot after a previous run) can also be charged into the retorts to boost the ester content in the Cousin's process (this is a sufficiently complex topic that it will get its own post at a later date).

To cite one example of how a retort pot still operates, this report claims that Appleton's double retort pot still starts with 8% ABV wash that is converted into roughly 30% ABV output, which goes through the first retort charged with 30% ABV low wines and is converted into roughly 60% ABV output, which goes through the second retort charged with 75% ABV high wines to give a final product at 80-90% ABV.

Double retort pot still at Hampden Estate from Leonardo Pinto

While the dynamics of retorts fed with the condensed output from the previous still (doublers in bourbon parlance) are basically the same as any other pot still, a vapor feed creates far more complex dynamics. What happens to the vapor bubbling through the liquid in the retort is dependent on a large number of influences that will shape the output. Thanks go out to user The Black Tot from the Rum Project forums, who did a pretty thorough job of thinking through what's happening in a retort.

Vapor from the pot still emerges into the liquid in the retort, initially at a much higher temperature than the liquid. The height of the liquid in the retort creates pressure that compresses the bubble. These forces will make the bubble partially or completely collapse as the temperature drops and the pressure rises, driving the vapor within the bubble below its condensation point. The heat from the vapor, both from its initial temperature and the gas to liquid phase change, will be added to the liquid. That process will be more or less complete depending on the temperature of the liquid, the pressure in the liquid where the bubbles emerge, and the size of those bubbles. Low temperature liquid with a lot of depth and small bubbles will encourage complete collapse, while higher temperature liquid without much depth and larger bubbles will be more likely to reach the surface of the liquid and burst. The first case will give better separation as the liquid is gently heated, while the second case will give less separation as the liquid is quickly heated and boils turbulently, mixing up heavier and lower boiling components.

The interplay between the size of the retort and the volume of the charge in it play an important role in determining how much heat will be lost from the system through radiant cooling and influence how much reflux is generated in the retort. A larger retort with a smaller charge will result in more cooling and more reflux, while a smaller retort with a larger charge will result in less cooling and less reflux. The charge will be influenced by how the stills are set up to handle the mass balance of the system - vapor enters the retort, gives up its heat, and the alcohol is preferentially vaporized again. The enriched vapor stream leaves water behind, which will tend to increase the amount of liquid in the retort. This is usually dealt with by passing some of the liquid back to the previous pot, but that can be plumbed in different ways. An outlet with a vapor lock part way up the wall of the retort can help to maintain a constant liquid level, while one leaving at the bottom will have a flow dependent on relative pressures in each vessel, though this can also be controlled with a valve if the distiller wants to vary the conditions over the course of a run. In some ways this is also analogous to a purifier pipe in the lyne arm of a pot still, passing material back to be redistilled and giving a greater amount of total reflux through the system.

All of these parameters give a distiller multiple ways to control the process and output, resulting in full-bodied 'pot still' spirits in a single run that would take a standard pot still two to three distillations to match. In my next article in this series I will describe how this concept was transformed into the batch column stills that have become so common in the craft distilling industry.

Why Doesn't America Have Independent Bottlers Like Everywhere Else?

People who become interested in scotch will invariably discover the seeming multitude of independent bottlers who buy spirit or mature casks from any number of distilleries and bottle it (usually) with the name of the distillery prominently displayed on the label. Some are long established companies, like Gordon & Macphail or Signatory, while others are small operations that bottle a handful of casks before fading into obscurity. But with rare exceptions *cough*Glenfarclas*cough* the owners of the distilleries that they source spirit from are perfectly willing to have other companies use the names of those distilleries on their products.

The situation in America is very different. While there have always been companies that operated on roughly the same principle - buy whiskey from large distilleries and bottle it under their own labels - it is extremely rare for those labels to state exactly where the whiskey was distilled, other than the state it came from. With rare exceptions, e.g. LDI/MGP, that makes it very difficult to determine who made the whiskey in a bottle.

Until fairly recently, no one was particularly bothered by this state of affairs. But the whiskey boom of the last 5-10 years has resulted in a confluence of factors that has radically altered drinkers' attitudes. There has been a proliferation of new outfits buying whiskey from major distilleries and bottling it under their own labels at the same time as a lot of genuine new microdistilleries have been opened as a result of the increase in demand for new whiskey. On top of this, many of those drinkers are very interested in knowing exactly where the spirit they're consuming came from and how it was made.

This has, unsurprisingly, led to a lot of shifty dealing. The now classic example is Templeton rye whiskey. They were one of the first outfits to discover the untapped resource of Lawrence Distillers Indiana (LDI), which had been quietly producing a unique 95% rye mashbill whiskey. As a distillery that was already focused on selling bulk whiskey, they were perfectly happy to sell it to a new company. Templeton took that whiskey, added a story about Al Capone's favorite rye and how the recipe had been handed down over the generations, and proceeded to sell it at a very healthy markup.

It was a pretty good business plan. For a while. While plenty of customers and journalists were willing to swallow the story whole (in no small part because even some of the most knowledgeable people in whiskey didn't know about LDI when Templeton was first released), others started poking around and eventually sussed out the source. It took a while for the facts to percolate into public consciousness, but they have now resulted in a lawsuit against Templeton claiming false advertising. Similar accusations have been leveled against Whistlepig, who sourced 100% rye Canadian whiskey while giving a wink and a nod about their farm distillery in Vermont (which didn't have any stills), and Michter's, who have taken the name of a famous and now defunct distillery and used it to sell sourced whiskey.

Many other outfits, while not being intentionally shady, never state exactly where their sourced whiskey is from for the simple reason that most of the major distilleries include nondisclosure clauses in their sales contracts (though MGP no longer does). So even when a bottler would like to state the provenance of their whiskey, they are left with little to do but drop hints, rather than stating the source plainly. A few will disclose the mashbills of the whiskey they are bottling, which in some cases allows the astute drinker to suss out the source. But given how few different mash bills there are for bourbon and rye whiskey, those are often little better than guesses. This is in marked contrast to Scottish indies like Cadenhead and Alchemist who clearly the state the source of their bourbons (usually Heaven Hill).

There are a number of historical and structural reasons for the differences between independent bottlers in Scotland (and the rest of the world) and non-distiller producers (NDPs) in America. A major factor is the concentration of production in America. The vast majority of the whiskey produced in America is made by a handful of companies (Brown-Forman, Heaven Hill, Wild Turkey, Four Roses, Buffalo Trace, Jim Beam, Diageo, and MGP) at a slightly greater number of distilleries. This came about largely because of Prohibition, which both pushed a lot of distilleries out of business and, after Repeal, encouraged consolidation as the government preferred to work with a smaller number of easily regulated entities. That concentration of ownership means that each distillery produces a wide variety of brands, often from what appear to be different places. This has meant that more established NDPs have been able to happily coexist with the majors' brands as they often look very similar, e.g. Luxco's Ezra Brooks, which is distilled by Heaven Hill and has a label very reminiscent of Evan Williams or Jim Beam. Even major companies like Diageo play this game, with Bulleit bourbon being produced by Four Roses (though this is slated to change as they are opening their own distillery) and Bulleit as well as George Dickel ryes being made by MGP, while carrying a story about the Bulleit family recipe.

So when new NDPs began to blossom during the current whiskey boom, they were entering a market already replete with dubious backstories. This was also among the backdrop of microdistilleries popping up across the country, who all touted the superior quality of their 'craft' spirits. So while the majors tended to present stories based around 19th century ancestors, the smaller outfits were more likely to talk up the 'artisanal' qualities of their spirits. Many skirted around the issue without making outright lies, talking about the quality of the water used to proof down the spirit or other minor contributions, while hinting at their superior quality to justify the enhanced price tags. And let's be honest, a lot of their customers were quite satisfied with the stories they were purchasing alongside those spirits and many no doubt tasted something better than a regular bottle of Jim Beam.

Let's contrast this with Scotland. While ownership of distilleries may be nearly as concentrated (roughly the same number of majors own most of the distilleries), production is far more dispersed, with over a hundred rather than a dozen big distilleries. Even more important is the tradition of blending in Scotland, where the output of many malt distilleries, plus one or more grain distilleries, are combined to produce a single product. This necessitates the purchase and trading of casks from one distillery with others, as blenders seek the components they need to maintain a consistent flavor profile. The earliest independent bottlers grew out of the blend trade and some still have a hand in it. So there is a long tradition of warehouses containing casks of whisky from a multitude of different distilleries. It is perhaps unsurprising that some of these companies decided to start bottling some choice casks on their own, rather than making them components of blends. Because the owners of distilleries were often dependent on others for their own blends, the person you sold to today might be someone you needed to buy whisky from tomorrow. So a sort of gentleman's agreement evolved around independent bottlers, who were (usually) allowed to sell the output of other distilleries with the provenance clearly stated. That isn't to say that all NDPs in Scotland are perfectly explicit about their whisky - the blends themselves and many 'mystery malts' are just as hazy - only that in Scotland and other countries it is possible to be more explicit.

The lack of a similar blending tradition in America (it was quite novel and a little confusing when High West began to produce American whiskeys built from the output of multiple distilleries) means that there is no comparable system of trading spirits between distillers or independent companies. Sales of whiskey are largely unidirectional and primarily a matter of contracts. A distiller will sell their output when they have excess capacity and will let those contracts lapse when demand for their products rises. Additionally, the aforementioned plethora of brands produced by single distilleries means that they have an incentive to prevent NDPs from disclosing the source of their whiskey, as it would break their long-established illusions - hence the nondisclosure agreements that most NDPs are forced to sign.

At this point it would likely require a major rewriting of regulations to change the status quo. While the TTB is making an effort to enforce the labeling regulations that are on the books, these are fairly minimal when it comes to source disclosure - the state where a whiskey was distilled and the state where it was bottled are about as close as it gets right now. As I noted, the majors have no incentive to change the status quo as they aren't the ones who are hurt if customers who purchased whiskey from an NDP get mad about a brand leading them to believe that it was 'hand crafted' or any other sort of nonsense. And while it would be nice if the NDPs militated for more transparency, many of them benefit from obfuscation and those who would like to be more open have little to no leverage to bring about change. Ultimately, if customers want to know where their whiskey comes from they will have to insist upon it, either by cajoling the NDPs to disclose as much information as they are legally able to do so or by lobbying the government to change regulations to require more information on labels.

Whiskey Review: Four Roses OESO Private Single Barrel for Rose City Liquor

This bourbon was bottled as part of Four Roses' Private Barrel Program, which allows retailers to select barrels from any of the ten recipes the distillery produces, which are then bottled at full strength without chill filtration. Barrel 89-1I was made from the 20% rye mashbill with the E strain yeast (red berries, medium richness), aged for 10 years and 9 months in warehouse SN, then bottled for Rose City Liquor in Portland around 2012.

Four Roses OESO Private Single Barrel for Rose City Liquor 55.3%

Nose: lots of berries (raspberries and blackberries, especially), solid but not aggressive oak, underlying corn sweetness, vanilla cake frosting, dry rye grain, light caramel, Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Taste: lots of corn and caramel sweetness throughout, tempered by oak tannins, berry and ripe fruit ride on top, rye grain spice in the background, something lightly floral starting in the middle

Finish: rye grain, residual corn, mild oak, berry compote

At full strength this is a big, bold bourbon. Everything comes in spades - berries, oak, corn sweetness. It usually needs some time in the glass to breath and let a bit of alcohol burn off, but eventually transforms into a magnificent experience. Unsurprisingly for an older bourbon, this is right on the edge of being over-oaked, but that helps to counterbalance the sweeter flavors from the corn and yeast. The only thing that is relatively subdued is the rye, which, while this is the 'low rye' recipe for Four Roses, is still higher than most other rye recipe bourbons out there (Jim Beam's OGD recipe and a handful from MGP are the only other recipes from from major distillers with a higher rye content that I can think of).

As I usually do with barrel proof whiskeys, I proofed down a couple of samples to see how the whiskey changed.

Four Roses SB OESO at 50%

Nose: more oak-dominated, with berry compote notes integrating with the wood, giving it a polished quality, with creamy grain (barley and corn) and sawdust in the not-too-distant background, while some apple peaks around the edges

Taste: instead of an evolving experience, corn sweetness, oak tannins, berries, and mint all hit at once, intertwining and carrying through the palate, which gives it a great richness

Finish: minty grain, mild oak, berry compote residue

This is the strength at which the age of the bourbon is most readily apparent, with the barrel casting a strong shadow over the spirit. It's not bad, but as I tend to prefer my bourbons on the less oak-y side, it is less appealing to me. On the upside, the alcohol is quite subdued for being at 50% and only a bit less than the full strength.

Four Roses SB OESO at 45%

Nose: jammy berry and dry grain notes become softer, but are highlighted by the slightly reduced oak, which becomes younger and sawdust-y, rye comes out as mint/juniper, with caramel acting as a bass note

Taste: brief corn sweetness up front, which is quickly swallowed by the oak tannins, which dominate the back 2/3 and produce a bitter to bittersweet effect overall, with strong mint and berry overtones throughout

Finish: berries take center stage, with softer oak tannins

While less brash and bold than the whiskey at full strength, this is still very drinkable and doesn't lack  much in intensity. I like a whiskey that can take a lot of water without drowning. I also enjoyed how much more apparent the rye was at this strength, where the mint provided a certain coolness in counterpoint to the warmed berry and oak elements. I can see how this would fit well into the Small Batch recipe (which is bottled at 45%), providing the red berries that are touted in the official tasting notes.

At just about any strength, this is a fabulous bourbon. Rose City hit one out of the park with this pick. It's a perfect example of what Four Roses can do at a respectable price in this day and age (I want to say that it was under $50 when I bought it). Prices for Private Single Barrels have gone up and ages are down (Four Roses doesn't usually let go of anything above nine years old now), but I will definitely be exploring more of what's available now as they still seem like excellent values.

Whiskey Review: Four Roses Single Barrel

Four Roses has been one of the bourbon geek darlings over the last dozen years or so. There's the heartwarming story about how the distillery was a powerhouse for most of its life, was then neglected for decades while the name was used to sell terrible blended whiskey in the United States, then returned to glory when it was purchased by a Japanese company (which is the country where most of the good stuff had been going in the meantime).

One of Four Roses' claims to fame is that they produce whiskey from ten different recipes, which are the intersection of two different mashbills (20% rye and 35% rye, with the balance made up with corn and malted barley) and five different yeast strains. Only one of these recipes, OBSV (35% rye, delicately fruity yeast) is used for their Single Barrel. Each barrel is picked, then proofed down to 50% ABV, and bottled without coloring or chill filtration.

Four Roses Single Barrel

Nose: fairly closed at first, opens to nutty caramel, simple syrup, vanilla beans, solid slab of oak, milk chocolate/cocoa powder, pears, musky fruit, vinous notes, and berry overtones. After adding a few drops of water, the nutty caramel dominates the nose, the oak is more sawdust-y, the fruit/berry/vinous notes are tighter and less bright, while the corn fades to reveal more rye.

Taste: corn and caramel sweetness sweetness throughout, tempered by rich polished oak with a vinegar edge in the middle, with berries, floral notes, and rye spice in the background throughout. After dilution, the sweetness is significantly diminished as the oak tannins gain ground, though there is a big burst of berries at the beginning, and some apple and vanilla notes around the middle, fading into more pronounced tannic bitterness at the back.

Finish: moderate oak and grain, fresh apples and berries, rye spice

The standard release single barrel has clearly been chosen for mass appeal. This is a very classic bourbon, with strong elements of corn sweetness and oak, adorned with rye spice and berries. Everything you would expect is here, but the flip side of that coin is that it doesn't offer any flashes of brilliance either. It's very enjoyable and very solid, but it doesn't quite hit the high notes that some of their other recipes hit. I would put it in a similar category to Blanton's, another single barrel bourbon that has very classic notes.

New Cocktails: the Devereaux

After seeing this recipe, I knew I had to make it (albeit with a couple of tweaks).

The Devereaux
1 oz bourbon
0.5 oz St. Germain
0.5 oz lemon juice
0.5 oz simple syrup

Build over ice, then top with ~3 oz of sparkling wine. Garnish with a mint leaf.

The nose is dominated by the bourbon's oak, with some St. Germain peeking around it. The sip begins with lemony sweetness, which fades through waves of sparkling wine, woody bourbon, and elderflower/lychee. The finish is bittersweet, with the tang of dry wine and lemon. As the ice melts, the bourbon becomes more prominent.

This is an interesting drink, because the flavors layer instead of integrating with each other. Everything remains distinct, while still meshing well.

While the original recipe called for Bulleit bourbon, I felt like this needed some more punch and used Old Grand Dad 114 instead. I also wanted to make sure that the base flavors of the drink didn't get too watered down and skipped shaking with ice before adding the sparkling wine. On a warm day, the ice in the glass will chill and dilute the drink pretty quickly, so it doesn't need more.

Whiskey Review: Blanton's Single Barrel

Blanton's holds the distinction of being the first modern single barrel bourbon released as a regular expression. In the depths of the mid-80s whiskey slump, Elmer T. Lee started Blanton's as a way to showcase barrel variation, which had previously been ignored as batching for consistent flavor profiles averaged out the differences. While it took almost three more decades for the idea to really gain traction, single barrel bourbons are now quite popular.

Blanton's is named after Albert Blanton, who worked at what would later become the Buffalo Trace distillery from 1897 until 1952, becoming president in 1921.

While the bourbon is distilled by Buffalo Trace, it, as well as the Rock Hill Farms and Elmer T. Lee expressions, are actually owned by a Japanese company, Age International. Edit: Unlike the other two, Blanton's usually provides information about their barrels (though this mini did not), which is nice as it allows customers to actually know whether a bottle they're scoping is from a barrel they've already tried.

The standard Single Barrel is bottled at a respectable 93-proof.

Blanton's Single Barrel

Nose: good balance of wood - caramel and tannic oak, dusty rye grain supporting, slightly vegetal and minty, corn (polenta), citrus (orange?), warm roasted carrots, brown sugar oatmeal, cream of wheat. After adding a few drops of water, there is more dusty grain (but sweeter- more corn, less rye), less oak, plus more mint and orange, and some vanilla pops out.

Taste: classic bourbon - caramel and oak tannins throughout, wood sugars over rye grain, with almost sherried dankness, and bright mint and orange peel, plus savory cooking spices (cumin and coriander). After dilution, it becomes more bittersweet, with oak dominating in a pleasant fashion with sappy/polish sweetness, more mint and savory spices come out, it's slightly medicinal at the back (cough syrup), and the caramel provides more smoothness but less sweetness, and overall it's a bit flatter.

Finish: rye pine notes, bittersweet, sugar cane grassiness, mild oak tannins, cumin

This is almost the Platonic form of bourbon - all the elements one expects are present in almost perfect harmony. However, this is a single barrel product, so one can't expect exactly the same thing every time. But between this, Elmer T. Lee, and Rock Hill Farms, the single barrel bourbons made from the Buffalo Trace high rye recipe seem to be very, very good. While this review is from a miniature, I'm quite tempted to grab a bottle. It's a shame that we don't get Blanton's Straight from the Barrel in the States, which should have even more punch, but it is reserved primarily for Japan and duty free stores.

The Current Whisk(e)y Boom is Built on the Last Glut

While I feel like this idea has been discussed before, with tales of shortages and projections of exponential growth in sales and prices on the rise, it seems worth emphasizing again.

It wasn't so long ago, say the early 2000s, that whisk(e)y was still far below the radar. The 1980s and 1990s had seen a rash of closures and sales of distilleries across Kentucky and Scotland, with the latter hit particularly hard. To put it in perspective, something like 20% of the distilleries in Scotland were closed or mothballed during the 80s and 90s, a huge decrease in capacity. In Kentucky, there were also numerous closures, with consolidation into only a few hands (Jim Beam, Brown-Forman, Heaven Hill, Four Roses, Buffalo Trace, Maker's Mark, and Wild Turkey).

While production was scaled back, often drastically at many distilleries, most were still putting new make spirit in barrels and casks, which then proceeded to sit in their warehouses. This was on top of old stock that had been made in the 1970s and even 1960s, which had been produced when sales figures were much more robust (Mad Men, remember?).

This meant that by the time the 2000s rolled around, most distilleries were sitting on a lot of very, very old stock. As most distilleries had at least some sales, they were dumping this older than usual whisk(e)y into even their entry-level offerings. Take, for instance, Ardbeg. I've written extensively about their situation before, so I will only summarize here. When the distillery was reopened in 1997, most of their stock was from 1983 or earlier. So the 17 Year and even 10 Year bottles contained whisky that was much older than the number on the bottle. The vaunted Uigeadail, which was first released in 2003, did not come with an age statement and included sherry casks from the 1970s. They made due with what they had and that meant you could buy extremely good whisky for next to nothing.

While not always as extreme, this was true of many different bottlings of bourbon and scotch that were on shelves in the early 2000s. Supply grossly exceeded demand, so even the bottom shelf was surprisingly good.

Fast-forward a few years. The wine and craft beer movements are firmly established. The cocktail renaissance is beginning to flower and people are once again paying attention to spirits that have been out of fashion for decades. Gin is gaining in popularity, if not quite supplanting vodka. Bourbon and rye begin to creep back into consciousness, as Manhattans and Old Fashioneds become fashionable again. Overall, people are thinking about what they drink and considering flavor and quality, instead of simply the ability to get them drunk.

When it comes to whiskey, the bartenders reintroducing classic cocktails have an almost embarrassment of riches. Bourbons and ryes are old and richly flavored, with Bottled in Bond expressions like Old Grand Dad and Rittenhouse providing excellent counterpoints to the recently reintroduced flavors of vermouths like Punt e Mes or almost forgotten ingredients like Chartreuse.

It didn't take too long before drinkers realized that many of the whisk(e)ys on offer were quite good on their own, as well as in cocktails. Exceptional spirits could be had for next to nothing. Bourbons with whiskey that had been aging for a dozen years or more, almost an eternity in sultry Kentucky, could be had for less than $20. Van Winkle bourbons from the shuttered Stizel-Weller distillery were significantly more expensive, running well over $40 - a fortune at the time. Scotch whiskies at 12 years old and over were regularly selling for $20-30, with even older expressions available for little more. Hyper-aged whiskies, at 25+ years old could be had for not much over $100.

This is the world that precipitated the current boom. As blogs and forums where people discussed spirits began to proliferate, word that whisk(e)y was both good and cheap continued to filter into public discussion. Sensing a shift in attitude, distillers began to offer more esoteric expressions catering to the connoisseur, like Buffalo Trace's Antique Collection or Balvenie's wood and barley experiments. These helped to spark more interest, as they were often very good and frequently stellar, usually without costing an arm and a leg.

Those with the right connections and a bit of cash could pick their own casks for bottling from the treasure-trove of slumbering whisky in the rickhouses of Kentucky and warehouses of Scotland. Legendary casks like LeNell's Redhook ryes, the KBD Vintage ryes, Willett's Iron Fist, or the Seelbach Hotel's Rathskeller rye were bottled by those in the know who were ahead of the curve. And all of these 20+ year old ryes were so cheap, even circa 2009, that it wasn't unreasonable to talk about making Old Fashioneds with them. In Scotland, now stratospherically expensive single malts from Port Ellen and Brora could be had for a song, because these were shuttered distilleries that had been mainly producing for blends, so no one had given the casks a second thought. This led to bottlings like those for the PLOWED Society, such as Brorageddon and Ardbegeddon that are some of the mostly highly rated whiskies of all time. This was also broadly true of other 'lost distilleries' that are now highly sought after as the remaining stock grows older and rarer.

Fast-forward again to around 2012. Bourbon, rye, and scotch are now firmly in the mainstream and demand is rising exponentially. Old rye is becoming a thing of the past, with Heaven Hill struggling to meet demand for the roughly 4 year old Rittenhouse Bonded. Special releases like the Antique Collection are getting harder to find, as collectors and bars snap up most of the allocations. Port Ellens and Broras have passed out of reach of many if not most drinkers, though a few independent bottlers still put out something affordable here and there. While many established brands still offer good prices on their entry-level expressions, prices are steadily rising for older whisk(e)y and new expressions are introduced at higher prices than before. More and more non-age statement releases are appearing on shelves, beginning to clog the field with youthful mystery and the distiller's injunction to 'trust us'.

Now, a few years later, we are in full-on boom mode. New standard releases (Knob Creek Rye, Wild Turkey Forgiven, Larceny bourbon, the entire Bruichladdich lineup, etc.) rarely have age statements, despite the ever-increasing price tags. Almost every 'limited release' is snapped up and immediately resold on the secondary market, despite eBay and the Bourbon Exchange group on Facebook being shut down as resale channels. The prices paid on the secondary market have also worked their way through to retail prices as distillers try to capture more of the money that people are willing to pay. For example, the 2013 Diageo special releases included a Port Ellen at £1500 and a Lagavulin that clocked in at almost £2000. And every single bottle sold. Elijah Craig 18 Year used to sell for $50-60, but the new Elijah Craig 21 Year retails for about $130. There are stills some exceptions, such as the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection, but these are commensurately difficult to find at retail prices as resellers know the margins that can be obtained.

How did we get from one state to the other? Booms and busts (with their associated gluts) almost invariably lead back to the other side. The bourbon and scotch whisky industries have gone through sinusoidal changes in business for more or less their entire history. The growth of blends in the late-19th century led to the massive closure of distilleries in the early 1900s as a result of the Pattison Crash. The huge expansion of distilleries in Campbeltown eventually led to poor quality that meant few survived the tanking demand during Prohibition. The post-Prohibition demand for bourbon eventually led to its collapse in the 1970s, as distillers watered-down and thinned their product with neutral spirit in a downward spiral of 'lightness' in an effort to compete with more fashionable vodka. Eventually they bounce back as gluts allow them to build up better products and the cycle of fashion comes around again.

Whisk(e)y has ridden the recent wave of interest in 'vintage' products, whether it be clothes, vinyl records, or the cocktails of previous generations. The sense of whisk(e)y as being more 'authentic' than, say, flavored vodkas has been an important component of the upswing. Bourbon, scotch, and rye all have deep histories with associated stories that can provide a compelling interest in the product. The veracity of those stories is often mixed at best (Templeton rye, for instance), but that doesn't stop people from enjoying them.

The sense of authenticity was bolstered by the fact that in the earlier phases of the boom, whisk(e)y was almost universally an excellent product. As I noted above, old stocks were being dumped into even bargain expressions. It's easier to believe the claims about a spirit being 'hand crafted' by distillers with deep history when what you're drinking is really, really good. The question is whether that esteem can be maintained as old stocks are run down and distillers are increasingly putting out whisk(e)ys of increasing youth and dubious quality at higher prices.

Interest and excitement about whisk(e)y is currently propped up by the limited supply of older casks. Few distilleries foresaw this kind of interest in their products a decade ago, let alone twenty years ago, so expressions that requite older whisky are often genuinely limited. Instead of leaving money on the table, many distillers are responding by dropping age statements and using other markers of quality to convince customers of the quality of their products. While there are plenty of claims that 'age doesn't matter', there really is no substitution for time in the cask. This is most visible in Macallan's current lineup, with younger and cheaper whiskies being offered without age statements while the older and more expensive whiskies that are 18+ years old firmly retain them. While there are arguments that new drinkers will establish different tastes as the current offerings become the norm or, more cynically, that people will drink whatever is on offer, I don't believe that taste is quite that subjective.

Coupled to the fact that tastes and fashions change, whisk(e)y is not limited in its production capacity in the same way that fine wines or cognac are. While a few distillers will create whisk(e)ys specifically from local grains, they can ultimately come from just about anywhere on the globe. While barley crops have occasionally done poorly in recent years, increasing demand should encourage farmers to grow more, which will eventually bring supply in line with demand for whisk(e)y's raw material. A few distilleries, such as Oban, are genuinely limited in how much they can expand, but capacity is being built at a furious pace in Scotland and America right now. Buffalo Trace is putting $70 million into new warehouses and expansion of the 1792 distillery in Bardstown. Brown-Forman is pumping $100 million into Jack Daniels. Jim Beam is investing $28 million in expanding their own facilities. Diageo is spending roughly £1 billion in new distilleries and facilities in Scotland - the Roseisle project that opened a few years ago was £40 million, the Mortlach clone will run into the millions of pounds, and another mega-distillery costing £50 million is being sited next to the existing Teaninich distillery, which itself is getting £12 million worth of upgrades, £30 million will be fed into Clynelish, in addition to roughly £40 million spread across their other distilleries in Speyside. Pernod is building a mega-distillery on the site of the former Imperial distillery, which will expand their malt whisky capacity by 10%. This is in addition to reopening the mothballed Glen Keith distillery and expanding its other Speyside distilleries. Eddrington is planning to spend £100 million building a newer and bigger version of Macallan, while mothballing the old distillery on the off-chance that it needs even more capacity. All of this implies that America and Scotland's already vast capacity to produce spirit will be growing geometrically over the coming 5-10 years, with whisk(e)y ready to be bottled as entry-level bourbons and blended whisky only three years after the new facilities make their first drops.

All of that is to say that while demand may continue to exceed supply for older whisk(e)ys for some time, there will never, ever be a time when you are unable to find some kind of brown spirit on liquor store shelves. The turnaround time for basic bourbon and blended whisky is so short that supply will likely outstrip demand first.

Which, of course, sets up the conditions for the next glut. With capacity increasing wildly and the quality of what's on the shelf decreasing, it may not take all that much longer for demand to start faltering. Without the spectacular offerings of even a few years ago to buoy interest, the plaudits may not come as thick as they have been recently. Many customers may be priced out, with the price of entry-level single malts approaching the $50-60 range while real wages in many developed countries remain stagnant or continue falling. Without refined spirits, connoisseurship will not have as much to work with. People may decide that it's cheaper and easier to drink unaged sprits if their primary goal is getting drunk. The secondary market, which has done a lot to drive up prices on the higher end and encourage the spread of 'limited editions' may eventually pop, as it has all the hallmarks of a bubble, with people 'investing' on the expectation of prices rising simply because they have been rising for as long as they have been paying attention. More broadly, the economic rise of China, India, and Brazil that has fueled much of the demand for aged spirits may falter as they become mired in the middle income trap. Just as the demand of today was impossible to forecast 10-20 years ago, assuming that todays conditions will continue unabated is just as iffy.

The indicator to watch is whether the planned expansions actually go forward. With the exception of Roseisle, most if not all are in the planning stage, with little to nothing done as yet. If trends hold and the money is actually invested, then the owners clearly expect the new plant to be necessary to keep up with demand. But if these plans end up being quietly shelved, then even the people at the top see the boom ending sooner rather than later.

Ultimately, I'm just speculating. Aged spirits are a very peculiar industry, where it is extremely difficult to match supply with demand, no matter which way each variable is going. But the claim that "this time is different" had been made about countless situations over the centuries and rarely is it ever true. The whisk(e)y industry has always been a creature of boom and bust and I lean towards the opinion that it will continue to be so.

Cask Strength: Panacea or Gimmick?

One belief that has been gaining ground in the whisk(e)y world over the last five years or so is that higher proofs, especially cask strength or barrel proof, make for better spirits. There are all sorts of reasons given for this - there is more flavor, it's more 'pure', you get more bang for your buck (or put more punchily, "why pay for water?"). But as with many other attempts to create rules for deciding quality, I think it's less reliable than many might wish it to be.

I think the way that this argument falls flat most quickly is on price (I will be pulling from my local market for comparisons as much as possible - the ratios may be different where you live). Generally, cask strength whiskies will be roughly 40% more concentrated then their watered-down brethren. So a commensurate increase in price is not out of line. However, it doesn't take much poking around to find examples where cask strength whiskies are going for significantly more than is warranted by this simple formula. Take a recent example, Angel's Envy Cask Strength. As noted by Tim Read, it goes for roughly double the price of the less potent version, despite having only 37% more alcohol and, according to Tim, tastes worse. Bowmore's 10 year old Dorus Mor, is roughly the same, going for at least twice what the weaker 12 Year runs, despite only having 38% more alcohol. There are exceptions to this trend, such as Old Grand Dad (32% more alcohol for a 27% increase in price) or Laphroaig (34% more alcohol for a 32% increase in price), but they are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Adding another layer to this, higher proof whiskies also often drop the age statement found on their less potent stablemates. This has become quiet common, especially for sherry-centric whiskies from the likes of Aberlour, Macallan, Glenfarclas, Glendronach, Glengoyne, etc. In these cases it's fairly safe to assume that you're getting younger, and thus theoretically cheaper, whisky in the bottle, which should balance out what one gains in terms of proof. It's more difficult to quantify the appropriate price differential that should exist between these bottles, but it certainly shouldn't be broader than between two age dated bottles that differ only in proof - for instance, Glenfarclas 10 Year and the cask strength 105 edition that is roughly double the price.

Another common argument is that you can always add water to a cask strength whisky to bring it down to whatever level you happen to enjoy. To begin with, adding water right before you drink a whisky will be very different than adding it and letting the diluted whisky sit for a good chunk of time before drinking it. More than a few drops and the whisky can end up tasting excessively watery, instead of properly integrated. Which means that you're going to have to think ahead and decide how dilute you want your whisky to be. All of a sudden it's become a much more complicated proposition.

Additionally, the casks going into a cask strength whisky are likely to be different than those going into a bottle that has been proofed down. Some whiskies shine at cask strength but fall apart with even moderate dilution. The Thomas Handy rye I reviewed a while ago was actually worse proofed down to 45% than the standard Sazerac 6 Year which is bottled at that strength. Theoretically they're coming from the same stocks, but the Handy rye was genuinely bad at much less than barrel proof. To cite a more complex example, Macallan Cask Strength works great straight out of the bottle, rather well at 45% and 50%, and poorly at 55%. This suggests that the master blenders at distilleries choose some casks for their standard, lower proof expressions and other casks for their higher proof expressions. But one won't necessarily work as well for the other. Which is all to say that it's very difficult to know how well a cask strength whisky will handle being watered down.

None of this is to say that I think cask strength whisky is a bad idea. I've enjoyed quite a number of them and will continue to do so. But I think the uncritical valorization of cask strength whiskies is somewhat misplaced, especially if it leads distillers to overcharge for them, safe in the knowledge that the market will still eat them up. Diluting whisky isn't always about stretching supply - sometimes it will genuinely taste better with some water. So to answer the question posed in the title of this post, I don't think it's either wholly bad or wholly good - cask strength is simply another factor to be considered when choosing whisky, neither more or less important than any other.

Whiskey Review: Rock Hill Farms Single Barrel Bourbon

Rock Hill Farms is one of the single barrel bourbons distilled at Buffalo Trace using their 'high rye' mash bill. I got a sample of this bourbon from Florin, one of my readers, as I'd been itching to try it since reading Josh's review. Rock Hill Farms is an actual location near BT, the home of Albert Blanton - the founder of the distillery.

While reading the comments on Josh's post I became aware of one of the confusing things about Buffalo Trace - they distill whiskey made from a number of different mash bills - a wheat recipe bourbon, a low rye (8%) bourbon, a high rye (15%) bourbon, and a rye whiskey (51%). However, despite a number of flagship products including Blanton's, Elmer T. Lee, and Rock Hill Farms coming from the high rye mash bill, the distillery's name never appears on those bottles.

It turns out this is because the brands associated with the high rye mash bill are actually the property of  a Japanese company owned by Takaro Shuzo, Age International, who previously owned a major stake in Buffalo Trace and also owns a number of other spirit companies (the Tomatin whisky distillery, for instance). This came about due to the distillery's rather turbulent history during the late 1980s and early 1990s - at that point the distillery was still known at Ancient Age and Age International bought in after a less than successful attempt by executives from the previous owner, Schenley, to run the distillery on their own. Subsequently, the Sazerac corporation, which had previously bought bourbon under contract from Heaven Hill, purchased a majority stake in the distillery in the late 1990s so that they would be able to distill their own bourbon and renamed the distillery Buffalo Trace. This ended up pushing AI into a minority shareholder position, creating quite a bit of friction between the two companies. However, BT still produces bourbon using the high rye mash bill under contract for AI, as well as distributing it in the US. AI does international distribution on its own - meaning that some versions of their bourbons are only available abroad. This also explains why none of the high rye whiskey produced at BT has made it into their top-of-the-line Antique Collection - BT doesn't actually own any of it.

From Buffalo Trace

Rock Hill Farms Single Barrel

Nose: red wine/brandy notes (acidic and grape-y), underlying dusty corn and rye grain, berries, dark chocolate, sandwich bread, rich caramel/toffee, a bit of vanilla. After adding a few drops of water, it becomes lighter and airier, the rye retreats but corn gains more ground, there's a touch of oak,  it seems sweet and dry at the same time, and there are stronger berries and vanilla.

Taste: brief sucrose sweetness up front - which subtly rides underneath the subsequent flavors, then big black/chili pepper spice and grapes/berries mid-palate, ending with mildly bitter oak notes. After dilution there is a more integrated flavor profile - the sweetness extends further back and the pepper/berries/oak come in sooner, and the berry flavors become much bigger with spikier pepper notes.

Finish: berries, rye, lightly bitter oak, toffee/vanilla, coffe beans, pepper, corn

This is a very, very good bourbon. While I will once again state my annoyance that there's no info about the barrel that this whiskey came from on the bottles, the person picking it did an excellent job. The only stumbling point comes when you want to talk about value. Out here in the great state of Oregon, Rock Hill Farms is above $50. Even from cheaper sources it's above $40. That's single malt whisky territory where there's a lot of stiff competition. If you want a bourbon of this caliber I'd lean towards something like Wild Turkey Rare Breed, which has a similar flavor profile and is also a whole lot cheaper.

New Cocktails: And to All a Good Night...

This drink comes from Tim Stookey of the Presidio Social Club in San Francisco via the 2008 holiday cocktail guide from Imbibe. A bit of a puzzler on its face, it was much tastier than I thought it might be.

And to All a Good Night...
1.5 oz bourbon
0.75 oz reposado tequila
0.75 oz cherry Heering
2 dashes orange bitters
1 dash Angostura bitters

The nose is dominated by the cherry Heering, with flashes of agave. After the drink warms up, corn notes from the bourbon start to emerge. It begins sweetly, but that is quickly tamed by a combination of the bitters and tannins from the bourbon, with the tequila weaving through it. The finish is bittersweet chocolate.

This is a somewhat peculiar cocktail. The combination of bourbon and tequila is rather unique. I feel like the results are going to be dependent on which spirits you pick. The Elijah Craig 12 I used is a dominant force in the drink, pushing the tequila into the background. It doesn't help that higher proof tequilas are pretty thin on the ground, so all of the ones I own feel a bit outmatched in this situation.

Most of all, while I liked the drink, I don't think it's something I'd serve to anyone other than a booze nerd. It's not quite harmonious enough, at least with the ingredients I picked, to sit well with most people. Maybe with a wheated bourbon and a lighter tequila, it'd all fit together better. And either way, I'm not sure that there's anything particularly festive about it. Still, it piques my interest in seeing how well tequila works with other spirits, so at least it will make me investigate further.

Beginners Guide to Bourbon and Rye Whiskey

On the heels of my guide to scotch whisky, I thought I would turn to something a little bit closer to home. While rum may have launched the United States, bourbon and its cousin rye whiskey are the spirits now most closely associated with America.

American whiskey production grew out of the settlement of the Ohio River Valley. After independence, white settlers began to move west of the Appalachian Mountains, which had previously been restricted by the British government, eager to keep their colonists close to the coast where they could be more easily taxed. The farmers who grew crops in the extremely fertile region, including lots of corn, rye, and barley, found that it wasn't economically feasible to transport their grain east of the mountains where most of the demand for their products was to be found. However, if those grains were fermented and distilled, the resulting whiskey had a lot more value per pound, meaning that money could be made even after shipping it over the Appalachians. This fueled the almost insatiable appetite for liquor during the 19th century, when the average American drank about five gallons of absolute alcohol in a year (this translates to roughly one 750 mL bottle of 80-proof liquor in a week).

Column still at Wild Turkey via Alcademics

These early whiskeys would have been rather rough 'n ready, with thousands of small distilleries producing spirits from whatever grains were cheapest at the time. Most would have been using small copper pot stills and without the tools to precisely measure alcohol concentration, relying on experience and guesswork to judge when to make cuts. That meant significant amounts of unpleasant compounds from the heads and tails of a run would have made it into the hearts cut. Batch variation would have been significant - without purified yeasts to inoculate the wort and less rigorous decontamination of their equipment, wild yeasts and bacteria would often infect the mash, producing all sorts of peculiar compounds. Direct fired stills making for uneven heating of the wort, producing another set of potentially off compounds. Barrel aging would have been more often than not incidental, a product of shipment rather than planning. Which is all to say that these whiskeys would have been very different from the mellow and refined spirits we know and love today.

Now there are very tight regulations about how bourbon and rye whiskeys must be produced if the distillers want to label them as 'straight' bourbon or rye whiskey. First, bourbon must be made from a mash of between 51 and 80% corn, with the balance being made up with rye or wheat (the flavoring grain) and malted barley (the enzymes in malt convert starches from the other grains into fermentable sugars). Distillation must be to no more than 160-proof (80% alcohol) and the distillate must be diluted to no more than 125-proof (62.5% alcohol) for aging in new charred oak barrels. At that point it can be called bourbon whiskey. To gain the 'straight' moniker, the bourbon must be aged for at least two years. Bottling, whether straight bourbon or not, must be at least 80-proof (40% alcohol). American rye whiskey conforms to the same requirements, except that the mash must contain at least 51% rye, with the balance being made up with corn and malted barley.

The main axis for understanding bourbon and rye whiskey is the percentage of rye in the mash bill. Rye both adds spiciness to whiskey and covers up some of the inherent sweetness from the corn. Just outside the spectrum are wheated bourbons, which use wheat as a flavoring grain instead of rye. This makes for a much softer bourbon, without the chili pepper burn found in most rye recipe bourbons. The most well-known wheated bourbon is Maker's Mark, but I generally prefer Weller bourbons. At the beginning of the rye recipe bourbon spectrum, go for something like Buffalo Trace with 8% rye in its mash bill. Rye flavors will be present, but tend to give way to corn sweetness. In the mid range, Wild Turkey, Ezra Brooks, and Evan Williams bourbons are all made from a 13% rye mash bill and most of Jim Beam's whiskeys are made with a 15% rye mash bill. Here rye becomes a more significant presence, but is still in balance with the corn. Above this, we enter what is generally thought of as 'high rye' territory. Four Roses uses two different 'high rye' mash bills, one at 20% and another at a whopping 35% (the latter is the source for Bulleit bourbon). Jim Beam maintains a legacy 30% rye mash bill for their Old Grand Dad and Basil Hayden expressions. In those whiskeys, rye will be more more prominent, making the bourbon both more spicy and less sweet.

From there exists a bit of a gap until you hit rye whiskeys. At 51% rye in the mash bill, Jim Beam (and their Old Overholt label) Rye and Sazerac 6 Year are just over the legal line. So while these are definitely rye whiskeys, with all the spicy herbal flavors that implies, they also retains a fair amount of corn sweetness, making them a good bridge between the two styles of whiskey. From there, it's a jump to whiskeys made with 65% rye in their mash bills - Rittenhouse, Wild Turkey, and Russell's Reserve. These are very spicy and much drier than bourbon. Finally, LDI/MGP uses a 95% rye mash bill for whiskey that is now released by a wide range of independent bottlers from Bulleit to Willett to Templeton to Redemption to George Dickel (if it's a new rye whiskey brand, then it's probably from LDI/MGP - they're the only distiller with spare rye capacity). To get above that, you'll have to turn to Canada - Alberta Distillers makes a 100% rye mash bill whisky. While usually blended into Canadian whiskies, it is also sold as Alberta Premium and now bottled by a number of American independent bottlers, ranging from Jefferson's to Masterson's and Whistle Pig.

The other axis to look at is age. Because bourbon and rye are aged in new charred oak barrels, they soak up flavor very quickly. This means that even a year or two can make a significant difference in flavors. It's best to keep the mash bill of the whiskeys you're comparing the same or similar to remove that variable from the equation. Many distillers offer whiskeys from the same mash bill at different ages, such as Buffalo Trace (~4-5 years old) and Eagle Rare (10 years old) or Wild Turkey (6-8 years old) and Russell's Reserve (10 years old) or Weller Special Reserve (~7 years old) and Weller 12 Year. Older whiskeys will tend to be more oaky and tannic, but also with more caramel and toffee flavors.

While this feels like a lot of information, hopefully it gives you a few places to start or expand your exploration of American whiskeys. Bourbon and rye are fantastic choices these days because there are still so many great whiskeys available for under $30, making it a very economical way to drink well.

Mixology Monday LXIX: Fortified Wines - Sherry

This month's Mixology Monday theme is fortified wine, so for my first post I decided to dip into the variety I know best - sherry. This nice little punch comes from Imbibe magazine.

Misa de Gallo is the mass celebrated near midnight on Christmas Eve in Spain and Portugal - a tradition going back to the second century. The name comes from the cock's crow that would herald the start of the day.

Misa de Gallo Punch
2 oz bourbon
0.75 oz sherry
0.75 oz lemon juice
0.5 oz simple syrup
0.125 oz allspice dram
1 dash Angostura bitters
2 oz soda water

Build over ice, saving soda water for last. Stir briefly to combine.

The nose is dominated by corn and barrel notes from the bourbon along with savory hints of sherry. The sip begins smoothly, along with bubbles. The proceeding flavors are rather dry, trending towards acidic, with bourbon, sherry, and spices from the allspice dram and bitters.

While this drink was designed with PX sherry, I decided to take it in a slightly different direction with a full dry oloroso. The drink becomes more of an aperitif/digestif, even with the healthy dose of bourbon, as the soda water keeps it relatively light and the dry/bitter finish gives it snap. I think this would be a great warm-weather punch. You can adjust the final flavors with different sherries. Oloroso for full dry, amontillado/East India Solera for medium-sweet, or PX for lots of sweetness.

Looking forward to all the other MxMo contributions!

Classic Cocktails: Improved Whiskey Cocktail #3

The last and final version (for a while) of the Improved Whiskey Cocktail from the series I've been posting.

Improved Whiskey Cocktail #3
2 oz bourbon
1 tsp blackberry liqueur
0.5 tsp Swedish punch
2 dash Angostura bitters

Combine all ingredients, stir with ice for fifteen seconds, then strain into a rocks glass.

The nose is redolent of overcooked berries, rye spice, and smoke. The sip opens with moderate sweetness, split between corn and stewed fruit. The flavors slowly progress towards bitterness, with smoke, tea and oak tannins, and Angostura's classic notes.

It's hard to pick favorites, this one may take the cake. The interplay of bourbon, blackberry, and tea smoke is just transcendent. Some of this may have to do with using a bottle of blackberry liqueur that's been open for almost three years, resulting in enough oxidation to turn the brighter fruit flavors into something richer and almost cooked. Whatever, this one was magic. Highly recommended if you have the ingredients on hand.

Classic Cocktails: Improved Whiskey Cocktail #2

Next up in a short series of posts of variations on the Improved Whiskey Cocktail, one that I decided to take in a rather different direction.

Improved Whiskey Cocktail #2
2 oz bourbon
1 tsp St. Germain
0.5 tsp Yellow Chartreuse
1 dash Fee's grapefruit bitters
1 dash Peychaud's bitters

Combine all ingredients, stir with ice for fifteen seconds, then strain into a rocks glass. Squeeze a large piece of grapefruit peel on the drink and then add it as garnish.

The nose has a solid bourbon base, which is accent by floral and herbal notes from the liqueurs and bitters along with a healthy dose of grapefruit oil. The liqueurs give the drink an excellent mouth feel. The sip begins with moderate sweetness, which transitions through a burst of coffee, grapefruit and herbal bittersweetness, to pleasant bitterness with a different set of herbal notes (more from the Peychauds than the Chartreuse).

This was a much lighter version than the other two I've tried. I really like how much even small amounts of liqueurs could drag the bourbon in a new direction. It helps that Knob Creek is kind of middle-of-the-road in terms of rye spiciness, so it can be complemented in either direction.