Whiskey Review: Wild Turkey 101 Rye

Not so long ago, say, the early-2000s, there wasn't much to choose from if you were a rye whiskey drinker. Most of what was on the market was barely legal rye at 51% of the mashbill, which gave a more bourbon-like product compared to some of the 95-100% ryes that have come to dominate the market over the last decade. Venerable brands like Old Overholt and Jim Beam staggered along, but didn't have much to offer at a rather water-down 80-proof. Sure, there was also Rittenhouse, but once the cocktail renaissance kicked into gear that became harder and harder to find. The one other reliable staple was Wild Turkey 101 Rye.

However, it ended up languishing, never garnering the attention of its bonded brethren. But its limited production was still enough to force Wild Turkey to replace it with a watered down 81-proof version in 2012, with only bars and other preferred customers able to get the higher proof release starting a year later. Thankfully that has turned around somewhat in the last few years, with the 101-proof version returning to some liquor store shelves in a liter bottle format. Unfortunately this also came with an increased price tag of $30-40 in most markets, which meant that it became less competitive with other budget offerings.

Thankfully, it is more reasonably priced in Oregon, so when my previous bottle of mixing rye ran out I decided to grab a bottle.

Wild Turkey 101 Rye

Nose: classic low rye notes - balanced between grainy/spicy rye and sweeter corn, a little orange and lime peel, something dusty, a pleasant level of oak. After adding a few drops of water the dusty rye grain expands and somewhat overwhelms the corn, with some diminishment of intensity as well, but it is complimented by some berry notes emerging.

Taste: fairly sweet up front, shifting towards spicy/herbal rye with subdued oak tannins around the middle, and another bump of corn sweetness near the back. After dilution the oak spreads out and joins the rye to spread the spicier notes across the palate, somewhat obscuring the sweeter corn notes, but revealing some nice berry notes around the middle.

Finish: juicy rye, herbal, a pleasant amount of oak, corn grits, a little vanilla

This is not an especially complex whiskey, but I still think it's quite good. It's pretty much what I want out of a budget bottle - solid flavors and no flaws so that I don't have to put in a lot of effort to feel like I'm getting the most out of it. Seeing as a paid $28 for a liter, I think it ends up being a pretty good value. Perhaps most importantly, I bought this for cocktails and it has performed admirably in that role.

Fall Boulevard

1.25 oz rye whiskey
1 oz Campari
1 oz sweet vermouth
1/2 tsp allspice dram

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

This is a really great twist on the classic Boulevardier. The allspice plays rather well with the rye, pushing it even further in a spicy direction and counterbalancing the sweetness of the Campari and vermouth. At the same time, I think this works well with a barely legal rye like Wild Turkey, because the more herbal/pickle notes of an MGP rye might not mesh as well.

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.

Whisky Review: Archives Ben Nevis 16 Year 1999/2015

Archives is a label exclusive to the WhiskyBase Shop, a retailer in the Netherlands. They usually manage to be priced as values, which is a nice change of pace from many other contemporary bottlers. Additionally they offer many of the malts in their shop as small 20 mL samples so customers can try before they splurge on full bottles. I grabbed two for this one to make sure I could get a fuller experience. I had very different experiences with each sample, so I'll present both sets of tasting notes.

This whisky was distilled on May 13th 1999, filled into a hogshead, then bottled on September 21st 2015 at 55.4% without coloring or chill filtration.

Archives Ben Nevis 16 Year 1999/2015 Cask #166

Tasting #1

Nose: rather feint-y, plastic/solvent, new make/grassy, unripe apples/pears, berry jam, light wood spices, slightly coastal, roasted peanuts. After adding a few drops of water the off notes largely disappear, with the peanuts leaping to the fore and are joined by walnuts, the berry notes expand significantly and take on a floral edge, while the wood becomes softer and integrates into the malt.

Taste: alcoholic sweetness with an undercurrent of oak up front with fudgy herbal overtones, quickly fades through berry esters into malty notes of fresh dough and classic Ben Nevis savoriness at the back. After dilution the initial sweetness, oak, and berry notes largely integrate up front, with the berries hanging on all the way to the back where they are joined by floral notes and some muskier fruit, overlaying a more muted and muddled savory note going into the finish

Finish: alcohol, grassy, malt

Tasting #2

Nose: Demerara rum with a slight sour wine edge, oily, musky overripe fruit, roast squash, malt, raisins, vanilla. After adding a few drops of water, it becomes more vinous, the savory notes become sweeter, chocolate graham crackers, roses, and burnt orange peel all come out.

Taste: sweet malt with polished oak in the background up front, vinous/sherry in the middle, fading through greener/grassy notes to a malty classic Ben Nevis finish. After dilution the sweet oak spreads across the palate and the green/vegetal overtones move into the middle.

Finish: oak, savory, malt

It's hard for me to get my head around this malt. The first tasting seemed excessively youthful for its 16 years in the cask. That should have been more than enough to outgas the solvent notes often found in new make whisky, but this one seemed to have held onto them with a tight fist. While it had many of the elements I look for from Ben Nevis, the youthfulness seemed to throw everything else out of whack, preventing it from coming together into a coherent whole.

The second tasting was far more in line with what I was looking for from this whisky. The youthfulness had almost completely disappeared and left a very tasty bourbon cask malt. Easily something that I would have been willing to purchase. Unfortunately it's all gone, including samples, so we're all out of luck.

Mixology Monday XCV: Call Me Old Fashioned!

This month's Mixology Monday theme continues the classic trend from last month's "That's Not a Martini!" by looking at the humble Old Fashioned. One of the last true cocktails in the original sense of being composed of nothing more than spirit, sugar, and bitters, the Old Fashioned was old fashioned by the late-19th century.

"The Old-Fashioned was a drinker's pleas for a saner, quieter, slower life, one in which a gent could take a drink or two without fear that it would impair his ability to dodge a speeding streetcar or operate a rotary press."

-David Wondrich's "Imbibe!"

Laura at Sass & Gin has challenged us to come up with new riffs on the archetypical cocktail, using the wide array of spirits and bitters now available to the discerning drinker.

My drink was inspired by the Prescription Julep, which takes the traditional Mint Julep and replaces much of its bourbon or rye with cognac, as would have been more common during the 19th century.

Prescription Sazerac

1.5 oz cognac
0.5 oz rye whiskey
0.5 tsp simple syrup
2 dashes Peychaud's bitters
6 drops Herbsaint

Combine all ingredients, stir with ice for 15 seconds, then strain into a chilled cocktail glass and garnish with a twist of lemon.

The nose leads with the cognac's grape notes, accented by rye grain and lemon oil. The sip leads with cognac, then segues into shifting rye grain/spice and cognac, accented with the bitters and pastis. Most of the action is at the back and in the finish.

Using cognac as the primary base of this drink makes it softer than a pure rye-based version. I like the way that switch transforms it from an on-point drink (lots of herbal/spice notes from the rye, bitters, and pastis) to a counterpoint drink (softer fruit from the cognac conterbalanced with herbal/spice notes from the bitters and pastis). I think this would have been better if I had broken out the Louis Royer Force 53 to give the drink a more muscular base, but Pierre Ferrand Ambre is a totally acceptable, albeit somewhat mellow, choice.

Thanks again to Fred and everyone else keeping Mixology Monday going.

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.

Whiskey Review: High West Rendezvous Rye

Rendezvous Rye was one of High West's first products, alongside Bourye. Both were some of the first whiskeys to tap the hidden treasures of Lawrenceburg Distillers Indiana (now renamed Midwest Grain Products), which was a former Seagram's plant that had been anonymously cranking out rye whiskey with a unique 95% rye mash bill for flavoring blended whiskeys.

Rendezvous rye is a mix of 6 year old rye whiskey from LDI and 16 year old, 53% rye mash bill whiskey from Barton. So it has a similar structure to the Double Rye that I reviewed earlier, but with a higher average age, both because the bulk of the whiskey is older (6 years vs. 2 years) and, given the price, there is also likely to be more of the 16 year old whiskey in the mix.

As with all of High West's whiskeys, this one is bottled at 46%.

Thanks to Michael Kravitz for the sample - see his review here.

High West Rendezvous Rye 12E0E

Nose: lots of pine, savory herbs, sawdust, caramel, vanilla, dusty grain and oak, salty/maritime. After adding a few drops of water, the pine becomes less aggressive and integrates with the wood, while some of the complexity diminishes.

Taste: wood sugars, caramel, and oak tannins throughout, with rye pine and creamy berry overtones. After dilution, it becomes much sweeter throughout, the pine, berries, and oak overlap and integrate, with the oak becoming almost raisin-y.

Finish: berries, oak tannins, light caramel

I'm just not sure this brings much to the table in comparison to Double Rye except more oak presence and sweetness. It's not bad, just not good enough to make me want to pony up for a bottle.

Whiskey Review: High West Double Rye

High West is a distillery in Park City, Utah. However, most of its fame so far has actually come from acting as an independent bottler and blender, creating whiskeys from barrels sourced from Kentucky and Indiana.

This particular whiskey is an attempt to make a more reasonably priced rye, put together from 2-year old, 95% rye mashbill whiskey from MGP and a smaller amount of 16-year old, 53% rye mashbill whiskey from the Barton distillery. These are then proofed down to a very respectable 46%.

Thanks for Michael Kravitz for the sample. See his own review here.

High West Double Rye (Batch 13C07)

Nose: a little thin, very rye-focused, vegetal/pine (PineSol), clover/alfalfa, grainy, fresh cedar, mild oak (more with time), pineapple/vanilla/bubblegum, sandalwood, berries. After adding a few drops of water, the edges are rounded off, the pine becomes richer and more sappy, there is more barrel influence, and some coffee beans and wood spices peek out.

Taste: slightly watery caramel up front, then vegetal/pine/mint with a touch of pepper and oak from the middle to back, some pineapple and berries in the middle, underlying grain throughout, more barrel sweetness with time. After adding a few drops of water, it becomes flatter but more integrated,  much sweeter (sugar rather than caramel and rounder, pepper and pine are less assertive, it's more fruit-forward (grapes and berries), there's more earthiness, and vanilla pops out.

Finish: thin and vegetal, prickly pine and pepper, mild oak and caramel

While I have been less than enamored of young MGP ryes, the older whiskey in the mix really does help to balance it. I think it takes a certain amount of digging to find the complexity - if you're primarily interested in something easy drinking or for cocktails, I would lean towards cheaper options like Bulleit or Redemption rye. But at $30, I think this actually offers something different enough to make it compete. Unfortunately it's almost $45 here in Oregon, which is far too much.

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.

Experimental Spirits: Willet Rye/Lemon Hart 151/Del Maguay Vida Blend

After trying some blends made with Russell's Reserve rye and Lemon Hart 151, I decided to see if I could improve them by using a more robust rye whiskey. And just for kicks, I decided to throw in a bit of mezcal to give it some smoke.

Willet Rye/Lemon Hart 151/Del Maguay Vida Blend

Nose: lots of dry pine-y rye notes, grain, slightly acrid smoke and burn sugar, green/vegetal notes, flambé bananas. After adding a few drops of water, the rye grain becomes more prominent, with the rum becoming an undercurrent,

Taste: rye grain, pine, and pickle juice (accented by the mezcal) throughout, slightly smoothed by the rum's molasses and banana notes in the middle, burnt sugar and toasted grain at the back. After dilution, the rum edges out the rye to make a much sweeter and smoother palate, with rye grain/pine and burnt sugar at the back.

Finish: burnt sugar, toasted rye grain, pine, a touch of vegetal agave

The switch that the nose and palate pull after adding water was quite interesting though. Sometimes it doesn't take a lot of water to push a spirit in one direction or another.

If I was going to do this again, I would up the amount of mezcal in the mix. It's such a strongly flavored spirit that I was worried about it overwhelming the other components, but with beefy stuff like Willet rye and Lemon Hart 151, I shouldn't have been. More smoke and vegetal agave notes would make for a great counterpoint to the other spirits.

Experimental Rumsky: Russell's Reserve Rye/Lemon Hart 151 Blends

These blends came out of an experiment I did several years ago with Russell's Reserve rye and El Dorado 12 Year rum. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but don't have any of the rum on hand anymore. So I decided to see how well my other Guyanese staple, Lemon Hart 151, would mix with the rye.

7:1 Russell's Reserve Rye/Lemon Hart 151

Nose: tons of sawdust and brown sugar, rye grain, corn, and vanilla underneath, rum detectable as a molasses undercurrent (gaining prominence with time) and more assertive alcohol (settling down with time), unripe fruit (bananas?),

Taste: the rum's molasses is a strong presence throughout, slowly giving ground to rye grain and pine, sawdust, and moderate oak tannins, unripe pineapple, cumin and other spices underneath

Finish: dusty rye grain with a touch of molasses sweetness, combining with a bitter/sour tang

I think this is the slightly better version, as it lets the rye do its thing while the rum smoothes over some of the whiskey's weak points.

3:1 Russell's Reserve Rye/Lemon Hart 151

Nose: more rum tops notes (molasses and overripe fruit), grain and sawdust are less readily apparent,

Taste: almost completely dominated by the heavily molasses and burnt sugar flavors of the rum until somewhere near the back, where rye grain and corn finally peek out, with the whiskey's oak combining with the burnt sugar notes to make a new sort of bitter finish

Finish: barrel char and burnt sugar, rye grain bitterness

Despite the preponderance of whiskey in this blend, it is almost completely dominated by the rum. In many respects, it resembles a heavy rum accented by rye rather than the other way around. While some of this is attributable to the rum's higher proof (151 vs. 90), it still demonstrates the depth of flavor contained in Lemon Hart 151. The 7:1 blend is definitely more balanced.

Experimental Whisky: Jefferson's 10 Year Rye/Hazelburn 12 Year Blend

In the vein of High West's Campfire whiskey, a blend of bourbon, rye, and single malt whisky, I tossed together a Canadian 100% rye with a heavily sherried triple-distilled single malt. Let's see how this goes.

1:1 Jefferson's 10 Year Rye/Hazelburn 12 Year Blend

Nose: contains elements of both the rye and the single malt in reasonably good balance - dusty rye grain, moderate sherry, hints of salted caramel, malt, a fair bit of alcoholic heat. After adding a few drops of water, there are more barrel notes (which become richer over time) - creamy vanilla, oak, and caramel - both the sherry and rye retreat, while some vegetal notes pop out

Taste: flat up front, expanding into the Hazelburn's sherry, then fading through rye grain and spice. After dilution it becomes sweeter and more integrated - the rye comes forward while the sherry extends further back - while the agriculture notes of malt and rye grain become more prominent, alongside dry pepper.

Finish: sherry, rye grain, moderate oak, rather dry

Not sure if this one suffered because it was constructed from the dregs of both bottles, but it didn't have the pop that I was looking for. I think the combination of rye and sherried whisky offers a lot of promise, so I'll keep experimenting with them.

Whiskey Review: Willett Single Barrel Rye Barrel #38

One of the biggest trends in the American whiskey world over the last few years has been sourced whiskies. And by far the biggest supplier of sourced whiskies has been MGP (previously known as LDI), the Indiana-based former Seagram's plant that was quietly churning out whiskey on contract for many years before it was discovered to be the last remaining source of aged bulk whiskey for sale in America. Most importantly, they produced whiskey with a unique 95% rye mash bill, originally designed for flavoring blended whiskeys, that could fill some of the unmet demand for rye whiskey.

Despite the name, Kentucky Bourbon Distillers did not have an operating still from 1984 until 2012, so all of the whiskey they have released over the last few decades has been sourced from elsewhere. While much of it has been from the closely located Heaven Hill Distillery, they have also sourced bourbon and rye whiskey from MGP.

KBD puts out single barrel whiskeys from various distilleries under the Willett label. The ryes are mostly from MGP, which can be determined by looking for the phrase 'Distilled in Indiana' on the back label. All are relatively young, ranging from three to six years old, and bottled at 55% ABV. This one is from Indiana and was bottled at 5 years old.

Also, be sure to check out Michael Kravitz's review of the same whisky. I'll also be reviewing a sample I got from his bottle soon.

Willett Single Barrel Rye Barrel #38

Nose: alcohol is a noticeable overtone, fresh oak is dominant, sweet grain, pine, berries, caramel/burnt sugar, cinnamon. After adding a few drops of water, some hints of chocolate come out, the pine leans towards a more generically vegetal note, but doesn't change all that much.

Taste: briefly dry/creamy grain, then thick, sweet wood, pepper/alcohol heat, cinnamon, berries, and even more oak. After dilution, the mouthfeel becomes thicker and it's sweeter overall, with slightly less assertive wood, but possibly even more aggressive alcoholic heat.

Finish: dry wood, slightly grainy and piney, pepper, pleasantly bitter, hints of berries

Honestly, this isn't a particularly complex whiskey. It's dominated by the barrel, though the young rye pine is also pretty noticeable, leading me to initially describe it as 'a Pacific Northwest lumber yard'. The alcoholic heat is also fairly strong at full strength, which I think covers up a lot of the nuances in the spirit. This means it's also probably good to have a glass of water on hand. That's not to knock this whiskey, since I find it enjoyable, but it is what it is - relatively young rye.

Because I've been curious for some time about how high proof spirits change with dilution, I watered samples down to 50% and 45% ABV and let them integrate for a number of weeks. The results were fairly striking.

Willett Rye 50%

Nose: toasted oak, grain, a touch of honey, fresh herbs/grass, solvent overtones, cinnamon caramel undertones

Taste: kind of boring - not particularly sweet, bitter wood and integrated grain, hints of pine/herbs at the back, a little cardboard, more barrel notes come out with time

Finish: uninspiring - a little residual wood and grain

As you can tell from the tasting notes, I didn't like the whiskey very much at this strength. It didn't seem to have much going for it - the flavors weren't intense enough to work with the simplicity, but it wasn't mellow enough to be pleasant. Not recommended.

Willett Rye 45%

Nose: pine and grassy notes dominate, vegetables (carrots?), a touch of cinnamon, very light grain, nutmeg, a hint of chocolate/cacao powder, some woody caramel finally shows up with time

Taste: thin mouthfeel, rather dry, mild graininess, hot new wood and pepper mid-palate, fading into green pine and caraway savoriness with hints of citrus and berries, a thin layer of caramel throughout

Finish: pine, very mild grain, a touch of new wood

If the whiskey is mostly about the barrel at full strength, at 45% it's all about the spirit. The high rye recipe is fully in evidence, with lots of pine and herbal notes. I'm not sure that I necessarily like this strength better, but it does have a lot more going on. I think this is part of why MGP's ryes do so well in cocktails - with water a lot of complexity comes out that plays well with other ingredients.

It's unlikely that you'll find a bottle from this particular barrel - it was given to me as a Christmas present  a couple of years ago. But I'm going to hazard a guess that most of them are going to be pretty similar. There's only so much you can do with 95% rye distillate in a handful of years. Would I recommend buying a bottle? Maybe. If you already like Bulleit or Templeton rye (which are sourced from the same distillery), I'd say that this is worth your while if it's not too much more than $30. At that point the extra alcohol should pay for itself. Much more (it's over $45 here in Oregon) and I'd give it a pass. There are other rye whiskeys on the market with more refinement (Sazerac 6 Year) and better price (Rittenhouse BiB) that I would grab first. But Willett is, to put it mildly, an experience.

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.

New Cocktails: One Eyed Jack

One of my friends recently posted a picture of a mini-menu from the West Side Lounge in Boston. They're starting a weekly Twin Peaks evening and made a set of cocktails specifically for it. The one I decided to make myself is named after the brothel in the TV show - the drink certainly is dangerous.

One Eyed Jack
1.5 oz applejack
0.75 oz Chartreuse
0.75 oz rye whiskey
1 dash Angostura bitters

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

The nose is dominated by the Chartreuse, but remains fairly balanced, with the applejack's fruit and rye whiskey's grain making themselves known. The sip begins with moderate sweetness, with apples coming in early, followed by herbal notes from the Chartreuse and spice from the rye and bitters, then leaving with bittersweet apples.

Since all I had to begin with were the ingredients, I modeled the proportions on the Widow's Kiss, substituting rye whiskey for the Bénédictine. Since it was going to be a lot less sweet that way, I back off on the bitters to keep things in balance. It's surprisingly smooth and easy going for being a cocktail made entirely with high-proof spirits. It works out well since the two spirits compliment different aspects of the Chartreuse, combing together in a beautiful melange.

Classic Cocktails: De La Louisiane

I was pointed towards this fantastic twist on the classic Sazerac cocktail by Thomas Prieto. It originally comes from the Restaurant de la Louisiane, a famous French restaurant in early 20th-century New Orleans. The recipe was recorded by Stanley Clisby Arthur in his 1937 book New Orleans Drinks and How to Mix 'Em.

De La Louisiane
2 oz rye whiskey
0.75 oz sweet vermouth
0.75 oz Bénédictine
2 dashes Peychaud's bitters
3 dashes (~0.5 tsp) pastis or absinthe

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

The nose is dominated by the anise notes of the Herbsaint and Peychaud's, herbaceousness from the Bénédictine, with hints of sweet wine and rye. The sip begins with honey and wine sweetness from the Bénédictine and sweet vermouth, becoming herbal rye mid-palate, then leaving with a shower of anise sparks.

This is a really interesting mash-up of the Sazerac and the Vieux Carré. It's less sweet than I would have guessed looking at the recipe - the ingredients balance each other rather well. I would highly recommend this if you enjoy rye whiskey cocktails.

Classic Cocktails: the Blinker

I snagged this drink from Ted Haigh's Vintage Spirits & Forgotten Cocktails. The drink first appeared in Patrick Gavin Duffy's The Official Mixer's Manual in 1934. That suggests that it probably came out of Prohibition, when lots of drinks were developed to hide the taste of bad spirits. While I'm using finer ingredients than what would have been available at the local speakeasy, it still manages to hide an awful lot of whiskey.

Blinker
2 oz rye whiskey
1 oz grapefruit juice
2 barspoons raspberry syrup

Combine all ingredients, shake with ice for six seconds, then strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a lemon twist.

The nose is full of grapefruit with hints of lemon oil from the garnish and there is a bit of rye and raspberry underneath. The sip begins with mildly sweet grapefruit, which grows towards mid-palate. The rye and raspberry rise alongside. The finish is all raspberry and rye grain.

This drink definitely fits the Prohibition mold. With that said, unless you want the whiskey to hide even more, I wouldn't try substituting bourbon into this cocktail - it probably won't be able to hold its own. If Rittenhouse can barely punch through, no bourbon short of George T. Stagg is going to make much of an impression. Either way, it's either an easy drinking cocktail (build it over ice and dilute it with a squirt of soda water for something a bit snappier in the summer) or a good way to ease someone into rye whiskey.