Review: Woodford Reserve Double Oaked

​There are a lot of bourbon drinkers out there that do not like Woodford Reserve. Not sure what it is about it. The taste? The price? I don't know. But the fact remains that I know very few bourbon drinkers that will lay claim to liking Woodford Reserve. I've yet to hear someone say it was their go-to bourbon. Of course, some like it but, don't like the price.

Woodford-double-oaked.jpg

I'm going to tell you a story. It's a story about a man on a mission. You see this man's wife was a fan of Woodford Reserve. And she had just heard that they were putting out a second permanent bourbon under the Woodford name.

And she wanted it. 

So the man went on a multi-store search for the mysterious Double Oaked. ​It was an elusive prey. Not just there for the taking, Double Oaked had to be earned. And earn it the man did. He went to the liquor store near where he works.

Nothing. ​

He went to the store across the road from that one. Nothing. ​He stopped at his favorite. No go. He stopped at his second favorite. They had a place on the shelf, but had sold out. Finally he stopped at the one closest to his house. In desperation. This was his last chance to capture the prey that would make his lady oh so very happy. 

They had it. At first it didn't register. The copper colored embossed label. He looked right past it. But then there he came to his senses. He reached out his hand and grabbed it. It was his. ​His wife was happy. It was a good Friday.

Notes:
​
Nose: brown sugar and apples
​​Taste: Baked apples with all the spices. Moves toward bitter tannins.
​Finish: This has a lingering bitterness that is lightly tinged with a carmel sweetness.​

like.gif

So that story above? Pretty good, huh? Yeah, none of it is true. Well my wife did send me out after Double Oaked, but I found it at the first store. Probably because I had wisely chosen the biggest store in the richest suburb I drove through on my way home from work. And boy did you need a deep pocket to buy this one. I don't know what it goes for now, but when I bought the bottle shortly after it came out, I paid almost $60 for it. Which wouldn't be much, but it is pretty average bourbon. Good, I like it. But like the folks I mention above, I also do not like the price.

UPDATE: I revisited this bourbon after five and a half years. My opinions have changed in the intervening time. Check it out!​


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

A Four Roses Head-to-Head-to-Head Tasting: Small Batch, Mariage Collection 2009 & Limited Edition Small Batch 2012

So I was reading my Google Reader subscriptions yesterday when I ran across a fairly alarming blog post on David Driscoll's K&L Spirits Blog. It seems that the Award-Winning Four Roses Limited Edition Small Batch 2012 Release has been reported to be oxidizing quicker than expected. (And what that means kids is this: drink your whiskey. Having it sit open on the shelf too long doesn't necessarily prolong enjoyment. Sometimes it actually lessens it.)

Well, after reading that post, I sent my wife an email. "Honey," I said "we need to take a sip of that there whiskey tonight and see what's what." 

hmm...it seems that in my memories, I talk an old prospector...

She had an even better idea. She said that after we tasted a little bit of it, if it was still ok, maybe we should sit down and do that second head-to-head-to-head tasting that we were thinking of doing. I married a smart woman. The plan had been to compare our 2009 Mariage with the 2012 Limited Edition Small Batch. But as I was setting up the two glasses, I drew a third circle on the papers and poured the regular Small Batch as well. My thought was: this is the baseline standard. A control in the experiment as it were. Plus it's my favorite every day whiskey and I don't pass up a chance to have some.

BB0K_HuCIAA_gtQ.jpg-large.jpeg

All three whiskies poured and awaiting tasting

The set up was the same as before. It was a double blind tasting which means that I poured them into glasses on a sheet of paper labeled A, B and C and then I left the room. My wife then came into the room and moved each glass onto the numbered sheet that you see above. This way I knew which bourbon was which letter and she knew which letter was which number, but neither of us knew which bourbon corresponded to which number. Fairly simple way of removing label bias.

So what were the results? Did I find that all the releases were over rated and I loved the regular release Small Batch the best after all? First: all bourbons were tasted neat. After we had our initial notes, my wife added a tiny bit of water to her glasses. Also, all of these bourbon have been open for a while. The LESB was opened in September. I didn't notice much oxidation, if any, but it was still 2/3 full. The Mariage was opened at the end of July at the celebration of a very big milestone. Same thing here. Stayed relatively full and I didn't notice much difference. The regular release Small Batch was a gift from my daughter's boyfriend at Christmas and helped me through that.

Bourbon 1:

Nose: Initially all I get is vanilla extract. But I take my time with it, figuring that it probably had a little something more to give. After a while I get an unidentified fruity odor. To me this always smells like JuicyFruit gum (my favorite gum when I was a child: five sticks, just a quarter). I get that a lot with Four Roses, so finding it here wasn't a giant surprise. With a little water it seemed to transform into an almost earthy honey smell. Reminded me of the buckwheat honey I had for a while.

Mouth: This dries the mouth, but doesn't burn. Strange. Big caramel. It has a sweet, floral taste, but not delicate. If I didn't know better, I'd think Four Roses had swapped a straight rye whiskey with a high percentage corn into my glass.

Finish: Almost no burn here. Finish brings that JuicyFruit flavor back again

Overall: Wow. This might very well be the best Four Roses, I've ever had. My wife normally puts a small piece of ice in every bourbon. She asked me to remind her that this one she wants neat from now on.  

Bourbon 2:

Nose: I'll admit, I was confused by this one. So confused that I went out to the spice cupboard and started smelling things to see what it was that it reminded me of. I settled on a mix of allspice and oregano with a little molasses thrown in. After a little water it get's mintier. (And after I move back up the line from three before tasting: wow! Big hit of alcohol. Guessing this is one of the higher proof releases).

Mouth: My first thought: "ooh, that's a Four Roses..." and I just closed my eyes and enjoyed that first sip. After I opened them again and took another sip, I got spice, and some of that JuicyFruit flavor. Sweet. Spicy. Fruity. Yum.

Finish: Short burn on this one. Sweet and spicy fading into a sharpness. It leaves a tingle on the tongue for a little while. My wife: "the finish makes me want more"

Overall: This one was confusing. It was very rich and full flavored, but I had a hard time picking out what those flavors were beyond their basic "Four-Roses-ness" Once my wife added a little ice, to replicate how she would normally drink a bourbon, this was her favorite of the three.

Bourbon 3:

Nose: After the other two, this is like a sweet floral perfume. It's very delicate. After a little water, not much different.

Mouth: This has a surprising sharpness along the sides of the tongue. More alcohol flavor than I expected. But after revisiting it a little later. It's much more sweet.

Finish: Short burn with a lingering sweetness.

Overall: While this was our least favorite of the three, it is still a very good bourbon. I could drink the heck out of this one at a bar with friends, watching tv or with a good book. It's a great everyday bourbon.

So which was which? Well, the rankings my wife gave them were as follows. Neat: 1, 2, 3. With a tiny piece of ice: 2, 1, 3. I'd rank them similarly even though I only had mine neat. It's a toss up between 1 and 2 for me. Both amazing, but different enough that I'd stand there for a moment trying to decide and then choose one at random. Number three was good, but not great. So that said, it isn't too surprising that Bourbon 3 was the regular release Small Batch. Number 1 is the 2012 Limited Edition Small Batch and Bourbon 2 is the Mariage Collection 2009 Release.

2012 LE SB

2012 LE SB

2012 LE SB

2009 Mariage

Small Batch

Small Batch

Last time I did this, I told you "If I could only buy one going forward..." Well, it seems that is probably going to be the case in this instance. I had a hard time picking up a second bottle of the 2012. It is in the bunker. I'm working my way through my second (and last) bottle of 2009. It looks like I'll be out of luck regarding that one too. But that's ok. There will be more wonderful bourbons to taste and I've had the good fortune to pick up two of each of the rare ones. That said, if I had the opportunity to buy the last bottle of any of these and could only pick one. It would be hard. My 15th Wedding Anniversary was celebrated at the 2012 LESB Release Party. The 2009 bottle was cracked open to celebrate my wife showing no further evidence of cancer after her chemo. Both have a bit of nostalgia there. But ultimately, and after a lot of soul searching, I'd choose the 2012. I stand by my initial reaction that it might be the best Four Roses I've ever had.

This might have been the most fun I've had at a tasting with just my wife. We knew going in that we were going to really like all of these. If asked independently we'd both say that Four Roses is our favorite bourbon producer and we knew that for us, the bar started at Very Good before we sat down to analyze them. Then it just became a matter of analyzing and exploring. It was a lot of fun.

I emptied my favorite cooking bourbon: Knob Creek Single Barrel

Tonight I'm talking about my favorite cooking bourbon. Some people might think that's an insult. That it means it is a bourbon so bad that all it is good for is hiding amongst other flavors. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I want to enjoy what I eat I had better use quality ingredients.

My go-to cooking bourbon will have to meet certain factors and the most important one of them will be that I like how it tastes.

The second factor is proof. When I bake, I pull out some water and substitute a little bourbon. You might have noticed that bourbon is much more expensive than water. Hence I want to use as little as possible while still giving me the flavor I want. As you probably know, higher proof bourbons tend to have less water added. As a result, there is also a tendency toward more flavor.

Cost and availablilty are the final factors. My go-to cooking bourbon won't be a Four Roses Limited Edition no matter how high the proof or how tasty the bourbon. 

So that makes Knob Creek Single Barrel probably the perfect cooking bourbon. It is 120 proof. It's tasty. It's readily available and it won't break the bank. That isn't to say that I haven't given it the once over in the Glencairn Glass though. Here are my findings:

Nose: Earthy, lots of oak. There is some sweet underneath. Honestly, I'm finding that this smells just like the warehouse on the tour at the American Stillhouse. 

Mouth: This is a sweet one! Tasted neat, I find this to be mostly caramel and heat.

Finsh: Sharp and spicy with a cool mintiness. It leaves a tingle on the tongue that lasts forever.

Overall: I like this bourbon, but not for drinking. I really don't like to drink super high proof bourbons. They fry my taste buds way too quick. And if I'm going to water it down anyway, I might as well go with the 100 proof Knob Creek and save myself some money. But as my go-to cooking bourbon, I love it. I've used this in my Bourbon Banana Bread and my Bourbon Doughnuts with great results.

average-of-like.gif

So this is a tasty bourbon that is interesting in the glass. But for me, the really high proof makes it a meh for drinking. But that same proof makes it a love for cooking. Average that out and you get a like. And I really do like this. I just had to find a way to let it's flavor shine while holding back the proof. And for me that's in food.

A Head-to-Head-to-Head Tasting: Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year, Larceny, & Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond

Has it finally happened? Has my nose unclogged? Have my senses of smell and taste returned to me? Am I ever going to stop asking questions and get on with this?

Yes. To all of them. My wife and I have finally come close enough to kicking the cold/flu that felled us in the late December/Early January that we can breathe again. We can laugh without coughing again. And most importantly, our tastebuds and our sniffers work again.

Last year, round about September, I hit on the idea that to really know the minute differences of different bourbons, I needed to compare them to one another. Have them side by side. Smell one, smell the other, smell my hand*, and start over again. So while I was in Kentucky, the land of bourbon, I decided to start picking up a few things with an eye toward head to head tastings. Some of them were planned. Some of the stuff I lucked into. I was checking out when I'd notice a small bottle of something. Maybe it was a different proof than what already had. Maybe it was a mini of another release of something I had at home. I collected things all autumn long, buying bourbon in at least 6 different states along the way. It was fun. 

But by the time I was about to get started on the tasting fun. BLAM! Laid out by tiny little viruses. So unfair. And now we're back to the present. About to dig into a trio of wheaters from Heaven Hill. so how did I decide on these? Well, a little bit of luck and a tiny bit of planning. I've had the Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year Old since a visit to Des Moines, Iowa this summer. I picked it up because it was something I knew I couldn't get here in Minnesota. Or at least I had never seen it. The Larceny was released right about the time I was going to Kentucky. I got a $10 rebate on the bottle and it was also on sale for roughly $22. Buying that was a no brainer. At that point it seemed I had a pretty nice head to head going. It wasn't a planned one, but hey, I'm not one to sneer at dumb luck. One problem, those two wheaters were both MSRP'd like premium bourbons. One of the things I had read about Old Fitzgerald was that it was a good value bourbon. So with the head to head in mind, I went ahead and picked up a bottle of Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond for ~$18 for a liter. And just like that it became a head-to-head-to-head. Three times the fun!

Here's how the wife and I did the tastings. With her out of the room, I poured each into identical Glencairn glasses. One set for me, one set for my wife. I had them on a piece of paper and in front of each I wrote a number 1-3. Then I left the room. My wife came in and moved each glass onto another prepared sheet that was labeled A, B, C. So I knew which bourbons were 1, 2 and 3 and she knew which letter corresponded to which number and neither of us knew which bourbon was in which place in front of us. A perfect double blind tasting.

So what did we think? Well, we both agreed that there were a lot more similarities between the bourbons than there were differences. In the glass all three were the same color. Though in the bottle the VSOF was a bit darker. None of these were overly complicated bourbons. All of them were sweet with a hint of spice in the mouth. So knowing that, let's dig in.

Bourbon A:

Nose: Sweet with a hint of something smoky. Once I was hit with something  sharp, almost acidic, but it was gone as soon as it appeared and never came back. I found the same thing at another time in my wife's but it was still gone so fast I couldn't place it.

Mouth: Sweet, but not overly sweet. Brown sugar with a little spice. This one was a bit thin when compared to the other two. 

Finish: Short and sweet. Not hot. Dried the mouth.

Overall: This one confused me. I smelled things that I couldn't catch before they were gone and couldn't pick out anything beyond a very gently spicy brown sugar sweetness. This is a bourbon that I could drink the heck out of though. I like it and I'd enjoy having it at my side while watching a movie or talking with friends. This was probably our favorite of the three.

Bourbon B:

Nose: Tangy and sweet play a game of cat and mouse with each other while nosing this one. One time it's a hard maple bomb, the next it's tangy, then they swap back again.

Mouth: This is a sweet one. Not as sweet as the nose, but there is a slight maple or brown sugar there amongst the alcohol. I found this one to be a bit on the thick side. Not oily, but syrupy. I guess that goes with the maple in there.

Finish: Finish was the best part of this one. There is that tang in the back of the throat that the nose promised, sweet spice on the sides of the tongue, and a hint of smokiness all around.  

Overall: My wife found this to be the harshest one out of the three we tasted. Said she only tasted alcohol. I agree it was the harshest one, but not overwhelmingly so. I like this one as well. Though good, this was probably our least favorite of the three. 

Bourbon C:

Nose: Right away I was hit with sweet baked apples. After a bit I got a lot of brown sugar sweetness.

Mouth: Sweetness at first on this one getting spicier as it moves back. I get a lot of corn in this one as well. 

Finish: I found this to have the most burn in the finish out of the three. Really drying the back of the throat.

Overall: This is a good bourbon. It won't blow you away analyzing it, though I found those backed apples on the nose to be interesting. But I drink a whiskey more often than I taste it and this is another one I'd enjoy drinking over conversation with friends or along side a movie or good book.

So which was which? Bourbon A was the Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year Old. No Surprise here, my wife loves older Heaven hill bourbons. Bourbon B was Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond, which explains the harshness comment by my wife. And Bourbon C was Larceny.

like.gif

I like all of these in their own way. Like I said, our favorite was the Very Special Old Fitzgerald, but I wouldn't turn down any of them. And in fact, before I did the tasting, I enjoyed each and every one on numerous occasions. The BiB was great in cocktails or on it's own. The VSOF made a wicked good manhattan. And Larceny is just plain tasty.

If I could only buy one moving forward, I'd pick the BiB because it is so much cheaper and almost as good. My wife, the accountant, though disagrees with me and would choose the Larceny. She like the VSOF the best, but initially had a hard time finding differences between them. So since it is a little cheaper, she'd go that route. If you're buying though? Give either of us the VSOF.

*By the way, that hand smelling thing isn't a joke, it seems to reset the ol' sniffer for some reason.

Another empty: Corner Creek Reserve

corner-creek.jpg

What's this? Two posts in a single week? That...well...that just doesn't happen. Does it? Well it should. And this week it does. Do you remember how earlier this week I was baking a ham? While making the ham I just so happened to empty a bottle that had been sitting on my shelf for a long time.

It was Corner Creek Reserve, or as I heard it described in a liquor store once: the "one that comes in a wine bottle." When I bought this, it was on sale. I was a bit leary (it is in a wine bottle after all), but it's hard to pass up buy one get one free bourbon. I think I paid $26 for the pair.

...time passes while Eric stares at the screen...

So here's the thing, I am finding it extremly hard to write about this BOGO bourbon because it is extremely unremarkable. It doesn't come in a pretty bottle. It's not bad, but it's certainly not good. It's just...ok. I've had it as both the first, the last and the only drink of the night. The only time I wasn't disappointed was when there was nothing to compare it to. 

So I cooked with it. But only when it was melding with other flavors, never when it was the featured flavor.

I last tasted this over a year ago. (Taste, not drink. I've had it quite often over the course of the last year or so.) But I wrote the following tasting notes over a year ago and they are weird. I'd have redone them, but I kept forgetting I had it...and when I did remember, I really didn't want to drink it. In fact, the BOGO bourbon was normally the threat I used on my wife when we couldn't decide or she said "I don't care."

Nose: Butterscotch, black pepper and wheat bread, after I while I could swear I was picking up some banana and maybe cedar wood.

Taste: butterscotch and corn sweetness with cinamon spice. I've written down choclate milk, but I'm guessing that meant a sweet lactic flavor in the back of my throat, not actual chocolate milk.

Finish: This had a thick, oily finish. Sweet and a little spicy.

meh.gif

I will fully admit that this is just my opinion, but this one did nothing for me. It wasn't good or bad. It was interesting, but in the way old people mean when they are too polite to say that they don't understand the weird kid in front of them. For me, this is just a meh. To be honest, I'm kinda glad it's gone. One less thing to take up shelf space.

An Empty: Parker's Heritage Collection, Barrel Finished

So yes, I realize that this isn't an empty bottle in this photo. But, I guarantee you this, by the time I finish this blog post it will be sitting in two glasses, ready to be enjoyed by my wife and I. So I call it close enough. 

I bought this bottle on a whim. At the time I liked to dole out my monthly whiskey money over the course of a couple weeks. And over the course of a couple of bottles. But I thought to myself: "20 bourbons is a lot, I've got enough bottles on hand. I'm going to buy myself something nice"

Apparently I thought that way for approximately a month since I'm sitting somewhere north of 45 right now. But to be fair, a lot of them are "nice."

And this was the one I picked up. I distinctly remember buying this bottle because I remember the nod the clerk behind the counter gave me as he looked at the bottle. Was it admiration? Awe? Lust? Wonder...that anyone would pay $80 for a bourbon (yes, sometimes the stores I frequent are more of the beer-run variety). In any case, I took it to mean I had something special on my hands.

After bringing it home, I realized...it was ok. Not blow your socks off good, but fine. My wife didn't like it. She just gave me a look that said: "Really? $80? Gone just like that, huh?" Needless to say, as we revisited it, we've both changed our opinions of this one. This is one damn fine whiskey.

Color: This one is a deep reddish amber.

Nose: Carmel apples, cola and baking spice.

Taste: Initially sweet, think toffee or honey. There's more spice, this is a hot one.

Finish: I found that this had a sweet finish that faded to a mouth puckering dryness as time went on.

love.gif

So, yes. I love this whiskey. I bought it on an excited whim and was initially disappointed. I don't know if I just wasn't feeling it that day. It was my first "finished bourbon' maybe my palette just wasn't ready for it. As I spent more time with it, I grew to love it more and more. And since my local stores are out of it, I will miss it. But there's always a new one to try so I won't miss it for too long.

Two Empties and reviews of them.

People who know me well know that I am a geek. Not just with bourbon. No, not just with whiskey. No, not just in the computer sense. No...

Will you let me finish? Goodness. 

Ahem. Thank you.

I am a geek because I love knowing how things work. I have this immense curiosity that leads me to want to explore variables. It's one of the reasons I was good at that whole sciencey thing when I was studying astrophysics at the University of Minnesota. You know, before I got even more curious and dropped out to explore a bit more of life.

For the longest time, as a geek, I could use up all my curiosity in the pursuit of technology. Computers, the internet, learning to build web sites, learning to build computers, following the evolution of communities and socialization. But after a while I realized that I wasn't curious about that stuff anymore. I had followed it from toddler stages all the way to young adulthood and I had a pretty good idea of the person it was going to be. I was still it's friend, I liked it's company, but I just wasn't curious anymore.

I've baked practically since I was old enough to read the recipes. I loved the way that you could put all these pieces together, pop it into the oven and have something so different come out. Once I became interested in sprits, I found that while cooking was interesting, it was flavor that I was really curious about.

Flavor is amazing. Flavor curiosity is the reason I have 34-odd flavor infused vodkas in a small dark refrigerator in my office. Curiosity is the only reason that anyone would infuse vodka with black pepper. (Which, by the way, starts out sweet...then a nuclear bomb goes off in your mouth.)

Curiosity about flavor variables is also one of the reasons I love whiskey. From relatively minuscule number of ingredients an almost infinite number of flavor combinations are made. But, while the actual food-style ingredients are important, the process-ingredients are just as much so. The container, the temperature and the time. These are all things that cooks have known for a long time. A dark pan in an oven that runs hot burns baked goods, sometimes before they can even finish baking. The flavor is much different than that of a baked good in a glass pan baked at an even temperature for given time frame. In whiskey speak: a new barrel in a hot warehouse provides a much different flavor profile than a used barrel in a cool one. (That's not an exact analogy, but it's the best I can come up with right now.)

Variables. There are so may variables in whiskey. But the problem with most whiskies is that you get to taste all the different variable at once. Maybe you'll get one or two that have the same "recipe" but they were stored in different places for different times in. To top it off the people choosing the barrels were looking for different flavor profiles when they chose the barrels to go into the whiskies. Too many variables. 

Which is why this particular set of empties was so cool. It was the same juice. Aged for supposedly the same time. One batch in a new barrel, one in a used barrel. You really got to taste exactly what the effect of each variable was. This experiment was expensive. It ran about $100. But if there is one thing that I will consistently spend money on, it's my curiosity.

Now, since I said there would be a review, here are some tasting notes:

Woodford Reserve Master's Collection New Cask Rye:

Color: dark amber to golden brown

Nose: Initially I found Apple Jolly Ranchers, but after a little while it began to take on more of a earthy caramel scent

Taste: A sweet woodiness mixed with the grassy flavors of rye

Finish: Not much burn, a grainy funk that lasts a decent amount of time.

Woodford Reserve Master's Collection Aged Cask Rye:

Color: a light straw color

Nose: Honey, apples, sweet clover

Taste: Grassy and sweet, very grain forward

Finish: Short and sweet, low burn

And just because I was curious, for a while I took to mixing them 50-50: strong spearmint on the nose. Not generic mint, wintergreen or peppermint. Spearmint. Grassy grain on the tongue. Long warm finish with more grassy notes.

like.gif

Overall I liked this whiskey. I didn't care for the price. $100 is a lot for this, but the experience and the satiated curiosity were worth it, even if the whiskey was not. Based on this, if Woodford released a permanent rye in the price range of their original bourbon, I'd give it the occasional look.