#DavinTT Week 2

View fullsize

So. Sunday was week two of the #DavinTT on twitter. Did you make it? Did you go buy the book, read up and ask a question? Did you at least follow along? I hope you did, I had a blast.

As with last week we spent the first half hour or so asking questions of Davin de Kergommeaux. He did his best to answer them all. And even though I read the book (parts of it twice) I still learned something. The beauty of this type of group discussion is that the information that is in the book inspires different thoughts in each of us. And so some people ask questions that I hadn't even thought to ask and I might ask questions that others hadn't thought of. It's kind of like tasting whisky in that manner since we are all informed as much by our own experiences as by the info that was presented to us.

After about a half hour or so our hostess, Johanne McInnis of the blog: The Perfect Whisky Match called those of us lucky enough to have been included in the samples down to the business of discovering what the little bottle I've shown above held. 

Mystery Whisky 2

Color: I don't often comment on color, but this one was really pretty. A bit more red in it than the various Amber tones I'm used to.

Nose: At first all I got was sweetness and rubber. Almost like a Sharpie marker, but not quite. After a little longer I discovered a bit of a sulfur smell in there. And then after those settled down a bit there was a bit of maple. We had a discussion online as to if it were a vanilla or a maple, but to me it went more maple-ish. 

If you're a bourbon person like me, these scents are going to sound really odd. But as strange as they sound, they do not come across as unpleasant, just different. It was a very interesting nose. 

Mouth: This one starts very sweet. But then it takes a left turn into a definite sourness followed by molasses. It was odd. Had an off flavor that I didn't find pleasant. 

Finish: Bitter tannins and spice fading into lingering molasses. 

Overall: This is not a bad whiskey. I don't  think something went wrong or it was not well done. It isn't terrible. But it isn't to my tastes. For me, it's just meh. 

So what is it? This week we tasted Alberta Premium Dark Horse. This is a very different whisky than last week. I'm noticing that there are many facets to Canadian whisky. I find that very exciting and can't wait for next week.

If you missed Sunday's tasting, search for the the twitter hashtag #DavinTT to get caught up. And please make sure you follow along each Sunday at 2 pm Central time between now and May 26th using that same hashtag to live vicariously though us as we expand our knowledge and palates.

Old Pogue, Collier's Powerful Welsh Cheddar & a Ritz: Powerfully Tasty

View fullsize

Last weekend I had what might have been the most transcendent bourbon experience I've ever had.

I was watching MadMen as the finale to a really good weekend of visiting with family (and playing my first ever game of laser tag). Along with some really tasty bourbon, I had picked up what I hoped was some really tasty cheese. Toss that on a few crackers and I figured I had a yummy, though not necessarily healthy, snack to add to my tv viewing pleasure.

The bourbon: Old Pogue Master Select. The cheese: Collier's Powerful Welsh Cheddar. The crackers: Ritz. Yes, Ritz. I love the greasy buttery goodness of those things...

On their own each are tasty. Together they form a super-group that would make all those mulleted rock super-groups of the 80s quake in their odd-looking and inappropriate-with-tight-pants cowboy boots. (Looking at you Damn Yankees.) I mean, this combination is just heaven in the mouth... 

...or so I remember. Knowing that memories that come from a relaxing session of drinking bourbon are notoriously suspect, I decided tonight that I was going to try to recreate the experience in a more scientific (read that non-tv watching) manner. 

First I tasted the Old Pogue on it's own. Here are my notes:

Old Pogue Master's Select

Nose: initially there is a big hit of alcohol. After sitting for a little while I start to pick up caramel apple, baking spices and some vanilla. This is a pleasant nose. Almost comforting. 

Mouth: Repeats a lot of the nose. Tasty, but nothing spectacular. 

Finish: A spicy, sweet burn that lasts a while and is then replaced by a bitter and slightly vegetal after taste. 

Overall: I liked it. I'll certainly buy it again. It's not a go to bourbon, but it'll do when the mood strikes. 

The Combo

After a fairly thorough tasting to set the baseline, I add the cheese and cracker to the mix. This is where it gets fun. In order to most accurately recreate the initial experience I add a bit of water to the bourbon as well. The cheese and cracker cancel a bit of the burn left after adding the water. The sharp cheddar completely overpowers the bitterness in the finish. It adds a caramel sweetness to the slightly sweet, salty, sharp, nutty taste of the cheddar and buttery crunch of the ritz which is amazing. It's just as good as I remembered. Damn Yankees have been put on notice. 

And I have to say, it made for one hell of a supper.

#DavinTT Week One + a book and a whisky review

View fullsize

Until recently, I knew nothing about Canadian Whisky. Sure, I'd bought Windsor Canadian when I was in college to swish my mouth with when I had a toothache and couldn't afford a dentist. I didn't like it, but then I didn't like any whiskies. I'd never had anything else produced by our Neighbor to the North. And, honestly, based on that experience I wasn't in a hurry to remedy the situation.

As part of my whiskey education, I'd learned that Canadian Whisky was the product of blending whiskies. I had a vague thought that it was "blended whisky" like American blended whiskey. (You know, where they mix straight whiskey with neutral sprits (vodka) in order to make a lighter product.) This misconception did not make me in any more of a hurry to expand my whisky knowledge to Products of Canada.

So, yes, I knew nothing about Canadian Whisky but a dimly remembered dislike of a downmarket product and a series of vague misconceptions. But, recently, all that changed. You see, I'd been offered a wonderful opportunity to broaden my horizons with respect to whisky produced by our Northern Neighbor. Johanne McInnis of the blog: The Perfect Whisky Match arranged a Twitter book review/author Q&A of Canadian Whisky: the portable expert by Davin de Kergommeaux. 

In fact she scheduled four of them. One each Sunday from May 5th through May 26th. Each Sunday at 2pm Central Time we spent/will spend about a half hour asking questions inspired by our assigned reading from the book. After that we crack open a "Mystery Whisky" sample that had been sent to us and we do an online tasting. 

Book Review:

Canadian Whisky: the portable expert by Davin de Kergommeaux has been on my Amazon wishlist for the last bit of forever. The minute I heard about it, I knew I wanted to read it. This is a book that busts the many myths and misconceptions that most citizens of these United States have regarding Canadian Whisky. That "blended whisky" one from above? Yep. Untrue. A blend of whiskies is not a blended-whiskey. Hiram Walker? Turns out there is more than just those florescent liqueurs you see on the bottom shelf of the cordial section of most liquor stores associated with that name. This is a book fully worth buying. I'll admit, I was sent a review copy of the book for this project. I'm thinking really hard about buying the Kindle version though just so I can have it with me on the iPad at all times. Go buy the book. Today if possible, but as soon as you can if it isn't. 

And if you buy today (or any day) as an added bonus: since those pesky Canadians keep most of the really good stuff in country and there are more tasty whiskies made in Canada than those of us in Middle North America have probably ever realized, Davin was nice enough to provide tasting notes in the book so that we are fully aware of just what we are missing out on. 

And are we ever missing out. If Mystery Whisky number one is any indication, I need to visit Canada a lot more often.

Mystery Whisky 1

Nose: I'm first hit with a sour/acidic smell balanced by a hint of sweetness. After some discussion online and with my wife, I'll settle on pickles. Not strong and overpowering, but there. I also get some pine, vanilla and after a while cloves. 

Mouth: Velvety and thick, spicy with a good strong rye flavor. Later sips reveal an underlying vanilla/caramel sweetness. After adding water, the spice is muted to reveal some citrus. 

Finish: pickle juice is back along with pine and cinnamon spice. This is a good finish. 

Thoughts: I love this whisky. It is elegantly balanced with a thick, velvety mouthfeel. I prefer it with no water as I love the spiciness it presents. Others, including my wife, prefer muting that with water and allowing other flavors to come to the front. To each their own, I guess. 

So what is it? After about an hour, the reveal happens: this is called Lot No. 40, is produced at the Hiram Walker distillery, bottled at 43% ABV...and (as near as I can tell) is not available in the US. So that makes the opportunity to taste it even more special. I want to thank Johanne and Davin for the opportunity to participate in these twitter tastings and greatly look forward to next weekend!

If you missed today's tasting, search for the the twitter hashtag #DavinTT to get caught up. And please make sure you follow along each Sunday at 2 pm Central time between now and May 26th using that same hashtag to live vicariously though us as we expand our knowledge and palates.

---

2019 UPDATE: I took another look at Lot 40 in August of 2019. It has completely changed. Read about it here.

---

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products and bourbon-related craft supplies I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. And hey, if you are an iOS user, look for Bourbon Guy in Apple News. Thanks!

Double Blind Review: Evan Williams vs. Evan Williams 1783

I like to travel. A lot. It's pretty much my second favorite hobby. I like it so much that I'd write a travel blog if it wasn't cheaper to go buy a bottle of bourbon than catch a flight to Louisville. And if so much of my travel didn't involve bourbon in some way shape or form. Last September I was in Kentucky. I believe I've mentioned this. One of the little highlights of my trip was stopping into the liquor stores to scope out all the tasty things I couldn't get (or didn't think I could get) at home. One of these was Evan Williams 1783. Since September, I've had it neat a half dozen times or so, used it in a few cocktails and even for cooking on occasion. All in all each experience was enjoyable.

Of course, sometimes you buy something just because you want to compare it to something else. This was the situation I found myself in as I bought a tiny little mini of Evan Williams black label. It was something I'd had and liked before, but with so many other tasty things to try, it had taken a while for me to go pick it up again. Black label was one of the first non-premium bourbons I'd had after I decided I liked bourbon. I'd read that it was a pretty good value bourbon and decided on a whim to pick it up. Good whim. I immediately realized that as far as bourbon was concerned, you didn't need to spend $30-40 to get something really tasty. 

So, having the 1783 in hand and having picked up the mini of the black label, I decided tonight to go head to head. Just to see if different was necessarily better.

Here comes disclaimer-time: I did this in my normal double blind tasting routine where I draw a circle with an A in it, one with a B in it, one with a 1 and then one with a 2. I pour into the glasses labeled A and B and my wife moved them to either 1 or 2. So I know what A and B are, and she knows what 1 and 2 are, but neither of us know what bourbon is 1 and which is 2.

Bourbon 1:

Nose: This is a sticky sweet caramel roll in a glass. 

Mouth: Very sweet on entry. It gets hotter as it moves back in the mouth. Other than that there isn't much else going on here.

Finish: There's a little heat, but it fades pretty quickly.

Thoughts: This is a very pleasant, uncomplicated bourbon. It isn't going to make you sit and think, but that makes it perfect for playing cards. Something to sip on while your attention is somewhere else. 

Bourbon 2:

Nose: right away, I'm reminded of sour milk. not something I want to nose at all. After letting it sit for a 5-10 minutes the sour milk fades and is replaced by a sweet caramel much like bourbon 1.

Mouth: The sweetness is repeated here. It's soft and full in the mouth. 

Finish: Short with almost no heat, but there is a lingering sweetness that I like.

Thoughts: This is so uncomplicated to be almost boring. But sometimes that's a good thing. I'd like this as I watch tv at the end of a rough day. It lends itself well to just vegging out watching an implausible prime-time action drama.

Verdict: I shouldn't have been, but I was pretty shocked to find out how similar these two were. The little bit of heat in bourbon 1 was not as pleasant as the softness of bourbon 2. Sweet, sweet, sweet as most inexpensive bourbons are, but pleasant none-the-less. I like these for drinking, not tasting and wouldn't hesitate if offered either during a hand of cards. 

So which was which? Well, bourbon 1 was the Evan Williams 1783 and bourbon 2 was the Evan Williams Black Label. I found it a bit shocking that I found the "normal" one more to my liking, but that's why I taste blind: I don't want any preconceptions. And of course, if you haven't had them, try them out, you'll be out maybe $30 for the pair. 

Review: Henry McKenna Single Barrel Bottled in Bond

View fullsize

I bought this a while back. Probably about a year or so ago, maybe a bit longer. I'll be honest. I bought it for the bottle. It's looks a bit like it was designed as a school project. And I loved it for it. Visible hot glue, a copper neck tag that looks hand wrapped and a hand written ID tag with the barrel number and barreling date.  It just adds to the craftiness of it all. And it would have sat there just looking all crafty-cool if I hadn't taken the behind the scenes tour at the Heaven Hill distillery last September and learned a little nugget of info that sparked my curiosity. 

We were being given one hell of a cool tour and our guide was telling us a little about aging. He told us that, obviously, Heaven Hill ages their barrels all over the place. Now there are some of these barrels that end up on the sunny side of a hill (I think he mentioned this facility was up by Louisville, but that was 6 months or so ago, I might be misremembering that part). Now according to the guide, these barrels age to be a bit harsher than those barrels that are destined to become the flagship Evan Williams. But that, in a odd quirk of fate, because there are fewer of these barrels you will actually pay more for a bottle of Henry McKenna than you would for the "better" Evan Williams. 

How much of that is true? Probably some of it, but it's a good story so I'll let any embellishment slide. I'm a firm believer in not letting the truth get in the way of a good story. But it did spark my interest. I wanted to see if this Bottled in Bond version followed those same themes. And now that I've emptied it, this is my last chance to share my findings.

View fullsize

Nose: At first this is all caramel and heat. Damn near fried my nose. After letting it sit for a bit, it settles into brown sugar and cherry with just the tiniest hint of smoke

Mouth: FIRE! This is a hot one! It's just a big bucket of burn. Adding a little water calms it down a bit, allowing it to show it's sweet side.

Finish: What do you know? There's a hot finish too. After the heat fades it brings back a bit of the cherry and some bitterness that dries the mouth.

Thoughts: I like this more for the story and the bottle that it's in, than for what's inside it. Everything about this one is hot. Might be nice on a cold winter's night, but it's (finally) showing signs of spring here and it's not to my tastes right now. A small piece of ice does help to tame it though. For the time and place I'm in right now, I'm going with meh. But if you like hot bourbons that can bring the burn, this one might be just for you.

UPDATE: Do you not agree with this review? Well, guess what after four and a half years, I didn't either and I decided to revisit it. Check out the current review here. 

---

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

Double Blind Review: 3 Unrelated Ryes

View fullsize

I recently realized I had about one pour left of two different rye whiskies. I needed the shelf space so I poured them into small bottles and stuck them onto one of my shelves. They sat there for a while. 

A long while.  

I like rye. But unless it is amazing, I normally put it into a cocktail. A sazerac or a manhattan made with a decent rye whiskey is one of the best things that a person can imbibe. I'd had both of those in cocktails and neat. I mostly preferred them in a cocktail. But I like rye. And these two had only one pour left. If I was going to review them, I was going to have to not put them into a cocktail. I was going to have to put them into a glass all by themselves and think about them. 

Cocktails are good. They do not tend to lend themselves to the contemplative tasting. But that's part of their charm. They taste good. And that's their purpose. A bad whiskey can be interesting, a bad cocktail needs to be dumped out. 

So here is a double blind tasting of those two ryes that I normally used in cocktails and another that I felt belonged since I like three way tastings way better than two... 

So there. 

I started in the usual double blind fashion of pouring and then letting my wife mix them up. I knew which whiskey equaled which number, she knew which number equaled which letter and neither of us knew what was in any of the glasses.

Rye A:

Nose: Honey, slightly soapy. Hints of grass follow.

Mouth: Sweet up front, mint and grass follows

Finish: This is a hot one. There's a tingle through the entire mouth. It fades into a bitter citrus pith in the throat.

Overall: I like this, but I'm not sure this is something I would drink alone. It hits all the notes I want a rye to hit, but it isn't one that I'd go to neat on a regular basis. 

Rye B: 

Nose: Sweet. Butterscotch with a hint of baking spice

Mouth: Soft is the best word I can use. This is a sweet one. 

Finish: Minty cool plus heat. This is the Icy-Hot of finishes. But it fades pretty quick. 

Overall: I loved the mouthfeel of this one. There was an elegant softness that I wasn't expecting. I know that two of these are 100 proof or over and one is 80. So I'm guessing this  is one of those. I don't care. I think I'm in love.

Rye C:

Nose: Fresh mown hay, then a hint of banana and mint.

Mouth: Thin. There isn't a lot of flavor here. Sweet and spice with a hint of bitter, but you gotta search for it.  

Finish: Finish is where this brings its game. It fades from the sweet into a bitter spice. There isn't a lot of heat, but this leaves a tingle.  

Overall: Standing on it's own, this is a meh. I wouldn't put it into a glass, but if I was at a bar I wouldn't turn it down depending on what else was back there. It's really just ok.  

So what was what? You can see which three were being reviewed in the image above. So I'm just going to spill it. A was Rittenhouse Bottled in Bond. B was Wild Turkey 101 proof. C was Old Overholt. I was a little surprised at how much I liked the Wild Turkey, because none of these are very expensive. If you can find Wild Turkey Rye 101, it's pretty reasonable. Rittenhouse is under $25 and Old Overholt was bought for like $11 or so. Not really surprised that they ended up where they did. 

My wife checked my work tonight. She thought I was mostly right, but when she tasted the Rittenhouse she proclaimed: "ooh. I don't like this." Since she doesn't actually like rye neat, I wouldn't take that too hard if I were them.

Well, now I'm off to pour what's left together and make the world's most strangely concocted manhattan.  Well, as far as the whiskey is concerned. The manhattan will follow my standard recipe. 

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.

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.​

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.

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

2009 Mariage

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.