One man's thoughts....people change, tastes change

Discuss any bourbon related topics here that do not belong in a forum below.

Moderator: Squire

One man's thoughts....people change, tastes change

Unread postby Mike » Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:54 pm

Since I joined BE not quite a year ago, I have tried somewhere around 45 or so bourbons, written reviews on maybe 35 or so, and now find my tastes have changed almost without me being aware of it. When I joined, I preferred the wheated bourbons.

I don't know if this is something everyone goes through, but I am sure that as anyone is exposed to more bourbons, his or her taste is bound to change a bit.

I find myself less drawn to the older, more expensive spirits and more to the middle age bourbons. I take nothing away from the Pappy 20 YO, or the Black Maple Hill 21 YO, or the excellent 15 YO's like ORVW and Noah's Mill. I will always want them around, but they seem almost too refined compared to the Russell's Reserve, the Sam Houston, the Rare Breed, the Rowan's Creek, the Van Winkle 12 YO Lot B, the Pappy 15 YO, the Knob Creek......not to mention the inexpensive Old Grand Dad BIB, the Old Fitzgeralds 1849, the Evan Williams 1783 and many others.

I am sitting here now drinking my own blend of 20% Eagle Rare 10 YO and 80% Kentucky Spirit alongside Pappy 20 YO. Right now, I prefer my own blend to Pappy 20.

I never thought I would say that, Pappy 20 being almost sacred. I will confess, however, that I do not include the Hirsch 16 YO or the Wild Turkey Tribute among those that seem too refined. They have, to my palate, just the right combination of robust backbone, if you will, (is it the rye?) and refinement to make them more satisfying.

These are just some thoughts that I have regarding my bourbon tastes as they evolve. They are always provisional as experience dictates.

I know there are people who don't experience this kind of change in taste. I have dear, dear, friends who are wonderful people for whom I have the greatest respect, who don't like seafood (a complete mystery to me), so to reiterate what I said above, this is one man's thoughts.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby OneCubeOnly » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:20 pm

Your journey is a typical one. Wheaters, at least to me, are easily approachable and do little to offend. As their bourbon palates mature, people tend to look for a more lively character, which is where ryes and younger bourbons take command.

It's like any other drinking evolution--think about it: beginning wine drinkers often start with the "candy" white zinfandels and gradually progress to the cabs and less approachable wines later. For spirits, I'm sure many Laphroaig drinkers' early experience was with some fruity sweet mixed concoction.

I have a personal pet peeve with the whole vatting-of-bourbons thing, but I'll save that rant for another day. (No offense to Gary Gillman!)
User avatar
OneCubeOnly
Registered User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Virginia

Unread postby gillmang » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:35 pm

Well, I was in total agreement Gary, until those last remarks. :)

Certainly no offense taken, all opinions are valid and I enjoy the opportunity to hear differing views.

My view is fairly complex but can be reduced to the following simple example: why can, say, Wild Turkey combine bourbons of 3 different ages and tastes and sell it commercially as a valid product (Rare Breed), but Mike's vatting of Eagle Rare 10 and KS (which is intriguing), or my or anyone's pondered combinations, are less valid...?

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby OneCubeOnly » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:48 am

Well, since I was asked, I guess I'll go ahead and post my anti-vatting rant.

First of all, I want to preface all this with a simple thought: what you guys do with your bourbon is your own business. But you won't catch me purposefully mixing different bourbons other than possibly to finish up some dregs or combine some side-by-sides for a last gulp.

Why do I not vat, and why do I personally disapprove of the practice? Well, it's difficult to really put a finger on. The best way I can touch on it is with a couple illustrations.

Let's start with an art one: Google-Image for the Mona Lisa. See how she's really not all that pretty? The background has terrible landscape incongruities which make the painting imperfect. Now I, as the conservative non-vatting connoisseur-wannabe have no interest in using her as a building block for another piece of art. I see her as a completed work that has already had the thinking, artistry, and planning done for me, even if imperfect. However, somebody who vats might use her as a starting point on a new and improved piece of art...perhaps one that has an improved hairstyle or picture-perfect scenery. Is the Mona Lisa with the additions better than the original?

The argument might be made that the original artist is merely doing the same thing we are...he took different colors, blended them together to create his piece of art. Why is it sacrilege for us to continue his work, especially if I happen to like the new version? I think the answer is obvious. Would you sign your name under Leonardo's after adding clouds to his painting?

Let's use a music illustration: Let's call Eagle Rare 10yo Frank Sinatra. I might choose to honor his work by studying and listening to his body of music. Honestly, he's okay, but I could take or leave him. While some people might also study him, they'd prefer to ponder what an impromptu duet with Wild Turkey Kentucky Spirit Dolly Parton might sound like. Who knows, maybe it'd be a "happy accident" and they'd sound even better than by themselves!? Perhaps, but I don't feel it's respectful to either performer.

Now, obviously both of these silly illustrations are WAY over-the-top. In your mind, tone them down about 2 notches and you get the gist of how I feel about making homegrown bourbon concoctions.

And I don't hate the sinners I just hate the sin. To each his own.

Cheers guys!
-Gary
User avatar
OneCubeOnly
Registered User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Virginia

Unread postby Mike » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:35 am

Well, Gary (OCO), I think your analogies are incomplete (no offense intended at all). I would prefer to use cooking for my analogies.

In my opinion, great master distillers are like great chefs. Their experience, their noses, their tasting abilities put them on the track of producing great spirits. But they are constrained more by economics than most chefs. I bet it wasn't Jimmy Russell's idea to reduce Russell's Reserve to 90 proof, but that is another story.

They aren't often allowed to produce that great masterpiece. I would take Jimmy Russel's Tribute to be the exception here, along with the MD of the A. H. Hirsch classics (I am sure there are others that I don't know about), and I wouldn't think of vatting Tribute or Hirsch bourbons.

I absolutely do not believe that I am being disrespectful of Mr. Russell or the MD of Eagel Rare 10 YO by mixing their products (neither of these bourbons is of poor quality, both are excellent in their own right, I consider this particular vatting to be playing to their strengths, not overcoming their weaknesses). These products, in my opinion, are aiming at a bourbon profile that will be consistent and will appeal to enough bourbon drinkers to sell and return a profit. Nothing wrong with that. I just want to alter the profile a wee bit and shape it to my taste. I have become a kind of second hand chef now, albeit it a chef for only one person. I think the tradition of blending and vatting Scotchs is very well respected.

I take your argument against vatting seriously. To continue with the cooking analogy, my wife, the light of my life, and I cook entirely differently. Lately we have been cooking together, so the differences get even more pronounced.

My wife follows a recipe carefully. She will get everything out, measure it and cook according to the instructions. I, on the other hand, use a recipe as a general guide. I will throw in anything I think will make it more to my taste. I love the expermentation. Now, my wife is a very good cook.......and she gets more consistent results than I do. Last week I made a lentil soup with smoked sausage. I thought a bit of clove would add to the flavor, and it did........to me. My wife won't eat that soup, she didn't like the clove in there.

As is the case with my wife, our difference may be a difference of style as well as in tastes. While you respect the talents of the MD (rightfully so), and don't want to second guess him or her, Vatman and I go out on a limb and try to 'shape' the product to our particular taste.

If we fail we have wasted some bourbon...........in my case, I did not use two cheap bourbons and foolishly mixed almost all of Kentucky Spirit, so if it had turned out badly, it would indeed be a waste. I have done other vattings using mostly Woodford Reserve (not a cheap bourbon, and not a bad bourbon, but one that cries out for something in my judgement).

I have not vatted anything with Maker's Mark (another prime candidate for vatting to me) but may yet do so. It is another safisfactory bourbon, but one that has almost no finish, leaving my palate unsafisfied. I will be opinionated here and say that like Jack Daniels whiskeys, Maker's Mark has been most especially subverted to the needs of the marketeers and accountants. To be even more opinionated, JD and MM are like white bread and Budweiser, not as good as they could or should be......ON PURPOSE! But they make a lot of money.

OK, I am through with my bullshit and you, Gary (OCO) are free to take me down a notch or two.
Last edited by Mike on Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:42 am

Well, all views are out there and all are equally valid, this is a primo area where personal taste and opinion rule.

On the question of which bourbons and ryes I would not vat (meaning to modify their taste by adding a lesser quantity of something else), I would have to say there are a few (e.g., ORVW 12 year old, WT Rye, Hirsch 16, probably Tribute, etc.). But the reverse is not true, in fact due to their richness and quality these are apt to be added to lesser whiskeys to improve their quality. Maker's is useful either way, e.g., to modify the feisty taste of Woodford. I still like Maker's straight too, though. I guess each situation (like the cooking analogy Mike gave) is different. I find by the way that mixed bourbons make great Manhattans.

The music analogy was interesting although many songs are turned into amalgams with others' music, e.g. Run DMC's Walk This Way. I like both versions.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm

Unread postby OneCubeOnly » Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:37 am

I totally get where you guys are coming from. I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding the point of view. I just view bottles with labels as finished products and not building blocks.

If I were to use the cooking analogy, I prefer to see things from the perspective of a restaurant client. If I order something at a French restaurant and think to myself "gosh, this would be SOOO much better if the sauce had been reduced a bit more..." I don't call the waitress over and insult the chef by sending the dish back. Nor would I ask to borrow his reducing pan. And yes, he probably has to tone-down his cooking style so as to not offend.

I've seen people put ketchup on their filet mignon.

Following (or not following) a recipe means you're building the meal from the ground up. Going back to the art thing, if you're painting your OWN version of the Mona Lisa I don't think I'd have a problem.

As for Budweiser, JD, and Maker's Mark I agree 100%. But my solution to what those products are is a bit more simple: I don't feel compelled to buy them!

If I wanted to build the case for vatting, I think the best counter-argument to my views would be pointing out my love for Van Winkle products. I'm sure you guys feel that mixing bottled products is no different from what Julian and Preston do--basically handpicking other people's components and combining them to make something wonderful.

I'd also point out that my analogies over-romanticize the whole 'sanctity-of-the-bottle' thing. I certainly realize that too.

Believe me, I *DO* get it, I just think doing it at home isn't too far away from foolish tinkering.

Also, keep in mind the whole "opinions are like a$$holes" thing...everybody has one and they all stink. :lol:
User avatar
OneCubeOnly
Registered User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Virginia

Unread postby Mike » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:10 pm

OneCubeOnly wrote:
As for Budweiser, JD, and Maker's Mark I agree 100%. But my solution to what those products are is a bit more simple: I don't feel compelled to buy them!

I just think doing it at home isn't too far away from foolish tinkering.



Points well taken, Gary. In fact, I don't buy Bud, or JD, or Maker's Mark (although I do think MM is still a very drinkable bourbon).

As far as doing it at home being 'foolish tinkering', that is often true. Along with cooking some good dishes, I make some pretty bad ones with my tinkering.

But, may I add, for me the tinkering is a big part of the fun, successful or not. I am an amateur photographer. As such, I take a shit pot full of bad pictures.............and a few good one. But, the act of getting out there and trying to figure out what to take and how (tinkering), is as much or more fun to me than coming home with a bag full of great photos.

Just as I am a student of bourbon, so I am a student of cooking, and a student of photography, a tinkerer, if you will. I lack the self-discipline to be great at anything, so I will remain a 'foolish tinkerer'. And I have no right to reject that title, or, conversely, to wear it with any pride.......it is absolutely appropriate.

I would like to think I am also a student and tinkerer of myself, and that enjoying bourbon, cooking, and photography, among other things, contributes to my self-knowledge. I believe in the old saying which goes, 'We spend our lives becoming ourselves'. Like with my other 'ventures', I can claim no great success there either. I am as capable of doing bad things as I am of doing good things!

OK, enough! Life is, after all, first and foremost a comedy! Let's get on with the show, folks!!
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby gillmang » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:50 pm

Indeed, and just a point about ORVW. In fact I believe most of these products are one brand of whiskey. It may be different for other merchants, e.g. Corner Creek may be a vatting of different whiskeys, no one is really sure. So e.g., ORVW 15 year old or Pappy 15 year old are all Stitzel-Weller, as was the 10 year old until recently. I am assuming the current 10 does not blend Buffalo Trace-produced wheat recipe with S-W whiskey although to accustom people to any flavor change maybe that is being done, I don't know. I do know though that the current (F & G batches) ORVW Family Reserve rye is a combination of two ryes, because Julian indicated this recently on the other board. His judgment in combining two ryes is, I am sure (in fact I know!) very good, but I believe I can do as well, at least (since I am not in the business) to satisfy my own palate.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm


Return to Bourbon, Straight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests