mickblueeyes

Lot of misinformation here. First of all, Russian vodka is made from everything: Rye, wheat, beets, potatoes, and anything they can get their hands on. Vodka has NO legal requirements on it to be called vodka--there are multigrain vodkas, potato vodkas, grape vodkas and many more. The reason the inexpensive (read: plastic half gallon) vodkas taste terrible is the presence of congeners. They haven't been distilled to a high purity and so there is residue of the ingredients flavors. This isn't a problem unless you are using cheap Bulgarian wheat at $100 a ton and beet sugar extracts to start the fermentations. Cheap vodka has cheap ingredients which is what you are tasting. Vodka does have definite flavor, odor, mouthfeel and distinctive taste. Certainly, the mouthfeel and odor are the two most predominating factors one encounters, but taste definitely exists. Additionally, taste is 70%+ smell, so. . . As far as the "orgasmic" Ketel one comment above, I must beg to differ. I have never smelled or tasted a vodka with more ethanol on the nose. Horribly made and cheaply made, inferior vodka. Here are some good choices: Multi-grain: Stolichnaya Gold, Grey Goose Wheat: Vox Potato: Luksusowa, Glacier, Chopin Rye: Belvedere Cheap: Svedka

LOL! This isn't TN whiskey though--this is bourbon, but I agree--I still don't like it!

Alright guys, school is done and I am back. Here is the first of many notes I have made in the last few weeks. I was priveleged to taste a pre-release of this new bourbon made in Kelso, TN by the same company that makes Prichard's Rum. It is unique in the world of bourbon (but not the world of spirits) in that it is double casked. First the bourbon is distilled and placed in new charred oak barrels, just like every other bourbon. After a brief stint in the original barrels, it is watered down to 45% abv and then placed back in the barrels for continued aging. Total age is 9 years. Nosing the bourbon I get the distinctive nose of Knob Creek: banana, coconut, butterscotch, toffee and an orangey hint. The fore palate is nice with contiunation of the caramelized oranges and toffeeish components--I find it unusually dry, for a bourbon, however. The finish turns south and resembles Jack Daniels Black label more than Knob Creek. The best way to describe it is open a bag of Kingsford Charcoal and take a big whiff of the cloud of dust. The finish is very dry, charcoal-y and borders on distasteful. Adding water to the bourbon downplays the fruit aspect and increases the toffeeish/caramel aspects, as well as lessens the dryness of the finish. Overall, this is a well constructed whiskey, but they have overcharred the barrels (should have used a No. 3 charr) or the premise of dilution before aging has been shown to be an exercise in how NOT to make top notch bourbon. However, that being said, the bourbon has potential. The next batch will not be released until Nov. 03, so future batches could be better. This is a nice whiskey that would mix well with ginger ale or be a favorite of Jack Daniels fans. I would hesitate to put it on the rocks as all the fruit and caramel will disappear, leaving only the charcoal. So, to all the fans of Jack Daniels and those brave enough to experiment at $29.99, drink up!

Thanks for that info Jason, I didn't know how old it was. Do you know if it a sugar cane or "cane juice" distillate vs. molasses?

Another faux pas in the WS breakdown is the distributors cut. I have seen what the distributors markup is--very close to 50%. We only get an average of 20-30% markup on the retail level. Any retailer that is getting 41% is pricing himself out of business quickly. Distributors however have mini monopolies set up in regions, as most localities regulate the number of distributors allowed. They charge what they want because they know the retailers have to pay it. Winemaking (along with handmade cigar making) is one of the biggest rackets going. WS has seriously downplayed the markups that go on prior to the retailers getting thier hands on the product. I have heard specific winemakers say that there is no bottle of wine that costs more than 6.00 to make. Interesting thing to ponder.

Leasingham Shiraz 15.99 Yalumba Barossa Shiraz 15.99 Calama Cab 5.99 Blackstone Syrah 9.99 Now those are good everyday wines. 39.99 for an everyday wine is ridiculous. I don't know who the author thinks his audience is, but he may want to recheck that as I don't think he is catering to the lower 95% of the population of wine drinkers--that's a $15,000 a year wine habit.

For tasting, I prefer the sherry copita. Since I do so much tasting, I find its shape to be most comfortable for me. I recommend the Riedel Bourbon Glass as a fantastic substitute for a sherry copita.

I will add one small disagreement. I agree that they aren't necessarily aged as long as one would think. However they are distilled on the date on the bottle, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. The majority of my expertise lies with Single Malt scotch, so. . . But, for instance, I would prefer a 10 yr old bottle of Glenlivet distilled in 1965 versus a 18 yr old in 1984 simply because the distillery's quality has gone down greatly in the last 20 years due to exceedingly high demand. Or Ardbeg, for instance. I would prefer a 10 yr old bottle of Ardbeg distilled in 1970 than the same 10 yr distilled in 1990, because the distillery closed and was reopened after purchase by Glenmorangie. The brand lost some of its flavor when the new ownership revamped the blend. So it is possible that the 1976, if only a 15 year, is far better than the current production Hors D'age, depending on the distillerys constitution at the time. Ed would know more about than than I.

The Estate Diamond is the 5yr old (as indicated by the new packaging) and has caramel coloring added to it, as can be clearly seen when comparing the bottles side by side. The regular line of Cruzan is pure molasses distillate, which yeilds a more industrial type of spirit most suitable for mixing, though the oak aging of the 5 yr brings it around enough for drinking on the rocks or neat. I am guessing, just by taste, correct me if I am wrong Ed, but I don't think the Cruzan Single Barrel is a pure molasses distillate (if it is, they have done it very well) and I am not sure of the age. It doesn't appear to be flavor/color altered with caramel. IMO, the Single barrel is worth every penny and is much lighter on the palate, not so sweet, but still a "sweeter" style (vs. the drier French style rums) with loads of vanilla and tropical fruit on the nose and palate. Pleasant light spice on the finish.

Lack of chill filtering is the reason as Ed mentioned. I will add that this is a big plus! In the world of Single Malt Scotch, finding not chill filtered bottles is like finding a diamond in your Cheerios. IMO and in the opinion of many distillers, chill filtering removes much of the flavor from a distillate, as well as oak-induced characteristics. What you have in the bottle is affectionately referred to as "floateys" by myself and many other connoisseurs and is a feature that is held in high regard! Seeing floateys in a bottle of scotch may induce me to purchase it! Enjoy it!

LOL! The same thing I drink the rest of the year--lots of booze neat! Bourbon, Cognac, Armagnac, Tequila, Single Malt, Vodka, 100% Rye Canadian whiskies--the only thing I don't really drink in the winter is Gin for some reason.

I have to second Grand Duque de Alba--probably the finest Brandy de Jerez I have ever tasted.

Certainly when adulterated, it is difficult to discern differences--though experienced palates can usually detect differences in potato and grain vodkas through light mixers (juices, etc). Certainly, texture and body play a part in the taste, but a clear majority of taste is aroma and vodka definitely has aroma. Anyone who says otherwise has never smelled vodka. Working in the liquor business, I constantly hear erroneous statements regarding spirits--like bourbon has to be made in Kentucky by law or only the best bourbons are "bottled in bond" or "sour mash"--all three of which are incorrect. To my knowledge, there is no legal restriction of the taste or filtration purity of any vodka. When I taste vodka, I taste it warm and at -1 degree Celsius (the appropriate serving temp). Tasting only cold gives false impressions of viscosity as the temperature causes all the vodkas to "thicken" in some respects. It also causes the nose to take on more ethanol and lowers pleasant aromas. Bottom line: Vodka is not odorless, therefore, by definition of taste (being composed 70/30 of aroma vs chemoreceptors on the tongue), it must also have taste.

I disagree completely with many of the posts on this thread. Vodka does, can and should have taste and smell. To say something is "without smell or taste" is ridiculous. Very few things are truly "tasteless and odorless". If you wanted to drink pure distillate, then just drink everclear cut with water. That is what many of you have insinuated, that vodka is--pure distillate with no flavors other than distilled grain, potato or whatnot. It simply is not true. Vodka's mashbill is carefully blended to yeild specific tastes, just as any other quality spirit is. Quality of ingredients plays a big part in the taste of vodka. Additionally, the number of times distilled is important. If a vodka is distilled twice, there will be higher presence of congeners, which will have impact on the taste (some like it, some don't). For those who don't want to taste anything in their vodka other than some very simple grainy flavors. . .go with those distilled up to five times. But Vodka definitely has taste and odor and each vodka is clearly discernable from another. I have done many vertical tastings with vodka and each is unique.

Same stuff, different package. IMHO, still not worth the money. Drink St. James, Kaniche or even Bacardi 8 in that price range and get away from the heavily carameled, sickeningly sweet stuff. JMHO.

Heaven hill makes all kinds of stuff, not just bourbon. They make vodka, cordials, gin, scotch and everything under the sun--99% of which is garbage. This may or may not be an exception.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae vs. Saccharomyces carlsbergensis Nuff said

LOL! What do you guys think a martini is?? It is a kosher way to order straight gin without looking like a boozer. It's not commonly a cocktail and 90% of real martini drinkers drink them with so little vermouth that it is bascially straight gin (or vodka) with olives. The people that drink chocolate martinis and martinis with 4:1 gin to vermouth ratios don't like martinis, they like to be seen drinking martinis, but can't handle the liquor.

The perfect martini only contains gin and some olives. Or as Churchill liked his martinis--fill a glass with chilled gin and look at a bottle of vermouth. If you must have vermouth, add some to a martini glass, swirl it around, pour it out and shake the glass--then add the gin.

Worst beer I ever tasted was a corked bottle of Belgian ale--blech! I guess that makes me a beer snob LOL!

BPC, what is a good price line on these? I think you and I use the same *ahem* provider, but shipping sucks. Feel free to email me.

I will get some more information for you shortly Ed.

Have a great trip Ed!

We recently received this rum in our shop. At first glance, the bottle was enticing--dark, rich rum with glints of amber shining through. Marked on the shelf at 50 bucks. I thought, this rum might just be worth 50 bucks. Then I picked up the bottle, which began playing music and had lights going off in the label. I then thought, hmmm. . . this might be worth 19.95. Though I missed the shop tasting for it, I was told it is a very dry style similar to and made by R.L. Seales. First, does anyone else think they could have spent less on the bottle and made the rum cheaper? I get a little offended at cheap gimmickry, but that may be just me. Second, has anyone tasted this rum? Is is truly in the same league as Zaya, Pyrat XO and other rums well worth their shelf price? TIA

Can't wait to hear about it! We hopefully will be getting some in TN soon so I can try it.