Bourbon. - Page 51

I find there to be a pretty distinct difference, a step change from the 15 to the 20, but then only a marginal improvement to the 23, about the same smoothness, but the 23 year definitely has a much more intense flavor. I don't have the most refined palate out there, but I definitely tasted more of a brown sugar to the 23 than I did in the 20 year. The main drawback to the 23 year old is price and it is very hard to find, since they only bottle a few casks each year.


I agree that the 20, given availability and price, is the better choice. However, I think ranking a $250 bourbon below a $75 bourbon is a little, uh, unique, but as you say, to each their own.

I don't think I am alone in that ranking, there seems to be quite a few critics who think that 23 years is a few years too many for that bourbon to spend in oak. I just didn't like the 23 that much, it happens.

The huge price jump between the 20 and 23 is also a bit perplexing, I certainly don't think the 23 is worth almost 1.5x what the 20 is worth. Plus, for $230 I'd much rather get some of the older Parker's Heritage stuff, some of the Antique Collection or scotch.

If you have some online links, I'd love to read them.. I've come across a few, but they seemed to be very positive overall.

I am sure the price differential is largely a reflection of the fact that at any given time, there are only a few casks worth of bottles outstanding worldwide, so there's a scarcity premium.

Those are the two that I could find the quickest, I recall seeing it elsewhere also. I think that a C+ is a little harsh, its better than that. Mid 80s is about right though. Vis-a-vis the pricing, I understand the scarcity...sort of. But, it is only 3 years older than the 20 and MUCH more expensive, so I guess I don't understand how the extra 3 years is worth that much more.

LA Whiskey Society?

Anyone who rates that a C+ has zero credibility in my mind; and the notion that 3 more years in a barrel brings a whiskey from a 99 to mid 80s is, odd to say the least. Anyway, I have no dog in this fight, so I'll agree to disagree.

The scarcity is not related to the relative age but supply. Think about it, there are a couple thousand bottles produced at each bottling, and I don't think they bottle this one every year. That's a tight supply for a large market.

I agree with you about the C+, but overall L.A. Whiskey is well respected review site and I find most of their stuff to be pretty spot on. (I don't look at/for reviews until after I've tried something a few times, it ruins the fun of first impressions. The only exception is if what I'm looking to buy is very expensive and I want to make sure I'm not getting a real dud.)

In terms of the pricing the thing that is bothering me is that both the 20 and 23 are leftover stock from a now defunct distillery, Stitzel-Weller. I think I also recall seeing that they are the same mash, one is just left in the barrel for three more years. That is my hang up here. I understand that it is very scarce and scarcity = higher prices etc., its just the amount of the jump that I take issue with. I don't get too worked up though, because as I've said, I don't even like the 23.

I think we can both agree that as a line, Pappy's are phenomenal and we would happily take whatever we can get.

I have yet to find a bottle of Pappy's locally, so indeed, be glad for what you can get.

Correct, it's one and the same. Pricing is determined by the market, if stock sits unsold at $250, I would expect the price to drop. So far, they do not appear to have had trouble selling at that price point. And yeah, I agree the entire line is quality stuff.

How did I not see this thread before now?



Makers is definitely the best bang for the buck, IMO

Really?

In terms of what I go to first on a normal occasion, yes. I came to this after a couple of blind tastings of pretty much the full spectrum. Try it and let us know what you find.

Looks like you have a real nice collection, even a white dog! That being said, I am also a little perplexed by your choice of MM as your go to bourbon. Its pretty delicate and sweet. For the money I think that Buffalo Trace or Eagle Rare 10. much better. Too each their own I suppose.

De gustibus, 'tis true. My specialty is Scotch, but I've had the odd bourbon or two -- nowhere near what you or gnatty have, however. I'll mix Maker's, gladly, but if I'm drinking bourbon neat my 'everyday' (though some here do not enjoy it, de gustibus again) is the Black Maple Hill. I don't know enough about bourbon to have a favorite -- what is yours? ~ H

Cross post from "I just bought..." Look at this thing, its ridiculous. No idea why I just found it today, more than a decade too late.





Bourbony bonus, the beer is bourbon barreled too!

Too bad 99 wasn't the end of the Millennium.