I have no business doing this one, but...
...WTF, it's fun. Just like Heaven Hill's Mellow Straight Corn Whiskey - which turned out to be a must buy (as Bearmark's recommended Balcones Blue Corn costs 5 times as much) - well I ran across Fighting Cock Bourbon. This time the Bear had a more affordable suggestion: Evan Williams White Label.
The mystery starts here...
Both are made by Heaven Hill. As best as I can determine, both are the same mash bill: 78% corn, 10% rye, 12% malted barley (the good stuff). The EW White is 100 proof, and 4 years old; the Cock is 103 and 6 years. Bear preferred the EW as I recall.
Now this is surely a matter of taste, but I preferred the Cock as it just seems more integrated, sweeter but not cloying while the White presented as edgier, less corn sweetness and a tad more spicy rye. My questions...
1. Was this a matter of a production difference?
2. Or more a function of the additional two years for the Fighting Cock?
3. Or me? Do bourbon drinkers prefer more rye edginess? And oh, one more...
4. WTF is going on with bourbon drinkers? The more I read the more I note that a notably larger percentage of American bourbon drinkers seem to exhibit a swagger and a tendency NOT to water their OP (100 proof) bourbons and to compare them undiluted.
Now we all know that few single malt afficianados would ever dream of denying the OP a touch of water, and for good reason - although an initial taste at full strength, it's rather expected to add a bit of water to open up the spirit to fully experience it.
What's going on here?
Compare and contrast: Fighting Cock v EW White Label
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
-
The Black Tot
- Admiral
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
- Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK
I'm going to give the Cock a try when I get back to land as a result of your investigations and writings.
Bourbon drinkers are all over the map, so I don't think we can really say what "they" as a group will prefer. The veterans do seem to enjoy buying at barrel proof, because we like to have control over finding our ideal proof ourselves, and also to get more drinking out of the same size bottle.
However, I'd like to respond to the proof and water comments, since I have arrived at some conclusions of my own about it.
I'll start with there is just as much of a pitfall in assuming that adding water is always the right thing to do as there is in assuming that sipping undiluted is always the way to go.
I wish it were so easy, but every single spirit has to be evaluated on its own H2O requirements.
Some very talented tasters get out the eyedropper and add <5 drops to a dram to "open it up". I have to admit, this still looks a bit fishy to me. I'm not envious of their golden tongues, I just think there are a lot of other factors at play in a tasting. The second sip isn't the same as the first sip, even if you've added nothing to it. How can you be sure that the 2 drops in your ounce are responsible? Wait...I've lost interest, and need a drink.
Others, such as our venerable and mutually loved Ralfy, do a clumsy (however charming) "two teaspoon splash", with an occasional extra splash for higher proofers. Effective in altering the taste and nose, and very fun, and I aim to give his method a try soon, but still crude by any stretch of the concept of empiricism, repeatability, and lack of consideration of the individuality of the spirit.
Neat sipping has the advantage in that every person is tasting the same thing (single barrel differences excluded, of course). Heaven knows we have enough variation of opinion when we're all tasting things at the same proof - if we all go splashing in random amounts of water, we're all just fumbling around in the dark (far worse ways to spend an evening, I would never deny). I know we all have different spacing of our taste receptors, and all these things, but it's nice to at least all start with the same concentration for a point of reference.
I am only really starting with adding water to my bourbons, but I do know a few things for certain. One of them is that anyone who tells you you always, in every case, have to add water is full of shit
Certainly you may personally enjoy adding more water to your bourbon, but the idea that it is always an improver of the situation cannot be true, and it must be a case by case conclusion. Furthermore, the amounts will vary by the nature of the spirit.
90% of the bourbons and the single malts and certainly the rums we buy have ALREADY had water added. The idea that the distilleries don't know how much water (or what chemistry that water should have - another factor) to add to their spirits to make them taste good without us clumsily dolloping a few spoonfuls into it strikes me as highly suspect. Adding water to a non-barrel proof bourbon where an excellent tasting panel has already added highly controlled water to optomize the price-performance ratio seems to be the more "what's going on here?" position than not adding it.
This is not an attack. Just a statement of counterpoint, with room for correction. I know that adding water to the whiskys of the world is a time-honored practise, and everyone (please) do what gives them the most pleasure in their drinking experience. Adding water is certainly better for you, for example. But in my opinion, saying all whiskys benefit from a splash of water is like saying all women look good in a red shirt.
For a case study I present Weller Special Reserve and Old Weller Antique. When I was early into bourbon I bought a bottle of each. For a while I tried drinking WSR and I concluded that I really wasn't so into wheaters. There was something I didn't like about the taste - almost a penicilliny type taste. I figured it was me and wheaters not getting along...
...then I tried OWA. I couldn't believe it's the same stuff. I love OWA. Rich, creamy flavor and a fantastic finish, caramel, etc.
What's the difference between these two? Added water, and added water ONLY. The OWA is 107 proof, the WSR is 90.
That taught me a big lesson on how much proof matters to the experience of an expression. Now that I have enjoyed OWA enough I can go back to WSR and find the echoes of what I like in OWA, and enjoy drinking it, but I still think that that recipe doesn't pop at 90 the way it should, which is also why I don't think Pappy is all that (hurl thy pitchforks).
Higher isn't always better, either. The bourbon that I have played most with adding water to is Elmer T Lee, which starts out at 90 proof, but I find I enjoy it with even quite a bit of water added. It makes no sense, but do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Also, proof doesn't always go hand in hand with smoothness, as most of us also know. George T Stagg is in the high 130s, but can be sipped neat by most whiskey drinkers without difficulty (and with much pleasure indeed).
Attendant to that last statement though, comes another salient tangent about proof that I am going to incorporate into my drinking came from Col Cowdery, in his piece on superproof bourbons.
http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.no/2011/12 ... iskey.html
In the comments section below was a statement that got my attention:
"Obviously, anything below 55% ABV I enjoy at bottle strength. Above that, not really. Even Old Grand-Dad 114, at just 57%, gets a little water in my house. The 55% ceiling is arbitrary, but holds up well."
He also adds in the same comment:
"Producers offer some products at high proof because they sell, but I know of none that the producer feels drink better at that proof. Most will give you the same advice I did. "
107 is a very popular and traditional high proof for whiskey. All the makers seem to make a product at 107. OWA, Fighting Cock, Kentucky Vintage, etc. It seems to have been found to be a sweet spot for the delivery of a flavor profile, and I have had a lot of success enjoying bourbons at this proof.
The undiluted, full-proof points, therefore, boil down do:
1. Every spirit deserves an (at least loosely) empirical evaluation on whether or not added water actually improves it. We must also allow (and be prepared to admit) that some will be made WORSE. Bourbon already has water added to it. The additional water we're putting in isn't magic water.
2. Ultra high proofs carry the undesirable consequence of tissue damage, which people should at least consider (although if we were bent on not being self-destructive, we'd probably not be smoking and drinking to begin with).
3. The Col himself caps his proofs at 110, but probably ain't adding any water below. He probably has enough experience to eyeball this - I intend to use a proof calculator and a graduated cylinder while I get my bearings with this for a while.
4. The Col also is honest enough to remind us that his figure is arbitrary.
5. Anyone who tells me "X or Y is always good for whiskey" is likely full of it - every whiskey needs time and experimentation, and I would submit also a UNIQUE strategy, to coax the best out of it. Two spoons do not fit all. And some whiskeys will be at their very best when left as bottled.
Bourbon drinkers are all over the map, so I don't think we can really say what "they" as a group will prefer. The veterans do seem to enjoy buying at barrel proof, because we like to have control over finding our ideal proof ourselves, and also to get more drinking out of the same size bottle.
However, I'd like to respond to the proof and water comments, since I have arrived at some conclusions of my own about it.
I'll start with there is just as much of a pitfall in assuming that adding water is always the right thing to do as there is in assuming that sipping undiluted is always the way to go.
I wish it were so easy, but every single spirit has to be evaluated on its own H2O requirements.
Some very talented tasters get out the eyedropper and add <5 drops to a dram to "open it up". I have to admit, this still looks a bit fishy to me. I'm not envious of their golden tongues, I just think there are a lot of other factors at play in a tasting. The second sip isn't the same as the first sip, even if you've added nothing to it. How can you be sure that the 2 drops in your ounce are responsible? Wait...I've lost interest, and need a drink.
Others, such as our venerable and mutually loved Ralfy, do a clumsy (however charming) "two teaspoon splash", with an occasional extra splash for higher proofers. Effective in altering the taste and nose, and very fun, and I aim to give his method a try soon, but still crude by any stretch of the concept of empiricism, repeatability, and lack of consideration of the individuality of the spirit.
Neat sipping has the advantage in that every person is tasting the same thing (single barrel differences excluded, of course). Heaven knows we have enough variation of opinion when we're all tasting things at the same proof - if we all go splashing in random amounts of water, we're all just fumbling around in the dark (far worse ways to spend an evening, I would never deny). I know we all have different spacing of our taste receptors, and all these things, but it's nice to at least all start with the same concentration for a point of reference.
I am only really starting with adding water to my bourbons, but I do know a few things for certain. One of them is that anyone who tells you you always, in every case, have to add water is full of shit
Certainly you may personally enjoy adding more water to your bourbon, but the idea that it is always an improver of the situation cannot be true, and it must be a case by case conclusion. Furthermore, the amounts will vary by the nature of the spirit.90% of the bourbons and the single malts and certainly the rums we buy have ALREADY had water added. The idea that the distilleries don't know how much water (or what chemistry that water should have - another factor) to add to their spirits to make them taste good without us clumsily dolloping a few spoonfuls into it strikes me as highly suspect. Adding water to a non-barrel proof bourbon where an excellent tasting panel has already added highly controlled water to optomize the price-performance ratio seems to be the more "what's going on here?" position than not adding it.
This is not an attack. Just a statement of counterpoint, with room for correction. I know that adding water to the whiskys of the world is a time-honored practise, and everyone (please) do what gives them the most pleasure in their drinking experience. Adding water is certainly better for you, for example. But in my opinion, saying all whiskys benefit from a splash of water is like saying all women look good in a red shirt.
For a case study I present Weller Special Reserve and Old Weller Antique. When I was early into bourbon I bought a bottle of each. For a while I tried drinking WSR and I concluded that I really wasn't so into wheaters. There was something I didn't like about the taste - almost a penicilliny type taste. I figured it was me and wheaters not getting along...
...then I tried OWA. I couldn't believe it's the same stuff. I love OWA. Rich, creamy flavor and a fantastic finish, caramel, etc.
What's the difference between these two? Added water, and added water ONLY. The OWA is 107 proof, the WSR is 90.
That taught me a big lesson on how much proof matters to the experience of an expression. Now that I have enjoyed OWA enough I can go back to WSR and find the echoes of what I like in OWA, and enjoy drinking it, but I still think that that recipe doesn't pop at 90 the way it should, which is also why I don't think Pappy is all that (hurl thy pitchforks).
Higher isn't always better, either. The bourbon that I have played most with adding water to is Elmer T Lee, which starts out at 90 proof, but I find I enjoy it with even quite a bit of water added. It makes no sense, but do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Also, proof doesn't always go hand in hand with smoothness, as most of us also know. George T Stagg is in the high 130s, but can be sipped neat by most whiskey drinkers without difficulty (and with much pleasure indeed).
Attendant to that last statement though, comes another salient tangent about proof that I am going to incorporate into my drinking came from Col Cowdery, in his piece on superproof bourbons.
http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.no/2011/12 ... iskey.html
In the comments section below was a statement that got my attention:
"Obviously, anything below 55% ABV I enjoy at bottle strength. Above that, not really. Even Old Grand-Dad 114, at just 57%, gets a little water in my house. The 55% ceiling is arbitrary, but holds up well."
He also adds in the same comment:
"Producers offer some products at high proof because they sell, but I know of none that the producer feels drink better at that proof. Most will give you the same advice I did. "
107 is a very popular and traditional high proof for whiskey. All the makers seem to make a product at 107. OWA, Fighting Cock, Kentucky Vintage, etc. It seems to have been found to be a sweet spot for the delivery of a flavor profile, and I have had a lot of success enjoying bourbons at this proof.
The undiluted, full-proof points, therefore, boil down do:
1. Every spirit deserves an (at least loosely) empirical evaluation on whether or not added water actually improves it. We must also allow (and be prepared to admit) that some will be made WORSE. Bourbon already has water added to it. The additional water we're putting in isn't magic water.
2. Ultra high proofs carry the undesirable consequence of tissue damage, which people should at least consider (although if we were bent on not being self-destructive, we'd probably not be smoking and drinking to begin with).
3. The Col himself caps his proofs at 110, but probably ain't adding any water below. He probably has enough experience to eyeball this - I intend to use a proof calculator and a graduated cylinder while I get my bearings with this for a while.
4. The Col also is honest enough to remind us that his figure is arbitrary.
5. Anyone who tells me "X or Y is always good for whiskey" is likely full of it - every whiskey needs time and experimentation, and I would submit also a UNIQUE strategy, to coax the best out of it. Two spoons do not fit all. And some whiskeys will be at their very best when left as bottled.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Nice post...
To me anyway, your conclusions are spot on (well, close anyway considering a normal distribution, lol)...
The undiluted, full-proof points, therefore, boil down do:
My point was that - in order - the monkeys seem to take pride in their full strength, hair-chested swilling in descending order: rum, bourbon and single malts. For those simians it seems to be a dick measuring bragging point. Harmless fun, if their reviews didn't deduct points for what is really their own ignorance. Silly.
To me anyway, your conclusions are spot on (well, close anyway considering a normal distribution, lol)...
The undiluted, full-proof points, therefore, boil down do:
BTW, these is a chemical basis for the releasing of flavors by even a few drops. As I recall the old Scots used to call this "chasing the serpent" as you can actually see the drops spread and writhe... try it. I think most of the experienced taster/reviewers will start undiluted, then carefully add to find the sweet spot.The Tot:
1. Every spirit deserves an (at least loosely) empirical evaluation on whether or not added water actually improves it. We must also allow (and be prepared to admit) that some will be made WORSE. Bourbon already has water added to it. The additional water we're putting in isn't magic water.
2. Ultra high proofs carry the undesirable consequence of tissue damage, which people should at least consider (although if we were bent on not being self-destructive, we'd probably not be smoking and drinking to begin with).
3. The Col himself caps his proofs at 110, but probably ain't adding any water below. He probably has enough experience to eyeball this - I intend to use a proof calculator and a graduated cylinder while I get my bearings with this for a while.
4. The Col also is honest enough to remind us that his figure is arbitrary.
5. Anyone who tells me "X or Y is always good for whiskey" is likely full of it - every whiskey needs time and experimentation, and I would submit also a UNIQUE strategy, to coax the best out of it. Two spoons do not fit all. And some whiskeys will be at their very best when left as bottled.
My point was that - in order - the monkeys seem to take pride in their full strength, hair-chested swilling in descending order: rum, bourbon and single malts. For those simians it seems to be a dick measuring bragging point. Harmless fun, if their reviews didn't deduct points for what is really their own ignorance. Silly.
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
The Black Tot
- Admiral
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
- Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK
Thanks. I owe you for shining a light back on FC. I had looked at Fighting Cock a while ago, and dismissed it as college marketing.
It's been since then that I have noticed the correlation of my enjoyment of 107 proof bourbons. Reading your review made a light bulb go on "AH! This is Heaven Hill's 107!"
Since I enjoy a few Heaven Hill products quite well, and have a great deal of faith in Parker and Craig Beam, I'm pretty excited about it now.
It's been since then that I have noticed the correlation of my enjoyment of 107 proof bourbons. Reading your review made a light bulb go on "AH! This is Heaven Hill's 107!"
Since I enjoy a few Heaven Hill products quite well, and have a great deal of faith in Parker and Craig Beam, I'm pretty excited about it now.
-
The Black Tot
- Admiral
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm
- Location: Houston TX and Caterham, UK
Indeed. And hey, I'm as romantic as the next guy. Even more, perhaps. However, although the bard may often have the stage of my personality, there's an engineer lurking in the shadows and working the light show.Capn Jimbo wrote: BTW, there is a chemical basis for the releasing of flavors by even a few drops. As I recall the old Scots used to call this "chasing the serpent" as you can actually see the drops spread and writhe... try it. I think most of the experienced taster/reviewers will start undiluted, then carefully add to find the sweet spot.
A 115 barrel proofer even proofed down to 107 (note this is a very slight downproof) already has the equivalent of 42 drops of water in your 1oz pour. The same water, all efficacious of the same chemistry to which you refer above. If downproofed to 90 it's 130 drops.
Suggesting it's the 132nd or 133rd drop that unlocks the gates of Valhalla, especially when there is so much involved with the change in perception of a spirit during successive tastes is...well, to say the least, quite the can of...serpents.
Every drop added will change the expression, but not much more than each of the 130 drops before it. That's my point. I think the people pushing ideas like "this one takes 3 drops, 5 is too much" type stuff really get my eyes rolling.
(and I do want extra credit for not saying serpent oil!)
Understood and certainly agreed. Beating one's chest is a surefire way to spill your bourbon.Capn Jimbo wrote: My point was that - in order - the monkeys seem to take pride in their full strength, hair chested swilling of in descending order: rum, bourbon and single malts. For those simians it seems to be a point of pride and a bragging point. Silly.
Also, I want to add that I'm all in favor of adding water to spirits. I just want it clear that doing so is mostly for the best and most logical of reasons...
...neither that it is right, wrong, or required. But rather that it's fun and interesting!
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Not to writhe, er write excessively, but...
I'm not sure there's a direct correlation between proof, number of drops added, and flavors experienced. What I've gotten, but sorry can't cite, is this: that even a few drops will release flavor enough to be noted, without any fear of overdilution, inasmuch as only a few ppm may be quite enough to be evident and effective.
And...
I'm not sure there's a direct correlation between proof, number of drops added, and flavors experienced. What I've gotten, but sorry can't cite, is this: that even a few drops will release flavor enough to be noted, without any fear of overdilution, inasmuch as only a few ppm may be quite enough to be evident and effective.
And...
http://www.drinkspirits.com/whiskey/wat ... s-to-wine/"Add just a few drops or just enough to “curl”. If you hold your whisky glass up to the light and tilt it slightly, add a bit of water until you see the water “roll” once in the bottom of the glass. Since we have two liquids with different densities, you can actually see the two mingle in the glass. The Irish call these little waves “The Serpent”.
Water is to whisky as air is to wine. It tames the heat of the “prickle”; that slight burn on the nose that comes from higher proof spirits. Water also breaks the surface tension of those oils in the whisky, allowing the full aromas to come forth. When tasting cask strength whiskies, I like to hold them on my tongue and work them around to all sides of my mouth. This way I can detect the sweet notes on the tip of my tongue, the saltiness on the sides of my tongue and experience the dryness in the back of you tongue and throat."
-
bearmark
- Beermeister
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:35 pm
- Location: Near Dallas Texas
- Contact:
Re: Compare and contrast: Fighting Cock v EW White Label
Actually, I've never had Fighting Cock, but I've heard that it's good. Based on those that I've had, I believe my recommendations were (not sure Eagle Rare was on previous list):Capn Jimbo wrote:Just like Heaven Hill's Mellow Straight Corn Whiskey - which turned out to be a must buy (as Bearmark's recommended Balcones Blue Corn costs 5 times as much) - well I ran across Fighting Cock Bourbon. This time the Bear had a more affordable suggestion: Evan Williams White Label.
- $10-12 Evan Williams Bottled-in-Bond, Tom Moore Bottled-in-Bond (mostly in 1.75l for $20)
- $17-20 Old Grand Dad 114
- $22-25 Evan Williams Vintage Single Barrel, StraightBourbon Blend (Old Weller Antique and Weller 12 Year... individually as well), Buffalo Trace
- $26-29 Eagle Rare 10 Year
There are so many "bottom shelf" bourbons that it's just not feasible for me to explore them all right now (I'm working my way through the upper echelon right now). Here are some that I've tasted and would not bother with: Cabin Still, Buckhorn, Jim Beam White Label (Black Label is better), Southshot, Knob Creek (Single Barrel offering is quite good, though), Stetson, Bulleit and Bulleit 10 (worse than younger offering).
As for Mellow Corn, EW BiB is still a better bet for the same price in my opinion. If corn whisky (>80% corn) is your thing, then I thoroughly enjoy Balcones Baby Blue (not Blue Corn) at about $45, but it's hard to find outside of Texas and is even scarce here. While I would only use Mellow Corn as a mixer (and I do), I would only sip Baby Blue straight or possibly in a Manhattan or Sazerac – something that showcases the whiskey rather than relegate it to the background.
Mark Hébert
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Accepting that corn whiskey is not bourbon...
Murray's bible has him recommending these corn whiskeys, which he and I both consider a category apart from bourbon:
Dixie Dew: 95
Georgia Moon (new make): 83
JW Corn: 93
Mellow Straight Corn: 83
Remember to subtract 5 to 7 points. It is well to keep in mind that Mellow is BIB, gets lots of good reviews, 90% corn mash bill, 100 proof and 4 years.
http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/ ... aybottling
*******
Bear: thanks for the correction - Balcones Blue Corn is/was $45 and may soon be a collector's item. Mellow Corn opened at about $10, but is up to $13 or $14 as its reputation gets around.
Murray's bible has him recommending these corn whiskeys, which he and I both consider a category apart from bourbon:
Dixie Dew: 95
Georgia Moon (new make): 83
JW Corn: 93
Mellow Straight Corn: 83
Remember to subtract 5 to 7 points. It is well to keep in mind that Mellow is BIB, gets lots of good reviews, 90% corn mash bill, 100 proof and 4 years.
http://www.bourbonenthusiast.com/forum/ ... aybottling
*******
Bear: thanks for the correction - Balcones Blue Corn is/was $45 and may soon be a collector's item. Mellow Corn opened at about $10, but is up to $13 or $14 as its reputation gets around.