Review: Early Times "Kentucky Whisky"

What is feckin whiskey doing on the net's leading independent rum website? There's a reason, read on, but it's not my fault! Honest...
Post Reply

How do you rate Early Times Kentucky Whisky (five is best)?

5
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
2
1
100%
1
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 1

User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Review: Early Times "Kentucky Whisky"

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Early Times "Kentucky Whisky": ugh!

Note: the following review is being revised. It was based on a 50ml "mini", opened with a fresh pour, no real airing. It was so bad that we both cut our reviews short. One day later (today) we briefly revisited what was left (about half the mini) which was by now, very well aired. It presented VERY differently (and to to the good). A revised review will follow in a day or so. Please ignore the score of "6".

There are at least a couple of old tyme spirits based on bourbon mash. Old Grand Dad is one of them - very nice and reviewed in this section. It's a bourbon. Early Times is yet another another, and is not a bourbon based on the unsourced notion that 20% of the distillate is aged in used, ex-bourbon oak and thus fails to meet the SID for "bourbon" which requires storage in charred, new oak only.

Actually the 20% figure resembles an urban myth that simply cannot be verified. Everyone - I mean everyone - quotes the 20% figure (including Chuck Cowdery) but try as I might I simply couldn't find the source of this figure. And I'm good at researching! The ET website itself admits only to:
"Early Times Kentucky Whisky is distilled, aged a minimum of three years and barreled in used oak barrels at the Early Times Distillery in Shively, Kentucky. We are the only company to own its own cooperage and make its own barrels, which allows us to control how the barrel contributes to the taste characteristics of Early Times"
If the distiller is claiming what I can only interpret as 100% used oak, then why is everybody else quoting 20% used? I did find one blogger who claimed 80%, but I think he just got it reversed. No matter, according to the TTB this spirit should include "Whiskey made from bourbon mash" somewhere on the label.

Perhaps our man Bear - who also tossed out the 20% figure - can cite the original source. No matter. Personally I was interested inasmuch as there is surely a serious difference between used and new charred wood in terms of the three basic wood effects and I was simply curious. But only to the extent that I was willing to spend 99 cents for a 50ml mini. Basta, the reviews...


Sue Sea:
"Please accept my apologies as I wasn't feeling well today, but well enough I think to capture this one. Since we were working from a mini, I can't speak to the bottle, but the pictures show a very basic and simple, purposely presented in a classic squared bottle and traditional typefaces. I'll only say that there's a difference between being old, and trying to look old.

On first nosing I picked up a bit of honey and vanillan, some warm caramel - all rather light. But then a deep nosing revealed what I can only describe as an unpleasant rancid effect. Think of a very overripe banana that is going bad, the kind that you'll throw away.

This effect carried through the palate: light, strangely rancid. Unimpressive to say the least. Brief white pepper finish. I normally require a dram or two to evaluate a spirit but in this case I really couldn't go beyond a sip or two and had to waste the rest. It was terrible."

Moi: Early Time Kentucky Whisky is a mystery. It presents as a wispy gold (light amber), no edge. My first nose was, well, not much. It seemed to lack one, so I felt forced to go deep - very deep - to finally pick up what was a mere wisp of vanillan, leather and a vegetal effect that some say is the mark of a young spirit (ET claims it's three years old). The palate was entirely hollow and equally vague but with what I can only describe as a sour asparagus vegetal effect, with a touch of new leather. Is this really bourbon mash? Is this really whiskey? What we have here good friends is a failure to communicate much of anything, and that which is communicated is not terribly pleasant, which concludes only with a white pepper punctuation.

To be fair, this was a mini and it's been said that these may not present the same quality as the typical 750's. Still, that would be foolish, would it not, particularly as many people choose mini's to check out a new spirit. Which is it?


Score (10 is best): 6. Don't bother.
Post Reply