re: Whiskey/Bourbon/Scotch Volume III

There's no way it won't be good. I'm glad to hear it's out. I'm also a little jealous. Needless to say, post your impressions once you've had a few pours.

quote:

---

That 1897 is my personal favorite of the OF line. It’s criminally overlooked due to the popularly of 1910 and 1920. Nice pour!

---

I had a bad first impression of OF due to a blind tasting n a whiskey class I took. There may have been something wrong with that bottle, as the guy next to me hated it too. I want to give them another chance. Of the ones you mentioned, should 1897 be my first try?

quote:

---

should 1897 be my first try?

---

IMO, yes. It has the best balance of flavor and punch of the lineup to me. And since you've had a bad OF experience in the past, this is probably the best one to try.

I find 1920 too ethanol forward, and I prefer other high proof bourbons to this one. I am in the minority though, so take that for what it's worth. Many love this one.

1910 is double oaked, so you have to like that to enjoy this one. Personally I love the palate but really don't like the finish. I get a strong black pepper note on the finish that is very offputting.

1897 I find brings the best overall experience. It has a great sweet to bitter balance without bringing an ethanol dominating punch. I think people overlook it due to the love of 20/10, but I bet those same people would really like 97 if they gave it an honest try.

Evening gents
FirstPN
Barrell finished in Amburana barrels

quote:

---

…. how is that fresh crack?

---

Gents…
Wild Turkey Kentucky spirit single barrel Martins pic

So, the OF 100 proof has a more traditional bourbon nose dark and rich, 1897 has a brighter nose that is fruity and floral, I get an Orange Blossom Honey vibe. On the palate it is clear to me that the more nuanced whiskey is the 1897 it just develops better the play of sweet vanilla, fruit and spice. The 100 proof, is more vanilla and caramel again very traditional. Finish of 1897 is longer sweeter with some spice while the 100 proof is a bit hot and short.

the BIB is 23.99 while 1897 is $51.99. Is it worth double the price? If you like fruit and floral forward bourbons it probably is. Also if you want to try an offering that is very different from the typical Old forester offerings then maybe.

Why not both?

Paul Sutton cask strength, Martins pick #2

Nice and I agree, lately these blends have been pretty great across the board

NPD Willet 10yr Rye

NPD RR single rick

quote:

---

My only problem with the 1987 is that it’s over priced for what it is, IMO. You can get Old Forester 100 for half the price and the same age statement. Is 1987 worth twice the price because it’s bottled in bond? They are both 4 year 100 proof bourbons.

---

Fair point. One of the things that goes unnoticed in pricing are the cost and quality of casks. While these are similarly aged and proofed, the thing to differentiate them (and other whiskies for that matter) are the casks used for aging. We sometimes get so caught up in mashbills that we overlook the importance of the casks.

I do agree though that double the price for the similarities may not be worth it. For me it is, because I really enjoy that 1897. I don't know if I would encourage others to do so over the OF100.


Also let's throw some respect to the best value rye on the market today. OF Rye is freaking amazing