Reuven Weinstein's Warm House... And The Killer Blind.

Hanging out on the Internet Bourbon forums you meet and befriend a lot of interesting people.  I love meeting these people in real life.  I've met Reuven Weinstein - a master dusty hunter out of New York - a number of times, but recently I had the great pleasure of spending the whole afternoon with him and his lovely wife Ilana (who was his public face of Facebook for a long time) at his home in Rockaway Park / Belle Harbor.   Ostensibly a house warming - the house has a real story of destruction and rebuilding.  The Weinsteins just recently moved into it.  There was a ton of delicious home made salads, hot wings, and world class smoked BBQ brisket.  Just delicious.  And there was also whiskey - lots of it.  The very best stuff.  Because Reuven is a master whiskey hunter.  The pictures and tasting notes below speak for themselves - but they aren't the reason for the post.  Not at all - but that will come later.

FYI - a different take on this smorgasbord was written up by my friend (and partner in crime) Steven Zeller, The Smoky Beast here:
http://smokybeast.blogspot.com/2014/07/rock-rock-rockaway-beach-tasting.html

Reuven is well known in the American whiskey world.  He is a prodigy - a talent at entering neighborhoods that others wouldn't bother with and somehow coming out with a trunk full of absolute treasures from the liquor stores there.  As Reuven toured us through a small portion of the fabulous whiskies he has collected I was amazed time and again by both the fabulous range - from dusty bourbons and the rarest issues to fabulous single malt - with a focus on spectacular and hard to find silent distilleries - and also by our hosts tremendous generosity.  What we tasted that day is not to be forgotten.  And it was but a peek into his fantastic collection.  Which only underscores a curious and oft remarked on fact: Reuven doesn't drink whiskey.  Nope.  He enjoys nosing it.  He produced a 1984 vintage single cask Yamazaki which he particularly enjoyed nosing.  I must concur - it had the most remarkable nose:  a complex and evolving aroma that started with dark cocoa with a hint of anthracite coal combustion (just a hint) and then moving into rich fig pudding baking in rum, and then on to a rich earthiness made farmy by a bit of animal skins.  I could nose that thing all day too.  But ultimately I want to take a sip.  I suspect Reuven will too, someday soon.  I can see the curiosity burning in him.  Meanwhile, his personal code and clean habits keeps him holding back. After Reuven and Ilana served a killer spread of sweet smoky BBQ brisket and lovely home-made sauced hot wings, with homemade slaw, potato salad, green salad and all the fixings,  I made the fatal error of pouring an award-winning Cotswald village Sloe Gin as an after dinner apertif.  Wrong stuff for that crowd!
But, before that happened a lot of whisky got tasted

When I encountered the spread of whiskey on the table my eyes lit on two things right away.  One The Parker Heritage 27 year old legendary PHC2 which I had never tried before.  And right next to it was a 1980s vintage octagonal Wild Turkey 8 year old age statement 1.75 Liter handle.  NOW WE'RE TALKING!  Parker Heritage 2nd edition 27 year old is a legendary statement product from Heaven Hill.  2008 Malt Advocate Magazine's American Whiskey of the Year.  I had tried and enjoyed a Wild Turkey 101 8 yo octagonal handle from the early 90s with Mike Jasinski a little while back.   Lately I've been going deeper with Wild Turkey, and there's a strong argument for the 8 year old WT101 of the 70s-90s as being one my favorite primary expression (i.e. not barrel proof) bourbons.

Parker Heritage 27 48%

Color:  Dark amber
Nose:  Rich rancio malt, sweet sherry nutty rancio, mead honey, deep iterated bourbon vanilla pods: sweetness.  Then tempered by buttery notes and oak incense.
Palate:  Sweet honey malt opening. Waxing into acetone-citrus with ripe cantaloupe, salted caramel with tannin spiciness on the finish.
Light texture on the mouth feel but big spicy finish.  This stuff is a lot like really old cognac with its darkly vinously sugared and oake loaded luxury.  Among the darkest, richest, most indulgent Bourbons I've ever tasted.  A really memorable pour (tasted both at the event and with a 1oz sample tasted at time of writing).

*****

Wild Turkey 101 8 1987 - Octagonal handle 50.5%

This is excellent Bourbon that I've been tasting in a number of contexts.  Here, it's a clear object lesson in the dangers of drinking something you really like immediately after an epic, world class whiskey.  Let's just say, the right time to enjoy a WT101 8yo age statement dusty is NOT immediately after tasting PHC2 27 yo.  Sweet and spicy as decently complex as WT101 was back in the day, it can't hold a candle to the glory cask selected wonder of that PCH2.  It's an unfair juxtaposition.

Color: medium coppery amber
Sweet and comparatively gentle stuff.   Nose:  warm and malty with herbal wafts and a oak sandalwood essence undercurrent.
Palate:  malty juicyfruit opening with both magic marker and candy dish notes.  The mid palate expands into brown sugar, herbal rye spice, warm honey, and sweet alfalfa turning into rye herbal spiciness and then a gentle oak tannin grip with a moderately long finish. Decent density in the mouth.  A perennial favorite, but completely shown the door in that head to head.

****

Lombard Jewels of Scotland Brora 22 50%

Distilled 1982, Bottled 2004, 22 years old.

Color: Gold
Nose:  Heather, honey, waxy
Palate:  Intense honey, turkish delight (powdered sugar, fruity, nutty)., paraffin, heather florals, meadow grass.  Not peaty or farmy.  Lightly tannin spicy finish is the only hint of age.  A heathery honey highland beauty.  With the waxy floral notes this came off like a Clynelish.  Light and beautiful - but oddly not complex considering it's age and method of manufacture.   I could sip and enjoy this one all day.  A true "session Scotch".  This bottling is all about the sunny, floral, honeyed beautiful side of Brora.  Missing is the earthy farmy animal manure aspects, the peat, smoke, and darkness you often see with that distillery.  I greatly enjoyed it.

****
(borderline *****)

Highland Park 25 48.1% abv.

Color: light medium amber with coppery glints.

Nose: Heathery wild meadow florals open up for rich malty rancio riding on dusky animal farmy warmth and some underlying peat and sea coast.  Fig cake and old sherry and leather notes play in the middle where the rancio lives.  As it opens, safflower oil and then marigold yellow florals join the heather, sherry, coastal light peat aroma show.

Palate: Sweet and rich on opening with black raisins, stewed black figs and malt sugars tempered by a whiff of brine.  The expansion brings vinous dark sherry notes of purple fruits and leather and tobacco.  It waxes into rich dark oak a satisfying warmth of gentle well integrated coastal peat and tails into a long, sweet, spicy finish with wood and smoke wrapped around the herbal tail of the malt and the lingering sweet of sherry rancio.  This is a full bore beauty of significant complexity and fills your mouth with a tour of the wide gamut of Scotch Whisky flavors - all of them.  Floral, honeyed, sherried, peated, and coastal all combine to make this beautiful spirit.  Like the 12 and the 18 - but with the darkness and intensity cranked up with maturity.  What a beauty.  Impressively, this stood up to the competition on the table with aplomb.

*****

Hirsch Single Cask Canadian 12 53.1%

The rear label only says Candian Whiskey * Single Cask * 12 years old * Lot 98-1 Bottled by Hirsch Distilleries Lawrenceburg, KY for Priess Imports, Ramona CA and bears a sticker in Japanese for sale in the Japanese market.  Rare and interesting as the odd-man-out bottling in the brief but now legendary association of Julian Van Winkle III's bottling operation with Priess Imports which had taken over the A.H. Hirsch lot of 1974 Bourbon from Michters and had started picking up odd lots and bottling those without the "A.H.".

Steve Zeller toasts w PHC2. Anthony Colasacco, right.

Color: light gold.
Nose: honey, herbal cedar with pencil shavings and mineral flint.
Palate, sweet and lean and honey-floral on entry.  Light and clean on the expansion where herbal spice, light clean mineral, and  a bit of grapefruit fruit and also pith astringency take over.  It tastes like a good Canadian blend of a corn base and rye flavoring whiskey.  I wonder what it actually is and which of Canada's distilleries it came from.  My guess would be Alberta distillery.  It has some of those Alberta Premium whiskey flavors.  Very refined for what it is.  Nicely balanced.

****

This somewhat legendary odd-ball bottling was a housewarming gift of Anthony Colosacco who is best known for his utterly fantastic whiskey bar in Mt, Kisco:  Pour Mt. Kisco.  It's the kind of bar where you can get a flight of Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve - or all 3 Rittenhouse 21, 23, and 25.
http://www.pourmtkisco.com/


Pappy was well represented on the table with a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve 15 from 2006 and also a 2006 or prior (pre-laser stamped) bottle of Van Winkle 12 Lot B that Ari Susskind had been involved in locating.  Great guys and a great whiskey.  Soft and gentle Stitzel-Weller wheater flavors: mellow cherry root beer sandalwood incensed oaky loveliness.

Ari Susskind (left) Reuven Weinstein (right)

As the party was winding down, our host brought out nicely full glencairns with a mystery blind.  The aroma and flavor were clearly in the lightly sherried highland Scottish malt category.  Steve and I bothed initially guessed a  Macallan dusty.  I had to pull a chair aside and really focus.  My quick notes read:

Color:  amber
Nose, floral incense, hard candy, fig cake, sherry, leather

Palate. Intense (50+% abv) Honeyed, minted fig melon candy black plum with some apple skin waxes into big oak and spicy heat.  Hint of clean highland peat or just big oak tannins.  Maybe some active Spanish or French oak going on?  Inchgower?

That intense perfumed floral candy aspect of front, combined with a some of that unripe apple tartness put me in the mind of Inchgower - but also An Cnoc, Balblair, and Tomatin.  Yet this particular whisky clearly wasn't any of those.  I was purely stumped.  Later that evening Reuven texted the reveal:  It was

Convalmore 36 - 1977 Diageo office 2013 realease 58% abv.

(notes above) *****
A retail listing of this whisky at TWE (where the picture is linked from):
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-22036.aspx

Convalmore is one of the legendary silent stills of Scotland, founded in 1893 and closed in the glut days of 1985.  The story is well told on Malt Madness:
http://www.maltmadness.com/whisky/convalmore.html

When I got home I had to put it up against  this 10 cl sample of Connoisseur's Choice Convalmore 17 40% Gordon & MacPhail 1981-1998 (bottled by Van Der Boog, Holland - and brought to a recent tasting by my friend Bram Hoogendijk - thanks Bram!)

Convalmore 17 40% Gordon & MacPhail Connoisseur's Choice 1981-1998

Color: Gold

Nose:  Honey and floral heather with a hint of white white tartness, chalk mineral, and yellow grass in the Sun.

Palate: Sweet and gently honeyed on the opening with an immediate tart crisp apple skin quality.  Floral and tart fruit on the expansion with a dry perfume aspect on top of a rich barley-malt chassis.  The turn is all perfume and young sawn dried oak planks.  Beautiful - and very much in the Inchgower/AnCnoc wheelhouse - yet totally unique.  (Serge Valentin noted a touch of peat on the way to giving it a 76).

****

An amazing opportunity to taste a rare and special bottling of the rare Convalmore distillate in its very mature state.  In conversations on-line I speculated about the spicy heat on the back end of the 36 year old 1977 Diageo bottling.  Was it peat or spicy oak?  Rubin Luyten of Whiskynotes.be thought it might be a bit of peat (his excellent review is here):

http://www.whiskynotes.be/2014/convalmore/convalmore-36-years-1977-2013/

Angus MacRaild (Angus MacWhisky) - expert on ancient Scotch par excellence e.g.:
http://www.whisky-online.com/blog/ - thought it was the wood:

" I'd say it is most likely from the wood given that it's a mix of european and american oak aged for over 36 years. At that sort of age you can definitely get a certain amount of phenolic extraction from the wood which can come through as medicinal/spicy/smoky/menthol in varying degrees. I doubt that Convalmore had any regular or meaningful peating level during the mid-late 70s. The ones I've tried from that time reveal it to have a spicy/herbaceous quality which I feel is very much part of the house style and derives more from the distillate. Anyway, I'm very much in agreement about the 36yo, it's an absolutely stonking dram!"

Stonking dram indeed.  I can't believe it was just handed out as a blind tasting as the post dessert apertif.  That's class.  Thanks, Reuven, for a wonderful time and a fabulous education!

Whistlepig The Boss Hog - A Rye Whiskey Monster Amid A Background Of Deception And Damage Control.

A few days ago Davin De Kergommeaux, Malt Maniac, leading Canadian whisky blogger, and noted author of the most significant book on Canadian whisky, wrote a piece in whiskyadvocate.com called "A Revealing Chat With WhistlePig’s Raj Bhakta" that contained the information that "the makers of WhistlePig rye were finally ready to “come clean and confirm that the whiskey they bottle is from Canada"
http://whiskyadvocate.com/whisky/2014/03/19/a-revealing-chat-with-whistlepigs-raj-bhatka/
It also had the bombshell that Whistlepig will be a vatting of 5 different rye whiskies in the future (the Alberta Distillers it has always been bottling, plus "We are growing our own rye on site and contracting whiskey from three distilleries in the U.S. and two in Canada." Although Bhakta corrects this by stating that all the whiskey out now - and in the near future is the same Alberta Distllers only whisky it has always been since the brand launched in 2010.  The 5 origin stuff is aging and will on the shelves somewhere down the road.

Why come clean now?  Maybe it had something to do with the shock and outrage that followed upon Raj Bhakta's comments (more like a cavalcade of completely wrong, dishonest, and false statements) on Bloomberg TV February 13th:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/whistlepig-whisky-ceo-what-i-got-from-donald-trump-1QJTcwVrSRGRibswOGYdLw.html

In the brief television spot, Bhakta says that Whistlepig is the only "aged" rye on the market at 10 years old.  An interviewer point blank asks him about Sazerac and Michter's (who market rye whiskies aged 18 and 25 years old respectively) and Bhakta doubles down.  Later he reiterates the lie that Whistlepig is American and that it's patriotic American thing to drink it.  This is a howl because it's a Canadian product lock stock and barrel.  All Bhakta's crew does is rest it and then bottle it.  He also says that only aged (i.e. older than 6 to 7 years old) ryes are sufficiently aged and worth drinking.  As someone who loves younger ryes like Thomas H. Handy 6, Russell's Reserve Rye 6, Willett's Family Reserve Single Cask ryes as young as 3 and 4 years old, etc... I can attest that some of the finest ryes you can drink are quite young.  Rye's herbal spice, like peat's fiery kick, is fresher and fiercer in young whiskey.  Aged rye picks up lovely mature flavors at the expense of the herbal kick and heat.  Thus choosing a fine younger rye to get that freshness and power is a totally defensible epicurean choice.  Pretty much every word that came out Bhakta's mouth in that spot was wrong.

The weird thing is that Dave Pickerell was perfectly honest about the whiskey being Canadian - even back as early as 2011:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iTYpw1l26c

Although, certainly, in most of the interviews, Pickerell side steps the issue of origin and just talks about the whiskey - often leaving the incorrect impression that he's actually make it and that's an American made product.  But the fact that Pickerell plainly publicly told the truth for years explains why the true story was so widely known.  One wonders about why the lack of transparency sometimes and not others?  Certainly Whistlepig's label itself is part of the deception.  "Hand Bottled at Shoreham, Vermont" appears on both front and rear labels but not a word is there about where the whiskey was actually distilled.

The controversy is good in that it has brought the truth out and is a lesson for others who would hide the truth.  Other examples of this kind of thing, Templeton Rye, Michter's, Widow Jane have similar trajectories.  Some people will boycott because of the lack of honesty.  I can understand that, but I'm more interested in whats going on in the glass - particularly if you can't source the juice from the original distiller as is the case here - in the USA market.

A fascinating detail of De Kergommeaux's interview is the story that Pickerell had a line on a supply of extremely good aged 100% rye whiskey from Alberta Distillers and was in search of a a vendor to buy it and bring it to market.  Pickerell then found Bhakta who had a farm and was looking for a whiskey project and the WP thing was born.  This would explain the apparent paradox of a brand new company suddenly putting out richly flavored fantastic rye whiskey on day one.  And, make no mistake, the whiskey is certainly good.  In 2012 I did a double blind head to head of a number of Canadian 100% ryes bottled in the USA - a group that included Masterson's Rye 10, Jefferson's Rye 10, and Pendleton 1910 Cowboy Whiskey.  Thomas H. Handy and Old Potrero were also in there - not as blinds because they are so distinct.  In the finale, the Handy won overall, but of the ones that playing on the same level of proof I found Whisltepig the winner.

Dave Pickerell tells the story of the Frenchman asking Raj "Have you seen the Wheeestlepig?"
at Bottlerockets Liquors in New York

A few months ago I caught up with Dave Pickerell at Bottlerockets Liquors in New York where he was introducing a new limited edition version of WhistlePig called "The Boss Hog" that consisted of hand selected casks that were allowed to mature an extra couple of years.  The results were bottled at full cask strength.  The whiskey was interesting and I signed up for a bottle, but the critical reviews upon its release were mixed with complaints about cost and flavors.  I couldn't tell if it was a question of barrel variation (it's a single barrel product and a number of barrels were bottled) or just a question of people being able to handle the power and flavor of the product.  After having tasted a few of the barrels (6, 8, and 9) I'm leaning towards thinking it's the latter interpretation.

The Boss Hog  Barrel 9 12 3/4 years old 134.5 proof. 67.3% abv.

Color: golden coppery amber.

Nose:  floral honey, dusty cut yellow flowers, herbal lavender, cilantro, ivy, and oregano.  Plus there is a salty acidic note.  Sku describes it as "pickle juice".  It's hard not to see it that way after hearing that.

Palate: POW!  Honey sweet in the first seconds and then, rapidly, a huge expansion chock full of toffee-caramel roundness, cut ivy, alfalfa, cilantro, briny pickle squirt and floral herbals attack with abandon.  The mouth is completely filled.  The turn to the finish is marked by sweetness fading into complex herbal bitters with lingering anise-seed sweetness and nuttiness.  The finish is medium long on oak and herbal bitters all the way home.

This is the pure rye flavor profile on steroids.  It has a vividness and intensity that is all but unique.  Thomas H. Handy has the rye flavor profile at the same level of power, but with a mash bill that expertly melds in the toffee citrus of corn.  I give the nod to Handy overall, but as the pure essence of rye, this is pretty special.  That said, it's herbal, bitter, intense, and hard to take.  It takes water well, hanging on to a little bit of a darker richer note than the usual 10 even at comparable dilution - but the difference is slight.  Given the high cost (between $130 and $175 - the former at Shopper's Vineyard, the latter at Park Avenue Liquors) this is too expensive to justify the slight difference between this and the 10 at comparable dilution.  What you're paying for is the thrill ride of having it neat.  At full power this is intense stuff.  The Stagg of Pure Rye.

*****

Given the news that Whistlepig is changing the formula in future batches, this might be the statement expression of the pure Alberta Distillers stuff.  If you are a fan of this flavor profile it might help justify the long green for you.

Whistlepig 10 - 50% abv.

This is very close to the same stuff all around - just taken down to a more humane 50% abv.  It's rich delicious heady whiskey and has been among my favorite ryes for years.  The nose is dramatically muted by comparison.  Everything is dramatically muted by comparison.   Still, this is redolent of dust, preserved citrus, and light florals. The entry is sweet with jammy citrus, spicy on the expansion with complex herbal ivy and cilantro notes. Well balanced tasty oak and herbal bitters on the finish.   Still one of my favorite ryes, but it steps aside when the Boss is on the same table.

*****

Seagram's VO Canadian Blended Rye Whisky from 1971 head to head against the current stuff.

Seagram's V.O. was created in 1914 when Joseph Seagram's son Thomas asked distiller William Hortop for a special cask for his upcoming wedding.  Hortop created a custom blend.  The whisky was so good that Seagram decided to launch it as a new expression, according to Davin DeKergommeaux in "Canadian Whisky, a portable expert".  (the link there takes you to the Amazon page for the book.)  My review of that book is here:
http://www.cooperedtot.com/2012/06/canadian-whisky-portable-expert-by.html

Seagram's V.O.hit the market in 1917 and has been huge, pretty much, ever since.  In the book, Davin doesn't speculate on what "V.O." means.  There are two conventional speculations - with no evidence at all to choose between them:
1) V.O. stands for "Very Own" - because it was a special blend crafted for Thomas' "Very Own".
2) V.O. stands for "Very Old" and was an attempt to reference Cognac's V.S. designation.
I won't bother to speculate either except to note that V.O. is always given with periods on bottle shots and ads from Repeal through the 1980s.  Yet the current bottling and recent ads omit the periods.  When, exactly this happened, and why, I have no idea.  I use periods or not depending on which era's bottling I'm discussing.

Originally V.O. was made at Seagram's Waterloo distillery and was 10 years old, according to DeKergommeaux (whose authority I accept).  In my poking around I haven't encountered a label or an ad ever with a 10 year age statement.  Please let me know if you see one!  The earliest labels I can find date to the late 1920s and already show the 6 year age statement that is standard for the whole sweep of VO's history, with the exception of the final year or two of World War II when it was 7 years old.  Well... the probable earliest label I can find is all messed up, actually, with no proof statement, no age statement, and an apparently incorrect designation of V.O. not as a blend at all, but as a "Pure Rye":

Early (probably 1920s) 2oz. mini bottle lacks age statement but does specify "pure rye".
Photo from http://www.pre-pro.com/

Is this mini bottle real evidence that V.O. once was a "Pure Rye" instead of a blend?  Probably not.  In any case, the provenance is unknown.  It may be a fake.  It may be an error.  Or it may truly be a significant varient.  It poses more questions than it answers.

This 1928 full bottle specifies "Blended"
Photo from whiskyvault.com

This 1928 label shows the basic constellation of features of Seagram's V.O. for half a century.  It is, however, also missing both an age statement and a proof statement, but this 1936 ad shows the bottle and gives both: an 86.8 proof statement and a big red "6" on the lower label:

This 1936 ad shows the 20s-30s bottle style and specifies 86.8 proof.

There appears to have been a 7 year age statement version in the WWII years.  I've seen ads for 7 year old age statement V.O. in the years '42, and '44..  Let me know if you know of other years.  Here's how I can show it:  Here are a trio of ads that bracket a period when Seagram's V.O. advertised the  7 year old age statement - showing how 7 and 6 year age statement editions of the same brand went in and out during this period.  Ads from 1943 and 1946 which show the 6 year age statement flank a 1944 one that trumpets 7 years old:

By 1943 we see the new label, used up until the late '90s with the 6 year age statement
and the 86.8 proof strength statement.

In this 1944 ad we see a 7 year age statement, both in the ad's text and on the bottle.

But by 1946, a scant two years later it's back to 6 years again.  Apparently for good.

That 1946 ad is a wonderful bit of nostalgia today.  The Sci-Fi "New wonders of speech and writing devices by Men who Plan beyond Tomorrow" include two refinements to telegram technology: a phone that spits out telegrams (at bottom) and a curbside telegram machines (at right).  At left there are some very forward looking radio phones that presaged cell phones.  At top we have a typing dictation machine.  While the likes of Dragon Naturally Speaking and Siri have made this a reality, it's still in its infancy, so this particular item was quite forward thinking indeed.

One thing is for sure, Seagram's V.O. was very popular through Repeal and WWII and on through the Mad Men era.  Why was it so popular?  Probably for many of the same reasons rye whisky in general had been popular from Colonial days on: the herbal spicy flavor tastes like whisky to a ton of people.  V.O. brought the Canadian refinements of smoothness, sweetness, and consistency through the particularly advanced Canadian art of blending and extensive use of refill casks.  This gives V.O. a light and smooth aspect that appeals to a lot of people.  V.O. is the jewel in the crown for Seagram's Corporation on through this whole long period.  A titan.

Seagrams, under Sam Bronfman, moved production of V.O. from Waterloo to Amherstberg, Ontario in the mid 1940s.  In the late 1960s a more modern distillery was built at Gimli and production was moved there.  When Diageo took over in 2001 they shifted the bulk of VO's production to Valleyfield.  But, as VO is a blend of multiple whiskies, exact distillery provenance is difficult to pin down.  Parts of VO still come from Gimli.  And in the 60s, parts of V.O. may have still came from Waterloo.

For this tasting I have sourced a 200ml flask of current production Seagrams VO from a train station liquor store nearby.  To give insight into the pre-Gimli flavors, a 1971 tax stamped airline bottle was sourced from a German auction house.

Seagram's VO 40% abv.  Current production 

No visible age statement.  Base whiskies distilled at Valleyfield.  Some flavoring whiskies may still come from Gimli.

Color: pale gold.

Nose:  Creamy white vanilla fudge, mineral dust, some gentle cedar forest aromas, and grapefruit pith.

Palate:  Creamy and sweet on opening.  The vanilla fudge sweetness is here, but gives way to rye spice and herbal and mineral notes along with rye heat and spirit heat on the expansion.  The spirit heat moment at the mid-palate is why VO is typically used as a mixer - but frankly this sips quite nicely as a Canadian blend with all the classic aspects of the Canadian whisky flavor signature.  The turn to the finish is asserts a slight astringency and ushers in the flavors of grapefruit peel pith that wax sweet and creamy again in the moderately short finish.  It's surprisingly sippable for the price.  On the whole, I was impressed.  I was expecting a 2 star mixer but on the balance I'd say it's a 3 star entry level sipper.

***

Seagram's V.O. 43.4% abv. 1971-1976

6 years old.  The tax strip says 1971 which is the year of distillation.  Amherstberg, with some components perhaps coming from Waterloo, Ontario.   No proof statement on the bottle.  Also, interestingly, no volume statement either.

Color: pale gold

Nose: Sharper, with a clear sweet vanilla floral opening.  Deeper there are notes of fruity bitter hops and classic herbal rye sweet and spice notes.  The extra proof is readily apparent in the nose too: spirit burn.

Palate:  The entry is sweet, with cream and cereal sugars, but is much drier than the vanilla fudge opening in the current version.  Rye shows up as floral herbal flavors of rye grain and, cilantro and cut ivy.  Herbal rye with some real intensity and chili scented spicy kick are all over the mid-palate too, which carries some of the effervescent mouth feel you get with pure rye whiskies.  There is the hops-like bitterness of rye's turn melding into the fruity bitter grapefruit pith flavor note.  The bitterness hangs on with sharpness and vividness through the rather long finish.

This is a different animal; one much closer to a high end rye whisky.  The flavors are vivid.  Well delineated and embedded in a matrix of rye and corn that balance sweetness and dryness.  The main rap is that it's hot - but that's tot unusual for good rye whiskies..  But this is clearly a sipper and pretty nice one.

*****

If there's no proof statement, how do I know the 1971 example is 86.8 proof?  Ads for V.O. show 86.8 proof at least through 1985.  The lowering of the proof happened after that - probably in the 90s.  As evidence I'll leave you with this lovely 1973 ad which displays 86.8 proof and helps put this bottling in a cultural context:

Seagram's V.O. 1973 ad. - an elegant bit of 70s design.
A tinge of feminism? The woman takes the lead on the slope and is the clear
sexual aggressor in the apres-ski which is all about highballs.
Notice that she also has a much larger drink than he does too.

So what can we conclude?  The older version is better.  Why?  There are several obvious factors: now, the age statement is gone allowing younger whiskies to be used; the proof has been lowered from 86.8 to 80 (pretty close to 10%).  Bottle maturation may be making an appearance improving the sweetness and intensity of flavors in the 1971 bottling (which has 42 years in the glass).  And, of course, the distillery was changed not once but twice between the two samples.  There are too many factors changing and not enough data points here to draw any conclusions.  Except this one:  Seagram's V.O. was a popular whisky for years because it was a pleasurable flavor signature that people drank neat, with water, ice, and in cocktails.  With the reduction in quality VO mainly plays in mixer-land, but it still retains a big chunk of what once made it a titan.  It's one of those whiskies you can enjoy neat that you can acquire at an attractive price point ($15 for a 750ml bottle).  The kind you're likely to find at selection-challenged lesser bars where you want to get a whisky.  I recommend having a taste and you may find it joins your arsenal of "basic options".  I was certainly pleasantly surprised with both the interesting dusty mini but also the "plain Jane" new stuff too. .

Glen Breton Rare 10: Shy Porridge That Blooms In Time

Glen Breton is a fascinating case of cultural transliteration.  Davin De Kergommeaux writes a chapter about Glenora Distillery and Glen Breton (and the "battle of the Glen" over the lawsuit concerning the use of the word "Glen" on a non-Scottish malt whisky) in his superb book Canadian Whisky: a portable expert.  The gist of the story is that the region of Canada where Glenora is located - out in the Northern part of Nova Scotia (literally "New Scotland") on what's known as the Cape Breton Island in a rugged area that looks just like Scotland; has the same climate as Scotland; and is chock full of migrated actual Scottish people.  The Glenora distillery carefully crafts a malt whisky that is as close to Scotch malt whisky as they can make it.  It's a unique chapter in the Canadian whisky story and fascinating story all around.  I knew from the moment I read it that I wanted to try it.  Never mind that the reviews were a bit tepid and mixed and the price was high.

De Kergommeaux addresses the price a bit in "Canadian Whisky".  Glenora is a small distillery that does much by hand.  Their output is limited.  Meanwhile there is plenty of curiosity and demand for this product - thus the high price.  This item runs $87 at the Ontario Liquor Control Board and $100 at Park Avenue Liquors.  The question of pricing is a different topic than whether it's good, however.  I'm going to address what's in the glass.

2oz sampled at NYC's The Brandy Library.

Glen Breton Rare 10 43% abv

Color: pale honey gold

Nose: very shy with gentle notes of oatmeal porridge with salted butter, and a drift of marzipan. This evokes a powerful sense memory for me of the smell of how my father took his Cream Of Wheat porridge when i was a boy: with salted butter and cream. Its a warm and comforting gentle aroma. Deeper nosing reveals some slight acid and vegetal and floral notes. 

The palate entry is gentle and lightly sweet with a fresh floral meadow grassy vegetal sweet. There are notes of puff pastry with powdered sugar, and whipped cream. The midpalate expansion follows the gently creamy theme. Oats, sweet butter and half and half power through into the finish that had a few light herbal bitter notes almost as a faint afterthought.

With extended air (over 30 minutes) the mouth feel riches and the buttery mid palate flavors sweeten into butterscotch caramel notes. Fruity flavors appear as well, gently floral and faintly sherried. It's shy but when it finally opens it's lovely.

The addition of three drops of water does little to the nose except maybe to lessen it further. On the palate, however, there is a bit of acid bite in the fruit now that is a welcome development to help liven up the show. On the whole, however, I preferred the richer mouth feel and more buttery flavor balance of Glen Breton without water, so that's how I'll refer to it for the remainder of the review.

***

I had it head to head with Mackmyra The First, which is simultaneously more floral and also more berry/grape acidic and minerally. But both share a similar light body and density of flavor. Glen Breton has a warmer and more savory palate with more simple butter and cream. It has less flavor amplitude but the flavors are appetizing, comforting, and harmonious.  I give a slight edge to Mackmyra for it's more floral and effusive nose and greater complexity earlier on in the tasting - but these are very different drams and Glen Breton Rare is lovely when it finally opens.  It's borderline 4 stars.

Bottom line, this is a competent credible malt whisky which I enjoyed and have no problem recommending as an enjoyable tasting experience.  However, at the current US pricing Glen Breton Rare 10 is in no way competitive with other whiskies at the $100 price point (or vicinity).  Just no way at all.

Update (30 minutes after initially posting): Bruce Fraser (@BruceFraser) of Nova Scotia reports that older bottlings of this were harsher and had a soapy flavor.  This explains the poor ratings and complaints of soapy flavors in the LAWS web site reviews.  Johanne McInnis (@Whiskylassie) confirmed: "...well, I was at the distillery two years ago, and tried it right from the barrels, PLENTY of soap!"  However, this recent bottling was in no way harsh and had no off or soapy flavors whatsoever.  My sole complaints were lack of density and high price.  The flavors that were present were very nice, and became a bit better than nice with extra time.

Canadian Club 6 vs Crown Royal De Luxe

Probably the two biggest selling Canadian whiskies, representing two contrasting interpretations of the corn-rye blended mash bill style of Canadian whisky cry out to be compared head to head. Here I am stuck on an airliner over the Atlantic for 8 hours with an airline bottle of each. It's time.

Davin De Kergommeaux, in the beginning of Chapter 7 of his landmark book Canadian Whisky, The Portable Expert writes

"The Canadian approach to making whisky is to develop the different flavor elements separately and then bring them together to create the final product that is new and unique, while at the same time evincing the brand's house style.  A new Gibson's whisky will always be creamy and voluptuous; Crown Royal will always have elements of bourbon and vanilla; Canadian Club will always be known for its fruitiness..."

How will these two low cost base expressions evince these big brand's house styles?

Canadian Club 6 40%

$13-$15/750ml in NYC area for a NAS labelled version.  This 6 year age statement labeled miniature came off an airline beverage cart.


Color: Pale Amber

Nose: Soft vanilla fudge, medicinal alcohol, distant cedars.

Palate: soft sweet creme caramel, and fruity notes of prune and apricot, yielding shortly to a surprising amount of spirit heat for a 40% abv. spirit.
Medicinal rubbing alcohol flavors make an unwelcome intrusion at the mid-palate. Grapefruit citrus and evergreen scented oak show at the turn to the finish. The finish itself is rather nice - soft and malty with gentle cherry malt and wheat flavors - and of a surprising duration given how light the flavor signature is up front. However the rubbing alcohol flavors of grain neutral spirits that appear in the nose and mid-palate spoil the show for me. Drinkable, particularly mixed, but not worthy of recommendation for sipping neat.

**

Crown Royal 40% "Fine De Luxe Canadian Whisky"

$24-$28/750ml in NYC area

Color: Pale Amber

Nose: Bourbony notes of corn driven stewed peaches, nougat, creamed corn, soft vanilla cream soda,

Palate: sweet bold opening with gentle tangy pink grapefruit citrus and vanilla cherry-cream fudge and some creamed corn flavors meeting a pleasant effervescent spirit heat. The mid-palate blooms with herbal and pine notes joining the vanilla fudge sweetness. Some rubbing alcohol notes of grain neutral spirits are noted, but only slightly - they aren't as distracting as in the CC 6. The
turn to the finish has the soft cherry malt and vanillin notes creamy, sweet, meet a muted grapefruit bitterness and a hint of tannic bite. The finish is gentle, malty cherry vanilla sweet with lingering grapefruit bitter notes and is medium short. Not an epicurean experience, but distinctly sippable for a blend and full of characteristic Canadian whisky flavors of the corn base whisky school. My main complaint is the waft of grain neutral spirit rubbing alcohol in the mid-palate - but it's not a fatal flaw for me. Unusually, for me, Crown Royal is much more vibrant and fully flavored freshly poured, without the period of airing time that I usually find mandatory when dramming.

***

I don't need to paint this out, right? Canadian Club 6 is the bottom rung on on a substantial ladder of CC products which include some seriously premium selections.  It hits a very low price point put promises to have some of the flavor profile which has established this line for over a century.  However it is unbalanced by too much raw alcohol flavor.  It is clearly intended as a mixer and that's all its good for.  Crown Royal, another classic and bottom rung on a big series is clearly meant as a sipper.  It's almost twice the price, but the premium appears justified.  I enjoyed sipping it neat and will certainly do so again.

Update:  I realize I should compare Canadian Club Classic 12 with Crown Royal for price parity.  That would be a fairer fight.  I'll have to revisit this in a future post.

(Note: airline plastic cups are pictured depicting color for fun - as part of the airline theme of this post.  Such cups are useless for drinking whisky, however.  All aromas are lost and the flavors are seriously muted.  I know, I tried.  I carry a mini-glencairn "perfect dram" glass for such situations).

Canadian Ryes Bottled in the USA Surveyed - Double Blind

Rye whisky has exploded in popularity in recent years with resurgent production in the USA after decades of neglect. Canada, however, has always been known for rye. In the past few years a number of bottlers in the USA have taken Canadian rye whisky, bottled it domestically and sold it, with varying degrees of marketing emphasis, as Canadian rye.

A couple of months back I was reading Davin de Kergommeaux's Canadian Whisky: The Portable Expert and I picked up a bottle of Pendleton 1910 to enjoy while reading. de Kergommeaux writes about Canadian distillers assembling Canadian whiskies from smooth "base whiskies" often made from corn or wheat, and rye "flavoring whiskies". These combinations are referred to as "rye" regardless of the exact percentage of rye grain in the mash bill. In the US a whisky labeled "rye" must contain 51% or more rye. Pendleton 1910 is bottled in Bend Oregon but contains Canadian rye whisky and is labelled thus. I'm not certain of its mash bill, but I really enjoyed it and gave it four stars. In comments on that blog post, talented Oregon whisky and cocktail blogger Jordan Devereaux, creator of the blog Chemistry of the Cocktail, recommended Jefferson's Rye. He said that Jefferson's Rye, while a couple of years younger (still a noble ten years old by age statement) had a higher percentage of alcohol for less money - and was also labelled as a Canadian rye - although bottled in the USA. This is covered in detail in his 2011 Whiskey Review: Jefferson's 10-Year Straight Rye. I put in on my list.

Shortly afterwards I saw The Porch Hound's review, "The Whistlepig Dilemma and Why All Whisky Isn’t Created Equal". It is an impressive survey of four different rye whiskies, two Canadian ryes (both bottled in the USA, again): Whistlepig and Mastersons; and two American ryes: Thomas H. Handy and Old Potrero. I had tried the American ones, but not the Canadian ones. I actually had Whistlepig in my in-pile for months and hadn't realized it was a Canadian rye. I had been under the impression that it was an American craft spirit. Indeed, Whistlepig is an American craft distiller in full operation, but while its juice is aging it has contracted to buy Canadian aged juice and bottle it under its own label. The Canadian rye that Whistlepig had sourced had taken the world by storm with rave reviews. The shocking thing about The Porch Hound's review was that in a blind tasting, they found that Whistlepig wasn't nearly as good in their opinion as another American craft distiller selling a US bottling of Canadian rye - but this time one that no one (certainly not I) had seemingly ever heard of: Mastersons.

This finding was so iconoclastic and exciting that I immediately resolved to replicate this finding. I wasn't the only one. Tim Read of top whisky blog Scotch and Ice Cream reviewed Whistlepig, Masterson's and Jefferson's rye head to head to head just this last week in "Canadian Rye, Three Ways". He found them all lovely (B+s in his rating system) - a near dead heat. In the review he doesn't crown a clear winner but has states that he puts Masterson's slightly ahead.

My goals in performing an overview of Canadian rye whiskies bottled in the US were:
1) I wanted to corroborate The Porch Hound's, findings (i.e. is Masterson's an amazing standout)- or not
2) address the issue of whether they were all from one distillery as Jordan had suggested they might be.
3) Determine whether there was a clear delineation between these Canadian ryes and their closest American kin.

To that end I resolved to replicate The Porch Hound's survey tasting as a blind. Recent experience has taught me that mental expectations can affect flavors to the extreme that even basic details of the mash bill can be mistaken. Furthermore, while I wanted to include The Porch Hound's original selections of Whistlepig, Masterson's, Old Potrero Single Malt Rye, and Thomas H. Handy Rye, I also wanted to make sure I included Jefferson's Rye as per Jordan Devereaux's suggestion and given Tim Read's conclusion that it was so close to the others. I also knew that I had to include the other US bottled Canadian rye I knew of - the one that had started me on this road: Pendleton 1910 Rye. Finally, I wanted a control. In my experience neither Old Potrero nor Thomas H. Handy tasted remotely like a Canadian rye, but Russell's Reserve Rye 6 - the high end rye from the makers of Wild Turkey - had a creamy smoothness that I had come to associate with Canadian ryes. Furthermore I have had quite a bit of experience with it recently. I felt that having Russell's Reserve Rye 6 in the mix would help keep me honest and prevent me from erroneously ascribing elements of the flavor signature of rye whisky in general to Canadian rye in specific. I never doubted for a second, however, that I would be able to pick it out cleanly from the lineup of Canadian ryes. Given the large number of selections here, I chose to separate the Handy and have it separately from the blinds because it has such a dramatically different strength (at full cask strength) and flavor profile I couldn't see it playing meaningfully in a blind. Because I had a bit of glassware shortage due to some other projects I could only muster 5 glencairns. Because I felt Old Potrero had the least to bring the blind in the head to heads I put it in a NEAT glass and separated it from the blinds. Thus the only true blinds in this tasting are Whistlepig, Masterson's, Jefferson's Rye, Pendleton 1910, and Russell's Reserve Rye.

Methodology:

I decided to use a full double blind system because my assistant in this endeavor was to be my 9 year old daughter. Part of the issue was I didn't trust her to make precise and even pours from full heavy bottles. I also wasn't sure she would instinctively be able to randomize the selections knowing what they were. I solved the issue by decanting precise pours myself into a series of sample bottles that were labelled with a sequence of letters from A to E. I wrote a key which mapped the whisky's names to these letters. Then I gave this series of small bottles to my daughter. She blindly and randomly poured them into the matrix of glasses and wrote a second key which mapped the sequence of letters to the sequence of numbers on the mat where the glasses were placed 1-5 (with place 6 reserved for Old Potrero in the NEAT glass - to be tasted along side). Only when I matched the two keys at the end would the identities of the whiskies in the glasses be revealed to both of us.

Tastings:

Here are my tasting notes as written during the blind tasting - followed by the revealed identity:

1. Nose: heavy musky oak, acetone, peach, citrus, old roses. A bourbon-like nose - very nice.

Entry is sweet with honey toffee, treacle and spicy with oak and herbal expansion: ivy and cilantro. A big classic rye flavor profile. The finish is a spice afterglow - herbal and malty.

w/water & extensive air the flavor profile is little changed: big, flavor dense, rich & bourbon-like with stewed peaches & musk, big spicy herbal expansion with ivy, cilantro, and eucalyptus and a big woody oaken finish. This is a big sleek bruiser of a rye. I was definitely thinking it was Whistlepig or possibly Jefferson's based on what I had heard. ****

Reveal: Jefferson's Rye 10 Years Old 47% abv
Batch 3, Bottle 1912

2. Nose: lighter, more floral. Toffee, and apricot bark. Floral notes of of marigold and honeysuckle, daisies and burdock root.

Thinner mouth feel (less proof?) Herbal sweet entry with tons of marigold and herbal ivy orchid lilly flowers. Herbal sweet entry, spicy expansion with ivy herbs and more floral orchid lilly flavors.

w/water and extensive air the nose is more savory (parma ham). Big marigold herbal flavor has become even more dominant on entry which has become off-dry. Lean, elegant, herbal and marigold flavor. Gentle sophisticated oak on finish. I was thinking Masterson's *****

Reveal: Russell's Reserve Rye 6 years old 45% abv.

3. Nose: light dry mineral, sweet plum, dust, lanolin, floral lilly, some spicy oak perfume. Palate: creamy off-dry entry with oak, mineral, and waxy or lanolin coating. Spicy heat and long finish with bitter almond.

w/water and extensive time: chalk mineral, spirit note, sweet solvent note. Entry is sweet, creamy and gently herbal with a spicy expansion at mid palate. The finish is tingling, glowing and waxy with faint herbal bitterness.

I was thinking Russell's Reserve 6. ****

Reveal: Masterson's Rye 10 years old 45% abv.
Batch 3, Bottle 6160

4. Nose: cake batter - noticeably less complex than the others so far. Maple syrup. Distant sandalwood dry oak. With more time some dark baked and almost chemical notes. Entry is sweet and simple with some artificial vanillin and caramel flavors. Cake batter, and fake vanilla. Less oak. Turn to the finish introduces some gentle cherry. Very gentle finish with very little oak influence.

w/extensive air savory (parma ham) nose. Musky sweet toffee and cake batter. Soft expansion with cherry notes in the turn to the finish and malty cherry in the finish. I was thinking (?) this was clearly the loser of the group - although still very nice. ***

Reveal: Pendleton1910 12 years old 40% abv.

5. Nose of floral cognac: very august and nice with marigold and roses floral notes. some old apricot citrus. "Smells like fancy whisky". Light, more acidic, spritely & fresh. Some lovely incense-like oak perfume. The entry is sweet and complex with tons of oak filligree. A spicy expansion - semi-dry with marmalade cognac. Plenty of oak tannins on the finish. Adding 3 drops of water the entry becomes more intensely sweet - with candied orange citrus and a creamy aspect.

With extensive air the nose becomes dust, preserved citrus, and still lightly floral. The entry is sweet with jammy citrus, spicy on the expansion with complex herbal ivy and cilantro notes. More oak on the finish. This was the clear winner overall. I was thinking Whistlepig or Jefferson's. *****

Reveal: Whistlepig Rye 10 years old 50% abv.

6. Nose: intensely herbal with eucalyptus, ivy and a big dose of 50% fermented golden brewed wulong tea (orchid toasted flavors). Maybe some herbal sassafrass. Gently herbal on the sweet entry with bourbon-like candy-corn. Spicy heat on the expansion with mild hops-like bitterness joining ivy, cilantro, and herbal effusion. A gentle finish marked by herbal bitterness. ***

Identity: Old Potrero Single Malt Rye Essay 10-SRW-ARM1 No Age Statement

Chaser: Thomas H. Handy Rye 2011 63.45% abv issue.

Nose candied citrus, musky cherry, and candy apple with cinnamon

Palate: Huge entry - explosive rye flavors much bigger. Bourbon-like stewed peaches cherry compote, crushed ivy and cilantro herbal note, floral vanilla oak, sandalwood incense, hints of cinnamon heat and plenty of oak on the finish.

*****

My full dedicated review of Handy: http://www.cooperedtot.com/2012/06/thomas-h-handy-rye-is-fireworks-display.html

Analysis and Conclusions:

Goal #1) Is Masterson's the clear winner - was I (as Garrett and Jamie had written on The Porch Hound) "surprised to find out that the whisky that kicked everyone in the teeth was the relatively unheralded Masterson’s."?

No. Handy was the clear winner in my opinion. Whistlepig was the clear winner of the Canadian ryes in my opinion - but granted it was very close. Tastes are subjective and these small batch items are subject to batch variation. But today, with my samples, that's how it played out for me.

Goal #2) Are all the Canadian ryes here possibly from the same distillery?

I have put this question directly to various people in various ways, including asking Gavin de Kergommeaux directly. No one seems to know - or is willing to talk. Judging this by palate alone is notoriously tricky. de Kergommeaux repeatedly makes the point that each Canadian distillery produces a range of blends using in-house produced whiskies with often widely divergent flavor profiles. Differences do not prove different distilleries. Also, similarities don't prove production at a single distillery either. Similar production methodologies and mash bills can end up producing very similar tasting products even at totally different distilleries.

Furthermore, I was struck by the fact that, blind, I confused Russell's Reserve Rye 6 for a Canadian whisky and confused Masterson's for a Kentucky product. I can state, however, that Pendleton 1910 tasted dramatically different from all the other ryes in the tasting and that Whistlepig and Jefferson's tasted very similar to each other - although Whistlepig had a more refined presentation. I would not be surprised if Whistlepig and Jefferson's ended up being produced by the same distillery, but I would be surprised if Masterson's was, and even more surprised if Pendleton was.

A word about Pendleton 1910's labeling: Masterson's, Whistlepig, and Jefferson's all specifically state "Straight Rye Whisky" which in the USA means 51% plus rye, no additives, and at least 2 years in the barrel. Pendleton 1910 says something quite different: "100% Canadian Rye Whisky". I get the feeling that Pendleton 1910 doesn't comply with US legal requirements for Straight Rye Whisky - but I have no idea in what way. Given the dramatically different flavor profile I would guess that Pendleton's might be a blended Canadian product. I was rather struck, too, by the fact that I found Pendleton 1910 to be a high 4 star whisky when tasted sighted and by itself and a 3 star whisky when tasted in the presence of a bunch of other Canadian ryes. This points to the power of context and also of blind tasting.  UPDATE:  In conversation Davin DeKergommeaux (Malt Maniac, author, top Canadian whisky blogger and noted Canadian whisky authority) confirms that Pendleton 1910 is made from 100% rye - but crafted in a different way from the others - which accounts for its unique flavor profile.

Goal #3) Determine whether there was a clear delineation between these Canadian ryes and their closest American kin.

Amazingly, the answer here is no. Blind I was not able to clearly determine which ryes were Canadian and which were American. The flavor signature of the straight rye mash bill trumped geographical location.

Final conclusion:

Rye whiskies are delicious. If you aren't familiar with them - try them today. Their herbal flavor is delicious neat, and in classic cocktails such as Old Fashioneds and Manhattans. The influx of Canadian pure ryes into the American market is a welcome advent. Some of these ryes compete favorably with America's best. From a financial perspective, Jefferson's Rye is a stunning bargain. With a bold assertive rye flavor and a clear kinship with the winners it is a standout value at around $30/bottle. Russell's Reserve Rye at around $36/bottle remains a stand out value as well. Masterson's at $50+ is pushing it a bit, in my opinion. Old Potrero also runs around $50+ and is a tougher sell at the price point given the competition. However Old Potrero is an innovative craft distiller that is still actively exploring different production methods, unlike Masterson's which is rebottling an imported product. Old Potrero is a distillery to watch. Whistlepig at $70+ is clearly high - but the quality is wonderful. I have no problem recommending it. Furthermore, I like that the proceeds are helping fund a working distillery that is producing its own distillate. Thomas Handy is an achievement and, while limited and hard to get, remains the top of the rye heap in my opinion and its high price and difficult availability are justified by its power, complexity, and obvious crafting. Pendleton 1910 emerges as a different product. At around $35/bottle it is reasonably priced and very tasty, but doesn't compete well against Jefferson's or Russell's at this price point head to head. Bottom line, all of these ryes are worthwhile in their own ways. There isn't a single one I would feel sad about owning.

Pendleton 1910 100% Canadian rye - an Oregon Canadian with rich flavor and astounding creaminess.

The "Round Up" Cowboy logo

Pendleton is a town in Oregon near Mt. Hood (a massive Cascade range volcano) famous for a rodeo. The rodeo, called The Pendleton Round Up has been held since 1910 - thus the name of this whisky. The bottle is decorated with cowboy motifs like a cowboy boot - with the bucking bronco symbol of the rodeo inside a lariat. On the Hood River Distillery web site is a press release explaining "Pendleton Whisky is imported, bottled and marketed by Hood River Distillers of Hood River, Ore., and is available nationwide. The oak barrel-aged whisky uses glacier-fed spring water from Oregon’s Mt. Hood". Nowhere is there a mention of where the whisky was originally distilled - other than the nation of Canada. It's a bit of a mystery. If anyone knows, please enlighten me. Meanwhile, it's what's in the glass that counts.

FYI - I selected this because as I read "Canadian Whisky: The Portable Expert" by Davin de Kergommeaux I felt keenly that in the 3 months this blog has been in operation I have only reviewed one Canadian whisky.  I chose this one because Davin's description was so colorful.

Pendleton 1910 12 year old 40% abv 100% Canadian rye. Hood River Distillers

Color: intense coppery amber. A pure metallic copper color with golden highlights. Stunning!

Nose: sweet toffee, gentle citrus, soft heather, graphite, leather and distant cedar. A gentle yet oddly appetizing scent. Not one you'd nose all night - but really nice and inviting.

Entry is clean and off-dry with subdued treacle herbal sugars and a kiss of sweet oak. The mouthfeel is rich with silky viscosity. Mid-palate blooms with rye's sweet herbal peppery heat and a lovely creamy sensation. Black pepper, anise, chalk mineral and rich sweet cream dominate the mid-palate and much of the finish with its medium in length and incredibly smooth and gentle. There are whispers of cedars and pines as the sweet cream and herbal pepper fade. At the end there is creamy mouth coating with a hint of cherry malted milk glow. Tannin bite and oak presence are virtually absent at the end.

Repeated sips and extended air reinforce the drill. Bold herbal rye in a velvet tuxedo holding a White Russian. The signature of rye is unmistakable, but the smooth creaminess and ultra easy finish is unlike anything I've tasted - even the smooth and creamy Russell's Reserve 6. This is unmistakably Canadian whisky, yet more polished and less spirity than most. Delicious. Compulsively drinkable.

Perhaps gratuitously I added a drop of water. It amps up the herbal heather in the nose and ups the creamy sweetness into cream soda territory. I like it - but it's unnecessary. It risks taking softness and gentleness into the territory of "flabby".

Bottom line - cowboy whisky is my new whisky crush. I'll be looking at Canadian whisky with a new eye.  This is only missing a bit of august refinement for five stars

****

Retails for $39.95.  Shopper's Vineyard has it for $31.95.  An excellent value at the price.