Review #1: Woodford Reserve Double Oaked



TL;DR: Bananas Foster a la mode (light on the bananas)

Summary: Prominent vanilla, cinnamon, oak; moderate notes of cooked brown sugar, and a hint of poached pear, brandied cherries, and banana (not overpowering on the banana like Jack Daniels).

This dram was courtesy of a good friend and whisky tasting buddy. My first taste of this one was served to me in a Walnut Old Fashioned, in which the nutty flavor of the walnut liqueur was complemented well by the woody nature of this bourbon. The next time we met up we decided to taste it neat to add to my tasting journal.

Name: Woodford Reserve Double Oaked

Type: Bourbon

Region: Kentucky

Date: 2020-10-25

Served: Sipped Neat in a Shot Glass

Color: 1.7 burnt umber

Strength: 45.2% ABV / 90.4 proof

Nose: oak, vanilla, maple syrup, brown sugar, lemon peel, bosc pair, brandied cherry, faint clover honey; when swirled in the glass, a hint of acetone (which I'd call an off note, but not prominent enough to detract from the bourbon).

Palate: briefly a hint of toffee, spice (not quite the flavor of cloves but the sensation), a bit of cinnamon; can find hints of pear, brandied cherry, oak wood, and vanilla. Overall less interesting/complex than the nose.

Finish: oak wood rises out, vanilla, sweet but not spicy, dark brown sugar, and a whiff of banana in the back of the nose as you aerate it.

Afternose (as the glass is drying): cooked brown sugar, hot buttered rum, Bananas Foster a la mode; fades to mostly oak, with hints of spices and brown sugar.

When we finished this one we remarked that the entire experience was like cooking and eating Bananas Foster a la mode, down to the afternose essentially being what your kitchen smells like after you've made it.

Price: $53 plus tax for 750ml @ 90.4pf = 267.81 g ethanol = $0.25/g = ~$3.50 per standard drink (14g)

Rating: 79/100 - A solid, well-constructed whisky

Value (would I buy again?): 3/5 ⭐⭐⭐ - sure - solid value; would consider buying at this price because it would be nice to have a bottle; enjoyable and worth the price.

Thoughts:

Ultimately my rating factors in not just subjective quality but also subjective enjoyment of the drink. I think this deserves a slightly higher rating than my first impression because this was a tasting experience I won't forget. We started by sharing a great cocktail and this bourbon took us on a journey through making one of my favorite desserts. It was a lovely wind-down drink with a buddy that inspired conversation about something other than whisky. I'd be happy to have a bottle of this at some point (but not immediately) and feel the price is reasonable for that, and would definitely pick it up if I saw it on sale for less.

After writing this up, I looked around at other reviews for this dram. Having poked at some of the other reviews for this whisky it seems like there's an element of either "love it" or "meh". Criticisms such as "far too oaky for me" (preferential judgments) abound. "Bourbon purgatory" was also used (i.e. too good to mix, too "meh" to sip). Personally, I think it's good for the occasional nice mix and good for sipping besides because I found it quite enjoyable.

I'm still calibrating my rating scale so I reflected on my ratings of other whiskeys as part of this rating. I put Redbreast 12 (which is the best of the things I've rated) on the high side of the ratings for that whisky. My rating for this seems to be on the low side. I had originally given it a bit less but found that I still thought it was a solid value after looking up the price. Additionally, comparing that to some 8 other whiskeys I had rated in my tasting journal I felt that my rating for this one was too low.

I'm new at this! I'd welcome constructive criticism on my rating style and flavor notes. Did I miss something? Get something very wrong?

Rating Scales:

Quality/enjoyability rating out of 100:

96+: Nectar of the Gods (1 in 50) | 90+: All Time Favorite (1 in 20) | 85+: Excellent, tremendously enjoyable | 80+: A cut above | 75+: A solid, well constructed whisky | 70+: Slightly deficient in some way | 60+: Multiple deficiencies | 50+: Poor | 30+: Unenjoyable straight | 10+: Shots only | 9-: Undrinkable

Value out of 5 - would I buy this again at the given price?

0 no | 1 meh | 2 maybe | 3 sure | 4 yes | 5 absolutely


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tasting Rating Scales Explained

Note: I use "whiskey" here as a generic term for "whisk(e)y" without the parentheses, and I am likely to also apply this rating scale to other spirits. 100-point enjoyment scale: How much did I enjoy this whiskey? This mostly focuses on what's in the glass, ignoring price, though memories around sharing the drink with friends may have an impact, and presentation (e.g. the bottle) may have a small impact. 96+: Nectar of the Gods (1 in 50) | 90+: All Time Favorite (1 in 20) | 85+: Excellent, tremendously enjoyable | 80+: A cut above | 75+: A solid, well constructed whisky | 70+: Slightly deficient in some way | 60+: Multiple deficiencies | 50+: Poor | 30: Unenjoyable straight | 10: Shots only | 9-: Undrinkable 96-100: Nectar of the gods, extremely special. No more than 1 of every 40-50 reviews should be here 90-95: An All Time Favorite, in the top 5% of things I've ever tried 85-89: Excellent, tremendously enjoyable 80-84: Good, a cut above 75-79:
Read more

Review #11: Kirkland Canadian Whisky

Image
A Canadian blended whisky from Costco. I loved the first bottle of it I got a few years ago, before I started developing my palate, but sadly was disappointed by my second bottle. Age: 6 years Color: 1.0 deep copper Strength: 40% ABV / 80 proof Handshake (drops drying on the hand): nearly non-existent. Nose: isopropyl alcohol and caramel Palate: very light in flavors. Almost 0 ethanol burn on the tongue but a bit of burn going down. A bit thicker than water, almost oily viscosity. The mouthfeel is nice. Taste: caramel leaning towards butterscotch, raw sugar syrup, cinnamon bark Finish: cinnamon, and a bit of that isopropyl comes back After-nose: light brown sugar and old books Overall: This doesn't nearly nauseate me the way JD honey did. I recall the first bottle being great actually, but I was very disappointed with rebuying it after I started sipping neat for taste. I probably didn't ever drink it neat before. Off notes and missing Strength of flavor. The burn going d
Read more

Review #2: Nikka Taketsuru Pure Malt

Image
Review Date: 2021-01-22 TL;DR: A solid, middle-of-the-road flavor profile Japanese blended malt whisky. Fruity, mostly apple; floral; light wood and perfumed smoke. I went for something a bit different on this one: a bit longer with more prose. Hope you enjoy! I've tried to make it easy to skim to the important bits. Name: Nikka Taketsuru Pure Malt Producer: Nikka Age: NAS Type: Japanese Blended Malt Whisky Strength:  43% ABV / 86 proof First Impressions and Presentation: (From an earlier date.) The week before Christmas, you go to the liquor store with a purpose: to buy a special bottle -- (you've already chosen it) -- to open on Christmas Eve. Halfway down the aisle, you triumphantly locate your prize. This is not the story of that bottle. This is the story of the bottle you might have missed; the bottle that caught your wife's eye on the far end of the aisle in the Japanese whisky section; the bottle that now calls out to you, "I might be something interesting, why
Read more