I am glad I am not the only one

[bourbonv]

I have just read the review for Elijah Craig 18yo and noticed the reviewer had the same problem with it as I do - a sour element in the finish. We noted in the whisky magazine tasting that this bourbon has a great nose, but begins to lose it in the taste and really hits bottom in the finish.

I still enjoyed Blue's review even though he panned the bourbon, or maybe because he panned the bourbon and I agree with him. It would be great if someone who likes Elijah Craig 18yo did a companion review.

Mike Veach

[White Lightning]

Mike, make that 3 of us! I'm usually reluctant to talk about my EC18 thoughts. A lot of people have a strong opinion that it is a top shelf product that isn't to be spoken of in any negative tone.

One thing that I have noticed with a number of those who hold similar convictions about the 18 year old, often those persons admit never being exposed to any of the Van Winkle line or products that are on my list of must haves / tries. Some sight those products not being available, some just haven't tried them, it costs too much or what ever.

Like you, I feel much better discovering it's not just me!!

[bourbonv]

Do you get the same sour taste in the finish? That is what really makes me dislike Elijah Craig. I get it in both the 12 and 18 year old versions.

Mike Veach

[doubleblank]

I'll chime in and say I get that sooty, sour.....almost bitter taste in the finish. I bought one bottle several years ago and haven't bought another. I've tasted on several occasions, and try as I might, can't come to friendly terms with this bourbon.

Randy

[cowdery]

My reaction to EC18 was that it opened my mind to the possibilities of long aging. To me, it isn't even a bourbon anymore, in the sense that it barely resembles what we think of as bourbon. Drinking it is almost an intellectual exercise. I also enjoy the taste, but I can certainly understand how some people don't. It really shows how you can't just put bourbon on a quality continuum, a good-better-best. Instead what you get are different drinks which you may or may not like, but one is not necessarily better or worse than another.

[gillmang]

And gradation of price, I would add, is no necessary guide to quality. To the extent it is some would say, in the inverse sense.

I once tried 3 bottles of EC 18 year old side by side and they were quite different one from the other. At best it had a smoky complexity. Maybe ryed bourbon doesn't age well at the higher ages whereas this seems less an issue for wheated bourbons. I notice that sour/tannic/acid taste in most older whiskies though, it is always there but to a greater or lesser degree. I like EC 12 year old, I think that is a good age for that product. This may sound odd but I find old bourbon makes a good cocktail. E.g. in a Manhattan the old woody edge is modified by the fruity vermouth. I don't like old bourbon in an Old-Fashioned (just as rum that is too tannic does not mix well with citrus fruits in my opinion) but old bourbon works well with red vermouth.

I'd take that EC 18 year old and mix it 1:4 with one or more young bourbons and/or Canadian ryes, then add a dash of Southern Comfort. Now that's a drink.

Gary

[voigtman]

I agree with everything Chuck said about Elijah Craig 18: it shows that bourbon is not one dimensional at all. I happen to love it, have bottles bunkered, and have a bottle from barrel 899 (barreled 3-10-83) open right now. I get no sourness, bitterness, sootiness, etc. No unpleasant finish whatsoever. I find it to almost cognac-like and I mean that in a good sense. This doesn't mean others don't taste what they say, just that I personally don't, so tastes can really differ immensely.
The other bourbons I have open now are Pappy 15, Eagle Rare 17 (2002), Buffalo Trace and Elijah Craig 12. I love all these, as well as Hirsch 16, Pappy 20, Stagg 2003, Wild Turkey 12, Black Maple Hill 11 and 16, Russell's Reserve 10, etc. and straight ryes as well: my open bottles are Sazerac 18 (2004), VWFR 13 (Frankfort), ORVWOTR 12 (Lawrenceburg) and Old Overholt (new bottle I just bought to check out what Gary has been saying about it maybe having improved of late).
I wonder what barrel Blue's bottle came from? I don't think it makes a difference when the taste is so off-putting, but I'm just curious to know. Anyway, no harm if we don't all like the same bourbons. I really wish I could do a review that would be worth reading, but I just do not taste all the things everyone else does. I guess that is just my luck. Cheers and keep posting the reviews: at least I can read about what others like/dislike and then check them out for myself, availability permitting. Cheers, Ed V.

[Blue]

To answer your question, I have revised my review to include bottle info that was hidden on back. It was barrelled on 12-17-81 into barrel 1059. I never take any joy in posting a poor review of someones product that no doubt was an article of pride for the individual and represents almost two decades of anticipation and effort. However, gotta call em as ya see em.

[Strayed]

... It really shows how you can't just put bourbon on a quality continuum, a good-better-best. Instead what you get are different drinks which you may or may not like, but one is not necessarily better or worse than another.

That is just about a perfect transcription of my thoughts about "tasting notes" and discussions of which bourbon (or other American whiskey) is "the best". Unlike the conditions that existed in the late 1800's, it's really too expensive today for a bottler to waste their time with cheap imitations. EVERYBODY distilling or bottling bourbon or rye whiskey today is trying to produce an acceptable product for a profit. As Rick Nelson said, you can't please everyone so you gotta please yourself. There's room for lovers of hot, spicy bourbon, or rich creamy rye, or tannic barrelly bourbon, or mild, almost tasteless Kentucky whiskey. Perhaps we would do well to avoid getting caught in the "divide and conquer" trap and just agree that IF you like such-and-such in your drink, then THIS whiskey is better that that one in delivering it, rather than THIS whiskey is good (and shows I can afford it) and THAT whiskey (the one everyone can buy, no matter how little they know) SUCKS.

[White Lightning]

Do you get the same sour taste in the finish? That is what really makes me dislike Elijah Craig. I get it in both the 12 and 18 year old versions.
Mike Veach

Mike - Yes the finish in the 12 year old has become rough imho. Now I have to be honest, about 4 years ago I thought Elijah Craig 12 was a fine bourbon at a nice price. I had not experienced the 18 at that time, although not long after the time frame that I had gone back and grabbed a couple of bottles of the 12 I heard some negative comments on the 18 from people I trust but obviously from time to time we (all) have differing opinions.

I don't know about the history of the whiskey, but in some regards this was wierd for me. In most cases when whiskies turn from well regarded to less noticeable, in my experience it usually starts with the younger whiskey, and the older still having backstock from ageing remaining similar. About 2 years ago I finally tried the 18, and who knows, maybe it always was something I'd find boring and stuck in neutral. The 12 is not as boring to me as the 18, but you pegged it in that the last couple of tastes I've had, the finish now has it's turn offs. For a while there I was wondering if my palate and expectations had just moved on from experiencing other things along the way. Listening to more comments from people like yourself makes me feel a hell of lot better in knowing that either I'm not crazy... or the hallucinogenic (sp?) trip I went on, at least I was in very good company! LOL

My reaction to EC18 was that it opened my mind to the possibilities of long aging. To me, it isn't even a bourbon anymore, in the sense that it barely resembles what we think of as bourbon. Drinking it is almost an intellectual exercise.

Now you are talking! I've subtly made this point (as my humble opinion) - Elijah Craig 18 is not horrendous in my view but it comes off as "JUST WHISKEY" to me. I don't know what exactly it is but I think you are onto something when you say it barely resembles bourbon.

In some ways the EC18 reminds me of Crown Royal... Not in exact taste, but rather when in a social setting with a limited selection, Crown is fine for me. Hey beats the hell out of Gilbey's, Beefeater etc. But if I had a choice between the Crown and a somewhat decent bourbon, Crown would be de-throwned in probably 9 out of ten times in a heartbeat! This is how I find the EC18... If there are other decent choices on the menu the 18 is in trouble - (which where ever there is EC 18 there is a decent selection... that's just a fact in these parts, as no well around here has 1 higher-end bourbon... they either have NONE or else they have SEVERAL)!

[bourbonv]

John,
I have not said that there is anything wrong with people who like Elijah Craig. What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with people who don't. It is not a "divide and conquor" type thing or a "my bourbon is better than your's" type thing, just a taste thing. Actually I am glad that Elijah Craig is on the market because it is a different taste profile for an older bourbon - I may not like it, but it is different. More choices is a good thing.

Mike Veach

[Strayed]

John, I have not said that there is anything wrong with people who like Elijah Craig. What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with people who don't. It is not a "divide and conquor" type thing or a "my bourbon is better than your's" type thing, just a taste thing.

Mike, I wasn't referring to you. I was just agreeing with Chuck's point about how individual taste can be. As both you and Chuck know, EC18 is one of my all-time favorites. Others on my list include bourbons that taste nothing at all like that.

The "divide and conquer thing" is encouraged by whiskey marketers (and sports car builders, watchmakers, pen makers, and others who's clientelle are keenly aware of what is considered "correct" and not "beneath their station" by "experts"). If it weren't for that, customers would simply continue buying what they've always liked and THEN where would the marketers be?

For most people, opinions such as yours and Chuck's and mine, and WhiteLightning's, Doubleblank's, Gary's, Voightman's, and Blue's, are taken as just that. I think Chuck (and I know I) was addressing those other readers (probably new) who may take our opinions as authoritive statements on what bourbons are "correct" and which are "not favored by those in the know". You have to allow that people coming to a bourbon forum might include some whose ideas of such venues may have been formed... elsewhere. 8)

It is my opinion that it is currently illegal to produce a "bad" bourbon. That is, if you fulfill the requirements to label your product "straight bourbon whiskey" you CAN'T make a poor-quality whiskey. You might make a whiskey that only a few die-hards enjoy, but it will still be "good" bourbon.

For example, in another posting, Cinci-Drinker said he's tasted the current Heaven Hill version of Cabin Still, but not the original Stitzel-Weller version. I do not like the HH Cabin Still at all. I have a name for it I won't publish here, but it does rhyme with "still".

Yet, Heaven Hill produces this bourbon.

On purpose.

Because, as expensive as it is to maintain a separate label and bottle and market a separate product, people continue to buy enough of it, week after week, to make it profitable to do so. Cabin Still is not the cheapest whiskey you can buy; it's customers can certainly buy cheaper whiskey. They buy it because they PREFER it to other whiskey, and will pay more to get it.

Now isn't that the very definition of "bourbon enthusiast"?

Is my opinion more valid than theirs?
Is your's?
I don't think so.
And I'd like others not to think so, either.
I would be absolutely thrilled to see a passionate debate between lovers of HH Cabin Still and say, J. W. Dant or Henry McKenna (which fall into the same category). And as soon as someone does, I'll bet you'll see replies from the people to whom Chuck (and I) were directing our comments.

[bunghole]

Mike I never liked the Elijah Craig 18 year old as I always thought it was over aged. I must admit that the last sample I tasted was markedly better than I remember it being. I no longer buy any Heaven Hill whiskey save their Evan Williams Single Barrel bottlings. I really like the flavor profile they seem to have nailed down in both the '94 & '95 vintages.

ima

[gillmang]

I agree with John that it is all good whiskey now. Max Schapira, interviewed in Whisky Magazine a while back, made the same point. Of course there will be differences in house taste. HH tends to get that "eucalyptus" note. Beam tends to accent a certain citric/rye taste, Barton a certain cigar box quality and so forth. Since whiskey is an acquired taste to begin with I think anyone could acquire the taste of a specific distillery if he "had" to, e.g. if only Heaven Hill was available as bourbon people would still like it even though it may not be one's favourite as ranked with other available bourbons. In other words this is all relative and as Chuck says, no one whiskey is really better than another; I tried to make the same point earlier when I said (a little tongue in cheek) that gradation of price is no necessary guide to quality and if anything price and quality are in inverse relation. Some whiskeys are richer and sweeter and whiskey writers tend to focus on those as the best and yet some people don't like sweet whiskey (personally I do, e.g. Elmer T. Lee defines pretty much what I want in straight bourbon). To the extent there is a bourbon today with an indifferent taste I'd say it is Jim Beam White Label. I find it a bit rough and "congeneric", it seems matured only to the minimum point and I choose not to drink it, if I have to I'll blend it. By the way the other day in a bar I ordered a Crown Royal and I was surprised how good it was, it seemed quite rye- and age-oriented but on a lighter base. But it is all good whiskey. Even the Canadian stuff.

Gary

[Strayed]

Gary's points about "house tastes", and especially his dead-on descriptions of a few, really help to clarify that aspect of whiskey appreciation. In fact, for some of us, including this one, how well a new expression of whiskey maintains or enhances that house profile is the basis for how we personally rate the whiskey. Regardless of whether we enjoy that profile more or less than another. Like Linn, I rarely buy Heaven Hill products, except for the collection, because if I have a choice I prefer bourbon that doesn't have that eucalyptus/mint undertone. On the other hand, my personal everyday rocks or highball bourbon is Dowling Deluxe, which HH makes. It's cheaper than Even Williams black label and has considerably less of that "house taste".

I think one could go even a little further with Gary's example of someone whose early bourbon experience was limited to Heaven Hill brands (or any other, but he used that one for his point). There are enough of those (including other brands actually made by HH, such as Dowling, Cabin Still, McKenna, etc) to get a pretty wide range of subtlly different flavor profiles. All would share a common basis, the actual flavor of bourbon whiskey. But for the person in the example, that flavor would also include the "eucalyptus" tones Gary associates with Heaven Hill. For that person, a bottle of Blanton's might seem to be lacking a quality he expects to find, and to that degree, falls short of what he feels it could have been.

Historically, I've long thought that's exactly how our current concept of bourbon came about anyway, only in reverse. I believe there were radically different styles of whiskey between the 1850's and the 1890's, many of which were called "bourbon". But the whiskey that has been available to us since 1917 is more or less all variations on a "house taste" that traces back directly to one particular distiller. When Col. Edmund Taylor and his friend (Secretary of the Treasury) John Carlisle sat down to discuss what qualities should be sanctioned by the Bottled-in-Bond Act Carlisle was drafting, it was the bourbon they were familiar with (possibly the only one) that they used for a model. That, of course, would have been Col. Taylor's finest, which was Dr. James Crow's version. And the resultant Act made Crow's "house taste" the model for federal bonded whiskey. That in itself might only have had a small impact on a large industry, except that, thirty years later, the only legal whiskey allowed to exist was required to meet those standards. And although Repeal brought with it a wider variety of whiskey styles, they're still all variations on the same general "house taste".