Don't miss a post -- follow @SippnCorn on Twitter

Monday, December 30, 2013

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – “The High Octane Challenge” – Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength vs. Stagg Jr. vs. Knob Creek Single Barrel


            For this Bourbon Review, I wanted to pay tribute to the recent trend of releasing barrel strength bourbons, so we compared these three high-proof premium bourbons from different distilleries, in order of blind tasting:

Knob Creek Single Barrel Reserve
Distillery:  Jim Beam, Clermont, Kentucky
Age:  Nine Years
Proof:  120
Cost:  $39.99

While not barrel strength, Knob Creek Single Barrel is almost there, and it otherwise fits the profile of the other two choices.  Plus, in light of the extremely strong following for the standard Knob Creek, I wanted to see how it fared with another 10% ABV over the standard issue.  Barrel strength would have been 132.4 proof (according to my private selection barrel), and I’m betting that soon we’ll see a true barrel strength version of Knob Creek.

Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength
Distillery:  Heaven Hill, Bardstown, Kentucky
Age:  Twelve Years
Proof: 129.7
Cost:  $54.99

The Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength is the barrel proof version of the popular Elijah Craig 12 Year Small Batch, distilled by Heaven Hill and named after one of the (or so the legend goes) first Kentucky bourbon distillers who accidentally discovered the benefits of using charred oak barrels.  I found my bottle at the new Evan Williams Bourbon Experience in downtown Louisville.

Stagg Jr.
Distillery:  Buffalo Trace, Frankfort, Kentucky
Age:  NAS, but the bottle claims “nearly a decade”
Proof:  134.4
Cost:  $54.99

The Stagg Jr. Barrel Proof is an unfiltered limited release from Buffalo Trace.  Stagg Jr. doesn’t need to include “barrel strength” in its name because everyone knows that you’re getting it straight from the barrel.  As “Jr.” indicates, this is not the acclaimed George T. Stagg of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection fame, but instead it is meant to be a younger, “more accessible” version of GTS.
  
1st Glass (Knob Creek Single Barrel):

The color of the first glass was on the brown side of amber; definitely darker than typical bourbons.  The high proof was evident in the nose, but it was balanced by nuts and vanilla.  The high proof was also immediately evident in the taste, but after an initial burn, extremely rich flavors of pepper, vanilla, oak and maple emerged.  A splash of water or ice (highly recommended) helped reduce the burn and helped open more nutty flavors.  The finish was robust and long.  Overall, the only thing that the first glass seemed to be missing was some balance on the fruit side, but it was still an incredible in-your-face experience.

2nd Glass (Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength):

The second glass was darker in color, pretty much passing the amber standard and embracing brown; it’s dark.  The nose was much more complex than the first glass – blending caramel, oak and apple – with only a slight burn from the high proof.   But the taste blew us away with more sweetness of caramel, vanilla and butterscotch, along with pepper and cinnamon spice and hints of oak and almonds, with some slight dark chocolate bitterness.  The finish featured these same flavors too, along with a hint of mint, and it was really long and warm.  Despite the high proof, ethanol was never predominant in the nose or taste.  Try this one sparingly neat for the experience, but then drink it with a large ice cube.

3rd Glass (Stagg Jr.):

The third glass was not as dark as the second, but was darker than the first (it looks darkest in the bottle because of a black back label).  The nose was the hottest of the three, with alcohol burn, pepper and oak predominating, but also with a hint of rich toffee.  The heat kicks you on the taste too; plan ahead to drink this one with ice and a splash of water.  Water and ice really opened up bold flavors of oak and finally some vanilla, along with raisins, while maintaining its spice.  It was still hot and lacked complexities that come with fruit and candy flavors, but this bourbon clearly isn’t aiming at the sweet crowd.  As expected from the nose and the taste, the finish had extreme warmth reminding you that you’re experiencing pure bourbon. 

Winner:

This was a challenge of some heavy-hitters, not just because of the high proof, but because of the robust flavors.  Still, the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength was the unquestionable winner.  It had the best nose, we were stunned that it was drinkable neat (which is questionable with the Knob Creek and highly inadvisable with the Stagg Jr.), and it had the best balance of flavors.  You’ll remember this one for a long time.

Bottom Line:

None of these bourbons are for the timid or for mixing.  I’m also sure that they all cure ancient ailments, and they just might make you grow hair, maybe even in places you don’t need it.  But wow, they’re good.  The quality of these three bourbons makes them hard to rate, and it’s really hard to give Stagg Jr. third place, but that’s where it lands.  I’d be interested to see how the BTAC George T. Stagg compares to the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength; I hear that big brother is pretty hard to top in this category.

All three are still recommended, but your real problem is going to be finding anything except the Knob Creek, so the Knob Creek Single Barrel warrants an immediate purchase.  The hardest to find will be the Stagg Jr., and you might just leave that to the collectors who seem to sniff it out fast.  With just a little luck, you’ll still be able to find the Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength, and if you’re looking for a truly robust bourbon experience, buy it quickly.  I wish that I had bought two when I had the chance.

Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale
Stagg Jr.:  3.0
Knob Creek Single Barrel:  4.0
Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Strength:  4.5


The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon.  Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow.  I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.



Sunday, December 29, 2013

Maker’s Mark v. Diageo – The Fight Over Bourbon’s Most Recognizable Trademark.


Until now, all of my posts about history-making lawsuits between distillers have involved really old cases.  Some have dated back practically to the birth of bourbon, like my post on the lawsuit between James Pepper and Labrot & Graham (How Woodford Reserve got to keep the (old) name of its Distillery), which traced events beginning in the late 1700’s.  The “newest” lawsuit discussed in my posts (the origin story of Maker’s Mark:  The Rise of Maker's Mark) still dealt with events occurring 70 years ago.  History is usually old by definition, but a decision not even two years ago helps show how the bourbon industry is still at the forefront of trademark law.  Even though it’s not old, it is already part of bourbon lore.

This new history, of course, was the lawsuit between Maker’s Mark and Diageo over trademark rights to the iconic dripping red wax seal.  Bill Samuels, Sr. broke from Country Distillers and struck out on his own, and ever since Maker’s Mark began production in 1958, it has capped its bottles with a red dripping wax seal that partially covers the neck of the bottle and drips down to the bottle’s shoulder.  As noted by the District Court in Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 671 (W.D. Ky. 2010), “That design was the brainchild of Margie Samuels, mother of Maker’s Mark’s current president Bill Samuels, who was still at home when his mother perfected the dripping wax in their family’s basement.”

Maker’s Mark registered this trademark in 1985, describing it as the “wax-like coating covering the cap of the bottle and trickling down the neck of the bottle in a freeform irregular pattern.”  This coincided with an extensive marketing push by Maker’s Mark, and through even more marketing ($22MM annually in 2010) Maker’s Mark eventually reversed its ratio of selling 90% of its bourbon in Kentucky to selling 90% of its bourbon outside of Kentucky.

Problems arose in 2001 when Diageo marketed “Jose Cuervo Reserva de La Familia,” which used a red freeform wax-like seal cap.  Here are the two competing products:

Maker’s Mark filed its Complaint in 2003 and that was enough for Jose Cuervo to start snipping the wax tendrils, although it continued to use a red wax seal and it used the lawsuit to ask the court to cancel the trademark registration on the ground that it was functional and because other alcoholic beverages were already being sealed in colorful wax.  A six-week trial was held beginning in November 2009.  Bill Samuels testified, along with then-Master Distiller Kevin Smith, company finance and marketing officers, and even experts on issues like markets and consumer recognition of brands, damages, wax composition, Maker’s Mark memorabilia and a bottle closures.

On April 2, 2010, the District Court ruled that Diageo infringed on Maker’s Mark’s trademark, and therefore it issued an injunction in favor of Maker’s Mark.  However, the District Court refused to award any damages because Maker’s Mark did not prove that anyone was actually confused or that it lost any sales.  But because Maker’s Mark won on the injunction claim, the Court awarded nearly $67,000.00 in costs to Maker’s Mark.

The case was far from over, however.  Diageo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012).  On appeal Diageo argued that purchasers of Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia – “a $100 per bottle luxury tequila” – were unlikely to ever be confused that their prized tequila was affiliated with an inexpensive bourbon like Maker’s Mark, especially Cuervo consumers, who “generally are tequila connoisseurs who spend more than $100 for a bottle of tequila, or $16-20 for a drink in a bar.”  Reading the brief, I could feel the pretentiousness dripping from those words.

Plus, Diageo argued that Maker’s Mark was hardly the first company to use a dripping wax seal on a bottle.  Wax seals have been used for centuries, and Diageo emphasized that Bill Samuels admitted that the inspiration for the Maker’s Mark freeform wax coating was old cognac bottles that had wax seals with an irregular or uneven edge.  Maker’s Mark’s experts admitted that numerous other bourbons and other spirits have used red wax seals or dripping wax seals.  Wines and even beers have also used wax seals, many of them red, and many with tendrils.  Non-alcoholic products such as olive oil and vinegar have also used red dripping wax seals.  So why should Maker’s Mark get special protection?

You could have guessed the answer to that question by reading just the opening lines of the Sixth Circuit’s May 9, 2012 ruling, which followed with a veritable history lesson about bourbon, discussing:

·         the origin and history of bourbon;

·         the difference between “whiskey” and “bourbon;”

·         the different spelling between “whiskey” and “whisky;”

·         bourbon mash bills and Dr. James Crow’s perfection of the sour-mash method;

·         early marketing of bourbon and early fans, like Ulysses S. Grant and Henry Clay;

·         the rise and fall of rectifiers and President William Taft’s 1909 interpretation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act;

·         distiller consolidation after the repeal of National Prohibition;

·         more name-dropping of bourbon fans, like President Harry S. Truman and Ian Fleming, who reportedly switched from martinis to bourbon;

·         the action of Congress, in 1964, to designate bourbon as a distinctive product of the United States, and Federal Regulations prescribing restrictions on which distilled spirits may be called "Bourbon;"

·         the Samuels family’s important role in the history of bourbon (“Maker’s Mark occupies a central place in the modern story of bourbon.”), including having been distillers since 1783; and

·         Maker’s Mark’s rise, especially after now-legendary 1980 Wall Street Journal front-page article.

Despite spending four pages on this significant history, the Circuit Court did not discuss any of the even longer history of tequila (16th Century) or Jose Antonio de Cuervo’s purchase of a blue agave farm from King Ferdinand VI of Spain (1758), and instead wrote a mere three sentences, only to reference the name of the Cuervo brand, its initial use of a straight-edged wax seal, and its transition in 2001 to a “red dripping wax seal reminiscent of the Maker’s Mark red dripping wax seal.”  Then the Circuit Court went on to affirm the injunction and the award of costs to Maker’s Mark, protecting Maker’s Mark’s exclusive use of its red dripping wax seal.

Other bourbon brands still use wax seals, like my bottles of Evan Williams Single Barrel, Michter’s 10-Year Single Barrel and Knob Creek (like Maker’s Mark, also owned by Beam, Inc.), among many others.

But these are all black wax, and all neatly trimmed.  My guess is that no other current bourbon brand is willing to use red wax at all, and that we won’t see freeform tendrils of any color.  And that seemed to be part of the District Court’s reasoning for imposing an injunction:  the Court recognized that its ruling “also protects Maker’s Mark from other competitors or quasi-competitors in the industry, in that it may serve to discourage them from treading too closely on the mark.”  Mission accomplished.


Update:  
Here's a picture with retired federal Circuit Court Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr., the author of the Court of Appeals opinion, when Judge Martin and I were filmed in January 2015 for the upcoming documentary Straight Up: Kentucky Bourbon from Beard Force Films. 

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel

*Updated July 11, 2014 after a private barrel selection at Buffalo Trace where we selected barrels of Elmer T. Lee and Blantons, among many other Buffalo Trace Brands, and where I learned the typical ages of Elmer T. Lee and Blantons.

Bourbon:         Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel

Distillery:        Buffalo Trace Distillery, Frankfort, Kentucky

Age:                NAS, but typically nine years

Proof:              90 proof

Cost:                $31.99

Color:
Amber gold.

Nose:
Light spice, mostly sweet cinnamon apples, vanilla and caramel.

Taste:
More spice comes through than indicated from the nose, but sweetness still predominates, although not overpowering.  Mostly honey, caramel and toffee flavors, but with an interesting balance of oak, cinnamon and spice.  Not overly spicy or hot, but comforting warmth.  A splash of water opened up some more fruit and sweetness, but it lost complexity, so I prefer this one neat.  This was really a wonderful balance.

Finish:
Extremely pleasant and smooth finish, finally transitioning to more spices than sweetness; water really shortened it, so again, drink it neat.

Rating:

For starters, I can’t believe this is a low-$30’s bourbon.  Also, while I’m a huge fan of Blanton’s, I’m not sure why I’d spend the extra money on it.  ETL uses the same mash bill as Blanton’s Single Barrel (the Buffalo Trace mash bill #2, maybe about 15% rye, used for all Ancient Age bourbon), and ETL is aged for about nine years compared to around six years for Blanton’s, although Blanton’s is aged in Warehouse H, said to have been Col. Blanton’s favorite.  Regardless, ETL is deep and rich, but at the same time so drinkable without a drop of pretentiousness.  This can really be your go-to bourbon.

On top of its outstanding balance, ETL has the legitimate history of the legendary Elmer T. Lee (1919-2013) himself, who has an incredible story starting with being hired (but initially rejected) by Col. Blanton when Buffalo Trace was called the George T. Stagg Distillery, and working his way up through the ranks .  (Please check out the University of Kentucky Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History interview of Elmer T. Lee posted here:  http://www.nunncenter.org/buffalotrace/category/people/elmer-t-lee-interviews/ along with the short bio posted here:  http://www.buffalotracedistillery.com/craftsmen/lee ).  With so many bourbons having fake histories and “master distillers” who are blenders at best, it’s comforting to know that Elmer T. Lee is about real history.

Between Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel, the Weller line (also Buffalo Trace) and Four Roses, I really don’t think that there’s a reason to pay top-shelf prices.  I definitely need to do a blind tasting between Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel and Blanton’s Single Barrel to see if I’m right, but however that might end, I highly recommend Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel.

Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale:  4.0

The Sipp’n Corn Scale:

1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon.  Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow.  I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.


Friday, December 6, 2013

Kentucky Wasn’t Big Enough for Two Colonel Taylors.


I mentioned earlier that Col. Edmund Haynes (“E. H.”) Taylor, Jr. was one of the most litigious distillers of his era (see http://sippncorn.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-origin-of-col-e-h-taylor-jrs.html).  In addition to his lawsuits, E. H. Taylor was also instrumental in passing the Bottled-In-Bond Act of 1897, meant primarily to protect the public against the “horrors” of whiskey rectifiers.  The act required that any spirit labeled as “Bottled-in-Bond” be the product of one distiller at one distillery during one distillation season, and aged in a federally-bonded warehouse under federal government supervision for at least four years and bottled at 100 proof.

E. H. Taylor also focused his efforts against a prominent Louisville businessman, another Colonel with the same surname, Col. Marion E. Taylor.  E. H. Taylor sued Marion Taylor alleging that Marion Taylor was misrepresenting his blended whiskey as “straight” bourbon whiskey, and that Marion Taylor was trying to defraud the public by using a brand name similar to E. H. Taylor’s bourbon.

Marion Taylor was a well-known Louisville businessman, and his name still fits prominently in downtown Louisville with the Marion E. Taylor Building,


and the Wright & Taylor Building.


Marion Taylor formed Wright & Taylor with John J. Wright in 1886, and together they sold Kentucky Taylor, Pride of Louisville and Cain Spring Whiskey, and by 1892 Wright & Taylor had added Fine Old Kentucky Taylor, which became their most popular brand.  In 1896 Marion Taylor bought and expanded the Old Charter Distillery and brand, which allowed him to distill and sell Old Charter straight bourbon, but he also continued to sell his very popular blended Fine Old Kentucky Taylor brand.

E. H. Taylor’s straight bourbon was the similarly-named “Old Taylor.”  He complained that Marion was creating confusion between the “inferior” blended whiskey and the “superior” (and much more expensive) straight bourbon whiskey.  E. H. Taylor sought an injunction and $100,000.00 in damages (in today’s dollars, about $2.7MM).  The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed E. H. Taylor’s claims, finding that Marion Taylor was not infringing on any trademarks, nor unfairly competing.

E. H. Taylor appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and in E. H. Taylor, Jr. & Sons Co. v. Marion E. Taylor, 27 Ky.L.Rptr., 124 Ky. 173, 85 S.W. 1085 (1905), the court ruled partially in his favor by granting an injunction that required Marion Taylor to specify in advertising that Old Kentucky Taylor was a blended whiskey.  However, Marion Taylor did not have to pay any damages, and he was still allowed to use his brand name.

While the Court’s ultimate ruling might seem might seem like only a slap on the wrist, the Court was more critical of Marion Taylor in explaining the basis for its ruling.  First, the Court noted the difference between blended whiskey and straight bourbon:

Rectified or blended whisky [*the Court used the traditional Scotch spelling throughout its ruling] is known to the trade as “single-stamp whisky,” while bonded whisky is known as “double-stamp goods.”  The proof shows that the rectifiers or blenders take a barrel of whisky, and draw off a large part of it, filling it up with water, and then adding spirits or other chemicals to make it proof, and give it age, bead, etc.  The proof also shows that from 50 to 75 percent of the whisky sold in the United States now is blended whisky, and that a large part of the trade prefer it to the straight goods.  It is a cheaper article, and there is therefore a temptation to simulate the more expensive whisky.

After establishing this distinction and comparing the advertisements used by E. H. Taylor and Marion Taylor, the Court concluded that consumers who were “not familiar with the whisky trade would understand that ‘Old Kentucky Taylor’ was a straight whisky.”  The Court further concluded that Marion Taylor intentionally misled consumers through his advertising by trying to pass off his blended product as E. H. Taylor’s straight bourbon, “which had attained a very high reputation as a pure Kentucky distilled whisky.” 

Marion Taylor’s blended whiskey “was a cheaper article, and could be sold at prices at which [E. H. Taylor] could not afford to sell his whisky,” and because his deceptive advertising could confuse consumers, the Court ruled that Marion Taylor had to be truthful in his advertising:

[Marion Taylor] may properly sell his brand of “Old Kentucky Taylor,” provided he so frames his advertisements as to show that it is a blended whisky, but he cannot be allowed to impose upon the public a cheaper article, and thus deprive [E. H. Taylor] of the fruits of its energy and expenditures by selling his blended whisky under labels or advertisements which conceal the true character of the article, for this would destroy the value of the [E. H. Taylor’s] trade.

In the end, Marion Taylor seems to have complied with the Court’s order, as can be seen by comparing this Wright & Taylor add in the Wine and Spirit Bulletin from May 1, 1904 (before the court’s 1905 ruling):



with this add in the Wine and Spirit Bulletin from June 1, 1906 (after the court’s ruling):



In compliance with the Court’s ruling, Marion Taylor made clear that his Fine Old Kentucky Taylor was a blended whiskey, and distinguished it from his Old Charter brand, which was a straight whiskey.  But E. H. Taylor still couldn’t let go, and in 1913 he published this over-the-top full-page letter in the Pacific Wine, Brewing and Spirit Review (double-click on the letter and enlarge it; it’s a funny read):



In the same edition, E. H. Taylor also published this full-page “Important Notice” which slightly exaggerated the Court’s ruling:



Marion Taylor’s Old Charter Distillery and the Old Charter brand continued to thrive (and E. H. Taylor could have no legitimate complaint about Old Charter), but “Fine Old Kentucky Taylor” has been lost to history, probably due in part to E. H. Taylor’s persistence.  There just wasn’t enough room for two Col. Taylors.


Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Four Roses Single Barrel


Bourbon:         Four Roses Single Barrel, 100 proof, NAS.
(GE-17-1P = Warehouse G (East side); 17th rack; tier 1; 16 barrels deep in the row)

Distillery:        Four Roses Distillery, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky.

Cost:                $33.99

Color:
Amber with deep orange tint.

Nose:
Spice balanced with sweetness of fruit and vanilla.

Taste:
Balanced honey, vanilla, toast and cinnamon, with heat – not just warmth.  A splash of water or a single large ice cube (my preference) opens up new layers of fruit, grains and oak.

Finish:
Long, complex and satisfying.

Rating:

You can’t go wrong with Four Roses.  One of the many unique facts about Four Roses (although this is old news for anyone who knows about Four Roses) is that they have two different mashbills and five yeast strains, which therefore allows Four Roses to make ten distinct bourbons under one roof.  Four Roses “Yellow Label” uses all ten recipes, Four Roses Small Batch uses just a few, and because it’s “single barrel,” Four Roses Single Barrel is just one recipe.

Here’s how Four Roses describes its five yeast codes:

V – Delicate Fruitiness
            K – Slight Spice
            O – Rich Fruitiness
            Q – Floral Essence
            F – Herbal Essence

The standard Four Roses Single Barrel uses the “B” mashbill and the “V” yeast strain, but with a little bourbon hunting you can find and compare it with private selection single barrels that are cask strength and that often use different recipes.

Early this Fall I had the pleasure of participating in Four Roses Single Barrel Private Selection where, contrary to the standard OBSV Single Barrel, all ten barrels used the “E” mashbill (75% Corn – 20% Rye – 5% Malted Barley).  We of course tasted these ten selections cask strength, and the bottling will be at cask strength.  Whichever barrel we selected, it was guaranteed to be distinctive when compared to the standard Four Roses Single Barrel.

Here are my most memorable notes from each of the ten barrels:

1.  OESV; 9 years, 5 months

·         Big nose, great warmth, nice balance of spice and fruit.

2.  OESV; 9 years, 5 months

·         Hotter at first, spicy nose, really long finish, opened up nicely with a splash of water.


3.  OESQ; 9 years, 6 months

·         Spicy long finish.

4.  OESQ; 9 years, 5 months

·         Unexpected flavors.  Sweeter than the others.

5.  OESK; 9 years, 8 months

·         Light nose but spicy, also a spicy finish.

6.  OESK; 9 years, 8 months

·         Best of the group.  Started sweet, finished spicy and opened up great with a splash of water.

7.  OESO; 11 years

·         Similar nose and taste to #6, and I was surprised to see that it was a different yeast strain and different aging.  Less sweet and longer finish that #6, however.

8.  OESO; 11 years

·         Spicy nose followed by great taste of spice and fruit.  Opened up with a splash of water.

9.  OESF; 10 years, 3 months

·         Soft nose followed by heat on the front mellowing out to candy sweetness.

10.  OESF; 10 years, 3 months

·         Strong nose and really hot, spicy taste and finish.

All ten of these barrels had similarities to the standard Four Roses Single Barrel, but I was happy that we were limited to the “E” mashbill because I knew that we were trying something different.  On the other hand, I can’t say enough good things about the standard Four Roses Single Barrel.  It’s a bargain in the mid-$30 range (and I recently found it on sale under $30), and I prefer it over many $40-$50 bourbons out there.  I’ll keep buying the OBSV Single Barrel, although I can’t wait for our OESK to be bottled, and I have another private barrel selection bottle of OBSF (10 years, 8 months and 117.4 Proof) that I’ll open and compare to the OBSV and OESK, and for good measure I’ll include the highly-praised 2013 Limited Edition Small Batch.  I can’t wait…

In the meantime, my recommendation is that you look for private barrel selections and buy that along with a standard OBSV Single barrel, and compare the two.  If you can’t find a private selection at your local store, I’d still recommend that you buy two bottles of OBSV, making sure that you get bottles from two different barrels.  Open both and enjoy the subtle differences found from each barrel.


Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale:  4.5

The Sipp’n Corn Scale:

1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon.  Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow.  I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.