Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Rebel Reserve vs. John E. Fitzgerald Larceny vs. Old Weller Antique 107

There’s often too much focus in bourbon reviews on inaccessible bourbon.  While those reviews can be intriguing and can help narrow your focus for bourbon hunting, the lower shelves could use some attention too.  There are more than plenty low-priced bourbons to choose from, but the vast majority use rye as their secondary grain.  To narrow the choices I decided to compare only bourbons that use wheat as the secondary grain (by far the minority), giving them a different profile than bourbons that use the more traditional rye mash bill.

So for this review, we compared three wheated bourbons that can be found readily at all stores for about $20.00.  I didn’t actually go to the very bottom of the shelf.  In fact, for each bourbon, the respective brand offers an even less-expensive version.  Here is the order of blind tasting:

Rebel Reserve

Distillery:  Bernheim Distillery (Heaven Hill), Louisville, Kentucky

Age:  NAS (but longer than Rebel Yell)

Proof:  90.6

Cost:  $20.99

Real bottom shelf version:  Rebel Yell ($12.99)

Thanks to the mayor of Louisville in 1949, Charles Farnsley, the name “Rebel Yell” refers to the battle cry of the Confederacy.  Perhaps recognizing the riskiness of that name, Stitzel-Weller originally only distributed this brand in the deep-south, but it soon was more widely distributed and later gained recognition as a favorite of Keith Richards.  While the Rebel Yell brand is distilled at Heaven Hill’s (new) Bernheim Distillery in Louisville, Heaven Hill sold the Rebel Yell brand to Luxco, Inc.

John E. Fitzgerald Larceny Bourbon

Distillery:  Heaven Hill Bernheim Distillery (for some reason the bottle only discloses “bottled by…”)

Age:  NAS

Proof:  92

Cost:  $21.49

Real bottom shelf version:  Old Fitzgerald ($11.99)

Larceny is the newest brand in this comparison, making its debut in 2012, with the marketing department going hog-wild on the backstory for this reinvention of the Fitzgerald line.  Despite the claim on the bottle, Larceny was not established in 1870.  In a bit of marketing misdirection, that date really only applies to the date that Old Fitzgerald was released as a private brand.  While not containing an age statement, Larceny is advertised as a small batch of 100 or less barrels and “hand selected by the Master Distillers to have a taste profile of a six-year-old Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey.”

Old Weller Antique 107

Distillery:  Buffalo Trace, Frankfort, Kentucky

Age:  NAS (but used to be seven years)

Proof:  107

Cost:  $19.99

Real bottom shelf version:  W. L. Weller Special Reserve ($14.99)

Old Weller Antique 107 is part of the famed Weller line, named after William Larue Weller (1825-1899), who is the grandfather of all wheated bourbon.  After the repeal of National Prohibition, the Stitzels and Wellers built the Stitzel-Weller Distillery, opening on Derby Day in 1935.  Big corporate acquisitions and mergers followed, Stitzel-Weller closed in 1992, and after moving distillation to New Bernheim, the brands were sold off to other distilleries.  Without William Larue Weller, we would not be having this tasting at all, because Rebel Yell and Larceny wouldn’t exist.

1st Glass (Rebel Reserve):

The nose clearly gave away that this was a wheated bourbon.  The alcohol scent was a little strong on the nose, but the caramel and brown sugar notes were enticing.  Unfortunately, there was also an unfavorable scent of medicinal cherry (like cherry cough drops).  The taste was not complex, mostly hot and sweet, with hints of caramel, grain and corn.  Not much to it.  The finish was short-ish, and predictably sweet and not complex.  It was still mostly inoffensive just until it started to fade, when the cherry cough drops come back for an unwelcome reprise.

2nd Glass (John E. Fitzgerald Larceny):

The second glass was brighter in color, with more of a copper tone.  The nose had a butterscotch aroma, with other sweet notes like toffee, but also a lot of cinnamon.  The taste was sweet, with flavors of caramel, honey and sweet corn, with some spice and nice bite, but it turned a little bitter.  Like the first glass, there was not much complexity, but there were more slight hints of fruit and spice.  There was a bit of harshness when drinking the second glass neat, but it improved dramatically with ice.  A splash of water helped too, but the sweet flavors opened up better just with ice.  The finish was quick to medium, and slightly warm.

3rd Glass (Old Weller Antique 107):

The third glass had a hint of orange to its amber color.  The nose revealed its higher proof right away, but after adjusting for the alcohol, the predominant note was caramel – lots of caramel – but also strong vanilla.  Caramel was also the predominant taste, just as predicted by the nose.  But there was also a nice balance of other sweet flavors like vanilla, apple, honey and toffee, along with some spicier flavor of cinnamon.  It was actually remarkably balanced for a bourbon lacking rye, but for anyone who really favors rye as the secondary grain, you’ll still miss the spiciness of rye.  The higher proof gives a nice bite that compensates somewhat for the lack of true spice flavors.  The finish was a little longer than the others and it was a more balanced, satisfying finish of caramel, cinnamon and vanilla.

Winner:  Old Weller Antique 107.

Bottom Line:

Practically all wheated Kentucky bourbons are related, and these three are no exception.  They all have lineage in William Larue Weller and the Stitzel-Weller distillery, and they all tout that history.  Rebel Reserve mentions Weller by name on its back label (“created from a time-honored Weller family recipe…”).  Similarly, Larceny’s marketing story obviously relies prominently on Fitzgerald, but maybe because of the general perception of that name as a transitioning to a bottom-shelf brand over the past decades, the deft marketers refer to the Van Winkle family and the Stitzel-Weller distillery. 

All three also claim to be made from their original recipes and methods.  If true, that should mean that the mash bills, yeast strain, distillation techniques and char level should all be the same, with the only differences being barrel location and age.  The variances between Rebel Reserve, Larceny and Old Weller Antique either disprove the entire story about each using the old Weller recipe, or they emphasize the incredible differences that can be imparted by the barrel, age and aging conditions.  Remember also that if Rebel Yell and the Fitzgerald line are made from the same Weller recipe, they start the same as Pappy.  Everybody wants to ride the coattails of Pappy, so expect more comparisons.

Despite their family origins, these three bourbons are not in the same league.  None of the three were going to have peppery or spicy notes due to the lack of rye, but Old Weller Antique did the best job out of the three in delivering a well-rounded profile.  Not only was Old Weller Antique the hands-down winner, we added W.L. Weller Special Reserve after the reveal, and it was preferred over Rebel Reserve too.

Keith Richards doesn’t need to be your role model for bourbon, and you don’t need to pay for new marking of old Fitzgerald.  So be sure to try Old Weller Antique, although it has become rare ever since the disappearance of W.L. Weller 12 Year Old (if you see Weller 12, ignore everything written here and buy a bottle for about $26.00).  If both of those are missing, grab a bottle of W.L. Weller Special Reserve and save $5.00 instead of getting Rebel Reserve, or splurge and try Larceny.

Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale

Rebel Reserve:  1.5

Larceny:  2.5

Old Weller 107:  3.5

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.

Remnants of Prohibition Still Sting Kentucky Grocers.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday upheld a post-prohibition-era statute that prohibits grocers and gas stations from selling liquor.  In Maxwell’s Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner, Nos. 12-6056/6057/6182, (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2014) (available at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0015p-06.pdf), the court reversed the local federal district court’s decision which had invalidated the statute. 

 States might be expected to protect their laws from challenges.  In this case, however, it appears as if the real source of the effort to save the regulation was a direct competitor of grocers that stood to lose market share if grocers were allowed to sell liquor and wine – Liquor Outlet d/b/a The Party Source.  The named defendant, Tony Dehner, is the Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and he represented the interests of the Commonwealth.  Just as ministers and bootleggers enjoyed a conspiracy of convenience in Kentucky in the 1930’s (90 of Kentucky’s 120 counties outlawed the sale and consumption of alcohol under local option laws), Liquor Outlet allied with ABC to prevent grocers from selling liquor.

In reading the court’s file, it became clear that the history of pre-Prohibition corruption and depravity, lawlessness during Prohibition, and relative peace under regulation after Repeal all played a significant role in the parties’ arguments and in the court’s decision.  Many of us are aware that state liquor control laws vary widely, but we’re often unaware that our respective state’s liquor control laws arose out of the remnants of Prohibition.

In the 1800’s, in Kentucky and elsewhere, “anybody had the right to sell liquors anywhere, to anybody, and at any time.”  Bd. of Trs. of Town of New Castle v. Scott, 101 S.W. 944 (Ky. 1907).  This lack of regulation helped fuel the temperance movement and led to a perception of liquor as a societal evil, so by 1891 Kentucky’s Constitution allowed its counties to regulate (or even ban) liquor sales. 

Liquor Outlet hired an expert witness to testify that before Prohibition, liquor had led to political corruption, prostitution, gambling, crime, poverty and family destruction.  Prohibition created its own problems, though, which were often worse.  The district court noted that Prohibition left Kentucky “infested with bootleggers … corruption and crime, no revenue, no control, disrespect for law and general demoralization.”  It was an unmitigated disaster.

Along with the repeal of Prohibition, the Twenty-First Amendment allowed states to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages.  John D. Rockefeller, Jr. financed a major study used by the states in developing their respective regulations.  Initially, Kentucky’s regulatory framework did not restrict the types of premises that could sell package liquor.  But in 1938, Kentucky enacted a new statute that, in essence, still exists today.  Kentucky decided on a regulatory structure that required licensure (and limited the number of licenses), and it prohibited licenses for “any premises used as or in connection with the operation of any business in which a substantial part of the commercial transaction consists of selling at retail staple groceries or gasoline or lubricating oil.”  So, grocers and gas stations have been prohibited from selling wine and liquor for over 75 years.

A small grocer, Maxwell’s Pic-Pac, decided that Kentucky’s regulatory structure discriminated against grocers without any reasonable or justifiable basis.  Under Kentucky’s regulatory framework, for example, a grocery-selling drugstore (like CVS or Walgreens) can sell liquor, but a pharmaceutical-selling grocery store cannot.  Similarly, a big-box “party store” can sell grocery items along with liquor, but a grocery store still cannot sell liquor.  The district court agreed and in August 2012 it ruled in favor of Pic-Pac.

Predictably, Kentucky and Liquor Outlet appealed.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that it is reasonable for Kentucky to choose to prohibit the sale of liquor in certain places, such as places where “the community must come together.”  Sounding like the temperance-movement activists, Liquor Outlet argued that grocery stores and gas stations posed a greater risk of “exposing” citizens to alcohol, and that more minors work at grocery stores, so they too would be “exposed” to alcohol.

Liquor Outlet (and its expert) also argued that Kentucky must be allowed to use regulations to steer society to lower-alcohol beverages and to reduce exposure of alcohol to impressionable or abstinent citizens, and that limiting the types of places that sell alcohol plausibly satisfies that public policy.  Still, overly-broad alcohol control laws have been struck down previously in Kentucky and in other states.  For example, in Commonwealth of Ky. ABC Bd. v. Burke, 481 S.W.2d 52 (Ky. 1972), the court invalidated a provision of the Alcohol Beverage Control Act that prohibited women from being bartenders and from drinking at a bar.  The Sixth Circuit did not discuss Burke, and rejected Pic-Pac’s challenge.

This regulation is partly just academic since many national chain grocers in Kentucky have separate adjacent liquor stores.  Of course, this really results in the law only being applicable to small or independent grocers like Pic-Pac.  In those stores, the temperance movement still has a foothold.

False Advertising and the Legacy of Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey.

The history of bourbon is full of legends, boasts, puffery and even outright lies, all in an effort to promote a brand and make a sale in a highly competitive craft.  Today’s false advertising and consumer protection laws have largely eliminated the lies, but who takes the all-time prize for false bourbon advertising?  James Pepper certainly seemed to stretch the truth; Paxton Bros. and the H.E. Pogue Distillery entered into a sourcing contract that a federal court held was “the perpetuation of fraud on the public;” and some unscrupulous whiskey rectifiers routinely defrauded the public until reined in by the Bottled-In-Bond Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. 

But one brand stands far above the rest as the ultimate fraudulent advertiser:  The Duffy Malt Whiskey Company.  To quote Lionel Hutz, Duffy’s advertising may be “the most blatant case of false advertising since … The NeverEnding Story.”  The Simpsons, Episode 67 (“New Kid on the Block”).  Nov. 12, 1992.

Walter B. Duffy (1840-1911) took over his family’s distillery, The Rochester Distilling Company, in the 1870’s.  By the early 1880’s, Duffy was advertising his Duffy’s Malt Whiskey not only as a tonic that “Makes The Weak Strong,” but also as a cure for all sorts of diseases.  Consumption, influenza, bronchitis, indigestion, and practically old age itself were claimed to be no match for Duffy’s Malt Whiskey.

Duffy quickly over-extended his company, and he was forced into bankruptcy in November 1886.  The collapse of the Duffy Malt Whiskey Company and the appointment of a prominent Receiver were widely reported The New York Times and other established newspapers, and lawsuits were filed as debts were resolved.  But just as James Pepper and Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr. emerged stronger from their own financial troubles, Duffy turned his company around, albeit with more false advertising.  Here are a few samples:

  

This last example led to litigation because Duffy’s sent The Chicago Sunday Tribune the wrong picture (it’s unclear whether intentionally, or not, or whether the testimonial was fabricated, or not).  In Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U.S. 185 (1909) (written by none other than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed two lower court decisions that had dismissed the libel claims of the plaintiff – the subject of the photograph – who claimed that she was not a nurse, and, moreover, she never drank Duffy’s Malt Whiskey (nor any spirit), and she never, under any circumstances, would recommend its use.

The opinion of the Seventh Circuit to some extent, but more so Justice Holmes’s opinion, give insight into the growing temperance movement as the country grew closer to national prohibition.  For a much better account of Duffy’s outlandish advertising and how it contributed to the eventual success of the temperance movement, be sure to read Whiskey Women: The Untold Story of How Women Saved Bourbon, Scotch, and Irish Whiskey, by Fred Minnick, at pp. 57-58.

In the meantime, Duffy’s revitalized company was so strong that he was able to withstand and prosper during the Panic of 1893, and by 1900 he had formed the New York and Kentucky Company which acquired the George T. Stagg Company and the Kentucky River Distillery (previously, and better, known as The Carlisle Distillery) in Frankfort, which together are now the Buffalo Trace Distillery.  Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr., in particular, was disgusted that someone who he considered to be a disreputable rectifier had come to own Taylor’s former prized distilleries.

While owning these historical Kentucky sites, Duffy continued to market his Duffy’s Malt Whiskey for its claimed medicinal benefits.  Through the early 1900’s, the challenge to Duffy’s false advertising was building.  Samuel Hopkins Adams wrote an exposé of so-called “patent medicines” (elixirs sold as medical cures, but without any actual curative benefit) in 1905 entitled “The Great American Fraud” in Collier’s Weekly.

While Adams stated that it was “impossible” for him to name all of the patent-medicine frauds, and that he “can touch on only a few,” Duffy’s Malt Whiskey was egregious enough that he identified it by name:  “Duffy’s Malt Whiskey is a fraud, for it pretends to be a medicine and to cure all kinds of lung and throat diseases.”  Adams acknowledged that “[f]rom its very name one would naturally absolve Duffy’s Malt Whiskey from fraudulent pretense” because, at the time, the word “malt” conveyed medicinal qualities, so he was sure to reference a ruling by the Supreme Court of New York that Duffy’s Malt Whiskey was not a medicine.

The New York court had been considering whether or not Duffy’s was a medicine or a whiskey due to certain tax issues, and in Cullinan, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York v. Paxon (1905), it heard expert testimony on that issue.  Experts noted the alcoholic content of Duffy’s and testified that a “search was made for added medicinal ingredients with negative results.”  Instead, they concluded that Duffy’s “is simply sweetened whiskey.”  Accordingly, the court declared that Duffy’s Malt Whiskey was a liquor, not a medicine.

Adams also refuted some of Duffy’s ringing endorsements, such as the “Clergymen Endorse” advertisement above.  Adams uncovered that one of the clergy pictured simply ran a “Get-Married Quick Matrimonial Bureau” and was paid $10.00 for his picture; another was a “Deputy Internal Revenue Collector” and racehorse owner, whose actual photograph was not used in the advertisement; and the third clergy was forced to resign by his congregation after they learned of his endorsement.  Adams also discovered that Duffy’s employees tricked some physicians into providing testimonials, for example by misrepresenting that they would not be used in advertising.  Ultimately, “The Great American Fraud” helped lead to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906.  This movement, along with the temperance movement and growing sophistication in medical knowledge, spelled eventual doom for Duffy’s.

Today’s claims of false advertising are tame by comparison.  Some people believe that Diageo’s product placement of Bulleit Bourbon on Deadwood (the HBO western series set in the 1870’s) constitutes false advertising because Bulleit was not introduced as a brand until 1999.

Others contend that bourbon brands that don’t distill or age their own bourbon engage in false advertising when they hide the true nature of their business and tout their Master Distillers (who don’t actually oversee any distillation).  Michter’s is often on the receiving end of this criticism.

However these recent criticisms are viewed, at least we’re not being sold snake oil, and at least mendacious rectifiers adding things like tobacco juice, pepper sauce or potentially harmful adulterations to simulate age, color and flavor in our bourbon is a thing of the past (remember, some rectifiers had scruples and were simply blenders, or only added safe products, like brown sugar, prune juice, honey, tea and wintergreen).  So Cheers to Walter B. Duffy for his outrageously false advertising, which helped set the wheels in motion for bourbon we can enjoy today. 

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – “The Woodford Challenge” – Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select vs. Woodford Reserve Double Oaked vs. Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Four Wood

            For this Bourbon Review, we compared three Woodford Reserve bourbons from three price-points.  The entry-level Woodford Reserve is generally well-liked, but it has its share of critics for essentially being expensive or for being too soft.  The Woodford Double Oaked generally gets some better reviews, while the Four Wood has a few supporters but mostly detractors.  I wanted to see whether – even within the Woodford family – it’s best to stick to basics.

Bourbons in order of blind tasting:

·         Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select

Age:  NAS

Proof: 90.4

Cost:  $31.99

·         Woodford Reserve Single Barrel Double Oaked

Age:  NAS

Proof:  90.4

Cost:  $59.99 (the more typical non-single barrel costs $53.99)

·         Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Four Wood

Age:  NAS

Proof:  94.4

Cost:  $95.99

1st Glass (Woodford Reserve Distiller’s Select):

The first glass had a clear amber appearance and a light nose of caramel and fresh herbs and corn.  It was followed by a sweet taste of corn, caramel, vanilla and slight fruit, and it was immediately recognizable by the tasters; so much for the blind tasting.  The finish was moderate, with more light and sweet flavors, and not much warmth.  Given the proof and the light flavors, this is a bourbon to drink neat, although the chill of a single large ice cube or sphere works as well.

2nd Glass (Woodford Reserve Double Oaked):

The second glass was slightly darker in color, more of a deep copper, with a more complex nose, taste and finish.  It was recognized as being related to the first glass, but it filled in many of the gaps of the first glass.  The nose had more earthy tones like leather and walnut, along with new hints of brown sugar.  The taste still had similar caramel sweetness, but added new oak flavors and spicy warmth, with honey and spiced apple cider.  The finish was smoky and slightly warm with a balance of rich caramel, with moderate length, although a little longer than the first glass.  This bourbon was best with the slow melt of large ice.  Water or too much ice seemed to give it a medicinal finish.

3rd Glass (Woodford Reserve Four Wood):

The third glass was the darkest of the three in appearance, but what really stood apart was the nose.  The nose was as complex as we’ve experienced.  It was very sweet with toffee, floral tones (roses?) and berries, but to me, it smelled like the sweet corn of a bubbling fermentation tank.  The taste, unfortunately, was harsh and the numerous flavors of corn, maple, oak, leather, spice and vanilla seemed to be competing instead of complementing each other.  Plus, the taste was nothing like the nose predicted.  Similarly, the finish had the same disjointed flavors.

Winner:

Double Oaked was narrowly preferred by the tasters, but Distiller’s Select seemed to be the comfortable choice, and when taking value into account, Double Oaked really loses ground.  The safest bet is to call a draw.  The Four Wood was a distant third with most tasters – except one who rated it first.  While the nose of the Four Wood was truly remarkable, most of us thought that the rest of it just fell apart.

Bottom Line:

Those in the know say that Woodford Reserve and Old Forester share the same mash bill (72% corn; 18% rye; 10% malted barley) and yeast strain, and that Distiller’s Select contains bourbon distilled at both Versailles and Louisville.  So while the standard Distiller’s Select is certainly popular, many people stick with the very affordable “Old Fo” (sometimes known as Louisville’s house bourbon).  It’s hard to argue with that logic.  Either bourbon is a comfortable option, but make no mistake, they are different Bourbons.  The blending of Bourbon distilled at Brown-Forman and Bourbon distilled in Versailles was the subject of a lawsuit in 2003 that I'll write about later, and it has also been confirmed by Chris Morris.

Double Oaked improves Distiller’s Select in a few areas.  Double Oaked starts with the Distiller’s Select when it is matured and ready for bottling, but instead it is dumped and re-barreled into new oak barrels that have first been “deeply toasted” and then “lightly charred.”  It is aged in these second barrels for some undisclosed length of additional time to pick up more sweet oak flavors “without aggressive charred notes.”  The result is bourbon with much deeper sweet flavors than Distiller’s Select, but it’s still primarily a sweet bourbon, and I wished that it would have picked up some “aggressive charred notes” to better distinguish itself from Distiller’s Select.

Master Distiller Chris Morris is known to take some chances, and thankfully Brown-Forman encourages this, but the latest in the “Master’s Collection” is a miss.  The shtick this time is that standard Woodford Reserve was aged in four types of wood – American White Oak, where it is aged to maturity, then followed by maple barrels, Sherry barrels and Port barrels for finishing.  Brown-Forman should keep trying these innovative finishing expressions, but selling an iffy product for $100 is just going to give this series a bad name.

My final recommendations:

Distiller’s Select:  Despite its softer flavors, Distiller’s Select ran close to Double Oaked, and at $20+ less than Double Oaked, that really increases its score.  While Distiller’s select lacks many of the complexities found in comparably-priced bourbons, always keep a bottle of Distiller’s Select in your home bar because it has so many fans that your guests are likely to request it.  Have Old Forester on the side if your guests want to compare the two so they can see the differences.

Double Oaked:  It’s priced high for a NAS bourbon barely over 90 proof (I’d expect to see it in the low-$40’s), but especially if you already have your other bourbon staples, Double Oaked is still a high recommendation for your home bar.  The price really keeps Double Oaked from scoring higher.

Four Wood:  Completely avoid Four Wood, especially at this price.  Hopefully you can avoid it since it is a limited edition.  I’ll pay for experiments and innovations that turn out well, but nearly $100 for this NAS bourbon at 94.4 proof is way too much.  There were certainly other 2013 limited editions that retailed for similar prices, but were vastly superior.

Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale

Double Oaked:  3.5

Distiller’s Select:  3.0

Four Wood:  1.5

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.