Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Proof – Three Editions

It’s no secret that Elijah Craig 12-Year is one of the best values of all of bourbons (usually under $30.00).  Heaven Hill has taken its popular Elijah Craig 12-Year bourbon to new heights with small batch barrel proof editions.  This review compares the Evan Williams Bourbon Experience gift shop edition (129.7 Proof; the only white label), with the third edition (133.2 Proof; brown label) and the just-released fifth edition (134.8 proof; brown label).  Look for the latest edition at your favorite retail stores because the price is a bit higher at the Bourbon Experience ($40 range at retail vs. $55 at the Bourbon Experience) and, unfortunately, I’ve confirmed with the Bourbon Experience that they’re out.  Wherever these land, they’ll be gone in a heartbeat.

The Elijah Craig 12-Year Barrel Proof batches have all forgone chill filtering, which contributes to the dark brown color and leaves more flavors behind, but which also results in a slight cloudiness when water is added.  Chill filtering involves chilling the whiskey significantly, so fatty acids and proteins created during distillation can be filtered out, thus removing cloudiness in the bottle.  I understand this is done for mostly cosmetic reasons. 

Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Proof – 129.7 Proof ($54.99 – Bourbon Experience price)

I reviewed this edition of EC12 against other high-proof options last December ("The High Octane Challenge").  The color is outright mahogany brown.  On re-taste, the nose is more complex than the other two, blending caramel, oak and apple, with only a slight burn from the high proof.   The taste is really remarkable, 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.

Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Proof – 133.2 Proof ($54.99 – Bourbon Experience price)

The winter’s edition seems to be the darkest brown of the three.  The nose has deep oak and leather notes, along with brown sugar.  The initial taste gave the strongest and hottest bite out of the three, even though it’s not the highest proof (but show me someone who can distinguish 134.8 proof from 133.2 proof…).  Remember, the ABV calculates to 66.6, so maybe it’s just the power of suggestion.  In addition to the heat, this edition seems to be the spiciest, but after a splash of water, sweet flavors opened up, but it’s still dark cherries, nuts, oak and deep earthy flavors.  This one had the longest finish of the three.

Elijah Craig 12 Year Barrel Proof – 134.8 Proof ($54.99 – Bourbon Experience price)

Dark brown color?  Check.  This edition has the hottest nose, so seriously, don’t inhale too intensely before you add water.  Water removes the sting and opens up balanced caramel, oak and pepper.  The taste balanced those same flavors with an incredibly robust blast.  Try this one with different amounts of water and you’ll see definite changes in flavor profile, bringing out some vanilla, toast and dark fruit flavors.  The finish was long like the others, but probably better balanced than the third edition.

Bottom Line:

I’ve also tried the first release (a 134.2 proof gem) shared by a friend.  Like the editions that followed, it was tremendous, and had slightly different flavors like caramel apple and cinnamon crumb cake.  But out of all that I’ve tried, the 129.7 proof white label expression nudged out its higher-proof brothers.  Each of these editions has its own distinct characteristics, but of course they also have a lot of similarities.  After all, they’re all Elijah Craig, they’re all 12 years old, and they’re all relatively close in time on distillation (and therefore aging seasons).  I would expect future editions to have a little more variation from these three since those barrels will have experienced different aging seasons. 

In addition to all being excellent, one of the most surprising features to me is the drinkability at such a high proof.  Don’t drink a whole glass neat, but definitely try it for the full experience, and also enjoy what a Glencairn or NEAT glass can do for the nose (although the nose is astounding even without a special glass).  Then you’ll want to use ice and a splash of water to lower the proof, but be careful to not go anywhere near the standard 94 proof.

Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale:

EC12 – 129.7 Proof:  4.5

EC12 – 133.2 Proof:  4.0

EC12 – 134.8 Proof:  4.25

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.

Want more information on the non-gift shop Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases?  Check out this great summary by Bourbonr:  Elijah Craig Barrel Proof Release Cheat Sheet.

Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Wild Turkey Diamond Anniversary

Wild Turkey Diamond Anniversary is a commemorative bourbon to honor Jimmy Russell, the longest-serving active Master Distiller in North America.  Jimmy started at Wild Turkey in 1954, and he trained under legends Bill Hughes and Ernest W. Ripy (the son of the original distiller).  Jimmy’s son Eddie is the fourth in a line of family distillers, and he’s been at Wild Turkey since 1981.  Eddie worked with different blends to find the right way to celebrate his father’s 60 years.

Its first public tasting was on April 15 at the official grand opening of Wild Turkey’s new state-of-the-art Visitor Center, and it was released for sale only at the Visitor Center beginning on April 16.  If you can’t make it to Lawrenceburg, be on the lookout for a limited distribution this August.

Bourbon:        Wild Turkey Diamond Anniversary (Limited Edition)

Distillery:        Wild Turkey Distillery, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky

Age:                NAS, but a blend of 13 and 16 year-old barrels

Proof:             91 proof

Cost:               $124.99

Tasting Notes

Color:

Light amber and a bit bright.  I was expecting darker given the ages, but I suppose that I’m seeing the result of the lower proof and filtration. 

Nose:

Sweetness from caramel and honey, along with dry grass, oak, cedar and old barn (but in a good way).

Taste:

It initially seemed higher proof than it is, but that sensation went away after sitting for 5-10 minutes, and was replaced with a nice, warm sensation.  There was less oak than I expected from the age.  It was creamy with rye spice, subtle sweetness and some citrus.  The citrus gave it lightness that is not typical with Wild Turkey.  Excellent balance.

I thought that I would like it with ice, but didn’t (it muted the flavors).  On my second day of tasting, I tried it with a Whiskey Disks stone, and that was exactly what it needed.  Drink this one neat with your favorite whiskey stone to give it some chill.

Finish:

The finish was lingering but not long, and it wasn’t particularly warm except on the tongue.  There was more oak in the finish than with most Wild Turkey brands, along with pepper spice balanced with honey.

Bottom Line

Diamond Anniversary is unlike everything else in the Wild Turkey stable.  Some people were expecting a robust powerhouse consistent with the “#NEVERTAMED” reputation that Wild Turkey has earned (or its earlier “Give 'Em The Bird” campaign).  Don’t expect Diamond Anniversary to be as in-your-face as those marketing campaigns or the new custom-built Wild Turkey motorcycle, which was also revealed at the release event:

Kudos to Eddie Russell for giving us something new and distinguishable.  While this difference is bound to throw some people for a loop, can you imagine the criticism if Diamond Anniversary tasted like Russell’s Reserve or Rare Breed?

The price and sub-101 proof are also bound to startle devoted Wild Turkey fans.  On top of that, Diamond Anniversary faces very stiff competition from other recent limited edition and commemorative bottles.  Most recently, Wild Turkey’s Lawrenceburg neighbor, Four Roses, has hit another home run with its 2014 Limited Edition Single Barrel, which is priced about $25 less than Diamond Anniversary, and which is cask strength. 

Given the luck of timing, then, Diamond Anniversary will strike some people as over-priced and under-proofed.  While I admit that 101-proof would have been a nice part of the tribute, 91-proof is perfect for sipping and I’ll trust Eddie Russell any day of the week to add the right amount of water.  There are better bourbons, and some of those cost less money (the price hurts Diamond Anniversary on my scale), but that can’t detract from the merits of Diamond Anniversary and the true master distillers behind it.  This is a one-of-a-kind bourbon with great balance, so it deserves some room on your shelf.

Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale:  3.0

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.

Frazier v. Dowling – The Pre-Prohibition Fight Over Waterfill & Frazier.

Waterfill & Frazier is best known as the bourbon brand that fled to Juarez, Mexico under the leadership of Whiskey Woman Mary Dowling (1859-1930), and which while in Mexico, produced whiskey that made its way back into the States still labeled as “bourbon.”  Mary Dowling is part of the reason why U.S.-based distillers fought for labeling laws and strict limitations on what could be called “bourbon.”

While Mary Dowling had her share of adventures and litigation (bootlegging charges that were only dismissed on appeal because the court reporter had died, tax charges related to her distilleries after Prohibition was enacted, and more), a lawsuit from the 1890’s threatened the very brand of “Waterfill & Frazier.”

As explained in Frazier v. Dowling, 18 Ky. L. Rptr. 1109, 39 S.W. 45 (Ky. 1897), this case involved family drama plus the common theme of bourbon distillers trying to benefit from the established name of another brand.

The Waterfill family had been in the distilling business since the early 1800’s in Tyrone, Kentucky (near Lawrenceburg).  Although William J. Waterfill was involved in other distilleries, including at least one with the Ripy family, the “Waterfill & Frazier Distillery” was founded in 1870 by William Waterfill and R.H. Frazier in Anderson County, Kentucky, with each owning one-half of the distillery.  In 1882, Waterfill sold his interest to Frazier, who continued the business.

But only three years later, R.H. Frazier wanted to sell, so William Waterfill bought back his one-half interest, and partnered with John Dowling (Mary’s husband) to operate the distillery, still known as “Waterfill & Frazier” and still selling “Waterfill & Frazier” bourbon.

R.H. Frazier died soon after and his son, George G. Frazier, perhaps being disappointed in not having inherited the distillery, decided to start his own distillery with James M. Waterfill, a cousin of William Waterfill.  This new distillery was also in Anderson County, Kentucky, and this next generation of the Waterfills and Fraziers began distilling and barreling their own “Waterfill & Frazier” bourbon.

William Waterfill, of course, was still an owner of the original Waterfill & Frazier.  He made clear to brokers that the upstarts could not use the “Waterfill & Frazier” brand, and he expressed his confidence that “any court of jurisdiction will protect us in the right of property in that brand.” 

This brush-back pitch convinced young entrepreneurs to brand their barrels “J.M. Waterfill & Company, Distillers” and to change their advertisements to clarify that their distillery was owned by “G.G. Frazier” and “J.M. Waterfill.”

A few years later, for reasons not disclosed in the opinion, William Waterfill sold his interest to the Dowlings and he then partnered with the younger Waterfill and Frazier.  So the original Waterfill & Frazier Distillery was now owned solely by the Dowlings, with no person named “Waterfill” or “Frazier” associated with the distillery.

In the meantime, the younger Waterfill and Frazier had been unable to sell their whiskey.  But now with the help of William Waterfill, they finally found a broker in Chicago who agreed to buy all of their whiskey – so long as they would label it as “Waterfill & Frazier.”

When the Dowlings learned that the upstarts were going to use the “Waterfill & Frazier” trade name, they sued, seeking an injunction.  The trial court granted the injunction, and the Fraziers and Waterfills appealed.  The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agreed with the trial court, and ruled against the Fraziers and Waterfills, prohibiting them from using their own last names for their whiskey brand because they were trying to deceive the public.

This is one of the first cases that prohibited use of one’s own surname.  It was followed about 50 years later in the Country Distillers case (Country Distillers v. Samuels – the rise of Maker’s Mark ) to prohibit T. William Samuels (Bill, Sr.) from calling his planned new bourbon “Samuels” or “Old Samuels.”  Frazier v. Dowling laid the groundwork for an exception to the rule that people have the undeniable right to use their own name in their own business; they cannot use their own name if it would create market confusion.

Here, not only were the upstarts causing market confusion, but the Court was extremely critical of the new Waterfill & Frazier’s decision to change from a brand that recognized the distinction to one that clearly attempted to benefit from the existing Waterfill & Frazier brand.  So the Dowlings were able to keep the “Waterfill & Frazier” name, Mary Dowling took it with her to Mexico, it survived well past Repeal, and although no longer in production, its name is still owned by Heaven Hill.  Maybe in the midst of the American whiskey craze we’ll see Waterfill & Frazier again.

Bird Fight – Wild Turkey vs. Old Crow.

Bourbon distillers have proven themselves to be a competitive bunch, and taking advantage of another’s name recognition is probably as old as commercial distilling itself.  Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr., George T. Stagg, James E. Pepper, Country Distillers, Maker’s Mark and countless others have all sued to protect their trade names or trademarks.  A few years ago, Wild Turkey (at the time using the corporate name of “Rare Breed Distilling LLC”) had to sue Jim Beam, in a case called Rare Breed Distilling LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., in order to stop Beam from using the slogan “Give ‘em the Bird” for its bottom-shelf Old Crow brand.

Wild Turkey had used the registered mark “The Bird is the Word” since the 1970’s, and “The Bird” was commonly used to identify Wild Turkey bourbon.  Wild Turkey claimed that the public had adopted “The Bird” as a nickname for Wild Turkey bourbon, which gave Wild Turkey trademark rights, just like Volkswagen has rights to “The Bug” even though the official name of its iconic car is “The Beetle.”  Wild Turkey used a variety of slogans in the mid-2000’s, such as “The only time to give a biker the Bird,” “Give them the Bird,” “Give ‘em the Bird,” and “Shoot the Bird.”

Exhibit B to Wild Turkey’s Complaint (2006 promotion).

Exhibit D to Wild Turkey’s Complaint (2007 promotion).

Despite this established use – and despite Old Crow never having been previously referred to as “the Bird” – in March 2010 Beam applied to register the trademark “Give ‘em the Bird.”   Beam also rolled out a new, edgy branding campaign for Old Crow using this slogan:

Exhibit G to Wild Turkey’s Complaint (2011 website home page).

Of course, “Old Crow” doesn’t have anything to do with a bird.  Instead, its namesake is none other than Dr. James Crow, the Scottish immigrant who developed and perfected the sour mash method of distilling bourbon at the Old Oscar Pepper Distillery (now Labrot & Graham / Woodford Reserve).  From the 1830’s through his death in 1855, the Old Oscar Pepper Distillery was renowned for Dr. Crow’s bourbon, which eventually became known as “Old Crow,” and which continued in production after 1855 by W. F. Mitchell (who had worked with and then succeeded Dr. Crow as distiller), and beyond.

While Old Crow enjoyed high praise in the past, it has since transitioned to the bottom shelf, and reportedly is not even the same recipe as used by Dr. Crow.  Still, as the press release from Beam’s marketing firm explained, Beam wanted to showcase the rich heritage of Old Crow along with “a touch of outlaw spirit” in the “rough and tumble market for bourbon whiskey.”  It’s unclear whether the marketing company knew that Wild Turkey had already been using the prized line.

Somehow, Wild Turkey missed Beam’s application to register the trademark and failed to object.  In October 2010, after Wild Turkey finally learned about the planned campaign for Old Crow, it sent a demand letter that failed to get any action from Beam.  In the meantime, Wild Turkey was launching a massive campaign based on the “Give ‘em the Bird” slogan, complete with Jimmy and Eddie Russell proudly extending their middle fingers for photo opportunities.  As neither company backed off, in May 2011 Wild Turkey sued Beam in federal court in Louisville.  Not to be outdone, Beam counter-sued in June 2011, asking the Court to immediately stop Wild Turkey from using its supposed trademark (which, coincidentally, was granted registration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after Wild Turkey filed its lawsuit).

When the parties arrived at Court for an injunction hearing in July 2011, Beam did not have any evidence to present to support its request; just legal argument and a registered trademark.  The parties argued their respective cases, with some arguments faring better than others (for example, Beam’s attorney argued that there is a “significant” difference between “Give Them the Bird” and “Give ‘em the Bird”; the Court didn’t buy that one).

Ultimately, because the Court wanted to hear evidence, the parties rescheduled another hearing in August 2011.  Five days before the hearing, Wild Turkey filed an extensive brief supporting its position and also attached a survey which found that 24% of the participants recognized “The Bird” as a Wild Turkey name, whereas only 0.5% thought that it was associated with Old Crow.

Before the hearing was conducted, however, the parties agreed to dismiss all of their respective claims.  This agreement was probably not so much either side conceding, but instead the result of a ruling by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (“DISCUS”) that the “Give ‘em the Bird” campaign violated the Code of Responsible Practices applicable to advertising because its implicit vulgarity did not “reflect generally accepted contemporary standards of good taste” and because advertising “should not contain any lewd or indecent images or language.”

So ultimately, DISCUS gave both Beam and Wild Turkey the bird, and the “Give ‘em the Bird” campaign was abandoned.