The following are edited excerpts from a long thread I posted on another web site. The first post is from 3/28/2007, and the second, with my concluding thoughts, is from last night, 4/13/2007. I just thought all the bourbon drinkers here should be alerted.
_______________________
3/28/2007:
Strangest Bottle of Booker's I've ever seen. I just opened a bottle of Booker's, and it is not only the youngest bottle I've ever seen, it's the "weakest." This is labeled Batch C00-A-20. The 00 after the C is no doubt for the year 2000, meaning distilled in that year. Although the script written legend on the main label says that the old guy for whom this bourbon is named liked his bourbon from 6-8 years old, over the past few years, Booker's has actually been released as old as 8 years, 9 months, in the case of one bottle I've seen.
I've never seen a bottle of Booker's younger than 7 years, 1 month, and 125.x proof. This one is 6 years, 4 months old, and only 124.0 proof.
Now, on the one hand, having paid a "walk-out price" of $45.27 for this bottle, the most I've ever paid, I could look at it as The Great American Pay More, Get Less plan. We've all seen that one before, candy bars weighing less and the price going up as the years go by, supermarket coffee in cans that used to be an even one pound, shrinking to 10-12 ounces over the years.
With all due respect to Fred Noe and Co., I'm going to try to look at this in an optimistic fashion, until my tastings prove otherwise. Booker's has been better than ever over the past two, three years, and I'll keep checking in with comments as the bottle goes down.
Strange doings in the world these days.
4/13/2007:
I had my third tasting of this new bottle of Booker's earlier tonight, and my thoughts are these. It is smooth, creamy and light, too light for me, lacking the fire and oak that mark what I considered to be a good bottle of Booker's. There is also the annoying, grainy taste of a heavy rye content in there, which isn't bad, but it's typical of young bourbons that haven't matured to a flavor profile that I can really classify as remarkable. It actually tastes like a lot of young, $25-35 bourbons that I really haven't liked that much.
If there weren't so much of that raw grain taste, I'd rate this bottle much higher, but I was suspicious when I opened the box from Shopper's Vineyard, and saw the age statement. Six years and four months old just isn't making it for me, and at a "walk-out price" of $45.27, I'm not happy with this bottle of Booker's.
If Booker's is being released early in order to keep up with heavy demand, then Booker's may not be on my menu for much longer. Unless I can find bottles at least 7 1/2 and preferably 8 years old and up, which are the ones I have liked the most, the Jim Beam Distillery will have lost my business on Booker's, perhaps forever.
It isn't bad, it just isn't Booker's to me.
_______________________
3/28/2007:
Strangest Bottle of Booker's I've ever seen. I just opened a bottle of Booker's, and it is not only the youngest bottle I've ever seen, it's the "weakest." This is labeled Batch C00-A-20. The 00 after the C is no doubt for the year 2000, meaning distilled in that year. Although the script written legend on the main label says that the old guy for whom this bourbon is named liked his bourbon from 6-8 years old, over the past few years, Booker's has actually been released as old as 8 years, 9 months, in the case of one bottle I've seen.
I've never seen a bottle of Booker's younger than 7 years, 1 month, and 125.x proof. This one is 6 years, 4 months old, and only 124.0 proof.
Now, on the one hand, having paid a "walk-out price" of $45.27 for this bottle, the most I've ever paid, I could look at it as The Great American Pay More, Get Less plan. We've all seen that one before, candy bars weighing less and the price going up as the years go by, supermarket coffee in cans that used to be an even one pound, shrinking to 10-12 ounces over the years.
With all due respect to Fred Noe and Co., I'm going to try to look at this in an optimistic fashion, until my tastings prove otherwise. Booker's has been better than ever over the past two, three years, and I'll keep checking in with comments as the bottle goes down.
Strange doings in the world these days.
4/13/2007:
I had my third tasting of this new bottle of Booker's earlier tonight, and my thoughts are these. It is smooth, creamy and light, too light for me, lacking the fire and oak that mark what I considered to be a good bottle of Booker's. There is also the annoying, grainy taste of a heavy rye content in there, which isn't bad, but it's typical of young bourbons that haven't matured to a flavor profile that I can really classify as remarkable. It actually tastes like a lot of young, $25-35 bourbons that I really haven't liked that much.
If there weren't so much of that raw grain taste, I'd rate this bottle much higher, but I was suspicious when I opened the box from Shopper's Vineyard, and saw the age statement. Six years and four months old just isn't making it for me, and at a "walk-out price" of $45.27, I'm not happy with this bottle of Booker's.
If Booker's is being released early in order to keep up with heavy demand, then Booker's may not be on my menu for much longer. Unless I can find bottles at least 7 1/2 and preferably 8 years old and up, which are the ones I have liked the most, the Jim Beam Distillery will have lost my business on Booker's, perhaps forever.
It isn't bad, it just isn't Booker's to me.