edition bourbon.
Just so we don't continue to turn the Larue thread into a Stagg thread. :wink: :cryinlaugh:
First off, let's review the history of George T. Stagg bourbon. Everything that I have read independently or heard from my whiskey sensei about this bourbon has made me believe that someone created a label, not a bourbon. Then, it seems that someone was saddled with the chore of finding bourbon in the warehouse suitable for the image that was created behind the founding of the label.
So, what happened in 2002 was that they found some stuff in the warehouse that measured out at 137.6 proof, tasted mostly like pickle brine, with an amazing complexity of other flavors, but the weirdest whiskey I've ever had, and . . .
WHISKEY OF THE YEAR 2002!!!
Y'know, I'm not even going to get into what I think about that, as I try to defer to people and always give respect, because I may see their butt wiggling it's way into The Kingdom ahead of mine, or to my complete exclusion. But c'mon, someone creates an idea, finds some unwanted, at least 15 year old whiskey in the warehouse, that was maybe supposed to be watered down to 90 proof and called something else years ago, and suddenly you've got the whiskey of the year? The absolute WEIRDEST stuff I've ever tasted.
But I happen to agree with the assessment of Whiskey of The Year 2002. Weird yes, but powerful, bold tasting and complex. The empty bottle that I paid $108.63 for because that was the only way to get one, still stands on my den's surrounding shelf in the No. 10 position of my favorites. Okay, you created an idea, the label, and miraculously not only found unused whiskey in your warehouse that fit the profile and had merchants charging a C note for perhaps sixty buck whiskey, but what next? Since George T. Stagg isn't an idea created around 1990, whose corresponding whiskey has finally matured to market status, but was a label that got created FIRST, and then had a product FOUND to match the idea, indeed, WHAT NEXT?
Well, what they followed up with in 2003 was something that I actually liked better than the 2002, but admittedly was much lighter in body, despite being stronger at 142.7 proof, and less complex. It still resides in the No. 12 position on my list. What I liked better about this was it contained one or more of the "classic" bourbon flavors. What I personally mean by classic bourbon flavors usually would be those that taste like caramel, vanilla, candy apple, spice, oak, along those lines, that I tend to favor in a bourbon.
Okay, The Lord smiled on you and the 2003 release wasn't so bad as to lose the label's reputation in it's second year, but I didn't exactly hear ringing endorsements either, and no one was marking that one up anywhere's near a C note.
Well, along comes the eagerly awaited 2004 release at 129 proof, and it tastes like overripe jet fuel, with a little road tar. Actually, I forget what I called it, but my review is on one of the pages here. It was BAD. To be brief, it is flavorless, and although I'm going to try to get the unopened bottle I still have back to my whiskey sensei someday, it's really up for grabs. Don't ask me to send it to you, because they stopped allowing liquids to go through the mail/courier services in these parts years ago. Yes, some folks still do it and get away with it, but I'm not trying it, and I don't lie, whether it's to people I know, or the post office, UPS, etc. Do you really think if you tell the postal clerk that there's no liquid in there, they won't find out?
So, come this year, they decide to have a "special spring release," and it comes out in two batches, 131.8 proof and 130.9 proof. I heard the 131.8 proof was better, and so I got a bottle of that, at a pretty decent price, around $55 with the shipping. It was 16 years and eight months old. My review is also here, and although I liked it, the bourbon only was good enough to currently hold the No. 19 spot on my list, and therefore, a disappointment. Again, light in the body and flavor department, although nicely flavored, and extremely smooth.
So, can you see where I'm going with this? Hello, you people got to rubbing your corporate merger hands together, and counting the bucks that would be pouring in from your great new idea and fancy label, but are you having a little trouble finding barrels in the warehouse that support your desired MSRP and flavor profile? It would seem so. So, when the Fall 2005 Release (yeah, whatever :roll: ) was announced, I had gotten sick of being baited. Oh, so now you've got a Fall 2005 release. What's next, a special baseball all-star game release next summer?
Just find something that tastes good, won't cost us rich man's bucks, and fits your silly little idea's profile, because I'm getting sick of buying overpriced whiskey that you're trying to find a following for.
So, last night I made my famous (only in this house) linguini with garlic and oil, with 62 cloves of garlic, tying my personal record. I always try and break up at least 50 cloves worth, and pick enough heads to yield around 50-70 cloves. Now, I'm well aware that when I eat garlic in such an amount, the taste will remain in my mouth for quite a while, and the odor has been detected on me up to 44 hours later, and probably exists even after that.
But, last night, notwithstanding garlic, I was eager to try the new 141.2 proof fall 2005 release out of the bottle I paid a very fair walk-out price of $54.18 for at Warehouse Wines in downtown Manhattan the other day.
It was good, but perhaps overly sweet. Of course, I never review a bourbon before at least three tastings, and my final opinion usually varies a bit after the excitement of the first tasting dies down. But I was pleasantly surprised at the boldness of flavors, and the complexity was quite impressive. What I didn't like was the excessive sweetness without a balance of oak and spice. Of course, my opinion may evolve with further tasting.
I wasn't smashed by the proof, and could hardly taste any heat, which was quite pleasant. This is way less fire than most bottles of Booker's, yet much stronger. That's probably because of the extra age, this being 15 years old.
And lastly, I did find something to be extremely suspicious, or should I say, curious about. I was recently informed the new William Larue Weller bourbon is actually the same whiskey used to make the Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 year old, Lot B, currently holding at No. 8 on my list, and an old favorite of mine. What this new release of George T. Stagg tastes like, is exactly the same whiskey as William Larue Weller, only three years older. It has the exact same texture and flavor profile, only 19.3 proof higher, which is explained by the extra age.
Am I right about that last point? Well, only Scotchland Yard's Whiskey Dogg Detective, our own Hollowe Pointe, could actually ever tell me the answer to that one. Do I care? Not if the second tasting goes as well as the first. This is good stuff. Am I angry about having paid a walk-out price of $65.24 for the bottle that's still in transit from Hi-Time Wine? Wellllllll, I'll tell ya later. Let me have some more first :wink:
For the record, it was paired with a Mayorga Maduro Churchill, aged at least a year in my own humidors.
Just so we don't continue to turn the Larue thread into a Stagg thread. :wink: :cryinlaugh:
First off, let's review the history of George T. Stagg bourbon. Everything that I have read independently or heard from my whiskey sensei about this bourbon has made me believe that someone created a label, not a bourbon. Then, it seems that someone was saddled with the chore of finding bourbon in the warehouse suitable for the image that was created behind the founding of the label.
So, what happened in 2002 was that they found some stuff in the warehouse that measured out at 137.6 proof, tasted mostly like pickle brine, with an amazing complexity of other flavors, but the weirdest whiskey I've ever had, and . . .
WHISKEY OF THE YEAR 2002!!!
Y'know, I'm not even going to get into what I think about that, as I try to defer to people and always give respect, because I may see their butt wiggling it's way into The Kingdom ahead of mine, or to my complete exclusion. But c'mon, someone creates an idea, finds some unwanted, at least 15 year old whiskey in the warehouse, that was maybe supposed to be watered down to 90 proof and called something else years ago, and suddenly you've got the whiskey of the year? The absolute WEIRDEST stuff I've ever tasted.
But I happen to agree with the assessment of Whiskey of The Year 2002. Weird yes, but powerful, bold tasting and complex. The empty bottle that I paid $108.63 for because that was the only way to get one, still stands on my den's surrounding shelf in the No. 10 position of my favorites. Okay, you created an idea, the label, and miraculously not only found unused whiskey in your warehouse that fit the profile and had merchants charging a C note for perhaps sixty buck whiskey, but what next? Since George T. Stagg isn't an idea created around 1990, whose corresponding whiskey has finally matured to market status, but was a label that got created FIRST, and then had a product FOUND to match the idea, indeed, WHAT NEXT?
Well, what they followed up with in 2003 was something that I actually liked better than the 2002, but admittedly was much lighter in body, despite being stronger at 142.7 proof, and less complex. It still resides in the No. 12 position on my list. What I liked better about this was it contained one or more of the "classic" bourbon flavors. What I personally mean by classic bourbon flavors usually would be those that taste like caramel, vanilla, candy apple, spice, oak, along those lines, that I tend to favor in a bourbon.
Okay, The Lord smiled on you and the 2003 release wasn't so bad as to lose the label's reputation in it's second year, but I didn't exactly hear ringing endorsements either, and no one was marking that one up anywhere's near a C note.
Well, along comes the eagerly awaited 2004 release at 129 proof, and it tastes like overripe jet fuel, with a little road tar. Actually, I forget what I called it, but my review is on one of the pages here. It was BAD. To be brief, it is flavorless, and although I'm going to try to get the unopened bottle I still have back to my whiskey sensei someday, it's really up for grabs. Don't ask me to send it to you, because they stopped allowing liquids to go through the mail/courier services in these parts years ago. Yes, some folks still do it and get away with it, but I'm not trying it, and I don't lie, whether it's to people I know, or the post office, UPS, etc. Do you really think if you tell the postal clerk that there's no liquid in there, they won't find out?
So, come this year, they decide to have a "special spring release," and it comes out in two batches, 131.8 proof and 130.9 proof. I heard the 131.8 proof was better, and so I got a bottle of that, at a pretty decent price, around $55 with the shipping. It was 16 years and eight months old. My review is also here, and although I liked it, the bourbon only was good enough to currently hold the No. 19 spot on my list, and therefore, a disappointment. Again, light in the body and flavor department, although nicely flavored, and extremely smooth.
So, can you see where I'm going with this? Hello, you people got to rubbing your corporate merger hands together, and counting the bucks that would be pouring in from your great new idea and fancy label, but are you having a little trouble finding barrels in the warehouse that support your desired MSRP and flavor profile? It would seem so. So, when the Fall 2005 Release (yeah, whatever :roll: ) was announced, I had gotten sick of being baited. Oh, so now you've got a Fall 2005 release. What's next, a special baseball all-star game release next summer?
Just find something that tastes good, won't cost us rich man's bucks, and fits your silly little idea's profile, because I'm getting sick of buying overpriced whiskey that you're trying to find a following for.
So, last night I made my famous (only in this house) linguini with garlic and oil, with 62 cloves of garlic, tying my personal record. I always try and break up at least 50 cloves worth, and pick enough heads to yield around 50-70 cloves. Now, I'm well aware that when I eat garlic in such an amount, the taste will remain in my mouth for quite a while, and the odor has been detected on me up to 44 hours later, and probably exists even after that.
But, last night, notwithstanding garlic, I was eager to try the new 141.2 proof fall 2005 release out of the bottle I paid a very fair walk-out price of $54.18 for at Warehouse Wines in downtown Manhattan the other day.
It was good, but perhaps overly sweet. Of course, I never review a bourbon before at least three tastings, and my final opinion usually varies a bit after the excitement of the first tasting dies down. But I was pleasantly surprised at the boldness of flavors, and the complexity was quite impressive. What I didn't like was the excessive sweetness without a balance of oak and spice. Of course, my opinion may evolve with further tasting.
I wasn't smashed by the proof, and could hardly taste any heat, which was quite pleasant. This is way less fire than most bottles of Booker's, yet much stronger. That's probably because of the extra age, this being 15 years old.
And lastly, I did find something to be extremely suspicious, or should I say, curious about. I was recently informed the new William Larue Weller bourbon is actually the same whiskey used to make the Van Winkle Special Reserve 12 year old, Lot B, currently holding at No. 8 on my list, and an old favorite of mine. What this new release of George T. Stagg tastes like, is exactly the same whiskey as William Larue Weller, only three years older. It has the exact same texture and flavor profile, only 19.3 proof higher, which is explained by the extra age.
Am I right about that last point? Well, only Scotchland Yard's Whiskey Dogg Detective, our own Hollowe Pointe, could actually ever tell me the answer to that one. Do I care? Not if the second tasting goes as well as the first. This is good stuff. Am I angry about having paid a walk-out price of $65.24 for the bottle that's still in transit from Hi-Time Wine? Wellllllll, I'll tell ya later. Let me have some more first :wink:
For the record, it was paired with a Mayorga Maduro Churchill, aged at least a year in my own humidors.
