Buffalo Trace White Dog #1

Rating: 11/23 Could this possibly be divine ambrosia?! Is the spirit of Buffalo Trace magic in its liquid? This uses the same primary distillate as George T. Stagg. Frankly, I had low expectations for this as a white dog, but I'm definitely intrigued to sample it. Nose: It's unusual for me to sample white dog frequently. So, how odd is it that this immediately brings tequila to mind? Specifically, it resembles Don Julio Blanco. It presents a sweet, papery aroma with hints of vanilla and then vegetal notes. Oh, this is quite similar to rhum agricole now. I detect that squash scent combined with all that sweetness. Honestly, at this moment, I would assume this was rhum agricole. It's incredibly funky with abundant sweetness, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I suppose the corn must come across as rather vegetal at this stage. Palate: Not as rich as anticipated, but it's quite full-bodied with a high proof, moderate viscosity, and a strong burn. I perceive squash, which I like to think is mashed boiled corn. There are subtle hints of paper and other vegetal suggestions present. Honestly, I would have guessed this was rhum agricole if I were unaware of its origin. I feel it has a genuine Martinique character. So, I brought out Clement Premiere Canne (a 40% ABV rhum agricole from Martinique) and found that the Clement offers more chili notes with more of a dank, highly organic vegetal flavor. It also has more white pepper and is generally lighter (though the proof might be a significant factor). It even has hints of soy sauce – both light and dark. Quite a peculiar spirit. So, perhaps this is less unusual? I definitely perceive more sweet corn now. This certainly burns, and I get some tartness from the rye, but it leans more towards whiskey and has a fuller character (almost certainly due to the higher proof). There's considerably less complexity here, and much of that rhum agricole flavor remains. Banana peel and all that odd funk (well, not all of it; more of a sample). Oh, wow, there's a significant amount of ethanol present, and it really burns. Finish: Vegetal. It falls within the range of squash mixed with crushed sweet corn. Subtle spice notes. Reminders of alcohol burn. I'm not a fan. The longer I let it linger, the more I detect a hint of Mexican corn cake. Actually, a bit more than a hint. This might be the most pleasant thing I've experienced with this dram so far. - Conclusion - Look, I'm sure this wasn't intended for neat consumption. Nevertheless, that's how I must review it. Tasting this wasn't enjoyable, although it was quite fascinating. I need to contemplate further what my expectations should be for white dog. Honestly, though, the Clément Premiere Canne (13/23) was superior. It was funkier, but it was also significantly more complex and intriguing. The burn here truly affects me, along with the alcohol and somewhat flat individual flavors. It's challenging to drink, though not actively unpleasant. Many find high proof spirits difficult to consume, after all. I'm typically quite comfortable with them, but the immaturity really stands out here. Still, it's a clean spirit; there aren't many off-notes present. This is difficult to rate as it's so distinct from everything else I have, and it's also going to receive a low score, so I don't have many points of comparison. To establish a low benchmark, my single barrel bottle of Ry3 Cask Strength (9/23... somehow) is worse than this. The Ry3 is far harsher than this, yet it's not consistently at such a high proof. I appreciate the rum notes in the Ry3 more, but this was frankly already a bit too fiery. There's no doubt this is substantially better. If not for the Ry3's harshness and intense peppery burn, I would suggest contrasting the funky complexity here with the Ry3's sweet rum decadence (which, honestly, isn't even that decadent). In terms of overall character, I believe the Ry3 likely wins. This exhibits some bitter alcohol and a multitude of flavors that are complex but also entirely unbalanced and one-dimensional. There's still plenty of heat here too. Were it not for that awful harshness and burn, I would probably rank the Ry3 1-2 points higher. Considering the painful harshness and burn, however, I'm placing this above the Ry3. A slight digression, but I must commend Phenomenal Spirits for finishing Ry3 in ex-rum casks; that was precisely what it needed. Well, that and considerably more time to mellow. The issue is that they opted to work with some regrettably poor rye. So, this is better than a 9, but not as good as Sierra Norte Red Corn (15/23). This represents a somewhat wide range, but it's manageable. This seems closer to the Ry3 than to the Sierra Norte, unfortunately. This really does burn a lot. Eh, it's still a difficult decision. I'm no longer certain that this isn't right in the middle. Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) (12/23) - Okay, imagine a record scratch because I'm deviating from this tasting. Signatory bottled this Caledonian less than 2.5 months after it turned 20 years old. It's not over-oaked; if anything, it tastes young. Why on earth didn't they wait an additional 2.5 months to bottle it?! Oh, right, but how does Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) compare? The Caledonian is smoother with more oil and that characteristic single grain scotch profile. This burns significantly more. It's 7% higher in ABV, but the difference in how much this burns feels substantially greater than 7%. Sure, this is more complex, but I think I prefer the Caledonian. One final comparison: Cutty Sark Prohibition Edition (10/23). The Cutty Sark is less harsh and has less burn, but it definitely has that sulfur note. Still, I'm not entirely sure how the two compare. Neither is as good as the Caledonian, and both are better than the Ry3. Beyond that? Well, considering the sulfur, I believe this does surpass the Cutty Sark. An 11 seems most fitting for this. It's undeniably difficult to sip neat, but it could serve as a fine substitute for rhum agricole in cocktails, provided the proof difference is taken into account.

SPIRITS SHOWDOWN Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 Buffalo Trace White Dog Wheated Mash Continuing to go through bottles in my collection that I have yet to write about. "White Dog" is the name for distillate straight from the still. I purchased these a few years back, as I was curious about the fundamentals of the distillation process. I remember not being very impressed—this from the viewpoint of someone who has tasted moonshine multiple times—so I am taking one for the group here and seeing if I can find some worth beyond simple intellectual interest. Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 Appearance is clear like gin, as this distillate has never touched wood. The aroma is warm and welcoming, showing sweet corn, Cheerios, and sweet yeast rolls. The alcohol presents itself similarly to Italian grappa. The texture shows considerable thickness, and there is continued corn sweetness on the tongue, as well as that grappa taste—but without any of the solvent-like bitterness that grappa frequently possesses. The conclusion is brief, and there is a little burn, but it is not out of sync with the high proof. The general impression is one of warmth and richness. It is actually not one-note: sweetness, warmth, and bready notes are evident. It is quite fascinating to become acquainted with the basic characteristics of a distillate, prior to wood maturation; it is the wood that imparts the majority of a whisk(e)y’s aromas and flavors. Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 can be located for a little over $15 (for a 375ml bottle). Would I purchase it again? It is not at the highest priority, but the reply is yes: it is an unusual conversation piece that not only provides educational insight, but is also affordable and can actually be consumed. 2.5 on the scale. 125 proof. NAS because there is none. Buffalo Trace White Dog Wheated Mash Similar to the White Dog Mash #1, the White Dog Wheated Mash is as clear as purified water; it has not been barrel-aged at all. The aroma is distinct from the Mash #1: imagine opening the bag that contains your preferred loaf of wheat bread and breathing deeply. That, and peanuts. The sweet corn is in the background. Not quite as slick on the palate as the Mash #1, but it is not thin like water. Alcohol is apparent on the nose, palate, and finish. The spiciness is slightly greater than the Mash #1, even though the Wheated Mash is 11 proof points lower. There is a lingering spirit burn, longer than the Mash #1. The Wheated Mash is not as smooth and warming as the Mash #1. It can also be found for approximately $15 (for a 375ml bottle). Would I purchase it again? I do not prefer it as much as the Mash #1, but I would buy it as well for the intellectual exercise alone. 2.25 on the scale. 114 proof. NAS because there is none. I am not aware of any other distillery that offers White Dog for sale at retail. It is sold in half-sized 375ml bottles; thus it appears that it is being marketed more for instructional purposes than anything else. Buffalo Trace should be recognized for this. Note: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

I previously reviewed this spirit a bit over two years ago, in August of 2022. Since then, I've discovered that adding a small amount of water enhances what is already excellent, and this tasting is with the diluted spirit. I purchased this bottle for $22.99 at Total Wine, which is a few dollars cheaper than before. It's a smaller size (375ml – I don't typically think in metric), bottled at 125 proof, with no age statement as it's never seen a barrel, and it appears clear in the glass. It's made with Buffalo Trace's mash bill #1, but beyond the standard bourbon components—corn, rye, and barley—I couldn't find any details about that mash bill. NOSE: It's very grain-forward, as you would anticipate from something direct from the still. Occasionally, I can distinguish the three grains on the nose, and other times I can't, particularly after adding water. There's a slight mustiness, seemingly linked to the corn, a vegetal quality I suspect comes from the rye, and a scent reminiscent of damp wood or wool. While this might not sound appealing, I actually enjoy it. MOUTHFEEL: It's creamy. A few drops of water don't significantly change this, given its initial thick texture. TASTE: There's a singular flavor profile, yet it encompasses several elements – the taste is honey butter with cinnamon. FINISH: It's medium in length, featuring red pepper and honey butter. SUMMARY: My old notes show the prior review was on August 14, 2022, so it's been just over a year and a month. It took me a while to try adding anything to it, but when I first tried it, I hadn't even been drinking whiskey for a year and didn't understand the effects of water and ice. Ice spoils it, but a little water truly helps (it's enjoyable without, but for some reason after the initial pour from this bottle, it started smelling and tasting like it was decaying in the glass, although the aroma from the bottle opening is fine). This is a straightforward spirit by necessity, as it hasn't benefited from any aging; it's presented as it would have been consumed immediately after distillation by our predecessors. However, it's good to start with, and with a touch of water, it becomes very good. RATING: On my personal scale, I have to score it a bit lower than I'd prefer, simply because it's such an uncomplicated spirit. If it possessed more complexity while maintaining its current character, it would receive a higher score. My current rating is the fifth position on my scale (1 being the lowest, 8 the highest), signifying 'Good.' This translates to 3.125 stars, or 62.5 out of 100, or 6.25 out of 10.

Sniff: Immediately detected a creamy sweetness, likely from the high corn content in the mash bill. Then, a hint of lightly charred grain, melted butter, puffed wheat, dark chocolate, and a musty, woody element. Lastly, a nutty quality and a sourness. The nose is unexpectedly intricate; I hadn't anticipated an unaged spirit to possess such aromatic depth. The alcohol's sting is much less pronounced than expected for the proof; I had to bury my nose in the glass to detect any sharpness. Taste: Less intricate than the nose, featuring an initial sweet note, followed by corn, butter, and again the nutty and sour elements. The alcohol is present, but the burn is considerably milder than I'd expect from a 125-proof liquor. Finish: Lingering, but the least complex part of this spirit – simply a woody note with the recurring sourness. I don't anticipate purchasing this again, but considering what it is, it's quite acceptable.

Opened more than a decade ago. Smell: Intense canned corn, fake buttered popcorn, a bunch of flowers, and potent alcohol. Taste: Buttered popcorn Jelly Belly beans drenched in alcohol, and very little else. The ending is lengthy with scorching hot buttered popcorn and a burning alcohol sensation. It lacks depth. I believe I've owned this for over ten years, and there's still half a bottle left. You must truly adore that buttered popcorn jelly bean essence to even remotely appreciate this, or else it's a tiresome drink. I strongly dislike that jelly bean taste, so this is clearly not to my liking. It is pure, which is desirable in unaged spirits, but at 125 proof, it's unpleasant. I'm pouring the remainder down the drain.

This is pure trash without barrel aging. The person who claimed 'those who give it a crappy score don’t like high proof or whiskey at all' is an idiot. This spirit is intended for aging and barreling, not for immediate consumption as sold. I bought this for an experiment with charred oak staves and will provide an update once the aging process is finished. The main point is, avoid this if you're expecting a BT product that tastes good simply because it bears their name, as you will not enjoy it neat.