George Dickel 13 Year Bottled in Bond Tennessee Whisky (Spring 2007)

WHISKIES I DON’T CARE FOR: ROUND 2 George Dickel Bottled in Bond vs Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey (This review, written on August 15, 2022, is being added now to the George Dickel 13 entry). (The initial two paragraphs are mostly standard from my Round 1 review). I've recently been conducting several comparative tastings. While I have an abundance of whiskey I enjoy—perhaps too many—I also have some that don't appeal to me, so I decided to switch things up and pinpoint my dislikes. By categorizing them as "not to my taste," they've been set aside for a while; therefore, it's beneficial to determine if that initial judgment was warranted. The whiskies chosen for this round were selected at random; they were two I recalled not enjoying. Unlike some of my other comparisons (Islay, BTAC, etc.), this side-by-side tasting isn't tied to a specific region or type; instead, both are simply ones I haven't consumed much of (if at all) because they didn't appeal to me initially. George Dickel Bottled in Bond This bourbon was named Whisky Advocate’s Whisk(e)y of the Year in 2019. (A side note: Whisky Advocate is part of Marvin Shanken’s collection of lifestyle publications, which also includes Wine Spectator, Cigar Afficionado, and other trade journals. WA focuses on marketing, business, and "spreading the love around" for retail purposes, rather than identifying "the best." To be fair, their annual Top 20 list excludes whiskies considered "hard to find." And, of course, whiskey isn't uniform, making direct comparisons difficult. Have there been repeat winners or top-20 selections? I haven't found any since the list began in 2017. I enjoy Lagavulin; but how could Lagavulin 11 Offerman Edition—inferior to Lagavulin 16 or Lagavulin Distiller's Edition—be the best of that year by any standard? This doesn't imply all their selections are poor: 2020’s #1, Larceny Barrel Proof, is excellent. 2018’s #1, Nikka Whisky From the Barrel, is superb. 2017’s #1, Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B517, is great. This is not just my opinion; it's based on objective statistical analysis. Five years. 100 whiskies. No repeats. Dickel BiB was #1 in 2019, but hasn't ranked in the top 20 since? ECBP B517 was #1 in 2017, but failed to make the top 20 again in the following five years? End of rant). As is common with any whiskey winning WA’s WOTY, this one became scarce for a period. I managed to find a bottle during the peak interest and felt fortunate. Then I tasted it and put it away. GD BiB has a 13-year age statement. The color is a deep, tawny burnt orange. On the nose, there's a very distinct—and quite unusual—aroma that many call "peanut," but I liken to "Flintstone’s chewable vitamins." I've detected this same scent in the only other Dickel I've ever tried (the standard 8-year-old expression). This time, I'm noticing more of the peanut characteristic, accompanied by a certain pervasive richness. Perhaps this peanut-meets-Flintstone-vitamin profile is inherently divisive, similar to preferences regarding Julia Child or cilantro. Part of me wants to find something positive to say, like concentrated Snickers nectar, but I simply can't. There's also a pleasant spearmint note. The palate is an improvement: it's smooth and rich, with a sweetness reminiscent of chocolate-covered cherries. The 100 proof is evident on the back end of the palate and persists into the finish, with a welcome (and anticipated) warmth, concluding with lingering vanilla and more cool spearmint. GD BiB is smooth and rich. So is clam chowder, yet I dislike clams. However, if you enjoy peanuts or children's chewable vitamins in your whiskey, you might find it appealing. 2.5 out of 5 stars. Certainly, other whiskies can be polarizing: one I favor is Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Five-Malt Stouted Mash (reviewed 5/19/22). But while the Woodford was a special project with a defined objective that was (objectively) met, the GD BiB is just… strange. One final point. I'm not a fan of Dickel based on my experience with two of their products (though I'm persistent and would certainly sample another if offered). My opinion solidified when I discovered this distiller offers a spirit aged in Tabasco barrels. I say "spirit" because it doesn't qualify as whiskey (it's only 70 proof). Can any serious whiskey enthusiast take that seriously? For more details on Dickel’s clever marketing move with Tabasco, check out Ben Luening’s comments on whisky.com (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wN5CWRHLrk). Jump to 5:17 for the exciting part. Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey This bourbon seems to be a rarity now, having been discontinued a few years ago. It appears Tuthilltown Distillers, identified on the label as the first New York distiller since Prohibition, was acquired by William Grant & Sons of Scotland, leading to a product line refresh. This particular bourbon appears to have been superseded by the "Bright Lights, Big Bourbon" brand. This discontinued 375ml bottle is 94 proof, "made with 100% New York corn," and aged "under 4 years" without specifying the duration. Had I known the mash bill, I would have included it in my "Corn Whiskey Showdown" (6/29/22). The aroma is unmistakably corn and oak. The texture is pleasant, with a viscous, syrupy consistency, along with a corn-syrup sweetness. There's some corn sweetness and a touch of spice on the finish. It's essentially a single instrument playing the same tune. 1.5 out of 5 stars. Note: All spirits were tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

It's a pity that there aren't more write-ups for this bottling. The initial two versions have more commentary. I spotted this sitting on a shelf gathering dust and resolved not to pass it by. I've sampled numerous Dickel products previously and do detect that Flintstones vitamin taste in many, but not all, of their offerings. I've had some Dickel Select and Single Barrel selections that were exceptional. The standard #12 and #8 bottles are whiskeys that I believe one truly needs to be in the right mood to appreciate. This has been a subject of disagreement among online commentators, but I was very keen to experience it myself. Let's begin! Nose is predominantly caramel. There's some oak and vanilla present, but with focused effort, the end of the initial inhale offers a hint of spearmint gum. Palate is quite sweet and smooth. The flavor profile is rather intricate. I detect candied orange, maple syrup, candied pecans, peanut butter, wood shavings, caramel, earthiness, leather, oak, and a really pleasing cedar that persists into the finish as well. Finish consists of candied orange slices, oak, vanilla, caramel, tobacco, and cedar. This whiskey clearly shows its age and the duration of its oak maturation. I don't detect the vitamin flavor in this instance; instead, there's an unusual interplay with the orange and all the cedar. Nevertheless, I enjoy it as it provides a wonderful change of pace with a pleasing viscosity that many pricier whiskies lack. I feel some individuals are eager to join the "I despise Dickel" chorus, but I don't grasp the reasoning? Yes, they source a lot of whiskey, and yes, they possess certain mineral qualities that other distilleries would never incorporate. However, the bottle's label and cost are grounded, and for some, like myself, that sentiment is valued. It's a 13-year-old whiskey that is complex yet affordable. If you encounter it, take a chance and approach it with an open mind.

GD BIB Release #3 ((Spring '07) APPEARANCE: Rich Mahogany Color that coats the glass with Slow, Thick Legs. NOSE: Fabulous. Bold & Layered. Brown Sugar, Aged Dry Wood, Pipe Tobacco, Canned Fruit Cocktail, Orange Peel, Spearmint, Spice Rack. NEAT: Thick & Clingy. Cedar Shavings, Tobacco, Fall Spice (Nutmeg, Cardamom, Clove), Syrupy Canned Fruit, Cherry Pie Filling, White Pepper. A Slightly Warming, Moderately Long Finish with Oak Tannins, Maple, and Vanilla coating and layering on the palate. SPLASH: The nose and palate gain more fruit and a bit of the traditional vanilla along with lemon pudding. The oak becomes a little less spicy. Verdict: Upon seeing the new 4th Release on shelves today (appears to be the same as Release 2, distilled in Fall of '08, with a couple more years in the barrel), I realized I had never properly reviewed the 3rd Release. It is another excellent product from Cascade Hollow. All the Bottled-in-Bond versions have been superb, and although the value for money isn't as great as it used to be with its price increase from $34 to $50, it is still worth purchasing whenever you can find it. I will definitely not wait as long to thoroughly taste the new batch.

A lot of caramel, brown sugar, and rich, toasted oak are immediately apparent from the glass upon first smell. Luxardo cherries have now joined the mix. Some sweet tobacco, candy corn, and minty milk chocolate complete a very enticing nose. Could the palate possibly measure up to the deliciousness of the nose? A promising start, as the initial palate is nicely rich and smooth in the mouth. It coats everything quite well. Brown sugar, cinnamon, orange peel, cherries, sweet oak, and some chalky minerality develop on the palate. Overall, the flavors don't quite reach the heights of the nose, but it's still quite pleasant. Perhaps a slightly higher proof would have allowed the flavors to truly shine. The finish is dominated by oak but isn't overly dry. There's still some fruitiness lingering, with the same orange/cherry note detected on the initial palate. Overall, a very enjoyable whiskey at a reasonable price. Many who drank American Whiskey years ago would scoff at the current prices for well-aged whiskey. I, unfortunately, am accustomed to paying about $10 for each year in the barrel, so it's refreshing to find a 13-year-old for around $50.

I've determined that Tennessee whiskey is not to my taste. Every expression I've sampled has possessed an off-putting flavor that overpowers the profile for me. In this particular whiskey, there's an underlying anise and bitterness that eclipses the pleasant fruitiness and grain notes. The charcoal filtering process used in the Lincoln County method strips away too many flavor compounds, and the remaining ones do not appeal to me. I regret taking a chance on this and paying a premium. What's worse is that I have a full bottle of the 11-year-old expression from the same trip that I know I will not enjoy. Another significant expense wasted. I wish I could legally exchange it for a non-Tennessee bourbon. After finishing the bottle, I believe the off-putting flavor I detected is reminiscent of Flintstones vitamins, which are very prominent to me in this expression. I eventually opened the 11-year-old bottle; it's less complex but lacks the overwhelming vitamin note, making it more palatable for me.

Nose: Caramel, peanuts, sweet corn, and oak are present. A chalky, mineral note similar to others in its line and some Tennessee whiskeys is detected. Cherry and other berry notes are also found. There's more ethanol on the nose than I recall from previous bottlings, more than I'd prefer. Taste: Cherry and peanuts dominate. Strong chili pepper heat appears early, followed by oak char. Caramel, vanilla, and more sweet corn emerge. A sharp ethanol bite returns. The finish is characterized by persistent chili pepper heat, making it difficult to discern much beyond a burn on the tongue. I detect notes of hot cinnamon chocolate, vitamins (like Flintstones vitamins), cherry, almond, and alcohol. The vitamin and chili pepper heat lingers indefinitely. I am not a fan of this. It seems to be the weakest of the three releases in this line. It's unpleasantly hot and boozy, lacking balance. While I've purchased multiple bottles of the prior two releases, I will pass on a second bottle of this one. I'd recommend seeking out the 11-year-old bottling if it's still available.