George Dickel 13 Year Bottled in Bond Tennessee Whisky (Fall 2005)

TASTINGS OF WHISKEY I DISLIKE: ROUND 2 George Dickel Bottled in Bond versus Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey (The initial paragraphs are similar to my Round 1 review). Lately, I've been conducting comparative tastings. I possess a considerable amount of whiskey I enjoy, perhaps even too much. I decided to switch things up and try to pinpoint precisely what I dislike about certain bottles. My previous judgment of them as 'not to my liking' meant they've been set aside for a while. Therefore, it's insightful to re-evaluate if that initial assessment was accurate. The whiskies for this round were chosen randomly; they were two that I remembered not enjoying. Unlike some of my other comparisons (Islay, BTAC, etc.), this tasting isn't tied to a specific region or type. Instead, both are simply bottles I've rarely, if ever, consumed because I didn't like them initially. George Dickel Bottled in Bond This bourbon was named Whisky Advocate’s Whisk(e)y of the Year in 2019. (A brief tangent: Whisky Advocate is part of a collection of lifestyle magazines owned by Marvin Shanken, which also includes Wine Spectator, Cigar Aficionado, and similar publications. WA isn't focused on identifying 'the best'; rather, it emphasizes marketing, business, and 'distributing accolades' to provide retailers with new items to promote. To be fair, their selection process for the annual Top 20 omits so-called 'hard to find' whiskies. And, naturally, whisky and whiskey are diverse, making comparisons imperfect. Do they feature repeat winners or even repeat top-20 selections? I haven't found any since the list began in 2017. I'm fond of Lagavulin; but how could Lagavulin 11 Offerman Edition—inferior to Lagavulin 16 or the Lagavulin Distiller's Edition—be considered the best of that year by any standard? Naturally, this doesn't imply all their choices are poor: the 2020 #1, Larceny Barrel Proof, is exceptional. The 2018 #1, Nikka Whisky From the Barrel, is superb. The 2017 #1, Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B517, is excellent. This isn't my personal view; it's objective statistical analysis. Five years. 100 whiskies. No repetitions. Dickel BiB was #1 in 2019, but hasn't made the top 20 since? ECBP B517 was #1 in 2017, but failed to make the top 20 again in the subsequent five years? Stepping off my soapbox). Following the acclaim of WA’s WOTY, this bottle became difficult to find for a period. I managed to acquire one during the initial excitement and felt fortunate. Upon tasting it, however, I decided to set it aside. GD BiB presents with a 13-year-old age statement. The color is a deep, tawny burnt orange. The aroma carries a very noticeable and peculiar scent, often described as 'peanut,' but which I liken to 'Flintstone's chewable vitamins.' I've detected a similar note in the only other Dickel I've sampled (the standard 8-year-old expression). This time, the peanut characteristic is more prominent, with an underlying richness. Perhaps this peanut-or-Flintstone-vitamin quality is divisive, akin to personal preferences for cilantro or certain public figures. While part of me seeks a positive comparison, such as 'concentrated Snickers essence,' I cannot genuinely make it. A pleasant spearmint note is also present. The taste is an improvement: it's smooth and rich, featuring a sweetness reminiscent of chocolate-covered cherries. The 100 proof becomes apparent towards the end of the palate and persists through the finish, bringing a welcome (and anticipated) warmth. The finish lingers with notes of vanilla and more of that cool spearmint. GD BiB is smooth and rich. Clam chowder is also smooth and rich, yet I dislike clams. However, if you enjoy peanuts or children's vitamins in your whiskey, you might appreciate this. Rated 2.5 out of 5. Certainly, other whiskies can be polarizing: one I favor is Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Five-Malt Stouted Mash (reviewed 5/19/22). But where the Woodford was a distinct project with a clear, achieved objective, the GD BiB is simply... unusual. One final point. My experience with two of their products has led me to be unreceptive to Dickel (though I remain open-minded and would certainly try another if offered). My stance was further solidified upon learning that this distiller produces a spirit aged in Tabasco barrels. I refer to it as a 'spirit' because it doesn't meet the criteria for whiskey (it's only 70 proof). Would any true whiskey enthusiast regard that seriously? For more details on Dickel's clever marketing move with Tabasco, consult comments from Ben Luening on whisky.com (link provided). Focus on the 5:17 mark for the notable section. Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey This bourbon seems to be a discontinued product, having been phased out in recent years. 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 reformulation of their offerings. This specific bourbon has apparently been succeeded by the 'Bright Lights, Big Bourbon' line. This discontinued bottle is a 375ml, 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 distinctly of corn and oak. The texture is pleasant, with a thick, syrupy consistency, accompanied by a corn syrup sweetness. There's some corn sweetness and mild spice on the finish. It's essentially a single instrument playing the same tune. Rated 1.5 out of 5.

A quick whiskey assessment - George Dickel Bottled-in-Bond 2005 aged 13 years compared to 2008 aged 11 years. To be clear from the start, I really like George Dickel whiskey. This specific bottling is a favorite. I hadn't tried any Dickel prior to tasting the first generation BiB and became an immediate enthusiast. It's understandable why this received whiskey-of-the-year honors, and it's a fantastic bargain for less than $40. But what happens when one bottling concludes and a new one is introduced? Let's find out... Both are sampled neat, and with a few drops of steam-distilled water, using a glencairn glass. The spirits were allowed ample time to rest before tasting. They appear identical in color and viscosity, exhibiting slight sheeting and thin legs. On the nose, the 13-year-old is an explosion of caramel candy with hints of minerality. The 11-year-old strikes me as potentially a little more intensely aromatic, but that might be due to it being the first pour from a new bottle. They are very similar. Extremely similar. On the palate, the 13-year-old fulfills its sweet promise with notes of caramel and cherry, barrel char, bitter oak, demerara sugar, and a finish that suggests ginger and clove. It's a quintessential sweet bourbon elevated to a silken, smooth finish through the Lincoln County process of filtering. Delightful. My initial impression of the 11-year-old is that it's slightly sweeter in caramel, a little less cherry, somewhat more oak-forward, and just a tad drier. I doubt I could distinguish them if I weren't tasting them side-by-side. This might be the superior option for an Old Fashioned or Manhattan cocktail. Their characters are alike, as expected from the label. With 3 drops of water, the 11-year-old becomes creamier, with less pepper on the finish. In both instances, the water accentuates the caramel. These are remarkably close. My spouse, whose palate is highly regarded and who often points out the most subtle details, believes the 11-year-old is the better of the two. In her opinion, "it's not even close." For me, a blind comparison would be difficult. These are outstanding demonstrations of the distiller's craft. The individual responsible for masterfully crafting these at GD Diageo is a true artist, and her influence has placed these among my regular choices alongside Wild Turkey Rare Breed, Knob Creek, and Old Grand Dad 114. The 13-year-old is no longer available, but prudent buyers might stock 1 or 2 for future enjoyment. The 11-year-old is currently accessible for under $40. I definitely recommend purchasing it! My review scale begins at 1-star (unacceptable under any circumstances) and goes up to 5-star (a perfect example of the expression). Most "mass market" whiskies should typically fall around 2.5 on a bell curve. A good rating is 3. Anything above a 4 is considered part of my "curated" collection. Both of these bottlings register a solid 3.75 for me, leaning towards a 4.0 (in the same league as Rare Breed). All I can say is I have no intention of running out...

I did not enjoy the initial write-up because it did not align with my prior encounters with this spirit. However, I felt compelled to be truthful, and I invested significant effort into the review, so I was hesitant to discard my work and restart later. I opted to break my own rule and prioritize this bottle in the next random selection. It is currently 01:15 on February 9th, and I am having another pour. I will forgo detailed aroma notes, but it presents pleasantly. Tonight, there is a waxy quality, reminiscent of an unscented candle, which appeals to me. On the palate, I detect honey, cinnamon, general spices, and perhaps some citrus... This is much better. My palate must have been quite impaired with the previous glass. The finish provides me with prominent walnuts, some spice, and a hint of semi-sweet chocolate. If I were composing a comprehensive review, I would elevate the score by at least one increment on my personal scale. This spirit is certainly superior to how it appeared last time. ********* This spirit is, naturally, 100 proof and 13 years of age. A fifth cost me $46.99 at the mentioned liquor store in Albuquerque. Its color in the glass is a deep copper. The grain composition is 84% corn, 8% rye, and 8% barley. AROMA: Immediately, I perceived alcohol, but then the nuances began to emerge. I identified caramel, a general nuttiness, cornbread (which appeared abruptly), a musty and fruity characteristic, sweet smoke, a pleasant scent of cork – not indicating spoilage, but the actual material – and finally, Spanish peanuts. I do not frequently experience such complexity in the aroma, and I found this experience delightful. MOUTHFEEL: Smooth. TASTE: To my considerable surprise, the sole flavor I detected on the palate was oak. FINISH: Moderate in length, featuring oak and walnuts. SUMMARY: My initial tasting of this was excellent. The second tasting was very good. However, this tasting is dominated by the aroma, with only a single note on the palate and two on the finish. I cannot explain it. I have never encountered a spirit that began so impressively only to diminish in quality as it interacted with the air. Tonight, it was merely adequate. I am uncertain if this degradation is typical for this spirit, unique to this bottle, or if I simply selected an unfavorable evening for evaluation, but regardless of the cause, I found it underwhelming. I hope it is merely an off-night for my palate, as I appreciate this brand's whiskies, and initially, this was considerably better than any other offering I have tried from them. RATING: I would prefer to assign a higher rating, but I must be honest and base it on my experience tonight. I award it an Okay rating, which is #4 on my scale (counting from the lowest). This corresponds to 2.5 stars, 50/100, or 5/10.

This Tennessee whiskey was produced in the autumn of 2005. As is typical for the style, it underwent charcoal filtering, which is evident in its character. It was aged for a minimum of four years, totaling thirteen years under government supervision in a federal warehouse, ensuring its integrity and bottled at 100 proof (50% ABV). Whiskey Advocate named this their whiskey of the year in 2019, a designation I question. Appearance: A rough bronze hue. The initial aroma presents notes of allspice, charcoal, oats, and graham crackers. The taste follows suit, with additional hints of charred oak, baking spices, and cloves. The conclusion is brief, featuring a toasted oak characteristic.

Deep copper tone with an amber cast. Much clings to the glass, but numerous streaks appear. The aroma is of vanilla, coconut, and caramel. To be honest, this aligns with my expectations for a 13-year spirit from Tennessee. It's robust, sweet, and delightful. A significant presence of barrel char persists throughout, counterbalancing the sweetness that is present from start to finish. The finish is moderately long, offering hints of cacao, rich caramel, leather, and possibly a touch of cherry. This is outstanding. I'm pleased it's accessible. For $45, it competes with most offerings at that cost currently. Frankly, it serves as a suitable alternative for Eagle Rare when I can't locate any.

This lovely Tennessee whiskey has a dark amber hue and leaves thick, somewhat thin legs. Wow, the aroma is fantastic – sweet and well-balanced. It features notes of rich brown sugar, graham cracker pie crust, banana bread, cinnamon, and peaches and apples that are past their prime. The palate has an oily texture and brings to mind a sweet, fruity dessert. Delicious flavors of orange, red apple, plum, dark chocolate, buttery cinnamon toast, and pepper are present. The finish is of moderate length, leaving a spicy black pepper taste. Cheers!