Another controversy: High Rye Bourbons are not spicier than Traditional Bourbons

This is a bit more technical. A discussion for those who feel quite confident in spirits [well, you might be also a bit geeky]:

If you are reading articles about Bourbon you will earlier or later stumble upon one "golden rule": Straight Bourbons with high rye contents in their mash bill are said to be spicier. And traditional Straight Bourbons supposed to be more balanced [and wheated Bourbons supposed to be a bit softer and sweeter].
Well - I do agree about the softer character of wheated bourbons. Most of us will have wheated bourbons in mind, which are exactly like it: Maker's Mark, Larcency or Pappy van Winkle (...).

However - I am confused about the others. Lets list some of them:

Bourbons with high rye content:

Four Roses
Basil Hayden
Old Grand Dad
Bulleit
Old Forrester

Bourbons with traditional [rather high corn content] mashbill:

Jim Beam
Jack Daniel's (yeah, I know, it is Tennessee, however still is covered by the Straight Bourbon administration laws)
George Dickel (as Jack Daniel's, a Tennessee Bourbon)
Wild Turkey
Woodford Reserve
Evan Williams
Elijah Craig
Buffalo Trace
Woodford Reserve
Fighting Cock
Knob Creek
Booker's

Well - the second category could go on and on.

But here is the problem: at least two of the high rye bourbons are real "soft-talkers" [Four Roses and Basil Hayden] and some of the traditional [high corn] bourbons are real rowdies [if it comes to aromas].

Especially Wild Turkey is really spicy and the rye is really coming out quite obvious. But also Jack Daniel's in not sweet and smooth [lets forget for a moment Booker's, which is due to its cask strength anyway a real rowdy].

So my opinion is that: Bourbon cannot really be characterized by taste, if it is made with a high rye or high corn content.

I really have to try some more whiskeys to proof it to my self. But in my eyes the rule isn't applying, if in fact 2 of 5 popular high rye bourbons are not as they supposed to be.

Please guys help me to understand... please comment below!

Comments

How to use citric acid - and why you might not want to use it anyway!

To be honest, I shied away of this topic, because I think, people can misinterpret this - big time. I don't want to be part of the problem - I want to be part of the solution! But when Chris, over at A Bar Above discussed this subject- I literally could not resist to join into "the discussion". Here is the video: I - however take a bit slower approach than Chris. What is citric acid? Chemical Compound Citric acid is a weak organic acid with the formula C6H8O7. It is a natural preservative/conservative and is also used to add an acidic or sour taste to foods and drinks. Wikipedia Formula: C6H8O7 Molar Mass: 192.124 g/mol Melting Point: 153C Density: 1.66 g/cm3 Boiling point: 175C Soluble in: Water Why is it controversial? In my "mixology world" it is controversial, as citric acid is the stuff, which makes the nightmarish sour mix [ preferably in powder form ] sour. Yeah - citric acid is the main ingredient in one of the most

King Robert II Vodka

Who would knew, that I am reviewing a budget vodka here - on the opinionatedalchemist.com. But this isn't a normal review. I skip the marketing perception and use this product to cut directly to the case: Vodka is a "rather" neutral, colorless, "rather" flavorless and odorless distilled beverage from any agricultural source - and depending on the country, it has a minimum of 37.5% and 40% abv. As I said time and time again before: at times it is absolutely nonsense to talk about premium and luxury, when the original product doesn't really "hold this promise". Luxury water can have luxurious marketing, luxurious packaging, can be even rare and slightly more expensive "to produce". However really it is just water. Maybe it has some nuances to normal water - however those nuances (in a blind-test) are pretty small. Vodka is extremely similar - and the chain of evidence (despite a lot of people trying to proof otherwise) makes it re

Agar-Agar Clarification

Not often, I am posting here things, which are clearly not my ideas... However Dave Arnold is clearly a mad scientist [no, he really is!] - and he posted amazing stuff on his website www.cookingissues.com - no - don't click now - just follow the link later. One of the most impressive posts about mixology, besides of demystifying the mechanics of shaking, were clarification techniques. Look, after him, you could use a centrifuge [which would set you back a couple thousand bucks] and a chemical compound, which solidifies sediments. I am not a fan of that. Then there is gelatine clarification; this works quite well [I tried it several times my self] - you gelatinize a liquid [with little gelatine only], freeze it, thaw it [in the fridge] over a colander and a muslin cloth. Thats it. Unfortunately this has several problems: Gelatine is made out of animal bones - hence it is neither vegetarian nor vegan, which you won't usually expect of a beverage. You have to freez

opinionated alchemist

Search This Blog