After reading the blog and the rebuttal made by the distillery owner, I think I'd like to clarify there is a HUGE difference between a BAD review and a NEGATIVE one (well for me anyway). The definition of the word bad is: Failing to reach an acceptable standard, poor or unfavorable. The definition of the word negative is: Lacking positive qualities, promoting a person or cause by criticizing or attacking the competition, unfriendly or adversarial.The comment made by the blogger was: "Would I recommend buying one of these young whiskeys with potential. Certainly not. Yes, these whiskeys are promising, but I don't buy bottles of promise, and certainly not at $40 or $50 a pop". He did go on to recommend one new craft whiskey that he enjoyed tasting, and yes he names it. So did the owner of the distillery lose his mind because it wasn't his whiskey that the blogger recommended? Or was it that the blogger pointed out that, in his opinion, the young whiskey from his distillery had a slight flaw for his liking. Was it something BAD to write or something NEGATIVE? I'll let you be the judge...
One of the greatest things coming out of blogging and twittering for me is trading whiskies with friends. This whisky, I received from a friend back in June and it sat all summer on my whisky shelf. To the point that I forgot I had it. When I started blogging again, I went through the samples and found it and said, ok. Let's do that one. I started doing some research and quickly felt stupid for letting this sit all summer: 2011 Buffalo Trace Antique Collection Thomas H. Handy Sazerac Straight Rye Whiskey. Given to me by a good whisky "buddy' who had been to New Orleans earlier this summer. I was told by many how lucky I was to get this because it was a bottle fairly difficult to acquire. It's not available anywhere in Canada that I could find and from what my American counterparts tell me, near impossible to find there. Looking online to Europe, I find it available for about $200/bottle. THANK YOU JF PILON.
And then... we nosed/tasted it. OMG! I wish I could say I loved it, but it ended up being a dram I just couldn't enjoy. At least not neat and not even with water (and I added a lot of water). Now, I'm not overly confident in my abilities with Bourbons or Ryes but I own some and there are plenty that I enjoy. HOWEVER: This particular rye was just too much for me. It's not a bottle I would buy for my collection, butI would like to try it again, maybe on ice... If you like really high AVB's in your whiskies, you will likely enjoy this. As a "newbie" trying out new whiskies, I would not recommend you buy this unless you have tried it first (at the bar, at a friend's, etc).
It's pretty powerful stuff! And I don't doubt that fact, it's 129 proof or if you prefer 64.3% ABV. I checked all my whiskies, the highest AVB I have in my collection is Macallan Cask Strength at 59%. This is a wickedly hot whiskey that just burned and burned. I did get flavors on the nose and some in the palate but in the end I added too much water and, in my humble opinion, "ruined" the dram. :( As it stands, this whiskey is NOT for the Lassie! I'd sooner drink and enjoy regular Buffalo Trace.The following review was done by the lovely gentleman who gave me the sample and he really liked it! But, then again Jean Francois tends to like the cask strengths. Take a peek if you like: http://www.whiskyplus.ca/thomas-h-handy/
THOMAS H. HANDY SAZERAC STRAIGHT RYE, 64.3% ABV
COLOR: Golden orange - late autumn sunset. When I coated my entire glass all the way to the rim there almost appeared to be an oily film. Viscosity is low and the legs are quite runny and skinny in nature.
NOSE: HUGE Spice, almost overwhelming. Not alcohol, SPICY! Then through the spiciness I detected wood polish (Lemon pledge?). I decided to let it sit for a little while. After it "aired", I began to go deeper and pull out a lovely butterscotch creaminess. Back to spicy like cloves or nutmeg. Once I added a bit of water, a bit more balanced as far as aromas. Rich vanilla, burnt sugar, but still spicy.
PALATE: Quite peppery, holy crap!! Almost feels like the roof of my mouth was stung. Very oily mouth feel and nice mouth watering effect. Chocolate... lots of cocoa! After I added water, it was still too peppery so I added water until I ruined it and I didn't have any sample left (I shared it with Graham). BOO!
FINISH: Massive burn, my throat down to my stomach was on fire. (as a matter of fact, it gave me heartburn). Very bitter aftertaste, almost woody in nature or maybe acetone. The burn lingered for quite some time. The only word that kept coming up for me was RAW. I'm sure I don't have a lining left in my throat... After I added water, it was so watered down I killed everything so wasn't able to really feel what the finish might be like.So, it's rare that I don't enjoy a whisky. This one is in the category of Lassie didn't like... but as always, if given the chance I would try it again, just in a different manner.
So, again I'll let you be the judge: Based on my definitions above was this a negative review or a bad one? Let me know what you think.
Thinking and eating my
on the whisky trail, I remain.Whisky Lassie
Kind like peated whiskies, those big, fiery drams tend to generate either love or hate. I happen to like TH rye, but I can see why it wouldn't work for a lot of people:
ReplyDeletehttp://cocktailchem.blogspot.com/2012/09/whiskey-review-thomas-h-handy-sazerac.html
Unfortunately it doesn't take water very well either, just kind of becoming a lump of graininess. It's best near cask strength, but unless you like drinking whiskey that way, it's probably not going to be appealing.
Which gets to the issue of bad vs. negative. Bad feels more like an objective statement, that nearly everyone is going to agree with you. Negative just means that some part of it just doesn't work for you, but you don't expect others to agree with you in part or whole. Additionally, negative leaves a bit more room for your opinion to change later. I used to hate peated whiskies and would have given something like Ardbeg 10 a very negative review even a year ago. Now I think it's downright tasty. But would I have ever said that it was bad? I don't think so, because so many people clearly love it that it must just have been a matter of my own taste preferences at the time.
P.S. If you ever want to try this again, I'd be happy to send you a slightly bigger sample. I have about a bottle and a half, so I'm happy to let some of it go. Additionally, you might be interested to try Arran Sherry Single Cask, which I feel like has some distinct similarities. They both took me a while to wrap my head around, but now they're some of my favorite drams.
Hey Jordan,
DeleteI agree with you on so many levels. I have often struggled with rye in general, but this one was beyond "spicy". I would certainly be up for a trade anytime. You have my work email, let's talk :)
I felt this review was neither negative nor bad. You merely stated how you felt. It's simple, you can't like everything.
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting. It is so rare for me to dislike a whisky. I can usually pick out elements that I can enjoy. Unfortunately, the TH Rye wasn't one of them. I have a sneaking suspicion, I might on a hOt day, in a big glass tumbler full of ice.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good review. We both agreed on most of our nosing and tasting notes here. It's only on the resulting effect of those impressions we disagree. You found the alcohol and the spices too much where I found them somewhat enticing.
ReplyDeleteI will try and get you the more approachable, and still to me a gorgeous rye, that many have called more féminine. The sazerac rye : http://www.greatbourbon.com/SazeracRye.aspx
I'm glad to have been a part of the journey, just a tad sad that this leg wasn't that great.
To me, bad = badly written, documented, false or a vendetta. Negative=criticized negatively. Right or wrong, agree or disagree doesn't not really matter here.
I do fully understand both ends of the bad vs negative argument. I would never condone a bad review , I could understand a negative one. But I can also see why the target of the criticism could take it badly, wether bad or negative: for them, it could feel the same.
As for my own reviews, first off, I try to stay away from bad whiskies. But when I do, I would simply never waste the energy to write a negative review.
As for bad ones, I can only pray that I never put one out.
Thanx!
It's funny, I've had many higher AVB's so alcohol content doesn't usually bother me. I've noticed along the way that rye has a spiciness my system simply does not like. Which is odd, because I love spicy food? Always open to trying new things! Someday, maybe I will find a rye that doesn't require antacids, lol :)
DeleteI don't know if there are bad or negative reviews. You state what you think and feel. Period. If someone who makes whisky is going to quit their passion based upon your words, or if other people who like what you don't are going to be enraged at your words, that's their problem. I have some whiskies I enjoy that no one else likes, but hey, I like them. I'm not going to throw a fit if someone else doesn't like them. Our job is to say what we feel and others can use that as part of the whole information picture. The distillery will promote their whisky as amazing. Some reviewers will won't like them. It's up to the reader/consumer to figure out what they want to do next.
ReplyDelete