Whiskey Fest '05

LTH,

Whiskey Fest was both interesting and fun, really quite the event.

In addition to sampling 30-40 whiskeys, out of 200 offered, I attended two talks, one by David Pickerell Master Distiller for Maker's Mark.


Which, of course, included tasting.


There was also a 'Debate' between Fred Noe, great grandson of Jim Beam, and Michael Heads, Distillery Manager of Isle of Jura (Scotch).


The 'Debate' included tasting and was interesting and humorous.


LTHForum was well represented and afterwards, those of us that could still (mostly) stand went to LTH, the restaurant, for a ~light~ snack.

I highly recommend Whiskey Fest, well organized with participating brands, distillers etc. all represented by top level, extremely knowledgeable, people.

Enjoy,
Gary

What are those other two appelations of Makers in the picture? White Dog??? Mystery Sample?

Any other bourbons (new to you or otherwise) stand out?

If I remember correctly, the White Dog is the distillate before it goes into the wood barrels for aging. Maker's Mark wanted to take us through the aging process from no age to past it's prime.

And the mystery sample was in essence "what bourbon used to taste like" before folks like Maker's Mark decided to step in and get serious. It's what David Pickerell characterized as a hard drink for men who wanted to get real drunk, real fast. Charming, no?

On the gender note, it was interesting to see how few women were there last night. And I'm sure just a handful of non-industry women. At certain tables the reps offered tastes of "women-friendly" whiskey. It was apparent from last nights offerings that whiskey (in all its forms) has come a long way baby from "mystery sample" and the like.

*trixie-pea

trixie-pea wrote:If I remember correctly, the White Dog is the distillate before it goes into the wood barrels for aging. Maker's Mark wanted to take us through the aging process from no age to past it's prime.

And the mystery sample was in essence "what bourbon used to taste like" before folks like Maker's Mark decided to step in and get serious. It's what David Pickerell characterized as a hard drink for men who wanted to get real drunk, real fast. Charming, no?

On the gender note, it was interesting to see how few women were there last night. And I'm sure just a handful of non-industry women. At certain tables the reps offered tastes of "women-friendly" whiskey. It was apparent from last nights offerings that whiskey (in all its forms) has come a long way baby from "mystery sample" and the like.

*trixie-pea

During our lth bourbon tasting, Basil Hayden's was referred to as a "woman's bourbon."

However, I have no problem owning up to my fondness for Basil Hayden's- a fine, smooth bourbon.

I must admit, I favored more tasting over seminars. I was also at home and in bed by 9:50. My must have of the evening was a dark sherry like peaty tasting 34 year old scotch from Duncan and Taylor (available at Sams according to the vendors).

trixie-pea wrote:On the gender note, it was interesting to see how few women were there last night. And I'm sure just a handful of non-industry women.

Actually, it seemed like there were a lot more women there this year than in previous years. There might have been as many as 5 percent.

I've suggested to single women in the past that it might be a good place to meet men -- assuming you can be interested in somebody who might be a little obssesive about alcohol. On the other hand, you're relatively assured, at $95 a ticket, that the people you meet there are solvent.

I continue to be amazed at the difference in the level of interest attendees have in scotch over bourbon and other American whiskies. Given that so many revered scotches remind me strongly of Lapsang souchong tea, a flavor I've heard described as "burnt telephone poles," I don't get it.

trixie-pea wrote:And the mystery sample was in essence "what bourbon used to taste like" before folks like Maker's Mark decided to step in and get serious. It's what David Pickerell characterized as a hard drink for men who wanted to get real drunk, real fast. Charming, no?

David Pickerell mentioned a specific name, which I dutifully wrote down, but darn if I can find my notes.

I think the name of the mystery sample was.........oh man, maybe something with a C?

He didn't give any backstory as to how the mystery sample was named, though he did humorously add, after he told us the name, this was before marketing people became involved in naming products.

[Edit] I found my notes, though, not surprisingly, they are a bit difficult to decipher. The name of the mystery sample was Hog Tracks. I can see why they eventually decided to get marketing people involved.


Enjoy,
Gary

Since I lost my notebook some time around 10 pm, I can't say what the mystery sample was, but I'm pretty sure that he said that "hog tracks" is the term distillers use for the bitter finish that rides up the sides of the tongue after a particularly harsh swill. I taped that seminar so I'll get back to you on the brand.

It might say more about my deteriorating objectivity at that point, but I recall preferring the mystery sample to the others at that tasting. Then again, it was recently pointed out to me that eating peanut butter and Jufran bagel sandwiches was not the hallmark of a discerning palate.

As a professional whiskey writer, I can take pretty good notes even when intoxicated. It's something you can learn, like anything else.

The "mystery sample" was Rabbit Glove slerbrum and the definition of "hog tracks" is seurrernezz frum eht rwgwaim eisket leawash.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The mystery sample was Racket Club bourbon. It was made at the old Bernheim Distillery in Louisville just after Prohibition.

Hog tracks is the term for a sourness in young whiskey that comes from the grain, and which dissipates with time in wood.

White dog is new make whiskey, before aging. Also called green whiskey.

The other samples:

Maker's at two years, which has gotten a lot of color from the wood but still tastes pretty raw.

In the non-wine glass, standard Maker's Mark.

Maker's Mark aged 9 years, the point being that it starts to get bitter again.

My notes are pretty good, but I see that when I intended to write "connoisseurship," I actually wrote "conniesseurshit."

Close enough.

Thanks Chuck

I needed a laugh like that here at work. Actually that, and one of those glasses of Maker's Mark. Come on 5 o'clock!

vegmojo

cowdery wrote:The mystery sample was Racket Club bourbon. It was made at the old Bernheim Distillery in Louisville just after Prohibition.

Racket Club? I heard it as "Rocket Club."

By the way, all that stuff about the sides of the tongue that Pickerell went on about is hogwash. The tongue map remains a persistent mythology, but it was long ago disproven. We perceive all five basic flavors with all our taste cells.

The article LAZ cites to is very good. I quote from that article.

For the record, we perceive all taste qualities all over our tongue, although there may be increased sensitivity to certain qualities in certain areas.

I read this as slightly less damning than the "hogwash" claim LAZ uses it to support. Even if you don't believe in the "tongue map," Pickerell's thesis regarding how Maker's Mark is made, and why, is undamaged.

m'th'su wrote:Then again, it was recently pointed out to me that eating peanut butter and Jufran bagel sandwiches was not the hallmark of a discerning palate.

Mike,

And quite a sandwich it is at that!!

Mike/m'th'su's picture of his Toasted bagel w/peanut butter and Jufran hot banana ketchup.


Enjoy,
Gary

The tongue map remains a persistent mythology, but it was long ago disproven. We perceive all five basic flavors with all our taste cells.

The first sentence is probably true but the second is likely incorrect.

The idea of the tongue map goes back to the beginning of the twentieth century and still persists despite some evidence against it. Here’s an interesting discussion of the origins of the idea.

Although “taste cells” specific for each basic flavor are distributed over the entire tongue, any one cell is specific for only a single flavor. In other words, all cells do not recognize all flavors. The molecular and cellular basis of taste and smell is still a very active area of biological research but I think the previous sentences reflect the consensus in the field.

Sensory neurons found in the tongue’s taste buds express taste receptors on their surface. When a receptor is engaged by its specific ligand—a molecule of the bitter substance quinine for instance—it triggers the nerve cell to send an impulse to the particular region of the brain that registers it as a bitter taste. Each taste cell expresses only a single type of receptor, otherwise the impulses would be scrambled. Although this has been thought for some time, it has been most elegantly demonstrated by a very recent study (Mueller et al. The receptors and coding logic for bitter taste. Nature 434:225. 10 March 2005.). Mice avoid bitter substances but are attracted by sweets. When a bitter taste receptor is engineered to be expressed in a mouse tongue’s “sweet cells” these mice enjoy bitter water (the licking behavior was quantitated using what’s called a multi-channel gustometer, whatever the heck that is). There’s much more information in this beautiful paper but that’s the most relevant experiment.

The good news, for you whiskey drinkers out there, is thatWhiskey May Prevent Cancer