Review: 2 Gingers Irish Whiskey

View fullsize

I first became aware of 2 Gingers on a visit to downtown Minneapolis to visit a friend of mine that lives there. Not spending a lot of time downtown, I asked him to recommend a place to get a bite for lunch. We ended up choosing the Local because of the opportunity for prime people watching. He claimed it was the hangout of a particular type of d-bag that is always fun to see in the wild. 

As we took our seat, our waitress informed us that we were in for a treat. They had just gotten their very own Irish whiskey and that they had their very own cocktail featuring it. The whiskey was 2 Gingers and the cocktail was the Big Ginger (basically whiskey and ginger ale with a lemon and line wedge). You see the Local was one of many Irish pubs formerly owned by Kieran Folliard in the Twin Cities. He sold off his share in them and went on to produce 2 Gingers instead. It’s seems he’s done ok by himself since Beam has purchased the brand and expanded it nationally across the US. 

So I had a drink, it was ok, and forgot about it for a little while. I’m not really an Irish whiskey fan and I had a lot of bourbon to learn about. 

I was reminded of the brand again by a coworker of mine just about the time the Beam purchase was occurring. He had worked on a promotional video for the brand before coming on to work with me and was showing it off. It was about that time that I figured I might need to get a bottle of this to keep on hand. I had friends who liked it, it was cheap and it never hurts to have a little local pride in the cupboard. And there it’s stayed, a mostly full bottle that wasn’t much touched unless someone came over. 

Until today when I decided that a timely review might be in order. It’s that time of year when every American either pretends that they are Irish or that they are too cool to pretend they are Irish. I won’t tell you which camp I fall into, but I will share a review of the only Irish whiskey in the house: 2 Gingers.

2 Gingers

Nose: Fruity, but not in an actual fruit way. This is more like Apple Jolly Rancher candy. Followed by silage and a hint of rose petals. 

Mouth: Delicate. Mouthfeel is thin and watery. Very grain forward with little complexity.

Finish: Gentle, with a lingering bitterness. 

Thoughts: This doesn’t perform well neat. But then, from what I understand, it was never intended to. It makes a decent enough cocktail in it’s signature Big Ginger. And that seems to have been it’s intended purpose. So if you are looking for a sipper, this one is just a meh. If you are looking for a nice mixer, this is available for a decent enough price (just over $20 for a liter here in Minnesota).

And now PSA time: St. Patrick’s day is a big drinking holiday in the US. Be smart. If you drink, do so carefully, the temptation to overdo it can be big. In any case, have a driver lined up to bring you home. I want you still around to read when I get back to writing about bourbon later this week.

Battle of the Bigs: Head-to-head Review of Jim Beam and Jack Daniels

View fullsize

Today the internets are all abuzz with the news that Beam, Inc of Deerfield, IL was purchased by the Japanese company Suntory. On twitter there is shock, on Facebook there’s anger, racial slurs and xenophobia in general. Everyone has an opinion. Me? My thoughts on the matter are really boring. I’m generally apathetic as to which multinational conglomerate owns the distillery where the whiskey I’m drinking is produced. Or where they call home. Or where their stock is traded. I know bourbon jobs have to stay in the US, so ultimately I don’t really care.

But in the spirit of the news of one of America’s own moving to Japan (not really) I decided to do a head-to-head that I’d been thinking of for a while. Japan’s Jim Beam (not really) versus the local boy Jack Daniels. 

I’d been thinking of this, not because either of these end up on my shelf at home very often, but because I travel a lot. And when I’m sitting in a hotel bar somewhere, I’ll as likely as not be faced with the choice between these two with maybe a Maker’s thrown in for good measure. When faced with this prospect, I’ve often made a run to the local liquor store to try to pick up a replacement or gone without. But maybe, just maybe there is something that I am missing. I mean these are the two biggest bourbons* in the world, there has to be something to them.

Right?

Jim Beam (White Label)

Nose: Initially it’s just like standing in the Jim Beam warehouse that they let you go in while visiting the distillery. Oak, alcohol and dust. After a bit of teasing, there is some wet rock, a floral note and a bit of crisp sour apple. 

Mouth: Thin. Watered down tasting. Past that: corn, a little vanilla, pencil shavings and more sourness. 

Finish: Gentle is the only word for this. Lingering Corn. 

Thoughts: I’m not a fan of this one. The thin mouthfeel and sour flavor are off-putting to me. That said, I’ve had decent cocktails made with this so it has it’s place. It’s just not in my glass. Maybe it’s in yours?

Jack Daniels Old No. 7

Nose: The nose on this one is really quite nice. Cherry, vanilla, a hint of chocolate. It reminds me of the chocolate covered cherry cordials you can buy at Christmas.

Mouth: Dusty, dried corn and some vanilla

Finish: A gentle burn with more corn and a lingering dusty bitterness.

View fullsize

Thoughts: Disappointing. The palate does not live up to the nose. But unlike Jim Beam, I can see why it’s popular. This is gentle and sweet enough to appeal to the new or non-whiskey drinker. And since many people never move beyond the first thing they fall in love with, I can see it. Will it have a permanent home on my shelf? No. But that’s not because it’s bad, it’s just meh.

Overall: If forced to choose between Jack and Jim neat, I’d go Jack. But that said, I doubt I’ll ever be buying either of them for that reason (bars almost always have one halfway decent beer on tap). And as with all whiskey reviews, your milage may vary. Try it yourself. Maybe you’ll love them. 

*Jack Daniel’s Sour Mash Tennessee Whiskey meets all the legal requirements of bourbon and could be called bourbon if they chose to. So for the sake of stirring the pot, for this post, I choose to call it bourbon. Because sometimes I like to see people who care way too much get upset.

Double Blind Review: 3 Unrelated Ryes

View fullsize

I recently realized I had about one pour left of two different rye whiskies. I needed the shelf space so I poured them into small bottles and stuck them onto one of my shelves. They sat there for a while. 

A long while.  

I like rye. But unless it is amazing, I normally put it into a cocktail. A sazerac or a manhattan made with a decent rye whiskey is one of the best things that a person can imbibe. I'd had both of those in cocktails and neat. I mostly preferred them in a cocktail. But I like rye. And these two had only one pour left. If I was going to review them, I was going to have to not put them into a cocktail. I was going to have to put them into a glass all by themselves and think about them. 

Cocktails are good. They do not tend to lend themselves to the contemplative tasting. But that's part of their charm. They taste good. And that's their purpose. A bad whiskey can be interesting, a bad cocktail needs to be dumped out. 

So here is a double blind tasting of those two ryes that I normally used in cocktails and another that I felt belonged since I like three way tastings way better than two... 

So there. 

I started in the usual double blind fashion of pouring and then letting my wife mix them up. I knew which whiskey equaled which number, she knew which number equaled which letter and neither of us knew what was in any of the glasses.

Rye A:

Nose: Honey, slightly soapy. Hints of grass follow.

Mouth: Sweet up front, mint and grass follows

Finish: This is a hot one. There's a tingle through the entire mouth. It fades into a bitter citrus pith in the throat.

Overall: I like this, but I'm not sure this is something I would drink alone. It hits all the notes I want a rye to hit, but it isn't one that I'd go to neat on a regular basis. 

Rye B: 

Nose: Sweet. Butterscotch with a hint of baking spice

Mouth: Soft is the best word I can use. This is a sweet one. 

Finish: Minty cool plus heat. This is the Icy-Hot of finishes. But it fades pretty quick. 

Overall: I loved the mouthfeel of this one. There was an elegant softness that I wasn't expecting. I know that two of these are 100 proof or over and one is 80. So I'm guessing this  is one of those. I don't care. I think I'm in love.

Rye C:

Nose: Fresh mown hay, then a hint of banana and mint.

Mouth: Thin. There isn't a lot of flavor here. Sweet and spice with a hint of bitter, but you gotta search for it.  

Finish: Finish is where this brings its game. It fades from the sweet into a bitter spice. There isn't a lot of heat, but this leaves a tingle.  

Overall: Standing on it's own, this is a meh. I wouldn't put it into a glass, but if I was at a bar I wouldn't turn it down depending on what else was back there. It's really just ok.  

So what was what? You can see which three were being reviewed in the image above. So I'm just going to spill it. A was Rittenhouse Bottled in Bond. B was Wild Turkey 101 proof. C was Old Overholt. I was a little surprised at how much I liked the Wild Turkey, because none of these are very expensive. If you can find Wild Turkey Rye 101, it's pretty reasonable. Rittenhouse is under $25 and Old Overholt was bought for like $11 or so. Not really surprised that they ended up where they did. 

My wife checked my work tonight. She thought I was mostly right, but when she tasted the Rittenhouse she proclaimed: "ooh. I don't like this." Since she doesn't actually like rye neat, I wouldn't take that too hard if I were them.

Well, now I'm off to pour what's left together and make the world's most strangely concocted manhattan.  Well, as far as the whiskey is concerned. The manhattan will follow my standard recipe. 

I emptied my favorite cooking bourbon: Knob Creek Single Barrel

Tonight I'm talking about my favorite cooking bourbon. Some people might think that's an insult. That it means it is a bourbon so bad that all it is good for is hiding amongst other flavors. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I want to enjoy what I eat I had better use quality ingredients.

My go-to cooking bourbon will have to meet certain factors and the most important one of them will be that I like how it tastes.

The second factor is proof. When I bake, I pull out some water and substitute a little bourbon. You might have noticed that bourbon is much more expensive than water. Hence I want to use as little as possible while still giving me the flavor I want. As you probably know, higher proof bourbons tend to have less water added. As a result, there is also a tendency toward more flavor.

Cost and availablilty are the final factors. My go-to cooking bourbon won't be a Four Roses Limited Edition no matter how high the proof or how tasty the bourbon. 

So that makes Knob Creek Single Barrel probably the perfect cooking bourbon. It is 120 proof. It's tasty. It's readily available and it won't break the bank. That isn't to say that I haven't given it the once over in the Glencairn Glass though. Here are my findings:

Nose: Earthy, lots of oak. There is some sweet underneath. Honestly, I'm finding that this smells just like the warehouse on the tour at the American Stillhouse. 

Mouth: This is a sweet one! Tasted neat, I find this to be mostly caramel and heat.

Finsh: Sharp and spicy with a cool mintiness. It leaves a tingle on the tongue that lasts forever.

Overall: I like this bourbon, but not for drinking. I really don't like to drink super high proof bourbons. They fry my taste buds way too quick. And if I'm going to water it down anyway, I might as well go with the 100 proof Knob Creek and save myself some money. But as my go-to cooking bourbon, I love it. I've used this in my Bourbon Banana Bread and my Bourbon Doughnuts with great results.

So this is a tasty bourbon that is interesting in the glass. But for me, the really high proof makes it a meh for drinking. But that same proof makes it a love for cooking. Average that out and you get a like. And I really do like this. I just had to find a way to let it's flavor shine while holding back the proof. And for me that's in food.

Another Empty? Old Grand-Dad, Bonded

Another Empty? Yes. I needed to make room on my shelf. I have a few bottles that have been around too long (too long = becoming the oldest bottle on the shelf with the least in it). The Rip Van Winkle was the first. This time around I emptied my bottle of Old Grand Dad, Bottled in Bond. I have a unique opportunity here to do something that I haven't seen done before. I wrote a review of this when I first got it. I'm going to post that here. Then I will add my current feelings about this bourbon, which have changed drastically.

It was last September. Yes. I've had this bottle a long time. 

Old Grand Dad Bottled in Bond 100 Proof has an oily, thick mouthfeel with a sweet almost sugery taste that clings with you almost until the next drink. The finish is nice and long. It’s spicy turning sweet as it goes. 

This is better with an above average splash of water than it is with just the few ice cubes I normally put in a drink as the high proof almost feels like it burns your mouth. Odd since I’ve had higher proof ones that doesn’t act this way.

Overall, I will finish the bottle. As of now, it was an interesting experiment, but I probably won’t buy again I can find a lot more that I like better for the same price. Of course, that opinion might change after a few more drinks. I’ll update if it does.

So now an update from today. My opinion of this has changed. I didn't like it originally. I tried to find any way to use this that didn't involve drinking it. I cooked with it when I knew it wasn't going to be a main flavor component. I used it in experiments. Anything to not drink it. But then something odd happened. Sometime in the last 3-4 months this bourbon grew on me.

I like it. I will buy it again, though I'm thinking next time I do, it will be the 114 proof version instead. I still add a bit more water than usual to this in order to tame and soften the rough edges on it. But as far as I'm concerned this is one to come back to. The only downside? This bottle is butt-ugly (orange, gold and green) and really draws attention to itself on the shelf. Just not in a good way.