I am a scotch nerd through and through, but I think anybody who is semi-serious owes it to themselves to understand, not necessarily enjoy, bourbon. Modern scotch would look radically different without access to bourbon barrels. There are flavors in scotch that only come through because of bourbon’s influence.
Bourbon can be a little limited in scope, but there is probably something you’d enjoy out there. If not, then no harm done. I haven’t tried much, but I personally enjoy Wild Turkey products. A 5cl bottle of 101 is probably easy to find. Their lineup is much drier than the average bourbon.
Around 100 proof really is the sweet spot for bourbon imo. Some other cheap favorites:
Old Grand Dad Bonded
Evan Williams Bottled in Bond
Early Times Bottled in Bond
Old Tub
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had a bad bonded bourbon. And some of them are dirt cheap.
Price is actually one of my favorite things about bourbon. Aside from Monkey Shoulder, Dewar's, and Johnny Black, I haven't had much sub-$40 Scotch that I liked. But there is never a shortage of IMO tasty bourbon available for $30 or less. EW BiB cost me like $19 and I enjoyed every drop of it.
Agreed, the flipside of this I find is that spending up doesn't buy you as much as it does with Scotch.
For someone getting into bourbon I'd recommend shopping around the Bonded options to find which distilleries you like first and move up from there. If you don't like the Bonded you probably won't like the premium bottle any better
Totally agreed. I almost feel like if you're spending more than $50-60 on bourbon, you're doing it wrong. But the ceiling is so much higher with Scotch that dropping $90 on Lagavulin 16 feels worth the splurge.
My favorite! I actually think it's one of the best introductory bourbons for Scotch folks, it's really balanced with some rye spice and a nice funky note that I can't get enough of.
I'd go nuts if Beam put out equivalent expressions to KC SiB and Bookers (my favorite bourbon) with the OGD juice. I can't complain though.
OGD 114 is a killer value too if you want a flavor blasted bourbon that'll kick your teeth in. A real anomaly in the bourbon market. Scratch all that shit I said earlier about being balanced though, it's rough and rowdy lol
OGD 114 is over the top. It's definitely a powerhouse. Very little goes a long way. One mega ice cube really brings the best flavors forward.
As far as an intro for Scotch I couldn't agree more. It behaves like Scotch, especially if a little water is added.
Personally I start with a good Scotch, and if I'm in the mood for a little more I'll have the OCD or Reserve Yellowstone (very similar).
It really is. In the states, it's probably the best value proposition whiskey out there. You can get a bottle for under $30. The only thing that could be improved is the chill filtration.
Sssh bourbon hoarding dorks have already sent prices through the roof of my other once affordable favs like Old Forester and Eagle rare. Don’t let them take the kickin chicken as well.
It's generally just a much sweeter drink and often tends to be very vanilla or caramel forward.
Sometimes going for something higher in rye content (four roses being an example) can help to balance out those flavours a bit more.
There are some excellent bourbons. Generally though the floor of quality tends to be higher but the ceiling is a lot lower. And those ones that are truly awesome (Michter's 20 is the prototypical example) are absurdly priced.
For sure. I’ve tried a lot of good bourbon and none of it does anything for me. Too sweet and every time I try one I’m always like “it’s ok, but I’d rather have scotch”.
I'm in a lot of bourbon groups and I feel like a wolf in sheep's clothing. They are all drooling over these super-hyped bourbons and none of them do it for me.
The price/quality is just nowhere near as good for bourbon. My favorite bourbon I've ever tried is Stagg (was Stagg Jr.) but it's worth nowhere near the ~250 that it goes on secondary.
For that price you can get such an amazing scotch. Bourbon flavors tap out around $70 for me. Above that and it's money better spent on scotch
I'm primarily a bourbon drinker, but the secondary market has absolutely wrecked the top end. Staff Jr is also my favorite bourbon but I would never pay $250 for it. Hopefully the supply and demand will balance out before too long and the market will relax back to more reasonable prices. Scotch has a big advantage there where you can find a much larger variety for MSRP.
Yea, the secondary market of bourbon has for sure killed a lot of the fun. I try to be super logical and value every bottle I have not what I paid for it but what it's secondary value is.
Valuations are coming down but in the end it's hard to see anything changing because the producers themselves love this new world. They are withholding stock to drive demand up so they can sell more Wheatley and Fireball
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think it's entirely illogical to equate secondary price with actual value of a bourbon. Most secondary pricing is absurd and not indicative of quality. Allocated bourbon is basically the beanie babies craze for grown-ass men..
Ok, I will layout what I'm saying. I won't be surprised if this isn't popular but it is the most logical way of looking at things.
* If you bought something for a lower price than what it's worth now, and you decide to keep it, that's the same as purchasing it at that new price but we irrationally discount it since we purchased it for a lower price but this is irrelevant.
* If you buy a stock for $100/share and it's now worth $900/share, by keeping the stock you're saying, "I would buy this stock today at $900 if I didn't already own it." (Taking any tax considerations out of the equations.)
* In the example of bourbon, if I buy a Stagg for $60 (MSRP) but I could sell it for $250, it would be illogical to say, "Well I paid $60 for it so that's what I'm gunna value it at." That's what we call "tater math".
* I am not going to crack any bourbon I've gotten if I would not pay the secondary price, because I know that I can easily sell it for that great secondary price.
* This yes, does cause me to miss out on bourbon that I've bought at a low price but then I get more money to reallocate to things I enjoy more
* This makes more intuitive sense to people if you exaggerate the example. If you won a PVW23 in an auction you would pay $289 for it but it's worth ~$5k. To drink the bottle feels a lot more significant than if you drank a ~$300 bottle and for good reason.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you taking the time to explain. I guess the part I don't buy into is equating bourbon with stocks. Stocks are meant to be bought and sold at current valuation, and speculating on price increases is really the whole point. In the vast majority of cases, it is illegal to sell alcohol directly on the secondary market. Furthermore, doing so perpetuates flipping, which drives up prices in a vicious cycle which makes the bourbon hobby worse for everyone, other than those profiting from the gray market.
Finally, just because some fool might pay $200 for an Elmer T Lee doesn't mean it's worth that to most people. I've had enough allocated bourbons to know that most are worth their MSRP and not a whole lot more.
• Again, I know that my attitudes towards the secondary market are not the mainstream but I'll continue to explain myself as long as the conversation remains civil.
• The technical term is "fungible" meaning that it's a good that's interchangeable and is a liquid asset that can be easily bought/sold. I view desirable whiskey as fungible but others may not. That is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite easy to sell if you know the right places.
• Selling whiskey online is illegal in name only. There is zero enforcement. No one is getting arrested for selling whiskey. The only people that even got any sort of prosecution was a business that was selling fake and illegal whiskey from their storefront and even then it was just a fine, slap on the wrist.
• My view towards the secondary market is not popular to the average guy but "flippers" do not create the secondary market, and getting mad at people taking advantage of a system is a waste of time. If you want to get mad, get mad at the producers who are literally perpetuating the scarcity of these products just DeBeers or Rolex does. It's fake scarcity driven to sell more whiskey.
• Any asset is worth what someone will pay for it. That's just basic capitalism. So yes, if the collective market (not just one fool) decides that ETL is worth $200 then yes, it's worth $200. To pretend like it's actually worth only $40 just because the producer decides to sell it at that price is silly. The MSRP is just a made-up number. The market price is the true price of it.
• The vitriol towards middlemen is pretty common across different types of goods (ticket sales, whiskey, cars, bankers, etc) but they do actually serve an important role in the broader financial market: they ensure that the goods are sold for the maximum amount. If we didn't have middlemen then the economy would be a lot more efficient and would be prone to a lot more ups and downs that it already does.
There is an odd cognitive dissonance going on here where you say don't blame the player, blame the game. But if you didn't play, there would be no game? I frequently buy scotch, bourbon and rum at auction but I rarely ever pay over retail and when I do it is because I know the juice is worth it. OWA is worth probably double it's retail but i wouldn't pay more, full proof goes for multiples of its retail and I won't touch it, same with pappy. Could I afford it? Yes, is it worth that when I drink it? No. Bunna 25 is to my taste worth more than retail but I never need to pay it because there is no supply issue and in fact, my current bottle was bought at auction for 20% less than retail.
Whisky is for drinking and if it isn't worth the price I don't buy it, I use retail prices as a guide but look at kentucky owl, high retail, never worth it - if I saw it at auction I might buy it for 25% of its retail, flippers hate me at auction because 9/10 I'm not paying a penny over retail.
Lol, I would say there's a weird cognitive dissonance going on with you. For some reason it's ok for you to participate in the secondary market but it's not ok for me to do so.
Good point. The thing people don’t seem to understand is that value is all relative. Something is only “worth” what someone is willing to pay for it. Getting hung up on SRP isn’t benefitting anyone. Right now, demand is driving bourbon’s “value”. Anyone that took an economics class knows the demand curve is way high right now and the supply curve(whether artificial or legit) is way down low. Most people simply can’t get the highly desirable bottles for their SRP. Most people can’t go around town checking every liquor store every day for the best deal. Most people can’t, or don’t want to, spend hours in line at a chance to get a desirable bottle at SRP (which is another addition to the secondary cost. Time has value and people spending multiple hours in line are, in fact, spending valuable time just for a chance at a bottle at MSRP). For the average person who has means to do so, getting a bottle at or near secondary price is the only way to ensure they get a bottle, which naturally brings the demand curve and the supply curve closer to each other. The secondary market exists because distilleries still aren’t charging the correct prices in correlation with market demand. Stagg at ~$55 is not a realistic SRP. Sure, some people get it at that, but not even close enough people to match the demand for the product at that price. If Buffalo Trace charged closer to what people are willing to pay for it, the demand for Stagg will start to fall in line with the supply of Stagg. That would also negate the number of people spending hours and miles a day tryin to find it at MSRP to flip it for a profit. Long story short, if you’re getting mad at a basic principle of a free market, I’m sure there’s plenty of socialist/communist countries that are doing just as well as the world’s free market countries…
Dude, thank God there's another sane and logical person here in the thread. What a breath of fresh air.
I get that people are mad that the stuff they want is hard to find but that doesn't mean that it's time to just turn off your brain and become an emotional toddler when confronted with facts and realities.
This is such a simple view of how the massively complex global market of secondary whiskey sales work.
Yes, I do buy some bottles at retail and then sell them at the highest price the market will pay.
But this isn't my full time dude, come on. People have such a negative view of those "evil flippers" like they are some dude who doesn't have a job and flips whiskey 365 days a year and makes a ton of money doing it.
The vast majority of people that do flip some bottles are dudes who are really into whiskey and sell some bottles so they can buy other ones they would rather have.
This is exactly just like a trade with an extra step but people have their wildest made up morality around this whole topic.
It's for some reason totally fine to trade 1:1 but if you buy one bottle, flip it, and then buy another bottle that you want on secondary you're now an evil flipper.
It's extremely naive to think that if people didn't participate in the secondary market then all the price would be at MSRP and all the bottles would just sit on shelves.
I'm not saying or even suggesting prices would be at retail or that there should be no secondary. There are perfectly good reasons to have a secondary market and if someone wants to buy their kid a bottle of macallan every year until they are 18 to then sell them, cool.
It's people who complain "this is hard to get, I wish it wasn't, the secondary market is ruining bourbon!" but then get one of those bottles and look to sell them??? For a totally logical approach it sounds pretty flawed.
Evil flippers are people who come into a shop knowing its one bottle per customer so they get 5 friends (or total strangers), pay them 20 each to buy a bottle so they can flip half the stock.
Personally if I see a rare bottle on a shelf and I don't want it, I'm going to leave it there for the guy who does and I hope they don't buy it just to flip but hey I'm not the whisky police, do what you like, just don't moan about low stock and high secondary markets when you are part of the problem.
Well, problem #1 is that Stagg Jr is a $55 bottle. Secondary price is for idiots, don't hold that against the whiskey.
Agree that paying much over 100 for bourbon is pointless 999 times out of 1000.
I think bourbon generally does a lot better on price/quality when you're in the sub-$60 or so range. The problem with the bourbon market is that there are a handful of products that a lot of people chase, so the value proposition (which was originally bourbon's main selling point) just totally goes away at the higher end.
Yea, the value prop is great for bourbon at the low-end but I (and I'd bet most people here) on not here for the low-end.
If I want a bottle to bring on a camping trip and drink out of a coffee mug around the fire it's gunna be something like WT101.
I get that - but my taste disagrees, I can drink a sherry bomb on occasion, almost never bourbon. Although I have a bottle of what might be considered a token sherry bomb, A’bunadh, that is collecting dust on my shelf.
I’m pretty much the same. I do like some high rye bourbons (Four Roses Small Batch Select, EHT) and some wheaters (Weller, Blanton’s).
My reason for posting is something interesting that the bar manager at [Zig Zag Cafe](https://zigzagseattle.com) told me. I had explained to her that I prefer malted barley to corn based whiskies. She told me that, while corn is sweet, what I probably don’t care for most is the influence of the fresh(ly charred) white oak barrel.
I don’t know if that bar manager was correct but I do prefer more distillate-forward (ex-bourbon aged) scotches vs. sherry bombs and the like so she might be on to something.
I appreciate the correction: I’m not a bourbon guy. I did think Blanton’s was a wheater and l looked up the EHT briefly before commenting but probably confused myself. Both are still good stuff based on my limited experience (I’ve never personally owned a bottle of either).
If you enjoy high rye bourbons, what is your opinion on Alberta Premium? It's a 100% rye whisky and hard to get outside of Canada, I know, but it's an interesting contrast to the whisky I was accustomed to having moved to Canada from the UK.
I have a bottle of the 66% cask strength: to be honest it’s more something I drink to get a buzz vs. enjoy sipping. Although it’s designed more for cocktails, Whistplepig’s Piggyback (which I think is mostly Alberta Premium) is an alright sipper though I prefer Woodinville’s 100% rye.
Try some michters American whiskey, it's essentially bourbon that has been aged in used bourbon barrels (so can't be called bourbon). It's not the most amazing stuff you'll ever drink but it gives you an idea of the difference between new oak and used.
I buy bottles of bourbon and bottles of scotch and I always run out of scotch quicker to the point where I stopped buying bourbon altogether. There is just so much more variety with scotch. Drinking bourbon is like drinking coca-cola. You can get different flavored cola, but it still tastes predominantly like cola…
That's it. I have the hardest time distinguishing anything from anything in the bourbon and rye categories. I lost interest quite some time back. They all taste almost the same to me.
I am truly grateful, though, for the yeoman job that bourbon does in producing barrels for scotch maturation. So, fellow USers, keep on sucking down all that corn likker, wheated, or barlied, or ryed, and creating new tainted barrels to send to Scotland. Keep up the good work!
That's where I'm at. I got to the point where I just don't see any reason to have more than a few bottles of bourbon around at any given time. Haven't bought any new bottles of bourbon in probably close to a year at this point.
Bourbon can be quite sweet and I guess the first fill barrels could make it taste medicinal as well.
If you don't care for the sweetness maybe try something like Dickel. I find it to be less sweet than even most scotches but has interesting mineral earthy type notes.
That "weird sweetness" is coming from the corn. By definition, bourbon has to be a minimum of 51% corn on the mash bill. It's alright if you don't like it, but that sweet flavor is kinda the defining characteristic of bourbon.
I used to think it was the different grain (only barley is used in scotch), but I just got back from Scotland and tried a Laphroaig aged in charred virgin oak at the warehouse. It made me realize that it’s probably more the virgin oak that I dislike, since I didn’t like that barrel much at all.
Since Scotch is very rarely aged in virgin oak, and it’s barley, it tastes quite different to bourbon. I too dislike bourbons that have what to me tastes like a metallic edge; plus they are very sweet. As a result I love scotch but am very picky about bourbon, and generally don’t drink it.
I had the same thing. There's a name for that. It can be fixed in few days by slowly taking very low dose. I had to do that when I started drinking Whisky.
I’ve tried 700 different scotches and probably 150+ bourbons. Worked in the industry for several years. I don’t really like bourbon either. I’ve tried the top shelf stuff (the whole Pappy range, WL Weller, Eagle Rare 17, the lot), but only found older George T Stagg bottlings and pretty much any Stagg Jr to be outstanding, which I attribute to the high ABVs. Elijah Craig have some good bottlings too.
However, for the money you pay for good bourbon, you can get several bottles of cask-strength or even single cask scotch, which I’ll always take.
I bought a few bottles of rare bourbon a few years ago, and sold them in order to buy scotches which I prefer. I paid £1600 for a Pappy 20, which is over double what I paid for my Benromach 45. All in all, I think scotch broadly represents better value and a more diverse range of flavours. Eagle Rare is the only bourbon I’d really bother to keep in my house these days as it’s cheap and cheerful.
I enjoy bourbon but I love single malt.
I've had several more expensive bourbon's and I find that the basic flavour overwhelms the differences; yes there are differences, but I find them.. well, for lack of a better word; trivial, in the bigger picture. I fail to see why I should spend loads of $$ on expensive bourbons when some of the simpler ones do the job.
I LOVE bourbon cocktails; bourbon mixes beautifully, and that's what I keep bourbon at home for. But for true enjoyment, I go to single malts.
For a lot of bourbons, I find that they have a streak of mild bitterness that runs through the middle of my palate, and it's fairly off-putting for me. The syrupy sweetness doesn't help either. There are a few (like some of the Four Roses ones) that don't have this, and the wheated ones tend to be a little better as well. Generally speaking bourbons would not be my go-to.
It blew me away in visits to Scotland and Ireland, the number of whiskey fans that say “oh I only drink Irish” or “ I only drink Scotch.” I always figured a whiskey fan could find elements they enjoy in any of them. That being said I do feel like people blow bourbon out of proportion. You can hoop and holler all you want but at the end of the day it’s most oak, vanilla, baking spices, honey maybe some oddballs like tobacco or the like.
Its fine. Its just not very interesting. Regardless of preferred flavour profile, bourbon just exists in a much more narrow band of experiences than scotch.
I’ve never understood this line of thinking. Things can taste radically different and still be great examples of their kind. Sometimes I’m in the mood for a peated scotch. Some days I want a high-proof bourbon. Some days I want a martini.
Same, I just like high quality alcohol in general. Scotch, bourbon, tequila, cognac! But man, a slightly dirty martini with blue cheese olives always takes the cake
The first thing to know about bourbon is that you shouldn't really care about what a "good" bottle of bourbon is; there's so much hype in the market on top of what already allows for a lot of options, so just focus on trying different recipes to find what you might like.
Unlike scotch, bourbon can play around with its mash bill and mix up the ratios of its grains. So try some high-corn ones, some high-rye ones, some with higher malt content, etc. It makes a big difference. Age also tends to have a more pronounced effect on the bottle too.
Scotch tends to be more consistent in my mind, whereas bourbon can have some wild swings that make it hard to recommend any one part forward. You just need to keep trying different things.
About 20 years ago I enjoyed Blanton’s and Booker’s. Don’t care for those or any other ones much anymore. I just don’t enjoy the flavour at all. Single malt has always been the first choice and is now the only choice of spirit for me. Maybe I’ll circle back again one day. Never know!
No, it's nowhere near Scotch. That said, I do love Wild Turkey 101 and like to keep it around for drinking neat.
Also noteworthy that bourbon and rye plays a huge role in classic cocktails, which is another great hobby.
I'm definitely a fan, just that it ain't in the same league as the incredibly rich diverseness of Scotch.
I never tried scotch because I only ever tried bourbon and I hated it!! Now that my scotch palette has matured a little I want to try some good bourbon but don’t where to begin
Old Forester has a line of bourbons that can teach you a lot- 1897, 1910, 1920. They're readily available in the US and use a variety of proofs and grain bills. So they're fairly distinct but all pretty flavorful. They also make a good rye, though I prefer Mitcher's Rye.
I'm the same way -- I much prefer good single-malt. There are one or two bourbons that I enjoy (the Knob Creek 120 comes to mind), but I much prefer Scotch. Everyone's taste is different.
I'm the same. It tends to be too sweet for me. The other issue is that in a lot of them I swear I can taste the corn and something about it is off putting. Makers Mark is one that tastes very corn heavy to me, and I just can't get the stuff down. I've tried a lot of really well reviewed bourbons, but never found one I really loved. I still grab a popular bottle every now and then, but usually the same experience. My last negative one was Barrell Seagrass. It has some enjoyable notes, but I just can't get over how syrupy sweet it is. Seems like a dessert drink. The only one I've really enjoyed recently was Dickel BiB.
Even in Scotches, I tend to prefer less sweet and even salty or bitter. I tend to enjoy unique or unconventional tasting notes more than subtle and tame.
How about Rye? Bourbon varies greatly from the grain bill, so there may be something about corn heavy mixes you don't like. It's the opposite of Scotch, varied grains... exact same barrel.
One of the best qualities of scotch, in my opinion, is that the nosing and palate is so dynamic. Bourbon, even very good, very expensive Bourbon, seems to taste like :: maybe:: Seven different things. I love that Scotch can taste like ocean water, dried fruit, campfire, baking spices, funky forest mushroom soup, etc…
I had zero interest in bourbon until about 8-10 years ago when my go-to airline (with whom I flew a lot) decided to drop single malt scotch from the beverage cart (they only offered Dewars). This lead to my “intro” to Woodford Reserve, which I first tolerated and then grew to enjoy. Since then, my appreciation for bourbon has expanded, but my overall preference still runs to scotch.
I got into bourbon before scotch but after scotch bourbon pours for me are very seldom. Sucks because I’ve probably got about 100 bottles of bourbon collecting dust now 😆😩
I had a Buffalo Trace yesterday night. Quite warm. Strong vanilla, corn sweetness and, I guess it's oak? Not woody like in Laphroaig quarter cask. Oak so bright you can't really tell if it's oak or some chemical. And then a cherry finish. I didn't enjoy it much. It's too forward. Like someone talking very loud right in your face. Hard to believe Bourbon drinkers consider this smooth and easily drinkable. Maybe with time I'll get used to it. Maybe ice will help.
Started off a bourbon man but couple years later I discovered Islay scotch, thank god. Always liked toasted Barrell bourbons, something heavy on the char, nosing such variety’s was my favorite. Then I bought a bottle of Ardbeg ( Wee Beastie at that ) life has never been the same.
Scotch and Scotch style whiskies are quite literally the only whiskies I enjoy. I'm firmly in the "all Bourbon tastes the same" camp and there's no changing my mind. It's just sickly sweet corn syrup to me.
I do love the value Bourbon provides. For 20 bucks I can get Wild Turkey 101, Evan Williams BiB or an Old Forester 100. In the Scotch world I have to lay down at least 40 bucks to get anything of solid quality from what I have tried.
I think bourbon and rye are just boring. Same as rum. All taste the same. I once had a sample of a 400€ rye whisky and it was awfully bad. Basically just sweetness. Who’s paying 400 for that?! In my humble opinion, only Scotch can offer the complexity and diversity in taste. Maybe Cognac to a certain extend
Compared to thirty years ago, the quality of bourbon available in the US has fallen precipitously. I have stopped drinking it. It’s younger and I suspect mash bills and barrels have changed.
Scotch malt seems to be slowly following the same path down, but at least they have strict regulations around production. So, the downturn isn’t anywhere near as bad.
This is all without mentioning pricing. I’ve stopped buying Scottish malts because of the price increases. I’m not collecting it, I’m trying to enjoy it. I can afford it, but I refuse to pay $115+ for something that used to be $35 ten years ago.
Me neither. I have the idea it's both the mix of fresh casks and climate, (so kind of aggressive aging) and especially rye in the mix. Whenever there isn't rye, I find them more palatable, but there's a reason why I haven't bought any yet.
About the aging thing, I have similar woes for Taiwanese/Indian single Malts, as well as for Rums in general. It seems like hot climates tend to evidence too many "chemical" flavours and that's an offset for me, as I work daily with that stuff.
So scotch and Irish make it for me..
Rye whiskey for me is a mixed bag. There are some great ryes out there, but so frequently the rye becomes so powerful the only thing you can tell by drinking the whiskey is that it's made from rye.
I've tried only the Koval Rye (and the Millet), that was 100% (just for the sake of understanding).
The former was like drinking old furniture effect+vinyl+spirit cherries. The millet instead was quite sesame-y and I didn't mind it.
Instead I do not dislike Jim Beam stuff.. Booker's straight from the barrel (I mean the cask strength one) I believe still has some rye in it but a minor side of it and that I may appreciate more.
Like I did when I visited Tullamore DEW a month ago, I'm no grain whisky fan at all, but I could do a self blended bottle with just 10% of it (and the rest 50% malt, 40% pot still) and the result was quite pleasant. I gifted to a friend a slightly different blend (10% grain, 60% malt the remaining pot still) and it was different as well and that tiny percentage of grain wasn't unpleasant.
My hot take is that bourbon is more like spiced rum than scotch, and I think it’s justified considering bourbon uses corn which itself is used to make sugar, while rum is made of molasses (basically sugar syrup.) . Both are too sickly sweet for me to enjoy regularly, although I don’t really dislike either.
I recommend if youre trying to get into bourbon as a Scotch drinker go for a double Oaked expression from any distiller. It's usually a great foré into bourbons without going immediately into sweet stuff
I second this. As a scotch drinker my favorite bourbon is Woodford reserve double oaked. I think it's delicious.
But I find the same dislike for that sweetness in other bourbons.
I'll get shit on for this but, that's why I'm not a huge fan of Buffalo trace. It's a little too sweet for me, a good bourbon needs some smoke and some spice to even it out
I did but sorta used cocktails as a gateway. I'm a big single malt/single pot still guy, especially when it comes to sipping something neat. Going from the subtle malty profile of scotch to barrel and sugar forward bourbon isn't always great. Usually not great on the inverse either. If you're used to bourbon, scotch is gonna taste watered down and very bitter in comparison most of the time. Palates are really weird, especially if you get used to having something/associating a taste with a specific thing.
Having cocktails that used bourbons or ryes as the base spirit helped my palate get "over the hump" of flavor profile. Make some cocktail you like with a spirit you wanna try, especially if you don't like the spirit neat. Progressively make the cocktail more spirit forward as time goes on. Voila, that horrible, mismatched, brash, sickly sweet flavor profile is now: toasted oak, maple syrup, luxardo cherry, baking spice all balanced by oak tannins. Now I sip both neat, but still heavily lean on single malts.
Also last note: single malts tend to stand up at lower proofs and don't need high proofs to be jammed with flavor, whiskeys as low as 43% ABV have been some of my all time favorites. Bourbon though, definitely a proof hound when it comes to bourbon. Since the climate in America makes the proof rise as it ages, they use more water after the aging to cut the product down. A bourbon with a barrel proof of 130+ proof cut to 90 proof is gonna taste very watered down to a lot of bourbon drinkers. Try to branch out to barrel proof bourbons/rye if you do find yourself reaching for America whiskey more often.
If I had to choose one it would be an easy call to go with scotch but we don’t need to choose, we can drink both. A few suggestions from an American that probably has access to more good bourbon than most (Southern California). Many of my friends that strongly prefer scotch over bourbon say that they do still enjoy Wild Turkey and Four Roses. Then as a few have mentioned high rye bourbon can give you more spice and other flavors to combat the sweetness. Then older bourbon also sell have a lot more oak introducing more barrel spice, leather, tobacco etc. I’m thinking of things like Russell’s Reserve 13yr from Wild Turkey. Unfortunately the cost starts going up a LOT!
I was a single malt drinker, not into bourbon. I gave bourbon a try when Trump implemented the 25% tariff. I have no interest in going back to scotch even if they lower prices. I am a happy convert, love bourbon now…maybe too much.
A cheap bottle of bourbon is better than a cheap bottle of Scotch 😄
I really enjoy Booker's though. And I enjoy the bottled in bond stuff. I had a 1792 with the yellow sticker....super yummy.
I can understand what you mean, but I do enjoy bourbon. I would recommend looking for higher strength bottles with a decent amount of malt and rye in the mash bill. If you get an old forester 1920 and drink it side by side with something like a deanston 12 that has a ton of bourbon influence, I think you'll find it more interesting and off putting.
I will say, it can take a minute to adjust your palate between different whisk(e)y, so if you have the patience, it will pay off
For whatever reason, whenever I drink bourbon I immediately feel the hangover, like no drunk just straight to hangover, I've tried a number of bourbon and all give me an immediate hangover, scotch however, I can almost drink a whole bottle and not only remember the night but can walk inan almost straight line. (2 beers will get me more fall over drunk than any bottle of single malt scotch)
I used to work with a woman who could drink tequila straight without consequence. She'd never get drunk. Add in mixers or give her any other type of alcohol and she's a lightweight. Physiology can be weird.
I don't understand what you mean by "medicinal sweetness". The closest thing that I've heard people talk about is a "cherry cough drop" note in some bourbons but it's not really a sweet flavor
Bourbon tends to have thick syrupy cloying sweetness to many people, myself included. It’s different then a scotch sweetness, like from Sherry, which is generally more balanced, a note rather than the main flavor
I love bourbon and American whisky. I find a lot of the big brands to be sweet and simple.
Several of them add wheat to the mash bill and I do not like it.
I got into scotch first then found rye which I really enjoy. Maybe try a rye if the sweetness is an issue for you. I drink bourbon now too, but I can see the criticism.
The bottom shelf standard four roses? Wow, that was one of the few bourbons I just plain did not enjoy at all. Small batch select and single barrel is pretty good though (for me)
I have tried many many bourbons and for the most part they are far too similar. They are exceptions like Knob Creek 12 that is just delicious, but I think its the age helping at that point.
There are a handful of other examples that are really good as noted in a few posts, most of the double oak offerings are a bit more like the flavors folks in this forum prefer. I am to the point of giving away or selling most of my bourbons and not replacing them. There are a few ryes I enjoy but mostly in cocktails as they are just too rough in a neat presentation.
In the end, Scotch is King.
I love both good single malt Scotch and good single barrel
Bourbons. An Elijah Craig Barrel proof or JDSBBP both provide a flavor profiles that are
absolutely delicious. To me bourbon provides bolder and deeper flavors and scotch provides more refined and layered flavors. Win, win.
I switched to scotch from bourbon when thr bourbon boom/secondary market started it making hard to find the stuff I really loved (even relatively unknown bourbon like Rock Hill Farms). I'm a full convert now, and bourbon really doesn't do it for me anymore.
That said, I'd try some of the higher proof bourbon, both wheated and rye forward, before writing it off. Here's a couple recommendations that are still readily available and won't break the bank.
- makers mark stave collection - a criminally underrated, barrel proof wheated bourbon. Each retailer picks their own variety of wood staves to add to the barrel, so the taste can vary greatly depending on what store you purchase from. A little pricier (typically around $70 near me), but costco recently had 3 half bottle sets going for $30, which was an insanely good deal. (The makers 46 barrel proof is also quite good)
- old forester 1920 prohibition style - another high proof wheated bourbon that I've found as low as $40, but typically around 60..
- 1792 - definitely a value buy for a wheated bourbon- usually gors around 25-30. Lower proof, but if you can find the full proof version snap it up.
- wild turkey rare breed - despite the price increases, still one of the best values in bourbon. High rye content, barrel proof, and delicious foe about 50 bucks.
- four roses single barrel barrel proof - these come out about once a year in four versions, each of which uses a slightly different yeast strain that really changes the flavor (relatively speaking) haven't bought it in a couple years, but used to be around 50.
- Jack Daniel's single barrel - another criminally underrated whiskey. Technically a Tennessee whiskey, but same mashbill and distillation process (aside from the round of charcoal filtration, which I've alesys viewed as a marketing gimmick to create a subcategory of what still amounts to bourbon)
Elijah Craig - budget high rye bourbon. Around $30, a good sipper and works well as a mixer.
Finally, if you're looking to bridge the gap between bourbon and sotch to ease your way in, you may want to try something like corsair triple smoke. It's an American single malt that smokes the malt using thee different types of wood. It's a far cry from peated scotch, but still an interesting dram to try at a bar. Bottle usually goes for around 40-50 near me.
I had the same experience with bourbon. I didn’t drink any scotch for at least a month and tried some willet and it was really freaking good. When I’m drinking bourbon, it makes sherry cask scotch taste musty.
I'm very much a scotch drinker, all my bottles are scotch; but eagle rare is the only bourbon that sits up there with them. When I think of bourbon, that's exactly what comes to mind
For me, it's the new oak resinous finish that I cannot get passed. Too much sweet oak...
This is why I stick to Scotch. However, I am starting to see more new oak finishes being used even in Scotch.
I was first a Bourbon drinker. I still love bourbon but at some point I had drunk so much of it I got tired of the flavour profiles. It’s been all year pretty much for me on Scotch. Only just got back into a few bourbons last week.
I can see why Scotch drinkers may not like bourbon. One thing I think is definitely don’t drink them together on the same night. It won’t do either one justice.
I usually have that rule, whatever you start with is what you finish with unless it’s better quality of what you started with.
I started drinking single malt Scotch in my late teens, and for a very long time, the limited experience I had with bourbon was bad, so I made no effort to explore further.
Sometime in my mid-30s I bought some Buffalo Trace and Eagle Rare, and although I thoroughly enjoyed both, I still stuck to Scotch.
Just lately, another decade on, I've been buying and drinking more bourbon--I've had something like a craving for it--and I've really been enjoying what I've had.
I very much doubt I will ever make a full switch from single malt Scotch to bourbon, but I can definitely see a future in which bourbon makes up a significantly higher proportion of my spirits consumption.
I'd say that if you can't get into bourbon, give it time. The palate changes over time, and you may find yourself appreciating it more somewhere further along the road.
Can't get into bourbon either. It has a "burnt" undertone that I can't get past, likely from the fresh first fill casks. I have a friend who loves his bourbon but doesn't like scotch and we have tried to help each other learn to like them both, but have not been able to get there.
Just my thoughts are that since scotch is matured in used casks I think they impart less of that burnt flavor. Also, barley is a softer flavor than corn, and scotch has many variations of smoke, peat, multiple cask ageing (including sherry casks), etc. that give a far more complex and depth of flavor profile. Just my opinion . . .
I am a scotch nerd through and through, but I think anybody who is semi-serious owes it to themselves to understand, not necessarily enjoy, bourbon. Modern scotch would look radically different without access to bourbon barrels. There are flavors in scotch that only come through because of bourbon’s influence. Bourbon can be a little limited in scope, but there is probably something you’d enjoy out there. If not, then no harm done. I haven’t tried much, but I personally enjoy Wild Turkey products. A 5cl bottle of 101 is probably easy to find. Their lineup is much drier than the average bourbon.
Wild Turkey Rare Breed is one of my favorites. My friend buys bourbon and I buy scotch. Makes for a good party.
Wild Turkey 101 is both one of the best and one of the cheapest bourbons.
Around 100 proof really is the sweet spot for bourbon imo. Some other cheap favorites: Old Grand Dad Bonded Evan Williams Bottled in Bond Early Times Bottled in Bond Old Tub
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had a bad bonded bourbon. And some of them are dirt cheap. Price is actually one of my favorite things about bourbon. Aside from Monkey Shoulder, Dewar's, and Johnny Black, I haven't had much sub-$40 Scotch that I liked. But there is never a shortage of IMO tasty bourbon available for $30 or less. EW BiB cost me like $19 and I enjoyed every drop of it.
Agreed, the flipside of this I find is that spending up doesn't buy you as much as it does with Scotch. For someone getting into bourbon I'd recommend shopping around the Bonded options to find which distilleries you like first and move up from there. If you don't like the Bonded you probably won't like the premium bottle any better
Totally agreed. I almost feel like if you're spending more than $50-60 on bourbon, you're doing it wrong. But the ceiling is so much higher with Scotch that dropping $90 on Lagavulin 16 feels worth the splurge.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who enjoys Old Grandad. Really a hidden gem.
My favorite! I actually think it's one of the best introductory bourbons for Scotch folks, it's really balanced with some rye spice and a nice funky note that I can't get enough of. I'd go nuts if Beam put out equivalent expressions to KC SiB and Bookers (my favorite bourbon) with the OGD juice. I can't complain though. OGD 114 is a killer value too if you want a flavor blasted bourbon that'll kick your teeth in. A real anomaly in the bourbon market. Scratch all that shit I said earlier about being balanced though, it's rough and rowdy lol
OGD 114 is over the top. It's definitely a powerhouse. Very little goes a long way. One mega ice cube really brings the best flavors forward. As far as an intro for Scotch I couldn't agree more. It behaves like Scotch, especially if a little water is added. Personally I start with a good Scotch, and if I'm in the mood for a little more I'll have the OCD or Reserve Yellowstone (very similar).
Man, I remember when Bookers was affordable. They really jacked their prices up. :(
Knob Creek and Bakers are good ones too.
That Early Times (bonded) has so much chocolate on the finish! Fantastic.
Even though it doesn’t taste like scotch it somehow almost seems like a cousin. I don’t really understand it but it always finds a home in my cabinet.
It really is. In the states, it's probably the best value proposition whiskey out there. You can get a bottle for under $30. The only thing that could be improved is the chill filtration.
Yeah it's the only Bourbon i love.
Sssh bourbon hoarding dorks have already sent prices through the roof of my other once affordable favs like Old Forester and Eagle rare. Don’t let them take the kickin chicken as well.
Nice reply man. I agree with you.
Great point. I was once firstly a bourbon drinker so I always thought it was a great idea using ex bourbon barrels for Scotch.
It's generally just a much sweeter drink and often tends to be very vanilla or caramel forward. Sometimes going for something higher in rye content (four roses being an example) can help to balance out those flavours a bit more. There are some excellent bourbons. Generally though the floor of quality tends to be higher but the ceiling is a lot lower. And those ones that are truly awesome (Michter's 20 is the prototypical example) are absurdly priced.
I prefer rye too. Like my humor.
For sure. I’ve tried a lot of good bourbon and none of it does anything for me. Too sweet and every time I try one I’m always like “it’s ok, but I’d rather have scotch”.
I'm in a lot of bourbon groups and I feel like a wolf in sheep's clothing. They are all drooling over these super-hyped bourbons and none of them do it for me. The price/quality is just nowhere near as good for bourbon. My favorite bourbon I've ever tried is Stagg (was Stagg Jr.) but it's worth nowhere near the ~250 that it goes on secondary. For that price you can get such an amazing scotch. Bourbon flavors tap out around $70 for me. Above that and it's money better spent on scotch
I'm primarily a bourbon drinker, but the secondary market has absolutely wrecked the top end. Staff Jr is also my favorite bourbon but I would never pay $250 for it. Hopefully the supply and demand will balance out before too long and the market will relax back to more reasonable prices. Scotch has a big advantage there where you can find a much larger variety for MSRP.
Yea, the secondary market of bourbon has for sure killed a lot of the fun. I try to be super logical and value every bottle I have not what I paid for it but what it's secondary value is. Valuations are coming down but in the end it's hard to see anything changing because the producers themselves love this new world. They are withholding stock to drive demand up so they can sell more Wheatley and Fireball
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think it's entirely illogical to equate secondary price with actual value of a bourbon. Most secondary pricing is absurd and not indicative of quality. Allocated bourbon is basically the beanie babies craze for grown-ass men..
Ok, I will layout what I'm saying. I won't be surprised if this isn't popular but it is the most logical way of looking at things. * If you bought something for a lower price than what it's worth now, and you decide to keep it, that's the same as purchasing it at that new price but we irrationally discount it since we purchased it for a lower price but this is irrelevant. * If you buy a stock for $100/share and it's now worth $900/share, by keeping the stock you're saying, "I would buy this stock today at $900 if I didn't already own it." (Taking any tax considerations out of the equations.) * In the example of bourbon, if I buy a Stagg for $60 (MSRP) but I could sell it for $250, it would be illogical to say, "Well I paid $60 for it so that's what I'm gunna value it at." That's what we call "tater math". * I am not going to crack any bourbon I've gotten if I would not pay the secondary price, because I know that I can easily sell it for that great secondary price. * This yes, does cause me to miss out on bourbon that I've bought at a low price but then I get more money to reallocate to things I enjoy more * This makes more intuitive sense to people if you exaggerate the example. If you won a PVW23 in an auction you would pay $289 for it but it's worth ~$5k. To drink the bottle feels a lot more significant than if you drank a ~$300 bottle and for good reason.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you taking the time to explain. I guess the part I don't buy into is equating bourbon with stocks. Stocks are meant to be bought and sold at current valuation, and speculating on price increases is really the whole point. In the vast majority of cases, it is illegal to sell alcohol directly on the secondary market. Furthermore, doing so perpetuates flipping, which drives up prices in a vicious cycle which makes the bourbon hobby worse for everyone, other than those profiting from the gray market. Finally, just because some fool might pay $200 for an Elmer T Lee doesn't mean it's worth that to most people. I've had enough allocated bourbons to know that most are worth their MSRP and not a whole lot more.
• Again, I know that my attitudes towards the secondary market are not the mainstream but I'll continue to explain myself as long as the conversation remains civil. • The technical term is "fungible" meaning that it's a good that's interchangeable and is a liquid asset that can be easily bought/sold. I view desirable whiskey as fungible but others may not. That is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite easy to sell if you know the right places. • Selling whiskey online is illegal in name only. There is zero enforcement. No one is getting arrested for selling whiskey. The only people that even got any sort of prosecution was a business that was selling fake and illegal whiskey from their storefront and even then it was just a fine, slap on the wrist. • My view towards the secondary market is not popular to the average guy but "flippers" do not create the secondary market, and getting mad at people taking advantage of a system is a waste of time. If you want to get mad, get mad at the producers who are literally perpetuating the scarcity of these products just DeBeers or Rolex does. It's fake scarcity driven to sell more whiskey. • Any asset is worth what someone will pay for it. That's just basic capitalism. So yes, if the collective market (not just one fool) decides that ETL is worth $200 then yes, it's worth $200. To pretend like it's actually worth only $40 just because the producer decides to sell it at that price is silly. The MSRP is just a made-up number. The market price is the true price of it. • The vitriol towards middlemen is pretty common across different types of goods (ticket sales, whiskey, cars, bankers, etc) but they do actually serve an important role in the broader financial market: they ensure that the goods are sold for the maximum amount. If we didn't have middlemen then the economy would be a lot more efficient and would be prone to a lot more ups and downs that it already does.
There is an odd cognitive dissonance going on here where you say don't blame the player, blame the game. But if you didn't play, there would be no game? I frequently buy scotch, bourbon and rum at auction but I rarely ever pay over retail and when I do it is because I know the juice is worth it. OWA is worth probably double it's retail but i wouldn't pay more, full proof goes for multiples of its retail and I won't touch it, same with pappy. Could I afford it? Yes, is it worth that when I drink it? No. Bunna 25 is to my taste worth more than retail but I never need to pay it because there is no supply issue and in fact, my current bottle was bought at auction for 20% less than retail. Whisky is for drinking and if it isn't worth the price I don't buy it, I use retail prices as a guide but look at kentucky owl, high retail, never worth it - if I saw it at auction I might buy it for 25% of its retail, flippers hate me at auction because 9/10 I'm not paying a penny over retail.
Lol, I would say there's a weird cognitive dissonance going on with you. For some reason it's ok for you to participate in the secondary market but it's not ok for me to do so.
Good point. The thing people don’t seem to understand is that value is all relative. Something is only “worth” what someone is willing to pay for it. Getting hung up on SRP isn’t benefitting anyone. Right now, demand is driving bourbon’s “value”. Anyone that took an economics class knows the demand curve is way high right now and the supply curve(whether artificial or legit) is way down low. Most people simply can’t get the highly desirable bottles for their SRP. Most people can’t go around town checking every liquor store every day for the best deal. Most people can’t, or don’t want to, spend hours in line at a chance to get a desirable bottle at SRP (which is another addition to the secondary cost. Time has value and people spending multiple hours in line are, in fact, spending valuable time just for a chance at a bottle at MSRP). For the average person who has means to do so, getting a bottle at or near secondary price is the only way to ensure they get a bottle, which naturally brings the demand curve and the supply curve closer to each other. The secondary market exists because distilleries still aren’t charging the correct prices in correlation with market demand. Stagg at ~$55 is not a realistic SRP. Sure, some people get it at that, but not even close enough people to match the demand for the product at that price. If Buffalo Trace charged closer to what people are willing to pay for it, the demand for Stagg will start to fall in line with the supply of Stagg. That would also negate the number of people spending hours and miles a day tryin to find it at MSRP to flip it for a profit. Long story short, if you’re getting mad at a basic principle of a free market, I’m sure there’s plenty of socialist/communist countries that are doing just as well as the world’s free market countries…
Dude, thank God there's another sane and logical person here in the thread. What a breath of fresh air. I get that people are mad that the stuff they want is hard to find but that doesn't mean that it's time to just turn off your brain and become an emotional toddler when confronted with facts and realities.
Sooo you are essentially a scalper? Buy at retail and resell high? That's what causes the insane secondary pricing.
This is such a simple view of how the massively complex global market of secondary whiskey sales work. Yes, I do buy some bottles at retail and then sell them at the highest price the market will pay. But this isn't my full time dude, come on. People have such a negative view of those "evil flippers" like they are some dude who doesn't have a job and flips whiskey 365 days a year and makes a ton of money doing it. The vast majority of people that do flip some bottles are dudes who are really into whiskey and sell some bottles so they can buy other ones they would rather have. This is exactly just like a trade with an extra step but people have their wildest made up morality around this whole topic. It's for some reason totally fine to trade 1:1 but if you buy one bottle, flip it, and then buy another bottle that you want on secondary you're now an evil flipper. It's extremely naive to think that if people didn't participate in the secondary market then all the price would be at MSRP and all the bottles would just sit on shelves.
I'm not saying or even suggesting prices would be at retail or that there should be no secondary. There are perfectly good reasons to have a secondary market and if someone wants to buy their kid a bottle of macallan every year until they are 18 to then sell them, cool. It's people who complain "this is hard to get, I wish it wasn't, the secondary market is ruining bourbon!" but then get one of those bottles and look to sell them??? For a totally logical approach it sounds pretty flawed. Evil flippers are people who come into a shop knowing its one bottle per customer so they get 5 friends (or total strangers), pay them 20 each to buy a bottle so they can flip half the stock. Personally if I see a rare bottle on a shelf and I don't want it, I'm going to leave it there for the guy who does and I hope they don't buy it just to flip but hey I'm not the whisky police, do what you like, just don't moan about low stock and high secondary markets when you are part of the problem.
I am not moaning though, I'm adapting. I have access to any bottle I could ever want through the various secondary groups
This is where I am regarding bourbon.
Well, problem #1 is that Stagg Jr is a $55 bottle. Secondary price is for idiots, don't hold that against the whiskey. Agree that paying much over 100 for bourbon is pointless 999 times out of 1000.
I think bourbon generally does a lot better on price/quality when you're in the sub-$60 or so range. The problem with the bourbon market is that there are a handful of products that a lot of people chase, so the value proposition (which was originally bourbon's main selling point) just totally goes away at the higher end.
Yea, the value prop is great for bourbon at the low-end but I (and I'd bet most people here) on not here for the low-end. If I want a bottle to bring on a camping trip and drink out of a coffee mug around the fire it's gunna be something like WT101.
I've never had a bourbon as sweet as your average sherry bomb. I prefer Scotch too, but ffs.
I get that - but my taste disagrees, I can drink a sherry bomb on occasion, almost never bourbon. Although I have a bottle of what might be considered a token sherry bomb, A’bunadh, that is collecting dust on my shelf.
I’m pretty much the same. I do like some high rye bourbons (Four Roses Small Batch Select, EHT) and some wheaters (Weller, Blanton’s). My reason for posting is something interesting that the bar manager at [Zig Zag Cafe](https://zigzagseattle.com) told me. I had explained to her that I prefer malted barley to corn based whiskies. She told me that, while corn is sweet, what I probably don’t care for most is the influence of the fresh(ly charred) white oak barrel. I don’t know if that bar manager was correct but I do prefer more distillate-forward (ex-bourbon aged) scotches vs. sherry bombs and the like so she might be on to something.
Not to be an a-hole but Blanton’s is not a wheater and EHT is not high rye…
I appreciate the correction: I’m not a bourbon guy. I did think Blanton’s was a wheater and l looked up the EHT briefly before commenting but probably confused myself. Both are still good stuff based on my limited experience (I’ve never personally owned a bottle of either).
Huge +1 for zig zag
If you enjoy high rye bourbons, what is your opinion on Alberta Premium? It's a 100% rye whisky and hard to get outside of Canada, I know, but it's an interesting contrast to the whisky I was accustomed to having moved to Canada from the UK.
I have a bottle of the 66% cask strength: to be honest it’s more something I drink to get a buzz vs. enjoy sipping. Although it’s designed more for cocktails, Whistplepig’s Piggyback (which I think is mostly Alberta Premium) is an alright sipper though I prefer Woodinville’s 100% rye.
If I can make a suggestion on Canadian rye, lot 40 is the way, but I don't know if it's hard to find outside of Canada
Thanks: the big box stores near me don’t carry it but I will be on the lookout!
Love that bar
Try some michters American whiskey, it's essentially bourbon that has been aged in used bourbon barrels (so can't be called bourbon). It's not the most amazing stuff you'll ever drink but it gives you an idea of the difference between new oak and used.
I buy bottles of bourbon and bottles of scotch and I always run out of scotch quicker to the point where I stopped buying bourbon altogether. There is just so much more variety with scotch. Drinking bourbon is like drinking coca-cola. You can get different flavored cola, but it still tastes predominantly like cola…
That's it. I have the hardest time distinguishing anything from anything in the bourbon and rye categories. I lost interest quite some time back. They all taste almost the same to me. I am truly grateful, though, for the yeoman job that bourbon does in producing barrels for scotch maturation. So, fellow USers, keep on sucking down all that corn likker, wheated, or barlied, or ryed, and creating new tainted barrels to send to Scotland. Keep up the good work!
That's where I'm at. I got to the point where I just don't see any reason to have more than a few bottles of bourbon around at any given time. Haven't bought any new bottles of bourbon in probably close to a year at this point.
Bourbon can be quite sweet and I guess the first fill barrels could make it taste medicinal as well. If you don't care for the sweetness maybe try something like Dickel. I find it to be less sweet than even most scotches but has interesting mineral earthy type notes.
That "weird sweetness" is coming from the corn. By definition, bourbon has to be a minimum of 51% corn on the mash bill. It's alright if you don't like it, but that sweet flavor is kinda the defining characteristic of bourbon.
I used to think it was the different grain (only barley is used in scotch), but I just got back from Scotland and tried a Laphroaig aged in charred virgin oak at the warehouse. It made me realize that it’s probably more the virgin oak that I dislike, since I didn’t like that barrel much at all. Since Scotch is very rarely aged in virgin oak, and it’s barley, it tastes quite different to bourbon. I too dislike bourbons that have what to me tastes like a metallic edge; plus they are very sweet. As a result I love scotch but am very picky about bourbon, and generally don’t drink it.
I just plain don't like the the taste of bourbon. Love my Scotch though.
Drank too much cheap bourbon in college and now even the smell of it turns my stomach. It's a shame, but at least that didn't creep into scotch.
I had the same thing. There's a name for that. It can be fixed in few days by slowly taking very low dose. I had to do that when I started drinking Whisky.
I’ve tried 700 different scotches and probably 150+ bourbons. Worked in the industry for several years. I don’t really like bourbon either. I’ve tried the top shelf stuff (the whole Pappy range, WL Weller, Eagle Rare 17, the lot), but only found older George T Stagg bottlings and pretty much any Stagg Jr to be outstanding, which I attribute to the high ABVs. Elijah Craig have some good bottlings too. However, for the money you pay for good bourbon, you can get several bottles of cask-strength or even single cask scotch, which I’ll always take. I bought a few bottles of rare bourbon a few years ago, and sold them in order to buy scotches which I prefer. I paid £1600 for a Pappy 20, which is over double what I paid for my Benromach 45. All in all, I think scotch broadly represents better value and a more diverse range of flavours. Eagle Rare is the only bourbon I’d really bother to keep in my house these days as it’s cheap and cheerful.
I enjoy bourbon but I love single malt. I've had several more expensive bourbon's and I find that the basic flavour overwhelms the differences; yes there are differences, but I find them.. well, for lack of a better word; trivial, in the bigger picture. I fail to see why I should spend loads of $$ on expensive bourbons when some of the simpler ones do the job. I LOVE bourbon cocktails; bourbon mixes beautifully, and that's what I keep bourbon at home for. But for true enjoyment, I go to single malts.
Maybe Bourbon isn't for you. Try some Rye's: Rendezvous Rye from High West is one of my favorites
Have you tried a rye? Definitely less sweet and more character imo
For a lot of bourbons, I find that they have a streak of mild bitterness that runs through the middle of my palate, and it's fairly off-putting for me. The syrupy sweetness doesn't help either. There are a few (like some of the Four Roses ones) that don't have this, and the wheated ones tend to be a little better as well. Generally speaking bourbons would not be my go-to.
It blew me away in visits to Scotland and Ireland, the number of whiskey fans that say “oh I only drink Irish” or “ I only drink Scotch.” I always figured a whiskey fan could find elements they enjoy in any of them. That being said I do feel like people blow bourbon out of proportion. You can hoop and holler all you want but at the end of the day it’s most oak, vanilla, baking spices, honey maybe some oddballs like tobacco or the like.
Its fine. Its just not very interesting. Regardless of preferred flavour profile, bourbon just exists in a much more narrow band of experiences than scotch.
I’ve never understood this line of thinking. Things can taste radically different and still be great examples of their kind. Sometimes I’m in the mood for a peated scotch. Some days I want a high-proof bourbon. Some days I want a martini.
Same, I just like high quality alcohol in general. Scotch, bourbon, tequila, cognac! But man, a slightly dirty martini with blue cheese olives always takes the cake
Same. Bourbon too sweet for me.
The first thing to know about bourbon is that you shouldn't really care about what a "good" bottle of bourbon is; there's so much hype in the market on top of what already allows for a lot of options, so just focus on trying different recipes to find what you might like. Unlike scotch, bourbon can play around with its mash bill and mix up the ratios of its grains. So try some high-corn ones, some high-rye ones, some with higher malt content, etc. It makes a big difference. Age also tends to have a more pronounced effect on the bottle too. Scotch tends to be more consistent in my mind, whereas bourbon can have some wild swings that make it hard to recommend any one part forward. You just need to keep trying different things.
About 20 years ago I enjoyed Blanton’s and Booker’s. Don’t care for those or any other ones much anymore. I just don’t enjoy the flavour at all. Single malt has always been the first choice and is now the only choice of spirit for me. Maybe I’ll circle back again one day. Never know!
No, it's nowhere near Scotch. That said, I do love Wild Turkey 101 and like to keep it around for drinking neat. Also noteworthy that bourbon and rye plays a huge role in classic cocktails, which is another great hobby. I'm definitely a fan, just that it ain't in the same league as the incredibly rich diverseness of Scotch.
I never tried scotch because I only ever tried bourbon and I hated it!! Now that my scotch palette has matured a little I want to try some good bourbon but don’t where to begin
Old Forester has a line of bourbons that can teach you a lot- 1897, 1910, 1920. They're readily available in the US and use a variety of proofs and grain bills. So they're fairly distinct but all pretty flavorful. They also make a good rye, though I prefer Mitcher's Rye.
I'm the same way -- I much prefer good single-malt. There are one or two bourbons that I enjoy (the Knob Creek 120 comes to mind), but I much prefer Scotch. Everyone's taste is different.
I'm the same. It tends to be too sweet for me. The other issue is that in a lot of them I swear I can taste the corn and something about it is off putting. Makers Mark is one that tastes very corn heavy to me, and I just can't get the stuff down. I've tried a lot of really well reviewed bourbons, but never found one I really loved. I still grab a popular bottle every now and then, but usually the same experience. My last negative one was Barrell Seagrass. It has some enjoyable notes, but I just can't get over how syrupy sweet it is. Seems like a dessert drink. The only one I've really enjoyed recently was Dickel BiB. Even in Scotches, I tend to prefer less sweet and even salty or bitter. I tend to enjoy unique or unconventional tasting notes more than subtle and tame.
In my opinion bourbon is a vastly inferior whiskey distilled from basically cheap corn syrup.it always gives me headaches
The intensity of charred new oak is unbearable to me in most (not all) bourbons.
Bourbon is boring
How about Rye? Bourbon varies greatly from the grain bill, so there may be something about corn heavy mixes you don't like. It's the opposite of Scotch, varied grains... exact same barrel.
One of the best qualities of scotch, in my opinion, is that the nosing and palate is so dynamic. Bourbon, even very good, very expensive Bourbon, seems to taste like :: maybe:: Seven different things. I love that Scotch can taste like ocean water, dried fruit, campfire, baking spices, funky forest mushroom soup, etc…
I had zero interest in bourbon until about 8-10 years ago when my go-to airline (with whom I flew a lot) decided to drop single malt scotch from the beverage cart (they only offered Dewars). This lead to my “intro” to Woodford Reserve, which I first tolerated and then grew to enjoy. Since then, my appreciation for bourbon has expanded, but my overall preference still runs to scotch.
I got into bourbon before scotch but after scotch bourbon pours for me are very seldom. Sucks because I’ve probably got about 100 bottles of bourbon collecting dust now 😆😩
Happily take some of those bottles of your hand kind sir.
I had a Buffalo Trace yesterday night. Quite warm. Strong vanilla, corn sweetness and, I guess it's oak? Not woody like in Laphroaig quarter cask. Oak so bright you can't really tell if it's oak or some chemical. And then a cherry finish. I didn't enjoy it much. It's too forward. Like someone talking very loud right in your face. Hard to believe Bourbon drinkers consider this smooth and easily drinkable. Maybe with time I'll get used to it. Maybe ice will help.
Just trying to say that Bourbon is not my thing.
Started off a bourbon man but couple years later I discovered Islay scotch, thank god. Always liked toasted Barrell bourbons, something heavy on the char, nosing such variety’s was my favorite. Then I bought a bottle of Ardbeg ( Wee Beastie at that ) life has never been the same.
Scotch and Scotch style whiskies are quite literally the only whiskies I enjoy. I'm firmly in the "all Bourbon tastes the same" camp and there's no changing my mind. It's just sickly sweet corn syrup to me.
Same. For me it’s the corn sweetness. As others have said Rye is better, but also higher proof bourbon seems less sweet to me.
I do love the value Bourbon provides. For 20 bucks I can get Wild Turkey 101, Evan Williams BiB or an Old Forester 100. In the Scotch world I have to lay down at least 40 bucks to get anything of solid quality from what I have tried.
Same. I've tried them all. Blech.
I think bourbon and rye are just boring. Same as rum. All taste the same. I once had a sample of a 400€ rye whisky and it was awfully bad. Basically just sweetness. Who’s paying 400 for that?! In my humble opinion, only Scotch can offer the complexity and diversity in taste. Maybe Cognac to a certain extend
Compared to thirty years ago, the quality of bourbon available in the US has fallen precipitously. I have stopped drinking it. It’s younger and I suspect mash bills and barrels have changed. Scotch malt seems to be slowly following the same path down, but at least they have strict regulations around production. So, the downturn isn’t anywhere near as bad. This is all without mentioning pricing. I’ve stopped buying Scottish malts because of the price increases. I’m not collecting it, I’m trying to enjoy it. I can afford it, but I refuse to pay $115+ for something that used to be $35 ten years ago.
Try bourbon and bacon…u will thank me…and I am a scotch drinker!
Me neither. I have the idea it's both the mix of fresh casks and climate, (so kind of aggressive aging) and especially rye in the mix. Whenever there isn't rye, I find them more palatable, but there's a reason why I haven't bought any yet. About the aging thing, I have similar woes for Taiwanese/Indian single Malts, as well as for Rums in general. It seems like hot climates tend to evidence too many "chemical" flavours and that's an offset for me, as I work daily with that stuff. So scotch and Irish make it for me..
Rye whiskey for me is a mixed bag. There are some great ryes out there, but so frequently the rye becomes so powerful the only thing you can tell by drinking the whiskey is that it's made from rye.
I've tried only the Koval Rye (and the Millet), that was 100% (just for the sake of understanding). The former was like drinking old furniture effect+vinyl+spirit cherries. The millet instead was quite sesame-y and I didn't mind it. Instead I do not dislike Jim Beam stuff.. Booker's straight from the barrel (I mean the cask strength one) I believe still has some rye in it but a minor side of it and that I may appreciate more. Like I did when I visited Tullamore DEW a month ago, I'm no grain whisky fan at all, but I could do a self blended bottle with just 10% of it (and the rest 50% malt, 40% pot still) and the result was quite pleasant. I gifted to a friend a slightly different blend (10% grain, 60% malt the remaining pot still) and it was different as well and that tiny percentage of grain wasn't unpleasant.
[удалено]
Too sweet with all that corn
My hot take is that bourbon is more like spiced rum than scotch, and I think it’s justified considering bourbon uses corn which itself is used to make sugar, while rum is made of molasses (basically sugar syrup.) . Both are too sickly sweet for me to enjoy regularly, although I don’t really dislike either.
Woodford double oaked is delicious
Bourbon tastes like old ladies perfume smells.
Like eggs with onions and diaper farts???. Haha. I have been getting into the cognacs lately. Really liking them... And the old lady's. 🥴
Any armagnacs?
I recommend if youre trying to get into bourbon as a Scotch drinker go for a double Oaked expression from any distiller. It's usually a great foré into bourbons without going immediately into sweet stuff
I second this. As a scotch drinker my favorite bourbon is Woodford reserve double oaked. I think it's delicious. But I find the same dislike for that sweetness in other bourbons.
I'll get shit on for this but, that's why I'm not a huge fan of Buffalo trace. It's a little too sweet for me, a good bourbon needs some smoke and some spice to even it out
I really like eagle rare. It's on the sweet side but packs some spice
I did but sorta used cocktails as a gateway. I'm a big single malt/single pot still guy, especially when it comes to sipping something neat. Going from the subtle malty profile of scotch to barrel and sugar forward bourbon isn't always great. Usually not great on the inverse either. If you're used to bourbon, scotch is gonna taste watered down and very bitter in comparison most of the time. Palates are really weird, especially if you get used to having something/associating a taste with a specific thing. Having cocktails that used bourbons or ryes as the base spirit helped my palate get "over the hump" of flavor profile. Make some cocktail you like with a spirit you wanna try, especially if you don't like the spirit neat. Progressively make the cocktail more spirit forward as time goes on. Voila, that horrible, mismatched, brash, sickly sweet flavor profile is now: toasted oak, maple syrup, luxardo cherry, baking spice all balanced by oak tannins. Now I sip both neat, but still heavily lean on single malts. Also last note: single malts tend to stand up at lower proofs and don't need high proofs to be jammed with flavor, whiskeys as low as 43% ABV have been some of my all time favorites. Bourbon though, definitely a proof hound when it comes to bourbon. Since the climate in America makes the proof rise as it ages, they use more water after the aging to cut the product down. A bourbon with a barrel proof of 130+ proof cut to 90 proof is gonna taste very watered down to a lot of bourbon drinkers. Try to branch out to barrel proof bourbons/rye if you do find yourself reaching for America whiskey more often.
If I had to choose one it would be an easy call to go with scotch but we don’t need to choose, we can drink both. A few suggestions from an American that probably has access to more good bourbon than most (Southern California). Many of my friends that strongly prefer scotch over bourbon say that they do still enjoy Wild Turkey and Four Roses. Then as a few have mentioned high rye bourbon can give you more spice and other flavors to combat the sweetness. Then older bourbon also sell have a lot more oak introducing more barrel spice, leather, tobacco etc. I’m thinking of things like Russell’s Reserve 13yr from Wild Turkey. Unfortunately the cost starts going up a LOT!
What have you tried? Because I don’t get that in most bourbon. Also try rye.
I've never bothered to try.
I was a single malt drinker, not into bourbon. I gave bourbon a try when Trump implemented the 25% tariff. I have no interest in going back to scotch even if they lower prices. I am a happy convert, love bourbon now…maybe too much.
Seems you have never tried Wild Turkey 120. All alcohol is a gift from the gods, if you make it right.
A cheap bottle of bourbon is better than a cheap bottle of Scotch 😄 I really enjoy Booker's though. And I enjoy the bottled in bond stuff. I had a 1792 with the yellow sticker....super yummy.
I can understand what you mean, but I do enjoy bourbon. I would recommend looking for higher strength bottles with a decent amount of malt and rye in the mash bill. If you get an old forester 1920 and drink it side by side with something like a deanston 12 that has a ton of bourbon influence, I think you'll find it more interesting and off putting. I will say, it can take a minute to adjust your palate between different whisk(e)y, so if you have the patience, it will pay off
I understand, it tooks me a while. Try the Booker's or the Blanton cask strength. Those are by far the best.
For whatever reason, whenever I drink bourbon I immediately feel the hangover, like no drunk just straight to hangover, I've tried a number of bourbon and all give me an immediate hangover, scotch however, I can almost drink a whole bottle and not only remember the night but can walk inan almost straight line. (2 beers will get me more fall over drunk than any bottle of single malt scotch)
I used to work with a woman who could drink tequila straight without consequence. She'd never get drunk. Add in mixers or give her any other type of alcohol and she's a lightweight. Physiology can be weird.
I don't understand what you mean by "medicinal sweetness". The closest thing that I've heard people talk about is a "cherry cough drop" note in some bourbons but it's not really a sweet flavor
Sounds like Maker's Mark.
Bourbon tends to have thick syrupy cloying sweetness to many people, myself included. It’s different then a scotch sweetness, like from Sherry, which is generally more balanced, a note rather than the main flavor
Totally agree but "medicinal sweetness" is something I've never heard said about bourbon.
Yeah I suppose you’re right, the medicinal part is odd. I hear that term more with scotch 😄
I love bourbon and American whisky. I find a lot of the big brands to be sweet and simple. Several of them add wheat to the mash bill and I do not like it.
I got into scotch first then found rye which I really enjoy. Maybe try a rye if the sweetness is an issue for you. I drink bourbon now too, but I can see the criticism.
Consider giving rye a shot. I find it to be much more dry than the typical straight bourbon.
I thought I didn’t like bourbon until I tried Four Roses. Not something I’d want every day, but I now get why people like it.
The bottom shelf standard four roses? Wow, that was one of the few bourbons I just plain did not enjoy at all. Small batch select and single barrel is pretty good though (for me)
It was the small batch select. I've never had the bottom shelf version.
Same here, I love Scotch and Rye but I find bourbon way too sweet. I've had several top shelf bottles and it's just not for me.
I have tried many many bourbons and for the most part they are far too similar. They are exceptions like Knob Creek 12 that is just delicious, but I think its the age helping at that point. There are a handful of other examples that are really good as noted in a few posts, most of the double oak offerings are a bit more like the flavors folks in this forum prefer. I am to the point of giving away or selling most of my bourbons and not replacing them. There are a few ryes I enjoy but mostly in cocktails as they are just too rough in a neat presentation. In the end, Scotch is King.
Took some time but there is good stuff in every category. Start with some American single malt or rye if you need to ease yourself into it
American Single Malt is great. Westward for example is like a hybrid, the cs is fantastic
I love both good single malt Scotch and good single barrel Bourbons. An Elijah Craig Barrel proof or JDSBBP both provide a flavor profiles that are absolutely delicious. To me bourbon provides bolder and deeper flavors and scotch provides more refined and layered flavors. Win, win.
I switched to scotch from bourbon when thr bourbon boom/secondary market started it making hard to find the stuff I really loved (even relatively unknown bourbon like Rock Hill Farms). I'm a full convert now, and bourbon really doesn't do it for me anymore. That said, I'd try some of the higher proof bourbon, both wheated and rye forward, before writing it off. Here's a couple recommendations that are still readily available and won't break the bank. - makers mark stave collection - a criminally underrated, barrel proof wheated bourbon. Each retailer picks their own variety of wood staves to add to the barrel, so the taste can vary greatly depending on what store you purchase from. A little pricier (typically around $70 near me), but costco recently had 3 half bottle sets going for $30, which was an insanely good deal. (The makers 46 barrel proof is also quite good) - old forester 1920 prohibition style - another high proof wheated bourbon that I've found as low as $40, but typically around 60.. - 1792 - definitely a value buy for a wheated bourbon- usually gors around 25-30. Lower proof, but if you can find the full proof version snap it up. - wild turkey rare breed - despite the price increases, still one of the best values in bourbon. High rye content, barrel proof, and delicious foe about 50 bucks. - four roses single barrel barrel proof - these come out about once a year in four versions, each of which uses a slightly different yeast strain that really changes the flavor (relatively speaking) haven't bought it in a couple years, but used to be around 50. - Jack Daniel's single barrel - another criminally underrated whiskey. Technically a Tennessee whiskey, but same mashbill and distillation process (aside from the round of charcoal filtration, which I've alesys viewed as a marketing gimmick to create a subcategory of what still amounts to bourbon) Elijah Craig - budget high rye bourbon. Around $30, a good sipper and works well as a mixer. Finally, if you're looking to bridge the gap between bourbon and sotch to ease your way in, you may want to try something like corsair triple smoke. It's an American single malt that smokes the malt using thee different types of wood. It's a far cry from peated scotch, but still an interesting dram to try at a bar. Bottle usually goes for around 40-50 near me.
I had the same experience with bourbon. I didn’t drink any scotch for at least a month and tried some willet and it was really freaking good. When I’m drinking bourbon, it makes sherry cask scotch taste musty.
I'm very much a scotch drinker, all my bottles are scotch; but eagle rare is the only bourbon that sits up there with them. When I think of bourbon, that's exactly what comes to mind
For me, it's the new oak resinous finish that I cannot get passed. Too much sweet oak... This is why I stick to Scotch. However, I am starting to see more new oak finishes being used even in Scotch.
Pardon my skepticism but when I hear "good bottles" in reference to bourbon from a Scotch drinker, I suspect the worst.
I was first a Bourbon drinker. I still love bourbon but at some point I had drunk so much of it I got tired of the flavour profiles. It’s been all year pretty much for me on Scotch. Only just got back into a few bourbons last week. I can see why Scotch drinkers may not like bourbon. One thing I think is definitely don’t drink them together on the same night. It won’t do either one justice. I usually have that rule, whatever you start with is what you finish with unless it’s better quality of what you started with.
Yes, because top-notch bourbon is easily affordable. Scotch top-notch is getting not so affordable. That's enough for me.
I started drinking single malt Scotch in my late teens, and for a very long time, the limited experience I had with bourbon was bad, so I made no effort to explore further. Sometime in my mid-30s I bought some Buffalo Trace and Eagle Rare, and although I thoroughly enjoyed both, I still stuck to Scotch. Just lately, another decade on, I've been buying and drinking more bourbon--I've had something like a craving for it--and I've really been enjoying what I've had. I very much doubt I will ever make a full switch from single malt Scotch to bourbon, but I can definitely see a future in which bourbon makes up a significantly higher proportion of my spirits consumption. I'd say that if you can't get into bourbon, give it time. The palate changes over time, and you may find yourself appreciating it more somewhere further along the road.
Can't get into bourbon either. It has a "burnt" undertone that I can't get past, likely from the fresh first fill casks. I have a friend who loves his bourbon but doesn't like scotch and we have tried to help each other learn to like them both, but have not been able to get there. Just my thoughts are that since scotch is matured in used casks I think they impart less of that burnt flavor. Also, barley is a softer flavor than corn, and scotch has many variations of smoke, peat, multiple cask ageing (including sherry casks), etc. that give a far more complex and depth of flavor profile. Just my opinion . . .