If you’re going to taste a couple of beers, and then taste those same beers after they’ve been aged in Maker’s Mark bourbon barrels, it makes a little sense to, y’know… maybe see what the interim step tastes like too, because hey – life is short and then the space monsters get you.
Here’s something interesting: almost every bourbon I’ve tried has been a “whiskey”. Scotch is “whisky”. Irish is “whiskey”. Canadian and Japanese are “whisky”. But this bourbon is a “whisky”? A bit of scratching around suggests that it’s either 1) a nod to the Scots ancestry of the distiller, 2) the ATF in the US prefers “whisky” but allows “whiskey” by tradition, so they’re just following the law or 3) they’re just being fancy.
This bourbon seems to carry the usual back story – clear water, ingredients, science but kind of art, etc. They seem to dismiss the idea of a set aging period for their make, saying “five years, seven years or eight years, they’re all just numbers to us”. I guess that’s one approach. This is another brand website that mentions mixing, which usually means they’re not trying too hard. They’ve also apparently had to resort to watering down their product from 45% to 42% in order to meet demand.
Note: Maker’s Mark meets neither of my superficial requirements for a good bourbon: cork and age. But, again, space monsters. And they have a “46” line that is “aged longer” that I’ll try if I see it on sale.
Here’s what we thought:
paint thinner, gasoline, industrial chemicals, varnish, toffee, oak, caramel
very toffee, oak. lots of burn. sweet & salty on tongue
maple syrup, sweeter, smooth, more balanced
Try it? No. Buy it? On sale for mix, I guess.