NYT drinks gin

02. May 2007 · 3 comments · Categories: Gin, Linky

An always thoughtful friend pointed me to the New York Times two page article discussing a martini tasting. My love for the topic (gin!) prompts me to post about it here, but do be warned that they only review ten gins and I’d lodge a few disagreements. I keep saying I need to do this more in depth at some point, but now is certainly not the time. Some commentary on their gin reviews:

  • Plymouth – They’re right to love it. It’s a great gin.
  • Junipero – What they call assertive I maintain is downright undignified. I have a bottle, and have tried it a few times, and it’s just too aggressive for my tastes.
  • Old Raj – Huzzah! Someone else in the world has tried this stuff! It’s a strange gin, and you should totally try it out in a bar. But it’s also the most expensive gin I’ve ever seen, and having bought a bottle back in the days of full employment, it’s tough to recommend someone else doing so unless you’re also a collector of such things.
  • Hendricks – It’s a fun gin and it comes in a delightful bottle. I’m a sucker for packaging. Not my favorite but close to it and there are lots of my lovely friends who adore the stuff. It is a little different, but in this case different is good.
  • Bombay Sapphire – I like their review on this. Sapphire tends to be a little harsh for my tastes these days, but it’s ubiquitous and not bad.
  • Quintessential – Ugh. Enjoy it in a gin and Fresca but it’s really a terrible base for a martini.
  • Martin Millers – I always think of this gin as a little bubbly, but I recall enjoying it. It was the favorite of one of my friends, and I think he was on to something. It’s one I’m looking forward to returning to at some point, and if you’re touring gins I’d say it’s worth a stop.

    • Keep in mind that my “go to” gins are Magellan and Van Gogh, both of which are somewhat soft and floral. As such, my tastes are a bit different than the NYT folks and probably my dear readers. Hrm, perhaps I need to host another Tour of Gin soon!

Happy Birthday To Me

02. December 2006 · 3 comments · Categories: Me, Me, Me, Me, Reviews

A package arrived yesterday with the following label. I was pretty sure what it was, and anything with that text is going to be good:

Alcohol Delivery Label

I had recently ordered a bottle of some of the finest bourbon around: George T. Stagg. It only comes out once (sometimes twice) a year, and my bottle from fall 2004 was almost empty. Once I heard that the 2006 bottling was released (a bit over a month ago), I started hunting around for a bottle. It took a while. Southern California may know a lot about wine, but people here don’t know the first thing about spirits (tequila aside). I keep hoping I’m going to find some store or club or something where civilized folk can pick up a drink, but so far no luck. I struck out totally in San Diego, but ended up finding a place in LA that carried the Stagg. Hi-Time Wine, of course a wine shop, also happens to have an interesting selection of spirits. They carried some of the Stagg, and as a result I opened the box yesterday to see a magnificent sight. George T. Stagg (bottle)

Now, the George T. Stagg is an amazing bourbon for a lot of reasons, and really should be tried if you’re a bourbon fan. I’m no expert, but a few highlights:

  • It’s unfiltered. This means that it can develop a cloudy haze, especially in colder temperatures or when water is added. As a result a lot of whiskey manufacturers have cold filtered for years under the belief that people will much prefer a perfectly clear drink. Unfortunately, this filtration process removes a lot of the particulates which impart a much different flavor to the alcohol. I tend to think the unfiltered whiskeys have a bit more body, a sensation which is hard to describe but nice to drink.
  • It’s cask strength. This means it’s not watered down, or at least less watered down, from the strength it is when it comes out of the cask. Most whiskeys have water added to them, bringing the alcohol content down to closer to 40%. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it tends to open the alcohol up and reduce some of the burn. My previous bottle was 65.45% alcohol, which is crazy. This year’s bottling is an even stronger 70.3%. That is a lot of alcohol.

    George T. Stagg (label)

  • Drinking George T. Stagg isn’t just drinking another bourbon. One of my friends described drinking the Stagg as liquid smoke. Christy’s description was, “it’s like a party in my mouth and they just won’t go home!” Drinking the Stagg is an intense, wonderful experience. It tingles up front, and then the heat roars up through your mouth, down your throat and nestles warmly in your stomach.

Since I have a review section, I’ll throw a rating in so it qualifies. The 2004 edition is one of my favorite bourbons, although you do have to be in the mood. If you’re looking for other great bourbons with more reasonable alcohol content you might want to look at Five Roses or Elijah Craig 18 year.

Rating: *****

(I use the spelling “whiskey” throughout this post, which is technically correct since American and Irish whiskeys are spelled this way. Scottish (so tasty), Japanese and Canadian whiskies are spelled “whisky.” I tend to just type “whiskey”, so in this case I lucked out and got it right)

Bombay Sapphire

13. March 2005 · Comments Off on Bombay Sapphire · Categories: Gin

Bombay Sapphire is everywhere. This is the “Gateway Gin”; the first good gin that most people try. This gin is what started my love of the stuff, years ago in college. The magnificent blue bottle helps in presentation, but the gin itself is clear. Sapphire is very aromatic, which makes a fun martini but these days I find too harsh for my preferences.

Bombay Sapphire

This is an excellent introductory gin purely because it is so strong as to easily differentiate itself from gins like Beefeater. I keep a bottle around but use it almost exclusively for mixing (it makes a delightful Negroni).

Bombay Sapphire is 94 proof.

Rating: **