Brian Haara
Bourbon. Law. Author.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Corner Creek Reserve
Bourbon: Corner Creek Reserve Bourbon Whiskey. 88 Proof; NAS.
Distillery: Who knows? The label states “Corner Creek Distilling Co.,” but that’s just one of the many assumed names of Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, Ltd. Worse, this assumed name has been inactive since 2003. Does KBD have so many assumed names that it can’t keep track of them and renew the certificates as needed?
Cost: $25.99
Color:
Light amber.
Nose:
Not complex. Soft nut and vanilla flavors. It lost any discernable nose with a splash of water.
Taste:
No heat or bite, which I missed. Smooth and sweet, and no complexity. The lower proof was noticeable. Definitely drink Corner Creek neat; it’s already watered-down enough.
Finish:
A dry finish that was only slightly warm and pretty short. Oak flavors dominated, with a little medicinal flavors at the very end.
Rating:
While bourbon hunting I struck up a conversation with the owner of a small liquor store in LaGrange, Kentucky. Of course he didn’t have what I was looking for, but he went on and on about Corner Creek. He has family in from Pennsylvania every Thanksgiving and they make special requests for him to be sure to have Corner Creek. Then he told me a story about how Corner Creek was started by guys from the wine business who are now distilling in Bardstown. I hoped that he was just misinformed instead of lying to me, because I knew that Corner Creek was part of the KBD portfolio.
Maybe he was just relying on the label, which claims Corner Creek is produced “in the tradition of the great wine importers,” or maybe it was the wine-styled bottle (with the Bob Ross landscape art). Or maybe it was just a sales pitch. But he was extremely friendly so I didn’t challenge him. Not only that, I decided to buy a bottle.
My final recommendation is that Corner Creek is fine, but it’s under-powered and it left me wishing for more complexity and bite. Additionally, there are so many other options in this crowded price range (or lower) that you should try first, like Four Roses “Yellow Label” and Small Batch, Elijah Craig 12, anything in the Weller lineup, Maker’s Mark or Bulleit. As a bonus, we know where each of those are distilled and aged (even Bulleit, at least for the time being). I would prefer all of these over Corner Creek.
Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale: 2.5
The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon. Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow. I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Eagle Rare vs. Bulleit vs. Michter’s: “The 10-Year Challenge”
For this Bourbon Review, I wanted to find three bourbons aged exactly the same number of years, all with rye as the secondary grain, and all with similar Proof, but priced very differently. Three bourbons meeting those criteria are Eagle Rare Single Barrel 10-Year, Bulleit Bourbon 10-Year Small Batch and Michter’s Single Barrel 10-Year, so “The 10-Year Challenge” was born. Would the hard-to-find, expensive bourbon come out on top? Or would the readily-available $30 bottle teach us all a valuable lesson?
Bourbons in order of blind tasting:
· Eagle Rare Single Barrel 10-Year (90 proof; $29.99);
· Bulleit Bourbon 10-Year Small Batch (91.2 proof; $39.99);
· Michter’s Single Barrel 10-Year (94.4 proof; $85.99).
1st Glass (Eagle Rare):
The first glass was a favorite of many of our tasters right away. The nose was light and not particularly complex, but pleasant. Common tasting notes included a nice balance of oaky and sweet flavors. The finish was dry and short to medium.
2nd Glass (Bulleit):
Two of the tasters had an immediate negative reaction to the second glass. But overall, reviews were good (ultimately just not better that the first and third glasses). The second glass had a much more fragrant nose than the first, which was followed by a bolder taste and more complex and longer finish. Caramel, vanilla, oaky, citrus and aggressive spice were all common tasting notes.
3rd Glass (Michter’s):
The third glass was noticeably darker in appearance, a rich caramel compared to the lighter amber of the first two glasses. Like the second glass, the nose was much more prominent and bold, but it differed from the second glass by having more of a smoky, earthy nose. Tasting notes were dominated by comments about its complexity. Licorice, oak, caramel, vanilla, sweet corn, buttery, and warm spices were all noticeable. The tasters liked the comparatively longer and warmer finish, too.
Winner:
Out of eight tasters, our results were all over the board. All three received 1st, 2nd and 3rd place votes, but Michter’s slightly nudged out Eagle Rare with one more 1st place vote. Michter’s also only received a single 3rd place vote, while Eagle Rare received two. Bulleit only received one 1st place vote, and received a stunning five 3rdplace votes. So Michter’s won by a nose, with Eagle Rare very close behind, and Bulleit a distant third.
Bottom Line:
I had some initial hesitancy about including two NDP (non-distiller producer) bourbons compared to just one bourbon, Eagle Rare, where the distillery, Buffalo Trace, is known. I even received some immediate Twitter feedback from my post on the night of this event for including two NDPs. But I got over this hesitancy pretty quickly because Bulleit and Michter’s fit the theme, popular belief is that this Bulleit is a Four Roses recipe, and good bourbon is good bourbon, no matter what liberties marketers take.
I was pleased to see that, despite their similarities, these three bourbons were all very different from each other and that no one bourbon stood out from the others. That lack of separation, however, requires consideration about price. The Eagle Rare is the clear price-performer of the three, and given its results at the tasting, Eagle Rare 10-Year is a no-brainer to add to your shelf.
But personally, I scored the Bulleit higher than anyone else (then again, I’m also a big fan of Four Roses). I think that the tasters who preferred Eagle Rare would probably prefer Bulleit in a cocktail because its bolder flavors don’t get lost, so depending on how you plan to drink these bourbons, my recommendation would change.
Finally, even though it was the overall winner and even though I really liked it, I expected the Michter’s to completely wow me (it didn’t). For anyone else who expects an almost $90 bourbon to wow them, then you may be better off sticking with Eagle Rare and Bulleit, which are readily available everywhere. Still, Michter’s won The 10-Year Challenge, and its profile is very different than the other two options, so if you’re splurging and can find it, it’s worth a look.
My final recommendation is that while Eagle Rare 10-Year, Bulleit 10-Year and Michter’s 10-Year may be better than each other on different occasions, all three are great buys that deserve room on your shelf.
Scores on The Sipp’n Corn Scale
Eagle Rare Single Barrel 10-Year: 4.0
Bulleit 10-Year Small Batch: 3.0
Michter’s Single Barrel 10-Year: 4.0
The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon. Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow. I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Willett Pot Still Reserve Single Barrel
Update: in 2015 Willett quietly transitioned
Willett Pot Still Reserve from Single
Barrel to Small Batch
The Willett Distillery in Bardstown, Kentucky is an assumed name adopted by Kentucky Bourbon Distillers, Ltd. (“KBD”) in 2005 (The Willett Distilling Company was originally incorporated in September 1936). Well-known for bottling many different brands, its most recognizable brand on the shelf is its namesake Post Still Reserve, due in part to its unique bottle.
Willett Pot Still Reserve Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Distillery: Undisclosed
Age: NAS
Proof: 94 proof
Cost: $37.99
Bottle No. 212 of 280 from Barrel No. 6477
Color:
Brown side of amber.
Nose:
Not hot. Woody, toffee, citrus, caramel, and plum flavors, and not particularly complex. The caramel increased with air or a splash of water.
Taste:
The flavors focused on the front of the tongue. There wasn’t any real heat at all, but there was certainly very nice warmth. Similarly, there was none of the common spicy pepper; and while it was very smooth, I wish that it showed me some bite.
Finish:
Incredibly warm (not hot) and medium finish. Flavors of oak and caramel dominated.
Rating:
I totally missed out on an epic tour and tasting last month because of work demands. So I knew that I had to try to make up for it with a bottle of Willett Pot Still Reserve Single Barrel. After a series of tastings, I realized that I should have bought this a long time ago.
This is also the second straight $37.99 bourbon that I’ve reviewed (see Rare Breed Review). So I feel compelled to compare this to Wild Turkey Rare Breed, although they are really two different styles of bourbon. Rare Breed packs more heat and has complex rye flavors which are missing in the Willett Pot Still Reserve, and in some respects I really missed the rye and the heat. But the Willett was so drinkable, and the warm finish really won me over. I rate both this Willett and the Rare Breed at 3.5 out of 5, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose Willett.
This is a great buy that I recommend drinking neat, but go elsewhere if you really want “the burn.”
Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale: 3.5
The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon. Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow. I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.
Sipp’n Corn Bourbon Review – Wild Turkey Rare Breed
* Update: This batch (WT-03RB) ended in spring 2014. The new Rare Breed batch is unnumbered and 112.8 proof.
Bourbon: Wild Turkey Rare Breed, 108.2 proof (barrel proof); a blend of Wild Turkey 6-, 8- and 12-year-old stocks. Batch No. WT-03RB.
Distillery: Wild Turkey, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky.
Cost: $37.99
Color:
Amber with an orange tint.
Nose:
Noticeable rye, but also vanilla and caramel sweetness.
Taste:
Rare Breed is smoother than many other bourbons of similar proof. It has a hint of citrus and big kick of spice. A splash of water opened up sweeter flavors like caramel, but you have to be cautious about over-diluting because the spice was too quick to disappear. A single large ice cube did just as well at bringing out the sweetness without sacrificing the spice.
Finish:
Long finish, with nice lingering rye heat.
Rating:
I finally went on the Wild Turkey tour last August. Getting to go into Warehouse A – built in 1890 over the Kentucky River – was a highpoint for me, but the tour of the modern distillery was a little sterile. I’ll definitely go back for the new visitor’s center, but my tour still ended in the tiny tasting room of the cramped old house that served as the visitor’s center. We got to choose three out of five offerings, which unfortunately did not include Kentucky Spirit. Of the five available, the two that I was most interested in were Russell’s Reserve 10-year and Rare Breed. Between the two, Rare Breed was my clear favorite. The nose of Rare Breed was better and the spice in Russell’s Reserve was a little prickly. So I knew that I needed to do a little more research with my own bottle of Rare Breed.
I was pleased to find that it was even better than I had remembered from the tour. Rare Breed has the heat, the flavor complexities and the finish that we’re all looking for. I tend to prefer some more fruit flavors to balance the spice, but I didn’t really miss those flavors here. Occasionally, however, there was some harshness and bitterness. That was usually tamed by a splash of water or a single large ice cube, but as noted above, there’s not much room for error before you over-dilute.
Maybe that’s why they say that Jimmy Russell recommends serving Rare Breed chilled from the freezer. He certainly knows more about bourbon than I’ll ever hope to know, but after several tastings, I still prefer my Rare Breed with a large ice cube in order to open up the sweeter flavors.
As so many more bourbons fly past the $50 mark and beyond, $40 is quickly becoming the new $30 in bourbon, and Rare Breed is knocking on the $40 door. Fortunately, there are several excellent bourbons still priced in the high $20’s and low $30’s; I just wish that Rare Breed was one of them. While it may be on the verge of overpriced, I highly recommend that you include a bottle of Rare Breed in your home bar.
Score on The Sipp’n Corn Scale: 3.5
The Sipp’n Corn Scale:
1 – Wouldn’t even accept a free drink of it.
2 – Would gladly drink it if someone else was buying.
3 – Glad to include this in my bar.
4 – Excellent bourbon. Worth the price and I’m sure to always have it in my bar.
5 – Wow. I’ll search high and low to get another bottle of this.
The Origin of Col. E. H. Taylor, Jr.’s Signature (As Told By Three Trademark Rulings).
If Dr. James Crow was the father of modern bourbon, then Col. Edmund Haynes (“E. H.”) Taylor, Jr. (1830-1923) is often viewed as the father of the industrialization of bourbon-making. Dr. Crow is largely credited with bringing his knowledge of chemistry to bourbon and with developing the sour mash process in the early 1830’s at the Old Oscar Pepper Distillery (later Labrot & Graham and now Woodford Reserve); see How Woodford Reserve got to keep the (old) name of its distillery). In contrast, Col. Taylor came from the business and banking side of bourbon, and he acquired his first distillery on the banks of the Kentucky River in 1869.
Col. Taylor christened his distillery the “O. F. C.” (“Old Fire Copper”) Distillery and there he produced the famous O.F.C. Whiskey brand. Later, after financial ups and downs, Col. Taylor sold his interest in O.F.C. and opened the Old Taylor Distillery with his sons in Woodford County. The Old Taylor Distillery has been out of operation for decades now, but is reportedly up for sale; here’s a picture if you’re interested:
The O.F.C. Distillery, and the adjacent distillery built by Col. Taylor, The Carlisle Distillery, enjoyed a better fate. They were operated by George T. Stagg, eventually became the Ancient Age Distillery, and are now Buffalo Trace.
But for my purposes, Col. Taylor also has the distinction of being one of the more litigious distillers. While many of the well-known (and now forgotten) brands may have a trademark case or contract dispute here and there, without much trouble, I found fourteen cases involving Col. Taylor and the “Old Taylor” or “E.H. Taylor, Jr.” brands. For the time being, I’ll stick with the most interesting series of court opinions that reveal the origin of Col. Taylor’s most distinguished trademark – his script signature:
A trio of cases tells the story about this famous script signature and Col. Taylor’s contentious litigation against his former partner – the man who bailed him out of bankruptcy – George T. Stagg. The three cases are:
· Geo. T. Stagg Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ky.L.Rptr. 213, 95 Ky. 651, 27 S.W. 247 (1894);
· Taylor v. Geo. T. Stagg Co., 18 Ky.L.Rptr. 680, 37 S.W. 954 (1896); and
· Geo. T. Stagg Co. v. E.H. Taylor & Sons, 24 Ky.L.Rptr. 495, 113 Ky. 709, 68 S.W. 862 (1902).
The story begins with Col. Taylor’s financial ruin in 1877. After buying the O.F.C. Distillery in 1869, partnering with Gaines, Berry & Co. to operate the Old Oscar Pepper Distillery (and later buying it from James Pepper when Pepper went bankrupt), Col. Taylor was forced into bankruptcy himself in May 1877.
In December 1877, George T. Stagg, a St. Louis whiskey merchant and a large creditor of Col. Taylor, bought Col. Taylor out of bankruptcy by paying 20 cents on the dollar to the creditors. In exchange, beginning in January 1878, Stagg became the owner of the O.F.C. Distillery (which he kept and leased back to Col. Taylor) and the Old Oscar Pepper Distillery (which he sold to James Graham of Labrot & Graham). A year later, the success of Col. Taylor and Stagg allowed them to build The Carlisle Distillery next to O.F.C., and they continued to enjoy great success.
Stagg also took measures to protect the O.F.C. trade name and the business. He formed “E. H. Taylor, Jr. Company” in 1879 and registered the “O.F.C.” trademark. Stagg was the president and majority shareholder of the company, and Col. Taylor was the Vice President, apparently owning just a single share. Importantly, the trademark registrations focused on “O.F.C.” and not on the use of Col. Taylor’s name. In time, however, the use of Col. Taylor’s name became more and more prominent, finally resulting in the use, in 1880, of the well-known script signature.
The court summarized the evolution of using Col. Taylor’s script signature on O.F.C. bourbon. Col. Taylor (and Stagg) began by simply noting Col. Taylor’s name, as the distiller, in normal font under the O.F.C. brand name. By 1881, they used what the court characterized as “the well-known and striking autograph signature of E. H. Taylor, Jr., with a caution to the trade that such script was the test of the genuineness of O.F.C. and Carlisle whiskies in the market.” But did this script signature become part of a protectable trademark for Stagg?
Stagg and Col. Taylor parted ways toward the end of 1886, and effective January 1, 1887, the split was official. Stagg retained The O.F.C. and Carlisle Distilleries, and Col. Taylor was given the J.S. Taylor Distillery (operated by one of Col. Taylor’s sons) in Woodford County, which the E. H. Taylor, Jr. Co. had acquired in 1882.
Col. Taylor immediately formed a partnership with his sons, again using his name for the name of the business: “E. H. Taylor, Jr. & Sons.” He renamed the distillery the “Old Taylor Distillery” and used the same script signature that he had used with his O.F.C. bourbon, except he added “& Sons,” as seen in this 1913 label:
In the meantime, Stagg, who formed the “George T. Stagg Co.” after his split with Col. Taylor, was in the process of making improvements to The O.F.C. and Carlisle Distilleries, and they remained idle for 18 months. When Stagg resumed production in January 1889, he started using Col. Taylor’s script signature, much to Col. Taylor’s dismay.
So Col. Taylor sued Stagg on October 16, 1889, asking for an injunction to stop Stagg from using the company name of “E. H. Taylor, Jr. Co.,” from using his script signature, and for damages. The trial court granted an injunction, and Stagg appealed. The 1894 opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals partially sided with Col. Taylor, and prohibited Stagg from using the script signature on any bourbon distilled after January 1, 1887 (because Col. Taylor wasthe distiller before that date).
In answering the question of whether the script signature became a trademark owned by Stagg, the court looked into the origin of the script signature, and noted the testimony of Col. Taylor and Stagg:
Stagg says that on one occasion, when Taylor was in St. Louis, the latter noticed a striking script signature on packages of imported brandy, and was impressed with the idea that the signature of the company, as written by him, would be appropriate, and look well on a barrel. Taylor suggested it. Stagg agreed with him, and it was done. … Taylor contends that it was a mere fancy with him, and was intended to show his personal identification with the distilling operations of the company.
The court then analyzed the actual trademark registration, which only emphasized “O.F.C.” as the essential feature. The name of Col. Taylor, the court held, merely identified him as the distiller, and the court expected any subsequent distiller’s name to be substituted for that of Col. Taylor. In fact, the court recognized that any continued use of Col. Taylor’s name as the distiller – after a time when he ceased to actually be the distiller – would have been improper.
But the court did not award any damages and it did not stop Stagg’s use of the corporate name. Col. Taylor wasn’t satisfied with just the injunction, however. He wanted damages, so he asked the court to reconsider its decision about damages. In 1896, the Kentucky Court of Appeals again rejected the damages claim, and maybe in an effort to push back on Col. Taylor, the Court noted that its 1894 ruling in his favor “was with some reluctance.”
Col. Taylor remained persistent, and he continued to push the issue of damages with the lower court, where he won on the issue and was awarded damages. Undaunted himself, Stagg appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, where in 1902 – after nearly 13 years of litigation – Col. Taylor finally lost the damages issue for good. His loss might have been predictable given the Court’s 1894 brush-back, but the history of Col. Taylor shows that persistence was certainly one of his character traits.
So even though it started as a mere “fancy,” the E. H. Taylor, Jr. script signature is now one of the most recognizable trademarks among all bourbons. I suppose 13 years of litigation is worth 130 years (and going strong) of trade recognition.
Brian Haara 