C

Colonel E.H. Taylor Straight Rye Bottled in Bond

“Names, names, names!” – Edina Monsoon

I had a more highbrow literary reference to open this piece, but realized I already spent it on a prior review. The underlying point is the same, though: do names matter? Today, we’ve got another name from Buffalo Trace’s liquid Hall of Fame, as well as a minor controversy about distillery naming and bottle labeling.

Before we get into that, a short history of the Taylor range of whiskey. I’ve been meaning to have a crack at these for a while, not least of all because we share a moniker (again, with the name).

Buffalo Trace’s official page for the top-hatted Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor Jr. indicates that he went from financier to owner when he purchased a distillery in Leestown in 1870. This was named “OFC” for “Old Fashioned Copper;” the distillery was purchased from Taylor – the flipper! – by George T. Stagg eight years later. This distillery became the current Buffalo Trace distillery, making Taylor – in some sense – the Aeneas to Buffalo Trace’s Roman Empire.

Being assiduous miners of history, Buffalo Trace has laid claim to the Taylor name for a set of nine expressions: Small Batch, Single Barrel, Barrel Proof, Old Fashioned Sour Mash, Warehouse C Tornado Surviving, Cured Oak, Seasoned Wood, Four Grain, Amaranth, and the subject of today’s review: Straight Rye.

The label on this says this is “distilled, aged and bottled by Old Fashioned Copper Distillery.” It also specifies DSP-KY-113 and DSP-KY-12, which correspond to Buffalo Trace (Frankfort) and Barton (Bardstown), respectively. Interestingly, my recently reviewed bottle of Very Old Barton Bottled in Bond had this exact same set of DSPs, in this order.

I queried the folks at Buffalo Trace about this; they indicate that this rye was distilled at the Barton 1792 distillery and bottled at Buffalo Trace. In this case, Buffalo Trace explains “all E. H. Taylor products use ‘Old Fashioned Copper’ as a tribute to him.” To me, that would imply a wink-wink-nudge-nudge acknowledgement that this was distilled at the Buffalo Trace Distillery, rather than a sister distillery in the Sazerac portfolio, as is the case with this rye (but not all Taylor products).

I’ll stop short of calling shenanigans, but I will say that I’m very disappointed in this decision. We’ve already established that Buffalo Trace is willing to play fast and loose on their labels, as evinced by the Van Winkle range, which claims to be “From Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery” despite the inconvenient fact that no distillery of this name has ever existed.

Why do I find this so irritating? It smacks of pathological lying – lying for lying’s sake – and is wholly unnecessary. Buffalo Trace is a Leviathan, capable of producing mass-market whiskeys as well as some of the world’s most coveted bourbons. No whiskey company in America has a portfolio as lionized and lusted-after as Sazerac does, if the recent iteration of the annual fanfare for their Antique Collection is anything to go by. I could understand if they feared that their premium offerings might be sullied by association with a mass-market bourbon; if anything, the transfer of prestige seems to have gone the other direction.

At this point, Buffalo Trace could probably put “distilled in a gently-used toilet bowl and matured in Amazon boxes” on the label and still move every bottle (before some pedant points out that this wouldn’t technically be Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey: it was a joke). Point being: Buffalo Trace is doing just fine and shouldn’t have anything to hide or be ashamed of. Why not just play it straight – no pun intended – and tell us where this really came from?

Per Buffalo Trace, the mash bill remains “proprietary” (as though anyone could assemble a bunch of grains and reproduce this at home), but the company’s website provides us with the kernel of information that this is from a recipe containing only rye and malted barley.

Setting my bison-related grievances aside, let’s have a taste of this straight rye whiskey, Bottled in Bond, at the stipulated 50% ABV. I paid $75, close to MSRP, for 750 ml of this.

Colonel E.H. Taylor Straight Rye Bottled in Bond

Color: Medium-light gold with brownish glints.

On the nose: Key lime, vanilla custard, underripe tangerines. Some smoky scents of campfire emerge, along with the piquantly woody aroma of mesquite. A moistly meaty scent of roasted bone-in chicken breast presents itself, as well as a hint of black licorice. There’s a heaping dollop of vanilla and some damp pennies in here, but this keeps coming back to smells of stern rye grain.

In the mouth: At the front of the mouth, this is possessed by a piquantly bitter rye grain flavor, carrying on from the nose’s dominant influence. Fulsome red fruit flavors balance this out at midpalate, which also has the salutary richness of polished wood. I get nuances of red brick (not that I’ve ever tasted one, but you know…) as this becomes mineral-dominated toward the back of the tongue. A firm flavor of fluoride and a dash of mocha carries this into the pepper-accented finish, which lingers briefly before fading into oblivion.

Conclusions

Good complexity, mostly well-balanced, nice bottling strength. There’s a lot to like about this. However, I’m not sure it’s thrice as good as Wild Turkey 101 Rye, though it is three times as expensive. I’m scoring this slightly above average.

It didn’t matter a whit to the scoring, but the obfuscation around the source of this whisky – and the shell games played by Buffalo Trace and the industry more broadly – really stick in my craw. If bourbon producers can’t be honest with us now, at the point of maximal enthusiasm for their product, when can they be? I’m still awaiting an answer.

Score: 6/10

Image kindly provided Selfridges.

CategoriesAmerican
Taylor
Taylor

Taylor's a native of Chicago. After heading to university in Scotland, he graduated from drinking Whyte & Mackay and Coke to neat single malts. He's also a keen fan of Japanese whisky, having visited the country regularly over the last several years, where he was able to assemble a decent collection before prices went batty.

    1. Taylor
      Taylor says:

      John, agreed. I’m not a marketing or branding expert, but it’s not clear where this is distinguished from the other single barrel or small batch or BiB expressions. As they’re not willing to make disclosure about mash bill, it’s hard to figure out why this label warrants special attention. Cheers!

    2. Avatar
      Carl says:

      Fully agree on your opinion of Buffalo Trace strange marketing approach on EH Taylor. I have several bottles of this in my collection and plan to taste for the first time During the College National Championship game on Monday. Living just out side of Clemson SC thought it would be a great bottle to open and share during Clemsons historic Game and hopeful win. Is there another bottle of Rye you would recommend as a comparison that I could share on Monday also?

      1. Taylor
        Taylor says:

        Carl, enjoy those bottles on Monday night. You could compare this with a bottle of Russell’s Reserve 6 Year Old or Single Barrel Rye, or maybe even shell out for the Wild Turkey Master’s Keep Cornerstone rye if you’re feeling extra confident about Clemson’s chances. Other options include the Rittenhouse Bottled in Bond straight rye, or even an Old Forester 100 proof rye. Best of luck to Trevor Lawrence, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to say GEAUX TIGERS!

  1. Avatar
    Frank Brown says:

    Hey Taylor,

    I love the information in this review! While most reviewers are content to wax poetic about the beauty of the packaging, you’re one of the few to actually…I don’t know, look at what the packaging says? It’s always bothered me that Buffalo Trace does this (fail to disclose where this line is made/what the mash bill is) and though I’m a fan of the CEHT range, like John above, I find it a bit redundant & exorbitantly priced for no apparent reason. Hopefully more people continue to call this out, after all, what’s so bad about well-informed customers if you’re offering a product commensurate with the prestige and price point you’re bestowing upon it?

    1. Taylor
      Taylor says:

      Frank, I’m so happy to hear you found the review useful. I share your confusion about the intention here. Sazerac/Buffalo Trace has a rabid fan base that picks the shelves clean of even their more pedestrian offerings. I don’t see what harm a little more transparency would do? It’s unlikely to turn off the casual drinkers and would be met with appreciation by the diehards. Cheers!

    2. Avatar
      Sam says:

      BT has previously stated that this product is distilled at 1792/Barton, they’ve also said the mashbill does not contain any corn. It’s well known.

      1. Taylor
        Taylor says:

        Sam, kindly provide the link to the Buffalo Trace statement on this, and I’ll happily update the article.

        More generally, “it’s well known” doesn’t cut the mustard in terms of transparency. If a consumer picking up a bottle off the shelf might reasonably be confused by the labeling then there’s a deficiency, no matter what gets communicated in private. I’ll continue to advocate for the normal folks who should be able to get the information they need without a bunch of detective work.

Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *