Thursday, February 9, 2017

They Don't Make Them Like They Used To, Part 2: 1948 National Distillers Old Taylor 6 Year Bottled in Bond and 1988 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad 8 Year Bottled in Bond

This is part two of a three part series where I walk through a few different bottlings of vintage National Distillers bourbon to see what the fuss around them is all about. To recap, here is the full lineup:
  • 1986 National Distillers Bourbon deLuxe, NAS, 40%
  • 1989 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad Red Shield, NAS, 43%
  • 1948 National Distillers Old Taylor Bottled in Bond, 6 years, 50%
  • 1988 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad Bottled in Bond, 8 years, 50%
  • 1982 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad 114 Lot 1, NAS, 57%
  • 1988 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad 114 Lot 17, NAS, 57%
Part One covered some rather low end bottom shelf bottles and the results were no better or worse than bourbons than you can find on the bottom shelf today. Both of those bottles were no age statement and proofed on the low side so we really shouldn't have expected much. The real hyped up National Distillers bottles though are the bottled in bond variants so let's find out what happens when you crank up the proof and slap an age statement on them.
Also worth mentioning again: With a lot of these old bourbons there is a familiarity to them - some combination of lush mouthfeel, older richer oak, and other notes that I can't really describe so I just end up calling it a dusty note. I don't literally mean it tastes like dust, I'm specifically referencing that familiar combo of attributes.
bottle

1948 National Distillers Old Taylor Bottled in Bond

Aged 6 years; 50% ABV; Thanks to Beau for the sample.
The nose is out of this world funky and pungent - it barely smells like bourbon. As it opens up it starts to get more bourbon-ish qualities but it's a lot of wet hay, old wood, antiseptic, and old leather. I know those notes sound horrible but it's like watching a train wreck and I can't stop smelling it. The taste is just as randomly awkward with a lot of honey upfront and some old vintage bourbon notes. The finish is drying with ashy barrel char and some bitter acetone. I would have never guessed this was 100 proof as it drinks just as easy as the 80 proof deLuxe though it has more intensity. This is one of the more weird things I've ever drank and not in a good way as it's just a funky mess. 
Rating: As is, I give it an F. I have a good feeling this bottle is severely oxidized and not representative of other National Distillers bottles from this time so that rating is probably worthless.

1988 National Distillers Old Grand-Dad Bottled in Bond

Aged 8 years; 50% ABV; Thanks to Beau for the sample.
The nose is rich and dense with lots of dark burnt sugars and some tingly rye spices. It has that old bourbon smell that I really look for in vintage whiskeys. The taste is honey and butterscotch up front with a nice blast of dusty notes in the middle and a finish of rye baking spices. The rye spice is a bit more noticeable than in other National Distillers I've had and is masking that butterscotch forward note that usually dominates the taste. This is a fantastic whiskey that is well balanced in the sweet, oak, and spice category all while carrying that hallmark old bourbon taste. I can see why people go nuts over the age stated 100 proof National Distillers bottles from this era. 
Rating: A- / B+

Well, this was interesting and there are a couple of lessons learned here. First off, be careful when chasing some of these vintage dusties because you might get burned. I'm pretty sure the Old Taylor here has gone bad which is a shame because it's the oldest whiskey I've ever tasted and I was excited to try it. As for the 80s bonded Old Grand-Dad, it's a remarkable whiskey and one that I think is worthy of some hype. Having said that, like pretty much everything these days the secondary prices on it are completely wacked out on the value scale but we'll touch more on that in part three. Spoiler alert: I'm saving the best for last.
Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

No comments:

Post a Comment