November 2nd, 2010

Review: Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Maple Wood Finish

John Hansell

Sometimes I think that maybe they’re trying too hard with these releases. I like the concept, but the impact of the finish (or whatever) in many instances with these whiskeys comes across as too much, like this one. Maybe adopt a more subtle approach in the future?

Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Maple Wood Finish, 47.2%, $90
Finished in toasted maple wood. I love the nose on this: complex notes of rum, golden raisin, maple syrup, nougat, polished leather, and warming cinnamon. The love continues on the palate, but toward the finish the flavors turn a bit aggressive (leather, tannins), which somewhat tarnishes an otherwise exciting, well-orchestrated whiskey.

Advance Malt Advocate magazine rating: 82

Category: Bourbon,New Releases,Reviews Tags: 16 Comments

November 1st, 2010

Let me reiterate: I can’t be bought!

John Hansell

I suppose this could be a continuation of the “Things that piss me off“  posts from a few weeks ago. While I’m normally a mild-mannered individual, there are two things that really strike a nerve with me: 1) when whisky companies that think they deserve (or blatantly ask for) editorial exposure because they advertise or participate in Whiskyfest, and 2) readers who think I am biased because companies advertise and participate in WhiskyFest.

Bottom line here: I write about whiskies that deserve to be written about. That can be because they are good or bad. If a whisky company makes a great whisky or is doing something really cool and innovative, chances are I will write about it. And if they make a product which I think is flawed or they do something questionable or misleading, chances are I will write about that too. In both instances you, the consumer, should know about them. I feel that it is my job, and I’m going to do it whether the whisky producer is financially involved with us or not.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, just this past week, a whisky company rep sent me an email asking me why I wasn’t writing about their new product here on WDJK, insinuating that I should because they participate in our Whiskyfests.

I actually did mention this product twice recently (and I don’t think they noticed). But I did this because I like the product, not because they participate in WhiskyFest. I don’t know what other drinks magazine’s policies are (although I am beginning to get an idea), but this whisky rep now know what ours is.

Similarly, I recently read a comment (by a writer, no less) on a forum thread, where someone stated that the reason why people advertise in Malt Advocate is to get a good rating. I’m sure that the advertisers in Malt Advocate will tell you (by the ratings I have given them) that they get no special treatment because they advertise (or participate in WhiskyFest). You get a good rating because you have a good whisky. It as simple as that.

I thought that after nearly 20 years of being a whisky writer, most people would know who I am and that you can’t buy me. But, for those of you who are new to whisky (and the whisky business), let me say this just one more time. You can’t!

Category: Opinions 59 Comments

« Newer Posts


Whisky Advocate magazine is America's leading whisky magazine. It's the number one source for whisky information, education and entertainment for whisky enthusiasts.