We’re in the midst of a rye whiskey renaissance. It was not too long ago that rye whiskies were pretty rare beasts, but during the past five years there’s been a boom in the number of rye whiskies that are available. What’s more, a lot of these are very good whiskies. Consider some of the highlights:

• Van Winkle 13-year
• Rittenhouse 21-, 23-year, and 25-year
• Black Maple Hill 18- and 23-year
• Sazerac 18-year and 6-year Thomas Handy cask-strength

Across the board, these are fabulous whiskies, attaining heights and complexities of flavor often reserved for only fine scotch and the very best bourbons. And following in the wake of these whiskies are a whole family of ryes from a wide variety of distilleries. Small, micro-distillers such as Tuthilltown in New York and Grand Traverse in Michigan are releasing high quality, small-batch ryes. And there are a handful of ryes coming out from independent bottlers that are receiving a lot of praise. In the past couple of months alone, Malt Advocate editor John Hansell has written about 5 different ryes. Significant, considering that rye is essentially just a niche in the broader whisk(e)y market.

High West is a distillery located in Park City who are participating in this rye renaissance in a dual role: as both distiller and bottler. The distillery was founded in 2007 by David Perkins, and shortly thereafter released their first bottles of rye whiskey. Young distilleries such as High West have two options open to them when it comes to releasing their first whiskies. They can either wait until the whiskey that they’ve distilled is ready for release, and perhaps take steps to speed the aging process, as Tuthilltown does with their small casks (3, 5, and 7-gallon). Or they can buy whiskey from other distilleries, and release it under their own label as whiskey “bottled by” them as opposed to “distilled by” them.

With their rye whiskey, High West chose the latter option, purchasing stocks of 6-, 16-, and 21-year old rye whiskey, and releasing three separate bottlings. The Rendezvous Rye is a blend of 6-year and 16-year rye, and was released alongside solo bottlings of the 16-year and 21-year rye. All told, the three are rather unique whiskies. The 6-year was distilled from a mash containing 95% rye, and the 16-year from a mash containing 80% rye, both much higher percentages than you typically encounter. The 21-year is the most typical rye of the three, distilled from a mash containing 53% rye. But it’s still unusual in that it spent all of its time aging in used barrels. The provenance of the three whiskies remains a mystery, despite rumors and guessing by some whiskey writers and bloggers. Most likely, the 6- and 16-year ryes were intended to be used as flavoring whiskies, since no other distillery has ever released such older stocks of high-rye whiskies before (besides Anchor Steam, and these whiskies aren’t from them), and it’s possible, yet doubtful, that one or both of them were distilled in Canada. What it comes down to, is that at this point, we don’t know where they come from.

What we do know is that they’re pretty nice whiskies.

Tasting Notes

This whiskey is bottle #1007 from batch #49, and it’s bottled at 46%.

In the glass, Rendezvous Rye is soft gold with amber highlights. The nose is interesting, intriguing. There’s the spicy nuttiness of tequila, along with chili pepper, black pepper, mint, mustard seed, shallots, and a hint of burnt sugar. The palate has a soft, mellow texture with some youthful heat on the backside. There are flavors of almonds, citrus, and spicy mint, supported by a sweet foundation of honey, caramel, and vanilla. The finish is medium-length with notes of demerera sugar, limes, spicines, and cocoa dust.

This is rye whiskey – vibrant, lively, spicy, and of a fiery temperament. It’s brash and electric in the glass, and is unlike any other American whiskey I’ve tasted, the only nearest point of comparison being Anchor Steam’s 100% rye whiskey. You can really taste the powerful presence of the 6-year old, 95% rye, and definitely come away with the impression of depth brought to the mix by the 16-year, 80% rye. All in all, the mix of the two whiskies is well-done, and blends their features nicely.

I have to admit, this whiskey took some getting used to. The rye component is so hugely pronounced, and I didn’t find the whiskey as a whole to be very well balanced. But, taste is very subjective, and so you should also check out John Hansell’s review of this whiskey, which is very positive. I agree with him when he said, “in the end, the rye is the victor, emerging with a vengeance and giving the whisky a bold, warming spice finish”. Yet, this left me wanting for something I couldn’t put my finger on.

The Pappy Van Winkle line of whiskies is one of my favorite collections out there today. From the ground up it’s a family of great to excellent bourbons, from the Old Rip Van Winkle all the way up to the Pappy Van Winkle 23-year. But it may be the Van Winkle Family Reserve 13 Year Rye that I get the most excited about.

While I thoroughly enjoy a good bourbon, and firmly believe that bourbon deserves a place in every whisk(e)y drinker’s quiver (especially those whisk(e)y drinkers that enjoy a good cigar here and there, as I’m nearly convinced that bourbon marries beautifully with a cigar), a good rye can really knock my socks off in a way that bourbons never quite manage. I’ve been lucky enough to try some great ryes, including the Black Maple Hill 18-year and 23-year, the Sazerac Thomas Handy 6-year and 18-year, and the Rittenhouse 23-year, and in each case have been spellbound by the dimensions of flavors that they exhibited, not just creamy caramels, but resins, spices, and fruits.

The Van Winkle 13-year Rye confirms the great experiences that I’ve had with these other ryes. And given the family’s distilling pedigree, it’s no real surprise.

The “Pappy” in Pappy Van Winkle is the original Julian P. “Pappy” Van Winkle who began work as a traveling salesman for the WL Weller & Sons wholesaler in Louisville in 1893, at the age of 18. In 1908, along with a partner he purchased the firm and later purchased a related company, the A. Ph. Stitzel Distillery in Louisville, forming the Stitzel-Weller Distillery. The Stitzel distillery had been founded in 1872. Their prominent brands were W.L. Weller, Old Fitzgerald, Rebel Yell, and Cabin Still.

A new distillery was opened in Shively, Kentucky in 1935 when Pappy was 61, and he led operations there until 1963 at the age of 89. His son, Julian Jr., sold the distillery in 1972, but maintained ownership of the Van Winkle label. Since then he, and later his son Julian III, have continued to produce whiskey, renting time on other company’s stills. They  first distilled at the Stitzel-Weller Distillery itself until 1992, then at the Bernheim Distillery, and later (and currently) at the Buffalo Trace Distillery (owned by Sazerac) in Frankfort, Kentucky.

Today, the Van Winkle whiskies include Old Rip Van Winkle, Rip Van Winkle 107, and the Van Winkle 12, 15, 20, and 23 year Bourbons. And, of course, the 13-year Rye.

Not only is the whiskey top notch, but the bottle is nice too, classy in a simple way with a tan label with red trim and black font. The label has, hand written, the number I2953, which I take to be either the number of the bottle, or the cask that they bottled. It was bottled at 47.8%.

In the glass, the whiskey is a shimmering, coppery gold. The nose has notes of hazelnuts, toffee, vanilla, caramel, and a whiff of citrus. The palate has a lighter texture and body than the nose would lead you to expect, albeit not in a bad way. It’s simply more refreshing than the sweet flavors on the nose would indicate. The flavors are composed of vanilla, toffee, slightly astringent citrus, oranges, and just a bit of zip from the alcohol. Very smooth and dangerously drinkable. On the finish the citrus and vanilla are dominant, rounded off by a soothing hint of buttered rum.

This rye is less peppery and more bourbon-like than others that I’ve tried. The caramel, toffee, and vanilla flavors are dominant, very reminiscent of the older Van Winkle bourbons. Definitely not a bad thing, as those are some fabulous whiskies, as is this one. And given the fact that it is also very affordable, I simply cannot recommend this whiskey highly enough – if you can find it. That’s the trick, this is a tough whiskey to find, as are most of the very nice ryes out there. So don’t hesitate if you see it. And then raise a glass to Pappy!

In terms of scarcity, the Sazerac ryes from Buffalo Trace rank right up there. The two ryes, the 18-Year and the 6-Year Thomas H. Handy Cask-Strength versions, are part of the distillery’s Antique Collection which is released each Fall. Each of the five whiskeys in this collection is very limited, and getting hold of them can be very difficult. And recently, with the rising interest in ryes, the Sazerac bottlings have been harder and harder to find.

I was fortunate this past winter to find a bottle of each Sazerac. Given their rarity, I felt myself lucky to be able to try them both, especially to be able to try them against one another. It is rare that you get to try two whiskeys that are presented so very differently (e.g. 18 years old and 45% vs. 6 years old and cask-strength) against one another, and in this case the contrast was startling.

In fact, having the opportunity to taste these two whiskeys against one another has been a great chance to consider the question of whether I prefer older, more oaky whiskeys, or younger, more brash ones. A handful of other whiskeys that I’ve had the chance to taste recently have played into this discussion as well. And I’ll begin by using these to illustrate my thoughts.

In my experience, younger whiskeys tend to present hotter, more brash flavors. The fiery alcohol of youth has not yet been tamed by very many years in wood, and especially when presented at cask-strength this means that loads of personality and character comes through in the glass. Alongside this is often found a green element, sometimes tasting faintly of stewed green beans. The higher the quality whiskey, and the fresher the cask that it has been aged in, the less noticeable this facet will be. And so great younger whiskeys come to the table with loads of flavor, brashness, and youth, and are often very chameleon like in the glass. One moment they can be smooth and supple, the next undrinkably young, and the next coursing with power and gobs of flavor.

Older whiskeys on the other hand tend to be more calm and collected, sometimes going to far as to be outright stately. Older whiskeys generally present a flavor profile where the layers are better integrated than in a younger whiskey. Depending on how many years it has been in cask, an older whiskey may also have begun to take on more flavors from the cask itself. In some cases this will mean the presence of some drying tannins, or a noticeable oak flavor, and in extreme cases, such as first-fill Oloroso sherry casks, a whiskey that has taken on strong, almost wine-like characteristics. In the bes cases, what an older whiskey has that a younger whiskey does not is poise.

These are generalizations, but in my experience they are fair. I’ve tasted whiskeys that belie both sets of expectations, but the majority I’ve tasted follow this pattern.

Now, imagine this lineup of whiskies: Bruichladdich Port Charlotte 5-Year, Bruichladdich Port Charlotte 7-Year, Glenfarclas 25-Year, Bruichladdich Octomore 5-Year, Glenturret 11-Year. All fabulous whiskies that present a spectrum of great flavors, and that encompass a wide range of ages.

The Glenturret 11-Year is from a first-fill sherry cask and was a deeply flavorful whisky, layered with molasses, maple syrup, and red wine flavors. A dessert-sipper. The Port Charlotte 5-Year was a slap in the face. Loads of smoke, with some taffy sweetness, and a hint of greenness that you couldn’t quite ignore. The 7-Year version of this same whisky was more mature, having smoothed out from the additional couple of years in cask, taming the smoke just enough to allow some more nuanced flavors to enter into the picture and eliminating the green flavor. The Glenfarclas 25-Year was incredibly smooth and remarkably vibrant for a 25-year old whisky. Layers of flavor just opened up as you wound your way through the glass. And the Octomore 5-year was a bombastic glass of smoke underscored by a layer of honey, and in this case no greenness (in contrast to the Port Charlotte 5-Year).

As much as I enjoyed the younger, smoky whiskies, as I drank them I couldn’t help thinking about how good they will taste these in 5 years, when they hit the 10-year mark. Or even more so, in 10 or 15 years. With flavors so powerful, additional time in cask is likely to enable them to transcend the audacity of their smoky youth, and really hit their stride, powerful with the grace that additional age will grant them.

And yet, bourbon and rye ages differently, doesn’t it? Yes, but nonetheless my preference still favors older expressions. I will grant that bourbons run their course much earlier than scotch. I’ve tasted 44-year old scotches that were simply amazing, whereas the oldest bourbon that I’ve tasted seemed a bit worn out at 27 years, and left me wondering how good it must have been a few years earlier.

And my experience with these two Sazeracs has also confirmed my preferences. The 18 year, which I’ve written about earlier, was a heavily oaked whiskey, but it was remarkably smooth, drinkable, and full of flavor. The 6-Year, while excellent, is a different beast altogether. Some of this would have to be down to it being bottled at 63.75%, along with being uncut and unfiltered.

The appearance is a rich, burnished copper. The nose has spearmint, orange zest, buttered rum, and caramel, all packaged together and leaping out of the glass. The palate is very rich, with flavors of caramel, mint, candied fruit, sandalwood, clove, and furniture polish all melding together. The texture is resiny, mouth-coating and silky, but is offset by the very, very hot alcohol presence. This whiskey needs a lot of water to ease the alcohol down, and I found it very hard to find a happy medium that allowed full-flavor expression and drinkability to coexist. The finish is very long, with warm citrus flavors gradually drifting away.

This is a massive, massive whiskey, with tons of flavors in the nose and palate, and this carries through into the long, long finish. Yet, whereas I feel that the 18-Year had just as many flavors taking place (different flavors though, a lot more spice and nuance), the overall package was much smoother, enabling those flavors to be more readily appreciated. This younger expression is a great joy to drink, and it revels in its brash youth, and yet after a glass I found myself wanting a bit for a somewhat more calm experience in a whiskey.

All in all, this adds up to a different set of expectations for bourbons and ryes. The stereotype for these whiskeys is that they are simpler than their Scottish counterparts, lacking complexity and the ability to age as successfully as scotch. The reality is that there are a great number of American whiskeys on the market that offer complexity to challenge the finest of scotches, and whose impressiveness as older expressions demonstrates just how well they can age.

The Antique Collection from Buffalo Trace demonstrates some of the very best expressions of American whiskeys that you can find. I’ve written earlier about the W.L. Weller Bourbon that is part of this annual series, and have been consistently impressed by the strength of character exhibited by all of the whiskeys in this series. They all demonstrate layers of complexity and depths of flavor, and are all rich, luscious whiskeys that have belied all of the stereotypes.

The only downside to the Antique Collection is just how hard it is to find them. The bottlings are all very limited, and are allocated on a very strict basis. It is not uncommon for shops to receive only one or two bottles. As a result, getting a chance to try these whiskeys can be more a product of luck and good timing than anything else. Yet the fact that all of the bottlings in the series are priced at ~$60 is a credit to Buffalo Trace and it’s decision to not pinch customers and capitalize on the series’ scarcity.

And so I was fortunate this winter when I had the opportunity to pick up a bottle each of the Sazerac Rye 18 year and the Sazerac 6 year Thomas Handy (cask strength) from the newly bottled 2008 series.  The different ryes that I’ve tried in the past, most notably Black Maple Hill’s 18 year and 23 year bottlings, have all been excellent experiences. In contrast to bourbon, rye presents a more complex character on account of the greater percentage of rye in its recipe, (a minimum of 51% rye as opposed to bourbon’s minimum 51% of corn). The Black Maple Hill 18 year in particular exhibited a spicy character with notes of menthol accompanying the sweeter flavors of vanilla and caramel. What I’ve come to believe is that rye stands somewhere between the different poles of bourbon and scotch, with a flavor profile that speaks to the best of each (even to the point that some ryes evince  a thread of smoky caramel akin to a good Highland scotch).

The last three years of Buffalo Trace’s 18 year Sazeracs have all been drawn from a batch that had been aging for 18 years when in 2006 they transferred it to stainless steel to maintain it in its current state. Halting the aging process at 18 years, at which point this Sazerac was winning awards (such as the Malt Advocate’s 2005 American whiskey of the year award) makes great sense. And all of the accounts that I’ve read  of the different releases since then (the Malt Advocate’s John Hansell for example) have born this out.

And so the only difficult question that arose was which bottle to open first, the 18 year or the 6 year cask strength! Fortunately I had some help in the decision, and a friend and I who both favored older whiskies decided to go with the 18 year. And with a satisfying thunk we popped the cork.

The color is a crystal clear, rich red-gold. The nose has deep, enveloping aromas of banana bread, floor polish, caramel, and warm pears and apple crisp. The palate has strong notes of vanilla and toffee up front that give way to spiciness and salted caramel. The palate is distinctly dry and oaky, giving you a real sense of the 18 years in oak. The texture is surprisingly light (this is bottled at 45%), but the flavors leave a strong impression on your palate. The finish is resinous and oaky, with the polish from the nose returning, after which it trails off into an impression of red berries that linges on and on.

This is a fabulously enticing rye. The bourbons from the Antique Collection that I’ve had have all been stellar, but this 18 year Sazerac is another beast entirely. Where those have been luscious and bold, this is more reserved. It opens up more slowly, but ultimately brings additional complexity and nuance to the table. The nose, palate, and finish all had their own unique character, each demonstrating the different personalities of this one whiskey.

On the whole I’d say that this is a great rye to have on hand, and that you shouldn’t hesitate to give it a try if you have the chance. I particularly am of the opinion that this is the type of American whiskey that could change an adamant scotch drinker’s mind, and open them up to the possibilities to be found in ryes and bourbons. So do your scotch-drinking friends a favor, and introduce them to this Sazerac 18 year rye.