Round 1

#2 Bastille vs #15 Jack Daniels

Bastille

This is a rather sweet whiskey, almost reminiscent of something Canadian, but maybe a bit fruitier. It starts off very much like sweet cherry – maybe even Maraschino. The first taste gave me nice nice wood to it, but as I’ve sipped it some more, the cherry has seemingly overpowered that. It does still leave a little bit of spice as it passed to the throat. This is very smooth, but does give just enough bite on occasion to cut the sweetness. The texture is also a bit syrupy, although it still feels light in the mouth. The aftertaste, of muted cherry, sticks around for a good, long while.

Jack Daniels

As a Tennessee whiskey, this is obviously totally different (and probably familiar to most reading). It does give a decent bit if bourbony sweetness and wood flavors certainly show through. There is a good amount of ethanolic alcohol flavor presented – or maybe my memories of college are subconsciously imparting them. Not as smooth as some other whiskeys, but certainly more so than I remember. You do get some burn up in your nose and maybe a little in the chest – more so a burn than a warming – and the aftertaste left behind is a mix of slightly sweet and overly alcohol.

Winner: Bastille

#7 Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash 1 vs #11 OYO Soft Winter Wheat

Buffalo Trace White Dog 1

I realize I have been focusing primarily on taste alone throughout Whiskey Madness, but it is worth noting the overpowering odor from uffalo Trace White Dog 1. I’m sure part of it is the 125 proof bottling, but you can fully smell this from about two feet away – and it is a strong corn and alcohol blend that is simultaneously sweet and a little medicinal. On to the taste: this is most definitely a hot whiskey, as is to be expected. The flavor is largely straight alcohol, though you do get a decent amount of corny sweetness. While it is definitely, definitely hot, and with plenty of burn, I am still surprised that it holds a decent smoothness. Also impressive is that the alcohol flavor, as pronounced as it is up front, doesn’t stay on the tongue as long as the corn notes, letting you experience a fair amount of both. One other thing worth noting is that the heat of this sticks with you for a long while, like I little fireball sitting in your chest.

OYO Wheat

Light, wheat sweet, and soft on the palate with plenty of wood backing to give it some chops. This starts off with a nice wheaty sweetness right off the bat that us maintained throughout. As it sits on the tongue and passes to the back of the throat it develops nicely, showing more wood flavors to back up the front-running wheat notes and a hint of an almost licorice. There’s the slightest bite to it, but generally smooth throughout, and it leaves a nice wheat muggy sweetness in your mouth after you’ve swallowed that lingers long enough for you to savor it and short enough to invite another sip.

Winner: OYO Soft Winter Wheat

#3 TX vs #14 Whipper Snapper

TX

This is exceptionally smooth and easy to sip, but don’t let that fool you into thinking it’s light or tame. It opens up right away with a strong punch of vanilla, almost like what you’d get from a Canadian whiskey, but maybe a little less sticky. This is probably because the way the flavor develops; while it stays sweet the vanilla quickly gets backed up with a bit of bourbon sweet, a bit of alcohol taste, and the slightest pleasant heat. It has a fairly dense and rather oily mouth feel as it passes over the tongue. The aftertaste is a hint of alcohol and a lingering sweetness that leaves you wanting another sip.

Whipper Snapper

As much as the TX steps forward with vanilla, this jumps out with corn sweetness (after that first taste I checked the mashbill, and sure enough, it’s 80% corn). Even with the high corn, which does give it a bit of a moonshine taste, its really light, rather soft, and quite drinkable. Although corn is really pronounced throughout a few more sips reveal more subtle grain notes, especially in the aftertaste which is a strong blend of alcoholic astringency and grain. This actually develops quite nicely on the palate and is really smooth without feeling underwhelming. However, it also does taste a bit immature. All in all quite good, especially if you like a corn mashbill.

Winner: TX

Note

TX has long been one of the most drinkable whiskies in my opinion. Tasting it today seemed even sweeter than it usually does for whatever reason. I had expected it to be the clear favorite in this comparison, but it was actually close. If you don’t mind a bit of immaturity and like that moonshine balance of corn and alcohol (but with dome more complexity and smoothness) more than a sweet whiskey, you may prefer the Whipper Snapper

#6 Hudson Single Malt vs #11 Stranahan’s

Hudson

Off the bat you definitely get malt notes. This honestly is reminiscent of some unpeated or low peat Scotches. There is a little bit of alcohol flavor and a small bit of heat to it, but both compliment the flavor and texture of the whiskey. As it sits in the mouth or passes over the tongue more oaky flavors come out – maybe it’s also because it’s been sitting a bit at this point. As you swallow, sweet oak and a light alcohol note linger, fading moderately slowly and in progression (not like it sticks around then disappears suddenly – it’s a nice, slow, even-paced fade).

Stanahan’s

There was something curiously surprising in this when I just tasted it – delicious, but surprising. I can’t put my finger on it, but I want to say a slight note of cured meat or jerkey. It wasn’t overwhelming, and was surprisingly complimentary. I’m not getting it as strongly on subsequent sips, whatever it was, with more flavors of toasted cereal grains. In comparison with the Hudson, this is a bit sweeter and a bit more alcoholic tasting, though still smooth and rather delicious. It doesn’t have quite the same Scotch character, it’s maybe not quite as deep, and the pure grain flavor is not as obvious. But its expression of grain and oak are certainly both still present and are well presented. The front and back both have a little bit of alcohol punch with the middle simmering a bit, bringing the barley grains more to the front of the taste profile. The finish is not particularly long and is somewhat hot.

Winner: Hudson

#4 Michter’s Sour Mash vs #13 Dickel White

Michter’s

It starts off with a good bit of rye note and a bit of bite that leads you to think it will be very hot, but that never comes to fruition. That’s not to say there’s no burn, but it’s much subtler than the first blush would have you guess. The mid provides more toasted grains, but still has flavors characteristic of rye and doesn’t get overly sweet, instead giving a dry astringency. There is a slight sweetness in the undertone, but it is more of a complimentary flavor that adds complexity more than a flavor I’d say characterizes the whiskey. The finish is light, almost underwhelming, and quite short, which may be the biggest shortcoming of this whiskey – but it does leave a nice grain aftertaste very subtly on your breath. Surprisingly, coming back to this after the Dickel makes it seem hot by comparison and makes the alcohol undertones a bit clearer, but not in an entirely bad way.

Dickel White

For starters, it’s clearly a white whiskey, but it may be my favorite white whiskey I’ve yet tried. Surprisingly smooth with little burn and a flavor that actually seems to develop a bit as you drink it, unlike most unaged whiskey. It starts off with a lot of corn sweetness, as you’d expect, but perhaps toned down somewhat versus other “moonshine.” The mid palate it really where most of the best kicks in, but it’s short-lived, flaring and disappearing rapidly, almost as if to just prove it’s there. As the heta disappears, the taste changes from a corn sweetness to an almond-like expression which lingers long after you’ve swallowed. Again, unlike many other unaged whiskeys, the taste left behind actually is rather pleasant.

Winner: Michter’s

Note

This one was surprisingly close, even though I’m a fan of the Dickel White. I know many people probably disagree, but I find the Dickel White to be rather enjoyable, even neat and especially mixed. I recommend whiskey fans give it a try as a substitute for vodka in mixed drinks and cocktails that would normally call for a neutral spirit but could do well with a little added complexity.

#5 Bernheim vs #12 Hudson White Corn

Bernheim

This is a light, sweet whiskey displaying the type of sweetness you’d likely expect from its wheated mashbill: a bit more dank, a little bit softer, and a touch more sour than what you’d get from corn. It’s slightly oily, but rather soft the palate with a touch of heat. The finish is fairly short, but a mildly sweet aftertaste character and a bit of prickly heat linger in your mouth after the real flavors have dissipated.

Hudson White Corn

Exceptionally light and unexpectedly smooth for an unaged whiskey. It’s age – or lack thereof – isn’t given away by the way it feels to sip; it wasn’t for the lack of wooded notes and an overwhelming raw corn sweetness you could think this was aged. It is a little hot, but not nearly as much as you’d expect. I also find that, while the flavor is strongly corn, unlike others it doesn’t overwhelm. While this means it may have a bit less to it, I think that’s a positive as many unaged whiskeys are too in-your-face, whereas this is a bit subtle. Not much of a finish to speak of and the flavor is pretty straightforward. This was my first experience with this whiskey, but it won’t be my last – I’d say this is my new favorite unaged whiskey.

Overtime

I’m pleasantly surprised these two need a second sampling to be decided. As a fan of wheat whiskeys, and Bernheim specifically, I expected it would be the runaway favorite in this matchup. This second pour of Bernheim tastes a bit more alcoholic with the sweetness a little less pronounced. It also feels a bit lighter in texture and the wood notes are slightly more forward (maybe because it’s now coming after drinking an un-wooded whiskey). The Hudson stays true to the prior tasting, although maybe feels a bit hotter. This feels like it could be a tossup and could go either way, depe sing in the day and the mood, but I’m going to give the Hudson the nod by a hair.

Winner: Hudson White Corn

#8 Mackmyra 1st Edition vs #9 George Dickel 12 Year

Mackmyra

The first sip yields a lot of sweet fruit, balanced nicely by undertones of alcohol – a bit raw, but still pleasant. As it sits in the mouth, the fruit become even stronger, with lots of berry notes. The sweetness mellows a but and presents almost a syrupy character. The flavors develop a bit more, showing off wooded notes and a bit of spice towards the middle and end of the palate. The finish is short, with an aftertaste of sweet fruit lingering for a bit thereafter. Minimal burn, nicely balanced, and a fair amount of depth to it.

Dickel 12

It may just be because I am tasting this after the Mackmyra, but it feels surprisingly light, even after having water then waiting. I’m not picking up much other than a subtle lingering sweetness as an aftertaste. After waiting another few minutes, it has a bit more to it, but is still fairly light. Up front it is almost just thick water – hardly anything showing at all. The middle gives first a bit of not totally pleasant sourness, then mellows into a deliciously sweet balance of flavors. Sadly, this disappates quickly as well, with little finish. However, after swallowing, a few moment later a truly pleasant combination of sweet and wood seem to creep onto the tongue and fill the mouth, which lingers for a bit.

Winner: Mackmyra

#1 Devil’s Share Moonshine vs #16 Dry Fly Washington Wheat

Devil’s Share

Very sweet and heavily corn influenced. I was surprised that Proof66 rated this as highly as it did before trying, given that it is unaged, and am still surprised now. That isn’t to say it is by any means bad, though – Ballast Point has made a pretty fine Moonshine here, but it does taste rather much like Moonshine. You get a lot of sweetness, almost (not quite) to a degree of tasting like the artificial sweetness used to cover up some cough medicine. It’s much, much more enjoyable than that makes it sound, but it’s fairly flat and straightforward. A corn, syrupy sweetness that is surprisingly smooth most of the way, with a but of a heat kicker thrown in. The super corn sweetness stays with you for a good bit after swallowing. Again, by no means do I feel this is a bad whiskey, NIR a bad expression of a moonshine, but there is something about it which, to me, misses the mark of what I look for – and I wouldn’t be surprised if others disagree

Dry Fly

Surprisingly light and smooth at a first glance. This actually develops very nicely in the aftertaste, which was unexpected. Up front its very, very light and mild-flavored, with just the slightest notes of wood and ethanol. The mid-palate presents somewhat muted wheat notes and a bit of sweetness, again light. But the finish and aftertaste give a bit more depth, with the wheatiness coming forward along with an almost Carmel and but character, but again very subtle. This is a very drinkable whiskey, would be extremely sessionable, but does not have tremendous depth nor character

Winner: Dry Fly