A tasting session with two recent premium additions to the collection gave us a fine opportunity to compare the entire range of Bushmills and Jameson bottlings in the U.S. It also prompted a broader discussion of tasting notes and how well people relate -- or don't relate -- to descriptions of nose, color, taste and finish.

The relative newcomers were Bushmills 1608 and Jameson Rarest Vintage Reserve. They are two very different animals for sure, so we didn't compare them against each other but against their brandmates.

First the Bushmills.

Bushmills 1608
Bushmills 1608 is a limited bottling from last year to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Bushmills royal sanction to make whiskey. I had tried it before, albeit almost literally on the fly while passing through the Duty Free at DUB last year. It didn't initially strike me as a must-have even with the fairly attractive $75 price at Duty Free. That's a big reason why it took me until this year to track down a bottle for a little less than the typical $100 retail price in the U.S. Some places are now marking it up well beyond that because it was a limited issue.

We progressed from low to high in price with the "standard" white label Bushmills, then Black Bush, then the 10-year-old single malt, the 16-year-old, the 1608 and finally the 21-year-old.

Standard Bushmills is a good and very accessible whiskey, though as you might expect it gets outclassed by its more expensive brethren. Black Bush is an all-around nice drink and a favored tipple with its fuller nose, flavor and finish from sherry cask aging. The 10-year-old single malt continues to surprise me. Initial samplings a couple of years ago produced some nose wrinkling and the thought that a splash of water would open it up a little. But subsequent tastings have produced a finer appreciation of its bourbon cask influence. I will pour a glass when I want be more engaged with the tasting of the whiskey.


The 16-year-old is lovely with caramel overtones, a bourbon-cask vibrancy mellowed with time in sherry casks, and an excellent finish. The 1608 was very nice. But I didn't have a clear sense that it stood out from its other premium priced cousins. I felt that it had more commemorative/collecting value than being a gotta-have/gotta-drink whiskey. The 21-year-old stands head-and-shoulders above the others. Rich, luscious, smooth and complex with its time in bourbon and sherry casks finished with two years in madeira casks, to me it's well worth the additional $10-20 above the 1608. Simply delicious.

Jameson Rarest Vintage Reserve
We worked -- using the word "worked" very loosely here -- our way through the Jameson line from the standard, to the 12-year-old, the Gold Reserve, the 18-year-old, Midleton (VR '07) and finally the Rarest Vintage Reserve. The standard is always nice, reliable and pleasant to drink. The 12-year-old is a much-liked tipple here with pot still and sherry cask influences. The Gold Reserve shows its more varied parentage (bourbon, sherry and fresh oak casks) with mellow aplomb. The 18-year-old displays its 16+2 years in sherry and bourbon casks with a more peppery and complex taste and finish. The Midleton is simply a terrific, mature, full-bodied, bright, engaging whiskey that easily wins converts.

But it's hard, if not foolish, to compare the Rarest Vintage Reserve to any of its Jameson cousins. It very pleasantly challenges you to explore its tastes and very long finish. It makes you pay attention. And you should for at least two reasons. First, a lot of work clearly went into the blending with 20+-year-old grain and pot still whiskeys with port and bourbon cask aging. And second, at twice the price of Midleton ($250-300 a pop) you shouldn't drink it casually or distractedly. You can clearly pick out the plum and some of the other flavors mentioned in the tasting notes enclosed in a luxe wooden box (a cask-et, if you will). It's a serious whiskey and the new Jameson branded high-end.

Confounded, With A Hint of Cynicism
As we sat there reading the RVR's extensive tasting notes, the discussion switched to the nature and value of tasting notes. Some felt that there was more than a little marketing, product positioning and power-of-suggestion going on. Being a marketing guy myself, I appreciated the work behind the packaging. But some of the taste descriptions just didn't resonate at the table. It wasn't that the RVR's tasting notes were off (the plum is definitely there), but that tasting notes in general were often distracting and unhelpful.


Tasting notes that relate to the actual composition and lineage of a given bottling can be enormously helpful, instructive and invite the drinker to appreciate what they are passing by their eyes, nose and palate. But others, in attempting to describe the inherently and highly subjective perceptions of drinking, just get way too squishy. That often can turn into silly snobbery as in, "well if you can't discern the mandarin orange, avocado, clarified butter, orchids, butterflies, Italian leather, unicorn mane, pony dung and pixie dust in this whiskey then you're not a real drinker, so there!" I exaggerate, but you know what I mean.

At the Irish Whiskey Society's website, a recent forum posting by "Bushmillsfreak" gave a plainly and well-stated example of how different drinkers relate to tastings and how you can enjoy and appreciate whiskeys without relying on tasting notes. From a February tasting in Dublin he wrote:

"I'm not into the nose, palette and finish thing. I'm more a no thanks or yeah, I'll have a bottle of that sort of guy. Anyway, last night I had a Bushmills 16 year old, followed by a Tyrconnell 15 year old Single Malt followed by a Bushmills 1608. This was with a view to finding out which was worth a second shot (first!). Guess what! The Tyrconnell won!! This kind of surprised me 'cos the 16 yr old has been my favourite whiskey for years. I'm really disappointed with the 1608 too, I don't think I'm the only one."

On top of subjectivity, I find that my own perceptions of taste vary with time and circumstance, and even with what I've had to eat that day. Some days, the pot still juiciness in a Powers tastes right on. But on others, it's tad harsh. Jameson 12 or Black Bush are reliable choices, but those, and even Midleton, can hit me flat on occasion. And I know that the whiskey hasn't changed since the last time I poured it. On the other hand, another whiskey might reveal tastes and enjoyment that I hadn't fully appreciated before. Go figure.

So, short of describing whiskeys on a 1 to 5 Craic-o-Meter scale (though I still might try), I'll use the more practical tasting notes that inform rather than suggest. Finally, it's also just fine to like what you like. That works for me.

What works for you?