There are so many variables (and store picks add another level of complexity), so can you really pick one? I think even those who declare winners would say no and also say that it is far from a perfect process, but they will continue to try for tradition’s sake. Although both are very good bourbons, I wouldn’t consider them “Whiskey of the Year” material. I haven’t had King of Kentucky, but I have had the Dickel and 1792. This year Whisky Advocate picked George Dickel Bottled in Bond, Jim Murray picked 1792 Full Proof, and Fred Minnick picked King of Kentucky Single Barrel. You could argue that these picks are often controversial and heavily debated. Now that it’s the end of the year, various people / websites / magazines are declaring their annual “Whiskeys of the Year”. It’s been yet another exciting year in whiskey.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |