Buffalo Trace White Dog #1

Rating: 11/23 Could this perhaps be the nectar of the gods?! Is the magic of Buffalo Trace in its juice? This is the same base distillate that's used in the crafting of George T. Stagg. Honestly, I don't expect much from this in white dog form, but I'm certainly curious to try it. N: You know, I don't have white dog very often. So how weird is it that this immediately reminds me of tequila? Specifically, it reminds me of Don Julio Blanco. It has this sweet, papery nose with some vanilla and then vegetal character. Oh, this is a lot like rhum agricole now. I'm getting that squash smell mixed with all of that sweetness. Honestly, right now I would think that this was rhum agricole. It's super funky with plenty of sweetness and I'm definitely enjoying it. I guess the corn must come across as fairly vegetal at this stage. P: Not as rich as I'd expected, but this is quite full with a high proof, moderate viscosity, and high burn. I get squash, which I'd like to think is mashed up boiled corn. There are hints of paper in here and also other vegetal suggestions. Honestly, I would have guessed that this was a rhum agricole if I didn't know the truth. I feel like it has a real Martinique vibe. So I pulled out Clement Premiere Canne (40% ABV rhum agricole from Martinique) and I found that the Clement has more chilis with more sort of dank, highly organic vegetal flavors. It has more white pepper as well and is generally lighter (though the proof could be playing a large role there). It also has hints of soy sauce - both light and dark. Quite an odd spirit. So maybe this is less bizarre? I definitely get more sweet corn now. This sure burns and I get some tartness from the rye, but this is more like a whiskey and it has a fuller profile (almost certainly due to the higher proof). There isn't nearly as much complexity here and there's still a lot of that rhum agricole flavor. Banana peel and all of that weird funk (well, not all of it; more of a sample). Oh, wow, there's a ton of ethanol here and it really burns. F: Vegetal. It's in the range of squash mixed with smashed sweet corn. hints of spices. Memories of alcohol burn. I'm not a fan. The more I let it linger, the more I start to get a little bit of Mexican corn cake. Actually, a bit more than a little. This might be the tastiest thing I've experienced so far with this dram. - Conclusion - Look, I'm sure that this wasn't meant to be consumed neat. Still, that's the way I have to review it. This wasn't fun to taste, though it was quite interesting. I need to think some more about what I should expect from white dog. Honestly though, the Clément Premiere Canne (13/23) was better. It was funkier, but it was also much more complex and interesting. The burn here really gets me, along with the alcohol and kind of flat individual flavors. This is challenging to drink, though not actively bad. Many find high proof spirits difficult to drink, after all. I'm usually pretty fine with them, but the youthfulness really hits me here. Still, this is a clean spirit: it isn't like there are a lot of off-notes here. This is hard to rate because it's so different from everything else I have and it's also going to get a low rating, so I don't have many things to compare it with. To set a low bar though, my single barrel bottle of Ry3 Cask Strength (9/23...somehow) is worse than this. The Ry3 is way harsher than this is, yet it isn't ever quite as high of a proof. I like the rum flavors in the Ry3 better, but this was frankly already a bit too burny. There's no question that this is substantially better. If it weren't for the Ry3's harshness and intense peppery burn, I'd say place the funky complexity here against the Ry3's sweet rum decadence (which, frankly, isn't actually even that decadent). In terms of overall profiles, I think the Ry3 probably has the win. This has some bitter alcohol and a bunch of different flavors that are complex but are also totally out of balance and one-dimensional. There's still plenty of heat here too. Were it not for that awful harshness and burn, I'd probably put the Ry3 1-2 points above this. Considering the painful harshness and burn though, I'm putting this above the Ry3. A bit of a tangent, but I have to give Phenomenal Spirits some credit for finishing Ry3 in ex-rum casks: that's absolutely what it needed. Well, that and a lot more time to mellow. The problem is that they chose to work with some miserably bad rye. So this is better than a 9, but it's not as good as Sierra Norte Red Corn (15/23). This is a bit of a broad range, but it's manageable. This strikes me as closer to the Ry3 than to the Sierra Norte, unfortunately. This really does burn a lot. Eh, it's still a tough call here. I'm not so sure that this isn't just right in the middle anymore. Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) (12/23) - OK, imagine a record scratch sound because I'm derailing this tasting here. Signatory bottled this Caledonian less than 2.5 months from it reaching 20 years. It's not over-oaked; if anything it tastes young. Why on Earth didn't they wait another 2.5 months to bottle it?! Oh, right, but Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) - how does it compare? The Caledonian is smoother with more oil and that kind of typical single grain scotch profile. This burns a lot more. It's 7% higher ABV, but the difference in how much this burns feels a lot higher than 7%. Sure, this is more complex but I think I prefer the Caledonian. One last comparison: Cutty Sark Prohibition Edition (10/23). The Cutty Sark is less harsh and has less burn, but it does have that sulphur for sure. Still, I'm not so sure how the two compare. Neither is as good as the Caledonian and both are better than the Ry3. Beyond that? Well, considering the sulphur, I think that this does beat the Cutty Sark. An 11 seems the most appropriate for this. It's hard to sip for sure, but it would be a good substitute for rhum agricole in cocktails, so long as the difference in proof were accounted for.

MOONSHINE SHOWDOWN Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 Buffalo Trace White Dog Wheated Mash Continuing to work through bottles in my collection that I’ve yet to review. “White Dog” is the name given to distillate straight from the tap. I bought these a few years ago, as I was interested in the foundations of the distillation process. I recall being less than impressed—this from the perspective of someone who has had moonshine more than once—so I’m taking one for the team here and seeing if I can find some value beyond mere intellectual interest. Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 Color is gin-clear, as this distillate has never been in contact with wood. Nose is warm and inviting, and shows sweet corn, Cheerios, and sweet yeast rolls. The ethanol manifests itself not unlike Italian grappa. Mouthfeel shows significant viscosity, and there is continued corn sweetness on the palate, as well as that grappa taste—but with none of the paint-thinner bitterness that grappa often has. The finish is short, and there is a little burn, but not out of sync with the high proof. The overall impression is one of warmth and fullness. It’s actually not one-dimensional: sweetness, warmth, and bready elements are apparent. It’s quite interesting to acquaint oneself with the foundational characteristics of a distillate, before the wood maturation; it’s the wood that provides the majority of a whisk(e)y’s aromatics and flavors. Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 can be found for a little over $15 (for a 375ml bottle). Would I buy it again? It’s not at the top of the list, but the answer is yes: it is unique conversation starter that not only offers educational insight, but is also inexpensive and can actually be consumed. 2.5 on the Distiller scale. 125 proof. NAS because there is none. Buffalo Trace White Dog Wheated Mash Like the White Dog Mash #1, the White Dog Wheated Mash is as clear as purified water; there has been no barrel aging whatsoever. The nose is different than the Mash #1: think of opening the bag that contains your favorite loaf of wheat bread and inhaling deeply. That, and peanuts. The sweet corn is underneath. Not quite as oily on the palate as the Mash #1, but it’s not thin like water. Ethanol is evident on the nose, palate, and finish. The spiciness is slightly higher than the Mash #1, even though the Wheated Mash is 11 proof points lower. There is a lingering alcohol burn, longer than the Mash #1. The Wheated Mash is not as round and warming as the Mash #1. It can also be found for around $15 (for a 375ml bottle). Would I buy it again? I don’t like it as much as the Mash #1, but I would buy it as well for the intellectual exercise alone. 2.25 on the Distiller scale. 114 proof. NAS because there is none. I’m not aware of any other distillery that sells White Dog at retail. It is sold in half-sized 375ml bottles; thus it would appear that it is being sold more for educational purposes than anything else. Buffalo Trace is to be commended for this. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

I reviewed this just over two years ago, in August of 2022. Since then I've found that putting in just a little water improves what's already great stuff, and this review is of the juice with water. This bottle cost me $22.99 at Total Wine, which is a couple or three dollars less than the previous one. It's just a pint (375ml - I don't think in metric measurements), it's 125 proof, there's no age statement since it's never been in a barrel, and in the glass it's clear. It's Buffalo Trace's mash bill #1, but other than it having the standard bourbon ingredients - corn, rye, and barley - I can't learn what that mash bill is. NOSE: It's very grain forward, which you'd expect from something straight off the still. Sometimes I can sort out the three different grains on the nose, and sometimes I can't, especially with water. There's a little mustiness also, that seems to connect mainly to the corn, a vegetal note that I presume comes from the rye, and something that makes me think of wet wood or wool. That doesn't sound terribly appetizing, but in fact I like it. MOUTHFEEL: Creamy - three or four drops of water don't materially alter this, since it's so viscous to begin with. TASTE: There's just one note, but it contains multiple things - the note is honey butter with cinnamon. FINISH: Medium, with red pepper and honey butter. SUMMARY: I find in my handwritten notes here that the date of the previous review was August 14, 2022, so it's been just over a year and a month. It took me a long time to decide to experiment with the juice, but when I first reviewed it I hadn't even been drinking whisky for a year and I didn't know what water and ice could do. Ice ruins this, but just a little water really helps (it's good without, but for some reason after the first glass from this bottle it began smelling and tasting, in the glass, like it's rotting, though from the nose of the bottle it smells and tastes fine). This is a simple whisky of necessity, since it hasn't received any benefit from aging; this is why straight from the still, the way our ancestors drank it. But it's good to begin with, and with a little water it's very good. RATING: On my hick scale I have to rate it somewhat lower than I'd like to, just because it's such a simple whisky. If it were more complex, and retained its current character otherwise, it would have a higher rating. What I gave it is the fifth on my scale (1 is the lowest, and 8 is the highest on this scale), Good. That converts to 3.125 stars, and either 62.5/100 or 6.25/10.

I got this for $24.49 (375ml) at Total Wine. It's 125 proof, the maximum proof that white dog can be going into the barrel, and it's Buffalo Trace's #1 mash bill, which seems to be 75% corn, 10% rye, and 15% barley. NOSE: I immediately got a creamy sweetness which I suspect is the large corn component of the mash bill. Then came a little bit of slightly charred grain, melted butter, puffed wheat, dark chocolate, and something musty and woody. Finally there's something nutty, and a sourness. It's surprisingly complex on the nose; I never expected unaged whisky to have so much in the nose. There is much less burn from the alcohol than I expected given the proof - I had to put my nose right down into the glass to get any sting. TASTE: This is simpler than the nose, containing a beginning sweet note, then corn, butter, and again the nutty and sour notes. There's plenty of alcohol here, but the burn is considerably less than I expected from a 125-proof liquor. FINISH: This is long, but it's the simplest aspect of this whisky - it's just a woody note, with the recurrent sourness. I don't believe I'll buy another bottle of this, but for what it is, it isn't bad at all.

Open 10+ years Nose - Canned corn explosion, artificial buttered popcorn, flower bouquet, and strong ethanol. Palate - Jelly Belly buttered popcorn beans soaked in ethanol, and not much else. Finish is long with piping hot buttered popcorn and ethanol burn. This isn't complex. I think I've had this over a decade, and it's still half full. You really have to love that buttered popcorn jelly bean to halfway enjoy this, otherwise it's a slog to sip. I really hate that jelly bean flavor, so this is obviously not for me. It's clean and all, which is what you want in new make, but at 125 proof it is not enjoyable. I'm dumping out the rest of it.

This stuff is absolute garbage without barrel aging. To the guy who said “those who give it a crappy score don’t like high proof or whiskey at all” is a dope. This stuff is meant to be aged and barreled not drank the way it is sold. I purchased this to experiment with charred oak staves and will update after aging process is complete. Bottom line, don’t buy this if you think you’re buying a BT product that will taste good because it has their name on the bottle because you will not enjoy this straight.