Thomas H. Handy Sazerac Rye: 2009 vs 2012

I’ve been reluctant to review this one, even though it’s easily among my top five favorite whiskies. So bold are its flavors and so lofty its reputation, it’s downright intimidating. This is Nectar of the Gods, after all, and I am merely mortal.

Double distilled from Minnesota Rye, North Dakota malted barley, and Kentucky Corn, Thomas H. Handy Sazerac Rye is among the elite Buffalo Trace Antique Collection whiskies released annually. This will be a side-by-side review of two of those releases, the 2009 and 2012 editions. I have no reason for doing this other than sheer curiosity as to the differences. Thanks so much to @numen for a healthy sample of the 2012.

This is a “cask strength and then some” whiskey (64.5% ABV for the 2009, 66.2% for the 2012), so I do prefer it with water, but I’ve learned to be careful with it. A full teaspoon per dram brings the burn down to an acceptable level, but it also mutes some of the best flavors. About 2/3 of a teaspoon both retains and opens up all that’s sweet and spicy, which I find a fair exchange for some fire (and maybe a few hiccups) along the way. It’s a lip-tingler, to be sure.

Nose (both): Both need about ten minutes to open up, and they’re worth the wait. A big rye attack at first, with plenty of pepper, cloves, and vanilla. Those are just the main elements; it’s an amazingly crowded nose with allspice, cloves, caramel, orange peel, strong cocoa, and warm pound cake. So much going on, yet everything is clean and articulate.

Nose (2009): A little more rye and a little less sweetness than the 2012. It also seems to be the tamer of the two, but there’s a little more complexity and freshness as well. Some mint, cocoanut, and lemon-oil furniture polish lurking in the corners.

Nose (2012): Overall, a warmer nose that’s much heavier on the vanilla. Strong whiffs of wintergreen, as opposed to the 2009’s more generic mint. Cinnamon in the form of red-hot candies. Steaming potpourri with well-peppered strawberries. There’s also a bit of vinegar (or sweaty feet?) that works well in the mix.

Palate (both): Beefsteak rye bread coated with dashes of everything on the spice rack, especially the sweet and peppery stuff. Cinnamon, paprika, cloves, dried cherries, brown sugar, nutmeg, and a few drops of tabasco. Thick, oily, and mouth-coating, it never loses its intensity no matter how long it’s on the tongue.

Palate (2009): Maybe a little less complex than the 2012, but warmer, woodier, and more buttery. The sweetness has slightly stronger traces of apple and burnt sugar. There’s less active evolution in the 2009, but it’s no less delicious nonetheless.

Palate (2012): Hotter, spicier, and more caramel-y. Some smooth dark chocolate and mint, like a potful of melted Andes candies. Give it a good swishy chew and everything reduces down to pure vanilla and caramel.

Finish (both): Long, layered, and lovely, dominated by clean, fresh wood. All of the sweetness and spices from the palate stick around, joined by some licorice and almonds. Just when you think everything’s died down, give it a good quick exhale for a nice woody encore.

Finish (2009): I can actually feel this one become narrower and more centered on the back of my tongue. I don’t know of another whisk(e)y that “moves” as this does. Wood and rye mostly, with a little dry red wine and mixed vegetables.

Finish (2012): A little hotter and fruitier than the 2009, as well as a little more spread out on the tongue. Cherries, blackberries, and raisins compete for attention with the wood.

I may have a very slight preference for the 2012’s boldness, but they share abundant similarities and their differences are equally delicious. Alas, my 2012 sample is now spent, but my remaining half-bottle of 2009 is fair compensation.

Find where to buy Thomas H. Handy whisky