Whisky Connosr
Menu
Shop Join

Four Roses

Sweet roses

0 665

@markjedi1Review by @markjedi1

3rd Nov 2009

0

  • Nose
    ~
  • Taste
    ~
  • Finish
    ~
  • Balance
    ~
  • Overall
    65

Show rating data charts

Distribution of ratings for this: brand user

The Four Roses Bourbon brand has only recently been introduced to the Belgian UK market and I had the pleasure of having one last night before dinner.

This is a Kentucky Bourbon. I had the original Four Roses offering, which is aged for for five to six years and is light bodied.

The nose is very much like Wild Turkey 8 year old, with wood, burnt sugar and honey. Very sweet nose indeed.

On the palate, it releases fresh fruits, spice and oak characteristics.

The finish is medium, with ginger nuts and drying oak.

Good, but no cigar.

Related Four Roses reviews

6 comments

@WhiskyNotes
WhiskyNotes commented

What's the Belgian UK market? By the way, I've had Four Roses with coke 15 years ago in Belgium, I'm sure it's not at all a recent addition! In my opinion, it's a very industrial, overly sweet and very flat product that's only good to mix with coke.

13 years ago 0

@markjedi1
markjedi1 commented

I meant the Belgian market, not sure where that UK came from... Hmm, the guy who sold me the bottle said it was only introduced a few years ago. 15 years ago I was not even at legal drinking age, so... Thanks for pointing that out!

13 years ago 0

bascho commented

The wide disparity between the above reviews may reflect the fact that Four Roses has changed over time. Although the company has been around forever, it did not sell any bourbon in the US for about 40 years. Most of the bourbon went into blends and was sold overseas. My understanding is that it had a pretty wretched reputation at one point. Looking at their web site, I see that the company changed ownership in 2002, meaning that whiskey distilled then only recently reached its prime. I tried Four Roses about a year ago, shortly after it was reintroduced in NY, and I was impressed. Fairly light and floral, with some spice, if I recall correctly.

12 years ago 0

@flyfish
flyfish commented

The old Four Roses was simply pathetic. Fit only for bourbon connosrs who financed their purchases 25 cents at a time on the kindness of strangers. Last October, I toured the historic and picturesque distillery. At the tasting session, I found the regular Four Roses (yellow label) had moved into the quite acceptable category while the small batch and single barrel varieties greatly exceeded all expectations. Competition in the bourbon trade has caused everybody to improve their game. It's getting hard to find a really bad drink out there!

11 years ago 0

@Victor
Victor commented

I've had bad Four Roses experiences over several years time, and most of it was in that category for me until recently. I had a couple of decent sips in the last year or two, and last night at the Baltimore Beer Bourbon and Barbeque extravaganza all three of their products Yellow Label, Small Batch, and Single Barrel tasted quite good to me. It is very hard for me to consider buying a bottle of anything, though, when I have had fairly recent really bad experiences of it. I'd almost need a sample from a bottle off of the same shelf.

11 years ago 0

@PeatyZealot
PeatyZealot commented

I wanted to go for the Small Batch with a cool hipflask, but it was already sold and then I saw this one for €13,49 and I could'nt resist. I had it a few years ago and I remember it to be sweeter than the bottle I have now. I like it dryer and the overall quality seems to be improved. The nose is very redfruity, oaky and has some buttery cake. Its no punishment keeping this in your mouth longer than 5 seconds either. Not too bad for something this cheap, it beats prizefighting bourbons like Heaven Hill, Jim Beam and Pennypacker with ease

9 years ago 0

You must be signed-in to comment here

Sign in