Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel
From: fostel@ncsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.wines
Subject: RE: Berbun and Conyack
Message-ID: <2351@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Sep-83 15:34:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2351
Posted: Mon Sep 26 15:34:12 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Sep-83 05:31:02 EDT
Lines: 20



    I think it was me who made the comment about the clear distinction
    between Bourbon and Cognac, and the recent response seems to have
    mis-interpreted my comment (or else I wrote it poorly).  My statement
    was, and I stand by it, that I had no doubt that I could easily dsitinguish
    ANY bourbon from ANY cognac.  They just taste different.  I have no doubt
    that a 40 year old House of Lutz is a treat, but I think it would still
    be very noticably different from a glass of cognac.  I am avaialble at
    any time for a blindfold test (if someone else is buying!).

    I was certainly NOT trying to say that bourbon was out of its class in
    any way.  Indeed part of why I doubt I said this is that I disagree. I
    rather like bourbon in preference to cognac -- aside for the novelty
    and price -- and would not usually chose to drink cognac, even good stuff,
    over most bourbons, even run of the mill store-bought bourbons.  I dfeel
    in my bones that if the 40 year old Lutz was really that much like cognac
    then in spite of its age (and no doubt price) IT WAS NOT GOOD BOURBON.
    Cause bourbon does not taste or drink like cognac so if it did, its not.
    ----GaryFostel----