As promised, Jen and I tasted a sampling of seven gins, in honor of the 40th anniversary of the death of Dorothy Parker. These were remnants of bottles bought and mostly drunk over the last several months, so there was no real logic to what gins we were sampling. In alphabetical order, we tasted
The gin was served neat, at room temperature, in identical glassware. It was a blind tasting for Jen, but not for me since I poured the gins and kept them in an order where I’d be able to identify them later. We took rough notes and in tasting the gins, we came to realize some of the shortcomings of the methodology I used.
First, I don’t think serving the gins neat was the right choice. The Hendricks, for example, was tighter at room temp than it was, later, with a slight chill. With the chill, it released the rose and cucumber nuances for which it is well known. None of those came out at room temperature. For this reason, I’m a little reluctant to write up our tasting notes. I’m just not sure how faithful they are to each gin’s character.
When the New York Times held a gin tasting, back in early May, the tasters chose to sample gins in martini form, and this seems to me a wise choice.
Also, I wonder whether seven gins were too many to taste at one time. I think comparing three or four at one time might help fight palate fatigue.
I am eager to start doing regular taste tests for various spirits. I feel like I learn more about the characteristics of spirits in comparison than I do when sipping an Aviation or an Old Fashioned. So we’ll revisit this soon and taste-test various martinis.