I, for one, am not a whiskey drinker, but I know there ARE one or two on these forums, and I just wanted to get THEIR take on this.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/05/tech-that-produces-more-whiskey-faster.html?__source=xfinity |mod&par=xfinity

I'd seen that a while back. At the end of the day, it's gonna come down to the taste.

I've read a few reviews from folks that have tried this whiskey as well as other scientific methods to speed up the "aging" time and the general consensus is while this stuff isn't bad its still not the same. I don't know if these were blind taste tests but I think the overall opinion was that it still tasted young and thin. Additionally, I think expediting the aging process or removing it entirely takes away from the allure of the product. I didn't really start appreciating bourbon (read: not just slamming as many back with diet coke or in a shot glass as I could) until I visited some distilleries and really started to understand the process. The new oak barrels, the angel's share, spending almost as much time in a barrel in rickhouse as I've been legally able to drive a car or in some cases longer than I've been alive is all part of the charm and the magic of bourbon to me! Without that **** I never would've cared to understand the difference between Bourbon, Scotch, Rye, Wheat, etc. etc. whiskey let alone bought a bajillion different bottles. Without that, I'd still be drinking jack daniels w/ diet coke and thinking that shiz was the cream of the crop and I want nothing else from this world in my glass.

But like Anthony and Paul said, I guess I need to taste it myself...

Haven't had the Cleveland brand, but have had Defiance, which is made with the same technique. Poor, poor substitute for properly aged spirits. Green, thin, "corned"....... Whatever, it's not for me.

Thanks. guys.

I was just curious.