None the Wiser…
Thoughts on the Old Fashioned
+ J.P Wiser’s 10 year old review.
I don’t have an Old Fashioned very often but every time I do I think, “I need to have an Old Fashioned more often”. Made well, there is perhaps no better cocktail. Given that the OF is pretty much the first cocktail some unknown protococktailian got it right. First. Damn. Time. Respect whoever you are. “Are” not “were” because that bastard is probably also immortal. If you, like me, are an all too infrequent imbiber of this hallowed original cocktail then I beg of you – listen to me just this once and listen thee well. If there is a time for an Old Fashioned it is this accursed month of January. That useless dead month of darkness, weariness and dread. A social wasteland of enui, mundanity and self loathing. 31 days of listlessness, boredom and bleakiosity. Yeah, it’s a bit shit. But there is an antidote and, trust me, it’s not dry. For the Month of Doom is best mollified by the daily ingestion (at precisely 19:30) of a single, perfectly made Old Fashioned cocktail. The precise construction of which is intensely, intensely personal but for the sake of having something to fucking write about I shall give you my personal variation which is not particularly controversial. The basic concept of the OF as I am sure most of you already know is to take your favourite spirit and stir it with ice, bitters and something sweet to create a sympathetic and slightly diluted version of something you love. A variation that adds colour and depth to the already endeared. Fuck, yeh. Be your love mezcal, rum, whisky, arak, brandy, gin or tequlia* there is an Old Fashioned version of that spirit that is right for you. That said, if there is a problem with the OG OF that is that it is frequently made too sweet. I’ve seen American bartenders insist that half an ounce of sugar syrup and a dash of bitters goes into their standard OF. I know a lot of Americans have a sweet tooth but HFMoG it is not meant to be a sweet drink. While personal preferences must be sometimes (grudgingly) respected the starting point should be two ounces (60ml) of whisky, a teaspoon of syrup (I suggest Demerara), at least two dashes of bitters and a modestly sized citrus garnish. Balance, as always, is the key to a perfect cocktail. Otherwise you have only succeeded in making sweet whisky**. Bleugh. My ramblings concluded for now I shall proceed with the next step in my quest to find a pleasing alternative to US whisky with another dig into the Canadian offerings.
J.P Wiser’s 10 year old triple barrel
Canadian whisky.
As you may have noticed, I have for a time been in search of viable bourbon and US rye whisky replacements for reasons most Trumpian***. The rye issue was solved by Lot 40 but I was still short a simple and inexpensive substitute for the former. Enter Wiser’s 10 year old triple wood whisky from the same stable as good ‘ol Lot 40. Wiser’s comes in a simple square section clear glass bottle with a metal screw cap and stings my wallet oh so lightly at just over €20. The label is kind of ordinary looking and lacking much designyness although looking at their website there seems be a new and equally uninspiring lable since I bought my bottle. So far, so dull. However we also have the 10 years triple wood statement that makes us go, “Hmmmmmm”. There are a few Canadian whiskies that claim long ageing yet are quite inexpensive compared to almost any other aged spirit and I’m not entirely sure how they can do this. Sure, spirit ageing progresses at a more leisurely pace in colder climes (Windsor, Ontario in this case which is counter-intuitively just south of Detroit) but surely the warehousing and barrel switching costs remain similar? If anyone has an answer to this puzzle please feel free to inform us in the comments. The three woods are used bourbon barrels, new oak and used Canadian whisky barrels which sounds like a mix that could serve us well – although the actual times spent in each of the different woods remain a mystery. A strength of just 40% is uninspiring but probably also unsurprising at this price yet J.P Wiser’s certainly stimulates my curiosity and the best way to continue is, I eventually decide, to open the bottle. The light copperiness in the glass could be a result of 10 years in wood or added caramel leaving us none the wiser (no pun intended) but is attractive enough anyway. The nose is quite subtle but hints of toffee, grain and vanilla poke through but it really doesn’t smell very woody so far. The first sip from a relatively full bottle is a little disappointing being quite harsh and astringent but the finish delivers more being relatively long with a lingering bittersweet baking spice vibe. This is all fine for the modest price but I really can’t see this as a sipping whisky. But that’s not why we’re here is it? Used in an Old Fashioned and some other simple cocktails that normally feature bourbon Wiser’s holds its own pretty well with its safe middlegroundy flavour leaning in a sufficiently Bourbony direction that, for example, a Scotch could never pull off. As long as we don’t ask too much of it this Canadian whisky performs well enough and doesn’t carry those peculiar flavours that similarly priced US whiskies starting with Jim (peanut butter) and Jack (bananas) bring to the game. I think, at least for now, I have found what I was looking for – an affordable sub for an everyday mixing bourbon. Given the very fair price and flexibility I’m gonna give J.P Wiser’s 10 year old triple wood whisky a possibly over-generous mark with the understanding that it is valid only in this specific context:
B.
*Vodka can just fuck right off.
**Or, of course, some other spirit.
***Especially as of this very morning (3.1.26).
By Quiddity 4th January 2026 - 7:14 pm
Happy new year from the USA, where I’m currently visiting the in-laws. Sorry to say, I’m also stocking up on US rye and bourbon, because it’s so damn cheap here.
To expiate my guilt, I did some digging around, and here’s an answer to your question about how aged Canadian whisky can be so inexpensive. Various internet sources. No AI involved. The answer has two parts:
REGULATION(S)
In general, there are fewer rules about how Canadian whisky can be made than with scotch or bourbon, and less regulation and certification to pay for. Whatever barrels you like, whatever mash bill, etc. So: cheaper to start with, probably.
Of particular note is the “9.09% rule” which allows that much extra … stuff … to be added to any whisky without telling the customer. “Stuff” here includes wine, fortified wine, or other spirits aged 2 years or more. Relevance to your question: your 10-year aged whisky may well be nearly 10% something else. Can’t hurt the price, can it. (caramel and similar are also allowed in addition)
SUPPLY
Cautionary tale for the scotch industry here… for much of the 70s, 80s, into the 90s, Canadian whisky dominated the North American market, in tune with a trend for lighter, smoother spirits (it’s generally smoother because of the way it’s made, which is by blending smaller amounts of tasty flavourful whisky with large amounts of fairly bland neutral-ish corn spirit).
Nobody smart managed to foresee the change of trend that led the market back to bourbon and scotch, so there is now a massive glut of aged Canadian whisky sitting in barrels and warehouses that distillers really want to get rid of. So the supply of the aged stuff is far outstripping demand, and basic economics says that means cheapo whisky.
My general impression of the Canadian selection is that it’s a bit wild west and price isn’t a reliable indication of quality. Some bargains to be had, like the Lot 40; some absolute gutrot at the same price or higher; some genuine quality at the higher end too. Further question for us of course is what actually makes it across the Atlantic (I’m in Dundee now!). I’ll have to look into this Wiser’s stuff. Cheers!
By Andy 16th January 2026 - 4:18 pm
Happy New Year to you too Q. I’m very grateful for the additional information on Canadian whisky as it’s certainly answered my questions! I tried a couple of other Canadian whiskies before I wrote about the Lot 40 and Wiser’s and while very attractively priced they were not that great (although for the money they were acceptable) but the real deal-breaker for me was that they were US owned and therefore defeated the entire purpose of the exercise. I’m still feeling a bit weird about my rating on the Wiser’s as it is also not terribly exciting but if you want to make some mixed “bourbon” drinks without supporting you-know-who it’ll absolutely get you there. I wonder if they distill any whisky in Greenland?