My pal Jack Daniels, and his partner Jimmy Beam

I have a confession to make: I like bourbon. No, I don't drink it, or anything else, to excess (sweets are my vice). But now and then I buy a small bottle and enjoy sipping on it for two or three weeks.

Usually I drink Jack Daniels. I've found it to be the smoothest and most enjoyable of the whiskey/bourbon type liquors that I've sampled. The only other one I remember by name was Maker's Mark Whiskey, and I found that to be quite harsh. Most of that bottle went to waste. I think I tried Canadian Club too...wasn't impressed.

I've always thought it would be fun to have a whiskey-tasting party. It's never happened though, so today I figured what the hell, I'll have my own. It's too expensive to buy several different types, so I stuck to two: one small bottle each of Jack Daniels (previous champion, as a benchmark), and Jim Beam (the challenger). Here are my impressions of how they compare...

I chose these two because both are labelled as "sour mash whiskey." Jack Daniels is from Tennessee, Jim Beam from Kentucky. On their labels, Jack prefers to expound on their carefully toasted oak barrels, while Jim brags about their "seven generations of family distillers."

The first difference you notice in the product itself is the colour. The Jack is a slightly deeper amber colour. One might assume that means a richer flavour. We shall see.

Second, both have good legs (they leave a kind of drippy trail on the side of the glass when you swirl the liquid). I have no idea what this signifies...I just read about it somewhere and thought I'd toss it in so I sound halfway credible here. Ha.

The smell is very similar at first...that vapour that seems to hit the back of your sinuses before you actually smell anything. The Jack has a richer smell to go with its richer colour. The closest thing it reminds me of, I'm sorry to say, is turpentine. But there's a warm, kind of sweet note to the aroma that's very pleasant. Beside it, the Jim almost smells weak. But, inhaled deeply, both can be felt at the top of your chest, almost as if you'd already taken a sip.

Now the moment of truth. Jack first, as I'm familiar with its flavour...

Mmm. A little burny in the mouth. The reason I prefer Jack over other whiskey type liquors I've tried is because this burniness is not as pronounced. I don't like pain when I eat and drink. You can almost taste that oak. Kind of reminds you of standing in the middle of a busy woodworking shop if someone was sawing a burnt log. Oddly, it doesn't have a flavour so much as it has an impact on all your senses at once. It's silky smooth on the tongue, and if you don't swallow fast that burning starts. The nose is fully engaged when drinking bourbon. Block your nose and all you have is the burn.

No doubt this burn is the reason most tough guys knock back all or most of a shot in one go and then grimace as if they're suddenly not sure they shoulda done that.

Now for the Jim...Hmmm! Interesting! Lighter-tasting, yes, as I had guessed it might be. The first impression is that it's a tiny bit chemical tasting, but there are spicy undernotes that the Jack doesn't have that are quite pleasant actually. It also seems to be a tad less burny (although that might just be my mouth getting acclimated here). Has a bit more sweetness to it, also in the aftertaste. Quite nice indeed. It also has a nice glow going down. Both of them do, but the Jim Beam's glow seems a little more, how do I say it, comforting than the Jack's slightly more aggressive glow.

A very interesting experiment! I might just have a new favourite bourbon. I'm not going to abandon my pal Jack Daniels just yet, but Jimmy Beam sure is putting up a good case for himself!