Tastes

12-Year Side-by-Side Showdown So, I posted this the other night, and only one person guessed my ranking. Here are my notes as promised. From first to last, I came out 1. EC12 (7.5/10) 2. 1792 12 year (6.5/10) 3. Three Chord Twelve Bar (6.5/10) 4. Weller 12 (6/10) EC12: Far and away my favorite pour of the bunch. Not necessarily the most complex, but probably the pour that best exemplified "this just works." Everything came together in a wonderful package that sipped well and was easily enjoyed. Sweet cream with a touch of fruitiness, notes of butterscotch, and an appreciable amount of grassy spice. What lingered in the finish was mostly dry peanut and, ever so slightly, raw sugar candy. Sadly, this is also the hardest pour to get more of. 1792: It was a real toss-up between this and the Three Chord. I needed another pour of each to make a decision. Oily, earthy, hints of tobacco, something almost bitter, noticeable amount of charred oak, dusty leather. In the finish, there was dry peanut powder (more like PB2 than real peanut) and a slightly sour note. There was a hint of something almost savory, like barbecue. Twelve chord: highest proof, most peanut, dry medicinal herbal notes, some caramel, vanilla, and brown sugar. Despite being the highest proof by a good bit, it didn't drink noticeably hotter than any of the others. Maybe the least complex/ most one note. I wish there was more depth and complexity. W12: The worst by a small-but-non-trivial margin. It was the smoothest of the bunch, in that it had the least bite and spice - which makes sense because it's also the lowest proof and there's no rye in the mash bill. However, in what I could taste, there were off-putting notes that were highlighted by the side-by-side format - cheap bubble gum being the worst. The whole thing felt like it was at conflict with itself: thinness in the mouthfeel (too low proof), too much char (from the age), clove, and an unpleasant bubble gum/strawberry banana (a common byproduct of wheat in the mash bill but more pronounced in the side-by-side format). There was also fake strawberry Nesquik in the finish that lingered and lingered. I had to go rinse with water and come back, and it was better thereafter: a touch of maple sugar.

12-Year Side-by-Side Showdown So, I posted this the other night, and only one person guessed my ranking. Here are my notes as promised. From first to last, I came out 1. EC12 (7.5/10) 2. 1792 12 year (6.5/10) 3. Three Chord Twelve Bar (6.5/10) 4. Weller 12 (6/10) EC12: Far and away my favorite pour of the bunch. Not necessarily the most complex, but probably the pour that best exemplified "this just works." Everything came together in a wonderful package that sipped well and was easily enjoyed. Sweet cream with a touch of fruitiness, notes of butterscotch, and an appreciable amount of grassy spice. What lingered in the finish was mostly dry peanut and, ever so slightly, raw sugar candy. Sadly, this is also the hardest pour to get more of. 1792: It was a real toss-up between this and the Three Chord. I needed another pour of each to make a decision. Oily, earthy, hints of tobacco, something almost bitter, noticeable amount of charred oak, dusty leather. In the finish, there was dry peanut powder (more like PB2 than real peanut) and a slightly sour note. There was a hint of something almost savory, like barbecue. Twelve chord: highest proof, most peanut, dry medicinal herbal notes, some caramel, vanilla, and brown sugar. Despite being the highest proof by a good bit, it didn't drink noticeably hotter than any of the others. Maybe the least complex/ most one note. I wish there was more depth and complexity. W12: The worst by a small-but-non-trivial margin. It was the smoothest of the bunch, in that it had the least bite and spice - which makes sense because it's also the lowest proof and there's no rye in the mash bill. However, in what I could taste, there were off-putting notes that were highlighted by the side-by-side format - cheap bubble gum being the worst. The whole thing felt like it was at conflict with itself: thinness in the mouthfeel (too low proof), too much char (from the age), clove, and an unpleasant bubble gum/strawberry banana (a common byproduct of wheat in the mash bill but more pronounced in the side-by-side format). There was also fake strawberry Nesquik in the finish that lingered and lingered. I had to go rinse with water and come back, and it was better thereafter: a touch of maple sugar.

I did a 12-Year Side-by-Side Showdown between Elijah Craig 12, 1792 Twelve Year, Three Chord Twelve Bar, and Weller 12 From first to last, I came out 1. EC12 (7.5/10) 2. 1792 12 year (6.5/10) 3. Three Chord Twelve Bar (6.5/10) 4. Weller 12 (6/10) EC12: Far and away my favorite pour of the bunch. Not necessarily the most complex, but probably the pour that best exemplified "this just works." Everything came together in a wonderful package that sipped well and was easily enjoyed. Sweet cream with a touch of fruitiness, notes of butterscotch, and an appreciable amount of grassy spice. What lingered in the finish was mostly dry peanut and, ever so slightly, raw sugar candy. Sadly, this is also the hardest pour to get more of. 1792: It was a real toss-up between this and the Three Chord. I needed another pour of each to make a decision. Oily, earthy, hints of tobacco, something almost bitter, noticeable amount of charred oak, dusty leather. In the finish, there was dry peanut powder (more like PB2 than real peanut) and a slightly sour note. There was a hint of something almost savory, like barbecue. Twelve chord: highest proof, most peanut, dry medicinal herbal notes, some caramel, vanilla, and brown sugar. Despite being the highest proof by a good bit, it didn't drink noticeably hotter than any of the others. Maybe the least complex/ most one note. I wish there was more depth and complexity. W12: The worst by a small-but-non-trivial margin. It was the smoothest of the bunch, in that it had the least bite and spice - which makes sense because it's also the lowest proof and there's no rye in the mash bill. However, in what I could taste, there were off-putting notes that were highlighted by the side-by-side format - cheap bubble gum being the worst. The whole thing felt like it was at conflict with itself: thinness in the mouthfeel (too low proof), too much char (from the age), clove, and an unpleasant bubble gum/strawberry banana (a common byproduct of wheat in the mash bill but more pronounced in the side-by-side format). There was also fake strawberry Nesquik in the finish that lingered and lingered. I had to go rinse with water and come back, and it was better thereafter: a touch of maple sugar.

The nose reminds me of orange rind, or orange aromatic bitters. It also could be pear brandy with sweet lemon or orange zest. Some of the brandy definitely carries across into the flavor, with an almost too bitter, too citrusy quality to this. It drinks young, interesting, and nice in that it is definitely different and zesty. I wouldn't peg this as a wheated bourbon at all because the flavors are atypical, however I recently had something very similar from Kinsey - an unreleased wheated bourbon with very similar qualities that I liked. I want to add that I think wheat is still underutilized in that everyone was using wheat to try and make the next Weller.But if you use it the right way like this, or like Kinsey is doing, it can pick up an intense fruity character. For people who like brandy, there may really be something here with this mashbill. But I think it needs more age

I promise I'll revisit this with a clean palate. Nose: as my 7th drink of the night, plus chugging a Guinness, I get very little nose from this. Some caramel and anise. Rubber from sneakers? To be honest, the glass wasn't 100% clean. It was just rinsed with water real quick, so I need to revisit this anyway. Flavor: nice heat; more warmth than heat. Dry with only a touch of caramel sweetness. It reminds me more of the sweetness you get from cinnamon than from actual sugar. Reflecting the nose, I'm getting some anise. There is also a little bit of woodsiness - not oak - but something wood adjacent. Finally, I do get a bit of rubber coming through. Upon another pour, I need to add that this is slightly spicy with a touch of tobacco and demerara. The finish has a hint of peanut to it and it lingers well. Bottom line: It's not my favorite ECBP or my favorite profile, but it is definitely above average for whiskey in this price range.

First, this not a typical bourbon profile. This may be one of those times where I like this more as a rum or brandy drinker than I do as a bourbon drinker. It's often hard for me to separate those approaches to tasting. Also, I have to admit, there is something slightly off about it, like there is a bad bourbon hiding somewhere in there, but they did a good job of masking it. The nose is corn and fruit, but not standard corn. The corn profile reminds me of a super sweet summer corn, like the kind you eat on the cob fresh off the grill, slightly charred, rubbed with a little salt sugar and butter. There's also a ton of vanilla in the nose, in an almost rum-like way Drinks slightly young and very corn forward, but there is a nice subtle bite immediately. Some bitter char, a lot of brandy-esque raisin and prunes, vanilla, Belgian sugar, and a touch of chardonnay all blend together in a low-burn, lower proof package. This doesn't blow my mind, but I'm surprised I don't hate it. This isn't a rave, btw. More like 3/5 compared to 1.5/5 from everyone else. A few things to be suspicious of though. It's not straight bourbon whiskey, so it could be blended. Alternatively, it says aged and minimum of 6 months, so it could just have a lot of really young stock. Who knows

I'm not sure I understand the hate for this. It's really low proof, a bit one-note, and isn't complex - but, it's not offensive or undrinkable like some bourbons and whiskeys I've had. Nose is really faint, almost imperceptible. If anything, it smells like generic bourbon but extremely watered down and muted - which it essentially is. Initial flavor is a touch of fall apple, slightly baked. There's cinnamon in the finish upon chewing. There is a slight minerality and peach/apricot/stone-fruit quality that reminds me of Dickel - but to a far lesser degree than most actual Dickel products. I can hold this in my mouth for maybe 5-10 seconds, before it even starts to pick up the slightest spice/burn. I dare say I even like how crisp this is. This reminds me of standard Jim Beam profile without the peanut. If it can be had for under $18, I don't think it's the worst purchase. It's currently $15 at the nearby state-controlled store. There are definitely better bottles at $20, but there are bottles at $30-$40 that are far worse. Take that as you will.

Also, I'm posting a second review, because I'm pretty sure all of the early reviews that are 5.0 are extremely suspicious. One of them includes only 5.0 reviews for St liberty's and no one else, and one of them includes two 5.0 reviews for Bertie's out of four reviews total and nothing else. I just can't imagine that there's an objective drinker out there who thinks this is a 5.0

People need to be warned! I've tasted over 200 different whiskeys in the last year, and this is easily the worst or the second worst (looking at you Wade Lyn Ranch Barrel Proof). I'd write a more comprehensive review, but I don't want to taste it again. This is the kind of bottle I let my bourbon and whiskey friends taste as a joke to see their reaction. I honestly can't believe this is straight bourbon whiskey. It seriously tastes like it was mixed with straight grain neutral spirit, gasoline, and maybe the runoff from the bottom of the trash can? It's really hard to pin down these flavors while retching. I guess I'll have to leave that job for a braver whiskey explorer