Tastes

So, I heard about this bottle months ago and I finally found it. Not a lot of information on this out there. Why doesn't the Jim Beam website list this next to the Jim Beam Single Barrel 95 proof? Why is the 95 proof, chill filtered version more expensive? How is this different than Baker's, which is nearly the same proof and also single barrel, but way more expensive? I have a lot of questions, but I'm glad I got to try it. So, flavor: It's a recognizable but cleaner Jim Beam profile. Reminds me of Knob Creek single barrel, and you might feel like this is a KCSB just proofed down to 108. The reason I describe it as cleaner is because there's a lot less peanut, and a lot less heat and dark caramelized sugar qualities than what you usually find in KCSB, even accounting for proof variance. Overall, it tastes less dry/dusty. Almost like it really was filtered, despite the statement on the label to the contrary. It's a pleasant, neat sipper, with some creaminess that allows it to drink smoother than its proof. So, is it worth it? Unfortunately, I paid $38 for this in NJ. At that price, it's just fine, not much different in value than KCSB at $10 more and 12 proof more. On the other hand, the product is being sold for $24 in Kentucky. At that price it would have been a steal, no question!

Soft, easy going, light sipper with a silky, milk chocolate mouthfeel that reminds me of sweet cream coffee creamer. Hints of mint chocolate in the nose. Taste: there's a touch of milk sugar richness, like lactose, rather than true sweetness throughout, with a finish that just fades slowly and steadily into nothing. As it finishes, it reminds me of chocolate again. Overall, it's pretty good, but not great. What it lacks is depth of flavor and it could use more richness than the hint that it gives. The best thing about this is drinkability.

In short, tastes like a youngish (but still quite sippable) bourbon aged in slightly more heavily charred barrels (there is a heavy, almost bitter char quality rather than sweet marshmallow), then finished in red wine barrels (the wine influence is unmistakable). When I tasted this, I did not know that it had been finished in red wine barrels, but nonetheless I noticed the wine influence immediately. On the other hand, I don't know for certain whether or not the distillate was aged in more heavily charred barrels than normal, or if it's just the influence of the moniker, or perhaps the influence of the secondary barrels. I definitely do feel like this is on the more dry, more bitter, and oakier side of bourbons, especially for age. Also, it drinks like something slightly higher proof (92 instead of 88).

Revisiting this bottle about a year later. Still incredible, especially when the price is considered. Not the best bottle I've ever had, but as good as many bottles I've had at double the price. If this came in closer to 110 instead of 100 proof, it would be one of the best bottles around. Smooth, marshmallow-like, chewy, with just a dusting of peanut, cherry, and cocoa. I paid $70 for a Bulleit single barrel that is surprisingly similar

Dangerously smooth. Nose of light cream, vanilla, and marshmallow. Extremely smooth mouthfeel, with a burst of pepper, light cream, faint Oak, and chrysanthemum. Chewing brings out more and more pepper, followed by a touch of bazooka Joe bubble gum. A minute in the glass also reveals some dried peanut. This is dangerously smooth (I finished an ounce almost instantaneously and wanted more), but I am a bit disappointed by the short finish that left my mouth dry and tasting of bazooka Joe. Still, an excellent pour, although not cheap at $170-180. Maybe a fair value.

Reviewing Batch 0001 of this product. Smooth, milky-textured bourbon with a punch of heat. Since I last reviewed this, I feel like the bourbon market has changed significantly, and It's hard to think of a better value in bourbon on paper: $66 for a 12-year-old, barrel proof, small batch (according to the website, batches are about 600 bottles at a time - which makes me guess around four barrel batches, so really small) bourbon. Of course, value on paper doesn't always equate to the best tastes. First, although this is barrel proof, it is a low barrel proof at 107. Second, this is sourced from Tennessee and Kentucky, before being blended and finished (using sound waves???) in Michigan. Leaving the sounds waves gimmick aside, there's still some Dickel that comes through, and that may be a deal breaker for many. Finally, the flavor just is not as complex as I might expect from something with this age and proof. It's a smooth drinker, but it's a little one note throughout. It lacks complexity. I get a good bit of dry peanut, with light notes of caramel and vanilla, finishing with some pleasant spice (that I also associate with Dickel products). I wrote that this was a caramel bomb in my last review, but I'm not getting that anymore. The overwhelming quality of this for me is smoothness in the front with a peppery finish in the back. Bottom line, I think it might be worth the price they're charging, and I think it's definitely worth a taste if you ever get a chance - especially if you don't mind Dickel and you like a brighter, less deep, less oaky, smooth drinker. This could benefit from deeper, richer notes, but it's still a fine smooth sipper. Side note, the low "barrel proof" also has me wondering if there is something else going on that we aren't being told about - the website says "We do not use water in the blending of Twelve Bar Reserve. In and out of the cask, Twelve Bar Reserve is the same 107 proof." Because it seems unlikely that the proof is the exact same going into and out of the casks unless the time period is short, and because there are a lot of ambiguous allusions to some type of secondary wood process with charring and integration using music: Is it possible that the sourced whiskey is watered down then re-barreled briefly? Would that allow them to get away with saying that it's barrel proof as far as the second barrel is concerned?

Midleton Very Rare or Middling: Very Meh? Tastes like the Blanton's of Irish Whiskey. Nothing to complain about, nothing to write home about. Nose: Smells unbelievably light. Like, I can wet my nose and it doesn't burn my olfactories. Flavor: Completely muted. Way too low proof. A bit like honey/honeysuckle syrup watered down with a touch of lemon grass and a hint of the tropical. No burn. One note throughout. Nothing in the finish to let you remember it by. Waste of money, if you ask me.

Since I first had this, I've had a lot more Bourbon, and this deserves a better score than I last gave it. I drank two different bottlings (barrels) tonight and a common theme is that they are both maple-syrup forward. It's worth highlighting the differences: The first bottle was tons of maple syrup, with dark cherry and roasted peanuts. Very smooth, but there was a slight burn/bite. The second bottle was a local group pick: this had even more maple syrup with a smoother mouthfeel and more viscocity, ultiimately lending this a maple liqueur like quality - a beverage I've had in vermont and canada. There is muted peanut in the back end with overall less burn/bite.

Everything about this is pleasant, but muted. As a direct comparison, it is like Wild Turkey 101, but muffled. It is smooth - smoother than Wild Turkey 101 with more marshmallow. The dry peanut aspect comes through more but is also creamier, so the finish takes on a creamy peanut butter-like quality. There is also a cinnamon note that comes through more than the normal Wild Turkey offerings. All in all, a great bottle for a beginner bourbon drinker, but I wouldn't recommend it for the kind of person taking the time to read this entire review.