Tastes

Surprisingly this isn't a bad try at bourbon for an "Ohio" distillery, the minimum 4 year age worked wonders with a smooth deliberate caramel sugar nose working with some spices almost yielding a Woodford like experience. Unfortunately the taste won't hold up to that standard but even so it doesn't come off as an immature and green product, more like one that just didn't get the extra year or two it needed to really stand out, (that being said, I've tried the 8 year and it really didn't seem to help). The chew and taste gives a tingling on the tongue and again mild spices with good bourbon sugar notes along with some dry nibs and tobacco hints, what comes in first and foremost however are the sweet bourbon notes. Nothing wrong with that, it follows through with the brown sugar notes intact tapering off very easy. I'm almost ready to bet this is sourced from our favorite outsourcer of bourbon, MGP. Perhaps this is a throwback attempt to the 86 proof wild turkey days, if so not a bad attempt. I like the bottle style as much as anything and would not mind dropping a few Hamilton's for one. The claim is 4 year blended with 14 year, (cont, sorry about that) if this one falls in the 20-30 range it should be a decent value bottle for most enthusiasts. As with most sourced products the real question is continuity of quality, the answer to that one remains to be seen. Cheers!

Ladys' and Gentlement, LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE, in one corner wearing the green trunks, we have the 10 year bourbon cask and 4 year Quinta port cask finish 14 year Glenmorangie. In the opposite corner, wearing the black trunks, we have 12 year, 10 in bourbon, 2 in Quinta port, Glenmorangie. Winner to be determined by Judge Beppe, (barring a knockout). Before the opening bell, I note the much deeper almost burnt amber red color of the 14 year. Apparently that extra 2 years imparts a grand deep cherry hue while the 12 year does show off a nice copperish gold glow, think Pam Anderson after a summer in the sun, gold. Yet the 14 year really lives up to it's Ruby tag in appearance, the 12, not so much. Nose 12y Straight forward or port forward if you prefer, the sweet red fruit riding just on top of the malt base. Really delicious if slightly acrid. 14y The sweet red is dialed back just a notch, as is the malt, just a bit more delicate and less acrid, it's almost a perfect balancing act between the two wine and scotch players. Win for the nose, by a nose, goes to the 14, but the rich almost wanton character of the 12 is nothing to overlook. This could easily be a split decision. Front 14 From the tongue tip to the back and sides the malt mineral acridity never really develops until the very end, only then does this feel like scotch, in between I get a warm meade like oiliness that just floats along a barley river. 12 Washing with some cold H20 to get the salt out of the eyes, the front port is forward but the malt vinegar is far more in your face and the fine balancing act is lost. The 12 year is a bit more of a brute than a predator and we don't know what might have happened in the 10 year cask but that could well be part of it. The 12 finishes with the big grape sugar giving way to a hot chocolate pepper and nib bitterness, the 14 is going to win here again as the bitter final tail is far less pronounced and the 14's honey smooth middle hangs on much longer. Winner: 14 year The 14 year wins but not with heavy slugging upper cuts, it's more like sugar ray, side stepping and dancing while jabbing to a slow footed 12 rocky who, even with all the heart in the world, can't keep up, missing with hay makers and clumsily punching air. The 12 year really never had a chance in this one though it made a good showing. Verdict, for me the 12 year is a nice scotch I can say yes to, but not really care if I ever get another, the 14 is next level in refinement and really makes me want to keep going. I think Glenmorangie deserves a good nod for making the choice in adding the 2 years as this makes a notable and decidedly well done difference. This seems to fall right in line with the decade plus aged 50 dollar scotch. Just remember you want the green label here! Cheers!

If you're a Metalica fan, and you want "to believe" then knock yourself out, no really, just grab a short handled sledge and aim for the temple, best bet. This "undisclosed" whiskey was most likely aimed for cherry, apple, peach or honey flavor before hitting the bottom shelf of the store. The brandy cask finish does dress it up a little bit from the standpoint of the nose, a little black cherry and plum hint you MIGHT be getting into something good. But then the taste betrays that this is sickly sweetened and really nothing about it seems balanced or refined. Yes LOUD grungey Metallica not good smooth mellow bourbon. If you want a black eye for Christmas, get this instead of Bookers. Trying to find something redeeming it has a bit of acrid starchyness along with the way too sweet brandy which seems more like a corn syrup in your mouth. I can come up with at least one good thing to say about it. IT'S NOT FIREBALL. Ok, if you're gonna listen to Metallica and you want to get blasted, you probably won't really notice what you're drinking and that's another good thing I can say about it. However this list is thin, why not just do yourself a favor and buy some Wild Turkey American Honey, you at least get some Wild Turkey with your way too sweet booze. Maybe try the Mahavishnu Orchestra next time, or just some Sympathy for the Devil, because you're gonna want some sympathy after you realize what you've done by getting this.

A decent offering from High West. It's interesting so many have an opinion on this yet so few could be troubled to write a note about it. I'm sampling Batch 18B22 which I hope means NOT the year. The bottle is open well below the neck (shoulders I guess) so the bitter geebies, if any, have had time to air out. The nose is feint but offers pleasant sweet dill and sugar spice. Straight into the mouth we get a moderate offering of nice sweet spices quickly turning to some mild bitter nibs and coco, the corn blend I would say is just notable at the front and that's a good thing, otherwise we would have yet another 95/5 MGP product relabeled for the market. The profile does remain somewhat simplistic. This has just a bit of that nice richness found in the high corn ryes, and blend or the age produces a good smooth back side, the finish is burn free and clean. This really seems like one of the better ideas High West has come up with. If you want a somewhat straight rye experience with just a minor feel of the rich character ryes well you could do far worse. Prognosis. The proof and markup seem to be just at the point where I wouldn't mind keeping this in the bar though I certainly wouldnt kick out a favorite rye to make room for it. Better than some High West offerings though that's just not saying that much. Cheers!

Following up with another Limestone Branch Distiller sample, this one 7166848 @109 proof, well if Limestone Branch was founded by Beam descendants this does indeed bring a lot of Beam substance. You can imagine a bit of peanut brittle with the caramelized sugars and nibs, hints of fruit, a bit of sweet cinnamon spices, in fact if I had to guess in a blind tasting I would say this is Beam SiB or maybe even Signature craft, either way the heritage factor is in play. Not a load of big, strong sugar spectrum and only moderate in complexity but definitely classic whiskey notes. The nose doesn't offer much else aside from the nice ethel burn, the front loads with the noted sugars being prevalent and the finish is warm, almost hot but surprisingly pure. No hints of immaturity, it's a clean warm burn on the finish. Just not much variation which is also something of a Beam tradition, what it does offer is honest straight bourbon appeal. While I'm seeing the standard 92 proof Yellowstone everywhere, this bottle seems to be a bit of a unicorn, harder to find but easily the better of them, for comparison I also have some of the 101 Limited 9 year that's been going out for awhile, the 101 is far tamer in the heat dept, and a good bit smoother in feel. Both of these leave some thick, oily trails on the glass and have a great mature feel to them. I'd probably opt for the 101 in most cases and circumstances but the higher proof 109 has that certain "straight bourbon" character that you recognize on taste and some may appreciate that "honest punch of booze" feel more than others. Worth a go if this is your thing. Cheers!

The nose is loaded with fruits as the Distiller review suggests, there is also a good bit of brown caramel sugars yielding the big sweet bouquet of almost a high rye bourbon nose. I can certainly see where they were going with this. Up front the sugars quickly give way to a hot spicy rye note and that heat stays through to the end, I'm guessing this is probably 4 years old maximum and the sherry cask goes a good way in hiding the youth that is underlying the spicy heat with just a tad of that menthol rye we get from young product. The fruit sugars just don't quite mesh with the rye spice heat and harsh menthol making this a nice try but no cigar on the finished rye front. Once again I suspect a whiskey rush to market betrayed what could have been a really good or even top notch finished rye, and that's a shame. Short changing the ageing process just never pays off. This is a rye you would use to mix a Manhattan, not break out trying to impress a guest, certainly not one who is a veteran of the rye whiskey line. Due to the price being pretty reasonable it still gets a fair mark for affordable, and drinkable, just not impressive. Straight rye of a very high corn bill finished in sherry casks is exactly what this seems like, not exactly a trademark "Beam" product line but an average drinking rye just the same.