Tastes

Rating: 11/23 N: Lots of limestone minerality. It's a light nose that gives me a watery vibe. I'm getting plenty of barrel spice as well, with some light, musty corn. Hints of tangerine. It's a pretty boring, watery nose. Not bad, but definitely bottom shelf stuff. P: Watery with minerals. It's thin, but there's some nice corn sweetness turning into just slightly undercooked caramel with interesting herbaceous flavors that aren't overly bitter. There's a nice amount of barrel spice that doesn't take over nearly as much as I'd expected. Ginger, cinnamon, clove. It's actually a fairly sweet palate and is easy to drink, but there's some spicy heat from the barrel spices. Oh, there is quite a vanilla presence in here. It's nice. It doesn't take over too much and fits in naturally with the wood. F: Lingering sweet corn dipped in light caramel with faint herbaceous complexities. The barrel spices pop in from time to time, but mostly show up as a nice tingling. A lingering layer of thin vanilla sits underneath it all. - Conclusion - There's actually a lot to like here. I'm getting some good complexity with no bitter flavors from over-aging or weird vegetal or chemical flavors from under-aging. This certainly isn't your mature, contemplative dram, but it's fairly complex and quite approachable. The spices are a bit hot for the 40% ABV, but the level is just about right. The problem is that the rest of this is thinner. Maybe they were right to water this down to 40% ABV so the spices don't take over. This might be a bit too expensive to be a cheap mixer and a bit too mellow to be a more expensive one, but it's really not bad. No shame keeping this one around. Evan Williams Bottled In Bond (/23) is bolder and fuller with more peanut flavor, but also a lot more ethanol and burn. This is more approachable and easy sipping, as well as more complex. They're pretty close in quality though. I might lean toward a higher rating for this, but I'd probably re-buy the Evan Williams because most likely it's better for mixing and I'm not drinking booze neat if it isn't at least good (unless I'm working on a review). Evan Williams 1783 (11/23) is more mature with nice sweet vanilla, toffee sweetness and wood. I think that the Evan Williams 1783 is the clear winner here. I might have it rated a bit low at 11/23. This is going to be a 10 or 11. The big question is whether the good points of the Evan Williams Bottled In Bond outweigh its bad points to make it better than this. I'm thinking that this is an 11.

Rating: 13/23 N: Leathery spice. A bit light, but nice. A little bit of that oloroso oil and faint touches of blackberry mixed with mild vanilla. Mild black pepper. Faint nice corn sweetness. This is a nice, decadent, mature nose. P: Spicy, peppery, moderate and light caramel, leather, a bit of oil. Very very faint hints of blackberry and plentiful vanilla. This is a nice, decadent nose, with some mature elements that make me think of Joseph Magnus. Possible faint hints of licorice. Lots of vanilla, spices, and leather. Decadent. A bit of clean water minerality, but it's mostly full and decadent. F: Vanilla, licorice, sweet water, lingering spices, leather. Maybe faint light caramel. - Conclusion - I'm really impressed by this! My first Bowman experience wasn't bad, but it wasn't that impressive. This is really good. It's like budget Joesph Magnus, which is a heck of a compliment. That leather flavor is so decadent and so hard to find. Belle Meade Cask Strength (19/23) is more rich and full than this, with plenty of more spices, but it doesn't have the same leather decadence and maturity. This is lighter and mellower, but it's sort of more hedonistic anyway. The more I compare them though, the more the minerality and lightness in this hit me though. They even hit me when I try this alongside Evan Williams 1783 (11/23). Actually, Russell's Reserve 10 (16/23) tastes fuller and more mature than this does. I'm very much enjoying the Russell's, but at the same time I'm loving the leather here. I'm feeling like this is a case of a great port finish on a mediocre bourbon. At the same time, this tastes more mature and complex than Uncle Nearest 1856 (15/23) does. This is an interesting one. This lacks the malty sweetness of the Uncle Nearest 1856 and has some more sulphur, but this is still quite good in comparison. I'm sure that this is surpassing an 11, but I don't think that it is reaching a 16, unfortunately. I was initially very impressed by this, but the more I sip it alongside other drams, the more I find this lacking. There's a fair amount of sulphur here that I didn't pick up at first. It's a bit off-putting, but it doesn't initially detract too much. The more I taste though, the more confident I become that even a 15 is a bit of a stretch for this. So it's in the 12 to 14 range. Side by side, Highland Park 12 (12/23) (weird choice to compare, but it felt right somehow) is more rich and complex, but has way more sulphur than this does. It's a tough comparison. Bringing Highland Park 16 Wings Of The Eagle (17/23) into the picture here, the sulphur here isn't all that extreme. Actually, the Wings Of The Eagle is a little higher in sulphur and I don't even think of it as sulphuric. This lacks the malty decadent sweetness, but it isn't at all as sulphuric and weird. I think it's pretty clear that this doesn't rise to the level of a 16, but it doesn't fall to the level of a 12 either. It's tough to position this one, but I'm thinking of a 14. I wanted to give it at least a 15 to match the Uncle Nearest, but I'm just finding this to be too generically acceptable without excelling for it to be quite a 15. I could believe a 15, but it certainly isn't a 16. Unfortunately, I liked this a lot at the beginning, but it gradually degraded, revealing serious flaws that I had to account for. If it weren't for that sulphur, I'd like this a lot better. I think that that needs to land on a 14. There's a lot to like here, but it's also flawed. Coming back to this, there's just an awful lot of lightness and minerality going on. I don't find it to be vastly superior to Evan Williams Bottled In Bond (11/23), nor do I find it to be on the level of Russell's Reserve 10. It's either a 13 or 14. I'm thinking a 13 because of that disappointing lightness. I really just wish that a bolder, sweeter spirit had been finished in the port casks. Thanks to @Milliardo for this sample. I had a lot of fun trying it :)

Rating: 10/23 I'm continuing my quest to find the best bottom shelf bourbon for mixing with one I've had plenty of before, but haven't had recently. N: Sweet water with caramel, minerals, barrel spices (ginger, cinnamon, clove), and a touch of corn. Not a bad nose, but light and uninspiring. P: Sweet and mellow with a definite wateriness, but also a spicy burn as the ginger and cinnamon bring the heat, then cloves meld them into barrel spice. It isn't tepid, despite its fairly low proof, but it is on the watery, mineraly side. Not a bad palate, but not one I'd seek out. It's certainly forgettable. It is quite approachable though, perhaps with a bit much heat. F: Sweet corn with bits of caramel. Minerality and some barrel spice lingering. Clean water. - Conclusion - This isn't bad stuff. It's more mature and coherent than Rebel (8/23), but it's also less overtly sweet. The Revel is fuller on the mouthfeel and is less spicy, but this is fuller in flavor. I give the win handily to this. There's no way that this is less than a 9. A 12 seems a bit too high, but it could turn out to be that way. I'm finding this to be fairly competitive with The Sexton (9/23). The Sexton has more delicious fruity flavors, but it also has more fusels that really put me off. I was thinking a 10 or 11 for this, but now I'm looking more at a 9 or 10 and I'm actually leaning toward a 9. Eh, I'm going with a 10. The Sexton really does have more off notes. Eh, I'm going back to a 9. This just isn't that impressive. Coming back to this, I think it's a clearer win over the Rebel. The rebel has a kind of nice profile, but more of its alcohol and youth show through. This isn't way better, but it could be a 10. I'm leaning toward a 9. Eh, maybe a 10. The Sexton has a much weirder, less approachable profile. It's borderline, but I'm going up to a 10 here. Eh, maybe a 9. No, I'm going with a 10.

Rating: 10/23 N: Peppery, grainy, youthful. I'm not liking this. Some lemon and the faintest hint of banana. Hints of apple. Not the worst, but not appealing. P: Bold heat and some nice viscosity. The flavor is peppery with minerals and some light caramel sweetness with hints of apple, green banana, and lemon. I'm getting some vanilla covering up some corny sweetness. Faint meatiness that is a bit worrying, but isn't too bad. Occasional hints of peanut. F: Lingering pepper, vanilla, wood (but not too tannic). It's nice and mellow, but bland and forgettable. - Conclusion - Not bad, but not good. It's not really memorable. It's clearly in the 11 to 12 range, with a 12 being the most likely outcome. I'm going with a 12. For a brief comparison, Evan Williams 1783 (11/23) has a bigger sweet note, but it still is hot and isn't as full. The two are pretty close together, but I definitely give this the win. It tastes like this would be great in a mint julep. The more I have of this side by side with Evan Williams 1983, the more the ethanol comes out here and the sweetness comes out there. I'm not so enamored with this anymore. It may be an 11 as well. An enamored may be an overly positive description of how I felt about this whiskey. Honestly, I'm preferring the 1783 now and wondering why I didn't give it a 12. Maybe I should swap their ratings? Coming back to this, I'm finding it to not be an obviously large improvement over The Sexton (9/23). The Sexton has a sweet fruitiness and mellowness in comparison. Evan Williams 1783 is mellower and sweeter as well. I do think that this is a bit better than The Sexton, but it isn't blowing it out of the water. They're quite close. The 1783 is probably better here. I could see this being an 11, but I'm thinking a 10.

Rating: 11/23 I hear that this is the smoother version of Evan Williams. I don't expect much, but maybe it will be good for mixing. N: Sweet corn with light peanuts and faint minerals. This is overly light, but there's nothing challenging about it. P: A bit of heat and barrel spices with very faint cayenne. Sweet corn with big vanilla as well. A touch of marshmallow. Very approachable, but also quite boring. Definitely some mineral going on too, but it isn't watery. F: Less sweet, but still marshmallow with vanilla and subdued wood. Definitely some minerals. Not exciting, but not objectionable either. I'm not enamored with this, but it's fine. It just isn't quite cheap enough to be truly bottom shelf. Evan William's Black (10/23) has more nuance with bitter herbs, but also more minerality. And also more bitter herbs. Evan Williams Black strikes me as thin, whereas this strikes me as a boring bourbon aimed at people who don't really like bourbon. There really is some heat here. I considered putting this above the regular Evan Williams, but that heat is making me reconsider. I'm thinking that this is likely also a 10, but it could be an 11. I like how approachable this is. I'm going for an 11. Coming back to this, I'm liking it a bit more. It could be a 12 now. Better than that is hard to believe.

Rating: 8/23 This is one of those bottom shelf bourbons that has been on my mind for a while. I expect it to be pretty poor quality, but maybe it will be OK as a mixer. N: Light with minerality. That low ABV isn't doing this any favors. There are hints of tangerine, light caramel, and sweat. It's passable, but really not at all good. Maybe a hint of peanut richness to save this. P: Light, thin. Light caramel sweetness, pepper, elements of white corn, hints of tangerine with just a bit of bitterness from the rind. Lots of minerality. This is fortunately not very bitter. It's bland and not really good, but it's kind of passable. Still, it's too light and has too much minerality to be a really good mixer. F: This is a fairly light finish with more woodiness and pepper, as well as a lighter more watery caramel. It's not bad, but it's bland and light. At least some wood comes out here. - Conclusion - This isn't good. But I didn't expect it to be. It's not actually something I would drink neat, but I could see it as a mixer. I'll have to try it. This is even lighter than Jim Beam Original (9/23). It's less bitter though. Which is better? It's tough. I wouldn't put this as low as a 7, but an 11 seems too high too. I'm thinking an 8 or 9 and leaning toward an 8. It's just so much lighter than the Jim Beam, but it's also less bitter. Still, there's some bitterness here. The Sexton (9/23) is a bit sweeter and fruitier. It's more decadent and enjoyable, so I think I'm going with an 8. Eh, it still could be a a 9.

Rating: 9/23 I previously tasted this and hated it, but younger, sweeter, less mature bourbons have since grown on me. Well, at least enough for me to use them as mixers. N: Dry wood, mineral thinness, light brown sugar, faint tangerine, definite black licorice, and possibly faint hints of meat. Not bad, but nothing inspiring. I'm concerned by how light it is. P: There is a light caramel sweetness with hints of brown sugar, black pepper and ginger. There's also some black licorice. It's all pretty faint and thin though. Definite minerality. I guess I expected that from Beam. The licorice makes it too bitter and it's pretty flat and boring. F: On the bitter side with light caramel. Bland and not enjoyable. - Conclusion - Pick a lane. Either be light and sweet or bold with some bitterness. This just doesn't work. I think that this isn't even on the same level as Earl Settler (10/23), though it isn't all that far away. What a pathetic offering. Just how did Jim Beam ever get so popular? I'm going with a 9, though it could be an 8.