Tastes

Rating: 18/23 I just reached mutual agreement with a seller to buy a house. This seemed like a nice whisky when I bought it, being a 28 year old single malt, but I had serious reservations seeing as I'd never heard of it before and it was chill filtered and bottled at a meager 40% ABV. High potential but highly uncertain? Sounds like my future house, so this seems like the occasion to crack this bottle. N: Some maltiness with some bitterness and a bit of water, but tangerine as well, a bit of caramel, minerality, and a hint of dungeness crab. A bit of vanilla. It's on the light side, but that maltiness is rich. A hint floral. This is nice. P: At such a low ABV, this is mellow and the flavors do tend to blur together. There's a nice sweetness mixed with some buckwheat nuttiness, lightly toasted grain, and layers of mellow funkiness that are interesting and balanced, aside from this disappointing bitterness like somebody watered this down too much. Hints of tangerine and then a bolder vanilla in with the buckwheat and malt. I think this would really have shone at 46% ABV. It's quite good, but it's a bit too muddled. F: Richness from the malt, with a bit of bitterness that is under control. There's some sweetness with woody, vanilla, floral, and tangerine hints. The grain really stand out here .I get some buckwheat, but I also get a bit of a breakfast cereal vibe. Still, this is on the bitter side. It's a pretty good finish. - Conclusion - This reminds me a lot of Linkwood 11 (The Barrel Thief Single Cask) (18/23) that I just tried with its nuttiness and speyside character. This is more bitter, but also better integrated. McIvor 17 (17/23) tastes much more youthful and less complex than this, but it doesn't have that overly watered-down bitter funk to it. I think that this is the clear winner. Dalmore 12 (15/23) is more muddled and substantially less tasty and coherent than this is. Overall, I'm quite happy with this. I think it has earned an 18.

Rating: 18/23 I tried a sample of this (well, a different batch) recently and I really liked it, so I went and bought my own. I've been burned by this kind of decision making before, like when I bought my Balcones True Blue, but I'm hopeful that this will be excellent. Even if it's not quite as good, I'll be happy. N: It's hot with a sort of woody grainy richness to it. I'm not getting a lot here and it might be a tad youthful. P: This does kind of burn, but there are nice sweet and rich flavors here. Caramel with some orange. I do get a bit of herbal something and mint, but it's really on the sweet side. Ironic for something with "smoke" in its name. There's this richness that's a bit nuttiness that's like a nice oloroso finishing. I'm also getting some hints of chocolate. F: The sweetness remains and this just kind of goes on mellowly. for a bit. - Conclusion - This is great. Is it amazing? Probably not. But it's still quite nice. And for the price? Maybe a bit steep, but not in the range where I regret it. How is this compared with Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18-19/23)? Honestly, the Wild Turkey might be a little bit better. This is probably more of a 17 or 18. I'm liking it a lot, but I think it needs a $20 price drop. Old Forester 1920 (18/23) is a bit funkier than this, but it's less hedonistic. This is less bold, but more sophisticated. They're pretty close. This is likely an 18. Coming back to this, it does have a bit of youthful meatiness holding it back.

Rating: 19/23 I've heard amazing things about this for a while, but I've also heard that it's a bit overpriced. I'm looking forward to making that call myself. N: Not super in my face. A hint of roast chicken. There's some surprising tangerine in there as well. Maybe a bit of grain. Not a ton is happening here though and it's not that enjoyable. P: There is some interesting stuff going on here! It's sweet, with some nice lightish caramel with sweet corn and hints of apricot - that last bit being a real surprise. This is very approachable and quite an easy sipper. I'm not tasting any weird notes from the alcohol and even though it burns a little bit, it certainly isn't harsh. Some vanilla is coming through now. A bit of kind of generic spice, but it does make me think a tad of cayenne or ancho. A touch of minerality, but it just adds complexity, unlike many bourbons, which the minerality makes seem lighter. It's not über complex, but it's surprisingly elegant. Not at all what I would expect from something with the name "Smoke Wagon". F: Clean with lingering light caramel and sweet corn, as well as a controlled burn. Not the longest finish or the most complex, but it's pretty nice while it's there. - Conclusion - I really appreciate how restrained this is. They didn't push their luck and leave it in the barrel too long. It's an easy sipper. Is it amazing me? Not really. I'm still enjoying it quite a bit though. Old Forester 1920 (18/23) is bolder and brasher, with more or a burn and more aggressive banana and wood that borders on being over-oaked. I like that the Old Forester is bolder, but I also find it to be less nuanced. Overall, I think that this is better. Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18-19/23) has more peanut and funk, but it shows its alcohol more and is more challenging. They complexity is similar, but the Wild Turkey is both richer and more challenging. This seems like a closer match-up than the Old Forester. This one seems like it might be a touch better because it's more refined and elegant, but it's not a massive improvement. 1792 Full Proof (19/23) is bolder than this and it has a bigger punch, but it also burns more and is less complex. I'm not convinced that the 1792 beats this at all. I get some Blanton's vibes, so I pulled down my bottle of Blanton's. The Blanton's has more sweetness and minerality and it just tastes more muddled and slightly off-putting. Maybe a bit too much maple and vanilla. This is the clear winner. It's been so long since I rated Blanton's that I don't think I can narrow down my rating range based on that, but suffice it to say that Blanton's is not as good as this. So, I'm pulling down my current bottle of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof (21/23) as well. The problem here is that this bottle tasted a bit like gasoline last time I tried it and I did not enjoy it nearly as much as the decadent oily banana profile of prior bottles. Comparing the two, I'm now getting more bitter herbal notes from the Jack Daniel's I do still get a hint of gasoline, but it tastes much better than it did before. It's rich and full and surprisingly complex. My inclination is to favor the Jack Daniel's over the Smoke Wagon, which really indicates to me that the Smoke Wagon is not a 20, seeing as this is clearly the worst bottle of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof that I've tried. I mean, this might be competitive with the Jack, but how good is the Jack exactly? Side by side, I'm inclined to take the Jack over the 1792, but not by a large margin. I think that this is clearly not lower than a 19. Could it be higher? Maybe. I could believe a 20 and be persuaded of a 21, but I don't see it being better than that. I don't know. The more I taste this, the more I think that it's a 20. It's very nicely executed, being fairly interesting and also very easy to drink. I think with that side-by-side of the bad Jack and the 1792, I'm really looking at a 19 here. That's a great score, but I would have been delighted to go up to a 20 here. Thanks @jdriip for sharing this one with me!

Rating: 19/23 I tried this a bit over a year ago and was taken aback by how good it was. It wasn't the best thing I'd ever had by any means, but it was easily one of the best ryes. I wanted to run out and get one, but they're not so easy to come by. Fast forward to now and I've finally gotten my hands on a bottle. Hopefully it's as good as the sample I tried previously. N: It's actually kind of floral with passionfruit at first. That's surprising. Some rich woody maturity grows out of that, bringing occasionally hints of rose water with it. What is going on here? Finally, I start getting a rye bitterness, with kind of a bitter root character to it. It fits in with the other scents though. Gradually, I get some dry woody spiciness, but it doesn't take over. This isn't terribly complex, but it's surprisingly balanced and quite interesting. I'm enjoying it. P: This is much bolder and more fiery than the nose suggested. I do get some floral vanilla with passionfruit and hints of rose water though. Very interesting. Of course, I also get a big woody tannic flavor with bitter chocolate and beets. The alcohol doesn't really show that much. There are spices, of course. They just come right out of the dry wood. Licorice is here too. Possibly a touch of leather. It's a bold profile with a decadent character. There's some complexity, but it isn't blowing me away. F: Licorice, bitter vanilla, some woody tannins and spice. - Conclusion - There's a nice boldness to this that brings with it a decadence and a sense of maturity. I really wouldn't have guessed that this is only 4 years old, though I'm not sure how old I would have guessed. Certainly more than 6. I find this to be at least competitive with Wild Turkey Rare Breed bourbon (18/23). This is probably better. It's also definitely competitive with Belle Meade Cask Strength Reserve (19/23). I can imagine this being a little better, but not a whole lot better. Russell's Reserve Single Barrel Rye (17/23) is mellower and more approachable. Honestly, it's easier to sip. Still, I like the profile that this has better. It's intensely bitter, but it kind of tastes like what a rye should be. I feel like this and Whistlepig PiggyBack (16/23) have kind of nailed the two "true rye" profiles, whereas a lot of others end up more in the bourye vicinity. That said, tasting this next to the Russell's, I do quite like the Russell's. Moving on to Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof (21/23)... I seem to be out. Cracking a new bottle, I get some of those usual decadent flavors, but also a meatiness that I hope will work itself out with time. Aside from the meatiness, the bottle is delicious. I'll give it a while so that I can find out if what I have is a bad bottle or a bottle that just needs to be left alone for a while. Right now, I would definitely say that the Dad's Hat is better. This is highly competitive with (though quite different from) my Total Wine pick of Balcones True Blue Cask Strength (19/23). They're very similar in quality. The Balcones is more of a flawed masterpiece, whereas this is more of a brilliant execution of something that is a bit rough in concept. I'm looking at a 19 for the Dad's Hat. It's just so big and bold and decadent. It's not perfect, but wow it sure is a find.

Rating: 10/23 This is some dirt cheap Total Wine store brand bourbon, so obviously I expect it to be bad, though upon closer inspection, I am seeing that it's a straight bourbon, so it must not be the most absolutely awful of swill, like that 6 month old stuff that makes it into bottles sometimes. Still, it's only 40% ABV. N: Actually, a nice nose with slightly toasty oak, caramel, tangerine, vanilla, and limestone. It might smell a faint bit youthful (aside from not having a bold woody maturity, I mean), but it really doesn't smell at all bad. In fact, I'm quite enjoying this nose. P: Watery, but I certainly expected that at this proof. Then some spiciness comes in that's hard to place, but melds nicely into the surprising richness. There's caramel with that bit of tangerine heading into slightly tart limestone that adds minerality without making this taste watery. The palate is surprisingly full for only 40% ABV, though it certainly still comes off as low ABV. Vanilla makes its way in too. Perhaps a mild touch of licorice. F: This dries out as the wood makes its way in and blends nicely with the spices. Lingering vanilla for sure. Maybe a touch of licorice and hint of that sweet, rich core. - Conclusion - I'm honestly blown away by this. For $10 I expected something really undrinkable. This isn't great by any means, but it's shockingly actually sippable. The core profile here is really good, putting it in solid competition with the likes of Ancient Age (11/23), though I might like this a hair better because it comes across as a bit richer. Hard to say. An easy choice as a mixer if the drink doesn't need to pack the biggest alcohol punch. Trader Joe's bourbon (11/23) (allegedly sourced from Barton's). is less sweet and more funky, with more of a burn, but less richness. This is a bit flat in comparison though, with the licorice really coming out a lot more side by side. I'm kind of getting some flat Jim Beam Black vibes from this now. Coming back to this, I get richness, but it's kind of immature and bland. I get plenty of vanilla and also caramel, but not a ton is going on here. Previously, I was placing this on about the same level as the Trader Joe's, with the Trader Joe's being hotter and more challenging, but also a bit more interesting (though a bit less hedonistic). Now, I'm finding this to be below the Trader Joe's. I'm thinking a 10 or 11 and I'm pretty confident. This is also below Hotel Tango Bourbon Ready-To-Drink (11/23), which is just so borderline between a 10 and an 11, so I think that this must be a 10.