Tastes

Rating: 11/23 N: Light mineral with some rye spiciness. And of course that unavoidable Jack Daniel's banana. I get some traces of wood but also of alcohol. It definitely smells young and in need of some help, but there's some decent complexity and it doesn't smell actively bad. P: It's sweet and light with banana in the usual Jack Daniel's style. Not to introduce time travel to this tasting, but I did take a sip out of the mini bottle before nosing it, so despite writing about the sweet lightness and banana on the nose (which I'm sure I will be doing once I smell it), I was quite surprised. Now, I say "quite surprised", but I also say "usual Jack Daniel's style". For some reason, I was expecting a lot more rye and really not much to indicate that it was Jack Daniel's. There wasn't a good reason for me to expect this, but I did. So, yeah, it's actually not an awful palate, but it is quite sweet. It's clear that there's not a ton of rye in this, but despite being overbearingly sweet and on the light side, this isn't bad. Now, it isn't good either and I certainly would not substitute it for a rich bold rye like Pikesville or Russell's, or for a dry spicy rye like Whistlepig. Side by side, both Jim Beam Pre-Prohibition and George Dickel Rye are better by a fair margin. OK, so it's definitely not that great. There's plenty of mineral and also some bitterness that hints a bit at mint and licorice, but also has a bit of some other herbal element and bleeds into alcohol. That banana is really present throughout unfortunately. F: Minerals, banana, light hints of toffee and wood, faint bitter herbal notes, including crushed mint. Not great, but not awful. I might prefer this to regular Jack and I definitely like it better than Gentleman Jack, but that's about the level we're talking about here. Ultimately, I think it's about on par with Jack Daniel's bourbon, so an 11 seems about right. I might bump this up a hair, but the banana here really is a bit much for a rye.

Rating: 15/23 N: Floral, mineral, banana, wood, semi-sweet chocolate, mild spices (hints of baking spices and a dash of smoky chili), a bit of vanilla (surprisingly little though), a hint of earth and tobacco. I could go either way on this nose. It's solid, but the mineral is a bit much and that banana could really be a problem on the palate. P: Less banana than I feared by far. The mineral is stronger though. Mineral, wood, herbal, and smoke flavors are at the fore. It's quite balanced and complex. Vanilla comes in and there is some sort of sweetness in here, but it's perhaps more like a light semi-sweet chocolate mixed with some sugar water rather than brown sugar or caramel. Actually, a fairly complex and tasty palate. There is some heat on it, but it isn't harsh. F: The mineral, herbal (some tobacco and earth), and floral flavors linger, along with some wood. It's lighter than I'd like, but not overly so and the sweetness stays just enough to keep it in balance. A surprisingly nice finish, actually. I prefer the palate, but nothing here upsets me. I think that this is better than my last tasting was. I was worried at first that there might be too much banana here, but it turned out that there actually wasn't much. The minerals do make the profile lighter than I wish it were though. Still, for $33, I wouldn't turn up my nose at a bottle of this. This is somewhere between my bottle of 1792 Single Barrel and Russell's Reserve 10, putting it right in the 15 to 16 range. I like that is has more complexity than the 1792, but it is milder than the Russell's, which I already consider to be fairly mild. I think that mildness is a deal-breaker on the 16, so I'm going with 15. At $30-35, I still think that this is a fine purchase. At $40 though, that would be pushing it.

Rating: 21/23 So this has changed a lot since I last tasted it and my bourbon preferences have possibly changed as well. N: There's nothing biting on the nose. No excess alcohol, no weird Wild Turkey Rare Breed metallic tartness. It's just smooth and balanced. Digging into it, I can excavate numerous layers, much like with an Ardbeg (though obviously with a very different profile). It's fruity with some cinnamon up front, in a way that reminds me a surprising amount of Aberlour 12. The fruit has cherry, but also a surprising amount of strawberry and some jamminess to it. Aside from the cinnamon, I get wood, and these neatly folded layers of grain and traditional herbs. It's very approachable, yet also interesting and enticing. P: The cherry is more pronounced, but the strawberry still comes out, along with a big cinnamon and black pepper hit (I thought I might have smelled some of that), some mild toasty wood, pecan, and almond, and a more mellow assortment of herbal and floral flavors. Vanilla is here to help with the balance, but it doesn't stand out as much as the red fruit and spice. The grain makes a nice showing and there's even a hint of malt. There's some nice rye tartness that doesn't substantially lighten the profile and brings an interesting limestone character into the mix. It actually does remind me of a much more mature, complex, and just generally better Aberlour 12, obviously re-expressed as a bourbon. F: The fruit lingers a bit, but more vanilla and floral flavors come out, along with a hair more malt. The spice fades midway through the finish, but the heat remains for longer. Wood comes out more later on, leading into a bit of tea leaves. It's good, though, it's not as great as the nose and palate. I really can't tell how much of what I enjoy here is natural Russell's Reserve and how much is a year and a half of oxidation with lowish volume. Regardless though, the fact of the matter is that I can have a really excellent bourbon if I buy Russell's Single Barrel and possibly oxidize it a whole lot. Under the circumstances of this bottle-kill tasting, I have to conclude that this outperforms both Wild Turkey Rare Breed 116 and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B520. It's not the best bourbon I've tried, but it's well worth the price. On the other hand, my bottle of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Cask Strength does outperform this one. The difference there though is less than the difference between this and Wild Turkey Rare Breed and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof. Considering that they are roughly 19s along with the fact that I'm considering a 21 or 22 for the Jack Daniel's (I'm pretty shocked by that myself), I think that this is most likely a 21. I've been torn between 20 and 21, but I think that that bump up to 21 is merited here. OK, I decided on a 21 for this, but I also have a brand new bottle to open and compare, so maybe that will be a good indication of how much of the quality here was (was because this is sadly my bottle kill tasting) from the liquid put into the bottle and how much was from the 18ish months of heavy oxidation. Well, that or just a difference in single barrel quality. Ugh! This new bottle is... adequate. Whereas this balance with delectable flavors and a solid complexity really dazzles me with this bottle, the new one's neck pour is a big braaap. It certainly isn't bad and it does OK side-by-side with Russell's 10 that's been open for 2 months, but I'd say that the Russell's 10 beats it slightly. The new one is in a 15-16 range, with 16 being more likely. Honestly, I expected it to be much higher than this. I guess I'd better let it age for another year and a half or so. I killed a bottle of Wild Turkey Rare Breed at the same time. I concluded that the WT RB (116) was great, but a couple of points short of this (a 19). The Rare Breed had only been open for about 6 months and had been much more full for most of its lifetime, but I did expect the neck pour of the Russell's Single Barrel to at least match that of the Rare Breed. Surprisingly, the new Rare Breed was only about a point below the old one (about an 18 instead of a 19). Considering that Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof costs about the same as Russell's Single Barrel and has higher proof and tastes (shockingly) a tad better (based on one bottle aged 6 months with mild oxygen), I was borderline on buying another bottle of Russell's Single Barrel (though I will absolutely buy more of the Russell's 10). Now taking into consideration that the cheaper Wild Turkey Rare Breed pours better from the neck and that I haven't managed to make a bottle last nearly as long as my bottle of Russell's Single Barrel and that the Rare Breed is both higher proof and cheaper, I have to conclude that the Rare Breed is a better VFM. I greatly enjoyed my final sips of this bottle, but I don't think I'll be buying another. My old bottle was borderline in comparison with Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof, but my new one has absolutely nothing on it. The one thing that might change this is how rapidly the oxygen affects this. I didn't love the Jack Daniel's when I first opened it either, but after 6 months of very mild oxygen it was a star. If this gets back up to that level in 6 months, I'll put it right back on my shopping list. This tasting is an amazing 21, but expect a lower rating (more like a 16) next time.

55%? Get out of town! There is a long burn from the cinnamon flavor (which is excessive), but it is not too cinnamon. The bourbon is quite smooth aside from the cinnamon, but it's flavor is pretty muddled. It has some sweetness with cinnamon, some minerals, a bit of orange mixed in there, and maybe some toffee sweetness with a hint of mint backing it all toward the finish. It's pretty good, but the flavors all blur together. The flavor is strong enough, but not interesting enough. It's a passable bourbon that is certainly worth sipping, but it isn't delightful. The cinnamon leaves me with mixed feelings because it adds some variety, but it stands out too much. Overall, I'd appreciate less cinnamon. There is definitely some wood in here, but it is not overwhelming. Some rye tartness intrudes to my dismay. What this really makes me think of is Wild Turkey Master's Keep Revival with some of the wood replaced by cinnamon. The Wild Turkey has some more distressingly bitter flavors, but also a bit more interesting stuff going on. It's like a spice vs wood trade-off and I think the wood wins it. The toffee is agreeable. With less cinnamon, I would enjoy this a lot more. The cinnamon interferes with the depth of this whiskey, but mixed with the vanilla it does at least being forward a bit of natural sweetness. The more I explore the depth here, the more I realize that it is just the cinnamon holding this back. I think. Toffee, vanilla, and red fruit stand out here (along with cinnamon, of course). Rye and red fruit give way to vanilla and floral notes as the flavor progresses, though the progression is subtle. The flavor isn't too bad, but the whiskey isn't too interesting either. The cinnamon is a bit much, hit otherwise it competes with E.H. Taylor Small Batch and beats it slightly. The sweetness and caramel are quite enjoyable. Sweet, toffee, tons of cinnamon. This is very sweet, but has little depth and too much cinnamon. There are bits of anise and rye, but they tend toward the mild side. The cinnamon is a bit much, but the wood, vanilla, mild tartness, hints of clove, and creaminess are great. The flavors are all generally good, though it could do with a bit less cinnamon and rye. Aside from this, this is really interesting and tasty. The cinnamon and vanilla really stand out here with the rye bringing in a hint of snickerdoodle and a somewhat fruity finish. If this weren't such a harsh drink, it would almost be like candy. Fairly rich, but not tremendously woody. Lots of cinnamon and vanilla and some leather. It has a little complexity but not a ton. Tons of vanilla and cinnamon with some less pungeant toffee and milk chocolate. It's woody, but not too much. There's a hint of sour cherry in here too and a fairly bitter backing, but not one that overwhelms. Tons of cinnamon harshness and a lot of vanilla. There's some wood and caramel too. This is a fairly sweet drink. There's something a bit fruity in here too. The warmth of the alcohol is tasty, but the complexity is lacking. There are elements of tartness and bitterness but they are not super strong. The hint of coconut in the background is nice. This has nothing on the complexity and general aged, bitter richness that Booker's Kitchen Table has. It's good and avoids the herbal notes present in Booker's, but it also tastes somewhat like candy and certainly doesn't taste as old or strong, in part due to the Booker's bitterness and in part due to the sheer strength of the Booker's ABV.

Rating: 14/23 A while later, I tried this again to because I wasn't confident in my prior rating. I'm not going to do the full tasting notes this time because the flavors I detect match up with those I got last time. And I'm feeling lazy, I guess. Pulling my 14 and 15 bottles down, I compared this. I have no doubt that this is at least a little bit better than Wild Turkey 101. A lot better? Absolutely not. 1792 Single Barrel surpasses this, capping this at a 15. So it's solidly in the 14 to 15 range. I'm now going back and forth on this versus Elijah Craig Small Batch though. Elijah Craig is currently a 14 to 15 in my book and it seems to be about the same quality as this is. Which means I'm back to waffling on what to rate this. I think I'm going with a 14 right now.

Rating: 14/23 I'm just going through a bunch of bourbons that I'm not sure of the ratings on and giving them another shot in sort of a battle royale. This one is a bit of an oddball because of the cask finishing, but we'll see how it goes. N: The nose is unfortunately lighter than that of Henry McKenna 10, with some more mineral coming out. There's still a bit of wood though, including some cedar even. The spices include cinnamon, cloves, and ginger. There's definitely a mineral presence here and also a dash of cherry, and some meat suggesting youth. Not an excellent nose, but nothing to scoff at. The spices and herbal hints are interesting, but too subtle, particularly given the lightness and obvious youth of this whiskey. I'm surprised by how little cherry I smell. P: The palate immediately reminds me of Jeam beam with that signature minerality and peanut. There's kind of a blanket bitterness in here as well, with a little bit of a cola metallic flavor to it. Some bright cherry starts coming out and it brings some suggestions of other fruits, as well as some rich vanilla sweetness, but the whole thing is a bit muddled, unfortunately. I am getting more rich savoriness than I did in the past, but it doesn't totally redefine this. The palate is smooth though and the age is difficult to determine, so I suspect that it had done a good job of masking a substantial quantity of 4-ish year old bourbon. F: Fortunately, that toasty peanut really stays into the finish. The minerality fades, but the characteristic Beam tartness that accompanies it remains. The cola bitterness unfortunately remains as well, but it at least does help to fill out the flavor. At least the metallic element of it largely departs. I really want to love this, but every time I come back to it, it's too subtle with this big, flat cola bitterness. I can definitely sip it, but it isn't something that I feel compelled to keep stocked. $35 is the most I would pay for this and I really think that it is worth more like $30. At the same price point, Russell's Reserve 10 is without doubt a better bourbon. With all of the sweet fruit and the bitter cola backing, this makes me think of a drink that is aiming to appeal to kids because it is sweet and lacks refinement. Actually, it reminds me a lot of Jaegermeister in that regard. I might actually put this a little bit below Elijah Craig Small Batch. But that might mean that I underrated Elijah Craig. Right now, Elijah Craig is tasting like a solid 15 and could be a 16. There is no way that this is higher than a 15 and it could be a 14. I might come back around on this one, but right now, I'm a bit over that Beam flavor, so that could be influencing this unduly. If I end up back in the pro-Beam camp, that flavor could make this rebound. Right now though, my apathy toward it and the cola bitterness drags this down to a 14.