Tastes

Sweet but not very rich. There is some fun apple and orange flavor with some caremely brown sugar. Wood is there for sure. Unfortunately, there is a sort of bitter, off flavor. Spices (cinnamon and a substantial amount of ginger) are quite present, but not overwhelming. It's sweet, it's mild, it's kind of fun. It would be a great mixer, but it isn't really a sipper. There is a lot of cinnamon mixed with cherry and bruleéd bananas. It's fairly rich and packs a punch, but it also has a lot of harshness and clear alcohol flavor. Still, it's actually pretty good. It beats Evan Williams Black and Colonel Lee, though the banana flavor is weird (though perhaps fun in a tropical way). It has less richness than the Woodford Reserve Double Oaked, but it consequently has less banana and its balance of flavors and oak tastes more appropriate. Sadly, the two taste about the same in terms of quality. Both beat Colonel Lee though. Compared with Jim Beam Black, this isn't as rich and it lacks they nice licorice flavor. I can see how the choice is a matter of preference, but I prefer the Jim Beam a little bit. Honestly, regular Jack Daniel's avoids the gross alcohol flavor that this has. This might beat Gentleman Jack by virtue of having more character (and less banana) despite having more flaws, but it tastes quite young and harsh. Actually, with its nice bit of cherry flavor, I'd say that this beats regular Jack Daniel's too by a far margin (1-2 points). Jack Daniel's Single Barrel is substantially better, combining smoothness with complexity and reasonable flavors (but also more banana). A solid 2 point difference, but surprisingly not more than that.

It smells kind of spicy with fruity and floral notes, the latter being enhanced by the vanilla. It smells a bit weak and maybe a tad sweet and definitely just a bit odd, but it smells OK for bourbon. The palate is spicy and quite sour. It has some clear vanilla too. Disappointingly, the flavor is a bit weak, but it does at least taste like a rye-forward bourbon. The minerals and weakness suggest that it is young, but it isn't bad. There's a slight hint of cola, suggesting some minor herbal notes. It's not great, but it's passable. It would definitely be a good mixer. The harshness from the spice is there, but it's under control. The dryness is a bit much, but it's not shocking for a high rye whiskey of this proof. It lands a bit on the flat side as far as it's flavor profile goes, but it's still it bad. There are no particularly good notes, but there are no particularly bad ones either. There's a lot of sweet caramel and spice in here compared with the "Extra Smooth" Winchester. The spice comes out strongly with a lot of cinnamon. It's fine, but not very good. Compared with Evan Williams, this is lacking in subtle notes. Evan Williams might be a bit on the smooth side for bourbon, but this is really aggressive in a sort of cheap rum sort of way. It's still not awful, but it's not enjoyable either. The palate is quite full of molasses and firework with some rich cinnamon. It tastes quite rummy. There's a ton of vanilla, which is actually pretty nice. I do appreciate how the flavors are distinct. It's more aggressively woody and smoky than Old Forester Signature is and also lacks that cherry fruitiness. The ABV might taste a little higher than it actually is. Ultimately, it's a bit too smoky, but the vanilla is there and there's some butterscotch or caramel. There is tartness and mineral too and there might be some hints of honey crisp apple. Ultimately, it's a drinkable bourbon that would be good as a mixer, but it sets a pretty low bar for bourbons. There's a bit of off candy flavor here at the very end that brings in notions of laffy taffy. Combined with the rum flavor, that makes this a bit off from being an archetypical bourbon.

It smells like wet cardboard with some floral notes. Holy cow, this tastes awful. It does indeed taste like wet cardboard and gross bread with some clear floral and mineral elements. There's some spice, but otherwise I would never guess that this was a bourbon. It's really disgusting, no matter what it gets classified as. It's about as light as Hayes Parker and it tastes about the same quality. It's super weak with a really strong wet cardboard and gross bread presence. The harshness is surprisingly substantial and it's super drying. This can't have been aged very long. It smells richer than Hayes Parker and it tastes richer too. The bitterness up front helps it to pretend that it has some complexity even though none develops and the bitterness is awful. There are a lot of bad floral and bitter notes here with definite minerals and nectar, but at the end of the day, this tastes mostly like particularly bad Irish whiskey, so at least it tastes more like something than Hayes Parker does. Although their flavor profiles are different, this is close in quality to Clan MacGregor. I'd say it's about a point worse though (it loses the point in the scotch to Irish translation). Had I not tried Hayes Parker right before this, this awful Winchester Extra Smooth would be the worst bourbon I've ever tasted. What's extra ridiculous is that even though the flavor is weak, there's quite a bit of harshness and bitterness here, so it isn't smooth at all. Wow, actually, on second comparison, Clan MacGregor is noticably better. Wow, what a low bar this has fallen beneath. For clarity though, Hayes Parker is still much worse. God, I sure do believe the 6 month minimum age statement on this - and I think that's the maximum too. It's amazing how bad this is. The worst part is the price the sell this for - it makes me want to puke.

It smells rich and super woody. The palate is requisite with tons of wood mixed with that sweet alcohol richness, a bit of rye, coffee, some chocolate, apples, a little cherry, plenty of cinnamon, a dash of clove. It definitely has plenty of bitter to balance the sweet but without being overbearing. The finish is clean despite being a little bit bitter. This is an excellent whiskey, especially in the bourbon category, but it in no way justifies its price. This is that rate case where adding water brings out more flavor instead of revealing that it was depending on alcohol for all of its quality all along. The flavor includes some nice spice that is still under control and some hints of maple that do not overwhelm. It has a strong smokiness, but it is a nice quality. The flavors all balance well and some even stand out as being quite nice. This is a huge success that I will never buy at this price. The richness is exemplary, especially when combined with the sweetness. It reminds me of Blanton's a bit but also of Glenfarclas. This is a master class spirit. I still prefer Glenfarclas 25, but this is better than Blanton's by a sizable amount. This is less mineral in its flavor than the Wild Turkey 9 Festival Release is. In direct comparison, I'd say that the Weller wins for that reason. On their own, the Wild Turkey is delightful though. I can smell the maple and toffee in this (amidst the deep wood and smoke). The palate is rich with a beautifully balanced amount of spice. There is a bit of mineral and rye, but they are subdued. The caramel and maple show up in the beginning, but there absence on the finish isn't a problem. The spice is moderate in a perfectly balanced way. There is a good dose of vanilla, but not a tremendous amount of fruit. The fruit does shine through though. This is kind of toasty or perhaps roasted in a coffee way. There are some hints of apple and red fruit. Water enhances the flavor. This still falls a little shy of Glenfarclas 25, but it's just a little. This is a truly astounding bourbon. The flavor is definitely bitter due to the intense richness and smoke, but it's so tasty and has enough complexity that it's a delight to drink. At any level of water, this is still tasty, proving it's capability. The mineral and rye flavors that come out fit well even though they would normally be actively bad. With enough water added, the rye, mineral, and spice take over, making this a great but flawed drink; however, achieving excellence at all levels of water is way too much to ask. It isn't a perfect bourbon, but it's the closest I've encountered.

This is immensely smooth with some sweet, bitter, and tart notes. While the bitterness suggests it's high ABV, the smoothness does not. The nose has some surprising tomato notes. It is exceptionally drying. The smoothness despite the high ABV is a nice surprise, though with a lower ABV, the bitterness would have been cut back a bit. It starts off with bitter unsweetened dark chocolate and wood in a way that reminds me of Glenfarclas 25 and Jollite VSOP. Fortunately, the wood eventually lets some sweetness, vanilla, and fruity (strawberry?) notes in. The full flavor has some interesting little subtleties for those looking closely and despite standing in stark contrast, the vanilla and fruity notes provide good balance. The finish is clean and the whole experience provides sufficient depth. I wish the sweetness, fruit, and vanilla were cranked up a bit and it would have been fun to at a bit more smoke somewhere in here, but this is a fine bourbon. Unlike the Colonel E.H. Taylor Small Batch, this bourbon is more suited to my tastes, so from my point of view the gap in rating between the two of them should be taken as more favorable to Wild Turkey Master's Keep Revival than it actually is. Compared with Glengoyne 15 (a Scotch staple), this wiskey has more depth and complexity, but I like its flavor less. The finish on the Glengoyne has a bit too much bitterness, but its rich fruitiness is quite satisfying. The comparison is difficult, so take this note to just mean that neither blows the other out of the water. I kind of just wish this were a Cognac. Reminiscent of Stagg Jr, but notably better. In the right circumstances, wood, cinnamon, red fruit, and vanilla come through without having the wood and cinnamon completely dominate. I would still prefer less wood and cinnamon, but under those conditions this is enjoyable. Immediately, wood and cinnamon take charge. Shortly after, caramel comes in, then the wood fades into smoke. Red fruit dances through, but not to the extent that should be expected from Sherry casks. Vanilla is undeniably there too. The harsh cinnamon, however, is the dominant flavor. Were it removed, this would be a much more interesting and enjoyable whiskey. The spiciness and fruitiness are reminiscent of Remy Martin 1738, but the former is more prounounced and the latter is less. Overall, it is just way too spicy from the cinnamon and a bit too woody, even in the best of circumstances. Sweeter than Stagg Jr, but the spice and wood dominate. It lacks the depth of Knob Creek Single Barrel. The sweet notes are great when they appear, but there just are not enough of them. Woody to the extent that floor polish comes through. Beyond that, there is some fruit and vanilla as well as the obvious spicy notes. The wood is really too much though; this is not Glenfarclas 25 where the wood is backed by immense subtlety. Compared with Glenfarclas 25, the wood is to strong and the backing flavors are not sophisticated enough. For its price, this is a really disappointing drink. I would take Old Forester Signature over this. You can taste the age in the rich wood, but there isn't any substantial variety that comes out of it. If you really, really reach, there is something going on, but it's borderline hallucinatory. The wood flavor is harsh, but at least it doesn't have an overwhelming cinnamon element. The woodiness brings strong reminders of Jollite VSOP and Glenfarclas 25. Old Forester Signature has more going on, though it also has more of that unappealing mineral flavor to it. Compared with Jim Bean Black, this has a deeper, more woody journey but it's also hindered by its overly woody flavor that tastes like floor polish. Trying it again months later, the nose is strongly tannic from the wood in an appealingly rich way. There's a hint of butteracotch and cherry mixed with wet wood on the nose. The palate is very rich with perhaps a bit too much astringency and a lot of spice. It certainly tastes very aged. The dark cherry flavor really gives it a nice fruity sweetness. There's a big hit of black pepper spice and there are also some herbal flavors with a bit of numbing clove. It reminds me a bit of Glenfarclas and upon realizing that it really clicks for me. There's a ton of richness and a fair bit of complexity with some raisins coming in too alongside cocoa and a hint of cola, but I'm not sure it's what I want in a bourbon, especially at the price point. There's a lot of leather providing the dominant flavor here and there's some rye spice too. It's a great drink, though it's kind of just a fruitier Glenfarclas at a very high price. There's a lot of richness and a fair amount going on with a solid balance. I'd be happy to drink this, but it falls short of being a classic. Compared with Russell's Reserve Single Barrel, this is a richer, less sweet, and less fruity offering. It's a bit better, but it isn't tremendously better. Importantly, this tastes quite different, but for the same price you could get a bottle of Russell's Reserve Single Barrel and a bottle of Glenfarclas 17 and probabaly be happier. It's a 17-18. This is more assertive than Glenfarclas is (somehow) and while it is quite tasty, it goes so far in the tannic leather direction that it's kind of hard to pull back in line.

The nose is a bit lighter and tarter with more rye than expected. The palate has a spicy richness with a tart rye presence and a bitter underlying flavor that is fine but not amazing. There are notes of young red fruit that give way to slightly more syrupy cherry. There might be a little leather, but it could be rye mixing with coffee and rich vanilla mixed with maybe some dark chocolate. Overall, this is a very good drink with some nice complexity that I could easily sip, but it's no Master's Keep Revival. The real seller here is the nice floral richness that comes out. Instead of tasting like mineral, the floral flavor is elevated, sort of how Bushmill's 21 elevates apricot (though the result here isn't as amazing). It's sweeter and tastes less mature than Master's Keep Revival. It's very good, but not amazing. The richness is tasty and appealing due to its rarity. The rich cherry syrup and floral notes with the more chocolate and coffee flavors is quite nice. I still prefer the revival and wish that this had less of that light rye tartness, but this very good. Aside from the light tartness, the complexity is balance is very good and the complexity is a nice level of interesting with layers without being overwhelming and confused.

Wild Turkey Rare Breed 58.4% has clearly higher ABV than Russell's Reserve Single Barrel - it's harsher, though it has plenty of fresh cherry mixed with prunes and maybe a couple other dried fruits. The Wild Turkey is quite fruity with a decent complexity lurking there. It reminds me of Booker's Kitchen Table, though it might be less harsh, fruity, and acidic. The Wild Turkey might be the equivalent of Booker's Country Ham, but it costs way less. For the money, this is great - it's more balanced than Booker's Kitchen Table and although it's less balanced it's rich with a good balance and complexity. This is a great bourbon, especially for the price. It lacks that classic Russell's Reserve Single Barrel flavor, but it has some nice richness and bitterness that indicates woody age. There's definitely more alcohol here than in Russell's Reserve Single Barrel, though the richness is also improved. This is a tasty whiskey, especially for the price. More complexity does come out as it's swirled, revealing more herbal flavors and some vanilla. This is very good, though not excellent. In comparison, 1792 Full Proof is less harsh, has more sweetness with vanilla and cinnamon, and generally has more of a bourbon balance. Although the two are similar in quality, the 1792 is just that bit better and it doesn't cost much more. This fights against Booker's Country Ham whereas 1792 Full Proof easily handles Booker's Shiny Barrel. That means that this is on the low end of 18 and the 1792 Full Proof is on the high end of 19. The flavor profile reminds me of a less harsh Booker's Kitchen Table mixed with some of the brown sugar and sawdust of Garrison Brothers and of course the fruitiness of Old Forester Signature. It's good, though not mind-blowing. It isn't as rich as Booker's Country Ham. It's about as good as Booker's Kitchen Table while being substantially cheaper. It doesn't make it to the higher Booker's tier, but it's a great choice for a moderately priced bourbon, especially given the proof. I'd say that 1792 Full Proof is substantially better though, despite tasting a bit like Woodford Double Oaked.

The nose has rye with a fair amount of corn sweetness. It's about what should be expected of a bourbon. Bitter rye and cinnamon spice hit with some sweetness right there, but then it largely gives way to a slightly rancid bitter flavor. It immediately reminds me of Old Forester Signature with less punch. Wood from the barrel is apparent with some toffee (or maybe caramel and honey) and vanilla bringing in some nice sweetness. The red fruit in the background is nice and the floral notes are not too severe. The rye brings in a couple of unpleasant notes, but they aren't too bad actually. The enjoyable flavors are good enough to make this drinkable. The herbal flavors permeating the background build up the richness. A bit less spice would be nice. It's on the sweeter side for a bourbon, but I like that and the sweetness isn't overwhelming. If a few of the flavors were cleaned up a bit, this would be really good. The balance is pretty solid though and for the price this is a really good buy. It's a lot more herbal than the already herbal Old Forester Signature and has less richness to it. That characteristic rancid beet (the root vegetables, not the dead cow) flavor of Old Forester Signature is less present, but so is the richness. This is sweeter, but it's sweetness carries a simpler caramel flavor. Herbal, spicy (cinnamon, clove, and ginger), caramel, and woody. Good, but not excellent. It also reminds me of a toned-down Russell's Reserve Single Barrel, with less wood and vanilla. The Russell's Reserve has some added complexity and a little more richness, making it overall more enjoyable; however, the quality bump is not astounding given the 4x price differential. This is perhaps a simpler version of Old Forester Signature mixed with Russell's Reserve Single Barrel. It also has less banana, which I had no idea was a thing in Old Forester Signature (and I still doubt is). This is really quite drinkable. I like the combination of rye and cherry in a bourbon. It's rich with flavor yet bit terribly sweet and there's no hint of banana. It also avoids a lot of weird flavor. I might actually like it better than Old Forester Signature. This is underrated, though not excellent. Old Forester Signature might be a tad better because of its rich flavor, but it's a tough call. This is quite good, especially for the price. Mix it or sip it. I think this beats the Old Forester a tad due to its complexity, though it is less aggressively flavorful.

The nose is fairly rich and difficult to discern, though it is on the earthier side. The palate is varied with a lot of spice, but not in a harsh way, mixed with some subdued fruit that tends toward the more tart, dry side, earthy cinnamon, and some bitter herbal flavors. There's a fair amount going on here and a solid amount of flavor. It would be good to drink or to sip. It tastes very good and balances the sweetness, herbalness, dryness, fruitiness, and richness. It's a bit on the dry and herbal side and could do with some more richness, but it's a lot better than Whistlepig 10's dry blandness. It's also a substantial improvement over the, light, sweet minerality of Templeton 4. With the high ABV considered as well, this is a good buy. It has more complexity than Rittenhouse and its flavors are better executed (none of that oiliness), but it lacks that tremendous level of richness. For mixing a rich rye drink, Rittenhouse is the sure winner, but for sipping neat, I think I prefer the Whistlepig.

Very interesting - there's a lot going on here. It tastes less aged and more playful than 1776 15, but the flavors don't fit together as nicely. More minerals than I would like cone through and the fruits mix with beets to produce a juice that is a bit awkwardly placed between tasting healthy and tasting tasty. There's a bit of a spicy element, but it is more numbing that hot. There are a lot of fun elements here, but they don't mix amazingly well. The fruits have some darker elements like prune following some lighter, almost citrus elements. The wood is lightly roasted and a bit sweet as if the sugars in it were just barely caramelized. There's some kind of annoying mint here, but it isn't too bad I guess. The fruity sweetness highlights a bit of a disappointing mineral taste from the floral and vanilla flavors. I'd be happy to sip it for a bit, but I wouldn't love it.