Tastes

I feel like this is a "new" whisky but reviews confuse me with dates. I assume this came out in the last 2 years, I guess again. So this is a new release. 150 bucks...I'll let people process that. Nose - smoked vinegar apples over coal, followed by honey and sugar. Then the light oak notes come through, showing signs of mild age here. It's both a bit odd and lovely. As it opens the pie crust and lovely dessert notes spread and we have a really nice whisky. Taste - This isn't going to be for most whisky drinkers. It's funky and weird. It's youthful, coal forward, peated, and doesn't have a sweet hook. It's also bringing apples, some sweet and sour notes with lovely coal smoke over mineral peat in the best of ways. Lemon lime, smoked chocolate oak...it's cool. counter point - proof is low and that's not great. It's a bit thin at times. Double counter point - finish is still pretty darn long and it works. 2.50 from me. I really like this one. Worth 150? Maybe...but I paid shipping so I over paid.

Old Forester has a mortal flaw, and it's the insane off putting bite and mineral notes that come through on their CS versions. This isn't CS...so we're good right? Unless this is as young as like the 20-30 dollar stuff! Nose - yep, young old forester. BUT, it's also rich and full of amazing smells. 93 proof? How? This smells like unrefined 110 proof whiskey with some intense sweatness and finishing! Oh you want notes? Banana's, red fruits, brown sugar, runt flavored marshmellows, and old forest 100 poured over that. Taste - stinging and biting. But it's unrefined grain alcohol notes. But then sugar coated and rich sugars, red fruits, chocolate, brown sugar, dark banana bread, there's a malt note....it's rich, full of flavor, mouth coating. And exceptional experience ruined by harsh alcohol or an exceptional experience with unrefined notes that you'll get past after a few sips? It's kinda both and that's a problem. To me this is a bourbon that you kinda need to try just because it's really unique, but it's such a classic example of how young old forest is harsh as hell to drink. But god it's got so much flavor. This drinks like CS bourbon, but doesn't take water like it...the harshness isn't hidden. But damn it's got a nice flavor. OK score - and lets talk about it. Quality - this is way below average. It drinks like cheap bourbon. Presentation in the glass - this is not about the bottle or color but how you experience things. And here it's exceptionally rich, flavorful, nose is bold...it's a huge whisky despite the proof. Flavors - really nice, if you get past bad alcohol notes So...it's both way way better than an average pour and way worse. It's got a mix of mixer quality experience and 200 dollar bottle flavor and depth. I'm giving it a 2.0, which is my average pour. i'm sorry, I know many will have no issue with these alcohol notes but I can't get past them. And they're keeping me from harping on the more youthful notes that they let get into this one as well. On sale for 60 for a 375. I weirdly despite the negative review would recommend a bar pour at a fair price, and I'd strongly recommend it. This is what this series should be about. Testing things out, this was a bad test. But it's got huge potential.

We're back with batch 264, now a 230 dollar retail bottle. But available...I guess that's something. So, we last left cigar blend after being well...disappointed with batch 110 but Nancy told us she had a plan to work with her now a bit younger bourbon stock and get it back up to the old legends. Let’s see if it worked. Warning - gonna be a long long long comp. Batch 264 - The first nosing brings out a rich amount of leather and oak, sun baked in those armagnac casks. Light winter green notes from a rich high rye spice are coming off. A slight alcohol and battery note. Almost reminds me of a slightly fermented fruit with that. Not off putting here btw. Just a bit different. Really nice rich woods and leathers, nice vanilla complement as well. Red berries with hints of slight orange citrus sneaks in. My initial thoughts are it's a great nosing experience but not as rich and old world as I remember better batches. Taste - It's hard to even dig into one flavor note at first. The size of this whisky is unmistakable. It's a huge flavor punch that coats the mouth. Absolutely a show piece. Arrives light and fruity with strong vanilla notes, reminds me of older bourbons. Turns more citrus and slightly towards sour fruits in the middle and leaves a long-lasting tobacco and smoked oak finish. The overall impression, however, is rich wood soaked almost giving me dark rum with vanilla creamer over oak notes. With tobacco on the back end. I think with this batch the youngest bourbons have perhaps gone up to 9ish vs perhaps having some slightly younger bourbon in batch 110. Either way this comes off a bit more aged while also giving off more finishing. Perhaps wetter casks were used to finish or an ever so slightly longer time finishing to give it more richness? I'm not sure this is the legendary stuff of the past, but it's absolutely outstanding. If you know my scoring, I score to a 4.0 scale with the last point for exceptional whiskies that somewhat defy the status quo. I'm giving this an outstanding 3.75 and debating a 4.0. Cigar blend is back...but maybe not legendary. OK so to compare we have batch 28, 42, 110. You can tell these are all the same family right away nosing them. 110 comes off instantly as the thinnest with more sweetness up front and less oak and spice on the back end. Very much gives me young MGP notes on the back end while giving me that nice richer more complex whisky up front. 42 might be the most aromatic of the bunch. It gives off a huge rich wallop of sweetness up front with heavy oak and leather on the back end. 28 is stately with a very rich oak and well...hell it get a huge rich cigar back bone to it. Pair with a cigar? It is the cigar! Comparatively it's also given a light bit of walnut notes as well. Moving to the 264, my feeling of more finishing on the 264 seems confirmed in terms of experience as the finished notes really stand out here. The vanilla really jumps out too. It's almost dessert in this comparison. Taste - I was really hoping time in the bottle was doing wonders for 110 but sadly not. It's a touch sharp up front. It just doesn't have that refinement. It's not bad. The finish is also lacking, it's not that you don't have a long finish. It's just not very good. Batch 42, just like the nose, jumps out of the glass. Oh god this is good. And the finish...what a flavor bomb. And yet, the approach is softer and silky compared to 110. It's refined, aged, mature, and still a sleeping giant when the abv sneaks up on the finish. This is how I love my whisk(e)y! Ok 28, is stately and mature like 42 upfront with less sweetness, more a drying feeling. And that carries through to the finish. Dried figs and leaves. Fall day and a dried-out bomber jacket in a barn full of tobacco leaves. I'm remembering moments at my buddy’s farm growing up. Is 28 better than 42? Maybe? But 28 is my happy place right now. The hardest part of this comparison is just how long the finish on 42 and 28 are. You've forgotten the last pour to compare by the time they finish. OK so back to 264. Oh man...sorry but the youthful notes and that rye note is taking me out of my happy zone. It's funny as I think this is decently aged 36% rye MGP, but it's just young next to those two. The finishing here too fails us. Refined up front, great mouth feel, but it's a huge step back. And going back to 110 it's like I’m drinking alcohol. Conclusion - Cigar blend isn't back to its old self, not even close. That said I think we've made some good progress here. The added finishing notes are giving it a nice sweetness and there seems to be a slight upgrade in age that's giving it a more refined experience up front. I don't think you'll dwell on how much better the old bottles are on this one, without doing like I am and comparing them. Unlike the 110 where you just can't miss the problems. I'm very good with feeling the 28 and 42 are 4-4.25 scores and the new batch is more of a 3.75...I might be debating going 3.5. Either way, very pleased where Cigar Blend is going. Hopefully, with time there will be more old bourbons to be used in these to get things back to where we want them. But until then, whatever black magic Nancy is doing has this whisky very much on profile with the older batches. It's just not built on the same quality ingredients and that's holding it back a bit. I'd also note the 110 and 264 are lower proofs than the older batches. Not sure the driver here, but I thought it was worth noting. Could be age obviously. Oh value...220-240 seems to be where I see these from stores not trying to go secondary. Fair to slightly below fair value imo. I'd buy at this price again, but I'm not excited about it.

Special Release Batch 4, bottle 434, no clue on the release size. Supposed to be 8 and 17 year 21% rye MGP finished in a calvatos cask (already concerned). Neck pour review warning. Nose - dang we got some lovely old cigar tobacco rye and spice notes. Bready and rich oak. Light fruit but apples? I couldn't tell you. Taste - clearly finished. Really rich and spicy. Finish is a bit odd. This one will take some time. Water brings a huge amount of vanilla notes out on the nose. Not much change on the palette. I'm unsure on what I think about this one yet. for now 3 stars. Good oak, smoke, spice, and aged notes. Not sure I like a few notes on the finish. Taste two. I swear I didn't over do it last night, but I went to pour a second glass of this before bed and...I never got the bottle sealed or the glass filled. So it got a bit of extra airing out over night. Going back the next day - I'm getting this apple cider note but with more a touch of brown sugar and oak spice vs cinnamon. The brandy aspect of calvados is very clearly imo adding the musty funk and giving way to the added antique woods. While not over oaked, gone from batch 2 are the rich old bourbon vanilla notes I love so much. Batch 2 approached with a lightness and then turned up the finish to 11. That change was much a wonderful experience, something I look forward to in great whiskies. Batch 4 starts darker and never really can go there. Though make no mistake, we get good transitions here, just no great. After the disappointment of my last cigar blend, I wasn't expected to find what down right SHOULD be a new cigar blend labeled as Murray Hill, but here we are. This has that smoke and leather that I expect on those casks. A good age profile. And while I think this would be better with another finishing cask, I'm really intrigued with this one. I should add there's a recent kentucky bottle of something like 6, 10 and 15 year kentucky finished partially in these casks that I hate to say but gives you 80% of this one for well under 100 bucks. But I can't say I'm disappointed. 200 dollars is more than this is worth. But nobody is giving you MGP with this age and BP plus with finishing for much less today. You're paying for the branding that Magnus and Nancy Fraley have rightfully and fairly earned and for that branding, I think we're perfectly fine at 200. I just can't recommend anyone buy before they try. Standing at 3.0 but it's a soft one. Also if Nancy makes it around to this review or initial exploration. We would love to have a bottle count on this. I'm a bit surprised that the notes look back at the 1 and 2 and not batch 3. Final thoughts are - there's more to this one coming as it opens up. This isn't where I tend to go with well aged bourbon, lacking some of those dare I say buffalo trace type vanillas as they reach into the 15-20 year range. But make no mistake, the quality and depth is here. It almost makes me think of a CS version of blood oath for those wanting a comp to try and think about this. With those drying types of older bourbon vs more sweet forward. I still can't tell if the finishing added or subtracted to the level of sweetness. I tell tell you...I won't be sharing this with too many people as I want to explore this bottle to the fullest over a long time. But it will be shared with a few of the RIGHT people! And now I"m thinking my score might reflect my hope for greatness vs the whisky I got. Maybe I need to add a half point?

Figured I'd just leave first impressions here. Nose - simple, classic rye. Not much oak or anything big or special here. Clean sweetness is really the central theme. More than you might expect. Taste - The arrival is almost like this crystalline sugar with a touch of a sour candy note over vanilla. Pretty yummy. Finish- nice finish, leather and tobacco, pretty good linger too. A darn good rye, but dare I say not really a big step up on the neck from the 4 years. More oak and leather/tobacco. It's good. 2.5 for a neck pour. I can't say I'd chase this down. If you see one and want older rye, go for it. But so far their malted rye is their true go to rye.

Take two favorites, age them up to a proper 10 years and proof them down to 52.4. Sounds like a pretty good idea? Well, it is. While you can't expect to be impressed with a 10 year note, the rest of this bad boy is fire. Deep red fruits, berries and clean wood smoked BBQ pork dominate this. lifting ever so much to allow in hints of winter green mints, rich chocolate, fudge, and some of the finest oak you've ever tasted. Compared to the PX this had more refinement and more juicy fruit notes. Compared to the triple wood...this is well aged (got the triple wood next to this drinks YOUNG). We have simply imo the best Cairdeas if not ever, at least in close to a decade. Buy with confidence.

This is one of those hyped legendary bottles I've heard so much about. Finally had a friend send me a sample. I took a few nips...a few too many drinks into a night. So this will be the real test. Nose - Oh we got old sherry oak. Classic dried fruits and figs. Underlying chocolate with a nice fruit chew note. I want to say we've got a touch of a cherry and apple thing going on but very non sweet and not natural flavors. Rich oak for sure. This makes you think about some nice old chest of drawers from your grandparents attic. Taste - classic malt smoothened in decades of oak and sherry. This is so milk balls chocolate dry, clean classic. Spice driven on the finish while hints of milk chocolate and dark fruits all up front. Spicy vanilla in here to. Malt/sweet forward up front, almost too much after the fruity yet drier approach. Wow what a treat, old school well aged sherry. It's a shame these days seem long gone. 4.25 seems fair. Wish it was 48 to give it that final little bump. But wonderful

So many good reviews after I hated that kentucky oak (at first, it grew to be ok) and never getting the love of the Lastu (spelled right?). But for 99 bucks in 2024 this felt ok. nose - And all fears leave me as a I get red breast kinda vanilla grainy earthy notes from those pot stills with light and not over the top PX. no over oaked elements to be seen! Taste - This is sweet sticky px goodness over redbreast. The balance of the two is also good. It's more redbreast than PX. Good mixed effect on the finish. Berry jam, toasted oak, toffee, light spices. I know I'm dragging on reviewing this as a redbreast and not trying to explain it as a whisky but I doubt anyone interested cares because they know what I mean when I say redbreast. I'll give this a 2.25. For the money at 100 add .5 stars. Remember i score more to a 4.0 scale so the points after that are EPIC. I think this is a great buy and I'm glad I got it. But there's no wow here. Just good solid whisky.

Welcome to 2024. The rent's too high, I'll never own a home, and my 2015 car I guess has to last me the next 10 years! But at least bourbon hasn't changed? Oh wait...ECBP is now not 12 years old? They are lower proof at under 120 proof? OK we're all having to accept a changing time, but not lower standards. We just gotta accept times are hard. Nose - Classic heaven hill vanilla and light corn over a bit of spice from the rickhouse. It's simple at first. Taste - Rich, but leaning towards sour and drying. Then on the finish a lot of really big smokey oak....not bad but different. Lets jump right to water. So we have classic ECBP here again! Nutty, rich, buttery, light smoke, and just classic vanilla caramel with some hints of leather and oak. This is just another meh ECBP, but anyone jumping on this has some falling off beyond what we've had for years...just an alarmist. You don't need this one. But you'll be happy to have it if you love bourbon. 75 bucks for me with 500 points. This doesn't wow me given that point aspect but no regrets! Not sure if I'm holding myself to my standards but 2.75 feels fine. 2.5-2.75.

Batch 3. About 65 bucks. Obviously...just dumb luck I found this one. I wasn't after it. Nose - HOT. So full disclosure this is in a copita and maybe the wrong glass. Oak, oak, and oak. It's hot, it's astringent...and yet. I kinda like it? Pull back and you'll get lovely vanilla, banana foster, and just good rich smokey toasted marsh mellow. Taste - Rich and full of flavor. 110 proof...you could tell me 130 with how rich this is. The back end needs more oils for THAT, but as a drinker I don't need a bit more here. It's fruity, yet heavy oak and char...it's big it's bold. Man. I gotta add water to explain this one. Somehow that sometimes metallic and off putting note you get on old forester has been covered in oak and pushed into a wonderful spice forward drinker. Lovely from top to bottom. For you looking for more notes, just chocolate, smoked vanilla, bannanas, cream, charred and smoked oak, with a fruity kinda pie thing. I'm impressed as hell. This is a flavor bomb up front, but not a deep nuanced whisky. Giving it a crazy high 3.25 and I'd go way higher for my enjoyment. This is everything I want in bourbon. Other than nuanced and complex age! And frankly it's got more of that than I'm letting on. There's depth here, but it comes on so intense it's hard to fully explore and savor.