Tastes

I want to just start up with, this is unlike anything else they've done as far as I know in their finished series. Bringing in two kentucky sourced spirits a 7 and 11 year old...we'll references these in code names going forward. The 7 will refereed to as Heaven Hill (no reason as I have no idea where they sourced this from) and the 11 will be code named Turkey (again no reason). Nose - so this bottle has been open about 12 hours but already the hot burn that came upon the neck is gone. There's this earthy sweet element that's really unlike any other spirit I've had. It isn't just the cognac nor is it a unique mash bill or bourbon character. It's sweet and has elements of tobacco and peanut dust. I get candied apple, maybe even a hint of apple cider. I get fall. I get touches of floral elements. And yes I get dry oak, aged in a barn. I'm saying a lot of jim beam notes but with this sweetness that beam never has. That said...it's a bit subdued and lacks any wow factor. Let me tell you, NOTHING like their sherried expression which someone referenced it to. Taste - So I keep going back to this. Unsweet milk chocolate with peanuts and sweet creamy caramel. That sadly sounds a lot better than the glass is. This was likely bottled at 55% due to being a hot and spicy bourbon, they just couldn't leave it any hotter without concerns. There's a lot of spice and some nice fruit elements here. The finish is long enough but it's mostly just dried out oak. Water - for a second I thought we'd changed the world. Water brings forward the sweetness of the cognac and really up front brings in this wonderfully balanced expression...and then the finish. There's bitter oak tannins coming out and the once nice nutty and earthy elements on the back end get muted. A real shame as the upfront note might have saved this. So why the turkey joke vs beam? Well...there's just something about this that keeps reminding me more of drinking that WB Saffle than drinking a knob creek. I can't really put a finger on it. So I paid 175, I see online it was supposed to retail for 125 which is odd given the store I got this from doesn't do marked up prices. Score - now I'm leaving this open to come back and change my mind but I'm at a 2.0 for now. I'm really disappointed with this one. Maybe MGP just plays better with finishing but frankly this needed more finish or something. The bottom line is I'd rather spend the night drinking uncut and unfiltered than this. As much as I want to pour another glass to chase down a few missing notes, the enjoyment factor just isn't here. Overall this drinks to me at about that 100 dollar mark. About what you'd pay for Magnus (which anyone else...is that one slipping a bit, maybe less 12 year MGP?) and frankly at 100 it's already pushing my limits for what you're really getting. Sadly those golden days of 12 year old MGP flowing like water seem past us. These 11-15 year expressions from Barton and Beam...and other random one off barrels sneaking out just aren't the same. They lack the blend ability if you will. Poured just a drop of their copper and king sherry bomb - omg...the nose is amazing. Sherry for days with that MGP rye spice and old well aged bourbon notes. Then this artificial kid's strawberry with this funky chewy bourbon and just yummy. Oh no this isn't even close to that one and that wasn't their best finished bourbon.

This is a clear bottle, there's a review place for that...I however see no reason why "Clear" should be scored separately. Batch 93. So I over paid for this a bit AND I had to buy their vodka for the right. Not my greatest moment, but hey...I wanted to finally give this a go. Nose - I suppose I have a bit of trepidation each time I pour an MGP bourbon. When done right and well aged these are magic and when young and rushed they're ok on ice. This one is squarely in the middle. Good vanilla candy meets some youthful waxy (waxy on a bourbon?) grain and alcohol notes. Elements of candy corn and traditional bourbon notes with light hints of rye spice. Good, but this isn't going to be a bourbon I pour to smell. Taste - Take your 5-6 year old MGP where there's sharp alcohol and the elements of corn and youth dominate any sweetness, now turn that down to 6 and up the sweetness to 4. You've got this one. It's bold, it's full, it's aggressive and it is starting to get refined. Really a nice spectrum of light chocolate notes, good caramel, nice grain elements with shifting and a wide array of rye elements and corn. The oak is not really showing here but I can't imagine it isn't well woven with the rest of the body. Overall, at about 70 bucks I won't come down this road again, but as MGP CS whiskey goes, you can't really complain too much. 2.5 score. Solid MGP bourbon, but there's nothing spectacular here. But it's a step up from average. Anyone want this vodka? lol

So I was impressed with the full proof, I guess I gotta give this a shot....it's technically the oldlest age statement lol Nose - I get right off the bat classic buffalo trace cherry. Then corn, oil, and just that kinda dusty oak muted thing. Very EH Taylor...boring but good stuff. Very much in that 15-40 dollar bourbon area if you like cherry and corn. Taste - This is that dusty oak and clay with some cherry vs cherry first like the nose. The nose was really good. This again takes me back to EH Taylor and bad blantons. Just element after element of good easy drinking bourbon and young rushed elements. I like it. I like a good bit. So yeah...this isn't the full proof. That's just better top to bottom. This is younger feeling, more meh. But for I think this was 16 bucks....if you like the more boring profile of buffalo trace that sweet soft stuff...it's a good buy. I'll give this a 1 star. It's well deserving of that kind of quality mark. I could consider a 1.25. And this does do well with mixers!

This has taken me a while to get to a review on. I'm not sure why but I'm about 15% through the bottle once this healthy review pour is finished and I'm somewhat sure I know where this will go but as always I review my glass. Nose - The first thing I get is texas./amrut...they're so similar. ThE element of cinnamon and burned earth. You can't get past this. From there I get raisins and a lot of oak elements with hints of a lot of stuff. Yes, the detailed "stuff" message lol. Taste - Dusty chalky notes of oak, and sugar and earthy and just sweetness. Then turns to this rich brandy and chocolate and fruity rum with elements of oak and nutmeg. What is this? lol. This reminds me almost of an infinity bottle. Adding some water and the wine notes are increasing the richness and depth are still here. Not as gritty and dusty in the mouth or nose. Still a mouth coating and intense experience. Anyway nose doesn't wow me. It's a big less than amazing. It's just not rich or complex. But THEN we get to that flavor and MAN....it's explosive. I'm in this odd place where I should give more notes as they go on forever but read the label. You'll get that and that texas/amrut element and it's so much more than you'd expect at 50%. OK so the negative is that it's kinda young. There's this element of youth that just won't leave it. it's somewhat hidden neat as you get this bigger mouth feel thing that hides it. Bottom line, a flavor bomb, so complex and so over the top that it's a bit disjointed. 3.75 though for me....I'm 88 range here...no it's not old amazing whisky it isn't the fusion x but damn dude. It's good. But if you're not someone who's into flavor over smooth or lack of youth notes or all that....this won't score as well.

First pour and I'm not having a great tasting day (wish I'd know that before I opened this). Nose - You get that classic amrut somewhat burnt soil and earth with light peated notes. Juicy and rich fruits, super sweet px, and you all nailed it on the honey notes. Taste - Oak, baked earth, light spices, light earth forward peat, rich artificial candied fruits, charcoal, honey. Medium long finish. I'll have to come back to this one and dig more into it. Overall this is just an epic example of a px sherry bomb. Complexity out of control on the finish. I do have to say...50% is a bit light on this one. I wish this was full CS. I rarely ever feel 50 is light but here, full CS would have given us a legit 5 star whisky.

I always debate writing a new review vs editing an old one, here I felt a new review was correct. 400 reviews on this site, I think a few old bottles are worthy of a look back to see how I've changed. Nose - I correctly last time did a decent job with the overall profile on this. Citrus, lemon, hints of peach, touches of oak...but what I missed is that there's distinct european sherry casks in here. I said a hint of sherry, no, there's not just sherry here but really really good old school casks. Taste - I think I did well here too. Buttery and toasted oak notes. Distinct oak spice. Some vanilla, citrus, and really nice dark sherry finishing. The finish is a bit short due to a lack of ABV, lack of oily mouthfeel, likely chill filtered as well. Overall no change in my last score of 2.75, but coming back to this now I can see why a 46% and 18 year old bottle with a bit more sherry casking at this quality could drive demand for those 18's. After the last few years of worse and worse sherry casks being used, I've grown a bit jaded, I've even wondered if I've lost my mind or just don't like sherry. Nope, still love good sherry casks and here they are.

Had to add this one, and for the 1000th time, what a horrible ap this is. Guys, DESKTOP! let us do this from our computers. Anyway blend of 6 and 12 year. Heaven hill and Barton, not a huge fan of 6 year old heaven hill but whatever. Finished in a sherry cask they got from Kelvan for 88 days. I'm not sure this is a special cask based on the details. Nose - sweet vanilla, nice sherry fruity elements, and then some funky earthy oak notes that are out of place. The problem is the funk is overwhelming this. Overall, a bit odd, but we'll get into it and come back with water. Taste - Heaven Hill's dusty nutty youthful bourbon notes jump out at me. Then just intensity of bourbon, and finishing chocolatey. Wow, going in for a second taste. OK, well balanced and well put together bourbon giving hints of youth and some age. The barton cinnamon apples is really coming through for me. There's a very old oak note half way through this as well. Finish is medium long, spicy. The sherry is certainly here but it isn't juicy or heavy. Water - HIGHLY recommend hitting this with water. The water brings through some nice vanilla pudding notes on the nose. The taste gets sweeter, the sherry fruits jump out. I'm now getting berries and even some gummy candies. Oh there's water melon on the end big time. Night and day improvement. I suspect this lends well to this one opening up big time so a heavy hand with water won't be needed in 6 months. I'm pretty happy with this beyond the 200 dollar price tag. This isn't one of their epic blends or finishes but this is great bourbon. 2.75. I wish they'd used less heaven hill or sourced something else (or older heaven hill, but that's expensive).

This will be an interesting one. Nose - Oddly high alcohol notes coming through, this is 47.9. A buttery kinda creamy wine cask element. The predominate element is this berry note. I'll go back at some point on this but really cool fruity and sweet casks, but you can already tell this has young MGP bourbon in it. I know zero about the ages here but it's got MGP that's not old enough. Taste - Ok so a bit thin. OK so nice PX sherry comes in, nutty XO, and young bourbon. I like the wine casks, I like the creamy mouth feel. But god you can't get past that MGP needs 10 years of age. I really think the wine casks here do a great job of hiding some of the youth, but this comes up short. All and all if you were to compare this to jos Magnus, this is comically worse, but this is a nice and offers a more creamy easy drinking offering. The real question on this is how does it do with ice? And like all MGP that's too young, gotta love how it takes on ice. What's fun is the wine casks start giving me oloroso elements. It's much more enjoyable. All and all this would be great 50 bucks, it's 65. It's fun and different. But god I wish they'd used older MGP. That would make all the difference as I think they used really fun casks. 1.75. Not a guilty pleasure at all. But I hope you normally drink better.

If I don't make it through this pour, tell my family....I kinda sorta don't hate them. Nose - This is interesting. Fruity notes come through, vanilla candy, sweet but not rich...it's good. But it's as if there's just something missing. Did they chill filter this? Starting to get earthy elements, corn, oak...touch of smoke. This has really all those nice buffalo trace notes but there's something off here. Taste -This is heavy corn stagg jr with a missing layer or 12 of depth and there's this sweet almost what I'd want to say malt but I guess corn whiskey deal. Bit of chocolate, not good chocolate. Everytime I start to get wonderful bourbon...I get that corn and muted weird sweetness. Good spice (wood). Good light chocolate chew notes. Ethanol is here and there but it isn't unruly. Slight metallic note. This is surprisingly well put together and well made bourbon at what is likely 4 years old. You can completely tell there's a lack of age here, but it doesn't drink any younger than some bad bottles of blantons. It holds water reasonably well. All and all for cheap go for it. But why go this cheap? I'm torn on what the point of this is for geeks here, but if you're looking to save some bucks. I can't lie. It's good for that purpose. 1.5 stars. For those not used to my reviews, under 1 star is my way to say it's complete trash. 1 star is not bad. 2 is average. 4 is epic. 5 is in that upper tier of the best whisky I've had, and I've had a lot, but I need to adjust it. I'm debating going higher. Really truly didn't think this would score this high. I'm scoring this with a lot of massive disappointments for 100, this is 17-25 bucks (up to 30 for some secondary). This is much more lacking complexity, depth, and has some meh elements but it isn't bad at all. Other whiskies like this have bigger bolder more impressive elements combined with complete failures in my review database.

The oldest....? Remus yet! A blend of 2005-2008 laid barrels and bottled in 2021, from the undisputed best distillery in America, MGP. Nose - My first though is that it's a bit muted. There's a waxy oily and very sweet note here, with caramel and apple sweetness. And then you get some of those distinct MGP rye notes. It's wonderful MGP goodness but it's a bit closed off as if the oils from the sweetness are holding it back. What I'm not really finding here are older MGP bourbon notes. Actually, going to pour a 14 year pick to compare. I'll do a side by side to end this. Anyway sweet and almost classic remus notes with a bit of butter and oily notes that kinda bring it together but mute it a bit. Still really nice mix of candies and fruits and vanillas and caramels and spiced baked goods. Maybe some apple and dates and even maybe a dry leather touch there at the end. There is age here but I guess I was hoping for more of an evolution and it isn't that. Water - brings out more spice and makes thins bolder but not really better or worse. I am getting this now lemon meringue meets crème brulee Taste - Just like the nose there's a muted upfront flavor here. It's oily and waxy and a bit buttery....and THEN you start to get flavor. The sweetness up front is just oddly tame and dulled. Vanilla, generic pie filling, cinnamon forward pie crust, good bit of rye spice, nutty elements (almonds?), touch of toffee, touch of leather, dusty books and that's about it. It doesn't get into the heavy oak elements at all. Water - ok water opens it up and adds some more sweet up front, it also brings more spice, it also kinda killed the mouth feel as the 100 proof didn't actually have much room. The overall experience now oddly feels lighter and thinner but I'm actually getting an alcohol kick at the end and it's much more fruit. I'm completely at a loss for what's going on with water. OK so the vs. I'm using a boone county 14 year store pick that wasn't well regarded but it was a 14 year store pick at CS and it was still good. The 14 year is this vanilla bomb vs this. Just glorious nose and as you dig in you get that rye apple note I got on the remus and some lovely vanilla oil soaked leather. It might even have some krispy creme custard filling going on. On the taste you get serious oak and distinct oak, it's in contrast to that big vanilla bomb nose, but it's also met with good rye and bourbon elements. So 90 dollar vs 250 dollar bottles are never really fair, but the 14 single is distinctly older bourbon in profile while honestly this blend is at worst just under 13 years old with bourbons much older than 14 in it (33%). But does that matter? i've added water to the CS 14 and I've mixed them up and frankly, I think I know which is which but with water...I'm struggling to honestly be sure and the reason is that they both finish so similarly with bold spice and with water a good oak element. Extremely rich and complex finishes on both. I scored this boone county a 2.75 but that was reviewed September 17th 2019, same bottle almost 2 years open and this is about the last pour before the bottle kill. I think it's grown up a bit and improved (I just re-read my review and I think I'd adjust a few comments about youth to say sharp oak, but distinctly older whisky oak and I'm not sure if that was the result of oxidation or 2 years of refining my bourbon and scotch drinking). Bottom line, I think I was being overly critical with that score and that was earlier on in my attempts to get a feel for scoring. I've scored the other remus bottles in the 3.25 and 3.5 range. So I don't have a remus III to compare this to....opened. I did however finish that bottle just a week ago, shoulda saved some for this but man that was a nice night just going through 3 oz of that amazing bottle. Wait...I don't have a back up...umm ISO? Crap! This I have to say does have elements of older whisky, but it isn't as vibrant as that III was. I'm not sure what is holding this one back as I don't think it's that they used older whisky, it's just they hit magic with that one. OK final science check is remus IV vs the V and the V is just better. Four is more spice and brings in mint and has some alcohol bite right off the bat. It's lacking that sweet and creamy element. I think I'm just giving a bourbon bias score but 3.5, same as the 3 for me, but the 3 is better. So either I lower the 4's score (maybe the right thing to do) or I give this a 3.5. Going back to the 4, actually that's going down. This is a 3.25. It's really good, but not great. At 90 bucks it's an easy buy, I'd buy up to 150.