Tastes

Duel Review - Rhetoric 20 vs 22, neck pour BLIND. So quick background, I did have either the 22 or 23, I think it was the 23...there's an empty bottle around somewhere because I saved it, so I'd remember which. Of course...where I put it? Hell, if I know. OK so I loved that dang whisky so I'm kind excepted. Both bottles bought at "retail" 2020 retail which put these at 174.99...yeah, a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Nose - Whiskey 1 - fruity vanish, cherries, berries, and oh so much oak. Whiskey one is hitting on all those classic ultra-aged bourbon notes with a powerful sweet fruity nose up front and then slowly giving way to aged oak. Overall, we've at a near perfect balance for me where the sweet fruits, chocolates, and that leather vanish dominate and the oak is there to complement but not overpower. Whiskey 2 - While whiskey 1 jumps out of the glass and screams LOOK AT ME, this one is more subtle and subdued. I get very little sweetness, just alcohol notes and oak. Here I get a dusty closet and some peanut or some kinds of nuts. I wouldn't dare dream these two bourbons shared anything in common. Now after some time and swirling and frankly, slowly coating the glass the sweetness is starting to tease its' way out. Now some chocolate is coming, some sweet corn, but still even as the oak fades a touch it's mostly breads and baking notes on the back end where I'm looking for oak and very little up front. Taste - due to the notes doing whiskey 2 first. Whiskey 2 - The first thoughts are buttery oak, tannins, and a LOT of vanilla at the end. Caramel is minimal, fruits aren't showing up, and there's a second kind of vanilla here (one is standard bourbon and the other is almost waxy vanilla creamer). A very odd duck and frankly, not one I'm going back to. Whiskey 1 - Sweeter up front, far more just older bourbon character. It also gives off this alcohol and dryness often that comes from super aged bourbons where it dries you out a bit and gives off that vanish note. So here we get vanilla and caramel with old leather, alcohol soaked oak chips, tannins, and light sweet dark notes. I'm often one of the loudest advocates of my life for OLD bourbon though I fully admit that the ultra-aged stuff can get a bit over the top with oak, those BAD ones. Here I think we're on the wrong side but despite also being a proof snob, I'm crossing my fingers water might just save the day! Nose - Water hasn't done much good or bad to our first bourbon. Perhaps it brought back out the sweetness which has somewhat fading while drinking it. It remains a wonderful bourbon nose. Whiskey 2 feels sweeter and more integrated. It's become a bit creamier, vanilla, and now I'm getting a sweet caramel. Still not getting more than perhaps a touch of a dusty leather that I'd expect with a super aged bourbon. Water opens both whiskies up as well bringing a bit more sweetness and a bit more oak. Balance isn't really found and the finishes on both are vanilla and oak. The opening for whiskey 1 is very good but misses greatness and then it finishes poorly, but the finish is long Oakey and lingers well. Whiskey two is bitter and while it too has a long enough finish, the buttery notes are still here. Ok pick 1 easily here. I am told the 22 is the best of the lot but frankly, if I had to guess, 2 is the older juice. Let’s see Whiskey 1 - 22 year Whiskey 2 - 20 year Welp so much for me guessing age. The 22 year just blows the 20 out of the water. 2 stars for the 22 and 1.5 stars for the 20. These are easy passes despite the 22 having a nose worthy of a 3.75 whisky and an upfront taste worthy of a 3.25.

Ok barton, heaven hill, and turkey 10, 12, and 14 years old. Not in that order. Anyway great stuff on paper. Nose - Pretty traditional bourbon notes here. So can you pickup the blended distilleries? Well actually, yeah you can. Barton rye notes are generally a touch off putting...sourced ok whatever, but I get them here. I then get that turkey funky note, and there's a hint of nutty elements but not peanuts that I get on heaven hill. For me it's a lot of 1792 barrel proof and rare bread with a touch of something else. Sweet, rich, complex, weird...and that classic bourbon vanilla, oak and caramel. One nice note to add is some apple cinnamon cider served in a hay barn. Taste - Once again just a swirling mix of flavors but so much just traditional bourbon. OK so this is more oak driven with some funky notes. I don't say this often with bourbon but it's almost starting to get into savory elements as the oak and bourbon are playing this perfect balance where neither the bitter oak nor the sweet bourbon are able to get too far out in front, though the net whisky is still caramel with a touch of vanilla forward. There's a nutty note. Some fancy french pastry like bready and chocolatey notes. Totally creme brulee. And just this tootsie roll, candy falling apart, aged stout, but yet vanilla forward thing. Then the oak gives you impressions of being in a barn and just in some funky turkey rick houses. I'm super impressed with this one. SO much of the sourced bourbon lately has been really just MGP, barton, or dickle. This brings in well aged versions of turkey and heaven hill and then by blending them you get a whole new and frankly better experience. It's a bit tough at first to jump into this one, it's a whirlwind of what is that, but at the end of the day, it's one of the most complex straight bourbons I've seen in some time. I'll go 3.75. The only real issue here is there's no wow element or moment of DAMN. It's all about the complexity and challenges of pulling apart these notes. I'm not sure however that a lot of people who aren't here want to do that. If I were just drinking this on the rocks....I'd like it but I wouldn't buy again. As a geek, I might get another if they're around in a year.

4-5 years ago I was a bourbon guy, now if you see my reviews here, maybe you think I'm still one. Trust me, it's mostly because I'm just a scotch GEEK and most of my bottles are single barrels I can't post here (easily) that I buy now. But what changed me, what sent me down a path of exploration into the depth of scotch? Well, it was this blend of all things. It drove me to sail my boat right into the heart of the storm to explore these challenging flavors and experiences. I rarely save empty bottles, I have a handful, and mostly because I thought they'd make good infinity decanters. But this is one that I saved the bottle and tube from all those years ago. It's not the marketing but it's the memories of this once life changing whisky. Never before had I experienced peat and sweet in such a way. The mingling of two worlds I both very much enjoyed, but it was so different and unique. At that point I'd never experienced beyond I suppose rumors of what's in blue label, what I'll call ultra aged whisky (30 or more years old) but this also gave me an actual healthy 27% shot of that as well. So after years of dreams and one bar pour that wasn't in optimal conditions (I'd been DRINKING that day), will this one still live up to my memory? Nose - First off, this is an extremely rich and aromatic scotch. In terms of just total smells this is a 9 out of 10. There's smoke and earth at first but as it sits in the glass I'm getting domination by that waxy floral and apple orchard type clynelish malt. Charred barrel and whispers of some youthful spirits are mingled in nicely. An aggressive swirl and a glass topper bring out burnt rubber and hints of tar. Each whiff the whisky gives off a slightly new element. Now roasted vanilla and light faint whiffs of chocolate. Now every so slightly bitter oak. Balanced combinations of fruits, sweetness, earth, bourbon cask maturation, and every so slightly peat doesn't show up but it seems to balance into everything else here. Taste - The pallet takes on a different direction. Where the nose was a perfect blending of all these elements the taste profile brings up more notes of older islay, more oak, more earth, and perhaps more bitterness. Wax elements from the clynelish do arrive. Fruity yet almost vanilla bourbon infused ones arrive as well. While the nose is a 9 in intensity the whisky drinks more like a 6. Not muted but much more average in boldness, and at 48.9% that comes a bit surprising. The finish however almost amps things back up to perhaps an 8. Alcohol lingers and holds on to the gums leaving behind wood spice and well aged and peat faded caol ila. The flames have subsided a bit but they've imparted a wonderfully complex whisky. While on the nose I think the addition of younger highland blend perhaps added a nice element, here I could do without. There's a candy corn like note I think is coming from the youthful spirits, perhaps 10% was a touch high. It still shocks me each time I drink this that the alcohol doesn't even become apparent until the finish, it's to the point it's startling. So 4 plus years of drinking and this now bring among the less expensive scotches I own (at least retail), how does flaming heart 2015 hold up? Well....pretty bloody well. This remains one of the most pleasing and complete whisky experiences I can think of. A finish that lasts and lingers for days. A nose that is worth of song and dance. And while the upfront flavors are not wowing me, they remain pleasing, enjoyable, and really a perfect opening act for a finish worthy of replacing cigars with. There are flaws and imperfections along the way. A bit of roughness and spark from some cheaper whisky. Still for my dollars, this remains a steal under 200, maybe even under 250. I think a fair average price is going to be in the low 300's for this one. At that point, I might still want a backup for nostalgia but I'm not jumping to buy one at that point. Score - 4.25. This is outstanding and I reserve the right to bump this up.

Sadly, while many of these old carter's give good details, this one doesn't. I just know they weren't expecting to release it and then boom, it was too good to hold onto. Nose - apples, spice BOMB, and alcohol all day. Water is getting added here but let me finish my early notes. Water opens this bad boy up. Just a flavor/nose explosion. It's not rich which is what I really want but it's spices and intense aromas. Taste - So with all the batched Old Carters I get this dusty oak. This one opens up insanely pleasantly and sweet. It's so neutral in being a clean and classic bourbon without giving me tell tale signs of a distillery. Lets get to water. Ok water brings out more of these baked goods and middle of the road oaks and tannins. Again Old Carter is that middle of the road bourbon blend with a focus on spice and flavor but perhaps not in my wheel house. I'm a bit torn as I don't love this but I see so much stupid quality. I'm giving this a 2.75. It's kinda the anti bourbon for the buffalo trace lovers as it's all about the spice and kick from that vs the sweet. And it's nothing like the nutty beam world either. A niche product for a niche consumer.

Cask Strength laphroaig in a different barrel, ok I'll bite. Nose - Alcohol, peat, creme, coconut water, and a bit of youthful new make spirit. I'm a bit concerned but at the same time nothing is sharp or offensive here, just youthful and the abv is high. Maybe we'll be ok. Also getting some spearmint, oak tannins, vanilla, and the very medicinal element of laphroaig. Taste - This quarter cask is an explosion of flavors, I get citrus, vanilla, pine, spearmint, every so slightly soured oak, coconut, and as I often get on younger islay some aspartame. Then we get a nice long finish of medical supplies, lingering classic peat, rubber, ash, fake vanilla candy, and this is different but waxy cigarette smoke. So let me take a step back. I actually really enjoy just drinking this. It's not my favorite and it's not one I'll get more of but I like it. But when I focus on the notes and trying to pull them out, I'm not loving it. It is young and offensively so in some ways. But it's also good in many other ways. It's a whisky to just drink and to get a unique take on big ass abv and peat. I think that's the goal and it does that well. Anyway I'm not the biggest CS laphroaig fan until you get into the older stuff. So keep that in mind but I'm a 2.0 here. This is very average whisky put together expertly for a niche who wants peat to punch them in the balls, abv to kick them there, and then they just want a different cask maturation so they get a new spin on it. For that group this will be a stand out and frankly I would take this over the triple wood and regular 10 CS if I were in that grouping just as I think this one is a bit more unique. Me, I still like the Fino which I don't think is CS but I do think is more complex, nuanced, and well just a better whisky....but it isn't a better shot to the nuts.

Milsean is one of those bottles I kept passing up until I thought they were gone and then stumbled upon on and I just had to give it a go. I'll save you any suspense, it's pretty tasty and I'm glad to have it, but how does it score? I seriously wish I knew more about these but i'm assuming 6-14 year old juice and oddly I think more in the 10-14 range and interesting wine casks. nose - I get an oddly lightly soured and yet candy like note, perhaps a blue or purple sweat tart meets a sour sucker meets charred oak? Some barely and oak notes as well. I don't recall this sour note from earlier tastings but what remains is a sweet and very inviting candy experience, and thus the candy stripe box design. The more I nose the more I start to get some bourbon notes, perhaps some vanilla and caramel. Wow just went back to it after a few minutes and I can't even describe it, it's like a kid's sticky mess of a box of candy where they opened a bunch, just hit me with candy. Lemon drops and sour patch, and just everything. Taste - well it's a tart and sweet candy mix for sure. Everything from your cherry suckers to your perhaps lightly chocolatey notes. Then a lovely transition to a slightly tart and wood sour finish, showcasing the charred oak and a mix of almost a powdered sugar and light milk chocolate powder combination. This is just a delightfully easy drinking sweet and candied whisky. It's not super old or complex. It's not great by any means. But it's just an easy and super enjoyable turn your head off and have a scotch kinda pour. I'm thinking 2.0, but I'll bump it to 2.25 for how inviting it is. The unique notes here might justify a few more points but at the same time, the nose has a hint of wow but more in "wow what is that" and the taste is mostly enjoyable and inviting, not wow. Anyway it's a bit expensive at 100 bucks but I'd not be opposed to a second bottle.

Bought this a couple weeks ago, had a pour so lets get back into it. Background I haven't really researched. I know we're looking at about a 75:25 malt grain mix and the vast majority of the whisky in here is about 25 years old with some 19 or 21 year old mixed in. So plenty of age. A bit of grain to bring down costs but still net net I think a pretty good value on face value. Lets see how it drinks. Nose - ok first off, just coming off my glass, it's delicate yet powerful and really inviting. Citrus, apples, vanilla, spices, and a touch of oak. Really a very delightful and all be it perhaps a bit generic kind of a fruity citrus notes. The spice, fruit and vanilla character with the under lying older oak notes are really playing on each other well here. I even dare say I get distinct clynelish elements which is shocking given how little is in here, but yet I can't miss them. Taste - The taste goes a different direction from the nose. While the nose brings out citrus fruits and it has a balanced and fruity well banquet of notes, the flavor is very different. It plays on some waxy vanilla notes, gives off oak spices, and then you move into the finish where it gets a bit savory and there are umami elements likely oak driven. That lingers on medium to long with toasted oak and waxy vanilla with it. I'm struggling to find the nice citrus notes from the nose however. Mouth feel is another issue here. The 46% drinks like a non chill filtered whisky with a nice coating to the mouth, but it's still dishearteningly thin. Just going into the 48-50 range could have really pushed this one to the next level. I'm at 2.5 with this one. Let me walk you through it a bit. There is the complexity and nuanced transitions of a 20+ year old whisky and in that this should be walking into the 4.0 range. The finish is long and lingering, again should be at least a 3.5 if not 4 as well. The nose has the makings of a sold 3+ as well. The problem then? It's just SO flat up front when you first taste it. Where there should be orchard fruits or something. I plan to go back to this in a day or maybe even today and see if I'm just off or missing it, but it's truly a depressing start to what is otherwise a wonderful whisky. None the less a 2.0 is an average whisky and a 2.5 is a firm step up and is moving into a very good, but not great. I wouldn't dismiss this whisky on my score as there are layers upon layers of depth that for many might be more than enough to push this into their 4+ ranges. I'm picky and I hate to say this one is just missing a mark or two. Short re review - see comments but I'm upping this to 3.0

My new favorite ECBP? Lets see Nose - This nose is just perfect bourbon. There's both nutty, caramel, vanilla, rich oak, and it's all so integrated that it just smells like rich dark sweet bourbon. OK it's a bit on the nutty side and a bit lacking in depth for the elite elite bourbons but still wow good. Taste - what really makes the 520 special is that neat it drinks so insanely well. C919 was insanely good but it was dry and astringent and needed about 3-6 drops of water to fix that and once it did well WOW. This doesn't need it at all. It's almost perfect neat. It's this sweet mellow oaked goodness giving us just a perfect baked pie and oaked smoked vanilla and hints of chocolate. There might be a roasted almond or walnut or something like that as well. yeah vanilla roasted almonds are here. But with water, things get even more dessert and creamy. There's still oak spice and the power of this one doesn't get questioned with a drop or 10. More water just leaves an oak and vanilla that was made for bourbon lovers. ECBP remains the quintessential definition of bourbon. It is what bourbon is supposed to be. You water this down to 90 proof and you get the age and perfect balance. You drink it neat and you get to enjoy the intense blow you away proof without it being off putting. B520 is perhaps the most "perfect" of these examples in that it simply has no flaws that aren't baked into the ECBP formula. If you like ECBP, this is great. if you've had some you didn't like, well this is the perfect balance. Bottom line a very RARE 4.0 for a sub 100 dollar bottle. I think I paid 140 for 2 bottles before tax. Money WELL spent.

I've been struggling to do this one and I'm not sure I'll hit that save button but lets write this one up and see. So I had this a while ago and really loved it, but I couldn't really recall WHY I loved it. So I bought this when I found it for 150 + 500 points...later fond it for 156 and no points, oh well. I also first gave it a shot next to ECBP B520, review coming and thought they were oddly similar. So been drinking a bit today and writing some reviews (I'm starting to collect a plate worth of un finished bourbons in front of me), and figured this being high proof maybe it was time to give it a go while other whisky that isn't ECBP has been with me. Nose - so this is odd but I'm getting a super vegetable note. Perhaps rye and oak are creating that one. Normally with a double oak I get a lot of chocolate but that's 100% not here. It's old oak, what I'd call tired oak on a scotch, and there's a rich body but it's still giving me that vegable note. Note, this was two barrels not double oaked, error on my part. Taste - yeah this is super oaked in a very interesting way. There's also a tootsie roll like element. It's a fresh or young oak element with huge amounts of sweetness. It's a drying bourbon, high proof, but not barrel strength. Complex for sure, but it's missing the mark a bit for me today. I'm going to save this as this isn't my first pour and every time I do this one I come up feeling it's missing something. That said it's so rich, it's so big, it's bold, and while I am finding off notes, it's got some really wonderful bourbon sweetness and flavors too. They're just not best suited to be compared with other bourbons. You know I'm now getting like a waxy chocolate note and some butter scotch. Very enjoyable bourbon 3 out of 5 but the alcohol is a bit unchecked and the oak has some issues that I think will put some off. I'm still enjoying it and glad to have a bottle. I'd buy again but only if I see it in a few years, it won't be a quick rebuy. Edit, moving this down to a 2.25, the more I go back then more I just feel something is off here. It's above average bourbon but just a little bit.

So 2020 bourbon of the year? I already know one person calling this a contender...and I might have been the one who brought him the bottle and then said if he reviewed it before I had 3 bottles, he was cut off. :) Nose - cinnamon, fall leaves, clove, baked pie crust, and then this MGP rye note that you can't mistake. This is one of the least sweet and more just complex and yet not dry or bitter or anything like that of traditional bourbons (so complex that sentence is likely a run on). It's a level of balance I can't describe or compare it to. Taste - 12 years in oak barrels followed by 18 months in these Armagnac casks provides a level of depth and complexity in this bourbon that really has few rivals. This is simply WOW whisky. Spicy, complex, tobacco, oak, cinnamon, apples cider, rye spice, touches of vanilla and caramel. There's so much more to this than I can describe. Water brings out more sweetness up front but doesn't turn it. The spices and flurry of flavors doesn't subside. Fall orchard fruits and spices while in a tobacco barn is all I can really use to explain the nuance of this one. For me, I do tend to want a bit more vanilla and caramel sweetness and I want an oak sweetness that I don't find here in my bourbons. But this is a finish bourbon, and with that comes an acceptance of nuance and just differences. This isn't as sweet as the 30 year old armagnac I have in my closet, but it does bring out some of those notes. I'm left with just a big old smile on my face and a big old WOW. 4.5 on this one. I did this side by side with the four gate batch 6 and it make the batch 6 seem like a cheap boring bourbon (it isn't). It's close but I'd take this over a cigar blend. I liked this so much I bought 4 bottles for myself. I have been screaming at the roof tops for people to get this one. I've very well may have turned this locally into a special allocated bottling that it wasn't before I started telling people about it. So now I share it with you guys. This is a top 25 all time bourbon imo. This isn't special, it's a masterpiece in the bourbon space and worth paying secondary prices while they're still reasonable. MSRP is about 130 on this one. The secondary is still only about 250 shipped. BUY THEM ALL! I can't recommend a bottle more strongly given that even secondary prices are still so reasonable.