Tastes

From a 2 oz sample I had a few months back, notes written at the time. Score provided based on notes. Thank you to I whisky she wines for this sample. nose - cinnamon spices with maybe some pepper. Cognac finishing without a doubt. Tobacco – freshly dried leaves you’d smell in a barn. If it weren’t a bourbon base I’m not sure I’d say vanilla and caramel but there is an underlying sweat note that’s more caramel in nature than raw sugar. Water brings out the spices in greater amounts, even adds a bite to the nose. Meanwhile the sugars and malts come down. I’m now getting a very distinct older oak cherry notes which I absolutely love. Tobacco is still there and the unmistakable cognac note is much subdued but still there. I believe this is just cognac finished and I somewhat hope so as I don’t get the sherry, but if it is in there it doesn’t come out neat and with water has some elements that I could be convinced are sherry, but I don’t get sherry finishing on the blend...maybe a portion of this was sherry finished to just add a touch of fruity notes WAY back there. At about an hour and a half in the glass, it’s gotten really sweat, spices have faded in both the sample with water and without. Taste – Cognac. This will sound odd but grape fruity notes on top of caramel, but more a grape candy that isn’t overly sweat. Tobacco and cinnamon spices. Water – wow just like the nose water opens things up wonderfully. I even get more bite likely from the spices but it feels hotter (on the tongue, there's less heat as it goes down). That more concentrated grape like note is gone. Tobacco isn’t really a common note I mention, it’s often there on older bourbon but the cognac and older bourbon seems to be giving this is really nice impact. I’d actually until I wrote this had forgotten the whole “cigar” part of the name. I can absolutely see a real comparison, not that I’m a big cigar smoker, but I might do one a year. Anyway, really nice sweet finish that I want on my bourbon. Finish/body - Body is medium which is a touch disappointing but hardly negative. the finish is medium long not giving me the older bourbon notes, but there's wood and spices still lingering well after the finish. I did a side by side with regular magnus and ultimately - they're different, they're both awesome, and I'm not sure which one I like more.

My score was 1 star for the 25...is the 17 any better? Nose - light berry, vanilla, oak. There's a bit of a nutty character here. Taste - vanilla, cream, oak, warming alcohol (43% so that's nice), and a touch of fruit. I can see this as lightly butter scotchy, where those nutty notes in the nose are coming from perhaps. Edit - straight up buttered toast here! So I'm a bit torn. I came into this brand expecting sherry whisky. This isn't that. It's much more a bourbon barrel, a very well worn bourbon barrel. There might be some sherry casks in here but if the are, they're USED. i like the fruity and perhaps white chocolate notes. It's nice and yeah I like the 17 more than the 25 I think. The 17 is more bourbon cask notes while the 25 is more sherry with berry and fruit notes coming out a bit more. The 17 is more nutty and butter scotch. The 17 is more unique an experience and for me that's a win. It's just more interesting. The 25 is just a bad example of sherry whisky. So scoring this a 1.75. It's not great. It's 100+ bucks. I don't recommend it.

Oh my old friend, we're here once again. Batch 46. Nose - I love scotch, I love bourbon, but my lord I love Cognac finished bourbon. There's is just something about it. That note of oak and vanilla with this old dried fruit and I just get this "feeling" of something dried out that's falling apart in such a good and pleasant way...I can't explain it, but I get it on these cognac finished whiskies. As soon as I think this one is over however I get those red fruits from the sherry and then I get this sherry sweetness from the PX barrels I assume. Just masterful blending of nuances and notes. Taste - Dark fruit, aged wine that's sat far too long in oak, oak, a touch of vanilla at first, some sour grapes but again muted by oak, . I'm just not sure how to explain sherry and cognac without just say this tastes like the best of cognac with hints of sherry. Simply put Jos A Magnus is one of the best whiskies on the market and it can be found at or just under 100 bucks. Folks, this is a master class whisky and I just hope they're able to keep sourcing the 12 year old MGP juice for these. I know some of the single barrels are going to Dickle...and they're terrible next to the MGP ones. I still need get another Murray Hill Reserve to do a review on that one, spoiler - the one I had was great, but so far everything I've had from magnus that was a non store pick has been outstanding. I've had one store pick (not sure how or what to do to review those here) that was pretty underwhelming and one that's outstanding. So when they let Nancy do her thing....they're getting some magic. 4.0 - what does it need to be higher? Honestly, I'm not 100% sure. Some Older juice would help as I think the casks are getting too much play and a bit older whisky might standup and push back on the casks. Overall yeah I think the casks are a bit too intense on the front and the bourbon really shines on the way down. This is such good bourbon under the casks that I think a bit more even play would be ideal.

Is it a scam to put a 375 ml bottle in a box twice the size of most 750's? I'm not sure but I felt cheated when I got this home to realize it was a 375. Then again...for 50 bucks, maybe it's on me. Nose - butter scotch, chocolate, and vanilla. Taste - This one really evolves in your mouth. The buttery chocolate and vanilla rises up as the alcohol coats the mouth and there is a rush of oak and vanilla spice. There's a fruity character that starts to come out for me once I acclimate to the dessert notes. A bit of dark fruit...raisins or plums, some classic sherry notes but well back in there. Finish - long and lingering. Mostly butter scotch, oak, and some of that sherry element. I'm torn, I want to be mad about the small bottle, but I can't be upset at all with the insanely high quality whisky in here. I'm still only going with a 2.5 here. There's some off notes in the mix, even a few younger whisky notes in a 21 year, but man for 50 bucks, I know it's a small bottle but it's worth a gamble if you're a fan of blended scotch. I'm still debating the older expressions....I don't rebuy this but I might have to spend the 130 for the 30+ year old just to see. Please note again the 50 bucks was for a 375 which makes this more like a 100 dollar bottle. Not a horrible price for a 21 year old whisky and for the most part you get 21 year old notes on this one.

I still wonder if this is actually whisky.... Nose - Caribbean rum... Then some creme brulee. That's about it. Taste - vanilla icing, sugar, cinnamon rolls, cake...just a lot of dessert. The thing is...where's the whisky? i can't find rye spice. I can't find the oak barrels. Are we sure these barrels weren't still full of rum? So I'm left with, this is tasty stuff. It's sweet the point I don't want more of it after a few tastes. But it's not good whisky either. Worse yet it's 100 dollars...why? i'm scoring it as a whisky and giving it a 1 star. It's not terrible so it earns the 1 star but I'm just baffled why this is a whisky in the first place. For me this bottle is likely going to just evaporate from the bottle before I get back to it, but I might share with those who don't like whisky. My sisters seemed to like it at christmas.

So I concluded the 107 was over priced, lower quality, and aspartame notes ruined it for me. Not a shocker given I tend to not really care for that one, despite the fact that I keep buying it in hopes I get what others drool over. So how will the cheaper and actually still reasonably priced 20 dollar sibling do? Nose - well there isn't much here is my first note. Pretty standard bourbon notes...vanilla caramel, and maybe 10% more oak than you might expect in cheaper/younger wellers. Classic "smooth" well drink nose if that makes any sense to you. Mind you, most wells are "a bit harsh" as thus why people who aren't whisky drinkers pay more for something else. Taste - Caramel! It just jumps out and says HELLO! Followed by oak and alcohol. The oak notes are younger, unfinished wood, a touch of saw dusty and maybe a light nutty note in the background. This is really full flavor and pleasant. Finish - just some of that cheaper wood note and alcohol. I'm honestly impressed more and more every time I go back to these WSR's. They're nothing special, but for 20 bucks you get everything you want from a buffalo trace product outside of the age and premium barrel selections. It wouldn't shock me if a single barrel store pick of this could be a 4 star bourbon and thus why I'm actually pretty excited for the people who are going to get to try the full proof (I'll never see a bottle I'm sure). So yes, I think this is better and more enjoyable than the 107 while only being 5% less "intense" in terms of flavor despite being more 90 proof vs 107. Scoring this a 1.75, it's nothing special but given the price point is in EVERYONE's budget, even those who tend to buy the 10 dollar bourbons, you can splurge for this one. If won't be for all, some people just want a bite, they want spice, they want huge alcohol...I get that. But for everyone else this is a really high quality bottle. I only wish I had a buffalo trace (which yes is harder for me in ohio to get than this) to do a side by side right now. I could be convinced to go full 2.5 stars in terms of how I would generally grade, but I can't due to this really doesn't have anything special about it. It's just quality generic somewhat boring bourbon...but if that's what you love, this is one of the best options.

So as a rule I like to try these a few times before reviewing, but this one is just too tempting with it being a rare to find 15 year age stated bourbon. So this is a bit more blind going in. Bias going in, I'm expecting this to be underwhelming, somewhat poorly aged, and mostly a small step up from IW Harper 15 year (a disappointing all be it wonderful nosing bourbon). Should also point out Stitzel Weller closed in 1992 meaning this would have had to have been in a steel vate since 2007, 12 years, for this to actually be 15 years old and from Stitzel Weller. The story doesn't really checkout. Nose - vanilla, caramel, leather, finished dusty wood. Very sweet, easily in the top quarter of sweet bourbon noses. There's a lot of that dusty oak, really nice for us oak fans, but I can already tell this is going to be "over oaked" for many. Taste - Vanilla really is the story here. The caramel notes from bourbon are well in the back ground as vanilla just bombards this one. There is some bitter oak on the back, giving it a spice and bit of bite. The 90ish proof is very soft and really only is noticed on the back end. Water really did nothing to the nose or taste - good or bad. Ok so verdict. It's too light up front. The sweetness from the nose doesn't come through here. The oak adds a lot of spice which is going to upset a lot of people but for an oak fan, it doesn't add the more intense leathers or that cherry note I often get. It is however clearly older whisky, it has some very nice sweet and middle of the road quality notes (middle of the road in the sense that it wasn't extreme in more shall we say "special" types of flavor such as super spicy rye notes or super sweet sugary notes). I come to for 30 bucks I can get Eight and Sand with a similar profile for 30 bucks and frankly that might be better bourbon. 2 stars - if 100 bucks is well out of your normal purchase range, this should fall to 1 star for you. It's a hard pass for all but those who want to try any and all older bourbons like myself. I was debating going 2.25 or 2.5 due to my general appreciation of the age statement there are some quality all be it muted notes.

Odd to see just one place to review the distiller's edition but many to review the 12 year. Anyway Nose - bananas, cloves, sweat over ripe fruit, vanilla, and an ever so subtle touch of smoke. I'm getting a touch of mint as it opens. Taste - Unlike the nose the taste brings in the peat in full force. Still I get that banana, and some over ripe fruits. Now I'm getting the clear and distinct sherry flavors. Then the char and roast and smoke from the peat. At the first the 43% and the just general fake coloring and kinda poorly merged sherry and peat didn't work for me. Now that the bottle is half way and it has been able to breath, it's pretty solid. Still the 43% is disappointing and it really does hurt this whisky. Still the bananas and some of the notes are a bit young tasting for me.

With 6k tastes I guess I'm not adding much with my notes so this one will be for me. Nose - cherry, though a bit medicinal vs one for a cocktail. Vanilla and younger unfinished oak comes together. Overall I'd like more age here and at 10 years it comes off a touch younger, but a pretty good overall first impression. Taste - those cherry notes on the nose come though, they add to a vanilla cake, and toasted oak. I'm not sure what char buffalo trace uses on these but it's coming off more on the toasted than dark char. Really great example of what a good bourbon should be and a great expression of buffalo trace's unique flavors. So 30-40 these days, hard to find, allocated most places. Is it special? No, not really. It's a good value. Will i buy it again? Oh yes but I'm ok with spending 100 on a bourbon so this is a well type drink for me. If you spend less on whisky then this might become less of an easy purchase but I still fully recommend it as long as you don't get hit with high secondary prices. Debating the score, this one must be a 3.0. It's just the perfect bourbon. It is in today's market when available (and in some markets it is always there) one of the best buys you can make on the shelf. I'm not sure if I'm lowering my standards due to access to quality bourbon in 2019 but for me this is high quality whisky at a great price. But you're not yet in the special levels or even closer to those.

Nose - citrus fruits with a musty touch of oak. Fresh and refreshing, bright and very clear yet sharp and a bit acidic. Taste - Vanilla, vanilla yogurt, and vanilla icing. Light citrus, almost an orange bitter. Some light oak bitterness as well. Wow this is dessert with a long lingering oak and vanilla finish. Just a really high quality malt. I've seen this in fancy boxes and as low as 100, but I paid 150 and I got the cheap cardboard box.