Tastes

I'm always excited to crack open a new New Riff bottle. In our state, we have four regularly available: their two standard 4 year bonded offerings in rye and bourbon and single barrel varieties of both. In a trip to Jersey, I got the balboa rye, which I've already reviewed here as well as the malted rye 6 year, which I've had open for maybe a month now. I was just reading up on what malted rye is and similar to single malts made with malted barley, they let the rye germinate to give it a starchier more sugary quality, which in turn, results in a gentler, smoother whisky. Which is certainly true here. This may be the tamest nose I've had on a New Riff. Which doesn't mean bad, just subtle, just you have to let it sit for a while and tease the aromas out. Aromas of coco powder and brown sugar are evident along with caramel and mint with a slight woody muskiness. All the prominent rye scents are present but not overwhelming. This isn't a rye to announce itself straight out the gate as brawny, burly, like say, a Knob Creek Single Barrel might. Then again, this is also 100 proof instead of 115. The palate is spicy and fruity all at once with cinnamon, cherries and maybe a bit of orange zest as well as dark chocolate on the back end. It's the dark chocolate flavor that leads into the finish which is medium in length and full of baking spice, not just cinnamon but nutmeg as well with the mint from the nose making an encore appearance. Overall, I think I prefer the brasher New Riff bottlings I've had in the 4 Year Bonded Rye and Single Barrel bourbon. This is good, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure anything about it stands out enough for me to want to pay nearly $70 to get another bottle. Overall, if you see it at a bar and like New Riff, it wouldn't be a bad order to sample, and this bottle certainly won't go to waste, but it's not a rebuy I'm sorry to say.

This is a great dessert whisky if I've ever come across one. It's also a great whisky to drink if you're walling up an enemy who has betrayed you after pretending to be his friend and telling him you have a great Amontillado in the basement. Sorry, I can't resist the Poe reference here. This Scotch is finished in Amontillado casks and aged at 12 years, and I can't hear the word Amontillado without thinking of the Poe story. Can anyone? I mean, can anyone who has encountered the story not thinking of it when they hear the word. I'm sure you can avoid thinking of it if you've never read it, but me, yeah, walling up a dude you've drugged to get revenge, letting him suffocate, starve, however the guy died. That's what I think of when I think Amontillado. Despite the dark opening, I still with my initial statement in that first sentence. This isn't a whisky to drink all the time. It's best served with a crème brûlée. Or a piece of cake. Or hell, cookies. It's sweet. That's what the Amontillado imparts on it. We don't get a lot of Campbeltown Scotches in our region. Or actually, we rarely get any. You guys are all always on about your Springbank and Longrow. And I'm like, what are they talking about. I'm also jealous. So when two Glen Scotias popped up in our region, this and the 15, I jumped at this: a cask strength special release with an age statement for $80! I was on it. The 15 I missed out on. It has come and gone, but it was 100$ and there are other things I would prefer for that bread. Plus the appeal of this one, sorry to come back to it, is Amontillado. I've never had Amontillado, nor have I had a Scotch finished in it. So, that was part of the appeal. And I didn't really look into Amontillado (yes, I keep typing it because I just love the word itself). It is a sherry, but what kind of sherry is it? Must be particularly sweet because what it imparts on this is a nose of burnt caramel, vanilla and cherry. And when I say vanilla, I mean like prime vanilla extract, this is baking vanilla, this is the vanilla chefs use with that strong alcohol undertone, this is like French Vanilla ice cream vanilla melted and distilled. My god, it's great, but in measure. The palate is candied cherry with that same vanilla whipped up and all creamy on the tongue. The finish lingers and is spicy but also sweet leaving you ready for not just the next sip, but the next bite of whatever delicious dessert you've decided to pair this with. Trust me, if you're burying someone alive and decided to celebrate with Mexican Chocolate Trifle with Orange Curd and Pomegranate Pudding, this Bud's for you.

I feel like it's been a while since I've reviewed anything here. Part of that is, post holidays, I'm drinking a little less. It's not a New Year's Resolution or anything. Just a predilection post holiday. There's lot of drinking going on Christmas season, Thanksgiving holiday, football season in general. I try to make up for it now. Last Friday I dropped by the liquor store just to see what was on the shelves, and they had a $6.00 off coupon for the Old Forester Whisky Row whiskies, but the only one on the shelf was this, the 1870. Now, naturally, I peeled off more than one coupon, figuring I'd keep them in my wallet and keep an eye out for the other three they sell in my region. But I've only had the 1870 once, about a half-decade ago, and I like what OF puts out. Their 100 Proof Rye and Bourbon are both solid shelf stockers, and the 1920 is a great sub-$60 high proof high rye bourbon. Old Forester 86 was my go-to, too, when I first started off with bourbon, and while my return to that reinforced the idea that it doesn't really do it for me anymore, this tasting of 1870 proves a lot better. Granted, the first time I had 1870, my baseline for OF was the 86 proof, so when I tasted the 1870, not having tasted any other higher quality bourbons, it was pretty much the best thing I'd ever had. I'd secured it on clearance for something like $25, and I loved the design of the bottle, which at the time had the 1870 stamped on a slant on the label. Picking it up now was more a curiosity. Having had the 1920, my acting presumption was that I wouldn't be quite as impressed with 1870 this time, and yet, sometimes you don't want a 115 proofer, sometimes a 90 proof bourbon hits the spot. And this does hit the spot. It's not insanely complex. In fact, it's not what I'd call complex at all. On the nose, you get vanilla, oak and cherry. The palate is, guess what, the same. The finish is short and mainly baking spice. But you know what? For $39.99 SRP (with a $6.00 off coupon bringing it down to $34.99), you can do much worse. Now I'm not sure I'd buy again without the coupon, and as I've said, the other coupons I tore off I'm planning to use for the Whisky Row joints I haven't had (1897, 1910) and maybe another bottle of 1920. But I certainly don't regret this. It's not a bad Friday night, home from the snow day sledding with kids, wife in the kitchen cooking up paninis for dinner, roaring fire going kind of sipper. Sometimes, too, context is everything.

I’m going to eat my words in this review. Sort of. Last week, I wrote up Larceny Barrel Proof C922. In that review, I made light of batch variation. I wasn’t saying it doesn’t exist. I was saying that, when it comes to Elijah Craig Barrel Proof or Larceny Barrel Proof, I think we may make too much of it. With both, you’re getting a similar flavor profile from batch to batch, similar enough that, while you may prefer one batch to another, it’s not such a wide variation that you should steer clear of one batch entirely and kill yourself driving to the store to pick up another. In short, it exists, but it’s overhyped, in my opinion. And to an extent, I’m not necessarily going back on that opinion when it comes to those two bourbons. Last year, I had batch 015 of Laphroaig 10 Year Cask Strength, my first Laphroaig CS. And I think I maybe made myself like it more than I actually did. If I’m being honest, it was a bit disappointing but, given my love of Laphroaig, I didn’t want it to be bad, so I made myself like it more than I did. Water helped it. An ice cube helped it, but on its own, the nose was redolent of ozone, a lightning strike, fried electronics, sort of like when the train set underneath your Christmas tree shorted out when you were a kid. The palate was, at times, rather charred to the point of being ashy. There were moments, while drinking it, that it reminded me of licking the bottom of an astray at a dive bar around closing time. The finish was long, but when the aroma is a lightning strike and the palate is a stale cigar, do you really want to prolong it? I mean, it was interesting. I’ve never had ozone on the nose. I’ve never had that much char on the palate. And since water and an ice cube could salvage it, I muddled through. It was….an experience. But what I wanted from a Laphroaig 10 Year Cask Strength was everything I love about Laphroaig AMPLIFIED! Cut to this year’s Cask Strength, Batch 016. At least I think it’s this year’s. Last year’s batch was bottled December 21, but didn’t reach my region until December 22. Batch 016 states that it was bottled December 22, but hasn’t reached my region until December 23. So I’m assuming that they’re bottling Batch 017 now and it will show up here next December. See how I excel in pattern recognition? In any case, Batch 016 brought with it some great relief. I was worried all batches of Laphroaig Cask Strength would be like 015 and it was just a taste I hadn’t acquired yet. Sort of like the first time you have an Islay and it’s overwhelmingly….well, Islay. But that’s not the case at all. Batch 016 is what I wanted: It is everything I love about the regular 10 AMPLIFIED! The nose has that delightful (if you enjoy Islay) combination of Laphroaig’s signature iodine, sea salt, peat and vanilla, that lovely bouquet that in the 10 Year, at 86 proof, is a bit muted comes out in full force here. The more you nose it the more the vanilla becomes a bit of caramel that’s more milk chocolate caramel than dark chocolate. The palate is similar in that you get strong sea salt with white pepper, a trace of the band aid and, at the beginning of the finish, just a hint of char (I tell you I don’t dislike char, it’s just that, when that’s all there is, you long for something more, and you certainly aren’t looking for a stale cigar, are you?). When my local Wine and Spirits released this, I got to the store that evening. It was a Sunday, and I was hoping they weren’t sold out. The website listed 6 bottles in stock, and when I got to the Laphroaig section, there were no Cask Strength on the shelves! Aye me, were they sold out? I went to ask the clerk and it turns out, they were in the back, in the box, they’d just come off the truck the day before and they hadn’t a chance to put it out. “How many do you want?” the guy asked. “Just the one,” I said. I was thinking of last year’s. I didn’t want to get stuck with two bottles if that was the batch quality. Turns out batch variation can be extreme. I’m not used to it with the bourbons that release three batches a year and where I haven’t had to wait between bottles. Here, it’s real. It’s very real. And maybe I shouldn’t have told him I’d take two. But hey, I also have this year’s Cairdeas to trial soon. So it’s not like I’m out of Laphroaig. And I just finished up a bottle of Lore. My budget is limited. But this one has me interested to see what they’ll have to offer in December 2024. I hope it’s more like Batch 016 than Batch 015. But I’m prepared for the possibility that it could be something entirely different from both. Also, they haven't jacked up the price since last year, and I, for one, really appreciate that given recent whisky inflation.

Gone in 60 Seconds. That’s the title of my experience with Weller, any Weller, when it’s available on the FW&GS site. Used to be, FW&GS did an internet only release every third Wednesday of the month with specialty, allocated whiskies at 10 a.m. Sometimes, it would be Blanton’s, sometimes Old Fitzgerald, sometimes Weller, Eagle Rare 10 year, you get the idea. The BT Antique Collection and Pappy were never on these pages. Rather those were on auction, and you never won the auctions. And unless you had the world’s fastest internet connection, you weren’t getting these specialty releases either. Any of these. I’d tried. I’d get a bottle of Weller’s 12 or Blanton’s in my cart, his process, and it would reload telling me that bottle was no longer available. Didn’t matter how quickly I got to the page, if I had my log in credentials already logged. I wasn’t getting these bottles. Then, about six months ago, FW&GS announced that they were no longer doing the release on a schedule. They would post the bottles on a special page whenever they got stock. This didn’t necessarily make it easier to nab these specialty bottles. You still had to be quick on the draw, checking the page frequently, lucky enough to be there when they dropped a new one. And on Wednesday this week, I was just lucky enough to finish a boring task at work, check the Whisky Release page before my next task, and discover that they had 580 bottles of Weller Antique 107 FW&GS Exclusive Barrels for sale. I wasn’t even logged in and figured I had no chance, but I decided to roll the dice, hit “Log in” drop 2 bottles into my cart, since buyers were allocated to 2 and at 49.99, that would put me at 99.98 for free shipping, and hit Checkout and process. Much to my surprise, unlike previous times, the order went through and I got a receipt. I hit refresh on the Whisky Release page and the bottles were sold out. Gone in 60 Seconds. I think every whisky drinker understands what just happened there: it’s the whisky lover’s equivalent of winning the lottery. Getting Weller at SRP is like seeing Bigfoot screwing a unicorn while a UFO hovers above them filming the whole thing. I mean, the good folks at Buffalo Trace know what they’re doing in terms of creating demand, making this stuff seem special. After all, it’s a wheated high proof bourbon bottled at 107. That’s all it is. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength is the same thing, generally running 109 to 110 proof, which is readily available and goes for $44.99 around my neck of the woods. Larceny Barrel Proof is also wheated, bottled generally around 120-ish proof, runs for $64.99 (used to be $49.99 just last year) and while it isn’t as readily available as MMCS, we can generally get it. I mean, I bought two bottles of C922 two weeks ago and have other bottles in my collection unopened. But Weller feels like an event because it’s so incredibly hard to come by. Is it that much better than those other two I’ve mentioned? Well, it’s….different. I can’t deny the excitement on winning this mad dash for the bottles doesn’t play into my enjoyment of it tonight. UPS delivered it today, and I’ve finished work for the holidays, so I opened it and poured rather large doses for both myself and my wife. She’s in the kitchen cooking Christmas cookies and listening to Christmas music, and I’m here at the dining room table typing this with that going on in the background. It’s hard not to bump this a few points for circumstances. The nose here is fruity and spiced like a baked apple with caramel drizzled on top. Given the aroma of fresh baked pizzelles is wafting from the kitchen, it’s hard to avoid saying there’s a licorice undertone but there’s not. Doing a whisky tasting right next to the kitchen where food is cooking is never a great idea, but I’ve got the tree in the living room to my left, the fireplace mantle hung with stockings, so I’m not moving somewhere else just to get all this unadulterated. The palate continues nice and spicy. The proof isn’t overwhelming but provides a nice kick of cinnamon and caramel vanilla. Truth be told, the palate is nothing like Larceny, which I had last night, which is much darker with chocolate and cherry notes as well as more oak and a bit of a tobacco edge. This is a much brighter palate and differs so much that, despite them both being wheatears, they’re night and day and don’t be comparison. Might just be the proof, but I suspect the mash bills are different enough to make the conversation a moot point. This is a little closer in spirit to the Maker’s Mark Cask Strength, but even that has a palate that’s generally darker fruits mixed with oak and vanilla with a little caramel coming through. The finish on the Weller really shines. It’s super long and spicy, peppery with a hit of oak coming through at the very end. Overall, this feels like a one-off. Can’t say I’ll buy it again because the opportunity might never present itself. I’d love to taste the Full Proof and Weller 12, but that may never happen. Doesn’t matter. This is an unexpected Christmas gift to myself. If you can get it at SRP, buy it right away, without hesitation, just for the experience. The tasting of it I’m having right now, I can’t separate from the experience I’ve described throughout this review. Got a Bad Religion Christmas song on in the background as I finished this. Not a bad way to end the review. Not a bad way at all. Happy Holidays, my friends. Happy Holidays. Actually, this goes great with Christmas cookies!

I’ve heard told the tales that Ardbeg special releases have gone down in quality over the years. Given that most of the Committee Releases are in the $150 range and most of the general releases of those Committee Releases are in the $125 range, this fact, coupled with the reputation of being low quality, is enough to make me refrain from purchases. After all, $150 or $125 strikes me as far too much to pay for anything without an age statement or some other potentially impressive reason to drop that type of cash. Truth be told, the most I’ve ever spent on a bottle of whisky has been for the Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition at $110, and even though that doesn’t carry your traditional age statement, it carried barreled and bottling dates, which serves as its own age statement (or at least, it carried these until recently…if I’m to understand, 2023 DEs didn’t have barreled and bottling dates?). In any case, I’ve also heard told the tales that this Ardbeg BizarreBQ is quite good, and at $85, it’s prices much more reasonably. The choice here is whether you want to buy yet another bottle of the Uggie or this, and given my penchant for novelty, I went with this last month (in an order that also contained Glen Scotia 12 Year Special Release finished in Amontillado Cask, which aside from hearing that it was good, I’m a sucker for Amontillado if only for its association with Poe…if you’ll just come with me, the Glen Scotia’s in the basement down this long tunnel I promise I won’t trap you inside and brick up!). And well, as far as this Ardbeg is concerned, the word on the street isn’t wrong. It’s quite good. In fact, I noted in a recent review that it reminds me a great deal of the Lagavulin 11 Year Charred Oak Offerman Edition. Now people weren’t as crazy about the Offerman Charred Oak as they were about the Stout finish, and I get that, but the Charred Oak was also damned good, as is this Ardbeg. The first time I tasted this was a few weeks ago with my dad, and we had just finished sampling Laphroaig Lore before turning to this and the combination was one hell of a pairing. I sometimes think moving from something subtle to something, well, less subtle, works better than moving the opposite direction and that night we were moving from subtle to less subtle, though I hesitate to say this Ardbeg is abrasive. It’s just stronger, smokier, and that made a huge difference in my first taste of this. For a moment after I sipped, I couldn’t help but note that the palates felt similar. There was a smokiness on the tongue that was undercut with a sherried sweetness that was quite delightful on both drams. The nose on the Ardbeg, despite it being 103 proof or so, isn’t overpowering even though it’s smoky. There’s a BBQ smoke quality to it, but it’s not harsh as well as sea salt and vanilla, that’s overall quite delightful. On the palate, it continues to feel slightly charred but not in a burnt ashtray overdone meat kind of way but more of a well done steak you can still enjoy. But where this really excels is on the finish. My god, it’s got that palate of sherried sweetness and peat smoke and char, which then fades into this salted dark chocolate caramel delight on the back end. It doesn’t stay quite as long as I would like. The finish isn’t as quick as a high school boy on prom night, but it doesn’t take quite as long as a seasoned porn star shooting his 220th film where half the run time is the money shot either. Never mind that. I just brough images to all our minds I’m sure we’d much rather forget, so moving on, the length doesn’t necessarily matter when it’s this delicious. As a departure from the Uggie, I’d recommend this to peat fans, to Ardbeg fans, to fans of smoke and char. I also recently picked up the Laphroaig Cask Strength Batch 16 and will review that soon, and I’d say this is closer in palate to the Batch 15 of that, which also had a lot of char and smoke and maybe bordered on too much. This doesn’t border on too much but hits those notes just right. In fact, I’d definitely recommend this over the Corry, but of course, traditionalists might prefer the 10 or the An Oa, and that’s fine. One thing I’ll say: it bodes well for Ardbeg getting back on track for their special releases. If this is still available after the holidays when my whisky budget opens back up, I might even get another bottle. And for me, there’s no higher praise.

Tastes like an Islay. Which means, I love it, but I’m also not sure whether I prefer it to Ardbeg 10 or Laphroaig 10. Truth be told, I’d take either of those or this and be satisfied. I’m not terribly picky, except those other two are about $10 cheaper, and cost is always a factor for someone who buys their own whisky. So let’s see, what sets this apart? It says Heavily Peated on the bottle, but the level of peat here doesn’t feel too different from those other two. This is 100 Proof so it’s stronger, which maybe leads to a greater intensity of flavor, and I’d say yes, that’s true. There’s smoke and peat on the palate and it’s less medicinal than Laphroaig. A bit more rubbery. It’s got a sweetness, a sort of butterscotch sweetness, that reminds me of the Ardbeg Wee Beastie if the Beast were a little tamer, a little subtler. The nose has peat and smoke and some of that band aid thing going on that Laphroaig has, but it’s less band aid than rubber. Actually, this reminds me a bit on the nose of a better version of the Dark Silkie, in that it’s got that Pep Boys aroma of new floor mats and car tires. There’s also something like asparagus going on in the nose that I like. Like freshly picked asparagus, just cut, before you start cooking it. The finish is long and nice and spicy at 100 Proof with a lot of sea salt and smoke continued. Amusingly enough, this is the third Bruichladdich I’ve had and the first that’s actually peated (I had the 2013 Barley and the Classic Laddie) and because it’s peated, it’s my favorite of those three. I’d buy this again, though like Ardbeg or Laphroaig, I generally go with whichever 10 year is on sale. I had Laphroaig 10 Cask Strength Batch 16 last night, which blows this out of the water, but it should given it’s Cask Strength. I also had the Ardbeg BizarreBQ, which I also prefer to this, but again, those are supposed to be better pours than this. Actually, not to end this review on an endorsement for Ardbeg, but I’ve read here that a lot of the Ardbeg special editions are shit lately but that the BizarreBQ was decent, and that’s the truth. The Laphroaig Cask Strength 16 is also better by a long shot than the 15, so if you can picked up a bottle, I recommend you do. As for this, I’m glad it’s readily available. I think Bruichladdich is doing us all a lot of favors by bottling at 100 proof. I don’t have the sentimental attachment to this that I do with Ardbeg 10 or Laphroaig 10, so I’m probably always going to prefer those for reasons that have less to do with what’s in the bottle than memories. But yeah, don’t sleep on this one. It’s in the running. With that, I leave with a question: almost all other regions that produce scotch start their standard bottlings at 12 year, why does Islay seem to say, 10 is our standard? 10 is good enough? I’m sure I could Google that, but I was curious as to whether anyone here has that answer readily available?

I’ve never met a Sagamore Spirit I didn’t like. When their spirits say, boo, I say, come on in. Kidding. Oddly enough, though this 8 Year gets touted as being great, it’s been my least favorite. Not because it’s bad. It’s actually quite good, and amazingly dangerous. It’s 115 proof or so, but it drinks like 90. It’s smooth, doesn’t have much of an alcohol bite, yet it’ll hit you if you have too much. I cracked it on Thanksgiving, served a dram to my dad, he loved it. I should also say, I love it. It’s just Sagamore is so good at finishing that this seems a bit one note. Sagamore’s specialty seems to be the finishes. Cognac, Tequila, Double Oak, Rum. I’ve had the Cask Strength and that was great. In fact, that one was 4 year and I liked it better than this, the 8. Not that I dislike the 8. It’s great. It’s really an odd reason I don’t do cartwheels about this one, and that reason is, it tastes a lot like Templeton 10 Year Cask Strength. This is the closest Sagamore has ever come to tasting like something I’ve had already, and things is, that Templeton was also awesome, but it wasn’t as good as the Sagamore Double Oak (perhaps my favorite) or the Tequila Finished (my second) or the Ale Cask (my third) or the Cask Strength (my fourth). This is much ado about nothing. I’m complaining because a great whisky isn’t as great as other great whiskies by the same brand. Nose is great on this: spiced banana nut bread with vanilla pudding and cinnamon. Palate is golden raisins and all spice with maybe a little candied orange. Finish is long and peppery like most Sagamore with quite a bit of slated caramel. It’s just, well, it’s just not got the special thing Sagamore does, which is some kind of curve ball that is barrel finishing. I’m complaining about nothing. I should flog myself for taking issue with such a good bottle. In fact, I have no issues. This is good stuff. This is great stuff. This is fantastic. It’s just not my favorite Sagamore and Sagamore might be my favorite American whisky distiller right now. I’m complaining about nothing.

The weight of expectation: I acknowledge often that batch variation is real, but would also appreciate some acknowledgment in return that it doesn’t result in quite as big a variation as people insist upon. The distillers are using the same mash bill, right? Generally, they’re aging their barrels in a similar location, maybe different floors of the Rickhouse, maybe hotter or colder seasons, different barrels but same type of wood? People talk about better and lesser versions of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, and they have a point, there is variation. B523 seems to be scoring higher here than A123, but if you ask my opinion I preferred A123 but it wasn’t by leaps and bounds, and truth be told, if you blinded them both and put them in front of me, I might be able to tell you they’re different whiskies, but I can’t guarantee I’ll always choose A123 over B523. Inconsistency in me? Or reality? I’d like to do the Pepsi/Coke taste test between batches with those insisting, for example, that Larceny C923 is better than B522. Context and timing are also vital in terms of tasting. Just as an example, last Sunday, my dad and I tasted Laphroaig Lore and then Ardbeg BizarreBQ back-to-back, and when I tasted the Ardbeg, I though the palate was similar to Lore in a lot of ways, but then at the tail end of the finish, there was this BURST of chocolate salted caramel that blew my mind! Last night, I poured a taste of the Ardbeg again because I wanted to reexperience it, and it was gone. The finish tasted charred, a lot like the Lagavulin Offerman 11 Charred cask, and it was a good taste, but the dark chocolate salted caramel was gone? So, yeah, I was excited today when my online order of Larceny C922 arrived and it was C922. You see, in our State Stores here, you can order Larceny online, but you can’t order a particular batch. What you get is what you get. So I have a handful of bottles of A122 and B522 and one bottle of C921 and now two bottles of C922, and they’re all good. I like A122 better than B522, though the audience score here is also reversed on that one and would tell me B522 is better than A122. Now C922 was a big one because that got Whisky of Year last year from Breaking Bourbon, and there’s a lot of love online for this one. But then, of course, Drinkhacker gave this one a B+ while they gave other version of LCBP an A or an A-. Now we all know that taste is subjective, and we’re all aware that certain people have better senses of taste and smell than others, just as some of us have a great sense of hearing or sight. In any case, I was excited to open Breaking Bourbon’s 2022 Whisky of the Year, and you know what it tastes like? It tasted like a Larceny Barrel Proof. Which is to say it’s a way above average wheated barrel proof bourbon that is a great deal at $65 which is where the price now stands after it went up from $50 where it was a steal. The nose reminds me of, guess what? Other Larceny Barrel Proof batches, which is to say, there’s oak and vanilla and tobacco and caramel and cherries. The palate is lovely, like other Larceny Barrel Proof batches, which is to say it’s got dark chocolate, cocoa powder, vanilla, toffee, and black cherries, with a finish reminiscent of, guess what? Larceny Barrel Proof. Long, spicy, dark fruit, chocolate. In my review of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B523, I pointed out that I just can’ t get excited, having reviewed other variations, to review just another variation. Even if I’m tasting them next to each other, there might be the slightest of differences, but it’s not pronounced enough for me to jump for joy and feel like I have to tell the world that, Crickey’s they’ve done it, they’ve finally cracked the code. If you see a bottle of Larceny Barrel Proof and you’ve liked other Barrel Proof or Cask Strength Wheated Bourbons, and it’s reasonably priced, which is to say $65 or maybe $70, then by all means buy it! If it’s more expensive, I’d hesitate because there are better things out there when the price goes up. But if you’re splitting hairs about batches, well, maybe you’re one of those whisky sommeliers who can really tell the difference and found a certain vegetal note in a particular batch off-putting, or maybe you’re just buying into the hype that there’s really that much difference in quality between them, but if I’m being honest, the quality is pretty consistent across the board. I’m glad I bought this, and I’m excited to try it with the Breaking Bourbon notes in front of me to see if I experience what they experience, but if I’d received another batch, it wouldn’t make much difference to me. Splitting hairs about batch variation strikes me more as a marketing ploy than anything else. Then again, maybe I’m just becoming a grizzle tired and cynical old man. Then again, I think that my wife would tell you there’s no maybes about it. This is still great stuff. For most juice of this quality batch variation means the difference between 4.0 and 4.5. I’d put this in the middle of those ratings, but it depends on when you catch me, which particular day.

I'm not going to bury the lead here. I really like this whisky. I'l also admit I bought it because it appeared on the Whisky Advocate Top 20 as #20. I know we all slag a bit on WA, but we're also all secretly a little bit interested when they release their top 20, aren't we? I mean, they're a lifestyle magazine, with glossy photos of whisky bottles and reviews that rarely dip below 87, so I get it: their purpose is to sell us the stuff. But that doesn't stop me from subscribing because it's $25/year and I get my middle-aged version of porn: slick pics of high end bottles. In any case, in the event that you don't know the rules of the top 20, it's got to be a whisky that's newly released that year or updated in some fashion to be different than before. This is why, even if Elijah Craig Barrel Proof has been coming out for many years, a batch might appear on the list: that batch is specific to that year. Or for example, last year they had Dewar's 12 on the list: it's because Dewar's changed it's method of finishing on the 12, so it was technically new juice. Last year, the #1 pick evoked a lot of talk: Jack Daniel's Bonded, because yes, there were better, higher end whiskies out there. But Jack Bonded was decent and it was priced right at $35 or so. This year, a lot of the whiskies are, in fact, more expensive. Ezra 99 Rye here is the lowest on the list at $25. Which, why wouldn't you run out and try it then? I mean, even if you sort of scoff at the WA Top 20, there's really no downside to trying a $25 whisky that appears on their list. Worst that happens is you get a decent mixer. They're not going to steer you so wrong that you have to pour it down the drain unless you're snob of the universe. So I ran out and bought a bottle this past weekend. Watched a football game I'd rather forget while tasting it. Compared it to the WhistlePig Piggyback 6 and preferred this (while my dad preferred the WhistlePig, as I would hope he would, given it was what I gave him for his birthday), and honestly, was looking forward to tasting it again and doing this writeup. Now, I'm the third person to review this here. The other two gave this scores upward of 4 stars. For as much as I like this rye at $25, I can't go quite that high. It's good, but it's not that good. And the problem with it appearing on the WA Top 20, is that whenever an Ezra whisky appears on there, they get a big head. I remember Old Ezra 7 appearing a few years back, I went to the store and nabbed a bottle for $40 and it was wonderful, I mean just wonderful, at that price. The next year, it was $50, and that was still reasonable. The next year it was $60, and that was pushing it given the quality, and now, it's what? $80? Not REMOTELY worth it. So, snap this Ezra 99 Rye up now, because in two years, they're likely to be charging $50 for it. And at that point....well, I guess a lot of people aren't doing the cost analysis I do where I ask, what could I get at this price point that's better? I'll tell you one thing: there isn't a lot at $25 in rye that's better than this. There are some that I like as much: Sazerac, Old Forester 100 Rye, Old Overholt. I don't like Rittenhouse very much: it's tepid and flavorless to me, so you can write me off if that offends you. Wild Turkey 101 Rye is also good. I've said before that there are lots of good ryes around this price. But this one is a little different and has a distinctive quality in that in addition to the rye spice, you get this blackberry tart thing going on, that's simply fantastic and unique to this pour. Honestly, I don't know where it comes from and I've never tasted it in another rye, and it's really what's doing it for me here. It's on the nose and the finish and it's really what makes this rye special. Otherwise, you get notes of rye spice and mint on the nose, earthiness and a sort of green vegetal quality on the nose. The palate does, indeed, add some black tea and lemon, but you can find these in other ryes, most notably Wild Turkey 101 Rye. And then the finish hits, and there's that blackberry tart flavor, and it's just, um, I'm kissing my fingers and complimenting the chef. So yeah, maybe it's hit or miss with some people. I don't just trust to WA for my recommendations. When I'm interested in picking something up, I do a search, look around, read various reviews, and with the exception of the expert here who gave it an 80 and Christopher Null over at Drinkhacker who gave it a C (and whose rye reviews I take with a grain of salt seeing as he thinks Rittenhouse the be-all-end-all of great ryes...no shade, different palates I would say), the consensus seems to be, yes, this does indeed punch above its weight. Whether it's top 20 material, well, I suppose the arguments could be made back-and-forth about that similar to Jack Bonded last year. All I know if I plan to pick up a few more bottles before Ezra starts feeling themselves and jacks this up beyond what I'm willing to pay, like they did with that 7 year.