Tastes

I’ve had 1792’s Single Barrel and have been interested to see how this compares, given it’s almost the same proof. On the nose I get heavy baking spices along with rye, green bananas, and vanilla. The palate is light and creamy. Semi-sweet with baking spices, light leather and vanilla. The finish is on the longer side with lingering spices. The single barrel I have is pretty similar to this Bottled In Bond, with the BiB having a little more depth and slightly richer flavors. I need to come back to this because I’m not getting the normal 1792 dusty rye thing with either of these, I normally get. I did just have some really spicy Pad Thai, so that might be part of it.

I saw this thinking it was a good deal on Barrell Bourbon, but then later saw it was actually their Whiskey. Batch 001. Not sure what to expect, so let’s check it out. It does seem fairly light looking for being 7-8 years at barrell strength. I guess it’s the already used bourbon barrels that have already washed away a decent amount of char. The nose is fairly soft, but the flavors are there. You just need to experiment with slowly bringing the nose to the glass to pick up some notes that are missed when digging into the glass. I get honey, vanilla cream, a little bit of oak and some baking spices. There’s also a hint of a raisin back in there. The palate is sweet and oily. There is vanilla, oak, a little leather and a spike of baking spices in the middle. The finish is long with nice lingering vanilla bean ice cream. There is a burn, to be expected from the proof, but as Ron Burgandy says “It’s a good burn”. I like this one. I found that I had to search a little harder on the nose than most at this proof. But the palate jumped out and it had a nice, unique vanilla finish.

It’s been years since I’ve had the standard issue Early Times. I bought a bottle when I was poor and just out of college solely because it was cheap and I thought the name was funny. I just imagined alcoholic’s saying “It’s never too early, for Early Times”. Anyway, I’ve heard good things about this relatively recent Bottled In Bond line. Let’s check it out. The nose has caramel, maple syrup, oak, bread, banana and other baking spices (including rye) and a hint of cooked plumbs. The palate has on the thicker/oily side. There’s caramel sweetness, oak, banana, some baking spices,and a hint of dark fruit. The finish is long and nice with lingering charred oak. This was pretty good! I’m surprised what you get out of this. And for being 100 proof, there’s really not much of a burn after the 1st sip. It drinks like 90 proof. And because if that, I can tell it’s been proofed down, if that makes any sense. I would love to try a cask strength version of this.

Up to this point I haven’t been a fan of the other JD products I’ve tried. But let’s give the rye a chance... On the nose I get a delicate, almost faint perfumey rye, with sweet vanilla, freshly baked banana bread. The palate is fairly sweet and has a thicker mouthfeel. Sweet Vanilla really stands out, with the rye as a secondary note. The finish is medium-long. With lingering sweet vanilla and a little barrel char, which causes a slight bitterness in the back and sides of the tongue. Not a bad thing. This one is more pleasant than standard JD, or even Gentlemen Jack. Though I’m not getting a ton of rye, like one would expect being categorized as one. It’s fairly sweet and syrupy and not really offensive.

I’ve heard good things about this, so I eventually coughed up $50 for a 375ml bottle. Let’s see how it is. This is Batch 1 On the nose I get a subtle red apple note with maple brown sugar and oak char. Vanilla, rye, some baking spices and a little bit of saw dust complete the image. The palate has a nice thick mouthfeel. Its really not too sweet, just a the right amount of sweetness. I get a decent amount of rye, vanilla and some corn, as well as some cinnamon and dusty barn. The finish is nice and long. A slow little burn down the throat with lingering dusty rye and a little bit of vanilla. I like this. I can definitely see how this is a Wild Turkey product. I even poured a little WT 101 to compare. WB Saffell was more interesting and satisfying to sip (thicker and denser flavors). But WT 101 was no slouch.

I’ve had most of the other variations of Old Forester and has put this one off. Now let’s check it out! On the nose I get smokey sweet vanilla, with some rye and other baking spices. I also get a bright fruit note (red apple) hidden in there. On the palate I’m surprised by it’s nice thicker mouthfeel. I get vanilla, peppery spiciness, big time oak char, and a little dusty rye. I still get some fruit, but not sure what type. The finish is is on the shorter side of long with some sweet spices and light fruit lingering. This is great. I really enjoyed this bourbon. Enough qualities to keep it interesting and enjoyable, and easy enough to sip. This is one of my favorite Old Forester bourbons next to 1920, their Rye and 1910 (not in that order necessarily)

I’ve had the 86 proof and was excited to find what I thought was the Bottled In Bond version that’s seemed to have disappeared. Well it’s back, sort of. No more Bottled In Bond marking, just 100 proof. On the nose I get dusty charred rye, black pepper and vanilla. The sort of classic Barton/1792 nose. I get more freshly baked bread (yeast) on later nosings. The palate has charred oak, vanilla, that dusty rye and some slight bitterness. The finish is on the long side of short. Some rye and oak poke out at the beginning and then it ends with a slight tingle and some sweet vanilla. Not bad. Definitely more full bodied than the 86 proof version, that one seems almost watered down in comparison. Though the 1792 Single Barrel that I have is marginally better than this 100 proof Very Old Barton. Which I think is a reason why people see so much value in this one. At about 1/3 of the cost, it’s gets you fairly close.

This one is my 2nd Barrell Strength and it is the OBSF recipe aged 8yrs and 10 months. Wharehouse UN, Barrel# 37-2E On the nose I get freshly baked bread with lightly dusted chocolate. I also get some rye, red apple and some plumb and cinnamon. On the palate I get some rye spices and other baking spices, a little leather and some honey. The finish has some lingering spices and is long in length. I really like this one and might like it slightly more than the OESQ that I have.

So here it is, my 100th tasting review! I happened to be doing several budget bourbons lately and wanted to see how they stack up to their brothers in the same line as well as their competitors priced high and low. The nose has vanilla, brown sugar, baked bread, and a little oak char The palate has a nice medium mouthfeel. It is sweet and has corn, peanut brittle, vanilla and a few baking spices. The finish is medium in length. I get some corn and baking spices that jump out at the beginning of the finish. I think this is fantastic for the price. Nothing mind blowing, but at under $20, it competes very well. In fact, I like it more than the Evan Williams Single Barrel bottle that I had. This one (the white label) is higher proof that the SiB, which probably helps the flavor. And the fact that it’s about half the cost is very interesting. Now I need to do the white label toe to toe with their 1783...ok just did. The 1783 is more similar to the single barrel. Maybe it’s the similar proof. But this White Label (Bottled In Bond) version is definitely better than both of those.

I’ve had and enjoyed a bottle of their regular bourbon. Now onto the Cask Reserve... The nose has oak, vanilla, maple syrup, baking spices and freshly baked bread. The palate is semi-sweet and spicey (rye and cinnamon), with oak and a little leather. Every now and then I get a hint of corn. The finish has a nice lingering tingle on the back of the tongue along with flavors of baking spices, oak and cola to stay on your mind. This is really good. I definitely prefer to their standard offering. The higher proof (117.4) brings out so much more flavors and less rye, which is a nice change. It reminds me of a baby Stagg Jr, but it’s just the right amount of heat that is not overbearing.