Tastes

First bottle of this I've had now that's it's primarily High West's own rye, and I'm not a fan. I don't know if it's the malted rye or if the whiskey is just too young, but I tasted craft funk and cereal grains more than rye spice. Extremely disappointing, and the last bottle of MWND I'll be buying. We still had a little of an Act 6 bottle left to compare with, and the difference was night and day. The older bottlings win by a landslide.

So far I've only seen private barrels of this that have been selected by some of the larger chains in the area. There doesn't seem to be a standard release. This particular barrel is 110 proof, NAS, non-chill-filtered and distilled using sweet mash process (like all of Wilderness Trail's whiskey). Appearance is a light burnished copper. Swirling produces thick legs. Nose is pleasant - some sweet, kettle-corn type notes, faint baking spices, and also greener rye notes. Reminscent of other KY ryes with corn in the mashbill, which I like. The rye notes are more grassy than minty. Not much ethanol/heat for a cask strength whiskey. On the palate, bold rye flavors lead up-front with menthol, green apple, grassy notes, some pepper and baking spice. There's some sweetness on the mid-palate that lingers into the finish, along with a hint of that musty, wet-cardboard note that I often find in young/craft bourbons. All in all not bad, but the musty note on the back-palate puts a damper on things for me. It's not overpowering, but it's definitely there. Maybe this needs a little more age, I don't know. Or maybe it was just this barrel. Regardless, there are plenty of other rye's for the same or less money that I'd rather have (Willett 4yr, Russell's SiB, Pikesville, Rare Breed, and Knob Creek SiB to name a few).

I've always ignored Calumet in the past, but this 14 Yr caught my eye. It's a 19 barrel blend, so a fairly small release; but there seems to be a fair amount of it around my area right now. Nose - brown sugar, charred oak, cinnamon and baking spices, vanilla & orange peel Palate - follows expectations from the nose: brown sugar, oak, barrel char, cocoa & baking spices. Medium finish is mostly on the mid-palate, with oak, char, and some vanilla. Mouthfeel is both oily and thin at the same time. I can't help but wonder what it would be like at a higher proof. Overall it's pretty good. It's definitely recognizable as Barton 1792, but with more oak and complexity. The oak comes across as more charred than tannic, which I like. I do wish it was a bit higher proof just to concentrate the flavors and mouthfeel. As for as value goes, I'd say it's middle of the pack. I can think of some that are better for the same/less money (KC 15, ECBP), but compared to Cream of Kentucky or Woodford Batch Proof I'd say it holds its own. I don't regret buying a bottle, but won't be purchasing another.

Even though it was released back in the Fall of 2019, it took me quite a while to find this in my area; quite a few stores still have Series II in stock (which I really liked). The blend changed a bit for this release, with substantially less high-rye bourbon in the mix (only 10% of the blend). Nose -  Classic bourbon notes of caramel, vanilla, cinnamon, and nutmeg. Also getting some red apples, candied orange peel, black tea, and a hint of dark cherries. There's a little bit of the funky MGP oak note that I like, but it's subtle.  Palate - Mouthfeel was a bit thin. Caramel, oak, baking spices, vanilla lead. There's also an orange note I don't usually find in MGP. Not much in the way of rye spice. Finish is mostly the caramel/vanilla and a bit of cinnamon/nutmeg. It never really hits the back of the palate, just lingers briefly on the front/mid-palate before tapering off. All in all, it's pretty good; but also a bit of a disappointment for me simply because it doesn't live up to my memory of Series II. I'd say it's a softer/sweeter bourbon; more approachable maybe, but it doesn't really have the earthy/oaky notes that I look for in older MGP bourbon.

Nose - Oak, peanuts in the shell, caramel, a bit of apple, cinnamon, nutmeg, and some dried varnish. The peanut note is fairly subdued and drier/less funky, which I find typical for older Beam/KC. Palate - Medium mouthfeel with salted roasted peanuts, caramel, oak, vanilla, cinnamon and baking spices as the dominant players. The oak and spices round out the medium finish, which does linger a bit but isn't as intense as you might get if it were a higher proof. The oak is not at all overbearing, and doesn't completely dominate the way it does in some of those older KC single barrel picks. IMHO this is quintessential well-aged Knob Creek. Comparing to my recent memory of the 12yr (which I finished my bottle of before getting this), the 15 has more oak and less fruit, pretty much as expected. The blend is well done; there's nothing super-unique here, but it's a well-balanced whiskey that shows some of the best traits of Beam. I'm giving this a 4.0, but would give it a 3.9 if I could. It's a little better than the 12 yr (which I rated 3.75), but maybe just a hair behind some of the other whiskies that I've rated 4.0.

This all-MGP blend from High West contains a "top secret" blend of the 95% rye, as well as MGP's high (36%) and low(21%) rye bourbons, all aged at least 10 years (though I wonder why that age statement is only in marketing materials, and not on the label). Despite the modest proof, the appearance is a fairly dark burnished copper in the glass. Not much in the way of legs after swirling. Nose - Sweet oak, vanilla, caramel, nutmeg, black pepper, and that earthy/leathery MGP funk. There are also some green rye notes, but not really standing out as particularly minty/grassy or vegetal. Overall I'd say the nose is a bit weighted towards bourbon, but the rye is still there. If nosing blind I'd probably guess this was a high-rye bourbon. Palate - Mouthfeel is fairly oily for the proof and coats the palate nicely. Bourbon notes lead up front, with caramel, vanilla, oak, and baking spice. This is immediately followed by more rye-like notes and a peppery, oaky finish that has some bite without being harsh. It really does taste more like taking a sip of bourbon and rye at the same time rather than just a high-rye bourbon. This drinks a bit above its proof both in flavor and intensity thanks to the rye spice on the finish. High West doesn't disclose the percentages of the blend, but I'm guessing the high-rye bourbon makes up a pretty good percentage of it. This is similar to other MGP high-rye bourbons I've had, only with a bit more rye kick on the back end. It's aged nicely, with plenty of oak but not at all tannic or bitter. This is the third consecutive release of Bourye that I've had, and they've been consistently good. My buddy has a bottle of the 2018 release and tasting side-by-side we were hard-pressed to detect any significant differences.

Doc Swinson has come on the scene as a Non-Distilling Producer in the last year or so, mostly releasing sub-$50 bottlings of moderately aged TN whiskey (Dickel) and youngish MGP rye. But this Rare Release #6 is an 18-barrel batch of 15 year-old Kentucky bourbon, widely speculated to be from Heaven Hill. Nose - Peanut shells, leather, oak, tobacco, caramel, vanilla, orange peel, cherries, and some varnish. A little hot at first, but opens up after some breathing time. Palate - mouthfeel is fairly thick but not really oily, starting with dry roasted peanuts, vanilla, burnt caramel, maple, nutmeg, allspice, and oak. The moderately long finish closes out with some slightly tannic oak, dark chocolate, and dark brown sugar.  There's a Kentucky hug, but no harsh burn. So yeah, I feel confident in saying this is definitely sourced from Heaven Hill. It has that dry-roasted peanut note that I often get from HH (different from the Beam peanut funk). I would put this in a similar league to some of the better Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases I've tried. It has a little more oak and a little less caramel, so I could see people's preferences going either way depending on what they like. Given the age and proof (118.2), I'm guessing this is from a lower tier than ECPB usually is, but I'm not one to judge a whiskey on its ABV. Cask strength whiskeys under 120proof are kind of my sweet spot anyway. At twice the price of ECPB the value proposition might seem questionable; but lets be honest, ECBP is way underpriced for the current market (which is why it's so hard to find in most places). My suggestion is anybody who likes HH in general and ECBP in particular should definitely go for this one if they see it.

CoK has been pretty polarizing in online groups. A lot of complaints about the price. After all, it's just sourced bourbon from Barton 1792 (supposedly). Setting aside the price discussion, actual reviews of the whiskey itself seem to have been getting better with each batch/release. So I decided to give batch 4 a try. Nose - It's a pretty traditional bourbon nose - antique oak leads along with caramel, vanilla, cinnamon and clove. Also some orange peel, and freeze dried apples. There's some ethanol at first - the nose is a bit hotter than expected for 102 proof, so letting it breath for a while is recommended.  Palate - pleasant mouthfeel, really coats the palate. Dark brown sugar leads along with earthy oak, vanilla, baked apples and baking spices. The finish lingers, with a really nice sweet note along with oak and spice. There's a warm Kentucky hug, but it's not at all harsh or hot. All in all, a pretty traditional bourbon profile, but very well executed. I like how the sweet note stays with the oak all the way through the finish, which is quite long for 102 proof. At this age it's not unusual for the oak to start taking over and drying things out, but that doesn't happen here. I think the proof is also about right; this is a really balanced whiskey, and the flavors are concentrated enough that I'm not sure cask strength would add much other than more heat. It may be Barton juice, but it's better than anything I've had with 1792 on the label, so I have to give Rutledge some credit for the blending here. Yes, it's more expensive expensive than I'd like, but they seemed to have priced it about right for the current market. It doesn't immediately fly off the shelves around here, but it does sell without sitting for months/years the way the Whistlepig Boss Hog or Kentucky Owl does.

Picked up a bottle of batch 4 recently, after enjoying some other Beam limited releases this year. I knew it didn't get great reviews at release, but had heard that the later batches were better. So let's see. Nose - dried oak, peanuts, cinnamon, cherries, vanilla, and barrel spice. Pretty typical KC bourbon nose. Palate - A bit thin for 100 proof, with peanuts, oak caramel, vanilla and baking spices. Some vague fruit notes. Finish is more of the same, but does not stick around long enough to coat the palate. So it's a pretty good bourbon, and representative of the Knob Creek profile. It's just not worthy of Limited Edition status (or price). This actually reminds me quite a bit of the Knob Creek 12 yr that started shipping this year. Maybe the 2001 is a little drier/oakier (but not much). The problem with that is the 12yr is readily available for half the price. So in that regard, this 2001 is a miss for me.

Color is burnished copper, maybe not quite as dark as I'd expect for the age (but then again it's 'only' 100 proof). Nose - Dark and earthy with leather, oak, vanilla, tobacco, clove, cinnamon;  some caramel lurking underneath, but it's not a particularly sweet nose. Definitely has that WT funk note. After breathing for a bit, I get some dark cherry and red apple. Palate -  medium mouthfeel, slightly oily. Starts with burnt caramel, vanilla, black tea, leather, and oak; also some clove, a bit of cinnamon. There's a smoky note in there as well. Not really getting much fruit on the palate, maybe some baked/spiced apples.  Medium finish is fairly dry, with notes of oak, cocoa powder, and pepper lingering. I've enjoyed all of the Master's Keep releases, and this one is no exception. It's been a while since I've had Decades, but I remember it being a bit richer/sweeter while this one is drier and more complex. There's a dried leather note in this BiB that reminds me of RR2002. I'm deducting a quarter point based on the price (which I feel is reasonable in the current market but certainly not a 'value'), and for the fact that I think that the proof is holding it back from it's true potential.