Tastes

Note: I dont know if this matters, but my bottle looks a bit different from the picture. Think Hotel Tango, or a squared off Jefferson’s to get close. 4 yr bourbon. Nose is inoffensive, generic bourbon notes. For me there’s lemon, oat, perfume. Body is creamy. There’s grapefruit, sugar, oat milk. Raisin. Leather. Finish has mild cinnamon, salt, bit of leather. I think this is a fine bourbon. I don’t think it does anything spectacular, and there’s nothing unique happening here. But it’s tasty. Lots of stuff I’d prefer this to.

A quickie bottle kill: Nose is powdered sugar, orange, and faint apple. Body is flowers, perfume, salt, and leather. Pretty sure there’s a Garth Brooks song this somewhere out there. Finish is black pepper, and the leather note lingers for a bit. I like this bourbon a lot. Doubt I’ll buy another one, but I’m happy to have had this one. Side note: the cork has George Remus’ signature burnt into the side of it, so you can see it through the neck of the bottle. Love that detail!

Nose is extremely faint. Yeast. Sugar. Donut? Body is where the action happens. Bubble gum, mint, strawberry. Finish keeps the mint. Strawberry lingers. There’s cream. This is tasty and unique. I love the strawberries and cream theme. The alcohol heat in this takes the form of mint, but it works. Great, unique, and mild.

This bottle is a scootch different from this post, but close enough I reckon: Barrel #: 21859 For: Liquor Barn Finish Time: 8 months Barrel Type: Oloroso Sherry It’s that last part that matters, ya? Nose is grape/raisin up front, with hints of vanilla and sour cherries behind. Body is pit fruits, more vanilla, tons of oak. That oak is what you might expect from a double-oaked product, or one of those bottle inserts. Oak carries through on the finish. There’s cherry there too. Baking spices. The Oloroso influence for me often amplifies raisin and wood notes, and this is no different. The oak is a bit too much for me at first, but I warm up to it over the course of the drink. A well done finish from High West, which had become so typical from them that we sometimes forget that it doesn’t have to be that way. I continue to enjoy these double ryes picks.

Dear the people who control this platform, I learned in a recent review that I can now include emojis. This is a good thing I think. 🥃😁🤣😎❤️🕺✌️😂😱💃🏼🤞🥰🙀😸😭 Those are my 15 most frequently used emojis, in order. I’m proud of that particular selection, and I’m happy that I can now share them with this community despite the weird cat stuff at the end. However, I also learned that I can no longer say the word *****. I’m not editing that out right now, by the way. I’m pasting this in from notes, and I definitely typed the word “*****” in all its glory. I’m obviously not a fan of this, but it necessarily begs the question… what kind of profanity can I still get away with? My dumbass bastard of a “friend” recently shat the bed and damn near fucked over to Hell, Michigan for a good ass spelunking. Journeyman. Shit. Canadian whiskey is good. We will learn together what makes it past the filter. Nose has roses, sugar, lemon. Delightful. Body is honey, fruit punch, vanilla, bit of red apple. Honeysuckle. Sweet cream. I can see caramel. Wow. Finish is chocolate, fruit punch, cinnamon. Caramel lingers. Massively sweet finish. My one criticism of the Kirkland small batch was that it was less dynamic than the 1792 small batch, so if “dollars be 🤬” what’s the incentive beyond volume? This bourbon eradicates that criticism. It has every right to stand tall next to its 1792 cousins… which it does… because it’s a liter of quality bourbon for only $30. It’s kind of absurd how smooth this is. With the disclaimer that I am a bit of a 1792 fan boy (as prior pictures may suggest), I can’t find fault with this Kirkland whiskey. I bring this up, because when it comes to the 1792 flavor profile, I have bought in. For this drink, I think it’s better than 1792 small batch and 1792 bonded. Which is 🤬 weird if you think about it. They really hit a home run with this, and if you enjoy that fruit punch note in 1792, you owe it to yourself to get a case of this.

I know what you’re wondering… Which force of nature is more potent: the raw talent of Harlen Wheatley or the fact that celebrity whiskeys always suck? One is the master distiller at Buffalo Trace and blender of this bottle, and I’m pretty sure that the other is the 4th law of thermodynamics. Nose is grain, cedar. Bit of lemon. Body is oats. Brine. Bit of tangerine if you look. Finish is peanut shells. Brine continues. Salt? There is an alarming perfume note on your first breath. I mean that. It freaked me out at first. One does not simply make a good celebrity whiskey. Not with ten thousand master distillers could you do this. It is folly. At its core, it is a high-end mediocre whiskey. I’ve grown to like this more and more over the course of the bottle, but it’s not special. A bit of interest in some places, very rough elsewhere. Harlen put up a good fight, but celebrities… The award for most disappointing celebrity whiskey remains in the possession of Matthew McConaughey.

I am not the guy to grade cheap whiskey on a curve. I’ll talk about value and I’ll ***** about a bad value, but these concepts won’t affect the score. That’s the goal anyway. But then there’s this black hole of a whiskey. 1792 juice for $20 a liter. The natural laws of the universe begin to break down when you approach it. Nose carries a faint hint of the fruit punch note I always get on 1792 small batch. There’s also grain. It smells young. Bit of brine. Faint, dissipates quickly. Body is fruit punch, oats, vanilla. Finish is chocolate, more oat. Fruit punch lingers. I freaking love this whiskey. It’s less dynamic than my beloved 1792 small batch, and it tastes young. But it’s so good. It’s the Ancient Age of the 1792 world. I hate how much I love it, because it’s genuinely challenging to be certain that my favor isn’t tainted by the novelty of this being the BEST VALUE BOURBON ON THE MARKET. Big claim. I stand by it. Next I get to try their green bottle: 1792 bonded juice, still Kirkland. 😎

All ingredients sourced within 10 miles does not equal good. We know this already. Let’s see if the rye delivers Nose smells like I dipped my finger tips in white dog, rubbed them together for a few minutes, let my fingers fully dry, then took a whiff. I am terrified. Body is sweeter than any rye I’ve ever tasted. There’s sugar, hint of grain. Finish doesnt exist. Not a thing. This is the least dynamic product I have ever had in any style or from any country. Like the bourbon, there’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s shockingly flat. I don’t know how it’s possible to distill a canvas this blank. I asked a manager. Aged for at least a year. These folks have been open for 5 years. They’re paying the bills. The whiskeys arent offensive. Maybe they’ll do something with it, or maybe they’ll stay as a farm-to-$50 mediocre distilly. I’d just wholly pass right now.

One of the talking points for this distillery is that all ingredients are sourced within 10 miles of the distillery, which I’ve always felt is both a gimmick and kind of cool. This is truly a local product, and thats a source if pride here. The mistake people often make is that this makes this better by default, or that it should be graded on a curve. Nope. Nose is bready and grainy. Its raw. Its young. Body is low heat, but also low notes. Its bread. Yeast. Wood. Bit of caramel. Finish is cinnamon and more grain. This is a clean, inoffensive product. Nothing special, but they haven’t made any major errors either. I think it needs some time in the barrel. $50 for a bottle is absurd, but maybe if you’re a local you shell out for that pride. Likely the last time I ever drink this, and I’m not sad about it.

Whenever I attend the 2nd Mashbill group service at the Buffalo Trace Grief Counseling Center, my friends there refer to this as an underperformer. Possibly better than Blanton’s, but nowhere near Blanton’s Gold or RHF. I’ve always nodded with reverence, but I realize tonight that I’ve never really given this guy a fair shot. I intend to make up for that now. I’m gonna go so deep you could call me Sisko. If that ain’t a rap lyric from the early 2000s, it should be. Nose is tart and faint. Honey, lemon, vanilla. Melon. Hint of brine. Coffee grounds. Body is gentle and juicy. Flavor fades very quickly though. Vanilla hits first. That MB2 apple is there too, along with chocolate, brine, and then… lavender? I’m leaving it in. There’s definitely some floral note there at the end of the sip, and I can’t think of anything better. Finish is mild, but lingers. There’s cinnamon, syrup. A bit of the apple hangs on, but cinnamon is the key player. This is delightful. I’m excited before I sip and satisfied when I’m done. If this falls short of RHF and Blanton’s gold… I think it would be like being the ugly Jonas Brother. You know the one. I mean… you still got it going on. When I switched over to gold… and I know I love gold… the gold tasted bitter and acidic. Not great. I did a palate cleanse so I could enjoy my second drink, but for me the takeaway is that within the MB2 club, ETL must lean sweet and creamy, whereas Blanton’s in all of its incarnations is a bit more nutty and bitter. Next day: I compare to Hancock’s now. I think Hancock’s is better. It keeps all the good but loses some of that bitterness. There’s more sugar, more tart. This is a more… “apples to apples” comparison. 😎. I can’t really find anything that ETL does better. Don’t have an open RHF at the moment, but I know it wins. Also confident enough to say that Ancient Age loses. Even being a fan boy I have trouble parsing between all these. It’s a good whiskey. It’s not my favorite by a few, but it’s good. Would always be eager to share with a friend.