Tastes

This is a finished bourbon (California wine, then sherry barrels). Kind of young, my guess is 4-6 years old Nose-moderate alcohol, then grapey wine and slight grain and oak Palate-light-to-medium body, very peppery most of all, moderate sweetness, 1/3 bourbon flavors and 2/3 grape flavors. On the whole, I’m learning that I’m not a fan of finished bourbons, at least if they come across more like high alcohol wine than whisky.

Aroma: alcohol fills the nose, then grain, bananas, and faint rye & dill Mouth feel: oily, moderate alcohol burn Palate: moderate sweetness, oak, rye, with a touch of white pepper. Short to medium long finish. A little water tames the alcohol and brings out more rye in the aroma and flavor, with a touch of mint. Pleasant, though not much complexity, worth $50 but not $65.

I’m really puzzled, and not a little disappointed. My bottle doesn’t taste anything like Stephanie Moreno’s tasting notes, or like most of the other bourbon fans’ descriptions. I think the problem may be that it’s over-aged, considering that the label states that the whiskies in the blend were distilled between 2005-2008, and that I prefer richer bourbons aged more in the 8-10 year range. Maybe this says more about my taste preferences than about the whiskey, but I sure wish that I’d spent that $100 on a little younger bourbon instead. Here are my notes: Nose: very faint nutmeg and a touch of oak, but pretty much drowned out by a moderate ethanol punch. Palate: hot entry, light-to-medium viscosity but silky due to low tannins, and very dry. Flavors are pretty closed. Not much fruit. Some dry wood, but not sweet oak vanilla. Added about 10% water and waited 10-15 minutes for more development and for some of the alcohol to blow off: only a little less heat. The nose opened up with notes of leather and some sourness, but palate showed there was not much change in the muted flavors. In a word, insipid.

I had this side-by-side in Glen Cairn glasses with Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (Batch A121, 124 proof), and I did my best to dilute both to the same ABV (albeit subjectively by mouth feel and sensation of heat on my palate) to standardize the comparison. Much to my surprise, they were absolutely identical in terms of their aromatics, flavors (spice profile), and mouth-feel. The only difference that I could discern between the two was that the Belle Meade was a little sweeter. To sum it up, since they are both the same price in my area ($69.99, in SE Michigan), the winner of the matchup could go either way: On one hand the the higher proof of the ECBP makes it a better value, but only if you plan to add water. On the other hand, the Belle Meade is more available year-round, making it an advantage if you plan to drink a lot of it!

Nose-Oak, spice, and caramel Mouth-feel— medium-full bodied, oily, silky, and balanced. Hides it’s alcohol well Palate– sweet and round, good integration of spice. Medium complexity.

Overall, this is a whiskey that has good flavors (dark fruits and demerara sugar) , but is fundamentally flawed because it suffers from a medicinal flavor—a strong acetone-like alcohol sharpness that is poorly integrated into the rest of the flavor structure.

This is a very young bourbon, so it’s fairly Rough and not enjoyable to drink neat or on the rocks. I’ve had it in a cocktail in which bourbon was not the main liquor , and it was ok. I had it in an old-fashioned, which wasn’t pleasant.