Tastes

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN: 2018 Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B518 Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918 Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. I’ve got several years and releases of ECBP; however, my only complete year for all three releases is 2017. For 2018, I was never able to find that A118, so this showdown will compare the B518 to the C918. I thought it would be instructive to go through seven years of community ranking data for each triannual rating of ECBP, and then quantify what the community thinks of each release relative to the whole. For the seven-year period 2017-2023, as of the time of this review, aggregating all releases of ECBP: • mean(m): 4.26 • standard deviation(s): 0.14 • sample size(n): 3008 (If you don’t care about stats, you can skip the next two paragraphs). Because I’m unable to aggregate all ratings for each specific release (Distiller, are you listening? Give us more data!), I’m unable to establish a standard deviation for a particular release. But I am able to compute the z-score for each particular release relative to the entire sample. The z-score is computed as follows: ((mean for the specific release minus the mean for the entire sample) divided by the overall sample’s standard deviation). This statistic quantifies how much better or worse a particular release is in relation to the community’s ranking of all ECBP over the sample period. Assuming a normal distribution, any z-score within +/- 1.0 is assumed to be within “normal” limits (per the empirical rule, ~68% the distribution is within +/- 1 standard deviation from the mean). A z-score of +/- 2 standard deviations would represent ~95% of the distribution; and +/- 3 is ~99% of the distribution. Thus a z-score of +1.5 would be a significantly better release than normal (and -1.5 would be significantly worse). A z-score of 2.0 would be better than 95% of the sample, etc. (End of stats geek stuff). For each year that I review, again for the bottles I have, I’ll do the same stats for that particular year. I’ll also attempt to go back and insert this information in other reviews I’ve done, when appropriate. So here we go. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B518 Color is a clear mahogany, with bourbon typicity much like Pantone 153. The nose is a bit sharp, and shows apple cider, cocoa, oranges, caramelized sugar, char, espresso, and a dusting of softening nutmeg. The palate is expressive, starting off sweet, followed by a barbecue sauce tang, and then the heat kicks in. Vanilla is prominent on the long finish, with roasted marshmallow making an appearance, along with some lingering char, a touch of bitterness, and additional burn. After the C918, the barbecue sauce tang that I caught on the palate is detectable on the nose, and even a little salt. Nowadays, current releases of ECBP (or previous releases still in inventory) retail for around $75. However, bottles are often marked up because of the scarcity of each release (three per year). Older bottles are even more scarce, and ostensibly would be priced accordingly. I always have my eye out for ECBP; the problem is, I’m frequently not able to find them all. Would I buy them again? Yes. There is variability among releases—they can range from merely good to fantastic—but ECBP is known for its consistency and quality, and on a value basis, $75 (if you can get it) is very good for a barrel-proof bourbon with a 12-year age statement. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. My rating: 4.25 Community: m=4.32, z=0.41, n=81 (moderately better than all ECBPs) 133.4 proof. 12-year age statement. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918 Color is indistinguishable from the B518, analogous to Pantone 153. Cocoa powder, pressed sugar cane, orange oil, cinnamon stick, toasted oak, and vanilla. A little creaminess on the palate, with noticeable ethanol. The finish starts with a touch of bitterness—some woody tannins masquerading as espresso—along with some leathery dryness, and then the cocoa and vanilla from the nose appear again on the medium-length finish. All ECBPs are rich and robust, and when sipped neat, not for the faint of heart. The ECBP C918 is no exception. But it comes across as a bit softer and more mellow than the B518. This is great bourbon, period. In the humble opinion of this reviewer, the value can’t be beat—value being not just price, but what you’re getting for the price. And you’re getting an awful lot. At $75-80 retail, would I buy it again? Yes. My rating: 4.25 Community: m=4.27, z=0.05, n=173 (essentially dead-on average vs all ECBPs) 131.4 proof. 12-year age statement. Perhaps the best thing about doing these “Showdowns” is after spending some time individually with each one and writing some notes, I’m then able to go back and forth a bit and smell and taste additional nuances that I wouldn’t have caught otherwise. Overall, the B518 has more complexity and dimensionality than the C918. It has more presence and pervasiveness on the palate. It does carry 2 additional proof points, but at this level, that’s insignificant. Both of these are good, but not otherworldly, consistent with the overall community profile for ECBP. Initially, I had the C918 better than the B518, but after some back-and-forth, the B518 gets the nod, even though due to the quarter-point increments of the Distiller rating system, I rate them both 4.25. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN: 2018 Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B518 Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918 Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. I’ve got several years and releases of ECBP; however, my only complete year for all three releases is 2017. For 2018, I was never able to find that A118, so this showdown will compare the B518 to the C918. I thought it would be instructive to go through seven years of community ranking data for each triannual rating of ECBP, and then quantify what the community thinks of each release relative to the whole. For the seven-year period 2017-2023, as of the time of this review, aggregating all releases of ECBP: • mean(m): 4.26 • standard deviation(s): 0.14 • sample size(n): 3008 (If you don’t care about stats, you can skip the next two paragraphs). Because I’m unable to aggregate all ratings for each specific release (Distiller, are you listening? Give us more data!), I’m unable to establish a standard deviation for a particular release. But I am able to compute the z-score for each particular release relative to the entire sample. The z-score is computed as follows: ((mean for the specific release minus the mean for the entire sample) divided by the overall sample’s standard deviation). This statistic quantifies how much better or worse a particular release is in relation to the community’s ranking of all ECBP over the sample period. Assuming a normal distribution, any z-score within +/- 1.0 is assumed to be within “normal” limits (per the empirical rule, ~68% the distribution is within +/- 1 standard deviation from the mean). A z-score of +/- 2 standard deviations would represent ~95% of the distribution; and +/- 3 is ~99% of the distribution. Thus a z-score of +1.5 would be a significantly better release than normal (and -1.5 would be significantly worse). A z-score of 2.0 would be better than 95% of the sample, etc. (End of stats geek stuff). For each year that I review, again for the bottles I have, I’ll do the same stats for that particular year. I’ll also attempt to go back and insert this information in other reviews I’ve done, when appropriate. So here we go. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B518 Color is a clear mahogany, with bourbon typicity much like Pantone 153. The nose is a bit sharp, and shows apple cider, cocoa, oranges, caramelized sugar, char, espresso, and a dusting of softening nutmeg. The palate is expressive, starting off sweet, followed by a barbecue sauce tang, and then the heat kicks in. Vanilla is prominent on the long finish, with roasted marshmallow making an appearance, along with some lingering char, a touch of bitterness, and additional burn. After the C918, the barbecue sauce tang that I caught on the palate is detectable on the nose, and even a little salt. Nowadays, current releases of ECBP (or previous releases still in inventory) retail for around $75. However, bottles are often marked up because of the scarcity of each release (three per year). Older bottles are even more scarce, and ostensibly would be priced accordingly. I always have my eye out for ECBP; the problem is, I’m frequently not able to find them all. Would I buy them again? Yes. There is variability among releases—they can range from merely good to fantastic—but ECBP is known for its consistency and quality, and on a value basis, $75 (if you can get it) is very good for a barrel-proof bourbon with a 12-year age statement. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. My rating: 4.25 Community: m=4.32, z=0.41, n=81 (moderately better than all ECBPs) 133.4 proof. 12-year age statement. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918 Color is indistinguishable from the B518, analogous to Pantone 153. Cocoa powder, pressed sugar cane, orange oil, cinnamon stick, toasted oak, and vanilla. A little creaminess on the palate, with noticeable ethanol. The finish starts with a touch of bitterness—some woody tannins masquerading as espresso—along with some leathery dryness, and then the cocoa and vanilla from the nose appear again on the medium-length finish. All ECBPs are rich and robust, and when sipped neat, not for the faint of heart. The ECBP C918 is no exception. But it comes across as a bit softer and more mellow than the B518. This is great bourbon, period. In the humble opinion of this reviewer, the value can’t be beat—value being not just price, but what you’re getting for the price. And you’re getting an awful lot. At $75-80 retail, would I buy it again? Yes. My rating: 4.25 Community: m=4.27, z=0.05, n=173 (essentially dead-on average vs all ECBPs) 131.4 proof. 12-year age statement. Perhaps the best thing about doing these “Showdowns” is after spending some time individually with each one and writing some notes, I’m then able to go back and forth a bit and smell and taste additional nuances that I wouldn’t have caught otherwise. Overall, the B518 has more complexity and dimensionality than the C918. It has more presence and pervasiveness on the palate. It does carry 2 additional proof points, but at this level, that’s insignificant. Both of these are good, but not otherworldly, consistent with the overall community profile for ECBP. Initially, I had the C918 better than the B518, but after some back-and-forth, the B518 gets the nod, even though due to the quarter-point increments of the Distiller rating system, I rate them both 4.25. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

KNOB CREEK SHOWDOWN Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. I have reviewed the 12-Year previously, but since I’d yet to review the NAS Small Batch and the 9-Year Single Barrel, I thought I’d group the three together for a side-by-side tasting. Knob Creek may be a little like the old Chevy Nova, which was spurned by Hispanic clientele because “no va” means “no go” in Spanish. I was at a bar in Manhattan a few years back with an English colleague and Knob Creek looked like a safe bet, so I ordered it. When he heard this he said “I would never order Knob Creek, mate.” While Knob Creek bourbon was named after the Knob Creek Farm in Kentucky, “Knob” in the U.K. means something else entirely. I have no idea what U.K. sales look like for this Jim Beam brand. Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Color is a clear and bourbon-like caramel-colored Pantone 138. Nose shows sweet caramel, a little orange, and a healthy dose of oak and vanilla. The palate Knob Creek NAS Small Batch can be found for around $40. The 100-proof is not diluted to the bare minimum 80 proof, which is a good thing. But the $40 price tag is high relative to the market. I recently wrote a “BUDGET BOTTLED IN BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN” review (September 24, 2023), and each of those three 100-proof, NAS bourbons (Evan Williams BiB, Old Tub, and Wild Turkey 101) can be had for nearly half the price. The Knob Creek NAS doesn’t differentiate itself enough from those to warrant a price nearly twice as high. There are no particular flaws; but it’s not a sipper, and while higher proof is good for cocktails, you can find far cheaper 100-proof bourbons that will perform just as well. Would I buy it again? No. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. NAS. Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Virtually identical Pantone 138 color as the Knob Creek NAS. The nose is complex, and unsurprisingly outshines the NAS, with chocolate covered cherries, dried orange, Honey-Nut Cheerios, charred oak, vanilla, and noticeable but well-integrated alcohol, followed by a little cooling mint. The mouthfeel shows a very light creaminess and coats the tongue, and the palate shows dark caramelized sugar and bittersweet chocolate, which transitions to some light woody tannic bitterness, via the charred wood and vanilla on the finish. The 9-Year Single Barrel is a significant uptick from the NAS small batch, as one would expect. There’s a lot going on here, and it’s good, but not quite very good. This could definitely be a sipper for me, and it represents good value in today’s market with a retail price around $57. Would I but it again? Yes. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. 120 proof. 9-Year age statement. Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Even with the older age statement, the 12-Year is the same Pantone 138 hue as the NAS Small Batch and 9-Year. The nose is reticent; I’m not getting nearly as many notes as I did when I reviewed it over a year ago. There is a bit of toffee, nutmeg, and come cooling spearmint. The palate is an enormous improvement, with sweet banana bread, gobs of toasted oak and vanilla, and at last, the presence of the 100 proof lifting its head. Toasted oak and vanilla continue on the medium-length finish, which then shows some espresso-tinged bitterness, likely the result of woody tannins from the extra barrel age. I reviewed the Knob Creek 12-Year on its own back on June 22, 2022. I was a little disappointed then, as the 12-year age statement is rare in today’s market at a “reasonable price,” and I rated it at 3.25 on the Distiller scale. This tasting is marginally better than my previous assessment. The aromatics today were not the same for me as they were a year ago; perhaps this is because this tasting was preceded by the 9-year, which is deeper, richer, and more complex. I prefer the 9-year to the 12-year, which can be had for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. But it comes with a caveat: due to the age statement, the flavor profile could change year to year, and the 12-year age statement is enough to roll the dice. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. 12-year age statement. N.B. All spirts tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

KNOB CREEK SHOWDOWN Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. I have reviewed the 12-Year previously, but since I’d yet to review the NAS Small Batch and the 9-Year Single Barrel, I thought I’d group the three together for a side-by-side tasting. Knob Creek may be a little like the old Chevy Nova, which was spurned by Hispanic clientele because “no va” means “no go” in Spanish. I was at a bar in Manhattan a few years back with an English colleague and Knob Creek looked like a safe bet, so I ordered it. When he heard this he said “I would never order Knob Creek, mate.” While Knob Creek bourbon was named after the Knob Creek Farm in Kentucky, “Knob” in the U.K. means something else entirely. I have no idea what U.K. sales look like for this Jim Beam brand. Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Color is a clear and bourbon-like caramel-colored Pantone 138. Nose shows sweet caramel, a little orange, and a healthy dose of oak and vanilla. The palate Knob Creek NAS Small Batch can be found for around $40. The 100-proof is not diluted to the bare minimum 80 proof, which is a good thing. But the $40 price tag is high relative to the market. I recently wrote a “BUDGET BOTTLED IN BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN” review (September 24, 2023), and each of those three 100-proof, NAS bourbons (Evan Williams BiB, Old Tub, and Wild Turkey 101) can be had for nearly half the price. The Knob Creek NAS doesn’t differentiate itself enough from those to warrant a price nearly twice as high. There are no particular flaws; but it’s not a sipper, and while higher proof is good for cocktails, you can find far cheaper 100-proof bourbons that will perform just as well. Would I buy it again? No. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. NAS. Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Virtually identical Pantone 138 color as the Knob Creek NAS. The nose is complex, and unsurprisingly outshines the NAS, with chocolate covered cherries, dried orange, Honey-Nut Cheerios, charred oak, vanilla, and noticeable but well-integrated alcohol, followed by a little cooling mint. The mouthfeel shows a very light creaminess and coats the tongue, and the palate shows dark caramelized sugar and bittersweet chocolate, which transitions to some light woody tannic bitterness, via the charred wood and vanilla on the finish. The 9-Year Single Barrel is a significant uptick from the NAS small batch, as one would expect. There’s a lot going on here, and it’s good, but not quite very good. This could definitely be a sipper for me, and it represents good value in today’s market with a retail price around $57. Would I but it again? Yes. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. 120 proof. 9-Year age statement. Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Even with the older age statement, the 12-Year is the same Pantone 138 hue as the NAS Small Batch and 9-Year. The nose is reticent; I’m not getting nearly as many notes as I did when I reviewed it over a year ago. There is a bit of toffee, nutmeg, and come cooling spearmint. The palate is an enormous improvement, with sweet banana bread, gobs of toasted oak and vanilla, and at last, the presence of the 100 proof lifting its head. Toasted oak and vanilla continue on the medium-length finish, which then shows some espresso-tinged bitterness, likely the result of woody tannins from the extra barrel age. I reviewed the Knob Creek 12-Year on its own back on June 22, 2022. I was a little disappointed then, as the 12-year age statement is rare in today’s market at a “reasonable price,” and I rated it at 3.25 on the Distiller scale. This tasting is marginally better than my previous assessment. The aromatics today were not the same for me as they were a year ago; perhaps this is because this tasting was preceded by the 9-year, which is deeper, richer, and more complex. I prefer the 9-year to the 12-year, which can be had for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. But it comes with a caveat: due to the age statement, the flavor profile could change year to year, and the 12-year age statement is enough to roll the dice. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. 12-year age statement. N.B. All spirts tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

KNOB CREEK SHOWDOWN Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. I have reviewed the 12-Year previously, but since I’d yet to review the NAS Small Batch and the 9-Year Single Barrel, I thought I’d group the three together for a side-by-side tasting. Knob Creek may be a little like the old Chevy Nova, which was spurned by Hispanic clientele because “no va” means “no go” in Spanish. I was at a bar in Manhattan a few years back with an English colleague and Knob Creek looked like a safe bet, so I ordered it. When he heard this he said “I would never order Knob Creek, mate.” While Knob Creek bourbon was named after the Knob Creek Farm in Kentucky, “Knob” in the U.K. means something else entirely. I have no idea what U.K. sales look like for this Jim Beam brand. Knob Creek NAS Small Batch Bourbon Color is a clear and bourbon-like caramel-colored Pantone 138. Nose shows sweet caramel, a little orange, and a healthy dose of oak and vanilla. The palate Knob Creek NAS Small Batch can be found for around $40. The 100-proof is not diluted to the bare minimum 80 proof, which is a good thing. But the $40 price tag is high relative to the market. I recently wrote a “BUDGET BOTTLED IN BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN” review (September 24, 2023), and each of those three 100-proof, NAS bourbons (Evan Williams BiB, Old Tub, and Wild Turkey 101) can be had for nearly half the price. The Knob Creek NAS doesn’t differentiate itself enough from those to warrant a price nearly twice as high. There are no particular flaws; but it’s not a sipper, and while higher proof is good for cocktails, you can find far cheaper 100-proof bourbons that will perform just as well. Would I buy it again? No. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. NAS. Knob Creek 9-Year Single Barrel Reserve Virtually identical Pantone 138 color as the Knob Creek NAS. The nose is complex, and unsurprisingly outshines the NAS, with chocolate covered cherries, dried orange, Honey-Nut Cheerios, charred oak, vanilla, and noticeable but well-integrated alcohol, followed by a little cooling mint. The mouthfeel shows a very light creaminess and coats the tongue, and the palate shows dark caramelized sugar and bittersweet chocolate, which transitions to some light woody tannic bitterness, via the charred wood and vanilla on the finish. The 9-Year Single Barrel is a significant uptick from the NAS small batch, as one would expect. There’s a lot going on here, and it’s good, but not quite very good. This could definitely be a sipper for me, and it represents good value in today’s market with a retail price around $57. Would I but it again? Yes. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. 120 proof. 9-Year age statement. Knob Creek 12-Year Small Batch Even with the older age statement, the 12-Year is the same Pantone 138 hue as the NAS Small Batch and 9-Year. The nose is reticent; I’m not getting nearly as many notes as I did when I reviewed it over a year ago. There is a bit of toffee, nutmeg, and come cooling spearmint. The palate is an enormous improvement, with sweet banana bread, gobs of toasted oak and vanilla, and at last, the presence of the 100 proof lifting its head. Toasted oak and vanilla continue on the medium-length finish, which then shows some espresso-tinged bitterness, likely the result of woody tannins from the extra barrel age. I reviewed the Knob Creek 12-Year on its own back on June 22, 2022. I was a little disappointed then, as the 12-year age statement is rare in today’s market at a “reasonable price,” and I rated it at 3.25 on the Distiller scale. This tasting is marginally better than my previous assessment. The aromatics today were not the same for me as they were a year ago; perhaps this is because this tasting was preceded by the 9-year, which is deeper, richer, and more complex. I prefer the 9-year to the 12-year, which can be had for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. But it comes with a caveat: due to the age statement, the flavor profile could change year to year, and the 12-year age statement is enough to roll the dice. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. 100 proof. 12-year age statement. N.B. All spirts tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Appearance is a clear and deep orange amber, resembling Pantone 153. Nose shows complex sherry influence, with dates, caramelized sugar, golden raisins, some cured meat, vanilla, a petrol/rubber element, and noticeable alcohol. Mouthfeel shows a gentle viscosity but intense flavor profile, with a sweetness that mirrors most of the olfactory notes, and adds spicy cinnamon, some bitter espresso, and noticeable alcohol on the medium-to-long finish. Glenlivet Nàdurra is not for the faint of heart. I wanted to like it for the sherry finishing and the high proof. However, it comes across as somewhat harsh and disjointed, and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves high-octane whisk(e)y. I’m not one who ever adds water to any whisky; but this one could use some toning down. I came back to this multiple times over the course of a half hour, and I actually think it would be better at a lower proof. It would seem that there is a reason why this bottle has gone unreviewed until now: I had lots of better bottles to enjoy. The Nàdurra can be found for around $90; I don’t recall what I paid for mine a few years back. Would I buy it again? No. 3.25 on the Distiller scale. 60.3% ABV. NAS. Bottled October 2015. Batch OL1015. Non-chill filtered. N.B.: All spirts tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Continuing to review unreviewed bottles in my collection. Could be done by the end of this week, in theory. Clear pale gold color like Pantone 122. Fruity nose shows two apple elements (apple juice and baked apple pie with a touch of cinnamon), biscuits, vanilla, perhaps a whiff of nutmeg. Sweet on the palate, with an oily mouthfeel, honey, oaky vanilla, and light white pepper, which is amplified on the long finish, which concludes with a touch of tannic woodiness and dryness. Entering the bottle’s code on the Bruichladdich website reveals detailed information. This bottle is from a vatting of 79 casks, 4 vintages, 2 barley types, and 7 cask types (number of casks, year, barley type, Cask type): • 30, 2010, Scottish mainland organic, USA bourbon barrel 1st fill • 21, N/A, Scottish mainland, USA bourbon barrel 1st fill • 12, N/A, Scottish mainland, USA bourbon barrel 1st fill • 4, N/A, Scottish mainland, USA bourbon barrel hogshead (6 yrs), Spain sherry butt (3 yrs) • 4, 2010, Scottish mainland organic, France Rivesaltes sweet red & white hogshead 1st fill • 3, 2010, Scottish mainland organic, France Rhone red hogshead 1st fill • 2, N/A, Scottish mainland, Spain sherry butt (10 yrs), USA bourbon barrel (1 yr) • 2, 2010, Scottish mainland organic, Spain Ribera del Duero Hogshead 1st fill • 1, 2010, Scottish mainland organic, Spain Ribera del Duero Hogshead 2nd fill The Classic Laddie retails for about $55. Would I buy this again? Yes. This whisky is the epitome of artisanality and transparency in terms of its contents. It’s 50% ABV, far above normal whisky bottlings (aside from uncommon cask strengths). A pleasure to drink, and very good value. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. 50% ABV. Batch 18/018 (bottled 2018). Non-chill filtered. No added coloring. N.B.: All spirts tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Clear rich mahogany color, akin to Pantone 153. Rich nose emits plums, a bit of raisin, chocolate covered cherries, sweet crème brûlée, toasted oak. I keep coming back to it: there’s some rich coffee underneath; a little bananas Foster. The aromas are deep and intense yet not overpowering, and alcohol is barely there. Not a lot of viscosity on the palate, which shows some toasted marshmallow and toasted oak, and the alcohol burn is apparent toward the end as it progresses toward the finish, which is long, and shows more toasted oak and vanilla. Maker’s Mark is doing great things. Beginning with Maker’s 46 a decade ago, and continuing with the various iterations of the wood-finished series, their Cellar Aged ups the ante even further. Maker’s has been known to bottle “to taste” rather than age; this bourbon does both, as it is a blend of 11- and 12-year old barrels. Maker’s Cellar Aged is warm and inviting in the best way. The warmth on the nose is not from heat, but rather to a certain smoothness and mellowness, like freshly baked spice cake. The intensity and sensory saturation is what makes this bourbon great. The nose has the kind of breadth and depth which I’ve only experienced a very small number of times, as with 2019 William Larue Weller. Would I buy it again? Yes. But I actually didn’t buy it this time—it was generously shared with me by my good friend @ataylor156. I’ve never been able to find it myself, and I believe he has found two bottles in two separate states! This is among the best bourbons I’ve ever had. 5.0 on the Distiller scale. 115.7 proof. Blend of 11-12 year-old barrels. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

MAKER’S MARK CASK STRENGTH SHOWDOWN Maker’s Mark Cask Strength Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength As I’ve noted elsewhere, I’m a big fan of what Maker’s Mark has done with their wood-finishing series, which all started with Maker’s 46. Maker’s 46 Cask Strength is a relatively new product, first offered nationally in 2020. Maker’s 46 is far better than the base Maker’s Mark offering; let’s see if that holds true with the cask strength of each. These two are just 0.1 apart in terms of proof points; the most significant difference is the additional wood staves that are used in the Maker’s 46. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength Color is a clear and bourbon-like Pantone 152. There’s noticeable ethanol on the nose, which shows tangerine, sawdust, bananas foster, cocoa powder, rosin, a mild guava, and cinnamon. The alcohol comes through strongly on the palate as well, and shows lots of oak and vanilla, with more on the finish, along with a little woody tannic bitterness. There’s a lot of wood here. As I sip and wait, and then go back and forth between this and the 46CS, there is an oscillation between a nice complexity and a whole lotta wood. Maker’s philosophy has always been to bottle to taste rather than age: perhaps there’s a focus on normal MM that detracts from its cask-strength counterpart. There is so much to like, if only the wood was toned down a bit. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength retails for about $40. Would I buy it again? Yes. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. 110.4 proof. NAS. Batch no. 21-02. Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength Color is virtually identical to the regular MM Cask Strength at Pantone 152. Different nose; warmer, sweeter, and more mellow than the normal cask strength, with hot chocolate, coffee, caramel, dried apricot, a touch of dill, and vanilla, in addition to a whiff of char. While the alcohol is not as prevalent on the nose as it is with the MMCS—despite the nearly identical proof—it becomes noticeable on the finish, along with oak and gobs of vanilla. There’s a lot to like here, but like the normal MMCS, there’s a lot of wood to chop. Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength can be found for around $65, which is more expensive than Maker’s normal cask strength offering. Would I but it again? (Actually, this bottle was a gift). Yes. On a proof basis alone, the price represents good value in today’s market, and on top of that, it’s good—better than the normal cask strength offering. A little less wood would push this easily into the 4.0 range; I’d like to try other releases to see if that’s the case. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. 110.3 proof. NAS. Batch no. 23-01. There are many possible “showdown” combinations, with commonality found between producers, types, styles, and proofs. What I’d like to do now is try the regular 46 (I have an old-style bottle) side-by-side with this 46 Cask Strength. From memory, I like the regular 46 better; but I’ll have to test that hypothesis in another review. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

MAKER’S MARK CASK STRENGTH SHOWDOWN Maker’s Mark Cask Strength Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength As I’ve noted elsewhere, I’m a big fan of what Maker’s Mark has done with their wood-finishing series, which all started with Maker’s 46. Maker’s 46 Cask Strength is a relatively new product, first offered nationally in 2020. Maker’s 46 is far better than the base Maker’s Mark offering; let’s see if that holds true with the cask strength of each. These two are just 0.1 apart in terms of proof points; the most significant difference is the additional wood staves that are used in the Maker’s 46. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength Color is a clear and bourbon-like Pantone 152. There’s noticeable ethanol on the nose, which shows tangerine, sawdust, bananas foster, cocoa powder, rosin, a mild guava, and cinnamon. The alcohol comes through strongly on the palate as well, and shows lots of oak and vanilla, with more on the finish, along with a little woody tannic bitterness. There’s a lot of wood here. As I sip and wait, and then go back and forth between this and the 46CS, there is an oscillation between a nice complexity and a whole lotta wood. Maker’s philosophy has always been to bottle to taste rather than age: perhaps there’s a focus on normal MM that detracts from its cask-strength counterpart. There is so much to like, if only the wood was toned down a bit. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength retails for about $40. Would I buy it again? Yes. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. 110.4 proof. NAS. Batch no. 21-02. Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength Color is virtually identical to the regular MM Cask Strength at Pantone 152. Different nose; warmer, sweeter, and more mellow than the normal cask strength, with hot chocolate, coffee, caramel, dried apricot, a touch of dill, and vanilla, in addition to a whiff of char. While the alcohol is not as prevalent on the nose as it is with the MMCS—despite the nearly identical proof—it becomes noticeable on the finish, along with oak and gobs of vanilla. There’s a lot to like here, but like the normal MMCS, there’s a lot of wood to chop. Maker’s Mark 46 Cask Strength can be found for around $65, which is more expensive than Maker’s normal cask strength offering. Would I but it again? (Actually, this bottle was a gift). Yes. On a proof basis alone, the price represents good value in today’s market, and on top of that, it’s good—better than the normal cask strength offering. A little less wood would push this easily into the 4.0 range; I’d like to try other releases to see if that’s the case. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. 110.3 proof. NAS. Batch no. 23-01. There are many possible “showdown” combinations, with commonality found between producers, types, styles, and proofs. What I’d like to do now is try the regular 46 (I have an old-style bottle) side-by-side with this 46 Cask Strength. From memory, I like the regular 46 better; but I’ll have to test that hypothesis in another review. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.