Tastes

I got this bottle at Kelly Liquors in the Mountain Run shopping center, where it cost me $45.99. The mash bill is 55% rye (which makes it almost a barely legal rye), 36% corn, and 9% sprouted barley. This whisky is 93 proof, according to the label it's "over" three years old, and in the glass the color is mahogany. 𝗡𝗢𝗦𝗘: Honey butter, with a generic floral note, and something vegetal which made me think of mullein. 𝗠𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗙𝗘𝗘𝗟: Creamy. 𝗧𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘: On the palate I immediately got honey with brown sugar and red pepper. There were oak and smoke underneath that, and then stronger notes of cinnamon and dark chocolate appeared. 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛: This is, alas, short, but delicious. It gives notes of red pepper, black pepper, and dark chocolate. 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬: This is excellent whisky. I could wish for a longer finish - this one fades out too quickly - but it tastes so good, as does the whisky overall, that I won't complain. This is a different mash bill from the Sweet Mash Rye (that's 96/4), and it tastes different; moreover the lower proof results in a different experience. I can't decide which I like more, though the higher proof might tip me toward the Sweet Mash. But this is, as I say, excellent, and I'll definitely buy it again. 𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚: On my hick scale (8 levels, with 8 as the highest) this comes in at 7, Right Fine. That's the same as 4.375 stars, 87.5/100, or 8.75/10.

This is, of course, a straight bourbon whisky. It has no age statement, which means that, as a straight whisky, it's at least four years old. The mash bill is 72% corn, 18% rye, and 10% barley. It's 93 proof, a fifth cost me $58.99 at Kelly Liquors. It's a bronze color in the glass. 𝗡𝗢𝗦𝗘: The first, and dominant, note is a dense caramel - I could sit and sniff it forever. Next in strength is a vanilla cream note - or perhaps marshmallow cream; I dithered somewhat, and settled on vanilla, but I won't swear to it. Underneath all that there's a light floral note, and a tinge of smoke and honey. 𝗠𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗙𝗘𝗘𝗟: Creamy but a little thin. 𝗧𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘: Smoky honey, with a hint of cinnamon and brown sugar. 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛: Cinnamon, which turns into a growing chocolate that lingers - medium long. 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬: This whisky is all right, but it's certainly not worth $59. It's not as good as the 100 proof, it's only 93 proof - seven points lower than the 100, and it costs almost twice as much. I won't buy this bottle again. 𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚: As y'all know by now, I have devised a rating scale that draws on my hick vocabulary and thinking. On that scale, in which the numbers are higher the better a whisky is, this comes in at 4 - Okay. That's the same as 2.5 stars, 50/100, or 5/10.

𝘐 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 5, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘐'𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘣. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘢𝘵 0226 𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 7, 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳. This is an expensive whisky, at least for me, at $80.99 for a fifth. It's a wheated bourbon with a mash bill of 74% corn, 15% wheat, and 11% barley. It's 94 proof and is three years old. In the glass it's a dark reddish brown, darker than I'd expect based on the proof. It got this bottle at Total Wine. NOSE: Smoky honey, old lumber (which sounds bad, but is actually pleasant), something floral (perhaps forsythia?), fresh chocolate cake, alfalfa hay, and graham crackers. After I began sipping the whisky a corn tortilla note also appeared. MOUTHFEEL: Viscous. TASTE: Honey, milk chocolate, a little citrus, dark chocolate, and red pepper. With good whisky I always get more on the nose than on the palate, so the disparity shouldn't cause you to believe it's not good or not complex - it is both. FINISH: Medium long, and simpler than the rest of the whisky - oak turning into dark chocolate. But I like oak that turns into chocolate, so for me this is a nice finish, its only drawback being that it's not long enough. SUMMARY: People talk about Texas whisky, but most Texas whisky that I've had imitates Kentucky, at least to some extent. This stuff doesn't - it's proud to be from Texas. It's not worth $81, but it is very good. At that price I probably won't buy it again, but if it were $60-70 I probably would. RATING: On my hick scale, which I created and which I keep because it works for me, this comes in at 7, Right Fine (with 1 being the lowest and 8 the highest). This translates to 4.375 stars, 87.5/100, or 8.75/10.

I'm a Texan and so I want to try every Texas whisky I can get my hands on. That progresses slowly, here in Albuquerque, but recently to celebrate the conclusion of a long term personal project I got a bottle of Garrison Brothers Small Batch bourbon, out of Hye, TX. This is a 3 year old bourbon, with a mash bill of 74% corn, 15% wheat, and 11% barley. It's 94 proof, a fifth cost me $80.99 at Total Wine, and it's a deep copper color in the glass - almost the tone of a stained wood. 𝗡𝗢𝗦𝗘: On the nose I immediately smoke, reminding me of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Proof, though not identical. Then there was a pleasantly sharp note I couldn't identify but seemed familiar from when I was young. There was some sort of spice, fresh wood - but not pine or anything you're likely to find where they're building a house, peanut shells, and then a note which made me think of balsa wood or sawdust or punk. This seemed very much like the wood note I got earlier, but not quite the same. Then there came a honey note, and finally - and strongly - some sort of nutty cereal. 𝗠𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗙𝗘𝗘𝗟: Thick and oily, far more so than I would've expected from a mere 94 proof. 𝗧𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗘: Right off the bat I got milk chocolate. Then a honey note came in, followed by puffed wheat, and finally a light black pepper taste rounded things off. I never get as much on the palate as I do on the nose, so this is actually not a step down; the palate matches the nose in quality, if not in variety of notes. 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛: The finish is the only part of the whisky that I find somewhat disappointing. It's short, and begins with puffed wheat which that quickly fades into sweet chocolate, before vanishing altogether. 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬: This is a good, unique whisky. It's as distinctively Texan, in its own way, as Balcones Texas Pot Still Bourbon. (As a side note, Garrison Brothers was the first legal 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 distillery in Texas. Balcones Distilling was the first distillery, getting to market a year before Garrison Brothers, but Balcones didn't begin distilling bourbon until a few years later.) This juice isn't worth $81, but it is very good, and I'd consider $65-70 a fair price. At that price I'd buy it every time I could. 𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚: It's the seventh level (counting from the bottom) on my hick scale, Right Fine. That's the same as 4.375 stars, 87.5/100, or 8.75/10.

I really didn't like the review I posted, because it didn't fit my previous experience with this whisky. But I had to be honest, and I put so much concentration into a review that I wasn't ready to junk what I'd done and try again later. What I decided was to violate my rule, and put this bottle ahead of the rotation the next time I randomized the selection. It's now 0115 on the morning of February 9, and I'm sipping another glass. I'm not going to give any detailed nosing notes, but it does smell good. Tonight there's a waxy note, like an unscented candle, which I like. On the palate I'm getting honey, cinnamon, generalized spices, maybe some citrus... This is more like it. My palate must have been way off with the last glass. The finish is of course giving me serious walnuts, some spice, and a bit of semisweet chocolate. If I were doing a full review I'd move the rating up by at least one level on my personal scale. This stuff is definitely better than it seemed last time. ********** This whisky is, of course, 100 proof, and is 13 years old. A fifth cost me $46.99 at the Kelly Liquors in the Mountain Run shopping center here in Albuquerque. In the glass it's a dark copper color. The mash bill is 84% corn, 8% rye, and 8% barley. NOSE: Right off I got alcohol, but then the notes started coming in. I detected caramel, a general nuttiness, cornbread (which appeared suddenly out of nowhere), a musty and fruity note, sweet smoke, a pleasant odor of cork - not corked whisky, but the actual cork, and finally Spanish peanuts. I don't often get this much on the nose, and I loved this experience. MOUTHFEEL: Smooth. TASTE: Much to my surprise, the only note I got on the palate was oak. FINISH: Medium, with oak and walnuts. SUMMARY: My first glass of this was superb. The second glass was very good. But this glass is all nose, with only one note on the palate and two on the finish. I don't understand it. I've never had a whisky which was so good on the first glass drop so far in quality as it interacted with the air. Tonight it was just so-so. I don't know whether this process of becoming bland is typical of this whisky, or if it's just this bottle, or if I just picked the wrong night to review the stuff, but whatever the reason, I found this disappointing. I hope it's just that my palate's having an off night, because I like Dickel whisky, and at first this was significantly better than anything else I've had from Dickel. RATING: I would like to rate this higher, but I have to be honest, and base my rating on how the whisky was to me when I drank it tonight. I give it an Okay rating, which is #4 on my hick scale (which counts from the bottom up). That's the same as 2.5 stars, 50/100, or 5/10.

I got this bottle at Total Wine, where a fifth cost me $42.99. As a bottled in bond whisky it's 100 proof, and is a dark copper color in the glass. It's 7 years old, with a mash bill of 78% corn, 12% rye, and 10% barley. NOSE: When I nosed the whisky I got smoke right off - it reminded me of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof in that one respect. Next came caramel, butter, brown sugar, and the pleasant smell of the lumber from an old barn. MOUTHFEEL: Smooth, and slightly thin. TASTE: The first note was brown sugar, though cinnamon was nearly there, rushing in second. Then I got honey butter, powdered sugar, red pepper, and a hint of artificial lemon. FINISH: The finish is medium in length, and begins with a little mint, then brings in cinnamon, and ends with chocolatey oak. SUMMARY: I think a better price would be a couple of dollars lower, or perhaps a higher proof would bring the quality up to what I paid. But a couple of dollars is not a lot of money, and so this is going to be just a quibble. This is good bourbon. I'm glad I bought it, and while it's not certain, I just may buy it again. RATING: On my hick scale, which has 1 at the bottom and 8 at the top, this comes in at 7 Fine. This is the same as 4.375 stars, 87.5/100, or 8.75/10.

I found extremely little information about the mash bill. I only found one place which gave percentages, and I discounted it because it omitted entirely one of the four grains. The other place I found information on the mash bill was Oregon Spirit's own site, which didn't give any percentages, but said that it contains corn, rye, wheat, and sprouted barley. I had expected to find wheat in the mash bill, because this whisky gives me notes that recent experience has associated in my mind with wheat whisky or a high wheat bourbon. The bottle cost me $44.99 at Total Wine. It's 94 proof, has a four year age statement, and in the glass is a dark copper color. NOSE: When I nosed the whisky I immediately got honey and mint mixed. There was a faint butter note sliding underneath, and then as I continued to nose the whisky I got notes of mint chocolate chip ice cream, a pine forest, and a warmth that spread over anything. Everything I got on the nose, I got before I took the first sip; this is unusual, because normally after I have a sip or two I can get a little more from the nose. MOUTHFEEL: Buttery. TASTE: It began with a light honey note, then a light cinnamon, and then peppermint, black pepper, and brown sugar. Both the nose and the palate are unique in my experience - while they resemble both Oregon Spirit wheat whisky and Redemption wheated bourbon, they're not identical. FINISH: The finish is medium long, though the length is merely the slow fading of the last note. I got first a generalized spice, then mint, eucalyptus, and black pepper. SUMMARY: This is a fantastic whisky. It's a four grain bourbon, with characteristics of bourbon, rye, and wheat whisky. It's worth every penny of the 45 bucks I paid, and I highly recommend it. RATING: My hick scale has eight levels, counting from the bottom, and this comes in at 7, Right Fine. This equates to 4.375 stars, 87.5/100, or 8.75/10. I think the only thing that it would take to move this up to the highest level would be more age or more proof (and there is a bottled in bond expression, which I've not tried, but I expect to be excellent).

I have to congratulate Redemption for putting information on the label. I most want to know the mash bill and the age, and both are on this label. Why other whiskies don't do this I have no clue - at least, I have no clue about why they don't openly tell you what the mash bill is, since knowing that won't help you steal their recipe. I can understand, perhaps, why a whisky doesn't have an age statement - there's the deal with Knob Creek when, due to demand, they couldn't guarantee that everything in the bottle would be at least 9 years old, so for a short time they omitted the age statement. But mostly it's a simple courtesy to the person buying the bottle to provide this basic information. But on to the whisky itself. It's 88 proof, which I've come to regard as pretty low for a bourbon; I want my whisky 90 proof or better. I suspect that what I saw below would be more complimentary if the proof were 90 or 100. The mash bill is 75% corn, 21% rye, and 4% barley. This is a two year old whisky, the minimum age for a straight whisky under American law, and a fifth cost me $29.99 at Kelly Liquors. In the glass it's a golden copper color. NOSE: First I got just a sensation of grain. Then came honey with a faint sourness, a little mint, and an earthy note. Usually I can get more after a sip or two, but with this juice what I got from the beginning is all I ever got. MOUTHFEEL: Thin, but slightly creamy. TASTE: The first note was spicy honey, with next something that made me think of lemon cough drops, though when I tried to focus on it the note slithered away. There was definitely cinnamon, and a hint of dark chocolate. FINISH: All I got on the finish was honey and dark chocolate, and it was a remarkably short finish too. SUMMARY: This juice needs more proof and more time. For an 88 proof, 2 year old whisky it's good, but there's better stuff out there for $30. I like this bourbon, but there's better available, and I probably won't buy this again. RATING: My hick scale gives it a 4 (counting from the bottom), which is Okay. That equates to 2.5 stars, 50/100, or 5/10.

I reviewed this whisky in August of 2022, but I hadn't had any since I finished that bottle, and back then I didn't even have quite a year's experience, whereas now I have a bit more than three years. So I thought I'd review this again, with a palate that's better able to evaluate whisky. This is a Heaven Hill whisky. The mash bill is 51% wheat (so it's a barely legal wheat whisky), 37% corn, and 12% barley. This bottle cost me $34.99 at Kelly Liquors in the Mountain Run shopping center. It's 90 proof, 7 years old, and is a golden copper color in the glass. NOSE: On the nose I get first a mintiness (I'm finding that wheat and rye are sometimes similar in their effects, at least for me), then honey, spice, butterscotch, and vanilla. After I'd had a couple of sips I got a further note of cornsilk. MOUTHFEEL: Slightly creamy. TASTE: The first impression is a mild sweetness. Then I get the specific notes of honey and butterscotch. FINISH: Medium, with oak first and then a musty note that I could do without, but isn't really bad. SUMMARY: This is a nice, gentle, approachable whisky. It would be good for introducing someone to whisky. It's not very complex - indeed, it could qualify as a simple whisky - but it is pleasing. RATING: On my hick scale, which has eight steps counting from the bottom, this comes in at 5 - Good. That's 3.125 stars, 62.5/100, or 6.25/10.

There aren't, as far as I know, a lot of wheat whiskies out there, and of those I do know of, this is the highest wheat - the mash bill is 74% wheat, 18% rye (which some consider in bourbon to be a high rye mash bill), and 8% barley. Those proportions are comparable to a lot of bourbon mashbills, though of course bourbon uses corn as the dominant grain. This whisky is 90 proof, five years old, and cost me $31.99 for a fifth at Total Wine. In the glass it's a dark copper. NOSE: The first thing is a huge burst of caramel. This is by far the dominant note. Then come a little eucalyptus, butter, honey, something that might be coconut, and something that might be Dr Pepper. That sounds like a horrible mishmash, but it's a very pleasant nose in reality. MOUTHFEEL: Average - neither conspicuously thick nor conspicuously thin. TASTE: Honey, cinnamon, a hint of eucalyptus, and caramel. FINISH: Eucalyptus, red pepper, chocolate underneath, and a lingering pepper. The first notes go away pretty quickly, but that last pepper stays for a long time. SUMMARY: This whisky is totally different from anything else I've ever had. The gentleness of the wheat lets the rye shine through, but the barley prevents the rye from dominating. Thus you get sweet and vegetal notes together in a unique and pleasant combination. This is good whiskey, and I'll absolutely buy it again. RATING: In my hick whisky scale, which numbers 1-8 from bottom to top, I give this a 6 - Fine. That's the same as 3.75 stars, 75/100, or 7.5/10.