Elijah Craig Barrel Proof Bourbon Batch B520

The nose starts with charred oak, smoke, leather and a bit of brine. Notes of vanilla, molasses and baking spices follow in the background, rounding it out for a pleasant experience. The palate is dry and slightly chewy, with a burst of baking spices, cherry syrup, charred oak and leather. It comes off much more bold than it did on the nose, giving you quite a surprise. As it breathes it does mellow out a bit without losing its edge. Some faint hints of some of the sweeter notes do present themselves, but this remains a very oak and spice forward whiskey. The finish is long and spicy with the mouth tingling until you take your next sip, as charred oak and baking spices slowly fade. This is quite good for how bold and intensive, a real treat if that is something you are looking for. It's not complex and honestly it's probably not that well balanced, however it nails being big and bold and spicy, which can go a long way.

Nose - Light cherry, cinnamon, dark nuts, some oak and leather. Really well rounded nose. Palate - Loads of cinnamon and spice. Really spiced oak and leather. Black pepper, cinnamon, some green pepper maybe? Then you get subtle sweet notes from burnt sugar and light baked cherries. Finish - Loads of oak, leather vanilla black peoper and cinnamon. All the way down.

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 I’ve been a big fan of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) for a long time. I own (or have consumed) most of the triannual releases for the past 6-7 years. I’ve reviewed them individually in addition to doing Showdown reviews comparing releases from the same year. This Showdown review compares three highly rated ECBP releases from different years: B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year; B520, which is thought by many to be one of the best ECBP releases; and the C923, which I recently rated 4.75 and has received a lot of fanfare from the bourbon community. How do these compare? Let’s find out. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 Deep orange mahogany color (Pantone 153). Complex nose reveals cocoa powder, pomander, oiled leather, caramel, vanilla, Luxardo cherries, charred oak, a Wild Turkey-like dust, grape jelly, and spearmint. The palate has a nice viscosity, with sweet oak and caramel. The alcohol is kept in check with the robust flavor profile, and the finish is long, with crème brûlée and lots of oaky vanilla. While whisk(e)y drinkers debate whether Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year is a marketing merry-go-round or an objective assessment, the winner is typically very good, and the ECBP B517 is certainly that. There is plenty of complexity; a high, well-integrated proof; and a reasonable price, considering. Current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is one of the best values in bourbon. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.25 on my last review). 124.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Deep mahogany color, a shade darker than the B517 (Pantone 160). Fantastic nose reveals chai tea, milk chocolate, strawberry preserves, cocoa, graham cracker, cappuccino, orange oil, cherry pie filling, mulled cider, spearmint and maple syrup—all of this without noticeable alcohol. On the palate, there is a light glycerin mouthfeel, and a sweetness Finish has plenty of cinnamon red hots and vanilla extract. The ECBP B520 nose is very complex. Nosing through each release in succession, and continuing to cycle through them all, I kept getting different olfactory elements from the B520. It is both powerful and refined. As stated previously, current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Every time. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 Burnt orange meets mahogany; a half-shade lighter than the B520 (Pantone 153). Out of the glass, the C923 fills the nose with a pervasive warmth. Orange oil leads the way, followed by cedar, Chinese five spice, dust, apples, tangy BBQ sauce, soy sauce, and a whiff of menthol. Like the B520, there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The mouthfeel has a similar viscosity, though the palate isn’t quite as sweet as the B520. The high proof becomes noticeable on the back end, transitioning to a finish with brown sugar, oaky vanilla, drying leather, and a big Kentucky Hug. For the third time in this review: where else are you going to find a bourbon with high proof, high complexity, and such a robust flavor profile? There’s a reason why the bourbon community is raving about ECBP C923. It Would I buy? 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 133 proof. 13 year, 7 month age statement. Non chill filtered. METHODOLOGY High-proof bourbons need to be approached with a little trepidation—and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves hazmat whisk(e)y. The first sips start very hot, and it takes a few for the mouth to become acclimated. Only then can the actual tasting begin; and for me, that translates to a 10-12 minute warm-up. For this Showdown, I nosed each one in succession, occasionally taking a small sip, and then wrote a one-word descriptor or short phrase before moving to the next one. I continued this process until I’d ran out of differentiable identifiers. Then I sipped each one and recorded the taste and finish in the same way. Further, I passed through everything again. And finally, I repeated the process the next night, and only then began to craft each paragraph. CONCLUSION These three releases of ECBP, spanning six years, show a commitment to consistency. Each release shares similarities and overlapping descriptors. As @djangojohnson has mentioned elsewhere, separate releases of the same bourbon can be subtle. The biggest differences in this case aren’t in the flavor profiles themselves but rather their pervasiveness and intensity on the nose, palate, and finish, as well as the presence and integration of alcohol, regardless of the proof. Succinctly: power and balance. The B517 is very good, and I’m happy that I’ve got a couple more bottles in reserve; but despite its power and complexity, it is a notch below the B520 and C923. That is not an underhanded compliment, because the B520 and C923 are world-class. The B520 is exquisite: every time I come back to it—over the past two days I’ve logged dozens of sips amongst the three—I find something different. The C923 is the most powerful amongst the three. The proof is a little higher, and it is noticeable as it should be, and there is an effusiveness of flavor that floods your nose and coats your palate. It reminds me of the opulence that comes from a William Larue Weller or George T. Stagg. It is ostentatious, but not brash. It displays a sophisticated heaviness, like a fine shearling coat. It demands your attention unapologetically, and its big Kentucky hug reminds you that you’re in its house rather than the other way around. But the C923 is a bit out of balance. It’s robustness doesn’t quite stand up to the 133 proof. Were the alcohol a little more integrated, the C923 would be a 5.0. But in this Kentucky Derby, the B520 wins in a photo finish. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think ‘Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight’ given so many other choices.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

Milk chocolate with sweet oak