Garrison Brothers Balmorhea Texas Straight Bourbon

Nose of leather, wet earth and a hint of caramel Palate deep rich minty milk chocolate nougat dusted with cinnamon Finish of oaky spiced chocolate and a touch of lemon drop medium to long The color is like dark maple syrup, just a fantastic pour

Burnt marshmallow leather and tobacco. Ok but won’t be a regular on my playlist

Rating: 17/23 I've heard amazing things about Garrison Brothers Balmorhea. The medal on its neck even boasts that the 2019 release named Jim Murray's American micro whisky of the year and the 2020 was named the same and also won double gold at the San Francisco World Spirits Competition. I bought this Bottle over a year ago and have been waiting for the right time to open it to find out what all of the fuss it about. My 1200th Distiller tasting seems like about as good of an excuse as anything, so here goes. N: Rich and full. I've heard this described as dessert in a bottle though and I'm not getting that. It's very oak, with sort of a more bitter and oily version of that classic Garrison Brothers sawdust, like there was a little motor oil in the mix this time. There's a little chocolate as I dig in deeper and maybe a touch of orange zest. Something here is a bit tart. Maybe a bit of black licorice with a little salt. That's about all I'm getting though. There isn't much of the sweetness I'd expected here. P: Very rich with some hedonistic fullness to it. Polished wood and leather mingle. There's some tartness that isn't quite orange oil making me think of sour mash, which is confusing because this is a sweet mash. There's some definite cinnamon with black pepper going on. A light touch of ginger and allspice. It starts with hints of maple, chocolate, and molasses, but those quickly fade into the more bitters and austere flavors. I like leather and polished wood, but I really did want those sweet flavors to play a starring role. The tannins are fairly prominent, but overly aggressive. There's some vanilla in here, but not a whole lot. Actually, that might be a bit palate-dependent. Don't discount the vanilla too much. I'm going back and forth as to whether I wish there were more or whether I'm glad a floral vanilla isn't making this taste lighter. This is a hard one to pick apart. It toes the line between delightfully aged with decadent wood and just plain over-oaked. There's enough going on here that I won't call it flat, but it isn't all that complex and there's a bitter character to the wood that's a bit like over-steeped tea. F: The over-steeped tea tannins continue with the spices and occasional wafts of vanilla and chocolate. Long in the finish though, the over-steeped tea turns back into something more like leather and a little polished wood though, so that's a relief. - Conclusion - If I seem down on this whiskey, it's not because it's bad: it's because it's been (a) hyped through the roof and (b) often described as having a profile that is quite different from what I'm experiencing. There's just enough sweetness here for me to find this intriguing and not just say it's over-oaked. That's a big deal. For me, that is the difference between my cask strength bottle of Garrison Brothers Single Barrel (needs re-review) tasting kind of like over-oaked sawdust a la Kings County Straight Bourbon and Kings County Barrel Strength Straight Bourbon (both 13/23) and tasting like sawdust with chocolate. Side by side, my bottle of Gearge Dickel 15 Single Barrel (15/23) tastes more over-oaked than this does - but not by as much as it usually does in comparison with other bourbons. This actually brings out character in the George Dickel that I don't usually notice. While this is certainly the better dram, the margin isn't as large as I had expected it to be. Similarly, although this is also the fuller dram, it isn't the 9.4% ABV fuller that I expected considering that this is a Texas bourbon and Dickel usually tastes a bit lower proof than it is because of that vitamin flavor. It's worth calling out here that although the spice is fairly present and the proof is highish, this is absolutely not harsh. My bottle of Garrison Brothers Single Barrel (cask strength) is noticeably harsher than this and I don't think that it's particularly harsh. The obvious next comparison is my bottle of Resilient 15 (18/23), which is just a good 15 year Dickel pick. This is still the fuller of the two, but it's also the more tannic. The Resilient is sweeter. That said, the leather and polished wood here are pretty nice. Actually, I think there is more sweetness in this, but it's fighting against an awful lot of wood. So for the obvious comparison now: Garrison Brothers Single Barrel bottled at cask strength. The Single Barrel is much lighter and less full. It's sweeter, but in sort of a plain sugary sense. Barely even light caramel, if at all. There's a lot more minerality to it. I'm actually blown away by how much more flavor this packs and how much fuller its mouthfeel is - even though this is lower proof. Side by side, this is the clear winner with its much greater richness and fullness. That said, this is quite a way into the tasting, so my opinion may differ on a fresh palate. Joseph Magnus (21/23) isn't as full as this is, but it's just as rich and so much more elegant, sophisticated, and complex. Joseph Magnus really nails the leather flavor in a way that this doesn't (though this does go more for polished wood). The big problem here is that this just hits so much harder with its tannins. Putting these two side by side, I would say that this seems over-oaked. Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof (21/23) is much sweeter than this and crushes it with its dessert decadence. I kind of thought that this would be in the Jack Daniels's sweetness zone, but it's far away. This isn't as hot as the Jack Daniel's, though it is also 8% lower proof. This really tastes like it's been trying to find its way and has had some mishaps. At $145, I could almost buy a bottle of Glenfarclas 25 instead of this. Or I could just barely buy a bottle of Joseph Magnus and a bottle of Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof. Although I do enjoy this, the value certainly isn't present here. Unfortunately, I continue to like Garrison Brothers products, but find them to cost about double what they're worth. Although there's a lot I like here, I do come away from this with the impression that given $145 to work with, I could blend and rapid-age a bottle better than this. So I have a 15 that I am confident this is better than and a couple of 21s that I really think this can't compare with. That gap seems big enough to push this down below a 20. So it's a 16 to 19. I'm waffling between a 17 and 18, but leaning toward the 17. Pulling out Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18-19/23), it seems surprisingly smooth and its alcohol bite is hidden in the midst of all this mess of high-power bourbons battling. This doesn't seem that far off from it though. This is certainly more tannic, but it also has less of an alcohol bit. It's a conundrum to choose between them, for sure. 1792 Full Proof (a low 19/23) is much more dessert-like than this is. Booker's Shiny Barrel (19/23) may be more complex, but it tastes lighter with more of a youthful alcohol bite. Russell's Reserve Single Barrel (probably not as high as a 21/23) is a great example of something that may not be quite as full, but is more complex and balanced, and at least as mature. Now, I won't be shocked if I acquire a taste for this over the course of the bottle, but for now I'm just not that impressed. OK, at the point that I've numbed my tongue from a tremendous amount of tannins and alcohol from a large number of sips from several bold bourbons, I do taste the candy sweetness coming out here. It's not purely decadent, but it's really nice! At the same time though, this makes me think of trying pretty much any bourbon after trying Ry3: it had a decadent flavor that I wanted to try more of, but that was only in the context of a massively wasted palate. And it's probably actually worse here. For funsies, a last side by side with Corasair Hydra (20/23). Oh my lord! The Corsair absolutely wrecks this! It pains me to say this, but I've tried spirits in the 20 and 21 range and found that this was far away from them. The ones I tried in the lower ranges didn't seem so far away. If I had to pick now, I'd be giving this a 17. I'm not panning this, no matter what I give it, but a premium spirit really should be better than this. George Dickel Bottled In Bond (16/23) is not too far from this in terms of richness or fullness. As an overall experience, the two are close. This certainly beats my bottle of George Dickel Single Barrel 15 (15/23), but I'd already concluded that this wasn't a 15. I'm now in the unfortunate position of considering a 16 for this again. I thought I was going with a 17 or 18. Wild Turkey Rare Breed 116.8 (18-19/23) show more alcohol and is less full, but it's still quite rich and it has some enjoyable nuance. It's that lighter Wild Turkey character, but it also has some substantial maturity and some nicely balanced flavors - once you get past that alcohol bite. This just doesn't have the same nuance, though it is fuller. I can see this being an 18 though. Old Forester 1920 (18/23) definitely has more burn than this does. Its banana sweetness is nice, but it comes across as younger and harsher. It has more spices and a bit more distinct flavor, but honestly not by a lot. I thought that the dessert side of the Old Forester would blow definitively beat this, sort of how 1792 Full Proof did, but this is actually a bit close. I can see this being an 18 now. This really accentuates the peanut and medicinal flavors of Booker's Shiny Barrel (19/23). The Booker's still seems a bit rough around the edges, but it's more interesting. The complexity here isn't on the same level, but the Booker's isn't totally crushing this. After all of this contemplation, the only reasonable conclusion is that this is a 17. Such bitter disappointment for such a lauded dram - both figuratively, and actually in terms of the palate. Garrison Brothers has a lot of potential, but this is definitely over-oaked. So if you burn your tastebuds off, you might find that the excessive oak disappears, leaving the richness with some sweetness and dark chocolate and so forth. That's a real experience that is enjoyable and I can appreciate, but it isn't what I'd consider to be representative. I might give this an 18 on a subsequent tasting, but right now I acknowledge the flaws I've experienced and am sticking with a 17. A little bit of peanut even comes out in the Wild Turkey Rare Breed when tried side by side, so that isn't a good sign for the hedonism of this dram. I can see a low 18 here, but that's probably as high as I would go. 1792 Full Proof (19/23) is still definitely better than this. I've agonized about this one for a long time and at this point I have to conclude that this isn't quite an 18. There's a lot to like here and it's a great one to pull out when looking for a super woody profile, but it is still a bit over-oaked. Most unfortunate. A 17 it is. I'll cross my fingers and hope that time and air improve this. On a tired palate though, this really does start tasting a lot better. That's a good thing to keep in mind for deciding when to pour this. The bold flavors, smoothness, and underwhelming complexity really do make this work well as a dram for the end of the evening.