Kings County Barrel Strength Straight Bourbon

Seelbachs select. High proof, but that doesn’t come through. Cough syrup and licorice on the pallet, but it changes with the more water you add to reveal graham cracker and peanut, coriander, cherry, long finish that is not too sweet. Well done for such a high proof.

Even though this packs a whallop on the abv scale, it’s a delight to drink. Very complex with all the vanilla, butterscotch, and caramel flavors of the finest wheated whiskeys. Take it slow, enjoy it, make it last.

Big, deep, dark, rich, drinks even higher than the proof, but overwhelms rather overpowers. Finish for days. A triumph.

The nose starts with a rich fresh baked chocolate pecan pie with a slightly burnt pie crust followed by fresh cut oranges and cherry chutney that transitions to barrel spices of cloves, nutmeg, leather and gold medal flour with high ethanol burn. The taste is a rich mouthfeel starting with that rich pecan pie, then orange and cherry fruit that is quickly disrupted with a high tannic bitterness with a mix of raw flour, black tea and wet log that encompasses the rest of the dram with high ethanol burn that finishes medium length with 100 percent bitter dark chocolate, burnt pie crust and cherry flavored NyQuil. This seemed promising at first with that rich nose and similar profile of a whiskey baked by the Texas sun, but the taste is just a slight glimpse of those flavors before the highly tannic flavors overpower the rest of the dram. These appear to be selling for $100 which is an easy pass and a side by side comparison with a Jack Daniels Barrel Proof Single Barrel revealed that the Jack is a far superior whiskey at just $70 that brings a rich barrel proof experience with a balance of flavors that doesn’t veer towards a high tannic bitterness. Huge thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the sample.

Nose: caramel Palate: char, chocolate fudge, cinnamon. Chewy mouthfeel Finish: moderately long, more char and chocolate Smooth given the proof, not super complex but still pretty good.

Rating: 13/23 I've just tried another barrel strength offering from Kings County, so it will be interesting to see the extent to which this one differs. That one was 3 years old, whereas this one is of unknown age. That one was also from a single barrel, whereas (despite the highly specific proof) I presume this one is not. N: The nose is rich, but more mellow and layered in a gradient than in the other Kings County bourbons I've tried. It goes from wood to chocolate to caramel to sweet corn. It's quite a nice balance. I do get a hint of some mild baking spices in here too. Of the three Kings County bourbons I've tried, the nose here reminds me the most of Garrison Brothers. P: OK, this palate is harsher and less rich than the nose suggested. A bit of a disappointment right there. It's quite woody with lots of sawdust and over-steeped teabag tannins. There's a little corn here and there and a big burn. It's not just harshness causing the burn, so that's good, but the burn is a lot larger than I was hoping for. I get a little bit of baking spice here and there, but it's small comfort. The palate is largely burn and sawdust. There is some dark chocolate in places, but it isn't enough to make up for the flaws. F: The finish does bring out more dark chocolate. The teabags become even more steeps, but the tannins do drop away a bit. - Conclusion - I had high hopes for this based on the nose, but the palate just did not deliver. The Drammers Club clearly picked one of the better Kings County barrels. This is more of what I'd expected of a barrel proof offering after trying the regular one. This is most certainly not a 15. I was kind of hoping that it would be a 14, but I'm not even sure it's that either. This might just be the same 13 that the watered down one was. Or maybe it's even lower? The moment it hits my mouth, the richness is much nicer than anything from the watered down version. Then it starts to burn and show the alcohol flavor though. I think that this is definitely in the 12 to 14 range, with 13 to 14 being most likely. OK, so I watered this down to around 45% to compare with the other one and I find that the two are similarly smooth, but this one is richer while the other is sweeter. It isn't a big difference, but there it is. If anything, I prefer this one slightly at the lower proof, so this can't be a 12. There are a lot more tannins in this now though (but also more chocolate) and tasting it I immediately feel that the lower proof is an improvement. Considering that, I'm going with a 13 for this.