Larceny Barrel Proof Bourbon Batch C922

The weight of expectation: I acknowledge often that batch variation is real, but would also appreciate some acknowledgment in return that it doesn’t result in quite as big a variation as people insist upon. The distillers are using the same mash bill, right? Generally, they’re aging their barrels in a similar location, maybe different floors of the Rickhouse, maybe hotter or colder seasons, different barrels but same type of wood? People talk about better and lesser versions of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, and they have a point, there is variation. B523 seems to be scoring higher here than A123, but if you ask my opinion I preferred A123 but it wasn’t by leaps and bounds, and truth be told, if you blinded them both and put them in front of me, I might be able to tell you they’re different whiskies, but I can’t guarantee I’ll always choose A123 over B523. Inconsistency in me? Or reality? I’d like to do the Pepsi/Coke taste test between batches with those insisting, for example, that Larceny C923 is better than B522. Context and timing are also vital in terms of tasting. Just as an example, last Sunday, my dad and I tasted Laphroaig Lore and then Ardbeg BizarreBQ back-to-back, and when I tasted the Ardbeg, I though the palate was similar to Lore in a lot of ways, but then at the tail end of the finish, there was this BURST of chocolate salted caramel that blew my mind! Last night, I poured a taste of the Ardbeg again because I wanted to reexperience it, and it was gone. The finish tasted charred, a lot like the Lagavulin Offerman 11 Charred cask, and it was a good taste, but the dark chocolate salted caramel was gone? So, yeah, I was excited today when my online order of Larceny C922 arrived and it was C922. You see, in our State Stores here, you can order Larceny online, but you can’t order a particular batch. What you get is what you get. So I have a handful of bottles of A122 and B522 and one bottle of C921 and now two bottles of C922, and they’re all good. I like A122 better than B522, though the audience score here is also reversed on that one and would tell me B522 is better than A122. Now C922 was a big one because that got Whisky of Year last year from Breaking Bourbon, and there’s a lot of love online for this one. But then, of course, Drinkhacker gave this one a B+ while they gave other version of LCBP an A or an A-. Now we all know that taste is subjective, and we’re all aware that certain people have better senses of taste and smell than others, just as some of us have a great sense of hearing or sight. In any case, I was excited to open Breaking Bourbon’s 2022 Whisky of the Year, and you know what it tastes like? It tasted like a Larceny Barrel Proof. Which is to say it’s a way above average wheated barrel proof bourbon that is a great deal at $65 which is where the price now stands after it went up from $50 where it was a steal. The nose reminds me of, guess what? Other Larceny Barrel Proof batches, which is to say, there’s oak and vanilla and tobacco and caramel and cherries. The palate is lovely, like other Larceny Barrel Proof batches, which is to say it’s got dark chocolate, cocoa powder, vanilla, toffee, and black cherries, with a finish reminiscent of, guess what? Larceny Barrel Proof. Long, spicy, dark fruit, chocolate. In my review of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B523, I pointed out that I just can’ t get excited, having reviewed other variations, to review just another variation. Even if I’m tasting them next to each other, there might be the slightest of differences, but it’s not pronounced enough for me to jump for joy and feel like I have to tell the world that, Crickey’s they’ve done it, they’ve finally cracked the code. If you see a bottle of Larceny Barrel Proof and you’ve liked other Barrel Proof or Cask Strength Wheated Bourbons, and it’s reasonably priced, which is to say $65 or maybe $70, then by all means buy it! If it’s more expensive, I’d hesitate because there are better things out there when the price goes up. But if you’re splitting hairs about batches, well, maybe you’re one of those whisky sommeliers who can really tell the difference and found a certain vegetal note in a particular batch off-putting, or maybe you’re just buying into the hype that there’s really that much difference in quality between them, but if I’m being honest, the quality is pretty consistent across the board. I’m glad I bought this, and I’m excited to try it with the Breaking Bourbon notes in front of me to see if I experience what they experience, but if I’d received another batch, it wouldn’t make much difference to me. Splitting hairs about batch variation strikes me more as a marketing ploy than anything else. Then again, maybe I’m just becoming a grizzle tired and cynical old man. Then again, I think that my wife would tell you there’s no maybes about it. This is still great stuff. For most juice of this quality batch variation means the difference between 4.0 and 4.5. I’d put this in the middle of those ratings, but it depends on when you catch me, which particular day.

Deep, rich, caramel color. Runs off the glass quickly, for sure. Nose is big and barrelly. Notes of ripe fruit mingle with the charred oak, vanilla, brown sugar, and some baking spices. Some burnt sugar and malty sweet notes in there, too. Black cherry is what jumps out the glass. Soft on the palate for the proof, its got a backbone of sweetness that sticks in all the way through the middle of the very long finish. This one definitely does not let me down. Its big, complex, and is great with a cube, a few drops of water, or an incredible old fashioned.

A complex, dark pour with notes of cherry, cinnamon, a dry charcoal-like Lincoln county process vibe, earthy, and a dark, almost Amburana wood note. I've cooled off on it since opening, but the complexity keeps it at a high score.