Resilient 15 Year Single Barrel Straight Bourbon

Nose: smells like dickel Palette: see dickel 15.

Compared to the Dickel 15 Single Barrel at 42.2% ABV that I just tasted, the Resilient 15 comes in at 53.5% ABV. The nose starts with a mix of rich butterscotch pudding, chalky fruit flavored vitamins and antique furniture store then dark chocolate Reese’s peanut butter cups followed by fruits of sautéed cinnamon apples, baked pears and tangerine orange that transitions to cloves, spearmint, old leather and polished mahogany with high ethanol burn. The taste is a medium mouthfeel starting moderately sour and bitter with chalky fruit flavored vitamins and freshly lacquered wood then dark chocolate covered peanut brittle followed by fruits of pickled jalapeño, baked cinnamon apples, and orange sports drink that transitions to cloves, spearmint and polished mahogany with high ethanol burn. The finish is medium length with dark chocolate covered peanuts, apple streusel, a light chalky orange, cloves, spearmint, leather and polished mahogany. That extra 10.3% on the Resilient has really amplified those traditional bourbon notes on the nose and taste with a richer mouthfeel but still has that moderate sour and bitter start along with some new spicy flavors that I didn't find in the lower proof version with a longer finish of those fruits, nuts and spices. A regular Dickel 15 will run you around $60+ and the Resilient appears to run $80+, but for the extra money this gets you pretty close to a Barrell 15 product. You could almost call these a poor man's Barrell 15 and I think this bottle of Resilient is actually better than Barrell's 2021 15 release. Thanks @ContemplativeFox for sharing this tasty treat.

If I could give this a fuckin 0 I would. Tastes like Band-Aids and iodine

Rating: 18/23 Barrel #124. I tried a 14 year version of this from an unknown batch and thought it was quite good, but not worth the money at the time. I don't think that this was cheaper, so I guess I decided it was worth it after all. Resilient posts tasting notes for each barrel on their website, so I'll check those out after tasting this to see how my experience compares. Disappointingly, this is one of the 107 proof batches rather than one of the higher proof cask strength ones, but that's a high enough proof that there shouldn't be a problem. N: Immediately there's this big dusty mustiness from the barrel with a toastiness turning into peant shells with a bit of peanut as well. That Dickel vitamin flavor is clearly present as well. I'd forgotten where this was sourced from, but it is in fact Dickel, so that makes a lot of sense. I've only ever tried the first release of the Bottled In Bond from the Dickel line before, but this reminds me a lot of that, so I presume it's delivering a pretty typical Dickel profile. The other bourbon that this nose reminds me of is I.W. Harper 15, which has that characteristic dustiness without a robust kick. Giving this a few minutes to open up, that big dusty profile fades a bit and I get some apple coming in. Something that is clearly grainy rather than dusty shows up in the background, but I struggle to pick out the details. Swirling it, I get a bit of milk chocolate and then some vanilla finally starts coming out. There's just a little bit of buttery caramel, which combines with the dust and grain to remind me a bit of stroopwafels. My overall impression is that this is an old, balanced bourbon. It probably isn't the fullest out there given that it has that Dickel vitamin nose and it probably isn't the most complex given that it doesn't have a big funkiness, but it seems mature, balanced, and approachable. Side by side with Dickel Bottled In Bond, this has a bit more sharpness and tartness (though it really doesn't have much) while the Dickel comes across as fuller P: Apples hit me first. They're sweet and then some tartness comes in, along with some skin bitterness. Despite the apples though, this is not a fruity bourbon; there is not much that could be construed as cherry or orange here. A thick coating of dust from the barrel settles over, bringing in some spices (mainly clove and sweet, non-confrontational cinnamon). There's definitely vanilla in here too. The wood is delightfully mellow, but still very present, providing a nice rich foundation that mixes with occasional, faint notes of dried corn. I think I might be getting a hint of that milk chocolate I smelled on the nose. There's something a little nutty here, like pecan with some peanut. Find hints of lightly coated caramel popcorn. There's some substantial depth here, but it does require some digging. Dickel Bottled In Bond doesn't have nearly the same dustiness that this has, which I consider to be the prime selling point here. As a result, the Dickel actually tastes like it's missing a layer that is present here. I.W. Harper 15 is lighter and tarter with more of a spicy edge than this has. I was worried that this might have that same dissatisfying lightness and blah that I.W. Harper 15 has, but this is substantially better. Side by side, the I.W. Harper 15 actually has a bit of a soapy taste. F: The fruit fades and - in a surprising twist - so does much of the bitterness (including the clove). That decadent barrel backbone with sweet dust sprinkled with cinnamon is most of what remains here. The peanut shells and peanut from the nose really start coming out more here too. - Conclusion - I was going to write "I haven't had many bourbons this old before", but I realized in starting that sentence that the only other bourbon I've had that was entirely made from 15+ year old whiskey is I.W. Harper 15. And that was probably younger since this was aged for 15 years and 11 months. So I'm no expert on old bourbons. I feel like I.W. Harper kept aging with a sub-par spirit and/or sub-par barrels until it kind of worked. And props to them: I.W. Harper 15 is good. This is a much better bourbon though. George Dickel Bottled In Bond is certainly a better comparison. I kind of prefer the added maturity here though. That dustiness makes me think a bit of Garrison Brothers in how they execute a really nice, sweet dustiness. This is more complex and mature than my single barrel cask strength bottle of Garrison Brothers, but it's also possibly less sweet and decadent. And those Dickel vitamins do stick around, which I generally am not a fan of. What I really like here is that rare level of maturity that I can taste, without this being over-oaked. The flavors maintain plenty of distinction and sweetness, despite the age. Based on the comparisons I've made, I don't see this going below a 16, and it's probably higher. I think a 17 or 18 is most likely, but I can imagine a 19. Beyond that, I think there are enough flaws holding this back that I'm skeptical. Even if I come down on a 17 here, I would actually pay more for this than I would for most 17s because it's a different style of bourbon. Usually they're young and fruity, so it's nice to have a change of pace. This compares favorably against the likes of Russell's Reserve Single Barrel and Wild Turkey Rare Breed 116.8. It's not necessarily beating them, but it exists in the same ballpark. Elijah Craig B520, on the other hand, is decidedly better than this. Similarly, putting this side by side with Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof, I don't feel like this is the winner, though the difference isn't as stark. Based on all of that, I'm looking in the 17 to 20 range. I think I'm going to give this an 18 right now. I'm not totally blown away by it, but I really enjoy the mature character here - and it's also a really good bourbon.

Great!

Bad aftertaste. Smells like dirty socks.

Love this! So much rich caramel all throughout