I have only really done this once before but I'm going to do this review on memory. The reason is simple...this whisky sells for STUPID amounts and I think there's a value in reviews from people who aren't really influenced by the hype. Nose - So this is where my memory is going to be a bit weak. It was wonderful bourbon and honestly about as good as you'd expect. That classic buffalo trace smooth and gentle oak with wonderful vanilla and caramel and some light cherry elements. Oak was wonderfully in play here. It wasn't deep it wasn't rich and it wasn't amazing, but as good a nose as you'd expect on 101 proof. Taste - my first sip was just wonderful. It was this perfect balance of sweet, well aged, leathers and varnish and lovely lovely aged vanilla with a great balance of oak and sweet. Sadly, two things went horribly wrong. First, the finish got more and more and more bitter and oaky. The first sip it was fine but you already knew something was off. Second, I went in for another sip and I don't get it but every sip of the 1 oz I had got more oaky and more bitter and the sweet notes subsided more and more. I've really never had a bourbon do this. If anything an EC 18 for example does the opposite. The end result was this overly oaked and tannic pour after just a few sips. It wasn't terrible even at it's worst but this went from this wonderful but not WOW bourbon to a really odd and then somewhat off showing. Overall - I like this bourbon and I'd happily buy one for about 100 and I would keep buying it at 100. I would get one at 200 and I might get one at 300. The difference is I'd never buy another one at 200 or 300. I love well aged bourbon, it's a weakness for me and I often get whiskies that I fully know don't compare to equal priced scotches, but I just love aged bourbon and I know the cost to enjoyment level is always out of whack on those. That said this is highly flawed and the 101 proof comes off too low or they did too much filtering, but it's lacking. I'm at a 2.75 for this one. So here's the thing, the first sip was a 3.5 level kind of bourbon, maybe 4.0. But each sip after the oak got bigger and bolder but while I like that generally, it was on the finish and it over powered things. Additionally the mouth feel was just a bit thin even at 101, it's like they overly filtered it. I mean 100 point scale this is like an 82-85 range, and I'd lean to an 84 because I think it does some stuff that's hard to do, but subjectively I might have gone 82 because despite the epic first sip, the more you dig into it the less you like it. It's really good and well above an average whisky which I score at 2.0, not 3.0 as many do here. But it's truly nothing special despite being a rather special thing in that you don't see 17 (actually 18 year if you read into the details) year old buffalo trace that often. At retail I think you should buy this one, but even a hint of secondary and this is a pass, at the REAL secondary this is a joke beyond words. This isn't going to be a bourbon people in 10 years are looking for, unless they collect verticals. No drinker is going to chase this at the secondary prices to drink it. It's not even remotely good enough.