So, mouthfeel. Word? That's how you're electing to sell this whisky? With the 2020 release, SE4 X PR5, you emphasized the caramel and vanilla inherent in your flavor profile. With the first 2021 special release, FAE 01, you went with the fruit forward flavors you get with Maker's Mark. And with this one, all your press releases lean on how great the....mouthfeel is. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm generally not rushing to buy a whisky because of its mouthfeel. Don't get me wrong, a nice viscosity is an added bonus, it's just...not a selling point. Still, I love Maker's, and with so many special releases in the bourbon world now in the $100+ range, getting a special release for $60 feels....special. So, even though I jest about the fact they're marketing this based on....mouthfeel...I still went out and picked up a bottle of this the first day it was available in my local Wine & Spirits store. After all, I keep seeing disclaimers about supply chain problems, and given there were three stores in my region that got 12 bottles each, I didn't want to miss out. I never got a chance to grab the 2019 release, but I have bottles of the 2020 and the 2021 FAE 01 in my closet that I haven't opened, but plan on getting to at some point. This was the first bottle in a while that I cracked open on the night I got it. With that out of the way, I still can't help thinking that maybe the head of marketing might use a bit more imagination in the future. Not just because of the mouthfeel press release, but because of the HAL 9000 names they're giving to these releases. I'm excited about them, but I might be a bit more excited if they had fun names that didn't sound like robots (I can't imagine I'm the first to comment on this). So, having decided to horde my bottles of 2020 and 2021 FAE 01, what do I think of the FAE 02? Well... It's really good. I mean, I talk a lot about how I generally can't tell what my final verdict is going to be on a bottle of whisky the night I open it, but this is a standout from the word go. The nose is lovely. Aromas of oak and molasses and brown sugar and pine with a hint of tobacco in there. It's definitely got a "drink this while sitting next to a fireplace in the dead of winter" type of nose. Hearty is a word that comes to mind. Robust is another. I often use rich, but this is richer than others. Hearty, I said it before but I'll say it again. I had two glasses over the course of a FaceTime call with a friend in Chicago, and it grew on me. I took a break from the intensity between those two glasses by pouring a less intense and less complex glass of Evan Williams 1783, and you know what the Evan Williams did was help emphasize just how rich and robust and complex and hearty this one is when I came back to it. The palate is also strong in the molasses and brown sugar flavors hinted at on the nose. It's got a very light, very fine sweetness that's not cloying but more of a bitter sweetness like you'd get with high cocoa dark chocolate, and as it lingers on the tongue you get a touch of caramel. Doesn't that sound good? I thought so. And so, given all that, why would you lead with telling us this one emphasizes the mouthfeel? I imagine this is going to sell quickly just by nature of it being a Maker's Mark special release, but I wouldn't be surprised if it moves off the shelves a little slower than its predecessors simply because...mouthfeel. So how, I know you're asking, is the mouthfeel? Well, it's good. I mean, especially when tasting a lesser whisky between glasses, it stands out. The EW 1783, at 90 proof, was watery compared to this (and don't think I'm crapping on the EW, I don't expect it to hold up to MM FAE 02; if it did, I'd buy three bottles of that instead of one of this; I'm just trying to point out how you can often use cheaper bourbons to augment the flavor profiles of higher end ones). The text on the FAE 02 points out how the stave profiles add to the fatty alcohol esters, and other than the fact that Fatty Alcoholic Est(h)ers strikes me as the world's worst name for an all female polka band, I really have no idea what that means other than there was a nice acidic viscosity to the mouthfeel. Or maybe it was a viscous acidity that was pleasant? Or maybe when it comes to mouthfeel I don't know what it is I'm talking about because it's something that's either there or it's not, it's good or it's not, at least in my experience. It's not something I spend a whole lot of my time assessing. Generally, when I'm trying to rank or rate a whisky these days, I ask myself, would I buy this again. But that's becoming a difficult question to answer because my interest these days is in variety. This was $60 a bottle, and it was definitely good enough to buy again. But then, Knob 12 is $60, and I haven't tried that yet and I want to. And Port Charlotte 10 is $70 and I haven't tried that, and I want to. And Alberta Premium Cask Strength is $70, and I haven't tried that, and I want to. So while, theoretically, yes, I would buy this again, my current preference is to try something new rather than dip into the same well twice, even if the water is sweet. And given that this is a special release, by the time I run through all the others I want to try in this price range (Old Overholt 11 Year, Teeling Blackpitts, Redbreast Cask Strength, Paul John Christmas Edition 2021), there won't be any of the FAE 02 left. Of course, by that point they'll have out the 2022 SR15 22 X 98 !Z* and I'm likely to snap that up before some of these others. So yeah, this is a fine whisky, a good whisky, one I'm looking forward to enjoying over the coming months of cold. You gotta have something to hold onto, right?