Rating: 19/23 N: I smell the proof, but not raw alcohol. I get substantial, toasty wood, but it doesn't seem over-oaked or one-dimensional. Barrel spices leap out. Lots of sweet peanuts, alongside a bit of sweet corn. The faintest orange note. Sort of a dry, tart cherry note leading into a little bit of slightly bitter, ever so faintly grassy herbs. The age is clearly there, the balance is terrific, and the scents are all very rounded with substantial nuance, but I wouldn't say that this is super complex on the nose. P: Sweet with bold wood. Plenty of barrel spices. Not as viscous of a mouthfeel as I'd expected. The proof does stand out. As I swish it, some herbs and peanut come out. A lot less peanut than I'd expected, but still plenty. There's a bit of a bitter layer that surprises me. The wood is a bit dry and just a bit over-oaked, taking a peanut shell character and pushing it a bit too far. A dry sort of pure barrel spice character comes out at times, turning into heavy minerals like the residue from hard water - or a heavier version of Dickel vitamin funk. There are some apple flavors here, but I'm really not getting the orange and cherry from the nose. OK, maybe a touch of floral cherry at points, but just the faintest amount. F: Dry, bitter wood. A little lingering sweetness. Definitely the barrel spices. This part of the experience is unfortunately forgettable. - Conclusion - My initial thought is that this is about on the same level as Resilient 15 Barrel #124 (18/23). It's quite enjoyable, but it's certainly not blowing me away. I do like the sweetness here better, but overall I really do get a similar Dickel profile from this. This is likewise pretty competitive with Booker's Shiny Barrel (19/23). I do like the smoothness and mellow maturity of this, but it's also not as full. I'd also put this around the same level as Old Forester 1920 (18/23), though the styles are certainly very different. I appreciate that the Old Forester is genuinely sweet and kind of decadent, whereas this has some nice sweetness, but it's partially obscured by a bitter layer and then there's the minerality keeping this from being big, bold, and decadent. The nuance here is quite nice though, with the spices in particular showing off a refined elegance at times. I'm mostly including this one as a sanity check, but this does indeed beat Uncle Nearest 1864 (15/23, though I'm thinking that it might really be more like a 16-17). As a second sanity check, there is no question that this is better than I.W. Harper 15 (14/23). On the other end, Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof (21/23) continues to crush the competition. Maybe this could reach a 20, but a 21 would be a very tough sell. After all of this, I'm thinking that this must be either an 18 or a 19. I love all of the mature nuance here, but then there's that over-oaked layer and the vitamin minerality just isn't really doing it for me. And at this proof, I really do want a fuller, more viscous palate. This is great, but it seems a lot like an especially good 15 year Dickel barrel pick. The problem with that is the price. This is better than my bottle of Resilient, but not by a lot and I've always been under the impression that barrel #124 of Resilient was of middling quality (or perhaps slightly lower). Considering how open Resilient is about their releases, I have to imagine that it's possible to find a just-as-good bottle of Resilient for half the price of this (or a not-quite-as-good bottle for a third of the price, in my case). I've very much enjoyed trying this, but I just don't get what all of the fuss is about it. I don't think I can give this a 20, but a 19 is definitely possible. It's either an 18 or a 19. My inclination is to go with a 19, but not a high 19. Thank you, @pkingmartin, for sharing this!