When the Triple Mash and Bonded versions of Jack Daniels were released earlier this year, I had a passing interest, but there always seemed something in the price range I was more interested in. This happens often. It's inevitable that I'm always interested in more whisky than I have the time to try or money to buy. And like many, I'm assuming, what made me pull the trigger was this appearing as Whisky of the Year on Whisky Advocate's Top 20. Even then, I might not have rushed out to get it, but when I checked the website of the local FW&GS this seemed to be flying off the shelves, so I figured that while supply was still available and before they raise the price $30 like Old Ezra did after appearing on the list (basically guaranteeing that despite the fact I liked it I was never going to buy it again), I'd pick it up. The thing about lists, of course, is they're never definitive, but more a springboard for conversation among enthusiasts. I like the Breaking Bourbon lists as well, but the problem with their list is pretty much nothing they choose is widely available or under $150 dollars. For as much as I might like to get my hands on the Russell's Reserve 13 or the latest Masters Keep, it just doesn't look to be happening anytime soon (not to mention Masters Keep is priced beyond what I'm willing to drop on any whisky). Then there's the Drinkhacker Top 10, which I appreciate much in the same vein: most of the stuff on there is also $150 and up. While I recognize that a magazine like Whisky Advocate has a potential conflict of interest in the fact that much of their advertising revenue comes from the top whisky brands, incentivizing them to have said brands appear on the list, they at least give the impression of fairness in that they’re supposed to be tasting blind, and ultimately, what I appreciate is there are always at least a handful that are widely available as well as affordable. The Jack Daniel’s Bonded here is a perfect example: in my corner of the woods, this is going for $36.99, so it’s certainly not going to break the bank. And until it won the Number 1 spot on that Top 20, you could still lay your hands on it. In fact, after it was announced as Number 1, my county ran out of stock entirely. Three days later, 6 bottles arrived at the store down the street, and the next night, when I decided to pick it up on the way home from my office holiday party, there was only 1 bottle left. The clerk said, “This has been flying off the shelves fast.” And I said, “Yeah, it was given the top spot on a whisky list.” And he said, “That’ll do it.” As for the rating they gave this when they announced it was Number 1: 97. Which, even before I cracked the bottle and tasted it, I thought was likely rather absurd. And now that I’ve tasted it, I hold to that notion. Here’s the thing: this is fine whisky. It’s got a nice aroma of cherries, banana, oak, peanut, and graham cracker. The palate blends the oak with that same fruitiness, and the finish adds a nice sort of cake spice farewell. In short, it’s far better than your standard Jack Daniel’s #7, but not nearly as good as the Single Barrel Barrel Proof I bought last week. Other reviewers here have made much of the fact that it’s 700 mL instead of 750 mL (likely to help sell it in overseas markets) but they’re still charging around $40 for it while other BiBs in the same range are still giving you the 750 mL and a decent pour at the same price (looking at you New Riff). If this were going for $30 (as some sites quote the MSRP), I could see myself purchasing it again, possibly. But I just don’t like it enough for it to be a repeat buy. If I were going to pick up a Jack product again, I’d drop the extra dough and get the Single Barrel Barrel Proof over this. I agree with the Advocate’s write-up that the flavors are well integrated. But it doesn’t result in the vibrant whisky they’re trying to sell me on. And “sell me on” might just be the right way to put it. I wonder, to some extent if, even if they’re tasting these blind, there’s some sense in which, tasting the standard Jack banana notes, people evidenced a preference for this based on wanting to elevate them to No. 1 and please some of their advertisers, but I’m not going too far down that rabbit hole, as I tend to be allergic to conspiracy theories. That said, I tased the WA Top 20 #9 Whisky, Bruichladdich Barley 2013 and it’s phenomenal. Far better than the Jack Bonded, so I’m throwing down that gauntlet that, of the two I’ve tasted, the Barley 2013 should have held the top spot, but that’s sort of the fun of lists, right? You get to disagree. You get to discuss. You get to spend time thinking about what makes a stellar whisky to you. And this Jack isn’t stellar. WA runs a category I like called “Best Value.” In fact, back when my kids were in daycare and I had less to spend, it was the reason I caught onto the magazine. The value picks were often cross referencing price and quality and when I could find them, they were perfect for the place I was in at the time. And the Jack Bonded? It’d make a great "Best Value" pick. It’s just not #1 for the year. They’ve been drinking crazy juice over at that magazine. Still, I've got to admit: I really like the bottle design.