I know we often use Whisky Advocate as a whipping boy here on this site. They do a Top 20. We disagree with their picks, their ratings. We talk about it being a glossy lifestyle magazine, which it is. But I’ve a confession: I subscribe. I like having something to look forward to getting quarterly in the mail. I like the pictures of distilleries and bottles of whisky. I like the page where they have 3 editors picks, 3 budget whiskies, 3 collectibles. I like reading the reviews even if I feel the scores are overblown, inaccurate. Actually, I’ll admit, I peruse it more than I read it, but I think it’s like $25 dollars a year, and I don’t mind paying that for what it is. I like whisky. They’re a magazine that does feature articles on whisky and have reviews in the back. They do a Top 20 and their top 20 is always whiskies that were either new that year or revamped in some way. Their Top 20 is a conversation stimulator. Do you agree? Do you disagree? And they pay attention to price to ensure that their ratings take into account availability and affordability. In short, Whisky Advocate to me is like the pop band you’re supposed to pretend to dislike if you’re one of the cool kids. No, no, no. I much prefer indie rock. But secretly, you don’t mind when they play it at a club, it’s got a grove, you can dance to it, might be disposable, but goddamn, you enjoy it. Recently, Whisky Advocate did this feature where they asked master distillers at various distilleries what whiskies they constantly have on stock in their own collections, what do they frequently drink when they come home from a hard day. And the results varied, but I believe the most common choice of what they keep in the rotation was Old Forester 100 bourbon. Surprised? This wasn’t just those crafting bourbons. These were scotch makers, Irish master distillers. And they always keep on hand Old Forester 100 bourbon. Now I have to tell you, I found this compelling. I went to Breaking Bourbon where they have a 2019 review that declares this a much improved product over the “old version” which I never had, and says that there isn’t a whole lot that separates this $29 bourbon from OF’s whisky row specialty bourbons which are double the price (and if the 1920 is any indication, a deal at that, though I haven’t had the BiB). I adore Old Forester 100 Rye, and OF 86 was my go-to in the late-aughts (though it didn’t hold up to retasting last year). So, I found the fact that master distillers picked this frequent quite a compelling reason to pick it up. I mean, I didn’t rush out to get it. Used to be it wasn’t even available in my State. But when it got here, after a few months, I bought a bottle and cracked it. And I can see what those distillers are seeing in it. It’s not going to rock your world, but for $29 dollars, the flavor profile is solid. The nose, palate and finish are solid. You don’t feel bad mixing it, but you can drink it straight. So it’s versatile. Will I stock up on it to make sure that when prices start to skyrocket I still have plenty on hand? No. I’d rather do that with the Rye. Because frankly, I prefer ryes to bourbons generally and I think OF’s 100 Rye is worlds better than OF’s 100 Bourbon, but this is damn decent. And you won’t go wrong picking up a bottle of this. As bourbons go, this is less corn, oak and vanilla and more cherry, caramel, berry with a hint of milk chocolate. If I’m being honest, and you love Eagle Rare but can’t find it or it’s overpriced in your neck of the woods, pick this up and I’m not sure in a blind taste test if you’ll notice the difference. That’s why it’s hilarious to me that Eagle Rare has a rating on this site of over 4 while OF 100 has a rating of 3.5 making me think this is either criminally underrated by those of you drinking it, or it had plenty of reviews come in with the pre-2019 upgrade that Breaking Bourbon was talking about. I scroll through reviews here before I write my own and saw one person who said they see no difference between the 86 and the 100, and I think you have to be crazy to say that. I respect we all have different palates, but the 86 is watered down and tepid, somewhat flavorless while this one is much stronger in flavor, mind you the finish isn’t long here, it doesn’t linger, but the flavors on the palate are good enough that for $29, you wasn’t going to be expecting that. I don’t know a whole lot of sub-$30 whiskies that have a long complex finish honestly. So in the end, I do think the aggregate score here for this is accurate at 3.5 (Eagle Rare is likely the most overrated whisky I’ve ever tasted so the 4.0 score strikes me more as hype, expectation and the whisky placebo affect than anything). But that 3.5 needs to take into account that this is just solid through and through. There’s a reason seasoned makers of whisky keep this one on hand. It has to do with the intersection of price and quality and versatility. That’s what you’re getting here.