It’s funny to me how there are certain whiskies where, I open the bottle and nose it and taste it and get excited and have ideas and have to write my review right away while the experience is freshest. Then there are other bottles where I’m in no rush. I don’t really have thoughts other than, ah, that’s good, or oh that sucks, and I have to live with the liquid for a while before an angle on the experience begins to coalesce. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B523 is one of the later types of bottles. Truth be told, part of the delay is not a lack of quality but a lack of excitement about what’s in the bottle. I hear C923 is phenomenal but I haven’t been able to get my hands on a bottle yet. They just got a new shipment of ECBP in at local stores last week and it was another round of B523, so I didn’t buy it. This is one of those where I felt no need to buy a second bottle (as a point of comparison I bought two bottles of A123). You see, despite batch variation being a very real thing, I find little variation within the variation if that makes any sense. Yes, A123 was better than A523. But we’re not talking wide deviations from the norm. I gave A123 a 4.0 and spoiler, I’ll likely give this the same rating despite the fact that it’s not quite as good. Thing is it’s better than most of the whiskies I’ve given a 3.75 here so it has to be a 4.0 even if it’s not quite as good as A123. Maybe A123 deserves a quarter star bump, but from my experience of ECBP, the variation in score is basically between 4.0 and 4.25, with maybe a 4.5 being left to the exceptional batches like I hear C923 is. In short, for some reason, ECBP batches are an event in the way, say, Maker’s Mark Cask Strength batches aren’t, even though there’s similar variation in them. But of course, I don’t want to feel the need to have to review every batch of MMCS because there’s not quite enough variation between the batches for me to say something new every time. And despite ECBP being more of an event, I kind of feel the same: I reviewed one batch, and just because you slap a different letter/number combo on it, well, why should I have to review them every time around when the flavor profiles tend to be pretty similar (mind you, I said “similar” and not “the same”)? So ultimately, this is very good whisky that isn’t particularly exciting. The nose has oak, vanilla and toffee with a bit of cinnamon spice. The palate continues the vanilla and oak mixing in the cherries and baking spice with a long peppery finish that lingers delightfully after the whisky has gone down the throat. The nose was a lot more prominent on the A123 and I was able to differentiate the aromas a bit more clearly but the aromas were similar. The palate here is similar in that there’s the dark fruit mingling with your standard bourbon flavors and the finish again lasts forever. I would say the only thing separating the two in my mind is the nose, which in A123 edges out the B523 nose by a hair, so as I’ve said, probably have to give it the same rating at 4.0. Now for the controversial bit: I’d rather have Larceny BP (which is less aged, but as robust and flavorful and $10 less) or Maker’s CS (which isn't nearly as rounded as this but which I enjoy a great deal still and in my region is a whopping $30 less) as I prefer wheated bourbons. But I’ll take this any day of the week as well. It’s a preference. Not an absolute on this. This was still good enough that I went through the bottle in about 2 months. Maybe it’s just that I’ve never had a truly phenomenal ECBP that I’m just not that excited about writing these up. Oh, and the price jump from $65 to $75 between A123 and B523 in my region hasn’t done this any favors from that perspective.