We're back with batch 264, now a 230 dollar retail bottle. But available...I guess that's something. So, we last left cigar blend after being well...disappointed with batch 110 but Nancy told us she had a plan to work with her now a bit younger bourbon stock and get it back up to the old legends. Let’s see if it worked. Warning - gonna be a long long long comp. Batch 264 - The first nosing brings out a rich amount of leather and oak, sun baked in those armagnac casks. Light winter green notes from a rich high rye spice are coming off. A slight alcohol and battery note. Almost reminds me of a slightly fermented fruit with that. Not off putting here btw. Just a bit different. Really nice rich woods and leathers, nice vanilla complement as well. Red berries with hints of slight orange citrus sneaks in. My initial thoughts are it's a great nosing experience but not as rich and old world as I remember better batches. Taste - It's hard to even dig into one flavor note at first. The size of this whisky is unmistakable. It's a huge flavor punch that coats the mouth. Absolutely a show piece. Arrives light and fruity with strong vanilla notes, reminds me of older bourbons. Turns more citrus and slightly towards sour fruits in the middle and leaves a long-lasting tobacco and smoked oak finish. The overall impression, however, is rich wood soaked almost giving me dark rum with vanilla creamer over oak notes. With tobacco on the back end. I think with this batch the youngest bourbons have perhaps gone up to 9ish vs perhaps having some slightly younger bourbon in batch 110. Either way this comes off a bit more aged while also giving off more finishing. Perhaps wetter casks were used to finish or an ever so slightly longer time finishing to give it more richness? I'm not sure this is the legendary stuff of the past, but it's absolutely outstanding. If you know my scoring, I score to a 4.0 scale with the last point for exceptional whiskies that somewhat defy the status quo. I'm giving this an outstanding 3.75 and debating a 4.0. Cigar blend is back...but maybe not legendary. OK so to compare we have batch 28, 42, 110. You can tell these are all the same family right away nosing them. 110 comes off instantly as the thinnest with more sweetness up front and less oak and spice on the back end. Very much gives me young MGP notes on the back end while giving me that nice richer more complex whisky up front. 42 might be the most aromatic of the bunch. It gives off a huge rich wallop of sweetness up front with heavy oak and leather on the back end. 28 is stately with a very rich oak and well...hell it get a huge rich cigar back bone to it. Pair with a cigar? It is the cigar! Comparatively it's also given a light bit of walnut notes as well. Moving to the 264, my feeling of more finishing on the 264 seems confirmed in terms of experience as the finished notes really stand out here. The vanilla really jumps out too. It's almost dessert in this comparison. Taste - I was really hoping time in the bottle was doing wonders for 110 but sadly not. It's a touch sharp up front. It just doesn't have that refinement. It's not bad. The finish is also lacking, it's not that you don't have a long finish. It's just not very good. Batch 42, just like the nose, jumps out of the glass. Oh god this is good. And the finish...what a flavor bomb. And yet, the approach is softer and silky compared to 110. It's refined, aged, mature, and still a sleeping giant when the abv sneaks up on the finish. This is how I love my whisk(e)y! Ok 28, is stately and mature like 42 upfront with less sweetness, more a drying feeling. And that carries through to the finish. Dried figs and leaves. Fall day and a dried-out bomber jacket in a barn full of tobacco leaves. I'm remembering moments at my buddy’s farm growing up. Is 28 better than 42? Maybe? But 28 is my happy place right now. The hardest part of this comparison is just how long the finish on 42 and 28 are. You've forgotten the last pour to compare by the time they finish. OK so back to 264. Oh man...sorry but the youthful notes and that rye note is taking me out of my happy zone. It's funny as I think this is decently aged 36% rye MGP, but it's just young next to those two. The finishing here too fails us. Refined up front, great mouth feel, but it's a huge step back. And going back to 110 it's like I’m drinking alcohol. Conclusion - Cigar blend isn't back to its old self, not even close. That said I think we've made some good progress here. The added finishing notes are giving it a nice sweetness and there seems to be a slight upgrade in age that's giving it a more refined experience up front. I don't think you'll dwell on how much better the old bottles are on this one, without doing like I am and comparing them. Unlike the 110 where you just can't miss the problems. I'm very good with feeling the 28 and 42 are 4-4.25 scores and the new batch is more of a 3.75...I might be debating going 3.5. Either way, very pleased where Cigar Blend is going. Hopefully, with time there will be more old bourbons to be used in these to get things back to where we want them. But until then, whatever black magic Nancy is doing has this whisky very much on profile with the older batches. It's just not built on the same quality ingredients and that's holding it back a bit. I'd also note the 110 and 264 are lower proofs than the older batches. Not sure the driver here, but I thought it was worth noting. Could be age obviously. Oh value...220-240 seems to be where I see these from stores not trying to go secondary. Fair to slightly below fair value imo. I'd buy at this price again, but I'm not excited about it.