Milliardo
Joseph Magnus Triple Cask Finished Bourbon
Bourbon — Indiana (Finished and Bottled in Washington DC), USA
Reviewed
May 13, 2019 (edited February 10, 2020)
This is in the sherry-finish division of my finished bourbon bracket. It was Joseph Magnus vs Noble Oak, winner to go against Wild Turkey Revival. In a blind taste test, Joseph Magnus won. As always... this is for science.
Blind was kind of impossible. Although price doesn’t always mean better, $90 vs $30 was meaningful here. I wasn’t fooled for a second.
Nose contains sugar and caramel. Reminds me a lot of barrel strength bourbons. Body is where the sherry influence kicks in. There’s a bit of sugar and leather in there, and the feel is overwhelmingly dry. On the finish, raisin and cinnamon carry off with very low heat. The dryness from the sherry truncates the flavors noticeably.
On value: wouldn’t buy again. It’s good, it’s a fun experience, and it’s very full of flavor. Just not a repeat buy.
UPDATE: Joseph Magnus lost to WT Revival in a blind taste test. WT now to go against the winner of the port wine finish bracket, TBD. This versus was ridiculously close. I actually preferred the body of this guy to the Revival. At the end of the day, my choice came down to smoothness, and Wild Turkey won big there. Joseph Magnus seems dominated by sherry, where Wild Turkey Revival, by comparison, seems merely influenced by it. To me, that makes the Joseph Magnus a good drink, and the Revival a great one.
90.0
USD
per
Bottle
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@Milliardo thanks that helps a lot! I'll keep an eye out for more of your reviews, cheers!
@Fettness I agree that smooth can be a bit of a wishy-washy term. Is this review, smoothness of the WT Revival was an easiness to drink, when compared to the bold flavors of the JM, much in the same way I’d argue that a Guinness is smoother than a milk stout (but also less bold in flavor). In this case, to me smoothness also meant the flavors working together and complimenting each other rather than fighting against each other. The sherry influence in JM was intense enough to detract from the experience for me, while not so in WT Revival. But both were enjoyable!
@1901 I agree, but when the definining characteristic is smooth I think it needs to be explained. Is it a lack of burn or what? I am fine with using smooth just would like it defined for this user as it differs from person to person.
Nice review @Milliardo @Fettness Smoothness can be a hard term to describe. But so are other subjective terms such as round, sharp, robust, warm but they have a currency and use, I think, in trying to relay the experience of drinking a whiskey.
WTF is "smoothness" WT is fantastic and I have no issue with your preference but how am I supposed to translate "smoothness"