BDanner
Larceny Barrel Proof Bourbon Batch B520
Bourbon — Kentucky, USA
Reviewed
June 17, 2020 (edited June 20, 2022)
LARCENY BP B520
*NOSE: Pours into the Glencairn a nice dark mahogany color. Maple. Caramel Praline Peanuts. Dusty Oak. Dry Toast. Hay. Just a Hint of Orange Peel. A little bit of Stinging Heat.
*NEAT: I find that standard Larceny drinks hotter than its proof. I wouldn't go so far as to say this drinks hotter than its proof, but it drinks every point of its 122.2. Thick and Clingy Mouthfeel. I get that "Larceny Vegetal Sweet Potato Note" I always get. Brown Sugar. Cinnamon. Dry Roast Peanuts. Much too Astringent Oak. A rather long finish with a nice KY Hug. An Iced Tea Sweetness coats the palate along with some Bitter Tannins.
*SPLASH: Brings the Vegetal Note to the nose and amps up the Peanut on the palate. I do think this will do well with a large cube of ice or paired with some Angustoras for an Old Fashioned.
*VERDICT: This has some faults (overly hot/overly tannic) but is overall a decent Bourbon. My issue here is that I don't care for it any more or any less than the standard offering, whereas I find Maker's Mark Cask Strength, WT Rare Breed, ECBP, Booker's, etc. to all be significant upgrades to their proofed down siblings. For a Cask Strength Wheated Bourbon, I'll take the MMCS for the same $50 over this one every time.
50.0
USD
per
Bottle
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
Not a fan of regular Larceny, but I've heard some suggestions that the barrel proof might change my mind. Sounds like it really won't, so thanks for saving me $50!
I bought s bottle of Larceny a long while back and enjoyed it well enough... but I did some side by sides with other wheaters that blew my eyes wide open. I don’t think it’s in the same class as most of the other standard offerings (MM, WSR, etc). Much more tannic and vegetal. Not a drain pour, just “different”. I don’t think I’d enjoy the cask strength version any better. Thanks for the review.
well standard Larceny is about half the price, so your point that it's not "twice as good" is well taken!
@BDanner No you didn't, my opinion of it has declined since I first opened it.
@Zachary-Robbins I was kicking myself (lightly) for passing on the first batch. Don’t think I missed much.
Looks like the second version of this disappoints again.