Duel Review - Rhetoric 20 vs 22, neck pour BLIND. So quick background, I did have either the 22 or 23, I think it was the 23...there's an empty bottle around somewhere because I saved it, so I'd remember which. Of course...where I put it? Hell, if I know. OK so I loved that dang whisky so I'm kind excepted. Both bottles bought at "retail" 2020 retail which put these at 174.99...yeah, a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Nose - Whiskey 1 - fruity vanish, cherries, berries, and oh so much oak. Whiskey one is hitting on all those classic ultra-aged bourbon notes with a powerful sweet fruity nose up front and then slowly giving way to aged oak. Overall, we've at a near perfect balance for me where the sweet fruits, chocolates, and that leather vanish dominate and the oak is there to complement but not overpower. Whiskey 2 - While whiskey 1 jumps out of the glass and screams LOOK AT ME, this one is more subtle and subdued. I get very little sweetness, just alcohol notes and oak. Here I get a dusty closet and some peanut or some kinds of nuts. I wouldn't dare dream these two bourbons shared anything in common. Now after some time and swirling and frankly, slowly coating the glass the sweetness is starting to tease its' way out. Now some chocolate is coming, some sweet corn, but still even as the oak fades a touch it's mostly breads and baking notes on the back end where I'm looking for oak and very little up front. Taste - due to the notes doing whiskey 2 first. Whiskey 2 - The first thoughts are buttery oak, tannins, and a LOT of vanilla at the end. Caramel is minimal, fruits aren't showing up, and there's a second kind of vanilla here (one is standard bourbon and the other is almost waxy vanilla creamer). A very odd duck and frankly, not one I'm going back to. Whiskey 1 - Sweeter up front, far more just older bourbon character. It also gives off this alcohol and dryness often that comes from super aged bourbons where it dries you out a bit and gives off that vanish note. So here we get vanilla and caramel with old leather, alcohol soaked oak chips, tannins, and light sweet dark notes. I'm often one of the loudest advocates of my life for OLD bourbon though I fully admit that the ultra-aged stuff can get a bit over the top with oak, those BAD ones. Here I think we're on the wrong side but despite also being a proof snob, I'm crossing my fingers water might just save the day! Nose - Water hasn't done much good or bad to our first bourbon. Perhaps it brought back out the sweetness which has somewhat fading while drinking it. It remains a wonderful bourbon nose. Whiskey 2 feels sweeter and more integrated. It's become a bit creamier, vanilla, and now I'm getting a sweet caramel. Still not getting more than perhaps a touch of a dusty leather that I'd expect with a super aged bourbon. Water opens both whiskies up as well bringing a bit more sweetness and a bit more oak. Balance isn't really found and the finishes on both are vanilla and oak. The opening for whiskey 1 is very good but misses greatness and then it finishes poorly, but the finish is long Oakey and lingers well. Whiskey two is bitter and while it too has a long enough finish, the buttery notes are still here. Ok pick 1 easily here. I am told the 22 is the best of the lot but frankly, if I had to guess, 2 is the older juice. Let’s see Whiskey 1 - 22 year Whiskey 2 - 20 year Welp so much for me guessing age. The 22 year just blows the 20 out of the water. 2 stars for the 22 and 1.5 stars for the 20. These are easy passes despite the 22 having a nose worthy of a 3.75 whisky and an upfront taste worthy of a 3.25.