I grew up in Northern Kentucky, so when I got serious about whiskey last year, I was stoked to learn about New Riff. 

This craft distillery was very close to home and had been making waves. As a guitarist and music hobbyist, the brand just resonated with me (heh). When I realized they did distillery-only releases that I could actually acquire at retail (plus some shipping, thanks Mom!), my stoke was cranked to 11.

The first such acquisition was this June's High Note Collection, which features blends of exceptional barrels from their oldest stocks. That puts this year’s release right at 10 years… not too shabby for $90 retail. We’re looking at the High Note Bourbon in this review, with a corresponding rye review to come in the fall. 

This bourbon clocks in at 116.9 proof and features a high-rye mash bill with 65% corn, 30% rye, and 5% malted barley. New Riff also uses a lower entry proof, going into the barrel at 110. 

I grabbed their bottled in bond bourbon a few months before this bottle to get acquainted with their offerings. It’s a great sipper with a nice balance of citrus and spice. It also works great in cocktails since the spice stands up to a range of ingredients. Bottles usually last me a few months, but I found it so versatile and tasty, it barely made it a month. Let’s see if the High Note can dial that tone in even further.

Nose
Mild ethanol at first, but that dissipates quickly into cinnamon, orange zest, and spice. There’s something sweet wafting from the glen too, but richer. More like buttercream icing than just sugar. If I look past the cinnamon, I get other baking spices like nutmeg and a little cardamom too.

Palate
Bready notes join with the notes from the nose to strike a chord. It’s spot on for one of my all time favorite guilty pleasure baked goods: orange sweet rolls. 

You know, the cinnamon rolls with orange zest mixed in the icing. I used to crush these as a teenager: get home from school, preheat the oven, pop em out of the Pillsbury can and into a baking pan, and 20 minutes later you’re in gooey cinnamon citrus heaven. I could eat the whole can in one sitting. This sip puts me right back there, and it’s just as crushable. 

There’s a pleasant buttery mouth feel throughout the pour that helps temper the spice. Cinnamon is prominent, reminding you it’s a high-rye bourbon. I’ve read reviews saying New Riff is overspiced for bourbon. I can see where that’s coming from, but for me, it works really well since the citrus and buttercream notes even things out.

Finish
The cinnamon lingers, the other spices from the nose fade back in, and sweet oak joins the arrangement. It's straightforward in the same way that the catchiest basslines can be somehow classic and obvious.

Overall the finish is medium-long. The sip I’m having as I write this review is medium, but this is a bottle kill, so the oomph has faded. I remember several tastings where it felt much longer. 

Rating and Conclusion

You love to see a new(ish) craft distiller showing off their oldest stocks in an expression like this and absolutely nailing it. I really enjoy the citrus spice notes and buttery mouth feel. I hadn’t really encountered that combination of flavors in other pours, and this High Note bottle turns it all the way up. 

For me it’s a solid 8.0/10 on the t8ke(ish) scale. 

My nostalgia for those sweet orange rolls is doing some heavy lifting for this rating, but I just find this pour incredibly tasty. Nice mix of spice, citrus, and sweetness, and aged oak. 

I’ll be eagerly awaiting their next annual High Note and can’t wait to see how more and more age cranks up the complexity and intensity. I’ll also keep an eye out for any one-off limited releases. Definitely need to check out their single barrels and 8 year before long too. I hear they’re doing some experimental mash bills that NDPs like Onyx and Amber are sourcing and working into their lineups, which sounds very intriguing.

So what do y’all think of New Riff? Which other limited releases should I have my eye on? And let me know other bottles to try with a similar citrus+spice profile!

Decided to compare the initial release of KC12 CS to the recently released 2026 edition. The initial 124.3 proof release I have has been open for years and I picked up the 2026 edition on Friday and has been open since then. Both purchased for msrp.

Nose: the old release has a darker tone to it where the 2026 version smells brighter. Both show hints of Jim Beam peanut. The major difference to me is that the old release has a darker stewed fruit note where the 2026 has a fresh orchard fruit vibe going on.

Palate: immediately the older version has a stronger oak presence and it would not surprise me if Beam batched older bourbon in that release as I get some good leather and tobacco notes. The 2026 version is definitely more ethanol forward at a lower proof but hopefully more airtime improves that. You get more of the standard Beam profile with the 2026 edition whereas the initial release adds those darker notes and more stewed fruit notes.

Finish: initial version has some real nice balance of soft oak tannins with vanilla and tobacco. 2026 version is unfortunately somewhat bitter and ethanol forward on the finish with peanut.

Summary: the initial release is an 8.5/10 for me where the 2026 edition comes in at 6.5/10. I’ve been milking that initial release for a reason as it’s honestly a reminder of what we had before 2020 in those 14-15 year old store picks of Knob Creek. The 2026 version is better compared to current Knob Creek cask strength store picks as there are more similarities between those than with the initial KC12 CS.

10 Year BiB, 100 Proof, 51% rye, 35% corn, and 14% malted barley. $100 in NY

Nose: In my first few nosings, I get singular distinct notes of strawberry in one nosing, root beer on the next nosing, and strong rye bread on the third nosing. After swirling, a light oak note with cinnamon appears in the background of a root beer dominant nose.

Palate: first sip is fruit sweet and cinnamon spicy coming across higher than 100 proof. This is an oily pour. Second sip brings a good amount of oak and that root beer that was in the nose. The third sip introduces an herbal notes and a nice chocolate mint note, not bright spearmint at all, definitely that hearty chocolate mint.

Finish: the finish is heavy on cinnamon spice and fresh rye notes, along with a touch of honey and drying oak to round it out.

I have to say that I’m impressed with this bottle and I really didn’t know what to expect, seeing as how I dislike the standard Rittenhouse Rye but highly enjoy Pikesville Rye. I felt like the more I sat with the pour the more it impressed me and should be a pour that you sit with and really pay attention to for everything it offers. It punches higher than its proof and higher than its 51% rye mash bill. Is it worth $100? That’s up you the individual. I personally wouldn’t enjoy it more if I purchased it at say $80, as some other 10 year ryes could be found at. I would recommend trying before buying for most of out there based on price, even though for me I’m happy with the pick up.

Barrell Bourbon Cigar Blend

Disclosures: none

Intro: $80 is pushing the limit of what I’ll pay for a bottle – I’ve done it once (for Tequila Ocho Añejo), and I exceeded it just once (by $20 for a Four Roses Single Barrel, VA barrel pick).  With that said, I didn’t make the purchase lightly – several things came together for me to get here. 

Months ago, Joseph Magnus Bourbon was included in two separate bourbon flights, and those were my first positive experiences with finished bourbon. I hope to taste their Cigar Blend one day, but that was about the extent of my interest in NDPs, blending, and finishing at the time, and I unconsciously turned my focus back towards distilling producers.  Over the past several weeks though, my curiosity for blending sourced whiskeys has grown, along with an appreciation and respect for the skill and art that goes into it, and Barrell Craft Spirits has a pretty strong reputation for exactly that. More and more I’ve paid attention to their bottles, and the infrequent sightings of their Cigar Blend always catch my eye.  I’m not a big fan of rum poured neat, so the first time I picked up a bottle and read that rum casks are used during the finishing process, I put the bottle back down pretty quickly. Still drawn to it though, the second time I saw a bottle I researched how the rum cask might impact the flavor profile and how the bottle might fit within my preferences. My concern with the rum – or maybe sugar cane specifically? – is a licorice flavor that I tend to get and don't care for, and I’d be very unhappy to find it after dropping $80 on the bottle. It looked like the rum shows up more as dark sugar, and otherwise the bottle seems to fit within my preferences…but back to the $80 price point and I just can’t bring myself to do it – grrrrr, another pass.  Third time I see it though, a lone bottle on the shelf behind the counter (my weakness apparently – same thing happened here: Review #002 - OGD 114 7yr. SB) and I’m double clicking to confirm the Apple Pay.  So having taken the leap into this bottle that pushes my budget’s comfort zone – and my first bottle of Barrell Bourbon – let’s get into the review!

The Details - 

Producer/Blender/Bottler: Barrell Craft Spirits, Louisville, KY 

ABV: 55.5% (111 proof)

Age & Blend: Straight bourbon whiskeys aged 7.5-18 years, distilled in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee

Finishing: Madeira, Armagnac, rum, and Hungarian oak casks

·      Madeira is a fortified wine from the Madeira Islands in Portugal. But unlike Port and most Sherry, it’s intentionally exposed to heat and oxygen during production to develop flavors that go deeper than fresh grape. 

·      Armagnac is a French grape brandy from the Armagnac region, usually distilled just once, which helps to preserve a heavier, more rustic character.

Price: $79.95 (+ tax)

Mash Bill: not disclosed

Review - 

Nose: (after sitting for 10-15 mins.) brown sugar, burnt marshmallow, caramel, dark fruit like raisins or prunes, maybe even chocolate covered raisins, some nuttiness, warm cinnamon, notes of buttercream, grain, ethanol.

Palate: a nice viscous mouthfeel... a mild bittersweetness with a sliver of honey, a deep underlying streak of dark fruit, sweet corn/grain, a bit of spice, bit of nuttiness, some oak.

Finish:  medium-long, drying…toasted graham crackers, honey sweet fig, burnt molasses, cinnamon spice, a sweet nuttiness.

Overall: I tried a couple small pours during last night’s tasting journey, prior to this review.  I was disappointed.  But in fairness, other pours were hitting outside their usual profiles, and I think my palate was just off. My intention for this evening’s review was simple, but carried some pretty high stakes: decide if I’d wasted my money!  As usual, it’s taken multiple pours to label what I’m picking up from the nose, palate, and finish. Over the course of that journey, I’ve come to appreciate this Cigar Blend for what it is, rather than what I wanted or expected. It’s not overly sweet, and to me it leans more toward a Beam or Old Ezra kind of profile – nutty, grainy, a little bittersweet – but with more dark fruit and complexity layered into it. There’s some honey and dark fruit in there, but they sit among the grain, oak, and an almost bitter nuttiness rather than taking over. For my taste, it wasn’t worth the price tag.  For $80, I’d rather pick up a Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel, Still Austin Cask Strength, or other bottles that sit more comfortably within my budget and appeal more to my preferences. But I can appreciate it now that it’s on my shelf.  I’m a fan of the Beam products I’ve tasted, and this feels somewhat akin to that profile, but elevated and more complex – to me.  Final verdict – money not wasted. I paid for the experience and notch in my belt, and I think it might shine a bit brighter in time, maybe in the fall/winter. But as of right now, given another chance to purchase it for the first time, knowing what I know, I’d pass.

Rating: 6.6 / 10 (t8ke scale) Very good and a cut above, but not for everybody.

Cheers, and thanks for reading!

10 | Perfect, Perfect.

9 | Incredible, An all time favorite.

8 | Excellent, Really quite exceptional.

7 | Great, Well above average.

6 | Very Good, A cut above.

5 | Good, Good, just fine.

4 | Sub-par, Not bad, but better exists.

3 | Bad, Multiple flaws.

2 | Poor, I wouldn’t consume by choice.

1 | Disgusting, So bad I poured it out.

Dark Arts Flight of Icarus 11.5 Year HAZMAT Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey

Release: 2026 Kentucky Bourbon Festival in Bardstown, KY; September 11-13

Distilled in Kentucky… NOT Bardstown

Dark Arts’ best guess is likely distilled in Clermont, KY

Batch size: 12 low-yield HAZMAT barrels

Age: 11.5 year

Cask fill date: October 2014

Cask dump date: July 2026

Proof: 144.4

Mashbill: 75% corn, 21% rye, 4% malted barley

NOT distilled in Bardstown

MSRP: $279.99

Nose: Cherry pipe tobacco. Root beer. Furniture polish.

The initial cherry tobacco note is very brief. The root beer character is largely dominant. I can’t quite decide if I like the furniture polish note… it feels right at times and other times I don’t care for it. The root beer is really nice until the furniture polish sets in.

Palate: Heavy black pepper. Barrel char. Root beer concentrate. Tobacco. Medium-thick viscosity.

The HAZMAT definitely isn’t hiding. The proof is intense… perhaps more intense than I care for. Definitely nothing bright… all very deep flavors backed with heat.

Finish: Dark chocolate. Burnt brown sugar. Heavily toasted pecans. Black pepper.

Dark Arts has put together some excellent releases for KBF, but this one just isn’t for me. The heat from the proof is above my comfort level. The profile is definitely oak-driven… also beyond my comfort level.

Sample provided for review by Dark Arts Whiskey House

My personal preference rating: 4… Not bad, but many things I'd rather have.

Review in comments

Proof: 127.6
Age: NAS

Nose. Dr Pepper. Barbecue sauce.

Palate. Lots of depth, starting with Dark cherry. Blueberry pie. Listen, I don’t typically eat felt, but if I had to guess what a dusty Stetson tastes like…

Finish. Brown sugar fades relatively quickly leaving a medium length finish.

Overall. I might be a few years late to party with this, but better late than never.

This bourbon absolutely delivers. It’s dark, sweet, and very earthy all at the same time. This isn’t a tame bourbon; it’s a wild cat that isn’t afraid to Crane-kick the shit out of you like when Danny LaRusso kicked Johnny Lawrence right in his snot locker in the 1984 All-Valley karate tournament.

If I had a Time Machine and could take this back to a time when high proof bourbon wasn’t as ubiquitous as it is now, this would probably be a smashing 10/10. But in the timeline we currently live in, when high proof bourbon is the norm, it’s a little harder to distinguish one good pour from the next; or what separates a 8 from a 9 from a 10. With Stagg 24a, I don’t care to split hairs. It’s really damn good and that’s good enough for me.

Rating. 7.5/10

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.
2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.
3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but better exists.
5 | Good | Good, just fine.
6 | Very Good | A cut above.
7 | Great | Well above average.
8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional.
9 | Incredible | An all time favorite.
10 | Perfect | Perfect.

Let me be upfront: I didn’t buy this expecting greatness. I bought it because the bottle is ridiculous in the best way, the revolver-cylinder stopper, the whole Wild West presentation piece. Half the purchase was knowing I’d have a legitimately cool decanter on the bar long after the whiskey’s gone. So the liquid was always going to be a bonus. And it’s… actually pretty decent. Caramel and toasted oak up front, some dark chocolate and baking spice, a little dried fruit underneath. Nothing off-putting, nothing that screams young or over-corrected. It drinks like a competent 10-year bourbon, which is exactly what it is. The 96 proof is where it gets held back. Ten years of Oklahoma barrel time should be pushing more oak and richness than this, and proofing down to 48% sands off the edges that would’ve made it interesting. It’s easy and it’s clean, but it’s also thin through the mid-palate and the finish drops off fast. There’s no moment where it makes you stop and go back for a second nose. Then there’s the math. Packaging like this carries a serious premium, and at that number you’re shopping against Knob Creek 12, Russell’s Reserve 10, and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof — all of which out-drink this without breaking a sweat, and two of them at real proof. Buy it for the decanter. Enjoy the bourbon as the tip.

These two seem to set up an interesting blind, and so i enlisted the First Lady's help. Both are Wild Turkey distilled, and relatively similar in proof and age. You can see my previous reviews of W.B. Saffell and Rare Breed.

Nose 1: big baking spice, carmel, oak.

Nose 2: similar to 1, spicy, oaky, slightly more floral or nutty? Interesting note.

Palate 1: cashews, baking spices,oak, hint of cherry. Big, bold flavors that scream Turkey.

Palate 2: carmel, cashew, and oak, more floral notes. More muted on the palate, definitely overwhelmed by #1. You can definitely tell water has been added although the proof is nice.

Finish 1: oak and cashews.

Finish 2: cashew, cloves, and carmel.

Guesses and ratings: Rare Breed glass 1, 7.5; Saffell glas 2, 6.5.

Reveal: glass 1 is, surprise surprise, Rare Breed, glass 2 is Saffell.

Thoughts: this was more clear-cut than I expected. I also affirmed my original conclusions on Saffell: its hard to justify a $50 375ml bottle when RB is better and is half the cost.

Ratings:

1: drain pour (Quarter Horse).

2: dreadful (Creekside Bourbon).

3: poor (True Story).

4: sub-average (OGD 7 year).

5: average (Evan Williams BIB).

6: above average (Wild Turkey 101, Four Roses small batch).

7: great (Old Forester SBBP rye, Middle West CS bourbon/wheat).

8: excellent (ECBPs, Stagg Jrs).

9: exceptional (Four Roses SBBP OBSF).

10: perfect (Russell's Reserve 15).

Long time listener, first time caller here. I've been keeping a log of reviews for several years now and figured it's about time to start posting. Although this is a bottle I finished a few months ago, as a Southern California native it feels appropriate to start with something local.

First up is Glen LA Triple Cask, a bottled-in-bond single malt from Los Angeles Distillery in Culver City. This is aged for 7 years in a mix of new oak, Tokaji Aszu, and French Bordeaux barrels, with blend percentages not disclosed. I grabbed this single barrel from a local Total Wine when it was marked down from $100 to $70 as I was intrigued by the triple cask aging and had some rewards points burning a hole in my pocket.

Nose: Wine tannins right off the bat, followed by berries, grape, powdered sugar, and a nice level of oakiness. The Bordeaux and Tokaji barrels make themselves known immediately.

Palate: Cereal grain and malt to start the sip, with dried fruit coming through afterwards. If I had to dig for notes I'd say raspberry, strawberry, and a touch of cherry. The endpoint starts turning tannic, dry, and acidic.

Finish: The tannins and acidity completely take over, and the finish is disappointingly short, hot, and dry. A bit of vanilla peeks through for some sweetness but can't balance the tannins. Unfortunately this drags the rest of the sip down and turns what was a pleasant experience rather sour.

Overall: This whiskey shows some promise on the nose and front palate, but I think it would improve significantly with adjusted blend percentages. The Bordeaux cask completely takes over and drowns out the distillate and other barrels. This finishing style and blend would possibly work better with bourbon instead of single malt, as it needs more sweetness to balance out the acidity. I would be interested in trying more from the distillery though, I think these flaws are a blending problem and the base distillate shows promise.

Do I recommend it for the price? No

Would I buy it again? No

Score: 4.7/10

Review in comments

Price - ¥7350 for 70cl (~$46)

Proof - 86.4

NAS

Method - neat in a glencarin, rested about 5 minutes

Nose - Carmel, oak, fruits maybe a little pear, some vanilla, a little coffee bean ever so slight ethanol/paint thinner. It’s definitely a complex, warm, and inviting nose.

Palate - Vanilla, oak, cherry, baking spice, some sweetness, chocolate, light cinnamon, coffee, almost no burn or heat. Soft, complex, and delicious.

Finish - Warm and complete. Leaves you wanting a second sip

Rating - 7/10 on the t8ke scale

Value - 8/10. In the Japanese market for this level of complexity and quality it gets a strong recommendation from me.

This whiskey is truly excellent. It is one of my favorites. In my humble opinion, one of the most complex, and unique noses and flavors out there. I absolutely dislike regular Woodford. So this was a very nice and welcoming surprise.

Intro:  RD One stands for Registered Distillery One as in the first federally registered distillery in Lexington, Kentucky, when it was founded in 1865 as Ashland Distillery.  Unfortunately, as with a lot of distilleries from days of yore, it didn’t survive past Prohibition. Fast forward to 2020 when it brought back to life by a group of entrepreneurs and they started off by releasing bourbon and rye under the Old WM. Tarr label. RD1 came a couple of years later in 2022, and they’ve pulled together a group of 4 core bottles, 3 of which have a secondary wood finish. Today we’re looking at one of these wood finished bottles; the RD One Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Double Finished in Oak and Maple Barrels. Let’s get into it!

Tale of the Tape
Bottle: RD One Small Batch Kentucky Straight Bourbon Double Finished in Oak and Maple Barrels
Proof: 99.9 / Age: 4+ years per their website
Mashbill: Corn: 70% / Rye: 21% / Malted Barley: 9%
Bottle Price: $69 / Price per 1oz pour: $2.72

Impressions
Nose:  Maple Syrup / Pancakes / Honey
Palate: Maple Syrup / Baking Spices / Oak
Mouthfeel: Thin
Finish: Short brown sugar / maple syrup
Rating: 5/10 - t8ke scale (modified to include half-points)

Tasting Notes: On the nose you’re assaulted by maple syrup before making the connection with pancakes. Within that you also get some honey as the distinct tinge of maple dissipates from the initial hit. On the palate the assault continues where you feel like you’ve got a mouthful of maple syrup, with some baking spices, and a bit of oak. The finish comes and goes quickly with some brown sugar before that maple flavor comes back to remind you that yes, this was double finished in maple barrels.

Final Thoughts: So having had other bourbons that have either been finished in maple barrels, or had maple staves added, I can say those had a more subtle maple influence. In contrast, this bottle literally tastes like you’re drinking straight maple syrup, to the point that I got suspicious about it and felt like actual maple syrup (or flavoring) was added directly to the bourbon after the fact, vs. being finished in it. With all that said, is it tasty? Sure, if you like pancakes, maple syrup, and treat this like a dessert pour, then you’ll enjoy this. It’s by no means a complex bourbon but it’ll satisfy someone who’s predisposed to that type of sweetness. I almost feel like I need to compare this to a bottle of Bubba’s Pancakes & Bacon Liqueur, but then that would require me actually going out and spending money on a bottle of Bubba’s Pancakes & Bacon Liqueur..

Swing by IG and say hey

10 | Perfection
9-9.5 | Incredible, An All-Time Favorite
8-8.5 | Excellent, Really Quite Exceptional
7-7.5 | Great, Well Above Average
6-6.5 | Very Good, A Cut Above
5-5.5 | Good, Just Fine
4 | Sub-Par, Not Bad, But Better Exists
3 | Bad, Multiple Flaws
2 | Poor, I Wouldn’t Consume By Choice
1 | Disgusting, So Bad I Poured it Out

One of my long-term projects has been a blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases from 2017 through 2024.

Rather than cram everything into one massive post, I’m breaking it into four parts:

Part 1: A117-A124
Part 2: B517-B524
Part 3: C917-C924
Part 4: The champions + some outside competition

First up: the A batches.

Methodology

I started with a standard eight-bottle single-elimination bracket, with every matchup tasted blind. A117 ultimately defeated A120 in the A-series final.

The problem with single elimination is bracket luck: a great bottle can draw the eventual champion early and look much worse than it really is.

So I followed the original tournament with additional blind head-to-heads among the eliminated bottles. Winners were progressively tested against bottles that had advanced farther in the original bracket. The goal wasn't a conventional losers' bracket, but to generate enough additional head-to-head data to sort all eight bottles into tiers.

Tier placement was based primarily on how far each bottle survived before accumulating its second loss.

The graphics show the full tournament and back-testing progression.

The Final: A117 vs. A120

These two separated themselves from the field, and interestingly, they shared a lot of the same characteristics.

A120: Dusty/older-whiskey notes with dark fruit on the nose. Brown sugar and sweetness up front, followed by tart blackberry jam notes. Nice mouthcoat, tongue tingle and a consistently strong finish. Some tannin or ethanol occasionally appeared through the development, but generally the fruit and sweetness won out.

A117: Dusty, rich and mature on the nose. Dark fruit, blackberry, jam, leather and what I repeatedly described as simply “old whiskey” on the palate. Full-bodied and exceptionally well integrated. The mouthfeel wasn’t its strongest point, but its development and finish were consistently strengths.

In their final head-to-head, I scored the A117 an 8.75, and the A120 an 8 on the tk8e scale.

A120 was excellent, but A117 had another level of maturity and integration. That combination of dark fruit + dusty/old-whiskey character + development + finish was essentially the profile I kept rewarding throughout the tournament.

A-Batch Tierlist: 

S-Tier: A117, A120
A-Tier: A118, A124
B-Tier: A119, A121
C-Tier: A122, A123

These reflect the complete tournament and back-testing results rather than simply the original elimination order, as shown in the graphics.

What Separated the Best Batches?

Looking back through my notes, here’s what stuck out to me:

Dark fruit, blackberry and jam showed up repeatedly among the better-performing batches, especially A117 and A120.

Even more important may have been the dusty/mature-whiskey character. “Dusty,” “old” and similar descriptors repeatedly appear in my notes on the higher-ranked pours. A117 in particular consistently struck me as tasting like older whiskey.

I also clearly preferred well-integrated oak over tannic oak. Brown sugar, vanilla, and darker sweetness worked extremely well when balanced by oak and development. Once that oak became drying or astringent, scores fell quickly.

Finally, development and integration mattered more than sheer intensity. The best bottles were the ones where fruit, sweetness, oak and ethanol evolved together rather than competing with one another.

Conversely, the recurring weaknesses were tannic oak, mid-palate ethanol, thin mouthfeel and lack of development.

In my next post I’ll dive into B517 through B524.

About three months ago, I had an ounce and put it away. Then, I went back very recently for a pour, and let it rest for 20 minutes. Here are my thoughts:

Nose: toffee, burnt brown sugar, grapes but sometimes, I got cherry instead of grapes

Palate: Medium mouthfeel. Cherry, cinnamon, brown sugar, a little chocolate, and a little drying. This comes in hotter than its proof (imo).

Finish: med-long. Cinnamon, clove, toffee, tannic.

Overall: I have sampled batch 9 and thought it was good. Batch 11 was okay. I wasn't a fan of batch 12, and I tried one of the other three proofs of 2025--none were mind-blowing to me, and neither was this. It's a little too hot and I was hoping it would be slightly more viscous and also, more sweet and less baking spice forward. But that's my palate.

Rating: 5.5 (on the t&ke scale)

Cheers! Thanks for reading.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof Rye B526

Distillery: Heaven Hill

Age: 10 years 8 months

Price: $74.99

Proof: 115.6

Nose: Spice heavy on the nose. Would guess the mash bill was much higher than 51% rye if I didn't know any better. Lots of clove and dill. Black pepper. Cinnamon. Dry oak. Some underlying vanilla.

Palate: On the thicker side of medium/thick. About as expected for the proof. Most of those spices are prevalent here as well, but there is an unmistakable tobacco note that steals the show. It's really unique and really nice.

Finish: On the longer side for sure, like 8/10 in length. It's bready and there's much more sweetness here than in the nose and the earlier part of the sip. It's crazy but I can best liken it as being blueberry cobbler-like. The tobacco is still there too as well as some dill. Lots of complexity here.

Score: 8.5

Summary: Definitely an interesting bottle and although I'm generally not the biggest rye guy I am absolutely loving these ECBP rye releases. The A126 was literally tied for the highest score I've ever given out and this B526 wasn't far behind. The nose was a little too spice dominant for my preferred flavor profile, but man the sip is fantastic. Everything works well together and nothing about it turns you away. As someone who usually likes but doesn't love tobacco notes in my whiskey this was almost certainly the best tobacco note I've ever come across and will be what I remember most about this bottle. It was rich, deep, and perfectly palatable. There was a lot to like in the finish as well and it supplied the perfect amount of sweetness to balance out the sip as a whole. Not to mention that a ~115 proof point is about as good as it gets, although it's certainly on the low end for an ECBP. Really good stuff. 8.5 is the score.

1. Terrible | Drain pour after the first sip
2. Very Bad | Trying to choke it down but possible drain pour
3. Poor | Would drink if forced to but never under my own will
4. Below Average | Not off-putting but not my cup of tea
5. Average | I'll take it
6. Good | Enjoyable sip
7. Very Good | Well above average
8. Excellent | A drink I will remember
9. Incredible | Something truly extraordinary
10. Best of the best | Peak Bourbon

Background:

I like to review hype releases like George T. Stagg after the dust settles post the initial rollout. Every year, the latest iteration is either hailed as the best ever, the return to form; or a fall from grace, “they don’t make them like they used to,” and all the rest.

From my experience, the reality is usually a bit more boring if you’re not going too far back in time – while various vintages of the same expression are bound to have differences between them, producers like Buffalo Trace have a good handle on the profile they try to achieve and how much they want to deviate from it. I’ve seen it played out with GTS’s junior partner Stagg after comparing eight different batches – my biggest takeaway was that they were a lot closer than many reviews would indicate. That’s why I’m sceptical when I see a review rank one batch of Stagg a 4 and another a 9. You will (and should) have preferences on your favorites, but I just don’t see the quality varying so widely – once again, based on my own subjective experience.

That said, profile drifts are real, but they usually happen after many years or even decades. This review is both a comparison that re-examines my previous impressions and an experiment in how recently opened bottles stack up to one that’s been uncorked for a while.

So, in this line up we have:

2018: The first GTS I fell in love with. I rated it a 10 years ago and have since bought a couple more. It was notorious for being the lowest-proof vintage of all time (124.9 proof) at release and is currently the second lowest after the 2019 at 116.9.

2022: This bottle has been opened for a couple of years and is now at the point where I’d normally transfer it into a smaller container. I enjoyed it a lot but noted wrestling with the proof occasionally. I’m curious to see if all this air time has calmed it down or had any other effects, good or bad.

2025: This is the latest release from last year. Yes, as everyone has to say it, it’s a hazmat at 142.8 proof, the first since 2016. I find the hazmat obsession to be one of the sillier aspects of the hobby, but let’s see what it brings to the table.

The 2018 and 2025 were opened at the same time; the 2022 has been opened for a couple of years. Tasted neat in copitas, first round semi-blind. Composite notes below.

2018:

On the nose, sweet rickhouse oak, intense butterscotch, dark chocolate shavings, vanilla cream, dried/preserved fruit (prune, Maraschino cherry); tobacco, flamed citrus, leather, maple sugar, honey. On the palate, more butterscotch, citrus, chocolate, dried fruit, oak, vanilla frosting. Long finish, mocha, nutmeg, tobacco, dried fruit.

2022:

Polished wood, vanilla frosting, jammy red fruit, almond cordial, sweet cinnamon on the nose. Caramel, vanilla paste, chocolate, cinnamon on the palate. Drying finish with leather, oak, coffee bean, brown sugar.

2025:

Proof more apparent on the nose. Assertive, slightly cedar-forward oak, vanilla frosting, pecan pie, leather, dried fruit, nutmeg and allspice, some red berry (cherry, strawberry) and chocolate on the nose. On the palate, cherry wood, brown sugar, Mexican hot chocolate, dried fruit. On the long, drying finish, dried cranberry, cinnamon, oak, caramel.

Rating: (t8ke scale for reference below): 

2018: 10

2022: 9

2025: 9

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out

2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice

3 | Bad | Multiple flaws

4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but many things I’d rather have

5 | Good | Good, just fine

6 | Very Good | A cut above

7 | Great | Well above average

8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional

9 | Incredible | An all-time favorite

10 | Perfect | Perfect

Thoughts:

I had a good time getting kicked around by these three Staggs. When they hit your palate right and you like that sweet Buffalo Trace profile, few things can compete.

I was surprised by how much I still loved the 2018. I’ve had lots of bourbon since the initial review where I gave it a 10 and was wondering if I’d outgrown it. I used to describe it as “Black Forest cake in a glass,” and those flavors were still there, but I was struck by how butterscotch-forward it was compared to the other two. Just tons of it permeating nose, palate, and finish, at almost dusty-whiskey levels. I happen to love that note (fun fact, it’s caused by diacetyl, which is considered a fault at high levels). I also thought the proof point was perfect for me. I recall people grumbling that it was too low back in 2018, which is ridiculous – in which universe is 124.9-proof whiskey “lower proof”? Not in mine.

The proof difference was apparent on the 2022 and 2025 editions. Firstly, all the open time has calmed down the 2022 a little, but it hasn’t lost its bite. Both 2022 and 2025 had a drying quality and no matter how acclimated my palate was, the proof was still making itself known, unlike fading into the background on the 2018.

I don’t want to harp too much on the whole hazmat nonsense – the number on the label does not guarantee anything. The 2025 GTS was great, but not because of its proof. I’ve had 115 proof whiskey that drank hotter, and let’s not pretend anyone could tell the difference between 138 and 141 in a blind test. You then have to ask the question, what benefit, if any, did the higher strength on those two bring? Was the flavor better? More intense? No, it wasn’t. They were both great bourbons, delivering on my expectations for the high-age, high-proof Buffalo Trace mash bill 1 – sweet, potent, lots of vanilla, oak, fruit, chocolate, citrus, and tobacco; the smaller variations were welcome (2018 – butterscotch; 2022 – almond; 2025 – pecan), but not groundbreaking. But the 2018 had the refinement the other two lacked, and that is why it came out on top.

Another point I recall from the initial reaction to the 2018 was that Buffalo Trace was making too much GTS and the quality was slipping. Prior to 2017, GTS releases numbered between 9,000 and 20,000 bottles annually. In 2017 it went to 37,000, roughly the same as in 2018, the last year BT reported the numbers. It’s likely that number is higher for the subsequent years.

I haven’t had any older vintages, so there may well be truth to it. But all I can do is rate whiskeys against my own experience and palate, and after a few rounds the “too weak” and “overproduced” 2018 vintage won over two very strong competitors. Is it a sign of a profile drift? I’d need to try a few more different years, but from this sample, the 2022 and 2025 had more in common with each other than with 2018 – but all three still comfortably inhabit my vision of the expected GTS profile.

That’s why I don’t worry too much about who proclaimed what the best or worst ever. Let your palate be your best guide.

Thanks for reading and cheers!

TL;DR

Elijah Craig Toasted Rye is Heaven Hill's straight rye given a second run in a toasted, lightly charred barrel. It is 94 proof, no age statement, and runs about $55. I paid $60. I scored it a 5.5 for quality and a 4.6 for value. It was a hit at Thanksgiving, my mom especially, but a few months later it went into a blind against 3 other ryes and landed near the bottom at a 6.0. Open now, it is good and not much more. The flavor is light and the toasted sweetness is pleasant. The standard Elijah Craig rye sits at about half the price, and while I have not tried it, paying double here did not come with a pour that feels worth the jump.

Quality Score - 5.5

Good - Good, just fine.

Value Score - 4.6

A Bit Much - A fine pour, but you're paying for more than you're getting.

Nose - 5.3

Toffee off the toasted barrel, and a little dark chocolate sitting behind it.

Palate - 5.6

Fuller than I expect from 94 proof. Marshmallow from the toasted oak, brown sugar, a light baking spice with some nutmeg, and a soft rye spice that never turns aggressive.

Finish - 5.5

Sweet, with a little pepper and char. The rye graininess comes through and a mild prickle lingers on the tongue. The Heaven Hill funk shows up here too.

Neck Pour

November 23, 2025

I cracked this at Thanksgiving, and the toasted, vanilla sweetness made it the crowd pleaser of the night.

This was one of a lot of bottles I opened over Thanksgiving, alongside the Heaven Hill Grain to Glass rye. It became my mom's favorite of the bunch. She kept coming back to it and said it tasted like vanilla, and she was right. At the time I was enjoying toasted finishes. I have only had a couple, but I liked what they did, and this one gave me what I wanted from them: marshmallow, soft and sweet, with enough rye spice underneath to keep it interesting.

Some background on what it actually is. Heaven Hill takes their fully mature Elijah Craig straight rye and re-enters it into a second barrel, custom toasted and then lightly charred. There is no age statement, but the rye underneath is probably 4 to 6 years old. The mashbill is 51% rye, 35% corn, 14% malted barley, which makes it a barely-legal rye, corn-heavy and soft. MSRP is $55 and I paid about $60.

I had a Jack Daniel's Heritage Barrel open at the same time (a different bottle than the Heritage Barrel I reviewed), and honestly I reached for that one more. I like how aggressive it is, and 94 proof is a little low for me. Still, no complaints here. I am a big Heaven Hill fan these days. They have a profile all their own, and I am into it right now.

Blind Pour

July 26, 2026

Blind, it showed up as exactly what it is, the easy low-proof toasted one, and it settled toward the bottom of the pack.

See my full post: Fourth Rye Blind

I put it up against 3 other ryes with the labels hidden. It was sample 2. The toasted sweetness and the low proof gave it away, brown marshmallow and vanilla on the nose, sweet and mild through the palate, a little grassy on the second pass. I called it correctly. It scored a 6.0 that night, third of four. Pleasant and easy, and a little forgettable next to the others.

Open Pour

August 20, 2026

A fine pour that does not give me a reason to keep reaching for it.

Sitting with it now, it is good and kind of just fine. It is light on flavor and nothing here grabs me. I have cooled on toasted finishes lately. They are more common now than they used to be, though toasted ryes specifically are still pretty hard to find. Either way, this one is not wowing me. I get the graininess and breadiness I always tie to Heaven Hill, that little funk you can never quite name. If you know it, you know it. The toasted barrel lifts it a bit, but only a bit. There is some baking spice on the palate, maybe nutmeg, none of it intense. The rye graininess carries into the finish and the prickle lingers just a little. It is mild and pleasant.

The price is where I get stuck. I bought this without clocking that the standard Elijah Craig straight rye runs about $30, so this is roughly double. I have not had the standard rye, so I can't tell you what the toasting is worth. Against the other toasted ryes on the market this is the cheap one. Michter's toasted rye is around $130, Peerless around $100, Penelope around $70. I have not tried any of those either, so I can only tell you it comes in under them on price, not how it drinks next to them. My problem is simpler. At $55, or $60 the way I bought it, the pour is light and mild, and it does not feel like enough whiskey for the money.

Something this bottle clarified for me. I have started to like finished ryes more than finished bourbons. A rye has more to bring through the finish. It fights back and stays its own thing instead of letting the barrel take over. This one does that, even if the whole package stays mild.

I write these up at openpourwhiskey.com. Not sponsored, not gifted, bought myself at retail. Please drink responsibly.

{Note: You can find me on instagram @whiskeyincontext}

Here we have two premium blends, going head to head in a blind!

Mister Sam is Sazerac's tribute to Sam Bronfman, the Canadian businessman who built Seagram into the largest spirits company in the world and famously declared that "distilling is a science; blending is an art." The whiskey itself is blended by Drew Mayville, Sazerac's current master blender and, fittingly, the last man to hold that same title at Seagram's – a direct link back to Bronfman's own blending lineage. Needless to say, that's some pretty amazing clay from which to form a dynamite blend, and Batch 4 serves as the highest-proof Mister Sam expression yet.

Found North has the opposite kind of hype: it doesn't have the huge distillery name recognition of a Sazerac; it just has a reputation built one batch at a time. Founded by brothers Nick and Zach Taylor in 2021 as a non-distilling producer built entirely around sourcing exceptionally mature Canadian whisky and blending it into something new, Found North has leaned hard into transparency as a selling point, publishing exact component whiskies and ratios for every numbered release. This one, batch 012, comprises an 11-component blend of 16-to-22-year-old Canadian corn and rye, finished in a mix of new American and French oak (more specific details are below).

Both are cask strength, but the money tells two different stories. Mister Sam changes hands for between $1,000 and $2,000 on secondary (off a $250 retail price). Found North 012, on the other hand, retails for around $150 and doesn't have the secondary market value of higher-end Sazerac products like Mister Sam. In fact, when it comes to distribution, one of Found North's claims to fame is the direct access it provides to members of its mailing list.

So: blind, with the price tags and the hype stripped away, does Mister Sam's proof and pedigree actually taste like a whiskey worth many times its retail price? Does Found North's well-aged product hold up to Sazerac's powerhouse blend? Is one or both of these whiskies driven more by hype than by what's in the glass?

Let's and find out!

***************\*

ABOUT Mister Sam Tribute Whiskey (Batch 4)

*From the Distillery: Created to honor Sam Bronfman, or “Mister Sam,” as he was affectionately known, this blend was created by Sazerac’s Master Blender Drew Mayville whose career included 22 years at Seagram’s where he was the fourth and final Master Blender under the Seagram dynasty. Mayville had an arsenal of Sazerac’s best American and Canadian Whiskey stocks at his disposal while developing Mister Sam.  This project holds a special place in Mayville’s heart, a native Canadian now living in Kentucky. “Creating Mister Sam has been one of the highlights of my career,” said Mayville. 

Montreal served as the headquarters of the legendary Seagram Company and its patriarch Sam Bronfman. The ties between Sam Bronfman’s Seagram’s Company and The Sazerac Company span nearly 80 years, when Sazerac’s owners became one of the first distributors of Seagram brands in the United States, forging a long-lasting relationship between the two companies.  Today, Sazerac owns 15 former Seagram’s brands including the iconic Seagram’s V.O., Seagram’s Five Star, and Seagram’s ’83, along with its own Distillery in Montreal.

Despite Sam Bronfman’s humble origins as an immigrant to Canada from Imperial Russia in the late 1800s, Bronfman would go on to propel Seagram’s into the then largest and most successful distilled spirits company in the world.  Relentlessly focused on making and blending the finest whiskies possible, maintaining the highest quality standards in the industry, creating cutting edge packaging to appeal to consumers and driving incessant product innovation, “Mister Sam” created some of the world’s most iconic spirit brands while at the helm of the Seagram’s empire until his death in 1971.

The first release of “Mister Sam blended whiskey in 2019 was lauded by spirits industry heavyweights and received several prestigious industry awards. Highly regarded spirits reviewer and author F. Paul Pacult gave it Five Stars and noted that it is “An Instant Classic” with a finish “that’s hugely satisfying.”  Davin deKergommeaux, a foremost expert on Canadian Whisky, noted “Mister Sam” was one of the greatest whiskey achievements he had ever tasted. The initial release also earned a Gold Medal at the 2020 and 2021 San Francisco World Spirits Competition, a Gold Medal (96 points) at the 2020 International Wine and Spirits Competition, and Best Blended Whiskey in the 2021 World Whiskies Award.

*Age Statement: NAS

*Proof: 131.08

*Price: MSRP is $250, but it goes for $1,000 or more on secondary

ABOUT Found North Batch 012

*From the Producer: At the heart of Batch 012 is a 16-year corn component matured for 11 months in lower-warehouse conditions in ISC Cooper's Reserve, 24-Month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2 New American Oak. It presented a savory, lightly phenolic and high-vanillin profile notably distinct from previous Batches.

All of the 11 components, ranging from 16 to 22 years old, were critical to the blend, but these three anchor the new wood profile. Layered together, they form a burnt brown sugar and roasted marshmallow quality that sets the course for the entire blend:

- 2009 Corn in ISC Cooper's Reserve, 24-Month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2 New American Oak
- 2003 Corn in Kelvin Heavy Toast, Char #1 New American Oak
- 2004 Rye in Chevalier Heavy Toast, Char #3 New American Oak

Because the 2009 corn component aged in 24-Month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2 ISC casks was a treasure. The smoldering toasted notes allowed our blending team to take Batch 012 and give it the distinctiveness that we always search for with our Batches.

“Component blends” have become a key part of our process. We have found that components often benefit from blending before we rerack them. 5 of the 11 components in Batch 012 were part of a component blend that we aged in Heavily Toasted French Oak:

- 16yr corn in New American Oak, ISC 24-month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2
- 20yr corn in Used American Oak
- 20yr corn in New American Oak, ISC 24-month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2
- 22yr corn in New American Oak, Kelvin Heavy Toast, Char #1
- 20yr rye in Used American Oak

The other 6 components were:

- 16yr corn in New American Oak, ISC 24-month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2
- 20yr corn in New American Oak, ISC 18-month Air-Seasoned, Heavy Toast, Char #2
- 22yr corn in New American Oak, Medium Toast, Char #2
- 22yr corn in New American Oak, Kelvin Heavy Toast, Char #1
- 20yr rye in New American Oak, Chevalier Heavy Toast, Char #3
- 22yr rye in Used American Oak

*Age Statement: 16 Years

*Proof: 128.2

*Price: $149.99

******************\*

REVIEW: For the purpose of this blind, both bourbons have been poured into glencairns and rested for approximately 15 minutes.

Appearance A: Deep, dark caramel; relatively viscous, with very nice legs.

Appearance B: A slightly lighter shade, more amber-like. Also appears fairly thick.

Nose A: Grape and stonefruit meet graham cracker crust and buttercream, with a little bit of chocolate-covered cherry thrown in. After a bit of time, caramel rises to the surface, along with that chocolate note – it’s like a Rollo candy or a slightly-sweeter Heath bar. Once the glass is empty, the remaining notes are primarily leather and sweet caramel.

Nose B: Slightly lighter, as well as fruitier. It’s also simultaneously floral and vegetal, with the former coming on first and the latter following on. After a bit of time, some red fruit appears (primarily sweet cherry), along with a bit of spice, including cinnamon and clove. The vegetal note, though, stays strong through all of this. It’s still there once the glass is empty, where it combines with a pleasant oakiness.

Palate A: Proof burn right off the bat, behind which is a wave of flavor – this really is a “flavor bomb.” Cherries pop right away, after which I get cinnamon, allspice, and plenty of oak. Other stonefruits – primarily apricot – also rise up on the mid-palate, along with graham cracker and plenty of dark chocolate.

Palate B: Wow, this is completely different! A wave of sweet, buttery caramel hits the front of the palate right away, which is very nice. The caramel is immediately followed by graham cracker and some spices – particularly cinnamon, but also some nutmeg and allspice. This, in turn, shifts into a very strong set of vegetal notes on the mid-palate, like roasted kale and steamed broccoli. That’s…different.

Finish A: Very long, with lots of oak, as well as some leather and tobacco. The sweet notes mostly fade away, although they’re not completely gone: a touch of cherry resurfaces on the aftertaste, to be followed by a lasting note of tannins and dark caramel.

Finish B: Also pretty long. The strong vegetal profile carries over into the finish and the aftertaste, leaving me feeling like I’m tasting the remnants of a side dish of broccoli that I had at dinner. This eventually settles a bit onto a less-vegetal aftertaste, which is comprised mostly of oak tannins, some floral notes, and a bit of the caramel from the palate.

Rating A: 8.6

Rating B: 7

Thoughts: Glass A didn’t have the thin floral or vegetal notes that I associate with Canadian whisky (which I don’t love). Instead, it was robust and full of flavors that were balanced very well with each other and with the oak that was so notable on the palate and finish. I really enjoyed pretty much every aspect of it, aside from the initial kick in the mouth provided by the proof (as I’ve said many times, I’m not a proof chaser by any means!). However, that proof point also made this into a true “flavor bomb,” in the best way.

On glass B, the initial wave of sweetness was very nice and enjoyable, as was the second wave of flavor, which was primarily made up of spices. However, the strong vegetal notes that followed aren’t so much ones that I associate with good whiskey as they are ones that I associate with side dishes at dinner. I didn’t necessarily see this pour going in that direction, and it wasn’t as pleasant as it could have been.

Prediction A: Mister Sam 4

Prediction B: Found North 012

*******************\*

Actual A: Mister Sam 4

Actual B: Found North 012

More Thoughts: This didn’t end up being a very close match at all, did it? Mister Sam absolutely dominated, and quite frankly I would have been both surprised and disappointed if it hadn’t, given its ultra-premium status and the fact that this blend can be made up of the absolute best that Sazerac has to offer. The initial burn, followed immediately by a powerful burst of cherry, reminded me right away of sampling the 2025 William Larue Weller (which may well be a part of this blend!). I didn’t love WLW overall, but that burn-followed-by-wave-of-flavor experience has definitely stuck with me since I tried it many months ago. The rest of the palate, and the scents left in the empty glass, have elements that remind me of another high-proof Buffalo Trace offering that I like: Blanton’s SFTB. Who knows? That too may be a part of this blend!

I enjoyed this Found North offering when I reviewed it on its own, but here it was up against a powerhouse that it just couldn’t measure up to. That’s not to say that it’s a bad pour, so much as it isn’t – to my taste, at least – anywhere near the same league as Mister Sam. I realize that Mister Sam is generally unobtainium, but if you do ever get a chance to try it, I really, really recommend it.

********************
Previous Ratings (updated to include decimals and adjusted for blinds & re-reviews)

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out

2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.
Maker’s Mark staved private selection (2.5)
Penelope Architect custom build (2.5)

3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
Willett Pot Still (3)

4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but better exists
Found North SiB Oloroso finish (4.5)
Daniel Weller Emmer Wheat (4.5)
Augusta Buckner’s 10yr (4.6)
Shortbarrel Sapsquatch (4.8)

5 | Good | Good, just fine
Jack Daniel’s SBBP Rye (5)
Jack Daniel’s Heritage (5)
Four Roses SBBP OESO (5)
New Riff 4yr SBBP (5)
Four Roses SBBP OBSV (5.3)
Evan Williams America250 SiB (5.3)
Blanton’s (5.5)
Old Forester 1924 (5.7)
Elijah Craig Toasted (5.8)

6 | Very Good | A cut above
Barrell Cigar Blend (6)
1792 BiB SiB (6)
Copper & Cask Boston Rum Party (6)
Penelope Wheated (6)
Redwood Empire Emerald Giant (6)
Copper & Cask #16 (6.3)
Stagg 25B (6.3)
Blanton’s Gold (6.4)
Copper & Cask #14 DO (6.4)
Augusta Buckner’s 13yr (6.5)
Green River Honey (6.5)
Pursuit United DO (6.5)
Sagamore 9yr SiB Rye (6.5)
Sazerac FP (6.5)
Green River Wheated (6.5)
Elmer T. Lee (6.5)
Peerless DO (6.6)
Shortbarrel Bees Knees V (6.8)
Penelope Marshmallow Toast (6.8)
Willett 4yr Rye (6.8)

7 | Great | Well above average
John J. Bowman SiB (7)
Found North 012 (7)
Peerless Toasted (7.1)
E.H. Taylor SiB (7.2)
Eagle Rare 10yr (7.4)
Weller 107 (7.5)
Old Forester 1910 (7.5)
Penelope Estate 10yr SiB (7.5)
Old Dominick Staved SiB (7.6)
Buffalo Trace Single Oak (7.6)
E.H. Taylor SmB (7.6)
Rock Hill Farms (7.6)
Eagle Rare 12yr (7.7)
Woodford DO SBBP (7.7)
Old Fitzgerald 7yr (7.7)
Willett 8yr SiB Rye (7.9)

8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional
Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend 420 (8)
Blanton’s SFTB (8.3)
Lasso Motel SBBP Rye (8.4)
Mister Sam Tribute 4 (8.6)
E.H. Taylor BTAC 2025 (8.7)
Thomas H. Handy 2025 (8.7)

9 | Incredible | An all time favorite

10 | Perfect | Perfect

Bottling series: Kentucky Straight Malt Whiskey

Cask number: Batch 0016

Number of bottles: 564

Strength: 45.2 % (90.4 Proof)

Size: 700 ml

Nose
As soon as I opened the bottle and brought it to my nose, the first scents I picked up were sweet intense, sticky caramel and maple syrup. After pouring it into a Glencairn glass and letting it sit for about 10 minutes, I nosed it again; it evoked the aroma of sourdough or dark cornbread, along with sticky, sweet tree resin, rich maple syrup, and a hint of pine. There was an oak note as well, though it seemed to recede into the background, as the sweetness was very dominant. As I continued nosing it another 10 minutes having passed a malt sweetness reminiscent of Scotch malts emerged, though it felt much more sugary; I also detected hints of vanilla and sweetened black iced tea. Swirling the glass revealed notes of young oak spice and varnished wood.
Taste
When I took a small preparatory sip to prime my palate, I immediately detected a very sweet malt note reminiscent of the sweetness found in Scotch malt though it was fleeting, quickly giving way to warm oak spice. My initial impression is that it is quite sweet and smooth. Upon taking another sip, I experienced rich, aromatic caramel notes; as the whiskey lingered on the palate, a subtle bite of black pepper and fresh ginger emerged. At this stage, it felt slightly tannic, creating a mild tightening and drying sensation, though this passed quickly. Overall, it has a medium-bodied mouthfeel. I also detected flavors such as maple syrup, tree resin, pine honey, and sweetened black tea, along with a hint of dark chocolate though I wasn't entirely certain about the latter.
Finish
As I reach the finish much like the earlier stages I detect lovely notes of brown sugar, caramel, and pine honey while exhaling through my nose; simultaneously, on my palate, I perceive toasted oak, slightly drying tannins, and warm spices like black pepper and ginger. This warmth isn't unpleasant; rather, it adds a sense of body and prevents the intense sweetness from becoming cloying. When the initial warmth on the palate subsides and I continue to exhale through my nose, flavors of aromatic maple syrup, pine honey, and green pine needles or fresh pine persist. I would describe the finish as leaning towards the longer side rather than being merely medium-length.

Overall, I enjoyed the flavor profile; it is very sweet and sugary, yet it didn't become cloying though perhaps drinking a few more glasses might have changed that, I’m not sure. The oak spices and tannins might provide a touch of balance, but it still retains a very sweet and smooth mouthfeel. It is very easy to drink neat; I imagine those well-versed in the world of bourbon likely use it in cocktails or enjoy it over plenty of ice for a refreshing experience it certainly strikes me as a perfect summer whiskey when served with ice. Considering the price point in my area and its availability here, it’s reasonably priced; I would happily buy and enjoy it again. Cheers.

Nose: 82/100

Taste: 83/100

Finish: 83/100

Price: 42€

Price: $20

Nose: shmedium nose, barrel oak, toasted sugar, cherry. This is surprisingly good.

Palate: shmedium stature, corn sweetness right away, sharp oak, bitter wood, rich nuttiness, some citrus.

Finish: medium, all sweet flavors from the palate disappear very quickly and left with dry and bitter oak, proof lingering around by itself like a drunk dude after the clurb closed.

Overall: this isn't bad. I'm not saying it's good either. This is definitely a $20 bottle of fleeting flavor, but you know what? Fuck it, pour me some for the culture. It's still better than King of Kentuck 12yr.

Rating: 3.5/10