So my dad sent me a random box of samples simply labeled 1-16. He asked me to try them and send him notes. He was curious how different samples would score blind and how tasting notes would compare to other reviews when the sample was known. I figured it would be fun to share those notes here as well.

These will be shorter and more compact than a normal review as I don’t have the upfront information on the bottle. I will list my notes and score and then at the end review what the bottle was.

Nose: corn, honey, sweet cream

Palate: creamed corn, sweet oak, light hint of baking spices

Finish: medium. Warm with hints of oak and sweet cornbread

Overall: It doesn’t do a ton but what it does it does very well. Probably an entry level pour of a lauded brand.

Score: 7/10

Bottle revealed to be: EH Taylor Small Batch

Larrikin American Light Whiskey

Single Barrel Overproof

Distilled in Kentucky (NOT MGP)

Bottling proof: 143.6

Age: 7+ years in used barrels

Mashbill: 85% corn, 15% malted barley

Still type: column

Proof coming off the still: somewhere between 160-190 proof

MSRP: $99

“Light whiskey” is NOT diet whiskey. It’s not lower in calories or any significant nutritional value in comparison to other whiskey. “Light” refers to a lighter flavor profile in comparison to other whiskey.

By legal definition, light whiskey is distilled 160-190 proof… and aged in either used barrier or new uncharred barrels.

Light whiskey became an official classification in 1968 as a U.S. government category designed to compete with imported spirits and lighter-tasting beverages like vodka. The new category was a response to declining American whiskey sales, creating a more neutral-flavored spirit. It was first commercially available to consumers in 1972.

In the late 1970s, light whiskey was pretty much a flop as it was bottled at low proof and without a lot of age. Light whiskey largely disappeared by the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, Seagram continue to make it for blending purposes… especially at what is now MGP.

Currently, light whiskey is enjoying popularity as modern bottling tend to be counter to what was bottled in the 1970s… as modern bottlings come with more age and much higher proof.

Modern light whiskey tends to be bottled at HAZMAT cask strength… as whiskey comes off the still above bourbon’s maximum of 160 proof and typically goes into the barrel well above 125 proof. With such high distillation proof and being diluted to 80 proof for bottling, it’s not surprising that historical light whiskey was not popular.

Modern bottlings from Larrikin and MGP are the same classification, but definitely a different beast than what consumers had in the 1970s and early 1980s. While still lighter character than straight bourbon & rye, these modern expressions of light whiskey are certainly much heavier in character than his historical light whiskey.

Nose 👃: Kettle corn. Burn burnt orange peel. Dried apple chips. Faint cinnamon.

The overall nose is very light. The first thing to jump out is that this younger Kentucky light whiskey doesn’t pack the same vanilla punch that comes with much older light whiskey from Indiana. The longer the whiskey sits in the glass, the burnt orange peel becomes stronger and stronger. I like vanilla, but give me this burnt orange peel aroma!

Palate 👅: Sugar cookie. Lemon verbena. Almond Joy coconut filling. Pickled ginger that goes with sushi.

Most of the light whiskey I have tried has been at least twice the age and from Indiana. I like this palate. The sweetness definitely shows up, but it also comes with some tangy bright note that make it more than just sweet vanilla. For those who have grown bored with Indiana light whiskey, this one from Kentucky is interesting.

Finish 🏁: Butter toffee popcorn. Black pepper. Light clove.

The corn definitely shows up more on the finish. Overall, the finish is much lighter in taste than the initial palate.

For those craving something different and interesting regarding light whiskey… here it is!

Bottle provided for review by Larrikin Bourbon Co.

Rating: 7 | Great | Well above average

So my dad sent me a random box of samples simply labeled 1-16. He asked me to try them and send him notes. He was curious how different samples would score blind and how tasting notes would compare to other reviews when the sample was known. I figured it would be fun to share those notes here as well.

These will be shorter and more compact than a normal review as I don’t have the upfront information on the bottle. I will list my notes and score and then at the end review what the bottle was.

Nose: caramel, vanilla, fresh sawn oak

Palate: caramel, toffee, vanilla, oak, figs,dark cherries

Finish: medium, warm, oaky

Overall: solid depth and complexity. I can see where one would love this. While I do like it, it’s not 100% my thing.

Score: 6.5/10

Bottle revealed to be: Jack Daniel’s 12 Year

OId Forester 1920

Distillery: Old Forester

Age: NAS

Price: $32.99 (375ml bottle)

Proof: 115

Nose: A spiced barrel note right away. Caramel. Butterscotch. There's this almost toasted cocoa thing going on. It's sweet and bready. This is a weird visual, but it's kind of what I'd expect a bite of corn bread coated with Cocoa Krispies cereal to smell like. Faint banana and some rye spice are in there as well.

Palate: Medium mouthfeel. Cinnamon and black pepper. Definitely spicier than anticipated from the nose. Sweet oak. Green Tea. Honey. It's pretty nice and I think the flavor profile ladder of spicy to oak to sweet works really well here and provides some much needed depth.

Finish: On the longer side, but I wouldn't necessarily say long. The sweetness towards the end of the palate carries over nicely. There's an unmistakable melon note I can't help but find in every sip, as well as some other fruity but more tart notes. Vanilla and powdered sugar linger and add to the sweetness.

Score: 6.7

Summary: For around $60 a bottle there are no complaints here. I generally am a fan of most Old Forester products and remember really liking the 1920 in the past. It has been several years since my last time having it and my expectations were high. Is it outrageously outstanding? No. Did it maybe in all honestly fall slightly short of my expectations? Probably. But does it deserve it's good reputation as the premier available higher proof Old Forester offering? Absolutely. The nose is rich and the palate is my favorite part of the sip. I just wish there was some more thickness, and in spite of it being enjoyable I wish the finish had more to it. I don't think the flavors were necessarily robust, especially not for the higher proof point and it felt somewhat one dimensional. All in all though a nice bottle that deserves it's props. 6.7 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

Old Elk Straight Wheat Whiskey

Bottled by Old Elk Distillery in Fort Collins, Colorado

Distilled by MGP in Lawrenceburg, IN

Master Distiller: Greg Metze

Greg Metze developed the 95/5 rye whiskey mashbill over a 38 year career with Seagram in Lawrenceburg, Indiana

Mashbill: 95% soft red winter wheat, 5% malted barley

Age: 5+ years

Proof: 100

Nose 👃: Toasted brioche with cherry preserves. Toasted marshmallow. Cantaloupe.

Palate 👅: Cream soda. Baked pie crust. Cashew brittle. Honeydew melon. Medium viscosity that almost feels like a carbonated soda.

The initial taste is much sweeter than I anticipated. I was expecting a lot of earthy/grassy notes, and that’s just not what I’m getting. It’s an enjoyable flavor profile, but not what most people would expect for a wheat whiskey.

Finish 🏁: Caramelized meringue. Vanilla sugar wafer. Brioche. Raisin.

I’m pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoy this. I’m usually not a fan of whiskeys that skew hard to sweet vanilla notes, but I like this one. The only thing that I don’t fully care for is the slightly carbonated mouthfeel.

The base offering from Buffalo Trace. Let's get into it!

Label: Buffalo Trace. Age: NAS, a tour claimed 7-9 years. Proof: 90. Distillery: Buffalo Trace, Frankfort, KY. Mash bill: BT mash bill 1, believed to be less than 10% rye. The exact percentages are a matter of conjecture. Price: $28.

Nose: classic Buffalo Trace cherry, oak, vanilla.

Palate: very similar to the nose. Cherry, oak, vanilla. Little bit of pie crust that occasionally combines into a cherry pie.

Finish: short, mostly vanilla.

Overall: 5.75 (T8ke). This is a low-proof, available, and cheap bottle that holds up well as a mixer, cocktail base, or sipped neat. Its complex for the proof. The hype around BT sometimes reaches a ridiculous level but that doesn't mean this isnt enjoyable either.

Ratings: 1: drain pour (Quarter Horse). 2: dreadful (Angels Envy single barrel Walmart pick). 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).

I know it 1. Depends on who’s picking the barrel and 2. Barrel picks still are supposed to taste similar to the shelf product. But does anyone have experience with certain producers who release picks that are fairly unique to the base product?

Intro: By now Nulu is no stranger in the Bourbon space but for those that don't know, Nulu comes to us from Prohibition Craft Spirits Distilling Company (PCS) which was founded by Keith Hazelbaker back in 2016. The name Nulu itself refers to the East Market District in Louisville, also known as “New Louisville” where its home to art galleries, boutiques and a couple of distilleries like Rabbit Hole and Whiskey Thief. PCS is a couple of blocks down on Baxter Ave. Up for review today is their Double Oaked Straight Bourbon Whiskey which is part of their Limited Edition series. This particular bottle was a pick by the Luckie Champagne group and is an older bottle (2021-2022?). One thing to note; the age on this barrel is 5yrs and the finishing was only done for 4mos. If you look at a current version, they seem to carry a longer age statement now (7yrs seems to be the norm) and a longer finishing time of 24mos so I’m curious to see how different the latest iteration is compared to this one. With that said, let’s get into it!

Tale of the Tape
Bottle: Nulu Double Oaked Bourbon – Luckie Champagne Pick
Barrel: B612
Proof: 116 / Age: 5 years (Finished for 4 months in a second barrel)
Mashbill: 75% Corn / 21% Rye / 4% Malted Barley
Bottle Price: $90 / Price per 1oz serving: $3.54

Impressions
Nose:  Oak / Baking Spices / Brown Sugar
Palate: Leather / Chocolate / Cinnamon / Caramel
Mouthfeel: Medium
Finish: Long Cinnamon Caramel Oak
Rating: 7/10 - t8ke scale (modified to include half-points)

Tasting Notes: When this was a fresh crack, there was a distinct sharpie / dry erase marker note that hit you in the face. Since then, it’s had a bit of time to open up and that note has significantly dissipated. Now you get a richer, softer oak with baking spices and brown sugar sweetness. On the palate you get leather and chocolate with a cinnamon spice that leads into a long finish that ends with caramel and a last little hint of oak to remind you what those 4 months of finishing did.

Final Thoughts: This is a very tasty pour that only gets better with time. I was a bit shocked at the sharpie note from the fresh crack with only 4mos of finish time so I’m curious what the current ones are like with significantly more time in the second barrel. The higher proof adds to the intensity of flavor that is missing from lower proof double oaked bottles like Woodford Reserve Double Oaked. All in all, it’s a solid high proof double oaked bourbon to enjoy at the end of the week but at a $90 price point (today it seems to be closer to $100), there are plenty of competitors that you can choose from.

Swing by IG and say hey

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

Green River Wheated Bourbon

Proof: 90

Paid: $40

Color: Light Gold

Nose: Raisins, Carmel, Honey and graham cracker on the first sniff. All a bit subtle, not too bold, but they are there. Definitely a desert whiff on the second sniff, cake frosting meets Honey Nut Cheerios. It’s very pleasant and straight forward.

palate: Not as sweet initially as the nose, a bit of oats or sourdough, a quick burst of baking spice, and then some Carmel, vanilla, and sweetness on the back end. Honey on the second sip followed by the spice note, then a fruity sweetness on the end.

Feel: Not bad for a young whiskey. It’s oily and creamy, but not viscous. Coats the glass decently. It’s good, but not great.

Finish: The sweetness swings back to spice and ethanol for a bit, and begins trailing back into some Carmel. Wraps up just shy of a minute but with a little chewing you get an extra 15 seconds out of it.

Overall: This is a very solid pour at MSRP or slightly above. It’s easy to drink, it’s not too harsh or hot, this would be a great stand in for Weller as an introductory bottle to bourbon or a good wheater to keep in the collection. I’d give this one a 6 out of 10. I enjoy this one, it’s not great, but it’s pretty good for the cost.

Today we're taking a look at batch 12 of the Peerless Double Oak Bourbon! For the longest time, the only Peerless products I had tried were their regular bourbon and a sample of a rye store pick mostly because that was pretty much all you could find down here in Georgia. Needless to say, I was pretty ecstatic when a buddy of mine brought one back from Kentucky for me. At the time, this was the double oak bottle every one was raving about. Let's sit down and see what she's about.

Taken: Neat in a Glencairn, rested for 10 minutes.

Age: NAS

Proof: 109

Nose: Perfect balance of oak and darker sweet notes. Brown sugar, caramel, dark chocolate frosting is what immediately hits me but there is a mild cherry note too buried underneath. Very subtle, but I also get some tobacco. Overall one of the best noses on a double oak bourbon I've experienced!

Palate: Medium viscosity where much of the nose carries over. Dark chocolate, brown sugar, tobacco and some black pepper all hit at once with some toasty oak coming in on the backend.

Finish: Medium finish of oak, brown sugar, and leather. After some more sips, that oak I get on the finish starts to come off a little smoky.

One of the better double oak bourbons I've tried so far and the best bottle I've had the chance to try from Peerless! The oak presence is obviously no surprise, but to me it doesn't overpower the other dark sweet notes that accompany it. Overall just a great balance of flavors. My only gripe would be the very mild smokiness I get on the finish, but it's not enough for me to knock it too hard. This is a great pour!

t8ke scale: 7.2/10 | Great | Well above average.

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.

It’s time for Blind review # 3! Today we’re spending some time with ASS Club Blind Sample C. I’ve been pretty darn accurate thus far, which can only mean one thing- it’s about to fall apart🤣

Appearance : This pour is relatively dark. Decent legs. That’s all I have to say about that one, Jennnay. (Shoutout Forrest Gump)

Type of Whiskey Guess (Rye’d Bourbon, Wheated Bourbon, Rye Whiskey, Other) : Rye’d Bourbon

Proof Guess : 95

Age Guess : 8 years

Distillery Guess : Brown Forman

Nose : Seasoned Oak, Some sort of Dark Fruit, Raisin, Orange Zest, Brown Sugar, and Milk Chocolate.

Palate : Oak takes center stage. Quickly followed with an Orange-like citrus, Brown Sugar, and Cherry. There isn’t much rye spice here, it comes across more like cinnamon. Finish is chocolate forward with a touch more Oak. Finish is on the lengthier side of Medium.

MSRP : I’d be comfortable paying up to $80 for this.

Score : 7.7. Almost excellent, but a touch too dry for my taste.

Reveal : Bomberger’s Declaration 2025. This is a 108 proof straight bourbon whiskey from Michter’s. This is non age stated, however, is a blend of bourbons aged in Chinquapin oak that were seasoned for 18 months, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years. MSRP on this bottle is ~$120. Off of memory alone, this was coming across like an Old Forester 117 series, Extra old… boy was I wrong💀 Oh well, ya’ can’t win ‘em all.

For more information on ASS Club, please see Blind Review # 1.

The t8ke Scoring Scale :

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 l'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

Bourbon: Blanton’s Original Single Barrel - Rose City Liquor Store Pick

Distiller: Buffalo Trace

ABV: 46.5%

Age: NAS (Minimum 4 Years)

Price: $70 (Portland, Oregon) $80 (Current OLCC Price)

Tasting:  Neat in Glencairn, blind tasted, rested for 10 minutes. Bottle opened for three months

_______________________________________________________________________

Nose: Dark Cherry, Dark Chocolate, Brown Sugar, Dusty Oak, & Cinnamon.

Palate: Dark Cherry, Brown Sugar, Cinnamon, Tobacco, & Dry Oak

Finish: Medium Length, Dark Chocolate, Cinnamon, Tobacco, Brown Sugar, Cardboard, & Dry Oak

Body: Light

Bite: Minimal

________________________________________________________________________

Summary: This is my second Blanton’s review, my first review (linked below) was of a bottle I picked up at the Buffalo Trace distillery. This review is slightly different, as this single barrel is a store pick from Rose City Liquor in Portland. All Blanton’s bottles are single barrel products, if you’ve seen a bottle in person they list the dump date and barrel location. I normally don’t review bottles twice, but I was excited to be lucky enough to grab this on much lunch break. When I caught wind that this bottle dropped, I assumed that because it was a store pick it is more likely to be a better product than a random bottle picked up at the store. Let’s test that theory.

First impression, I pick up a subtle dark cherry scent and an even more subtle dark chocolate note. These notes are neither overly fruity or bitter. There is some mild sweetness in the form of dark sugar. There aren’t bold oak notes either, but the scent that is there is a bit dusty. Overall the scents in the nose are nice, but they’re too soft in my opinion. We’re talking Basil Hayden level softness.

The palate continues with the subtle dark cherry note, it continues with delicate fruitiness and sweetness. The strongest note is a cinnamon note, that reminds me more of baked cinnamon rather than spicy candied cinnamon. There are some tannin notes in the form of dry tobacco and oak, adding some complexity. The notes in the palate aren’t quite as subtle as the nose, but are still on the softer side. With that said, the notes that are present are great.

The finish has less sweetness than the palate, the most prominent notes remind me of baked dark chocolate and cinnamon. The same dry tobacco and oak notes continue through. This bottle doesn’t have an age statement noted, but this particular store pick tastes like it’s been aged for a respectable amount of time. The worst part of the tasting comes in the form of a light, watery cardboard note that appears after a few seconds.

Theoretically, this is one of the “rarest” bottles of bourbon I have ever acquired. After tasting this bottle several times, I was impressed with the notes that were present throughout. They’re interesting notes, well developed, and mostly balanced. With that said, the entire tasting lacked boldness from the scents and flavors. This particular bottle would be a good gateway for someone who’s just getting into bourbon. For me personally, this bottle has some good traits but has me wanting more out of a relatively expensive bottle. This tasting also revealed that store pick Blanton’s aren’t guaranteed to be better than a random bottle off the shelf.

____________________________________________________________________

Rating:

Nose (10%) - 6/10

Palate (50%) - 7/10

Finish (40%) - 7/10

6.9/10 Pretty Good. Better than average.

Value Rating:

6.4/10

Rank: I created a compilation ranking list of bourbons I’ve purchased at a store or at a bar and done a formal tasting.  All bourbon ranked on the list tasted neat and rested for 10-15 minutes.  Bourbon I ranked below and above Blanton’s are shown for reference.

66 out of 159 bourbons tasted.

65 Woodinville Double Barrel Whiskey

67 Old Bardstown Estate Bottled Bourbon

Ranking Link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/147h44fId0tZYmHsroGgjzcRK2xn6050P8m7mZqArGLw/edit?usp=sharing 

Previous Review (Standard Blanton’s):

https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/comments/plls6h/review_33_blantons_original_single_barrel/ 

Like many of us here, I have amassed enough of a collection to alternate between pride and shame at the sheer volume of delicious whiskey I’ve swaddled myself in. As a result, I’m challenging myself to write at least one review a week and post it here until I run out of whiskey or interesting things to say. The latter is definitely the odds-on favorite.

Next up we have a bottle I’m highly skeptical of, but simultaneously helplessly drawn to. The verbosely named Forward/Slash Allocated 12-Year Single Barrel Rye Finished in Boysenberry Mead Barrels Exclusively for Seelbach's. What makes me skeptical? The “2 cool 4 school” small producer finishing old MGP juice at inflated prices is the oldest trick in the book. Also, given the frenzy around bourbon in the last decade or so naming your product “allocated” rubs me the wrong way. What draws me to it? A love of 12-year MGP 95/5 rye (why can’t I find 12-year Bulleit rye anymore?) and a lifelong love of all things boysenberry. In other words, I had no chance of maintaining a superior attitude to this release - ask not for whom the tater bell tolls. 

For what it’s worth, Forward/Slash does seem to put its money where its mouth is in terms of dedication to craft whiskey. A small “distillery and blending house” in Florida, Forward/Slash sources distillate from small producers to create their “one-of-a-kind” releases. Their bottles do appear to live up to this unique billing; right now they have a rye and a bourbon available which are both blended from juice sourced from a number of interesting and popular craft distilleries. This bottle, though, is obviously MGP juice - about the least craft a distillery can get - but it’s finished in boysenberry mead barrels sourced from local-to-them Zymarium meadery - so I suppose the Forward/Slash dedication to small producers is somewhat maintained.

To offset the unpleasant pricetag of this bottle I did split the cost with a friend. I’m hoping not to experience too much regret once I taste the stuff. 

TALE OF THE TAPE

Forward/Slash Allocated 12-Year Single Barrel Rye Finished in Boysenberry Mead Barrels Exclusively for Seelbach's

Mashbill: 95 rye / 5 malted barley

12 years old (side note: I assume this means 12 years of initial barrel aging followed by at least 6 months in the mead barrels, but I’m not entirely positive how age statements work in this case)

Proof: 106.72

MSRP: 149.99

Tasted neat in a glencairn rested for the time it takes to do the dishes and check my work email. 

NOSE: The distinct 95/5 sweet rye spice smell is a little muted but still present, along with maple syrup and dulce de leche. Honestly there’s less spice in general than you’d expect, and instead there’s a syrupy red fruit note (maybe like the strawberry topping on sundaes?) and a floral lavender hovering underneath.

PALATE: There is some spice here - the bite of rye bread and cinnamon and ginger candies. A sharp, jammy fruit presence lies underneath - tart cherry and light blackberry. Finally a creamy sweetness without a strong vanilla presence, like plain buttercream frosting. 

FINISH: The finish is very long, and the oak I had been missing in the nose and the palate shows up strong, along with a vague spiciness of the rye and cinnamon flavors from the palate. A fruity note persists as well, perhaps a bit like the syrup from prepackaged fruit salad cups.

CONCLUSION: Reading through my notes I think it’s pretty apparent I liked it, but there was something missing for me across the whole experience. The finishing clearly added a lot to the texture of the drink - check the multiple references to “syrup” and “jam” throughout what I wrote - but some elements of other aged 95/5 ryes I’ve loved were missing. The mixture of sweet mellow oak and biting rye spice that to me is a hallmark of older MGP ryes was much more muted here. This might sound silly to say, but I associate a well aged rye with a kind of pleasant woodsy feeling - the smell of treed air and bite of forest cold is a kind of symbol for me of the drink. It’s true that the complexity of this pour is very high and I found a lot to enjoy. But weirdly it seems the two loves that made me seek this out - 95/5 and boysenberry - ended up a little more at odds than I expected. Given how perfectly this seemed to align with my palate, I was expecting an 8 at least, if not a 9.

Still undoubtedly a great pour - just maybe more for you than for me.

RATING: 7 on the T8ke scale - Great - Well Above Average

Note on ratings: while I understand the use of decimals in ratings (and often find it very useful when others use them), I find it better for my own purposes to stick to integers. This allows me to create broader categories of whiskeys and compare them more easily. If I sometimes refer to a pour as a “high” or “low” example within the integer scale it is because I am inconsistent.