u/Archaeo-Frog

My experience with New Riff is limited, although I’ve heard good things about them from across the bourbon landscape. Prior to this, the only battle of theirs I’d tried was the Balboa Rye, which I enjoyed. Their single barrels have mostly been reviewed well, from what I’ve seen, so I’m very curious to try it out.

This bottle is a store pick, although interestingly it’s from a single barrel was “selected for,” rather than “selected by,” the store whose pick it was. I’m not sure if that’ll make a difference, but it’s possible that it could actually be a positive, as the last couple single barrel store picks I’ve had from Cumming Beverage Mart in north Georgia haven’t aligned with my palate very well, if at all (examples include this Jack Daniel’s SB BP Rye and this Maker’s Mark Private Selection).

With that said, let’s see how this New Riff Single Barrel Barrel-Proof bottle is!

From the Distillery: New Riff Distilling’s core Bourbon expression is a genuinely high-rye, full-bodied whiskey offering savory, spicy character, bottled at Barrel Proof without Chill Filtration. It represents a new riff on Kentucky’s most hallowed whiskey traditions. Aged four years in 53-gallon toasted and charred new oak barrels, there are no shortcuts taken in our production. All New Riff whiskeys are made with the full sour mash Kentucky Regimen; all carry an age statement and are always bottled without chill filtration. At New Riff, single barrel expressions are a way of life.

Proof: 109.6°

Mashbill: 65% corn, 30% rye, 5% malted barley

Filtration: Non-Chill Filtered

Age Statement: 4 years

Price: $62.99

Appearance: Medium-dark amber with decent legs on the glass.

Nose: Oak and leather hit first. They’re joined by spices, after which some subtle vanilla shows up. The last to arrive is a combination of dark chocolate and toffee, almost like a heath bar. This is subtle, too; oak, leather, and spice are still the stars of the show. Once the glass was empty, the remaining flavors were more balanced: caramel, vanilla, and leather all hit the nose together, making for a more complementary overall scent than this bourbon provided when there was still some of it in the glass.

Palate: Whoah spicy – the distillery’s notes weren’t lying about that! The first thing to hit the palate is rye spice, and it hits pretty hard. If I didn’t know this was a bourbon, I might assume that it was actually a rye whiskey. Much like the nose, a few other flavors eventually appear in the background – primarily leather, oak, and vanilla. There’s not a lot of complexity here, and this whiskey definitely drinks a bit over its proof point.

Finish: Medium-length, leathery, and warming. Rye spice stays on the tongue, where it’s eventually – and I do mean eventually – joined by oak and a butterscotch-y note. The last remnant of the finish, though, is primarily rye spice and leather.

Thoughts: This was quite the spicy pour! Like I said above, this is my first time trying a New Riff bourbon at all, and a single barrel in particular. The profile is spicier than I generally like in my bourbons: if I wanted a rye kick like that, I’d just grab one of the ryes off my shelf – perhaps even New Riff’s own Balboa Rye. I also tend to like my bourbon on the sweeter side, and while those flavors could be found in this single barrel offering, they were distant background players rather than being more up-front participants in the overall symphony that makes up this whiskey.

Rating: This New Riff Single Barrel Barrel-Proof bottle was all right, but it didn’t sit as well with me as some other bourbons do. I know there can be some variability across NR’s single barrels, so my bottle may just have come from a less-excellent barrel than some others. Alternatively, this may be a case of my palate just not aligning with those at the store whose pick this was. Either way, this bottle just didn’t jump out at me as being anything special. The best I can give it is a 5.5: it’s slightly better than “Good, Just Fine,” but it doesn’t rise to the level of being “Very Good – A Cut Above.”

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

Like seemingly millions of Americans, I’m a fan of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked (WRDO) bourbon. It’s sweet and enjoyable, lending itself to all types of pours — neat, on the rocks, or even in an Old Fashioned.

What would it be like with a little more proof, though? Let’s find out!

From the Distillery: An innovative approach to twice-barreled bourbon creates the rich and colorful flavor of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked. Uniquely matured in separate, charred oak barrels – the second barrel deeply toasted before a light charring – extracts additional soft, sweet oak character.

Mashbill: 72% Corn, 18% Rye, 10% Malted Barley

Proof: 96.09

Price: $99.99

Date Selected: 10/1/2025

Review: This bottle is a store pick from McFarland 400 in north Georgia. Let’s see how it was!

Nose: Wow — this smells like an absolute carmel-vanilla bomb, with some maple added to the mix as well. I’m trying to think what to even compare it to. Maybe an old Sugar Daddy candy dipped in pure maple syrup. Or perhaps a butterscotch dum-dum lollipop. Either way, this is sweet. No ethanol whatsoever (it’s only 96 proof, so probably no surprise there), just pure candy on the nose. Once the glass is empty, there’s a still-sweet, but a bit more balanced, combination of butterscotch and leather.

Palate: Medium-thin mouthfeel. A little bit of that confectionery sweetness goes away and oak comes more to the forefront. Some of the sweetness returns on the mid-palate, with the same profile as the nose (vanilla, caramel, maple, perhaps some butterscotch), but not in an overwhelming way. It’s interestingly complex: while this was pure dessert on the nose, sipping this whiskey results in a much more balanced experience.

Finish: Very oaky, with surprisingly little sweetness at first. As on the nose and palate, there’s no proof heat at all. Once the oak and barrel char begin to dissipate, both leather and butterscotch rise to the surface and last for a few minutes.

Thoughts: Like I said at the top of this post, I’m a big fan of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked. I enjoy the sweetness on its own, and I think it makes a killer Old Fashioned, especially when paired with cocoa bitters.

This one was slightly different, but in a very good way. The nose was pure confectionery heaven, but the same combination of flavors on the palate would have been far too cloying for enjoyment. Thankfully, the double-oaking kicked in and made for a well-balanced dram that sipped very easily and that had an enjoyable finish, as well. While I sometimes use my regular WRDO as a mixer, this enjoyable bottle is destined to be an exclusively neat sipper.

Rating: While not overly complex, this Single-Barrel Barrel-Proof bottle of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked was very enjoyable. For me, it easily earns a score of 7, or “Great – Well Above Average,” on the T8ke scale. I highly recommend it!

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

Shortbarrel is an NDP that is based in Chamblee, Georgia. They produce several different bourbons, including finished whiskeys like the Bees Knees (finished in honey casks) and this dram, called “Sapsquatch,” which is finished in maple syrup barrels.

Shortbarrel describes their finished whiskeys as being “structured,” rather than sweetened, by the honey, maple, etc. that had previously been in the barrels that are now being used to provide extra flavor to their products.

Let’s see how the Sapsquatch drinks!

From the Producer: Sapsquatch starts where most finished bourbons don’t — in stainless steel. We build the base using Sugar Maple Infusion Spirals, conditioning the whiskey for 6-8 weeks before it ever sees a finishing barrel. This step lays down a foundation of maple-driven depth, caramelized sugar, and toasted nut character. From there, the whiskey moves into Kelvin Cooperage toasted barrels that previously held maple syrup, sourced from Vermont and Ohio.

This separation of process is intentional: Stainless builds flavor. Barrels build structure. The result is a whiskey that is bold, controlled, and repeatable batch after batch.

Most finished bourbons rely entirely on the barrel. Sapsquatch doesn’t. By developing flavor before finishing, we control the profile from the ground up — then use toasted oak to shape and integrate it. The profile leans maple-forward, but not sweet; rich in toasted and caramelized notes; structured, dry, and oak-integrated on the finish. It drinks like a bourbon first — maple is part of the architecture, not the headline.

Distilled in: Kentucky and Indiana

Mashbill: A combination of 70% corn, 21 rye, 9% malted barley and 75% corn, 21% rye, 4% malted barley

Filtering: Non-Chill Filtered

Age Statement: 6 years

Proof: 114

Price: $89.99

Appearance: Light amber with highly ephemeral legs on the glass.

Nose: Caramel, toffee, and leather, but most of all oak. There’s a little proof detectable on the nose, but – surprisingly – no maple.

Palate: Mildly astringent but not distractingly so. Honey hits the palate first, before oak takes over. This is not a sweet bourbon by any means; in fact, if anything, the oak tannins make for a dram that’s more bitter than you’d expect, especially if you’re expecting to taste maple (either on its own or in syrup form).

Finish: Smooth and short. A little honey remains, but it’s quickly overcome by oak and leather. Still no maple.

Thoughts: This was interesting to say the least. Given that the whole purpose behind this release was its unique finish in maple syrup barrels, which were supposed to give it a profile that was “maple-forward, but not sweet,” it’s more than a bit surprising to me that I wasn’t able to find any maple at all. Honey was there (not as much as in the Bees Knees, of course), as were caramel, leather, and plenty of oak, but the supposed central feature of the bourbon’s finish was completely absent. I’ve lived in New England long enough to know what real maple syrup tastes like, and it’s just not there.

Rating: This bourbon was okay, I guess. It wasn’t particularly spectacular on its own, and the head-scratching absence of its ostensible key feature makes it more of a disappointment than a daily drinker. Ultimately, this bourbon earns a 4.5 from me on the modified T8ke scale: between “Not Bad, but Better Exists” and “Good, Just Fine.”

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

I was very excited to get my hands on this a few weeks ago after having spent a fair bit of time looking for it. Let’s have a pour and see how it is!

From the Distillery: The Whiskey Row Series’ 1924 10-Year-Old is a limited annual release celebrating another milestone in Old Forester’s storied history.

During Prohibition, more than 200 distilleries were forced to close. Old Forester, however, continued operations because the federal government issued us one of six medicinal licenses, P-3. In 1924, Old Forester acquired barrels from closed distillers, with different mash bills, and bottled that liquid as Old Forester. This release commemorates that moment in time.

With a new mash bill and 10-year age statement, 1924 features a unique taste unlike any other Old Forester expression, but fits perfectly within our storytelling Whiskey Row series.

Proof: 100

Mashbill: 79% Corn, 11% Rye, 10% Malted Barley

Age Statement: 10 years

Price: $119.99

Appearance: Robust amber with fairly decent legs on the glass.

Nose: I’ve been told that this bourbon smells amazing, but I’m actually not too sure about this nose. There’s an overripe banana note that – like all things banana – I’m not a very big fan of.

Fortunately, other sweet fruit notes are there, as well, like red apples and cherry pie filling, which help to balance out the banana after a fashion. Some nuttiness – perhaps almond? – is also present, along with dark caramel, toffee, and vanilla, which are very nice.

Palate: The 1924’s medium-ish viscosity lends itself to a nice mouthfeel, and the palate is fairly complex. The small amount of initial astringency quickly transitions into a combination of spice and a cinnamon graham cracker flavor – almost like cinnamon teddy grahams, if you remember those. There are also red fruits like apple and sour cherry, along with a floral note. A nuttiness is also present, along with some light oak.

That banana is still there on the palate for me, as well. Because it’s a flavor that I really don’t like, it stands out to me much more than it probably should.

Finish: Medium length and not very drying. The overripe banana lingers, followed by red apples and baking spices — particularly cinnamon and clove. The finish concludes with leather and some barrel char, which produces a very smoky tobacco note almost like the aftertaste from a cigar.

Thoughts: This is another case of a whiskey that didn’t quite wow me at the level I expected. It’s really, really good, don’t get me wrong; I’m just not sure how frequently I’ll be reaching for this bottle over Old Forester’s very solid 1910 expression, or over some of the other bottles I have open on my shelf.

I’d heard such great things about the nose that I was surprised how unexceptional it was, at least to me (bearing in mind, once again, that I’m not a fan of the smell or taste of banana in any form). I let this open up a bit after first cracking it to see if that would improve, but for me at least, it didn’t seem to.

The palate, on the other hand, was complex and had a very nice balance of multiple flavors, transitioning from cinnamon grahams to fruity to floral to nutty/oaky.

The finish was pleasant enough at first, but at its conclusion was a smoky cigar-aftertaste note that lingered like a houseguest that had long overstayed their welcome.

Rating: While I’m not sure that Old Forester 1924 worth its $120 MSRP, I don’t (as I’ve said before) want to fall into the trap of rating whiskeys against their perceived value or against the level of hype they receive. If I were to bake value and hype into my rating, it would likely be lower, but on its own this whiskey rates a 7 for me on the T8ke scale: it’s “Great — Well Above Average,” but it’s not quite Excellent.

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

(note: only photo #1 is of this bottle; the second one is a separate BTEC expression)

Pre-Introduction: I’m re-reviewing this one after trying it again in a different setting (my initial review is here). When I first sampled this bourbon, it was in a lineup that included high-proofers like William Larue Weller (129°), Sazerac Full Proof (125°), and Blanton’s Straight From the Barrel (125°), which definitely isn’t the best way to go about trying and reviewing a lower-proof whiskey!

After reading u/Prettayyprettaygood’s review, and trying this whiskey again in a more controlled setting, I now have a different opinion altogether. I realize now that I shouldn’t have based my review on that first sample, and wanted to post a follow-up here – along with a mea culpa! – to correct and update the record.

Introduction: This Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection (BTEC) offering was officially released in April 2026. I’m a fan of wheaters and a fan of lower-proof offerings, so I was very excited to try this expression.

From the Distillery: This latest entry in the Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection was made from the standard wheated mash bill. The new distillate entered the barrel at 105 proof instead of the typical 114 proof, and was aged for 15 years.

This BTEC release is batched from just 13 barrels that were aged for 15 years on the first floor of Warehouse H. Over the course of maturation, 62% of the whiskey was lost to evaporation. The final product was then chill-filtered before bottling at 107 proof.

MSRP: $47 (375 mL)

Entry Proof: 105

Proof: 107

Age: 15 years

Filtration: Chill

Color: Deep amber

Review: With that out of the way, let’s re-review this BTEC offering!

Nose: Brown sugar, vanilla, and dark fruit, with some mild spices, oak, and the expected wheat funk as well. It’s a nice — and nicely balanced — nose.

Palate: Moderately viscous with a bit of ethanol kick at first, but it dissipates quickly. The main flavors are dark fruits like stewed plums, black cherry, and the like, as well as leather, tobacco, spice, and wheat. The official tasting notes also claim that there’s a “rounded sweetness” on the palate, but I’m honestly not really sure what that is or how to pick it out (or how to differentiate it from more square or triangular sweetness).

Finish: The finish is medium in length, with a bit of mild heat. There’s some spice along with oak and remaining wheat flavor. A bit of sweetness (not sure what shape) makes a reappearance as those fade, with vanilla and leather standing out as the last remaining flavors.

Thoughts: The BTEC Low Entry Proof 15-year was much more interesting on my second tasting than it was on the first, in no small part because of the circumstances in which each took place. This time around, I found it to be much more along the lines of what I was initially expecting: a wheated bourbon at a proof point that I really like, which featured some killer (and well-balanced) flavors on the nose, palate, and finish.

Rating: I’ll just come out and say it: I was wrong about this whiskey. The first time I reviewed it, I gave it a 5 on the T8ke scale (Good, Just Fine). I now realize that was far below what it deserved, and am significantly revising my rating.

In my (new) opinion, the BTEC Low Entry Proof Wheated Bourbon deserves a 7.5 on the modified T8ke (between “Great – Well Above Average” and “Excellent – Really Quite Exceptional”). I’d be glad to have a bottle or three of this in my selection, and recommend it to anybody else likes lower-proof wheaters (and who can find it for purchase!).

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

Eagle Rare’s 12-year expression was released last year and was supposed to be a shelfer. As everybody knows by now, it hasn’t made it to that stage yet; in fact, I don’t think I know anybody who’s seen even one in the wild to this point (I had to order my 700mL bottle from the UK). That’s not a huge surprise given that we’re still living in a time when there are places where Eagle Rare 10 Year is so scarce that it’s being kept behind glass as a lottery purchase (which is just crazy to me)!

Anyway, let’s give ER12 a go and see how it is, both on its own and in comparison to the classic 10-year expression.

From the Distillery: Eagle Rare Aged 12 Years Bourbon Whiskey continues Eagle Rare’s endeavor to offer enthusiasts innovative new expressions on its journey to make the world’s best whiskey. Aged for a minimum of 12 years in a meticulously-monitored warehouse, this bourbon lives up to its name with its elevated, distinctive taste experience.

Mashbill: Buffalo Trace Mashbill #1 (low rye)

Proof: 95

Price: Whatever you can find it for, wherever you can find it

Appearance: Amber and relatively thin, without lasting legs on the glass

Nose: Grape, toffee, cinnamon, clove, and oak. Some sweet but mild vanilla also makes its presence known, as opposed to the confectioner’s sugar that shows up on the 10-year. Once the glasses are empty, on the other hand, ER12 is slightly more pleasant than ER10: while the younger of the two has more vanilla, the latter has a more robust combination of toffee and oak. This is a theme that we’ll come back to more than once here.

Palate: Slightly thicker than the 10-year, along with being less sweet and slightly more astringent. Orange peel is the flavor that jumps out at me first, followed by vanilla, baking spices, and that classic Buffalo Trace grape that was so prominent on the nose (the 12-year has more of it on both nose and palate than does the 10). While ER10 features caramel on the palate, ER12 more of a dark toffee. There’s some black pepper there, as well.

Finish: Relatively short but pleasant, if a touch bitter. There’s some oak, with cinnamon, black pepper, and mild vanilla. As most of those fade away, you’re left with the lasting tastes of vanilla and leather on the palate.

Thoughts: It seemed like the only way to be fair here was to have pours of Eagle Rare 10-year and Eagle Rare 12-year side by side, in order to do a proper comparison. The results were interesting. ER10 was definitely sweeter to me than ER12: where the former boasted flavors of caramel, confectioner’s sugar, and leather, the latter was more toffee, vanilla, and oak – essentially, darker and more mature flavors than those on the 10-year variety.

In fact, if I had to sum this up in one thought, it’s that while Eagle Rare 12 Year is clearly in the same family as the 10-year expression, it’s just as clear that it’s the darker, more brooding older brother of the original. This means slightly less sweetness and more dark, robust flavors, as well as a slightly lengthier (and slightly more bitter) finish.

All in all, Eagle Rare 12 Year is an enjoyable pour. It clearly builds on the Eagle Rare 10 Year tradition by providing a more full-flavored and higher-proof version of an already-classic bourbon. If you were to find this close to MSRP, I’d say it’s a “buy” all day long. However, I definitely wouldn’t pay secondary (which I’ve seen as high as $299)!

Rating: I’m happy to be able to say that Eagle Rare 12 Year is a good one, if you can find it. Hopefully it becomes more widely distributed in the near future (not that Eagle Rare 10 Year is all that much of a shelf staple in many places!). In all, this one earns a rating of 7 from me: it’s definitely “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

I’d been wanting to try this for a while, but hadn’t found it in either of my stomping grounds yet (Eastern Massachusetts and North Georgia). I was finally able to pick one up at the Buffalo Trace gift shop, and am excited to give it a shot!

From the Distillery: Bottled at 125 proof, Sazerac Rye Full Proof amplifies the brand’s signature spicy, peppery, and dry profile, delivering a sipping whiskey of remarkable intensity. At the same time, it highlights the versatility of Sazerac Rye and reflects Buffalo Trace Distillery’s commitment to crafting exceptional whiskey experiences for enthusiasts at every stage of their rye journey.

This non-chill-filtered rye whiskey foregoes chill filtration to preserve all the naturally occurring residual oils and flavors that occur during the distillation and aging process (potentially making it appear cloudy at cold temperatures).

Proof: 125

Price: $37.99

Filtration: None

Age: Non-age-stated

Nose: Very nice. Right off the bat I’m getting a light toffee note – like a Heath bar, but chewier, or maybe a Riesen candy. There’s minimal astringency, and the toffee is supported by an almost-butterscotchy note, along with some citrus that’s very pleasant and not overwhelming at all. A little oak, as well, and maybe some dill? Whichever herb this is, it’s subtle and doesn’t take away from the overall experience.

Once the glass is empty, the remaining fragrance is also very nice: sweet but not cloying, with remaining rye spice there to balance it out, in addition to a bit of leather.

Palate: Bold! The mouthfeel is medium-thick and very pleasant. The sip kicks off with some rye spice that continues all the way into the finish, along with some ethanol that makes its presence felt but not in an overpowering way. Several other spices also join in, including clove, anise, and perhaps some cinnamon. There’s a little bit of the breadiness that I tend to find in ryes, and which I don’t mind at all. Citrus is present, as well – orange peel, and perhaps a little lemon – along with something floral-esque and a little of the leather from the nose. This doesn’t drink overly hot, but it’s definitely a spicy sip.

Finish: Warm and spicy with a firm Kentucky hug. Not overlong, and not too drying. Some sweetness comes through, but it’s less cool and smooth and more like a hot honey — the kind made with cayenne or chili. Not overly sweet by any means. The breadiness is also there on the finish, again in a pleasant way.

Thoughts: Every now and then the company of thousand-dollar allocated bottles does something truly silly, like showing us that they can make a really good full-proof rye that’s less than $40.

This was definitely (and surprisingly) good, especially for the price point, at which it’s a fantastic deal. There’s plenty of flavor and it’s not overly hot for the proof.

Spice is definitely the star of the show – both rye and your standard baking spices. The hot honey flavor on the finish is also relatively unique and enjoyable. If you like your rye whiskeys to be very rye-forward and higher in proof, you’ll probably really like Sazerac 125.

Rating: This whiskey is very good, and there’s no question that, from a value perspective, it’s an absolutely excellent purchase. If that were to go into the rating, there’s no question that it would earn an “excellent.” However, I try to keep value out of the equation when giving ratings, choosing instead to focus on the whiskey itself. In that light, this rye earns a rating of 6.5 on the T8ke scale: between “Very Good – A Cut Above” and “Great – Well Above Average.”

Addendum: A number of folks across the internet have favorably compared this to Thomas H. Handy Sazerac, which I reviewed here. How, then, does it stack up? In my opinion, it doesn’t. To me, the Handy was an absolute banger in every sense of the word, worthy of every bit of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection label. Sazerac 125, on the other hand, is very good, but it’s not in the same league as the Handy. On the other hand, it’s about 1/10 the price – and, as has been noted, you’re *definitely* getting more than 1/10 the flavor for the cost, so that’s worth considering when comparing the two!

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

Stagg reviews seem to be proliferating across r/bourbon at the moment. Reviews of 25A and 25C went up in the past few days, so this seems like a good time to finally put up my 25B post.

Let me go ahead and get this out of the way right off the bat: this is probably going to be an unpopular and divisive review, because – unlike what seems to be the majority of enthusiasts (and taters) – I’m not a Stagg fan. I’ll attempt to explain why as the reasons come up, so let’s go ahead and get this show on the road.

From the Distillery: Stagg is a barrel-proof bourbon that’s uncut, unapologetic and aged in charred white oak barrels for eight years. Released without filtering or dilution, it offers a bold, full-strength experience for those who appreciate whiskey in its most powerful form.

Proof: 126.9

Price: Too much, unless you can somehow find it at MSRP

Age Statement: NAS

Mashbill: Buffalo Trace mashbill #1 (low rye)

Nose: After an initial wave of astringency, I pick up a goodly amount of sweetness, beginning with toffee and a light, sweet note like cherry cola or Dr. Pepper. There’s also leather, oak, and vanilla, along with some scent that I can’t put my finger on but find a bit unpleasant. Once the glass is empty, the nose is pure (and very nice) vanilla and caramel, with a little leather.

Palate: Hot, viscous, hot, less sweet than the nose suggested it would be, and hot (did I mention hot?). The Dr. Pepper flavor is still there at first, along with some dark fruit like black cherry and perhaps stewed plums. Cinnamon and oak also make their presence felt. While I’ve heard Stagg referred to as a “flavor bomb,” I’m not getting quite as much richness or complexity as I’d expect. Instead, the most prominent features are astringency and a flavor of some sort that I’m really not a fan of at all.

Finish: Long and more bitter and drying than I expected. There’s sweet and spice at the beginning, but oak tannins begin to dominate as the sweetness fades away. This is eventually followed by a more pleasant leathery flavor.

Thoughts: First off, I’m not a huge fan of high-proof whiskeys. When it comes to burn versus flavor, the juice frequently just isn’t worth the squeeze for me. Instead, give me a nice 90- to 110-proof sipper any day.

Leaving that aside, here are my thoughts on Stagg. First, the flavor profile here was as-advertised, and the proof was certainly up there. However – and I know I’m in the minority among bourbon enthusiasts here –  something about this whiskey just rubs me the wrong way, and it’s not just the proof. Both the nose and the palate would be enjoyable if not for one singular flavor that makes this pour much less pleasant than it probably should have been. I can’t quite put my finger on what it is – maybe the combination of strong medicinal cherry and leather flavors, like a cherry fruit roll-up wrapped in cowhide? – but for me it’s the difference between this being an enjoyable pour and being a bottle that I won’t reach for very often, if I reach for it at all.

Leaving my personal proclivity aside, at MSRP this bourbon is clearly a great value. At secondary prices – which I’ve personally seen between $150 and $300 – I can’t recommend this at all. As I’ve noted before, though, I do try to separate value and availability from my overall ratings.

Rating: Stagg just isn’t my cup of tea (or whiskey) at all – in truth, it’s probably a 5 for me on the T8ke scale (Good, Just Fine). However, this isn’t to say that everybody should agree with that rating. In truth, I can see why people do like it so much: its strengths are undeniable, and if it wasn’t for that singular (and strong) note of unpleasantness that jumped out at me on both the nose and the palate, I’d probably feel the same way.

Addendum: FWIW, the only Staggs I’ve tried are this and 25D, which I had but gave away to a friend once I recognized that I didn’t really love it. To me, its flavor profile was the same as 25B – I couldn’t really tell them apart, and both had that unpleasant flavor that sticks out to me as the main reason that I don’t enjoy this whiskey.

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

This baby decanter bottle from Old Fitzgerald comes from a batch that was distilled in Fall 2018. I tend to really like wheated bourbons, from Weller Antique 107 to Green River and many others in between. Let’s see how this one fits into the wheater lineup, and how it drinks overall!

Distillery: Heaven Hill

Proof: 100

Age Statement: 7 years

Release: Fall 2025; purchased in Spring 2026

Size: 700 mL

Mashbill: 68% corn, 20% wheat, 12% malted barley

Price: $59.95

Nose: Sweet and very nice. Right off the bat there’s honey and ‘nilla wafer, along with a little bit of the funk that I’d expect from a wheater (which I really enjoy). There’s also a little oak, some baking spice, and a hint of butterscotch pudding.

Palate: More viscous than I’d expect from a 100-proofer. Right off the bat there’s some oak, along with some of that wheat funk and what tastes like youngish leather. Sweet fruitiness joins these flavors on the palate along with vanilla and more butterscotch, all of which makes for a very enjoyable concoction.

There’s also a little breadiness, but it’s the pleasant kind — less whole wheat or pumpernickel, and more warm cinnamon-raisin bread. Additionally, I pick up some wheatgrass (remember that?), but not nearly as much as when I first opened the bottle.

Finish: Also sweet and nice, if relatively short. It’s butterscotch-forward, along with caramelized sugar like the kind on top of a crème brûlée, along with honey and nice notes of leather and tobacco. The honey and leather in particular linger on once the rest of the flavors have faded.

Thoughts: The Old Fitzgerald 7-year really pushes all the right buttons for me, in terms of both flavor profile and proof. I love the sweetness that it offers, as well as the fact that it has the mouthfeel and flavor of a higher-proof whiskey without the astringency.

While I enjoyed it from the first pour, I will note that it has improved markedly in the weeks since being opened. At that time, it was heavier in oak, leather, and wheatgrass, whereas now there’s even more of the sweetness that I really enjoy.

While I wouldn’t recommend paying the $100 that I’ve seen it at stores for, the MSRP of around $60 seems fair to me, even if it is only a 700 mL bottle. I even bought a backup at that price (and folks here have posted photos of it at places like Costco for even cheaper). It’s both approachable and enjoyable, particularly if you like your bourbons sweet and straightforward. It’s also supposed to be a shelfer, so if you haven’t found it yet, it’s hopefully coming soon!

Rating: I find the Old Fitzgerald 7-year to be Well Above Average, which means giving it a 7 on the T8ke scale. I highly recommend this if you’re a fan of 100-proof wheaters!

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

I’ve been looking forward to cracking this bottle and giving it a try ever since I saw the delicious-looking stack of syrupy pancakes on the back.

In seriousness, though, I’m generally a fan of double oaked bourbons — particularly their sweetness — and I’m hopeful that this will be another good one. This particular bottle is a store pick from Cumming Beverage Mart in north Georgia.

From the Producer: This limited release bourbon has undergone a unique secondary oak finishing process to develop a rich, nostalgic flavor reminiscent of historic bourbon styles but with an 108 proof kick.

Working in partnership with InnerStave, Pursuit Spirits has created a bourbon that pays homage to the bottles that collected dust for years with distinct notes of butterscotch and creamy caramel.

The double oak finishing process starts with Pursuit United's signature bourbon blend, which undergoes a lengthy secondary finish using custom 36-month seasoned French oak medium toasted staves. This extra maturation extracts bold oak notes while imparting a deep amber hue and velvety mouthfeel.

Mashbill: Blend Of Bourbons From KY, TN, And NY . Mashbills Include: Bardstown Bourbon Co. (78% Corn, 10% Rye, 12% Malted Barley), Not In Tullahoma (80% Corn, 10% Rye, 10% Malted Barley) And Finger Lakes Distilling (70% Local Corn, 20% Red Winter Wheat, 10% Malted Barley)

Proof: 108

Price: $72.99

Age Statement: None, other than the 36-month finishing time

Appearance: Very dark amber. Thick and oily. Nice legs on the glass.

Nose: Vanilla and caramel and a small amount of spice to go along with a good bit of oak a little leather. No astringency. Once the glass is empty, the scents of oak, toffee, maple syrup, and tobacco remain.

Palate: Medium-thick mouthfeel and nicely oily. Moderately sweet, but not overly so by any means. There’s some spice and a good bit of oak, which is nicely balanced out by subtly sweet flavors like toffee, maple syrup, toasted marshmallow, and maybe some graham cracker (or perhaps the crispy outer edge of a pie crust).

Finish: Mostly oak and leather, with some barrel char that lingers for a bit. Very little sweetness — in fact, it’s actually a bit bitter, with an almost salty note.

Thoughts: Unlike, say, Woodford Reserve Double Oaked (WRDO), this is not overly sweet — it’s not a dessert whiskey by any means. The double oaking is pronounced in the way it balances out the sweeter notes, as well as in the slightly bitter finish.

For lack of a better description, this is a more mature bourbon, with a darker feel to it. It almost feels like this is the more muscular older brother of WRDO and other DOs with lighter, sweeter profiles.

If you’re a fan of oak, and are looking for a less-sweet double oaked bourbon with a little bit of proof, this one may just be right up your alley. I tend to like more sweetness in my bourbon, but that doesn’t mean this wasn’t really good — it definitely was. I can see this pairing very nicely with a cigar, whereas I don’t think WRDO and the like would hold up well to a strong flavor combination like that.

Rating: For me, the Pursuit United Double Oaked bourbon rates a solid 6.5 on the modified T8ke scale: between “Very Good — A Cut Above” and “Great — Well Above Average.” It’s really good, especially if you’re looking for your double oaked whiskey to have a less sweet and more complex profile.

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

I’m new to Redwood Empire, so I’m looking forward to giving this rye whiskey a try!

From the Producer: Down a winding trail and along a meandering creek in the Redwood National Park rises the massive trunk of Emerald Giant. Yawning high above at over 360 feet, this August Sequoia is the fastest growing Redwood in the world, gaining over 50 cubic feet and more than 1500 pounds of mass each year.

Named after the fastest growing Redwood in the world, Emerald Giant is a fan favorite in the craft Rye whiskey world. We started with a mash-bill of 95% premium rye and aged it for over 3 years in new charred oak barrels. Spicy with an exceptionally smooth finish, it is a great choice in your classic whiskey cocktails.

Age Statement: 4 years

Mashbill: 92% Rye, 5% Malted Barley, 3% Wheat

Proof: 90

Price: $32.99 (purchased on sale for $27.99)

Appearance: Light amber. Visibly oily.

Nose: Sweet and thick. A little minty, with spice, vanilla, brown sugar, and leather coming through.

Palate: Medium-light viscosity. Spicy right off the bat, but not overpoweringly so. The rye is very nicely balanced with caramel and honey notes. Little to no burn.

Finish: Pretty short but not unenjoyable. Rye spice, some vanilla, oak, and new leather.

Thoughts: I really liked this Redwood Empire rye. It’s very light and super smooth, and is a very easy sipper as a result. To me, it’s a rye that drinks like a low-proof bourbon, and I’d be happy to share it with any of my bourbon-loving friends who maybe haven’t warmed up to drinking rye whiskey yet.

Overall, the Emerald Giant is a very enjoyable dram, especially at this price point. I definitely recommend it.

Rating: Redwood Empire’s Emerald Giant scores an easy 6 from me on the T8ke scale: “Very Good — A Cut Above.”

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

From the Distillery: Balboa Rye is one of New Riff’s first “specialty whiskeys” and remains a fan favorite. As part of our distilling team’s creative exploration with heirloom grains, Balboa was among the first to showcase the distinctive character these grains can bring to whiskey.
 
The story began with our trusted corn farmer who introduced us to Balboa Rye, a variety originally popular in the 1940s. He had been growing it on his farm for years, keeping this heritage grain alive, and we saw an opportunity to transform it into something special. We distilled Balboa into rye whiskey, likely the first time in decades that this grain had been used to craft whiskey and quite surely the only example on the market today.
 
Aged to perfection at 4 years and Bottled In Bond Without Chill Filtration, Balboa Rye offers shimmering notes of spiced fruit that set it apart from our flagship rye. Over the years, it has become a highly anticipated release, celebrated for its rich history and exceptional taste.

Nose: Red fruit and clove-y progressing to pure rye bread/grain notes, black and white pepper. Palate: Dryish entry, developing clove and horehound candy notes, with the rye bread carrying from the aroma; chewy, broad texture. Finish: Fine length and detail, echoes of the horehound, pink peppercorn, a saturating finish.

Mashbill: 95% Balboa rye, 5% malted rye

Proof: 100

Price: $55.99

Review: Let’s see how it was!

Nose: Fairly sweet and citrusy, with some anise and other spices. There’s a bready aroma, as well, which I typically pick up with ryes, and which is rather nice. Notably, I’m not picking up the herbaceousness that is frequently present in rye whiskeys.

Palate: Very interesting and very spicy, with a medium viscosity. The rye punches you in the mouth right away, before partially giving way to sweet flavors like vanilla and caramel and to spices like anise and clove. There’s also an interesting flavor I haven’t really tasted before, which is probably the Balboa. The breadiness is there from the nose, as well, like a loaf of rye bread that you’d use to make a nice, thick sandwich. The ultimate effect is spice-forward with undertones of sweetness.

Finish: Spicy and fairly bitter, but not drying. Not super long, either. The main flavor is once again rye spice, which is accompanied by pepper of some sort as well as a little oak and leather.

Thoughts: I was curious about this one because until now my rye journey (such as it is) hadn’t expanded to include more unique grains – like, for example, Balboa. Comfortingly, I found this to be similar enough to regular ryes that it didn’t push me too far out of my comfort zone, but also different enough to provide a bit of a new experience.

Also comfortingly, that experience was very good. The flavors were nicely complementary, while the spice was front and center enough to remind you that you’re drinking a true 95/5 rye, not a barely legal rye or a high-rye bourbon.

I’d recommend this to rye drinkers who like their pours to be spice-forward, as well as to those who are looking to branch out a little bit – but not too far – in their sampling of the different rye offerings that are out there.

This one earns a solid 6.5 rating – between “Very Good – A Cut Above” and “Great – Well Above Average.” It’s definitely worth your while.

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

Introduction: Ah, Blanton’s — the original single barrel bourbon, as well as the bottle/stopper combo that launched a thousand taters, as the saying goes.

To me, standard Blanton’s is a perfectly fine and completely unspectacular whiskey that I’d probably rate (value aside) a 5.5 or so. For comparison’s sake, that’s also what I rated Penelope’s fine-but-not-really-special marshmallow toast bourbon. Moving up the line, I have found Blanton’s gold to be notably better than the original variety, probably because of the increased (but not insane) proof point.

How about Blanton’s Straight from the Barrel (SFTB), though?

Up front, I’ll note that my expectations are a bit complicated. On one hand, I’ve heard great things about this product. On the other, my comfort zone for bourbon is in the 90- to 110-proof range, not in the >120-proof, barrel-strength stratosphere. At that level, I generally find more burn than flavor, and it tends to just not be an enjoyable experience overall.

From the Distillery: Not just one of the world’s best bourbons – this Cask Strength Single Barrel Bourbon is Blanton’s at its purest and most powerful. Created for connoisseurs of cask-strength whiskey, Straight From The Barrel is uncut, unfiltered and bottled directly from the barrel.

Tasting notes include dark chocolate, caramel with earthy undertones of walnut and hazelnut on the nose. The palate delivers warm vanilla, oak, toasted nuts and a rich spiciness with hints of butterscotch or honey.

The high alcohol by volume is intense and powerful, yet inviting. Unfiltered, uncut, unbelievable.

Details on This Bottle: This particular single-barrel offering clocks in at 125.3 proof. It was aged on Rick 81 in Warehouse H at Buffalo Trace, and was dumped on June 4, 2024, from barrel number 454.

Review: Let’s see how it was!

Appearance: Dark amber — noticeably darker than Blanton’s gold or the standard Blanton’s single barrel. Wonderful legs on the glass suggest very nice viscosity.

Nose: As you’d expect from a Buffalo Trace product, the nose is very sweet. Rich sweet fruit, toffee, and nice caramel notes dominate, with lots of honey and a little pleasant earthiness alongside. Overall, it’s a *very* nice combination. Once the glass is empty, a sweet combination of honey and caramel remains (maybe this is what the distillery tasting notes referred to as “butterscotch”?). There’s also a little oak and leather.

Palate: Holy viscosity, Batman! This is incredibly thick and oily, completely coating the palate with a rich, complex concoction of flavors. After a bit of ethanol burn (which is probably to be expected at this proof point), there’s a burst of honey, toffee, a little oaky nuttiness, and — most of all — a brilliant caramel flavor that tastes like the old square caramel chews that we used to eat as children. This is fairly complex, but — more importantly — it’s very, very good.

Finish: My initial impression of the finish is that it’s somewhat dry and oaky, as well as a bit astringent. However, the honey and caramel eventually come through and make it more enjoyable in the end than it was at the beginning. Again, the whole experience is nicely complex — particularly when compared to Blanton’s other, lower-proof offerings.

Thoughts: This was just short of spectacular. Once that initial burn on the palate subsided, the flavors and complexity were right up my alley: sweet and complex, with a palate that matched the nose in its enjoyability and a finish that turned out to be better than I initially expected.

Value aside, this one easily earns a 7.5 on the modified t8ke scale — between “Great — Well Above Average” and “Excellent — Really Quite Exceptional.”

Addendum: A bit of context on my review and rating: I had the rare opportunity to taste this in a lineup that also included the 2025 edition of William Larue Weller, an older Eagle Rare 17, and the new BTAC version of E. H. Taylor bottled in bond (the latter of which I reviewed here), but — controversial opinion alert!! — on my palate, and on this day, this particular SFTB pour was the best of the bunch.

There’s always the risk that the bottle I tasted, and the barrel it originated in, was an outlier (in the best way, obviously), but suffice to say my first experience with Blanton’s Straight from the Barrel was an excellent one.

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

Bees Knees V is a double-oaked, toasted, honey-cask-finished bourbon from Shortbarrel, an NDP based in Chamblee, GA. This single-barrel offering is a store pick from McFarland 400 in Alpharetta.

From the Producer: Bees Knees isn’t just a finished bourbon—it’s a system. Every release is built with a single idea in mind: honey should reflect where the whiskey is going. Instead of sourcing one universal honey and scaling it across the country, we take the opposite approach. Each state release uses locally sourced honey from that region, creating a version of Bees Knees that’s tied directly to place. Florida tastes different than Georgia. Georgia tastes different than Tennessee. And that’s exactly the point.

Most honey-finished bourbons aim for consistency. We don’t. Honey is one of the most terroir-driven ingredients in the world—its flavor is shaped by local flowers, climate, and seasonality. By sourcing honey from each state we release in, we’re not just finishing bourbon—we’re capturing a regional flavor profile inside the bottle.

Honey dominates the nose, and it won’t fade away. Deep notes of caramel, apples, pepper, and honey candies linger in the background. Mouth: Oh sweet honey, buttery popcorn, cinnamon spice, a “bit o honey” candy-like feel that keeps going, coating your mouth with a honey roasted cashew. Finish: Bring on the proof. The long, thick, rich, creamy, honey finish remains. The proof lets you know it’s there and wants you to come back for more without overpowering the vanilla, honey, and oak that permeate from the barrel-aging.

Proof: 107

Age Statement: 6 years

Price: $109.95

Distillation: Kentucky and Indiana

Appearance: Rich golden amber, like fresh dark honey. Very nice legs on the glass.

Nose: One of the best noses I’ve experienced. Rich, sweet honey dominates in the best way, with vanilla and some oak joining it there. There’s also a little ethanol, which is to be expected, but it’s not overpowering. Once empty, the glass smells absolutely divine – like a pot of freshest honey that’s just been brought in from the hive.

Palate: Medium-thick viscosity, coating the mouth nicely in a way that feels almost like drinking honey straight from the jar. Interestingly, this isn’t what I’d call a particularly sweet whiskey. The honey from the nose does translate to the palate, but more as a supporting player than as a dominant note. There’s a good amount of spice that helps offset the honey flavor, as well, similar to the experience of eating cayenne-infused “hot honey.” Other flavors include caramel, vanilla, oak, and leather. There’s very little fruit present, but other flavors make this a fairly complex pour (for example, I think I see where the official tasting notes got “buttered popcorn” from).

Finish: Warm and creamy with notes of honey (of course) along with caramel, oak, leather, and more spice. It’s not too short, and while it’s not too long either, there’s a nice combination of flavors here. It still doesn’t match the nose in sweetness, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The lingering flavor is, once again, rich honey.

Thoughts: It can be easy to look at a honey-finished bourbon and immediately think “dessert whiskey,” but that’s not what this is at all. At least part of that is intentional: Shortbarrel notes that their goal was to create a “bourbon that drinks like bourbon first — with honey acting as structure, not sugar.”

I’d say that’s what they accomplished: the flavor is there, but in a nice, supportive way rather than as a flavor that’s fighting to take center stage. It’s complemented nicely by some serious spice, suggesting a high-rye mash bill. If you like hot honey, this is definitely for you. Standard bourbon flavors like oak, vanilla, and caramel are also there, providing depth and complexity to the pour.

I initially tried this bottle of Bees Knees V a month or so ago, and I’m glad I waited for it to open up a bit before trying it again. While the nose was divine from the first crack, the flavors weren’t nearly as noticeable then, and the whiskey didn’t seem nearly as complex as it does now that it’s had a bit of time to oxidize.

This is a very enjoyable whiskey, and while the price tag can be a bit off-putting, I do try to divorce perceived value, including cost and availability, from my final rating (we might call that the “Buffalo Trace rule”). Just on its quality and enjoyability, I’ll rate this an easy 7 on the T8ke scale: it’s definitely “Great – Well Above Average.” If you like a sweet whiskey that’s not a dessert pour, or if you just like (hot) honey, I highly recommend it!

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

Introduction: This bourbon, blended and released by Rhode Island-based Copper & Cask, has already been called one of the best of 2026 by Whiskey Weather. Let’s see how it is!

From the Company: Small Batch Series 16 is an 11-year Straight Bourbon, crafted from 24 high-rye Bourbon (60/36/4) barrels. The barrels were matured in Indiana, and then were brought up to Copper & Cask Rhode Island where they were hand-selected and blended. The whiskey is bottled at cask strength.

Proof: 116.2

Age Statement: 11 years

Mashbill: MGP high-rye (60% corn, 36% rye, 4% malted barley)

Blend: 24 barrels

Price: $84.99 MSRP

Release: Just 2,700 bottles, so there’s definitely some scarcity involved

Appearance: Fairly dark amber, with pretty good legs on the glass hinting at some decent viscosity.

Nose: Very dark-fruit-forward, like a jar of luxardo cherries. There’s a good bit of ethanol here, as well. Toffee, charred oak, and what may even be a toasted marshmallow or caramelized sugar note are also present, along with some raisin bread. Once the glass is empty, the remaining scents are primarily oak, leather, and toffee, along with sweet confectioner’s sugar.

Palate: Medium viscosity and fairly astringent. The initial notes that hit me are leather and oak, along with some rye spice. Sweeter flavors come into play as the sip develops, with some dark brown sugar and toffee, but this isn’t a sweet whiskey by any means. I’m getting a bit of espresso or very dark chocolate, as well.

Finish: Medium-length and surprisingly hot. There’s a bit of brown sugar and toffee still, but leather and oak linger long after the sweeter flavors have gone.

Thoughts: I found this to be a good whiskey, but nothing about it signaled “great” to me. The nose was fine, but the level of ethanol there and on the palate was a bit off-putting, especially at this proof point. The finish was less complex than I expected, as well, with rye spice hanging on as the primary note before giving way to the expected oaky flavor. Granted, this was the neck pour on a fresh crack, so I’ll definitely let it open up for a bit and come back to it.

Tempering expectations is always a tricky part of trying and rating bourbons, isn’t it? If I hadn’t seen this being touted as one of the best bourbons of the year, then I probably wouldn’t have approached this pour with the expectation of being blown away. As it is, that just didn’t happen for me. Because of that, I’m probably being harder on it than I should be, and focusing on flaws rather than noting the positive.

Rating: All that having been said, it’s not a bad pour. In fact, if I’m being objective, it was actually better than just “good”; it just didn’t meet my expectations. I’ll come back to it when I get a chance, but as it stands, there’s no “wow”-factor that would make me keep reaching for this bourbon instead of other bottles that I have open on my shelves. Given that, I have to rate this a 6 on the T8ke scale — “Very Good: A Cut Above,” but not Great.

Rating Addendum: I try my best to stick to the literal definitions provided by T8ke’s rating scale. This means a whiskey that earns a 6 isn’t lacking in some big way; instead, it really is “a cut above” the rest. A 7 would be a truly Great whiskey, while 8 and above are reserved for the very few that are best described as “Really Quite Exceptional” and better.

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

The sample of this bourbon that I was lucky enough to score was my first time ever trying something from the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection lineup.

Let’s see what Buffalo Trace has to say about it, and then give it a quick review!

First, the Spiel from the Distillery: E.H. Taylor Bottled-In-Bond Bourbon is the first new addition to the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection since Thomas H. Handy joined the portfolio in 2006. Aged 15 years and 4 months in the Distillery’s warehouses and hand-bottled at 100 proof to meet Bottled-In-Bond standards.

We have hand-selected our very best available barrels to produce the finest possible whiskey. This release pays tribute to Taylor’s pursuit of perfection and his pivotal role in passing The Bottled in Bond Act of 1897. That piece of legislation cemented Taylor’s reputation as the Father of Modern Bourbon and set in motion a quality standard for whiskey that was more rigorous and exacting than any standard set before or since.

The crystal-clear glass bottle we’ve chosen showcases the whiskey’s gorgeous amber color. The back label provides a full product description for you to read while enjoying a taste. Every bottle was hand-bottled and labeled to ensure the highest quality finish.

The nose opens with warm vanilla, seasoned oak, charred undertones, and a drizzle of maple sweetness. On the palate, balanced sweetness and baking spices mingle with gentle wood note. The lingering finish carries oak and vanilla into soft caramel with a hint of cherry.

Distilled: Spring 2010

Released: Fall 2025

Age: 15 years, 4 months

Evaporation Loss: 62%

Proof: 100

Filtration: Chill

MSRP: Let’s be honest … does it really matter?

Review: All right, let’s see how this one was!

Nose: Right away my experience differs from the official tasting notes. I’m primarily getting dark fruit, almost like stewed prunes. There’s some toffee, as well (perhaps this is what the tasting notes refer to as “maple”?). Along with these, we have the standard vanilla and oak.

The nose is actually much nicer and sweeter once the glass is empty, with beautiful notes of vanilla, light sweet caramel, and crème brûlée sugars.

Palate: Dark fruit continues onto the palate, along with oak tannins and a surprising amount of astringency for a 100-proof whiskey. Once that fades, some sweet flavors come to the forefront, but they’re hard to identify (aside from perhaps some vanilla), along with some baking spices like cinnamon and clove. Pleasant overall, if only moderately complex.

Finish: Surprisingly short and drying. It’s oaky, along with a touch of leather and some lingering vanilla. Fine, but not terribly noteworthy.

Thoughts: As this was the first Buffalo Trace Antique Collection bourbon I ever tried, I really wanted to be blown away by it — especially since I really enjoy the standard EHT small batch offering (I haven’t been able to try the BP or SiB expressions yet).

Based on those expectations, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed. That’s not to say that this bourbon wasn’t very good — it’s “crushable,” even — but it was neither truly amazing nor life-changing, which is what I was expecting from something as hyped and high-priced as a BTAC bourbon. (It didn’t help that I cracked my own bottle of Thomas H. Handy Sazerac a bit later and really was blown away by that one.)

Is this whiskey worth its MSRP? Sure, if the flavor profile matches your preferences, and if you’re okay with paying well over $100 for a chill-filtered 100-proofer. Is it worth chasing, though — particularly at the BTACs’ ridiculous secondary price points? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no.

Rating: I’m a bit conflicted about what rating to give this bourbon, because the hype and value are hard to separate from the whiskey itself, and in this case would be bound to bring the rating down significantly. However, I’ve tried to be consistent about divorcing the value from the pure rating in my reviews, so I’ll do the same here. In that light, this one warrants a 6.5 on the modified t8ke scale — a half-point above “very good.”

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

Everybody seems to have a store pick of this bottle. This particular one is from Cumming Beverage Mart in north Georgia.

Proof: 133.8

Bottling Date: 6.25.25

Price: $59.99

Nose: Right off the bat I get some of that Jack Daniel’s banana and permanent marker. Beneath that, I’m getting some dark tones – prune or plum, along with dark toffee and very, very light vanilla.

Palate: Very spicy, both from the rye and from the proof, with a surprisingly thin mouthfeel. I’m not getting much by way of flavor beyond that, aside from the unfortunate sharpie note that I mentioned above.

Finish: Spicy and warm, with a pleasant vanilla favor surfacing as the finish cools off a bit. Not very complex, and the length is primarily driven by the spice. Once that cools, the lingering flavor is, once again, marker.

Thoughts: I’m not going to lie, I was expecting a banger here based on all I’ve heard about this bottle, and I really, really wanted to love it. However, I found this to be good but not great – even at the very affordable price point.

It’s almost unfair to compare this to the Thomas H. Handy rye that I reviewed earlier this week (and on price/value you simply can’t compare them at all), but this just doesn’t even come close to stacking up to that bottle. The 2025 Handy has become one of my absolute favorites, while the JD SiB BP just didn’t do it for me.

As this is the second store pick from Cumming Beverage Mart that I haven’t enjoyed, it may just be that my palate doesn’t align with the folks there who are doing the tasting and selecting of individual barrels. It may also be that Jack Daniel’s profile just isn’t my jam, given that this is the second single-barrel bottle I’ve reviewed that has seemed (to my palate, at least) to be heavy on the permanent marker notes.

Either way, all I can do ratings-wise is call them like I see them. In the case of Jack Daniel’s SiB Barrel Proof Rye, that means giving it a 5 on the T8ke scale.

This is my first bottle of Jack Daniel’s Heritage Toasted Single Barrel. I’ve heard good things, so let’s give it a try!

Barrel Entry: 7.3.18

Bottling Date: 2.10.26

Age: 7 years, 7 months

Proof: 100

Price: $69.95

Nose: Initially, a combination of candied banana and raisin, along with an off-putting sharpie or dry-erase marker note. The scent of stewed cinnamon apples comes through next (less pie filling and more homemade applesauce, if you’ve ever tried that). Additionally, some darker fruits make an appearance — think plums and prunes, or perhaps dried fig.

Palate: The candied banana, stewed apples, and fig carry over onto the palate, along with a little astringency. The viscosity is medium-thin, perhaps as you’d expect for a 100-proof whiskey. There’s some oakiness but it’s not too distracting or too drying. The palate isn’t terribly complex, and it tastes a bit young, but that’s not to say a few more flavors don’t make an appearance. Syrup and vanilla are chief among these, along with (unfortunately) that sharpie note I mentioned above.

Finish: Alas, the permanent marker note really makes its presence felt here. There’s also some barrel char, along with tobacco, spice, and perhaps a little dark chocolate? After that, oak tannins take over and the remainder of the finish becomes a bit dry. It’s not a lengthy finish by any means, and it’s not completely unpleasant, but it could definitely be better.

Thoughts: I’d heard so many good things about Jack Daniel’s heritage barrel that I was prepared to absolutely love it. The fact it didn’t click with me to that level was a bit disappointing.

To be fair, I’m not a fan of much of anything that’s banana-scented or -flavored, whether candied or real, so this bottle was already behind the 8-ball in that light. However, I still found its combination of scents, flavors, and finish to be pretty much okay, rather than excellent (or even very good).

As has been the case with JD for a while now, the value is good; however, this probably isn’t a bottle I’ll be reaching for all that often, nor is it one that I’ll be in a rush to replace once it’s gone.

Rating: A solid 5, with the caveat that a bottle from a different (and perhaps older) barrel could very well be significantly better than the one I’m reviewing here.

This is the first Buffalo Trace Antique Collection bottle I’ve ever owned, so I’m excited to crack it open and share my experience!

From the Distillery: Named after the New Orleans bartender who first crafted the Sazerac with rye whiskey, this uncut and unfiltered Straight Rye is bottled straight from the barrel, just as it was over a century ago. Bursting with rich, complex flavors, it reflects the timeless history of New Orleans and the enduring legacy of Thomas H. Handy.

Thomas H. Handy Sazerac Straight Rye Whiskey was first launched in response to a consumer request for more well-aged and barrel strength whiskey. This year’s offering is comprised of barrels aged for over 6 years. We filled these barrels at 125 proof in 2018 and after years of aging the whiskey is now, remarkably, 129.8 proof.

The crystal-clear glass bottle chosen for Thomas H. Handy Sazerac is designed to showcase the whiskey’s dark, rich color. The back label provides a full product story and description. Every case was hand-bottled and labeled to ensure the highest quality finish.

Proof: 129.8

Filtration: None

Age Statement: 6 years, 3 months

Price: Whatever you can find it for

Review: The distillery describes this rye whiskey as “Powerful, lush and boldly spicy.” Let’s give it a try and see how it is!

Appearance: This whiskey is a very dark amber, and its viscosity really shows in the legs it leaves on the sides of the glass.

Nose: Fantastic is the first word that comes to mind. Right off the bat there’s rye spice, of course, along with cinnamon and clove. However, it’s accompanied by some serious sweetness: caramel and honey dominate, along with some toffee, maple and orange peel. There’s also stone fruit and a bit of oak, and almost no ethanol whatsoever. The empty glass is more of the same, with strong honey, caramel, and leather notes lingering long after the pour is gone.

Palate: Incredibly viscous; almost as chewy as the toffee and caramel that this tastes like. Rye punches you in the mouth right away (as you’d expect!), and then the other notes from the palate kick in: those caramel/toffee, maple, stone fruit, and orange peel notes make this a remarkable combination of sweet and spicy. Tobacco and oak are also present in this well-balanced pour. Ethanol is also present on the palate, but not overwhelmingly so by any means.

Finish: Long and warm, but not hot. The rye spice holds up longer than the sweetness does, but it remains well-balanced. There’s a bit of oaky dryness as the rye dissipates, but there’s also more fruit (blackberry perhaps?) and some baking spices – a little cinnamon and some clove in particular. Traces of leather also linger as the other flavors fade away.

Thoughts: Given that this is the first time I’ve tried Thomas H. Handy Sazerac, and given that I’m not a proof-chaser by any means (give me 90-110 all day, please!), I wasn’t sure what to expect here. The age statement also made me question just what I’d be getting, as 6 years is pretty young overall – let alone for something from a BTAC series whose other rye whiskey is 18 years old!

I have to say that I’m surprised in the most pleasant of ways by this pour. Its balance is a major plus, as the rye flavor is there to be enjoyed while also being complemented by some sweet fruit and candy notes. This is an example of an absolute banger that drinks well below its proof – if I didn’t know that it clocked in at a robust 129.8º, I’d guess it was ten to twenty points below that number.

It’s hard to overstate how enjoyable this 2025 Handy is, all the way from nose to finish. While it may be one of the most accessible of the Buffalo Trace Antique Collection bottles, its secondary price is still an unfortunate drawback, as it’s worth every penny of its MSRP (and maybe twice that, to be honest). However, I’m trying to leave value and accessibility out of my ratings in favor of just providing feedback on the whiskey itself.

Given that, I’d easily rate this an 8.5 on the modified T8ke scale (between “Excellent — really quite exceptional” and “Incredible — an all time favorite”). It’s solid in the best way, and is already a new favorite of mine after just one pour.