Found all five of these at the same shop for $800 total with tax. Absolutely insane deal, especially around the Atlanta area. I've been seeing the 14-year alone on shelves for $400 to $500 regularly around here.
Don't think I'm ever going to get this lucky again and I can't wait to provide reviews on all five of these!
After a highly controversial review of RR 10, we're back with a close, but generally considered to be superior, cousin: WT Rare Breed! This bottle comes in at 116.8 proof. It was picked up from a GA Total Wine for $55 and was sampled in a Glencairn after resting for about 20 minutes.
Before hopping into the review, I took a lot of the feedback from the RR 10 review into consideration and have decided to modify my rating scale. It is still broken into Taste * Value = Total Score, but I will now use the T8KE scale for Taste and the value multiplier now runs from 0.5 - 1.5. This will allow for excellent and terrible value bottles to be fairly represented with a score of 1 as a baseline for fair pricing. Lastly, the Total Score will end up equaling a 1-10 score; this is distinct from the Taste Rating and should be interpreted as a score representing how likely I am to recommend a given bottle. If you don't care about my value assessment, just focus on the Taste Rating! All prior and forthcoming reviews will be adjusted to match this new system.
Moving on!
Nose: Oak, toasted marshmallow, cinnamon, caramel and vanilla, melted brown sugar, a slight nutiness. There is moderate ethanol, but nothing harsh.
Palate: An initial strong ethanol bite that quickly gives way to a strong sweet-oak with a slight astringency. There are notes of dark and ever so mildly bitter cherry, cinnamon, and roasted nuts (couldn't say exactly which kind; it is less peanut-butter like than RR 10). The mouth-feel is slightly creamy and it coats the roof of your mouth almost like a good melted caramel candy would. The ethanol drinks above proof to me with a pronounced numbing sensation after the second sip. It's still not overly hot, but feels closer to a ~125 proof to me.
Finish: Medium short; the longer it lingers, the more of the nut and oak astringency I get along with a subtle fruitiness that reminds me of a dark rum-cake.
Taste Rating: 6
A very strong palate; this is a surprisingly complex bourbon that offers much of what I found RR 10 to be lacking. Interestingly, I've had to revisit this bottle many times as my first couple of pours I found to be rather hot and onenote. I'm sure there is a mix of palate development and the bottle opening up to point to here, but I'm glad to find that I'm enjoying this one now!
Value Rating: 1
Around Atlanta, this bottle seems to fluctuate wildly between $55 and $70. However, it is closer to the $55 side of the scale often enough for me to call that it's "shelf price". At that price, I think this is right on the money for value; far superior to the $50 bottles of RR 10 we see sitting next to these regularly and better than many similarly priced bottles!
Total Score (Taste * Value): 6
I think WT has this one almost perfectly slotted in the line-up; it's very good while not being over priced or hard to find. A slightly more smooth ethanol profile would easily bump this one up for me, but I'm not mad at it as is. This will likely make recurring appearances on my shelf and I will be picking up the Rare Breed Rye to try as well!
Taste Rating (Based on T8KE's Scale):
1 | Disgusting
2 | Poor
3 | Bad
4 | Sub-par
5 | Good
6 | Very Good
7 | Great
8 | Excellent
9 | Incredible
10 | Perfect
Value Rating (based on average shelf price in the Atlanta, GA area):
0.5 - Massively overpriced average shelf pricing
1.0 - Fairly priced; shelf pricing matches the quality offered by the bottle
1.5 - Incredible value at common shelf pricing, easy purchase at any time
Hey everyone, quick question to other Tacswap sellers; how are you supposed to archive sold listings? On both mobile and desktop versions, as soon as I mark a listing sold, the only option is to delete the listing. Active listings do show Archive, but none of my sold ones seem to give me the option.
Hello everyone!
So after posting an apparently VERY controversial review on Russell's Reserve 10 Year last night, I wanted to explain my rating system a bit better for everyone to make my future reviews easier to interpret.
My scale has 3 components: Taste Rating, Value Multiplier, and Total Score. The most important thing to know about this is that IF all you care about is how "good" a whiskey is from the flavor and enjoyment perspective, the only score you should worry about is the TASTE Rating, which is a 1-5 value.
The value multiplier is based on the average available price of the reviewed bottle in the Atlanta, GA area ONLY. If you live somewhere with better pricing on the bottles I review, you have to keep that in mind to understand my scoring.
Lastly, the Total Score represents my opinion on the bottle with value accounted for. This number will also fall in the 1-5 range, but this score does NOT match the taste rating scale; earning a 1 on the Total Score does not mean the bottle is a drain-pour like a 1 on the Taste Rating does. If I think a bottle is absolutely incredible in taste but a horrible value, it's total score will be low, regardless of the taste rating. Value is obviously subjective, more so than palate I'd argue, so if you don't agree with my total score, that's ok! Just focus on the taste rating and my profile notes.
Hope that helps this system make more sense to everyone, and to make the WT bros happy, the next review will be WT Rare Breed Bourbon, so stay tuned!
First and foremost; I did not realize that Reddit was dumb and destroyed my formatting on mobile because I made the first four reviews on a PC... so moving forward, I'll draft on PC and edit/post from mobile to prevent the WALL of text. Sorry about that.
Moving on! Russell's 10 Year Bourbon; I picked this up from TW for $50 on recommendation from their sales staff. This was the first age-stated whiskey I bought (technically second, I had a bottle of Eagle Rare 10 many years ago before I actually knew anything about whiskey, but I don't count that one since I wasn't paying attention to it), and I have to say, it did not make a strong first impression.
This was sampled in a tulip tasting glass after resting for long enough to learn how Reddit formatting works. RIP to my first Glencairn; turns out it is not stronger than a cat jumping on it. Its twin lives on in fear.
Nose: Moderate oak, caramelized sugar, weak baking spices, subtle vanilla. A rather "standard" bourbon nose with what I would describe as the default sweet BBQ sauce smell so many bourbons seem to develop. Ethanol is very light as expected for a 90 proof. Nothing offensive, but nothing stands out either.
Palate: This is a fairly thin sipper; there is a slight oiliness to it, but it does not coat you mouth much. The first flavor I get is a slightly bitter oak. It's not badly bitter, but not good either. The oak is followed by a small amount of brown sugar and baking spices which slowly transition to a weak peanut-butter flavor. There is nothing bad here, but I've had much cheaper bourbons with significantly more depth of flavor, or at least a more unique profile.
Finish: Short; the only notable aspect of the finish is that the peanut flavor seems to linger and strengthen on the back of the tongue for a while following what little ethanol burn there is.
Taste Rating: 2.5
It's... fine. I'd take it if offered, and I wouldn't be upset at being gifted a bottle, but it's just not anything standout.
Value Multiplier: 0.4
It's just not good enough to justify that $45-$55 average asking price around the Atlanta area. If this was sitting in the mid-$30 range, I could see a case for purchasing another bottle at some point, but there are way too many good-to-great bottles in the ~$50 range to bother with this one.
Total Score (Taste * Value): 1
The value is what does this one in; the fact that good Jack Daniels, Makers Mark, and Knob Creek bottles all exist in the same price range makes me wonder why I'd bother with this one. Heck, even bottles like Green River Full Proof float in this price range, and that's a far better bottle.
Taste Scale:
Awful; give away or drain-pour
Good enough to drink, but probably dedicated to a mixer. Do not repurchase
A solid pour; I'd order it, it from a friend, and may buy a bottle again at a good price
A very good pour. Bottle will have a permanent home on my shelf if the value is there
Exceptional flavor, an absolute favorite above all others
Value Multiplier (based on average price, NOT what I actually paid)
0.2 - Massively overpriced due to markups or bad flavor for the price
0.4 - Overpriced, probably not worth a buy for the money unless truly exceptional
0.6 - Expensive, but not necessarily unreasonable if the pour is high-quality
0.8 - MSRP that matches expected flavor, or minor mark-ups for good products
1 - MSRP for fantastic pour, or a pour that is "worth" exactly what is charged
Annnnd after missing the first delivery attempt, we're back with review 4! Today we have the EC T8KE single barrel from 2026's wave 17. It was purchased for $99.99.
The mash bill is not stated, but is likely the same 75% Corn, 13% Rye, and 12% Barley as the other age stated EC Bourbons. This bottle comes in at an impressive 139.2 proof, falling just 0.8 shy of Hazmat (this is the main thing that attracted me to this bottle).
Tasted in a 4oz base-less tasting glass after resting for however long it takes to overpower Rocksett with brute strength and crushed fingers.
Nose: Brown sugar, cinnamon, vanilla, toasted oats, honey. The ethanol is mostly absent which is surprising. Very deep, rich, and pleasant.
Palate: Savory-sweet chocolate and caramel, roasted salted peanuts, worcestershire sauce, a bit of something dark and fruity but subtle; perhaps dried plum. A wonderful balance of sweet, salty, and umami flavors. The ethanol was nearly absent on the first sip, but started to build on the second, and by the third was noticeably numbing my tongue. Despite this, there was minimal "harshness" to the burn; I've had multiple 110-132 proof bottles that bit much harder than this one. There is a slight thickness to the pour that coats your mouth with a creamy mouth-feel.
Finish: Long with the above described flavor profile staying warmly on your tongue and slowly fading out after about 60-90 seconds. The sweetness slowly gives way to more of the salty-umami flavors, and the ethanol picks up it's intensity, but not in a bad way. All of this to say, the palate is great, and with this finish, it lingers for a good while before encouraging you to take another sip.
Taste Rating: 5
A strong representation of "traditional" bourbon flavors and nose. The depth, richness, sweetness, and creaminess are all here in near-perfect balance. Truly excellent.
Value Rating: 1
For $100 (ignoring the extremely painful $22 shipping... ugh) this bottle is amazing. It immediately beat out the Redwood Empire Haystack Needle Bourbon (review coming) by a significant margin for my palate, and that bottle is $20-30 more. I'd say it is an excellent example of what bourbon should be and, while not cheap, is still very reasonably attainable for anyone within the whiskey community to pick-up. I'll be nursing this one for a long time.
Total Score (Taste * Value): 5
Man... this is what every ~$100 bottle should strive to be; its flavorful, mature, not harsh in-spite of its proof, and isn't so expensive that you feel bad drinking it. So far, this is to the bourbons I've had as Rye Haystack Needle is to the Ryes (i.e. my favorite so far in the category).
Taste Scale (No decimals for taste as they can come from the value multiplier):
Value Multiplier (based on average available price, NOT what I actually paid):