Today we're taking a look at this 1792 Full Proof that was picked by Branded Barrel back in 2023! If you know me, you know I love 1792 store picks of all varieties, but the Full Proofs have always been a notch above. Especially if you're in an area that actually sells these at MSRP, one of the best values in whiskey today. Branded Barrel has done a handful of 1792 picks, but this was the first Full Proof I was able to get my hands on. This one is over 7 years old and as always, you can email Sazerac to get age and barrel info on these picks. Pretty cool. Let's see how she is.

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

Age: 7 years, 6 months

Proof: 125

Nose: Very strong cherry up front followed by brown sugar, caramel, and oak. Giving the glass a swirl makes that cherry note much stronger along with some added tobacco. Great balance between sweet and earthy tones which is what I expect, and want, with Barton whiskey.

Palate: First sip smacks you in the face with cherries, tobacco, brown sugar, baking spices, and oak with a medium viscosity. Cherries, tobacco, and baking spices remain strong after subsequent sips. It's dark and sweet initially, but that cherry starts to become very bright towards the end of the pour.

Finish: Longer side of medium finish of tobacco, vanilla, oak, and a bright cherry that starts to get a little medicinal.

1792 has always been a solid, steady, and reliable brand when it comes to their core lineup. Some of these single barrel store picks Full Proofs though can punch above their weight. This pick brings in much of what I love about Barton; those red fruits mixed with earth vibes like that tobacco note has and turns it up a notch. Great pick and one I wish I snagged more of before they sold out!

t8ke scale: 7.4/10 | 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.

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

Four Grain is Cured Oak's sibling in this year's pair of E.H. Taylor revivals, although it's taking a different path going forward: while Cured Oak came back as a one-time, rare re-release, Buffalo Trace says that Four Grain will be a permanent annual release from here on out.

As with Cured Oak, age is a major difference between the original and the revival. The 2017 and 2018 releases of Four Grain – built from 2005 distillate – carried 12- and 13-year age statements, respectively, while the 2026 expression comes in at just 10 years of age. Buffalo Trace's own explanation is that this mash bill was never intended to chase a specific age statement in the first place, so the age drop isn't necessarily a step down in quality, just a different target.

What actually sets E.H. Taylor Four Grain apart, though, is what’s in the whiskey. Instead of the standard low-rye Mash Bill #1 that anchors most of the Taylor lineup, this one uses corn, rye, wheat, and malted barley together. As with all four-grain bourbons, the idea here seems to be that combining them builds a layered experience that standard three-grain bourbons don’t enjoy.

Let’s see how this one is!

From the Distillery: This special edition Four Grain bourbon is crafted just as Taylor would have wanted. The use of the highest quality grains and a distinct combination of corn, rye, wheat and malted barley, creates a flavor that is sweet with hints of caramel and vanilla, yet spicy with notes of clove and pepper. This impeccably balanced bourbon embodies the character of the man that would expect no less.

Mash bill: Undisclosed amounts of corn, rye, wheat, and malted barley

Proof: 100

Price: $79.99

Appearance: An orange-ish shade of amber, with decent legs on the glass.

Nose: Very fruit-forward: cherry pie filling and sweet grape, along with some graham cracker, confectionery sugar, and the slightest grassy note. Once the glass is empty, what’s left is maple, toffee, and some pipe tobacco.

Palate: Sweet and fruity right off the bat, with some oak and caramel coming into play on the mid-palate. There’s also some spice – rye and pepper – but they’re definitely supporting players. It’s smooth despite that spice, probably because of the wheat component. While the flavor is very nice, though, there’s not a lot of complexity here.

Finish: Pretty short, and made up of cinnamon, a good bit of oak, and the remnants of some sweet cherry. The aftertaste mostly features oak tannins at first, before some caramel finds its way in there after a while.

Thoughts: This strikes me as being more Eagle Rare-ish than E.H. Taylor-like, with cherry pie filling and almost medicinal grape hitting you right at the front of the palate. (Then again, I did get a lot of fruit like this off of E.H. Taylor’s Single Barrel expression, so maybe I’m wrong here). The overall experience is a very good one, although the finish leaves something to be desired. Overall, this is a largely enjoyable pour, if not an overly complex one. In my opinion it’s worth trying, but it’s not worth paying what some stores and secondary sellers are asking for it.

Rating: E.H. Taylor Four Grain is a solid pour, if not a life-changing one. I give it a 7.4 (“Great – Well Above Average”).

********************
Previous Ratings (all reviews are available in my archive, but there may be some discrepancies in numeric rating, as these are updated to include decimals and adjusted for blinds & re-reviews)

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out

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

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

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

5 | Good | Good, just fine
Jack Daniel’s SBBP Rye (5)
Jack Daniel’s Heritage (5)
Four Roses SBBP OESO (5)
New Riff 4yr SBBP (5)
Four Roses SBBP OBSV (5.3)
Evan Williams America250 SiB (5.3)
New Riff Balboa Rye (5.4)
Blanton’s (5.5)
Old Forester 1924 (5.7)
Elijah Craig Toasted (5.8)
Lasso Motel 18yr ALW (5.8)

6 | Very Good | A cut above
Buffalo Trace Single Oak (6)
Barrell Cigar Blend (6)
Buffalo Trace (6)
1792 BiB SiB (6)
Copper & Cask Boston Rum Party (6)
Penelope Wheated (6)
Redwood Empire Emerald Giant (6)
Peerless DO (6.1)
Copper & Cask #16 (6.3)
Stagg 25B (6.3)
Augusta Buckner’s 13yr (6.5)
Green River Honey (6.5)
Pursuit United DO (6.5)
Sagamore 9yr SiB Rye (6.5)
Sazerac FP (6.5)
Green River Wheated (6.5)
Elmer T. Lee (6.5)
Copper & Cask #14 DO (6.6)
Shortbarrel Bees Knees V (6.8)
Penelope Marshmallow Toast (6.8)
Willett 4yr Rye (6.8)
Ampersand Opimus (6.9)

7 | Great | Well above average
Blanton’s Gold (7)
John J. Bowman SiB (7)
Found North 012 (7)
Rock Hill Farms (7)
Peerless Toasted (7.1)
E.H. Taylor SiB (7.2)
E.H. Taylor 4 Grain (7.4)
Eagle Rare 10yr (7.5)
Weller 107 (7.5)
Old Forester 1910 (7.5)
Penelope Estate 10yr SiB (7.5)
Blanton’s LMDW (7.5)
E.H. Taylor BP 16 (7.6)
E.H. Taylor SmB (7.6)
Woodford DO SBBP (7.7)
Old Fitzgerald 7yr (7.7)
Eagle Rare 12yr (7.8)
E.H. Taylor Cured Oak (7.8)
Willett 8yr SiB Rye (7.9)

8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional
Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend 420 (8)
Old Dominick Staved SiB (8)
Starlight 10yr (8)
Blanton’s SFTB (8.3)
Lasso Motel SBBP Rye (8.4)
Mister Sam Tribute 4 (8.6)
E.H. Taylor BTAC 2025 (8.7)
Thomas H. Handy 2025 (8.7)
Eagle Rare 17yr 2025 (8.9)

9 | Incredible | An all time favorite

10 | Perfect | Perfect

Age: 5 years, 5 months
Proof: 126.48 proof
Mash Bill: Wheat. All of the wheat.
Cost: $142

Nose. Apple, of the Granny Smith variety. The raw straw note that I’ve found common on Frey Ranch is very present.

Palate. Super dynamic, switching between dark notes of leather and brighter, fruitier notes like pears and honey. Thick viscosity. I could probably use this to lubricate windmill gears.

Finish. Pineapple. Honeydew melon, one of my least favorite melons, but it works here. An ever so slight ethanol burn at the end that gradually fades the longer the bottle is open.

Overall. I’ve had mixed experiences with 100% wheat whiskey. Some (Star Hill Farms) have been great. Others (Unbendt) have left a lot to be desired. I’m an unapologetic fan of Frey Ranch, so I was excited to try a unique expression from my favorite Nevada farmers.

This does not disappoint.

This is a barrel pick from El Cerrito, which I only know as an online retailer but they may have a brick and mortar store in California. If you like Frey Ranch, this has all the notes you would expect: it’s like eating a mouthful of soil with vanilla frosting on top. Who doesn’t like sugary fertilizer, am I right?

I normally keep around 20 bottles open at a time, and it can take anywhere from 6 months to a year before I finally finish something. It’s unusual for me to keep coming back to something so often that it’s gone in less than 90 days. I finished this bottle in under three months. Either I need an intervention or this bottle is just that good.

Would I buy another bottle? Yes.

Rating. 7.75/10 | 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

A short review as this was dissapointing. I saved the end for a while i thought maybe because I didn't want to kill it then remembered its just because I was dissapointed with the bottle and the price.

Aroma is the best part but still meh. There's caramel and a touch of vanilla, but also some odd green pepper and cinnamon top herbal and just something a little off balance to off

Flavor this drinks over proof and hits with hot akd hot alcohol then a big dose of cinnamon fireball candy flavor eventually I get some fruit and baking spice but it's just wildly unbalanced and not that pleasant. Water doesn't really change the flavor

Finish some lingering heat and some light tanin.

Overall I honestly wouldnt pay 1/4 msrp for this bottle, I can drink it but im not sure ill actually finish this pour.

Score 5 (or worse of i factor price)

I've been reading many praises for TC lately but I've been reluctant to spring $100+ for one of their new bottles. We were out of town and I found this bottle collecting dust on the bottom shelf of a small unrenowned liquor store with a $34.99 price tag so I figured wth. I was eager to open it this afternoon as soon as we returned home. There are many reviews for this bottle so I'll offer cursory opinions below but I'll lead with how much I am enjoying this pour.

BOTTLE: Thirteenth Colony Southern Rye Whiskey Small Batch finished in French Oak. 95Proof. Distilled in Indiana. Aged and bottled by Thirteenth Colony Distillery Georgia. This is a 2024 release. 95Rye 5MB. No Age statement but believed to be between 4-6 years.

POUR: Neat in a snifter and rested for 5 mins. The legs are incredible coating the glass with thick syrup.

NOSE: Also incredible. I identified orange marmalade but the bottle mentions apricot which may be more close but as preserves combined with fresh rye grains.

PALATE: Orange peel, dried oranges with the peels, the bitterness of peel with the spice of the rye grain and the thick syrup produces a delicious complexity.

FINISH: The rye spice lingers with the distinctive dried fruit for a brief spell.

GRADE: 7/10.

SUMMARY: I feel fortunate to have made this bottle my first TC experience and at such a value. My profile preference is high rye so this appeals to me even if only 95P. Im eager and have no reservations about splurging on their current highly rated bottles.

Background:

I.W. Harper can be a puzzling brand to navigate. It's currently owned by Diageo, who inherited it from its predecessor United Distillers in 1997. United got it in 1987, after its own forerunner Guiness acquired Schenley, who'd held I.W. Harper since 1937.

Prior to 1992, I.W. Harper bourbon was produced at what is commonly referred to as the "old" Bernheim distillery, which had been greatly expanded by Schenley after the Prohibition. That plant was demolished by United Distillers in 1992 to make way for the new one, passing along its DSP-KY-1 registration number to the current Bernheim location. It was in turn sold to Heaven Hill in 1999, following the 1996 fire that destroyed the DSP-KY-31 Old Heavenhill Springs distillery.

After selling new Bernheim, Diageo had no active Kentucky distilleries until 2017, when it opened the Bulleit distillery in Shelbyville, and another one in Lebanon in 2021. That means it still relies on sourced whiskey to supply its higher-aged expressions, like I.W. Harper 15 or Blade and Bow 12.

I.W. Harper bourbon was not available in the US from the early '90s and until 2015. However, it was still produced for export to Japan and Europe. The later 2000s versions were contract-made by Four Roses, Heaven Hill and others, but if you go back to the '90s, it could be either old Bernheim, pre-Heaven Hill new Bernheim, or a blend of both.

The bottle I'm reviewing today, I.W. Harper 101 proof Japanese export from around 1997, is a mystery case. It's NAS, so it could potentially fit any of the Bernheim scenarios outlined above. United likely kept I.W. Harper's original low-rye mash bill of 86 corn, 6 rye and 8 barley (also shared with Old Charter) when it switched from old Bernheim to the new facility. Keep that in mind when you see Four Roses or Heaven Hill mash bills erroneously brought up to describe '80s and '90s-distilled Bernheim liquid.

The 101-proof expression was introduced in 1974 and featured a gold label. This grey label is a later, export-only version from the '90s. Tasted neat in a copita.

Nose:

Butterscotch, chocolate syrup, pear, grape, cranberry, vanilla, pie crust, honey.

Palate:

Butterscotch, gentle oak, orange cream, nut and raisin mix, grape, chocolate.

Finish:

Medium; a little oak char, citrus, brown sugar, grape must, tobacco.

Rating: (t8ke scale for reference below): 7

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out

2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice

3 | Bad | Multiple flaws

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

5 | Good | Good, just fine

6 | Very Good | A cut above

7 | Great | Well above average

8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional

9 | Incredible | An all-time favorite

10 | Perfect | Perfect

Thoughts:

When Diageo came out with its first batch of Orphan Barrel releases in 2014, old and new (pre-Heaven Hill) Bernheim distillate was prominently featured: Old Blowhard came from old Bernheim, Barterhouse and Forged Oak from the new, and Rhetoric was a blend of the two.

Diageo still hasn't run out of it, as evidenced by the 30-year Blade and Bow (new) and 34-year I.W. Harper (old) from last year.

It was neat to taste this distillate even at a more conventional age. While I can't confidently guess the precise origin of the blend, it did have signature grape and chocolate notes I usually get on old Bernheim. It's quite sweet with few spice notes, as you'd expect from the mash bill.

It reminded me of some of the more grape-forward Eagle Rare picks, which supports the theory that Sazerac was inspired by the low-rye Harper and Old Charter bourbons, and possibly used similar Schenley-era yeast, when they created their mash bill 1 line (rumored to be 8 percent rye). I find it plausible, especially since it was engineered by Gary Gayheart, Buffalo Trace Master Distiller in the 1990s, who used to make Old Charter for Schenley at both the Bernheim and George T. Stagg plants earlier in his career.

While I'd prefer to try 101-proof Harper from the '70s or '80s, this '90s version is a very pleasant whiskey, and is cheaper and easier to find if you travel to Japan.

Thanks for reading and cheers!

Stopped and picked up Clear Water Distilling Co’s latest offering of Alfred’s Vault. This batch is a 4 yr bourbon finished in port barrels bottled at 118 proof.

Color of the whiskey is a gorgeous mahogany amber.

Nose brings the port barrel through the whiskey. Essence of a berry compote initially on the nose with the expected caramel and vanilla undertones.

Palate brings a little heat with it along with very strong port barrel influence. Not a lot of extra complexity to the whiskey besides the port influence.

Finish is medium in length with the port finish enticing me to go back for more.

Discussion: The first batch of Alfred’s Vault was finished in amburana. This finish can be very polarizing and unfortunately for me is not my favorite finish. The port finish on this second batch of Alfred’s Vault is something I enjoy much more than the amburana. While at the distillery I was told that the next iteration will be a 9 yr high rye bourbon finished with Spanish Cedar wood. It is currently tanked with the cedar wood spirals. I’ve never had a cedar wood finish so I am very intrigued and do not know what to expect.

Overall: 6.7/10

In the glass: Dettling Cask Strength Single Barrel “Brown Water Basement”, Barrel #538

Distillery: Big Escambia Spirits

ABV: 60.3%

Proof: 120.6

Age: 4 Years 8 Months

Mashbill: 70% corn, 15% rye, 12% oat, 3% roasted assorted grains (chocolate malted rye, caramel malted barley, malted wheat)

Nose: Oak, mocha, nutty buddy candy bar, vanilla, some barrel char, and a hint of tobacco.

Palate: This is English tobacco, mocha, heath candy bar, it zings your palate, it’s got oak spice to it that tingles on the tip of your tongue. It’s a deep rich pour that lasts in flavor forever. It’s really like a dark chocolate sea salt cigar. It reminds me of the darkness and similar flavor profile of a goose island or dragons milk beer.

Finish: There’s a nice hug, oak, cocoa powder, chocolate Rice Krispies, and more of that tobacco. The chocolate is almost bitter with how dark it tastes.

Final thoughts: This is a powerhouse dettling, I was lucky enough to swap half a bottle of the R&L pick with a buddy for half a bottle of this one. They’re both bangers but this one lends to darker flavors.

This is one of three sister barrels from picks in 2025 that came out above 120 proof. Barrels 538, 539, and 540 are all monsters (in terms of dettling) for proof. I have a bottle (half of this one) of each of them and can’t wait to crack when a few other bottles hit the deck.

I’ve said it before and will continue to say it, I am lucky to have the access I do to these picks through good friends and groups.

Rating: 8.1/10

During the course of writing these reviews, I’ve (mostly) grown fond of Willett’s unique flavor profile. Of their bourbons I’ve tried (Rowan’s Creek, Johnny Drum, Noah’s Mill, Pure Kentucky, Pot Still Reserve) this WFE bottle is considered by Willett to be their most premium offering. I’ve found that they tend to have a consistent overall flavor profile but are plagued by an inconsistent balance of components: oak tannins, ethanol, sweetness, etc. My impression is that more attention is paid to the WFE releases, butI am curious where this falls for me within their hierarchy. Let’s see what we think.

Price Paid: $69.99 before tax

Score: 7.25/10

The Background
Distillery: Willett Distillery

ABV: 63.7% (127.4 proof)

Age: 4 years

Mash Bill: 0.8(72% corn, 13% rye, 15% barley) + 0.2(52% corn, 38% rye, 10% barley)

Other: cask strength, 125 barrel entry proof

The Experience
Nose: floral, coconut, molasses, ethanol. Smells pleasant, but also young and hot. I let this sit ~20 minutes prior to evaluation.

Palate: floral, cola, oak. If coca-cola released a hibiscus edition.

Finish: oak, cinnamon spice. Hot, lingering, and delicious.

The Summary
Given the nose, I was worried about how young and corn-forward this would be, but once my palate broke through the heat I was greatly rewarded. I am reminded of the Stagg I have on my shelf given the overall “cola” accord that this presents. This is oakier, more floral, spicier, and less sweet, though. It stands out more for being unique but I’m not sure that it’s more enjoyable on the whole. Compared to other Willett releases, I would say that it’s almost in-line with the Noah’s Mill 23-08 that I reviewed, but this just barely wins out for having such a beautiful finish that never goes away. This is worth every bit of $70 to me and I definitely plan on buying again to test the batch variation.

T8KE Scoring System Used for Relevancy and Consistency:
0 | Unscored | New Make Spirit or Personal Selection.
1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.
2 | Poor | I wouldn't consume by choice.
3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but many things I'd rather have.
5 | Good | Good; just fine.
6 | Very Good | One cut above.
7 | Great | Well above average.
8 | Excellent | Exceptional.
9 | Incredible | An all-time favorite.
10 | Perfect | Perfection.

Nose: shmedium, typical bourbon notes like oak, vanilla, cherry, toasted sugars. Nothing unique here unfortunately.

Palate: shmedium structure, some soft oak tannins, soft toasted sugar, rum barrel bite, runs hot due to the flavors not being strong enough to compliment the 111 proof.

Finish: soft, flavors pretty much disappate right away. Left with tannins and warm proof. A bit of a letdown.

My thoughts: it's....alright. It's not "bad" by any means, but it's so light on all flavors so that I can't really see this as a sipper for myself personally. Do you though. Also, label is AMAZING.

Rating: 4.0/10

[I'm on IG too with video reviews here

A group of buddies and I have done an annual Kentucky Bourbon Trail trip each of the last 5 years.

Every year I have a list of pours and new releases I want to try... Bottles I cant find or new releases that are pricey so I want to try before I buy. I have been trying to drink a bit less this year and have kinda unplugged from bourbon news so feel like I am going into this trip blind.

What are some of your favorite bottles that released this year or pours you think I should be looking out for?

EC15, Michters 2026 Toasted Rye, and Remus Repeal X are my current shortlist.

Appreciate it!

On August 7, 2026, my brother poured me two bottles blind. I didn't know which two he'd picked. I'd done a lot of tasting that night, so my palate was tired and I barely took notes. I picked one of the two, and it turned out to be Blanton's Straight From the Barrel. I didn't trust that pick. One seemed higher in proof and brighter, the other lower and a little darker, and I'd have been extremely happy with either one at a bar. I hesitated to post any of it, because I didn't feel I'd done either bottle justice.

This post covers the second run, on October 12, 2026. I don't like to review a bottle right after it's cracked. The Blanton's had been open for a long time. The Stagg 23C I'd opened about 12 hours before the first tasting, so it was basically a fresh crack. For this run I let it open up, let my palate come back down after a long night of bourbon, and tried both again.

The setup

Two coded samples. I know what's on the table. I don't know which pour is in which glass.

Sample one

Brown sugar up front, plenty of ethanol, and dark fruit, maybe plums and molasses. On the palate it's sweet and rich, with caramel and vanilla that linger. I didn't find any curveballs from nose to finish. The syrupy texture carries the sweetness, and the oil helps it coat. A bigger sip brings out some cherry cola, and it's good. I really liked this one.

Sample two

Lighter on the nose, with a touch of grape, cinnamon and vanilla. The palate is light too, mostly honey and vanilla. It's still bold and high proof, and it's quintessential bourbon, just quieter. The dark fruit from sample one isn't here, and that's the difference I keep coming back to. I liked it less than sample one, but it's still a pour I'd gladly take.

I went back and forth between the two several times. The order matters. What I'd just tasted changed what I got from the next sip, so I checked the difference a few times before I trusted it.

My pick and scores

My favorite is sample one. I give sample one a 9.1 and sample two an 8.7.

The reveal

Sample one is the Stagg 23C. Sample two is the Blanton's. On August 7 I'd called the Blanton's the darker one. This time it was the lighter one, so the read flipped. I'd hoped I'd pick the Blanton's again. I didn't, and this time I trust the tasting more.

The verdict

The margin is wider than I expected. On my scale that isn't a huge gap, and both are good bottles. The Stagg 23C clears into Incredible, which my scale defines as an all-time favorite. The Blanton's sits at the top of Excellent.

The proofs are close. The Stagg is about two points lower on the label, but it drank a lot lower than that, maybe 116 to 118. I credit the sweetness and the dark sugars for balancing the strength, along with the mouth coating and the oil. It was really good.

About proof and batches

After the tasting I looked up my batch. I learned that 23C is one of the lowest-proof Stagg batches Stagg has released, at 125.9 proof. People get stuck on the proof number and assume higher is better, and it isn't always. If you blinded two bourbons a couple points apart in proof, most people wouldn't find much difference from the strength alone. Stagg also varies from batch to batch, and some batches are considered better than others. I'd judge each pour on its own.

Neither bottle gives an age, and neither discloses its mash bill. They're reportedly a low-rye Stagg and a high-rye Blanton's, though the Blanton's high rye is reportedly not that high. I'd guess they're close in age, but neither label says. Blanton's is a single barrel, so my bottle could taste nothing like yours.

Finding one

These bottles don't come up often. A few had popped up recently, and I finally found one. It was a three-year-old bottle, a little dusty, in an out-of-the-way liquor store that probably doesn't get many people asking for Stagg. I was happy with it, and I'll keep an eye out for more.

What I'd take from it

Keep your tastings consistent: the room, the water, the temperature, and what you drank before and after. The first time I was distracted and tired. This time I trust the result. I'd be happy with either bottle poured for me at a bar. That hasn't changed since August.

My Scores · Blind Pour

These are blind tasting scores only. Final scores follow the open pour.

Stagg 23C — 9.1 · Incredible

Blanton's Straight From The Barrel — 8.7 · Excellent

Full reviews with final scores: Blanton's Straight From The Barrel.

I write these up at openpourwhiskey.com and post them on Instagram. Not sponsored. Please drink responsibly.

The third installment of the "Lord of The Rings" trilogy of store picks done by George's Liquors in OKC. Released November 2025.

Age Stated: 20 Years
Type: American light whiskey
Proof: 142.5
Cost: $180
Yield: 58 bottles

-Sourced from Maryland (Seagrams) - essentially this is OG Four Roses American Light Whiskey, at Cask Strength with the "fruity creamy" 4R recipe more or less. However this is pure 99% corn and 1% malted barley. A true "IYKYK".

Drank - Neat
Glass - Final Touch Whisky Tasting Glass
Rested for 15 minutes

As always, unbiased, unpaid, and unprofessional!

Nose-
This heavyweight Kicks off with Fresh Strawberries and cream, honey, cinnamon spice, and topped off with caramel drizzled vanilla ice cream with nutmeg spice, and a back bone of old seasoned oak. Not many nuances or underlying flavors here. Very straightforward - as are most ALW's to me.

Palate -
Sip number one brings on more Strawberry and toasted vanilla cream up front from the nose, followed by Browned butter, honey, cinnamon sugar, and black and red pepper spices. Further sips show slight signs of charred oak, tanned leather, and burnt caramel.

Mouthfeel -
Buttery thick! Sticks and almost "numbing".
Very "layered" with a very creamy texture as well.

Finish -
Fresh from the bakery Strawberry cream pie, hot caramel sauce, and sweet oak coming across as almost a slightly toasted pecan. This lasts forever! Drinks well below 142.5 - i would say more like 120-122ish if i had to make an honest guess. This is delicious!

Overall - 91/100
This is the best american light whiskey i have had by far. Straight up sweetness, a little heat, and pure creamy drinkability.

My Scale:
1-49: Drain Pour, absolute drain cleaner, donate to the sink.
50-59: average - standard, boring, but gets the job done.
60-69: solid - reliable, but nothing to write home about.
70-79: great whiskey, well above the average pour.
80-89: excellent whiskey, top notch, well done.
90-95: exceptional top tier whiskey - very memorable.
96-98: Unreal pour - some of the best ever.
99-100: Pinnacle Lifetime whiskey - perfection in a glass.

Nose: medium, sweet oak, maple for sure, brown sugar. Not much more than that, but it is damn enjoyable.

Palate: medium structure, sweet oak, oily, maple is there but not heavy, powdered sugar sweetness, proof is in balance with all the flavors. It certainly leans sweet, but in no way overwhelming. Just right.

Finish: pretty long, faded sweetness sits coating my palate and the proof doing it's thing keeping the flavors going, but flavors do thin out a bit more than I'd like.

My thoughts: if you're worried about having a mouth full of maple and sugar, this isn't that. It somehow found enough barrel oak and an appropriate amount of maple sweetness from the extra maple aging to make it live in harmony. While I would prefer the finish carried more of the palate, I'm not mad at all. It's just straight up enjoyable. Even a purist like I usually am enjoyed it 🤷🏻‍♂️

Rating: 7.7/10

Today, Zombie Falcon and myself are taking a look at Chapter 7 of Jim Beam's Little Book series, "In Retrospect"! There is a ton going on with this blend. This is a blend of 4 bourbons, 2 ryes, and a malt whiskey that was finished in applewood smoked barrels ranging in age between 4 and 18 years old. This was my introduction into the Little Book series and is what made me really start appreciating the experimentation that Beam puts into these. Let's sit down and see how she is.

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

Age: Blend of 4-18 year whiskies

Proof: 118.1

Nose: Very herbal to start. Maybe it's because I haven't visited this bottle in so long, but I don't remember it coming off like that on the nose. Beyond that, I get sweet caramel, red berries, baking spices, and oak. Swirling the glass brings out a ton of baking spices and peanut shells with the sweeter notes taking a back seat.

Palate: Oily viscosity on the palate with red apples, brown sugar, apricots, and rye spice on the backend rounding it all out. After a few sips, the spiciness starts to settle down a good bit and that red apple note remains strong along with some more brown sugar, molasses, and oak.

Finish: Medium finish of tobacco, rye spice, caramel, oak, and a hint of smoke.

I don't remember what the general consensus was of this bottle when it first dropped, but in my book this is a great pour and a glowing example of what Beam is capable of with their blending and experimentation. There's a lot going on with this one and you could pick out different notes on every sip. I remember being weary at first as I'm not the biggest fan of smoke on my whiskey, but it's really only noticeable on the finish and even then, it's very faint. "In Retrospect" is a hit as are most of the Little Books I've had the chance to try.

t8ke scale: 7.7/10 | 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.

The review for this bottle is in the comments below...

Penelope Toasted Series Bourbon (Char 5)

Distillery: Bottled by Penelope but distilled/aged/finished in Lawrenceburg, Indiana (MGP)

Age: 4 Years

Price: $59.99

Proof: 100

Nose: Expected this to be off the charts rich, creamy, and sweet. Those expectations were been met and then some. Maple. Caramel. Marshmallow. Powdered sugar. Candied cinnamon. Candied cherry. Good stuff.

Palate: Medium/thick. Like a high 7 on that scale. Doesn't quite have the thickness of the beloved "Marshmallow Toast" limited release, but for being 100 proof this is a thick boy. Creme brûlée. More candied cinnamon. Barrel char.

Finish: One of the longer 100 proof finishes I've ever come across. Easily top 5 and likely closer to the top spot. The flavor theme continues. Vanilla. Maple syrup. Honey grahams. There's a french toast-like sweetness that lingers big time.

Score: 8.1

Summary: Really a great bottle through and through. The Penelope Toasted series finishes the whiskey in toasted barrels ranging from a char level of 1 to 5. For those that loved the Marshmallow Toast and wish they could still get their hands on it I would recommend this char 5 toasted series 10 times out of 10. I recently had it back to back with the Marshmallow Toast and yeah you might be missing a little bit of the proof here in comparison, but the flavor intensity is absolutely there and to be quite honest there might be even more marshmallow in this bottle. It is noticeably richer than the char 1 I reviewed, and I believe the MT is said to be a char 3. For those who don't know a char level of 5 is out of the norm and goes further than the usual highest level of 4. The result is an outstanding pour that is beyond full of flavor. I will say it's certainly heavily on the desserty side and isn't something that would be a daily drinker, but man it's really up there with the best dessert pours I've had. Due to the fact that this is pretty findable and relatively affordable I'm going to slightly surpass the 8.0 I gave the Marshmallow Toast. 8.1 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