John J. Bowman Single Barrel Review

It's been a single barrel kind of week around here lately. After last night's review of Colonel Taylor we have have another single barrel bottle that is getting a review before we put it down for good. Like the Colonel Taylor the John Bowman shares its roots in that they were both distilled by Buffalo Trace. The Bowman starts its life out as the higher rye mashbill #2 though and is then shipped off to Virginia where it is distilled two more times before aging. Going into this review I have somewhat high regards for this bottle as it finished second only to the Taylor in a blind single barrel tasting my whiskey group conducted several months ago.

50% ABV; No Age Statement; $50

The nose is a little flat with some light peachy sweet fruit notes and a touch of ethanol. There is a surprising lack of rye spice on the nose that I expected given the mashbill. The taste starts out rich and sweet then follows up with a little of the rye spiciness that I expected in the nose. It is more sweet forward and less oaky than the Colonel Taylor Single Barrel. The finish lingers with a brown sugar graham cracker sweetness and very light spicy licorice. Overall it is less spicy, smoother, and more sweet than other mashbill #2 products that I recall like Elmer or Blanton's.

Thoughts: Like the Colonel Taylor this one is good solid bourbon but not something that will blow you away. It makes for a good sipper and is pretty easy despite being from a higher rye mashbill. As a whole this has a lot going for it - it's readily available, tastes good, the proof is right, and the price isn't terrible. I would classify this as an upgrade over Blanton's since they are in the same price range but I would still reach for a Four Roses private selection over this most any day of the week.

Rating: B / B-

Update 8/10/2015: Apparently the reason this is much smoother and has less rye spice than I expected is because it is Buffalo Trace's low rye mashbill #1. Preview reports of it being the same mashbill as Blanton's and Elmer appear to be incorrect.