George Dickel Bottled in Bond 11 Year Review

A little over a year ago I reviewed the first release of George Dickel Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR was I pretty much hated it. I found it overly thin and remarkably underwhelming given the age and proof. While Dickel tends to be a very polarizing whiskey, this surprised me greatly because I generally quite enjoy it as a nice change of pace from most other bourbons. While there were some that liked the bottled in bond release, I think overall the whiskey community mostly sided with me as there was a considerable amount of groaning when the product won one of those silly whiskey of the year awards. 

Fast forward one year and here we are with a second release of this product, distilled 3 years later in Fall of 2008 but now bearing an official age statement of 11 years. I wasn't quite ready to give up on Dickel so when I saw a bottle on the shelf with a price that is still relatively cheap by current special release standards, I figured I'd take a chance given the lack of anything better to do right now.

Tennessee Whiskey distilled in Fall 2008; Aged 11 years; 50% ABV; $40

Nose: Toasted marshmallow, light spice bite, a decent helping of traditional Dickel Flintstone multivitamins, and lots of woody charred corn.

Taste: Thicker mouthfeel than I remember from last time. Upfront it's honey and other sweet woody flavors which transitions into some slight spice and that familiar vitamin mineral note. The finish is a nicely rounded combo of sweet, spice, and wood but it tapers off too quickly.

Thoughts: I came into this thinking at worst it would be as thin and underwhelming as last time or at best it would be like a really great Dickel store pick. All in all, I think this is somewhere in the upper middle of that which is what I expected from the original release. There is a much better balance of sweet, oak, and char this time around making it just an overall better whiskey. My biggest complaint is still that the finish is entirely too short which again I suspect is due to an abundance of filtration. Outside of that, this is decidedly Dickel whiskey through and through and much closer to form of what I expect from the brand. If I see again, I will buy it.

Rating: B-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

George Dickel Bottled in Bond Review

George Dickel is a very polarizing product amongst whiskey enthusiasts because as many folks will tell you, it has an incredibly distinct taste and smell that most people liken to vitamins. Open the seal on fresh bottle of multivitamins and smell it - that's sort of what Dickel whiskey can taste and smell like on top of all the usual corny/sweet/woody bourbon notes. It's a very odd flavor that many folks find off putting but over the years I've come to appreciate that odd profile as something different - something along the lines of bourbon being my wife and George Dickel being my mistress. 

As of late, there's been a flood of Dickel based products on the market. On top of the official single barrel store picks from Dickel themselves, we've also seen a ton of NDPs offer it as a sourced product. One in particular that comes to mind are the folks over at Barrell who have been releasing cask strength 13-14 year old Tennessee sourced bourbon that almost certainly is from Dickel. I've enjoyed some of those quite a lot however the $110 price tag has kept me from going back to the well very often. My good experiences with well aged Dickel across the board had me excited to see Dickel themselves releasing an older age product with a decent proof and a very reasonable price point. The best Dickel branded products I've ever had were the 14 year single barrels that clocked in around 106 proof. This product seems really close to those in terms of specs so I'm going into this with high expectations. 

Tennessee Bottled in Bond Whiskey; No Age Statement (Fall 2005 Vintage Statement); 50% ABV; $36

Nose: There is no escaping the familiar Dickel multivitamins. Also per usual with Dickel there is a heavy smoked corn component, something along the lines of charred cornbread. 

Taste: All the same from the nose. A brief jolt of Dickel minerals, charred corn, and slight musty oak. The finish briefly lingers with almost no flavor other than Dickel minerals and burnt charred wood but even that doesn't last long.

Thoughts: Throwing the specs out the window and judging this as a regular whiskey with no context, this is borderline okay. Bring the specs back into the equation though and judge this for what it should be and it's a miserable failure. They must have filtered the everlasting shit out of this because there is no way it tastes like it's 100 proof. It's so incredible thin and the finish is so incredibly short I'm baffled. I don't know how Diageo managed to royally fuck up what could have been a fantastic release but kudos to them for finding a way to ruin something that should have been great.

Rating: D+

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 7/7 and Closing Thoughts

Here is the followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02* 

* Technically not an arts and craft bottle, this was right after the switch over to the new label.

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 2979, Barreled on 03/14/06

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 09/30/2002; Thanks to /u/flavorjunkie for the sample

Nose: Considerably more dense and compact than the current bottle. It smells more like a 10 year old whiskey should - lots of oak, lots of condensed caramel sweets. There are hints of dusty funk which is nice. By comparison, the modern bottle smells more flat, young, and fruity. 

Taste: Largely a reinforcement of the nose. It's not as dense as some of the best of these but it's rather compact. Everything about it taste-wise is just bigger than the current version. The mouthfeel is full, lush, and thick. The traditional caramel and vanilla sweets are very heavy, like thick cake frosting. On the oak side it's very woody but in a nice way with only a touch of bitterness in the finish. Side by side the 2016 bottle tastes fruitier, more honey forward, and younger with way less oak influence. 

Thoughts: Another jarring experience. While the last post fire bottle was a bit disappointing, this is considerably better than any McKenna I've had in the last 4-5 years. Like all of the other standouts in this series, color is again a huge tipoff in quality as the differences here are dramatic.

Rating: B+

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Final Thoughts: Going into this adventure, I expected the decline in quality of these to be gradual over time, coinciding with the switch from pre to post Heaven Hill fire. That's certainly not been the case - there were low points in even the pre-fire barrels and a high point in a barrel that was dumped just six years ago. What I haven't seen are any standouts any later the last one here. My previous best theories on the differences in quality were things like old-growth wood, bottle conditioning, and environmental factors but I'm less confident in those ideas now given the bottle covered today was so recent. Given that, my best guess for the change in profile is it coincides right with when the bourbon boom started to surge. I'm thinking better quality casks and or warehouse locations were gobbled up by other Heaven Hill brands as they struggled to keep up with demand. That's really the only answer that makes sense to me and if so, I doubt Heaven Hill would ever own up to that reasoning. 

Update 06/19:

I forgot to add some commentary about the volume of barrels over the years. From 1994 to 2012 there were about 1000 barrels selected. From 2012 - 2015 the next 1000. They doubled all that from 2015 - 2017. 

There's your bourbon boom in one concise picture.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 6/7

Here is the followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 842, Barreled on 10/24/01

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Pretty typical bourbon flavors - vanilla, caramel, and a good bit of oak. The current bottle smells slightly fruitier and more grain forward but it's not as noticeable as with previous instances.

Taste: Very caramel and sweet forward with a lot of dry oak starting in the mid and back palate. Those notes continue but then there's some unpleasant musty earthiness like dirty oak barrels that linger in the finish. The heat is overly evident for 100 proof and I'd even say it drinks hot. Tasting this side by side with a current bottle they are slightly different in profile but I can't say I prefer one over the other. The newer version tastes less oak forward but isn't as dry nor does it have any off-putting notes in the finish.

Thoughts: This finished near the bottom in the big blind tasting of these and here today I'm standing by that. It's not a bad bourbon but compared to the pre-fire versions previously covered it has a lot of flaws. It's not well balanced, it's missing the condensed bourbon flavors noted in previous bottles, and it's a touch too hot. Most all of the ones leading up to this have drank way under proof and have been incredibly dense flavor-wise so this is a big change. 

Rating: C+

So is post-fire where things went downhill for McKenna? We've got one more lined up to find out.

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 5/7

Here is the followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 328, Barreled on 05/20/96

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Intense for 100 proof but very little heat. Rich balance of oak, sweet, and baking spice. I'm also getting a lot of the old bourbon "dusty" notes that are typical in whiskey from long ago. Side by side the current product smells lighter, younger, and fruitier.

Taste: It drinks like straight up old dusty bourbon syrup. The notes are pure classic bourbon with all the flavors kicked into overdrive without any excess heat. The viscosity is thick for the proof. Again like the nose it's a fantastic balance of sweet and wood with some light spice.

Thoughts: This one came out on top in the giant side by side and all you have to do is look at the color here to know why. Tasting this side by side with a bottle of current McKenna made that one taste like a hot young mess. This is truly wonderful stuff and it's driving me crazy to know why this is so incredibly better than any 10 year old bourbon Heaven Hill puts out today.

Rating: A- / A

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 4/7

Here is the followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 324, Barreled on 05/09/95

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Pretty typical classic bourbon flavors but also an odd green wood note. It's not overly woody, not overly sweet, and has just a bit of rye spice. Compared to the current product, it smells noticeably more mature though it is a bit muted overall.

Taste: It's sweet and woody but that green wood note is very evident. It's not like it tastes young but there is some overly strong presence of weird young sapling tree. The sweet notes like others in this series are rather condensed like liquid confectioner's sugar. While it's nicely balanced other than that off note, it's pretty muted compared to the rest of these. Side by side the current product again tastes more grain and fruit forward though it has more punch than this one.

Thoughts: This one did poorly in the giant side by side tasting with my main gripe being it was very muted. It's hard to tell from the photo (which is old) but this is the lightest of all these in color and side by side today with a different modern McKenna bottle they are not that different in color. So what's wrong with this one and where is that green wood note coming from? My best guess is that the lesser of these build that note with exposure to air as it was not there when I first opened any of them nor there during the tasting many months ago. I've had this bottle open a long time now and each time I've come back to it that note just keeps getting more and more intense. Same goes for the other bottles where I've picked up on that note like Barrel No. 0083. Overall, this one has some redeeming qualities of being richer and having more depth than the current offering but the flaws make it really disappointing compared to the rest of these. 

Rating: B-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 3/7

Here is the followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 232, Barreled on 04/19/93

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Pretty typical sweet bourbon notes and some spice like eucalyptus. It's richer, sweeter, and has more oak depth than the current product which smells light and young by comparison.

Taste: Rich, syrupy bourbon flavors. The sweet notes are deep, the oak notes have a lot of depth, and the mouthfeel is hefty. I hate to keep saying this but it's almost like you can chew on this stuff. Tastes more condensed and has more flavor than it should for 10 years and 100 proof.

Thoughts: This is similar to the 1992 barrel that I just reviewed in that it's really dense for a 10 year old 100 proof product. Side by side, the current product tastes grainy, thin, and young. This one isn't quite as solid as the best of these I've had and I think the color is a great indicator of that because while it's darker it's not as stark as some other examples. All in all it's a rich and easy to drink hallmark bourbon.

Rating: B / B+

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 2/7

Here is the start of a followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 208, Barreled on 05/01/92

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Condensed bourbon sweet flavors - like all the normal sweet notes you get from a regular bourbon but way more concentrated. 

Taste: More of the same from the nose - honey, graham cracker, maple syrup, vanilla and oak for days. It drinks and tastes like bourbon syrup. Super rich and oily mouthfeel for only 100 proof, I'd had barrel proofers that weren't this viscous. Tasting this side by side with the current product makes that taste like hot young garbage which is nuts because on its own I think regular off the shelf McKenna is pretty decent.

Thoughts: Like many of the pre-fire McKennas I've covered, all you have to do is look at the color difference between this and a current product to know there's something special going on here. I keep harping on this experience with these but it tastes way more concentrated than it should for a 100 proof bourbon yet without all the heat that typically comes when you ramp up the proof. This isn't the best of these I've had but it's certainly up there - just a wonderful, easy to drink, incredibly rich whiskey packed full of classic bourbon flavors.

Rating: B+ / A-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating. 

Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Arts & Crafts Review Series Part 1/7

Here is the start of a followup to a huge side by side tasting I did involving twenty years of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond. The TL;DR version is after trying some amazing Henry McKennas distilled in the mid 80s that run circles around the current product, I thought it would be fun to run through the years since then to see how the profile has changed. The grand side by side turned into a bit of a disaster though as there were just too many samples involved. In an attempt to salvage some sense of usefulness, I'm running through what vintages I have remaining in a more typical review style. On deck we have:

• Barrel No. 0083, Barreled on 12/05/86
• Barrel No. 0208, Barreled on 05/01/92
• Barrel No. 0232, Barreled on 04/19/93
• Barrel No. 0324, Barreled on 05/09/95
• Barrel No. 0328, Barreled on 05/20/96
• Barrel No. 0842, Barreled on 10/24/01
• Barrel No. 1024, Barreled on 05/30/02

(Left) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel #083; Barreled on 12/05/86

(Right) Aged 10 Years; 50.0% ABV; Barrel #3035; Barreled on 03/14/06

Nose: Typical caramel wood sweets, light young green wood note, and a little spice.

Taste: Creme brûlée sweets, a decent amount of oak and a bit of spice. Again there is a touch of a green wood, like a young sapling tree. It's not that it tastes young, there is just a strange young wood note in addition the older oak notes. There are some darker notes in the finish like cocoa but overall the whole profile is a bit muted.

Thoughts: I had high expectations for this one considering it was the oldest McKenna bottle I personally acquired. I was hoping for something close to the quality of the 1984 distilled bottles but it's not there. Tasting this side by side with a current bottle, it does taste noticeably richer, more sweet, has less grain notes, and has more oak depth. The condensed bourbon notes I mentioned in reviews other pre-fire McKennas are there but it's just not as impactful some of the best ones. While this is still better than the current offering, I think the best lesson to take away here is even in the pre-fire era of McKenna, older does not mean better.

Rating: B

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating. 

Two Decades of Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond; Or, How Not to Do a Whiskey Tasting

For a long time, Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond has been a bourbon that flew under the radar of casual whiskey drinkers. That might be changing due to the fact that it just won bourbon of the year at the San Francisco World Spirits Competition and there are now reports of people clearing the shelves (which is incredibly stupid) but that's not what we are here to talk about.

On paper, everything about Henry McKenna is great. It's a bargain at around $30, bottled at a respectable 100 proof, carries an age statement of 10 years (something that is more and more rare these days), and it's readily available. Heaven Hill has earned a solid reputation for making good bourbon and McKenna lives up to that standard, it's a solid daily driver / house bourbon material.

My real fixation with McKenna started though when a friendly redditor sent me a sample from the very first barrel of Henry McKenna ever dumped. Barrel 001 distilled on December 14th 1984 and bottled in December of 1994 making it "pre-fire" which means it was distilled at Heaven Hill's Bardstown Kentucky distillery before it was destroyed by a 1996 fire. I was floored by how good it was and to this day it remains one of the best bourbons I've ever had. All you have to do is look at the color side by side with a current bottling to know there was something magical going on back then. My curiosity had been piqued to the point that I sought out more samples, all of which were distilled on the same day. While they were all very good, the results were mixed - the 84-94 Barrel 008 wasn't nearly as good as the first barrel and the 84-94 Barrel 016 was somewhere between the two.

This got me wondering just how much variance there was in McKenna over the years so I went on a mission to seek out as many bottles or samples as I could. I had initially just planned to do reviews of each of them but along the way, my friend Alex G. and I got the idea to do one massive blind tasting of all of them to see how or if McKenna had changed since its introduction in the mid-90's. So, I headed over to his place one night, the samples were randomized, and we dove in. The candidates were:

Barrel	Distilled	Pre-Fire	Source
#0016	12/14/84	✅	Alex G.
#0083	12/05/86	✅
#0141	11/27/89	✅
#0208	05/01/92	✅
#0232	04/19/93	✅
#0324	05/09/95	✅
#0328	05/20/96	✅
#0372	05/27/97	❌	/u/VulgarDisplayOfStuff
#0727	04/05/01	❌	Adam I.
#0797	09/28/01	❌	/u/Rev_Lijah
#0842	10/24/01	❌	/u/brettatlas
#1282	04/10/03	❌	/u/mikeczyz
#1508	05/04/04	❌	@bourbonooga
#3035	03/14/06	❌

And the results?

Well, here's the thing. A lot of these were so close in core profile it was really hard to distinguish differences in quality between them. Both of us ended up having to do a lot of tasting to hone in on the standouts. Combine that with the sheer number of samples involved, and well, we (unintentionally) got drunk. In the end, my notes were more or less garbage and I wasn't sure they accurately reflected the rankings. 

In hindsight, this was a terrible idea. I've done plenty of tastings before, some of which have involved lots of samples - like back when Four Roses would roll out 10 barrels or when Alex and I did a Russell's Reserve pick at Wild Turkey and Eddie insisted that we try every barrel. Both of those experiences were a slog - yet each was somehow easier than this night.

As useless as they are, my rankings for the night were in groups. On top:

#0328 (05/20/96), #0208 (05/01/92), #0141 (11/27/89)

Those were pretty close with #0328 being the standout. The next group was:

#0016 (12/14/84), #0083 (12/05/86), #0372 (05/27/97)

Everything beyond that was a wash except #3035 which was a clear last place by quite a margin. It is telling that the newest bottling finished last for both of us and that my top 6 was all pre-fire barrels so there seems to be a correlation of age to quality if you want to trust these results.

Final Thoughts

Don't ever try to do a tasting like this if you want accurate results. Instead, I'd recommend breaking this many candidates down into groups of four or at most six, playoff bracket style. As a penance, over the coming weeks, I plan to do a normal review of each of the bottles I have remaining to try and salvage some dignity here.

Thanks to Alex for helping source these as well as hosting the tasting and to all those who provided samples to make this happen.

Willett 80th Anniversary Bourbon Review

The history of Willett in TLDR form: 

• get mega hype hype hype famous selling old whiskey sourced from long defunct distilleries
• start distilling your own product
• release very young in house products (hey baby, here's just the tip)
• watch people go crazy for it based on the reputation of sourced whiskey
• $$$$$$$

That sounds pretty bitter and well, that's because it is but I've seen enough crotch shots of Willett 2 and 3 year rye to know there are lots of people that think landing any Willett product is a major score. 

Honestly, I like Willett and I feel like their stuff will be pretty good one day soon because most of what they are putting out now shows promise. I'm just tired of the hype machine around them because thus far the only in house products are pretty young so there's a low ceiling on how good they can be. So along those lines, here is another such product that was released at the gift shop back in March of this year. Apparently it is set for national distribution which has already started and will be limited to 5200 bottles.

No Age Statement; Bottled in Bond; 50% ABV; $35; thanks to /u/_glab for the gift

Nose: Very sweet. Some grainy corn, lots of wood sweets, cinnamon, and a bit of new make ethanol.

Taste: Corn grain, lots and lots of cinnamon, a little earthy dirt funk, and your typical vanilla caramel sweets. There's as much wood influence as you'd expect for a 4ish year old Kentucky bourbon but not enough to cover up all the rough ethanol notes. The finish is a lot of dirty, dusty, dry cinnamon. I don't know what that dirt funk note is but I often get that in other micro/craft distilleries like Garrison Brothers and this reminds me of their bourbon. This is the first time I recall tasting that in any Willett product.

Thoughts: I don't like it. It's not horrid but it's not as good as the Old Bardstown Bottled in Bond Willett put out earlier this year. As expected, it's a youngish, corn forward bourbon but there's some sharp off/craft notes here that are ruining things. The dry cinnamon note is really odd to me and so overbearing there were sessions where it was all I could taste. Given my impression, I was completely shocked when someone told me people are paying $200 on the secondary for this. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Get off my god damn lawn.

Note: In all fairness, I might be a crotchety old man. For a contrasting opinion, Liquor Hound gave this a much better review.

Rating: D+

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating. 

1984-1994 Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond Barrel No. 016 Review

Here today is a comparison of some very old Henry McKenna side by side with a modern bottle purchased right of the shelf. I've recently done similar side by sides before, once with barrel 001 and again with barrel 008. Both of those bottles run circles around the current product with the first one being an all time favorite. Thanks to a friend I've been lucky enough to acquire a taste of yet another barrel distilled on the same day as those two in December of 1984. What I want to know is were the first two barrels flukes in terms of quality or is dusty pre-fire Henry McKenna really just that good? 

Thanks to Alex G. for the sample and photo

Left: Barrel No. 3035, Barreled on 03/14/2006Right: Barrel No. 016, Barreled on 12/14/1984

Color: As always, I don't usually remark on color but next to the current product, the 016 is considerably darker. So far though barrel 001 is still the darkest with this one being a shade lighter than the previous two.

Nose: Very rich and dense with lots of classic bourbon flavors in the form of thick vanilla caramel cake frosting. The modern bottle by comparison smells thinner, younger, and fruitier. The 016 actually has a little bit of a fruit vibe as well but it's more like boozed soaked dark pitted fruits such as prunes vs. the younger ripe banana grain of the 2016.

Taste: Similar but even more impressive than the nose. Heavy doses of classic bourbon oaky sweets and a blast of that familiar dusty profile. It's very thick and chewy, like liquified cake batter. The oak influence is strong but heavy towards the sweet end along with touches of rye spice. By comparison the 2016 tastes like young barely legal bottled in bond bourbon which is totally nuts because on any other day I enjoy McKenna and consider it a rather mature product. 

Thoughts: I'm blown away by how good these old McKennas are. Just like with previous experiences I keep thinking these taste like extremely concentrated bourbon. It's like all the flavor you get out of a high proof bourbon such Elijah Craig Barrel Proof but with considerably less heat and way more drinkability. I dunno, maybe I just have a thing for bottle conditioned pre-fire Heaven Hill because this has been a repeated pattern for me with any well aged Heaven Hill products I've had from that era. Regardless, these are about classic as bourbon gets and it's a damn shame the current product doesn't still taste like this.

Rating: A-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

They Don't Make Them Like They Used To Bonus: National Distillers Old Taylor Bottled in Bond 1972-1981

This is a bonus review in what was originally intended to be a 3 part series covering the ups and downs of the widely hyped bourbons from the now defunct National Distillers Group. Part One covered low end bottles that weren't worthy of much praise. Part Two stepped things up with some bottle in bond variants, one of which was pretty damn good. Part 3 is where things really kicked into high gear with the Old Grand-Dad 114 bottles that were my clear favorites.

Right as I was finished with the series a whiskey friend who had previously sent me a mystery sample I had yet to open said he had to tell me what it was. Turns out it's another bottled in bond National Distillers product from the 1980s. The 1980s bonded Old Grand-Dad faired well in my side by side tastings so I have a feeling things will go well here.

Also worth mentioning again: With a lot of these old bourbons there is a familiarity to them - some combination of lush mouthfeel, older richer oak, and other notes that I can't really describe so I just end up calling it a dusty note. I don't literally mean it tastes like dust, I'm specifically referencing that familiar combo of attributes.

Aged 9 years; 50% ABV; Thanks to /u/I_SAID_NO_GOLDFISH for the sample and photo

Color: I don't usually remark on color but it is daaaaark. Here is a side by side with a current bottle of Henry McKenna 10 year Bottled in Bond.

Nose: I could smell the old dusty funk as soon as I poured the sample. While typing up the intro here I let the pour rest in the glass and could smell the butterscotch from several feet away. Up close and personal it smells like my memory of the 1980s Old Grand-Dad. Lots of honey butterscotch and rye spice tingle. The proof is more present than the other bottled in bonds I tried and I suspect this bottle is the least oxidized of any I had yet because it is very big, bold, and rich.

Taste: Glorious. It's so viscous, thick, and chewy - it's like condensed bourbon. I've experienced this kind of concentrated intensity very recently and it was with a dusty pre-fire Heaven Hill McKenna from the 90s. This is a real powerhouse of dusty funk, caramel butterscotch sweetness, and a dash of rye spice. The finish lasts an eternity and the rye spice gets a little more bold leaving a kind of spicy Mexican dark chocolate note. 

Thoughts: A perfect, master class bourbon and I can think of no better way to close out this series. Yes, they absolutely do not make them like they used to.

Rating: A / A+

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.