Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918, Knob Creek Single Barrel "The Green Monstah", and Stagg Jr Batch 10 (126.4) Reviews

The state of American whiskey in 2019 is a weird place. The demand for allocated bottles has been in a fever pitch and seems to have no end in sight. Even worse, the list of whiskeys that are now considered allocated has become a sad state of affairs. A quick look the recent influx of posts on /r/whiskyporn that are treating bourbons like Weller Special Reserve and Blanton's as coveted major scores has anyone that's been around a while thinking we've hit rock bottom yet despite that sentiment the WTFs just keep coming.

But for all the silly shit that is happening in the whiskey scene, there are some bright spots, and one of those is that we are in a golden age of well aged, high proof, decently priced, not impossible to find bourbons and ryes. There are so many more good high proof options today than there were 6-7 years ago and even with the crazy demand, most of them are not that hard to come by. So with that in mind, I thought it would be fun to compare three popular options against each other, all of which I was able to find at retail just by walking into a shop, no special favors required.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C918

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; Aged 12 years; 65.7% ABV; $75

Nose: Woody and sweet, just like what you should expect from a twelve year old cask strength bourbon.

Taste: Lots of lush sweet caramel up front and some rye spice bite in the backend. The ever increasing peanut note I am getting in Heaven Hill these days is there in the form of peanut butter marshmallow smores. The finish lingers for quite a while with an oak laden sweet spice punch. There is plenty of wood depth there but there are also twangs of a younger, green wood taste that I sometimes get in this product's younger brother, Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond.

Thoughts: This is good but if I am going off memory it is far from the most complex ECBP I've ever had. The touch of green wood is the biggest detractor here for me, I don't recall ever getting that in the older ones. It's probably just me but I feel like these just aren't as good as the releases from 2-3 years ago. Still a very solid high proof bourbon and if found a retail is a buy on sight for me.

Rating: B/B+

Knob Creek Single Barrel "The Green Monstah" Selected by Barrels & Brews

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; Aged 15 years 1 month (label is incorrect); 60% ABV; $50

Nose: A remarkable balance of a ton of wood and just as much sweetness. Very, very good.

Taste: Sweet nutty flavors like peanut brittle with lots and lots of oak. It's a bit dry but there is a lot of flavor to make up for that without being bitter. The finish rides out with dark cocoa sweet vibes and touches of rye spice but again it's super oaky and yet just as sweet. Not much to say other than it's a flavor bomb.

Thoughts: I've had mixed results with these older aged Knob Creek Single Barrels but this one is a home run for me. I did a bottle split of Booker's 30th with a friend and this is easily better for me and probably the best Knob Creek Single Barrel I've had yet. The Barrels & Brews guys have been doing a hell of a job with their selections and this one is no different. 

Rating: B+

Stagg Jr Batch #10

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; No Age Statement; 63.20% ABV; $50

Nose: A sweeter, fruitier nose than the other two which make sense given the likely age of 9ish years. Cherries, peaches, stone fruits, and woody caramel.

Taste: A balanced, classic taste of bourbon with an equal combo of fruit, sweet, and oak. Sugary salted fruit pie crust comes to mind for the sweet notes along with just enough wood depth to balance things out.

Thoughts: This is a completely different vibe than the ECBP and KCSiB which makes sense since it the youngest in the bunch. That's not necessarily a bad thing here though as it's able to showcase more dimensions that just being an oak bomb. This isn't as good as Batch 9 which I still think is the best release of Stagg Jr yet but this is a quality product that I think as time goes by is slowly but surely chipping away at ECBP as the most consistent best bang for your buck high proof bourbon. At retail, these are a buy on sight for me all day long.

Rating: B

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Elijah Craig Barrel Select 125 Proof Review

Here today we have a gift shop only release from the folks over at Heaven Hill which is affectionately referred to as the Elijah Craig "hand grenade" for obvious reasons. It seems this product exists solely for the purpose of gift shop distribution which I think is great - I wish more distillery gift shops would do bottle sizes like this. The standard Elijah Craig dropped an age statement a couple years ago but is still a blend of 8+ year old stock. I actually like the new blend better than the old age statement product simply because it's not as oak forward / bitter. I'm expecting this is a higher proof version of the current standard product and as such I expect it will be pretty good.

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; No Age Statement; 62.5% ABV; $25 / 200ml

Nose: A bit hot for 125 proof - the ethanol is very noticeable. Underneath that it is a wallop of wood and maple syrup sugary notes which are reminiscent of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof.

Taste: Upfront taste is more of the same from the nose, a ton of woody sugar notes. Lots of oak but it's not overly bitter or dry. Along with all that wood influence are syrupy sweet notes for days - it's like drinking bourbon pancakes. The finish is a lot of those woody and sweet notes but there are also traces of ashy char and harsh ethanol which are just a touch too hot for my taste.

Thoughts: This is good but not great. It's not as elegant or easy as the standard Elijah Craig nor is it as bold / punch you in the mouth as the 12 year Barrel Proof. As such, it seems to kinda dance around in the middle without much of an identity. It wants to be brash and it has the proof to be so but it's missing all the wood punch that makes that boldness work for the Barrel Proof. It's a nice novelty product but I won't be clamoring for them to release anything like this nationwide anytime soon.

Rating: B / B-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Evan Williams Review

Here today we have the flagship of the Heaven Hill whiskey line. Last I checked, I believe this is the third best selling American whiskey in the world behind Jim Beam and Jack Daniel's. I like the Bottled in Bond variant of this which is also no age statement but comes in at 100 proof. While the proof on that one is nice, it definitely drinks like a barely no age statement bourbon in that it tastes right at 4 years old with a good bit of corn / grain forward mash notes. I've can't recall the last time I had regular Evan Williams though and even if I could I've never had much of it so I'm going in with a blank slate here. 

Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey; No Age Statement; 43% ABV; $7 (375ml)

Nose: Yep, smells like bourbon. A lot of sweet wood sugary notes and a good amount of oak. It's got a fair bit more wood depth than I expected as the young grainy notes are there but minor. 

Taste: A lot more of the nose. It's mostly all sweet and wood. Upfront it's sugary caramel which transitions to a darker burnt sugars like creme brulee in the finish. There are hints of a nutty note like peanut brittle which is something I am getting more and more often in Heaven Hill products these days. Again there's quite a bit more wood influence than I expected which is doing well to keep any young corn grain mash notes at bay. It's as easy to drink as you'd expect for 86 proof though I wouldn't say it's watery. 

Thoughts: This is better than I expected. It certainly runs circles around Beam and Jack as it has a lot more depth than those. I went in guessing this was barely four years old but going off profile here I'd guess it's more like 6-7. In a similar comparison, I consider Maker's Mark the baseline of an average drinkable bourbon and this is better than that too. If I had to nitpick, it is pretty much a two trick pony of sweet and wood with not much else and the proof is holding it back. Overall, it's a nice, classic bourbon that comes in at a great price and would be a great choice as a house bourbon to share with company.

Rating: C+ / C

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 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.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C917 vs Stagg Jr Batch 9 (131.9) Side By Side Reviews

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof and Stagg Jr are two of the most widely recommended, non private store pick, barrel proof bourbons on the market today. They were introduced around the same time, are about equally as obtainable, and priced similarly. While Stagg Jr got off to a bumpy start with its first two releases, since then quality has stabilized and the batches now are consistently pretty good. Elijah Craig Barrel proof on the other hand came out of the gate swinging and up to this point reigns as the best bang for your buck barrel proof bourbon on the market. Given its high age and proof, I've even gone so far as to say it's the next best thing to George T. Stagg because I find a lot of similarities between them. No runs last forever though and last year there was a batch of ECBP (A117) that while good I felt was a step down in quality. That surprised me since up to the point, every single batch had been consistently awesome. With that in mind, I've been a little more leery about assuming every release will be a knockout.

Fast forward to a couple months ago when I happened upon the latest batch of Stagg Jr. The moment I tasted it I instantly knew it was fantastic. That got me thinking - had the folks over at Buffalo Trace finally been able to put out a better non limited release barrel proof offering that Heaven Hill? Armed with a few weeks of notes and both bottles on their last leg I tasted them side by side one last time to decide a winner.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof C917

Aged 12 Years; 65.5% ABV; $60

Nose: Really hot initially, almost too hot. After a lot of air, it's woody and sweet like a vanilla custard.

Taste: A lot of oak up front, hefty dose of typical syrupy sweet wood flavors like caramel, honey, and vanilla in the middle, then a nutty oak heavy finish. There is a bit of a rye spice bite that rides the finish along with all that oak. The finish is also a touch heavy handed with dry oak and a slight bitterness.

Thoughts: It's pretty good but certainly not the best batch of this I've had. I've been picking up nutty flavors in Heaven Hill more and more lately which is no surprise since supposedly their yeast shares a family lineage with Beam. This isn't nearly as peanutty as most Beam whiskeys like Knob Creek or Bookers but it does detract from what is normally a wood sugar bomb. Beyond that, I'm finding the aggressive wood profile here just a touch overwhelming due to a slight drying bitterness. 

Rating: B / B+

---

Stagg Jr Batch 9 (131.9)

No Age Statement; 65.95% ABV; $50

Nose: Pretty beastly also but not as hot as the ECBP. More pronounced cherry, less oak, and more sugary sweet notes than the ECBP.

Taste: Cherries, cherries, cherries, and oak. The finish lingers with sugary cherries and other wood sugars. There is a lot of wood depth here which makes me think this is older than previous batches.

Thoughts: This is probably the batch of Stagg Jr I've ever had. It has a lot of wood presence but isn't completely dominated by oak notes. The fruity cherry notes also give it more complexity beyond just your typical bourbon sweets. Having just finally tried the 2017 release of George T. Stagg last night, this is right up there in terms of quality. I hate to give Buffalo Trace anymore hype than they already receive but this is a hell of a bourbon.

Rating: A-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B517 (124.2) Review

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Elijah Craig is the best bang for your buck barrel proof bourbon that is somewhat accessible. While over the years I believe Heaven Hill has done a great job keeping the quality consistent, that changed a little bit with the last batch. Based on feedback from other reviewers, I did a side by side of the A117 vs. an older batch and the A117 was a noticeable step down. By all means it was still a good bourbon that on its own was very enjoyable but when scrutinized it was lacking in the proofy, bold, deeply woody oak bomb category which is the hallmark of the product. Given that experience, I go into the latest release dubbed B517 with some slight skepticism but hopeful A117 was an outlier. My fears are slightly heightened by the fact that this release is the lowest proof batch yet. 

Aged 12 years; 62.1% ABV; special thanks to /u/ctarbox for the bottle

Nose: A wallop of sweets like burnt caramel sugars and oak. Smells about right for cask strength and 12 years old which is to say pretty damn good.

Taste: A mirror image of the nose. Huge waves of burnt caramel, honey, oak, and a bit of spicy pepper bite in the finish. The finish lingers with a lot of wood but it's not overly bitter. I'm not really getting a lot of darker fudgy sweets that I usually look for in these though. 

Thoughts: I tasted this alongside the batches from my previous review so here are side by side thoughts on all three: 

• A117 - Same complaint as previous reviews, it drinks slanted towards a younger profile and is a less deep and rich version than is typical for these. Rating: B
• B517 - The most balanced of the group and rather nice. Not quite a wood bomb but very oaky with lots of sweets. Also has some spicy heat but drinks the easiest of the three. A step back in the right direction over this year's previous release. Rating: B / B+
• Batch 11 - Still significantly better than the last two batches. Bold, rich, punch you in the mouth flavors so it's not as balanced as the B517 but it's a straight up sweet oak bomb with loads of wood depth and dark fudge notes that are very reminiscent of George T. Stagg. Rating: A-

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof #11 (139.4) and #13 A117 (127.0) Reviews

I've repeatedly said Elijah Craig Barrel Proof is the best semi-available bang for your buck barrel proof bourbon out there. I easily put it over the other similar contenders like Stagg Jr and Colonel Taylor Barrel proof. It's the next best thing to my favorite yearly release, George T. Stagg and it's a lot easier to obtain. Having sampled or worked through a bottle of all of the batches, I also happen to think that it's been a super consistent product since day one. But whiskey nerds being whiskey nerds, there's been some muttering lately that the latest batch (which also happens to be the lowest proof released yet) isn't as good as previous releases. I didn't really buy into that as I remember those same comments about the 128 proof batch which I thought was just as great as any of the others. So in the interest of science I pulled an older batch out of the bunker and tasted them side by side. I'm going into this with the assumption that the higher proof batch is probably a little better but the differences won't be substantial. 

Batch 11: Aged 12 years; 69.7% ABV; $60

Batch 13/A117: Aged 12 years; 63.5% ABV; $60

Color: It's hard to tell from the pictures but the 139.4 batch is a shade darker than the latest one. That's not really surprising as it's nearly 6% more alcohol by volume. 

Nose: Batch 13 is more mild but still has a pretty high amount of heat. It's also more sweet forward with typical bourbon caramel and vanilla and smells younger with a little bit of fruitiness. Batch 11 is hot and boozy, smells like a high proof super oak forward bruiser of a bourbon with lots of wood spice. There is some sweetness here but it's dark like cocoa powder. 

Taste: Batch 13 has quite a bit of peanut on the front which is something I used to only get in Beam bourbon but am picking up more and more in Heaven Hill products. It's proof heavy with a wallop of typical bourbon sweet notes and a slight rye spice bite in the finish. I would have guessed about 10 years old blind. Batch 11 on the other hand kicks things into a much higher gear. The viscosity is thicker and the sweet notes are more on the burnt caramel side rather than straight up caramel. It's also more dark cocoa than vanilla and the wood influence has more prominence/depth. This one certainly tastes 12 years old, maybe even a bit older and encroaching on a George T. Stagg profile. 

Thoughts: Tasting it on its own I had said I thought this new batch was up to par but after this comparison I can't stand by that. That's not to say that it's bad, it's still a really good bourbon that by itself is pretty tasty. Compared with a beefier batch though it's thinner, has less oak influence, and has more young fruity notes instead of the dark fudgy chocolate oak bomb that I've come to expect in this line. Having said all that, I think I picked the nearly the worst possible candidate for this side by side because batch 11 is a real knockout, maybe one of the best in the line. All in all though I still feel like this a relatively consistent product, certainly more consistent than Stagg Jr which was all over the place in the first three batches. Comparison aside, that batch 11 though... whew man is it good. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's that kind of experience that makes this product the next best thing to George T. Stagg.

Rating Batch 11: B+ / A-

Rating Batch 13: B

Note that price is not considered when assigning a rating.