This is the finale of my blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof batches released from 2017 through 2024.

Over the first three parts, I tasted my way through the A, B, and C batches, starting with single-elimination tournaments and then using additional blind back-testing to account for bracket luck and get a better idea of where each bottle actually belonged.

Part 1: A117-A124
Part 2: B517-B524
Part 3: C917-C924

Eventually, three bottles emerged as their respective series champions:

A-Series: A117
B-Series: B520
C-Series: C918

Now it was time to put the three winners against each other. After that, I faced each one off against some older Heaven Hill distillate to see how they would hold up outside the ECBP lineup.

Methodology

All comparisons were blind head-to-heads, with tasting notes and scores recorded before revealing the bottles. Scored using the t8ke scale.

For the finals, I started with A117 against B520, then compared the loser of that matchup (the B520) vs. C918. The idea being that if B520 won, there would be no need to test B520 against A117 again since it already lost, but if C918 won, it would go on to face A117. Hopefully the tournament graphic makes this clear.

A117 vs. B520

Left glass:
Blackberry on the nose. Very tart on the palate, with a great mouth coat and finish.

Score: 8.5
Reveal: A117

Right glass:
Brown sugar and molasses on the nose. Dark and sweet - oak and brown sugar on the palate. Great mouth coat and finish.

Score: 8
Reveal: B520

With A117 winning the first comparison, I next put B520 against C918 to see whether C918 could beat the runner-up. If it did, I would have it face off against the A117.

B520 vs C918

Left glass:
Better nose of the two. Nice rich, old flavor. Dark cherry on the development, little bit of ethanol on the finish. Incredible.

Score: 9
Reveal: B520

Right glass:
Brown sugar on the nose that translates to the palate. More ethanol on the finish compared to the left glass. Great flavor, but not as balanced as the left. Very slight medicinal cherry note. Better mouth coat and finish than the left.

Score: 8.5
Reveal: C918

At that point, I felt comfortable calling the final standings. Since C918 lost to B520, which had already lost to A117, I decided not to run an additional A117 vs. C918 matchup. 

Final ECBP Standings

A117 > B520 > C918

The Winners vs. The Heaven Hill Heritage Collection

With the ECBP portion finished, I wanted to see how the three series champions would stack up against some older whiskey from the same distillery. Given how well these bottles had performed throughout their tournaments, my expectations were pretty high.

A117 vs. HHHC 17-Year

Left glass:
More muted nose than the right glass. Nice caramel on the front palate, followed by a good amount of ethanol through the development. It settles down on the back palate, where that caramel flavor returns. Great mouth tingle as it settles. Good, but not great finish.

Score: 8
Reveal: A117

Right glass:
Lovely dusty nose with some brown sugar. Tart dark fruit on the front palate that continues through the development. Excellent integration: the front, mid, and back palate flow together seamlessly without a noticeable ethanol patch in the middle. Sweet oak on the back palate.

Score: 8.5
Reveal: HHHC 17-Year

Winner: HHHC 17-Year

The right glass was simply better put together. Upon reveal, I was a bit surprised: that tart fruit is something I heavily associate with A117 from memory, so I had these backwards in my mind. I was pretty sure the right glass was the A117.

B520 vs. HHHC 18-Year

Left glass:
Great dusty note on the nose. Brown sugar and maybe some cinnamon on the front palate, followed by a good amount of ethanol through the development. Pleasant honeysuckle on the back palate. Brighter on the second sip, with that honeysuckle now appearing up front. The mouthfeel eventually comes in, although it isn’t that great. Finish is somewhat underwhelming.

Score: 7.75
Reveal: B520

Right glass:
A little caramel on the nose. Nice sweet front palate with some vanilla. Very little ethanol through the development, followed by great mouthfeel. Brown sugar on the back palate.

Score: 8.25
Reveal: HHHC 18-Year

Winner: HHHC 18-Year

B520 had some nice moments, but the 18-year offered a more consistently enjoyable experience, particularly through the development and mouthfeel. It’s interesting how both the A117 and B520’s mouthfeel and finish under-performed against the Heritage Collection relative to my memory of them against other ECBPs and on their own.

C918 vs. HHHC 22-Year

Left glass:
Nice dusty and floral front palate. A bunch of heat through the development, but it comes together on the back palate with some oak. Brighter flavor profile overall. Mouthfeel and finish are lackluster.

Score: 8
Reveal: HHHC 22-Year

Right glass:
Tastes even older than the left glass. Darker flavor profile with a little cocoa. No real ethanol interruption through the development - great integration from start to finish. Vanilla on the back palate. Mouthfeel and finish develop more nicely than the left glass.

Score: 8.5
Reveal: C918

Winner: C918

C918 gets the ECBPs on the board. Interestingly, it was also the glass that tasted older to me. The darker flavors, integration, mouthfeel, and finish gave it the edge.

What Stood Out

These latest blinds against the Heritage Collection surprised me a little bit. The 17 and 18-year were the clear winners over A117 and B520. Both ECBPs showed more ethanol through the development, while their opponents offered a more seamless experience.

Interestingly, C918 finished last among the three ECBP finalists, yet it was the only one to win its Heritage Collection matchup. That makes some sense given my personal ranking of the Heritage releases: the 17-year on top, with the 18 and 22-year tied behind it.

What makes this especially interesting to me is that A117 and B520 previously beat Stagg Jr. batches 12 and 15, respectively, in blind comparisons for me. Those are my two favorite Stagg releases out of the roughly 20 I’ve tried, and two of my all-time favorite bottles. I’d personally rank both above all three Heritage Collection releases used here.

So the ECBPs finished ahead of two bottles I generally prefer to the Heritage Collection, then lost to the Heritage 17 and 18-year. It’s a good reminder that blind results don’t always line up neatly with my overall preferences, and that winning one matchup doesn’t guarantee the outcome of another.

Final Thoughts

A117 was one of the last bottles I acquired for this project and the one I had the least experience with going into the finals. I hadn’t really heard or read much about it either, so I didn’t have much in the way of preconceived expectations. Seeing it finish on top was a pleasant surprise.

B520 and C919 were a different story. I watch SLB Drinks pretty regularly, and Kurt has mentioned both as his favorite ECBP releases he’s tried. That gave me pretty high expectations for those two. B520 lived up to them, while C919 fell flat for me personally. That was another reminder of how much individual preferences matter, even when taking recommendations from content creators I really enjoy.

Across the tournament, the bottles that stood out most to me combined rich flavors with good development, mouthfeel, and finish. A great opening wasn’t always enough if the rest of the experience didn’t follow through, and noticeable ethanol could get in the way of an otherwise enjoyable pour.

My biggest takeaway, though, is that at MSRP, I think almost all of these batches are worth buying. Even after dropping the consistent 12-year age statement in 2023, the lineup is still generally great. If you like ECBP’s flavor profile, it’s pretty hard to go wrong.

There’s also enough overlap that I don’t think you need to chase every release. I came away with some clear favorites, but plenty of other batches delivered a similar enough experience that I’d be happy drinking them. For me, this project helped identify which bottles I’d want to buy again, rather than convincing me I need to keep collecting every batch.

This has been a long project, but a really enjoyable one. And even after all these comparisons, the Heritage Collection blinds still managed to surprise me. That’s a big part of why I enjoy doing this - even if it can definitely be frustrating and humbling at times!

​This is Part 3 of 4 of my blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases from 2017 through 2024.

[Part 1: A117–A124](https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/comments/1vuqoho/ultimate\_ecbp\_abatch\_tournament\_20172024/)

[Part 2: B517–B524](https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/comments/1vxbxhi/ultimate\_elijah\_craig\_barrel\_proof\_bbatch/)

Part 3: C917–C924

Part 4: The champions + some outside competition

Methodology

As with the A and B batches, I started with a standard eight-bottle single-elimination bracket, with every matchup tasted blind.

Afterward, I conducted additional blind head-to-heads to account for bracket luck and get a better idea of where each bottle landed in my rankings. Bottles that lost early had opportunities to work their way back up against bottles that advanced farther in the original bracket. Tier placement was determined by when each accumulated its second loss.

For C923, the original bracket and back-testing used whiskey from different bottles, as discussed below. The attached graphics show the complete progression.

​The Original Final: C918 vs. C920

​C920: Great nose. Came across as the lighter of the two, with tart sweetness up front, a sweet jam note, nice development, and an excellent finish. Overall well-rounded and full-bodied, although with a bit of ethanol.

Score: 8

C918: Excellent nose. Overall a darker, more mature profile - tasted older than the other glass. Jammy fruit and brown sugar on the back end. That darker profile gave it the edge in the matchup.

Score: 8.25

​C923: A Tale of Two Bottles?

C923 was the biggest surprise of the back-testing. I bought my original bottle when it came out and never understood the hype: it consistently struck me as ethanol-forward, with too little flavor underneath. Its first-round loss to C918 matched my experience with it elsewhere.

That bottle was gone by the time I started back-testing, so I sourced a sample from another bottle. The difference was striking. There was still some heat, but much more caramel, vanilla, brown sugar, and oak, and overall just a much better-integrated palate. It beat C917, C921, C922, and C920 in the back testing process to earn its place in S-tier.

Both bottles had A22 laser codes, so the speculation about differences between code groups doesn’t explain my experience. I can’t say what caused the difference, but the sample gave me a much better impression of C923. That prompted a separate rematch against C918.

The Back-Testing Rematch: C918 vs. C923

​C923: Some sweetness up front, followed by ethanol through the development and brown sugar on the back palate. Great mouth tingle and a strong finish, though I wished it had a few more layers of flavor.

Score: 7.5

C918: Slightly sweeter, with more of a fruity note. Excellent mouth tingle and finish. More of a “complete” package than the other glass.

Score: 8

So, in the end C918 retained its crown in my book.

Final C-Batch Tiers:

No particular order within tiers.

**S-Tier:** C918, C923

**A-Tier:** C920, C922

**B-Tier:** C924, C921

**C-Tier:** C917, C919

Biggest Surprises: C919, and Earlier Releases Don’t Always Mean Better

I’ve heard C919 called one of the best post-pirate ECBP batches more than once, but it didn’t fare well for me blind. It scored 6.5 twice, which was the lowest individual score in this C-series project. C917 also ended up in my bottom tier.

Earlier releases often command higher prices on the secondary market, but my results were a reminder that collectibility doesn’t necessarily translate to a better pour for my palate.

What’s Next?

One final installment will bring the A-, B-, and C-series champions together to face each other, as well as some outside competition. Stay tuned.

Continuing my blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases from 2017 through 2024.

Part 1: A117–A124
Part 2: B517–B524
Part 3: C917–C924
Part 4: The champions + some outside competition

The A-series ultimately went to A117. Now onto the B batches.

Methodology

As with the A batches, I started with a standard eight-bottle single-elimination bracket, with every matchup tasted blind, as illustrated in the attached graphic.

Afterward, I conducted additional blind head-to-heads to account for bracket luck and get a better idea of where every bottle actually belonged in terms of a tiered ranking.

The idea was the same as with the A-series: bottles that lost early were given opportunities to work their way back up against progressively stronger competition. Tier placement was based primarily on how far each survived before accumulating its second loss.

The graphics show the complete progression.

The Original Final: B520 vs. B517

These were the two bottles that survived the original bracket, and both consistently showed characteristics I tend to like in ECBP.

B517 repeatedly came across as dark, rich and mature. My notes included darker fruit and richer sweetness along with some of that older-whiskey character that also drove my preference for A117 in the A-series.
Score: 8.25

B520, meanwhile, struck me as what I wrote down as “quintessential ECBP” in my notes: Rich sweetness, brown sugar, sweet oak, with particularly strong development and finish.
Score: 9

Final B-Batch Tiers

S-Tier:
B520
B522

A-Tier:
B517
B519

B-Tier:
B523
B518

C-Tier:
B524
B521

As with the A batches, these tiers reflect the complete tournament and back-testing rather than simply the order of elimination in the original bracket.

What Stood Out?

The B batches shared plenty of familiar ECBP DNA: brown sugar/caramel sweetness, well-integrated oak and barrel-proof intensity, but the bottles I preferred generally brought something more to that foundation.

Dark fruit showed up in some of the better pours, while jammy/tart fruit, dusty notes, molasses and dark toffee appeared at different points throughout the tastings.

More importantly, the best bottles tended to have better development, mouthfeel and finish. When everything came together, the proof supported the flavor rather than overwhelming it.

The recurring negatives were familiar too: tannin, excessive oak, ethanol and lack of development could quickly separate two otherwise similar pours.

Biggest Surprise: B522

Despite getting knocked out in the second round of the original tournament, B522 made a comeback in a huge way in the back-testing process.

B522 beat B518, then B519, and eventually I put it against B517, which had made the original B-series final. B522 won that head-to-head as well.

Across its tastings, B522 showed some excellent fruity/jammy and floral characteristics and ultimately did enough to earn a spot alongside B520 in S-Tier.

It's another good example of why I didn't want to rely solely on a single-elimination bracket.

Stay tuned for C917 through C924, although it may take a little longer to get up because I still have a bit of backtesting to complete.

One of my long-term projects has been a blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases from 2017 through 2024.

Rather than cram everything into one massive post, I’m breaking it into four parts:

Part 1: A117-A124
Part 2: B517-B524
Part 3: C917-C924
Part 4: The champions + some outside competition

First up: the A batches.

Methodology

I started with a standard eight-bottle single-elimination bracket, with every matchup tasted blind. A117 ultimately defeated A120 in the A-series final.

The problem with single elimination is bracket luck: a great bottle can draw the eventual champion early and look much worse than it really is.

So I followed the original tournament with additional blind head-to-heads among the eliminated bottles. Winners were progressively tested against bottles that had advanced farther in the original bracket. The goal wasn't a conventional losers' bracket, but to generate enough additional head-to-head data to sort all eight bottles into tiers.

Tier placement was based primarily on how far each bottle survived before accumulating its second loss.

The graphics show the full tournament and back-testing progression.

The Final: A117 vs. A120

These two separated themselves from the field, and interestingly, they shared a lot of the same characteristics.

A120: Dusty/older-whiskey notes with dark fruit on the nose. Brown sugar and sweetness up front, followed by tart blackberry jam notes. Nice mouthcoat, tongue tingle and a consistently strong finish. Some tannin or ethanol occasionally appeared through the development, but generally the fruit and sweetness won out.

A117: Dusty, rich and mature on the nose. Dark fruit, blackberry, jam, leather and what I repeatedly described as simply “old whiskey” on the palate. Full-bodied and exceptionally well integrated. The mouthfeel wasn’t its strongest point, but its development and finish were consistently strengths.

In their final head-to-head, I scored the A117 an 8.75, and the A120 an 8 on the tk8e scale.

A120 was excellent, but A117 had another level of maturity and integration. That combination of dark fruit + dusty/old-whiskey character + development + finish was essentially the profile I kept rewarding throughout the tournament.

A-Batch Tierlist:

S-Tier: A117, A120
A-Tier: A118, A124
B-Tier: A119, A121
C-Tier: A122, A123

These reflect the complete tournament and back-testing results rather than simply the original elimination order, as shown in the graphics.

What Separated the Best Batches?

Looking back through my notes, here’s what stuck out to me:

Dark fruit, blackberry and jam showed up repeatedly among the better-performing batches, especially A117 and A120.

Even more important may have been the dusty/mature-whiskey character. “Dusty,” “old” and similar descriptors repeatedly appear in my notes on the higher-ranked pours. A117 in particular consistently struck me as tasting like older whiskey.

I also clearly preferred well-integrated oak over tannic oak. Brown sugar, vanilla, and darker sweetness worked extremely well when balanced by oak and development. Once that oak became drying or astringent, scores fell quickly.

Finally, development and integration mattered more than sheer intensity. The best bottles were the ones where fruit, sweetness, oak and ethanol evolved together rather than competing with one another.

Conversely, the recurring weaknesses were tannic oak, mid-palate ethanol, thin mouthfeel and lack of development.

In my next post I’ll dive into B517 through B524.

This is the third installment of my "Best of Age Stated" blind series. The concept was simple: compare age-stated bourbons against others with the same stated age, crown a winner from each age bracket, then bring those winners together in a final "Best Of" blind. This post covers the winners from the 15-, 16-, 17-, and 18-year brackets.

Links to the first two installments:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/comments/1v2pr7z/best_of_age_stated_tournament_part_1_610_years/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/comments/1v3he5n/best_of_age_stated_tournament_part_2_1114_years/

Best of 15-18 Blind: 

1.  Nice dusty note on the front. Smooth development with a little ethanol. Nice floral note on the back end. Mouthfeel and finish blossom nicely.
Score: 8.75
Guess: Redemption or OF BiB
Reveal: Redemption 

2. A bit richer on the front palate, in a good way, but some ethanol on the development. Vanilla and brown sugar. Excellent mouth feel. Putting it slightly ahead of #1 because of its richness 
   Score: 9
   Guess: KoK
   Reveal: KoK 

3. Slightly muted on the front palate. Excellent floral note on the development. Very well balanced overall. Tastes lower proof.
   Score: 8.5
   Guess: OF BiB
   Reveal: OF BiB

4. More “traditional” bourbon profile conspired to 1 and 3, more similar to glass 2 - vanilla, brown sugar, oak. Very well balanced, and no ethanol notes - the lack of ethanol on the palate pushes it slightly ahead of glass 2 for me.
   Score: 9.1
   Guess: GTS
   Reveal: GTS

Thoughts

The battle between George T. Stagg 2017 and King of Kentucky 2024 played out almost exactly as I expected. GTS ultimately took the top spot with a 9.1, edging out KoK's 9.0 by the slimmest of margins.

The 2017 GTS was the first BTAC bottle I ever acquired, and from my very first pour I've considered it one of the best bourbons I've ever had. Since then I've been fortunate enough to try the 2020, 2022, and 2025 releases, but I still think the 2017 is the standout of that group. Its balance, maturity, and complete lack of rough edges are what continue to set it apart for me.

King of Kentucky, on the other hand, is one of the richest and boldest bourbons I've had. I've independently scored both it and the 2017 GTS between 9.0 and 9.5 on multiple occasions, so seeing them finish virtually neck-and-neck in a blind wasn't surprising. If anything, it reinforced just how exceptional both pours are.

Biggest Surprise

The biggest surprise of this round was how poorly Eagle Rare 17 performed overall.

On its own, I think of ER17 as Eagle Rare 10 on steroids: elegant, refined, and packed with classic Buffalo Trace character. But alongside the other finalists, it simply couldn't keep up. Its flavors felt more restrained, the mouthfeel was noticeably thinner, and the finish lacked the depth and persistence of the others.

At first glance, it would be easy to chalk that up to proof, but I don't think that's the full story. Old Fitzgerald 17 Bottled in Bond won the 17-year bracket despite being lower proof than several of its competitors. Its exceptional balance and underlying flavor profile more than compensated for the lack of proof.

My biggest takeaway is that ER17 doesn't justify the premium it commands on the secondary market. Given the choice, I'd take George T. Stagg over it every time, and considering GTS typically sells for roughly half as much on the secondary market, it's an easy decision for me.

Scores for all the brackets can be found in the comments.

Edit: forgot to note: this ER17 is the 2024 release

This is the second installment of my "Best of Age Stated" blind series. The concept was simple: compare age-stated bourbons against others with the same stated age, crown a winner from each age bracket, then bring those winners together in a final "Best Of" blind. This post covers the winners from the 11-, 12-, 13-, and 14-year brackets.

Best of 11-14 Blind: 

Gass 1: Tastes rich and relatively old. Slight cherry note on the palate. Finish could be a bit better.
Score: 7.5
Reveal: MMCA ‘23

Glass 2:  Slight dusty note on the nose. Great classic bourbon flavors. Full-bodied. Nice mouth tingle, and very good finish.
Score: 7.75
Reveal: RR13 B6

Glass 3: Caramel on the palate. “Classic” bourbon profile in some respects, but with a unique twist I can’t put my finger on. Great mouth feel and finish. 
Score: 8
Reveal: Lucky 7

Glass 4: Best nose of the bunch. Lovely dusty and dark fruit notes on the palate. Rich. Nice development. Excellent mouth feel and finish.
Score: 8.1
Reveal: JD12 B3

One of the biggest surprises from this portion of the project was just how little I care for ECBP C923. It's a bottle that receives an incredible amount of praise, with many people considering it one of the best post-pirate ECBP releases. My results in the 13-year blind only reinforced what I've thought about C923 all along: to my palate, it's mostly ethanol with very little flavor underneath.

I'm not sure whether I happened to get an off bottle or whether my palate simply doesn't align with it, but I find it to be a thoroughly forgettable ECBP batch. In fact, I've also completed a separate blind tournament featuring every post-pirate ECBP release through 2024, and C923 was eliminated in the very first round. What's even more surprising is that I don't consider myself particularly fond of either Widow Jane 13 or Baker's 13, yet both outscored C923 in this blind. 

Compared to the 6-10 year finalists, this series was a clear step up in quality. The average score noticeably jumped up compared to the 6-10 years, and the winner improved from a 7.0 to an 8.1. 

The attached graphics show each individual age-group blind, the winners from the 11-, 12-, 13-, and 14-year brackets, and the final Best of 11–14 blind.

Stay tuned for Part 3, which will feature the winners from the 15–18 year brackets.

*side note: we used JD12 B1 in our 12 year blind; that bottle ran out so I used B3 in the winners showdown

Link to part 1, which covers the 6 through 10 years:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bourbon/s/1dx7eHDGaS

After nearly two years, my whiskey group (about five of us) has finally completed our Best of Age Stated blind series.

The concept was simple: compare age-stated bourbons against others with the same stated age, crown a winner for each age group, then bring those winners back together in a "Best Of" blind. This is the first of three posts covering the project, featuring the 6–10 year brackets.

I scored everything using the T8ke scale, generally in 0.25-point increments. When two pours were essentially tied, I'd use a 0.1-point tiebreaker to force a ranking. The first pour in each blind became my baseline, with the remaining pours scored relative to it. Since these flights consisted of whiskeys within the same age range, I found that scores typically fell within about 0.25–0.5 points of one another. Because of that, I place far more weight on the rankings than the absolute scores. I've included my full score sheet in the comments for anyone interested.

I'm by no means an expert at writing tasting notes. What I enjoy most about bourbon is comparing, contrasting, and ranking whiskies, and blind tasting is one of the best ways I've found to do this in as objective a manner as possible. Tasting in a group also forces me to rely more on first impressions than deep analysis, but I've found these scores end up pretty consistent with my solo reviews.

Best of 6–10 Blind:

1.  peanut, brown sugar, ethanol on both nose and palate.
Score: 6
Guess: Booker’s
Reveal: Bookers

2. Smells a bit minty, almost like a rye. Palate has somewhat “standard” vanilla and caramel notes.
   Score: 6.5
   Guess: New Riff
   Reveal: New Riff

3. smells like a browny - best nose of the bunch. Little thin on the front palate, but overall great flavors. Nose translates fairly well to the palate.
   Score: 7
   Guess: JD10
   Reveal: JD10

4. Slight floral note on the nose. Palate has more of a fruit flavor to it.
   Score: 6.75
   Reveal: Penelope Private Selection

5. Very good nose - has a bit of a “dusty” note to it. Dark fruit on the palate.
   Score: 7
   Guess: OF 1924
   Reveal: OF 1924

6. “quintessential” bourbon notes on the nose and palate - vanilla and brown sugar
   Score: 6.6
   Reveal: Old Ezra 7

The attached graphics show every individual age-group blind, each flight winner, and the final Best of 6–10 bracket.

After nearly two years and 17 blind tastings, I finally wrapped up my “Best of Age Stated” blind series.

The idea was simple: compare age-stated bourbons against their peers within the same stated age, determine a winner for each age group, and then pit those winners against each other in "Best Of" rounds.

This project naturally stretched out over nearly two years, because almost all of it was done with the same group of about five friends. The blinds happened whenever everyone's schedules aligned, so naturally that took some time.

The Format:

• We started at 6 years and worked my way up one year at a time through 18 years.
• Each flight generally consisted of 4-5 bottles 
• Every tasting was done completely blind.
• Everyone scored each flight independently, but the rankings shown in these graphics are my personal results, not the group's consensus.
• After every four age groups, I held a separate "Best Of" blind featuring only the winners from those individual flights.

For the first third or so of the tournament we would include a rye whiskey as a wild card in the flights. More often than not, those bottles finished in the bottom half of the rankings for most of the group, so we eventually stopped including them and kept the flights bourbon-only. 

The attached graphics show every age group, the winners of each flight, and the final winners' brackets.

A Note on Scoring

I scored everything using the T8ke scale, generally in 0.25-point increments. In the rare cases where two bottles were essentially tied and I had to choose one over the other, I'd award an additional 0.1-point tiebreaker, so not every score falls exactly on a quarter-point increment.

The first pour of each blind naturally became my baseline for that flight. From there, I'd score the remaining pours relative to that benchmark. Because these were all quality bottles competing against peers of the same stated age, most scores naturally clustered within about +/-0.25 to +/-0.5 points of one another. It was uncommon for two bottles in the same flight to end up separated by more than a full point.

For that reason, I place more weight on the rankings within each blind than on the absolute numerical scores. I've also included a screenshot of my complete score sheet for anyone interested in the underlying scores.

This was a hell of a journey, and extremely educational to say the least!

The T8KE Scale

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