u/eat_all_the_tacos

Age: who knows

Proof: 118.3

Price: $200

Nose. Peanut brittle, heath bar…or whatever the crunchy shit inside of a heath bar is. Some saw dust notes on the end.

Palate. Medium mouthfeel; dark chocolate, raisins, and tart cherries and a short pop of ethanol right at the end.

Finish. Long and probably the best part of this whiskey.
Barrel char and a little oak melt like butter together and create a savory conclusion.

Overall. This is the first time I’ve tried a Little Book, and until touring the distillery I always thought the name of the whiskey was a reference to the tiny neck tag on the bottle. Not true. The informative tour guide revealed the actual meaning of the bottle is related to Freddie Noe, whose nickname is Little Book (as in, Little Booker). Surely I’m not the only one that thought the neck tag was a small piece of literature, and each chapter was supposed to contribute to a greater novel? Maybe it was just me.

My lack of Beam knowledge extended to the fluid inside the bottle, which I assumed was just another version of Bookers. In my defense, it comes in a similar box and the bottle wears the same type of crossover tie.

After buying the bottle, I still don’t have a clear understanding of what makes Little Book fundamentally different from Booker’s beyond the blending philosophy. I know what distinguishes The Infinite from the normal chapters offered annually under the Little Book name, but I don’t know what new components were added to the blend for Edition III. I don’t know the age of the bourbon inside. I don’t know the mash bill of the components. To the best of my knowledge, Beam has not even published a press release for this yet. I’m not complaining about the lack of transparency, but if something special was added, I like to think it would be highlighted.

Nevertheless, this is a great bourbon. It’s complex, it’s thick, it’s enjoyable. Is it $200 worth of enjoyment? Perhaps. But for me, I’d rather buy a Booker’s and spend the other $100 on something else.

Rating. 6.5/10 | Very good, a cut above.

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.

Proof: 121.1
Taken: Neat, in a glencairn.

Nose. Vanilla dominates immediately, but not in an artificially flavoured Duncan-Hines frosting way. A subtle agricultural note of hay or straw is present.

Palate. Delivers on the nose with vanilla bean ice cream and a warm brownie, but remains well structured and put together, never collapsing into something off-putting. If Ben and Jerry’s made a farm to container ice cream, it would taste like this.

Finish. High proof without ethanol fire; the finish is long and pleasant with the grain-forward notes that I’d expect from a Frey Ranch bottle.

Overall: A few years ago I was introduced to Frey Ranch single barrels in Texas, and I thought they were interesting but I was not able to find more since they are not distributed where I live. Earlier in the year I had the opportunity to travel to Texas and I picked up this bottle of Frey Ranch at the local Total Wine. Although the aggressive salesmanship at TW does turn me off, I also think they do a good job of picking single barrels that are broadly appealing without sacrificing the character of the distilleries they represent. Given the scarcity of Frey Ranch where I live, I picked this up for less than $100 and I’m glad I did.

From the very first sip to the last, this bottle knocked my socks off and continued to impress me every time I poured a glass of it. This earned a spot in my rotation, and I’ll buy another bottle of it as soon as I’m given the chance. I know not all single barrels are created equal, but this was impressive enough that I’d be willing to roll the dice and take a chance if given the opportunity.

Rating. 8/10 | Excellent, really quite exceptional.

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 favourite.
10 | Perfect | Perfect

Age: NAS
Proof: 111 Proof
Taken: Neat, in a stemmed glen.

Nose. Cinnamon/Baking spice. Pancake batter.

Palate. Medium mouthfeel. Less sweet than I expected given the finish. Green tea and floral notes dominate; surprisingly this presents more herbal than sugary.

Finish. Brown sugar on what amounts to a rather pleasant finish.

Overall: I was pretty excited to find this on a trip to Texas earlier in the year, although I had no idea what it was. I was familiar with Bee’s Knees but I wasn’t aware Shortbarrel released an experimental series, separate from the core Bee’s Knees release, that showcased how different honey barrels impact the final flavor profile of the bourbon. This bottle was finished using Oregonian meadowfoam honey, which is harvested solely from meadowfoam flowers. This is the most I’ve ever thought about honey in my life. Truth be told, I don’t think I’ve even bought a bottle of honey in my entire adult life; nevertheless, I was interested in how this might turn out.

What surprised me the most about this is how subtle the honey finish actually is. It is barely noticeable. In fact, I wasn’t able to single out the Bee’s knees when I tried this in a blind against several other non-finished bourbons. I appreciate that the finish is used more to complement the whiskey, and it never comes across as dominant or overpowering.

This was an enjoyable dram and I’m happy I can say I’ve tried this, but I don’t think I’ll buy another bottle. It’s good whiskey, but it’s not something I will drink regularly enough to keep a steady supply of in the house. If you’re on the fence about trying it, I think it’s worth a shot…just be aware that if you’re expecting something sweet like a Penelope Rio, you’re not going to get what you think.

Rating: 5.5/10

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.

Age: 20 Years
Proof: 138.8 Proof
Taken: Neat, in a pretentious nosing glass

Nose: Slight ethanol upfront followed closely behind by mint.

Palate: Some heat, but more of a fresh-gum-on-a-cold-day sensation than an alcohol burn. Light oakiness accompanies a unique drying quality that is considerably more pleasant than it sounds. Classic cinnamon and nutmeg arrive toward the end.

Finish: Perhaps some Andes mints or dark chocolates…it’s hard to describe, other than it comes across as fresh. Like a pine forest in the winter.

Overall. The dominant characteristic of this bottle is how drying it is. Not as bitter as chewing on a desiccant packet, but the tannic structure reminds me more of a well-aged Bordeaux than a typical rye*.* This is personally something I’m a fan of, and I think it is more charming than a flaw.

What hurt this whiskey the most was the high expectations I had for it. I read several reviews for previous iterations of Old Dragon Bones single barrel rye prior to purchasing the bottle, all of which made me think this was going to walk on water. And while it’s great, it also doesn’t live up to the lofty expectations placed on it. Maybe that’s my own fault.

Still, it’s hard to argue with what $100 gets you here: a 20-year old, near-HAZMAT rye that packs a punch, even if it doesn’t live up to all of the mythological reviews.

Rating: 7/10. Great, well above average.

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.
2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.
3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but better exists.
5 | Good | Good, just fine.
6 | Very Good | A cut above.
7 | Great | Well above average.
8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional.
9 | Incredible | An all time favourite.
10 | Perfect | Perfect

Age: 7 years
Proof: 116.8
Taken: Neat, in a Glencairn

Nose. Spicy up front, then followed by molasses and nutmeg.
Palate. Pancakes, and…teddy grahams, specifically the chocolate ones.
Finish. Leather and tobacco notes poke through, and disappear behind a syrupy curtain of sweetness.

Overall:
I started getting into bourbon and this sub-Reddit back in late 2022 - early 2023. I remember the amount of NULU reviews back then, seemingly every week a new review would populate. I had never seen or heard of the brand, and was always eager to try it. Perhaps inconsistency, or simply NULU’s experimental approach, has cooled some of the enthusiasm surrounding the brand. This is the third bottle I’ve tried from NULU and is hands down the best offering I’ve had from them. I visited Prohibition Craft Spirits earlier this year but they didn’t have any maple brûlée bottles to sample or purchase. Still, this is one I’d be interested in buying again if I see it at a reasonable price. I thought this was a really unique pour that was loaded with depth. Probably too complex for every night, but perfect for those nights when I come home from work and want to think about what’s in the glass and not how enthusiastically my coworkers tested my patience that day.

Rating: 7/10 | Great, well above average

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.
2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.
3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but better exists.
5 | Good | Good, just fine.
6 | Very Good | A cut above.
7 | Great | Well above average.
8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional.
9 | Incredible | An all time favorite.
10 | Perfect | Perfect.

Age: 6 Years.
Proof: 100.
Taken: Neat in a Glencairn

Nose. Dr. Pepper; graham cracker crust.
Palate. Dense mouthfeel with cinnamon rolls, brown sugar and rich buttercream without overbearing sweetness.
Finish. Lots of dark fruits, cherry or raspberry. Oak shines through at the end.

Overall. I picked this up last year and I’m glad I did; I carried this bottle with me on a long drive across the country and it became a familiar pour as I adjusted to a miserable new job. I can’t say whether whiskey truly becomes connected with the events surrounding it, but this bottle is good enough that I would still think highly of it without the memories attached. To date, the 2025 Red Corn Bottled in Bond remains my favourite release from Still Austin. I enjoyed it from the first pour to the last and although I am not optimistic that I will find another bottle any time soon, this is one I will happily buy again.

Scale: 7/10. Great, well above average.

1 | Disgusting | So bad I poured it out.
2 | Poor | I wouldn’t consume by choice.
3 | Bad | Multiple flaws.
4 | Sub-par | Not bad, but better exists.
5 | Good | Good, just fine.
6 | Very Good | A cut above.
7 | Great | Well above average.
8 | Excellent | Really quite exceptional.
9 | Incredible | An all time favourite.
10 | Perfect | Perfect.

Age: 4 years

Proof: 106

Taken: Neat, in a glen

Nose. Dusty, Raspberry jam.

Palate. Thick mouthfeel, almost chewy. fig cheese spread. Blackberry cobbler.

Finish. Long enough to be noticeable, but very enjoyable with graham cracker pie crust or classic fig newtons.

Rating. The sherry finish dominates here, but is almost overpowering. This isn’t something I lean into often and I find myself reaching for something else more often than not. I purchased this bottle nearly ten months ago and I’m just now finishing it. That isn’t to say it’s unenjoyable, because it is. this is very enjoyable. But so is pecan pie. So are lobster rolls. This is, at least on my shelf, the duck confit cassoulet or Turkish baklava of bourbon. It’s rich. It’s thick. It’s complex. It’s once in a while.

t8ke scale: 6/10| Very good, a cut above.

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.

Age: 10 years

Proof: 90.

Taken. Neat in a glen.

Nose. This one has a light, subtle nose. Cinnamon immediately, followed by some nutmeg, and rounded out with very light oak.

Palate. This is what I would describe as thin, not a ton of viscosity. Light pepper opens and develops into Werthers original candy.

Finish. Not much here, but pleasant nonetheless. Some oak notes that surrender to a little orange zest sum up what is otherwise a rather quick finish.

Rating. Overall, this isn’t bad at all and I usually end up drinking it for one of two reasons: either I want something mellow to warm up the palate before drinking some thing more complex, or something I reach for when I want a drink but don’t want to wake up with a throbbing headache from a high-proof pour. Either way, this has become a daily drinker for me. When I started drinking bourbon a few years ago, Eagle Rare was never available where I lived. Over the past several years, I’ve seen Eagle Rare transition from a bottle that is scooped up faster than a Tickle Me Elmo doll on a K-Mart shelf in 1996 to floor whiskey that people step over. And while it’s not something that blows my socks off, I think this is an exceptionally average bourbon that tends to be the benchmark I measure other pours against.

t8ke scale: 5/10 | Good, just fine.

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.I’ve seen this become more easy to find than it once was, and if its availability stays what it is, I see this as a great daily drinker.