Like many of us here, I have amassed enough of a collection to alternate between pride and shame at the sheer volume of delicious whiskey I’ve swaddled myself in. As a result, I’m challenging myself to write at least one review a week and post it here until I run out of whiskey or interesting things to say. The latter is definitely the odds-on favorite.

It’s weird to be getting close to 100 reviews here and realize I’ve never reviewed a Barrell Craft Spirits product. There was definitely a time when their specific blending and finishing practices, like with Dovetail and Seagrass, would have been the thing I was most excited to review. I still remember buying one of their batches (maybe 28 or 29? I still have the bottle somewhere - maybe a future review…) for around a hundred bucks and feeling like it was a really special and rare product. Perhaps the issue is that BCS’s model has become so normalized, and that particular corner of the NDP whiskey market so crowded (with Penelope, Rare Character, Dark Arts, etc), that Barrell no longer seems like such an anomaly and more like the rule.

Whatever the case, just this year BCS decided to join the cigar blend fray, and as my local store had it for a reasonable price, and the reviews for it had been glowing, I figured I’d take a chance. As a drinker who considers himself not the biggest fan of finished bourbon, I’m hoping the multiple additional barrels don’t overwhelm the bourbon underneath.

TALE OF THE TAPE

Barrell Cigar Blend Bourbon

Mashbill: not disclosed - a blend of bourbons from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana, so probably has some Barton (maybe 74/18/8?), 84/8/8 Dickel, and 75/21/4 MGP juice in it - although given the low overall rye of the blend they might be using the 36% rye MGP instead or as well.  

Technically 7.5 years old. It’s advertised as a blend of bourbons aged between 7.5 to 18 years (but with no accounting for the percent of the different ages in the blend - probably a good chance that the 18 year component is Dickel, though)

Proof: 111.2

MSRP: $85 but I found this one for 80.

Tasted neat in a glencairn rested for the time it takes to hunt for and book airline tickets.

NOSE: First notes are very fruity - a nice tart cherry along with a sweet peach. There’s some punchy oak, along with a kind of sour apple scent that’s suggestive of apple cider vinegar. Plenty of creamy vanilla pudding, along with a sweet cinnamon for a dulce de leche effect. There’s some nice citrusy lemon peel as well. Underneath all this is something savory but it’s hard to put my finger on - maybe sourdough starter?

PALATE: A bunch of sweet flavors hit the tongue together: maple syrup, drippy caramel, and an herbal-vanilla crème brûlée. There’s plenty of spice as well, with cinnamon and star anise, that combine with a fruitiness that is much darker here than on the nose: medjool dates. The finishing gets into the mix with some thicker, diverse flavors: I got notes of blackstrap molasses and heinz 57 steak sauce. The oak notes stay punchy, which suggests that the overall balance of the age is closer to 8 or 9 years, but there are some more mature flavors as well, like tobacco and a light leather.

FINISH: Starts with a real kick of spice - specifically cloves and black pepper - but then mellows out considerably. There’s a sweetish oak that mingles with strong tobacco and a light barrel char. Raisin sweetness lingers from the date flavors of the palate, joined by black pepper and earthy vanilla.

CONCLUSION: Very tasty and very interesting. It’s odd but as I was drinking it I had the thought that I couldn’t imagine anyone really hating it. The proof impact is not killer, and there’s enough sweetness to it, that bourbon beginners or non-enthusiasts would probably enjoy it. More experienced whiskey drinkers will have plenty of classic bourbon notes to seek out and identify, and more seasoned veterans have some of those mature notes (tobacco, leather, dates) that they tend to prefer. The main thing for me, though, was that the secondary barrels were present without being overwhelming; and that balance can be rare in bourbons with multiple finishes. I don’t know that I’ll be seeking out any more of these, but I’m happy to have my bottle and excited to share it with others.

RATING: 7 | Great | Well above average.

Note on ratings: while I understand the use of decimals in ratings (and often find it very useful when others use them), I find it better for my own purposes to stick to integers. This allows me to create broader categories of whiskeys and compare them more easily. If I sometimes refer to a pour as a “high” or “low” example within the integer scale it is because I am inconsistent.

I’m generally a fan of double oaked bourbons — especially their sweetness. I’m hopeful that this will be another good one!

From the Producer: This Double Oak release is a 19-barrel batch composed of both low-rye (21%) and high-rye (36%) Bourbon, aged for a minimum of 8 years. The barrels were blended and then re-casked into new American Oak Wave Stave barrels for a minimum of 10 months.

Tasting notes: On the nose, this whiskey is robust with aromas of cocoa powder and burnt sugar. Once sipped, sweeter flavors of creme brûlée and vanilla cola appear before giving way to richer notes of espresso and molasses. The finish is long and layered with hints of dark maple syrup, pipe tobacco and praline.

Proof: 120.2°

Age Statement: 8 years

Mashbill: 4 barrels of 60% corn/36% rye/4% malted barley; 15 barrels of 75% corn/21% rye/4% malted barley

Finished in: New American Oak Wave Stave barrels (minimum 10 months)

Price: $74.99 (purchased on sale for $63.99)

Release: 3,600 bottles, so availability is relatively limited

Appearance: Dark amber; thick, persistent legs on the glass

Nose: Sweet. Vanilla and caramel lead the way, with some dark fruits right behind. Some pepper and clove. A bit of astringency that dissipates some as the glass sits.

Palate: Ethanol-forward and hot. Otherwise, it’s pretty oaky, just as you might expect from a double-oaked bourbon. Leather and tobacco appear alongside dark toffee, molasses, stewed plums, very light butterscotch, and sour apple. These would be easier to pick up, and more enjoyable, if this whiskey was less astringent.

Finish: Medium-length and warming. Oaky and a bit bitter at first, before developing into a combination of leather and, to a lesser extent, butterscotch.

Thoughts: This is my second try at a Copper & Cask whiskey (the first being batch #016), and it’s the second time I’ve had an issue with astringency preventing the flavors from coming through clearly and enjoyably.

The bottom line — and the problem for me — is that this whiskey drinks well above its proof. The right notes are there, from honeyed sweetness and vanilla to oak and barrel char; they were just harder to pull out and enjoy than they could have been if the bourbon had been smoother and less ethanol-forward.

Rating: As a double oaked expression, this bourbon was well balanced. It didn’t lean too far into the sweetness that is a hallmark of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked, nor did it have the slight savory note that marked the finish on Pursuit United’s double oaked expression. Overall, I think it’s a solid pour, if a bit unspectacular. As I think it’s better than average but short of excellent, I’ll give this one a 6.5 on the modified T8ke scale: between “Very Good — A Cut Above” and “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

TL;DR

Evan Williams Bottled in Bond is a Heaven Hill product distilled in Louisville, bottled in Bardstown, and built to the exacting standards of the Bottled in Bond Act: one distillery, one season, 100 proof, minimum four years in oak. The mashbill is 78% corn, 10% rye, 12% malted barley, and the profile leans into the Heaven Hill house character: malty, earthy, sweet at the core with some rough edges and a thin exit that don't go away with time. In a five bottle blind against Weller Special Reserve, Buffalo Trace, Benchmark Bonded, and Old Grand Dad Bonded, it took the top spot. At $20 to $22 it is one of the most honest value plays in bourbon. Not the bottle I reach for when I have better options open, but a genuinely capable pour that earns its place on any shelf.

Quality Score - 6.0 Very Good - A cut above

Value Score - 6.5 Fair Value - MSRP is a good deal but don't overspend

Nose - 4.1

Malt, vanilla, brown sugar, ethanol presence.

Palate - 6.1

Barley, baking spice, caramel, nuttiness.

Finish - 5.5

Warm, orange peel, thin exit, faint acetone.

Neck Pour

March 20, 2026

>I switched to Evan Williams from Jim Beam years ago and never looked back. I just couldn't remember why until I opened this bottle.

I don't have notes from my first pour of Evan Williams Bottled in Bond. I'm not sure I could tell you what year it was. What I remember is that I was deep into whiskey sours at the time, making them constantly, and I had been a Jim Beam guy. Someone pointed out that Evan Williams was cheaper and hit harder at 100 proof, and that was enough. I made the switch and didn't think much more about it. It lived on my shelf as the workhorse bottle for a long time.

That was years ago. The bottle I'm reviewing now got its first pour on March 20, 2026. I hadn't kept Evan Williams on regular rotation in a while, so cracking this one felt a little like checking in on an old habit. Named for the man credited with opening Kentucky's first commercial distillery back in 1783, the brand itself has become the second largest selling bourbon in the country. The BiB expression came along in 2012, and it's the version of the bottle most serious bourbon drinkers point to when they want to make the value argument.

I could smell the fingerprints of the distillery on this one immediately. I had been drinking something else from the same house recently and the family resemblance was there on the nose. Amber with some red in the glass. The nose is malty with vanilla and brown sugar underneath, and there is more ethanol presence than I expected at 100 proof. Not harsh exactly, but it announces itself. On the palate you get barley and baking spice on top of a sweeter caramel base. The finish is warm, medium length, with a little orange that shows up late. I won't pretend it isn't rough around the edges. There's a nuttiness to it and something a little thin and acetone-adjacent on the exit. But the Heaven Hill malty earthiness is in there doing its thing, and the whole package is genuinely enjoyable. It's dialed back compared to others in that distillery's lineup. At this price that's not a complaint.

Blind Pour

May 16, 2026

>My old go-to showed up and reminded me why it earned that spot.

The Budget Bourbon Boogaloo was a five bottle blind my wife poured for me: Weller Special Reserve, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond, Old Grand Dad Bonded, Benchmark Bonded, and Buffalo Trace. Everything in the lineup was under $30. The goal was simple. Put the label face down and let the whiskey do the talking.

Sample 5 was EW, though I didn't know that going in. On the nose there was something earthier and a little funky underneath a core of familiar sweetness. Caramel and vanilla doing the expected work, but with something else adding body. On the palate the funk was balanced rather than overwhelming, with some fruit weaving through it. It wasn't the prettiest bottle of the evening but it was the most complete. I kept going back to it.

Before the reveal I called Sample 5 as EW specifically because of that earthier quality underneath the sweetness. I had the WSR and BT swapped, but the EW call was clean. When the reveal confirmed it I wasn't surprised. The earthiness that could have read as a liability was doing real work in the glass. It added depth and body without taking over. That's the thing about this bottle blind: it just keeps earning your attention.

EW took the top spot in the ranking at 6.0, edging out WSR at 5.8 and BT at 5.6. Full breakdown and notes on all five bottles are in the Budget Bourbon Boogaloo blind tasting post.

Open Pour

May 20, 2026

>Evan Williams Bottled in Bond is exactly what it says it is, every single time.

Two months into this bottle and the profile hasn't moved. No softening, no opening up, no surprises. What I got on March 20 is what I'm getting now. For a bottle at this price point, that kind of consistency is worth something. You know what you're buying.

The BiB designation means something here beyond the marketing. One distillation season, one distillery, government supervised aging, exactly 100 proof. The 78% corn mashbill keeps this in familiar bourbon sweetness territory, with the rye low enough at 10% that the spice stays quiet. What you're really tasting is the Heaven Hill house character, that malty earthiness that runs through the whole portfolio, just turned down a notch. The rough edges I noted on the neck pour are still there. The thin exit is still there. These aren't flaws that resolve with time. They're just part of the profile at this proof and this price.

In the blind it beat out Buffalo Trace, Weller Special Reserve, Benchmark Bonded, and Old Grand Dad. That result held up with no asterisks. It won because the earthiness that might put some people off was actually the most interesting thing in the lineup. It had more going on than anything else in that $25 bracket.

At $20 to $22 this is a legitimate buy. I'm not reaching for it on most nights when I have better options open, but it earns its place. If you want something with actual depth at a price that doesn't require any justification, this is it. If you're new to bourbon and want to understand what Heaven Hill's house character tastes like without spending much to find out, start here. And if you've been sleeping on it because the label is plain and the price is low, that's on you.

I write these up at openpourwhiskey.com. Not sponsored, not gifted, bought myself at retail.

*Both drinks were rested 10-15 minutes

Old Forester 1920

#Stats-

Distillery: Old Forester

Mashbill & Age: 4-8yrs, 72% Corn, 18% Rye, 10% Barley

Proof: 115 (57.5%)

Cost: 48.99$

#Tasting Notes-

Nose: Over ripe bananas, creamy vanilla, ethanol, bright red fruit.

Palate: First drink of the day. The banana flavor profile is overwhelming on the first sip, ethanol as my palate adjusts, bread, cream, sweet oak and brown sugar, its very easy to drink and its delicious.

Finish: Quick finish. Its like eating banana bread and the taste is just gone after you swallow. Little bit of spice shows up but is not there for too long either.

Conclusion: I love banana bread and honestly its impressive how well it captures the taste. I genuinely think if this had a longer finish it would be the only thing I would want to drink. Its a simple flavor profile that doesnt surprise you and stays consistent.

Rating: 7.1

Would I buy it again: Yes. Absolutely at the price I paid for it. Something thats always staying in my collection.

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jack Daniels Single Barrel Barrel Proof

#Stats-

Distillery: Jack Daniels

Mashbill & Age: 5-7yrs, 80% corn, 12% rye, 8% malted barley.

Proof: 131.5 (65.75%)

Cost: 69.99$

#Tasting Notes-

Nose: Toffee, Cherry, banana, vanilla, im struggling to smell more. It feels muted compared to the Old Forester.

Palate: Cola, banana, vanilla, cinammon/mint type of spice. Its a wierd mix of spices to me. May be the high proof tricking me but it cools itself off somehow. How is it so smooth compared to the 1920 when its a higher proof point. Its really good.

Finish: Quick-Medium finish. Has a banana oak mix to it. Hardly has a burn but theres a cool sweet spice to it. Seems like it has a sour ending to the finish after the cool spice. Its pleasant but the 1920 has a better finish to me. Still good though.

Conclusion: This was a surprising bottle to me. At 131.5 proof I was expecting much more burn and chaos. Its really tamed though. Alot of flavor and that gives it a better palate mouth feel. If the nose was better and the finish was was viscous it would be around an 8. I like this and I know theres store picks out there that are somehow better. I want to find them now.

Rating: 7.5

Would I buy it again: Yes. I also want this in my collection at all times. Very pleasant to drink.

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.

Weller Special Reserve

Proof: 90

Age: NAS (Reported to be between 4-7yrs)

Mashbill: Undisclosed Wheated Mashbill

Price: $28

Filtration: Chill Filtered

Tasted: Neat in a spey dram glass

It’s been a little while since my last whiskey review, but I figured it was time to get back into it with Weller Special Reserve. Produced by Buffalo Trace Distillery, Weller has an interesting connection to Pappy Van Winkle. During production, the Pappy team samples from Weller barrels and selects certain ones they believe are good enough to continue aging into future Pappy releases.

Special Reserve is the entry-level bottle in the Weller lineup and the most affordable offering in the series. New for 2026, Weller SR has moved to a cork top and foil treatment similar to Weller Antique 107. My bottle for this review predates that change though, still sporting the classic screw top after being picked up in spring 2025.

Nose: Immediate notes of potent vanilla frosting and a light caramel bread pudding sauce, followed by a strong ethanol note for just 90 proof.

Palate: The palate carries that vanilla frosting note over in a big way, with a faint caramel drizzle sweetness. It’s easy drinking, though overall there isn’t a ton of complexity going on.

Finish: The finish lingers with soft vanilla sweetness alongside a fairly pronounced wheated funk that sticks around longer than expected.

Uniqueness: There just isn’t a whole lot here that separates Weller Special Reserve from the rest of the entry-level wheated bourbon crowd. Even though it carries a bit of allocation hype in Ohio (Barely, it sits on shelves for a couple days after drops now), it’s still competing directly with bottles like Maker's Mark and Larceny. Both of which are typically easier to find, and often a little cheaper too. At the end of the day, there’s nothing about Weller SR that really makes me reach for it over those competitors.

Value: At $28, the value honestly feels just okay to me. It’s not a bad price, but this bottle doesn’t really do enough to justify spending much more than that either. If anything, I’d probably prefer it a few dollars cheaper. Truthfully, I’d reach for Jim Beam Black or Evan Williams Bonded before grabbing this again, especially considering both tend to offer a little more character for the money.

Overall: As a neat pour, Weller Special Reserve really isn’t going to amaze many people (if any). I wouldn’t recommend hunting for it or going out of your way to track one down, and I definitely wouldn’t suggest paying over MSRP for it. Where I do think this bottle shines, though, is in cocktails. Its softer and mellower flavor profile lets other ingredients step into the spotlight instead of overpowering them. Lately, it’s actually become one of my favorite bourbons for a Manhattan, where the vermouth can really take center stage alongside orange bitters that complement the wheated profile nicely.

Outside of cocktails, though, this ends up being a fairly average pour that benefits quite a bit from the hype surrounding the Weller name and Buffalo Trace Distillery.

I really like the in-depth review scale used by Breaking Bourbon, I think it gives a better understanding of what to expect from each bottle compared to the popular t8ke scale. 

Nose: 2.5/5 (Average)

Palate: 2.5/5 (Average)

Finish: 2.5/5 (Average)

Uniqueness: 2/5 (Below Average)

Value: 2.5/5 (Average)

Overall: 2.5/5 (Average)

Today we're taking a look at Little Book - The Infinite II! This 2nd edition builds on top of the Infinite 1's original blend by adding on a 22 year old bourbon from Booker, a 10 year bourbon from Fred, and a 7 year old bourbon from Freddie. I was lucky enough to have a bud visiting the distillery earlier this year and he was able to snag me one of these. I was a massive fan of the Infinite 1, so much so it was my favorite Jim Beam product that I had ever had. Very excited to see how Infinite 2 stacks up. Let's dive in.

Taken: Neat in a Glencairn, rested for 10 minutes.

Age: Blend of bourbons ranging in age between 7-22 years

Proof: 120.4

Nose: A really strong brown sugar, raspberry, and cinnamon right out the gate followed by some oak. Swirling the glass brings out that classic Beam peanut note, more brown sugar, oak, and a decently strong floral note which is interesting. This nose is constantly changing too. Sometimes it's leaning more on the raspberry and brown sugar side, other times I'm just getting oak and peanuts. All in all, this is off to a fantastic start!

Palate: Very viscous on the palate with oak, rich caramel, and brown sugar. Subsequent sips brings out cinnamon, tobacco, and peanuts. Very reminiscent of The Infinite 1 with the flavors just being a bit bolder. Eventually this starts to remind me of some cinnamon-roasted peanuts and I am loving it.

Finish: Long finish of peanut shells, raspberry, baking spices, and a drying oak. The Infinite 1 had a good deal of baking spices on the palate, but on Infinite 2, those baking spices show up big time on the finish.

An absolute homerun from Jim Beam. Infinite 2 is, expectedly, reminiscent of The Infinite 1 but it does come across a little more bolder overall. This was confirmed in a blind I did between the two. If you were a fan of the 1st edition, I think you'd really enjoy the 2nd edition. You know it's a Beam product with that peanut note but it's not the star of the show. The caramels, brown sugars, and oak come across in a very rich way and the mouthfeel is outstanding creating what to me is an incredible pour and one that will be in my running for Whiskey of the Year for 2026.

t8ke scale: 9.1/10 | Incredible | An all time favorite.

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.

The review for these bottles are in the comments below...

INTRODUCTION: Today I am stepping into the realm of extremely overpriced whiskey with the brand everyone knows but is too afraid to buy: Willett. This distillery is known for having absurdly priced (but legendary) bottles that people are either rightfully hesitant to purchase or way too eager to drop 1k on. While I’m definitely not the latter, it just so happens that I’m still a huge sucker for these absurdly expensive bottles…

I’m sorry, I can’t help it!

While they disclose virtually nothing about their aging/selection process, it’s become clear that over the years these single barrels have started to take advantage of Willett’s own distillate rather than the sourced Heaven Hill/Bernheim barrels they became famous for. On this particular Willett Wednesday I’ll be taking a look at their own 11 year distillate picked by the crazy controversial OHLQ barrel pick team (I did try this before buying, so don’t judge my blind faith). Let’s dig in!

PRICE: I don’t wanna talk about it

AGE: 11 years

PROOF: 132.6

COLOR: Dark smoky amber

NOSE: I’m welcomed with sweet tobacco, cinnamon sugar, molasses, caramel, and beautiful vanilla custard. Nice layers of black cherry, candied grapes, and blueberry pie filling add a pleasant complexity to the nose while accentuating the dessert-like profile.

There’s so much of this bready cinnamon quality that comes across as a cobbler/pie crust, which is absolutely incredible.

PALATE: Dense, and I mean DENSE leathery dark chocolate with tons of oak spice that dominates the front palate. Immediately after, I get loads of earthy tobacco, raisin, plum, and a nice vanilla pudding that keeps it somewhat consistent with the nose.

It’s really not a sweet palate at all, but this has the absurdly oily and rich mouthfeel that you’d expect from a dusty whiskey released in the 70s. It’s that good.

FINISH: The palate fades into cocoa powder, more tobacco, burnt caramel, and confectionary sugar. This is all complimented by some deep rich oak, mocha, toffee, and barrel char, which culminates into a chocolate brownie character.

CONCLUSION: It’s shocking how different this is from the usual Willett profile. Instead of the sweet cinnamon red hot quality I’ve gotten on other single barrels, there’s this indescribably deep, rich, and dark tobacco/chocolate character that I’ve never experienced before. The only nitpick I can bring to this profile is that it isn’t the most complex palate ever, but for drinkers who love a good mouthfeel, this is one of the oiliest and most leathery pours I’ve ever experienced. Still can’t say I recommend this for the price, but regardless, I’ll enjoy this while I have it.

Next up I’ve got a 14 year that’ll compete with this quite nicely…

Cheers!

RATING: 9.4 (t8ke)

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

Background:

I don’t drink a whole lot of finished whiskey, but when I do, I usually gravitate to other spirit finishes, especially cognac and Armagnac. I prefer them over wine, as I find them less heavy handed, and I think the brandy flavors complement the bourbon and rye ones better.

I have recently picked up a couple of new-to-me bottles and figured I’d compare them – they may not have much in common in terms of age or proof, but both feature a brandy finish.

Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend is responsible for launching an entire subgenre of finished whiskeys since 2016 and is the brainchild of Master Blender Nancy Fraley. Nancy (u/whiskeyblender) has generously shared her expertise on this sub before, so if you’d like some extra details on her work, you can check out her comment history.

Despite being aware of the Cigar Blend for a long time, this is my first time trying it. It is a more recent batch (491), which came out toward the end of 2025. I know there is a fair bit of back and forth on whether the earlier batches were better, which is not surprising for a brand that’s been around for a decade.

Its composition has gone through some changes, such as going from being an all-MGP blend to having some Barton on top of younger MGP. The current batches are closer to the original vision, with the youngest MGP component around 10 years old (36 percent rye mash), with some 17-year Barton and 20-year 21 percent rye MGP bourbon in the mix.

The cognac-inspired production process of the Cigar Blend is very interesting, but I’ll omit the details here, since plenty has been written about it. The high batch numbers are due to the very small size of each one – it denotes a single blend that goes into a large 350-liter Armagnac barrel, which holds 300-400 bottles. The last thing to mention is that while sherry and cognac all had a part in finishing the blend, at this point the Armagnac barrel has the most influence according to Nancy, which is a positive for me. The MSRP is around 200 dollars. The proof on this batch is 112.14.

The other whiskey in this line-up comes from Woodford. This Double XO Blend edition started as a China exclusive, eventually making it into the wider global travel retail last year – so you’re most likely to encounter it in a duty-free shop. According to a press release, it’s a “blend of straight bourbons that were double and triple distilled, matured in new charred oak barrels, and finished in a combination of heavily toasted barrels and Cognac casks.” They go on to say that “it’s actually a blend of some of Woodford’s previous releases—Double Oaked, which is finished for up to 12 months in toasted oak barrels, and bourbon that has spent up to seven years in XO Cognac casks.” It is also Master Distiller Elizabeth McCall’s first limited edition.

Seven years in cognac casks sounds like a very long time, so I wonder if it’s a typo, but the rest looks straightforward. Some of you may even draw a parallel with another Woodford product finished in cognac casks – the insanely priced Baccarat edition. The good news is that if you were craving that particular finish on a Woodford whiskey, you don’t have to pay the 2000-dollar Baccarat MSRP – the Double XO Blend has a 175-dollar price tag and can often be found even cheaper – I paid 130 for mine. In true Woodford fashion, it’s 90.4 proof.

Let’s get on with this brandy-finish showdown; tasted neat in copitas.

Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend

On the nose, chocolate-covered rum raisin, cream-cheese frosting, vanilla, candied walnut and citrus. On the palate, maraschino cherry, vanilla cake, berry preserve, sweet Vietnamese iced coffee, and tobacco. Medium-long finish, condensed milk, dried fruit, a little leather.

Woodford Double XO Blend

Smoky prune, honey, caramel, some varnish on the nose. Palate on a thinner side compared to Magnus, poached pear/orchard fruit, honey, toasted vanilla, brown sugar, some sweet baking spice. Short finish, slightly bitter espresso, prune.

Rating: (t8ke scale for reference below): 

Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend: 8

Woodford Double XO Blend: 7

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 many things I’d rather have

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

Thoughts:

I can’t speak to whether the earlier batches of the Cigar Blend were better or not, but I did thoroughly enjoy this one. I’m not sure why people are complaining about the Barton component – it’s 17 years old, people. I thought it added some nice fruity notes to the blend. It actually reminded me of the 15-year-old Dickel I really liked, minus the minerality.

I did the first round of this comparison semi-blind, and Magnus had an edge in having a fuller palate, longer finish, drinking below its proof, and integrating finishing better. Woodford had lots of dried and orchard fruit and vanilla influence from the cognac cask, but the finish was shorter than I’d like and on some tastings it had a cocktail vibe, which is a sign of the secondary cask taking over. I could also pick up a little bitterness and varnish from the double-oak influence, which some people don’t like. But if you’re a Woodford fan and love your Woodford DO, this will be a treat and less of a gamble compared to their Master’s Collection (any members of the Five-Malt Stouted Mash survivor support group here?).

I’m not running out to replace the Woodford bottle, but I’ll be keeping an eye on the future Joseph Magnus Cigar Blend batches.

Thanks for reading and cheers!

Distillery: Buffalo Trace Distillery
Type: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Mash Bill: Corn, rye, wheat, and malted barley (“four grain”)
Proof: 100 proof (50% ABV)
Style: Limited release / allocated bourbon
MSRP: Roughly $70

Nose: Honey forward, with some caramel, vanilla, some bright cherry with some light toasted oak and touch of maple. Bright nose that has the classic BT sweet honey forward profile.

Palate: Honey sweetness from nose transfers to the palate, backs up with caramel and some soft baking spice. Some bitter oak on the back end along with some cherry peaking through adding some sweetness to the bitter finish.

Overall: This is a fine whiskey at its price tag, but do NOT overpay for this whiskey. I wouldn’t pay anymore than MSRP for this whiskey. It’s not much better than your typical EHT small batch or some single barrels. This isn’t anything you should feel good about driving hours for, it’s a fine whiskey at best. If you are a buffalo trace snob and have to have it then by all means.

Rating- 7.3 {good solid whiskey, would pay MSRP at most for such whiskey}

TL;DR

Old Grand-Dad Bonded is a high-rye straight bourbon from Jim Beam, 100 proof, bottled in bond, somewhere north of four years old, and priced right around $25. It went last in a five-bottle budget blind tasting where context worked against it — a pepper-forward, high-rye spice profile is a tough sell in round four of a back-to-back comparison. Alone in a Glencairn it shows vanilla, orange, caramel, cinnamon, and a funky rye-spiced finish that actually has something to say. The reputation is deserved, and I understand why people love it. It just isn't the bottle I keep coming back to. If high-rye is your thing and you haven't spent $25 on this yet, you should. If you're somewhere in the middle on rye spice, there are other bottles at this price point that'll serve you better.

Quality Score - 5.0 "Good - Good, just fine"
Value Score - 4.1 "Poor Value - I'm complaining about price"

Nose - 4.0

Vanilla, oak, and orange with a raw grain dustiness underneath that never fully resolves. Tells you what you're dealing with before the first sip.

Palate - 5.2

Caramel and oak up front, then pepper and cinnamon take over. The rye is doing real work and not being subtle about it.

Finish - 5.0

Funky rye spice with lingering cinnamon. A little wild on the exit. Medium length, nothing that makes you chase it.

Neck Pour

2023

>I cracked it, poured it, and put it back on the shelf. That was my review for two years.

Old Grand-Dad Bonded has a reputation in budget bourbon circles that borders on mythological. A hundred proof, high-rye, under $25, and one of the most recommended bottles you'll find on any corner of the internet where people argue about whiskey. That reputation is why I bought it in the first place. I had no particular reason to doubt it.

I did anyway.

My first bottle was just off. Not in any catastrophic way, but off in a way that's hard to shake. The nose had that raw grain thing going on, almost dusty, and the palate didn't pull it together the way I expected. Lots of alcohol presence, unbalanced, with a funky profile that didn't read as interesting — it just read as unresolved. I got through some of it and stopped reaching for it. Eventually I stopped thinking about it.

What kept it in the back of my mind was the reputation. Not the marketing. The quiet, persistent word of mouth from people who don't have a reason to oversell a $25 bottle. That's a different kind of signal. So when I put together a budget blind tasting and OGD was a natural inclusion, I figured it was time to give it another look. And when that was done, I figured I owed it a full sit-down.

Blind Pour

May 16, 2026

>It announced itself immediately. That was the problem.

See the full writeup here: Budget Bourbon Boogaloo

The lineup was five bottles all under $30: Weller Special Reserve, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond, Old Grand-Dad Bonded, Benchmark Bonded, and Buffalo Trace. My wife poured and labeled them. I had no idea what was in which glass.

Sample 4 didn't make me work for it. Cardamom and cloves up front, pepper on the exit, leather underneath. Layers, no question. I kept going back and forth between wanting to call it ginger and then crossing that out. It was the most distinct thing on the table and I knew immediately what the high-rye spice profile meant. I guessed OGD before the reveal without much hesitation, and I was right.

The problem was context. Tasting five bourbons back to back in a single sitting rewards certain profiles and punishes others. A bottle with some sweetness and crushability is going to read better in round five than a bottle that leads with pepper and demands your attention from the first sip. OGD got a 5.0 and landed last in the ranking. I don't think that's a dishonest score. But I also don't think it's the whole story. When you're calibrating one whiskey against four others in rapid succession, the one that hits hardest in the wrong direction is going to pay for it. OGD paid for it.

I said in my takeaway that the rye spice is real, the layers are there, and it's worth a try if high-rye is your thing. I meant that. I also meant it when I said it wasn't the bottle I was reaching for. Both of those things are true, and they're easier to say when you're comparing it to four other bottles at the same time. Alone in a Glencairn is a different conversation.

Open Pour

May 19, 2026

>This is a better bottle than I gave it credit for. It is also exactly the bottle I thought it was.

Two months in, poured neat in a Glencairn, Old Grand-Dad Bonded reads differently than it did in either of my previous encounters. The nose opens with vanilla and oak, some orange coming through, and underneath all of it that same raw grain dustiness I picked up in the blind. It's not a flaw. In this context it's just part of the character. The palate has sweet caramel and oak but also real pepper and cinnamon, and the finish is funky in that rye-forward way — medium length, more cinnamon, a little wild on the exit.

The mashbill explains most of this. 63% corn, 27% rye, 10% malted barley. That rye percentage is more than double what you'd find in a standard Beam product. It's why this bottle tastes the way it does, and it's why my first bottle put me off — at a lower proof with less development, that rye can read as harsh rather than spiced. This bottle is better. Whether that's the batch, whether it's time on my palate, or both, I can't say for certain.

There's a footnote worth including here. Beam Suntory also makes Basil Hayden, named after the same Meredith Basil Hayden Sr. that Old Grand-Dad honors — his grandson Raymond named the brand after him. Same distillery, same mashbill, 80 proof, premium packaging, two to three times the price. My wife's favorite bottle, actually, though she'd be the first to admit it's as much sentiment as anything else. The pitch on OGD Bonded has always been that it's the honest version of that story: more proof, more flavor, less marketing. I think that pitch is basically right.

I also think it depends on what you're looking for. If you want a bottle that works in a cocktail without thinking about it, OGD earns its keep. The rye spice carries through sugar and water without losing itself. Neat, it's a 5.0 bottle for me. The value score sits at 4.1, and the honest answer behind that number is that I'm not buying another one. This is a bottle for certain moods and certain applications, and mine don't come around often enough to justify the shelf space. If you like high-rye profiles and you've never spent $25 on it, you should. If you're somewhere in the middle on rye spice, there are other bottles at this price point that'll make you happier.

I write these up at openpourwhiskey.com. Not sponsored, not gifted, bought myself at retail.

I’ve been wanting to try whiskey whisky from Found North for some time now. I still haven’t been able to get my hands on a Peregrine, but I was able to find this single barrel from Season 6, which is a store pick from the OG McFarland in Alpharetta, Georgia. I’m excited to see how it is!

From the Producer: At Found North, we make blended Canadian whisky for whisky enthusiasts. We work with Canadian distilleries to source well-aged, well-made distillates, which we further mature and blend in the U.S. We are extremely meticulous in our wood selection and aging process, our blending process and all of the important details that impact the quality of the whisky. Every Found North release is cask strength with no additives or chill filtration.

Found North makes single barrels by first creating a core blend. We finish the core blend in a variety of casks and then bottle the best as single barrels without chill-filtration or additives. Each unique range of finished whiskies represents a “season.”

Season: 006

Cask: 6125

Bottle: 170

Proof: 114.7°

Filtration: Non-Chill Filtered

Finish: Oloroso Sherry

Mashbill: 49% Rye, 48% Corn, 3% Barley

Age Statement: 12 Years

Age Blend: 12-Year Rye, 21-Year Rye, 15-Year Corn, 17-Year Corn, 22-Year Corn, 25-Year Corn

Price: $99.99

Appearance: Medium-hued amber with nice legs on the glass

Nose: Right away something different hits me alongside the standard caramel, toffee, vanilla, dark fruit, and rye spice. It’s almost like a pungent ocean breeze — the kind where you can taste the saltwater on the air. Some seaweed is present, as well, making this nose quite the beach excursion (or, maybe more correctly, a tide pool excursion). Once the glass is empty, the remaining scents are primarily vanilla, caramel, and tobacco, which make for a much more pleasant nose.

Palate: Moderate to high viscosity; coats the palate nicely. There’s a little proof heat, but the spiciness primarily comes from rye. That interesting nose also carries over to the palate: the standard combination of vanilla, oak, dark fruit, and leather are there, but there’s also some funk present that really does taste like this pour had a few drops of ocean water added to it. It’s become a bit less prominent as I’ve let the bottle open up, but it’s still noticeably there.

Finish: Simple and medium in length; leather, oak tannins, and seawater, plus an earthiness that honestly tastes like I gargled some dirt.

Thoughts: This foray into blended Canadian whisky was … interesting. I’ve never had a pour transport me to the salt air and seaweed of a beachside tide pool before, and can only assume that this comes from the Oloroso Sherry finish. I’m certainly finding it to be very distinctive, although I can’t really say that I’m loving it (or the dirt-flavored finish).

This whisky definitely has some good bones, as they say, but it’s overwhelmed for the most part by the effects of the sherry finish, which ultimately prevented me from really enjoying it. I’m disappointed about this because I’d really been looking forward to the opportunity to try whisky from Found North, having heard such great things about their products.

Rating: Essentially, while this whisky is fine, it had the potential to be quite good but just didn’t get there. My rating for this one is a 5 on the T8ke scale: it’s “Good, Just Fine.” I probably won’t be reaching for it very often in the future, if at all.

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