Ezra Brooks vs. Old Fitzgerald Prime, Round 1 Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets

View fullsize

Round 1b of the Bottom Shelf Bourbon Brackets features Number 2 seed Ezra Brooks versus Number 3 seed Old Fitzgerald Prime. 

I’ll be honest. Ezra Brooks is one of those bourbons, that I walked past for years, never intending to purchase it. It was down low enough on the shelf that I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that it wasn’t worth my time. Which I find odd, upon reflection, since I’m cheap enough that you would think that the price alone would have drawn my eye. But I hadn’t seen it come up online in blogs, forums or twitter. It was easily overlooked. Upon looking online, I see that this is a sourced bourbon sold by Luxco out of St. Louis, sellers of fine spirits such as Everclear and various mixers, schnapps and many many other categories of liquors. It’s described as being for those with rugged spirit and a taste for adventure. Woah. Do I have rugged spirit. Boy I kinda hope so. 

Old Fitzgerald Prime is an old name with a strong heritage. It’s an 80 proof wheated bourbon produced by Heaven Hill. I’ve read a lot about the brand, the history, how the brand is the ancestor of Pappy from back when it was Stitzel Weller, and how it inspired Larceny now that it is Heaven Hill. I’ve even reviewed, and liked, it’s 12 year old and it’s Bottled in Bond siblings. Old Fitzgerald Prime was an instant fit for this tasting, I knew I liked the flavor profile, but how would the lower proof stack up?

Ezra Brooks

Purchase Info: Haskell’s Wine & Spirits, Burnsville, MN $14.99 for a 1L

Stated Age: NAS

ABV: 45%

Sourced/Sold by: Luxco

Nose: Big hit of caramel right off the bat. Under that is some apple.

Mouth: A lot of spice at first, honey, sawdust and hints of apple.

Finish: Warm finish that settles in your chest. Lingering spiced honey.

Thoughts: This one is a classic value play. It’s good considering it’s well under $20 per liter, if it were $30 I don’t know that I would buy it.

Old Fitzgerald Prime

Purchase Info: Haskell’s Wine & Spirits, Burnsville, MN $12.99 for a 1L

Stated Age: NAS 

ABV: 40%

Produced by: Heaven Hill

Nose: Cherry, sawdust, alcohol. A noticeable lack of sweetness. 

Mouth: Sweet. Brown sugar and grain flavor. Not complicated, but pleasant.

Finish: Gentle, with a lingering bitterness.

Thoughts: This is a tv watching bourbon. It’s something to sip that tastes good for when you don’t want to concentrate on, or think too hard about your bourbon. It wouldn’t be my first choice for a pour, but I’d be happy enough to have it brought to me. I like this almost as much as I remember liking the BiB version. Still got some alcohol on the nose, which was surprising given it’s lack of proof. But, still, sweet and tasty.

Winner: Ezra Brooks wins by a hair, mostly on the strength of it’s finish. In this case spiced honey beats a lingering bitterness. But it was very, very close, I’d be happy to have either of these on my shelf as a decent everyday bourbon. Old Fitzgerald, being a wheater was softer and sweeter and might be seen as having a disadvantage in this matchup. But then again, Pepsi won the “Pepsi Challenge” back in the 80s mostly on the strength of people choosing the sweeter one head to head, so who knows. In this case, I preferred the rugged spice to the sweeter wheat. But both were good.

Double Blind Review: Evan Williams Bottled in Bond vs Old Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond

View fullsize

Evan Williams Bottled in Bond and Old Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond

It’s sometimes hard for those who only casually know me to believe that I am a frugal person. They’ll point to the fact that I have over 50 different whiskies (just in my office closet, unopened, that I paid for), as evidence of the fact that I am, in fact, the very opposite of a frugal person. 

But truth be told, I do not like wasting money. I don’t mind spending money, if the object is worthwhile or the price is obscenely discounted. But spending money without doing your research is just foolish. You may get lucky, but more often than not money will be wasted. 

Researching value. When it comes to bourbon, it often means looking below the top shelf. It can mean finding a liter of 100 proof bourbon for less than $20. But can it mean finding one for less than $15? 

I recently bought two very similar bourbons, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond and Old Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond. Both are produced by Heaven Hill. Both are 100 proof, bottled in bond. Heck, they are both even packaged in the same style glass bottle. The only differences from the outside are the name on the label and the fact that one costs 50% more than the other. 

To avoid price influence, we tasted these in a double blind format. I poured into glasses 1 and 2 and my wife moved them to spots A and B. I knew what bourbon was which number and my wife knew which number coresponded to which letter, but neither of us knew which bourbon coresponded to which letter. Then we sat down for a nice Sunday afternoon tasting.

Bourbon A:

Nose: Shoe leather, corn, dusty oak and a hint of caramel

Taste: Caramel corn and candied ginger

Finish: Long and sweet with a bit of charred oak

Thoughts: Does it knock my socks off? No. But no matter which one this is, for under $20 per liter there is no reason to not always have this on your shelf. I like this one.

Bourbon B:

Nose: Dried corn, mint, dried grass or hay

Taste: Hot. Hot and harsh. Cinnamon red hots candy and dried corn

Finish: Long. More cinnamon candy which fades to a sour corn flavor.

Thoughts: This is really hot. Cinnamon candy is predominant with a lot of grain flavors supporting it. Kinda meh here.

Bourbon A was my favorite and after the reveal, I learned that it was the Evan Williams Bottled in Bond. In this case, price really does make a difference. Though I was kind of hoping that the lower priced underdog would somehow pull it out, and that the extra 50% higehr price was just spent on all the marketing that the Evan Williams brand receives, I wasn’t really surprised. It does make it a little more palatable to know that that 50% works out to just around six bucks. 

For me, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond beat Old Heaven Hill Bottled in Bond hands down.

A Review of Two Different Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage, 2003

View fullsize

There are a ton of bourbon brands on the market. But as we know, unless you are dealing with a craft distiller (that actually distills their own product) almost all of those brands are created by just a handful of distilleries in Kentucky and Indiana. Most of them with just a couple of mashbills or recipes each. 

So how is it that they all end up tasting so different? How does Knob Creek taste so much different than Jim Beam Black? How is it that Evan Williams Bottled in Bond is easy drinking and Henry McKenna Bottled in Bond is so hot? One answer? Barrel selection. Sometimes a barrel tastes like Henry McKenna and sometimes it’s Evan Williams. 

Bourbon is a natural product. It’s affected by it’s environment. Where was the warehouse it was aged in? What side was it on? North? South? Was it high up in the warehouse where the temperature swings are greater? Did we have a spell of really hot summers or really cold winters? The list can, and does, go on and on. 

But these are big brands. Your average consumer doesn’t want to know that the Evan Williams comes from this barrel or that. They just want to know that it tastes like the last bottle of Evan Williams that they bought. Because they like it. Thank goodness for what Four Roses calls “mingling.” You see if you want the next batch of bourbon to taste as much like that last one as possible, you just dump in enough barrels until it all averages out and pretty much does.

But what if you want something just a little different than last time? Or what if you are just curious what different barrels taste like, one to the next? Well, then you pick up a single barrel product. If you want to make it more interesting, pick up two. Preferably from different barrels. Because a single barrel bourbon is just what it says: the product of one barrel. Theoretically, they all taste slightly different. 

I’ve bought a lot of single barrel products in the past. But until now, I’ve never had two of the same open at the same time. Last Saturday I was having lunch and doing a sample swap with a friend, DP. He’d done a review of the Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage 2003 over at his blog, Whiskey Detectives, and didn’t care for it. I mentioned that I normally like those, so he was nice enough to throw the rest of the bottle into the swap. So that left me with two open bottles of this bourbon from two different barrels. What is a guy to do, but to taste them side by side to see just how different they are?

I’m reviewing barrel number 16 (barreled on 9-8-03 and bottled on 12-12-12) and barrel number 642 (barreled on 2-11-03 and bottled on 7-30-13).

Evan Williams Single Barrel Vintage 2003

Nose: 

642: This starts floral, but after a bit of time in the glass it transitions to a strong cherry and chocolate scent, like the cheap chocolate covered cherry cordials you find at christmas.

16: This starts remarkably similar to the other bottle. After a bit of time though this is still very floral with only hints of the chocolate and cherries of 642.

Mouth: 

642: Sharp and vegetal at first. After a bit it settles down though and brings out more of a traditional sweet vanilla/caramel/spice bourbon flavor. 

16: This also starts vegetal, but somewhere along the way, it turns itself into a florist’s shop. It’s almost perfume-like. 

Finish:

642: Decent length heat that fades to a nice bitterness

16: Still floral. Still perfumey. Not as hot as 642.

Thoughts: In my opinion, neither of these are as good as I remember previous releases to be. They both hit me with a sharpness I didn’t expect and that I found it hard to get past. Barrel 16, which I bought as a birthday present to myself was like drinking perfume. I just couldn’t get behind it. Barrel 642 from my friend DP was better. It was sweeter and had a nicer finish. All that said, if you handed me one without the other, they are similar enough that I wouldn’t know which you had handed me. And in my opinion, that’s not a good thing. I wanted to like these. I thought I would, but I don’t.

Head-to-head review: Elijah Craig 12 Year vs. Elijah Craig Barrel Proof

View fullsize

Ever have one of those days where you know you really should come home from work and drink bourbon, but aren't sure that you want to?

...

No?

Normally I don't either. But today...today I was tired. Tired and hungry. And a little cranky. And did I mention hungry? I mean, analyzing a bit of bourbon means pushing supper off so you can save your taste buds for the finding of all those flavors in the bourbons. 

It's been a while since I did an analytical tasting. You can tell because these thoughts were actually going through my head at first. I was looking at it as if it were something I had to do not something I should want to do.

But that's the beauty of bourbon. Pouring the samples, nosing them. Making notes along the way... yeah I got right back into it. Irritation? Gone. Hunger...still there, but manageable. Bourbon? Oh yeah. It smelled so good.

I've been doing a lot more beer drinking this summer than I have bourbon drinking. But tonight I realized again why I love bourbon. I love the smell. I love the way it hits you like a wave of sweetness that is a mix of caramel, vanilla and tannins. I love how it feels when you breathe in after you swallow, how the air cools your tongue and the burn lingers in your throat. I love that every bourbon is similar, yet different. They are all speaking the same language, but the dialect is different. 

Oh geesh, think of the difference between someone from Minnesooota, like me, don'tcha know...and...someone from Chahlston, South Carallina, where I might, someday, move. 

They both speak English, but you'd know they were different. Bourbon is the same way. Each one is similar, but each one is a variation on the theme. 

I love that!

And as a continuation of the theme of similar, yet different, tonight I decided to taste two that are supposedly the same except for proof. Elijah Craig 12 year and Elijah Craig Barrel Proof. These are supposed to be exactly the same, but at they are different proofs. Does it make a difference. Yeah, yoo betcha. I didn't do it blind tonight because, if you've ever seen Elijah Craig Barrel Proof you know it's as dark as a cup of coffee. You'd know them apart just by looking at them.

Elijah Craig 12 Year

Color: Amber in color as are most bourbons.

Nose: At first sniff, this hits with a alcohol burn to the nostrils. After that, it reminds me most of standing in the aging warehouse at Heaven Hill's Bourbon Heritage Center. It smells like oak and dust and bourbon. Digging just a little deeper I get some toffee and a clove/allspice scent.

Mouth: This has a vague sweetness. Carmel, vanilla, etc. But there is also some oak and a bit of spice. Not a one-note wonder.

Finish: dry, tannic with a bit of a burn.

Overall: I like this, but just barely. It's not bad by any means, but it's trending a bit too hot and dry for my tastes. Not so far outside the realm that it's meh, but it's the closest like to a meh, I've ever given.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof

Color: this is brown. Like cup of coffee brown.

Nose:  Very sweet and much less burn than the regular release. I'm getting a buttery baked apple loaded with cinnamon and warm brown sugar.

Mouth: Very sweet with some spicy clove. A bit fruity on the tip of the tongue. 

Finish: sweet again with a warmth that sits right over your heart for minutes. After my first swallow, I got a burst of a burn coming back up my throat.

Overall: Hoo momma, this is strong. I recommend water. But don't water it down to the 94 proof of the regular release, that's a bit much. But when not adding any, I burned out my tongue pretty quick. This one is really good. 

I was curious so I added water to bring it down to about 95 proof. On the nose, the alcohol burn came back but it was fruitier with bigger clove/allspice than either of them right out of the bottle. The taste just fell apart. Though, my mouth was plenty burned out by this point so who knows.

These are both good, but for my money I'd go barrel proof if you can find it anywhere.

Double Blind Review: Evan Williams vs. Evan Williams 1783

I like to travel. A lot. It's pretty much my second favorite hobby. I like it so much that I'd write a travel blog if it wasn't cheaper to go buy a bottle of bourbon than catch a flight to Louisville. And if so much of my travel didn't involve bourbon in some way shape or form. Last September I was in Kentucky. I believe I've mentioned this. One of the little highlights of my trip was stopping into the liquor stores to scope out all the tasty things I couldn't get (or didn't think I could get) at home. One of these was Evan Williams 1783. Since September, I've had it neat a half dozen times or so, used it in a few cocktails and even for cooking on occasion. All in all each experience was enjoyable.

Of course, sometimes you buy something just because you want to compare it to something else. This was the situation I found myself in as I bought a tiny little mini of Evan Williams black label. It was something I'd had and liked before, but with so many other tasty things to try, it had taken a while for me to go pick it up again. Black label was one of the first non-premium bourbons I'd had after I decided I liked bourbon. I'd read that it was a pretty good value bourbon and decided on a whim to pick it up. Good whim. I immediately realized that as far as bourbon was concerned, you didn't need to spend $30-40 to get something really tasty. 

So, having the 1783 in hand and having picked up the mini of the black label, I decided tonight to go head to head. Just to see if different was necessarily better.

Here comes disclaimer-time: I did this in my normal double blind tasting routine where I draw a circle with an A in it, one with a B in it, one with a 1 and then one with a 2. I pour into the glasses labeled A and B and my wife moved them to either 1 or 2. So I know what A and B are, and she knows what 1 and 2 are, but neither of us know what bourbon is 1 and which is 2.

Bourbon 1:

Nose: This is a sticky sweet caramel roll in a glass. 

Mouth: Very sweet on entry. It gets hotter as it moves back in the mouth. Other than that there isn't much else going on here.

Finish: There's a little heat, but it fades pretty quickly.

Thoughts: This is a very pleasant, uncomplicated bourbon. It isn't going to make you sit and think, but that makes it perfect for playing cards. Something to sip on while your attention is somewhere else. 

Bourbon 2:

Nose: right away, I'm reminded of sour milk. not something I want to nose at all. After letting it sit for a 5-10 minutes the sour milk fades and is replaced by a sweet caramel much like bourbon 1.

Mouth: The sweetness is repeated here. It's soft and full in the mouth. 

Finish: Short with almost no heat, but there is a lingering sweetness that I like.

Thoughts: This is so uncomplicated to be almost boring. But sometimes that's a good thing. I'd like this as I watch tv at the end of a rough day. It lends itself well to just vegging out watching an implausible prime-time action drama.

Verdict: I shouldn't have been, but I was pretty shocked to find out how similar these two were. The little bit of heat in bourbon 1 was not as pleasant as the softness of bourbon 2. Sweet, sweet, sweet as most inexpensive bourbons are, but pleasant none-the-less. I like these for drinking, not tasting and wouldn't hesitate if offered either during a hand of cards. 

So which was which? Well, bourbon 1 was the Evan Williams 1783 and bourbon 2 was the Evan Williams Black Label. I found it a bit shocking that I found the "normal" one more to my liking, but that's why I taste blind: I don't want any preconceptions. And of course, if you haven't had them, try them out, you'll be out maybe $30 for the pair. 

Review: Henry McKenna Single Barrel Bottled in Bond

View fullsize

I bought this a while back. Probably about a year or so ago, maybe a bit longer. I'll be honest. I bought it for the bottle. It's looks a bit like it was designed as a school project. And I loved it for it. Visible hot glue, a copper neck tag that looks hand wrapped and a hand written ID tag with the barrel number and barreling date.  It just adds to the craftiness of it all. And it would have sat there just looking all crafty-cool if I hadn't taken the behind the scenes tour at the Heaven Hill distillery last September and learned a little nugget of info that sparked my curiosity. 

We were being given one hell of a cool tour and our guide was telling us a little about aging. He told us that, obviously, Heaven Hill ages their barrels all over the place. Now there are some of these barrels that end up on the sunny side of a hill (I think he mentioned this facility was up by Louisville, but that was 6 months or so ago, I might be misremembering that part). Now according to the guide, these barrels age to be a bit harsher than those barrels that are destined to become the flagship Evan Williams. But that, in a odd quirk of fate, because there are fewer of these barrels you will actually pay more for a bottle of Henry McKenna than you would for the "better" Evan Williams. 

How much of that is true? Probably some of it, but it's a good story so I'll let any embellishment slide. I'm a firm believer in not letting the truth get in the way of a good story. But it did spark my interest. I wanted to see if this Bottled in Bond version followed those same themes. And now that I've emptied it, this is my last chance to share my findings.

View fullsize

Nose: At first this is all caramel and heat. Damn near fried my nose. After letting it sit for a bit, it settles into brown sugar and cherry with just the tiniest hint of smoke

Mouth: FIRE! This is a hot one! It's just a big bucket of burn. Adding a little water calms it down a bit, allowing it to show it's sweet side.

Finish: What do you know? There's a hot finish too. After the heat fades it brings back a bit of the cherry and some bitterness that dries the mouth.

Thoughts: I like this more for the story and the bottle that it's in, than for what's inside it. Everything about this one is hot. Might be nice on a cold winter's night, but it's (finally) showing signs of spring here and it's not to my tastes right now. A small piece of ice does help to tame it though. For the time and place I'm in right now, I'm going with meh. But if you like hot bourbons that can bring the burn, this one might be just for you.

UPDATE: Do you not agree with this review? Well, guess what after four and a half years, I didn't either and I decided to revisit it. Check out the current review here. 

---

BourbonGuy.com accepts no advertising. It is solely supported by the sale of the hand-made products I sell at the BourbonGuy Gifts Etsy store. If you'd like to support BourbonGuy.com, visit BourbonGuyGifts.com. Thanks!

Double Blind Review: 3 Unrelated Ryes

View fullsize

I recently realized I had about one pour left of two different rye whiskies. I needed the shelf space so I poured them into small bottles and stuck them onto one of my shelves. They sat there for a while. 

A long while.  

I like rye. But unless it is amazing, I normally put it into a cocktail. A sazerac or a manhattan made with a decent rye whiskey is one of the best things that a person can imbibe. I'd had both of those in cocktails and neat. I mostly preferred them in a cocktail. But I like rye. And these two had only one pour left. If I was going to review them, I was going to have to not put them into a cocktail. I was going to have to put them into a glass all by themselves and think about them. 

Cocktails are good. They do not tend to lend themselves to the contemplative tasting. But that's part of their charm. They taste good. And that's their purpose. A bad whiskey can be interesting, a bad cocktail needs to be dumped out. 

So here is a double blind tasting of those two ryes that I normally used in cocktails and another that I felt belonged since I like three way tastings way better than two... 

So there. 

I started in the usual double blind fashion of pouring and then letting my wife mix them up. I knew which whiskey equaled which number, she knew which number equaled which letter and neither of us knew what was in any of the glasses.

Rye A:

Nose: Honey, slightly soapy. Hints of grass follow.

Mouth: Sweet up front, mint and grass follows

Finish: This is a hot one. There's a tingle through the entire mouth. It fades into a bitter citrus pith in the throat.

Overall: I like this, but I'm not sure this is something I would drink alone. It hits all the notes I want a rye to hit, but it isn't one that I'd go to neat on a regular basis. 

Rye B: 

Nose: Sweet. Butterscotch with a hint of baking spice

Mouth: Soft is the best word I can use. This is a sweet one. 

Finish: Minty cool plus heat. This is the Icy-Hot of finishes. But it fades pretty quick. 

Overall: I loved the mouthfeel of this one. There was an elegant softness that I wasn't expecting. I know that two of these are 100 proof or over and one is 80. So I'm guessing this  is one of those. I don't care. I think I'm in love.

Rye C:

Nose: Fresh mown hay, then a hint of banana and mint.

Mouth: Thin. There isn't a lot of flavor here. Sweet and spice with a hint of bitter, but you gotta search for it.  

Finish: Finish is where this brings its game. It fades from the sweet into a bitter spice. There isn't a lot of heat, but this leaves a tingle.  

Overall: Standing on it's own, this is a meh. I wouldn't put it into a glass, but if I was at a bar I wouldn't turn it down depending on what else was back there. It's really just ok.  

So what was what? You can see which three were being reviewed in the image above. So I'm just going to spill it. A was Rittenhouse Bottled in Bond. B was Wild Turkey 101 proof. C was Old Overholt. I was a little surprised at how much I liked the Wild Turkey, because none of these are very expensive. If you can find Wild Turkey Rye 101, it's pretty reasonable. Rittenhouse is under $25 and Old Overholt was bought for like $11 or so. Not really surprised that they ended up where they did. 

My wife checked my work tonight. She thought I was mostly right, but when she tasted the Rittenhouse she proclaimed: "ooh. I don't like this." Since she doesn't actually like rye neat, I wouldn't take that too hard if I were them.

Well, now I'm off to pour what's left together and make the world's most strangely concocted manhattan.  Well, as far as the whiskey is concerned. The manhattan will follow my standard recipe. 

A Head-to-Head-to-Head Tasting: Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year, Larceny, & Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond

Has it finally happened? Has my nose unclogged? Have my senses of smell and taste returned to me? Am I ever going to stop asking questions and get on with this?

Yes. To all of them. My wife and I have finally come close enough to kicking the cold/flu that felled us in the late December/Early January that we can breathe again. We can laugh without coughing again. And most importantly, our tastebuds and our sniffers work again.

Last year, round about September, I hit on the idea that to really know the minute differences of different bourbons, I needed to compare them to one another. Have them side by side. Smell one, smell the other, smell my hand*, and start over again. So while I was in Kentucky, the land of bourbon, I decided to start picking up a few things with an eye toward head to head tastings. Some of them were planned. Some of the stuff I lucked into. I was checking out when I'd notice a small bottle of something. Maybe it was a different proof than what already had. Maybe it was a mini of another release of something I had at home. I collected things all autumn long, buying bourbon in at least 6 different states along the way. It was fun. 

But by the time I was about to get started on the tasting fun. BLAM! Laid out by tiny little viruses. So unfair. And now we're back to the present. About to dig into a trio of wheaters from Heaven Hill. so how did I decide on these? Well, a little bit of luck and a tiny bit of planning. I've had the Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year Old since a visit to Des Moines, Iowa this summer. I picked it up because it was something I knew I couldn't get here in Minnesota. Or at least I had never seen it. The Larceny was released right about the time I was going to Kentucky. I got a $10 rebate on the bottle and it was also on sale for roughly $22. Buying that was a no brainer. At that point it seemed I had a pretty nice head to head going. It wasn't a planned one, but hey, I'm not one to sneer at dumb luck. One problem, those two wheaters were both MSRP'd like premium bourbons. One of the things I had read about Old Fitzgerald was that it was a good value bourbon. So with the head to head in mind, I went ahead and picked up a bottle of Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond for ~$18 for a liter. And just like that it became a head-to-head-to-head. Three times the fun!

Here's how the wife and I did the tastings. With her out of the room, I poured each into identical Glencairn glasses. One set for me, one set for my wife. I had them on a piece of paper and in front of each I wrote a number 1-3. Then I left the room. My wife came in and moved each glass onto another prepared sheet that was labeled A, B, C. So I knew which bourbons were 1, 2 and 3 and she knew which letter corresponded to which number and neither of us knew which bourbon was in which place in front of us. A perfect double blind tasting.

So what did we think? Well, we both agreed that there were a lot more similarities between the bourbons than there were differences. In the glass all three were the same color. Though in the bottle the VSOF was a bit darker. None of these were overly complicated bourbons. All of them were sweet with a hint of spice in the mouth. So knowing that, let's dig in.

Bourbon A:

Nose: Sweet with a hint of something smoky. Once I was hit with something  sharp, almost acidic, but it was gone as soon as it appeared and never came back. I found the same thing at another time in my wife's but it was still gone so fast I couldn't place it.

Mouth: Sweet, but not overly sweet. Brown sugar with a little spice. This one was a bit thin when compared to the other two. 

Finish: Short and sweet. Not hot. Dried the mouth.

Overall: This one confused me. I smelled things that I couldn't catch before they were gone and couldn't pick out anything beyond a very gently spicy brown sugar sweetness. This is a bourbon that I could drink the heck out of though. I like it and I'd enjoy having it at my side while watching a movie or talking with friends. This was probably our favorite of the three.

Bourbon B:

Nose: Tangy and sweet play a game of cat and mouse with each other while nosing this one. One time it's a hard maple bomb, the next it's tangy, then they swap back again.

Mouth: This is a sweet one. Not as sweet as the nose, but there is a slight maple or brown sugar there amongst the alcohol. I found this one to be a bit on the thick side. Not oily, but syrupy. I guess that goes with the maple in there.

Finish: Finish was the best part of this one. There is that tang in the back of the throat that the nose promised, sweet spice on the sides of the tongue, and a hint of smokiness all around.  

Overall: My wife found this to be the harshest one out of the three we tasted. Said she only tasted alcohol. I agree it was the harshest one, but not overwhelmingly so. I like this one as well. Though good, this was probably our least favorite of the three. 

Bourbon C:

Nose: Right away I was hit with sweet baked apples. After a bit I got a lot of brown sugar sweetness.

Mouth: Sweetness at first on this one getting spicier as it moves back. I get a lot of corn in this one as well. 

Finish: I found this to have the most burn in the finish out of the three. Really drying the back of the throat.

Overall: This is a good bourbon. It won't blow you away analyzing it, though I found those backed apples on the nose to be interesting. But I drink a whiskey more often than I taste it and this is another one I'd enjoy drinking over conversation with friends or along side a movie or good book.

So which was which? Bourbon A was the Very Special Old Fitzgerald 12 Year Old. No Surprise here, my wife loves older Heaven hill bourbons. Bourbon B was Old Fitzgerald Bottled in Bond, which explains the harshness comment by my wife. And Bourbon C was Larceny.

I like all of these in their own way. Like I said, our favorite was the Very Special Old Fitzgerald, but I wouldn't turn down any of them. And in fact, before I did the tasting, I enjoyed each and every one on numerous occasions. The BiB was great in cocktails or on it's own. The VSOF made a wicked good manhattan. And Larceny is just plain tasty.

If I could only buy one moving forward, I'd pick the BiB because it is so much cheaper and almost as good. My wife, the accountant, though disagrees with me and would choose the Larceny. She like the VSOF the best, but initially had a hard time finding differences between them. So since it is a little cheaper, she'd go that route. If you're buying though? Give either of us the VSOF.

*By the way, that hand smelling thing isn't a joke, it seems to reset the ol' sniffer for some reason.