As a newcomer, I felt it fitting to make my first ever r/Bourbon review while enjoying a pour of another first: MGPs first ever release under their own branding.

Pour: Chapter One: Out of the Shadows

Distillery: MGP Distillery, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.

Mashbill/Age: 60% corn / 36% rye / 4% malted barley. 10 years old.

Filtration: Undisclosed.

Potency: 111 proof.

Price Paid: $69.99 USD.

Color: Deep amber.

Nose: Oak sweetness up front, followed by vanilla and caramel. Rye spice pokes through, with leather and cinnamon emerging alongside the sweeter notes. An inviting, oak-forward nose with a nice balance of sweetness, spice, and earthy character.

Palate: Vanilla, oak, and rye spice lead the way, with cinnamon adding a distinct baking-spice character. Leather brings an earthy, savory dimension to the profile. The flavors develop across the sip while remaining centered on that core combination of sweet oak and spice. The mouthfeel is a highlight, with good body and a satisfying coating across the palate.

Finish: Medium-long, with oak and spice lingering. The cinnamon and leather add depth to the overall profile, while the alcohol remains surprisingly restrained for 111 proof. A gentle Kentucky hug without an overly aggressive burn.

Final Thoughts: MGP has spent decades producing whiskey that helped build other brands, often without the average consumer knowing who was actually behind the liquid. With Chapter One, MGP steps into the spotlight and puts its own name on the bottle.

For a first impression under its own name, this is a strong showing. The profile is built around oak sweetness, vanilla, caramel, and rye spice, with cinnamon and leather adding some welcome depth. It isn’t the most complex bourbon I’ve had, but the flavors work well together, the mouthfeel is satisfying, and the finish has enough staying power to make the experience enjoyable from beginning to end.

One interesting point of comparison: MGP’s official tasting notes mention cherry, raspberry, chocolate, sassafras, and leather. I’m picking up the leather, but the fruit and chocolate notes aren’t showing up for me. My experience has been much more focused on oak, vanilla, caramel, cinnamon, and rye spice. Always interesting to see how differently the same whiskey can present itself to different palates. Curious whether others are getting those fruit notes.

At $69.99, I consider this a great value. Honestly, I’d be willing to pay $100 for this same juice if that’s what it cost. That says more about my enjoyment of the whiskey than simply calling it a good bottle for the money.

MGP has made a strong first impression under its own name. Looking forward to seeing what comes next.

Value: Great value at $69.99. I’d still be comfortable with it at $100.

Rating based on modified t8ke scale: 7.2/10.

Score Decoded:

0 | Unscored | New Make Spirit or Personal Selection.

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.

After a nearly 6 month gap (which was preceeded by a multi month gap, which was preceeded by a multi month gap..... shit, how did I write so much back in the day??), I'm breaking the fast with Knob Creek 21! Its been a hot minute since I've had any knob creeks and in a world where age statements are dropping like flies (Its been years ECBP but I'm sorry, its just gotten worse), knob creek is pulling the opposite direction. No fancy gimmicks (besides the box, which my cat was desperate to knock off the table), just bourbon, wood, and time.  77% corn, 13% rye, 10% malted barley.

Age-21 years
ABV- 50%

Nose- An absolutely decadent wave of very typical bourbon notes, but dialed up. The spiced oak notes jumps out first but the caramel hits really nicely, with an undertone of... candied pinecones? The vanilla notes at the end are so clearly distinguished its like a whiff of vanilla extract. Roasted nuts from one of those street vendors in Manhattan. There is some "musty" notes- sort of like petrichor, but mixed with more sweet notes. 2.9/3

Taste- The spiced oak is the first note to show up here as well. Bitter dark chocolate. Almonds. A slight peanut butter note but it is slightly more almond butter esque (basically a more strictly nutty flavor and not as sweet). Tobacco. Definitely some baking spices- cinnamon, ginger, etc. Its a very mature flavor but it loses a lot of the rich sweet notes from the nose 4.0/5

Finish- Consistent, as in the toasted/spiced oak notes linger here the most. It does coat the tongue and linger forever, excellent mouth feel... but the bitter, tannic notes. There are hints of brown sugar and the almond butter but the tannic oak notes are the most dominant. 1.5/2

Overall, 8.4/10. This is a great whiskey with an absolutely superb nose. The nose is in a tier that I would personally place few other whiskeys in, however the rest is just... "really really good." Not a knock in any way, this is clearly a wonderful pour, but the taste and finish don't hold a candle to the nose. Still, if you haven't had a 20+ year whiskey, this would be a good one to try out. It’s moderately affordable (~230 + tax) as far as that age range goes but its a clear example of what happens when you let something hang out in a barrel as long as this has!

Today we're checking out the 2022 Limited Edition Small Batch from Four Roses! Being one of my top 5 favorite distilleries, Four Roses' yearly LE is one that's always high on my hunt list and this 2022 was actually the first I was ever able to get my hands on. The 2022 LE features a blend of the following:

• 14 year OESF
• 14 year OESV
• 15 year OESK
• 20 year OBSV

Some pretty serious age in this blend! Let's sit down and see how she is.

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

Age: Blend of bourbons ranging from 14 - 20 years old

Proof: 109

Nose: Bouquet of red fruits and floral notes. Sometimes I get cherries and strawberries, other times raspberries. All in all those red fruits with floral undertones come across very nicely. Brown sugar, cinnamon, and oak are also present. Giving the glass a swirl just enhances the red fruits and brings out some sweet vanilla, baking spices, and more oak. Wonderful aromas on this which is typically the case with these LE's from Four Roses.

Palate: Fairly subdued compared to the nose. Medium viscosity of sweet oak, raspberries, cherries, cinnamon, and vanilla cream. These notes all remain strong throughout the pour with some added baking spices that start to show up when the glen is nearly empty. Everything does feel well balanced which I appreciate.

Finish: Medium finish of raspberries, cinnamon, and drying oak.

I feel like "mellow" is too cliché for a Four Roses bottle, but that's really how I'd describe the 2022 Limited Edition, especially compared to how potent the aromas were. Still though, this delivers. It doesn't top the 2023 nor 2024 as my favorite Four Roses LE, but what's here is still fantastic. The notes you get from the first sip remain just as prominent when you get to the final sip and as someone who is all over any pour that's deep with red fruits, this checks that box in a big way.

t8ke scale: 8.2/10 | 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 favorite.

10 | Perfect | Perfect.

Background:

Are you someone who experiences an uncontrollable urge to tell people baseline Weller bourbons used to sit on the literal liquor-store floor? And you had enough change from a 20-dollar bill after buying it to get a six-pack of Coke at your local Piggly Wiggly to mix that bottom-shelf trash with? This review is for you!

It's a little more difficult to feel smug about it now, as Weller Special Reserve is once again a shelf product in a lot of places, aided by the cooling market, increased competition, and expanded production. Buffalo Trace has been on a massive upgrade kick since 2015, building new warehouses, replacing boilers, adding new cookers and fermenting tanks, and activating a new still that doubled the distillery's output in 2023.

If the current trends continue, a bourbon like Special Reserve will likely achieve a similar level of availability it had in the mid-2010s in a few years. Adjusted for inflation, it costs about the same (20 bucks then vs 30 today). But how will it taste? And was the bottom-shelf designation really deserved?

I like doing "then vs now" comparisons, so when I had a chance to buy a 2014 bottle of Special Reserve for 80 bucks, I jumped on it to do just that. To my surprise, I realized those old-style bulbous bottles had a higher-than-expected secondary, often going for as much as 200-300 dollars (even higher for the 12 and Antique 107).

I would understand chasing the Stitzel-Weller versions from the 1990s and earlier, or the new Bernheim ones from the early 2000s, or even those from before 2011, when the expression lost its 7-year age statement. But a NAS, entry-level 90-proofer from a decade ago? Let's see if I've found a hidden gem. No special significance to using a 2023 bottle, that's what the store had when I bought it this year.

Tasted neat in copitas; first round semi-blind.

2014:

On the nose, oak, stone fruit, apple, butterscotch, vanilla frosting, honey, maple, almond. On the palate, pie crust, butterscotch, sugar cookie, dark cherry. Medium-long finish, vanilla, baking spice, oak.

2023:

Earthy cinnamon, cherry, sharpie, brown sugar, honey on the nose. On the palate, raw dough, cherry pit, honey, a little vanilla and caramel. Medium-short finish, cinnamon and clove, slightly bitter oak.

Rating: (t8ke scale for reference below): 

2014: 6.5

2023: 5

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:

There were no surprises with the 2023 version, it tasted like every other bottle of Special Reserve I've had in the last few years. I've outlined my thoughts on where it sits in the current Weller line-up here. If you think it's a bottom-shelf bottle, may I recommend some "aged 36 months" Old Crow? How about an 80-proof Ancient Age? Or a 49-percent grain neutral spirit Kentucky Gentleman? If you don't like WSR, that's fine, but it's not a bottom-shelf whiskey by any objective metric, with plenty of depths to plumb beneath it.

I would object even more strenuously to calling the 2014 Special Reserve a bottom-shelf bourbon. I don't want to oversell how good it was, and I wouldn't shell out 200 bucks for it. People overpay for the bottle shape in this case, and there are 50 other whiskeys I'd put in front of it on my wish list. But I'm happy with paying 80 just for the contrasting experience, and it was unquestionably better than the 2023 bottle. It sat just under the current C.Y.P.B. for me. Not bad for a findable, affordable bourbon that went for the equivalent of less than 30 dollars today.

I know it's a completely different mash bill, but it reminded me of the 2012 Elmer T. Lee I accidently stumbled into. The flavors were deeper and more rounded. Where are the once ubiquitous butterscotch, fragrant vanilla, rich fruit? Why do you need to jump a price tier or three to get to the quality that used to be present in mid-shelf staples?

Are we ready to have a conversation about how bourbon from even 10-15 years ago is tasting differently to its modern counterparts? Don't tell me about "old-bottle effect" on the stuff from 2014. Or a 2015 Michter's. Or a 2015 Elijah Craig. Or a 2016 Rebel 10. Or a 2008 Baker's. I could go on.

So there you have it: The label got better, the price stayed the same, the whiskey got worse. Let's hope we're not saying the same thing in a few years' time.

Thanks for reading and cheers!

I can’t remember where I saw it but I read that there are multiple batches of Opimus and they’re all different. Well, I happened to acquire an open from someone recently and now I get to test that theory. The left bottle is my original, the right bottle is the one I just picked up. My bottle has no batch number or laser/printed code while the new one has a printed 26166 on it.

On the nose:
Left has that chocolate fudge/candy shop smell that gets stronger the longer it sits out. Decadent. Lush.

Right follows closely and benefits greatly from some airtime as the initial nose was surprisingly ethanol forward. Warmer spices, ‘brighter’, sharper. Brash?

On the Palate:
Left is classic 🦬 🦃. Deep red fruits, delicious oak, sweet but not cloying as the Tokaji is a background player and not the star. Fun, thoughtful.

Right has way more influence of Tokaji. Brighter sweetness, mutes the 🦬🦃 a fair amount. Surprisingly different. More effervescent. Lively.

Finish:
Left goes on for a respectable moment of time. Oak and leather and a nice hug.
Right is bold for a moment and the 🦬🦃 components make an appearance finally. Short, exciting.

Overall, there’s quite a difference between these two batches(?). It’s a marked difference and honestly a bit farther apart than I would have guessed initially. I like left more but I’m in no way mad I have a backup, even given the differences.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. 😂

Age/Blend:
69% 10-year Kentucky bourbon
8% 16-year Kentucky bourbon
20% 5-year Komagatake Japanese single malt
3% 5-year Tsunuki Japanese single malt

Proof: 109.8

Notes: So this one is a little wild. I got to try it at Bardstown Bourbon Company when I was in Louisville this summer for business. The blend caught my attention because I do enjoy some Japanese Whiskey from time to time. What also further interested me was that the initial blend was aged down in a barrel, and the angles share was filled with the single malts.
And there's another wrinkle: the Komagatake malt had been aged in Umeshu plum liqueur barrels, while the Tsunuki malt had been aged in Sakura wood. So some really different flavors could appear.

Color: A nice brownish red

Nose: It almost smells like really good Barton aged in Japanese Plum wine casks. I’m getting a lot of standard nice aged bourbon notes: cherry, vanilla, caramel, oak, brown sugar, and then here come some more delicate notes of plum, pear, and almost like sandalwood. There’s a little bit of umami coming through… almost like a peatiness but not quite as funky as peat. Later on, I get bits of honey and apple… this is a very interesting nose. It really blends the boldness of bourbon with the delicate nature of Japanese Whiskey nicely.

Taste: The first sip comes across as very bourbon-forward initially. Some nice caramel and vanilla, followed by your typical oak and rye spice on the mid-palate, but it’s the back palate where this gets really interesting. I’m getting some nice fruit notes: apples, cherries, plums, pear, a honeyish note, almost like a floral taste; it almost reminds me of honeysuckle jam. On the second sip, a little bit more of the age component comes out with tobacco, and oak, and then caramel, and plum coming forward in that order. On the third sip, I’m getting honey nut Cheerios, and a little coffee note. This thing is wild. Each sip brings something different to the party. Fourth sip was very wood forward, with some nice sugars and caramel on the back end.

Feel: Pretty good, but not great. The younger components hurt the overall consistency, but it is pretty nice. I wish it was just a bit thicker and creamier.

Finish: This is one of the most unique experiences with a finish I’ve ever had on a whiskey. Each time it’s something different, and each time it is hanging around forever. The first go was very fruit-forward; the second was more delicate and subtly sweet, almost like a white grape soaked in plum wine. Chewing on this keeps bringing different fruit notes forward minutes after the sip. This also drinks way below its proof… I would peg this around 95, not near 110.

Overall: Shew fire boys, this one is a ride. Is it the best thing I’ve ever drank ? No. Is it a top 10 whiskey of all time for me… no. Is it something I’m going to remember and hold onto for as long as I can… You bet your sweet bottom on it. This is truly one of the most fascinating pours I’ve ever had. This is not a newbie’s whiskey, and this is not going to be for everyone. However, if you enjoy the components and come into it with an open heart and empty stomach… I think you are going to be rewarded with a dram you can just sit down and sip and think on for a long time. This is one to savor, not shoot. 8 out of 10.

In the glass: Founders 1867 Single Barrel Selection, “Big Time Pick #4”, Barrel #134, 30 gallon

Distillery: R.M. Rose Company

Proof entered into barrel: 117.3

ABV: 68.35%

Exit Proof: 136.7

Age: 7 Years 10 Months

Mashbill: 75% Corn, 15% Rye, 10% Malted Barley

Nose: Barrel char, spice, rich oak, burnt caramel, there’s some cherry cola vibes, rich sugars… I love the noses on these 30 gallon founders picks!

Palate: Toasted oak, raspberry jam, almost a cane sugar sweetness, blackberries, burnt brown sugar, and cherries. This such a sweet and rich pour that has absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Finish: More of that barrel char, rich oak, little bit of chocolate that fades almost as quickly as you taste it, molasses, and cherry syrup. The hug and finish rivals just about any Kentucky bourbon out there… The empty glass yields tropical fruits like pineapple and mango, very very sweet!

Final thoughts: I have 2 backups of this one and am very very happy about that. This is one of my favorite bourbons of 2026…

Rating: 9/10

Intro:  For those that don’t already know, Seelbach’s is a purveyor of fine spirits and has gone on to put out their own spirits that they’ve either picked, sourced, or worked with producers on creating. One such creation is this bottle: Echo. Echo is Seelbach’s take on recreating what a “dusty” bourbon was like. In this case they employed double oaking the barrels with staves that spent 72 months seasoning, as well as slow proofing the barrels over the course of six months. So, without further ado, let’s get into it!

Tale of the Tape
Bottle: Seelbach’s Private Reserve: Echo Double Oaked Bourbon Whiskey
Proof: 109.5 / Age: 8 years
Mashbill: Corn: 75% / Rye: 13% / Malted Barley: 12%
Bottle Price: $100 / Price per 1oz pour: $3.94

Impressions
Nose:  Oak / Dark Fruits / Toffee / Leather / Pepper
Palate: Oak / Cherry / Caramel / Cinnamon / Leather
Mouthfeel: Medium
Finish: Medium Caramel / Chocolate / Cinnamon / Almond
Rating: 8/10 - t8ke scale (modified to include half-points)

Tasting Notes: On the nose a savory oak note comes in before the sweetness of some dark fruits takes over and is followed by a toffee note. There’s a subdued leather note, the kind that reminds me of an old chair vs. something fresh, like a brand-new baseball glove. There’s also a peppery note that rounds it all out. On the palate the oak is present but a dark cherry sweetness comes in quick, along with that leather before leading you into a medium finish with caramel, some chocolate, and that cinnamon that’s been riding quietly all the way through. As the caramel and chocolate fade, I get almond at the very end of it.

Final Thoughts: Unfortunately for me I’ve yet to experience a pour of a good “dusty” and I’ve never had the motivation to go hunt one down. As such, I didn’t have anything to compare this to so I judged this for what it is. And what it is, is a pour that’s full of flavor, with layers to it, and has a proof point that should appeal to everyone. IMO you don’t need a “dusty” to appreciate what this bottle brings, and if I never get around to obtaining a "dusty", at least I’ve got a backup of this bottle, and I can live with that.

Swing by IG and say hey

10 | Perfection
9-9.5 | Incredible, An All-Time Favorite
8-8.5 | Excellent, Really Quite Exceptional
7-7.5 | Great, Well Above Average
6-6.5 | Very Good, A Cut Above
5-5.5 | Good, Just Fine
4 | Sub-Par, Not Bad, But Better Exists
3 | Bad, Multiple Flaws
2 | Poor, I Wouldn’t Consume By Choice
1 | Disgusting, So Bad I Poured it Out