Ancient Ancient Age 10 Star

I'm unsure of the age of standard Ancient Age, but this is supposedly around 6 years old. It seems a little young for something called "Ancient Ancient", but time will tell. The extra 5% ABV might also play a role. I was taken aback by how much I enjoyed Ancient Age. It's light and excessively sweet, but it's amusing as a simple, quirky sipper. I can't say I love it, but for $10, it occupies a space that pricier bourbons don't. Discovering this updated, apparently discontinued version, I felt compelled to try it. Nose: I detect the Ancient Age essence here, but it's more robust. I notice some orange and a deeper, earthier grain compared to Ancient Age. There's also a hint of tangerine this time around. A mild wood note is present, sitting gently in the background. The familiar scent of light caramel popcorn remains. A rich minerality is present, mingling with a slight chemical note from the ethanol... yet, it's not unpleasant? Nothing stands out as exceptional, but it already appears to be an improvement over Ancient Age. Palate: This is more full-bodied and intense than regular Ancient Age, but it's also less sweet and lively. I haven't made up my mind, but I fear it might be attempting to bridge the gap between youthful and mature. I suspect its mashbill might have been aged improperly, although this is a Buffalo Trace mashbill, which is known to age exceptionally well. The added maturity and higher proof introduce a touch of harshness not found in regular Ancient Age. Unfortunately, the ethanol is quite noticeable here, and the bitterness from both it and the oak is more pronounced. It's as if it tried to enhance the caramel but avoided excessive sweetness, thus failing to fully connect the more bitter mature notes with the light sweet caramel. I do detect some nuttiness this time (a bit of peanut that transitions to a prominent almond), which I appreciate, but the overall result is less balanced than Ancient Age. Finish: The bitterness unfortunately lingers. Other flavors tend to dissipate, leaving behind a subtle orange oil astringency and a touch of light caramel and corn sweetness. Even with the extended aging, I'm still uncertain if I would classify this as a bourbon rather than a Japanese whisky if pressed for an answer. I didn't have particularly high hopes for this, though perhaps slightly higher than what I experienced. The nose is by far the best aspect, significantly outperforming Ancient Age in that regard. However, on the palate, I'm not convinced the extra age truly benefits it. It certainly doesn't make the drink worse, and the price difference is minimal (plus you get a higher proof), so I wouldn't worry about it, but I also wouldn't mind if I never encountered it again. This leads to a peculiar conclusion: I almost think the Ancient Age line consists of "bad" bourbons. It's like watching a terrible movie; at a certain point, it becomes so awful that it's entertaining. Because regular Ancient Age is so much further down that scale, I almost prefer it. To exaggerate greatly, Ancient Ancient Age 10 Star is like Snakes On A Plane, while regular Ancient Age is The Room: this one still seems to strive for seriousness, whereas regular Ancient Age has completely surrendered and wholeheartedly embraced its absurdity. Also, colons: a fleeting trend that will vanish by the end of this paragraph. Perhaps both this and regular Ancient Age should be rated extremely low due to their quality as bourbons, but they offer a certain quirky enjoyment. Ultimately, since I found them enjoyable, I believe they warrant a respectable rating. Therefore, I'll award this a bump to 12 (compared to an 11 for the standard Ancient Age) due to its pleasant nose, but it won't go any higher. I remain unconvinced that it's a superior "bad movie" experience to regular Ancient Age.

AAA 10 STAR: I hesitated to try this, having previously likened the standard Ancient Age with a 36 Month Age Statement to watered-down bourbon served on the rocks. While browsing the shelves without finding anything new that truly caught my eye, I grabbed this from the bottom shelf. I'm fond of BT Mashbill #2, so I figured a bit older (or so I thought; more on that later) and 10 proof points higher made it worth a $17 gamble. How did it turn out?... NOSE: Rye Spice, Corn Dust, Leather, Honeycomb, Dry Brown Sugar, Cigar Box. Quite pleasant and complex for a $17 bottle. NEAT: The BT Mashbill #2/Blanton's connection is definitely discernible. Cherry Coke, Charred Oak, Vanilla, Leather, Cedar, Rye Spice. A warming finish with a developing Kentucky hug. Black Pepper Tingle and Sweet Oak coat the palate. Once again, very impressive for a $17 bottle. SPLASH: A bit of water really amplifies the Vanilla and Charred Oak. VERDICT: This is labeled as KSB, meaning a minimum of 2 years or a minimum of 4 if there's no age statement. I searched the label for an age statement and found none, so reports of 6 years seemed plausible, though I assumed at least 4. I did some research after getting home and encountered frequent references to 36 months. I initially thought they were confusing it with the standard Ancient Age, so I re-examined the bottle. Still no age statement, then as I placed it back on the counter, I saw it. Oh, you crafty Buffalo Trace rascals. On the back neck label, oriented sideways, beneath the Return for Deposit States, in the same font: "Aged 36 Months." So, in theory, this is the same Ancient Age I rated a 2 (and that was generous) but with 10 more proof points. How can it be "more Ancient" than regular Ancient if it's the same age? Initially, I was annoyed (and still am somewhat) by the placement of the Age Statement. I understand they are "technically" adhering to the rules, but it seems disingenuous. Then I put that aside. As I was tasting this, the voice of a friend from years ago came to mind, saying, "I've had 3-year-old Bourbon, and you Sir, are no 3-year-old Bourbon." There might be some 3-year-old components in this, but I doubt it's the majority. What I discovered was a $17 Bourbon that outperformed the first few $17 bourbons I could think of. If memory serves (and I believe it does), this is superior to Beam White, Evan Williams (BIB, Black, and 1783), 4 Roses Yellow Label, Very Old Barton 86, and WT81. If this is indeed primarily 36-month-old whiskey, I'm doubly impressed. For $17, this will be my new go-to "well" bourbon. It's very close to a 4 based on taste and value, but due to slight annoyance with the Age Statement's placement, I'll round down.

N: Deeper caramel notes compared to another bourbon. There's a more pronounced wood character and the sour mash is still detectable, but it remains sweet. A subtle hint of apple, perhaps, but not much else is happening. A touch of spice is present, though difficult to identify. P: This offers more richness than the standard version. There's still a warming sensation from the alcohol. Unexpectedly, the amplified richness accentuates the sour mash profile with woody bitterness while simultaneously highlighting the sweetness through enhanced caramel. Mild sweet spices add some life, but only a hint of cinnamon. F: The sweetness from the corn, overlaid with woody caramel, lingers, leaving a rich impression. Complexity is lacking at this stage. - Summary - While not as complex as the standard offering, I find its overall character slightly more appealing. It's not a significant upgrade, but it genuinely presents more like a sour mash bourbon, showcasing young whiskey with light wood notes, whereas the standard version is so light it barely resembles bourbon. Based on my slight preference for this over the standard Ancient Age, I'm assigning it a score of 12. For an additional point of reference, I find a particular Evan Williams to be more viscous, spicier, and fuller-bodied, with similar quality. If I had to pick one, I would likely choose the Evan Williams, but they are quite close, whereas I found the Evan Williams to be clearly superior to the standard Ancient Age.

This might be the most inexpensive spirit I've acquired since I began this journey over three years ago. I purchased it for sharing and mixing at our yearly October family bonfire, and for that role, it met expectations. Contrary to the description here, this is not discontinued. AAA 10 Star comes from Buffalo Trace, utilizing their #2 mashbill, composed of 80-83% corn, 12-15% rye, and 5% barley. This is the same mashbill used for Blantons, Elmer T Lee, Rock Hill Farms, and Hancocks Reserve. It's bottled at 45% ABV and cost me just $15 for a liter. There's some suggestion that this once had a three-year age statement, but the current bottle lacks one. It's designated "straight" bourbon, meaning it's at least two years old, though I'd estimate not much more. In the glass, it presents a medium gold color. Swirling creates thin, fast-moving legs. Drinking it neat isn't remarkable, but what was anticipated? The aroma is sweet corn with an unusual hint of citrus, perhaps orange peel? And not much else. The taste is more sweet corn with little of the typical bourbon characteristics like caramel and vanilla. Frankly, it's rather dull. The finish, such as it is, is brief with a warmth from the alcohol and a touch of oak char. For $15 a liter, I can't complain. It functions perfectly as a mixer and even made an acceptable Old Fashioned. 2.5/5. Cheers!

I sought this out some years back for a blind comparison of a specific distillery mash bill. We used the sole bottle of a certain brand I've ever encountered, and others have become prohibitively expensive or unattainable. I located some of this last year and was quite pleased. It's significantly less expensive than others in that category but would have landed in the middle of the pack. I managed to acquire six 750ml bottles at $17 each and found it superior to many, though not all, of the Hancock Reserve bottles I've had. That one had a slightly lower proof, making it quite similar, but it seems to vary considerably from bottle to bottle. I wish we had this spirit back then to see how it would have performed. This particular expression is among the finest lower-shelf bourbons I've sampled, alongside several from the bottom shelf of another producer. It offers substantial bourbon character but falls short on complexity. The nose is somewhat subdued but opens up with a bit of ice. The rich Blanton's caramel aroma is undeniable. There's a hint of rye spice, along with some honey and apple. The texture is rather thin, but the flavor profile matches the aroma. It's reasonably well-balanced, though a slight edge of young alcohol is noticeable. The finish is short to medium, but considering the $17 price point. I recently found a case of 1.75 liter plastic bottles, so I have a good supply to decant into my 750ml glass bottle.

Nose - caramel, cherry, anise, vanilla, floral notes, cereal grain, cinnamon, light oak, nutmeg, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - caramel, vanilla, cherry, cinnamon, floral notes, dry oak, anise, grainy corn, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium short with caramel, cherry, and sour oak flavors. Following yesterday's Weller review, I might as well complete the backlog of a few Buffalo Trace products. This one seems to be discontinued, which may make it slightly harder to find than the rest of BT’s lineup. The aroma is classic BT with caramel, cherry, and a floral component, but it's a bit drier and more herbal than others I've sampled. The palate is very similar and generally unremarkable. There's a dryness on the finish, not quite tannic, but more like a chalkiness. This is about as average as it gets. It's not bad, but it leans slightly sour, bitter, and thin. More time in the barrel, less dilution, etc. When this was available, it cost $15 per liter, so I suppose complaints are unwarranted. It would be a solid choice if you were on a very tight budget and wanted something reasonably drinkable. Thanks to a generous sample from a friend!