Jack Daniel's Triple Mash

When Jack Daniels released the Bonded and Triple Mash, I assumed I would try them eventually but felt no urgency. For one, JD’s is rarely my preferred American whisky. Furthermore, these were sold in 700 ml bottles instead of 750 ml, which seems like a cheap tactic to reduce the quantity. However, the Daniels Single Barrel and Single Barrel Cask Strength are decent, and these new releases are still within a reasonable price range (though they appear to be $10 cheaper everywhere except my area). Still, I had numerous other purchases in mind and didn't get around to the Bonded until it received the Whisky Advocate 2023 Top 20 award. I bought it impulsively on my way home from the office Christmas Party last year. It was acceptable if purchased for around $30, but locally it’s closer to $40, which is more than I'd spend to repurchase it. Curiously, based on the descriptions, I anticipated enjoying the Triple Mash more. The combination of single malt, rye, and bonded seemed more appealing than a standard Tennessee Whisky recipe, and I suspect the branding influenced me (in other words, I preferred the red label over the black). I was mistaken. I had a mild reaction to the Bonded, and my reaction to the Triple Mash is even less enthusiastic. I finally decided to buy this bottle due to a recommendation from an Instagram acquaintance. He conducted a blind tasting comparing it to the Jack Daniels 10 Year, and although the 10 Year won, he praised the Triple Mash's performance against it. It’s possible he has an affiliation with JD and was compensated for his remarks; I can’t be sure. Still, with the Triple Mash still priced at $40 in my area, I felt it prudent to purchase it before the price potentially increases to $50, as is happening frequently now. I did buy it. And amusingly, I purchased it on my way home from a work-related charity event in June, similar to how I bought the Bonded after the Christmas party because I was also somewhat intoxicated after the charity event. I then reasoned that since I consumed it after arriving home, perhaps my palate was compromised by the Old Forester 86/Coke mixture I'd been drinking all afternoon at the event, and I would need to revisit it later. It didn’t make a difference. The reviewer begins by describing the aroma as bright and quite potent, which makes me question their experience. My issue with this whisky is that the aroma is initially indistinct and muted, with a subtle spiciness and cinnamon undertone, possessing an astringent, nail polish-like quality, but little else. I concur with the reviewer that the palate is unremarkable and not particularly rich. It drinks with more heat than 100 proof, and the flavors are fairly straightforward: banana, cinnamon, red hots, cherry. I've long maintained that a whisky doesn't need to be overly complex to be enjoyable. While these flavors should complement each other, they don't for some reason, primarily due to the burn that precedes them. It's as if the peppery finish begins before the flavors reach the palate, and this premature finish completely detracts from the taste. Or perhaps it doesn't ruin it, but it certainly doesn't make it something I feel compelled to revisit. It's more suited as a final drink of the night (like after that charity event) when you still desire a beverage but prefer not to consume your finest spirits due to a compromised palate. I'm uncertain. This might simply be how it affects my palate and could be perceived differently by others, so consider this with caution, but between the two, the Bonded is superior, though not significantly enough for me to consider purchasing either again. I will attempt adding ice, but even if it improves the experience, my overall assessment will likely remain unchanged.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of regular Jack Daniels. There's something in the aftertaste that brings back a confusing rush of memories and unpleasant smells, recalling past times involving soda, takeout food containers, and potentially inappropriate interactions. It's hard for me to separate memories from taste with Jack Daniels, but this new version manages it. The cherry-cola sweetness signals it's Jack Daniels, but instead of being overly sweet, it's more robust with a stronger malt foundation that holds up and stays whiskey. I'm happy with this, and I anticipated disliking it. So, if Jack Daniels is your preference and you don't have teenage memories overshadowing every whiff, enjoy! Today is a new opportunity, and let's go for it!

Sampled neat. Appears bronze in the glass with no significant legs. The nose carries notes of caramel, banana, and brown sugar. On the palate, flavors of caramelized sugar, oatmeal, cherry, and charred oak emerge, along with some leathery astringency. It's soft, grassy, and honey-sweet. The oily texture was surprising given the faint legs. The finish highlights the 60% rye with dryness, astringency, and mild baking spices, yet it remains sweet before fading rather quickly. Very approachable, offering nothing challenging or unusual. Adding ice softens it further. I suspect at 100 proof, it would mix well, but it's a costly ingredient unless used in an Old Fashioned. Given the high rye content, it should perform well in a Manhattan or a bourbon/amaro combination. I'll provide an update later.

Color and Nose: Still somewhat muted, but I detect hints of black cherry. The nose is either off or I'm getting a mix of Dr. Pepper and Cherry Coke. Taste and Finish: Both are heavily laden with black cherry, reminiscent of ice cream topping. Initially, the finish was quite malty, but halfway through it shifted to a pleasant black cherry. The finish isn't very long but is enjoyable as the glass is consumed. The rye spice is noticeable at the end, which is very welcome. It has a bit more bite than I'd expect at 100 proof. Cheers!

Opened for 2.5 years. Nose: Vanilla wafer, banana pudding, fruity candy, butterscotch, lemon candy, very little oak, and mild alcohol. Palate: Liquefied vanilla wafers, banana and maple flavoring, and diluted oak. The finish is brief, with dry oak spice, butterscotch, banana saltwater taffy, and mild alcohol. This doesn't impress me at all, and consequently, it's been neglected in my cabinet for years. It resembles the Single Barrel Rye, but inferior. With the Barrel Proof Rye now widely accessible, I see no justification for spending $40 on this again. In general, bypass the inexpensive JD offerings and go directly for the barrel proof or limited editions.

From the aroma, I detect honey and another sweetness, similar to maple. The taste includes some oak and then transitions into spices, with a notable cinnamon flavor. It also has the caramel I seek, but it's overshadowed by the oak and baking spices. The finish is on the shorter side but still has a pleasant intensity. Overall, I find the aroma more appealing than the actual taste. It's a respectable whiskey for its price, and I'm interested in trying it on the rocks to see if sipping it neat might enhance the sweetness further.