Jim Beam Bonded Bourbon

Do you care about chill filtering? I hadn't experimented with it until now. Folks went nuts recently when Glendronach 12 announced it was moving to chill filtration for future releases, grabbing up the current non-chill filtered versions fast, making me wonder, is it a big deal? George Dickel Rye even proudly labels itself as Chill Filtered. Reviewers seem surprised, "Wow, it's chill filtered, but it's still pretty good!?" Were you expecting chill filtration to ruin it? The idea, I guess, is that chill filtration removes flavor? But does it? I've been vocal about Old Tub, stating my love for it. Beam products usually go for $16.99 in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure why, maybe our state's liquor board buys in bulk and passes the savings, or some other reason. But that $16.99 price is fantastic. Despite Jim Beam Double Oak being just okay, it was still a decent bourbon for $16.99. Jim Beam Bonded was also $16.99, and I bought about 10 bottles. Now, Old Tub is $16.99, and I grab it occasionally because, well, at that price, why wouldn't you? Having a drinkable bottled-in-bond bourbon available for that cost is a no-brainer. You can drink it neat, with a cube, or mix it. I even use it for cooking and baking, and frankly, at that price, I don't care how I use it. It's adaptable. I even experimented by mixing it with other bourbons, adding a half shot of Maker's Mark Cask Strength to create my own blend, though I have no clue about blending (and since Maker's Mark Cask Strength is now $40, I can experiment with those bottles too). I was just curious about the outcome, and while it wasn't groundbreaking... the experiment was interesting. Anyway, back to my main point. When I reviewed Old Tub, I mentioned I'd had it side-by-side with Jim Beam Bonded and wasn't sure if they were the same. Some people suggested the difference might be chill filtration. Sure enough, Old Tub states it's non-chill filtered, while Bonded offers no information on the bottle about it, leading me to assume it is. Honestly, shouldn't they be transparent? Wouldn't it be better if they did what Dickel does with their rye and just announced it, saying, "Yes, we're chill filtered, but we're still great anyway." With all that said, I haven't opened a bottle of Jim Beam Bonded since joining this platform, so I haven't reviewed it. I have two unopened bottles left, as I opened this one (I have three Old Tubs), and if this comparison to Old Tub is any indication of the chill vs. non-chill filtered debate, my view is that it makes no difference whatsoever. It's probably all in your head or such a subtle difference that only a tiny percentage of people have the refined palate to detect it. Honestly, they taste identical to me. If you want tasting notes, I'll echo my Old Tub review: oak and nuttiness, vanilla and caramel. I raved about Old Tub, saying it reminded me of being young and going to fairs or carnivals. This is the same. It's not highly complex, but it's still very enjoyable, tasty, and robust. Even if this cost $24.99, its suggested retail price in most places, I think it competes well with other bourbons in that price range. But I'm getting it for $16.99, so I'm not considering Larceny, Maker's Mark, or even Knob 9, which is probably much better than this and goes for $29.99 on sale. So, if you're in PA, I don't see why you wouldn't buy this. And if you're outside the state, you shouldn't hesitate either. It's simply a good budget bourbon. I'll give it the same rating as Old Tub. The main distinction between the two is I prefer the bottle design of Bonded.

Let's do a laid-back whiskey comparison for a holiday activity! Here's a matchup many are curious about: Old Tub bottled-in-bond and Jim Beam bottled-in-bond! Old Tub is a special release, similar to another favorite of mine, Distiller's Cut. Both are 100 proof, bottled-in-bond (at least 4 years old), and share the same mashbill. The likely distinctions, besides the packaging, are that Old Tub is not chill-filtered. For those unfamiliar, chill filtering removes residue by cooling the spirit and passing it through a fine filter. This is mainly for clarity, not to enhance taste or consistency. Some enthusiasts feel this filtering process strips away flavor compounds. Visually, they are identical. When swirled, the Jim Beam BIB shows slightly less sheeting and fewer tears, suggesting it might be a bit thinner, despite both being the same proof. Sampling neat in a glencairn, the Old Tub offers a hint of caramel, some dry peanut shells, sweet vanilla, and a brief, clean ginger/cinnamon finish. A subtle clove note appears after swallowing, followed by a short peppery tingle. It's pleasant and suitable for many casual uses. The Jim Beam Bottled-in-bond has a slightly lighter nose, and its taste profile is a bit thinner, drier, and hotter. The caramel seems less pronounced, and the ginger is more prominent. This is a regular choice for casual on-the-rocks sipping after work. Adding a couple of drops of water brings out the sweetness in both, but the Jim Beam BIB benefits more. Water can intensify flavors by bringing oils and alcohol to the surface. Adding more dilutes it. A drop enhances the oak-derived sweetness, which the bottled-in-bond expression needs a little extra. I believe I could distinguish them blind, and I might test that later. For now, here's my current assessment... The Jim Beam BIB costs $19.99 on sale and $22.99 regularly. The Old Tub is around $23.99 in Tampa. Both are very respectable bourbons. I slightly prefer the Old Tub, but I'm not willing to pay a 20% premium. They are almost identical, with the primary difference being the chill filtering. My takeaway is that chill filtering, as I suspected, can indeed make a spirit thinner, drier, and less rich. It's a subtle effect worth experiencing yourself. My whiskey rating system goes from 1 (undrinkable) to 5 (perfect). An average whiskey should score around 2.5. Both of these rate a solid 2.75; neither significantly outperforms the other. Most drinkers likely wouldn't notice the difference without a direct comparison.

Reposting my thoughts from January 2020. Unsure what happened to the initial review; I likely removed it, but luckily, I had a backup. Smell: Intense cinnamon, vanilla, toasted peanut, charred sugar, and barrel char. Taste: A strong, challenging start with some sweetness. Tastes like burnt popcorn coated in caramel, peanut butter, and toffee. Develops with peppery spice, unsweetened cocoa, and lingering woody tannins. Aftertaste: Moderate. Woody and fiery dry spice notes remain. There was once a Jim Beam bottling in Australia known as “Jim Beam Bonded Number 12 Formula,” which was entirely distinct from this. It offered a smooth, rich character and was a delightful daily bourbon, but regrettably, it vanished from our local stores a few years back. Fortunately, I had purchased a supply, though I'm now down to my final bottle. Upon noticing this Bonded Bourbon recently, I decided to sample it, hoping it might be the same spirit in new packaging. Unfortunately, it's a different whiskey, and not to my preference. Diluting it slightly lessens its intensity, but the only way I found it palatable was mixed with Coke. It wasn't an isolated issue with a single bottle, as I purchased two, and both were identical. Perhaps it's a poor production run, but I won't be purchasing it again to confirm. “Sufficient”: 70/100 (2 stars)

The 'Bottled in Bond' designation typically indicates good quality. It's even more surprising how much value these whiskeys offer. I've never been a fan of Jim Beam; their products often have an overly sweet, sometimes artificial flavor that I dislike. So, I approached the Beam BIB with hesitation. A mild sweet and sour scent emerged from the glass upon pouring, with notes of charred oak and vinegar. After a few minutes to breathe, the sourness lessened, replaced by a syrupy sweetness and hints of boot leather. When allowed to rest on the tongue, the whiskey feels a bit thin with little flavor beyond charred oak. This whiskey is deceptive; it's a closer. The finish is pleasantly fiery at the end, tasting of cinnamon and French toast. While superior BIB whiskeys exist, this is quite good for the Jim Beam line and represents decent value.

I haven't enjoyed this since I first opened it last September. It had an unpleasant, astringent, chemical quality from the start. I know many people love this, and I'm usually a big fan of Jim Beam products, so it's possible I got a bad bottle. Still, it tastes like a young, cheap craft whiskey with rough edges. Even after nine months, I detect strong notes of oak spice and ethanol, with a little dusty corn and caramel. There's no fruit or vanilla. The tannic oak character is prominent on the palate and intensifies on the finish, lingering unpleasantly. Currently, I see few merits to this bourbon other than using it to dilute with Coke. However, if I wanted a good, inexpensive BiB, I could get Evan Williams for $10 less. For me, this is a definite pass in the future; I'd choose Black Label over this any day.

Nose: Honey, caramel, and mint mingle with alcohol. A few grassy notes appear from a neat pour, but I feel like I'm reaching: predominantly mint and spirits. Palate: Abundant corn, followed by significant wood. Excessively sweet and thick on the palate with that signature bourbon caramel-vanilla flavor, then a sudden shift to a fiery black licorice and sharp tannin conclusion. It finishes with a strong burn from the alcohol. This lacks equilibrium. The Evan Williams White Label is far superior and less expensive. Moreover, for a higher price, bonded bourbons offer considerably more complexity and subtlety (for instance, Heaven Hill, George Dickel).