Larceny Barrel Proof Bourbon Batch A122

Reflecting on how batch variations are discussed. I've previously experienced this spirit, even reviewing a bottle, batch B521, which was quite good and reasonably priced. When my state's online purchase system offered a new bottle, it was C921. I also possess an unopened C921. This current bottle, batch A122, I have three of. You might wonder why three bottles of A122. In my state, this is exclusively an online purchase, and batch selection isn't an option. My initial May 2022 order yielded an A122. My second order in July, expecting a later batch like B522, also resulted in A122. Even when ordering another spirit in September to qualify for free shipping, I again received A122, anticipating B522 or C922. I don't particularly mind, though. While I acknowledge batch differences exist, I suspect they are most discernible when sampled concurrently. A memorable previous batch might have been appreciated due to timing or mood, not necessarily inherent superiority. Subsequent similar batches might be less appealing under different circumstances, company, or setting. Proofs can fluctuate, and distilleries may adjust ages based on availability, but I'm uncertain if that significantly impacts this spirit. My current impression of A122 isn't drastically different from my past experience with B521. The nose presents what I now consider typical for this spirit: oak, leather, cherry, caramel, and vanilla. The palate echoes these with a pleasant spicy finish. It's robust, rich, and very enjoyable. Perhaps I should open the C921 to compare directly. However, I often see reviews claiming superiority of one batch over another without mentioning side-by-side tasting or relying on memory. I could compare it to my two different Maker's Mark CS iterations for a fun, albeit very inebriating, evening, but my interest is limited. This might be my limit for comparing whiskies of the same type released months apart. This particular bottle is excellent, as was the previous one. If there's a distinction between excellent and excellent, I'm struggling to perceive it. Notify me when it declines in quality and I should cease purchasing. Until then, it's a solid value at $49.99. I'd still purchase it at $59.99, but let's hope the price doesn't inflate excessively like some other brands, which have become too expensive for me, rendering them unappealing. This is my second barrel proof tasting today, so I should conclude before becoming too impaired. I prefer this to another spirit, possibly due to its cost-effectiveness and familiar profile. Now, for some chili over grits, a fine pairing with bourbon. The soundtrack to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is playing, so it must be a decent evening.

The aroma is strong and spicy, with notes of cinnamon, clove, allspice, and nutmeg. It also has hints of apple, pear, smoke, and peanut. The ethanol presence is notably persistent. The mouthfeel is nuttier and less spicy than the aroma suggested. Flavors include peanut brittle, cashew, vanilla, caramel flan, red apple, and dry oak. It's quite vibrant but tastes slightly immature, with a general roughness. The finish delivers abundant black pepper alongside pleasant oak, barrel char, red hots candy, and clove. The mouthfeel is full-bodied and nicely oily. Having evaluated numerous bottles, I'd say this bottling is very characteristic of this whiskey's profile, being nutty and spicy. I believe a bit more aging would greatly benefit these releases; imagine the potential of a 12-13 year old Larceny BP. Alas, it's a hypothetical. At $79.99, the value is good, and I'll likely continue to purchase them at this price.

I am not very impressed. It tastes harsh, immature, and one-dimensional. It's certainly sweet, as expected from a wheated bourbon. There's plenty of bread and caramel notes, but it really needs more oak influence. I can't fathom the excitement around this, nor its allocation status compared to ECBP. ECBP is vastly superior. To be fair, I'm not a fan of the standard Larceny small batch, so the issue might be my preference. However, to me, it finishes abruptly and sharply. For what it costs, Rare Breed offers comparable quality. Additionally, Maker's Mark Cask Strength, another cask strength wheater, is less expensive and not allocated. I will not buy it again, unless I trade it.

An intriguing nose featuring brown sugar, caramel, toffee, and notably, fresh-cut cedarwood. It evokes the scent of a sweet candy assortment presented on a cedar platter. The initial taste is also sweet, but introduces a dry, woody character with notes of dark chocolate, preserved cherry, praline, and young cigar tobacco. Overall, it's medium-bodied with a rich, dessert-like quality. The finish is long, fading out smoothly and gradually. Among the various Barrel Proof releases from this program over the last few years, this ranks among our top three.

A fantastic pour, particularly for the cost. If you can acquire this at retail price, I highly recommend it. I've previously noted that batch likely doesn't significantly alter the quality, as they are all expected to be good, and I can now confirm this specific batch's quality. Intensely sweet, with notes of caramel, butterscotch, and vanilla cream. There's a suggestion of dried fruits like prunes or raisins, and slightly drying oak on the finish. It's hot, as expected for the proof, but utterly delightful.

Aroma: Features leather and berries, with subtle hints of tea leaves and baking spices. Abundant vanilla and oak are present, alongside a faint trace of chocolate. Taste: Flavors include chocolate-covered peanuts, dark fruits soaked in alcohol, and a touch of baking spices like nutmeg and cinnamon. Comparison (A122 vs. C922 nose): The C922 nose offers more nuttiness and significantly more cinnamon. C922 presents a bolder aroma. A122 has more oak and vanilla. Comparison (A122 vs. C922 taste): A122 has considerably more chocolate but is slightly lacking in other flavor dimensions.