Murray Hill Club Blended Bourbon

Following up on batch 18, I'm revisiting batch 12. The aroma is subtle, with vanilla, cream, a hint of oak, and caramel, finishing with a touch of oak spice. The taste is a lightly toasted bourbon focused on sweetness, strongly evoking notes found in well-executed full proof or CYPB expressions. It's the kind of highly appealing and welcoming bourbon that has become excessively popular. This one offers a sense of age and refinement that brings to mind the Van Winkle line. While I'm almost certain it doesn't contain wheat, it possesses that mellow, relaxed, yet highly enjoyable balance. I also detect notes of bubble gum, puffed sugar, and a slight touch of leather. Frankly, I doubt this is a 12+ year old bourbon, but I'm completely convinced that if it bore a Buffalo Trace label, it would fetch over $500 on the secondary market. Comparing batch 18 to batch 12: Batch 18 is bolder and spicier, with less refinement and a longer finish featuring sparks and bitter notes. They share similar flavor profiles, including cream and lighter vanilla notes, perhaps even a hint of vanilla wafer. Batch 12 is like a refined Van Winkle whiskey, while batch 18 is more akin to a store pick of Weller 107 – less refined, but still good. If you prefer a bit more intensity, opt for the newer batches. For those seeking a sophisticated, high-end bourbon experience without a cask strength profile, these older bottles should suffice. I'm unsure when higher proof barrels became necessary, but a significant change seems to have occurred between batch 12 and 18. As a discerning whiskey connoisseur, I would struggle not to identify batch 12 as the superior product side-by-side. However, as a casual whiskey drinker, I suspect many bourbon enthusiasts might prefer batch 18. I rated the 18 a respectable 3.25, so this one must be a 3.75. The level of refinement combined with aged whiskey notes truly elevates its overall quality. For those who don't need a Booker's level of punch but still desire a bit of kick, batch 18 might be more appealing. I anticipate someone might claim batch 12 and 18 are identical and that I'm mistaken. Regardless, I'm content with batch 12, whereas batch 18 left me feeling something was amiss.

Rating: 18/23 Nose: Moderate, with mellow corn and a significant, mature musty funk. Spices and light caramel, almost like cotton candy, intermingle at times. Hints of leather and a pleasant light cherry flavor appear occasionally. Whispers of bittersweet chocolate. It's a truly intricate and indulgent aroma. The only comparable experience I have right now with that level of maturity in the aroma is Resilient 15. The Resilient is lighter and has more of that characteristic Dickel vitamin and peanut shell note, whereas this offers greater complexity with fullness and richness, along with more cherry and leather. Based on the aroma alone, this is the clear victor, though both are quite good. Palate: More fruity and tart than anticipated, with floral cherry coming through. There's a bitter, fruity element, perhaps like orange pith. I'm not detecting as much of that musty maturity as expected or as is present in the Resilient, though it is definitely there. This has more leather, but also a tar flavor mixed with rich, bitter licorice – similar to the regular Joseph Magnus, but less pronounced here. It attempts a leathery character and is somewhat successful, introducing some spices that enhance the complexity. There's less sweetness than anticipated, or perhaps the bitterness is somewhat obscuring it. There's also a stronger bite than expected. Finish: Bitter licorice, traces of tar, faint floral cherry. It's not an exceptionally long finish, but it persists for a short while. - Conclusion - This is a very good whiskey, but the palate and finish were somewhat disappointing after the exceptional nose. Overall, I'd place it about on par with my bottle of Resilient 15. I'd give the Resilient the edge on the palate and finish, but only slightly. What I feel this is lacking is a bit more of a mellow musty/dusty character. I might also prefer a bit more sweetness in the finish, but that's a personal preference as whiskey doesn't always need a sweet conclusion. I'm considering it a 17 to 18, with a 19 being a remote possibility, and settling on an 18.

Tasted neat from a sample, batch 20. I've never sampled this brand before. The aroma is musty, like damp wood and leaves, with a dark appearance. Notes of raisins and prunes are present, followed by emerging butterscotch that strongly recalls MGP light whiskey. I detect the 9-ish year light whiskey component and hints of sweet, aged oak, reminiscent of Rhetoric 24, along with a touch of mandarin orange and vanilla frosting. It's becoming less intense since the initial dark impression, and a pleasant maple note has appeared. The profile is quite varied. Let's see how the taste develops. The texture is oily yet light, almost airy. Cinnamon and brown sugar dominate the palate, causing a slight pucker. The taste is very much in familiar MGP territory. Initial vanilla sweetness is overwhelming, with a faint orange note still present. It transitions to butterscotch, which remains the primary flavor. Sweet oak emerges on the finish. However, there's an odd harshness on the back end and a lingering prune-like aftertaste that persists. I'll try some water to reset. A palate reset with water helped. The harshness that was building subsided, and the sweetness returned. It will be interesting to observe if the harshness reappears as I consume the rest of this sample. I've previously opted against purchasing this bottle due to mixed reviews, despite my fondness for MGP and this brand. It's not an inexpensive purchase without strong endorsements. I'm glad I never bought it. It feels somewhat muddled, unusual, and lacks a defining characteristic. The aftertaste is also peculiar and is intensifying again after a few more sips. Indeed, the harshness is increasing. The more I drink it without water, the more unusual it becomes.

This review pertains to batch 18. It would be beneficial if the distiller could provide information on any modifications for this batch. The initial aroma is excessively sweet, bordering on artificial sweetener levels, though notes of oak, vanilla, and caramel are present – typical and strong bourbon characteristics, amplified significantly beyond what a 103 proof spirit should exhibit. Despite this intensity, the nose alone doesn't warrant high praise, though it is good. The taste differs from my previous experience with this bourbon. The presence of older whiskey is evident. Adding water significantly improved it, revealing sweeter notes alongside some fruity flavors and a hint of tobacco as it progresses. It's complex without any single element overpowering the rich, sweet, aged bourbon profile. This is a classic bourbon profile: not nutty, chocolatey, cinnamon, mineral, or overly oaked. It features vanilla, caramel, corn, and a classic, well-integrated oak note. It's aged sufficiently to lack a strong 'hug' or bite, but offers an excellent mouthfeel and proof. I'm rating this a 3.25. It's a very solid offering; while a bit pricey, the quality is apparent. A slightly bitter finish prevents it from reaching a 3.5, bringing it down to 3.25. My last bottle scored closer to 4.0.

From Batch 7, bottle 334 of 700. This older bottle style is 103 proof and has an orange hue. The nose after a neck pour is light with a hint of ethanol, toasted oak, stewed peaches with cinnamon, a little milk chocolate, pepper, and cigar. It hits the back of the tongue like water, with an oily finish. Flavors of pecans, vanilla, a bit of heat, followed by a yeast roll, orange peel, and tobacco finish. This is exactly what I was hoping for! This is what an overpriced Elmer T Lee should taste like. The bright, sweet, and oaky palate is complemented by an oily, slightly hot, and lingering finish that another well-known American light whisky company struggles to produce sufficiently. At around $100, it's not a great value and would be too expensive for regular consumption. I can't speak to newer batches, but this one is perfect for me. It's not like the clove, mineral, and honey-heavy Remus from MGP, nor is it like the bold, leathery JM triple cask finish. It's a distinctly different, lighter, more floral/earthy, and almost Buffalo Trace-like bottle. I'm considering buying another bottle before it's gone, driven by bourbon FOMO, my inner enthusiast, and the fact that Elmer T Lee won't be available in my area for a while.

Compared to the standard Magnus, the nose has more fruit and less damp wood. It presents with a rich, savory character, though it's not as strong as the regular Magnus. The palate is quite pleasant, featuring a strong cinnamon and toffee hit that isn't overly harsh initially. Lots of vanilla is present, making it incredibly indulgent. It's very woody with rich dark chocolate notes mingling with red fruit and spice. It lacks the boldness and leather notes of the regular Joseph Magnus, but also misses the damp wood (which works well in the regular Joseph Magnus, by the way). It contains more fruit, and the vanilla and brown sugar are less prominent. This tastes more like a typical bourbon (a very well-crafted one) than the regular Joseph Magnus. The balance is superb, with just the right amount of tartness. Overall, this is a fantastic beverage. Between the two, I slightly favor the regular Joseph Magnus, but this offers amazing balance that edges out Booker's Shiny Barrel with water added, and it's also more complex than Booker's Shiny Barrel. There's a lot happening here, like an evolution from Evan Williams Black to Jim Beam Black to this!