Murray Hill Club Special Release (Pineau des Charentes Cask Finish)

Special Release Batch 4, bottle 434, release size unknown. Allegedly an 8 and 17 year MGP rye blend, 21% rye, finished in a Calvados cask (already causing concern). Review based on the initial pour. Nose - Wow, we have some wonderful notes of old cigar tobacco, rye, and spice. Bready and rich oak. A faint fruitiness, maybe apple? Can't say for sure. Taste - Clearly finished. Very rich and spicy. The finish is a bit unusual. This will require some time to assess. Adding water brings out a significant amount of vanilla on the nose. Not much change on the palate. I'm still undecided about this one. For now, 3 stars. Good oak, smoke, spice, and aged characteristics. I'm not sure I care for some of the flavors on the finish. Second tasting. I'm quite sure I didn't overindulge last night, but I intended to pour a second glass before bed and... I failed to properly seal the bottle or fill the glass. So it had extra air exposure overnight. Revisiting the next day - I'm detecting an apple cider note, but with more brown sugar and oak spice rather than cinnamon. The brandy influence from the Calvados is very apparent, in my opinion, contributing a musty funk and giving way to aged wood notes. While not overly oaked, it lacks the rich, old bourbon vanilla notes I loved from batch 2. Batch 2 started subtly and then amplified the finish dramatically. That transformation was a fantastic experience, something I seek in exceptional whiskies. Batch 4 begins darker and doesn't quite reach that level. However, make no mistake, the transitions here are good, just not great. After being disappointed by my last cigar blend, I wasn't anticipating finding what should rightfully be a new cigar blend labeled as Murray Hill, but here we are. It has the smoke and leather I expect from those casks. A solid age profile. And while I believe it would benefit from another finishing cask, I'm genuinely intrigued by this one. I should mention there's a recent Kentucky bottle, featuring approximately 6, 10, and 15-year-old Kentucky whiskeys finished partly in these casks, that offers about 80% of this experience for well under $100. But I can't say I'm disappointed. $200 is more than it's worth. However, you won't find MGP with this age and proof, plus finishing, for much less today. You're paying for the brand recognition that Magnus and Nancy Fraley have rightfully and fairly earned, and for that branding, $200 seems acceptable. I just can't recommend anyone buy it without trying first. Currently at a soft 3.0. Also, if Nancy happens to see this review or initial tasting notes. We'd appreciate knowing the bottle count for this release. I'm a bit surprised the notes don't reference batches 1 and 2 more closely, instead looking back at batch 3. Final thoughts: this has more to reveal as it airs out. This isn't my usual preference for well-aged bourbon, as it lacks some of the vanilla notes, dare I say comparable to Buffalo Trace, found in bourbons aged 15-20 years. But make no mistake, the quality and depth are present. It almost reminds me of a cask strength version of Blood Oath for comparison, leaning towards drier notes of older bourbon rather than a sweeter profile. I'm still uncertain if the finishing improved or reduced the sweetness. I'll tell you this... I won't be sharing this with many people because I want to savor this bottle over a long period. But it will be shared with a select few! And now I'm questioning if my score reflects my anticipation of greatness versus the actual whiskey I have. Perhaps I should increase it by a half point?

Batch 2. Bottle 586 of 700. Opened for 7-9 months. A friend shared that this blended bourbon consists of about 18-20% 9-year-old light whiskey, with the primary component being 12-year-old bourbon, complemented by some 19-year-old bourbon for added depth and complexity. I'll skip the notes on the wine finish, as that's beyond my expertise. The color has that deep, aged bourbon look. Perhaps slightly cloudy, very thick. Nose: rich, dusty, with prominent cognac notes and a subtle white sweetness. Once opened: intense vanilla, tobacco, oak, leather, and that white sweetness from the finish. Taste: Rich, oaky, dry, yet with a sweet undertone. Luxuriously sweet, coating the mouth; it's truly good. I recall it being better when I first opened it. The pineau des charentes casks are quite one-dimensional now. Sweet, long, and lingering, but not quite delivering what I remembered. The bottle is still more than half full; it seems this particular bottle doesn't age well. Nevertheless, I'm still rating it 4 stars. It's a very good bourbon, but it lacks the complexity to score higher, and the $160 price tag is too high for most bourbon enthusiasts.

Good foundation, with a distinctive finish. Batch 2. 2018 Several years later, I opened my second bottle of Batch 2. Nice nose, pleasant, sweet... almost unlike whiskey. A slightly unusual note at the end. On the palate, it's sweet immediately. Notes of tea, cinnamon, and honey. Unique finish. Just as good as I recall. Superior to Batch 3. 10/9/20

While it's not cheap, you can still find it under $100 at retail prices, avoiding the secondary market. Most importantly, this pour is absolutely incredible, featuring bold caramel and vanilla notes, and it's deceptively smooth for its alcohol content, offering very little burn. I highly recommend enjoying it neat. Cheers!

If it had a little more richness to round out the mid-palate, this would be an absolutely outstanding bourbon. Even as it is, it's a fantastic drink: good dry oak notes, excellent sweetness. The flavor holds up well even when paired with food.

A sweeter aroma than when neat, slightly smoother on the palate. Lighter body, still a bit oily. Adding a little water introduces creaminess and a mild burn, without diminishing the aroma (Joseph Magnus bottling).