Rhetoric 20 Year Bourbon

A side-by-side tasting of two spirits, blind. Spirit 1: Fruity vanilla, cherries, berries, and abundant oak. It showcases classic aged bourbon characteristics with a powerful sweet, fruity aroma that gradually yields to aged oak. A near-perfect balance where sweet fruits, chocolates, and leather vanilla dominate, complemented by oak. Spirit 2: More reserved and subtle. Minimal sweetness, primarily alcohol and oak notes, with a dusty closet and nuttiness. After some time, sweetness begins to emerge, revealing chocolate and sweet corn, but it finishes with bread and baking notes instead of the expected oak. Taste (Spirit 2 first): Buttery oak, tannins, and significant vanilla at the end. Little caramel or fruit. A peculiar vanilla note, like a waxy creamer. An unusual spirit, not one I'd revisit. Taste (Spirit 1): Sweeter initially, with more classic aged bourbon character. Exhibits the dryness often found in very aged bourbons. Vanilla and caramel with old leather, alcohol-infused oak chips, tannins, and subtle dark notes. While I advocate for aged bourbon, the extremely aged can sometimes be too oaky. This seems to lean that way, but water might help. After adding water: Spirit 1's nose is largely unchanged, perhaps slightly sweeter, remaining excellent. Spirit 2 becomes sweeter and more integrated, creamier, with vanilla and caramel notes. Still minimal dusty leather. Water enhances sweetness and oak in both, but balance is elusive. Both finishes are vanilla and oak. Spirit 1 has a strong start but a poor, though long and lingering, oaky finish. Spirit 2 is bitter with persistent buttery notes and a long finish. Spirit 1 is the clear winner. I'm told Spirit 1 (22 year) is superior to Spirit 2 (20 year), and it truly outshines it. Spirit 1 receives 2 stars, Spirit 2 receives 1.5 stars. Both are easy passes, despite Spirit 1's nose being worthy of a higher score.

While experienced drinkers might dismiss this as an overpriced mystery spirit, and newcomers might be captivated by the "20yo" claim, I find myself somewhere in the middle. The bottle itself is stunning, the taste is delicious, full, and woody to my palate, and the price... well, let's not dwell on that. It's an excellent bourbon. I had to travel to three different states to find it, and I'm very pleased. Don't purchase it based on its age statement, and don't overlook it due to its marketing; appreciate it for what it is – and buy it because the bottle is attractive. Edit: If you find the proof too low or believe it's over-filtered, mix it 1:1 with Stagg Jr. Batch 3 or 4 and you'll thank me later.

This bourbon should have been bottled at barrel proof. There's nothing harsh about it. It's as smooth as candy and as oaky as if you were chewing on wood staves. I personally enjoy heavily oaked bourbons, so this appeals to me, apart from the low proof.

The aroma is pure brown sugar. It tastes that way too, but with a powerful middle section reminiscent of saddlebags and hints of gingerbread along with a touch of spice. Greetings for the suggestion!

The nose is heavy with oak and leather. You get the standard bourbon flavors, but the finish is a bit brief. It's a decent pour, but the price doesn't justify it.

This did not meet my expectations. However, I also recently acquired the 21 year expression. I am holding off on opening it... Has anyone sampled it before?