Ancient Ancient Age 10 Star

Rating: 12/23 I don't know how old regular Ancient Age is, but this is allegedly around 6 years old. It's a bit young for something labeled "Ancient Ancient", but we'll see how it tastes. It's also 5% higher ABV, so that could affect things too. I was surprised by how much I liked Ancient Age. It's light and overly sweet, but it's kind of fun as an easy sipper in a quirky way. I won't say that I love it, but for $10 it fills a niche that more premium bourbons don't. Seeing this upgraded version that has apparently been discontinued, I had to try it. N: I can smell the Ancient Age DNA in this. It's richer though. I get some orange and a richer, mustier grain than in Ancient Age. There's a hint of tangerine this time as well. Just a bit of a medium wood that sits mellowly in the back. It has that same light caramel popcorn ball scent too. There's a rich minerality that blends in with a little bit of chemical from the ethanol...but somehow it isn't bad? Nothing is amazing here, but it already seems like a step up from Ancient Age. P: This is richer and fuller than regular ol' Ancient Age, but it's also less sweet and playful. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, but I worry that this might be trying to walk a line between childish and mature. I'd speculate that it might have been trying to age its mashbill in an unsuitable way, but this is a Buffalo Trace mashbill, so there is plenty of evidence that it can be aged very well. The increased maturity and higher proof bring out a bit of harshness that is not present in regular Ancient Age. I really do taste the ethanol in here unfortunately, and the bitterness from both it and the wood come out more. It's sort of like it was trying to enrichen the caramel but didn't want it to turn out too sweet, so it didn't fully connect the more bitter mature flavor to the sweet light caramel. I do get a little bit of nut this time (some peanut that gives way to assertive almond) and I do like that, but the end product is less balanced than Ancient Age is. F: The bitterness kind of sticks around, unfortunately. The other flavors kind of fade, aside from a little bit of an orange oil astringency and a little bit of light caramel and corn sweetnesss. Even with the extra aging, I'm still not sure that I would identify this as a bourbon rather than some version of a Japanese whisky if I were forced to make a call. I can't say that I had really high expectations for this, though I do think that they might have been a tad higher than this. The nose is the best part of this by a substantial margin and in that element alone, this crushes Ancient Age. On the palate though, I'm not entirely sure that the extra age really helps, unfortunately. It certainly doesn't make this a worse drink and the difference in cost is small (plus you get a higher proof), so I wouldn't sweat it, but I also won't feel bad if I can never find this again. This is a weird conclusion to come to, but I kind of think that the Ancient Age is a line of "bad" bourbons. It's like watching a bad movie: there's a point at which it's so bad that it becomes fun again. Because regular Ancient Age is so much farther down, I almost like it more. Going a bit (a lot) into hyperbole here, but it's sort of like Ancient Ancient Age 10 Star is Snakes On A Plane and regular ol' Ancient Age is The Room: this one still sort of seems like it's trying to be serious, whereas regular Ancient Age has completely given up and is embracing its absurdity whole-heartedly. Also, colons: the brief fad that will be gone at the end of this paragraph. Maybe I should be marking both this and regular Ancient Age down through the floor because they are quite bad as bourbons, but they're pretty fun in this quirky way. At the end of the day, I have to conclude that since I like them they deserve a decent rating. So as for that rating, I think I'll give this a bump up to 12 (versus an 11 for the normal Ancient Age) because of its nice nose, but it isn't going higher than that. I'm not entirely convinced that this is a better bad movie than regular Ancient Age is.

AAA 10 STAR: I'd been reluctant to try this one since I compared the standard issue Ancient Age with the 36 Month Age Statement to the watered down bourbon at the end of a pour on the rocks. I was perusing the shelves and with nothing new that really moved the needle, I picked this one up from the bottom shelf. I love BT Mashbill #2, so I thought a little older (or so I thought, more on that later) and 10 proof points higher, it's worth a $17 flyer. How was it?... NOSE: Rye Spice, Corn Dust, Leather, Honeycomb, Dry Brown Sugar, Cigar Box. Very nice and complex for a $17 bottle. NEAT: You can definitely pick up on the BT Mashbill #2/Blanton's Lineage. Cherry Coke, Charred Oak, Vanilla, Leather, Cedar, Rye Spice. Warming Finish with building KY Hug. Black Pepper Tingle and Sweet Oak coat the palate. Again, very impressive for a $17 bottle. SPLASH: A little water really turns up the Vanilla and Charred Oak. VERDICT: This is labeled as KSB and that means minimum 2 years or minimum 4 with no age statement. I scoured the label for an age statement and found none so the reports I've seen of 6 years seemed plausible, but I figured at least 4. I did some reading once I got it home and kept seeing it referred to as 36 months. I thought they had to be confusing it with the standard issue AA so I scoured the bottle again. Still no age statement, and then as I was sitting it back on the counter, there it was. Oh, you sneaky Buffalo Trace Bastards. On the back of the neck label, sideways, underneath the Return for Deposit States, in the same font, "Aged 36 Months". So, in theory, this is the same Ancient Age that I gave a 2 rating (and was being generous at that) simply 10 proof points higher. How can it be more Ancient than regular Ancient if it's the same age? At first I was miffed (and still am a little) by the placement of the Age Statement. I mean, I know they are "technically" following the rules, but it seems they are doing it in the most dishonest way possible. Then I put that aside. As I was tasting this, the voice of Lloyd Benson (you young folks can google him) popped in my head and said, "I have had 3 year old Bourbon, and you Sir, are no 3 year old Bourbon". There may be some 3 year old booze in this mix, but I don't think there is much. What I found was a $17 Bourbon that left the first few $17 bourbons that I could think of in the dust. If memory serves (and I think it does) this is better than Beam White, Evan Williams (BIB, Black, and 1783), 4 Roses Yellow Label, Very Old Barton 86, and WT81. If indeed this is mostly 36 month old whiskey, I'm doubly impressed. For $17, this will be my new "well" bourbon. So close to a 4 based on a combination of taste and VFM, but being slightly miffed at the placement of the Age Statement, I'll round down.

Rating: 12/23 N: Richer caramel than in Ancient Age. There's a bit more of a wood presence here and I still get the sour mash, but this is still sweet. There's perhaps a faint hint of apple or something, but not a ton happening here. I get a dash of spice, but it's hard to place. P: This is richer than regular ancient Age. There's still an alcohol burn. Surprisingly, the increased richness emphasizes the sour mash character with the wood's bitterness while also bringing out the sweetness through the enhanced caramel flavor. There's a bit of sweet spices giving this life, but nothing much more than a sprinkle of cinnamon. F: The corn sweetness layered over with woody caramel remains, leaving a layer of richness in here. There isn't much complexity at this point. - Conclusion - This isn't as complex as regular Ancient Age, but I like its overall profile a bit better. This isn't a massive improvement, but it really tastes a bit more like a sour mash bourbon showcasing the white dog with some light wood, whereas the regular Ancient Age tastes so light that it's barely like bourbon at all. Based on my slight preference for this over regular Ancient Age, I'm going with a 12. For an extra point of comparison, I find Evan Williams BiB to be oilier, spicier, and fuller while being similar in quality. If I had to choose one, I'd probably take the Evan Williams, but they're pretty close, whereas I found the Evan Williams to be decisively better than regular Ancient Age.

This may be the cheapest whiskey I’ve bought since starting this journey a little over three years ago. I bought this for sharing/mixing for our annual October family bonfire, and for this purpose it did not disappoint. Contrary to the write-up here on Distiller, this is not discontinued. AAA 10 Star is produced by Buffalo Trace using their #2 mashbill of 80-83% corn, 12-15% rye, and 5% barley. It’s the same mashbill used for Blantons, Elmer T Lee, Rock Hill Farms, and Hancocks Reserve. It’s bottled at 45% ABV and set me back a whole $15 for a liter. There is some indication that this once carried a three year age statement, but there is nothing like that on this bottle. It is labeled “straight” bourbon, so it is at least two years old, but I’d say not much more than that. In the glass it’s a medium gold. Swirling produces some quick thin legs. Neat it’s not much to talk about, but what did you expect? The nose is sweet corn with an odd hint of citrus, maybe orange peel? And not much else. The palate is more sweet corn with little of the typical bourbon flavors of caramel and vanilla. Actually kind of bland. The finish, what there is of it, is short with alcohol heat and a bit of oak char. For $15/liter I can’t complain. It’s a perfectly acceptable mixer and even made a tolerable Old Fashioned. 2.5/5. Cheers!

Tried to find this a few years ago for a blind tasting of the BT mash bill #2. We used the only bottle of Rock Hill Farms I have ever found and the others have gotten crazy expensive and/or impossible to find. Found some of this last year and really liked it. It is by far the cheapest of the BT#2 but would have finished in the middle. I managed to find 6 .75s at $17 and found it to be better than many of the Hancocks Reserve I had but not all. Hancocks had slightly lower proof so was quite comparable but seems to vary significantly from bottle to bottle. Wish we had it those few years ago to see how it would have fared. AAA10 Star is one of the best lower shelf bourbons I have tasted along with many of HHs bottom shelfers. It has a lot to offer in terms of bourbon fulfillment but lacks on the complexity side. The nose is a bit muted but opens up with a little ice. There is no doubt about the rich Blanton's caramel on the nose. There is a touch of rye spice along with some honey and apple. Texture is rather thin but taste is true to nose. It's fairly well balanced but that bitter young alcohol edge shows up a tad. Finish is short to medium but then this as $17 a bottle. I found a case of 1.75s (plastic) a few months ago so I have a fair supply to pour up into my .75 glass bottle.

Nose - caramel, cherry, anise, vanilla, floral notes, cereal grain, cinnamon, light oak, nutmeg, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - caramel, vanilla, cherry, cinnamon, floral notes, dry oak, anise, grainy corn, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium short with caramel, cherry, and sour oak flavors. Since I reviewed the Weller yesterday, I might as well knock out the few Buffalo Trace products I have in the backlog. This one appears to be discontinued, which might make it just a hair more difficult to find than the rest of BT’s stable. The nose is classic BT with caramel, cherry, and something floral, but it’s slightly drier and more herbal than the others I’ve tried. The palate is just about the same and generally unremarkable. There’s a dryness to the finish, not really tannic, but more akin to a chalkiness. This is about as average as average can be. It’s not bad, but it’s slightly sour, bitter, and thin. More time in the barrel, less dilution, blah blah blah. When this was available, it was $15 a liter, so I suppose you can’t really complain too much. It would be a great option if you were on a shoestring budget and wanted something reasonably palatable. Thank you to @ContemplativeFox for the generous sample!