Booker's Bourbon Batch 2020-03 "Pigskin Batch"

As Booker’s slowly but surely enters the realm of hard-to-find and overpriced collectors item, it’s time for my first Booker’s review. I went back and forth for what should be my 50th review and eventually landed on this. That it is coming as my half-century review may be appropo because while it’s not that special of a milestone, as say, my future century mark review, (READ just as Booker’s is NOT a special, once in a lifetime bourbon, by any stretch), it somehow feels like it needs to be acknowledged. You see, I have been collecting Booker’s since 2015. I’ve grabbed a pair of each batch since 2017. I always fancied the classic, yummy-smelling wooden box as a kinda cool packaging that other distillers should emulate. So this review may also be perceived as an ode to the last of the Mohicans because at the rate of price increase, there will come a time in the near future when I’ll no longer be seeking this product. Shame. How did we go from a $49.99 / bottle to now $100+ (and climbing) for a bourbon averaging 6.25 years old? I was able to find this batch at a local retailer for “reasonable” $69.99 and decided to clear the shelf because I thought this was probably the last time I’ll find it for that price. Whaat? Shame. Ok need to remind myself this is not a raving rant medium. Let’s get to the experience shall we? Neck pour Nose: Dry-roasted peanut skins, vanilla-laced ethanol fumes, cherry cotton candy, chocolate fudge, light/low calorie caramel toffee , paint varnish. If you allow yourself some patience, you will be rewarded with a good, balanced aroma that evolves to much greater heights over time. Palate - Follows the nose slightly with classic bourbon notes mingled with corn cereal and peanut trail mix. Water opens it to more fruity aromas but elevates the bitter oak tannins on the mid-palate. Finish is long and clingy. Continuation of the palate with an underlying backbone of wood spice and bitter tannins coming all the way through. You could say the wood influence balanced the finish from becoming too sweet. Warm Kentucky hug to close out. Overall: Not bad. The neck pour wasn’t mind-blowing but was not disappointing either. Follow-up pours after a few days yielded a much better experience. I think this is slightly above average but not sure how I feel about it relative to the “Booker’s hype”. So I’m holding my definitive judgment on the Booker’s line until I spend more time with this bottle + try other batches in my stack. Keeping hope alive that other batches bring something different and unique to the table. Side-by side to Old Forester single barrel cask strength (review coming) and the 15Yr George Dickel 15Yr single barrel cask strength , I give the GD a slight edge over the Booker’s with the OF coming in 3rd place but barely. In fact it’s closer to an interchangeable 2a & 2b. Ranking-wise, for my taste, I would go 1-GD 15Yr SiB Csk strength, 2a-Booker’s 2020-3, 2b-OF SiB Cask strength Cheers POD! PS: Going on another dry month starting tomorrow, as part of my self-imposed “1-dry-month-per-quarter” experiment this year. We shall see how long it lasts. Wish me luck!

Nose: That classic biscuity, nutty Beam profile. Booker's tends to live within a 10-15% margin for me and this is no exception. Oak-forward, caramel, and vanilla. It's worth noting that the vanilla here is a little less pronounced than usual, something I actually enjoy but I know isn't for everybody. The proof keeps this big and bold, though this isn't jumping out of the glass at me like some prior editions. Chocolate covered strawberries and those chocolate covered cherry cordials. There's also an herbal quality - mint, thyme, etc, along with black pepper and clove. Cinnamon is present, along with other classic baking spices. Palate: Big and chewy. Again, this doesn't rock the boat. Caramel, oak, and vanilla. Red hots. Peanut M&Ms. The same herbs and spices from the nose are all here, too. This leans more into the sweetness, but otherwise remains consistent. The barrel bite and proof make this feel "big", and the tannins and lactones help reinforce that, with a bitterness that's helping balance everything else. This hits largely on the back and middle palate, with pronounced mid-range and highs. Mouthfeel is medium-heavy. Finish: Big ol' ethanol pope, then charred oak, vanilla, and then suddenly a swell of cinnamon candy. Think red hots or red tamales - rarely does a particular note match this strongly for me. The vanilla is here, but still quite mellow. Things quickly drop off and mint and thyme show up but are still buried in the leftovers of everything else. We fade out of some quite lovely canteloupe, apricot, and banana. Medium length, but while it's here it's mo. Other notes: It's Booker's. A relatively consistent and high quality release from Beam. If you've had a few, you know what to expect. While I try to not mention price save for those instances where I feel it notable or relevant, I would be remiss if I didn't join the larger discussion about the recent hikes on line. While I've been relatively shielded in my neck of the woods (there are some local retailers that confuse Booker's and Little Book, and have been selling both at sub-SRP prices), it's disappointing that others haven't been so lucky. I do know that this year netted 1 fewer release of this line, with quality not meeting expectations at the distillery for a particular batch if memory serves. I can only imagine that the recent price hikes are to make up for this lack of a release. I hope (however naively) that this will be temporary - we've seen other distilleries remove and add back age statements, or others announce proof changes only to later capitulate to customer demands and retain the original proof, all without influencing price. I would wonder if Beam might be willing to reconsider the recent price changes and roll back a few. Then again, if the line continues to sell just as well, that likely won't happen. Personally, it'll give me pause - I'll still likely buy one bottle of each batch, but I'll definitely be more hesitant to re-buy any of them. And I'll certainly struggle to suggest it as strongly as I have in the past. As always, cheers!

Rating: 16/23 N: There's certainly alcohol, but there's also a nice, surprisingly old wood note here. Although it's mixed with biting alcohol, it reminds me a bit of old Dickel. There's some nice cinnamon coming off of the wood, a little vanilla richness, and a hint of black licorice. An odd hint of lemon as well. And some peanut shells with the wood. Ooh, and there's some nice caramel too! P: Oof, a lot of alcohol flavor. And it really burns. Like a lot, even for Booker's. There's a really nice orange favor like a hard candy, but that slightly industrial alcohol really overshadows it. I get nice black licorice as well, but, wow, that alcohol. There's some cinnamon, but that's not most of what I'm getting from the alcohol. Some sort of bitter herbal flavor as well some. Ah, I'm getting a bit of that Jim Beam peanut mixed with peanut shells now. I like these additional flavors, but they're really fighting with the alcohol, which has a little too much of a fusel quality. F: Alcohol burn, licorice, alcohol flavor, bits of orange. Maybe some wood or something. It burns and isn't that complex. - Conclusion - Booker's is pretty good, but this is unfortunately the worst of the roughly 10 releases I have tried. There's way too much alcohol here and it isn't even that full or complex. I could maybe reach a 17 in my wildest fantasies, but I'm thinking that this is more in the 14 to 16 range and I'm leaning toward a 16. Side by side, this is just not on the level of George Dickel Bottled In Bond (16/23). This burns way too much and it's actually a little harsh. If it weren't for the burn and harshness, I might put them really close, but that difference definitely pushes this down. This seems closer in quality to my 15 year old single barrel bottling of Dickel 15 (15/23). I'm shifting to a 15 for this. Taking one final tasting, I'm torn here. I think that this is better than Dickel 15 and Uncle Nearest 1856 (15/23), but not quite on the level of Dickel Bottled In Bond. It's hard to tell against Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23), so this is a very borderline case. I think I'm going to give it a low 16 on the grounds that I've faintly considered giving the Uncle Nearest a 16 at times and the Dickel Bottled In Bond is on the higher end of 16. Thank you, @jdriip , for giving me a taste of this one.

Booker’s Small Batch Bourbon is the creation of whiskey masterminds Fred and Booker Noe. Both master distillers, the father and son team are among the best in the industry, both working for the Jim Beam Distillery in Clermont, KY. Each year, the Noes release four batches of Booker’s Bourbon that are highly sought after. Once the batches are released, a new batch is started, thus making them very desirable by Jim Beam fans and collectors. In my experience, some batches have been fantastic, and some not as much. Booker’s Bourbon Batch 2020-03 “Pigskin” is a straight bourbon from the Jim Beam Distillery. Batch 2020-03 is the next installment in their Booker’s expressions of high proof bourbon. Bottled at 127.3 proof/63.65% ABV after about six and a half years of maturation, this bourbon is named “Pigskin” just in time for end of the Football season. The mashbill consists of 77% corn, 13% rye, and 10% malted barley. The taste profile for this bourbon is very straightforward with its typical bourbon notes. Color: Clear Tawny The nose is full of sweet bourbon notes of butterscotch, cinnamon, brown butter, and caramel. Accompanying are notes of cherry pie, banana bread, toasted oak, and a slight nuttiness. The palate opens with burnt wood notes, almost like burnt saw dust. This is followed by roasted peanuts and more butterscotch sweetness. There is a heavy alcohol burn, and the whiskey feels younger. The finish is long accompanied by heavy alcohol burn, charred oak, and cherry notes. Although the nose was fantastic, the palate and finish lack in complexity as the taste did not hold up to the aromas.

The initial pour after opening 10 days ago was generally disappointing.....hot, thin, and underwhelming. I opened a 1792 Full Proof single barrel that same day that simply blew away the Booker’s Pigskin batch, at half the price. Upon revisiting today, I’m finding that the Bookers has opened up quite a bit to reveal the classic Bookers taste profile of a sweet nuttiness. Still not quite as rich as I would like at this price and proof, but at least I’m no longer kicking myself for making the purchase. It’s $100 a bottle in Michigan, but fortunately I only paid $70 on sale in Indiana. Definitely a no-go for a Benjamin, and at $70 I will take ECBP all day long over the Bookers, and WT Rare Breed when on a bourbon budget. Probably my last bottle of Bookers since it’s just not at the quality level it should be for what is marketed as a high end bourbon. Possibly I should lower my expectations for a 6-7 year old whiskey, but on second thought, maybe Jim Beam should bring the price of Bookers more in line with the product that’s in the bottle.

NOSE Oak, cherry-heavy dried dark fruit, cocoa, leather, roasted nuts, honeysuckle, brown sugar, spiced and candied orange peel and a touch of vanilla. This is about as classic of a Booker’s aroma as you can get: oaky and darkly sweet with a candied and nutty underpinning. PALATE Oak, cherry-heavy dried dark fruit, roasted nuts, cocoa, leather, honeysuckle, brown sugar, spiced and candied orange peel and touches of vanilla and herbal notes. A near carbon copy of the aroma but with the nuttiness sitting higher and a slight herbal punch that’s fairly unique to the Booker’s 2020-03 Pigskin Batch. FINISH Long -> Oak, dried dark fruit, caramel, vanilla and peanuts that seems to fade for days.