Elijah Craig Barrel Proof Bourbon Batch B520

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think ‘Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight’ given so many other choices.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 I’ve been a big fan of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) for a long time. I own (or have consumed) most of the triannual releases for the past 6-7 years. I’ve reviewed them individually in addition to doing Showdown reviews comparing releases from the same year. This Showdown review compares three highly rated ECBP releases from different years: B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year; B520, which is thought by many to be one of the best ECBP releases; and the C923, which I recently rated 4.75 and has received a lot of fanfare from the bourbon community. How do these compare? Let’s find out. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 Deep orange mahogany color (Pantone 153). Complex nose reveals cocoa powder, pomander, oiled leather, caramel, vanilla, Luxardo cherries, charred oak, a Wild Turkey-like dust, grape jelly, and spearmint. The palate has a nice viscosity, with sweet oak and caramel. The alcohol is kept in check with the robust flavor profile, and the finish is long, with crème brûlée and lots of oaky vanilla. While whisk(e)y drinkers debate whether Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year is a marketing merry-go-round or an objective assessment, the winner is typically very good, and the ECBP B517 is certainly that. There is plenty of complexity; a high, well-integrated proof; and a reasonable price, considering. Current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is one of the best values in bourbon. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.25 on my last review). 124.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Deep mahogany color, a shade darker than the B517 (Pantone 160). Fantastic nose reveals chai tea, milk chocolate, strawberry preserves, cocoa, graham cracker, cappuccino, orange oil, cherry pie filling, mulled cider, spearmint and maple syrup—all of this without noticeable alcohol. On the palate, there is a light glycerin mouthfeel, and a sweetness Finish has plenty of cinnamon red hots and vanilla extract. The ECBP B520 nose is very complex. Nosing through each release in succession, and continuing to cycle through them all, I kept getting different olfactory elements from the B520. It is both powerful and refined. As stated previously, current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Every time. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 Burnt orange meets mahogany; a half-shade lighter than the B520 (Pantone 153). Out of the glass, the C923 fills the nose with a pervasive warmth. Orange oil leads the way, followed by cedar, Chinese five spice, dust, apples, tangy BBQ sauce, soy sauce, and a whiff of menthol. Like the B520, there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The mouthfeel has a similar viscosity, though the palate isn’t quite as sweet as the B520. The high proof becomes noticeable on the back end, transitioning to a finish with brown sugar, oaky vanilla, drying leather, and a big Kentucky Hug. For the third time in this review: where else are you going to find a bourbon with high proof, high complexity, and such a robust flavor profile? There’s a reason why the bourbon community is raving about ECBP C923. It Would I buy? 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 133 proof. 13 year, 7 month age statement. Non chill filtered. METHODOLOGY High-proof bourbons need to be approached with a little trepidation—and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves hazmat whisk(e)y. The first sips start very hot, and it takes a few for the mouth to become acclimated. Only then can the actual tasting begin; and for me, that translates to a 10-12 minute warm-up. For this Showdown, I nosed each one in succession, occasionally taking a small sip, and then wrote a one-word descriptor or short phrase before moving to the next one. I continued this process until I’d ran out of differentiable identifiers. Then I sipped each one and recorded the taste and finish in the same way. Further, I passed through everything again. And finally, I repeated the process the next night, and only then began to craft each paragraph. CONCLUSION These three releases of ECBP, spanning six years, show a commitment to consistency. Each release shares similarities and overlapping descriptors. As @djangojohnson has mentioned elsewhere, separate releases of the same bourbon can be subtle. The biggest differences in this case aren’t in the flavor profiles themselves but rather their pervasiveness and intensity on the nose, palate, and finish, as well as the presence and integration of alcohol, regardless of the proof. Succinctly: power and balance. The B517 is very good, and I’m happy that I’ve got a couple more bottles in reserve; but despite its power and complexity, it is a notch below the B520 and C923. That is not an underhanded compliment, because the B520 and C923 are world-class. The B520 is exquisite: every time I come back to it—over the past two days I’ve logged dozens of sips amongst the three—I find something different. The C923 is the most powerful amongst the three. The proof is a little higher, and it is noticeable as it should be, and there is an effusiveness of flavor that floods your nose and coats your palate. It reminds me of the opulence that comes from a William Larue Weller or George T. Stagg. It is ostentatious, but not brash. It displays a sophisticated heaviness, like a fine shearling coat. It demands your attention unapologetically, and its big Kentucky hug reminds you that you’re in its house rather than the other way around. But the C923 is a bit out of balance. It’s robustness doesn’t quite stand up to the 133 proof. Were the alcohol a little more integrated, the C923 would be a 5.0. But in this Kentucky Derby, the B520 wins in a photo finish. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

Rating: 22/23 I'm re-tasting the last 50ml of a bottle that I've been storing in a mili for a while. N: Not the fullest, but that's often the case with high proof drams. There is some interesting character here, with mature wood mixed with some yeast, a bit of smoke, a little fudge, some faint but nice spices, hints of creosote, and a touch of anise. There's a nice balance here and this is definitely an enjoyable nose. The high ABV doesn't really show through. Oh, a bit of vanilla too with the fudge. P: Creosote, anise, vanilla, mature wood, fudge, and some definite alcohol burn. The spices blend in nicely, adding to the sophistication here. I do taste a bit of alcohol, but it isn't too much. There's a nice complexity here with some flavors that balance well. F: Sure, a bit of the alcohol and burn come through at first, bit then the anise and chocolate make their way in with the rich wood and spices. The herbs and minerals are faintly maintained as well. In the long finish, the minerals do show themselves more. - Conclusion - Elijah Craig A121 is a bit thinner and less complex, with more burn (from the neck). At the same time, it has a lot more fudge, which promises some great future decadence. I thought that this was chocolatey previously, but it has nothing on the A121 Actually, this is the thinner of the two on the palate, but it's fuller on the finish. These are seriously competitive. I'm frankly shocked that the mature version of the B520 could be challenged by the neck of any other release. The complexity is higher here, but the balance is - quite surprisingly - reduced. This also isn't as smooth. It's tough to come to a conclusion, so I think that the two are highly competitive, which is a shocking revelation. Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof (21/23) is more decadent than this, but it's less complex. This comes in with more of that sour mash flavor and fudge. I think that the Jack Daniel's is more competitive with this now than I used to think. Perhaps it's the extra aging and the air took it too far. Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18-19/23) is a bit brasher than this, but it has some nice sweet, fruity funk. I would take this over the Wild Turkey. Would I take this over the Jack Daniel's though? I think it's hard for me to put this behind it, but I might. This certainly isn't a 23. Finishing up my side-by-siding, I'd take this over the Jack Daniel's. I think it maintains its 22 status, but slightly.

Elijah Craig Barrel Proof: B520 vs A122 Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) is one of my favorite bourbons. Heaven Hill, the distillery for Elijah Craig, releases ECBP three times per year (January, May, September), with a four-character code: January is “A1” (A for first release; 1 for the month of January); May is “B2” (B for the second release; 5 for the month of May); and September is “C3” (C for the third release; 9 for the month of September). The second two characters correspond to the last two digits of a particular year. Thus “B520” is the second release, in May, in the year 2020. All ECBP have a 12-year age statement, and proof typically ranges from around 120 to nearly 140. Caveat bibitor. I pulled out B520 and A122 at random because I have them both open (I have most if not all releases going back four years or so). B520: Clear orange mahogany color. Powerful nose: noticeable ethanol (to be expected; this is barrel proof bourbon) almost struggles to be noticed in the explosion of olfactory elements: malted milk balls, freshly mown hay, maple syrup, creosote railroad ties, split oak, sweet pipe tobacco, and vanilla. (NB: nosed after the A122, there is a quite prevalent toasted marshmallow note). Penetrating mouthfeel is spearheaded with heat, with notes of sweet café Cubano, leather, and cigar tobacco, and cinnamon. Faint woody tannins and some vanilla on the medium-length finish. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. A122: Clear orange mahogany color; indistinguishable from the B520. Different nose: ethanol not as pronounced (120.8 vs B520’s 127.2); more grassier rather than hay; some coconut; chocolate-covered cherries; sweet pipe tobacco and toasted marshmallow like the B520; and pomander and red hots. Palate is more woody and leathery, with noticeable (pleasantly expected) heat, before finishing with lingering notes of coconut and vanilla. 4.5 on the Distiller scale. Different release years, different months, different proofs: the consistent (albeit slightly different) quality and hedonistic pleasure that both of these bottles affords illustrates why each release of ECBP goes into my inventory whether tasted already or not. Irrespective of release, bourbon afficionados can bank on a good pour. And at $70-80 retail, ECBP represents incredible value in the ever-crazier bourbon world. N.B. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

The nose is bold and dense starting with bananas foster, cherry pie filling, donuts covered in cinnamon sugar and vintage antique leather then dark chocolate Ferrero Rocher and freshly lit pipe tobacco followed by sautéed apples, raspberry jam and mandarin oranges followed by ginger, spearmint, anise, cloves and polished mahogany with high ethanol burn. The taste is a medium mouthfeel starting with bananas foster, cherry pie filling, donuts covered in cinnamon sugar and vintage antique leather then a moderate bitter and sour spice that quickly fades to dark chocolate covered espresso beans and freshly lit pipe tobacco followed by sautéed apples, raspberry jam and mandarin oranges followed by ginger, spearmint, anise, black pepper, cloves and polished mahogany with high ethanol burn. The finish is long with a mild black pepper spice, cocoa nibs, maraschino cherries, caramelized bananas, anise, cloves, spearmint, leather and polished mahogany. This is a fantastic bourbon that has a similar nose as the A120 with bold and balanced notes of sweet citrus, fried bread, light sourness, dusty old oak and light rye spices but has an additional layer of a creamy fudge note which carries over to the taste and delivers on the balance found on the nose with a mild flaw of a very quick bitter spice that throws it off slightly and finishes long with a balanced mix of lightly spicy earthy elements, creamy fruits and well-aged oak. So far, this has been my favorite of the three Elijah Craig releases I’ve tried and a huge thanks to @ctbeck11 and @ContemplativeFox for sharing this treat with me.

ECBP has officially joined the ranks of my favorite bourbon lines (or whiskey for that matter.) Prior to this, I've had 3 other batches, which is even to earn that status. B520 has the second lowest ABV of any batch I've had, but is considerably stronger than the B519 I had last time. The question, really, is where this will fall in the ranks in terms of quality. Let's find out. Nose: Caramel, vanilla, peanut butter, maple, bitter cocoa, brown sugar, and maraschino cherry. Leather and tobacco. Carrot cake and fudge. Barrel char, cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, black pepper, and allspice. Plenty of oak, as one would expect of a 12-year old bourbon. The nose is stellar. Palate: Vanilla, caramel, brown sugar, and cola. Gala apple and cherry. Fudge and peanut butter. Black tea. Apricot and peach. Carrot cake. Orange peel and tobacco smoke. Clove and nutmeg. Heavy oak and barrel char. Finish: Apricot, peach, caramel, vanilla. Cinnamon, black pepper, clove, nutmeg, allspice, and layers of oak. Long as a finish comes or goes. Dead ringer. No question about it. ECBP tends to run ridiculously high (in terms of ABV.) This one stands within the Booker's range. And it performs as well as any of those. C917, and A119, and now B520. What do they have in common? They are the golden batches of ECBP. This is an unbelievably good bourbon. It's layered, complex, and packs a hell of a punch. It's May 2021. If you're a bourbon fan, I strongly recommend you hunt this one down. If you look hard enough, you should still be able to find it.