Jim Beam Bonded Bourbon

Where do you fall on the chill filtered vs. non-chill filtered debate? I haven't had a chance to test it until now. People seemed to be losing their minds recently when it was announced that the Glendronach 12 was moving to chill filtratation with future bottlings, snapping up all the current non-chill filtered version as quickly as they could, and I couldn't help thinking, does it make that big of a difference? George Dickel Rye even flaunts it on their bottle with a big ol' Chill Filtered descriptor across the side of its label. And then, if you read up on it, reviewers seem surprised, "Wow, it's chill filtered, but it's still pretty good!?" Did you expect chill filtration to make it bad? The whole thing, I suppose, is that the chill filtration process removes flavor? But does it? I've made no secret in my tasting of Old Tub, that I love Old Tub. Whenever Beam releases a new product, it tends to go for $16.99 in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure why, whether it's the liquor control board in our state just buys in bulk and passes the savings on to us or whatever else it could be. But God bless that $16.99 price tag. For as middling as the result of Jim Beam Double Oak might be, it was still a decent bourbon at $16.99. Jim Beam Bonded was also $16.99 and I bought something like 10 bottles, and now, Old Tub is $16.99 and I'm snapping that up periodically because...well, why wouldn't you at that price? To have a drinkable bottled-in-bond bourbon around for that price, you might as well. You can drink it straight, drop an ice cube in, mix with it. Hell, I even use it for cooking and baking, and for that price, I don't really give a damn. It's versatile. Hell, I even just tried mixing it with other bourbons to see what might happen, dropping a half shot of Maker's Mark Cask Strength in to blend my own bourbon, never mind that I don't know jack about blending (and given that Maker's Mark Cask Strength is now $40, I can mess around with those bottles too). I was just curious to see what would happen, and while it wasn't necessarily anything to write home about....the experiment was interesting. Anyway, back to my main point, when I reviewed Old Tub, I pointed out that I've had Old Tub side-by-side with Jim Beam Bonded, and I wasn't sure if they were the same product or not. A few commenters pointed out that the difference might be chill filtration and sure enough, while Old Tub points out that it's non-chill filtered, Bonded says nothing about whether it is or it isn't on the bottle, which I'm assuming means that it is, though honestly, wouldn't we like some honesty, wouldn't it be better if they pulled that baller move that Dickel does with their rye and just announced it and were like, "Yeah, we're chill filtered, but we're good anyway." With all that out of the way, I haven't opened a bottle of Jim Beam Bonded since I joined this platform, so I haven't reviewed it. I'm down to two unopened bottles of it, since I opened this one (I have three of Old Tub), and I'm going to say that if this vs. Old Tub is indicative of the debate between chill filtration and non-chill filtration, my opinion is that it doesn't make a lick of difference. It's likely one of those things that's either all in your mine or such a fine distinction that only 1-2% of the population has the refinement in their sense of taste to tell the difference. Honestly, they don't taste any different to me. If you're looking for tasting notes then, I'll reiterate my Old Tub review: you get oak and nuttiness, vanilla and caramel. I waxed poetic on Old Tub about how it reminded me of being young and going to the fair or a carnival. This is the same. It's not super complex, but it's still really enjoyable and tasty and robust, and even if this were $24.99, which I believe is the SRP in most states, I think it punches its weight against other bourbons that cost that much. But hey, I'm getting it for $16.99, so I'm not really thinking about Larceny or Maker's Mark or even Knob 9, which when it's on sale is $29.99 and is probably a lot better than this. Anyway, I don't see why you wouldn't buy this if you're living in PA. And I don't think if you're living outside the state you should really balk either. It's just a good budget bourbon. I have to give it the same rating I gave Old Tub. The major difference between the two is I kind of like the bottle design of Bonded better.

How about a casual side-by-side whiskey tasting for Labor Day fun? Here's a match-up I think a LOT of folks are wondering about: Old Tub bottled-in-bond and Jim Beam bottled-in-bond! Old Tub, as you probably know, is a special release in the same vein as Distiller's Cut (and I"m a fan of that release). Both of these are 100 proof, bottled-in-bond (minimum 4 years old), from the same mashbill. Likely the only difference other than the label and bottle shape is the non-chill-filtered natue of the Old Tub. For those of you unfamiliar with it, chill filtering is a method in whisky making for removing residue. In chill filtering, whisky is cooled to between −10 and 4 °C (14 and 39 °F), often roughly 0 °C (32 °F), and passed through a fine adsorption filter. This is done mostly for cosmetic reasons – to remove cloudiness – rather than to improve taste or consistency. Some whiskey afficianados believe the filtering process can affect flavor by removing conjoiners and other large molecules that impact our perceptions of flavor. Starting with appearance - there's no way to tell the difference. These are visually identical. On a swirl the JBbib has slightly less sheeting and tears - perhaps showing that it's a touch thinner. Keep in mind, both are identical proof. On the palate tasted neat from a glencairn the Old Tub has a slight shot of caramel, a bit of dry peanut shells, some sweet vanilla, and a short, clean ginger/cinnamon finish. There' just the slightest hint of clove after the swallow and a short peppery tingle. It's nice, but not serious. I like it for a lot of casual applications. The Jim Beam Bottled-in-bond expression has a slightly thinner nose (maybe, not sure I could tell blind) and a slightly thinner, drier, hotter taste profile. It's like the caramel is toned down a semi-stop and the ginger is brought up. I've had a lot of this expression. It's a "go to" for casual on-the-rocks after work sipping. Tasted with a couple drops of water (literally, drops) brings forward the sweetness in both drams, but the JBbib benefits. When a drop is introduced into whiskey it pushes oils and alcohol to the surface, sometimes intensifying the flavor. Adding more water and swirling does the opposite and dilutes the proof. Adding a drop to either of these brings forward the sweetness added by the oak - and the bottled in bond expression needs that just a bit more. I think I could tell these apart in a blind tasting and maybe I'll do that later on. Right now I'm calling it this way... JBbib is $19.99 on sale, $22.99 regular price. OT is running about $23.99 in the Tampa market. They are both very solid bourbons. I like the Old Tub a little better, but I won't pay a 20% premium for it. They are nearly identical save for the chill filtering. What I've learned here is that chill filtering, as I've suspected, can thin out a drink and make it a bit drier and less sweet and rich. But it's a pretty subtle effect and one worth tasting for on your own. The way I rate whiskey is by a 5 point scale where a 1 is a trash drain pour, and a 5 is a perfect dram. Any competent, average whiskey (or whisky) should place 2.5 at the peak of the bell curve. Both of these are solid at 2.75, but neither "blows away" the other. In fact, I think most drinkers won't be able to tell the difference unless there's a side-by-side tasting like this.

Re-posted review from January 2020. I’m not sure what happened to the original one, I must have deleted it somehow but fortunately I had it backed up. Nose: Hot cinnamon, vanilla, roasted peanut, burnt sugar and barrel char. Palate: Hot, hard entry but with some sweet notes. Caramel-coated overcooked popcorn, peanut butter, toffee. Pepper, bitter dark chocolate and chewy oak tannin in the development. Finish: Medium. The oak and hot dry spice notes linger. In Australia there used to be a Jim Beam bottling called “Jim Beam Bonded Number 12 Formula” which was completely different to this. It was soft, buttery and a very pleasant everyday bourbon but sadly it disappeared from our shelves a couple of years ago. Fortunately I had stocked up on it but I'm down to my last one. When I saw this Bonded Bourbon appear recently I thought I’d give it a try in case it was just the same stuff repackaged, but sadly it's a different whisky, and one that is not to my taste. Adding water tames it a fraction but the only way I could enjoy this was with Coke. It wasn't just a bad bottle either because I bought two and they were the same. I guess it could be a bad batch, but I won't be trying it again to find out. “Adequate” : 70/100 (2 stars)

The ‘BIB’ Bottled in Bond acronym is a sure fire sign of good quality. Even more surprising is the tremendous value you get out of those whiskeys. I have never been a fan of Jim Beam. Their line has an overly sweet and at times artificial taste I find unappealing. So, it was with apprehension I picked up the Beam BIB. A subdued sweet and sour aroma crept out of the glass upon pouring. Charred oak and vinegar. Allowing this whiskey a few minutes to breath and the sour hints began to subside. Replaced by a syrup sweetness scent and hints of boot leather Letting the whiskey settle on the tongue it feels a tad thin and there is not much flavor other than the charred oak. This whiskey is deceptive. It’s a closer. A nice fiery finish on the back end, tastes of cinnamon and French toast. There are better BIB whiskeys available for sure but for the Beam line this is pretty good and a decent value.

I haven't been a fan of this since the day I opened it last September. There was an astringent, chemical quality that was unpleasant from the get-go. I know people love this, and I'm also a huge fan of most Jim Beam products so it's possible I didn't get a great bottle. Still, it tastes like a young, cheap craft whiskey with all sharp edges. Even after 9 months I get strong hints of oak spice and ethanol with a little dusty corn and caramel. No fruit or vanilla. The tannic oak quality jumps out on the tongue and builds on the finish. It's just unpleasant as it lingers on the tongue. At the moment I see few redeeming qualities about this bourbon except to dilute it with Coke. But if I wanted a good cheap BiB I could buy Evan Williams for $10 less. For me this is a hard pass in the future, I'll take Black Label over this in a heartbeat.

N: Honey, caramel, and mint mixed with alcohol. Some grassy notes out of a Neat glass, but feel like I'm trying too hard at this point: it's mostly mint and booze. P: Lots of corn, then lots of wood. Super sweet and heavy on the tongue with that bourbon staple caramel-vanilla taste, then whiplash to a burning black licorice and biting tannin finish. And it lands hot too - plenty of alcohol burn. There's no balance here. The Evan Williams White Label is head and shoulders above and a few bucks cheaper. And if you're willing to spend more, bonded bourbons can be vastly more interesting and nuanced than this (e.g. Heaven Hill, George Dickell).