Murray Hill Club Blended Bourbon

I've brought you batch 18 so now lets go back 6 batches to batch 12. Nose - Very light, vanilla, cream, touch of oak, touch of caramel. There's a bit of oak spice at the end. Taste - A light toasted bourbon with focuses on sweetness, really bringing me back to a lot of the notes I get on say a well full proof or CYPB. It's that highly inviting and welcoming bourbon that I think has become out of hand popular. This one brings in some age and some refinement that makes me start thinking about the van winkles. Now, I'm virtually positive this isn't a wheated anything, and I don't taste wheat but it is that mellow and relaxed yet highly enjoyable balance here that I'm more focused on. I get some bubble gum notes, some kinda of puffed sugar, and just a touch of leather. Honestly, I'm not sure I'm getting 12+ year old bourbon here, but at the same time, I'm 100% sure I'm getting whisky that with a buffalo trace logo on it, would sell for 500+ secondary. So batch 18 vs 12? 18 is bolder, spicier, less refined, the finish is longer with sparks and bitter notes coming through. They do share similar flavor profiles as I get the creams and lighter vanilla notes, and perhaps say a hint of a vanilla wafer. The batch 12 is that van winkle refined whisky, the 18 is a store pick of weller 107, less refined, but still good. If you like a bit of punch get the newer batches. If you are looking for that refined ultra high end bourbon experience without a CS note, I think these older bottles will do it for you. I don't know when Nancy had to start using higher proof barrels but I do think something changed pretty materially between batch 12 and 18. As a whisky connoisseur I would be hard pressed side by side to not tell you the batch 12 is a superior product. I however as a whisky drinker think a lot more bourbon geeks might lean towards this 18. I gave the 18 a 3.25 which is a great score and this one has to come in at 3.75. The amount of refinement while bringing in some older whisky notes really to me pushes this one up in terms of overall quality, but for those who aren't looking for a bookers punch but still need a bit of a kick, batch 18 might be more your jam. Watch Nancy tell me batch 12 and 18 are basically the same and that I'm a fool. Either way, I'm a happy camper with the batch 12 while the batch 18 left me feeling something was off.

Rating: 18/23 N: Moderate with mellow corn and that big, aged musty funk. Spices and light caramel bordering on cotton candy mix in at points. Little bits of leather and a a nice light cherry flavor occasion. Whiffs of bittersweet chocolate. It's a really complex and decadent nose. The only thing I have to compare it with right now that has that same kind of maturity on the nose is Resilient 15. The Resilient is lighter and has more of that Dickel vitamin and peanut shell character, whereas this has more complexity with fullness and richness, some more cherry and leather. Based on the nose alone, this is the clear winner, though both are very good. P: More fruity and tart than I'd expected, with floral cherry coming through. There's something bitter and fruity like orange pith perhaps in here too. I'm not getting as much of that musty maturity as I'd expected or as I get with the Resilient, though there definitely is some there. This has more leather, but also a tar flavor blended with rich, bitter licorice - much like in regular Joseph Magnus, but not as strong here. It tried to be a bit leathery and it sort of succeeds, bringing in some spices that up the complexity a bit while it's at it. There isn't as much sweetness happening here as I'd expected - or perhaps the bitterness is obscuring it a bit. There's more of a bite here than I'd expected as well. F: Bitter licorice, notes of tar, faint floral cherry. It's not a super long lasting finish, but it's there for a bit. - Conclusion - This is a very good whiskey, but I was let down a bit by the palate and finish after the exceptional nose. I would say that this is about on par with my bottle of Resilient 15 overall. I'd give the Resilient the nod on the palate and finish, but not by much. What I feel like this is missing is bit more mellow musty/dusty character. I might like a bit more sweetness on the finish as well, but whiskey doesn't always need to have a sweet finish, so that's very much a personal preference thing here. I'm looking at a 17 to 18, with a 19 being faintly possible, and landing on an 18.

Neat. Sample. Batch 20. Never had this Joseph Magnus before. So the nose is musty. Wet wood and leaves. It’s very dark. Raisins and prunes. Okay some butterscotch is emerging and it reminds me a lot of MGP light whiskey. I know some 9ish year light whiskey is in this and I can pick that out. Sweet old oak is emerging too, reminds me of Rhetoric 24. Hint of mandarin orange. Vanilla frosting. It’s lightening up since that dark first impression. Oh, I just got a really nice maple note. This is all over the place. Let’s see if it comes together on the taste. Oily but light in texture. Almost fluffy like air. Cinnamon and brown sugar are conquering my tongue. Making me pucker even. Okay, the taste is very familiar MGP territory. The upfront vanilla sweetness is overwhelming and I am getting a hint of those orange still. Transitions to butterscotch and that remains the dominate note. Sweet oak comes out on the finish as well. There is a strange harshness to it on the back end. There is an aftertaste I would equate to prunes as well and it is hanging with me for way too long. Going to get some water to give it one last shake. A palate reset helped. That harsh note that started building subsided and the sweetness is coming out again. It will be interesting to see if the harshness builds up again as I work on the second half of this sample. I have passed on this bottle quite a few times over the years. Love MGP, love Joseph Magnus but reviews were always divisive and it’s not a cheap bottle to buy without solid reviews backing it. Glad I never purchased this. It’s a bit muddied, odd, lacks a stand out note to hang my hat on. The aftertaste is a bit odd too and it’s building up again after a few more sips. Yep harshness is building up too. The more I sip on it without water in between, the funkier it gets.

This review is of batch 18. Would be nice if Nancy could pop in an let us know if anything has changed for this batch. Nose - So my first impression is that this is overly sweet, almost too much and almost getting into aspartame levels. I do still get a nice bit of oak, vanilla, caramel...it is a very traditional bourbon note and very on profile for a bit of a generic bourbon. That said it is amped up to 10, it's intense nosing, there's far more intense sweetness than a 103 proof bourbon should provide. Still, I can't really give high praise on nose alone, it's good. Taste - This is not the bourbon I remember from my first bottle. You definitely get that there is some older whisky in here. Adding water really helped this one. So with water you start to get some of the sweeter note but some fruity flavors are coming out too. I'm getting a hint of tobacco as I go. This is complex without anything jumping out and over powering the overall rich sweet aged bourbon profile. This is classic bourbon. It isn't nutty, it isn't chocolate, it isn't cinnamon, no mineral notes, no over the top oak. It is those vanillas, caramels, corn, and yes there's an oak note here but it's just classic bourbon oak. It's old enough, there isn't a lot of a "hug" or a bite but it's got a really good mouth feel and great proof. So I'm at a 3.25. A very very sold offering, a bit expensive, but the quality is here. There is a hint of a bitter finish that pushes me from 3.5 to the 3.25. I think the last bottle I had was pushing 4.0.

Batch 7, bottle 334 of 700. Older bottle style, 103 proof. The color is an hue of orange. The nose following a neck pour is light with a whiff of ethanol. There’s toasted oak, stewed peaches with cinnamon, a bit of milk chocolate... pepper, cigar. Oh this hits like water on the back of the tongue with an oily finish. Pecans, vanilla, a bit of heat and then a yeast roll, orange peel and tobacco finish. This is what I’d hoped for! Blasphemous comment incoming - this is what a $200, marked up bottle of Elmer T Lee should taste like. The bright, sweet and oaky palate is complemented by an oily, slightly hot and lingering finish that America’s other light whisky company can’t proof or make enough of. At ~$100 this is not a value per se and would be unaffordable as an every day sipper. I can’t comment on more recent batches but this just does it for me. It’s not the clove, mineral and honey laden Remus from MGP. It’s also not the bold, leathery JM triple cask finish. It’s an entirely different, and truly lighter, more floral/earthy and almost BT-like bottle. Debating running back for another bottle before it’s gone, largely due to bourbon FOMO, my inner tater, and the fact that Elmer T Lee won’t be back in my neck of the woods for some time.

The nose takes the regular Magnus and adds more fruit, removing some of the wet wood. It has a rich and savory presence, but one that is less pronounced than that of the regular Magnus. The palate is quite nice with a big hit of cinnamon and toffee without being too harsh up front. There's a lot of vanilla too, making this really hedonistic. It's very woody with rich dark chocolate notes dancing with red fruit and spice. It lacks the brashness and leather of regular Joseph Magnus, though it also lacks the wet wood (the wet wood really works in the regular Joseph Magnus though). It has more fruit and the vanilla and brown sugar are less present. This tastes more like a (very well executed) standard bourbon than regular Joseph Magnus does. The balance is excellent with just the right amount of tartness. From every direction, this is a wonderful drink. Between the two, I think I slightly prefer regular Joseph Magnus, but this has an amazing balance that slightly surpasses Booker's Shiny Barrel with water added and also beats Booker's Shiny Barrel in complexity. There's a ton going on here, like another evolution from Evan Williams Black to Jim Beam Black to this!