Three Chord 12 Year Twelve Bar Reserve Barrel Proof

Reviewing Batch 0001 of this product. Smooth, milky-textured bourbon with a punch of heat. Since I last reviewed this, I feel like the bourbon market has changed significantly, and It's hard to think of a better value in bourbon on paper: $66 for a 12-year-old, barrel proof, small batch (according to the website, batches are about 600 bottles at a time - which makes me guess around four barrel batches, so really small) bourbon. Of course, value on paper doesn't always equate to the best tastes. First, although this is barrel proof, it is a low barrel proof at 107. Second, this is sourced from Tennessee and Kentucky, before being blended and finished (using sound waves???) in Michigan. Leaving the sounds waves gimmick aside, there's still some Dickel that comes through, and that may be a deal breaker for many. Finally, the flavor just is not as complex as I might expect from something with this age and proof. It's a smooth drinker, but it's a little one note throughout. It lacks complexity. I get a good bit of dry peanut, with light notes of caramel and vanilla, finishing with some pleasant spice (that I also associate with Dickel products). I wrote that this was a caramel bomb in my last review, but I'm not getting that anymore. The overwhelming quality of this for me is smoothness in the front with a peppery finish in the back. Bottom line, I think it might be worth the price they're charging, and I think it's definitely worth a taste if you ever get a chance - especially if you don't mind Dickel and you like a brighter, less deep, less oaky, smooth drinker. This could benefit from deeper, richer notes, but it's still a fine smooth sipper. Side note, the low "barrel proof" also has me wondering if there is something else going on that we aren't being told about - the website says "We do not use water in the blending of Twelve Bar Reserve. In and out of the cask, Twelve Bar Reserve is the same 107 proof." Because it seems unlikely that the proof is the exact same going into and out of the casks unless the time period is short, and because there are a lot of ambiguous allusions to some type of secondary wood process with charring and integration using music: Is it possible that the sourced whiskey is watered down then re-barreled briefly? Would that allow them to get away with saying that it's barrel proof as far as the second barrel is concerned?

I did a 12-Year Side-by-Side Showdown between Elijah Craig 12, 1792 Twelve Year, Three Chord Twelve Bar, and Weller 12 From first to last, I came out 1. EC12 (7.5/10) 2. 1792 12 year (6.5/10) 3. Three Chord Twelve Bar (6.5/10) 4. Weller 12 (6/10) EC12: Far and away my favorite pour of the bunch. Not necessarily the most complex, but probably the pour that best exemplified "this just works." Everything came together in a wonderful package that sipped well and was easily enjoyed. Sweet cream with a touch of fruitiness, notes of butterscotch, and an appreciable amount of grassy spice. What lingered in the finish was mostly dry peanut and, ever so slightly, raw sugar candy. Sadly, this is also the hardest pour to get more of. 1792: It was a real toss-up between this and the Three Chord. I needed another pour of each to make a decision. Oily, earthy, hints of tobacco, something almost bitter, noticeable amount of charred oak, dusty leather. In the finish, there was dry peanut powder (more like PB2 than real peanut) and a slightly sour note. There was a hint of something almost savory, like barbecue. Twelve chord: highest proof, most peanut, dry medicinal herbal notes, some caramel, vanilla, and brown sugar. Despite being the highest proof by a good bit, it didn't drink noticeably hotter than any of the others. Maybe the least complex/ most one note. I wish there was more depth and complexity. W12: The worst by a small-but-non-trivial margin. It was the smoothest of the bunch, in that it had the least bite and spice - which makes sense because it's also the lowest proof and there's no rye in the mash bill. However, in what I could taste, there were off-putting notes that were highlighted by the side-by-side format - cheap bubble gum being the worst. The whole thing felt like it was at conflict with itself: thinness in the mouthfeel (too low proof), too much char (from the age), clove, and an unpleasant bubble gum/strawberry banana (a common byproduct of wheat in the mash bill but more pronounced in the side-by-side format). There was also fake strawberry Nesquik in the finish that lingered and lingered. I had to go rinse with water and come back, and it was better thereafter: a touch of maple sugar.

Decided to give this one a go to support home state distillers. At least the bottle looks cool so it has that going for it. Nose is very sweet almost like fresh pecan sticky buns. First sip is heavy on brown sugar and vanilla with a slight rye character. Surprisingly smooth for such a strong proof. Price is a bit too high on this one as it doesn't hold up against ECBP, but it is a nice entry from a newer distillery.

Letting it open after a neck pour and evaluating after a third pour about 3 weeks later. Initial smell is of leather and oak with a hint of caramel. Tasting it yields a warm but slightly nutty taste, with a slight hint of caramel in the middle taste. Ends with a bit of extra warm leather and caramel finish. It’s a decent sipper neat or with ice, but there are better choices out there in this price range.

The nose has balanced and pleasant notes of maple, caramel, vanilla, with a touch of salt, grapefruit and oak. The palate opens with salted caramel on top of maple and vanilla, and is very mouth coating, with touches of oak and pepper coming out. The finish is long and peppery with fading oak and caramel. Delicious.

Surprisingly good. A viscous, rich caramel bomb that is probably worth $60-$65. As someone who prefers a less spicy bourbon, I like this better than ECBP. I haven't had the standard Three Chord, but this is a great barrel proof offering that is perfect at it's 107 proof