Month: March 2022

Welcome back, folks! We come now to the end of the 2022 contest. Eight bourbons entered the arena. Four have fallen by the wayside. There have been some delicious treats and there have been some real stinkers. Let’s see how it all ends and see if we’ve learned anything along the way. First, we have the Round Two matchups.

Division 1: Arctic Mama (Evan Williams Bottled in Bond) vs Giant Charmer (Four Roses)

Thoughts: Giant Charmer has a nicer nose. Nothing wrong with Arctic Mama, but Giant Charmer is fruity and creamy which I really like in a bourbon. Arctic Mama is spicy on the mouth with notes of caramel and vanilla. Giant Charmer is spicy on the mouth with notes of mint and fruit. Arctic Mama has a nicer finish, showing lots of baking spice. Arctic Mama (Evan Williams Bottled in Bond) advances on the strength of that lovely finish.

Division 2: Fire Pirate (Banker's Club) vs. Quark Juggler (Evan Williams 1783)

Thoughts: The nose on Fire Pirate initially presented more grain notes and Quark Juggler initially presented more spice, but after a moment they both settled in and became very similar. Fire Pirate has a thinner mouthfeel and shows more grains notes. Quark Juggler is spicier and sweeter with a nicer mouthfeel and finish. Quark Juggler (Evan Williams 1783) advances to the Championship. Nothing wrong with Fire Pirate though. Nothing at all.

Championship Round: Quark Juggler (Evan Williams 1783) vs. Arctic Mama (Evan Williams Bottled in Bond)

The noses are very similar with Quark Juggler being slightly mintier while Arctic Mama is slightly fruitier. Arctic Mama is fruity and spicy on the mouth. Quark Juggler shows a lot of baking spice and some mint on the mouth. Arctic Mama wins a squeaker. It is a very well-rounded bourbon whereas Quark Juggler seems more focused on the spice. Both are very tasty and either would be an easy winner against other competition.

Congrats to Arctic Mama! Evan Williams Bottled in Bond is the 2022 Bottom-Shelf Champion!

Lessons Learned:

This was an interesting contest for me. When I decided to set myself the restriction to only include bourbons that were sold by the handle and only for less than $35, I eliminated a lot of the usual candidates. There was nothing from Buffalo Trace, Sazerac did have one entry in Colonel Lee, but it certainly isn’t one of their best offerings. Beam only offered Old Crow in the price/format needed for this contest. All their Jim Beam branded offerings were too pricy in this market. Same with Wild Turkey. Usually I’d be able to at least get the 81 proof release, but it was not in stock at the stores that carry it at a low enough price.

All that left me scrambling to fill four slots. I was in the process of rethinking this crazy plan—which I really only implemented because I found a handle of the new 1783 on sale for $29.99 and I wanted all the bottles the same size so the photos would look better—when I wandered into Total Wine and decided that I could probably take a look at a few items that I really could only find there. So I ended up with four contestants that I’d never before included in the contest and three that I’d never even tasted before. That kind of thing is fun for me. At least before the first sips.

So what did I learn about each of these?

With Evan Williams Bottled in Bond and Evan Williams 1783 meeting in the Championship, they prove once again that if you are looking for inexpensive bourbon, grab a Heaven Hill product. You have the best odds of getting something really tasty for not a lot of money with them.

Four Roses finally got out of the first round on their fourth try. I really like their “Beige Label” standard bourbon, but when you put it head to head with other products in the price range they are hampered by their signature mellowness. On it’s own? Delicious. But put it against a Bonded bourbon and it just can’t compete. You better believe that I’m still going to finish the handle though.

McFarlane’s Reserve lost in the only upset. And that was a huge surprise for me. For the price, I expected more. I honestly don’t understand the description that it got from my buddy Fred Minnick. In a completely blind tasting, I thought it was the worst thing in the contest. It pains me to dump a $35 handle, but there is now way this is going back in my mouth. I even liked the TerrePURE entry better.

And speaking of the TerrePURE entry, let’s skip ahead to Winchester. This was one that I hesitated on including. It claims to be a straight bourbon, but much like the conversation around flavored bourbons and their status as even being a bourbon, does the TerrePURE process constitute “flavoring” (thus disqualifying it as even being a bourbon, much less a straight bourbon)? But then, I figured I was overthinking things. If they got it approved as straight bourbon, and they want to compete with straight bourbons, then who am I to let keep them out of a silly little contest on a small whiskey blog? To the surprise of no one in this house, when the winners of each contest were revealed, Winchester didn’t make it out of the first round. It was just too unpleasant, minty and…weird.

I learned nothing from Old Crow. The last time I included it in the contest, I stated that I would never buy it again…I should have stuck with that philosophy because I’m probably dumping this bottle too. When I said: “if you had never had bourbon, had it described for you by someone who didn't like it, and then tried to make a bourbon using only their description as a guide, you would make this bourbon” I think I was being generous.

As long as we are on the topic of bottles to be dumped, let’s look at Colonel Lee. I like bourbons from Barton. I like all of their flagships. Very Old Barton and 1792 are very tasty bourbons. But Colonel Lee is just bad. Not as bad as Mc Farlane’s Reserve or Old Crow, but not much better either. At least Colonel Lee tastes like bourbon, bad bourbon, but still bourbon. It might taste like the bourbon you take multiple rounds of shots of just before bar close, but that is still bourbon. Old Crow merely resembled bourbon and McFarlane’s Reserve tasted like buttered raisins…that’s not a bourbon flavor.

So now the final, and the most surprising, contestant: Banker’s Club Bourbon. Banker’s Club is a line of spirits sold by Laird’s (the AppleJack people). It has gin, vodka, bourbon, etc in the line. Think of it like a Seagram’s, Mr. Boston, or Fleischmann’s line. Some of everything, none of it high-end enough to be worthy of its own brand name. Banker’s Club was the least expensive entry in the contest. In fact, it is the least expensive entry in the nine years we have been doing this contest. You’d have to round up to make one cent per milliliter. That’s a very inexpensive bourbon. And it’s decent. Not like, drink- it-neat-in-a-Glencairn decent. But certainly throw-it-in-a-whiskey-sour or use-it-with-coke decent. Heck I won’t be dumping the bottle. I’ll probably mix it with higher proof and more flavorful bourbons to make them last longer. I’m super impressed with this one.

Overall this was a fun contest. It ended up right about where I would have guessed and I got a few surprises along the way. And heck I even like trying bad bourbon once in a while. It’s fun to know what not to buy too. Though, with three of dumpable bourbons in the mix this time around, I’m thinking that I’ll be happy to switch to tasting the top-shelf Barton and Heaven Hill samples that have been stacking up while the contest has been running.

Once again congrats to Heaven Hill and their Arctic Mama, Evan Williams Bottled in Bond!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, maybe you’d like to buy me a cup of coffee in return. Go to ko-fi.com/bourbonguy to support. And thank you, BourbonGuy.com is solely supported via your generosity.

Of course, if you want to support BourbonGuy.com and get a little something back in return, you can always head over to BourbonGuyGifts.com and purchase some merch. I’ve made tasting journals, stickers, pins, and more.