For me, this batch is one of the top best nose to palette bottles I’ve had this year. Every pour I get chocolate covered apples nose and palette and more. It hurts to buy at this price but my area has an influx so I bought 2. Won’t ever taste this bourbon again. It’s a great lucrative market in the bourbon industry and again Nancy has delivered once again. Glad you got a sample and thoroughly enjoyed it. Hope you get your hands on a bottle for msrp. There’s still stock where I live but even I wouldn’t trust a stranger to ship me a bottle. Today’s society is sketch. I wish you the best
Nice review and comparison BB. On a livestream, Nancy Fraley said Cigar Blend batches after 280 are returning to greatness. I am currently on batch 189, and have a batch 267 and 309. I get Apple Strudel all day on the Murray Hill Club Special Release #4. I bought a backup bottle of it. 🥃
I have a batch 282 and it is very very good in my opinion but the MHC special release batch 4 is incredible in mu opinion! One of if not the best bourbons on my shelf!
I just got Bhakta 1928 for $70 (55 w coupons) that is 60% Canadian rye, 30% Calvados, 10% Armagnac. 100proof, light style rye with heavy calvados influence, fairly short finish. Worth what I paid. I like High West finished ryes and this is like a more finish, less rye version of that.
@@bourbonbill The 1928 is a blend, as is their new "Hogsworth", but they also have a 2013 and 2014 bourbon finished in their armagnac casks. Both are great but the 2014 is truly exceptional. They have a 2013 rye finished in their calvados casks, as well.
Literally, was thinking about the Bhakta when I saw these pop up. Basically, a 3rd of the price. I have one - unopened, a safe queen. Maybe I'll pop it !
According to a comment Nancy Fraley left on a Reddit review, the original Cigar Batches were 9 & 18 year MGP finished in armagnac casks with like 5% triple cask blended in (hence they are on the label as finishes). By batch 30, the 9 year MGP was running out and so they incorporated 11 year Barton and some older MGP distillate to continue bottling. Turns out that people really liked the more aged blend, but the plan was always to return to 9 year MGP. By batch 90, they started using less Barton and people assumed it just went "downhill" when really it's just reverting to the original blend. I have one of those older batches (68) and newer batch (261), and they're both great. Batch 68 is 130+ proof but feels less proofy than the 261, which is 117+. MGP stuff seems to always comes off as spice-forward to me. Batch 68 is definitely more earthy, but it's incredibly viscous and complex. So much darker than 261.
That’s quite interesting didn’t know all of that detail. I still stand by the fact that cigar batches are tough for me they vary a lot and the price tag is high which makes them a gamble to me that’s hard to justify
@@bourbonbill Finally found the comment and I have some of my details incorrect form my earlier recollection. Here's that part of her original comment, which was a reply to a review on Reddit: "So, I want to clear up what seems to be some confusion out there. The first 14 batches of Cigar Blend were only made from MGP stock, namely, 9 year old MGP 36% rye Bourbon, together with some 18 year old MGP 21% rye Bourbon. Well, the then owners of Magnus had not bought enough of the 9 year old 36% Bourbon, so we had to buy some stock to bridge the gap until more 9 year old 36% rye Bourbon stock came on line. Thus, JMCB batch #15 was when I first started using some 11 year old Barton's in the blend. I believe that by the batches in the mid-20's, the 9 y.o. MGP was completely out, so the majority of each Cigar Blend between around batch 30 to 97 is Barton's, plus some 20 y.o. MGP. The Barton's was never meant to remain a major component of CB, and was just meant to bridge the gap. By batch #98, I finally had some more 9 year old 36% MGP stock to use, so ever since, I've been using that stock again. And so I've been using less and less of the Barton's ever since, and pretty soon, I will be completely out of it, and the label will eventually go back to saying "distilled in Indiana," and not "distilled in Indiana and KY" as it is now. Also, I've had a lot of people ask me why there is no mention of the use of KY Bourbon on the labels of those early batches from 15 until somewhere around the batches in the 30's. Well, since labels are extremely expensive and are always bought in bulk, the TTB gives distilleries a little leeway to use up the old labels before having to commit to the new labels. Thus, you won't see the "distilled in KY" component on any Cigar Blends between 15 and those 30 something batches, but trust me, I was already putting a fair amount of Barton's into those batches! You can also see that from about the batches in the mid-20's until about 97, the proof just keeps going up and up, until around batch #66 we end up with a proof of 132! Thus, the current batches are actually much closer to the original 14 batches of CB, since these days I'm back to using 9 year old 36% MGP, with a little bit of 16 year old Barton's, and the 20 y.o. MGP as the cherry on top. Thus, your batch #130 is much closer to the original 14 batches than to the batches between 25 and 97. As you noted, I too have heard people say that "any batch after ### has lost it's magic. I can't speak for what people are tasting, but I will say that the new batches are much, much closer to the original 14 batches in both age and components. Maybe folks like the Barton's stock much better than the MGP, although they didn't realize it was Barton's? I don't know, but I do find it very interesting."
Also, I think you're sometimes a little overly preoccupied with the superficialities, like age or finish time, even color before tasting. In terms of finish time, it's pretty easy for the finish to overtake the bourbon and end up tasting more like the barrel spirit than the bourbon itself, hence finishing is often used to cover up bad or young bourbon. I think Nancy approaches it from the vantage point of making sure the original whiskey characteristics are still preserved and the finish serves to add a layer of complexity without overtaking everything. The spiciness of rye stands up to finishes better, hence longer finish times seem to make a much better complement. Or maybe you just like it when the finish is upfront profile and the whiskey is the "depth". That's perfectly ok, but you make it sound sometimes like the shorter finish time is a sneaky "rip off" rather than what the blender intended to achieve when they set out.
That’s a fair point. I like punchy flavors and this MHC has that regardless of finishing time. My problem with shorter finishes is it might not add a lot but it does increase the cost regardless of if it’s aged 1 day or a year so sure maybe they want a subtle finish but that subtle finish is going to cost you more sometimes than a punchier finish would
@@bourbonbill I like punchier, as well. I'm also mindful of what they were trying to do when assessing it. Sometimes it's like you say where it feels like they phoned something in, or it didn't really work and they invested enough into it that they release it anyway even if it's hot garbage. And yes, finishes will always add cost; purchasing barrels, more exceptions and selections within the process, added time in a barrel vs being turned around and sold, new label, etc. I bought this batch for around 200 in a bundle and think it's fantastic. Of course I wish it wasn't this expensive, and this is the only time I would pay for it, but I'm glad to have one. BTW, since you're on Seelbach's, they have a Wayward Cask Calvados and Armagnac on their site, both I couldn't recommend any higher. The proof is significantly more than you would normally find (cask strength) with great age. Amazing brandies for those "punchy flavors". The Armagnac is my favorite bottle I own. Whenever I sip on it, I almost wonder why I buy anything else.
Hey there @bourbonbill and @dneuens, Master Blender Nancy Fraley here. Many thanks @dneuens for helping me explain this! In order to determine how long a cask finish should be, it all depends upon a lot of factors, such as how freshly dumped the casks are, the time of year the whiskey enters into the finishing barrels (winter is usually longer, summer shorter), the age of the finishing cask vs the age of the whiskey to be finished, the tannin profile and other extractives left in both the primary spirit and the finishing casks, the size of the finishing casks, the maturation conditions, etc. All of these things, and many others, will affect the length of finishing time. At Magnus, I've done everything from well over 1 year to a few months based on these considerations (such as formulation of acetic acid, acetaldehyde, acetone, mustiness, etc.). As for the MHC Special Reserve #4, I actually think 4 months was too long a finish, and that at 2 1/2 to 3 months it would have better picked up more of the apple brandy notes rather than the more aggressive toasted oak notes. At any rate, hope this helps to explain the process. It's a very well-considered and thought-out process, although not always perfectly captured as one would hope.
@@whiskeyblenderfraley4235an honor to have you here! I never would have guessed that a shorter finish time would have resulted in a more direct flavor of the finishing barrel you learn something every day! Any comment on how sagamore gets away with 3-4yr finishing in fresh casks? And does rye take finishing better than bourbon in your experience
@@whiskeyblenderfraley4235 Even if it’s not as perfect as you set out to do, the blend is still beautiful and I’m really glad I picked one up! Maybe one day you’ll also release a special cigar blend with more of the aged Barton from those 30-90 batches that’s become legendary. Recently found a batch 68 and love the profile. Also, it's really awesome that you pay attention and communicate with people who try your whiskey. I've seen you comment on many platforms and it's always really informative, transparent, and the candor is refreshing.
May i present a humble take - for $69 you can get a Jack Single Barrel Barrel Proof Rye (green Label) - on the shelf all day long 130-135 proof and drinks 115ish - cannot be beat so long as you like sweet ripe bananas , and lets be honest - who in their right mind doesn't .....
You're not wrong, but the profiles are nowhere near the same. I feel like whenever there's an expensive whiskey being discussed, someone will tout the JDSBBP, and while it's absolutely an impressive value king, it's not really a replacement for everything. Plus, variety is the spice of life. JDSBBPR is good for a certain mood, but the Murray Hill Club Special Release is unique and a good bottle to share with others to both enjoy and discuss. It's impossible not to sound overly pretentious when saying it, but it's a sophisticated sip while JD is punchy & brash.
For me, this batch is one of the top best nose to palette bottles I’ve had this year. Every pour I get chocolate covered apples nose and palette and more. It hurts to buy at this price but my area has an influx so I bought 2. Won’t ever taste this bourbon again. It’s a great lucrative market in the bourbon industry and again Nancy has delivered once again. Glad you got a sample and thoroughly enjoyed it. Hope you get your hands on a bottle for msrp. There’s still stock where I live but even I wouldn’t trust a stranger to ship me a bottle. Today’s society is sketch. I wish you the best
Yeah for sure this is unique in a good way and a hitter glad you got some!
I was lucky enough to get a mirry hill club special release batch 4 and it is absolutly incredible! One of my top bourbons on my shelf
It’s certainly decadent and unique
@bourbonbill I would pay up to 250 for a backup! I really really enjoy it!!!
Whew big spender lol the only bottle that makes my cut for that price in 2024 is the Jacob’s well 211 month
I believe Starlight has a decent Calvados finish and Found North had crazy single barrels finished in Calvados
I haven’t had a starlight I enjoyed yet all taste youthy to me but I could see found north doing it right
Expensive, but one my top finished bourbons this year! Thanks for the review & comparison.
Agree it’s very good stuff
Nice review and comparison BB. On a livestream, Nancy Fraley said Cigar Blend batches after 280 are returning to greatness. I am currently on batch 189, and have a batch 267 and 309. I get Apple Strudel all day on the Murray Hill Club Special Release #4. I bought a backup bottle of it. 🥃
Yeah the MHC is great stuff very different it’s dark yet not oaky haven’t found that elsewhere
I don’t have a channel but samples would be lovely…….
I have a batch 282 and it is very very good in my opinion but the MHC special release batch 4 is incredible in mu opinion! One of if not the best bourbons on my shelf!
Never even heard of Copper Sky so interested in hearing about it!
I hadn’t either it seems they are known for mgp light whiskey but are also doing regular mgp bourbon now
Another good video! When will you be doing barrel pics? I trust your pallet.
Maybe some day right now don’t have that time to commit
This does sound great, but a little out of my price range. Great review sir!
If I had more I’d send you a sample but I drank all of my sample
I just got Bhakta 1928 for $70 (55 w coupons) that is 60% Canadian rye, 30% Calvados, 10% Armagnac. 100proof, light style rye with heavy calvados influence, fairly short finish. Worth what I paid. I like High West finished ryes and this is like a more finish, less rye version of that.
1928 is pretty interesting. I think it makes a fantastic old fashioned more than a neat sipper but it's still pretty good and definitely academic.
Haven’t had any bhakta at all but that’s interesting they were blending in different spirits actually vs finishing in those barrels
@@bourbonbill The 1928 is a blend, as is their new "Hogsworth", but they also have a 2013 and 2014 bourbon finished in their armagnac casks. Both are great but the 2014 is truly exceptional. They have a 2013 rye finished in their calvados casks, as well.
@@dneuensthose sound good I’ll have to keep me eyes peeled if I see any bhakta
Literally, was thinking about the Bhakta when I saw these pop up. Basically, a 3rd of the price. I have one - unopened, a safe queen. Maybe I'll pop it !
Nice review! I love all Murray Hill Club and the special release #4 was no exception and was absolutely delicious! Thanks for the video~ ✌
Absolutely the is was a stellar release from them no doubt
According to a comment Nancy Fraley left on a Reddit review, the original Cigar Batches were 9 & 18 year MGP finished in armagnac casks with like 5% triple cask blended in (hence they are on the label as finishes). By batch 30, the 9 year MGP was running out and so they incorporated 11 year Barton and some older MGP distillate to continue bottling. Turns out that people really liked the more aged blend, but the plan was always to return to 9 year MGP. By batch 90, they started using less Barton and people assumed it just went "downhill" when really it's just reverting to the original blend. I have one of those older batches (68) and newer batch (261), and they're both great. Batch 68 is 130+ proof but feels less proofy than the 261, which is 117+. MGP stuff seems to always comes off as spice-forward to me. Batch 68 is definitely more earthy, but it's incredibly viscous and complex. So much darker than 261.
That’s quite interesting didn’t know all of that detail. I still stand by the fact that cigar batches are tough for me they vary a lot and the price tag is high which makes them a gamble to me that’s hard to justify
@@bourbonbill Finally found the comment and I have some of my details incorrect form my earlier recollection. Here's that part of her original comment, which was a reply to a review on Reddit:
"So, I want to clear up what seems to be some confusion out there. The first 14 batches of Cigar Blend were only made from MGP stock, namely, 9 year old MGP 36% rye Bourbon, together with some 18 year old MGP 21% rye Bourbon. Well, the then owners of Magnus had not bought enough of the 9 year old 36% Bourbon, so we had to buy some stock to bridge the gap until more 9 year old 36% rye Bourbon stock came on line. Thus, JMCB batch #15 was when I first started using some 11 year old Barton's in the blend. I believe that by the batches in the mid-20's, the 9 y.o. MGP was completely out, so the majority of each Cigar Blend between around batch 30 to 97 is Barton's, plus some 20 y.o. MGP. The Barton's was never meant to remain a major component of CB, and was just meant to bridge the gap.
By batch #98, I finally had some more 9 year old 36% MGP stock to use, so ever since, I've been using that stock again. And so I've been using less and less of the Barton's ever since, and pretty soon, I will be completely out of it, and the label will eventually go back to saying "distilled in Indiana," and not "distilled in Indiana and KY" as it is now.
Also, I've had a lot of people ask me why there is no mention of the use of KY Bourbon on the labels of those early batches from 15 until somewhere around the batches in the 30's. Well, since labels are extremely expensive and are always bought in bulk, the TTB gives distilleries a little leeway to use up the old labels before having to commit to the new labels. Thus, you won't see the "distilled in KY" component on any Cigar Blends between 15 and those 30 something batches, but trust me, I was already putting a fair amount of Barton's into those batches! You can also see that from about the batches in the mid-20's until about 97, the proof just keeps going up and up, until around batch #66 we end up with a proof of 132!
Thus, the current batches are actually much closer to the original 14 batches of CB, since these days I'm back to using 9 year old 36% MGP, with a little bit of 16 year old Barton's, and the 20 y.o. MGP as the cherry on top. Thus, your batch #130 is much closer to the original 14 batches than to the batches between 25 and 97.
As you noted, I too have heard people say that "any batch after ### has lost it's magic. I can't speak for what people are tasting, but I will say that the new batches are much, much closer to the original 14 batches in both age and components. Maybe folks like the Barton's stock much better than the MGP, although they didn't realize it was Barton's? I don't know, but I do find it very interesting."
Was given a tip on this when it dropped at VA ABC several months ago, could've bought one for msrp but it was just a little too steep.
Yeah it’s super solid and interesting but it is steep no doubt about that
I got 2 bottles in VA but have not opened one yet...maybe during the winter Holidays
Also, I think you're sometimes a little overly preoccupied with the superficialities, like age or finish time, even color before tasting. In terms of finish time, it's pretty easy for the finish to overtake the bourbon and end up tasting more like the barrel spirit than the bourbon itself, hence finishing is often used to cover up bad or young bourbon. I think Nancy approaches it from the vantage point of making sure the original whiskey characteristics are still preserved and the finish serves to add a layer of complexity without overtaking everything. The spiciness of rye stands up to finishes better, hence longer finish times seem to make a much better complement. Or maybe you just like it when the finish is upfront profile and the whiskey is the "depth". That's perfectly ok, but you make it sound sometimes like the shorter finish time is a sneaky "rip off" rather than what the blender intended to achieve when they set out.
That’s a fair point. I like punchy flavors and this MHC has that regardless of finishing time. My problem with shorter finishes is it might not add a lot but it does increase the cost regardless of if it’s aged 1 day or a year so sure maybe they want a subtle finish but that subtle finish is going to cost you more sometimes than a punchier finish would
@@bourbonbill I like punchier, as well. I'm also mindful of what they were trying to do when assessing it. Sometimes it's like you say where it feels like they phoned something in, or it didn't really work and they invested enough into it that they release it anyway even if it's hot garbage.
And yes, finishes will always add cost; purchasing barrels, more exceptions and selections within the process, added time in a barrel vs being turned around and sold, new label, etc. I bought this batch for around 200 in a bundle and think it's fantastic. Of course I wish it wasn't this expensive, and this is the only time I would pay for it, but I'm glad to have one.
BTW, since you're on Seelbach's, they have a Wayward Cask Calvados and Armagnac on their site, both I couldn't recommend any higher. The proof is significantly more than you would normally find (cask strength) with great age. Amazing brandies for those "punchy flavors". The Armagnac is my favorite bottle I own. Whenever I sip on it, I almost wonder why I buy anything else.
Hey there @bourbonbill and @dneuens, Master Blender Nancy Fraley here. Many thanks @dneuens for helping me explain this! In order to determine how long a cask finish should be, it all depends upon a lot of factors, such as how freshly dumped the casks are, the time of year the whiskey enters into the finishing barrels (winter is usually longer, summer shorter), the age of the finishing cask vs the age of the whiskey to be finished, the tannin profile and other extractives left in both the primary spirit and the finishing casks, the size of the finishing casks, the maturation conditions, etc. All of these things, and many others, will affect the length of finishing time. At Magnus, I've done everything from well over 1 year to a few months based on these considerations (such as formulation of acetic acid, acetaldehyde, acetone, mustiness, etc.). As for the MHC Special Reserve #4, I actually think 4 months was too long a finish, and that at 2 1/2 to 3 months it would have better picked up more of the apple brandy notes rather than the more aggressive toasted oak notes. At any rate, hope this helps to explain the process. It's a very well-considered and thought-out process, although not always perfectly captured as one would hope.
@@whiskeyblenderfraley4235an honor to have you here! I never would have guessed that a shorter finish time would have resulted in a more direct flavor of the finishing barrel you learn something every day! Any comment on how sagamore gets away with 3-4yr finishing in fresh casks? And does rye take finishing better than bourbon in your experience
@@whiskeyblenderfraley4235 Even if it’s not as perfect as you set out to do, the blend is still beautiful and I’m really glad I picked one up! Maybe one day you’ll also release a special cigar blend with more of the aged Barton from those 30-90 batches that’s become legendary. Recently found a batch 68 and love the profile.
Also, it's really awesome that you pay attention and communicate with people who try your whiskey. I've seen you comment on many platforms and it's always really informative, transparent, and the candor is refreshing.
Bill is smoking crack that special release 4 is amazing!!!
Haha I said it was great stuff. Price is high but it’s good stuff
Wasn't there a Blood Oath finished in Calvados ? or Maybe Yellowstone Ltd ....
Blood oath yes there was I think pact 6 or 7 but didn’t have any to compare
May i present a humble take - for $69 you can get a Jack Single Barrel Barrel Proof Rye (green Label) - on the shelf all day long 130-135 proof and drinks 115ish - cannot be beat so long as you like sweet ripe bananas , and lets be honest - who in their right mind doesn't .....
Hahaha I do love me the JDSBBP rye
You're not wrong, but the profiles are nowhere near the same. I feel like whenever there's an expensive whiskey being discussed, someone will tout the JDSBBP, and while it's absolutely an impressive value king, it's not really a replacement for everything. Plus, variety is the spice of life. JDSBBPR is good for a certain mood, but the Murray Hill Club Special Release is unique and a good bottle to share with others to both enjoy and discuss. It's impossible not to sound overly pretentious when saying it, but it's a sophisticated sip while JD is punchy & brash.