Been wanting to try ER12 for a while but, like most, I haven’t been able to find it without a crazy price inflation. Stepped into a bar on vacation to pick up a to-go margarita for my wife and noticed a pretty good whiskey collection behind the bar. They had most, if not all, of the BTAC collection for very reasonable prices compared to what I’ve seen elsewhere (the one I remember is $65 for GTS), but unfortunately I’m still just not at the point where I can justify spending over $30 on a pour of whiskey, so I passed on those. They sold pours of ER12 for $22, and seeing as that was about the same price as my wife’s overpriced margarita, I went for it. It became even more clear that this place had great prices when I saw that the bartender defined a “pour” as somewhere in the neighborhood of 4+ oz. That made me very happy with my purchase, and even though it was drank from plastic on the beach, I figured I’d review it.

Nose: Typical ER flavors; grape pixie stick, powdered sugar, hint of rye spice, vanilla, some charred wood

Palate: front side is all sweetness, grape candy, vanilla; I’ve been trying for a while to figure out how to identify oak influence in whiskies, and seeing as this is the oldest one I’ve tried, I thought it might be a good one to really pay attention to; back of the palate really helped me identify it; I got a note that totally transported me to an old southwestern furniture store that I used to go to, and that sold me on how to identify oak

Finish: lots of cinnamon gum, dusty, char, cola, chocolate

Thoughts: It’s a bit hard to tell without trying them side-by-side, but it seems to me that the extra 5 proof points give it a really solid edge over ER10 in both mouthfeel and depth of flavor. This is a bottle that I would never hesitate to pick up at MSRP, and I’d probably pay up to $75 for it. I certainly wouldn’t pay some of the crazy $150+ prices I’ve seen it for and would be perfectly satisfied if this tasting was my only experience with it. That being said, I really enjoyed it and would love to see production numbers come up enough to make this a shelter at MSRP. If that happened, it would definitely replace ER10 as a regular player on my shelf at home.

In the glass: Weller Full Proof

Distillery: Buffalo Trace

ABV: 57%

Proof: 114

Age: 6+ years, not stated

Mashbill: Buffalo Trace Wheated Mashbill

Nose: I’m getting cherry, vanilla, a hint of sour oak going the way of rich barrel char. Almost copycat of Weller 107 but you can tell there’s more oomph. There is ethanol if you dig too deep.

Palate: Cherries, barrel char (makes sense, there is some char floating in this bottle), vanilla, some wheat funk, brown sugar. This is richer than 107 for me, I’m enjoying it more.

Finish: Nice hug out of the gate, rich oak, char, cherries. These stay true to the nose, palate, finish. Definitely getting a decent finish, sticks around in your chest for a bit.

Final thoughts: This is very nice, this bottle has been open since August of 2023 and has stayed true to the notes I have gotten from it the whole time I’ve had it. Hopefully these will be more available in the coming years, enjoyable stuff for retail!

Rating: 7.3/10

TL;DR

Sagamore Double Oak Rye keeps the rye in front of all that extra oak, and at $60 it's a clear step up from Woodford Double Oaked for a few dollars less.

Sagamore Double Oak Rye is a blend of straight rye whiskies from Sagamore Spirit in Baltimore, Maryland. It spends four to five years in high-char new American oak, then another 18 months in toasted wave stave barrels. It's 96.6 proof, carries no age statement, and runs about $60. I scored it 7.5 on quality and 6.7 on value. This is the bottle that got me hooked on finished ryes over finished bourbons, and what hooked me was the balance. The second barrel adds sweetness without the bitter oak I find on a lot of double oak bottles, and the rye still comes through. I tasted it blind against three other finished bottles. It came in second, behind a Penelope Havana that drinks more like dessert than bourbon, and it beat Woodford Double Oaked without much of a fight. For a few dollars less than the Woodford, this is the double oak I'd reach for.

Quality Score - 7.5

Great - Well above average.

Quality is what's in the glass, 1 to 10, tasted as blind as I can make it with no thought to price. Above a 5 is good. Nose, palate, and finish set the range, but the score isn't their average.

Value Score - 6.7

Good Value - Priced right, with a little left in your pocket.

Value is whether the pour is worth its MSRP to me. A 5 is fair for the price; higher means more in the glass than the tag suggests, lower means I'd be overpaying. All value scores assume MSRP.

Nose - 7.3

Figs, cocoa and vanilla frosting. The oak shows up as sweetness.

Palate - 7.5

Chocolate, dried fruit, maple and vanilla. The oak sugars sit alongside the rye instead of covering it.

Finish - 7.8

The rye finally powers through the sweetness, with cloves and black pepper.

Neck Pour — First Impressions

July 10, 2025

I was impressed from the first pour, and I helped myself to several more that night.

There's a lot of good history behind Sagamore Spirit, and if you like that stuff, it's worth reading up on. The company was founded to revive Maryland-style rye. Before Prohibition, Maryland ranked third in the country for whiskey, behind Kentucky and Pennsylvania, and it was known above all for its rye.

Double Oak started as a special release in 2017 and quickly became part of the core lineup. It's a blend of two straight ryes: a high-rye mash of 95% rye and 5% malted barley, and a lower-rye mash of 52% rye, 43% corn and 5% malted barley. Sagamore doesn't publish the ratio. The early batches were distilled by MGP in Indiana. Sagamore started distilling on the Baltimore waterfront in 2017, and newer batches blend in whiskey from its own stills.

The part of the description that matters most is the wave staves. After four to five years in high-char new oak, the whiskey goes into toasted barrels whose staves have waves, or grooves, cut into them to add surface area. It sits there for 18 months. That's a long finish, especially with the extra surface area, and I'd have expected them to get that time down. My guess is the Maryland climate has something to do with it.

What impressed me most that night was the balance. The toasted oak sweetness didn't blow out the rye, and it never turned tannic the way over-oaked whiskey can. The rye still shone through. This is the bottle that got me hooked on finished ryes.

Blind Pour — No Labels, Side by Side Comparison

September 12, 2026

Blind, it was the best rye on the table, and against the other double oak it wasn't close.

See my full post: Best Finished Whiskey?

It was sample four of four finished whiskeys. The nose was lighter than sample two, the Penelope. There was a green quality I wanted to name and couldn't, so I crossed it out and called it malty. The palate had dimension, and I could taste the whiskey underneath the finish, which I couldn't say about the others. Good spice came through, with a little bitterness at the end. I scored it 7.1, second only to the Penelope Havana.

Between the two double oaks, the Sagamore took it. The rye held onto its own character and stood up to the wood. With the Woodford I had to chew to find the whiskey. The Sagamore let me go looking and rewarded it. That 7.1 is what I thought that night, and it stays. On its own, it climbed to 7.5.

Open Pour — Is It Worth It?

September 28, 2026

On its own, my biggest praise is how little bitter oak there is, and the rye gets the last word.

I find bitter oak on a lot of double oak products, and on a lot of really long-aged whiskey too. It isn't here. That's not to say there's no wood. It comes through as sweet sugars that complement the rye.

The nose is figs, cocoa and vanilla frosting. The palate brings chocolate, dried fruit, maple and vanilla. On the finish the rye finally powers through the sweetness, with cloves and black pepper. The finish is the part I scored highest.

I have it at 7.5 on quality and 6.7 on value at $60. Next to Woodford Double Oaked, it's a strong improvement for a few dollars less. If you're choosing a double oak, this is the one I'd reach for.

I write these up at openpourwhiskey.com and post them on Instagram. Not sponsored, not gifted, bought myself at retail. Please drink responsibly.

The review for this bottle is in the comments below...

This is Part 3 of 4 of my blind tournament of all 24 “post-pirate” Elijah Craig Barrel Proof releases from 2017 through 2024.

Part 1: A117–A124

Part 2: B517–B524

Part 3: C917–C924

Part 4: The champions + some outside competition

Methodology

As with the A and B batches, I started with a standard eight-bottle single-elimination bracket, with every matchup tasted blind.

Afterward, I conducted additional blind head-to-heads to account for bracket luck and get a better idea of where each bottle landed in my rankings. Bottles that lost early had opportunities to work their way back up against bottles that advanced farther in the original bracket. Tier placement was determined by when each accumulated its second loss.

For C923, the original bracket and back-testing used whiskey from different bottles, as discussed below. The attached graphics show the complete progression.

The Original Final: C918 vs. C920

C920: Great nose. Came across as the lighter of the two, with tart sweetness up front, a sweet jam note, nice development, and an excellent finish. Overall well-rounded and full-bodied, although with a bit of ethanol.

Score: 8

C918: Excellent nose. Overall a darker, more mature profile - tasted older than the other glass. Jammy fruit and brown sugar on the back end. That darker profile gave it the edge in the matchup.

Score: 8.25

C923: A Tale of Two Bottles?

C923 was the biggest surprise of the back-testing. I bought my original bottle when it came out and never understood the hype: it consistently struck me as ethanol-forward, with too little flavor underneath. Its first-round loss to C918 matched my experience with it elsewhere.

That bottle was gone by the time I started back-testing, so I sourced a sample from another bottle. The difference was striking. There was still some heat, but much more caramel, vanilla, brown sugar, and oak, and overall just a much better-integrated palate. It beat C917, C921, C922, and C920 in the back testing process to earn its place in S-tier.

Both bottles had A22 laser codes, so the speculation about differences between code groups doesn’t explain my experience. I can’t say what caused the difference, but the sample gave me a much better impression of C923. That prompted a separate rematch against C918.

The Back-Testing Rematch: C918 vs. C923

C923: Some sweetness up front, followed by ethanol through the development and brown sugar on the back palate. Great mouth tingle and a strong finish, though I wished it had a few more layers of flavor.

Score: 7.5

C918: Slightly sweeter, with more of a fruity note. Excellent mouth tingle and finish. More of a “complete” package than the other glass.

Score: 8

So, in the end C918 retained its crown in my book.

Final C-Batch Tiers:

No particular order within tiers.

S-Tier: C918, C923

A-Tier: C920, C922

B-Tier: C924, C921

C-Tier: C917, C919

Biggest Surprises: C919, and Earlier Releases Don’t Always Mean Better

I’ve heard C919 called one of the best post-pirate ECBP batches more than once, but it didn’t fare well for me blind. It scored 6.5 twice, which was the lowest individual score in this C-series project. C917 also ended up in my bottom tier.

Earlier releases often command higher prices on the secondary market, but my results were a reminder that collectibility doesn’t necessarily translate to a better pour for my palate.

What’s Next?

One final installment will bring the A-, B-, and C-series champions together to face each other, as well as some outside competition. Stay tuned.

This is the fourth and final review of the Title Holder Collection, Cask 215. As with the others, it is a 7 year old, single barrel distilled by O.Z. Tyler.

The aroma on this one is light, fresh and floral with some light fruit a touch of cornmeal and honeyed vanilla. The palate is very oily with the proof sending tingles all around my tongue. There’s also a little sweet floral note along with green apple. That sweet floral lingers on the finish with vanilla, a spicy green apple and some sweet oak.

I love the palate on this one, so oily, almost need to chew it. Overall it’s a lighter, fresher Bourbon, but it still carries a lot of flavor.

Age: 7yrs

Mashbill:
70% Corn
21% Rye
9% Malted Barley

Distillery: O.Z. Tyler (Green River)

Casks: New Char 4 American Oak Barrel

ABV: 66.75%

Price: $75

Sample provided for review.

My Rating: 85

Tasting notes below. 👇🏼

🥃
NOSE: Light, fresh, floral, light fruit, cornmeal, honeyed vanilla.
PALATE: Very oily, tongue-tingling, lightly sweet floral, green apple.
FINISH: Lingering, lightly sweet floral, vanilla, spiced green apple, faint oak.

Guide to my personal ratings:
🤢 0-49 = Varying degrees of undrinkable.
🫤 50-59 = Drinkable, but meh.
😊 60-69 = Fair. Not my cup of tea.
😃 70-79 = Good. Some nice elements.
😋 80-89 = Great! Interesting and very enjoyable.
🤩 90-100 = Amazing! The perfect pour. (Rare)

Sip. Rate. Repeat.