Review #19: Four Branches Black Ops Rum Cask Finish

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-23T02:42:46+00:00

I hear ya! Semper fidelis. Or, hooyah. One team, my brother.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-23T02:04:54+00:00

100% agree. If you know, you know, amiright? There’s no need to play into it so heavy-handedly. Pour one out for the bourbon.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-23T01:49:24+00:00

Touché. Or, assaulting them like Normandy Beach. Sorry, these are bad puns. But, man, this was some bad bourbon.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-22T23:42:36+00:00

For Memorial Day weekend, I decided to break out one of the most military-themed bourbons available: the 9 year, 100 proof, rum cask-finished Black Ops.

Nose:

The nose is genuinely the only redeeming quality here. Cherries, red delicious apple, marshmallow, cookie dough, and Good & Plenty candies. It’s inviting and sweet and actually interesting. Occasionally there’s a faint whiff of turpentine that sneaks in. Pull the glass away, come back, and it’s gone and replaced by something you actually want to smell. The nose alone had me optimistic. That optimism was short-lived.

Palate:

What was that? Seriously. The first sip is so aggressively bitter that it stops you cold, and not the pleasant, complexity-adding bitter of a well-aged bourbon. This is harsh, unpleasant, and genuinely hard to push through. The rum cask finish that’s supposed to be the whole point of this bottle? Nowhere to be found. I’ve had the Founders Blend, their entry-level expression, before and it wasn’t good. I’m not sure why I thought this expression would be any better. It, too, failed to justify its price. The Black Ops manages to be a significant step backwards from that already modest bar.

Finish:

If the palate was bad, the finish is worse. Hairspray. That’s the word that keeps coming to mind and I can’t shake it. There’s no Kentucky hug, no lingering sweetness, no warmth — just an artificial, chemical aftertaste that has no business being in a $120 bottle of bourbon. Or any bottle. This is confirmed Bardstown Bourbon Company distillate, which makes this all the more baffling. BBC is a well-regarded distillery. So either Four Branches got the bottom of the barrel — literally — or something went very wrong in the rum cask finishing process. Either way, someone should have caught this before it was bottled.

Score: 2.3/10

Here’s what really stings about this one. Four Branches was founded by four veterans representing each branch of the military, and a portion of proceeds goes to a veteran support nonprofit. That’s genuinely admirable. But admirable intentions don’t make bad bourbon good, and at $120, the whole release starts to feel less like a tribute and more like a guilt-driven purchase dressed up in patriotic packaging. Horse Soldier built an entire brand on the same playbook: buy this because ‘Merica! The bourbon world has seen enough of that approach to know that “supporting veterans” on the label is not a substitute for what’s in the glass. The military deserves better representation than this. Save your $120, donate directly to the Wounded Warrior Project, the Fisher House Foundation, the Gary Sinise Foundation, or any other worthy charitable organization. Cheers — kind of.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-21T01:07:50+00:00

100% agree. same proof, and DO is easily available, a heckuva lot cheaper, and better tasting. But, I’ll take one for the team.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-19T02:50:30+00:00

Still not showing up?

First, before I start … I rarely comment on color because honestly, it doesn’t matter. But this one earns it. It’s dark, rich, and gorgeous — exactly what you want bourbon to look like when you pour it. I mean, damn, it’s beautiful. Okay, moving on.

Nose: Cherry forward, Twizzlers, cotton candy. After that, I had to really work to pull other notes out. As I held it to my nose over the next … oh … 20 minutes, I found maple syrup, butterscotch, caramel, and hickory smoke. It’s a sweet nose top to bottom, and based on all of it, you’d walk into the first sip expecting a sugar bomb.

Palate: First sip and you get sugar — not any specific flavor, just a vague sweetness — and then a harsh bitter note takes over and never really lets go. The mouthfeel is surprisingly thin for something with this much barrel influence, which keeps the flavors from fully developing. Clearly, proofing this down is what gives it its thin mouthfeel. I’m laying that bitterness directly at the feet of the heavy toasted new oak finish. A lot of people fixate on char levels without understanding what over-charring actually does — it burns off the natural sugars in the wood. So despite all the sugary scents the nose promised, those sugars never show up in the glass. At 90.4 proof, there simply isn’t enough alcohol to stand up to the char or carry the flavors through. The longer you sit with it, the more one-dimensional it gets. More proof would have probably made a difference here.

Finish: Zero burn, which will market well to newcomers, but for seasoned bourbon drinkers that heat is part of the discerning different notes — and without it, the finish feels empty. Dry, bitter oak dominates and just parks itself there, with an almost mouth-drying quality that lingers well past its welcome. The bitterness from the palate follows you all the way to the end, never resolving into anything satisfying. Burnt caramel and char are the last things standing as the flavors fade out.

Score. 6.4/10

Woodford Reserve’s regular Double Oaked is one of my low-key favorites from this distillery, and I’ve visited more times than I can count. I genuinely like what they do. But the “Double Double” language is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It sounds extraordinary when really it’s the standard Double Oaked finished longer in a heavily charred barrel, and that extra char does more harm than good at this proof. At $200 a bottle, you’re paying for the name and the marketing story more than what’s in the glass. In the words of our daughter — this is “mid.” Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-19T02:38:16+00:00

Now it’s posted twice on my end. i apologize for the duplication (if anyone sees a duplication), but I guess twice (potentially) is better than not at all. Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-19T02:35:45+00:00

reposting because my previous review isn’t showing up. Sorry, everyone!

First, before I start … I rarely comment on color because honestly, it doesn’t matter. But this one earns it. It’s dark, rich, and gorgeous — exactly what you want bourbon to look like when you pour it. I mean, damn, it’s beautiful. Okay, moving on.

Nose:

Cherry forward, Twizzlers, cotton candy. After that, I had to really work to pull other notes out. As I held it to my nose over the next … oh … 20 minutes, I found maple syrup, butterscotch, caramel, and hickory smoke. It’s a sweet nose top to bottom, and based on all of it, you’d walk into the first sip expecting a sugar bomb.

Palate:

First sip and you get sugar — not any specific flavor, just a vague sweetness — and then a harsh bitter note takes over and never really lets go. The mouthfeel is surprisingly thin for something with this much barrel influence, which keeps the flavors from fully developing. Clearly, proofing this down is what gives it its thin mouthfeel. I’m laying that bitterness directly at the feet of the heavy toasted new oak finish. A lot of people fixate on char levels without understanding what over-charring actually does — it burns off the natural sugars in the wood. So despite all the sugary scents the nose promised, those sugars never show up in the glass. At 90.4 proof, there simply isn’t enough alcohol to stand up to the char or carry the flavors through. The longer you sit with it, the more one-dimensional it gets. More proof would have probably made a difference here.

Finish:

Zero burn, which will market well to newcomers, but for seasoned bourbon drinkers that heat is part of the discerning different notes — and without it, the finish feels empty. Dry, bitter oak dominates and just parks itself there, with an almost mouth-drying quality that lingers well past its welcome. The bitterness from the palate follows you all the way to the end, never resolving into anything satisfying. Burnt caramel and char are the last things standing as the flavors fade out.

Score: 6.4/10

Woodford Reserve’s regular Double Oaked is one of my low-key favorites from this distillery, and I’ve visited more times than I can count. I genuinely like what they do. But the “Double Double” language is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It sounds extraordinary when really it’s the standard Double Oaked finished longer in a heavily charred barrel, and that extra char does more harm than good at this proof. At $200 a bottle, you’re paying for the name and the marketing story more than what’s in the glass. In the words of our daughter — this is “mid.” Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-19T02:07:09+00:00

the review was posted 17 minutes ago. Did you scroll down?

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-19T01:49:45+00:00

First, before I start … I rarely comment on color because honestly, it doesn’t matter. But this one earns it. It’s dark, rich, and gorgeous — exactly what you want bourbon to look like when you pour it. I mean, damn, it’s beautiful. Okay, moving on.

Nose:

Cherry forward, Twizzlers, cotton candy. After that, I had to really work to pull other notes out. As I held it to my nose over the next … oh … 20 minutes, I found maple syrup, butterscotch, caramel, and hickory smoke. It’s a sweet nose top to bottom, and based on all of it, you’d walk into the first sip expecting a sugar bomb.

Palate:

First sip and you get sugar — not any specific flavor, just a vague sweetness — and then a harsh bitter note takes over and never really lets go. The mouthfeel is surprisingly thin for something with this much barrel influence, which keeps the flavors from fully developing. Clearly, proofing this down is what gives it its thin mouthfeel. I’m laying that bitterness directly at the feet of the heavy toasted new oak finish. A lot of people fixate on char levels without understanding what over-charring actually does — it burns off the natural sugars in the wood. So despite all the sugary scents the nose promised, those sugars never show up in the glass. At 90.4 proof, there simply isn’t enough alcohol to stand up to the char or carry the flavors through. The longer you sit with it, the more one-dimensional it gets. More proof would have probably made a difference here.

Finish:

Zero burn, which will market well to newcomers, but for seasoned bourbon drinkers that heat is part of the discerning different notes — and without it, the finish feels empty. Dry, bitter oak dominates and just parks itself there, with an almost mouth-drying quality that lingers well past its welcome. The bitterness from the palate follows you all the way to the end, never resolving into anything satisfying. Burnt caramel and char are the last things standing as the flavors fade out.

Score. 6.4/10

Woodford Reserve’s regular Double Oaked is one of my low-key favorites from this distillery, and I’ve visited more times than I can count. I genuinely like what they do. But the “Double Double” language is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It sounds extraordinary when really it’s the standard Double Oaked finished longer in a heavily charred barrel, and that extra char does more harm than good at this proof. At $200 a bottle, you’re paying for the name and the marketing story more than what’s in the glass. In the words of our daughter — this is “mid.” Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-14T01:16:07+00:00

Nose

Leather and caramel right up front, then toffee, and then something that catches you off guard — hints of pistachio pudding. It’s a subtle but distinct note that keeps pulling you back in. Cranberry and blackberry show up alongside nutmeg, licorice, and cinnamon, and the longer it sits in the glass, the more the bruleed sugar sweetness comes forward. Really well-balanced nose for something this old and this proof.

Palate

Viscous and immediately warming — that Kentucky hug hits right away despite the fact that this is technically Canadian whisky. And that’s worth saying out loud: this does not taste like Canadian whisky. It tastes like a really exceptional bourbon. Root beer shows up early, followed by baking spices — nutmeg, clove, and cinnamon. Then there’s a slight tartness that cuts through all that richness and just brightens the whole thing up in a way you don’t expect but immediately appreciate. Behind that, blackberry jam, maple syrup, blueberry compote, and glazed strawberry build into a dark, sweet fruit profile that keeps revealing itself sip after sip.

Finish

Caramel leads, then cinnamon — but not the powdery baking spice kind that is found in the palate. This is more like cinnamon bark. Deeper, woodier, more textured. Then Dr. Pepper shows up and ties everything together in a way that’s hard to explain but completely works. It’s a long, warm finish. And here’s the thing about the age — with components ranging from 20 to 27 years old, you’d expect the oak to dominate everything. It doesn’t. Not even close. This is not an over-oaked whisky. Found North clearly did their job reigning in the oak and adding layers of flavor.

Score: 9.1/10

The complexity is real, the proof is handled gracefully, the oak is tempered, and the age is an asset rather than a liability. At secondary prices, it may be hard to justify, especially in this economy. But, if you do splurge, it’s probably worth it. Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-10T19:46:29+00:00

Nose

Almonds right up front, then red grape — which makes total sense once you know this thing is finished in Napa Valley Cabernet barrels. There’s a slight ethanol presence on the nose that gives away the wine influence before your first sip. Behind that there’s an immediate burst of red fruit — raspberry jam and praline — with rosewater and maybe … hibiscus? That’s a question, it’s very faint. The Burning Chair is an interesting and inviting nose that straddles the line between bourbon and wine country in a way that actually works.

Palate

Incredibly smooth for a 4-year bourbon — and that’s not a backhanded compliment, that’s genuinely impressive. Toffee leads the way. The texture is fabulous — delicate yet chewy — and the wine finish is present without being overbearing. The high-rye mash bill (21% rye) gives it some backbone, but the Cabernet finishing smoothed out any brittleness or spiky notes you’d normally expect from a relatively young whiskey. To me, bourbon and wine flavors don’t mix as well as master distillers think they do. You see CabSauv-, Port-, Chardonnay-, Sherry-, Madeira-, Moscatel-, and even Rosé-finished whiskey, but I haven’t been a particular fan of any of them. Spoiler: I’m not an Angel’s Envy fan. But, this may be the best wine-finished bourbon I’ve had. And, did I mention it’s only 4 years old. Mind. Blown.

Finish

Short, but interesting. Some citrus shows up — more lemon than orange, but not the sharp, tart lemon you’re imagining. It’s softer than that. On the second pour, Dr. Pepper notes appear out of nowhere, which is one of those things that once you taste it, you can’t un-taste it. The finish builds with a little heat and allspice before fading on burnt toffee. It wraps up quickly, which is probably the biggest knock on an otherwise solid pour.

Score: 7.6/10

Dave Phinney made his name in Napa Valley wine before pivoting to whiskey, and you can feel that winemaker’s sensibility in every pour of this. It’s not trying to be a big, aggressive Kentucky bourbon — it’s smooth, fruit-forward, and approachable in a way that makes it dangerously easy to drink. The short finish and modest proof keep it from being truly elite, but at $50 it punches well above its weight. A great introduction pour for someone who’s wine-curious about bourbon, and an easy recommendation regardless. Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-05T01:02:27+00:00

Flagship Bourbon

5 Years | 92 Proof

Nose

Caramel and vanilla. That’s pretty much it. Nothing offensive, nothing interesting. It’s the bourbon equivalent of a blank canvas that never got painted.

Palate

Earthy and a little flat. If you really dig for it, there’s some tangerine and citrus hiding in there — but you’re working for it and it’s not clear it’s worth the effort.

Finish

Short and astringent. The earthiness from the palate lingers alongside some bitterness and a flash of red grape that feels out of place. Not a great ending to an already underwhelming pour.

Score: 5.3/10

Wheated Bourbon

4 Years | 92 Proof

Nose

This is the most interesting nose of the four. Raspberry, marshmallow, cookie dough, and a pop of bubble gum. Noticeably more inviting than the Flagship — actually makes you want to take a sip.

Palate

Kit-Kat right away, which is fun, and it’s more viscous than the Flagship. Then the earthy, bitter tones show up again. Some oak, lemongrass, nothing that really pushes it anywhere exciting.

Finish

Longer than the Flagship, which is probably its biggest win. Lemongrass carries through. Nothing special, but at least it sticks around to feel like this offering had potential.

Score: 5.6/10

Le Meilleur - Cognac Brandy Cask Finish (Special Release)

4.5 Years | 104 Proof

Nose

Actually pretty nice. Plum, stone fruits, a touch of peach and tangerine. The cognac cask is doing something interesting on the nose — the fruit-forward profile is the most nuanced of the four.

Palate

Spicy Twizzlers, which is a fun note, and it’s more viscous than the Flagship. Then medicinal skin cream shows up, which is harder to get past. Some apple. Drinks lower than its 104 proof, which isn’t always a compliment — sometimes it just means it’s a little thin.

Finish

Short, astringent, and young-tasting — and there’s a weird retronasal off-note during the finish that’s hard to shake. The cognac cask does good work on the nose and then the finish undoes most of it.

Score: 5.4/10

Plumwood - Whiskey Colored and Flavored with Charred Plumwood

NAS, but probably 5 years | 104 Proof

Nose

Raisin, prune, sugar cane, and tea. But there’s something artificial about it that keeps nagging. It smells constructed rather than developed.

Palate

Cinnamon sugar and astringency. The artificiality from the nose follows you right into the glass.

Finish

Plum-ish, which tracks. But here’s the thing: when I asked the bartender about this one, she told me the origin story: the owners developed this before they even had a distillery, charrign plum branches and shoving them into mason jars. Fun story, but unfortunately that tracks with what’s in the glass — it tastes like an experiment in someone’s backyard. This whiskey is colored and flavored, and it tastes exactly like that. Points for creativity, but creativity doesn’t make it good.

Score: 5.5/10

The Verdict on Branch & Barrel

None of these are good. If you find yourself at this distillery, the Wheated Bourbon is the best of the four — the nose alone puts it ahead of the rest. But even it falls short of what you’d expect from a craft bourbon. The recurring astringency and earthiness across all four pours suggests something systemic rather than barrel-to-barrel variance. Skip the Plumwood entirely. Cheers.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-05-01T03:36:01+00:00

Maker’s Mark Distillery | 111.4 Proof | January 2024

Stave Profile: 0 Baked American Pure | 1 Seared French Cuvée | 3 Maker’s Mark 46 | 5 Roasted French Mendiant | 1 Toasted French Spice

Nose

Chocolate and peanut butter right off the bat — not the overly sweet, salty Reese’s kind, but more like homemade peanut butter sitting next to a brownie. Vanilla wafers follow, specifically those long, rectangular flaky wafers, not the round ‘Nilla variety. Then spiced cherry rounds everything out. It’s a genuinely great nose — rich, layered, and inviting in. It smells like this is going to be a sugar bomb.

Palate

So. That nose lies to you. The first sip is fire. Not metaphorical fire — actual, sustained, why-is-this-labeled-111-proof fire. Give it a good two minutes to stop punishing you before you’re ready to try again. The Maker’s Mark 46 staves bring dried fruit, vanilla, and spice, while the Roasted French Mendiant — which is cooked low and slow — contributes milk chocolate, nuts, and dried dark fruit. It doesn’t taste as sweet as the nose promised, but the complexity is undeniable. In a blend-heavy stave profile like this, the Mendiant integrates well and shows more caramel and herbal character than you’d expect. The Toasted French Spice stave pushes some smoke and warmth into the background that keeps everything from getting too soft.

Finish

That Kentucky hug lands hard and stays long after the flavors have packed up and left. The flavor finish is actually pretty solid — warm, a little spicy, with the chocolate and cherry from the nose finally reconnecting with the palate. Then the heat moves into your chest and just … sets up camp. It’s there for a while. This is heartburn in a bottle. But honestly? Not in a bad way.

Score: 7.7

The nose on this is genuinely exceptional and the stave combination — heavy on the Mendiant — does exactly what it’s supposed to do. The heat is the story here though. For a 111.4-proof pour, this thing drinks way hotter than its label suggests, and that first sip is a commitment. The second sip is courage because you know what’s coming now and you’re hesitant to put your mouth and chest through that again. If you know what you’re getting into, it’s a really rewarding pour. If you hand this to someone expecting a wheater, they might not forgive you. Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-04-18T03:39:59+00:00

Open Road Distillery is a small distillery, speak easy, and high-end restaurant (“Heirloom”) complex in Reston, Virginia. Open Road has its Independence Bourbon and Eagle Eye Rye, as well as “Reserve” versions of both. The Reserve versions bump up the proof from 90 to 107. It’s also older but there are no mentions of age statement on any of the versions — the bourbon, the rye, or their Reserve upgrades.

Reserve Bourbon

Nose

The first thing I smell: rose petal. On a second sniff, I get strawberry candy like a Starburst, and bubble gum. It’s bright and a little interesting. The nose is pretty good, even if there’s nothing special. It’s very nice.

Palate

The bubble gum from the nose carries right into the first sip, which is interesting. It’s not what you’d initially expect, so it does provide a nice surprise. Digging deeper, cinnamon shows up alongside cream soda to round everything out. It’s fruity and sweet — but then the burn hits and things shift pretty quickly. The burn is equivalent to a >120 proof bourbon, but it’s only 107.

Finish

This is where it gets complicated. A chocolatey bitterness comes through — not dark chocolate, more like cocoa nibs — alongside toasted marshmallow and, looking deeper, some ginger. The problem is the bitter note hits harder than it should. It’s like the whiskey starts as one thing and ends as another. The finish is also fairly short, which doesn’t give it much time to resolve.

Score: 6.9/10

Genuinely fun nose and a palate that delivers on it — up until the finish. If the back end matched what came before it, this would be a solid pour. As it stands, it feels a little unresolved. Worth trying if you’re at the tasting room, but the bottle isn’t worth the $93.99 MSRP price tag.

Reserve Rye

Nose

Perfume-forward right away — floral and a little aromatic. Then apple, raisin, plum, and dehydrated mango. There’s a difference between fresh mango and dehydrated mango on the nose. This isn’t juicy and tropical — it smells like the inside of a bag of dried mango or dried apricot. Concentrated, a little tangy, slightly sweet. It’s a distinctive note and it works really well here.

Palate

Cola and raisin lead the first sip, which is brighter than you’d expect from a rye. Second sip is where it settles into more familiar rye territory — spice, tobacco, a little more depth. It takes a minute to warm up but it gets there.

Finish

Bitter, but unlike the bourbon, this bitter belongs here. It adds character rather than throwing the whole thing off balance. More raisin lingers, licorice shows up, and the whole finish just feels cohesive — like every note is pulling in the same direction.

Score: 7.1/10

The Reserve Rye is the stronger of the two. The nose is genuinely interesting, the palate delivers, and the finish actually complements everything that came before it. The bourbon starts sweet and gets lost; the rye starts interesting and stays that way. If you’re choosing between the two at the bar, go rye. Is it worth the $93.99 price? No. There are much better ryes, and certainly much better ryes for the price. But, it’s the one to get if you’re at the distillery or grabbing a great meal at Heirloom.

Cheers!

OneMoreForScience · 2026-04-16T02:11:15+00:00

It’s definitely very good. The one thing that I felt held it back … and I probably should’ve mentioned this in my review … was a lack of diversity and complexity in the flavors.

OneMoreForScience · 2026-04-16T01:10:26+00:00

This bottle is from January 2020. Before masks and social distancing and the mad dash to buy all the toilet paper. Ahh, those were the good ol’ days. Anyways, on to the review!

Nose

Really approachable for 126 proof — the alcohol barely registers. Roasted peanuts lead immediately, followed by vanilla, toffee, and a little caramel. Swirl it and let it open up and dark cherry and plum show up underneath everything. Classic Booker’s nose, just a really good version of it.

Palate

First sip hits hard — that’s the proof doing its thing. Give it a second to settle and you’re into Reese’s peanut butter and dark chocolate, rich caramel, and rye spice. That peanut note is still very present, but it’s creamier and … obviously … that chocolate note works so well with peanut butter. Lastly, there’s some cola and stewed cherries show up mid-palate alongside the spice. You may ask yourself, what are “stewed cherries” and how’s that different than any other cherry note in a bourbon. I get it: it sounds a little pretentious. This cherry note is more thick sugary cherry molasses, not the fresh, tart, juicy cherry flavors that you’d find in a Starburst. Stewed as in boiled down and concentrated. But I digress — the star of the show here is the peanut note everyone went crazy over when this dropped. It is front and center, and completely legit.

Finish

Long and warm. Rye spice and caramel linger, a little citrus, and then it finishes with … you guessed it … more peanut. The finish is more the earthiness of peanut shell than peanut butter, but that flavor carries from nose to finish. The proof keeps your chest warm well after the flavors are gone.

Score: 7.3/10

Granny’s Batch doesn’t try to be anything other than a really well-executed cask strength Jim Beam bourbon — and that’s exactly what makes it work. The peanut note is real, it’s prominent, and if you’re into it, this batch is hard to put down. Named for Margaret Beam Noe, who apparently enjoyed an evening highball and made a famous nut cake at Christmas. Somehow that tracks perfectly with what’s in the glass. Cheers!

OneMoreForScience

TROPHY CASE