I had my first taste of the EWSB 94 this evening, and I certainly agree with the sentiments here. My tasting skills are definitely elementary, so I haven't the gumption to attempt true notes. I will just say that I've always enjoyed the EWSB, and this bottling is no exception.
It also made me think about what a tremendous bargain EW 1783 is. Tina is always touting the attributes of the 1783, so we usually have it around. I know that it was recently discussed here that the 1783 is a great bargain. Anyway, I had the 1783 last night, so I guess it was fresh on my taste buds. The EWSB 94 really reminded me of it.
Since they are of similar (same?) age, mashbill and proof(yes, I reluctantly admit that I just figured this out), should EWSB be considered, for all practical purposes, the SB version of EW 1783? Is ten years just a particularly optimal or at least distinctive aging for this whiskey?
In VA, EWSB = $23.
EW 1783 = $11.
There is efficacy, and then there is cost-efficacy. EW 1783 definitely has cost efficacy.
I apologize if this has come up previously.