Jump to content
kevinbrink

Larceny Barrel Proof

Recommended Posts

The Black Tot
24 minutes ago, flahute said:

Welp.......I tried three single barrels of this on a barrel pick last week and I have to say that they were all disappointing. In fact, the only barrel that had a shot at being selected actually got better with water added. It wasn't enough though so we passed altogether. Larceny remains a big miss for me. It seriously needs a couple more years in the barrel I think.

 

I love a man who saves me money.

 

Of course, when we're talking whiskey, I also love a man who COSTS me money...

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flahute
2 hours ago, The Black Tot said:

 

I love a man who saves me money.

 

Of course, when we're talking whiskey, I also love a man who COSTS me money...

I'm here to serve in BOTH capacities!

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishnbowljoe
4 minutes ago, flahute said:

I'm here to serve in BOTH capacities!

What a tease!  😙

 

Biba! Joe

  • I like it 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Loblaw
On 11/16/2019 at 5:46 PM, flahute said:

Welp.......I tried three single barrels of this on a barrel pick last week and I have to say that they were all disappointing. In fact, the only barrel that had a shot at being selected actually got better with water added. It wasn't enough though so we passed altogether. Larceny remains a big miss for me. It seriously needs a couple more years in the barrel I think.

Wow, a total pass?  Does not bode well for this release.  I recall trying the LE Larceny BP that was released a year or so ago.  It was fine, but underwhelming for sure.  Think that price was around $125 as well.

 

For $50, I will still give the new release a try and work my way through a bottle to give it a fair shake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokinjoe

The tough thing with going to a Larceny Single Barrel is that the taste profile has always been to a target “age profile ”, but with the  age profile being a result of a composite mingling of barrels of various ages...some of them quite a bit older, as I recall.  I believe the target age profile is 6 YO, but don’t remember the range of the barrels used in its composition.  It’s always been my belief that the Larceny profile is a result of selective barrel mingling to a higher degree than say, another mainstream label from HH, or anyone else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbroo5880i
On 11/16/2019 at 6:46 PM, flahute said:

Welp.......I tried three single barrels of this on a barrel pick last week and I have to say that they were all disappointing. In fact, the only barrel that had a shot at being selected actually got better with water added. It wasn't enough though so we passed altogether. Larceny remains a big miss for me. It seriously needs a couple more years in the barrel I think.

Steve, thank you for sharing.  I respect your opinion and palate.  I admit I was slightly interested in Larceny BP even though the first bottle of Larceny is the only bottle of several I have had that I enjoyed.  I originally thought Larceny would scratch my wheated bourbon itch but it just doesn't.

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tanstaafl2

Well, this was an interesting way to start the afternoon! Larceny joins it BP brother Elijah Craig with exact same batch numbering and weighs in at 123.2 proof. It is also completely unfettered by any needless age statement. But it did land at the previously noted $49.99 price point so that’s a start!

 

Opens with a soft nose but a solid if typically sweeter wheat palate that gets a bit gummy at the back of the palate but then leads to a solid finish as the gummy character quickly fades. But it is with a touch water where it really shines as the heavy sweetness and gumminess disappears and gets a nice touch of chocolate without diminishing the finish. I like Larceny ok to begin with but a pleasant surprise for me. Except it is relatively allocated which is annoying. Maybe with time it will get more available. 

 

56EF5D80-44FD-4F02-8033-DAC5F8229229.jpeg.029c3b4d8034414c8bc54a1f86735da9.jpeg

Not sure why I am getting sideways pictures but not worth messing with.

 

275480F8-80E0-4788-8644-E8E5AEFFBF17.jpeg.7d7fb3ce0620caec60a929f8ff460c5b.jpeg

 

 

 

  • I like it 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeeTen

I'm so confused!!!  I luv ya' both but make up our minds, will ya' pleeeese.  🥴

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tanstaafl2

I don’t think flahute had the final BP Batch release that just hit the market but rather individual barrels. That said he still might not care for it! I tend to like Larceny in general more than he does.

 

Best remedy is to try it for yourself! If you can find it that is. Like most every thing of note these days (and some that are definitely NOT of note!) it is “allocated”. My store got a grand total of 3 and they are long gone already.

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Loblaw
43 minutes ago, GeeTen said:

I'm so confused!!!  I luv ya' both but make up our minds, will ya' pleeeese.  🥴

 

In an effort to reconcile the differing opinions.  All my own speculations with absolutely no real information.

 

Flahute sampled three single barrels that I presume were destined for a 92pf Larceny Barrel Pick.  Do we know if Barrels are earmarked for one product or the other?  Meaning could those three single barrels have been specifically chosen with the final 92pf in mind and not representative of a good BP?  Are the barrels that are not selected for Larceny options to be blended into the BP or would they only be used in the next regular Larceny batch?

 

Also, The new BP is a blend and not a single barrel so the end product could be rather different from three individual barrels.  IMO HH has a very solid track record (ECBP) of blending large batch barrel proof bourbons.  

 

I like it enough so far and I am not one to ever really pick up regular Larceny. Not that it is bad per se, but there is actually quite a bit of competition at that $20-25 price range that I always end up with WT101, or BT or Ritt/OF Rye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeeTen
1 hour ago, Bob_Loblaw said:

In an effort to reconcile the differing opinions.  All my own speculations with absolutely no real information.

 

Flahute sampled three single barrels that I presume were destined for a 92pf Larceny Barrel Pick.  Do we know if Barrels are earmarked for one product or the other?  Meaning could those three single barrels have been specifically chosen with the final 92pf in mind and not representative of a good BP?  Are the barrels that are not selected for Larceny options to be blended into the BP or would they only be used in the next regular Larceny batch?

 

Also, The new BP is a blend and not a single barrel so the end product could be rather different from three individual barrels.  IMO HH has a very solid track record (ECBP) of blending large batch barrel proof bourbons.  

 

I like it enough so far and I am not one to ever really pick up regular Larceny. Not that it is bad per se, but there is actually quite a bit of competition at that $20-25 price range that I always end up with WT101, or BT or Ritt/OF Rye.

Oh, OK?????  I feel sooo much better now.   🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flahute
2 hours ago, tanstaafl2 said:

I don’t think flahute had the final BP Batch release that just hit the market but rather individual barrels. That said he still might not care for it! I tend to like Larceny in general more than he does.

 

Best remedy is to try it for yourself! If you can find it that is. Like most every thing of note these days (and some that are definitely NOT of note!) it is “allocated”. My store got a grand total of 3 and they are long gone already.

 

2 hours ago, Bob_Loblaw said:

In an effort to reconcile the differing opinions.  All my own speculations with absolutely no real information.

 

Flahute sampled three single barrels that I presume were destined for a 92pf Larceny Barrel Pick.  Do we know if Barrels are earmarked for one product or the other?  Meaning could those three single barrels have been specifically chosen with the final 92pf in mind and not representative of a good BP?  Are the barrels that are not selected for Larceny options to be blended into the BP or would they only be used in the next regular Larceny batch?

 

Also, The new BP is a blend and not a single barrel so the end product could be rather different from three individual barrels.  IMO HH has a very solid track record (ECBP) of blending large batch barrel proof bourbons.  

 

I like it enough so far and I am not one to ever really pick up regular Larceny. Not that it is bad per se, but there is actually quite a bit of competition at that $20-25 price range that I always end up with WT101, or BT or Ritt/OF Rye.

You are both correct! We sampled three single barrels.

Bob - that's a good question about intent for different barrels. I don't know the answer. We did proof them all down and had the proper equipment on hand to get them close to accurate. That said, shock proofing a whiskey down is not really giving it a chance to put its best foot forward.

smokinjoe also made the point above about the skill of blending required to remove flaws. That said, normal Larceny is blended and it fails for me spectacularly. That said, like Bruce, I have a hard time not trying these things so if my local gets one I'll be buying it. Hopefully the Sampler happens first and one is there to try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marekv8

I tried a pour of this expression last night gratis of a LS owner-- very unpleasant and tinged with a sour glue/particle board essence. It was like a bad date with the uglier, meaner, younger sister of a girl you dislike.

  • I like it 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRich
I tried a pour of this expression last night gratis of a LS owner-- very unpleasant and tinged with a sour glue/particle board essence. It was like a bad date with the uglier, meaner, younger sister of a girl you dislike.

Damn, tell us how you really feel. [emoji2]
  • I like it 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokinjoe
8 hours ago, Marekv8 said:

...tinged with a sour glue/particle board essence....

Sounds like a Hampden!  😆

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marekv8
4 hours ago, smokinjoe said:

Sounds like a Hampden!  😆

One can only wish. 

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry in WashDC
13 hours ago, Marekv8 said:

I tried a pour of this expression last night gratis of a LS owner-- very unpleasant and tinged with a sour glue/particle board essence. It was like a bad date with the uglier, meaner, younger sister of a girl you dislike.

I've never licked or chewed particle board with or without glue smeared on it.  WHEN and in WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES did you ever experience this?:rolleyes:  I mean, I licked and tasted some weird "shoot" in my lifetime, but . . .B)

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GaryT

Tried this last night, and liked it considerably more than Larceny.  Tad hot neat but with some water was delicious.  

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marekv8
9 hours ago, Harry in WashDC said:

I've never licked or chewed particle board with or without glue smeared on it.  WHEN and in WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES did you ever experience this?:rolleyes:  I mean, I licked and tasted some weird "shoot" in my lifetime, but . . .B)


After years of art school, prop building, chainsaw wielding and auto repair— I’ve accidentally tasted just about everything. 

  • I like it 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRich
Tried this last night, and liked it considerably more than Larceny.  Tad hot neat but with some water was delicious.  

I tried the same bottle. Not mind blowing. Not even “I need to pick one up if I run across it” good. But fine. I wouldn’t turn it down if offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeeTen
21 hours ago, BigRich said:


I tried the same bottle. Not mind blowing. Not even “I need to pick one up if I run across it” good. But fine. I wouldn’t turn it down if offered.

Me too, me too - short to medium finish after a brush of caramel and heat on the palate.  Had a chance to buy one yesterday, but passed.  Needed the money to buy dinner.   🤣

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clueby

"a bad date with the uglier, meaner, younger sister of a girl you dislike"

 

That has to be the best line ever to grace SB!

  • I like it 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kane

Put me in the camp that thinks this is impressive bourbon. I get the trademark cloyingly sweet Larceny wheat. The burn from the higher proof pleasantly clashes with the sweetness, keeping everything in check. This is a thick, chewable, much more rounded version of normal Larceny. I also half expect everything from HH to be over oaked for my tastes, but this is just fine.

 

I like it a lot. But Larceny haters probably won't find a drastic difference here to change their opinion.

 

IMG_20200217_230007.jpg

  • I like it 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markandrex
On 2/15/2020 at 8:26 AM, Marekv8 said:

I tried a pour of this expression last night gratis of a LS owner-- very unpleasant and tinged with a sour glue/particle board essence. It was like a bad date with the uglier, meaner, younger sister of a girl you dislike.

You made me spit good bourbon.!  You sir, are no gentleman.  Damn funny but, no gentleman. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k-train

I heard good things about the LBP B520 & really wanted to get a bottle when it was here in NC ABC stores back in June. Because I didn't realize how small the allocation for NC was going to be. I foolishly thought that I could come back later and grab a bottle & thus passed on it. Needless to say, I never got my hands on one.

The state's warehouse inventory started showing a new listing last week that must be for the upcoming C920 release. It's showing it as being much hotter than the previous two batches, coming in at 132 proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.