ABourbon WhiskeyFrom $151 to $250Whiskey Reviews

Angel’s Envy Cask Strength Bourbon Review (2023)

By Andrew Graham

Rating: A

Angel’s Envy Cask Strength
(Credit: Bacardi)

A joke that whisky nerds often make is that we should all band together and drink more sherry to support the Scotch industrial complex, the joke being that many popular Scotch whiskies spend time in the Sherry butts, which are quite expensive and hard to come by lately. More Sherry consumption equals more spent Sherry butts in which to mature or finish Scotch. (Hey, I didn’t say it’s a good joke.)

I’m tempted to start making the same joke about Port, because what Angel’s Envy does with its annual release of its cask strength bourbon (as well as its standard bearer, regular bourbon). The release is usually limited to 20,000 or so bottles, and is truly remarkable. I’m tempted to petition the governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear, to warehouse tawny Port barrels from Portugal and push the consumption of Port statewide so as to cut down on the logistics required to make this stuff at the distillery in Louisville, because the one bad thing about this whiskey, which hits shelves on Dec. 1, is that they don’t make more of it.

The Bourbon
While tasting notes are quite subjective, it’s fair to say that what most folks might scrawl on the back of a bar napkin while drinking this juice is something like: smooth bourbon, good spice, big Port.

My palate registered a nose of rich oak and cherry cola, with a subtle earthiness to the aroma. Upon sipping, the depth and richness of the oak flavor is the highlight. I also tasted commanding flavor notes of jam and fig, with black pepper, nutmeg, and lightly charred green pepper.

Adding a single drop of water (in order to agitate the esters and release yet more flavor, not to water it down) accentuated the earthy funk I got on the nose and the baking spice flavors that my palate registered.

Despite the high proof, this whiskey doesn’t drink hot, and it has a mouthfeel that’s pleasantly, not overly, tannic. The port finish definitely comes through—more specifically, the port’s influence on this whiskey struck me as being very even and consistent from the nose on through to the finish.

The whiskey is 118.2 proof, and there’s no age statement publicly available for this release, although the bottle states that the finishing period in those Port casks is “up to 9 months.” While there’s no stated mash bill, a decent guess would be that it uses the conventional Angel’s Envy ratio of 72% corn, 18% rye and 10% malted barley. But that’s just speculation; don’t take it as gospel.

This is the 12th iteration of the release, and the first under the helm of Master Distiller Owen Martin, who joined the brand last fall from Stranahan’s. Martin is only the second official Master Distiller at Angel’s Envy, since co-founder and Master Distiller Lincoln Henderson’s passing in 2013.

The Price
This is limited stuff: 22,656 bottles of the 2023 cask strength bourbon will be available at select retailers, including the distillery in downtown Louisville, on Dec. 1 at a suggested retail of $230.

7 Comments

    1. Someone doesn’t spend much time with fans or on forums. “Juice” is a common slang term for whiskey. So basically, you are saying that anyone who isn’t a saltine has no credibility with you. Which would include me, because I used that word “saltine” to refer to something other than a cracker.

      You must be real fun at parties.

    2. As a manager of a wine and liquor store for over 10 years “juice” is used in our industry all of the time. Usually anything going into a barrel to be aged. Wine, whiskey, rum etc.

    3. The “juice” comment is OK. But it lacks the reason why someone should spend $300 on this bottle, They even stopped with the wooden box gimmick. Just ridiculous how they price these and people buy them because they are rare ??

  1. Could be just me but thst doesn’t look like the new 2023 bottle. ( and mine did not come with the box this year for what ever reason )

    1. Yes. We couldn’t get the 2023 bottle shot at the time the article was published. It was just plain unavailable — go figure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Check Also
Close
Back to top button