BTEC Entry Proof Experiment

I love the BTEC collection, even if I don’t love each of the individual whiskeys. The fact they are experimenting and letting us try them is pretty cool. I’m not in love with the costs either, but the market has dictated most of high prices.  Not to give this one away, but this experiment is one of my absolute favorites when it comes to the results.

The BTEC is about entry level proof into the barrel, 105 vs 125 using the BT rye bourbon mash #2 and aged for 13.25 years.


Both look equally golden Amber in color.

105: a bit hot on the nose initially, but butterscotch, lemongrass, peach pits, cinnamon, allspice and oak come through in the second whif.

125: surprisingly not hot on the nose, it’s sweeter with toasted raisin bread, butter cornbread, cracked walnut and baking spices. The nose on this one seems far more developed and approachable.

105: enjoyable initial taste, although thin mouthfeel and quickly drops off with a slightly sour aftertaste with just warmth remaining.

125: even more enjoyable initial taste, with a medium mouthfeel that continues for much longer and does not give a sour aftertaste. The finish is moderate and there is a much more balanced flavor, feel and warmth profile that the 105 entry point is missing.

There isn’t even a comparison here and it’s shocking to believe these started as the same, with everything identical expect for the entry proof into the barrel. The 105 proof is an incomplete and lacking bourbon, while the 125 is very enjoyable. A bit expensive for a 375ml, but good to know how important entry proof is into a barrel, and it’s no wonder that most distillers fill their barrels at the legal maximum.  Great experiment and worth trying side by side to see.

105:  83/100
125:  91/100

BTEC Infrared Light Experiment

I’ve tried a lot of Buffalo Trace Experimental Collection bourbons over the years, but I haven’t rated as many as I should have.  I will try to do better about that going forward.  The most recent BTEC release is the infrared light barrel aging experiment.  It’s a higher rye recipe as well, so it’s harder to do an apples to apples comparison vs the standard Buffalo Trace, but I used it as a test subject anyway.  I tasted it after pouring it immediately, then again after an hour and then once more after adding water.

The standard buffalo on the cover Buffalo Trace:

15 minute BTEC: good nose, a touch of peanut butter, wheat thins, raisin bread, decent heat.  The finish is ok, a touch sour, not very complex or interesting.

30 minute BTEC: similar but distinctively different nose, not as much peanut butter, more cedar.  The palate is dryer, but also has that sour note.  Equally disappointing.

After sitting for two hours:

BT Standard: better, more vanilla and cinnamon, more enjoyable.

15m BTEC: baking spices and smoother, nicer finish, it needed the air.

30m BTEC: sweeter nose, enjoyable finish.

After adding several drops of reverse osmosis water:

15m: very floral, perfumed and vanilla, the water really released hidden flavors.

30m: same as the 15m but even more.  Water is the key here.

I’ll be honest, when I first tried this experiment, I did not like it.  But after giving it air and water it really came out.  But I’ll be honest, I couldn’t tell any significant difference between the infrared light treatment or not.  Just another solid whiskey from Buffalo Trace.  I don’t think it’s worth investing in given the high prices of the BTEC series.  87/100 each.