Blade and Bow 22 Year Old Bourbon
Stitzel-Weller. Two legendary names with an equally legendary distillery whose history intertwines with the likes of Pappy van Winkle, multiple generations of Beams, and the start of Maker’s Mark with Bill Samuels, Sr.
Let’s make clear from the start: this bottle is not Stitzel-Weller in the traditional sense. According to Diageo and the distillery itself, there is some original Stitzel-Weller juice in the bottle via the five-barrel solera system used, but the OG distillery closed its doors in 1992, having ceased distillation the year before. Over the years, the property was used as an aging site for United Distillers (the forerunner to Diageo) for brands including Bulleit, and today it hosts the Bulleit Frontier Whiskey Experience.
As the Bard is oft-quoted, “what’s in a name”? To a casual consumer walking the aisles (ok, pretend you’ll find this on a store aisle), Blade and Bow won’t mean anything more than the words themselves. Even for a cagophile (yep, looked that up just for this purpose), they’ll know what’s the “blade” and the “bow” on a key, but what are the chances a cagophile is looking for Stitzel-Weller bourbon in a store where it’s sitting on a shelf.
Stitzel-Weller, though…that’s the real name here. That’s the name with connotations that drive a price to several hundred dollars a bottle, and this might have droplets-worth of old Stitz in the glass. In a classic, plain glass decanter with gold lettering, this will no doubt grab some eyes, particularly if you’re looking for that special gift for a boss or the bourbon drinker in your life.
Here’s the big question IMO: if you’re a fan of Stitzel-Weller - the old Stitzel-Weller - is this a bottle worth hunting?
The answer: hard to say, with a lean towards no, but not for the reason you might think.
This is a great-to-excellent bourbon. It’s 22 years old and bottled at only 92 proof, two things that normally aren’t positive harbingers for me. Start with the eye, though, and work from there. The liquid inside is what bourbon’s HEX code should be. The nose, palate, and finish live up to that eye with a classic, even timeless profile that bounces between eggy bread, cinnamon and clove spice, barrel char, a bit of citrus, roasted nuts, oak, and semisweet chocolate, all riding a fantastic mouthfeel that drinks at least 10 points above its proof.
So how could I say no to a bottle like this? It comes back to what’s in the name. By intertwining the branding so heavily with Stitzel-Weller’s legacy, it leans on a heritage that is not this product’s to claim. Excellent or not, bourbon nerds will go for this immediately before being disappointed to find out that the Stitzel-Weller Distillery producing this bourbon is not the same as the one shuttered thirty years ago. The small consolation prize of a drop or two in each bottle is small pittance.
Let’s then consider Stitzel-Weller’s legacy. Arguably best known for two things - a wheated bourbon mashbill and the Van Winkle line - the old Stitzel-Weller had a lasting impact on multiple fronts in the bourbon world. Stories include Pappy himself giving Bill Samuels, Sr. the Stitzel-Weller wheated mashbill, meaning the newly created Maker’s Mark would have the same basic recipe even if used to their own design. The Van Winkle line is now owned by Pappy’s descendants in a shared deal with Buffalo Trace, and Maker’s Mark has kept the same recipe for its entire history. Distilling ceased at Stitzel-Weller in 1992. So where is this bourbon coming from?
The best source is a GoBourbon article from 2015 when the “Blade and Bow Project” was three years old. In it, author Justin Sloan got three key pieces of information from Diageo, and I’ll directly quote from the article:
“Diageo has implemented a five barrel solera system at Stitzel-Weller, where the bottom or #5 barrel contains some of the original Bourbon that was distilled in the early 90’s. The trick is to never dumb more than half of the barrel. So when barrel #5 is dumped for bottling, barrel #4 is used to refill barrel #5. Then barrel #3 fills up #4 and so on until barrel #1 is used to fill barrel #2. That’s when a new whiskey is intruded that is not currently in the system to fill barrel #1. Diageo would not go on record as to who is making the Bourbon that is used to fill barrel #1, (or the rest of the Bourbon outside of the original Stitzel-Weller juice) but claims it is no younger than six years old.”
“Although Diageo wouldn’t officially say there are four ingredients (corn, rye, wheat and malted barley) in the mashbill for Blade and Bow, they wouldn’t deny it either. This leads us to believe there is a good chance it’s a four grain recipe since Bourbon made at Stitzel-Weller was wheated.”
“[Diageo] did share the juice is from two distilleries, one located on 17th and Breckinridge in Louisville (current address of the Bernheim Distillery) and the other one residing at 1001 Wilkinson Boulevard in Frankfort (current address of the Buffalo Trace Distillery).”
Think about each of these in turn, going backwards from point 3. This is incredibly transparent for an otherwise opaque corporation - to be that specific about where the “juice” comes from is simply ridiculous, and implies they can say everything but the names. At this point, they could paint you a picture and program it into Google Maps, but as long as the names aren’t used they’re clear.
Bernheim Distillery was opened in 1992 under United Distillers (now Diageo) and was sold to Heaven Hill in 1999. Incidentally, Heaven Hill uses the Bernheim name for their wheat whiskey line, but that’s not directly relevant here. Buffalo Trace, as previously mentioned, bought the Van Winkle line in 1992 (as Sazerac) and co-produces it with the eponymous family to this day. So you have the two reputed sources for the “juice” being former Stitzel-Weller-related properties.
Point 2: Stitz was known for its wheated mashbill. Every product - Cabin Still, all the Weller products, Early Times, Old Fitzgerald, and Rebel Yell all used the supposed 70% corn, 20% wheat, 10% malted barley mashbill. And yet, in the product calling back to this heritage, it’s not a wheated mashbill at all, but rather (likely) a four grain bourbon recipe. It would be one thing if they resuscitated the original recipe, another if Diageo used a wheated mashbill but not the wheated mashbill. To not use a wheated mashbill at all, introducing rye, seems mindbogglingly counter to the callback Diageo is trying to make, which leads to point 1.
Assuming point 3 is correct and the new juice is from the Bernheim and Buffalo Trace Distilleries, who cares if there’s a wee bit of Stitzel-Weller in the #5 barrel. Whatever minuscule volume of old, wheated bourbon in that barrel will no doubt be wiped out by the newer, rye-inclusive distillate.
Again…I liked this a lot. Not $400+ a bottle a lot, but a lot. At MSRP, I’d even consider buying a bottle. But I truly detest facetious callbacks that not only don’t match the original but actively obfuscate the very thing that made the original so legendary. At the volumes being produced, maybe Diageo doesn’t care, and I have no doubt most of these bottles will go quickly when released. This is venting from a bourbon nerd. Enjoy it with a Pappy-branded cigar - it’ll be closer to the Stitzel-Weller legacy than the bourbon in the glass.
Blade and Bow 22 Year Old Bourbon Whiskey: Specs
Classification: Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Origin: Undisclosed (Possibly Bernheim and Buffalo Trace Distilleries)
Mashbill: Undisclosed
Proof: 92 (46% ABV)
Age: 22 Years Old
Location: Kentucky
Blade and Bow 22 Year Old Bourbon Whiskey Price: If you can find it, be prepared to pay $500+
Blade and Bow 22 Year Old Bourbon Whiskey Review: Tasting Notes
Eye: What bourbon’s HEX code should be. Medium splotchy rims and small slow drops.
Nose: Cinnamon babka, buttery and brioche-y with Luxardo cherries in sauce. Barrel char, walking into a rickhouse of wet, old wood. No proof or much oak. Orange peel, expressed.
Palate: Cherry chocolate cocktail, still with jut a bit of oak at first. Roasted chestnuts, plenty of old oak then opens up big-time without being woody. Semisweet cocoa. Mouthfeel is medium-bodied, oily, viscous, with a bit of oak spice. Front-of-tongue astringency and incredibly coating. Drinks above proof by about 10 points.
Finish: Astringent, tannic oak, semisweet chocolate, and gianduja on brioche toast. Leather and aged tobacco round out the pour.
Overall: I keep wanting to go back for more. At 22 years old, one of the very few old bourbons that aren’t over-oaked or a tannin bomb. Would be a perfect cigar bourbon. It’s so damn good…it’s just not Stitz.
Final Rating: 7.6
10 | Insurpassable | Nothing Else Comes Close (Elijah Craig Barrel Proof Old Label Batch 4 or 2, Blanton’s Straight from the Barrel)
9 | Incredible | Extraordinary (GTS, Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B518 and B520)
8 | Excellent | Exceptional (Stagg Jr. Batch 10, Highland Park Single Barrels)
7 | Great | Well above average (Blanton’s Original, Old Weller Antique, Booker’s)
6 | Very Good | Better than average (Four Roses Small Batch Select, Knob Creek 14+ YO Picks)
5 | Good | Good, solid, ordinary (Elijah Craig Small Batch, Buffalo Trace, Old Grand-Dad Bottled-in-Bond)
4 | Has promise
1-3 | Let’s have a conversation
More Bourbon Reviews
