| Don't like ads? | No ads |
It’s an unfortunate reality that the majority of bourbon brands that were operating from the late 1800’s up until the 1960’s didn’t survive through the troubled decades that followed. James E Pepper Distillery (DSP-KY-5) was one such brand that used to be such a powerhouse in the American whiskey scene. But renewed interest in bourbon history coupled with surging demand led to dozens of entrepreneurs that sought to revive these once historic nameplates. Amir Peay was one of those aforementioned people who set out to restore the old Lexington Kentucky distillery to its former glory.
I found this Straightbourbon link from early 2009 where Amir gets quite the education from Chuck Cowdery and Michael Veach about how to overcome some early obstacles (like where to get whiskey from) to revive the brand. I encourage you to read that link because it’s probably a snapshot into the world of how many new brands had to start their journey towards sourcing products. Also, the part about how the owners of Dr. Pepper may have been actively blocking a return of the James E. Pepper brand to the US was especially entertaining. Who would’ve guessed?
Getting back on track; starting in 2017 Peay’s small team began to release limited amounts of very mature bourbon and rye whiskey from MGP. They had searched high and low for stocks to purchase while their own distillery was coming to life. These first products were packaged in attractive amber bottles with throwback paper labels. However, just like every other Non-Distiller Producer (NDP) from that time, they quickly exhausted their older stocks and had to turn to much younger barrels of MGP to keep the brand afloat.
James E Pepper Barrel Proof Bourbon arrives
The goal was never to source barrels forever. Peay invested in Vendome distilling equipment (just like the original distillery had in 1934) with the intent to make bourbon and rye whiskey again at the same site of the old distillery. Additional steps were taken to emulate the old style of bourbon by drilling a well 200 feet down into the original limestone aquifer that the original distillery would have used.
Peay’s goal was to create a bourbon that would be as close as possible to the James E. Pepper of yesteryear. On that link I had listed above, he even declares that he had found out what the original recipe of James E. Pepper bourbon was – but it’s apparently a secret that he has never released. If you know me, you know I dislike whenever a distillery won’t release their mash bill. I find it annoying and it makes it less interesting to the consumer.
All we know about the bourbon recipe is that the official press releases told us it uses corn, rye, malted barley AND malted rye. That last one stands out to me because I was not aware that there were bourbons that used malted rye back in the early 1900s. I’m not saying it’s a lie, but it smells a little fishy to me.
The first barrel of James E. Pepper bourbon was filled in 2018 and the first bottle that was filled with it was released in the fall of 2023. What I find interesting is that they bottled it at barrel proof right out the gate. The price was also very reasonable for its age (said to be a little over 5 years old) at around $60. The decanter style initially shocked everyone with its beauty. For those that hadn’t been paying attention to the plain-Jane bottles that the brand was putting young whiskey into in the interim, this release definitely had their attention now. But the decanter design was not actually something new. It was a throwback design to one the brand used back in the 1940’s.
The bourbon inside was said to be a little over five years old. The neck label provides us a batch number and a proof which changes with each subsequent batch. What we can glean from them is that the barrel entry proof they use is probably very low. I looked it up and the distillery won’t put an exact number on it except to say it’s “no more than 110 proof.” I would wager it’s between 103 and 105.
This low barrel entry proof typically makes for a low barrel proof when maturation is done. But that might only be part of the explanation why I’ve seen all of these Barrel Proof Peppers having such low ABV numbers. Another reason could be that the barrels were aged in a cooler warehouses built with masonry or if the warehouses were built in low-lying areas like river valleys. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the warehouses built near the distillery, but I found out that they have been aging many barrels at a third party location for many years and maybe those warehouses had characteristics like I just described?
One final note to discuss here is the cooperage that Pepper uses. They knew their bourbon was probably not going to reach double digits of age for this product, so they depended on quality cooperage to give their whiskey a fighting chance. They source barrels built from staves that were air-dried for 18-24 months and also given a toasting treatment prior to being charred. In a lot of cases, this is a good way to fight off any youthful notes that don’t fully get filtered out through the aging process.
So how does this bourbon taste? Let’s find out. I have my good friend Mike over at Mostly Peaceful Bourbon to thank for the opportunity to sample this. I also want to point out that the batch I’m reviewing today is “Batch 0019” so if you’re following along with my tasting notes while you drink your bottle, we may not be having the exact same experience. As usual, my tasting notes are done neat and in a glencairn.
Tasting Notes
Nose: For being barrel proof, the nose on this pour is surprisingly light. I find that the fruit notes take the spotlight first with cherries, oranges and a hint of grenadine thrown in the mix. Sweetness is hard to pin down – it’s not like I’m smelling caramel, but it’s lighter. Powdered sugar or honey perhaps? These blend well with the “granola cereal” scent that doesn’t exactly come off as young, but I could see how others might take it that way. A hint of Nesquik powder and cinnamon also travel up into my nostrils. The cinnamon also comes off a bit like cinnamon toast to me, complete with vanilla icing. One thing I’m not finding much of are tannins. That could be a good or a bad thing depending on how you enjoy your bourbon.
Palate: The sweetness on this one still doesn’t totally reflect a “Caramel” flavor like I’d typically find in other bourbon. I find it to be more like confectionary sugar or light honey. The fruit notes begin leaning heavily into the stone fruit variety with cherry (also including cherry cola), citrus, apricot and maybe a hint of peach. The malted rye is probably responsible for this flavor that is similar to cacao nibs. I also start to find a little bit of nuttiness that I wasn’t finding on the nose. It’s not like Beam or HH nuttiness, but more like almonds I’d say. There is also nougat and vanilla. The tannins still aren’t popping out at me, but maybe I’m finding some leather. Baking spices are smooth and do not provide much heat at all.
Honestly, this whole dram is so smooth and refined, it almost tastes like it was heavily filtered. The label says its not, but it’s a thought that continued to cross my mind as I drank this.
Finish: Medium-long in length with more confectionary sugar and some orange zest that blend into a malted milk chocolate balls (Whoppers). There’s a nice smolder of baking spices along with the vanilla-forward flavor of toasted oak. A cola-nut combo lingers with gentle warmth. The finish also kind of ends on a clean note with very little aftertaste. Strange!
Score: 6.5/10
A pretty impressive showing from a relatively new distillery. I would’ve thought there was going to be more rough edges, with youthful grainy notes and perhaps some bitter tannins to deal with. That didn’t happen here. I do think there is some work to be done on developing the caramelized sugars across the spectrum. To me, this is how James E. Pepper reaches the next level.
If you come into this bottle with appropriate expectations, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. The price should be appropriate enough to not have you think you’re getting ripped off if it fails to check every box on your list. What this offers is approachability in everything it does. The proof is relatable across a large spectrum of palates, the flavors are familiar to anyone who likes Four Roses, Heaven Hill or Barton and the packaging is attractive enough that new and seasoned enthusiasts alike will want a pour from it.
Final Thoughts
I’m honestly not sure if this is the very first bottling of something that the James E. Pepper Distillery made from start to finish, but it’s going to be the one that everybody associates the distillery with. If they screwed this one up, it would be an uphill battle to convince enthusiasts to give the brand another shot. But I’m happy to report that my experience with this bottle showed they do have the chops to make solid whiskey. So not only do I recommend buying this bottle if you’re in the mood for something new, yet familiar, but to also check out any future products they roll out with – because I think they’re going to keep getting better.
