I’ve accumulated a collection of cocktail recipes that caught my attention for various reasons—seasonal twists on classics, interesting spirit combinations, techniques that seemed worth exploring. The problem is that recipes, even detailed ones, don’t tell you much about whether they’ll actually work for your palate or circumstances.

So instead of trying each one once and moving on, I’m taking a different approach: iterative refinement. Pick a cocktail, make it according to the recipe, document what works and what doesn’t, adjust, and repeat. The goal isn’t to declare definitive “best” versions—that would be missing the point—but to understand what variables actually matter and develop versions optimized for how I prefer to drink.

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The Process

This isn’t rocket science, but it does require some structure:

• Start with the base recipe as written

• Make it, taste it, note specific reactions (not vague impressions)

• Identify 1-2 variables to test in the next iteration

• Document changes and results

• Repeat until I hit diminishing returns or I get bored of it

Some recipes might need minimal adjustment. Others might require significant rework or reveal they’re fundamentally not worth the effort. That’s useful information either way.

Learning Along the Way

I’m not coming at this from a bartending background or deep spirits knowledge. Part of the point here is building that understanding—why certain spirits work in certain contexts, what historical or regional factors shaped these recipes, how technique actually impacts the final product. I’ll document that learning process as it happens rather than pretending to expertise I don’t have.

If I discover something interesting about rye whiskey’s role in stirred cocktails or why certain bitters combinations work, that’ll get included. Same with historical context when it’s actually relevant to understanding a drink. But I’m not going to force it or turn this into a research project. The focus stays on the iterative refinement; the broader knowledge gets built as a natural byproduct of paying attention.

Why This Matters (Or Doesn’t)

I’m not particularly interested in cocktail culture or mixology as performance. I am interested in understanding what makes drinks work, which components are doing heavy lifting, and where traditional wisdom holds up versus where it’s just convention. If you’ve ever followed a recipe that produced something technically correct but not particularly compelling, you know what I’m talking about.

This is also about recognizing constraints. I’m not setting up a professional bar or sourcing obscure ingredients. The iterations need to work within realistic boundaries—what’s available locally, what doesn’t require specialty equipment, what can be made without excessive prep time. If a drink only works with fresh-pressed juice from a specific apple variety, that’s worth knowing before investing more time in it.

What to Expect

I’ll be working through a series of cocktails over the coming months—autumn and winter seasonal drinks, some classics, a few that intrigued me for their technique or unusual combinations. Each will get its own post documenting the iteration process: what I changed, why, and what the results were.

Some posts will be short—”this worked as written, here’s why.” Others might involve multiple rounds of testing. I’m not going to pad things out or manufacture complexity where it doesn’t exist. If a recipe doesn’t deliver after a couple solid attempts, I’ll document why and move on.

If you’re looking for photography tips, craft cocktail philosophy, or exhaustive historical context, this probably isn’t your series. If you’re interested in a methodical approach to figuring out what actually matters in a drink versus what’s just noise—and building practical knowledge about spirits and cocktail fundamentals in the process—you might find this useful.

Let’s see where this goes.

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Aside from a general interest in all things in the whiskey space in the United States, a good personal friend of mine wrote this article a few years ago. What it did for me was to raise my suspicions that something was going on. I had been a big fan of the Uncle Nearest brand building(remain a fan of the story). I even had the opportunity to be on a call with “The Peoples CEO”. I brought my daughters to the computer just so they could see a female leader in a largely male space. The kinds of things that they deserve to see.

Knowing the push back David received after writing that article put me as a cautious observer so when the entire receivership process began I knew I wanted to watch. Luckily someone far more talented with words began a live blog of that. What follows is the best summarization of his work that I can muster.

If you’re not already following this situation, go to Mickey Pinstripe’s live updates at The Bourbon and Rye Club before reading further: thebourbonandryeclub.com/uncle-nearest-lawsuit-live-updates

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This is a condensed October summary for people already tracking the case. All investigative work and detailed analysis belongs to Mickey Pinstripe (Michael DeKeyser). Follow him: @thebourbonandryeclub on Instagram | @TheBandRClub on X

The receiver filed his first quarterly report 10/1, the Weavers fought expansion of receivership to additional entities 10/22, and by 10/31 an agreed order required those entities to provide bank statements. Here’s the timeline.

Core findings: Company has significant value and can be reorganized as a going concern. Fire-sale liquidation unnecessary. BUT—non-income producing assets (Cognac château, Martha’s Vineyard house, various properties) will be sold. Core whiskey business viable with refinanced debt or sale.

Key revelations:

• Financial records before 2024 allegedly erased by former employee

• Capitalization table inaccurate and incomplete

• Some validity to allegations against former CFO, but no evidence of misappropriation by current management “to date”

• 12 employees laid off (13% workforce reduction)

• Bank injected $2.5M additional funding to keep operations running

• Cash flow was major challenge initially, now stabilized

• Hundreds of creditors contacting receiver

• Related entities commingled assets to point they’re “best viewed as a single enterprise”

Financial issues identified:

• Non-reconciled balances

• Unusual accounting entries lacking documentation

• Improper revenue recognition practices may inflate perceived performance

• Grant Sidney and Quill & Cask transactions require further review

Timeline: Receiver hopes to conclude by Q1 2026 through debt refinancing or sale of company as going concern.

10/03: WhistlePig filed request for court updates (owed money for rye whiskey or bottling services)

10/07: Oracle/NetSuite filed similar request (owed money for software services)

10/11: Board of directors info revealed—John Eugster from First Dominion Capital identified

10/13: Receiver filed Motion of Compliance, officially served notice on 10 entities he wants included in receivership (the “Tentities”):

• Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ

• Shelbyville Grand LLC

• Grant Sidney Inc. (largest UN shareholder, owned by Fawn Weaver)

• Quill and Cask Owner LLC (owned by Keith Weaver, purchased barrels from UN)

• Nashwood Inc.

• Humble Baron Inc. (world’s longest bar, paid for by UN)

• 4 Park Street LLC

• Uncle Nearest Spurs (created for potential San Antonio Spurs investment)

• Classic Hops Brewing Co.

• Weaver Interwoven Family Foundation

Mickey’s research uncovered multiple Grant Sidney-owned trademarks unrelated to whiskey:

• Second Rose: Spirits company owned by Fawn via Grant Sidney, filed 6/27/25

• King Narmer: Beer/brewery trademark (Egyptian king who owned ancient brewery)

• Skinny Southerner: Possible lifestyle/diet book

• Various other entities at same Nashville address (Deaderick Street)

10/21: Tentities’ deadline to respond to receiver’s inclusion motion

10/22: 12 separate filings hit the court. Weavers retained new attorney Michael E. Collins from Manier & Herod. Each Tentity filed lengthy responses arguing against inclusion.

Key arguments from Tentities:

• Receiver taking no position means no basis for inclusion

• Farm Credit filed nothing to support allegations despite court order

• Entities maintain separate operations, books, bank accounts

• Humble Baron legally required to be separate from UN for liquor licensing

• Grant Sidney’s $30M loan to UN during forbearance was legitimate equity investment

• Payments between entities were proper (disputed by Farm Credit)

Notable admissions:

• Grant Sidney initially booked transactions as barrel sales, later recharacterized as loans

• Some transactions “incorrectly booked” due to “speed required”

• Humble Baron operates rent-free on UN property

• UN paid for Humble Baron’s Guinness World Record designation

• Shelbyville Grand (Keith-owned) claims UN owes rent since February 2025 but hasn’t paid

Farm Credit filed response to court’s 9/30 order—all sealed:

• Summary of cash transactions from UN’s financial advisor

• Levy Settlement Agreement

• Barrel Purchase Agreement with Q and Cask (no executed copy received)

• Summary of findings from receiver’s financial advisor

Documents remain sealed because Tentities aren’t yet under court jurisdiction.

10/24: Tentities filed Pro Hac Vice motion for California attorney Oren specializing in distressed businesses, receiverships, protecting assets

10/25: Mickey analyzed Fawn’s Inc. 5000 Conference interview where she:

• Called Martha’s Vineyard property “smear campaign tactic”

• Claimed bank tried to “taint the judge, who’s going to be White in eastern Tennessee”

• Said she wouldn’t buy vacation home “not on the water in a town that is not sunny nine months out of the year” (contradicts prior “business investment” claim)

• Revealed UN House MV LLC and 4 Front Street LLC ownership details

10/27: Weavers filed complaint that Farm Credit violated “spirit” of court order by waiting to file sealed documents until after Tentities’ responses were due

10/27 (2.0): Receiver filed response making clear he’s not doing Farm Credit’s bidding:

• Motion to Clarify was to alert court to entities and seek interpretation, not advocate for expansion

• “It would be inappropriate for the Receiver to argue for the extension of his duties”

• “The Receiver is here to follow the direction provided to him by this Court, and not to do the bidding of any other party”

• Receiver retained Arlington Capital Advisors to advise on possible transactions including sale of assets

10/28: Mickey discovered two separate Deere & Company (John Deere) loans in Keith Weaver’s name for Eady Road property equipment, paid for by Uncle Nearest

Court approved joint motion with agreed order:

• Motion to Clarify stayed pending review of bank records

• Tentities must provide 2 years of bank statements within 7 days

• Receiver has 14 days to review

• If additional info needed, can request up to 3 more years of statements

• Tentities have 10 days to provide or explain why unavailable

• After review, receiver will either request hearing or withdraw Motion to Clarify

• Receiver must file progress reports every 30 days

Significance: This is the mechanism that determines inclusion. If bank statements show comingling/impropriety, hearing likely happens and Tentities get included in receivership. If not, receiver withdraws motion.

October showed the receivership moving from assessment to action. The receiver’s report confirmed the company has value but identified serious financial control issues. The fight over the Tentities is the key battle—if those entities get included, the receiver gains access to a much broader financial picture.

The Cognac business is getting sold. The Martha’s Vineyard house is getting sold. Non-essential properties are getting liquidated. What emerges will be a smaller, cleaner Uncle Nearest—possibly under new ownership by Q1 2026.

The bank statements due under the 10/31 agreed order are the next inflection point. Those will determine whether the corporate veil gets pierced.

Again: This summary is based entirely on Mickey Pinstripe’s investigative reporting at thebourbonandryeclub.com. He’s doing the document review, financial analysis, and trademark research. Support his work directly.

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

There’s something deeply uncomfortable about blind tastings if you’ve spent years developing preferences in whiskey. You’ve learned to recognize distillery profiles, you’ve got favorite brands, you’ve built a mental map of what you like and why. Then someone puts three glasses in front of you with zero information and asks you to put your palate where your mouth is.

That’s exactly what happened when I decided to host a virtual blind tasting for a group of friends I’ve been drinking whiskey with for years. We’re geographically scattered across the country—these guys have become legitimate friends through shared trips, group chats, and an ongoing conversation about whiskey, fatherhood, work, life, all of it. But we don’t get together in person as often as we’d like.

So when someone suggested we do virtual blind tastings as a way to keep the tradition alive, I volunteered to go first. I sent samples to Patrick, Don, Bill, and David. The rules were simple: three bourbons, all eight years old, all hovering around 100-101 proof, all readily available. Claude (yes, an AI) randomized the order. Nobody knew what they were drinking.

The first pour sparked immediate debate. “Smells musty,” Bill said, though we quickly determined his glass was just frosted. David was confident within seconds: “I know which distillery this is. I’d put a bet on it.” He called Buffalo Trace off the nose, doubled down after tasting it, and was dead wrong.

The whiskey in question was Wilderness Trail’s 8-year bottled-in-bond release. Don ultimately nailed it—guessing not just the distillery but the age and proof point. The rest of us were scattered across the map: Barton, Buffalo Trace, even a 1792 guess got thrown around.

Here’s what makes that revealing: Wilderness Trail has a pretty distinctive profile if you’ve had their picks. But when you strip away the context—when you can’t anchor to the label or recall that store pick you loved—suddenly that distinctiveness becomes harder to pin down. Bill noted how the nose kept evolving in the glass: “After I went back, it was chocolatey and then it went back to cherry notes—almost like chocolate-covered maraschino cherries.”

That kind of complexity gets lost when you’re too busy trying to reverse-engineer what distillery made something instead of just experiencing what’s in the glass.

The second whiskey—New Riff’s 8-year—sparked an entirely different kind of debate. Multiple people immediately wondered if it was MGP. Bill wasn’t a fan, noting a “astringent” or “scratchy” quality on the backend that took him out of it. This is where brand perceptions get interesting.

New Riff has worked hard to establish their own identity separate from sourced distillate. They’re transparent about their process, they’re making their own juice, and they’ve built a following around their Kentucky grain-forward style. But when people taste blind and don’t love something, MGP becomes the easy explanation—a catch-all for “this doesn’t fit my preferred profile.”

The reveal was telling. Bill admitted afterward: “Unfortunately I’m not terribly surprised that I wasn’t the biggest fan of New Riff. When I’m looking to grab a bottle, they’re never one I even consider.” Blind tastings don’t just test your ability to identify whiskey—they force you to confront whether your preferences are about the liquid or about the story you’ve told yourself about certain brands.

The third whiskey turned out to be Wild Turkey 8-year at 101 proof, and it landed solidly in second place for most of us after the reveal. What struck me was how the Turkey profile—something people claim to recognize instantly—became surprisingly hard to pin down when divorced from context.

David noted post-reveal: “The Turkey was as good as I remember it. The Wilderness was better than I remember.” That second sentence is the key insight. When we taste with labels visible, we’re comparing against memory and expectation. When we taste blind, we’re forced to evaluate what’s actually in front of us right now.

The consensus after the reveal was interesting: Wilderness Trail took the top spot for most participants, Wild Turkey landed solidly in second, and New Riff came in third despite being perfectly competent bourbon.

Patrick made a fair point during the debrief: “I feel like I was at a disadvantage. Two of these brands I’ve only ever had picks of, so I don’t really know their profiles because everything I have is different.” That’s valid—but it’s also kind of the point.

The whiskey industry has moved heavily toward single barrels and store picks, which means the “house profile” becomes less relevant. If every Wilderness Trail or New Riff bottle you buy is a unique pick with distinct characteristics, what does it even mean to “know” their profile?

Blind tastings strip away the safety net of brand recognition and force you to reckon with the whiskey itself. Sometimes that’s humbling—David admitted, “This confirms why I should never be in Matt Madness.” But it’s also liberating. You discover that the expensive bottle you’ve been chasing might not actually be better than the readily available option sitting on the shelf. You realize your palate has blind spots. You learn that complexity and evolution in the glass matter more than hitting predetermined flavor checkpoints.

“The wilderness kept changing so much in the glass. It was chocolatey, then it went back to cherry notes—almost like chocolate-covered maraschino cherries.” - Bill

The blind tasting didn’t reveal some hidden gem—it revealed that we often overlook accessible, high-quality whiskey because we’re too busy chasing the next hyped allocation.

If you’re interested in participating in one of these virtual blind tastings with the group—and yes, I’m serious about this—reach out via email at [email protected]. With enough planning, we can make it happen. Because honestly? Getting your assumptions challenged by friends while drinking good whiskey is about the best way I know to spend an evening.

Listen to the full episode wherever you get your podcasts, or watch the video version on YouTube. Subscribe to stay updated on future blind tastings, whiskey reviews, and conversations that go beyond the label.

Embellish Pod is now available on Substack for podcast hosting and written content. Find all links, episodes, and contact details at www.embellishpod.com or connect on Instagram/TikTok @embellishpod.

So hopefully by now you’ve watched the most recent episode where I talked a little bit about Kentucky Bourbon Festival. One of the things I mentioned in there specifically was about Craig Beam and what Craig Beam is doing at Jackson Purchase Distillery.

I’m a little biased towards Jackson Purchase, mainly because it’s on the western end of the state. They’ve been producing whiskey for quite some time, and they sneakily — somewhat sneakily — released a bottle around festival time. I’ve subsequently been able to find that bottle, and I’m super excited to talk about it.

Jackson Purchase Batch 1, Full Proof, Four Year Whiskey at 117.8 proof.

When you’ve got a name like Beam, you’ve got to make some good whiskey, obviously. And it’s at a reasonable price point, I think, for a first launch of a brand. But let’s talk about it, right?

We drank this three different times, three different days on three different sets of glassware with an intent to try to remove any bias that I might have based off of what happened throughout the course of that day.

First Pass:

• Nose: A lot of caramel and barrel spice.

• Palate: Like cranberry juice, but not the cranberry cocktail — just regular cranberry juice — and a little bit of nut.

• Finish: Some orange zest and some black pepper.

Second Pass:

• Nose: Gummy caramel and a little bit of cola.

• Palate: More sarsaparilla and tart cherry.

• Finish: Real zesty and spicy kind of again.

Third Pass:

• Nose: My immediate thought was, is this a Christmas bourbon? Maybe.

• Palate: Cranberry and sour cherry again.

• Finish: Grapefruit zest and barrel spice.

I think for a first entry into the market, for a four year old whiskey, for what these guys are doing — phenomenal pour.

Go figure out what these guys have going on. They’re doing some contract distillation for some other folks, but they’re also making their own stuff. And this is a very phenomenal pour at the price point that it is and for what they’re doing.

If you haven’t checked out Jackson Purchase yet, now’s the time.

Details:

• Proof: 117.8

• Age: 4 Years

• Type: Full Proof, Batch 1

• Worth it? Absolutely. Great price point for what you’re getting.

I recently had Angel’s Envy on the podcast, and they were nice enough to send over their 10 Year Cask Strength. Now, the 10 year thing is a little different than what you might think. It’s not necessarily what they’re calling it, but it’s 10-ish years old. Has to do with their use of secondary barrels and what they’re doing there. Go listen to the podcast with Owen if you want the full breakdown on that, because it’s actually pretty fascinating.

This particular bottle clocked in at 122.6 proof and retails for $250. So yeah, it’s a pricey bottle. Let’s talk about whether it’s worth the dollars or not.

I drank this three different days on three different sets of glassware. Why? To try to eliminate any palate bias I might have based off of what I consumed that particular day. This is how I approach anything I’m taking seriously.

First Pass:

• Nose: Plum, oak, dark sugars, and cola. A lot going on, which you sort of expect for a 10-ish year old whiskey.

• Palate: Brighter fruit, maybe stone fruit of some type, but not quite as dark as plum. Still some dark sugar kind of floating around in there, but maybe not from the fruit side of it.

• Finish: Chocolate, chocolate, and dark fruit cake. And maybe chocolate is a note for either a pirate or a flavor of charred chocolate, right? Hey, maybe we’ll keep that for later on.

Second Pass:

• Nose: Like a red caramel. That’s not a thing, but that’s what my brain told me. Sometimes it bees that way.

• Palate: Cola, jammy fruit, and some super, super sweet black tea.

• Finish: Really solid wood and jammy notes.

Third Pass:

• Nose: Caramel, gummy, wood. That’s what my brain said. It’s what you get, right?

• Palate: Wood and tea, and there was something herbal in there that I couldn’t quite place.

• Finish: Chocolate and barrel spice. And maybe there’s some char-clot in there as well. Maybe that’s what I’m getting there.

I really enjoyed this pour. I like older aged whiskeys — probably stop around 15 years — but somewhere between 10 and 15 seems to be the right place for me. This hits that sweet spot.

If you’re the kind of person that has no problem spending $250 on a bottle, this is probably an easy buy for you. If you do have a problem spending that kind of money and you see it out at a bar for 20 or 30 bucks for a pour, it’s probably worth trying. I think it’s a phenomenal whiskey.

If you live in this part of the state and you want to try it, let me know. I’ll pour you up some. But beyond that, if you see it out and you get an opportunity to try it, you really probably should give it a shot.

What these guys are doing is really, really interesting. Go listen to what Owen has to say on the podcast. It’s a really fun episode and you should go listen to that because that’s what makes this possible.

Details:

• Proof: 122.6

• Price: $250

• Age: ~10 years

• Worth it? Absolutely, if the price doesn’t scare you off.

Look, I’m going to be blunt here because someone needs to say it: if you attended the 2025 Kentucky Bourbon Festival and spent three hours standing in line to buy a bottle of bourbon, you fundamentally misunderstood what you paid for.

I’ve been attending this festival since 2021—first as a general admission attendee, then as a VIP, and for the last few years as media. I’ve seen this thing from every angle, and I’ve watched it devolve from a genuine bourbon appreciation event into something that resembles Black Friday at a fucking Best Buy. And it’s not the festival’s fault. It’s ours.

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Here’s what a $190-$600 ticket to the Kentucky Bourbon Festival gets you: access to over 200 bourbon expressions from 65 distilleries. You get to meet master distillers. You get to taste bottles that cost over a thousand dollars—Very Old St. Nick was being poured on-site, just included in your admission. You get to discover craft distilleries like Potter Jane, who was showing their new make that won’t be available for years. Craig Beam—yes, that Beam family—debuted his first bourbon from Jackson Purchase Distillery. Dark Arts had their 16-year Buffalo Trace selection available to taste.

But instead of experiencing any of that, thousands of people woke up at 5 a.m., stood in line for hours, and then sprinted across a grass field when the gates opened to stand in another line for three more hours to buy a bottle of Heaven Hill’s latest limited edition.

You paid hundreds of dollars to be a trophy hunter in a high-fence operation, and then you complained about it on social media.

Almost every piece of content generated about this year’s festival mentions the same things: long lines, bottle access issues, chaos at the gates. And yeah, those things happened. But here’s the thing—the bottle sales are supposed to be incidental. This isn’t a bottle-hunting event. It’s an access event.

The Kentucky Bourbon Festival wasn’t created as a competition to see who could acquire the most allocated bottles. Hell, the first couple of years you couldn’t even buy bottles at the event. It was about creating an immersive bourbon experience for people who wanted to learn, taste, and explore. Not just acquire and hoard.

Somewhere between 2021 and 2025, we lost the plot. Bourbon culture has an identity crisis, and it’s showing up in ugly ways at events like this.

While you were complaining with your buddies about how long the bottle line was taking, here’s what was happening:

Dan Callaway from Barstown Bourbon Company was explaining their first-ever double-barreled Hungarian Oak release. Whiskey House—one of the most technologically advanced distilleries in Kentucky—was educating people about the growing importance of contract distilling. Potter Jane was giving people a taste of new make that represents what could be one of the most interesting brands in a few years.

There were 200+ expressions to taste. If you walked into a bar and tried to drink through even ten of those, you’d spend what you spent on your ticket. And there’s still 190 more to go.

But sure, stand in line for three hours for a bottle that’s going to have the same 24 ounces as every other bottle, and that you’ll forget about when next year’s limited edition drops.

I get it—not everyone wants to geek out over craft distilleries or have deep conversations with master distillers. Some people just want their allocated bottles. Fine. But if that’s your goal, maybe the Kentucky Bourbon Festival isn’t for you. Because the actual value of this event is in the things you can’t replicate anywhere else.

Want to know what makes this festival worth it? It’s about access and community. It’s about tasting things you’ve never seen before. It’s about meeting people who share your passion for bourbon. It’s about learning something new from someone who’s spent their entire career perfecting a craft.

I stayed with a group of people I met through the internet—folks from Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, South Carolina. We cooked meals together, we had our own tastings at night, we went to offsite events together. That’s what bourbon is supposed to be about. It’s a communal spirit. It brings people together who otherwise would never be in the same room.

But you don’t get that experience standing in a bottle line for three hours, pissed off that the person in front of you got the last one.

Here’s my solution, and it’s going to be controversial: Kentucky Bourbon Festival should eliminate all on-site sales of limited edition releases. Not single barrels—those are fine. Not standard releases from craft distilleries who desperately need that direct-to-consumer revenue. But the Heaven Hill 21-years, the ultra-allocated trophy bottles that create operational chaos and attendee frustration? Get rid of them.

Force people to remember what this festival is actually for. It’s for drinking bourbon, not hoarding it.

Because here’s the dirty little secret: there are reports—unsubstantiated from my perspective, but reports nonetheless—of people darting in as VIPs, grabbing multiple limited editions, and reselling them in the parking lot to people walking into the event. That’s illegal. That’s unsafe. And that’s what happens when you turn an appreciation event into a bottle-hunting competition.

And to my fellow social media people: we have a responsibility here. A lot of us were given free access to this event. We got media passes, we got food, we got opportunities that regular attendees paid hundreds of dollars for. And what did most of the biggest accounts do with that access?

They made the same damn video everyone else made: “Long lines! Bottle chaos! Here’s my haul!”

Who cares? In six months, nobody’s going to give a shit about those bottles. But you know what would have been valuable? Deep dives on craft distilleries. Conversations with master distillers about their techniques. Educational content about what makes this event special. Comparisons of VIP versus general admission value. Literally anything other than another bottle-hunting strategy guide.

Stop making content that feeds the algorithm and start making content that serves the community. Because right now, you’re contributing to the problem.

Here’s my advice: go to the Kentucky Bourbon Festival with the right expectations. Pick one “must-do” thing per day—whether that’s standing in a bottle line or tasting a specific expression. Then spend the rest of your time exploring. Talk to distillers. Try something you’ve never heard of. Meet people. Have fun.

If you go expecting to leave with a trunk full of allocated bottles, you’re going to have a bad time. But if you go expecting unprecedented access to bourbon culture at its peak, you’re going to have an incredible experience.

The value is still there. The festival is still worth attending. You just have to show up for the right reasons.

And for the love of God, stop running across grass fields like you’re storming the beaches at Normandy. It’s bourbon. It’s supposed to be fun.

Listen to the full episode for more thoughts on the Kentucky Bourbon Festival, bourbon culture, and why we need to get our priorities straight. Find me on Instagram and TikTok @EmbellishPod, or visit www.embellishpod.com.

Thanks for reading Embellish Podcast! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

As whiskey enthusiasts increasingly explore the broader world of spirits, Armagnac presents itself as a natural stepping stone for those seeking new flavors while staying within familiar territory. The Delord XO Bas Armagnac, aged 15 years and bottled at 40% ABV, offers an intriguing entry point into this historic French brandy category.

My tasting process involves revisiting each spirit three separate times, allowing the spirit to reveal different facets of its character with each pass. This method often uncovers subtle nuances that might be missed in a single tasting, while also demonstrating how our palates and perceptions can shift even within a short period.
First Pass

Nose: Green vegetal notes, fresh tomato-like fruit character, punchy and savory

Palate: Almost-but-not-quite raisin notes, suggestions of golden raisin

Finish: Burnt sugar

Second Pass

Nose: Christmas homemade hard candy, orange and grape candy with oily fruit essence

Palate: Dark raisin notes, grape skin tannins

Finish: Well-aired wood varnish

Third Pass

Nose: Chocolate covered cranberries

Palate: Sweet BBQ pork bark, charred Kansas City-style rib edges

Finish: Apple blossom tea

For whiskey enthusiasts looking to broaden their horizons without venturing too far from familiar territory, this Delord XO Bas Armagnac offers an excellent introduction to the category. It maintains enough familiar elements to feel comfortable while introducing the unique characteristics that make Armagnac special. Its wide availability makes it an accessible choice for those ready to begin their brandy journey.

Western Kentucky Distilling, though new to the scene, brings seasoned expertise through Master Distiller Jacob Call. This 7-year-old single barrel release represents one of their first offerings, utilizing select stock from Call’s transition from Green River Distilling. Each tasting note session helps uncover the layers of complexity in this bourbon.

Nose: Caramel oak, proof presence, classic bourbon notes

Palate: Leather, varnish, off-sweet with oak

Finish: Spice build, increasing wood presence, rickhouse essence

Nose: Caramel candies, dust (not dusty), red berry

Palate: Dark sugar, spice, funk, marker (pleasantly)

Finish: Sweetened double espresso film, bitter-sweet-creamy

Nose: Chocolate covered caramels, cola

Palate: Effervescent, root beer barrel candy, spicy (barrel spice not proof)

Finish: Dries to savory notes, brown sugar steak rub

This single barrel release from Western Kentucky Distilling showcases the potential of what’s to come from this new distillery. Perfect for bourbon enthusiasts who appreciate traditional Kentucky bourbon profiles with complex depth. The combination of age and expert barrel selection makes this an excellent addition to any bourbon collection.

Website:

https://westernkydistilling.com/

Instagram: @westernkydistilling

MB Roland’s experimental fill-your-own bottle program yielded this unique single barrel selection. While this specific barrel’s notes may not be replicable, it provides insight into the quality and character of MB Roland’s single barrel program, which has attracted attention from notable industry selectors.

Nose: Maple cream candy, slight dry wine finish, hay dust, sweet tea

Palate: Dry and caramel, sweet tea, barrel char

Finish: Medium spice build, mildly tannic

Nose: Banana runts (from distance), dry notes, mineral water, red wine finish, toasted Eggo waffle

Palate: Dry wood, rickhouse, black tea sweetened with agave

Finish: Spice proof, sorghum molasses, dried wood

Nose: Coffee beans, hay barn, honey

Palate: Barrel-aged coffee, quintessential bourbon flavors

Finish: Drying, spice build, cocoa nibs

MB Roland continues to impress with their single barrel program, offering unique profiles that showcase both traditional bourbon characteristics and distinctive regional influences. This bottle demonstrates why their picks are increasingly sought after by industry experts and enthusiasts alike.

Website:

https://mbroland.com/

Instagram: @mbrolanddistillery

Golden Sheaf, under David Mark Young’s guidance, crafts intentionally blended whiskeys that aim to capture historical flavor profiles.

Nose: Rich old wood smell

Palate: Nutty and caramel

Finish: Slight dry, off-sweet, savory

Nose: Old furniture, burnt sugar, dark caramel, marker

Palate: 10-year-old rye bourbon character

Finish: Mahogany, slightly smoky, more savory than sweet

Nose: Caramelized bananas, graham cracker, burnt sugar

Palate: Spice and dark chocolate, creamy banana notes

Finish: Drying, spice in mid-tongue, very full mouthfeel

Golden Sheaf succeeds in creating a whiskey that captures the essence of mature bourbon. Perfect for enthusiasts who appreciate older bourbon profiles and those interested in historically-inspired whiskey expressions.