I’ve looked at Wolcott Bottled-in-Bond more than once at Total Wine & More, and every time I put it back on the shelf.

Spirits Direct bottles can be hit or miss. Add to that the fact that it’s another product from Barton 1792 Distillery, and I’ll admit I’ve been a little cautious. I’m still watching the situation with Early Times Bottled-in-Bond, so I wasn’t in a hurry to jump in.

But at $35, curiosity finally won.

I decided to taste it next to its higher-proof sibling, Wolcott Rickhouse Reserve. I reviewed the Rickhouse Reserve blind back in November, and apparently it made an impression — I’m down to about a quarter of the bottle.

Color

Both pour a similar mid-amber. Nothing especially dark or striking. As always, color doesn’t determine much for me, but this one sits on the lighter end of what I typically see.

Nose

The difference shows up quickly.

The Rickhouse Reserve opens with vanilla, citrus, and light oak. It’s bright and inviting.

The Bottled-in-Bond carries some of those same notes, but the dominant aroma is dusty peanuts — almost like sitting down at a table at Texas Roadhouse and cracking shells before the meal arrives. Not unpleasant, just more rustic.

Palate

The Rickhouse Reserve brings cinnamon, orange zest, vanilla, brown sugar, and oak in a well-balanced combination. It drinks below its proof and carries good complexity.

The Bonded version overlaps in flavor but simplifies the experience. Cinnamon leads, followed by sweet peanut butter and vanilla. The flavors are nice, but there’s less depth and less development across the sip.

Finish

The Rickhouse Reserve has a borderline creamy mouthfeel, and the sugar-and-spice finish lingers. It hangs on in a way that makes you want another sip.

The Bottled-in-Bond is noticeably thinner. Not watery — just less substantial. The finish shows similar sweet and spice notes but fades much more quickly.

Final Thoughts

The Rickhouse Reserve has earned its spot on my shelf. It ranks highly in my Top 64 and will soon face serious competition in the Best-of-the-Shelf Challenge.

As for the Bonded — which is the reason for this post — I’m not blown away, but I’m not disappointed either. Out of 22 bottled-in-bond bourbons on my shelf, it comes in at No. 10. When I looked closer, the nine above it are all more expensive, many by a wide margin.

At $35, this is a fair bottle. It’s solid. It’s honest. It performs where it should.

And it does make me wonder whether, after the 64-bottle challenge wraps up, I need a separate tournament for my 100-proofers and bottled-in-bonds.

For now, though, I wouldn’t shy away from Wolcott. It’s worth having. And it’s certainly worth drinking.