The Bourbon Cheapskate, Vol. 36: The Triple Oak Mason Jar Project

Sometimes Bourbon Cheapskate is about finding a bargain bottle that drinks above its price.

And sometimes it’s about asking a dangerous little question:

What happens if I mess with it?

That was the idea behind this experiment.

I took Member’s Mark Single Barrel, one of the better bargains around, and split the concept in two. One version stayed exactly as it came from the bottle. The other went into a mason jar with toasted and charred oak sticks to see whether a little extra oak influence could push it up a notch.

The idea wasn’t to transform it into something unrecognizable. It was to see whether a little home finishing could add richness, lengthen the finish, or bring out some extra complexity without tipping over into bitterness.

And that last part matters.

When you start adding wood, there’s always a risk that things go sideways. A little extra oak can deepen a bourbon. Too much can make it taste like a lumberyard with trust issues. So this wasn’t about leaving it in there until the whiskey turned black and started threatening people. It was about giving it enough time to improve, then pulling it before the wood took over.

The result?

Not dramatic — but definitely noticeable.

And in a project like this, that’s a win.

Original Member’s Mark Single Barrel

Appearance:
Mid-copper.

Nose:
Some proof jumps up front, followed by peanuts, caramel and hints of baking spice.

Palate:
The palate starts out spicy, with plenty of cinnamon, peanut butter, buttery caramel and a touch of brown sugar.

Mouthfeel:
Just shy of creamy.

Finish:
Decent, with the peanut and caramel notes lingering the longest.

Overall:
It’s not amazing, but it’s a strong bottle — especially at $19.

Score:
82.68

Triple Oak Mason Jar Version

Appearance:
No real change. The same mid-copper color remains. I thought the charred stick might have more of an effect, but the limited time apparently wasn’t enough. In the end, it was more important to pull it before bitterness showed up than to leave it longer in pursuit of a darker color.

Nose:
The ethanol and nuttiness are still there, but both are dialed back. Toasted oak and toffee now move more to the front.

Palate:
This is where it gets interesting. A sort of sherry- or port-like note seems to appear, even though no wine cask was involved. The cinnamon spice is still very much present, while toffee and vanilla work in the background.

Mouthfeel:
Not much change here. If anything, it moved from almost creamy to just a little more viscous. It still drinks better than you’d expect from a $19 bourbon.

Finish:
A little longer-lasting now, with some milk chocolate joining the cinnamon and caramel.

Overall:
The change isn’t dramatic, but it is noticeable and enjoyable. Was the one-week oaking worth it? Absolutely. The oak finishing kit adds about $6 to the bottle — at least for the portion I used — but even at roughly $25 total, this is still an outstanding bargain.

Score:
84.09

Verdict

So was it worth doing?

Yes.

The Triple Oak version didn’t completely reinvent the bourbon, but it did improve it. The nose became a little more refined, the finish stretched out a bit, and the overall profile picked up some extra character — especially the toffee, toasted oak and that unexpected sherry-like note.

That may not sound like a massive leap, and it isn’t. But this is where the Bourbon Cheapskate mindset comes in. We’re not talking about squeezing out a tiny improvement on an $80 bottle. We’re talking about taking a $19 bourbon and nudging it upward with a simple, inexpensive experiment.

That matters.

The score moved from 82.68 to 84.09, a gain of 1.41 points. In whiskey terms, that’s meaningful. It takes the bottle from “really solid for the price” to “this is honestly kind of impressive for the money.”

Would I do it again?

Absolutely.

Because at about $25 all in, this is still a bargain — and now it’s a bargain with a little extra personality.

For a Bourbon Cheapskate, that’s hard to beat.