At some point, every bourbon tinkerer asks the same dangerous question.
What would happen if I took a good, affordable bourbon and gave it a little extra time, a little extra oak, and maybe a little extra influence from something that had been in the barrel before?
That question is how small barrels, mason jars, oak staves and questionable kitchen-counter experiments become part of a person’s life.
This particular experiment began with my small finishing barrel, which had already been used for a sherry finish. Once the sherry was emptied, I started running bourbons through the barrel to see what would happen. The goal was not to turn ordinary whiskey into Pappy. I’m a bourbon cheapskate, not a bourbon magician. The goal was simpler than that: take cheap-but-good bourbon and see whether finishing could make it more interesting, more flavorful or just plain better.
The five finished bourbons in this blind were:
DeBolt Old No. 59, formerly Benchmark Full Proof, which entered the cask immediately after the sherry finish and sat in oak for three weeks.
Rivertown Reserve Founder’s Selection, formerly Buffalo Trace, which sat in the oak for about a month.
Old Reporter 2026, formerly Old Forester 100 proof bourbon, which sat in the barrel for about six weeks.
Free Bird, formerly Early Times Bottled-in-Bond, which rested in the barrel for about two months.
DeBolt Dramworks, the outlier, which was finished in mason jars for about a week with charred and toasted oak staves.
I poured the glasses, shuffled them, then shuffled them again, and made sure I tasted without looking at the color. I wanted nose, palate, mouthfeel and finish to do the heavy lifting before appearance had a chance to start whispering suggestions.
I did look at color eventually, but only at the end of each tasting.
Glencairn A
The nose opened with something I’ve noticed throughout this project: a fruit-forward note that I’m guessing came from the sherry influence left in the barrel. There was definite oak present, too, with a bit of caramel tucked in behind the fruit.
On the palate, the fruit remained in charge, but the toasted oak jumped up quickly. Cinnamon showed up in a fairly big way, with bits of caramel and chocolate riding along behind it. The finishing clearly improved the flavor profile, adding some depth and direction, but the mouthfeel still leaned a little thin.
The finish helped redeem that. It lingered better than the mouthfeel suggested it would, carrying red fruit, baking spice and a hint of chocolate.
Only after tasting did I check the color: light mahogany.
Score: 82.89
This was a great start to the blind. I thought I knew which one this was, and I really liked the outcome. Whether it would end up being the best of the bunch was another question, but as a first pour, it made a pretty good argument for the project.
Glencairn B
The nose again led with fruit, but this time it moved in a different direction. Instead of red fruit first, I got grape — almost like grape candy — with vanilla, light caramel and toasted oak also present.
On the palate, the red fruit came back into focus, followed by toasted oak. A wave of cinnamon moved in after that, bringing some buttery toffee along with it.
The mouthfeel was one of this pour’s strengths. It was borderline creamy, giving it a little more body than the first glass. The finish lingered nicely, with toffee, spice and sweet fruit leading the way.
Only after tasting did I check the color: deep amber.
Score: 81.59
There were a few things I liked about this more than the first dram, especially the texture. But overall, it felt like it landed a step behind Glass A. It had some very nice pieces, but the first glass came together a little more convincingly.
Glencairn C
The nose immediately moved in a different direction from the first two glasses. Instead of leading with red fruit or grape candy, this one opened with bananas, buttery toffee and light oak.
On the palate, it became a bit of a flavor bomb. Cinnamon, bananas, buttery toffee, vanilla and toasted oak all showed up clearly, and they worked together rather than fighting for space.
The mouthfeel was lightly viscous, and that added texture helped the flavors hang around beyond the sip. The finish carried bananas and toffee up front, with cinnamon and oak trailing behind them.
Only after tasting did I check the color: light copper.
Score: 84.20
This was easily the best of the bunch so far. I thought I knew what each of these drams was, but I was a little surprised by the finishing order to this point. Whatever this one turned out to be, it made the strongest case yet that the project did more than add novelty. It improved the whiskey.
Glencairn D
The nose brought dusty peanuts, caramel, oak and nutmeg, making this one feel more classically bourbon-forward than the fruit-driven pours earlier in the blind.
On the palate, buttery caramel jumped up quickly, followed by creamy peanut butter, cinnamon and vanilla. It did not explode in quite the same way Glass C did, but the flavors were clear, enjoyable and well-integrated.
The mouthfeel was borderline creamy, which helped give the pour some weight. The finish was better than average, with buttery toffee and cinnamon doing most of the work.
Only after tasting did I check the color: solid amber.
Score: 81.70
Once again, I was pretty sure I knew what this was, but the finishing elevated it beyond what is already enjoyable in its original form. It may not have been the most surprising glass in the lineup, but it was a successful one.
Glencairn E
The nose opened with red fruit, oak, caramel and nutmeg. It did not come across as overly complex, but it gave me a good, familiar bourbon profile with a little finishing influence layered on top.
On the palate, peanut butter, cinnamon, toffee and vanilla led the way. Again, this was not the most complicated glass in the blind, but it was good. Sometimes that is enough.
The mouthfeel was borderline creamy, which helped keep the pour from feeling thin or unfinished. The finish was more than decent, with the red fruit showing back up alongside abundant cinnamon and caramel.
Only after tasting did I check the color: mid-amber.
Score: 80.94
The score said this was the weakest of the bunch, but the flavors said it was not weak. This may have finished last, but I would gladly sip it any day. In a lineup where every glass crossed the 80-point mark, last place still had plenty to be proud of.
The Reveal
When the covers came off, the glasses were:
Glencairn A was DeBolt Old No. 59, formerly Benchmark Full Proof.
Glencairn B was Rivertown Reserve Founder’s Selection, formerly Buffalo Trace.
Glencairn C was Old Reporter 2026, formerly Old Forester 100 proof bourbon.
Glencairn D was Free Bird, formerly Early Times Bottled-in-Bond.
Glencairn E was DeBolt Dramworks, the mason jar stave-finished project.
That made the final finish order:
Old Reporter 2026 finished first with a score of 84.20.
DeBolt Old No. 59 finished second with a score of 82.89.
Free Bird finished third with a score of 81.70.
Rivertown Reserve Founder’s Selection finished fourth with a score of 81.59.
DeBolt Dramworks finished fifth with a score of 80.94.
The winner was Old Reporter 2026, and that makes sense. Old Forester 100 already has enough character to stand up to extra oak and sherry influence, and the finish seemed to amplify its banana, toffee, cinnamon and vanilla without flattening the whiskey. It was the most complete pour in the blind, and it had the best combination of flavor, texture and finish.
But the most transformed whiskey was probably not the winner.
That honor belongs to DeBolt Old No. 59.
The Benchmark Full Proof was almost unrecognizable after three weeks in the barrel. Because it was the first bourbon to enter the cask after the sherry finish, it received the strongest dose of whatever the sherry left behind. The fruit, oak, spice and chocolate notes didn’t just improve the base whiskey. They recast it. It became something different.
After that first fill, the barrel changed roles.
It stopped being a transformation machine and became more of a refining tool.
Rivertown Reserve, Old Reporter and Free Bird all carried unmistakable fingerprints of the bourbons they used to be. The Buffalo Trace still had that softer, sweeter, approachable profile. The Old Forester still brought Brown-Forman banana, toffee and spice. The Early Times Bottled-in-Bond still leaned into caramel, peanut, cinnamon and vanilla. The barrel did not erase their identities.
It improved them.
That may be the most useful lesson from this whole experiment. Finishing cheap-but-good bourbon can absolutely make it better, but the base whiskey still matters. A finish can add fruit, deepen oak, shift spice, round rough edges and give the pour a new direction. But unless the barrel is carrying a strong previous influence, as mine was with that first post-sherry fill, finishing usually improves a whiskey more than it reinvents it.
The mason jar stave project proved something, too. It finished last, but it did not fail. DeBolt Dramworks was still an enjoyable pour, and I would gladly sip it again. But it did not have the same integration as the barrel-finished bourbons. The oak and finishing influence were there, but the whiskey did not feel quite as naturally put together as the others.
That is not a knock against the mason jar method. It works. But this blind suggests that actual barrel time, even in a small barrel, gives the whiskey a better chance to come together.
So what did I learn?
I learned that the first fill after a sherry finish can be magic.
I learned that Old Forester 100 may be an outstanding candidate for a home finishing project.
I learned that Early Times Bottled-in-Bond and Buffalo Trace can both be improved without losing what makes them enjoyable in the first place.
I learned that stave finishing can produce a good pour, even if it does not quite match the integration of barrel finishing.
Most of all, I learned that finishing projects do not have to be gimmicks. They are not guaranteed miracles, either. You can’t throw cheap bourbon into a barrel and expect it to emerge as a unicorn. But if you start with something affordable and good, then give it the right kind of finishing influence, you might end up with something affordable and better.
For a bourbon cheapskate, that is a pretty good result.
Actually, five pretty good results.
Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.
Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.
