Tasting Tuesday: Beekeeper vs. Bee’s Knees vs. Green River Honey

Honey-finished bourbon has become all the rage lately.

Apparently, distillers looked at port, sherry, rum, cognac and toasted oak barrels and decided bourbon drinkers needed another expensive finish to chase. Then somebody noticed the barrels being used to age honey and thought, “What if we put whiskey in those?”

And bourbon drinkers collectively reached for their wallets.

To be clear, honey-finished bourbon generally does not mean somebody simply pours honey into the whiskey. In most cases, honey is first aged or stored in a barrel, allowing it to soak into the oak. Once the honey is removed, bourbon goes into that same barrel and draws out some of the sweetness, viscosity and floral character left behind.

At least, that is the usual idea.

Green River took a different approach. Instead of finishing its bourbon in a barrel that previously held honey, the distillery adds raw, unfiltered honey directly to the cask during aging.

That made it an interesting budget third party in this comparison.

When honey finishing works, the honey complements the bourbon rather than burying it beneath syrupy sweetness. The best versions can add floral notes, a thicker texture and flavors ranging from vanilla and caramel to citrus, berries and darker fruit.

The process also tends to produce limited releases with fairly ambitious price tags. That explains why I originally owned exactly two of them.

I am the Bourbon Cheapskate, after all. I may be curious, but curiosity has a spending limit.

The first bottle was Seelbach’s Private Reserve The Beekeeper, a straight bourbon finished in barrels infused with Georgia wildflower honey. It was bottled at a healthy 113 proof, giving it enough strength to keep the honey from completely taking over.

Its opponent was Shortbarrel’s The Bee’s Knees, bottled at 101.2 proof. This particular store pick was finished in barrels that had held Oregon blackberry honey. That does not necessarily mean the whiskey should taste like blackberries, but the source of the honey can influence its floral and fruit characteristics.

Then I added Green River Honey, a 92-proof offering that uses raw, unfiltered honey in the cask rather than relying on a traditional honey-barrel finish. At about $25, it was also playing in a very different financial neighborhood.

I had enjoyed the Seelbach’s and Shortbarrel separately, but enjoying two bourbons at different times does not tell me which one I actually prefer. Labels, prices, proof and expectations can influence a tasting before the glass ever reaches my nose.

The Green River gave me another question to answer: Could a bourbon costing a fraction of the price hold its own against the premium bottles, or would the gap be obvious?

The three bourbons were poured into numbered sample bottles before being transferred into Glencairns marked A, B and C. I knew which bourbons were involved, but I did not know which whiskey was in any glass.

Would the Georgia wildflower honey produce the better bourbon? Would Oregon blackberry honey give The Bee’s Knees an advantage? Could Green River crash the expensive honey party?

There was only one way to find out.

Glencairn A

Color: Rich copper.

Nose: Oak led the way, making this more savory than I expected from something finished in honey barrels. Cardamom, vanilla and a little fresh-baked bread followed.

Palate: The palate followed the nose. I picked up a bit of leather early, but that leveled out as the honey started to come through nicely. Caramel, vanilla and berries joined it.

Mouthfeel: Very nice. Rich, full and satisfying.

Finish: The finish lasted nicely. Cinnamon came through on the back end, leaving something that tasted a little like a honey cinnamon bun.

Score: 84.30

Glencairn B

Color: Rich copper, just a smidge darker than A.

Nose: This still was not incredibly sweet, but it was a touch more inviting than A. Vanilla, nutmeg, caramel and buttery toffee.

Palate: Honey and oak battled it out along the front edge. The honey stuck around while the oak gradually faded. Cinnamon, cherries, caramel and vanilla followed.

Mouthfeel: This was where A gained a serious edge. B was not bad, but A had been downright decadent. By comparison, B’s mouthfeel was pretty standard.

Finish: In spite of the difference in mouthfeel, the finish lasted at least as long as A’s. It was a little one-note, however, with the sweetness from the honey shining past almost everything else.

Score: 83.76

Glencairn C

Color: Mid-amber.

Nose: Honey predictably showed up first, along with pears, nutmeg and caramel. It was on the light side, but it was not bad overall.

Palate: Again, honey appeared instantly. But the typical Green River juice was also there, albeit in lighter, 92-proof form, so there was ample butterscotch, cinnamon, caramel and vanilla.

Mouthfeel: Because of the added honey in the mix, the mouthfeel was thicker and richer than that of the average 92-proofer.

Finish: It was not terrible, but it was definitely quicker than the other two. Honey was the dominant note, but cinnamon, toffee and caramel were also there on the exit.

Score: 79.96

Pre-Reveal Thoughts

I seriously had no clue which one I was preferring between A and B.

A’s mouthfeel and finish separated it slightly from B, and I suspected it might have been the higher-proof bourbon. If so, that would make it Seelbach’s. But both were very good, and I was open to whatever result I found when I checked the numbers on the bottoms of the glasses.

C was easier to place.

It was lighter, simpler and noticeably quicker on the finish. The honey influence was obvious, and the whiskey underneath it was familiar enough that I suspected it might be Green River. It was enjoyable for what it was, but it was not competing at the same level as the other two.

The Reveal

Glencairn A: Seelbach’s Private Reserve The Beekeeper

Glencairn B: Shortbarrel The Bee’s Knees

Glencairn C: Green River Honey

My suspicion about A was correct. The richer, fuller whiskey was the 113-proof Beekeeper, while the slightly lighter Glencairn B was the 101.2-proof Bee’s Knees.

The difference between those scores was only 0.54 points, so this was hardly a beatdown. I liked both bourbons about equally, and either one would be an enjoyable pour. Still, Seelbach’s earned the definite edge, primarily because of that rich, decadent mouthfeel.

The higher proof probably helped. However, more proof does not automatically create better texture, and I have tasted plenty of high-proof bourbons that felt surprisingly thin. The Beekeeper managed to combine its proof, oak and honey influence into something that coated the palate without becoming cloying.

The value comparison made its narrow tasting victory considerably more important.

The standard Shortbarrel release found in stores costs at least $100, while this particular store pick cost me about $110. The Beekeeper was about $80.

That means The Beekeeper was not merely a little better in this blind. It was at least as good as The Bee’s Knees while costing roughly $30 less.

For the Bourbon Cheapskate, that is a key piece of information.

Green River was not in the same neighborhood as either premium bottle, but at $25, it should not have been.

It was lighter, less complex and much quicker on the finish. The honey also stood farther out in front of the whiskey, while the more expensive bottles did a better job of blending the honey influence into the bourbon itself.

Still, given its incredibly low price, Green River Honey makes a strong entry point for drinkers who are curious about honey-influenced whiskey but do not want to pony up the $80 to $120 often asked for premium honey-finished products.

The Shores near me still has several bottles of The Beekeeper remaining, so I am inclined to pick up another one before they disappear.

Honey-finished bourbon may be one of whiskey’s latest expensive trends. But this tasting proved there is room for more than one kind of buyer.

Green River offers the inexpensive introduction. Shortbarrel delivers a very good premium pour. And Seelbach’s gives me the best combination of flavor, texture and price.

For once, the Bourbon Cheapskate and the bourbon snob in me reached the same conclusion.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.