Tasting Tuesday: Three Bourbons, Three First Impressions

Chattanooga Experimental V1A, Jack Daniel’s Experimental Sweet Mash and Lux Row Four-Grain Double-Single Barrel

Last week, Scott and I wrapped up another edition of the Southern Sports Stillhouse with three interesting whiskeys. Rather than let those tasting notes sit around until I could conduct more formal reviews, I decided to give them a little more attention for this week’s Tasting Tuesday.

These are still essentially first-look reviews, although I’ve now assigned scores to all three. And the results were remarkably close. All three finished within 0.76 points of one another, and each offered plenty of reasons to consider adding a bottle to your collection.

There was also a surprise. Jack Daniel’s has established itself as one of my favorite distilleries for interesting experimental releases, but this time, another distillery managed to beat it at nearly every turn.

Let’s get into the glasses.

Chattanooga Whiskey Experimental V1A

Score: 84.09

Chattanooga’s Experimental V1A was easily the most unusual of the three whiskeys, and Scott and I had some interesting differences in the way we experienced it. We agreed that there was something distinctive happening, but we didn’t necessarily agree on what to call it.

Color: A solid copper that might even lean toward light mahogany. There’s a richness to the appearance that suggests something substantial is waiting in the glass.

Nose: This is where things become interesting. The aromas walk a line between sweet and savory, with neither side quite willing to surrender control. I’m getting a ton of caramel, vanilla, brown sugar and dark cherries, along with a savory spice that keeps demanding attention.

Scott picked up wheatgrass and sweet pickle brine, along with vanilla and cherry Sweet Tarts. I joked that he must have eaten barbecue before the tasting, because pickle brine certainly wasn’t the first thing that came to my mind. But after spending more time with the whiskey, I can understand where he was coming from. There’s an unusual savory character running through the experience, even if I’d describe it differently.

Palate: There’s a solid wave of sweet pipe tobacco on the palate, something that ordinarily might give me pause. Tobacco isn’t generally one of my favorite bourbon notes, but here it works because it doesn’t dominate the sip. Instead, it contributes another dimension to a whiskey that’s already doing some interesting things.

The savory spice returns, joining cinnamon and caramel in a flavor profile that refuses to settle into one particular category. I can understand Scott’s pickle-brine observation here, too, although I wouldn’t describe it that way. To me, there’s more of a leathery characteristic beneath the sweetness and spice.

What’s particularly appealing is the balance between those competing elements. The sweetness is always present, but the savory side keeps insisting that I pay attention. Neither dominates, and both get their due. That creates a fascinating experience that could easily have gone wrong but somehow manages to work.

Mouthfeel: Scott described the texture as syrupy, and while I wouldn’t go quite that far, there’s no question that the V1A has a nicely viscous mouthfeel. It provides enough body to support the unusual flavor combinations without making the whiskey feel excessively heavy.

Finish: Solidly spicy, with cinnamon taking the lead and caramel continuing to linger after the sip. The finish is satisfying, carrying enough of the whiskey’s sweeter characteristics to keep the spice from becoming overwhelming.

Overall: This is a whiskey that walks a fine line between unusual and special, but it finishes just to the special side. The combination of sweet pipe tobacco, savory spice, leather, caramel and dark fruit isn’t something I’d necessarily seek out on paper. In the glass, however, it comes together remarkably well.

Scott called it his favorite bourbon of the night, and I can understand why. I didn’t quite share his enthusiasm, but an 84.09 is an excellent score in my system. The V1A is currently on the fringe of my March Madness field, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually finds its way into the tournament.

It’s certainly a great sipper, particularly for someone looking for a bourbon that offers something outside the ordinary.

Jack Daniel’s Experimental Sweet Mash

Score: 83.92

I’ve become a big fan of the experimental releases coming out of Jack Daniel’s, and the Sweet Mash continues that tradition of quality whiskey. But there’s also something about this particular expression that illustrates how a distillery can become a victim of its own success.

Nose: The familiar Jack Daniel’s banana character is immediately apparent, accompanied by caramel, vanilla and a light touch of oak. It’s an inviting combination, with the sweetness and fruit working together in a way that anyone familiar with the brand should recognize.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Jack Daniel’s has built an enormously successful reputation around that signature profile, and there’s a reason people keep coming back to it.

Palate: Brown sugar, bananas and vanilla lead the way, with cinnamon providing some baking spice and tart oak adding a little contrast. It’s an enjoyable combination, and the flavors are well integrated. The problem, if you can call it that, is that the familiar Jack Daniel’s character is so dominant that the whiskey begins to feel almost one-dimensional.

That’s probably not entirely fair. A distillery shouldn’t be penalized simply because it has become exceptionally good at producing a particular flavor profile. But when we’re tasting experimental releases, we’re naturally looking for something a little different. We want the familiar characteristics to be joined by something unexpected, something that makes us sit up and pay attention.

This whiskey doesn’t quite deliver that additional dimension. It’s very good at being Jack Daniel’s, but it doesn’t offer the diversity I’ve enjoyed in some of the distillery’s other experimental expressions.

Mouthfeel: The texture is pleasantly creamy, although it’s a little thinner than some of the other Jack Daniel’s experimental releases I’ve tasted. There’s enough body to make it enjoyable, but it doesn’t have quite the richness or viscosity I’ve come to expect from the best examples in this series.

Finish: The finish is long-lasting, with brown sugar, vanilla and cinnamon continuing to make themselves known for several minutes. The sweetness remains pleasant, while the spice helps keep things interesting as the flavors gradually fade.

Overall: This is still an excellent whiskey, and I don’t want my criticisms to suggest otherwise. An 83.92 is a very respectable score, and the Sweet Mash provides plenty of the qualities that have made Jack Daniel’s such a reliable producer of high-quality whiskey.

But it does fall a little behind the other experimental expressions I’ve tasted. The mouthfeel isn’t quite as substantial, and the complexity doesn’t venture very far beyond the distillery’s familiar signature.

In some ways, Jack Daniel’s has set itself up for this kind of criticism by being so consistently successful at what it does. When the banana, caramel and vanilla characteristics are already so recognizable, a new expression needs something extra to distinguish itself.

The Sweet Mash is a great sipper, but it doesn’t quite deliver that additional spark. At 83.92, it’s currently on the fringe of my March Madness field, and whether it makes the cut will depend on how the rest of the candidates perform.

Still, there are much worse problems than having a whiskey that’s almost too good at being itself.

Lux Row Four-Grain Double-Single Barrel

Score: 84.68

Of the three whiskeys, this was the one that surprised me the most. Jack Daniel’s came into the tasting with a strong reputation, and Chattanooga brought an unusual flavor profile that demanded attention. But the Lux Row quietly managed to do just about everything a little better.

And in the end, those small advantages added up to a clear winner.

Color: A solid copper appearance, with a rich, attractive depth that immediately made the bourbon look promising in the glass.

Nose: Cinnamon, brown sugar and vanilla establish the foundation, with a touch of citrus and tree fruit adding brightness. My sense of smell is still giving me some trouble, so I’m hesitant to be too specific about the fruit character. If pressed, I’d lean toward apple, but I wouldn’t want to pretend I could identify it with absolute confidence.

What I can say is that the aromas are inviting, with the sweeter notes and baking spices working together beautifully. There’s a dessert-like quality to the nose without an overwhelming sweetness.

Palate: This is where Lux Row really begins to separate itself from the competition. There’s a wonderful combination of fruit sweetness, maple and baking spices, with the rye delivering a particularly enjoyable cinnamon character.

But the rye isn’t doing all the work. The wheat brings its own contribution, providing a rich dessert-like sweetness that complements the spice rather than competing with it. Both grains bring their A-game, and neither gets lost in the mix.

That’s one of the things I particularly appreciate about this bourbon. The cinnamon and rye spice are prominent, but there’s also plenty of brown sugar, maple and fruit to provide balance. The result is a complex, flavorful whiskey in which the various elements contribute something distinctive while still working together.

Mouthfeel: Rich, thick and wonderfully viscous. This is one of the areas where the Lux Row clearly outperformed the Jack Daniel’s Sweet Mash. The additional body gives the flavors more substance and allows them to develop across the palate rather than simply making an appearance and moving along.

I love a whiskey with a substantial mouthfeel, and the Lux Row delivers exactly what I’m looking for.

Finish: Cinnamon and brown sugar continue into the finish, joined by toffee and tree-fruit notes. It’s a terrific combination, with enough sweetness to remain inviting and enough spice to keep the experience lively.

The finish is also notably long, allowing those flavors to linger well after the sip. It’s another area where the Lux Row managed to edge ahead of the competition.

Overall: This was the clear winner of my three pours, although the numerical scores might make the competition appear closer than my overall impressions suggested.

The Lux Row didn’t dominate because of one spectacular characteristic. It won because virtually every part of the tasting experience was a little better. It was thicker, darker, tastier and longer on the finish than the Jack Daniel’s Sweet Mash, and its balance between sweetness and spice was particularly impressive.

That’s no small accomplishment when you’re going up against a distillery that has been producing some of my favorite experimental whiskeys. But Lux Row has a genuine winner with this Four-Grain Double-Single Barrel.

At 84.68, it’s currently in line for a spot in my next March Madness bourbon tournament. There’s still plenty of competition to consider before the field is finalized, but this one has made a strong case for inclusion.

And even if it doesn’t survive the final cut, it’s a bourbon I’d be happy to revisit.

The Verdict: Three Winners, One Tournament Favorite

What strikes me most about these three whiskeys is how closely they finished. There was only a 0.76-point difference between first and third place, and all three earned scores that put them firmly in the category of bourbons I’d gladly sip again.

The Chattanooga Experimental V1A was the most unusual of the bunch, combining sweet and savory characteristics in a way that shouldn’t necessarily work but somehow does. Scott liked it even more than I did, and I can appreciate his enthusiasm.

The Jack Daniel’s Sweet Mash offered an excellent example of the distillery’s signature profile, although its familiarity and slightly lighter texture kept it from reaching the heights of some of the other experimental releases I’ve enjoyed.

And the Lux Row Four-Grain Double-Single Barrel delivered the most complete experience of the evening, combining rich sweetness, lively spice, substantial viscosity and an outstanding finish.

If I were choosing just one to revisit, it would be the Lux Row. But I wouldn’t turn down a pour of either of the others, and all three have earned serious consideration for my March Madness field.

That’s a pretty successful night of tasting, especially considering that none of the three was a disappointment.

Sometimes the differences between good whiskey and great whiskey are measured in fractions of a point. And sometimes those fractions are exactly what make the tasting interesting.

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

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.