Tastes

Awful. I don't get the appeal--this is novelty through-and-through, the kind of whiskey you'd do as shots to gross your friends out (or would if it was affordable; this isn't). Smells like asparagus, hops, and marijuana and not much else; tastes like asparagus and leafy greens, with some biscuity maltiness, and then there's a weird almost peaty, smoky character. Bitter, leafy finish, but on the plus side it vanishes pretty quickly. I don't quite have the heart to give it less than two stars because--c'mon--it is exactly what it says it is. On the other hand, who the hell was crying out for a young whiskey distilled from an IPA mash? Blech.

Maybe it's the unconscious psychological influence of the name--"Black"--but I'd almost suggest this is basically like a better, more focussed, all-malt (and obviously Japanese) version of Johnnie Walker Black Label. On the nose you've got the smoke (equal parts campfire and burnt bog), salt, seaweed, pepper, lemon zest. A bit of caramel/toffee and vanilla. Pretzel. A hint of red fruits--apples and berries especially. Icing sugar. Surprising body at 43% ABV, with some sugar/maple syrup, more lemon zest, caramel, and a lot of the nose redux--smoke, salt, sweet. Some spice/heat, vanilla, and more maple syrup with some cedar wood and a touch of bitter chocolate. Short, crisp finish--heat, wood, sweet, then gone. A bit pricy for what you're getting (about $50 for 500mL in Canada--that unorthdox bottle size is one of the reasons it's not available in the US), but really enjoyable and--even at the relatively low ABV--it plays super well in a lot of contexts: neat, over a single large cube, mizuwari, or highball. I've come to realize, indeed, that this versatility seems to be true for most Japanese whiskies I've tried (unlike their Scottish siblings which sometimes drown in water or ice).

I've long thought standard Woodford to be one of the most overrated bourbons out there (overpriced, underflavoured, and something . . . synthetic about the whole affair--and don't even get me started on the "COTTON CANDY SENT THROUGH A WOODCHIPPER" that is the Woodford Double Oaked), so I shouldn't be surprised that their entry into the rye sector suffers from a lot of the same defects. The nose is . . . fume-y, full of solvent notes, glue, rubber cement. Some artificial banana underneath, with a bit of butterscotch and some herbal notes (big dill, mint, eucalyptus) tagging along. Slight vanilla. Taste is boozy and a bit thin, with a bit of a burnt-peanut backbone, some bitter, oversteeped tea, slight woody sourness. Light maple. Grainy, with some slight herbaciousness, and notes reminiscent of a bottom-shelf Speyside Scotch (I am under the impression Woodford uses a fair amount of barley in its mash, and some of the whiskey is distilled in pot stills, so maybe that's what I'm getting?). Over time, a bit of honeycomb drifts into the nose, and you get a bit of chocolate-mint and vanilla in the taste. But the finish is dry, citrus rind, bitter woodsy-ness. Not my favourite. Its weaknesses are well-disguised in cocktails (even spirit-forward cocktails like the Old-Fashioned, surprisingly), which achieve a nice sweet-spicy punchiness, but riddle me this: why would I lay down the dollars for Woodford Rye when Rittenhouse--which drinks better neat AND on the rocks, costs less, and carries a few extra ABV points to assert itself in cocktails--exists and is in fine supply?

What better whisky than this to celebrate a successful PhD defense? Purchased and bunkered last year, now I *finally* get to crack it. And it's a lovely little whisky, although the other user below is correct in noting that it is very similar in character to the (sadly now discontinued) Wiser's Legacy. Big fan of the Wiser's decanter-style bottle. Nose is dill, clove, caraway seed, vanilla, slight burnt rubber (not in a bad way), some wood-smoke and a caramel sweetness. Taste is soft--milder than the nose had me believing--beginning with a caramel/vanilla sweetness and building to some sharp spice, some fresh wood (cedar?), black pepper, and brining spices (again, clove, dill, caraway). Some citrus pith, ginger, cinnamon, mint. A bit thinner than I'd like, with a finish that errs toward dry and lumbery. A very respectable whisky, passing with minor revisions.

A really compelling idea, but the execution just isn't there: an American whiskey designed specifically to be paired with Asian foods. What that means in practice is a blend of whiskeys--corn-heavy--with the addition of some teas. And if you order it at Johnny Noodle King (the restaurant in Detroit that it was originally created for), it's paired with a shotglass of ramen broth (which is a delightful touch). But the flavour is a bit all over the place: corny, young, sweet, smoky, tobacco. Some flavours of star anise and licorice: boozy and hot, even over time, with some off . . . like . . . glue or plastic character.

A step up from any comparatively priced Beam bourbon--better than the White Label, the Black Label, Devil's Cut, the Double-Oaked (etc., etc.,)--and yet it stil just doesn't quite work for me. Enjoyable enough, but the quirks of the Beam flavour (oh, you peanut-y funk) mean that it doesn't actually play particularly well in any of the settings where you might otherwise want a bonded, 100 proof bourbon. In other words, the flavour is just too idiosyncratic: it spoils Manhattans and Old-Fashioneds alike with that leathery, Beam-y, earthy, peanut-y funk. Flavours throughout of caramel, honey, vanilla, and oak. Creamed corn sweetness, mint, cinnamon-spice and leather and nuts. And a decent body, though a short finish. Palatable on the rocks if you don't want to think about your drink (though you will always think, "yup, Beam."). But as an experience that comes together and offers something compelling, it just doesn't really work. If you're Beam loyal, my advice is this: go up a price-bracket for sipping whiskey (Knob Creek, Baker's, Booker's) or make a lateral move for a cocktail whiskey in Beam's unsung Straight Rye (which is much more lively, with spicy flavours and a sweetness that help balance the Beam funk--it's the real unsung hero of the family). And if you're desperate for a bottom-shelf "shot-and-a-beer"-type combo? Well, respect your elders Old Grand-Dad and Old Overholt.

If you don't go in with high expectations--and let's be honest, why would you, because we're talking a sub-$40, no-age-statement single malt at bare-minimum 40% ABV, courtesy of that corporate titan Diageo--again, if you don't go in with high expectations, this one is surprisingly likeable. One-dimensional and sweet, with basically no finish, but likeable. Smell is sweet lemon and sweet red fruits (berries, red apple); slightly doughy, some vanilla and caramel. Very, very, very faint smoke? Body is fairly creamy for the low ABV: red apple (+ apple skin), lemon, some dough or yeastiness, a bit of pepper. Very sweet, with just a tiny floral/herbacious note. Orange zest and berries. Finish is gone in an instant--just some vinous fruitiness, light apple, and a bit of fresh lumber. Easy to drink and pleasant enough. But then so are a lot of whiskies.

If nothing else, the bottle itself is beautiful. Unremarkable colour (especially considering the high proof), and a nose that I would initially describe as . . . dusty. Just dust, caked dirt, gritty, something akin to a dry farmhouse. Persist and you get some nice baking and brining spice (lots of clove, anise, caraway seed, a touch of dill, faint mint), vanilla, fresh-cut lumber, and faint sweet cherry and grape. Surprisingly little burn at 110 proof, though the heat builds considerably on the tongue. A flavour that's quite mild--initial fresh grain, baking and brining spices, but it's an oddly thin character at this proof, and it's buttressed by a lot of dry-wood, toothpick-y bitterness. A bit of vanilla, faint cherry, apple and applewood. But a lot of fairly harsh graininess. And a surprisingly short finish as well, that's dry and tannic. A bit of cinnamon and apple after a few sips. Curiously--and I'd have to do a side-by-side to confirm this--a bit of a disappointment: a notch below Rittenhouse for me, even at a much-inflated price. Not terrible, but stick with the Ritt.

Colour is quite pale--watered-down apple juice-from-concentrate; nose is a bit of a Bruichladdich-esque popcorn butter, some gingerbread and molasses, salinity and seaweed. Fresh apple skins (mostly green apples), lemon, and slight strawberry. Wine Gums and a bit of mint (spearmint?). Taste is coastal and fruity--candied lemons, saltwater, pepper and chili. A bit of sourness--like sour fruits. Something indistinctly floral. Oily, waxy texture. Some dry wood. Finish is short and dominated by lemon, green apples, floral notes, and not super-well-integrated wood. Not a bad whisky, nor is it a great whisky. It'll do on this cold evening.