Tastes

Nose: Vanilla, orange, sherry (raisins, dates, figs), milk coffee, a mild tobacco/leather note that is coming from the oak. The aroma of the dry glass next morning is brown sugar and nothing else. Palate: Vanilla toffee, mocha coffee, dried dark fruits, almond. The entry is similar to the nose and there is not much development. There is a little white pepper towards the finish and the texture is lightly mouth-coating. Finish: Medium/short. Sweet with some bitterness appearing in the aftertaste, like slightly burnt sugar. The house style of Old Parr blended scotch is very much old-school “soft and smooth” and it’s a style I do enjoy. I’ll buy it occasionally when it’s on special but more for variety than anything else. Usually I get the 12 year old but this time I picked up a bottle of the 18, which I've not tasted before. I was expecting it to be similar to the 12 but offering more and that is pretty much what it is, but I would not necessarily say that the 18 is a "better" whisky. The 12 year old, in comparison, has an obviously younger profile but also a freshness which is very appealing with a lot of juicy young fruit flavours, particularly orange. The 18 year old trades that freshness for more oak, deeper sherry fruit notes and a more mature finish. The Old Parr blends apparently feature Cragganmore as a major component, and I certainly notice it more in the 12 year old than here. What both malts also clearly show is a good slurp of Cardhu as the typical notes of that distillate are very apparent. There is also a slightly intrusive ethanol presence on the nose of both the 12 and 18 year olds which is not unusual in blended scotch, although you generally only get it in cheaper brands and neither of these is cheap. There is nothing at all challenging or adventurous about this whisky, but that’s not the idea. It is meant for easy quaffing neat, over ice or with a splash of soda water, and it works well at that job. Don't assume it is just mixing scotch, as it is delightful as a sipping dram when you are in the mood for something lighter than a single malt. It also develops surprisingly well in the glass and also in the bottle. The first few pours might seem thin and uninteresting but come back to it a week later and you will be surprised how much it has improved. I’m giving it ¼ point more than I gave Old Parr 12 year but the 18 year old does cost more and I think the 12 year old is better value for money. “Above Average” : 82/100 (3.25 stars)

Nose: Oak, mild floral and vanilla notes. Mint, dark cherries and light spices. There is obvious ethanol on the neat nose but a dash of water reduces this. Palate: Hot arrival with wintergreen, clove and aniseed. The spicy arrival fades quickly in the development and the texture is OK but not outstanding. There is a tart cherry note that persists into the finish and a flinty, brittle character throughout. Finish: Medium/short. Spicy cereal and sour cherry. A OK whiskey that has little development. The nose is well balanced but low key, the palate even more so. There is nothing bad here but although it is expressive and well defined (and obviously well crafted) it seemed to me to lack something. The nose was improved by a dash of water, gaining breadth and weight, but the spice notes on the palate were equally expanded by dilution to the point that it lost balance. Overall it was not to my taste and I would not buy a bottle, but that’s just my palate. Over here you can buy 2 bottles of Wild Turkey 86.8 proof bourbon for the price of one bottle of this and still have enough change for a good pub lunch and a schooner of craft IPA. Better deal if you ask me. “Average” : 78/100 (2.75 stars)

Nose: Dusty but fresh cereal, oak staves, orange peel, dried apples and pears, cinnamon, sage, anise and nutmeg. A well integrated nose that is commanding but also soft with well-contained ethanol. Palate: Well balanced arrival with a little gentle heat and spice. Fruit loaf, honey, vanilla and cherry in the development. Buttery texture when neat but loses density quickly when watered. Finish: Medium. Soft oak, cereal and spice notes. A good whisky that could be called an amplified version of Wild Turkey 101. The same elements are present but there is a more complex progression, however there is a difference in presentation that could be described as subtle or insipid depending on your point of view. The nose is good but the palate is not at the same level. It’s an OK whisky at the price and worth a try for WT enthusiasts, but I’m not sure I’d buy a bottle. Tasted from a 30 ml sampler as part of a virtual tasting session in late 2021. “Good” : 83/100 (3.5 stars)

Nose: Light and delicate with the emphasis firmly on cereal aromas. Cardboard, toasted muesli and vanilla but it’s all very reticent. This is a particularly shy and fragile nose but over time it gains more presence and some malt-ale notes. Palate: Soft, light, medium-sweet arrival with a tang of mild ginger, spice and a drop of honey. Some hints of lemon and orchard fruit in the background but there is no development to speak of. The texture is neutral, bordering on watery. Finish: Short. Crisp, mild and quick-fading cereal notes. An aftertaste of dilute black tea. This comes across very much like a young generic grain whisky, which is probably exactly what constitutes 90% of the contents. It does have a pleasantly refreshing and bright profile but it is very low-key. It reminds me of Cutty Sark and just a bit of Suntory Toki. A dash of water expands and mellows both the nose and palate, causing the sweet arrival to linger and the honey to come more to the front. However be cautious when watering as it can drown in an instant. Although this is a lower-shelf whisky it avoids the common faults found in many similarly priced brands. The nose is clean, the palate is free from clumsy caramel and the finish avoids bitterness or metallic notes. Every time I nose this whisky (and curiously I keep being drawn back to do so) I have an instant recollection of being in my uncle Herb’s sitting room in the 1960s, listening to cricket on the radio with him while he demolished a bottle of Haig. Not such a bad memory – I’ll give it an extra quarter point for that. “Adequate” : 73/100 (2.25 stars)

Nose: Light and fruity, mainly apples and pears. A little oak, caramel and vanilla and there is the mild ethanol aroma you get from young mass-produced grain whisky, which is present in almost all inexpensive blended scotch. Palate: Fruity again, soft and a little sweet cereal. There is barely any development apart from peppery spice, more cereal and some brown sugar/caramel notes. There is a hardness to the palate that is coming from what is, even at 12 years old, still rather juvenile grain whisky. Finish: Short. The caramel/cereal palate just fades away into an aftertaste of weak black tea. In Australia this used to be advertised (back when that happened) as a classy, aspirational blend and that identity was reinforced by fancy packaging. Even though it has changed over the years the label still manages to look stylish without being bling. I’ve only had Chivas 12 a couple of times in the last 20 years, so you’d be right in thinking that this is not one of my favourite whiskies. It’s a harmless, mild blend but a little dull and flat, and I always expect it to have more body. It's pretty much the definition of "average". It’s acceptable for sipping if it is all you can find when on holidays somewhere in the sticks, but it is best used as a mixer or as the base for a long drink. I have a liking for scotch and Coke so I always have a bottle of something inexpensive to use for that purpose. This just happened to be on special when I was at the liquor store on Friday, but normally I would not buy it. There are better blends that are cheaper but to be fair Chivas Regal 12 has not risen very much in price over the last 5 years which is more than you can say for most whisky. “Average” : 75/100 (2.5 stars)

Nose: The nose is heavy but well balanced and is packed full of baking aromas - pecan pie, cherry cobbler, treacle tart, cornbread, toasty oak and dark chocolate cake. There’s a reminiscence of smoke, like tobacco in an old leather pouch and a note that is almost like a sherry cask (nah, surely not). Very satisfying. Palate: Good arrival – full bodied, creamy, oily oak and big fruit flavours. Vanilla and dark honey in the development with some well managed oak tannin and spice notes, but nothing is bright or gaudy about this palate. It is magisterial and assured, but not boastful. The mouthfeel is exquisitely rounded. Finish: Medium/long. The dense woody fruit character tails off into brown sugar. A very well balanced profile that leans towards the oaky side of things, but not disarmingly so. There is an elegant and mature sweetness to the palate. I enjoyed this a lot. It comes on full-throttle but does not overwhelm and there is a charming gentle side to it as well. For me the proof is right on target and well chosen to showcase the style. Do NOT add water – it actively spoils this first-class bourbon. Expensive, but worth it. “Very Good” : 86/100 (4 stars)

Nose: Cordial-like aroma (cherry cola). Sweet, earthy, fruity notes (peach and red berries). Brown sugar, vanilla and a hint of preserved ginger. The nose enlarges as it rests. Palate: Very sweet and easy arrival. Brown sugar appears again together with just a little baking spice (cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves). Lots of sweet fruit and more spices come through in the development. Raisin scones, Christmas cake and there is a menthol/peppermint note, which is de rigueur for a rye. The texture is good but not remarkable. Finish: Medium/long. Sweet and grainy with lingering faint spice. A touch of wintergreen in the aftertaste. This is softer and more interesting than Whistlepig 10. It’s surprising how much difference just two years plus a relatively intense wine finishing can make. I thought the 10 year old was pretty ho-hum but this is a much more accomplished effort and it’s the sauternes and fortified red combination that makes it. Water makes the nose a little dusty but does not spoil it, however it significantly amplifies the minty notes on the palate to the point where it loses balance. I preferred this one neat. This seems to be around $120 in the U.S., is that correct? Remarkably, we pay less than that here (around AUD$150) and it must be the only US spirit for which that can be said. I’m not sure I’d pay that much anyway, but then I’m not really a rye enthusiast, however this is a good whiskey. “Good” : 84/100 (3.75 stars)

Nose: Roasted nuts, autumn leaves, oranges, ginger fudge, peanut oil, brown sugar, oak shavings and a zephyr of rye spice. Palate: Spicy/sweet arrival with ginger, white pepper and toasted fruitcake. Oak tannin in the development with dates, dried figs, cinnamon and orange marmalade. The texture is not thin but it is both oily and dry. There is a briny quality to this whisky but you won’t notice it at first. Finish: Medium/long. Spicy dark fruit and lemon rind. Green capsicum grilled with rock salt in the aftertaste. A good whisky that presents well on the nose but not quite as well on the palate ... until you add water and then the whole thing turns on its head. The nose loses a little of its punch with dilution but the palate immediately gains complexity and it gets better the longer you leave it to develop. The beast is alive and well in this dram but he is all fuss and noise to start with. He’s a thirsty fellow too so give him a good drink of water and he becomes much more mellow. The expert review here is ... well, I don’t know what the reviewer was drinking that day but it sure wasn’t this whisky. The community aggregate rating is, however, right on the money. Speaking of money, at the price this is fair value - not great, but fair. The independent Gordon & Macphail Mortlach 15 is better and very consistent, but also more expensive. Oh, and give your rye-loving friend who says they do not like scotch whisky a pour of this. It may just change their mind. “Good” : 84/100 (3.75 stars)

North Star Series 15 and 16 tasting, The Oak Barrel, Sydney, 9 March 2022. Whisky #7 Nose: Rocks lashed by sea-spray, kelp, plastic flotsam on a gravel strand. White pepper, citrus peel, raspberry, vanilla bean and sooty smoke on a briny breeze. Palate: Sweet, creamy and smoky fruit arrival (grilled orange segments on a warm flan). The peat-reek is earthy to begin with but gains a briny quality and a touch of iodine as the palate develops. Black cherry clafoutis, cranberry sauce, blackberry jam. The texture is buttery. Finish: Medium. Sweet, peaty and briny. A fine whisky and certainly sweeter than official bottlings of Caol Ila, but for all its interesting qualities it is up against tough competition. However it is the equal of many of the fine independent expressions that derive from this distillery. The sweetness and jammy notes are coming from the ruby port octaves in the vatting and there is sweet vanilla from the bourbon wood as well. It is a skillful and nuanced combination. The whisky is good neat and very good with water. When diluted I’d almost add another half-point to my rating, taking it up to excellent. Dilution damages nothing but contributes integration and softness. At the reasonable asking price I’d call it value for money. “Very Good” : 85/100 (4 stars)