Tastes

Nose: Mild sawdusty-wood notes, vanilla, corn syrup and faint molasses. Some light spiciness (distant peppermint and clove) and a mere trace of coconut. It's a pleasant nose marred only by the ethanol presence being a little sharp. [The dry glass aroma is sawdust and leather]. Palate: Oily and spicy/sweet arrival. The development brings out flashes of rye and oak tannin. In the mid palate a prominent spearmint note comes forward supported by clove oil, nutmeg and cinnamon, reminiscent of the nose. The texture is reasonable. Finish: Medium. Dry, but not sour, and mildly bitter like dark chocolate. The aftertaste is oaky. It's a year since I last had this bourbon and there has been little change to the profile, so it appears to be a consistent expression. From my previous notes it seems like if there is any variation this most recent bottle is a trifle spicier than the last one. The nose can seem a little spirity at first but it improves if you let it stand and develop in the glass for 5 minutes - try it if you don't believe me - it gains body, the oak and leather character becomes more mellow, and it gains some honeyed spiciness. I've made a new listing for this popular whisky to distinguish the version that is sold in Australasia from the U.S. version, as there are subtle differences and having tasted both I feel that for once the version we get out here is pretty good. Wild Turkey Kentucky Straight Bourbon as sold in the U.S. (and I think in the U.K. and Europe) is 40.5% abv and a rebrand of Wild Turkey 81. However in the Australasian-Pacific region it is 43.4% abv and a rebrand of the old Wild Turkey 8 Year Old. The age statement was dropped a long time ago and now it is a 6-8 year old NAS. Whatever the name and history, this is arguably the best bottom-shelf bourbon you can buy in our region and if you're on a budget it's good value for money. "Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Toffee, caramel, brown sugar, butter - it's a heavy and sweet nose and there is an odd note that takes a while to track down - it's chicory, which is a seldom found aroma in scotch whisky. Palate: A firm, strident arrival that has dark fruits and molasses in abundance. As it develops, vegetal spiciness appears together with a tense flavour of hard toffee - it's like peanut brittle that was cooked too long and almost burnt. This lingers throughout the taste. The texture is OK, but nothing to extol, and a little ethanol tinge is discernable. Finish: Medium/short. There is not much length but there's a lingering bittersweet note of horehound, which is a very rare thing to notice in whisky. This is big old-fashioned bruiser of a type you don't see much anymore. It's not subtle or nuanced at all - you know the expression "a bull in a china shop"? Well, yeah, that's this whisky. It has a robust brown sugar core and a slightly unusual herbal quality (I can't think of any other whisky where I've noticed both chicory and horehound) however the foundation malt is unfortunately rather flat, dull and has an unmistakable stain of sulphur. The palate is harder to like than the nose as it has a really uncompromising burnt sugar quality, but again it's not actually bad - just kind of rough (Jim Murray famously compared this whisky to the enjoyment of rough sex). I can't hate this as much as many folks here, and I think it's worth more than the official rating of 65 (but maybe not much more, and it's certainly a sub-70/100 whisky). I'd drink it at a bar in a pinch, particularly if Grants was the only alternative. Don't take it neat - it's not up to it and you'll only hurt yourself - restrain it with cola or dry ginger and lots of ice and it goes down just fine. "Inferior" : 69/100 (1.75 stars)

Nose: Cereal and a little sherry, citrus notes, malt, freshly baked bread. Not a particularly characterful nose but there's no ethanol taint and there is a tiny whiff of smoke. It's vaguely reminiscent of the Johnnie Walker blend character, but better - pleasantly crisp and light. [There is a greater smoky note on the dry-glass]. Palate: Wow! Totally unexpected! A full and creamy arrival with great balance. Sweet and fruity at first but then as it hits the palate a generous helping of well-articulated smoke rolls in ahead of a mouth-filling malt surge. It doesn't last for long but it makes a stunning impression while it does. The texture is silken and soft, and there is a mildly spicy character that lasts right until the end. Finish: Medium. Malty, spicy and sweet with a trailing aftertaste. There is a crisp, light cereal graininess in the finale that is quite elegant and it avoids any metallic stain. This is the first time I've ever tasted Black & White and I get why it is a firm favourite for some folks, but I can also see why others would hate it. It is a show-pony for grain whisky - very GOOD grain whisky with excellent flavour and texture - while the malt content is there purely to provide a dramatic and precisely defined malt, fruit and smoke counterpoint. It's an unusual way to create a blend. It has great simplicity and clarity of profile and that's kind of the downside as well. If you are not partial to light and breezy blends with a silky texture then this will seem either devoid of flavour or too much centered on "sweet but bland" grain whisky. If you crave a blend where the malt whisky content dominates the grain whisky then you'll not like this so much. It works stonkingly well either as a neat tipple (in which case it is way too easy to drink!) or with soda water where the character is in no way diminished by dilution. In fact I'd go so far as to say that this is one of the best lower-mid shelf blends I've tasted in a simple highball. The biggest thing going against it is the price, which puts it into direct competition with Johnnie Walker Black Label, Ballantine's 12, Dewer's 12 and any number of other good middle-shelf blends. In that company it gets a little lost, which is a shame as this is a pretty good dram. If it was cheaper I'd buy it again. I do think that the official score of 74 is pointlessly mean - this is easily comparable to blends that have been rated much more highly here and IMHO it's worth more like 80 at least. Oh, and one more thought - if you are a big fan of Compass Box Hedonism blended grain whisky then try a dram of that followed immediately by a neat taste of this. You will get the picture instantly, and Black & White may just be revealed as your favourite blended scotch. "Above Average" : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Mild sherry, rich full malty notes, a little dark fruit - it's a surprisingly subtle and mature nose for a NAS blend and there is no overt ethanol. Over time there is even the faintest possible hint of smoke detected, but it's the sooty sort of smoke and nothing like Islay peatiness. Palate: Sweet and mildly fruity, with demerara sugar and sherry. The development shows some delicious, almost chewy maltiness with a lot of caramel and brown sugar and the spirit expands to fill the mouth in a pleasant manner. The texture is OK, maybe a little watery, but there are no unpleasant notes. Finish: Medium/short. The central sherried malt character fades into a dark sugar aftertaste. This whisky surprised me. I was not expecting anything of note, in fact I was prepared for the worst as I had assumed it was just a domestic bottom-shelf blend. However it exceeded those expectations and turns out to be very palatable and enjoyable, if a little too much on the sweet side. It's clean and full-bodied and whilst not remarkable is what I'd call a "perfectly decent blend". It has an old-school balance and is akin to Haig Gold Label or a lesser Old Parr in profile (very much your grandpa's blended whisky). It's very palatable taken neat, fares reasonably well as a mixer but to truly enjoy this it needs to be tasted as a generous pour over ice with a splash of soda water or ginger ale. It then instantly transports you to a moderately good restaurant or club in the 1980s. It doesn't go so well with cola as the caramel notes become cloyingly sweet. The alleged foundation malt is Cragganmore, and the flavour profile certainly bears that out, but the most noteworthy features are that the blenders were not stingy with the malt, and the grain component is of good quality. This blend was apparently once big news in the UK but while it has disappeared from that market it retains a faithful following in Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and some of the Caribbean Islands. At the asking price it represents fair value and I'd rank it as one of the better lower-priced blended scotches. Oh, and the label is gorgeously old-fashioned and naff :-) "Average" : 75/100 (2.5 stars)