Tastes

Nose: The initial nosing showed mild, sweet peat reek together with a host of estery fruit aromas (apple, pear, lemon, orange). A little grappa and even a hint of slivovitz start to emerge as it rests in the glass, followed by grassy hay and a whiff of struck match. Adding water blooms the nose with floral fragrances emerging. Violet and honeysuckle are apparent, and a sharp-but-heady aroma of gentian and chamomile tea. Palate: Sweet and chili hot on the arrival. Quite commanding as the initial heat builds even further with hot cinnamon, white pepper, ginger and spicy herbs flashing into the development. The heat spreads throughout the mouth and expands, evolving sour lemon, tart pineapple and ginger syrup before starting to subside as sweetness reasserts. Ashy peat smoke mounts towards the finish along with juicy fruit notes. The texture is creamy and full, but very clean. Adding water lowers the heat to a glowing and pleasant burn but in no way spoils the texture. It also seems to unfurl the smoke, lending it depth and richness, and the constant sweetness becomes quite honeyed, but not cloying. Finish: Medium/long. The heat from the arrival finally dissipates and gives way to smoky lemon, herbal and vegetal notes (there's even a mezcal hint). The aftertaste has a faint coffee bean and chocolate presence. Adding water develops a little weak-tea tannin in the aftertaste and reveals a slightly salty edge. The nose is more complex than might at first appear. It is light, clean and fresh in profile but also densely packed and tightly integrated. It only shows its full personality over time but the full-bodied tar and maritime assertiveness of some other Ardbeg expressions never comes through. This is more reserved, fragrant and gentle - there is a sweetness and elegance throughout but over time it gains a very rich quality. The palate does not change quite so much over time. The nigh-on explosive heat of the arrival persists with every taste, most likely due to it being carried on a reasonable amount of alcohol. Dilution considerably tames the arrival, bearing this out, and also rounds and enlarges the palate in general. I'd recommend a neat taste to start with, but don't be hesitant to add a good dash of water - it works very well and does not develop sour plastic-like peat flavours. A beautiful and constantly evolving nose but I felt the palate and finish, whilst very good indeed, were not quite up to the same level (however we're only talking a drop from 5 to 4 stars for the palate). It's a very, very good whisky but not quite at "excellent" level. Tasted from a 30ml sample. (The source where I bought the sample still has bottles available, but at AUS$450 I don't think I'll be buying one). "Very Good" : 87/100 (4.25 stars)

Nose: Sharp and rubbery with alcohol clearly detectable. There is a confusion of generic “scotch whisky” aromas including an indeterminate sherried fruitiness, but the rubbery presence that betrays a heavy dose of young sub-par grain whisky is constant. It reminds me of Grant’s Reserve but it's marginally better as there is a very mild fragrant cereal note, like the smell of a muesli bar. Palate: Sweet and hot on the arrival, turning towards a sweet astringency on the tongue. Gritty (yes gritty - not gristy) cereal notes and a vague suggestion of some sort of fruit as it sits in the mouth. The texture is fairly neutral. Again it reminds me of a thin-bodied version of Grants. There are also times when the taste of ethanol is clearly discerned on the palate. Finish: Short. Hard semi-sour cereal notes that trail off into a surprisingly sweet aftertaste. One thing I will admit, it avoids the common bitter metallic finish of many cheap blends. It gains a quarter-star for that. This is a very cheap blended scotch – the cheapest you can buy in Australia at AUS$33 a bottle – and it only requires a cursory nose and taste to realize that it is very grain-heavy. I’d be surprised if there is more than 5% malt content in this blend. What you are experiencing here is pretty much just grain spirit that has matured for the requisite 3 years in old tired casks that were on their final legs, plus a spattering of various young malt whiskies. You'll never see this anywhere except Australia as it is only produced for the domestic market by Pinnacle Drinks, a Sydney-based company that markets a range of bargain priced sourced drinks under house names (eg Nelson County bourbon, Buckeye rum, Houndstooth gin, etc.). Their business strategy is to undercut the bottom-shelf “name” brands by a few dollars and they sell exclusively through supermarkets and supermarket-owned liquor shops. The whisky is distilled, blended and bottled in Scotland but the source is unidentified - it could be a major producer or a third-party blender/broker and it's entirely possible that exactly the same stuff is sold elsewhere under a different name. It's a better whisky than some of the other bottom-shelf blends like Label 5, Castle Rock or Highland Earl, but it isn’t quite as good as the next shelf up where you'll find whiskies like J&B and Vat 69. By the way – dilution does this no favours as it unveils bitter and harsh notes. It's just barely acceptable but personally I’d find a few dollars more and buy something worth drinking. “Inferior” : 65/100 (1.5 stars)

Nose: Fragrant, warm and malty. Peach, apple, orange peel, a little honey and vanilla. There is a mild, soft ashy smoke in the background and a wholesome leathery quality that is very agreeable. The dry-glass aroma is malty vanilla. A little ethanol is apparent but given that this is one of the cheapest blended scotches available it’s a remarkably good nose with an “old-school” profile. It reminds me a little of what Teachers Highland Cream was like in the 1990s. Palate: The arrival is soft, sweet and malty. Cinnamon spice, tannic black tea, cereal and bitter orange emerge in the development together with a hint of the same sooty smoke from the nose. The texture is a little thin and spirity (but no more than most blends) but there is some silkiness from the grain whisky. You can happily drink this neat or with a dash of water as a sipping whisky. Finish: Short. Some sweet tones but the tea flavour from the palate lingers and turns a little bitter, which is the only fault. There is a puff of smoke in the aftertaste. This is a bottom-shelf priced whisky that is way better than it has any right to be and it has become my go-to daily dram for mixing. At the price it is very good value yet after being on the market for about five years it remains largely undiscovered and is a quiet giant-killer. I think it has dropped just a fraction in quality over time, largely in the finish, which is not quite as long now, but it is still a remarkably good budget blend. All other blended scotches (as far as I’m aware) are composed of malt and grain whiskies from many sources and are engineered to achieve a specific profile. Uniquely, Loch Lomond Reserve is produced by just one distillery and its character is a snapshot of the Loch Lomond house style. There is no legal classification for such a blend, other than simply “blended scotch”, however it could justifiably be considered, unofficially, as a “single blend”. Well worth the money and highly recommended, but don’t compare this to your favourite malt or even a premium blend, because it is not trying to compete in that arena. However, against anything else in the AUD$30-50 range it is clearly the winner. “Above Average” : 80/100 (3 stars)

Nose: Wafts of generic fruit, oak, cereal, etc. but it's not very impressive and is remarkably like the nose of a blended scotch. Palate: The arrival is spicy and sweetish, veering towards heat as it rests in the mouth, and then suddenly blooming with sour harsh malt and bitter coffee. The texture is not noteworthy. Finish: Short. Fleeting malty notes from the late palate compete with sour grains in the aftertaste. If you encounter this as part of a blind tasting I guarantee you'll guess it to be a bottom shelf blended scotch. There is a thin hardness to both the nose and palate and an unwelcome ethanol stain. It is certainly the least characterful or engaging blended malt I've tasted. I'd put it on the same level as Johnnie Walker Red Label (to which it bears something of a resemblance). Even a small dash of water kills the nose but it does, mercifully, soften the palate a little. It's definitely at its best as a mixer with soft drinks, where (just like blended scotch) the hard finish is balanced by the sweetness of cola, lemonade, ginger ale or what have you. My first inclination was to give this 1.5 stars but I'm raising that to 2 based on it's performance as a mixer. However it is neither good value nor worth the official rating of 82. I won't be buying another bottle. (PS - I have a strong suspicion that this is an opportunistic blend and the formula has some elasticity). "Adequate" : 70/100 (2 stars)

Nose: Light, gentle fruit notes and vanilla. A subtle cereal and fragrant wood presence and some faint cinnamon and honeyed notes in the background. There is a distinctly thin quality to the nose that makes it seem to lack character. Palate: Initially sweet on the arrival but almost instantly turning prickly with spice, the sweet quality is quickly revealed as the simple sweetness of ethanol. The development is low-key and brings out vague fruitiness but the palate is simple and veers towards dryness. Vanilla and rye are apparent and the texture is on the thin side of neutral. Finish: Medium/short. Cereal and alcohol sweetness and a very slightly bitter aftertaste. This is a low-priced mid-to-bottom shelf bourbon that works tolerably well as a mixer, but is not really up to neat tasting, being soft and easy to the point of boredom. There are no particularly disturbing off-notes, but it lacks any real personality. In an odd way it's almost the bourbon analog of blended scotch - it seems like a tolerably good bourbon that has been diluted with characterless grain whisky. In the scotch whisky world this would be sitting on the same shelf as J&B and Grants. There is a hollowness at its core and water does not lend any extra development - it just dilutes the profile. If this was the cheapest bourbon on the shelves I'd give it some grudging respect and rate it more highly. However at the asking price it is competing against Bulleit, Wild Turkey and Maker's Mark and it comes off pretty poorly in comparison. Even Jim Beam White Label, which is considerably cheaper, is a better bourbon. I wouldn't buy it again. "Inferior" : 69/100 (1.75 stars)

Nose: Sweet, honeyed cereal. Nuts, sweet white grapes and barley sugar. Apricots, orange zest and vanilla emerge over time. Water develops a light peach aroma. Palate: Sweet but drying on the entry - elegant and austere rather than voluptuous, which the nose might lead you to expect. Cereal and malt in the development which turns from cereal towards woody in the finish. There are, however, many sweet and honeyed fruit notes on the mid-palate with orange oil and vanilla particularly on display. Some tannic spice lunges forward towards the finish but the texture is creamy and full. Finish: Medium. Sweet and fruity, even crisp in a way. The aftertaste is rather like over-brewed English breakfast tea, but it's nice in context. The nose is particularly sweet and fragrant - very honeyed and luscious and a particularly good example of a non-sherried full-bodied "fruity" nose. The palate is creamy and fruity but with a spicy note that takes over in mid-palate and may seem a little too dominant. I did not notice any particularly smoky aspect to the profile at all - maybe some barrel char, but no reek. Water reacts oddly here, bringing out both sweet and bitter/spicy notes on the palate. In fact, overall it's a development of sour malty cereal characteristics more than anything else. Interesting, but perhaps a little challenging. I'd rate this between the 12 year sherry wood and the 10 year old. Tasted from a 30ml sample. "Above Average" : 82/100 (3.25 stars)