Tastes

There are immediately several flavors coming out. The drink is rich with a bit much alcohol flavor. There is notable leather here and some bitterness of tobacco, but there are also red fruit notes, spices, and chocolate. The strength and punch make it taste a bit bourbon, but with an impressive amount of age. The alcohol is a bit much and I wish that the finish were a bit sweeter, but it's appropriate as a bourbon and doesn't have that awful cinnamon burn. It reminds me a bit of Booker's. It has some faults and is surprisingly bourbony, but this is still a really good whiskey. The has some nice complexity, but too much alcohol. That said, I wish that more bourbons followed it's example. That said, it's a bit costly for its quality as a bourbon.

A rich, salty, smokiness defines the nose, reminding one of bacon. The peat does not overwhelm the bacon, allowing the sweetness and fruit to shine through. Unfortunately, with bacon, I want maple and a buttery creaminess. This mostly delivers fruit and vanilla. The salt and brine help to uphold the bacon's position, but in the end they overwhelm it. Although the flavors in this Scotch are good, they constantly battle each other, producing a disappointing result. On second tasting, the nose is decently full, though it lacks the complexity of SMWS Ardmore 12. There's a bit of smoke and some surprisingly strong red fruit. The palate is smoky with quite a bit of earthiness and a lot of red fruit. This is a promising drink, though it's not excellent. Talisker seems like a good value, Thoigh so far (with 10 and distiller's) I haven't had an amazing dram. There's a lot of smoke mixed with the red fruit and there is some fruit, but it's earthy too. This is absolutely no Ardmore 12, but it's tasty and decently interesting. It's an interesting combination of sherry and smoke, but it works fairly well. The flavors are a bit at odds. I think I'd prefer an older regular Talisker instead. It's really good. I'd take this over the Talisker 10.due to its richness, though it isn't a huge win. This is not a massive wine for the price relative to some others, but it's definitely worth its cost. Smoky, sweet, fruity. This is really good. Man, I think I want to give this an 18, so I'll bump Ardmore 12 up to 19. It tastes older than its age suggests. For the increase in price, it might not be worth it, but I'm a big fan. It's so good.

It's smoky with plenty of peat, but it also has plenty of fruit from apples, which grants it a lot of sweetness. There's a fair amount of complexity, but not an astonishing amount. It's fairly fruity and sweet, which is pretty enjoyable. The savory notes are limited to what one would expect of a young Islay Scotch. This drink is tasty with no off notes, but the flavors do not blend seamlessly and there is not enough depth to make this drink different and innovative. It's good, but not revolutionary. The nose has a rich, umami, salty essence that is like Lagavulin 16, but less pronounced and a bit fruitier and relatively peatier. The palate is peaty and salty with grassy and light caramel and maple elements balancing it. It's tasty and nuanced, though the balance is a bit questionable. It tastes quite good though and is worth sipping. It lacks the sweetness and subtlety of Johnnie Walker Green Label, but its savory Islay charm is not lost. It isn't as rich and herbal or as punchy as Lagavulin 16, but it is savory. In comparison, it is milder and grassier, but also less herbal. It deserves to be rated in the same ballpark at least - this is a very good whiskey. A bit of cereal does come in with the grass, but it doesn't have the rich backing to really work well. The nose has a balanced scotch character, but there's some mild peat and smoke wrapped in gauze mixed with some lighter grassy notes that brighten the scent. There is something a bit earthy like quinoa and I also smell a hint of some honey sweetness mixed with seaweed fresh from the ocean. The palate has an immediate spicy character with some cinnamon sweetness that mixes with some fruity and vanilla flavors quickly before bringing in peat-smoked seaweed with an oily richness and brine. The palate does come across as a bit light and grassy though with a kind of lightly burnt dry grass cereal flavor coming across at the end. The sweetness is nice, but it does exacerbate the youth of the grass. This is a solid sipper, but it's on the young side with the flavors not completely jiving and the sweetness being more clover honey with grass and light cereal than rich malt, possibly with toffee, coconut, and apricot. The bit of fruity presence is too light and indistinct. There's a fair bit going on here, but it doesn't come together and all tastes kind of young. I would still sip it though. The seaside scotch flavor does mature it a bit, but not enough, sort of leaving it like a high school student with facial hair. It lacks the richness of Caol Ila 12, but it does have improved complexity. The complexity and reduced aggression from the bitter herbal elements help here, but this is closer in quality to Caol Ila than Clynelish 14 or Springbank 10. Springbank 10 has more of a rounded sweetness and richness with less in the realm of sharp, bitter, grassy notes. This isn't very sweet and in missing the whole sweet and fruity end of the spectrum (mostly), the result is a whiskey that tastes underdeveloped. The other flavors are fine and all, but they have nothing to balance with. Some more richness might help, but the full experience would still be missing. Laphroaig 10 goes in a different direction that is somewhere between this and Caol Ila 12. In comparison, Laphroaig 10 has more of a dark roast coffee flavor to it, along with a tad of chocolate sweetness. In contrast, Talisker 10 lets a bit more nectar and fruits show through.

This definitely (and surprisingly) tastes a lot more like traditional scotch than the regular Swift does and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. The orange notes are still there, but this time they are hidden more behind the a rich, barley flavor that incorporates a more subdued wood flavor and some subtle earthy notes along with cloves, cinnamon, and ginger. This is even more the standard Glenlivet 12 than the regular Swift is, which makes me wonder why it costs more. It's funny because the strong orange flavor in regular Swift makes it taste a fair amount like sauternes... Is it possible that the batches were mislabeled? It's a bit bland, but there are no off notes here, so this is quite a good drink. There is a little bit more going on here than in Bushmill's Black Bush. The yeast and orange have cleaner, more refreshing flavors than in Black Bush and the flavor is cleaner. The alcohol is present but does not overwhelm. The best flavors of Bushmill's Black Bush are better, directly copying those of Bushmill's 21, but the off flavors take over on the finish, giving a lasting impression that it is inferior to Swift Sauternes. Despite the brilliant flavors in Black Bush, the depth of Swift Sauternes is clearly better. This has more richness and woodiness than the regular Swift does, but despite the great new flavors, it does not have the same depth. It's good and definitely sippable, but not at all masterful. This definitely has the richness that is to be expected of Sauternes, though the alcohol and whiskey wood do sneak in. There is no doubt though that this is the Sauternes whiskey. it does taste a bit much like Bastille, but it is somewhat better. The flavor is rich for an American Single Malt, but mild relative to a standard Scotch or Irish whiskey. The flavors are good, but need more development. There is some nice wood backing, but it does not overwhelm. This hint of orange is nice, but some more depth would be appreciated.

This tastes like a Speyside scotch and upon reading the distillery's website, wouldn't you know it: that's exactly what they were going for. There is also an interesting similarity to a bright Amber ale or IPA that is unique among whiskies. Swift reminds me a bit of Pendleton 1910 in that it isn't what I expected and it has a bit of a nutty, oily element to it. This a very fruity whiskey without being sickeningly sweet or inundated with cherry. There is a nice hit of sharp wood that adds a tartness that fits well with the fruit. In terms of fruit, there are clear flavors of orange and Fuji apple present. There are also notes of honey, cinnamon, and vanilla with a tiny bit of smoke and some oiliness that blends with the occasional almond reference to make the profile slightly creamy. The lack of peat, minerals, salt, or other flavors makes this a refreshing drink. The taste of alcohol is definitely more present because the other flavors are subdued, but it does not impart any strange aftertaste. The flavor is well-rounded and develops a bit, leading into a finish that is dominated by honey and marmalade (and tastes darned good). All in all, this is an interesting and enjoyable drink despite being a bit young. The high price is a bit irksome given the whiskey's age. At this price, you have to really appreciate interesting drinks for it to be worth purchasing. I can't wait to see how Swift's whiskey develops as they age it longer and tweak the formula. There is some nice spiciness that is reminiscent of Compass Box Spice Tree, but is more mild. It has a lot of subtle elements, but really needs some more time to develop a stronger flavor. All of the flavors that are there are spot-on, but the need more development. Fortunately, the alcohol does not overwhelm. Barley, mild orange, cinnamon. It's fairly smooth, especially for its ABV. I would love to try this after it had aged for a bit longer. It's like a young Scotch with bourbon elements, but with some depth and excellent flavors. On a less important note, the whiskey's aesthetics are subdued but well executed. The similarity in color between the fox on the label and the whiskey itself is fascinating and the label is full of details like letters hiding partially behind the fox's tail that make it feel refined. The wooden top on the cork is a nice touch too. This is a smooth and refreshing whiskey, but the alcohol is noticeable, much like it is in a vodka. The key distinction is that there is tons of depth here, but it is subtle. I wish this whiskey had been aged longer though so that the beautiful flavors from the aging overtook the generic alcohol notes. The flavors include orange, cinnamon, ginger, and a bit of caramel all right there. It is simultaneously refreshing and viscous, but I wish that it were less watery.

The flavor is present here, but there is a ton of cherry in it! It immediately reminds me of Symbole National mixed with A De Fussigny Selection. Not good! There are plenty of bitter and rich notes to counter the cherry and those are all good, but the cherry overwhelms. A bit of cinnamon comes through and there are definitely some floral and vanilla presences. Wood is there, but not overpowering. I don't hate this, but at it's age I sure can find better elsewhere. The grand achievement here is the rich flavor, but that results in a lot of cherry. All told, this is pretty good, but it really can't justify it's price.

There's a little bit of a bite here but there is also a surprisingly substantial amount of complexity. It has a clean flavor that is fairly sweet, but not overwhelmingly so. There is a bunch of mineral flavor, but it blends well with the cereal and fruit (I'm still not a fan of it though). There is a bitter alcoholic backing that I could do without but is not too strong. There's a fair bit of tartness and some sea spray hanging out with the bitterness. The mineral flavor reeks of floral and vanilla flavors. The fruit is some plum with a bit of orange and apple, and there is some cocoa backing, but it is not rich enough for the cocoa to be sumptuous. It's a little smoky, but not too much. There's definitely something a little herbal and funky going on here, but it isn't a gross medicinal flavor. Ultimately, there is a lot of complexity going on here that balances well, but the individual flavors are not that great and there isn't enough richness. I'd be fine with sipping this, but I wouldn't love it. If there's anything that's sure, it's that this is one overpriced whiskey.

It has a kind of sweet nose with some bit of smoke and grain, including a bit of tart rye. The palate is smooth with some nice smoke and just a tiny bit of burn. The mouthfeel is viscous and fairly sweet but without a gross caramel flavor. There's something a bit of and bitter with some alcohol, but there is also honey. It reminds me a bit of America single malt, but with some odd grain influences. Unfortunately, the odd flavors permeate more and it becomes less enjoyable a sit goes on. Unfortunately, I can't recommend it by the end, sort of like with that French whiskey. There are some subtle notes here that are good, including a faint hint of apricot, but on the whole it is underaged and has bad flavors that need masking. It's not awful though. Still, the fullness and sweetness are nice. It kin did has too much of that problematic Irish whiskey flavor. The fruit, sweetness, and viscosity really salvage this.

There is more happening here than in the Nikka Coffey Grain. This has the flavor of a Speyside Scotch and despite being mild does have some depth. The closest comparison would be Oban 14. The sweetness could be cut back a bit, particularly given the noticeable apples and strong floral flavors, but the bitter herbs help balance the experience. There is a fair amount of depth here that makes this a credible spirit, but in the price range, the Springbank 10 is better. I would be happy to drink this, but it isn't amazing. More of a finish would be nice.