Tastes

The nose has toffee and nuts (almonds and pecans) mixed with a hint of rye and floral mineral. The palate has a ton of mineral with floral elements, tasting young and like stale bread. There are some vegetal notes that give it a bit of a tequila taste, reminding me somewhat of Herradura. There's fortunately some sweetness from the caramel and it doesn't taste too sickly and fruity, so there's some merit. It kind of tastes like it picked a bad flavor to pull off but it pulled it off respectably. It's very grassy but does have some age to it - it just isn't much age. It tastes markedly inferior to Evan Williams Black, which at least tastes undisputably like aged corn-based whiskey. In comparison, this tastes far younger, but also kind of like tequila, so it could pass as an overly bourbony mixer in a tequila-based cocktail if required. There are hints of banana that suggest strong toasting, but they are not out of control. This is actually not a disaster, but it is most expensive than Evan Williams and not as good. A sip on an untainted palate does expose that this tastes quite young (certainly under 2 years) though and for a whiskey that is a pretty damning taste. The flavor is comparable in quality and aging to that of Jim Beam Original, but it tastes less like bourbon than tequila, so this gets a slightly lower score. The caramel tastes too light and is just kind of masked by the burnt grass flavor.

Wow, this sure smells like cheap scotch. It smells like malt and fruit mixed together with some grass and left to decay. Maybe it smells a bit mossy. The palate is a lot of wet cardboard with watery flavor as well and a bit of waxiness. Some mildew comes in a bit, but it isn't overwhelming. It doesn't actually taste they bad. Although it isn't complex, it does have some of that questionable character that plenty of older scotches have, so it kind of passes. The bit of tartness even kind of works. For a bad, young scotch, this is surprisingly decent. There's definitely peat here and that flavor seems to be what this whiskey is basing its success upon. There are some sweet notes too that you could convince me are coconut and some hints of caramelized fruitiness up front that are super light but still a tad interesting. I get how the Distiller reviewer tasted pine, but I think it tastes more like water with a hint of wood and some alcohol. It's on the borderline of being drinkable, but it isn't repulsive. 8-11. I think I'll go with 9. It's a bit harsh too.

Wow, this smells so much richer and better than Loch Lomond Original. The nose has a bit of that socks richness with a hint of smoke and some apples. It smells kind of interesting, but a tad unbalanced. There's a fair amount of grass on the nose and also some malt. The flavor has a lot more peat (and some smoke) than expected. There's also a tartness and some real waxiness like Clynelish. The discordant nature doesn't really suggest an 18 year old spirit, but it's still interesting and tasty. The mouthfeel is unfortunately a bit watery though and that watery presence pervades. It's hotter than it should be too. For a 12, it's quite good, but I expect more from an 18. The richness is good though and I do get some hints of complexity out of it in the malt and grass. The richness really works here even though the flavor isn't tremendously full. Distiller is right about this being a dusty scotch, though they are wrong about it being fruity. Well, they say that raisins are key Tonite fruitiness, but they also say it isn't very fruity and I guess I do agree with both. Actually, a little bit of orange peel comes out too - just a tad. The finish is nicer than I expected, with some waxy Clynelish flavor. I think this is about on par with Clynelish 14, but apparently I currently have Clynelish 14 rated at 19 and I don't think that that is correct - it's more like a 16 or so. This is pretty similar in quality. It's interesting and decently complex, but there's no great flavor and a couple are questionable. Definitely drinkable, but not amazing. The heat is also a bit much for this age, though the proof does validate it a bit. At the finish, there is some nice floral and vanilla character. It works out alright.

The nose is rich with a nice balance of Sherry and old socks. There's a bit of something floral and mineral coming through. The palate has some Sherry fruit, but less than expected. The mouthfeel is moderate with some slightly watery elements. There's a bit of citrus harshness they belies the youth and bleeds into the general niceness, but there's still some nice malt and grassiness - a bit like miss with some wet cardboard flavor. It's good for a 12, but it's a bit off-kilter with its flavor. It's certainly better than Glenfarclas 12 though. For the price, it's a pretty good choice, comparing favorably with Glenmorangie 10. Glen Moray port would probabaly be my personal go-to, but this might be a hair less risky.

This sure has an odd nose. There's a lot of herbal, sweet presence here. It suggests some fruit, but it's hard to place. It smells like...Copper Fox Rye? The nose is kind of rich and there's a hint of peat, but also a lot of almond nuttiness. There's maybe a little bit of IPA influence too. The palate is smooth with some spiciness on it and some rich sweetness that mixes with a bunch of herbal flavors, sort of like a digestif (though it does have a bit of minerality on the end). It's quite sweet and I like that element of it. The mint (spearmint) and minerality do come out, but they aren't bad. This is really interesting with a lot of layers going on. It isn't my all time favorite by any means, but this tastes substantially older than it is - with some nice toasted almond and light caramel rounding out the flavor. I could definitely believe that this was 15 years old, though with the immaturity of the caramel. 18 would be a stretch. Still, this is an easy sipper and it's better than Loch Lomond 12. This is exceedingly impressive for a Scotch that isn't even 10 years old. There's some really nice vanilla that reminds me of Westward. This isn't quite on par with Glen Elgin 21 (1995), but it's really good. And it's richer, despite its youth. There are some light elements that unfortunately do occasionally come through as artificial, hindering this drink. The constant herbal background though is really nice, increasing the depth substantially. I'm on the fence between a 15 and a 16, but I'm leaning toward the 16 for the smoothness, despite the artificial flavor.

Surprisingly herbal. Perhaps this is anise? I can definitely pick up notes of dark chocolate and mint I'm here as well. The flavor is rich and intriguing, but I'm not sure I would appreciate it on a regular basis. It balances the sweetness and peat. It is good and does not have a syrupy taste, but it weirdly reminds me both of Sherry and jaegermeister. Good, but mainly interesting. I recommend a pour, but I can't recommend a bottle at this price.

Kind of mild with sweet mineral notes balanced against a tart backdrop. It does a good job of blending the alcohol flavor into the rest of its profile. The is a little bit of smoky wood that gives it hints of meaty richness. The flavors work well together, even though none particularly stand out in an exciting manner. On the fruit side, there are some apples, which go well with the bit of vanilla that is present, but neither has a strong influence. Mostly, this is a generically alcoholic drink with some woody age notes and a generally sweet presence. This has a bit of an ocean flavor to it that is reminiscent of Scotch, but it lacks the vigor of a good sea-spray Scotch. Compared to Oban 14, it is markedly less flavorful and puts the mineral alcohol flavor forward in a way that is like listening to music on tinny speakers. It's different from Knob Creek Single Barrel Reserve, but it also is not nearly as deep. It is certainly sippable, but not particularly enjoyable. The nose is pretty generic. It has cereal with some mild sweetness, some mineral, and (after aggressive swirling) some bright cherry that reminds me of Eagle Rare (and also bread). The palate is quite full of cereal and mineral. There is some cherry and light caramel, but they are overwhelmed by the static. There are some tannins and tartness present to keep the sweetness under control and it doesn't become too syrupy, but it tastes like an understate Eagle Rare (which already tends to taste a bit understated). I. Fact, it tastes just like I remember Eagle Rare initially tasting. There isn't much going on here and although it isn't bad and I do appreciate the sweetness, it seems better for mixing than for sipping since its main success is not tasting bad. It might be good with some wood added to age it longer, but it tastes less interesting than Evan Williams, which also avoids bad flavors, and it starts of milder. The light caramel that doesn't taste bad is impressive, but the end flavor is nothing exciting. It's so light that it tastes like it might be a particularly good 6 month old whiskey or maybe just an aged gin. It's very grainy and floral with plenty of vanilla. I get why distiller says there's banana bread. There's a bit going on here, but it's limited and despite the sweetness there is a bit much of a flat bitter backing. This is decent enough, but for the same price Jim Beam Black is better and for less money Evan Williams is also possibly better.

The nose is rich with that Laphroaig/Islay smell. Smoke and peat abound with the latter bringing in a little stale bread, but also coming with some nicer grain notes. There is some sweet toffee and some roast nuts going on in the background with some mild apple flavor. There is some clear seaside flavor going on here and there are subtle complex notes to be discovered as it is sipped, including a weird band-aid flavor (presumably from the herbal flavor) that Distiller promised in the Laphroaig 10 but I never found. This is a solid drink, but it honestly tastes like maybe a richer Laphroiag 10 that definitely has flaws. The extra spice and sweetness are kind of fun, but they don't fit beautifully. The extra smoke and sweetness seem to exacerbate the drink's lack of cohesion (though it is still a good whiskey). It's a classic case of great complexity with poor marriage, but mixed with some gross stale bread. There's even some odd mintiness on the finish. Unfortunately, it's not as good as Laphroaig 10 and therefore not worth the price. There is some chocolate and whatever, but it's all middled together. Definitely better than something that doesn't have complexity, but also missing the punchiness and development that characterize a great drink.

Strong peat gives it full coffee and tobacco flavors with, but there is a burst of sweetness at the beginning and strong dark chocolate mixed in with hints of nuttiness. Terrific. Fruitier than the lagavulin 16 and a tad bit harsher. This drink has a really interesting and unique character. Its emphasis on smokiness over peatiness whole keeping both on the milder side for an Islay combined with its sweetness and moderate richness without a ton of tartness or bitterness and hints of mineral, brine, orange, and flowers (though most of the floral taste is vanilla) give it a taste that is much like cereal. It is enjoyable, though it does taste somewhat like an inferior version of Lagavulin 16. It really stands on its own though and it tastes good! It isn't harsh, in part because its low 43% ABV sets it apart from other drinks in a class that traditionally packs quite a punch. It comes close to tasting like a mish-mash of nauseating flavors but doesn't quite land there and tastes very good instead. The balance is actually tremendously impressive and relatively little alcohol comes through despite its comparatively mild flavor (though the peat is largely to thank for obscuring it, so this isn't some shocking feat). There is a tad of cinnamon here toward the finish, but it pairs well with the cereal flavors. You really have to like that cereal taste and appreciate mild herbal notes to love this, but its balance should make it drinkable for just about anyone who can handle and Islay Scotch. It's kind of hard to classify this one. I suspect that this drink shows new faces in a variety of situations and that most of them are enjoyable, which is a tremendous frat, especially with the bold variety of flavors present, but will need to drink more of it on other occasions to confirm. Although the flavor is full, it is also comparatively mild, much like how most of the American Single Malts on the market taste due to only having been aged for a couple of years. By some of the standard measures of greatness, this may not take home the gold or even silver or bronze, but this is a surprisingly fun drink that clearly has its place. It would be a great choice for flavoring a dense, bready fruitcake. It would be easier to take this whiskey seriously if it had more of a punch to it, but sometimes some sweet, fun, subtlety is all one needs or wants. The peat is present and punching, but the rich, sweet cereal notes balance it out. There is some smoke too, to be sure, but not a ton. The nose is peaty and medicinal and the flavor has a bit of a medicinal quality too. There's a bit more plain bitterness than I would like and that bitterness tastes a bit like wet cardboard. The flavor is fairly rich, but not like Lagavulin 16. There is definitely complexity, but I'd appreciate somewhat more. It's like a rich, peaty, cereal single malt with not as much complexity as I would like,mixed with a tad of generic sweetness and orange with minerals. Band aids and seaweed do show up, but only in small amounts. There is an herbal, medicinal finish, but calling its flavor the same as that of Band-Aids is a bit of an exaggeration. This drink can't beat out the richness of Lagavulin 16, but it can compete with that of Ardbeg Corryvreckan. The alcohol may be less intense, but the flavor is still assertive and varied. This it drier and more bitter than Westland Peated with a much richer flavor, though that doesn't necessarily make it better. It's really good though. Surprisingly, when compared with a sweet and standard Scotch, this has a rich, cereal flavor that is quite satisfying. That experience pushes Laphroaig 10 up a notch. It could use some improvements, but in certain cases the richness and herbal medicinal flavors give this sort of nostalgic 1800s feel. The niceness of that flavor wears off quickly though, revealing Laphroaig 10's lack of depth. There's a lot going on here, but it is way to discordant. Too many of the flavors don't land. Sweet cereal Band-Aids (that subtle spearmint flavor is what creates the Band-Aids) is just not an appealing flavor, even when mixed with smoke and whatever else. It's interesting and fun from time to time, but this is a drink that needs some improvement. This is the perfect example of how adding complexity to a drink's flavor is not all that is needed to craft a masterpiece. Comparing this with Westland Peated and Westland Peat Week 2017, this is an awkward combination of punchy and lacking in flavor complexity and balance. It's sippable, but it needs some improvements to be enjoyable. The nose is grainy and peaty with a clear cereal element (after drinking Springbank 12). The palate is rich with some herbal funk and a strong cereal grainy flavor that has plenty of sweetness. There are a few things going on on the palate with the clearly present peat that is balanced by rich smoke, umami, minerals, and sweet grains (a bit of floral note without a big alcohol bitterness). In the right circumstances, the flavors do balance in an enjoyable way. In the wrong circumstances, they balance in an unenjoyable way. In the wronger circumstances, they don't balance at all and have jarring flavors. At its best, this is quite good, but it is never excellent. At its worst, it is young, naive, and discordant. It's a decent whiskey, but it needs some refinement. An older version, in particular, could be quite good.