Tastes

Essentially a more mature version of the original glenmorangie. In contrast to la santa and quinta ruban which push forward the Sherry and dark chocolate, respectively, the nectar d'or fills in the peat and adds some missing depth to the flavor of the original without producing a scotch that has a gimmick or would be more justly classified as islay. This is one of the best balanced scotches out there and it is excellent without costing a fortune. It's beauty is that its smoke blends into peat, which blends into its alcohol underflavor without creating distress in the drinker. This is very good and is a unique dram that does an excellent job of hiding it's imperfections. A great success, but not perfection. The finish, while not exquisite, is very good. Sauternes x peat ftw! Apricot and orange with a toffee flavor underlying it and sweet agave syrup toward the finish. There are some spices present, with black pepper, cinnamon and clove being particularly prevalent. The spice gives it a little kick, but otherwise it is pretty smooth. Smoke and peat mix together in a balanced way. A little coconut makes its way in. There really isn't any unpleasant alcohol flavor. The finish is more bitter than the mid, but is so in an appropriate way. There is a little mint at the end, but not much - certainly not enough to spoil the drink. The flavors are all very good and it has something about it that makes it taste somewhat like an Irish whiskey that is several years older (or a slightly older Scotch (maybe 14 years)). The complexity is impressive if not astonishing. The spice might be a bit strong, but it's also what gives it so much of that extra aged flavor. All told, this is a terrific drink. The nose is pretty smoky, but it also has some sweet nectar orange flavor and mild woody richness. The nose is nicely rich and scotchy with a surprisingly robust complexity despite the sweetness (which is also nice). The palate is quite smoky but not peaty. There is some rich woodiness but also some sweet Muscat flavor with a hint of citrus. There's something slightly licorice and herbal here that reminds me of bourbon. Although it's a bit confusing and a bit brusque, it's fresh and tasty. The nectar sweetness is tasty and rounded, albeit a bit light. That said, for this scotch it is quite nice. The balance could be a bit better but the flavor is quite good. It's an improvement on the regular Glenmorangie The Original, but it isn't a revolutionary improvement. There's some Sauternes nuttiness and sweetness as well as some enhanced orange rind and a bit of grassiness. It's a convincing combination of Scotch and Sauternes thst is tasty and worth sipping, but it isn't a masterpiece, despite its richness and sweetness. Despite the somewhat lacking complexity, it tastes good and all of the flavors land. The complexity is less than that of Springbank 10, though the diminished sulfur is nice. It's not on the same level as Springbank 10, but it's pretty close.

Surprisingly rich and robust for a $30 bottle of Scotch. The citrus and honey really pop at the beginning. The finish could be better, but it is still solid. Definitely better than Glenlivet 12 and Chivas 12; more comparable to Macallan 12. The flavor changes more as it moves toward to finish than with the la Santa or Quinta ruban. Definitely not as full and deep as the nectar d'or, but since it is only half the price, it is great for the money. It is definitely the best $30 Scotch I have had, so I heartily recommend it. It is highly reminiscent of the Glenmorangie 18 at a third of the price, sort of like Macallan 12 is similar to Macallan Rare Cask. It is important to note though that while the 10 year Glenmorangie is quite good, it lacks the richness, smoothness, and refined finish of the Glenmorangie 18. Here is my vote: keep the 10 year Glenmorangie for day-to-day drinking and unless you love the Glenmorangie 18, get another great Scotch that is a little more different for special occasions. The alcohol flavor is just a bit too present here. Otherwise it is quite good. This is drinkable, but in the price range Bushmill's Black Bush is better. This is better than Bushmill's Black Bush due to its richness and diminished alcohol taste, but it still tastes harsh not all that subtle. That said, it's really good. Of course, it does cost 50% more than Black Bush, so that's something to consider. The nose is fairly light and sweet with a bit of sea spray and smoke with some vibrant orange and some sweet vanilla that has a bit of mild butterscotch to it and also some grass. The palate is light with a bit too much alcohol punch and a somewhat sharp grassy flavor, but the orange is nicely vibrant and it pairs well with the plentiful vanilla and that hint of butterscotch. It's tasty enough to be sippable, but it isn't anything excellent. It's still more vibrant and well-executed than Bushmill's Black.

This is as generic as Scotch gets. It has a clean flavor with some smoke, wood and a bit of fruit, but nothing too exciting is going on here. This is very much a Speyside Scotch. The Founder's Reserve is more interesting and richly flavored. Glenmorangie The Original is richer and more fun. This is disappointingly bland. Smoke, spice, richness, sweetness, bitterness, tartness, fruit, and floral notes all kind of blend together here. There is a lot happening, but nothing stands out and the flavors are all a tad insipid. Glenmorangie The Original has less balance, but is more interesting because of its stronger notes.

Richer than the Glenlivet 12. The fruit is very present in this and there really isn't any fruit or brine. It might be a bit less subtle than the Glenlivet 12, but if you want something sweet and fruity, this wood be a good choice.

The nose has a quite full with more of a malty-grassy presence than a sweet or fruity one. There's a lot of earth on the nose and maybe a touch of smoke, but it doesn't smell like a smoke or peat bomb. The nose is balances I guess, but not very complex. There's a hint of fruit (apples) on the nose. The palate is kind of odd with some apples up front that linger a bit with a crispness that borders on juiciness and some dancing mushrooms. It's fairly harsh, but that is to be expected with the ABV. The flavor is also more full and bitter than I would expect from Glenlivet. It has a decent amount going on if you really dive in, but it is on the more subtle side. There's some more floral flavor with water added, but not a ton. Some more alcohol comes out with the added water though too. It drinkable, but it's definitely young. This is serviceable scotch with some subtleties that can be enjoyable if you dig, but it's super hot even with water and is clearly young. I'd drink it, but it wouldn't be my first choice by any means.

The nose is light, sweet fruity, and grassy. There's some maltiness and some old socks on the nose that fit in decently, though not in any surprising or delightful way. The palate is fine, but it does taste young. The malt comes through, but it mixes with some strong, bland grass. I like the malty, vanilla sweetness and hint of orange, but the lemon is a bit harsh and this is generally a step down from Signatory's Auchentoshan 17. It's good enough and has some decent complexity, but it's not super exciting. The cereal and fruit sweetness seem like they should be quite good, but the balance doesn't quite come together and the sweetness has a bit of sugar water flavor alongside the maltiness. I appreciate the bit of smoke in here giving this some life, but I would definitely take Springbank 10. It's decently comparable to Glenmorangie The Original, with some added ruggedness. It does gradually grow on me. I wish the balance were better, but the flavors aren't bad and it generally works out well. In the right situation, this could be pretty enjoyable, but in the wrong one it could be disgusting. It's quite a mediocre scotch. It's not great for the price, but it wouldn't be a huge disappointment to pay that much.

A bit harsh, but otherwise kind of a cross between the sweet cherry of Macallan 12 on the front and the rich chcolate flavor of Glenmorangie Signet on the finish. There is some really fun depth and variety here at a bargain price with minimal off notes. Fruit, mineral, toffee. It's good, but it doesn't have a ton of interesting variety. Toffee, some smoke, raisins, orange zest, hints of peat. This is a rich drink with a but much alcohol, but had richness and depth with a reasonable amount of sweetness. The malt does come through in the richness. The alcohol is unfortunately a bit much, but this is otherwise an excellent drink.

The nose is rich and full, giving a sense of age, though not giving a sense of much complexity or deep, dark, rich flavors like Glenfarclas. The palate is disappointingly light and watery. I'm not shocked given that it's only 40%, but I am disappointed. There's a prevalent wateriness. There's some light fruit, but the flavors on a whole don't really stand out in terms of quality. There's a decent balance I guess with fruitiness and some spice and some cardboard, but it really doesn't taste like much. It tastes better than bland sake, but it has its own imperfections too. The flavor here is light with no smoke or sea spray. There's plenty of sweetness, sort of like mild sugar water but it also has some problematic bread that's gone a little bad but isn't full-on mildewed yet. It definitely has a light flavor that gives me a bit of a notion of champagne, though it also kind of just reminds me of sake and shouju. It's really not very good, unfortunately. I like some of the sweetness and a bit of the more subtle swirling character, but it kind of tastes like Sho Chiku Bai Nigori with some gross bread, which isn't bad but is weird. I only get a little bit of the richness that the distiller reviewer claims. I do taste a little bit of pear and sweet apricot and they're nice, but not enough in this price range and, frankly, not enough for a whiskey in general. This mostly doesn't taste bad, but it tastes like a whole lot of nothing.

Sweet and muddled while also somewhat watered down. It reminds me of Glenlivet 12 and Jameson. It's clearly better than Jameson and is comparable to Glenlivet. It has some mild cinnamon spice that is like a less good version of compass box mixed with some mild apple and possibly the faintest hint of orange. It isn't really creamy, but there is some coconut going on and the finish is not too bad. There is no pervasive, gross alcohol flavor, but there is a sense of weakness that gives it the impression of clean vodka (e.g. Chopin Wheat). Surprisingly, although there isn't enough interesting going on here to make this particularly enjoyable, it is a sippable drink. Compared to Glenmorangie The Original, there is less of an alcohol presence, but there is also a lot less flavor. I'd say that the Glenfiddich has a comparable amount of depth, but it is just so much weaker. Compared with Bastille 1789, It has less flavor, but its flavors make more sense. Bushmill's Black Bush is the obvious comparison though. The two have quite similar profiles in terms of general mellowness with some apple, orange, and coconut richness. The Bushmill's has more of a kick to it, but that really just means that the alcohol is stronger. The Glenfiddich is more rounded and is overall a better drink. Compared to the Glenfiddich 14 Bourbon Barrel of course this stands no chance.

Smells like gym socks and tastes a bit like them too. Rich, bitter, and rancid. Perhaps a bit meaty, but not in a good way. It's spicy and a bit too sweet for a meaty whiskey. The spice is way too present. A bit nutty, but definitely boozy. Ginger is there and either it or some cinnamon burns. It's kind of bland with an icky finish. I wish this were less bitter and rich.