Tastes

This has some scotch richness on the nose. The nose is surprisingly subdued though. The palate is very rich with harsh spices and tannins immediately coming out, but then rich chocolate and toffee. The tannins are soft but pervasive with clove numbingness quickly kicking in. The finish has a touch of mineral sweetness emerge that tastes like fresh spring water. The woody element is unavoidable in the spice, but, it tastes more in-place and mature than in Booker's Kitchen Table. The balance is very harmonious, despite being less sweet than Booker's Kitchen Table. The rich sweetness is great with lots of vanilla. The end result is a lot like Stagg Jr., but maybe a little bit better? The balance isn't quite as great with water added, but it's still a really good drink. This is a stellar example of what a bourbon can be. The wood does show itself a bit much, but it's well in hand and give a bit of an earthy, natural flavor. It's surprising that this tastes substantially older than Booker's Kitchen Table.

The nose is herbal with spices (notably black pepper) and a faint spearmint aroma as well as earth and some old chocolate and hints of wet cardboard and suggestions of rye tartness that also bring in some sweet fruitiness, nuttiness (almond and pecan) and slight buttery toffee hints. There's a lot in the nose eventually, but the quality is mixed. Without water, there is the expected warm burn and sweetness. It's comforting and fairly rich with some nice toffee and apple and cherry notes mixed with plenty of vanilla. It's clear that there is rye flavor, but it doesn't scream it's presence. That almond does come through in a subtle way that enhances the sweetness while adding a rounded oily richness. There are herbal flavors, but they are hard to place (though they aren't exceptionally bitter). Adding water, the rich, oily nuttiness stays with almond being a very present flavor and adding to the toffee richness. There's a lot of vanilla without a huge oak taste being there. There's a little bit of a rancid flavor, but it isn't out of hand. There are interesting herbal notes that bring in spikes of bitterness and some nice licorice when enough water is added, but the final impression here is one of rich oily nuttiness with sufficient sweetness and some fruits. Rye does show up, but it doesn't overpower. This is very tasty and highly sippable. It's in the 16-17 range for its hedonism. Compared with Blanton's, this tastes less sweet and fruity. Actually, Blanton's tastes like an Armagnac or maybe even a Cognac in comparison. Blanton's tastes relatively weak due to its lower ABV, but its richness and age do start to show, letting it make the case for its quality. The smokiness in Blanton's gives it a mature character, but doesn't balance as well as Booker's does. It's hard to drink Blanton's after Booker's. The almond is the star here and it adds a nice toasted barrel element, bit it avoids the harsh alcohol and banana hint of Woodford Reserve Double Oak. This is kind of somewhere between Stagg Jr. and Wild Turkey Jewbillee in terms of flavor profile. It's fairly spicy with a substantial woody barrel flavor to it and plenty of vanilla, but there's also some really nice sweet red fruit with a cherry emphasis that doesn't overwhelm. The caramel seems a bit on the light side and the wood is a bit strong (though not young, to be clear), but it's still quite good. It's a close contender with Stagg Jr. and Wild Turkey Jewbillee, but it might ultimately show a tad more immaturity. The finish is a bit on the bitterly herbal, fresh wood side.

The nose is quite herbal with some licorice showing up (not overwhelming though) and clear grassy notes. There's some herbal spice scent and definitely some barrel. The faintest hint of red fruit makes it into the nose, but it's trivially minor. It reminds some of Whistlepig 20 more than I would really care for on the nose. The palate has some spice for sure, but it is less aggressive than expected. The ABV makes its way through, but it doesn't dominate. Some rich chocolate and toffee notes are maintained though they take a moment to come out. Those rum barrels add a nice complexity. There are nice variations on sweet and rich going on here that blend together in a pretty balanced fashion. It's a bit more on the fun side than more bourbons because of the rum, but the balance is quite good and it is strong. This has a unique bourbon-rum balance that I quite like. The overall flavor is on the young side, but not in an upsetting way - more like how Booker's tastes when sufficent water is added. Vanilla and brown sugar make their way in but they balance with the wood nicely. Some spiced notes come through that balance out nicely, but they don't taste excessively like rum. This might be a little lighter than I'd normally like, but it is interesting and complex, reminding me of Corsair Grainiac and Wild Turkey Jewbillee (though tasting completely different). I do wish that the wood came off as a bit older, but the flavors are quite nice. This edges out regular Elijah Craig, but is it really worth the price difference? Well, it's quite interesting and tasty. The wheat and the rye do make their way out here, making it taste substantially younger than it is.

The flavor is bitter off the bat with some sweetness and remarkable smoothness. I taste wood with a little iodine, red fruit, some walnuts, and a hint of toffee. The bitter notes fade, giving way to a sweet, creamy, and smooth finish. This is a bourbon that I would be happy to sip. The smoothness is really a wonder. This didn't quite knock my socks off, but I quickly realized that I liked it and wanted more. It tastes like it has low rye content, which makes me quite happy. Rich and surprisingly smooth. There may be some mineral notes here, but there is also plenty of vanilla and toffee with s backing of woody age. This bourbon has a flavor that immediately leaps out as being well-developed and is immensely enjoyable. It's smooth with some rich woodiness and not too much spice. It's a bit oily, but that mixes nicely with the vanilla, bits of rye tartness, and toffee. It isn't very sweet, but it is very balanced. This is rich with coffee and toffee. There is not too much spice and the proof is just about right for a drink that is not trying to be cask strength. The balance is exquisite and it does not even need to rely upon high alcohol content to round it out. There are a lot of dimensions here and although they are sometimes muddled, the net result is usually terrific. Each flavor is good and the drink is enjoyable sweet despite its rich backing. I could throw nits at it or I could just say.that it's a delight to drink. This is less rich but arguably more complex than Delord 1981, making it quite a success and a testement that drinks can taste entirely different while being the same in quality. The nose has mellow wood and chocolate with some harvest fruit. It smells smooth. The palate has some spice, but to is predominantly smooth and rich. You can taste the age here and the complexity gradually builds. There is plenty going on with chocolate, wood, toffee, just enough rye to add interest and make it a little mouth-watering, some hints of apple and cherry, vanilla, cinnamon, tiny bits of nutmeg, kind of a reference to clove, the faintest hint of allspice, and just the right amount of char. This is a masterful bourbon that sets a standard for others to strive for. Actually, Blanton's tastes like an Armagnac or maybe even a Cognac in comparison to Booker's Kitchen Table. Blanton's tastes relatively weak due to its lower ABV, but its richness and age do start to show, letting it make the case for its quality. The smokiness in Blanton's gives it a mature character, but doesn't balance as well as Booker's does. It's hard to drink Blanton's after Booker's. Russell's Reserve Single Barrel has more of a punch and some nice woody spice mixed with its cherry flavor and strong vanilla than Blanton's does, so its distinct flavors might allow it to be more generally enjoyable, but Blanton's might be more subtle.

The nose has a moderate richness. It doesn't smell like there's a lot going on, but there's a bit of malt and freshness with a tad of herbal citrus and a slight balancing waft of apricot alongside a bit of young grass smell. The palate is decently sweet and malty with a bit of caramel. It's light like Glen Elgin 21 (1995), but it isn't as smooth and nicely balanced. It is smooth, but it does have some of that citrus youthfulness to it and a bit of that Clynelish waxiness. The palate is very light, but it's nice. It's good and it can certainly compete with something like Glenmorangie The Original, but it's not excellent. There's some grassiness that brings in a bit of cardboard, but doesn't taste gross. There is definitely some alcohol though. I like Loch Lomond 12 a bit better, though. A bigger sip reveals more richness with some increased viscosity and smoke, a lot like Glenmorangie The Original mixed with Clynelish 14. It's solid, but not much more than drinkable.

The color is beautifully dark and rich. The nose has a bitter woody smell that is rich with some dark red fruit. The nose is less complex than that of the Bladnoch Adela, but it's also richer. There's a hint of something tart on the nose that is kind of interesting. The palate is rich but unfortunately comes in with a lot of wet cardboard. The other flavors are terrific, but the cardboard is really disappointing. Without sipping any further, I would definitely take the Adela over this. It's super rich and sweet with some delicious dark dried fruit and just the right amount of spiciness. It's super viscous. There are some nutty bitter oil notes that help to conceal the cardboard, though they don't succeed by much. I absolutely believe that there is a port finish on this one. The tartness comes with a little bit of mint too. There are some really soft tannins that have a hint of clove (which does fit with he cardboard) and coat the tongue. This is actually really good for a wet cardboard scotch. Like, impressively good. It absolutely is not worth the price, but it's really enjoyable. It's unfortunate that it's so numbing, regardless of the circumstances, though. Also adding to the cardboard is the plentiful vanilla and hint of floral flavor. There isn't a ton of smoke here and peat is essentially a no-show, but there's a lot of richness, fruit, spices, tartness, sweetness, vanilla. There's some herbal and floral components but they aren't obtrusive. It's rich and interesting, but doesn't have the swirling complexity of the Adela. It also has a wet cardboard flavor. This would be pushing against 20 without the cardboard. With it, it's a bit lower, but with how well the other flavors support the cardboard, it surprisingly isn't ruined.

This doesn't immediately hit me with that combination of balance, richness, and complexity that is characteristic of Bladnoch 15. It has some elements of I.W. Harper 15, Westward, Balcones American Single Malt, and Glenfiddich 14 - and they aren't wholly good elements. It has a richer, woodier version of the Harper cardboard flavor, with less vanilla. From Westward, it takes that young malt flavor, which is exacerbated when combined with the dryness and tartness of Balcones. Similarly, that dank malt flavor of Glenfiddich 14 comes in. On the long long finish, there's a pretty nice woody vanilla that isn't too heavy. Although the comparisons are not terribly flattering, I do like this scotch quite a bit. It just isn't on first taste the instant classic that the brand and price suggest. Some dryness comes from the red wine. It's fairly rich and fruity with some viscous mouthfeel and sweetness, but it isn't as delicious or complex as the Adela or Talia. It's interesting though and well-executed with a nice proof and rounded flavor. It's definitely richer than Oban Little Bay, though the sweetness of the Little Bay is appealing and it is not without complexity of its own. I'd call this a substantial improvement over Oban Little Bay, but not a tremendous improvement. There's some aged wood on the nose along with maltiness and some fruit from the wine that is like Oban Little Bay. There's a hint of spice (cinnamon on the nose too). It has that malty flavor mixed with some fruity sweetness from the wine. It's rich and tasty with a swirly malty flavor, but it never really settles on any flavor in particular. Plenty of vanilla comes out in the richness too, but there isn't a lot of sea spray or anything like that. There's a little smokiness that provides a nice balance, but doesn't overwhelm at all. It's more subdued than Westward, with more elements to it, it seems like Westward just picked a flavor and went for it (young though it may be) and this kind of messed up a beautiful 15 year old Scotch. It's very good, but I really expected better. The fruit is a bit strong and the other flavors don't bring in the complexities that I want them to. I guess it's comparable to Westward in terms of quality. It's too expensive for what it is, but I like to remember how good Bladnoch 15 Adela is when drinking it.

Wow, what life and richness! Martinelli's and apricot are nested among almonds with a little coconut. There are some spices and the flavor is rich and delicious. This tastes like a premium Scotch with its delightful balance of flavors and couple of punches of excellent flavor. It may not be perfect, but it's hard to come up with something more successful. This is to Macallan 15 as Macallan 15 is to Green Spot. It's a stunning masterpiece from an unexpected place. It is less I -your-face than Macallan 15 is, but it is more balanced and rich. The flavors develop over the sip, increasing the complexity. It's tasty like Glenfarclas 25, but less dry. The spices add interest and tend a bit toward ginger, but this is not as dry as Glenfarclas 25. There are plenty of baking spices and the wood is prominent, making it taste and look at least 5 years older than it actually is and maybe even 10 years older. It's really quite a find. It's super good. It smells scotchy with a little bit of sweet red fruit and some nice almond bordering on marzipan. The nose also has some rich truffle. There's some initial harshness on the palate, but it quickly gives way to complex flavors. There are some of those mineral elements that often bring out gross bread, but not in a bad way. It's a bit harsher than expected, but the complexity is there and it is quite balanced. There are notes of cherry and almond that are quite nice. There's a nice balance here with quite a bit going on. Spice leaps out with some harshness. There are some smoky, seaside notes too and the barrel plays a big part in developing the backdrop. Almond comes in nicely, giving the flavor a richness. The sherried backdrop is quite tasty as well, though I'd like it a bit darker. There is leather, but it is far from overwhelming. The nose reminds me of Westward and the Bladnoch 17. It has some smoke and overripe fruit with some malt and sweet caramel with a little bit of wood. The palate is nicely woody with fruity sweetness and malty richness. Some hints of milk chocolate come in and there's a good balance of spiciness making it taste full and rich. There's so much flavor and complexity here. It sometimes doesn't all quite fit together beautifully, but it swirls in a decadent and interesting manner. If be delighted to sip this. There's a bit of butterscotch to the caramel, but I would have liked it to be more. There's some nice mild leather in with the smoke that blends with the tannins smoothly. Some raisins, dried figs, and dates all come out. I would have preferred a slightly different flavor profile, but it's complex and interesting with a solid richness (at least for its age). The fruitiness with the richness and the sweetness and balanced spice is really nice. This is truly an enjoyable scotch to drink.

This has a richer, smokier nose than Ellington does (though there still isn't much to it). The palate is smooth with a viscous mouthfeel and immediately too much artificial caramel flavor. It's surprisingly drying though. There really isn't much happening on this palate. It really just tastes like a young whiskey that I wouldn't want to drink. It isn't the worst thing out there, but it's far, far from good. It might be possible to hide it in a drink, but it really is painful to sip. Ugh, drinking Ellington after this is a huge mistake - awful! Ellington Reserve is even worse! Somehow, this is better than the both of them. It tastes young with some sweetness and not much going on. It has alcohol and gross caramel. Ellington is more interesting, but has some more explicitly gross flavors, almost like some tequila got mixed in.