Tastes

Rating: 9/23 N: Surprisingly floral on the nose with some citrus (orange and lime) and a sugary syrup. Honestly, I could believe that this was the nose of a tropical cocktail made with orange juice, lime juice, and Rose's grenadine. I can believe that there's Irish whiskey in this, but it certainly isn't the most prominent smell. P: Kind of weak at first, then sugary and a bit burning. After that, some dry, slightly burnt grass comes out in the midst of intense floral fruitiness. I'm getting a lot of that grenadine and some of the lime bitterness, with sort of a nectary orange layer tying them together. I don't hate it, but it sure is weird. Some malty sweetness as well, but it's restrained in the usual Irish fashion. I am definitely getting a bit of a rough alcohol flavor here. I'm getting some very surprising Metaxa Grande Fine vibes here. F: Toasty, dry grass with malt, rose petals, and restrained orange zest and lime. This is sort of a more zingy and refreshing version of the palate. - Conclusion - This is an odd one. I really didn't expect this profile. I suppose it would be fun in a tropical cocktail, but outside of one it's a bit challenging. Still, it is kind of fun neat. In limited quantity. Knappogue Castle 12 (15/23) is richer, smoother, and more coherent, though it has a less interesting profile. This definitely burns more and shows more alcohol. This isn't bad, but a 14 would be a stretch for it. I'm thinking a 12 or 13, though I'm concerned that that biting alcohol may be too harsh and present for such a high rating. Metaxa Grande Fine (6/23) is much more sweet and floral and weird and just off. That said, it doesn't taste as bad in comparison as I'd expected. Maybe I underrated the Mextaca - or maybe this just isn't bery good. This is closer to the Mextaca than to the Knappogue Castle, which would suggest that this is a 10 at best. Switching back to this, I again find it challenging and burning, though I do find its profile to be kind of fun. I'm pretty convinced at this point that this won't be beating a 10, though I don't see it being as low as a 6 and a 7 also seems a bit harsh. I was worried that this might only be a little bit better than all of those cheap Irish drams that I rated at 9, but I think that is actually manages to be worse. I wasn't sure, but coming back to this I'm smelling and tasting some gasoline. I'm down to a 7 or 8. Ugh, this could even be a 6 or lower. That plastic gasoline element is way too strong. It's like poison. My question now is: why does seeming like poison not make this the absolute worst thing I've ever tried? Trying this again, I'm getting hints of that gasoline, but not nearly as much as before. I still get plenty of alcohol bite and youthful vibes with various citrus and a watery nectar flavor, as well as a bit of toasty grain with light oil. This isn't nearly as bad as before, but it's certainly still not good. This still has nothing on Knappogue Castle 12. It's also clearly behind Breuckelen Distilling 77 American Single Malt Aged 7 Years Bourbon Cask Finished. I think that the 7-8 I was thinking of previously is too harsh. It'd be really tough to give this more than a 12 though. I'm thinking that it's most likely a 9 or 10. It's tough with all that harshness and bit of gasoline, but I do really like that tropical element. Overall, considering how much this burns at a mere 40% ABV, I think that an 8 might actually be back in the picture. I'm going with a 9.

Rating: 16/23 This one is a bit of a unicorn, which really makes me scratch my head. I get that 1792 has gained popularity recently and that 12 years is a relatively old age statement for bourbon these days, but surely a 12 year old bourbon shouldn't be that hard to find (unless it's Willett). N: This is nice. There's a rich toasted marshmallow quality that brings in vanilla and occasional notes of caramel, which leads into a really mellow but subtly nuanced woodiness. It's toasty, yet the grain shows through. I feel like I'm not describing just how interesting this is. The notes are subtle, but they're intricate and nicely balanced. I'm very impressed by this nose. P: Woody with some surprising spice burn. It's drier than I'd expected, but there is some nice richness in the toasted-marshmallow-vanilla-faint-banana range. The spices have an odd amount of chili flavor to them, with much more subdued baking spice. Plenty of dry wood and vanillin. It reminds me of I. W. Harper 15 in that regard. I'm getting some nice maturity here, but that chili spice does seem off and I'm not getting that nuance I got on the nose. I wanted a sweeter, mellower dram than this. I do get some woody depth, which I definitely did want, but it gives me an impression of whiskeys of different ages rather than one decently old dram. F: Yeah, the woodiness lingers, but not boldly. I do get some herbaceousness coming off of the cili, but all of that dimension is toned down a bit. I get some lingering burn and some faint baking spices (fresh ginger, clove, maybe cinnamon), but it's all very blurred together. There are some dry wood notes at times, but not a lot. It's quite restrained for a 12 year. - Conclusion - I wanted to love this, but I'm only moderately impressed. Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) has more going on, but it tastes less mature and coherent than this does. As a sanity check, 1792 Sweet Wheat (15/23) tastes younger and less nuanced than this. I actually get some cotton candy out of the Sweet Wheat now, so I'm thinking that this is substantially better. My single barrel bottle of Resilient 15 (18/23) has a bolder wood decadence that is just so nice to sip, but doesn't achieve the nuance that this has. The Resilient approached polished wood while this is more subtle. That said, the Resilient has a fair amount of minerality, which doesn't show up side by side with this, so this may be a bit on the light side.Yeah, I'm getting more minerality here now. 1792 Full Proof (19/23 - though I think it's on the low side there) is more rich, full, and decadent than this is. It's sweeter with less wood, but it does have a bit of nice variation going on. It does emphasize its minerals a bit more as well. At the end of the day, this is great. It's not blowing my mind like a unicorn should, but there's a lot to appreciate here. There's no way that this is below a 16, but I don't think that it is as high as a 19. Well, I can imagine a 19, but I'm skeptical. I'm very much in the 17 to 18 range right now, though I'm leaning toward an 18. It's a tough call. Coming back to this, I don't see it being an 18. It's more of a 15 to 17. Eh, probably not a 15. It's a 16 or 17. Pulling out my last drops of I.W. Harper 15 (14/23), I do taste a lot of similarity. The I.W. Harper is richer, but also more bitter and less complex. I'm not that impressed by how much better this is though, so I'm going to land on a 16 here. I'd been looking to try this for a while but hadn't been able to track it down, so a big thanks to @Milliardo for sharing!

Rating: 14/23 N: Tart with dry barrel spice leading into tannins. There's a kind of caramel sweetness and bit of vanilla as well, but those scents are fairly restrained. It isn't all that complex, but it's a nice, fairly typical bourbon nose that I definitely believe leans into the rye. P: There's a dry, spicy bite right at the beginning. I'm getting a bit of Canadian rye vibe here. There's more vanilla sweetness here than I'd expected. There's plenty of wood, though it's a tad less than I thought it would be. The tannins also show a hair more than I'd like. There's an odd sort of wateriness in with the spices, as well as some clean, bitter herbs. I'm definitely tasting that rye here. Occasional notes of anise. Very very faint hints of peanut. I get a hint of beets at times, but not like I do with some really intense ryes. The palate has a decent amount going on, but it isn't super complex, I like its rye flavor, but the balance is a bit off in places. F: Lingering anise and vanilla pod, with some tannins and spicy burn. Occasional dry woodiness as well. It's kind of rich and decadent and it sticks around for a while, so it's fine. - Conclusion - I like this. I don't love it and I do think that it needs some work, but it's a fairly enjoyable sipper. I'd probably take 1792 Sweet Wheat over this though. Four Roses Single Barrel (15/23) is lighter and shows its alcohol more while retaining a spicy nature, but there is more complexity to the Four Roses - though I wouldn't say that it is more balanced. Honestly, the two are quite close. I do think though that the Four Roses is a little ahead because of its nice complexity. I wouldn't go lower than a 13 on this. I think it's fairly nice. I'm probably going with a 14, but I might end up back up at a 15. Elijah Craig Small Batch (15/23) is mellower than this, but as a nice sweetness to it, with some chocolate notes. It's a tough call here, but I think that this manages to be a low 15. Oof, coming back to this for a final sip, I don't like it quite as much. I think that this is now a 14. I'm now finding the Elijah Craig to be a little bit better than this. Thanks to @Milliardo for another rare bourbon sample!

Rating: 15/23 N: Banana bread is the core here. I get sweet banana, baking spices, and oily, bitter walnut. It smells delicious. Little bits of vanilla and wood, but really it's like smelling banana bread. P: Soft, mellow, sweet. Baking spices with restrained banana. Medium viscosity. Hints of minerality, but not much. The spices have a really nice rich sweetness, with occasional hints of chocolate. It's shockingly like drinking banana bread. There isn't a tremendous amount of complexity, but the balance is terrific and it's super easy to drink. And it isn't like it's one-note at all. F: It retains a soft, cake-like sweetness, with a bit more grain showing through. Hints of banana. Not a lot happening here, but it's just what I'd expect from banana bread in whiskey form. - Conclusion - I've never ben much a fan of wheaters before. I mean, William Larue Weller is amazing, but that's a serious exception. I usually find that they just taste kind of boring. This changes that by delivering a specific profile with an enjoyably soft drinkability. This is solid competition for Elijah Craig Small Batch (15/23) and I think I prefer this a hair because of its greater nuance. Still, the Elijah Craig is more hedonistic. I then need to compare this with Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23). Now this is more hedonistic, less refined offering. The Russell's seems closer in quality to this than the Elijah Craig does. If I had to choose between this and the Russell's, it would be tough, but I'd favor the Russell's. Considering that, I think that this is a 15. Still, I like the banana bread flavor here a lot. It just ends up being kind of too soft. I can imagine going up to a 16 for this, but for now I'm going with a 15. For quite a while, I really thought that I was going to be giving this a 16. And it's almost there! I love that banana bread, but this just ins't quite good enough to earn that 16. As much as I like how this has nailed a single concept, it isn't as good as many drams that have combined disparate components in interesting ways. Thank you @Milliardo for sharing this one!

Rating: 19/23 This is it: my 2000th alcohol reviewed! This one seems perfectly fitting because it was released to celebrate the new millennium (which I presume is why they went with a 21 year age statement). This is to my knowledge also the only 21 year old that J&B has ever released. It's now actually spent longer in this bottle than it did in a barrel, so that's another interesting point that makes it suitable for a special occasion like this. I've never had J&B before and I'm sure it's normally pretty bad, but I really hope that this one turns out to be great for this milestone occasion. N: I sniffed the cork coming out of the bottle and whoa - what decadence! Nectar sweetness with richness and depth. In my glass, I get more grass and grain with some oiliness. There's a touch of well-roasted meatiness, but not too much. It's a good balance with nice maturity. Wisps of ashy smoke and barbecue. White and black pepper. Faint anise. A little alcohol, but not too much. I'd really have guessed that this was 43% ABV, not 40%. Hints of orange, tangerine, lemon, and jasmine, but the fruit is surprisingly much reduced now that this is in my glass. P: More mild and restrained than the nose suggested. Fairly dry with less fullness than I'd expected, though still a thin layer of slick oil. I get candied bitter orange peels and a thin, wispy smoke that is intertwined with mature, very restrained wood. The smoke and fruit build as the palate progresses. Occasional tangerine, vanilla, and jasmine, as well as an occasional faint note of bitter anise. I get the black and white pepper from the nose and they add enough heat to keep this from tasting watered down. I'd probably have guessed 43% ABV. The peppers are definitely giving me a grain vibe that suggests this would be challenging to drink if it were much younger or higher proof. Still, it's super sippable as it is. I do taste a little bit of the ethanol, but it's sort of like in a mature light whiskey, where it exists because other flavors have made room for it, not because the juice is too young. There's definitely a substantial layer of dry grain going on in here, possibly with occasional hints of malt. F: Clean. Lingering grain, mild wood, and hints of smoke. That's about it. Really faint and rare hints of jasmine and tangerine at times. It's a very easy finish, but also boring. - Conclusion - This isn't blowing me away, but I'm quite enjoying it. It's a bit of a let-down from that first beautiful scent from the cork, but it's pretty much exactly what I expected otherwise: an inoffensive, easy sipper that has just enough going on to be enjoyable. McIvor 17 (16/23) has a bit more full oiliness, but not as much going on. It also has more alcohol presence and tastes younger. This is the clear winner between the two. They have very similar energy though and this isn't leagues better than the McIvor. This is easily a 17 though. It could be a 19, but I'm pretty skeptical of a 20. Lismore 21 The Legend (19/23) (what is it with 21 year olds being called "Legend"?) unsurprisnigly has a bigger malty profile and richness. Being a single malt and having an extra 3% ABV are both very helpful here, though even combined they don't deliver the immense increase in richness and fullness that I might have expected. There's a mature sort of peppery-woodsmoke oily nuance to this that the Lismore doesn't quite have, but it isn't enough for me to say that this beats the Lismore. I'm not sure whether this is on the same level as the Lismore, but placing them side by side really does highlight the very subtle nuance that this has. Highland Park 16 Wings of the Eagle (17/23) is more decadent than this, though not by as much as I'd expected. It's far less interesting though. I'm now confident that this is better than a 17. It's either and 18 or 19. It all comes down to how close to the Lismore this is. I'd definitely place this closer to the Lismore than to the Highland Park, so that says something. Is it really that much better than the McIvor though? I won't be surprised if I change my mind later, but my current opinion is that this is right up there with the Lismore, so I'm going with a 19. This may not be one of the best drams I've ever tried, but it's really nice and mature and has met my expectations for a celebratory whisky. Would I buy it again at $150? No way. But am I glad I bought this bottle? You bet. I get the black and white pepper from the nose and they add enough heat to keep this from tasting watered down. I'd probably have guessed 43% ABV. The peppers are definitely giving me a grain vibe that suggests this would be challenging to drink if it were much younger or higher proof. Still, it's super sippable as it is. I do taste a little bit of the ethanol, but it's sort of like in a mature light whiskey, where it exists because other flavors have made room for it, not because the juice is too young.

Rating: 9/23 This 1999 vintage Glen Garioch is the penultimate dram on my trip to reviewing 2000 alcohols! E: Despite being a year younger than the 1997 Glen Garioch I just reviewed, this is darker, so I'm guessing that this one got some sort of a sherry finish. N: I was worried about this. There's more meat here than there was in the 1997 vintage. I do get some sherry fruits though. I'll let this sit for a few minutes. After a few minutes, I get classic PX finish character! That's a bit challenging itself, but it's a nice departure from the roasted meat. It's cherry, blackberry, licorice, menthol, black pepper. And a faint roasted meat. It's more PX than I'd like, but I'll take it. P: PX and youthful alcohol! It burns! There's some really nice fullness, but the roasted meat comes through much more than I'd expected, and so do some other bitter flavor and harshness that make me think of a youthful spirit. There's a touch of sulphur here too that I really don't like. I'm getting the impression that that someone tried to cover up some spirit that wasn't aging well with a PX finish. I do get hints of the black pepper, licorice, and menthol, with more obvious blackberry and tart strawberry nods, but the weird meat and sulphur take center stage. I'm not liking this. There are occasional notes of malt and light vanilla, but they aren't the key players here. There is actually some cinnamo with some nice wood notes that bring in a bit of clove, but they're largely crushed by the rest of the flavors. F: The malt comes out a lot more here - along with a little more of the vanilla! For a while at least. As it goes on, more meat and sulphur come out, starting at the roasted level, but gradually moving backward into undercooked and then raw territory. Benjamin Button the dram, I guess. Really not a nice finish. - Conclusion - Signatory's Inchmurrin 17 (1996) (15/23) is weirder and more bitter than this, but its flavors seem more intentional. There are things that I like better about this, but it mostly just tastes worse. I wouldn't go above a 14 for this. As a sanity check, Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (1994) absolutely crushes this. I'm thinking that this is most likely not even a 14. This is actually kind of unpleasant. I'm in a bit of a predicament here, which is that I have very few drams as bad as this. Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) has some really nice coconut and oiliness when placed beside this. Oh, the sulphur shows through here when placed side by side. There's even an elegance and nuance to Compass Box Hedonism (11/23) that makes me favor it over this when the two are placed beside each other. This is just actually unpalatable. I'm in 11 or lower territory now, which is a real challenge since I don't have things to compare this with in that range. This is absolutely a bad dram. Side by side, this somehow makes Uncle Val's Botanical Gin (10/23) taste a little bit sane. I'm not sure whether this is better or worse though. Even Rabbit Hole Dereringer (12/23) manages to taste much more mature and coherent than this. There sherry here doesn't work as well, the sulphur shows through more, the flavors that are present are more muddled, and there's more of an alcohol bite. I can't see this being over a 10. I'm thinking it's an 8 to 10. I'm having flashbacks to Grant's (7/23) and I don't think that the sulphur and wackiness are bad enough to push this down to that level, but they do get it pretty close. I think it comes down to how I think this compares to the Uncle Vals... which is not an ideal comparison to be making. I think that the Uncle Val's is a little bit better, but not a lot. I'm leaning toward a 9 for this. It could be a 10 though. It definitely isn't an 11, but it isn't trailing tremendously. I can definitely imagine a 10 for this, but it's a rough one. This is really not fun to drink. What a huge disappointment. I didn't have high hopes for this after the last Glen Garioch, but I had no conception that this could be as bad as it turned out to be. I think I'll be avoiding this distillery as a result of this tasting.

Rating: 16/23 This 1997 vintage is number 1997 on my count-up to my 2000th alcohol reviewed! I know pretty much nothing about this distillery, but I haven't tried them before, so I'm excited to give this a shot. N: Light with faint orchard fruits and some funk. There's some seriously roasted meat going on, with a charred exterior (though it isn't actually smoky). The longer I smell it, the more I just get meat. This is not a very appealing nose. I do eventually get some toasty grain and light maltiness, but that meat kind of smooshes everything. P: It has a grain burn (surprising for a malt), but the proof is pretty high after all. There's a nice sweetness like orchard fruits (mild pear and apple, possibly with white peach) with toasted light malt and a touch milk, but not really a milky texture. There's a bit of still funk, but no youthful distillate flavor. There's also a bit of something floral that isn't quite vanilla. Hints of roasted meat, but they're nice, unlike the oppressive character they leave on the nose. I also eventually get touches of cinnamon and faint ginger. And very faint numbing clove. This is a good palate - and it's certainly much better than the nose. It does a good job of balancing typical scotch fruit, grain, and funk. F: This is more on the funky side, with some kind of dirty dishwater flavor. There are still lingering hints of orchard fruits and toasty grain, but it's all fairly muddled. This is a real step down from the palate. - Conclusion - There's a good palate here sandwiched between a bad nose and seriously underwhelming finish. Despite the failings here though, I would put this above Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (1994). It isn't far ahead though. Signatory's Inchmurrin 17 (1996) strikes me as lagging behind this for sure. This tastes pretty competitive with Loch Lomond 12 (16/23), though I'm thinking that the Loch Lomond is probably a hair ahead of this. This is going to be a high 15 or low 16. I'm thinking that this is actually better than the Deanston and quite competitive with the Loch Lomond, so I'm giving it a 16. Actually, after a final sip from the Deanston, I think that this is still kind of in its range. I'm giving this a 15 - but it's still clearly better than the Inchmurrin. As a sanity check, Bladnoch 17 California Red Wine Cask Finish (17/23)...is actually kind of in the range of this. As a final final sanity check, Highland Park 16 Wings Of The Eagle (17/23) seems a bit better than this, but it isn't blowing it away. OK, I think that's enough for me to bump this up to a 16.

Rating: 15/23 This 1996 vintage is number 1996 on my count-up to my 2000th alcohol review! I bought this a while back from a retailer who advertised it with a picture of a 23 year old cask strength Inchmurrin. They did have a disclaimer that the proof might not match what was shown in the picture, but they didn't say anything about the age. When it arrived, I was disappointed to discover that I'd be shorted 7 years and it was only 43% ABV. Still, the price was decent for what I'd received and I didn't want to fight over it considering that the best case scenario would be the retailer taking it back and refunding me, so I kept it. Then I finally opened it and the cork shattered. I wasn't the most careful I've ever been when opening a bottle, but I was pretty careful. This was the driest, most fragile cork I've ever encountered. I've had plenty of corks split into two or even three pisces, but this one split into half a dozen large pieces and a lot of smaller ones. Mercifully, it was almost the same dimensions as a Càrn Mòr cork that I wasn't using, so I was able to replace it easily. All of this behind me now, I'm looking forward to trying an Inchmurrin! N: Immediately funky with dirty dish rags, but not wholly in a bad way. It's vegetal and grassy and I don't know what else. I definitely get Loch Lomond 12 (obviously) and Deanston vibes from this. There's some definite sweetness here, but it's a bit lighter than I'd expected. It's also a bit out of balance and certainly challenging. I gradually get some light baked chicken and very faint tangerine. P: This is light like the nose suggests, with grassiness coming right out. There's a nice sweetness and it moves into dry grass with a light toastiness to it. I get light tangerine and lemon coming out of it, with the faintest lime and orange. There's definitely a dishwater funk going on, but it's not too obtrusive. It's a challenging palate, but I'm enjoying it. There are definite Loch Lomond vibes going on here (again, really not surprisingly). I do get some nice spicy flavors, with white pepper and black pepper leading, but not being overly punchy. The dishwater has a bit of waxiness to it, but it's not quite the driving flavor. There's a light nuttiness coming out of the oily and toasty flavor here as well. F: A faded version of the dishwater comes out as the main character here. There's not a lot going on here, but there is that bold backing. This is kind of a disappointing finish. - Conclusion - This is fine, but it's kind of underwhelming. Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) has a more aggressive profile, but it's also more fun with some tropical notes. There's a real argument to be made that this is more mature in how it's restrained and integrated - and it's an argument that I largely buy. This is more subtle with fewer flavors that really stand out. At the same time, There are spice, fruit, and coffee flavors in the Loch Lomond that are quite nice and that this is lacking. The two are competitive, but what I think is worth pointing out is that Loch Lomond 12 is already a very challenging dram and I think that this is more challenging. I'm leaning toward a 15 for this one. Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (15/23) also seems in a competitive range with this, so I don't think that this is at all likely to surpass a 16. The Deanston is surprisingly sweeter and maltier than this is - though it still takes just the right amount of water to keep it from burning far too much without losing the flavor. Side by side, the Deanston's flavor strikes me as a bit better than what this offers. It's not a big gap though. I'm now thinking of a 14 or 15 for this. Coming back to this the next day, I'm getting largely the same notes as before, but they're more nuanced and enjoyable. This really does taste like a more mature, less bold Loch Lomond 12 now. I'm thinking that the sort of bitter, muddled dishwater character (still present) that is putting me off is a result of the low 43% ABV (versus Loch Lomond 12's 46%). I think that 43% ABV was a real mistake. I'm still liking this, but I think I'd love it at around 47% ABV. It's now obvious to me that Loch Lomond 12 is less mature and nuanced, but it also has a bolder flavor with fewer flaws and some really decadent fruits. The two are much closer in quality now. I think I'm ruling out a 14 for this and it might be a 16. I could possibly be convinced of a 17, but that would be tougher. The Deanston is still pretty competitive with this, aside from its intense burn. Actually, maybe this really is a 14. Yeah, I'm not sure that this is better than the Deanston. I'm definitely ruling out a 17 and going with a 15. One could do worse for this price, but I definitely wouldn't be buying this again for more than $40.