Tastes

Rating: 17/23 A few years ago, I tried an Ardmore independent bottling and was really impressed. I think it was like 9 years old or so. I hope that this isn't a total disappointment. Today, I finally fixed my fireplace and I feel like a smoky whisky is appropriate for celebrating. N: Oily apricot with a smokiness that makes me think a bit of barbecue, as well as hints of baking spices. A bit of an abnormally strong wort smell too. P: Whoa! There's a lot of sherry here! It's sweet with cherry, grocery store orange juice, ashy smoke like charcoal, hints of iodine, hints of roast meat, faint pear, a waft of wort, very light caramel, the faintest suggestion of dark chocolate, and mild baking spice notes (allspice, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg). I like the complexity and quality of the flavors here, but it doesn't taste all that aged. Where's the wood flavor? F: The spices linger a bit, along with the wort, which is still pretty bold. No weird bitter flavors here, but lingering barbecue smoke is happening. It's light though. - Conclusion - I like this whisky. It's weird and challenging, but I like how it comes together. I like the smoothness, but I really wish that there were more age showing here. Still, there's a nice decadence going on here. I'm thinking that this is easily a 17 and it may be a 21. It's not a 22 though because it tastes too young. Highland Park 16 Wings of the Eagle (17/23) is fuller and smoother, though it lacks the nice edgy complexity that this has. Paul John Christmas Edition 2020 (16/23) is fuller than this is, but it's less balanced and nuanced than this is. I give the win to this one, even though it's on the light side. I'm a little disappointed in the side-by-siding here, but I do think that this is closer to the Highland park than it is to the Paul John, so I'm going with a 17 here.

Rating: 20/23 Wooo! Entry number 2300 on my spreadsheet! For this, I decided to open a 23 year old dram. It turned out that this was the only 23 year old dram I have that wasn't ear-marked for some other purpose. I'd also been wanting to open this one for a while, so this works out really well. N: Fruity, oily, rich, creamy, nutty, malty. This has great oloroso character going on. Definite citrus. Little bits of grain. Really approachable, but also decadent and not lacking in character. It smells younger than 23 years, but quite nice. P: Sweet with a surprising amount of spicy burn up front. Nectar sweetness mixes a light malt with tangerine, apricot, lemon, mild nuttiness, elegant oak, a hint of creaminess, and touches of other grain. There's a little bit of waxiness in here too. F: That nectar sweetness lingers with light grain. - Conclusion - This is very nicely crafted whisky. It really impresses me how it makes terrific use of its casks. The oloroso shines through in a way that highlights its character yet supplements the Glenfarclas malt, which has been significantly mellowed by age. A fine offering, to be sure. I'm not disappointed by my choice of this for this milestone. Gordon & MacPhail's Longmorn 13 (2005) (17/23) has a sweeter richness, though not more fullness. I thought that it would be creamier, but it isn't really. It has more buckwheat maltiness for sure, but it lacks the balance and finesse that this has. Each has heat in their own way, but the heat that this has strikes me more of genuine spices and some real complexity comes out of it. This is clearly better than the Longmorn. I could be convinced of an 18 for this, but I think it's at least a 19. It's certainly not a 22 though and a 21 seems unlikely. Lismore 21 (19/23) is mellower with more woody earth. What strikes me the most here is that the Lismore is not a whole lot more complex than this is, but it has that hint of sulphur that puts me off, whereas this doesn't. This seems like the clear winner. I'm leaning toward a 20 now. Glenfarlas 1990 (28 years) Sherry Hogsheads Cask Strength (16/23 (Really? That seems low)) has more of an alcohol bite than this does, but it has less rich sweetness. It's higher proof, so the alcohol bite is unsurprising and totally acceptable. I do taste plenty of wood from it, but less fruit and other interesting flavors. I think that it was aged in barrels that had seen more usage than the ones that aged this. I like the delicate nuance that those give the 1990 Farclas, but I prefer the decadent and complex flavors that this has as the funky malt intertwines with the oloroso. OK, so it's time to compare this with the behemoth that is Glenfarclas 25 (23/23). Glenfarclas 25 is richer and fuller with decadent baking spices, dried fruits, and some juicy ripe fruits, as well as nutty flavors, and hints of wood. It's also more mellow. This just isn't on that level. This feels the inspirations of the 25, but it just isn't on that level. As much as I'm enjoying this, I just don't think that it's as close to Glenfarclas 25 in quality as it is to Lismore 21, so I think that I need to land on a 20. Which is a great rating! This is a great dram, but it's not the same profile as Glenfarclas 25 and it isn't on that level either.

Rating: 17/23 I've yet to be impressed by any Larceny product. Their barrel proof offerings have tasted like harsh, immature inferiors when placed alongside the similarly-priced Elijah Craig Barrel Proof. The Elijah Craig is aged 12 years, whereas these are aged 6 to 8, so that's not all that surprising of a conclusion. That said, this is supposed to be an exceptionally good release from this line, so I'm hopeful that this is a really good dram. N: Caramel, malt, vanilla, mint, ethanol. It's kind of decadent, but it also shows a fair amount of ethanol. Some sweet corn too. This isn't all that complex, but it's tasty with some nice balance. But there's also some ethanol holding it back. P: Rich, full, sweet. Caramel, malt, nuttiness, harsh ethanol mixed with black pepper, ginger, cinnamon, and generic spiciness. There's a nice flavor going on here, but I'm also getting harsh alcohol. This doesn't taste all that old, but it does taste decadent. Decadent and immature. Well, partially mature. F: That alcohol burn sure does linger. Rich sweetness with caramel, vanilla, malt. Not that complex of a finish, but it's good. - Conclusion - I was initially very impressed by this, but then the alcohol grew. With the alcohol accounted for this is struggling to get to the level of a 15. Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18/23) is less sweet, but more balanced, with less harshness. Smoke Wagon Uncut Unfiltered (18/23) Is decadent alongside this. It's not as rich, but it's certainly smoother and more balanced. Overall, I wanted to give this a higher rating, but I think it's only a 17, unfortunately. This is probably a high point for Larceny as a brand, but it's still not all that impressive as a whiskey.

Rating: 16/23 N: The first thing that hits is a caramel sweetness. It's on the light side but has some surprisingly decadent Christmas notes of plum pudding and eggnog. Past that, there are clean, dry herbs, along with rye spice. Hints of glacé apricots and lemon zest. I really have to commend this for its sweetness and lack of off flavors. This is a really hedonistic nose, which is a real surprise considering that it's fairly light. P: Big spiciness, but with a sweetness underneath it that is rich but not super full. It has a little caramel richness going on, but I really do get that eggnog creaminess in the flavor profile. The spices get herbal and really scream rye, more than most other drams come close to. As I go on, I taste more cinnamon and vanilla coming out specifically. Maybe hints of dark chocolate. There's more burn than I'd like, particularly considering the palate's light flavor, but it really tastes authentically rye in a way that few other drams manage. F: This gets unfortunately bitter. The spices remain, along with a long herbal flavor and hints of vanilla. Unfortunately, it isn't a chocolatey or leathery bitterness that remains, but more of a bland herbal flavor with a vegetal hint. Not a good bitterness is what I'm saying. Long, long on the finish, there are some light hints of tropical fruit. - Conclusion - This is a very good example of a slowly-aged rye that makes a point of really being a rye. It fits its niche well, but it certainly is challenging and even getting past the difficult part it isn't super fun. That isn't to say that this isn't enjoyable to drink (it is), but there isn't really a wow-factor beyond it being a prime example of its category. I wouldn't go below a 15 here, but I don't see an 18 happening. Side-by-side, this is beating Pikesville (16/23), but it's seeing some solid competition from Whistlepig Piggyback (16/23). I'd sooner call this a 17 than a 16, but it seems like right now it's yet another 16 rye.

Rating: 10/23 N: Sweet in a sort of caramel and malty way, with a layer of spices that land on the herbal side. There is unfortunately a distinct layer of ethanol as well. It's not bad, but it isn't a good nose. P: Not as bold as I'd expected. Spicy and sweet with caramel that comes out a bit on the light side. Perhaps faint malt. Yeah, there's some malt coming in there with a hint of green banana as well. I get some ethanol and a hint of burning. Oh, that ethanol and burn are growing. This is not a good palate at all, though there are hints of good flavors in here. Barrel spices are the bigger flavor, but there are herbal spices too. F: The spice profile moves more toward herbal and hints of vanilla get added to the sweetness. Touches of clean water. A hint of that industrial ethanol flavor remains, but it's not too bad. Faint burning too. - Conclusion - This is bad. The flavor isn't as messy as that of The Sexton (9/23) though. The ethanol is worse though and there's a bit more of something industrial in it here. I don't see this being a 7 and I'm leaning away from an 8, but I think a 10 is the high end of what I'd give it. I'm leaning toward a 10 right now. Coming back to this, I briefly thought that this could be a 14, but the more I've been sipping it, I'm agreeing with my prior 10 and can even imagine lower. Sadly, this is the best of the Winchester whiskeys I've tried.

Rating: 6/23 I know that this is a cheap bourbon, but I've read comparatively favorable things and considering that it's bottled in bond from Kentucky (i.e. not a really cold state), I have hopes. N: Oof. Thin and light with minerality and sugar water. Hints of corn sweetness. Maybe a touch of banana. An odd note of bitterness as well, but the alcohol doesn't particularly stand out. P: Oof again. The alcohol comes right our and burns. It's mixed in with sugar water and bold barrel spices. I do get hints of grass and banana as well. A hint of cherry, even. Maybe a faint caramel. F: Some sweetness lingers and the sugar water aspect of it is downplayed. There are spices as well. I get heat, but not as much burn as I'd expected. Hints of floral vanilla. Honestly, this is the best part of this dram by a large margin. - Conclusion - This is aggressive and hard to drink. It isn't balanced or mature, though I suppose there is some complexity. It's challenging and unpleasant, though not the worst bourbon I've tasted. King's Creek 4 (9/23) crushes this with its maturity, floral fruitiness, complexity, and delicacy. This is painful. As a double check, Early Settler (10/23) is way richer, fuller, tastier, and less fiery than this is. There's no contest. This is tragically going to be at most a 7. I think a 4 would be too harsh, but this is bad. I'm leaning toward a 6. Coming back to this a few days later, a 6 seems about right. A 4 still does seem on the harsh side, but I can imagine it. This is certainly not as high as an 8 because it burns so much.

Rating: 14/23 I've been liking Westward, but I haven't been willing to drop the money needed to buy one of their weird cask versions. I've been so curious though. Enter this sample, which takes the already unusual pinot noir finish and adds rosé to it. Wild. I'm super curious. N: It has that usual yeasty, malty, sweet Westward funk with hints of buckwheat. Faint whiffs of strawberry and rainbow peppercorn. Odd, but not a lot weirder than most Westward noses. P: Less sweet and more spicy with vegetal, herbal, and lightly savory flavors than I'd expected. It doesn't quite have sulphur, but the vegetation is rotting the faintest bit. That spice is pretty intense though. I'm getting loads of rainbow peppercorns with a touch of barrel char. I get that Westward funk, but it's more bitter than usual, with hints of rubber. Very faint hints of strawberry in with the malt. This is quite numbing and it's less sweet than I expected. I'm not a fan of this variation on the Westward profile. F: Lingering malty, vegetal flavor with a fullness but not a ton going on and not a particularly enjoyable flavor. - Conclusion - For a sanity check, I pulled out my bottle of Westward Single Barrel Cask Strength (Mission Pick) (18/23) is a touch hotter, but not by much. It's sweeter with more fruit, a nicer funk, and rolling complexity. Regular Westward Single Malt (16/23) is mellower than this is, with a bolder funk. There's a similar bitterness. There's a bit of moldy flavor to this in comparison and also a lighter profile. I give the regular Westward the win for sure. That funk reminds me of Gouden Carolus (15/23), but side by side the Gouden Carolus is lighter with more minerality and floral flavors. I think that the Gouden Carolus wins. I'm thinking of a 10 to 15 for this. for starters. I was initially thinking of a 10, but I'm not quite sure that it's that low. Coming back to this a couple of times, I'm landing on a 14. The complexity is growing on me, but it still has some weirdness that I'm not sold on. I can definitely believe that I would like this a lot more if I were working my way through a full bottle. Thank you @PBMichiganWolverine for this sample!