Tastes

Rating: 12/23 N: Richer caramel than in Ancient Age. There's a bit more of a wood presence here and I still get the sour mash, but this is still sweet. There's perhaps a faint hint of apple or something, but not a ton happening here. I get a dash of spice, but it's hard to place. P: This is richer than regular ancient Age. There's still an alcohol burn. Surprisingly, the increased richness emphasizes the sour mash character with the wood's bitterness while also bringing out the sweetness through the enhanced caramel flavor. There's a bit of sweet spices giving this life, but nothing much more than a sprinkle of cinnamon. F: The corn sweetness layered over with woody caramel remains, leaving a layer of richness in here. There isn't much complexity at this point. - Conclusion - This isn't as complex as regular Ancient Age, but I like its overall profile a bit better. This isn't a massive improvement, but it really tastes a bit more like a sour mash bourbon showcasing the white dog with some light wood, whereas the regular Ancient Age tastes so light that it's barely like bourbon at all. Based on my slight preference for this over regular Ancient Age, I'm going with a 12. For an extra point of comparison, I find Evan Williams BiB to be oilier, spicier, and fuller while being similar in quality. If I had to choose one, I'd probably take the Evan Williams, but they're pretty close, whereas I found the Evan Williams to be decisively better than regular Ancient Age.

Rating: 11/23 N: Sweet with some cotton candy and a bit of that sour mash. There's a bit of alcohol, but also some complexity to dig into. P: There's a sort of dusty corn sweetness that brings in a light cotton candy flavor. I get a bit of wood, but really just enough to add a light flavoring. There's a little bit of caramel, like the cotton candy was overcooked a bit (though not more than slightly burned). The spices are there just enough to add some flavor in with the light sour mash tartness. This isn't really harsh, but there is a bit of a burn. F: It's a pretty light finish. The sour mash lingers with that bit of caramel sweetness created from the sweet corn's combination with the light wood. - Conclusion - Early Times is smoother, but a bit stranger in its profile. This kind of just tastes like a very youthful bourbon (nearly white dog). While that isn't usually what I'd look for, it's kind of a fun thing to have around and consider from time to time. It's a close call between this and Early Times, but I feel like there's some aspect of the fundamentals in which this wins because Early Times doesn't quite manage to tell a compelling narrative of why it has its strange flavor profile. I think this still earns an 11.

Rating: 15/23 N: It's a dry, clean rye smell with a bit of some underlying fullness. I get green apples, spice, and a bit of herbal notes. It's smells good (and high in rye), but I don't get a lot of character here. P: This is big on the rye. It is full of spices, minerals, dry floral flavors, delicate herbal flavors, and fruit. There's sweet green apple, but also substantial banana in here, surprisingly. There's also some anise and a dash of caramel in with the banana, particularly up front, and I might get a little maple too. I might get a dash of cereal in here as well. The alcohol does come through a fair amount. It isn't problematic per se, but it is certainly noticeable. The flavor is nonetheless decently full and bold. It's a rye that's making a statement that it shouldn't be confused with anything else. In comparison, Whistlepig PiggyBack is more richly bitter, which gives a good idea of just how light and dependent on its proof this is (not overwhlemingly so, but substantially). Kings County Empire Rye is also substantially richer with more of a chocolate flavor than this has. F: This finishes dry and numbing. The spices, a bit of the anise, and a hint of caramel and green apple persist, but the flavor is duller and more muddled. - Conclusion - I really enjoy this. It's a very well executed rye with a spicy, dry graininess. I don't get a ton of complexity here, but the flavors are on point. The fullness does largely come from the alcohol flavor though, which is a little off-putting. The banana flavor in here is also not really my jam. Having tried them side by side, I prefer both the Whistlepig PiggyBack and the Kings County Empire Rye to this because of their richness while maintaining the spicy rye profile. I did consider a 16 for this, but I think I need to land on 15. Thanks to @pkingmartin for the sample!

Rating: 21/23 N: There's an interesting syrupy richness here that makes me think of a port finish. Specifically, it's reminding me of Kavalan Soloist Port. It's balanced with sweet, tart, and rich fruit. I get candied orange peel, but also just straight-up oily orange peel. I get a dash of something in the cherry spectrum as well, but not so much. There's something a little spicy in here as well and a richness that I'm struggling to place. P: Wow! This is big and bold! It's bursting with flavor. The richness here is incredible. It's almost syrupy, but also terrifically balanced. I get the orange flavors from the nose with a bigger emphasis on the oily peel and tremendous port sweetness and richness, as well as some bold but restrained woody bitterness and mature tartness to balance this all out. I get a little bit of cocoa at one moment, but it doesn't start to taste chocolatey. F: It's a nicely balanced finish. That port flavor sticks around and it stays pretty strong. There's a sort of sticky sweetness balanced by some tartness and rich bitterness. - Conclusion - This has a way bolder flavor than I'd expected from a 10 year old Welsh Scotch. If you'd told me that this was 10 years old and asked me where it was from, I would have guessed Southeast Asia (with the US as a second choice, I guess). Why is 10 year old scotch never this full of flavor? The quality of flavor is terrific, as is the balance. To compare with another madieraed malt whisk(e)y, this is way full, bolder, and more complex than Tyrconnell 15 Madiera. This is clearly quite superior. I'm looking at no less than a 19 for this for sure. I think a 22 might be pushing it and I can't see a 23, but a 21 is definitely possible. Side-by-side with my bottle of Kavalan Soloist Port Cask, this is clearly less bold and mature, with more of a fruity sweetness. That doesn't leave me thinking "oh wow, the Kavalan is vastly superior" though. Comparing the two reminds me a bit of comparing A De Fussigny XO (this) with Delord 25 (Kavalan). While I gave the nod to the Delord and think I'll be doing the same with the Kavalan, the two ended up quite close. I currently have the Kavalan at a 20, which I think might be a tad low. I'm thinking of going with a 20 for this too, with the Kavalan possibly getting bumped up to a 21 in the future. I don't know, I kind of want to give this a 21 right now. Let's go a little off the rails here. How does this compare with A De Fussigny XO? Well, I think that the A De Fussigny is more refined and floral with a lot less fullness (in no way surprising). This is kind of half way between that and the Kavalan. I'm sort of tempted to mix the two to compare with this, but also I'd die a little inside. OK, I did it. I tried half a milliliter of the Kavalan with 1 milliliter of the A De Fussigny. First off, it was terrific. Second off, it was closer to this than either of them was, but it was also not nearly as full of sticky fruit (it was more woody and floral). The astounding thing is that this absolutely held its own in that head-to-head. OK, taking a bit of a moonshot here: I've got this side-by-side with Glenfarclas 25 (one of my all-time favorites, which I currently have at a 23/23). My immediate reactions are two-fold: (1) The Glenfarclas is more complex and sophisticated (2) The lower proof on the the Glenfarclas really sticks out here and makes me wonder whether I should lower its score and reserve the 23 for a Glenfarclas 25 Cask Strength. I think that between the two I prefer the Glenfarclas, but this is much closer than I had ever expected. I had been thinking that this was in the 19 to 21 range previously, with 22 being a pipe dream, but now I'm thinking a 20 or 21. A 22 still seems unlikely here, but I wouldn't bet the farm against it at this point. I'm frankly baffled by how good this is. OK, I'm now thinking in the 21 to 22 range. I think I need to go with a 21. Huge thanks to @pkingmartin for sharing a sample of this one!

Rating: 21/23 So I finally got back home after a 13+ hour drive and a fair time away. What better occasion to try this rare and exciting dram? N: The nose is really rich, but with a very unusual character. It's a tremendously smooth nose as well. It isn't peat, sherry, or bold malt driving the richness. If any of those, it's closest to malt from a very funky still, but it has this rich, sweet, slightly tart apple cider and apricot scent. There's a dash of butter-heavy caramel cooked to 350F, a little bit of some sort of dry floral note (like jasmine perhaps?) and also something just a bit spicy. The bigger (but harder to describe part) is the underlying funkiness. Mixed in with all of that, I get a little bit of grass, a kind of moderated smokiness, and a faint hint of something vegetal. All put together, it vaguely reminds me of Springbank. Side-by-side, I stand by my comparison with Springbank 10 (from a ludicrously oxidized bottle). The Springbank cranks up the barnyard, whereas this has sort of an oily richness and more fruit. As it breathes, the fruitiness in this is diminished. A bit of dry Clynelish waxiness comes out. P: This is bold and very interesting. The fruit really comes through, but it's less sweet and citrusy than I'd expected it to be. The fruit is more floral with a light layer of vanilla, tending even toward mineral (yet somehow still a very full flavor). There's this rich, lightly smoky, faintly grassy, kind of bitter layer in here that balances it out nicely and adds this really interesting funk that I'm having trouble placing. It's sort of like a kind of oily peat, but it's really mellow. If that's the Brora character, I suppose it makes sense that it's so mellow at this point seeing as the distillery has been closed for nearly 40 (!!) years now. This dram is certainly less smoky than Johnnie Walker Green and it's also more subtle and smooth. I figured I had to compare them because I had the Green on hand, but I think that this is more like the Blue, then maybe Black or 18 (none of which I have available). There's a bit of that mustiness that I expect from the Blue as well, but it's a bit bolder here, better developed, and less like wet cardboard. There's also this sense of presence that I found missing in the regular Blue. The way that oily, funky flavor fills out the body and balances the fruity side of this is excellent. The more I have of this, the more the oily funk stands out, while the fruit falls back, but remains to balance the dram out. There might just be a faint hint of that Clynelish waxiness in here. F: The fruits largely disappear, though a light floral, vaguely mineral sweetness remains. The general richness persists here and I get a light oiliness on my tongue for quite a while even as the other flavors dissipate. The oiliness combined with the sweetness at this point does give a faint indication of buttery caramel. - Conclusion - There's a really unique flavor going on here and I dig it. It balances really well with the other aspects of this whisky and creates a very enjoyable, subtle complexity. I really enjoy the transition from fruity to oily and robust as it moves into the finish. It's a great journey to be taking and it's balanced throughout. Also, I'd be remiss in reviewing a variation on Johnnie Walker Blue if I didn't mention how delightfully smooth it is. The oiliness really helps to combat any wateriness that might otherwise come with the smoothness. I would have guessed that this was 40-43% based on the smoothness, but not in a bad way. This is easy to sip and fun to contemplate. It's a definite standout among the many whiskies I've tried. Without getting into direct comparisons too much, I'd put this ahead of my heavily oxidized Springbank 10, which was a 19 when I opened it, but may now be a 20. This is without doubt a huge upgrade from the regular Johnnie Walker Blue. I've never understood the appeal of that one considering the price, but if they put this stuff in that bottle, I'd be right onboard. Still, although this is a lot better than the regular Johnnie Walker Blue Label, I don't think that this is a massive leap up from my bottle of Springbank 10. It gets really hard to rate when I get up to scores in this range because I don't have many others I've rated this high. This is going to land somewhere in the 19 to 22 range. After quite a bit of soul-searching, I think that 19 is clearly too low since that's what I gave Springbank 10, but I kind of prefer Sprinkbank 12 at 22. That puts this in the 20 to 21 range. I've gone back and forth through all of my 20s and 21s to try to find the right spot for this and the thing is that it really could fit in either bucket. Instinctively, I felt like this was a 20. I love its complexity, but as with many blends it sometimes seems a bit too subtle. Looking at my list though, I think this is a little more similar in quality to the median member of the 21 bucket than the 20 bucket (and despite all of the subtlety, it certainly isn't muddled), so I'm going with a 21. Many thanks to @PBMichiganWolverine for sharing this one!