Tastes

Rating: 18/23 This will be my 1400th Distiller tasting! N: Oily orange peel with malted barley that isn't all that sweet, faint roasted meat with a touch of char, full but restrained wood. I'm not impressed by this nose. It's fine, but not very complex, decadent, or interesting. P: Huge improvement! This has some burn up front, but it isn't harsh. It's sweet, with maltiness that brings in some caramel, but doesn't go over the top. It blends into sweet vanilla, with some baking spices (clove, cinnamon, and ginger) coming out. There's a touch of char in here as well. A little waxy orange peel. The palate is quite bold and fairly balanced, with a moderate complexity and very nice decadence. It's a very clean profile, aside from that touch of char. F: Lingering vanilla maltiness and burn. It's not a super bold finish. Hints of waxiness and the faintest cherry. Really, a forgettable finish. - Conclusion - This is a delightful dram. I think it could do with a little mellowing, so I'll be interested to try it again in 6 months. It's easy to drink now though and is quite decadent as well. I had thought that this was 43% ABV, but tasting it it seemed more like 46%. Turns out it is. I can imagine this being a bit more approachable and decadent at a lower ABV, but this works quite well. McIvor 17 (16/23) has more of an oily nuttiness and smoothness. This is also less musty. Honestly, I might have guessed that he McIvor was older, but that could be due to it having months to oxidize. Glenfarclas 25 (23/23) has much more of a scotchy funk to it and Christmas cake flavors. It's far richer than this. Lismore 21 (19/23) is mellower and lighter than this is, with more subtle flavor. This tastes like it needs an edge taken off in comparison. For a far-out comparison, I pulled out my bottle of Smoke Wagon Uncut Unfiltered (18/23). It burns more and is a bit lighter, but it's quite elegant. This strikes me as slightly better. Westward American Single Malt Single Barrel Cask Strength (Mission pick) (18/23) is bolder with a more unique decadence that gradually adds nuance. I think that these two are quite close, but I also think that I underrated the Westward. I do suspect that the Westward is the winner here though. I'm going with a 19. This is delightful, but perhaps not everything one might hope it would be. And it certainly isn't worth the price (though I don't regret buying it). I like being able to taste the multiple cask characters, but I wish it came together more. Eh, I'm going to give it an 18.

Rating: 17/23 2200 distinct boozes reviewed - woohoo! I wanted to pick something special for number 2200 and realized that I've bought 3 Longmorn bottles after being smitten by a single half pour at a bar one time. I think I should try one of these now so that I know if it's a good idea for me to keep buying these. N: There's a nice fullness here with oiliness and nuttiness balanced by some vanilla and restrained fruitiness. Sweet malt. Really nicely balanced and elegant. There's a bit of undercooked meat with light char that I hope doesn't come up in the palate. P: There's a nice richness here were malt, oil, fruit, baking spices, mild wax. This has a nice balance of age and youth, but there's a bit of bitterness that I think is from the lowish ABV, which is unfortunate because I think that upping this from 43% to 46% would fix that. Still, this is fairly full for a 43% dram, so that's certainly nice. There's a nice fullness, richness, and weight here, but it isn't at all overwhelming. I understand why this is a critical component for blends, but it has so much potential on its own that it's painful how difficult this is to come by outside of blends. Overall, this is quintessentially scotchy. It isn't at all smoky, but it has malt balanced by some fresher flavors, with baking spices and light vanilla balanced by fruits and oil. It's just such a great balance. Sure, it doesn't hit the smoky, peaty, or maritime profiles, but this is super approachable, while also being decadent, balanced, and nuanced. Really well done. F: The oil and nut flavors linger, with wood coming in and more of a bitterness. Fruit sticks around, wit a bit more citrus vibrancy. I'd like a bit more sweetness here, but this still nice. - Conclusion - This may be the quintessential Speysider. It's the most balanced, most complex, least challenging, most middle-aged dram. And it's a delight. It's not mind-blowing, but this is a great scotch and an excellent demonstration of a key part of the genre. So how do I rate this? Well, this is dang good, but it does have some limitations. I'm not going below a 15 here, but a 20 seems like the upper limit. I'm guessing that this will be a 17 or 18. As good as this is, a little more proof and age would do this wonders. Coming back to this, it's sweet and rich and full. It's like candy, but not like it's been artificially sweetened. It has some really sweet malt going on though. No off flavors aside from a bit too much alcohol. This is justo decadent and easy to sip. Oily and nutty with some citrus. It's not that old -tasting, but it doesn't taste super young. It's really delicious. I'm thinking at least an 18. A 20 seems like a stretch. I can imagine a 19 for sure, but I think I'll go with an 18. Smoke Wagon Uncut Unfiltered (a high 18/23) tastes less full and rich, but still excels in both areas. The Smoke Wagon has more complexity for sure, but it tastes similarly aged. I actually think that the Smoke Wagon is a little bit better. Bladnoch 17 California Red Wine Casks (a low 17/23)is just too funky for me right now, so I give this the win. Highland Park 16 Wings of the Eagle (17/23) tastes more mature than this does and has more complexity, but is less decadent and more challenging. And the Highland Park is a pretty decadent and approachable dram. It's competitive with this. TheHighland Park has a nice waxiness, which I think is the characteristic that pushes it over the line and makes me give it the win. So I think that this is a 17. I think that this is pretty much what I imagined scotch tasted like way before I tried it. Sweet, malty, rich, decadent, dessert-like. This is really great and it's super approachable.

Rating: 19/23 N: Quite full and rich! Orange peel, orange, mint, light caramel, various other herbs, faint maple, some oiliness. The faintest creosote. This is a really promising nose. I'm looking forward to drinking this rye, despite my prior disappointments with Very Old St. Nick. P: Rich and spicy, with some sweetness and maturity. It's a big, bold toasted sweetness, with vanilla, and slightly overcooked caramel providing a faint char. The spices bite quite a bit, but they don't burn a ton. They mix nicely with the bitter herbs, including some mint. The spices come across as pepper, ginger, clove, and cinnamon. I also get some nice oily richness that makes me think of an oloroso finish. It does muddle the flavors a bit though. I'm really digging this palate. It's very tasty, with big, bold flavors, yet quite little alcohol. F: Rich toasty wood, orange, vanilla, spices. Decadent and long-lasting, though certainly not as distinct at this point. Hints of bitter herbs. - Conclusion - This is a delight. I was not expecting much after the prior two Very Old St. Nick ryes I tried, but this one knocked it out of the park. We aren't talking perfection here, but this is easily one of the best ryes I've had. The clean, herbal, spicy complexity balances with the sweet decadence so nicely. Whistlepig PiggyBack (16/23) has more herbal funk, is more muddled, and is less sweet. This really stands above it. This is has more of a bourbon sweetness to it, but it's a whole lot better regardless. Dad's Hat Cask Strength (19/23) has way more creosote and bitter herbal complexity going on. The Dad's Hat still has plenty of sweetness, but it's playing a different game than this is. Both are quite hedonistic and they're close in quality. If I had to pick one, I'd pick the Dad's Hat, but it's on the high side of a 19, so I'm thinking an 18 to 19 for this. I'm landing on an 18 because there's some alcohol now that I wasn't getting before. It's just not quite a 19. Eh, it could be a 19. This is right in that range. Coming back to this, I'm finding that it is well on parr with Russell's Reserve Single Barrel (18-19/23) and is similarly competitive with Belle Meade Cask Strength Reserve (18-19/23). Of the three, I'd give this a slight win, but I don't think that its muddled flavors are pulling past a 19. I'm finding Smoke Wagon Uncut Unfiltered (18/23) to be very competitive with this. It's a high 18 though and taste a bit younger than this does. I think that oloroso fruit and nuttiness pulls this up to a 19. It's flawed, but excellent. What a turn-around after those couple of underwhelming age-stated releases! Thanks, @Milliardo , for providing this fun flight :)

Rating: 12/23 I've been curious about this brand for a while, so I'm excited to finally be trying one of its releases. N: Oily, but otherwise light. It reminds me of Canadian whiskey or single grain scotch, which is not a great first impression to give. Digging in more after a couple of minutes in the glass, I get some faint herbal notes and light sweetness, as well as a touch of grassiness. I'm still not impressed, but it's an improvement. P: Light and sweet, with some spiciness. At first, I get marshmallows, then a bit more of a caramel flavor emerges, which gradually turns into grade A maple syrup. The spices are cinnamon with ginger and clove, but that maple is what really takes the center stage. This is fairly tasty, but it's more like a cocktail than a whiskey. I like that there aren't any off-notes, but I feel like the hot grain really still shows through. It tastes like a maple barrel is covering up an uninspiring rye. I do get some of that grain oiliness coming through. there are hints of bitter herbs at times, but they're faint and indistinct. Possibly faint hints of orange peel. F: The maple lingers for a long time, only ever turning faintly vegetal. There's a long, mild, spicy burn too. Maybe some faint, bitter herb flavor. - Conclusion - This is easy to sip, but I don't think that the core spirit is all that good. Someone clearly had fun aging this and the outcome is a decent cocktail, but it's still nothing all that exciting. This can have a 12 for its sippability, but it's still just not that great. I've made plenty of maple old fashioned that tasted a heck fo a lot like this. Thanks for this sample @Milliardo ! I'm confused by this one, but I did enjoy it.

Rating: 9/23 OK, I take issue with this dram's name. "Ancient Cask"? Really? Is 8 years considered "ancient" now? I wouldn't call this a young rye, but 8 years is barely even impressive. N: Oily, with a bit of rich, bitter herbs balanced by a lightly carameled sweetness drizzled atop some modestly toasted wood. A faint hint of orange peel. Not a very full nose though. P: Oily more than anything else. Spicy with some burn. Some toasty notes with hints of vanilla. Honestly, this tastes a lot like a mellow single grain Scotch. I wanted there to be more going on here, but there really isn't that much happening. It's a pretty bland, uninteresting palate. The burn keeps it from even being an easy sipper. I do get a little bit of rye happening here, but this really has more of a single grain profile. F: Oily with a touch of alcohol. Faintly lingering spices. - Conclusion - I wanted to give this a 10, but it's just a bit too boring. I'm thinking that a 9 is the right rating for this. Coming back to this the next day, I'm finding it more enjoyably mellow, but still far from great. It burns less than Compass Box Hedonism (12/23), but it's also less fruity and complex (which goes to show just how bland this is). The Hedonism is the clear winner Caledonian 29 (1987 ) (12/23) has a quite nice sweet woody nuance in comparison with this. The Caledonian definitely gets the win here. This is certainly not a 12, nor do I believe it's an 11. A 9 is certainly possible, but I'm thinking it's a 10. The Sexton (9/23) is actually quite close in quality to this. I'm rethinking that 10. On my final sip, I'm deciding that this is a 9 after all, but it's very close to a 10. I've been very curious about Very Old St. Nick for a while now, so thank you for providing this introduction, @Milliardo !

Rating: 19/23 I've never had a wheat whiskey before. Can you believe that? And I prefer wheat vodka. There aren't many wheat whiskeys though. And I suspect that the reason for this dearth is just how little character wheat imparts. I expect this one's rating will come down to how good the barrel aging was and how empty the lack of grain flavor makes it seem, but let's find out. E: This is really dark. I'm thinking decent aging in high heat with fresh barrels. N: Bold, woody, kind of savory in a vaguely meaty way that has some barbecue char to it. Oh, that meatiness makes me worry that this might be too young. A little bit of sourness? Vomit? There's a rich mahogany in here, but that sourness is really drowning it out, unfortunately. Hints of American chocolate with way too much (comically too much) of that distinctive sour flavor. That sour vomit flavor. Uh, oh - I think that there might be a decent amount of butyric acid in this. The rest of this nose is nice, but that awful sour smell really stands out. P: Bold and woody, with some nice polished wood taking center stage. The sour flavor isn't initially too bad, but it starts to get fairly tannic. There are a lot of spices happening here as well, which adds some nice complexity. Chocolate comes out, starting dark, but then getting a bit of the butyric acid flavor. This is almost a nice, decadent palate, but that sour flavor is not enjoyable and all I'm tasting are shades of wood. Still, this is doing quite well with shades of wood, aside from that one flavor. F: Bitter, tannic, kind of spiced. Not a ton happening here. Occasional chocolate with hints of butyric acid, but who knows if that's from the whiskey or a side effect of its one off-putting flavor. - Conclusion - Doing some side-by-sides makes me think that the vomit flavor may just be a temporary artifact based on the state of my palate. My bottle of Balcones True Blue Cask Strength (19/23) is less woody, but a bit richer than this. It's funkier, but not at all as sour. On the other hand, Garrison Brothers 2021 (17/23) has more of a mineral flavor and is quite sour. It might not taste quite as much like vomit as this does, but it's actually fairly close. It's tough to compare these two. There's more minerality to Garrison Brothers Cowboy 2020 (22/23), but this is bolder and certainly woodier. There are more dimensions to the Garrison Brothers, but this is the bigger, more decadent dram. The real question here is how bad that vomit flavor is for this dram. Without it, this isn't the most complex, but it does a good job of presenting its decadent, woody profile. Coming back to this a couple days later, I initially got no butyric acid, but then a wave hit me. It receded, but there was still a lot of time with that flavor. It's not as bad as I previously thought, but that and the lack of complexity are real knocks against what is otherwise, a bold, woody, decadent, sweet dram. It definitely still tastes like sour American chocolate - but it doesn't taste like vomit anymore. I'm actually liking this a lot now. I'm now realizing that although the bold flavor really comes through, the alcohol does. Europeans who have good taste in chocolate probably are better off avoiding this, but I'm pretty OK with American chocolate, so I'm digging the decadence here. I'm thinking a 19 or 20, actually. Eh, could still be an 18. I'm not enjoying this sour flavor on the long finish. I'll give it a 19. I'd love to try another barrel of this to see if I can get it without so much butyric acid. Aside from that, this is pretty delightful. Previously, I was going to give this a 15, so that's the lowest I'd go. Thanks for this interesting sample @soonershrink !

Rating: 21/23 Happy birthday to me! Celebration time! Time to open the most expensive bottle I ever purchased! At the time I bought it, Highland Park was my favorite distillery. I've gone through lots of favorites though. I'm very excited to try such an old bottle of Highland Park, which I still consider to be excellent, but the rose tint has faded from my glasses. N: Full with bourbon vanilla wood leading into campfire smoke with hints of salty minerality. Distant notes of roasted meat amidst char. More char than I'd expected, really. Faint apricot, tangerine, and orange peel. A much more mature and appealing version of dirty socks. I don't even know what to think right now. P: Full with some heat. The alcohol does show through. Getting past that, I get that usual Highland park character - sulphuric meatiness with bourbon barrel vanilla and spice, mixed with tangerine and sea spray - mixed with dungeness crab, some maltiness, an extra note of orange zest, a surprising amount of charcoal, hints of barbecued meat, cinnamon, clove, ginger, and faint black pepper. F: This is more on the bitter and full side with lingering malty caramel (toffee?), rich citrus, and big, slightly meaty, char. This is a very nice finish, but it over-emphasizes the char and doesn't have a huge amount of complexity. - Conclusion - This is more mature, full, bold, refined, complex, and bitter than Loch Lomond 19 Royal Portrush. I think that this is easily the winner between the two. Is this perfect though? Certainly not. I'm enjoying this a lot, but it has too much charcoal for me to consider giving it full marks. I'm considering a 19 to 22, with a 19 being the least likely, but a 22 also being pretty unlikely. This is an excellent dram, but at the price and age it really doesn't deliver the legendary flavor and experience that it needs too. To be frank, I adore this, but I also acknowledge that this could only be worth the money if it were a full on 23/23, which it isn't. I think that the char is the biggest problem here. That barbecue aspect just doesn't fit the rest of the profile. It's a bit odd an unbalanced. So this is either a 20 or a 21. Signatory's North British 28 (1991) (17/23) showcases a lot more campfire and char though. That doesn't help me a ton here, but it does confirm for me that this in no way can be an 18 and it makes me lean away from a 19. OK, so this is definitely at least a 20. A very weird comparison, but Joseph Magnus (21/23) is more complex and balanced, but also more spicy. Overall, it's hard for me to say that I prefer this over the Magnus. Still, I found that the Magnus was on the high side of the 21 range. I can see this being a lower 21. Delord 25 (20/23) shows a lot of creosote in with its barrel and stuff, with mellow yet full flavors combining bitter and sweet in a natural way. The complexity and balance are lower in it. This is certainly funkier, but it's far more interesting and nuanced. I think that this is a 21. Although this didn't meet the perfect score bar that it really should have at this price, since opening it a couple of weeks ago, I've found that it has mellowed out and the campfire and char flavors have faded. There's a high chance that this achieves full marks after some amount of time aging in a partially full bottle.

Rating: 19/23 I bought this for a special occasion, but I was never really sure what that occasion would be. Well, today I closed on a house, which I think makes this a big (and expensive) enough moment to justify opening this bottle. N: The sherry and wood hit me. Lots of oloroso oiliness with citrus. The malty sweetness meets the citrus to give a bit of a vague red fruit scent. As for the wood, I'm getting lots of ash. It's a bold nose, but it's not all that complex. I'm pretty luke warm so far. P: The sherry and wood from the nose definitely come in here. They're better integrated, but still not super decadent or complex. That's disappointing because I definitely associate old Bruicladdich with tremendous complexity. I do get some sort of funky mustiness here, suggesting that this was once some really funky distillate. It has a bit of a burn from the proof and also a nice weight to it. Adding some water really changes this and I'm enjoying it a lot now! Immediately, some mellow barrel and sweet cinnamon come out. Playing with the water more, I get some really nice chocolate that beats my bottle of Westward Single Barrel Cask Strength (Mission pick), but isn't as bold as Garrison Brothers Cowboy 2020. I'm also getting some tangerine with floral notes, black licorice, a little vanilla, hints of toffee, and a bit of wax. There's a lot going on here and it's tasty and fun to contemplate. F: A bit of waxy numbness lingers along with a bitterness that brings in ash and black licorice. Occasional hints of barrel spice and an underlying malty, toffee sweetness. A touch of oiliness as well. Lingering faint jasmine and apricot. This isn't as complex or as decadent as the palate by a good margin. - Conclusion - There are some very nice flavors here, but it doesn't have the complex edge that I expect of 27 year old Bruichladdich. It's a very nice 27 year old single malt with faint Bruichladdich influences. I'm enjoying this enough to give it a 19, but for the price of 27 year old Bruichladdich, that really isn't a high enough rating.