Tastes
-
Sheelin White Chocolate
Chocolate Liqueurs — Ireland
Reviewed October 4, 2020 (edited October 5, 2020)Rating: 15/23 N: Milk, white chocolate, vanilla, and maybe a dash of a nice white wine. That sort of white wine grape element is what always gets me about this. It isn't bad, but it is surprising. It's a clean and refreshing nose. P: Creamy like white chocolate cut with milk - not in a bad way so much as like white chocolate milk. There's less vanilla here and the white grapes come out more here, moving from white wine to more like straight up champagne grapes. It's actually quite an enjoyable palate, surprisingly. The alcohol is perhaps a bit noticeable, but it doesn't taste unreasonably bitter or laced with chemicals, and there's none of that loathesome artificial caramel flavor. F: Milk is even moreso the dominant flavor in the finish. The grape comes into second place and (aside from its oiliness perhaps), the white chocolate falls back. I continue to be surprised by how enjoyable this is. It certainly doesn't deliver that authentic, rich, vanilla-laden white chocolate experience, but it does a good job of providing a refreshing, milky profile with some added suggestions of white chocolate and white wine elegance. The closest comparison I have on hand is Bailey's (which I realize is totally not the same thing). The Bailey's is richer with more grassiness and creaminess coming through, but it also has more young grain spirit coming through in a way that is kind of unpleasant. If I were throwing something in a drink, I suspect that the Bailey's flavor would hold up better (also, this Sheelin curdles in acid like you wouldn't believe), but flavor-wise, I prefer the Sheelin just a tad for neat sipping because it doesn't have anything jarring going on. I'm pretty on the fence between these two, but I might prefer Sheelin just a tad, so it's going to be either a 14 or 15. I'm thinking right now that it's a 15 though.10.0 USD per Bottle -
15: Whereas Bailey's looks tasty, this drink is definitely white. I can't quite place the alcohol this is mixed in, but the milk flavor comes through clearly and strongly. There is a bit of vanilla present, which is typical of white chocolate, and the drink is very sweet, but it doesn't have the richness that real white chocolate has, so it makes me suspect that it is a mislabeled imitation. It is also quite one-note, but at $10 can I really complain? That fruity grape flavor is actually kind of nice. If you're looking for pure white chocolate, maybe look elsewhere, but this is a nice flavor that is its own. It isn't super deep, but its notes are successful and it has a nice balance of sweetness and alcohol (it is definitely quite sweet though). The finish is nice with white chocolate and grape juice playing of if each other. Really, this is an impressively good drink.10.0 USD per Bottle
-
5: It has some interesting herbal notes that taste like a forest mixed with a sickeningly cherry-flavored wood presence. A bit of licorice is there, reminding me of a much more peaceful Jagermeister. There is a lot of depth here and the flavors work well together, but I don't like them. It's a lot like a drier A De Fussigny Selection. Very weird.76.0 USD per Bottle
-
3: Has a nose of agave. It tastes remarkably like bread with some underhanded fruit notes and lasting alcohol. It's weirdly savory and viscous. It's initially smooth, but has some spiciness. The finish is mostly rubbing alcohol. The bread and agave mix to give it an unpleasantly rancid flavor. It doesn't have anywhere near the sweetness I would expect of a brandy or the refreshing elements a white wine ought to (partially due to serving warm, I'm sure). Distressingly similar to Balvenie 21 Portwood.82.0 USD per Bottle
-
The nose has fruity and vegetal notes, bringing out squash, apple, and pear. It smells a bit sweet, but also fruity and interesting. The palate starts with a big, mild presence of mineral, alcohol, some nice subtle pear, a tad of caramel, and maybe a little bit of some baking spices. It tastes like it's trying to be San Matias Blanco, but it isn't good enough. It's quite sweet and there isn't much in the way of subtlety. There's also a weird, bitter flavor that it a bit like artificial flavor and hangs around the whole palate. Jose Cuervo gets flack for its flaws, but this deserves the flack much more. That bitter squash flavor is uncomfortable and hard to take. There are some nice hints of complexity at points, but for the most part this is just kind of hard to drink (though with its sweetness it could work as a mixer). The nose has some tobacco, vegetation, and topical fruit, perhaps like Sauza Blue mixed with Cabeza Blanco. The palate isn't too bad. There is plenty of tobacco, but the fruity flavors do come through. The mineral and astringency can be a bit much though. Still, the balance is surprisingly not bad. It lacks the creaminess, spiciness, and balanced nuance of Cabeza Blanco. In comparison, the nose here delivers a bit of a punch and the palate has a bit much of a cheap scotch flavor mixed with a dash of lighter fluid. This is markedly inferior to Cabeza Blanco, though it isn't a disaster. Compared with Sauza Blue, the nose has a sharper tobacco flavor and the palate has less of a citrus and tropical fruits flavor. The Sauza has more of a numbing clove element than the tobacco that is found in this. This is watered down in comparison with more lighter fluid. The depth and balance here are inferior by a fair margin. This could probabaly be used for mixing just fine, but it isn't at all sippable. Something's a bit weird about this, but the sweet fruit does help to salvage it a bit. That cheap scotch flavor isn't the worst thing in the world since there is a small element of it that can be enjoyed, but it is a clear sign of a low-quality drink.11.0 USD per Bottle
-
Rating: 9/23 I recall being surprised by the flavor here. I expected it to taste like paint thinner, but it was actually fairly savory. Let's see how it holds up. N: Yeah, I'm not going to try this at full proof. Watered down to in the ballpark of 40-45%, I get ethanol, some meat, and a bit of a clean, dry, mild grain. There really isn't much on the nose though. P: So a tiny sip a full proof isn't as burning as I expected. It's viscous and savory with a lot of pepper. With water added to bring it down just a bit above 40%, it's still quite viscous with the same savory notes and a big, long dose of pepper combined with a little bit of sweetness, grain, and even light floral perfume before being rounded out by a lemon tartness that just barely avoids tasting like chemicals. There is some ethanol on a bigger sip. This is pretty harsh though. OK, it's super harsh. Beluga is smooth in comparison. Surprisingly, it isn't all that bad of a vodka though. I wonder whether the distillation up to 95% ABV required a lot of the elements that usually contaminate the flavor to be discarded, producing a better than average vodka. I don't love the palate, but it's better than seems reasonable for such an infamous drink. The more the proof goes down, the more some funky vegetal flavors and maybe a hint of sulfur come out, but that is very minimal. But the immense harshness remains. The harshness is the insurmountable problem here to be sure. F: The savoriness and pepper linger along with a clean water essence and some alcohol. Occasionally, a hint of lemon blossom wafts back in and there is a consistent mellow bitterness. Nothing exciting, but far from awful. Aside from the fact that it still burns. I'm pretty surprised by this. I'd rather not drink it neat (with a ton of water, obviously), but I actually could. The flavor works out OK. The real problem is the harshness, which is quite excessive. Given the harshness, I think that I can't rate this too high, but the flavor could earn it a rating in the ballpark of 12 to 14. Considering the harshness though, I need to go much lower. This is a heck of a lot harsher than Beluga Noble and its flavor isn't as good either. It's sort of its own experience though and I can imagine use cases where someone wants more of a bite in a cocktail, in which case, a small amount of this might just be a good choice. It's very tough to place a rating on this because it has a clean flavor and the harshness would likely mostly disappear if it were used in moderation to spike a fruity cocktail to give it more punch, but this is just too painful to drink neat unless it is watered down near 40% ABV - and even then, it's extremely harsh. Considering all of the above, I can't ever see this going above an 11, but a 5 seems as low as I can imagine. That is one heck of a range. Still, I think this is more toward the high end of that range because there are situations that can benefit from the added warmth, viscosity, and punch. I'm now hovering in the 8 to 10 range. Most often, the outcome of that sort of deliberation would be a 9 - and I do admit that I haven't actually tried using this to spike fruit juice, so it may be way better than I imagine for that - but in this case, I'm going with 8. This is just too rough and the flavor is solid, but even at its best it doesn't amazing. I'll give it one last chance to earn a 9 by tossing a little bit in with some fruit juice. OK, so the high proof here is a huge boon for making fruit juice just have a bit more oomph. Other vodkas (Kirkland French and Beluga Noble) really watered down my mango lemonade (it was all I had). This kept its full flavor and added a rich savory note. Which didn't quite land correctly. Still, this was my favorite of the three, so I think that earns a 9. This still strikes me as very situational, but it was essentially fine in this situation. My bigger concern comes down to vodka as a mixer (i.e. why bother since it's so mild?), but I don't think I need to take that up here. 9.20.0 USD per Bottle
-
This is obviously not meant to be consumed straight, but let's give it a shot! It burns, but does have that nice sweet alcohol warmth. There's that vodka bitterness and some tartness that is reminiscent of rye, but the palate is not as awful as expected despite being really harsh. This raises the question though of whether cask strength bottlings are really just incidences of poor quality liquor being disguised. With water added, it still tastes quite neutral with some bitterness and grain tartness, but nothing overwhelming getting in the way. This is I'm no way a sipper, but its flavor actually isn't miserable and it has a nice neutrality that makes it a reasonable option for increasing the proof of a spirit for additional home aging by a percent or two. Chopin is more neutral, but the added sweetness, spice, and dryness here are not overwhelming.20.0 USD per Bottle
-
This isn't a very useful tasting. I tried this back during the snowpocalypse/snowmageddon (2019-02-04/05) but failed to take any notes. It was a bottle that had been sitting on a coworker's shelf for 8 or so years an do have no idea of the particular storage condition, so it might have been atrocious or might have been cryogenic. Regardless, it was interesting and it was pretty good. I can't say that I loved it or had any really informed opinions about it since it was my first baijiu, but I got a lot of licorice (or maybe anise) mixed with rotten earthiness and various other funky flavors. A challenging drink to be sure and not one I would buy at the prices I'm seeing it go for, but well worth experiencing. If I had to guess right now, I'd probably have put it in the range of 14 to 18 (out of 23), but I'm not going to ascribe an actual rating to it given my lack of notes and the time since I tasted it.
-
Oban Little Bay
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed September 18, 2020 (edited November 5, 2020)Rating: 16/23 I'm suspicious that I may have overrated this previously. We'll see though. N: It smells like Oban 14, but some needed fruit, giving it more richness and a new dimension. The brine is more subdued, but is still present and mixes well with the new strawberry flavor, which just barely avoids smelling like Welch's strawberry fruit snacks. There's some of that same meatiness, possibly with a dash of smoke, and a waft of sweet vanilla as well. A good nose. P: Sweet for sure and also fairly full. A Clynelish waxiness comes out of the tartness, adding an interesting dimension and helping balance out the strawberry. There's some malt, but it kind of has a bitterness that leads into a bit of herbal and somewhat meaty flavor. Some spices are there as well, with ginger, black pepper, and clove taking the lead and explaining some of the bitterness. It's balanced in a light and sweet but mature way, yet the complexity is not really there. A darned tasty palate though. F: The waxiness and bitter spice flavor remain alongside light strawberry sweetness. As it progresses, the brine comes back a bit, but the clove becomes more numbing. A solid finish. I've been torn on this one since I opened this bottle nearly a year and a half ago. I was blown away, then I thought that it tasted like a drink for kids. I now have to conclude that like Aberlour 12, this has a strawberry sweetness that is probably a bit much. Still, it's a smooth, refined dram with some good balance, an interesting profile, and decent complexity. Aberlour 12 tastes younger with a less unique profile (it's essentially cereal + bourbon barrel + short sherry finish) while this has a more mature flavor that enhances complexity, removes flaws, and highlights the characteristic Oban flavor. It's weird because they are quite similar, but this just tastes a lot better. How does this compare with Oban 14 though? Oban 14 is spicier and a bit more complex, but lacks that fruitiness and has a nice spring water sweetness that suggests youth. Honestly though, the quality is pretty close given the trade-offs. This might be a point higher, putting it at a 17, or it could be a 16 as well. I really appreciate Oban 14's uniqueness, but if these two had equally common flavor profiles, I think I'd prefer the Little Bay right now. Still, I recall months during which I preferred Oban 14 for its complexity. Right now, I'm very borderline, but both taste about as good as Redbreast and better than Connemara (again, weird comparisons, but they're on my mind) and neither is as good as Yellow Spot, so that tells me that they're both 16s.60.0 USD per Bottle -
Oban 14 Year
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed September 18, 2020 (edited February 3, 2021)Rating: 16/23 I'm sampling this again because it and the Little Bay remind me somewhat of Connemara and its distiller's edition, which I just tried. N: Sweet, some meatiness with a dash of smoke, a tad of malt, and also a fair amount of brine. Not a ton happening here, but it's not bad. The sherry in the Little Bay gives it a more impressive nose. P: This is palate has more presence than Connemara's. It's sweet with a really interesting brine layered over some rich malt, with some substantial vanilla and spices (cinnamon and pepper). I get just a little bit of strawberry and orange in a very nice way. It isn't incredibly rich, but it has a nice fullness with an interesting profile with nice flavors. F: The briny sweetness (though with the sweetness reduced) and vanilla linger along with a soft savory richness from the other flavors being stirred together. Really, quite enjoyable. This isn't one of the best drams I've ever had, but it's a darned fine with that has its own personality with a nice balance. It's a very solid sipper indeed, surpassing Connemara with its richness despite not having any of that nice peat. I would love to try a peated version of this. As it is, with the bottle being open for a year and a half and low for most of that time, I think that this is around a 15 to 17. I'm a bit torn as to whether the brine is excessive and the complexity is lacking, and it sure is no Yellow Spot, so I'll go with 16 rather than the 17 I was leaning toward. the comparison seems a bit odd, but this seems more in line with the quality of (the new) Redbreast 12 CS. 16 it is.60.0 USD per Bottle
Results 751-760 of 1462 Reviews