Tastes

Rating: 13/23 It says "distiller's edition", so I'm expecting added sherry. I'm also optimistic about the slightly higher proof. N: Disappointingly, this is less rich and complex than that of the regular Connemara. It really takes some digging to get much detail out. I mainly get some savory meat with some smoke and a tiny bit of strawberry. P: I've said a lot about Connemara (the regular) already. This has the same starting profile, but with some added sherry (strawberry, orange, and faint cherry, with a little bit of a tropical note) that makes it fruitier, sweeter, a tad tarter, and lighter. It also is 43% ABV instead of 40% and I do notice more alcohol here, which at first makes this taste younger, but when compared with other drams makes it taste just a bit more aggressive. I have trouble getting all of the complexity of the regular Connemara though. The cereal still comes out along with the light smokiness and some hay. There's something a bit herbal as well like a light layer of tobacco, but it's very faint. The pepper is there too, though this is a bit harsher, so I'm not sure I'm as happy with it here. It's a tasty profile, but it has a bit too much burn and is kind of light, yet it's not terribly complex and also tastes a bit young. Some of these sherry influences though are what I wish I had been able to dig out of Redbreast 12 CS. F: The waft of smoke and red fruit stay through into the finish, along with a kind of bitter note that suggests alcohol. It's fine, but not that exciting. Surprisingly, I think I prefer the regular Connemara. This is quite sippable, but it's nothing amazing. The stronger alcohol here doesn't actually bring out more flavor and it and the increased fruitiness mask quite a bit of the delightful complexity of the regular version. This one seems like more of a 12 to 14. It's solid for sure, but not the upgrade I was hoping for. All told, this seems not quite up to the level of Macallan 12 - which I think I gave a 14 - so a 13 it is.

Rating: 15/23 Peat is unusual for Ireland. Let's see how it is. N: I get some smoked meat here that reminds me of Lagavulin a bit. There's also some oiliness and a bit of sweetness that has a hint of caramel and some fruit (orange, apple, and faint strawberry) along with a dash of nose. The balance is a tad questionable and it's light, but it's still a fine nose. P: Immediately, I get some nice richness, fullness, and complexity. It's quite enjoyable and tastes decently old while also being smooth. The distiller's edition has more of an alcohol bite and less richness from the peat (which isn't particularly aggressive, even in this), but it also has more sherry fruit and sweetness. I get some oily smoked meat along with peppery spice, fruit (apple with a little orange and perhaps a hint of strawberry), a bit of malty richness, a dash of sweet cereal, hay, and a bit of brine. It doesn't have a bunch of mineral or cereal flavors, though It's still a somewhat mild palate, sort of reminding me how something like Springbank 10 compares with a bolder dram like Highland Park 18. The balance is surprisingly good actually and the complexity is intriguing. F: The smoke, oil, hay, brine, and pepper linger the longest. I like the palate better, but it's a fine finish. that lasts a while. I wasn't entirely sure what to expect here, though I did think that it would likely be mild. Despite being a bit weak, I really appreciate the balance and complexity. There aren't any flavors that amaze me, but there's no sulfur or any other bad flavor sticking out either. There is that Irish oiliness, but it's balanced quite well in here, sort of like the protagonist of The Irish Rovers' The Orange And The Green balancing Irish oil and Scottish peat (PSA: that is not what that song is actually about). I'd love to try an older and/or substantially higher proof offering. Talisker DE is initially blander, but quickly shows that is is much more mature and complex. Yellow Spot demonstrates similar subtlety to this, but it also shows more maturity with some interesting flavors that add elegance. Even Aberlour 12 has a bit more maturity than this does and Amrut Peated - despite being quite young - has a more deliberate flavor to it that makes it much better. After all of that, this is kind of weak with substantial youth. It is still quite smooth though and doesn't have any especially bad flavor, so depending on its price I might decide it's worth picking up. This is one of better Irish whiskies I've tried for sure. There is no doubt in my mind that it's at least a 12, but I can't imagine it surpassing a 16 either. I'm really thinking that it's in the 14 to 15 range and I'm a bit torn. Redbreast 12 (which I gave a 16) is a bit better, but this holds up surprisingly well (though it is a totally different profile). I think I have to go with 15. This strikes me as a good low-budget alternative to Springbank 10, Talisker 10, and perhaps Lagavulin 16. Well, it isn't that much cheaper than Talisker 10. At $40, it's pushing it, but this is still a solid dram and I wouldn't feel bad if I paid $40 for it. I might just upgrade to the 12 for $65-70 or the CS for $75-80.

Rating: 9/23 So, Aberlour 12 seemed a bit too young. I'm very skeptical of the 10. N: Wow, there's way less going on with the nose here than in the 12. The 12 has some nice strawberry and cereal and such. This has pretty much nothing. Digging into the nose, I get some mild bitterness and savoriness that I suspect is the alcohol. I also get some fruit that smells like it has potential, but it's faint. Some candied orange comes out here, which is quite unlike the 12. There's perhaps strawberry, sultanas, and possibly raisins or prunes as well. It's all just so faint though and the alcohol is quite noticeable. P: The alcohol is more present than in the 12 and there's kind of a richer caramel sweetness emphasizing the sultana flavor in a way that reminds me a little bit of a tawny port, but also just like a less aged Aberlour 12. I would have guessed that this was 43% or 46% ABV. It's quite different from the softness of the 12. The orange turns out to be more of a zest flavor and it balances quite well with the caramel and sultana. As for herbal flavor, there's a slight hint of terragon. It's a mild palate that is fairly uncomplex and full of alcohol, but actually is surprisingly good (not actually good; just better than expected). Harshness does come out, so that isn't so great though. This has a flavor that weirdly reminds me of a cask strength offering because it has a lot of alcohol and is surprisingly viscous and rich. F: The sultana and other fruit flavors linger nicely with a clean watery flavor, yet it isn't thin. The bitter alcohol comes through at the end, but it doesn't taste bad. It's nothing great, but it's not bad either. Boy, if you thought Aberlour 12 was too young, do I have a dram for you to try! Aberlour can produce some solid stuff, but it struggles at young ages, much like Glenfarclas does. Whereas Glenfarclas suffers from including too much of the heads and tails (likely because it uses the same amounts in all of its age statements), Aberlour clearly uses mostly hearts; however, Aberlour's. usage of hearts, mild (likely refill) bourbon barrels, and inadequate (either in time or strength of the flavors in the barrel) sherry finishing brings it down. At 12 years, Aberlour has barely crossed the line into kind of drinkable territory. At 10 years, it is on the wrong side. There's too much alcohol and the balance is out of whack. Surprisingly, this does have its place. But I still don't like it. The orange and sultana here are nice, but the alcohol is very present and also quite harsh in comparison with the 12. I like that the caramel here doesn't have any sense of being artificial, but the smoothness of the 12 really wins out. This isn't as much worse than the 12 than I thought it would be if you're already looking to try something young, but I'd take the 12 because if I'm having something without thinking, I'd rather have something easy to drink. I think I'd also take Sir Edward's 12 over this just a bit. Sir Edward's has more oiliness than I'd like, but this has more bitter alcohol and harshness. On the other hand, this is a small step up from Ainsley Brae Burgundy with its more viscous mouthfeel and less aggressive gummy fruit snack flavor. I think that puts this at right around a 9.

Rating: 12/23 I've heard great things about this young whisky and I've like older Farclas offerings, but I didn't like the 12 because of its youth and I hear that due to global warming this is now closer to 10 years old. Let's see how it is. N: It's malty with a sweet sherry presence and a lot of vegetal funk, suggesting that there are a lot of tails in this. There's a light floral note with a dash of tart citrus along side a bit of bitterness that could be the excess heads coming through. There's also a dash of some meatiness that suggests alcohol, but it goes away after a few minutes (well, more like 15 minutes). After that, I can smell some alcohol, but it doesn't smell bad and some certainly is to be expected when ABV reaches 60%. I get dark dried fruits from the sherry: raisins, prunes, sultanas (OK, maybe that one isn't dark), bing cherries. Maybe a hint of orange zest. It has a richer, fuller nose than Cambus 27 does. If I get any sulfur here, it's quite faint. There's nothing here announcing this as a bottom shelf scotch (i.e. sulfur), but it smells brash and it may be harsh. It seems like it is going to taste youthful in that the heads and tails still seem individually discernible, but it doesn't smell so young that they haven't been tamed to the point that the objectively ("objectively") bad flavors have been removed. Still, this does not smell like the rich, robust, smooth Farclas that I love. P: It's kind of light, but it has plentiful fruit in a way that isn't all that rich and is funky much like the 12. I'm not thrilled, but it's better than a lot of stuff I've tried lately. It's also quite harsh, unfortunately. I get lots of youthful alcohol and then the fruits are raisins, dates, and prunes, as well as a big mushroom funk that actually reminds me a bit of Corralejo Reposado. They aren't sickly sweet like confectioner's sugar or anything, but they taste unappealing and wrong. It isn't an awful profile, but I'm really note a fan. The bitterness really does come through, drawing attention to the alcohol. The fruit flavors are very nice, but are still on the light side and get drowned out by the alcohol, funk, and sort of mineral element. I do get an occasional dash of chocolate, but that alcohol harshness just doesn't abate. In comparison, Cambus 27, despite having a light flavor and more grain presence, has a more viscous character with its bitterness being a more mellow woodiness that ties into its tawny fruit flavors and its peppery prickliness helping to tame the harshness. While I thoroughly expect that if I aged this Farclas for another 17 years, it would be fantastically better than the Cambus, side-by-side, the Cambus clearly has a better palate. Coming back from the Cambus, I do like the increased sweetness and maltiness here. Those along with the fruit really help. The sort of lightness of the fruit and the particular flavors do remind me of Symbole National, which certainly isn't bad, but also isn't very impressive. Water tones down the harshness, but it's still there and the profile doesn't improve. If anything, it further emphasizes how light the fruit flavors are in this watery alcohol mix. I'm sure I can make it a tad better with just the right amount of water, but I don't think this will be one of those cases like Amrut Cask Strength, where dropping its ABV just the right amount amplifies its complexity. F: The fruit remains a bit, along with that alcohol bitterness in spades mixed with a bit of wood and perhaps a hint of chocolate. The finish has some really nice flavors in it, but they aren't very strong, whereas the harshness certainly is. Between this and Cambus 27, I have to give the nod to Cambus. That said, this isn't that far below it and it costs a whole lot less. If I could find this for the same price again, I'd likely buy another bottle because it is such and interestingly brash whisky. I would give it a lot of time to breath after pouring though because there is a lot of alcohol presence in this. I have to give the Glenfarclas 105 a slight nod over the Highland Queen Majesty Sauternes and Sir Edward's 12 as well due to its complexity and interesting flavors. It tastes to me like Glenfarclas makes one blend of heads, hearts, and tails that it uses for all of its barrels rather than toning down the heads and tails for the younger offerings. I'm not sure whether this has improved the young products or not, but it has certainly made them more interesting. Considering everything together, I'm thinking of an 11 to 12 for this one, though I could imagine a 13. I think it's actually fairly close to Cambus in quality and I gave Cambus a 13, so I think this deserves a 12, but I can see dropping it to an 11, since it is also close to Sir Edward's and Highland Queen.

Rating: 16/23 Batch B2/19 - 55.8% OK, I've heard great things about this. I don't think I loved the regular Redbreast 12 (which I'm fairly sure I tried), but I've enjoyed some Redbreast offerings, though I'm not sure I've yet found one that was good VFM. N: Well, it's a heck of a lot richer and more interesting than the Kilbeggans I've tried, but that's one low bar. I get spicy wood showcasing cinnamon and pepper, mixed with some orange, light tart apricot, lemon, and apple. The wood actually has some nice toasted grain and a fairly aged must to it like one would find in moderately old bourbons. I can't help but feel though that this nose would have been so much better had sherry casks been used at some point in here. I do get some substantial vanilla with something floral as well. It's very balanced with American oak influences, but I'm not sure that that choice of oak will be enough to make for a really impressive palate. P: I get a surprising bubblegum flavor in this (though not as much as in Green Spot) mixed with some rich, toasty wood and punchy spices. I do get some fruit coming through, with lemon first, followed by orange, and a bit of apricot. The spices are there in spades, showcasing lots of cinnamon, some pepper, and also ginger. It's a nicely balanced palate, I suppose, but it isn't terribly rich, complex, and hedonistic. The balance is solid enough and the flavors that are there are indeed well executed, but it's kind of boring and while it has some very mature elements, the lemon (presumably from the non-barley grain component) makes it taste kind of young. It's not a bad palate, but I don't find it terribly impressive. It reminds me a bit of how Appleton Estate 12 has this great mature woodiness, but it's all concentrated in one dimension. In contrast, Yellow Spot succeeds because of its finishing, which adds some much needed rich, sweet fruitiness and additional dimensions. F: The spicy burn lingers for a bit, along with the fruit (starring lemon more than ever), and a little bit of the wood, including toasty grain and vanilla. I can appreciate this as a mix of malt and grain with some decent complexity, but I don't really enjoy drinking it. For the money, there are just better options out there. I really wanted to love this, but I don't. I don't regret having it on my shelf, though it is a bit pricy for something that I'm so disinterested in. Yellow Spot is richer and more complex with more of that Irish oiliness. It's also less harsh and tastes more mature despite being the same age. I can imagine sipping Yellow Spot awhile, whereas this is quite aggressive and comparatively simple. I think I would take this over Green Spot since Green Spot has kind of this mild, bland, cotton candy vibe, but mostly what I'm tasting here is bourbon barrels (or some other kind of bland, spicy oak) and grain whiskey. It just isn't that appealing. I do get some of those Irish fruity flavors out of this, but it's mainly sultana. reading the back of the bottle, it says I should be getting apricot and now when I taste it and really wait for the finish, I do get some, but it isn't that rich, elegant apricot stands out as a delightful, decadent flavor on its own. This is sadly kind of bland. Side by side with RR 10 to compare the bourbon flavor with a kind of light bourbon, this is less rich and less complex. It's also harsher, which makes sense with the higher ABV, but honestly I'd take the RR 10 any day. This is better than Green Spot, but still it isn't good enough to justify its price by a fair margin. Sometimes the CS releases use better barrels or different aging or finishing or something, but this just tastes like they didn't water it down. What a disappointment. This is nowhere near the level of Yellow Spot. For $40, I wouldn't be unhappy with this, but $50 starts pushing it. This has more alcohol than Yellow Spot 12 and it has less of that pot still oiliness, so if either of those are objectives, this succeeds. It might also have a more floral flavor, but it's possible that I'm just tasting the tartness and minerals exaggerating that element. Yellow Spot is certainly more subtle, but also far more complex. Still, there are moments where I think that this is much closer in quality than I usually do. I keep going back and forth on whether I like this or Green Spot better. Right now, I appreciate how smooth Green Spot is with some nice sweetness and lack of oiliness, but it is a lower proof and this isn't particularly oily either. There's a lot less age and a lot more cotton candy and bubblegum in Green Spot as well, so I'm leaning toward this, particularly since there is some level at which the water tones down the sharpness and brings out more apricot. I think that this cask strength offering is a bit above the optimal proof, but I can add some water to optimize. The regular Redbreast 12 is pretty close in quality to Green Spot and this is better than that, but I wouldn't call this a massive improvement. This is probably 1-2 points better than the regular Redbreast 12 and it certainly isn't as good as Yellow Spot. A nice finishing barrel would have done this wonders, as the Redbreast Lustau shows. To see if this assertion might hold any water, I tried adding a drop of tawny port to one glass of this and a drop of LBV port to another (because those were what I had on hand). The tawny port left me pretty mixed, so I might try again with a better tawny, but I wouldn't say that just any tawny will improve this. The LBV on the other hand was a pretty clear - albeit slight - improvement. It seems like a quality port or sherry and some time to marry could do wonders for this whiskey. I'll have to try adding a drop of my Lustau oloroso after I open it to see if that improves the flavor. I get more fruit and fullness than in regular Redbreast 12 with some more integrated flavors and the oily layer fits in well. There is some alcohol, but it isn't excessive. This is definitely a substantial step up. Is it amazing though? No. Still, just a little bit of water really brings out the fruit complexity here without making it too watered down. It still isn't the decadent fruity whiskey that I want, but it's better. I'm thinking in the 15 to 17 range. I started at 15, then moved to 17, then returned to 16. I think 16 makes the most sense because this is a solid improvement over the regular 12 and is a darned fine sipper, but it isn't anywhere near staggering, much like the likes of Roku gin. Actually, let me do a side by side with that. Hmm, the rich, fullness here is definitely better, but there's also more alcohol, harshness, and bitterness. Roku is softer and more delicate with lots of floral and herbal complexity and balance. I know though that while very good, Roku is not among the most complex drinks out there, which suggests that my impressions of this that indicated brashness and an in-your-face character were not totally off base. While I do still think that this deserves a 16, I don't think that it is obviously better and there is a slight chance that it might not be as good, so I can't give it that 17. 16 it is. I didn't expect to end on this comparison, but there it is. What? This was aged in sherry casks?! How did they end up with this profile then?! There's so little resembling sherry here. I really just thought I was tasting fruit from bourbon barrels and the grain. I guess that the apricot and sultana are probably suggestions of sherry, but they sure don't add much complexity. I'm sure glad that this wasn't released without using sherry barrels. There sure isn't enough sherry in this. Maybe it's not one of the better batches.

Rating: 13/23 Getting close to killing this bottle that's been open and low for over a year. N: Bubblegum and cotton candy immediately, with a moderate amount of moderately aggressive wood, light caramel, and fruit (apple, yellow peach, apricot). It doesn't smell oily, which is unusual for an Irish whiskey, but I appreciate this aspect. I don't get alcohol coming through, so despite the youthful presence and excessive cotton candy, this has a better nose than the Kilbeggans I tried by a long shot. P: A tad less viscous than I think it really should be. Immediately sweet with the light caramel mixing with some hints of apricot and vanilla as it turns into cotton candy and bubblegum. Then some spice kicks in, bringing a bit of harshness, but not too much. The spice turns into a woodiness and bitter oiliness. It's a decent enough palate, but it's still young and the oiliness is more than I remembered. I'm disappointed that the sweetness disappears throughout the palate. F: Wood, bitter oil, spice, light fruit flavors (largely apricot) with a little bit of remaining bubble gum. Could I drink this neat? Yeah. Do I like it? Not really. Particularly for the price, this is a tough sell. Yellow Spot is a heck of a lot better. That cotton candy is kind of fun, but it's also weird and gives this a young vibe. The flavor is cleaner than that of most other Irish whiskey, so that's really the thing that this has going for it. It's more balanced, complex, and tasty than the cheap stuff, but it isn't all that cheap. For this price, I'd definitely get a bottle of Highland Park 12 or Wild Turkey Rare Breed instead. This is certainly a 12, but is not a 15. So, a 13 or 14 then. This is about on par with Redbreast 12 due to both having some issues, but also having some nice flavors and decent complexity. I might have overrated Redbreast 12 a bit at 15, but I think that this favorable comparison does suggest that Green Spot might be more of a 14. Between the two, I have a slight preference for the Redbreast due to its increased maturity, but they'e close despite having quite different profiles. I think that the youth here combined with the odd bubblegum and bit of alcohol I taste at the end put this at a 13, just barely. The smoothness here is great though. The more I have this side by side with Redbreast 12 (well, Redbreast 12 CS watered down to roughly regular 12 levels), the more I'm convinced that the Redbreast is superior, but also likely only a 14. So 13 it is for this.

Rating: 6/23 I've been curious about this one for a while and now I'm even more curious seeing that it has an ABV of precisely 43.2%. N: It smells like close to nothing. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it probably isn't awful. On the other, there's no way it can be particularly good. Also, this being an Irish whiskey, it probably wouldn't have the sulfur problem that plagues most cheap scotch. Still, it could have smelled tremendously like alcohol, but fortunately it doesn't. It does smell oily, which reminds me a bit of Glen Logie due to its oiliness that is separate from essentially anything else going on. I do get a waft of ethanol and grain, and maybe fruit as well, but there really is not much going on in here. Despite being minimal, Glen Logie's nose is more substantial. Not necessarily better, but definitely more substantial. P: It's a minimal palate with minimal flavor present. It does a good job of balancing the bitter and sweet though with the oil lending it authenticity, but not taking over. I get a faint hint of caramel that might or might not be artificial. There's some kind of generic grain in here, but it isn't that tart, harsh single grain flavor. This palate is fairly harsh though. Not extremely harsh, but it definitely burns a bit. There's a faint nectar quality to this whole dram that I want to compare to honey, but it's so so light and not bitter. There aren't really any bad flavors here, but there just aren't many flavors period. F: Light oiliness with just kind of the rest of the profile present here, but reduced and looking lost. You know, I don't totally hate this. If I imagine it to be an interesting vodka, I actually appreciate it better. It's lacking the alcohol flavor and in-your-face youth plague Kilbeggan, but it's also lacking any particular personality and remains harsh. I really can't think of another whiskey that is more boring. As a harshness comparison benchmark, I tried this alongside Beluga Noble vodka and the Beluga was substantially harsher, though this was still definitely harsh. This is a bit richer and more flavorful, but not by much. Considering that, this could be a good substitute for vodka in some situations. Which puts me in a weird situation trying to rate this. It's quite solid as a vodka, but a bit more questionable as a whiskey. This has less personality than Pure Scot and frankly I don't like its flavor as much. Both are fairly harsh, but I think that this might even be a little bit harsher. Which is unfortunate because otherwise this could be a solid boring whiskey. I can deal with harshness if it's caused by high proof or if the flavor is great, but for a mellow dram like this, it really isn't appropriate. This strikes me as about Kilbeggan Single Grain quality because of its harshness. The Kilbeggan's flavor is rougher around the edges, but it also actually has more flavor. Both are pretty harsh. The qualities seem about equivalent. It's possible that I underrated Pure Scot with a 7 since I'm considering a 7 for this to put it above Kilbeggan Single Grain slightly, but this could just be a 6. Sadly, Pure Scot is better than this in every way. I think I'm going to stick with a 6 on this because it's kind of harsh and boring, despite having a pretty clean flavor.

Rating: 9/23 Whoa! Only 2 distillations? This has some extra promise that I didn't expect. N: Hmm, this has a nice, (comparatively for low-end Irish whiskey) rich nose that has a good layer of malt atop some oiliness and spices. and a bit of vanilla giving way to slightly young wood and faint hay. It definitely has that Glen Grant 26 bourbon barrel aged vibe to it, though it's less intense and sophisticated. It doesn't smell amazing, but I've tried a lot of awful Irish whiskey lately, so it's a huge relief to pour something and think "hmm, I'm looking forward to tasting this". P: Sweet and spicy immediately with a nectar presence coming in suggesting some nice sweet honey that's been watered down quite a bit and mixed with some vanilla. There's some mellow wood mixed with hay in the background and a faint layer of rich maltiness pervading the whole thing and a young wood tartness sitting underneath that at times add hints of tropical notes (banana and a tiny amount of mango). I occasionally get a little bit of an older, mustier wood flavor as well, but there isn't much of it and it's not super exciting. The spice and not-entirely-thin mouthfeel really give this a bigger presence than it would otherwise have, but the spice does come across like a partially successful attempt to cover up some substantial harshness. Still, were it not for the harshness, this would be a thoroughly sippable - albeit somewhat boring - dram. None of the flavors here are bad and most of them are generally slightly good and distinct from each other. F: The malt lingers nicely on the finish with that kind of nectar flavor and wood spiciness. It remains hot and harsh, but less so than the palate. It's a solid finish. So aside from the harshness, I'm actually quite impressed by this (at least relative to my expectations). I'd definitely stock this as a cheap (I think this is cheap?) Irish whiskey for sipping. Both in terms of flavor and harshness, this outperforms Pure Scot by a substantial margin. The malt here is less muddled and fresher and there is genuine spice and a bit less harshness. I'm appalled that I'm tasting whiskey that puts me in a position of citing Pure Scot as a high bar, but here I am. This is more in line with the quality of Sir Edward's 12, putting it at a 9 or possibly 10. Although their profiles are fairly different, I think that they are quite similar in quality. I kind of like Tyrconnell's profile better because it is more traditional and clean, but Sir Edward's is less harsh. Considering the harshness here, I think I'm going to have to land on a 9. This might have a slightly better profile (might) because Sir Edward's has some alcohol on the finish, but Sir Edward's is far less harsh. The harshness here seems like it is trying to be like that of Aberlour 12, but Aberlour is really more spicy. It's like Aberlour is a bit spicier, but has less of that paint stripper effect and less oily funk to it. Honestly, they seem fairly similar in quality to me, in the 9 to 12 range, but I think that the Aberlour 12 is better. Aberlour 12, Sir Edward's 12, and Highland Queen Sauternes are all a bit better than this due to its harshness. What really works here are the clean flavors, but side by side with Glen Grant 26, there is no contest. In spite of being 60% alcohol, the Glen Grant is much smoother while also being richer and more balanced. I mean, I didn't expect this to be as good as the Glen Grant, but the gap is more staggering than I'd expected. So I'm back here to a 9 or 10. Considering how clear the harshness is in comparison with Glen Grant though, I think I have to land on a 9. I was thinking that this was about on par with Tomintoul 10, but the thing is that the harshness here is a real problem, so I have to say that the Tomintoul is a tad better. Oof, $40 for this? I was afraid that might be the case, but it's still upsetting. This is far from competing with Redbreast 12 - though not as far as I expected it to be. Man, I don't know, this could be an 11 or 12 even. 13 would be seriously pushing it, but I can imagine 9 to 12. 8 just seems too low. I won't be buying a bottle at $40, but this is a more solid whiskey than I expected and I might get it for $25-30.