Tastes

Rating: 9/23 So the Wolfburn Aurora wasn't very good. I don't have high hopes here, but let's give it a shot. N: I get some smoke, but not really peat. It has a light scent with a dry wood character that reminds me a bit of mesquite and barbecue, sort of like Corsair Wildfire. There's a bit of hay coming through and there's a hint of sweetness coming off of the mesquite that I briefly imagined to be barbecue sauce, but honestly that was probably just a metal association. There's a bitter herbal smell that carries a bit of mint with it too. This is a lot of effort to describe a light nose that gives me a bit of a knock-off Corsair Wildfire barbecue vibe though. It isn't bad, but it's far from enticing. P: Wow, that palate has more flavor than I expected. And it's sweeter too! I immediately get a hit of smoke and it comes with some peat too. There's kind of an apple flavor along with a hint of orange juice and a hint of meatiness, and also some light mesquite, giving it a real barbecue vibe. It's kind of fun, but whereas I kind of give Corsair a pass for its quirky barbecue flavor because it's a quirky distillery located down South - the home of barbecue - I have trouble with this flavor in a scotch. There are some minerals in here as well that make it especially light. I think it's a bit less harsh than the Wolfburn Aurora is, but it is still somewhat harsh and I do get that alcohol flavor. The palate isn't bad, but it certainly isn't good. Its quirkiness is also trying. F: The smoke remains and hints of fruit occasionally waft by. It still reminds me of mesquite and therefore makes me think of barbecue. The finish isn't that great, but it's possibly my favorite part because of how it all fades into barbecue. No minerals or barley to worry about; just a nice smoky finish. So this is surprising because of how weird it is. I'm pretty sure I'd take it over the Aurora most days, but that isn't exactly a high bar. This is one of those rare cases where the quirkiness doesn't win extra bonus points from me. It's been done before, it's been done better, and it doesn't fit in here. Going back to my current cheap scotch benchmark of Sir Edward's 12, how does this compare? Well, I like the core flavor of Sir Edward's a bit better, but the smokiness in the finish here is quite nice and there isn't that oiliness or any other weird flavors. This is definitely harsher though. I'm inclined to put this just a hair below Sir Edward's 12, which I think makes it a high 8 to low 10. So I'm going with 9. This vaguely reminds me of Corsair Wildfire mixed with Springbank 10, but it's somehow nowhere near as good as either. I'm really just citing Springbank here for the lightness and hay though. SBS, Springbank 10 is divine, with tremendous complexity and maturity, whereas this is thoroughly uninspiring. Similarly, Corsair Wildfire is spiced, funky, and rich in a way that makes me want to drink a glass by a toasty fire in my bathrobe on Christmas, while this is light and bland. I think a 9 is probably earned here, but that's as high as I'm willing to go. Ah, and now I read that Wolfburn only started bottling again in 2016. So this is young stuff, but they've demonstrated that they know how to deal with incredible youth. It's no Port Charlotte 10, but it isn't 10 years old either. I wouldn't buy a bottle now, but I look forward to trying it again when they release a 10 or 12 year. Weirdly, the Distiller tasting notes in no way describe the dram I tried. I'm sure I've disagreed more strongly in the past, but I'm really surprised by how normal it's described here. I would not describe this dram as normal.

Rating: 7/23 I vaguely recall that this is a young scotch. Like, barely legal. I'm wary, but let's see how it is. N: The nose is surprisingly rich with toasted barley, hay, and a nice nectar sweetness suggesting peaches, pears, and some vanilla. There's a bit of light spice in here as well - ginger mainly, but also some cinnamon and a hint of clove. It suggests that a bourbon barrel was used to age this. The ethanol does come through, but it isn't tainted by other gross alcohols. I honestly can't guess at the age too well from this nose, but it smells more like it was aged for an extended period (perhaps 15 years?) in somewhat tired but still good barrels. The base spirit smells quite nice as well. It's a success to be sure. P: It's a clean palate that starts with more spice and a drier flavor than I'd expected. The clove and ginger really come out more than I'd expected and there's even a hint of turmeric. The palate is a tad on the thin side and less sweet than I'd expected. The spice really burns and it's a tad harsh, but not too much. The roasted barley is there, but it isn't as rich as I'd expected and it lacks depth. I do get a hint of cinnamon, but I also get a lot of peppery harshness as I drink more. Considering the harshness, this is rapidly losing my favor. It's like it's trying to be a Glen Grant that was nicely aged for an extended period in bourbon barrels, but it hasn't succeeded. There's even a slight soapy hint of some bitter alcohol (from the tails, I think) that didn't get aged out entirely. Based on the harshness, lightness, and presence of a tail flavor that tastes immature, I'm guessing that this is a young whiskey crafted predominantly from hearts. The toasted barley is nice, so I'm not entirely sure of its quality. There's a bit of hay with it too. It doesn't have a chalky cereal flavor belying its youth. It is a bit flavorless aside from the toast though, so I suspect this is an attempt to disguise a young whiskey using mild barley and almost exclusively hearts. F: The spice really lingers more than anything else, retaining its pepperiness and also a bit of woodiness for a long time. It's a pretty bland and slightly unpleasant finish. I really liked the nose here and was expecting to be giving this nearly a 15 based on it. Tragically, the palate and finish are not so good. It's harsh, light, and bland. It's not even as flavorful as Pure Scot, though I'd venture that the flavors it does have are more pleasant and better executed. The two have similar degrees of harshness, though this might be a hair less harsh (a hair). I'd say it's a clear win for Wolfburn, but that is not setting a high bar. Sir Edward's 12 is definitely better. This seems like a 7 to 8. A 9 would be seriously pushing it. I think the 7 bucket is most appropriate here. If it were less harsh, it could be an 8 and might even push its way up to a 9. Wait, looking this up, it's aged in sherry barrels?! It tastes nothing like sherry! How did they make the sherry flavor so invisible?! Either this is some light sherry or these were some tired barrels (probably the latter).

Rating: 14/23 It's interesting that this is almost technically an Islands scotch, but it isn't because it includes Islay. I wasn't a fan of The Epicurean (another Douglas Liang blend), but I acknowledged at the time that malt from the Lowlands is a tough sell since the region specializes in grain whisky. Using Islands + Islay malts though, there is no such excuse for being unable to produce a good whisky. N: Wow, there's some nice peat in this, as evidenced by its rubber/tar/tobacco smell. It also has some good sea spray lightness. Following Black Bottle, I do get a bit of sulfur, but not too much and it gives a bit of a mezcal (think Los Vecinos Espadin) savoriness and hint of earthiness that is nice. I also get some mineral and light citrus, as well as a bit of apple eventually. I get some cereal, suggesting this whisky's youth, but I have to say that when it comes to the nose, this beats Black Bottle handily and it's darned fine by its own merits. P: Wow, what a statement! I get peat with some sweet lemon mixed with minerals and sea spray with a beautiful freshness. It's light, but a very impressive blend. The peat is more herbal than savory, but there is a bit of umami going on here. There's a bit of a clean spring water sugary flavor to it that works very well. The smoke comes in nicely too, adding a richness the borders on chocolate at times. I'm struggling to identify and describe all of the flavors that are present here, but they swirl nicely, presenting interesting and tasty flavors that constantly change. It reminds me a bit of Ardbeg Corryvreckan. The Ardbeg is smoother, richer, more complex, and more balanced, with a lot more peat and smoke, so I think that it's a lot better, but the comparison flatters this dram. Hopping over to a side-by-side with Los Vecinos Espadin, the Los Vecinos is bolder and fuller with more flavors that really stand out. I might prefer the Los Vecinos slightly more, but this does have some nice toasted grain going on in comparison. What really stands out to me though is that this and the Los Vecinos are actually quite similar in profile. F: The tartness with the savory, smoky peat remains, along with some sweetness hinting at caramel, something a bit roasted, and some cereal. It's a tad disappointing, which leads me to consider going with a 14 instead of a 15, but the long tail of peat showcasing tobacco, coffee and chocolate puts me back at 15 for now This is less medicinal and more youthful than Ardbeg Corryvreckan, but it is quite enjoyable. It's a whole different character and it balances well. I think I'd take this over Black Bottle, so I'm looking at a 14 to 15. Nikka From the Barrel has a richer maltiness with more age that I do prefer, but this clearly has a place and I can see myself turning down a richer whiskey on a warm afternoon to have a zippy, refreshing pour of Rock Oyster instead. I might also use it in place of mezcal in a cocktail for a fun twist That sulfur is present, so I think pushing past 15 is difficult, but it's barely there. The real thing holding this back is its lightness, which is apparent in spite of its proof. Los Vecinos Espadin - which is unaged, a somewhat light mezcal, and has a lower proof - is somehow fuller than this is. I'm really torn between that 14 and 15 here. I think that considering the lightness and sulfur here, this more falls into the 14 bucket, but it is still quite satisfying.

Rating: 13/23 I know nothing about this aside from the name. I'm expecting heavy smoke and/or peat. N: So, not the heavy smoke/peat that I expected. I think I get some of that smoke, but it may just be my expectations mixed with the alcohol burn and some wood and caramel. It smells more fruity (rich apple) and generic. There's something a bit roasted and perhaps a hint of mineral, but it's really hard to pick out individual scents. Mostly, it's kind of rich, fruity, and sweet. It smells tasty, but not amazing. P: OK, I like this better than the nose. I get some fruit mixed with smoke and roasted barley, as well as a sort of waxiness and a clean water mineral sweetness. It's not quite as full and viscous as I'd like, but it's fairly rich and tasty in a way that I really don't expect from what I'm guessing is a fairly low end (but not bottom shelf) scotch. There's no excessive sulfur a la every dirt cheap scotch ever. It's rich and moderately full with good balance. It isn't very complex, but it is enjoyable. It's actually quite smooth as well. I get a bit of a sherried red fruit flavor as well in here that reminds me of Highland Park and there's some caramel that is only a tad artificial tasting. I'm surprised to be saying this, but I could drink this neat and be happy. I feel like there is some deeper complexity in here, but it's quite subtle and difficult to bring out. Or maybe it just isn't there. I'm trying hard to find it. I'm getting some cinnamon and vanilla suggesting ex-bourbon barrels now. Sure, bourbon barrels are used a lot because they're cheap, but they really work well here. I mainly just wish that the palate took me on more of a journey instead of just throwing its flavors out there and leaving me to sort them out. F: A wisp of smoke remains along with some waxiness and roasted grain. The sweet fruit and other sweetness are gone, but there's a hint of lemon zest and it's a clean finish that lasts for a long time. Not as good as the palate, but a nice ending. This was honestly quite good. It was a lot better than I expected and was also quite different. This is a very solid blended scotch. It's less interesting than Bell's, but it's more balanced and less harsh. Bell's is about the level that I think this is on, with the richness here balancing out with the complexity there. The lack of harshness really gives this an edge though. This is definitely smoother with less alcohol presence, but it's also more bland and does have a hint of artificial caramel. It's a tough call, but I'd say that this is a hair better than Bell's. I'm thinking a 13 for this one. I could imagine a 14, but I think dropping to 12 is more likely because of the lack of complexity and that artificial caramel flavor. Sadly, I can say with confidence that this is no Johnnie Walker Green with its reduced complexity and fruitiness, but it actually tastes fairly aged. I would guess 12 years, but I could believe that it was younger with well-toasted grain or even imagine that it's a 15 with some use of refill barrels. This is somehow not that far off from Johnnie Walker Green. The other obvious comparison is Nikka Whisky From The Barrel. The Nikka clearly has more alcohol, but is also sweeter and richer with more of a clear graininess and some hints of apricot. I think that the Nikka is a bit more complex, but this actually compares fairly well. The Nikka is definitely better, but I still appreciate this and it's a lot cheaper. I think that 12 is easily deserved now and I'm pretty settled on a 13. Surprisingly, I think I have to give it a 13 and a 14 even seems like it would be kind of reasonable. This is only a $22 scotch? What a find!

Rating: 11/23 I've really heard nothing about this, but I fully expect it to be mediocre at best. N: Light sulfur, smoke, meat, and maybe a dash of peat. Then some grain emerges. I start getting some light apple and then mineral with a bit of cardboard or perhaps chalky character to it, expressing the dram's youth, but there's also a balanced butterscotch and light baking spice scent to it. A hint of light, sweet perfumed lemon like from a wet wipe emerges as well. Originally, I thought there was nothing too exciting going on here, but the more I smell it, the more balanced and agreeable it seems. Way better than The Famous Grouse already! P: This actually has a pretty decent highland crossed with island profile. It's a bit harsh, but it has a good smokiness mixed with mineral, sweetness with a bit of apple, light orange zest, and salt bordering on sea spray. The flavors are actually pretty solid and balanced. I get some vanilla as well eventually, along with some (not mildewed) cardboard. There might be a dash of peat, but it's hard to be sure that it isn't just smoke and some sort of young herbal presence (a hair like Copper Fox Rye). It reminds me a bit of a disappointing Highland Park. The body is medium-thin and does retain a lightness. The flavors are perhaps too subtle and a bit of the sulfur does make its way in, but this is a surprisingly balanced and drinkable dram despite its youth. The biggest problem is that while there might be a little bit of white pepper flavor, most of the heat is attributable to alcohol harshness. This is actually fairly harsh for its proof. If it weren't for that harshness, I'd actually enjoy the palate fairly well (at like a 13 to 14 level). The biggest other flaws are the slightly excessive sweetness and general lightness, but surprisingly little alcohol flavor comes through. F: That smoke sure lingers, along with some cardboard graininess and some minerals. A bit of tartness from either the peat or apple lingers, but it isn't clear which. It's still kind of sweet. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the quality of this. It's a bit rough around the edges, but it doesn't have that cheap scotch sewage flavor and does a decent job of balancing adequate complexity with some nice flavors and general balance. Being blended, some of the flavors are a bit muddled, but I wouldn't object to drinking this. I think I'd give it a slight edge over Sir Edward's 12 because it doesn't have the same odd flavors. I think it's also better than Highland Queen Majesty Sauternes, moving it out of the barely-drinkable budget scotch category I think that puts this somewhere around an 11 or maybe even a 12. I do wish it were less harsh so I could go up to a 13 or 14. I'm surprisingly happy with this dram, but I think I'll stick to an 11. Seems like a good choice for a budget scotch.

Rating: 6/23 Every time I read the name of this whisky, I ask "why is there a particular grouse that's famous?" According to the company's website, it was changed from "The Grouse" after several decades. OK, then. Still no idea why it was called that to begin with, but at least I know it didn't get its name from one particularly awesome bird. N: Oof, I get a lot of sulfur. There's also some caramel, along with hay and maybe a little apple and mineral. Even after a few minutes, it's hard to pick anything else out. Really, it's an unpleasant nose. Definitely inferior to Bell's, but it does smell like it could be a decent scotch if it just had less sulfur. P: Yep, I get that sulfur. It's kind of full flavor-wise, but also thin. It's kind of savory, but there is some sweetness here. I get some ginger and cinnamon as well and something peppery to go along with them. There's quite a dose of caramel, but it is very artificial side. It's fairly harsh and has a lot of alcohol flavor as well. Some smoke eventually fights its way through what is otherwise generic sulfur. F: That alcohol sure lingers, along with the sulfur, but some smoke remains as well and even transforms a bit into hay. Some hints of apple and lemon come out, but they don't help much. It's really hard to get much else here. Oh, except for the continuing alcohol flavor. Wow, I kind of had hopes for this, but it's pretty bad. I really wouldn't want to drink this. This has less spice and sweetness than Grant's does while also being harsher with more alcohol flavor. Grant's is probably superior with its better balance, richness, and complexity, though it also has some more sulfur. This is substantially less harsh than Glen Logie and also has far less alcohol flavor, so it's definitely an improvement over that, fortunately. I'd say that the improvement is substantial and this deserves a 6, putting it just below Grant's. I'm appalled by how expensive this is.