Tastes

Rating: 15/23 Before jumping in, I'd like to call out that my bottle is 40% ABV, whereas Distiller lists this at 43% and that is definitely not a mistake because the bottle in the picture Distiller has is also 43%. I could look into this and probably confirm that in 201X Tomintoul dropped the ABV and probably also the quality, but I'm just going to assume that they dropped the ABV and judge the quality based on the merits of what's in this bottle. N: This does show some nice age. I would guess that it was 15 to 18 years old. It smells smooth and a bit creamy with some subdued wood that nonetheless has a fullness to it. I get hints of vanilla and some light almond, along with that classic Tomintoul cereal of course and perhaps a whiff of tart orange and some peaches bordering on that Irish apricot flavor.. It smells like something I'd enjoy drinking, but it doesn't smell amazing. It's fairly complex and light without any problems, but also fairly dull. P: This is very smooth but it still has some nice spice to it - cinnamon, ginger, allspice, and clove. There's a nice creaminess and then the cereal reaches up to give you a big, soft hug. The fullness is there, though the richness is not. The wood shows itself with this malty fullness and creamy smoothness. There are hints of pecan and almond that are quite nice. I could easily sip this for an extended period seeing as it is quite enjoyable, unlike the Tomintoul 10 and 16. The complexity keeps swirling in this subtle way and that apricot flavor makes an appearance alongside some vanilla, though it's more bitter than I'd expected. This is also a tad harsher than I'd expected somehow. I kind of thought that the smoothness was the whole point of Tomintoul. F: The creamy wood stays with some sawdust coming out, along with the pecan, almond, and (of course) cereal. Some unexpected bitterness does linger, but it's not too bad. It's a totally appropriate finish for this dram. This is leaps and bounds better than Tomintoul 16. But it still isn't great, especially for its age. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much the 9 years improved this over the Tomintoul 16. This is a downright good dram. Good for the money? Absolutely not! Something I would enjoy sipping though? Yeah, Tomintoul meets that bar here. Sadly though, Tomintoul seems to be poor VFM, so I think I will be avoiding it in the future. Dalwhinnie 15 still has a more assertive flavor with more variety than even this Tomintoul, though it is harsher and less balanced. This reminds me most of Càrn Mòr's Glen Grant 26 distilled in 1992. The Càrn Mor is a bit spicier with more vanilla - really, it's a focus on the bourbony side of its character. This is creamier with some more richness, but it's also lower proof. I find it to be a bit of a tough call between these two. I think that this is at least a 15, but could be a 16. A 17 is unlikely. The bitter oiliness is a bit unpleasant, reminding me of the flaws of Sir Edward's 12. Between this and the Glen Grant, I'd lean toward the Glen Grant a hair. I don't think either is good VFM, of course. I think I'll give this a 15, but it could go up to a 16 if I ever happen to have another taste of it (unlikely).

Rating: 12/23 N: The nose is oilier and richer than that of Tomintoul 10. That's promising, but it still isn't very rich and doesn't smell that great. There's a bit of an unpleasant bitterness here and still lots of cereal. It's perhaps a bit like fumes from the plant making wheaties? A little sweetness is present though. It isn't very interesting. P: It's light despite the added age. There's some grain that leads into that Tominoul cereal flavor that is a bit sweet and almost chalky and can't be escaped. It has a bit of an alcohol presence as well, which definitely turns me off of it. I'd say that the richness that brings in some caramel and a dash of malt improves upon the flavor of the 10, but it isn't really a different beast. There are faint allusions to fruit, sort of like that classic Irish whiskey apricot flavor just a tad, but they get mixed in with the alcohol, of which there is a fair amount, disappointingly. There's a tad of oily nuttiness, but it isn't very pronounced. Maybe the char smoke, coconut, mint, lemon peel, and vanilla that Distiller cites are all getting mixed into the alcoholic oiliness that I'm tasting, but if so, they aren't very good flavors. F: The alcohol fortunately disappears, leaving mainly slightly rich cereal with a bit of oil. It isn't bad, but it isn't what I want from my whiskey. Still, the reduced alcohol flavor matters a lot because it helps to salvage the part of this that actually was a regression from the 10. Not an interesting or enjoyable finish though. I'd say that this is better than the Tomintoul 10, but not by a whole lot, sadly. The 10 has a more pure flavor, while this focuses on making up for its pathetic weakness. This could be a 12, but no higher. I'm thinking an 11. Dalwhinnie 15 sadly has a lot more going on than this does. Dalwhinnie 15 is sort of half way between this and Oban Little Bay. I'm going 10 on this because it really is not very good. The oiliness in particular seems out of place; it would be more welcome in a blanco tequila. It actually reminds me a fair amount of Bushmill's 10 with its lightness, oiliness, and hint of fruit, but this is definitely a step up in all dimensions. The cereal that persists throughout is not something I'm a fan of, but it wouldn't stop me from drinking this if offered. Still, the 10 is a bit more nuanced, despite being rougher around the edges. I'm torn between 11 and 12 here, but I think I'll give it the bump to 12. Not a bad whisky, but I expect a lot more from a 16 year old. Still, for $60, one could do a lot worse. I'd take it over two Ainsley Brae Burgundies for sure.

Rating: 10/23 N: Quite light. Difficult to make out. I get some sweet cereal and some cardboard. Little else is happening here though. P: It's very light and smooth with a clear youthfulness, an odd bitter backing, and a big cereal presence that combines with some mineral stream water sweetness to develop the sweet side. This is amazingly uncomplex and not very appealing frankly. I put it somewhere beneath Arran 10 and BenRiach 10. There is a light hint of some sort of fruit and some spices do eventually come out, though they bring some harshness. I briefly get a nice hint of orange. After reading the Distiller tasting, maybe I get a slight hint of brine and lemon, as well as a substantial floral bit that comes with a little herbal flavor that could be potpourri. The sweet wizened apples and tarring grass though? Sadly, I can't detect them. There is some grass in with the cereal, but the sweetness makes the cereal flavor dominate. F: Some of that slightly oily bitterness lingers along with a lot of cereal that loses sweetness as it goes along, really not that great. This tastes somewhere between a 10 year old scotch and a grainy vodka. As the vodka, it's actually kind of interesting. As the scotch, it's terribly bland an unappealing. It isn't actively bad, but I'd rather not drink it. Between this and Sir Edward's 12, it's a tough call. It's also a tough call with Aberlour 12. If I had to make the call right now, I'd probably put this below Sir Edward's and above Aberlour - a frankly shocking result. I think that makes this worthy of a 9 or maybe 10. I think my initial inclination to give this a 9 was misguided and it's more of a 10. The light grain is very youthful, but it's at least a clean, smooth flavor without any flaws aside from youth and a bit much decent-quality alcohol. It even has a dash of complexity.

Rating: 9/23 I'd like to SBS this with Black Bush, but instead I'll SBS it with the low end of the Bushmill's line (the white label). N: A very mild nose. Hard to pick out much going on here. It's kind of grainy and oily. Less floral and sweet than regular Bushmill's, but not particularly more mature. It doesn't even really smell malty. P: Not really smooth, but not terribly harsh. At first I get very little, but then I get some barley followed by those nice Bushmill's malt apricot notes. It is far from complex and the alcohol is definitely present, essentially all this has going for it is that apricot note, which is admittedly fairly substantial here. Aside from that, it's oily and a tad too harsh. After just a couple of sips though, my palate becomes accustomed to the apricot and I start to lose its flavor. The barley starts becoming more toasted as I have more, which is good, but not as good as having the apricot is. Regular Bushmill's does showcase its alcohol more, but it's also more complex and interesting. Following regular Bushmill's, the lack of comparative sweetness poses a problem for the apricot in this. Also, the oiliness and barley are what really stand out here. The lack of complexity without a big richness or similarly amazing flavor a la Old Fitz or some sherry bombs is a big problem here. F: Nothing exciting. It's hard to even notice it long enough to detect the flavor. A bit of grain and perhaps the faintest hit of apricot. It still tastes young. So the apricot is the one good thing here, but it quickly disappears. Since I can't even make it trough a glass without losing it, this is a pass on a pour and a hard pass on a bottle. I'd rather get regular Bushmills (or preferably Black Bush) for less since that has more personality and at least seems like a good mixer and it's interesting to try a young spirit sometimes. I'd say that as a dram I'm forced to sip, I might lean slightly toward this rather than regular Bushmill's just because of that apricot flavor, but it's honestly a very underwhelming dram. It's a tough call between this and Sir Edward's 12 as well because of the sulphur in Sir Edward's but I do appreciate the complexity in Sir Edward's. I'm looking at a 9 here, but it could be an 8. I'm in a toss-up with this and Tomintoul 10 as well, which further validates my rating here since I gave the Tomintoul a 9 as well. Really glad I only paid for 30 ml of this. I think I ultimately like this about a point better than regular Bushmill's, which is just a really disappointing outcome. A 9 it is.

Rating: 8/23 N: It smells like young Irish whiskey. I get floral scents with vanilla, grain, and some sort of fruit up front. It's a decent complexity. I do get a fair amount of the alcohol, but not in a chemical or industrial way. Overall, it doesn't smell like something I'm likely to enjoy much, but it doesn't smell that bad. Green Spot, which is also quite mild, has a richer, smoother nose. P: It tastes young. And not very good. What else did you expect? The Black Bush is borderline sippable and this is a step below that, so it's something that I would probably need to drown in a cocktail. I can see how some would be able to sip it if they drink low-end spirits since it has some complexity and despite being somewhat harsh its profile isn't actively bad. It's kind of like a less oily, substantially better Glen Logie. It's sweeter, more fragrant, more floral, and showcases more grain and even some vanilla. It has the usual Irish oiliness and it generally reminds me of Bushmill's, even showing some of that tangerine bordering on apricot. There are some nice notes here and as a young whiskey, there are things to appreciate. There is a general cleanness to the flavor, for instance, that makes it light and refreshing. It isn't particularly harsh either, though some harshness and flavor from the alcohol do come through. Honestly, I'm appreciating it more and more. Still Green Spot is smoother with more spice and a richer nectar sweetness to it that I enjoy much more. Actually the Green Spot is somewhere between this and Càrn Mòr's Glen Grant 26. Following Green Spot, the youth here becomes a much greater problem and the alcohol presence really pervades the dram, further emphasizing the harshness. In a final SBS with Sir Edward's 12, Sir Edward's displays more sulphur, but also more toasted grain and richness and less harshness, giving it a more rounded, fuller presence. I think I'd still give the nod to Sir Edward's but it's close. F: It's a pretty clean finish. Some alcohol remains, but largely its sort of an essence of floral grain with some light honey nectar sweetness giving the impression of sweet water right out of a cool creek. I'd call this a step or two up from Grant's, but I'd probably give the nod to Sir Edward's 12, particularly since Sir Edward's is less harsh. Yeah, I really have to go with Sir Edwards. I guess that puts this in the 8 to 9 range. I was thinking 8, then I was leaning toward 9, but then I fell back to 8 because of the alcohol on the nose. I might have underrated Sir Edward's and it really deserves a 10, but this is still a 9 at best. This is still a bad whiskey.