Tastes

16: First tasting after the long drive back from the Bay Area and fist scotch tasting in 4 months. The nose is mellow with lots of vanilla nectar and light barrel spice like cinnamon and pepper. A bit like an oaked Chardonnay. There's a subtle apricot scent with some even more subtle strawberry and cherry flavors. Some just more plain and simple wood scent comes through too. Not as flat as I initally thought, though perhaps it's just faired well with the bottle open. The palate has some really nice peppery wood notes at the front mixed with some smooth nectary vanilla. It's more tart than I expected with some surprising bitter mintiness from the wood. That isn't a bad flavor for it, but it sure isn't what I expected or remembered either. I'm getting some more herbal flavors from the long slow aging in bourbon barrels now too, but they're surprisingly subtle. This still sure doesn't taste 26 years old. The mouth feel is moderately viscous, but not too much. It's quite enjoyable, but it's hard to push past the 16 or maybe 17 range with this profile given the minimal complexity. A few drops of water make it a bit smoother and bring out a bit more nectar to help balanced the herbal flavor, which the water also gives more presence too. This is an extremely subtle scotch that ultimately showcases a nice side of aging in refill bourbon barrels with its mild yet mature herbaceous, spicy, and vanilla elements. Still, it's hard to believe that it's worth putting in 26 years in those barrel for this result and the degree of subtlety could perhaps best be described as "excessive". With the water added, I do pick up some smoke and eventually a hint of tobacco from the herbal flavor. The contrast and balance with the sweet nectar vanilla is actually quite enticing. I'm going with a 16, but I can imagine bumping this up to a 17. It's more peppery but has less harshness from the alcohol than Dalwhinnie 15. Its flavors are also less interesting given the minimal smoke and red fruit, but there is definitely less sulfur too and the balance is better.

The nose has that richness of a scotch that has been aged long in a mildly flavored barrel. Honey and citrus immediately come to mind with a rich maltiness underneath. This is scotch pure and simple. It reminds me of Glenmorangie 18, but more mellowed with a bit more tangerine (not apricot) and less citrus. The nose promises a terrific dram, though likely not a mind-blowing one. It reminds me a bit of how Bushmill's 22 smells, but with less richness and none of that Irish whiskey grain oiliness. The nose does promise a well-executed flavor. First tasted on 2020-02-29 - a great day to provide my 1000th (for real - Black Raven Trickster IPA is in row 1000, but is 999th considering the header) alcohol rating. And this sure is a fitting choice since it was distilled and barreled the year I was born (1992), aged 26 years (26 was when I discovered I liked scotch after drinking a glass of Macallan 12 at the CorpEng winter social at the Red Door), is from Speyside (where Macallan, the scotch that got me started, and Balvenie, the scotch I will always remember my Dad having at home, are from), is from the distillery that Jim Murray has most consistently given the world's best scotch award to, is bottled at cask strength, is independently bottled (these last two being qualities that I have come to appreciate more as I have tried more and more scotches, looking for new experiences, and as I have tried aging spirits myself), and is not available normally in the US (making it a rare and unique experience). There were only 197 bottles of this produced. Whether it's good or not, it's a suitable choice for number 1000. The nose doesn't have any hay, which I see as promising. There are some light floral scents that blend nicely with some vanilla smells, but it's all light. They work well with the fruit scents too. The honey scent isn't as great now and there might be a dash of coconut (though maybe that's just the increasingly strong vanilla. It has more body but less fruit than Green Spot does. Despite the bourbon barrel aging, there really isn't much in the way of spice on the nose (though there might be something aside from the vanilla that is a bit reminiscent of bourbon. Sure note: this is the first time I've ever made it through the first 2048 characters onto the second comment without getting past the nose! Sure, there were some side notes, but in the past I haven't gotten close. This is a bit of another Corsair Oatrage experience. It isn't something that I would smell for ages digging into the richness and complexity, but it does smell very good. On to the tasting! The palate is less sweet than expected, but is quite interesting with a richness they kind of grows with a lot of vanilla (a LOT of vanilla) bringing in some ambiguous nutty tones, but definitely some coconut (not toasted) and some hints of spice. It's tremendously smooth without tasting watery (the mouthfeel is moderate, but passable with the richness). The general flavor has a lot of a nectar presence to it, but also has some tempered malty notes mixed with some well-controlled bitterness and nice refreshing citrus that doesn't bite (the tangerine is clearly there, but is on the light, vibrant side). It's a very solid scotch that reminds me a lot of Tullibardine without the interesting finish. The palate is certainly nicer than that of Dalwhinnie 25 with less harshness and a more balanced flavor profile, but the overall result is not terribly exciting. Better than Glenmorangie 18 due to its smoothness, but not a tremendous improvement. It's too bad that cask strength is such a low ABV in this case. It's great that it doesn't taste like wet wood, though it does have a bit of a lightness coming out from the intense vanilla. More swishing and swirling really brings out the richness of the vanilla. It's a slightly unique experience and it's amazing that such a gentle whiskey can exist at such an age (i.e. it isn't strongly flavored and also has nothing wrong). It's an easy sipper, though it isn't the one whiskey I would choose to drink for the rest of my life. This is lighter, less rich, and less broadly complex than Glenfiddich 14 Bourbon is, which is generally not a place a premium whiskey would want to be found in (though it isn't a bad position). This has that deep, mild woodiness to it that the Glenfiddich doesn't, though I still wouldn't guess that this is 26 years old. I would definitely be more likely to guess that this was 15. The flavor is a bit mild for 18 and the complexity is a bit short, but it's too smooth for 12. Overall, it's a very solid dram that I'm happy drinking, but it really required digging into the subtleties to appreciate it. I considered as low as a 15 for this, but it definitely isn't below that. A 16 seems about right based on this tasting since it takes so much work to dog out the subtleties. Ultimately, this is smooth and balanced, but is quite mild. I can see raising it to a 17 or maybe even 18 in the future, but for now it's getting a 16.i do eventually get a bit of alcohol from it, though it's quite little for the ABV. The palate is executed substantially better than that of Dalwhinnie 15. Like a few points better. I'm looking forward to trying this with a clean palate to try to pick out more subtleties. Still, I think it's probably too subtle. It seems more subtle than Highland Park 18, which is already often a bit too subtle. Based on this last tasting directly comparing this with Highland Park 18, the Highland Park is richer with more butterscotch and spice. The Highland Park is substantially better, though also is lacking complexity, suggesting that my palate is shot. Still, the Highland Park does taste better. And does have a nice hint (just a hint though) of sea spray on its finish. Coming back to the Glen Grant, it's lighter, but with this lingering wood fullness that isn't bitter or super rich, but gives a nice backing of vanilla and a bit of light nuttiness without being oily. It's actually quite like a milder Green Spot, which is not good, though my palate is shot. This is a bit different from Green Spot, with more vanilla, which brings its own form of richness. Still, the comparison is quite apt. I like this, but it's very hard it justify at the price and it's hard to imagine how it was aged for so long and ended up with such a mild flavor. Still, for the reasons mentioned previously, this was absolutely a great choice for number 1000! No regrets :) Also, this definitely the longest single tasting I've written so far. That mostly because circumstances fit it, but it feels satisfying. After all of these tastings and comparisons though, I have a home-blend bourbon sitting here that is right on par with some added complexity and a bit less age than I'd really like. It's a $35 blend. For the money, I'm definitely better off just making bourbon blends based on Ezra Brooks. Subsequent tasting: it's to h and sweet with some nice honeyed nectar and floral flavors including vanilla. It's a bit more hedonistic than my first Ezra Brooks based blend, with a really nice fullness to it. It's quite enjoyable. Though not super complex and contemplative. Nevertheless, a very good scotch. I'm bumping it up to a 17. It has a lot of that Irish whiskey light fruitiness (largely pear, with a bit of apricot) and floralness, but without the disgusting oiliness. Despite having a bit less complexity, I do think I prefer this this for its graininess, fullness, and bit of spice. Still, I think that the two are quite close in quality and Green Spot is Clearly better for the money. I'm leaning toward a 17 for this, but if I give it that, Green Spot has to get a 16.

Rating: 2/23 OK, I'm killing the bottle with this pour. Finally. This was incredibly difficult to get through, particularly since I had to buy it in a 1.75L bottle, but I guess that's what you have to do when you want to sample the cheapest, most god-awful scotch on the shelf. N: Lots of sulfur and vegetal notes. This is clearly young and it's quite obvious that there are lots of heads and tail in this. Oof. It does at least smell a little rich. Or maybe that's bad. I get a fair amount of alcohol. It really isn't a good or complex nose. P: This is quite harsh. The bad flavors do help to cover up the industrial ones somewhat though. Yay? I get a lot of sulfur and vegetal notes (and maybe a bit of something bitterly and astringently herbal as well). There's a faint hint of chocolate as well. Not complex, but definitely rich. It feels like somebody tasted an Islay scotch and figured people would like just any rich, bitter, strongly flavored scotch. There is some caramel sweetness and a hint of cereal bringing in some balance, so it isn't a total loss, but it's quite aggressively bad. F: The sulfur really sticks around, along with a little bit of herbal and vegetal notes, plus some caramel, cereal, and smoky chocolate. The burning eventually stops here, so it's better than the palate, but that's a pretty low bar to be setting. I'd place this below Glen Ness. It might even be below Glen Logie since I can imagine burying Glen Logie in a drink, but I can't imagine burying this. Piper's Clan actually has a slightly more appealing profile as well. This is somehow even more-in-your-face with the sulfur. Yeah, it's a bit richer with a hint of chocolate, but big flavors does not make this nice like a peat bomb. I have to say, I prefer both Glen Logie and Piper's Clan to this and I only gave them 3s. There's a little bit of complexity with a couple of hints of nice flavors that save this from a 1. Well, maybe they save it from a 1. I'm giving it a 2 for now and I sure as hell am not buying another bottle to see if it really is as bad as a 1 out of 23. Ugh, side by side, this is substantially worse than Piper's Clan, but I'm going to stick with my rating of 2 for now.

Rating: 5/23 This is a Total Wine store brand, so I have low expectations for it (despite the gouging at $3.50 for a 50 ml). The one hopeful thing about it is that it's a single malt. We'll see how much value that adds. N: I get cereal, but also some off notes. There's a combination of vegetal, industrial, and artificial sweetener notes, suggesting both that this is a young whisky and that too many tails and heads were added in. P: Yep, young. It's hard to imagine that this could be more than 3 years old. The vegetal notes are here but the cereal is stronger. The big problem though is that there is way too much of the heads in here. For such a young whisky, there really shouldn't be much of them, but this has a big industrial flavor and it feels like paint stripper on my tongue like Glen Logie, but with a nicer, less oily flavor. Yeah, side by side, there really is almost nothing to recommend Glen Logie, whereas this at least has some nice cereal notes. There are clearly less heads and tails in this than in Glen Logie, but there's still too much of them. The cereal and industrial flavors fight for dominance on the palate, with the industrial usually winning out. The vegetal hints at its presence from time to time and brings out a hint of caramel and malt, but it is never dominant. Those are really all of the flavors here, sadly. It's uncomplex, generally doesn't taste good, and is physically painful to drink. F: That paint stripper burn really sticks with me, but other than that, the finish is dominated by the cereal, so it's an improvement on the palate. If the whole dram were like the finish, it would still be a bad whisky. Grant's has more off notes, but it also has some nice hints of things like cinnamon and is substantially smoother. Drinking Grant's, I would be fairly sure I'd wake up the next day with my tongue in tact; with this, I'm not sure. I can kind of imagine throwing some wood chips in Grant's and fixing its problems, but I don't think that is possible with this. This is better than Glen Logie though by a couple of points. I should probably drop my Glen Logie review to a 3 though. This is harsher than Piper's Clan, but not so harsh as Glen Logie. Frankly, this is among the worst scotch I've had by a large margin. I mean, even Grant's is substantially better. I can't imagine giving this better than a 5. I mean, maybe I can imagine a 6, but that's pushing it. This is really a 3 to 4 and I'm settling on 4 because the cereal element is OK, but there's really a lot of rubber and other industrial flavors, so it's the finish that saves it. Holy cow, this costs $22?! Get a bottle of Sir Edward's 12 or Highland Queen Majesty Sauternes for less. Or two bottles of Grant's. Actually, maybe don't do that since Grant's is still pretty unpleasant to drink. If you only have $22 to spend, maybe look at a bourbon, gin, or rum instead.