Tastes

Rating: 11/23 This looks to be the NAS release a step below BenRiach 10. So it's probably not good. N: There's a bit more life to this than there is to the BenRiach 10 nose. BenRiach 10 is fuller with a smoother, more viscous nectary smell. This has a less full scent, but there are more things going on in it with citrus, wood spice, malt, has, pasture, and a dash of sulfur being readily apparent. There's a bit of a light nectar mineral sweetness to it, but not at all to the same extent as on the BenRiach 10's nose. P: The regular BenRiach 10 has a light, nectary palate with bourbony influence and a little bit of hay and such. In contrast, this has a less viscous mouthfeel and less fullness. It's also harsher. There's a dry floral tartness and also some lemon and bread to the profile here. There's a bit of vanilla, but not as much as in the BenRiach 10. They're decent flavors, but nothing great and the sulfur does stick out. The harshness also really isn't doing the dram any favors. It has some pasture and a little bit of salt, suggesting that it may want to be Springbank 10, but it's pretty far from actually achieving that. F: It doesn't end terribly harsh, but it is quite dry and some of the hay does linger a bit. It's a bland finish overall, but not a bad one. Despite it's comparative blandness, I do have to say that I prefer the BenRiach 10, though this isn't tremendously inferior. It's bland like BenRiach 10, but also has the taint of a cheap scotch. OK, that isn't entirely fair: the sulfur and other off elements do add complexity, but they don't make it better. This takes BenRiach from being a boring sipper to being actually a little bit unpleasant. It's not totally awful, but it is down there for sure. I like it better than some of the bottom-shelf stuff like Piper's Clan, Glen Logie, and Grant's. I'd say that this is above Grant's, closer to Highland Queen Majesty Sauternes in quality with a similar generic scotch profile. Probably it's around the quality of Sir Edward's 12 (well, a bit higher than Sir Edward's), but not with that particular oily profile. It seems about on par with the quality of Highland Queen Sauternes. It's harsher and less rich and nectary, but it has a more complex and traditional profile, as well as a bit less sulfur. It's a tough call between the two, but considering the price I would definitely take the Highland Queen. This is certainly not higher than an 11 and it could be a 10. I think I'm going with the 11, but it's borderline.

Rating: 6/23 N: There's surprisingly little nose here. After a few moments, an oily characteristic comes out. I then get a little bit of bitter herbal smell. It immediately reminds me of Sir Edward's 12 and Glen Logie, giving the impressing of a cheap blend rather than a single malt. I don't really get the alcohol on the nose too much and I presume what I do get is mostly there because there isn't much else. There's a hint of something floral with some pear and lemon or perhaps artificial citron a la Veil Citron. It's a really bad nose. P: This is pretty oily, decently malty, and quite harsh. There's some nuttiness to the oil, but it's kind of rancid. Sure, it's kind of spicy, but mostly harsh. It tastes better than the nose suggests with some flavor of not entirely artificial tart au citron coming in, but there isn't much complexity here and I'm not too wild about the flavors that are present. There is more malt than I expected and it does taste like it could be about 12 years in age, but it has a surprisingly bitter graininess to it and an unpleasant rubber bitterness to the oil. It's not enjoyable or complex or much of anything. F: Oil with bitter rubber and a little bit of richness. Some of that citron. The harshness lingers somewhat. I can't say that this is a pleasant finish. The most obvious comparison here is Sir Edward's 12. Sir Edward's has more complexity and refinement, but also more alcohol and a hair less richness. It's a bit of a trade-off, but I prefer Sir Edward's. I wouldn't say that this is as bad as Glen Logie (the other obvious comparison) or Pure Scot (the other other obvious comparison because of the harshness), but it's bad. I'll put it a point below Sir Edwards. I would definitely take the BenRiach 10 over this. I'm really confused actually about what the point of bottling this at 50% is or why it was released at all since its profile is so problematic. I'm so so glad I didn't buy a bottle of this one - there's no way it's worth anything approaching $75. I'm going 4-7 on this and landing on a 6 because it does at least have some decent malt flavor that shows off a bit of age.

Rating: 12/23 N: It is malty and sweet for sure. It smells a lot like Arran 10, but it's a bit fuller with a little more clean water and fruitiness instead of a hint of grain, hay, and salt. It doesn't have that same dry, tart scent that Westward does, but it doesn't have the rich, funky fruitiness of Glenfarclas 105 either. This is a more traditional scotch nose with some fruit (sultanas), but it being on the light side. There's some musty wood or perhaps cardboard, but nothing foul. Its'd definitely not a super rich or interesting nose, but it lacks flaws and is representative of Scotch. P: The palate is fairly smooth and quite light. There are some prickly bits of pepper, but I don't get an alcohol flavor. The mellow maltiness comes out and the flavor is good, albeit on the young side and definitely a bit boring. Still, I could drink this. There's a bit of wood and it is generally sweet. There's sort of a clean river water essence to it, but also a bit of spice like cinnamon. I suspect that this was aged in bourbon barrels, though with the sultana nose and a little bit of sultana flavor, there's a chance that they used refill Sherry barrels instead. As it goes on, I do start to taste the alcohol bitterness a bit and this becomes less pleasant. This would not be my first choice of scotch to sip by any means. Westward has a lot more character and interest and it hides its alcohol better. Westward's funk certainly is contentious, so some might find this BenRiach better, but I wouldn't go around recommending it. Arran 10 has some more richness and a hint of smoke. They both have that sultana sweetness, but the Arran has more of a traditional highland profile with some more grain and a hint of dry grass coming through. Neither is terribly complex though. This is sweeter and it seems almost like there might be some sort of other fruit in here, but I'm hard-pressed to identify it. The flavor is less bold and fruity than that of Glenfarclas 105, but it's also less brash and unrefined with less of an alcohol flavor as well. So far, I'm not really a fan of either of these two, so I'm not sure which I would take. I guess if I were looking for a challenge, I'd go with the Glenfarclas. For something to sip without thinking too much, the BenRiach. Despite its somewhat light mouthfeel, it does have a nice sweet malty presence to it that gives it character. Still, it does have a lot less presence than Carn Mor's Glen Grant 26 (1992) does and I usually think of that as being a fairly characterless whiskey. I wouldn't be shocked if this tasted a lot like that Glen Grant if it were aged out to 26 years. This is a lot less spicy, but it does show more alcohol, as well as more fruit. There's some vanilla and sultana here, as well as maybe something a little bit tart and some cinnamon (and of course a bit of wood), so it's not totally characterless, but this is far from a dram that makes a statement. I would take the Car Mor Glen Grant over this in a heartbeat, though I'm not sure that I would if I had to pay the price. I do gradually get some complexity in here, but it isn't a ton and the alcohol just continues to grow (though it's never tremendous). F: There isn't much of this. The tannins from the wood remain and the malt lingers for a while with the vanilla and a hint of sultana. But there's alcohol too. It's an acceptable finish. In the end, this isn't a bad dram. It's not great by any means, but I could drink it. I'm thinking around a 12 for it. This doesn't match the quality of Glenmorangie 10 and it's far from the quality of Springbank 10, and Port Charlotte 10, but it's a heck of a lot better than most of those no-name scotches sitting on the shelf at Total Wine. Still, $45 for a bottle of this? No thanks.

Rating: 8/23 N: Cinnamon, mineral, apple, alcohol, cardboard. It smells light and mostly blend, but there is a bit of pep from the cinnamon. P: It's weak. Certainly, this is young. I get spice, apple, banana, mineral, and a bit of alcohol and something that is on the border between wood and cardboard. It isn't complex, rich, or tasty. The apple has a very mineral quality to it. There's a lot of mineral here and some cereal too. It's a bit spicy from the cinnamon, which at least gives it some life. None of the flavors are actively bad aside from the bit of alcohol, but the palate is too light and boring and the minerality really doesn't do it for me. For something ostensibly flavored, there sure isn't much flavor to this. F: The spice and mineral elements linger the longest, along with some cereal and apple and a whisper of cardboard. This is bad. It isn't totally undrinkable, but it is unpleasant. Paddleford Creed is better by a substantial margin with its far greater richness. Considering the light flavor, it's hard to even imagine what to mix this in. Considering the lightness, youth, and lack of functionality as a mixer, I think I need to go with an 8. The price they charge for this is unbelievable though.

Rating: 10/23 N: Sweet, corn, light caramel bordering on cotton candy, a hint of cinnamon in a nectary sweetness, sort of like Càrn Mòr's Glen Grant 26 (1990). A bit of mineral and some cereal. It smells smooth, but also bland. P: Sweet, surprisingly viscous (though not tremendously so). A fair amount of mineral. That characteristic Jack tartness comes through as well, helping to balance it out. There's some spice here that showcases both cinnamon and dried ginger along with a dash of clove. There is absolutely lots of banana, along with that continued light caramel flavor. F: That banana and sweet light caramel really linger a lot. There's a big breath of vanilla throughout at this point as well and some of the lingering spice. The banana really messes with the elegance. I was thinking it was a hair inferior to regular Jack previously, but now I think it might be more of 1 to 2 points worse because of the finish. I'd probably still take it over Clyde May's Alabama Style though. This is not very good. I wouldn't enjoy sipping it. I can see it being blended with something where a sweet mellow bourbon is easier to drown, but I would rather not touch it. I'm looking at something like a 9. That pervasive banana really gets to me. Could be a 10 for the smoothness.

Rating: 11/23 N: Banana, caramel, rich spicy wood. The spice has cinnamon and pepper, but also a rich bitterness that strangely reminds me of oloroso (must be because of the tartness from that sour mash). It's sweet, but I remember Jack for being super sweet and this actually smells fairly nice. P: Oh, much lighter than the nose suggested! Not bad, but nothing exciting. It has a pretty substantial woodiness, but also caramel, mineral, banana. It's decently complex and fairly balanced, but definitely on the mild and sweet side. F: The banana, caramel, and cinnamon linger. It's an excessively sweet finish. Some mineral and a bit of alcohol hang around here as well. It's without a doubt better than Clyde May's Alabama Style, but it falls short of the likes of Jim Beam Black. It's too sweet with too much of a banana presence. This is about on par with Paddleford Creek, but I think not quite as good. I'm going to go with an 11.

Rating: 12/23 N: Cinnamon, some woody richness, caramel, a little chocolate, cherry, and apple. P: Decently rich with some tartness, wood, caramel, and maple. I do get a bit of that chocolate as well. It's fairly woody with some cinnamon spiciness. Vanilla and banana come in as well. Some mineral, but not too much. It's not bad, but it's nothing special. F: The wood, spice, some caramel, and some vanilla and mineral linger. Very ho-hum. Overall, a surprisingly solid bourbon at a surprisingly high price. I wouldn't seek it out, but I could mix it or sip it neat. It's a little better than Jack Daniel's. I think my original 12 was appropriate.

Rating: 11/23 N: The nose has a pretty substantial bitter woodiness. I get cinnamon and a bit of anise. It's kind of light and bland though. P: This is fairly light with prevalent mineral and bitterness. Following Paddleford Creek, I can't say that I like this as much. It reminds me a bit of the Russell's Reserve 10 lightness, but without all of the added elegance. The mouthfeel is disappointingly thin. There's a little bit of caramel, but it's mostly light with a floral rye spiciness. It's not awful and I can definitely see how the high rye content from the Four Roses white dog would make it tend in that direction, but that doesn't make it tasty and Pikesville Rye doesn't have the same problem despite essentially being a maximally high rye bourbon. F: The mineral and bitter kind of linger. It isn't very pleasant, but it isn't actively bad. I'm surprised, but I think that Paddleford Creek is clearly better than this. I might even prefer Jack Daniel's a tad. I'm thinking a 10 to 11 for this one. Probably going with the 11, but it's borderline. I continue to be disappointed by Bulleit.