Tastes

Rating: 19/23 Wow, that regular Amrut Peated was really peaty! I wonder how this will compare? (Prediction: it will be even peatier) N: I get an interesting floral cherry character to this with some citrus and a bit of light grain and a dash of mint. Oh, and did I mention peat and smoke? Because there's definitely a lot of peat. Tobacco, fruit, chocolate, something a bit more herbal. P: This is not messing around with the peat. It takes the regular Amrut Peated and adds, well, more peat! Its flavors are predominantly peat and a cherry that's a bit like a sour candy. It has a great flavor and richness, but I have a little bit more trouble getting the complexity out of it than I do with the regular peated. It holds up really well to water, so you can cut it down with a third water and still have a great whiskey. In fact, cutting it down a bit brings out more complexity. The sweet spot seems to be a bit higher proof than the regular Amrut Peated - perhaps in the low 50s. It highlights more chocolate and vanilla while maintaining the herbal, medicinal quality of the peat and amping up the smoke. It brings out this nice Clynlish waxiness as well. It's been a while since I tasted that and I'm a fan, so I appreciate it here. The tart cherry sticks around as well and that characteristic Amrut tartness shows up as well. At full cask strength, it tastes a hair artificial, a little bit like a single grain with its tartness, but the life and complexity really come out and give it a more natural flavor with some water. The water does tone down the barrel spice (largely cinnamon, with some allspice) though. F: The smoke, peat, cinnamon, allspice, chocolate, vanilla, and cherry tartness continue on for days. This is a very rich and full whiskey,, so you don't need much to be able to sip and enjoy it for a while. This is an in-your-face peated whiskey that holds its own against Islay scotches. Amrut again shows the world that India can make great whiskey! I'd say that this is a substantial improvement over the regular Amrut Peated, though both are very good. And for the price you can just water this down to the level of the regular peated Amrut if you prefer that. Exploring this with different amounts of water is really a delight. It sure hits you in the face like an Ardbeg, so you do need to be prepared for that. The non-peated Amrut Cask Strength is also a very good whiskey, but this is substantially better. This really has all of the complexity of the non-peated cask strength version, but it also has a lot of added complexity from the peat. For $10 more, this is the obvious choice. I'd say this is better than Amrut Fusion. I wouldn't say that it is as good as Springbank 12 Cask Strength, but this is a heavy hitter up there with the likes of Ardbeg Corryvreckan and Uigeadail. I'd say that the Ardbegs have a more mellow, woody peatiness to them, whereas this has a more aggressive Kavalan Soloist intensity pervading its character. Considering that the Ardbegs are cheaper, they're probably a better VFM, but I have to say that I really enjoy this. The fruity, tropical twist is tasty, refreshing, and a lot of fun. It's probably my favorite Amrut so far, beating out the Fusion and giving the Kadhambam a run for its money. I'm going with a 19 for this tasting.

Rating: 15/23 The most core of the Amrut core offerings. I expect that this will not be as amazing as most of the others, but the quality of the Amrut's distillate seems to be quite good, so I expect this to still be a solid sipper. N: It has a bit of that American Single Malt tartness, along with some damp bread, a bit of that Westward funk, biting tropical fruit, and something a tad savory. P: This is full and tasty with good malt. It isn't bland like BenRiach 10 or Arran 10, so it's a marked improvement. Balcones has a more tart flavor that makes it more pronounced, but it's also less complex. Westward has some added funkiness, which I know is a turn-off for some, but I dig and is represented a bit in here. This doesn't taste super old and there is still a bit of bit to it, but I would guess that it was 12 years. There is a bit of damp cardboard that I don't love, but that is acceptable. There's some coconut richness and a little tropical fruit as well. F: The cardboard persists, along with a spattering of the other flavors. It's a perfectly fine finish. This is like the Amrut Fusion and then less. The light peat in the fusion covers up for some of the single malt's youth and less-than-stellar complexity. Westward's flavor is also more pronounced. I'd say that they two have similar complexities, but with its increased richness and interesting funk, I'll give the nod to Westward. Still, this is a fine malt whiskey. At one point I was thinking a 15 or 16, but now I'm leaning 14 or 15, so I'll settle on 15. One thing is sure though: the cask strength version of this is better (with the appropriate amount of water).

Rating: 19/23 Not sure I've ever had a madeira-finished whiskey before, so I don't know what to expect here, but it seems like an adventure! N: It has a tart, syrupy quality to it. I get some nice deep, bitter, spicy woodiness like from a nicely aged sherried whiskey. There's something a bit rich and slightly savory as well. The syrup has a nectar quality with orange and cherry notes like a nice cognac. It smells rich and nicely balanced. P: It tastes richer and fruitier than the regular Amrut Single Malt, but it tastes like it needs more aging. It reminds me a lot of a moderately youthful Glenfarclas, surprisingly. Aside from a more tropical (rather than chocolaty and spicy with dried dark fruits) flavor, it tastes something like a 15-18 year old Glenfarclas. It tastes a bit like sherry is covering up for whiskey that is still a bit too young for prime time and it just doesn't work at first, but then it starts to click and that sweet rich fullness comes through, making it taste like an older sherried whiskey, more in the vein of Glenfarclas 17. I get those cherry and orange flavors along with a spicy harshness and cereal flavor that betray the youthfulness. Still, there are some nice hints of mango and pineapple along with some rich coconut and it is quite a rich, tasty whiskey. F: It maintains that sort if sherry bomb profile, with the fruits lingering the longest, particularly the dark fruits. On the long finish, a little bit of coconut pops back out. This is it's actually very good. I'm thinking this is probably at least an 18 and could be as high as a 20. The Amrut Single Malt Cask Strength is more brash with some interesting 'I don't give a damn' complexity to it, whereas this is a more traditional and proper, smooth, kind of sherried dram. I'd better get out the Oban Little Bay to compare the sweet, whimsical fruitiness. This is a bit more enjoyable than the Oban. This is richer with a more hedonistic quality, whereas the Oban is a bit more mineral and light with some added but kind of playful complexity, as well as maybe a bit of sea spray. I slightly prefer this. I'd say that regular Amrut loses out slightly to both Oban Little Bay and Oban 14. Despite how good this is an how interesting it is that it has a nice oloroso presence, side-by-side, I have to say that I prefer the Amrut Fusion a little bit. It isn't a strong preference, but it is a preference. Considering that this costs more than twice as much, I don't think I'll be purchasing a bottle. I think that this is better than the regular strength regular Amrut. The regular Amrut tastes weak and immature in comparison, whereas this has a nice fruity boldness. The more I taste, the more various fruits come out. I really enjoy it. In direct comparison with Glenfarclas 105, the Glenfarclas is brash with all sorts of vegetal notes that are out of balance, while this tastes similarly rich, but also fairly refined and elegant. This is far superior. I'd put it a little above the Amrut Fusion, though not way above it. 19 seems about right, though it could be a 20. A damn fine whiskey, though of questionable value for the money.

Rating: 17/23 Presumably this is somewhat better than the regular Amrut Single Malt. N: The nose is big and funky, with sweet-tart cherries mixed with mushrooms, a lot like if it had been aged in cherry wood. Giving it a minute, more spice and wood come out, along with a more caramel sweetness. There's a toasty nuttiness like pecan to the wood that's really nice. The complexity on the nose is quite solid, though it is fairly aggressive being at cask strength. I do get some wet wood with the mushrooms, but it isn't moldy. P: Initially, this does not impress me. It's quite good, but no better than the regular Amrut Single Malt. It's just like the Amrut Peated Cask Strength had the peat layer removed, reducing its complexity to a very small amount and highlighting that cherry candy flavor too much. With water added though, it surprisingly develops some of that Westward funk! I get some mushroom in with the wood along with some spices, giving that cherry wood profile from the nose. With the right amount of water, the profile is actually pretty similar to Westward's, but with more cherry. I get some tropical fruits jumping out from time to time as well and the spiciness - although a bit hot - has a nice cinnamon presence. F: Some sweet cereal flavor with a bit of cardboard-like wood lingers while some toasty nuttiness comes out. Not amazing, but the nuttiness is quite nice. It's a pretty tough call between the this and Westward, so I have to declare a tie. Considering the pricing, this is actually better VFM if you can find it. Considering that it matches Westward and I gave Westward a 16 previously, I think that Westward might have been rated a tad low. This is substantially better than the regular Amrut Single Malt. This is either a 16 or 17, but I'm leaning toward 17.

Rating: 17/23 All of the Amruts I have tried so far (admittedly only 3) have been at least great, but they've all been fruit-centric. I have high hopes for this. N: I get a big peaty nose. It really doesn't smell sweet and it has lots of smoke too. Unlike Arran's Machrie Moor, this has a big presence. There's a hint of mint and some malty richness. Because it isn't fruity and sweet or possessed by the salt and brine of the sea, it isn't an incredibly complex nose though. The Amrut Fusion's nose is definitely more complex and a bit more enjoyable. P: This isn't messing around! There's some sweetness here, but also a lot of peat. The herbal, medicinal character of the peat really comes through along with a big dose of tobacco and some of that rugged salt and a bit of brine that the nose was missing appear as well. There's a little bit of something to the fruit here, but it's hard to pick out. The sweetness is actually a bit more generic, with even a bit of cinnamon sugar to it. This is definitely less balanced than the Fusion is, but the peat presence is quite enjoyable. It's still has good complexity and solid balance, despite being a bit unrefined. There's a bit of wet wood, but it isn't bad. There's this sort of tart note as well that I get from other Amrut offerings, as well as Kavalan and American Single Malts. The American single malts tend to spin it into a yeasty profile, whereas the Southeast Asian ones go more for a tropical fruitiness. F: The peat lingers, as does some of the sweetness, herbal medicinal flavor, and little bit of tartness. It's a solid finish, though the palate is more impressive. I expected this to be kind of like a fruitier Talisker based on the amount of peat in it (24 PPM), but this is much more assertive than either that or Caol Ila. It's less assertive than Ardbeg, but it does kind of remind me of a somewhat fruitier and less herbal Ardbeg Corryvrecken. I'd say I prefer this over Talisker 10 and Caol Ila 12. It's probably not as good as the Ardbeg Corryvreckan or Uigeadail, but it's impressive. Nice work, Amrut! The cask strength version is fuller with more of a kind of cherry sweetness. The cask strength also holds up well to water, so it's a tough call on which is better value. I did find this to be more complex, but I really enjoyed the richer, fruitier profile of the cask strength, so I'd say that is is definitely the better whisky. That said, this is a great whisky. It is close to the Amrut Fusion in quality, though I'd say that the fusion is a little bit better. Talisker and Caol Ila are down at 16, while Amrut Fusion is up at 18, so I think this is a 17. I can imagine it going up to an 18 though, in large part because I can imagine Amrut Fusion going up to a 19. I have to say, as much as I love this, I continue to be a bit disappointed in Amrut because it's so expensive. I mean, it isn't ruinous, but how much can it cost to age some whiskey for a few years in India? There's no way that they had to keep this around for very long and labor can't be very expensive, so I have to assume that the distillery is making a killing on this. I'd curse them if the juice weren't so good! Besides, Kavalan is so much worse when it comes to gouging.

Rating: 18/23 N: I get light peat and some malt and fruit. P: This starts out a bit weak after trying the Amrut Single Malt Cask Strength, but then an explosion of flavors emerges. The Peat brings in this sense of tropical sea-spray as it richens the regular single malt flavor, bringing in a bit of saltiness and highlighting the tropical fruits. The way that the flavors dance is terrific. It has a bit of a grainy quality along with some nice grass. A very tasty and balanced palate. I'd love to try a cask strength version! F: The peat definitely lingers for a while along with the tropical fruits and a bit of tartness and some vanilla. A very nice conclusion. This is really a great dram. It's better than the Amrut Single Malt Cask Strength because of its added complexity. Amrut has really nailed it with this lightly peated whiskey. It's definitely an 18, possibly a 19. I think I'll be sticking with 18 for now, but I'll need to get a bottle and do another tasting.

Rating: 15/23 The nose is fruity with cardboard. It has that young sweet moonshine smell. There's a bit of something interestingly herbal in here, though the less appealing flavors beat it out. The palate has some interesting toasty richness going on that comes with some nice sweetness and questionably nice oily nuttiness, but it also has those young and mineral notes. It isn't terribly harsh, but it is persistently moderately harsh - for a time well beyond when most other bourbons stop being harsh. The flavors gradually come out more, revealing more complexity and making me appreciate this more. There are some floral hints that are odd for a bourbon but that I find surprisingly nice. This is better than Buffalo Trace and is drinkable enough, but some alcohol flavor does come through more than I'd like and the flavor is generally on the more mineral side. The floral flavor does help to counter that though with some more notion of scotch coming through. It's interesting and is actually pretty drinkable, but you have to be looking for a less traditional bourbon. It's interesting and easy drinking, though it does have some bit of cardboard to it along with the mineral. I enjoy it pretty well, though it isn't my usual style of bourbon. Still, how can I say no to more scotch notes in my bourbon. The moonshine fruitiness reminds me of a less aggressive Old Forester Signature, but that is just one component of this bourbon. I appreciate this after warming up to it. It's kind of like a Japanese whiskey. I keep coming back to St. George B&E American in terms of odd character of the flavor profile. It's sort of good, but odd in ways that keeps it interesting yet also keep it from being terrific.

It smells like cinnamon, a bit like fruit, and a surprising amount like cheese. I'm Willet fashion, there is a lot of mineral in here. The flavor is kind of bland and is certainly mild. There's some toffee mixed with cinnamon and, a little meat, and some wood. This isn't a great whiskey though. The flavors don't mix nicely and richness is lacking. It tastes too floral for my liking. There is some odd tartness in here but it doesn't taste overly like rye. There's some mint that I'm not a fan of, but it isn't a disaster. I wouldn't sip this but I could use it for mixing. There isn't an obnoxiously pervasive alcohol flavor, but here definitely is a little bit. It tastes young and inexperienced. There's a little bit of something nice going on in here, but it's mixed in with a mess and doesn't really stand out. It certainly isn't worth the price. The caramel is a bit light with some toasty nuttiness and smoke working with it in a somewhat discordant but possibly elegant manner. It's in this weird combination of hedonism, complexity, youth, and discordance. You know, it's pretty good. Not excellent, but worth drinking. There's a bit of a nice apple note with the cherry, but it's not one of the first flavors to appear. For the price, this is a pretty good buy.

Rating: 19/23 This came fairly strongly recommended and I like the other Amrut offerings that I tried, so I'm optimistic. Also, the multiple cask aging is intriguing, particularly since it uses not only oloroso and brandy, but also rum. N: This has a drier, tarter nose than I expected. It's kind of floral with some vanilla and an interesting musty smell. There's a hint of light spiciness that reminds me a bit of Copper Fox Rye in its herbal, funky way. It's a very full nose and I quite enjoy it. It makes a statement, but it fits together nicely as well. This is a nose with personality and aside from its similarity to Copper Fox, there's nothing to suggest its almost certain youth. P: Wow, this has quite a palate! There's an immediate tartness that's kind of fruity and tannic with a treated wood and menthol presence, but it gives way to sweeter flavors with malt, caramel, vanilla and whole assortment of tropical fruits. The complexity is really amazing here as it explodes and waves of flavor come across. The tartness and bit of menthol stay throughout. With the kind of herbal flavor, the menthol suggests a bit of peat. It's hot, but not really spicy and it certainly isn't harsh. It's a reasonable heat for 50%. F: It has an interestingly bourbony character to the finish. There's a lot of vanilla with wood and caramel, as well as a clear tartness. Some references to tropical fruits remain, but they've largely died out. There are some wisps of smoke in with the wood. It initially reminded me a lot of the Kavalan Soloist Port Cask, but side-by-side the nose of the Kavalan has a lot more barrel and funk to it, whereas this displays more malt. The Kavalan is also way more in your face and really explodes with funk and port sweetness on the palate. The thing that does seem very similar though is the tannic tartness, which both have as a primary component, as well as plenty of tropical fruits. Even with substantial water, the Kavalan is one hell of a bomb, whereas this is just starting to form the suggestion of being a bomb. It's a tough call between the two, but I'd say that the Kavalan slightly edges this out. The sweet and smoky combination also suggested that Johnnie Walker Green would be a good comparison. Likely due to its lower proof, the Johnnie Walker is a tad watery in comparison. Johnnie Walker's flavor also tastes a bit off in comparison and its flavors come across as comparatively muddled. Between the two, I have to give a fairly decisive win to the Amrut. Considering how it did against the Kavalan and Johnnie Walker, I should be rating this in the 18-20 range; however, it's been several months since I opened the Kavalan and now that it's been open for 6-8 months, it has mellowed substantially and the complexities really stand out, so I think I underrated it a little bit before. Therefore, I'll need to re-taste it (what a tragedy!) and this is more like an 18-21. Given how soundly it beat Johnnie Walker, I'm thinking at least a 19, but 21 seems to be pushing it. So I'm borderline 19 to 20. Either would be a fantastic rating, but I am really torn. I think it's only a hair better than the Amrut Fusion, so I'm settling on 19.

Rating: 15/23 I know nothing about this dram. I assume it's supposed to be a step up from Arran 10 or something, but I know nothing about it's finish, profile, etc. Adventure ahead! N: I can smell the smoke and peat immediately, along with a bit of salty seaweed. Although this isn't a peat bomb by any means, this smells like a whisky with personality, unlike Arran 10. I'm liking this one better already. The smoke is perhaps a little stronger than the peat, but the two are nicely balanced. They aren't mild, but they aren't overwhelming. The fruit still comes through in this, with that same sultana smell as Arran 10, along with a little bit of orang zing. I wouldn't be shocked if I learned that this is just a peated Arran 10. There's tobacco, licorice, a little bit of campfire, and BBQ. There's also salt, grain and hay, with a bit of a barnyard aspect. It reminds me a hair of Springbank 10. P: The smoke and peat are there, but they aren't as strong as I expected. The seaweed is pretty substantial up front along with kind of a sweet and bland flavor, then I get a kick as the peat burns its way in. It starts off with a bit more of a neutral smoky flavor, but then the tobacco of the peat takes over. The sweetness might be sultanas, but it's difficult to place. That sweet character here is really disappointing because it lacks complexity and richness, but it does provide some balance. There is sort of just a sugar water element. On the malt side, I do get some grain and dried grass and salt and the whole profile is reasonably full. It's maybe a step down from the nose, but it's still good. It tastes young with sort of a white grape flavor to it even. The flavors here are decently complex and balanced, though a bit on the light and sweet side, which doesn't work super well here because the peat still squishes a fair amount of the base flavor. There's something astringent like a squeeze of lemon and grapefruit were worked in here somehow. There's this underlying fragrant floral vanilla character to this that can be a hair distracting at times, but it generally OK. F: The smoke and peat persist onto the finish, with a richness from the smoke adding some nice savoriness and working in with some graininess. The peat's tobacco flavor is perhaps a bit too aggressive, but it's OK. The grain and salt persist to a lesser extent, as does a general sugary sweetness, though it's lacking in detail. That floral vanilla does waft through occasionally as well. This is a substantial improvement over Arran 10, though I wouldn't say that it's an exceptional whisky. It tastes young and the more island and Islay characteristics sort of just flop over it a little, obscuring the details underneath. It's also fairly mild for a peated whiskey, but usually mild ones showcase some nice character of the grain or barrel like Amrut Fusion or Hakushu 12. It tastes a bit like this is trying to be Springbank 10, it's lighter with less personality (though perhaps as a result it isn't as apparently sweet). It also reminds me of Talisker 10, but Talisker has a bit more personality. I wouldn't say that Talisker is massively better though. Springbank 10, on the other hand, is massively better. I'm thinking 14 to 16 on this one, with 16 being a bit of a stretch. I think I'll go with 15.