Tastes

Rating: 4/23 N: Oil and alcohol. There's some pepper too, but really it's pretty much just oil and alcohol. The oil has a slightly vegetal, herbal note and the vibe is a bit savory (it really doesn't smell sweet), but there is very little happening here. From the nose, I really can't tell that this is scotch or even whiskey. I'd probably have guessed vodka or maybe some weird Canadian whiskey. P: Yeah, it's oily with lots of alcohol and it's super harsh. There's a peppery spice, but it's mostly just harsh. It doesn't have any of that cheap scotch sulfur, so that's a relief, but it frankly tastes awful and it's physically painful to consume. With this harshness and oiliness, I'd have actually guessed that it was 46%, but nope - 40%! There are slight allusions to some vegetal and herbal character, but they're really more like rubber. Frankly, this tastes more like bad vodka than whiskey. I'm almost interested in looking into this to make sure that it isn't some counterfeit scotch. Clan MacGregor and Piper's Clan may taste terrible, but they at least taste terrible in a way that I expect bad scotch to taste terrible. F: The finish is oily with some alcohol and residual burn. I didn't expect anything else. What did you expect? This is awful. I think I like it a little bit better than Piper's clan because I can conceivably drown its faults in mixers, but I find this actively painful to drink - both metaphorically and literally. I'm thinking a 3-6 here and I think I'm going to come down on the side of 4. If Grant's is like a 7-8, this is at least 2 points worse and really I think it's at least 3 - ergo, a 4. I can imagine a 3 though. It's awful. At $10 I can see some sort of use for this. Maybe. Not really - Evan Williams Black and plenty of better vodkas and bad (but not this bad) gins can be found for around $10. At least it's dirt cheap. Please though, avoid Glen Logie. If you must buy bottom shelf scotch, pay the extra buck fifty to upgrade to Grant's Triple Wood instead.

Rating: 13/23 This immediately strikes me as quite similar to BenRiach 10. N: The BenRiach has a slightly fuller nose with more sugar water, whereas this has a time bit of smoke and hay coming through. I do get sultana here as well. It smells sweet with a classic highland profile, but on the thin side. P: I get that sweetness with the golden raisins as the fruit along with a dash of smoke, grain, salt, and dried grass. It's malty, but not as much as BenRiach 10 is. This is the classic highland profile, but it isn't terribly interesting. I do like it a bit more than BenRiach 10 because it has a little more of a Springbank 10 influence to it, but it doesn't have much. This is a bit thinner and harsher than BenRiach 10 as well, but those faults are balanced by the reduced alcohol flavor. There might be a faint hint of apricot here, but it's probably sultana. Maybe it's a slight bit of tangerine F: The finish is a mellower version of the palate. The syrupy sweetness lingers along with the dried grass and some slightly malty grain and a hint of fruit, but the flavors are light at this point. I spent a lot of time side-by-siding this with BenRiach 10 because of their obvious similarities. I'd say that these two are pretty evenly matched, but I'd give the Arran 10 the slight edge. It's a 12-13 to BenRiach 10's 12.

Rating: 11/23 I like to make a list of spirits to try and then order a pour when I get a chance sometime down the road so that I have only the faintest recollection of what anybody said about them - both in terms of profile and quality - when I finally do get to try them. You know, to limit bias. This doesn't always work perfectly since some of the bigger names and releases are harder to forget and I'm quite confident that when I finally taste Dickel Tobasco, I am not going to go into it wondering whether people generally thought it was good or thought it was bad. In this case, I have this faint recollection of some consensus that Dickel bourbon is generally bad (or at least mediocre) aside from some of the higher-end expressions like the BiB and barrel select, but that this is considered to be at least a bit better than most of their bourbons. Let's see. N: Immediate light floral scents with rye spice jumping out. I'm hopeful that this is going to be a bargain version of WhistlePig PiggyBack, but I'm suspecting that it will be more like a young Templeton. I really appreciate the herbal spices that come out as I dig my nose in there and swirl it around, but it's still light with a dry floral minerality like Templeton has. It definitely lacks the richness and complexity of Whistlepig PiggyBack. I guess I'll just have to drink it to know what it tastes like for sure though. P: The palate is disappointingly light and floral. There is definite rye spice, but also a big floral sweetness. Some bits of herbal subtelty do come out, but if you just told me that this was Templeton 4, I would probably believe you. Templeton is more floral with a richer sweetness, but it's also less spicy, so that's one thing that the Dickel has going for it. I don't hate it, but I'm certainly not a fan. I do appreciate how the spice really stands out and it could hold up well as a substitute in a cocktail that calls for a floral gin or vodka, but it really lacks the presence of the WhistlePig and even manages to be less rich than the Templeton. What it does have going for it are the decreased sweetness relative to the Templeton and the more assertive and interesting spiciness. The flavors land a bit better in this than they do in Wild Turkey Rye, but it certainly isn't as rich and full, so it won't be as generally useful in mixed drinks. I have to say that I prefer this, but that kind of means it has to be a sipper rather than a mixer, which this really isn't totally up to doing. F: More floral notes come out and the prickliness of the spice fades. Some of the herbal character is still present, but not a ton. It's clean. In the end, I'd say that this is pretty much on the level of Templeton 4. This is a cleaner dram with a more pronounced character, which I think I prefer slightly, but honestly I don't see a reason to stock either of them of my shelf. I'll go with the same rating I gave Templeton for now: 11. It could be a better buy than Wild Turkey Rye, but it's still not good VFM.

Rating: 15/23 Jim Beam Black has always struck me as a better bourbon than it gets credit for, so I'm hopeful that this will be a sleeper hit too. N: The nose is richer than that of Wild Turkey Straight Rye with a less distinct flavor profile. I get some caramel, cider apples, cinnnamon, barrel must, and mild grain. They're good notes, but difficult to pull apart, in the classic Jim Beam manner. P: The palate is decently rich and sweet in an almost malty way. It has a nice spiciness that emphasizes cinnamon. If you told me that this was a light malt like Glen Grant aged in bourbon barrels, I'd almost believe you. I feel like there are more flavors here, but I'm having trouble pulling them out. I actually find this fairly enjoyable because of the sort of malty character and pleasant balance. There is a little bit of apple, but it really isn't all that fruity or floral. It's mostly spicy, full, rich, and sweet with a clean, balanced profile. I guess probably some vanilla in here too. There's an herbal element, but absolutely no smoke or brine and there's fairly little tartness and not a ton of oil either. F: It's an enjoyable finish with the caramel staying as some hints of licorice and chocolate come out, eventually leading into a tiny bit of mint. It's all still quite subtle still, but the flavors are good, the balance is good, and there's a general fullness and richness that lasts. All told, this is a very well-executed rye. Unlike the Wild Turkey rye, I have no doubt that this is the brand's counterpart to its bourbon. There's a good amount of complexity with a great balance, but it's all very subtle. It's a good product, but you do need to want something that isn't just going to punch you in the face and your palate needs to be up for the subtlety. I would happily buy this again. It lacks the vigor and interest of WhistlePig PiggyBack, but it is fuller, richer flavor. I prefer the WhistlePig because of its vivacity, but for a standard rye that doesn't rock the boat, this is a safer bet. This is more bourbony and also cheaper than the WhistlePig, so it would be safer as a mixer. Rittenhouse is richer and oilier than this is, though it isn't as complex. As a mixer or for blending, Rittenhouse is likely a better choice, but if I were going to sip something I'd probably take the Jim Beam. Pikesville is better than either of them, though it's quite far in the direction of bourbon, which may not be desirable in all situations. OK, so it isn't as good as Pikesville or Whistlepig PiggyBack, but those cost a fair bit more than twice as much. For $18, this is a steal!! I kind of regret the 3 bottles of Sazerac I just got for my bunker. I mean, Sazerac is great VFM and it's a good choice for both drinking and mixing so I'm always happy to have more bottles, but I think that this is about on par with it. Based on my current tasting, I honestly can't say which I prefer. The sazerac is ligher with more of a nice nutty, orangey flavor. The Jim Beam is is fuller with more spice and herbs. I'm actually leaning slightly toward the Jim Beam, which astonishes me. Without a doubt, the Sazerac is a better sipper than Rittenhouse, but I think that Rittenhouse has plenty of situations in which it is a better mixer than either Sazerac or Jim Beam due to its bolder flavor and higher proof. This suggests to me that maybe what I should be stocking is a bottle of Rittenhouse and a bottle of Jim Beam. Or maybe just all 3 since at the high end the Sazerac is still only $23. Looping back on Jim Beam Black, both have that Jim Beam Licorice presence. I thought I recalled from a brief earlier sampling that Jim Beam Black had a richer flavor, so I was leaning toward giving the nod to it. Now, I'm actually finding the opposite, so I'm going to go one point up from Jim Beam Black here and land on a 15. I actually find it easier to get some of the flavors out here as well, so I think that this is generally a better product (my two long-standing gripes with Jim Beam Black have been the excessive subtlety and lightness that makes it not all that great for mixing or blending). I'd actually say that this is substantially better than Jim Beam Black, but I'll probably need to do another SBS later to compare. For now, this gets a 15.

Rating: 11/23 I've found the Wild Turkey 101 and Rare Breed to be great VFM and I quite enjoyed the Master's Keep Revival (though it was definitely not as good VFM), so I'm looking forward to trying my first Wild Turkey Rye. N: Rye spice, some grain, apple, a hint of something floral, and maybe a hair of smoke or something. It's not excissively light but not particularly rich either. Nothing unusual or complex here. It doesn't come across as an interesting blend or finish or substantially aged or anything like that, but it smells serviceable. I'm kind of disappointed already since Wild Turkey stands out as a high rye bourbon, so it seems like their rye should be really good. Maybe its just their bold choice to include so much rye that makes their bourbon so effective. P: Now for the moment of truth. I get pepper, cinnamon, rich sweet grain, a little bit of apple, and something a bit floral that doesn't quite fit along with a faint dash of smoke or char and some kind of artificial mineral flavor. It's all fairly jumbled together though. It isn't rich like Rittenhouse or Pikesville, but it isn't spicy and herbal with a funky edginess like WhistlePig PiggyBack either. It's just very bland. I mean, I can get some flavors out of this, but there's nothing really great and something just a bit off in this floral bitter way. Maybe the floral and smoke flavors are interacting badly to produce that artificial mineral flavor or something. F: The finish emphasizes the discordant element a bit more, unfortunately. It isn't really a pleasant finish and that's the major failing here. It's too bad because there's a solid rye at the heart of this. I'm pretty disappointed in this. It would be fine as a mixer, but it costs the same amount as Rittenhouse which is bolder and has a 25% higher ABV. For sipping, there are much more interesting and balanced ryes. Even Templeton Rye 4, which I have not been a fan of, has some clean floral notes despite its lightness. The flavors in Templeton Rye 4 are slightly more distinct and slightly better executed, so I give it a tiny edge, but I'd say that these two are of similar quality. I'm thinking 10-12 for this one, so I'll give it an 11 for now. It could be that the artificial mineral and char flavors I'm getting are what the distiller reviewer attributes to honey, in which case I might like them better on a subsequent tasting, but for now I need to go with what I've experienced so far.