Tastes

I've had the 111 and really like it - it's killer for the price. Let's see how the little brother stacks up. Purchased to do a finish in my Ten30 barrel, but this taste is neat before any fiddling. Just an FYI, I'm finishing 600ml of 91 and 200ml of 111 in a barrel that previously aged an Ardbeg Islay, which should make for an interesting dram when it's aged. The nose is caramel, nougat and slight ethanol. The alcohol notes aren't too close to the surface, so the nose is actually quite pleasant. There is a youth to this whiskey's aroma that says it hasn't spent an eternity in wood, but it doesn't have the same effect as an under aged bourbon. Sweet, slightly spicy and a bit hot are what I gather from sticking my nose in the NEAT tasting glass. On the palate this isn't sweet, but neither is it overly spicy or bitter. There's a good level of barrel char, a sweet brown sugar foundation, some sour cherries and a dry, oaky finish. The malted barley gives this a different personality than a young bourbon, but it's not scotch-like either. It's something else. Something halfway. Mostly this is notable for its lack of corn influence. The sweet corn sugars found in bourbon take a back seat here to dry oak, wood charcoal, sour cherries, and rye spices that manifest as dark baker's chocolate, almonds and roasted walnuts. There's clearly some corn in the flavor profile but to my taste buds its more like an under-roasted corn cooked in the husk. Its tasty and good, but not a sweet dram. This loves sweet vermouth. It's a great base for a Manhattan, especially with a solid cocoa base like Cocchi Vermouth di Torino supplies. Really nice in a mixed cocktail. Very good in an Old Fashioned as well. Great affinity to smoke too, if you're in the camp that likes to pull out all the stops. This isn't going to displace the deep cherry flavor and solid presence of its Chattanooga 111 bigger brother, but its very approachable and respectable on its own. This is a good dram and a solid choice under $40.

From a 50 ml sampler so this is not going to be a complete review but more of a provisionary one. I've had a few Balcones expressions and honestly I haven't fallen in love with any of them. They've been okay, but I haven't explored their loftier heights. This is my first experience with their rye. The nose had a lot of typical rye elements but I didn't find it particularly forward or inviting. It was kind of mellow and marked by a bit of ethanol. On the palate this is hot cocoa. Wait, that's not right. This drinks hot. And there's lots of cocoa flavor. Not at all what I was expecting. Enjoyable, young, and a bit hot. I think it could make a pretty darn good Manhattan. I'll have to try. A full bottle is on my buy list.

I'm really enjoying an exploration of less expensive bourbons and ryes. This is a golden age for liquor enthusiasts with more high quality, interesting distillates on the market and readily available than ever before. What separates the truly extraordinary from the merely very good isn't price or rarity, it's the quality of the liquid in the bottle. There are more than 34 gallons of internet ink spilled on this whiskey alone, so I'm not going to bore you with the typical tasting notes. This is a slightly spicy bourbon that is well-balanced and cleanly executed. It's a bargain bottle, ubiquitous and tasty. What really butters the toast for me is mouthfeel. There's room for thick & syrupy or thin and focused, but the mouthfeel has to be consonant with the rest of the package. A prime example is comparing Elijah Craig Rye with Rittenhouse Rye. The EC is rich and syrupy and the RH is thin and focused. Each has a place, but when the whiskey must stand on its own, sans ice or modifiers, a richer experience wins it for me. Four Roses has come close to an optimum mouthfeel in this expression. It's just a bit thin compared to what I might hope for, but it's better than what I should expect for the price. Like the EC rye mentioned above, this is silky and even a little sophisticated in its own fiery way. The finish is lovely, sweet and clean. I like the way this bourbon plays in a boozy cocktail. In a Manhattan this stands up to quality vermouth quite nicely. The flavor hammer known as Carpano Antica finds itself enveloped in a satin solution, never taking the drink out of balance and that's not an small achievement for an inexpensive bottle. In an Old Fashioned the Angostura bitters offered a tasty synergy. Overall this is a good value, but it does face competition. I think Dickel 8 year bourbon is a contender, as is Elijah Craig Small Batch, I wouldn't count out Knob Creek 9 year or Wild Turkey 101 either. This is solid. This IS the golden age of bourbon!

Provisional rating at a restaurant. Pecans, barrel char, brown sugar on the nose. Baking spices, banana bread, pecans, char and a flash of ethanol. Syrupy. Needs to rest after the pour. Perhaps my favorite of the Brown Foreman whiskeys.

Tasted neat from a glencairn after several minutes rest. The nose opens with vanilla & caramel accented by a shimmer of latex paint. There's a bit of tart cherry and alcohol. This presents a bit better than it reads offering up satisfying traditional bourbon aromatics but revealing its heat early. This is a reasonably good bourbon sipped neat. It opens with sweet caramel, ginger, and tart cherry that gives way to ample black pepper, cinnamon and alcohol heat. The finish is long and warming. There's a lemon citrus sourness to the mid-palate that leaves a bitter, dry aftertaste. It's not unpleasant, but it is a bit unruly. This is okay, but not something I'll buy again. if I want high proof horsepower I'd rather come up with another $5 and spring for an Old Grand Dad 114. I haven't tried the Benchmark in this application, but I think the OGD might be a better choice for a Mule or Highball. There's an affinity between OGD and ginger. I suspect the Benchmark would be a better choice for a sour or collins. Buffalo Trace is a great mixer in any drink with lemons but suffers from s slightly underpowered proof. Problem solved here at a good price and with reasonable availability. In a sbs when tasted neat I like the Benchmark marginally more than Old Tub. The OT has a better nose, but the proof of the BMFP brings an intensity of flavor that's tough to beat for the price. Mind you I've been buying OT at $16.99, at $23 I think the BM wins the day. I've not tried this in a Manhattan yet, but when I do I'll report back.

Purchased on a lark at ABC, this just looked like something different in the $65 range. Tasted from a glencairn after a rest, the bottle is on its last 20% after being open about 5 months. I've been enjoying this enough. The pour is pale straw color with thin legs. The nose is classic Islay somewhat muted. Iodine and seaweed, slight peat and ashy smoke, sweet grains and roasted ham. Overall this is right down the Caol Ila middle with its familiar echoes in Johnnie Walker. I like this better than the Ardbeg Wee Beastie, it's a lot more integrated. The Wee Beastie has similar sweetness but its disconnected from the maritime and bonfire elements. Here the Caol Ila holds it together and its very silky. I liked this as a blender with some other whiskies. It's good neat, of course, but not excellent. At a similar price I think Ardbeg 10, Port Charlotte 12 or standard Caol Ila 12 are all superior. This could have been something special at a slightly higher proof, but as it is its a solid scotch for its sub $70 price but it doesn't stand out enough to get another invitation to my liquor closet.

I picked up this bottle a couple weeks back on a lark. I've had it before, but it's been at least 5 years. Time to revisit. On the nose I'm getting wheat bread, caramelized sugars, marshmallow and ethanol. It's a fairly pedestrian bourbon aroma lacking significant complexity but enjoyable enough for a budget bottle. Compared to Maker's Mark, the most obvious wheated bourbon competitor, this is a bit less "chemical" with a softer ethanol and without the latex paint note I sometimes get from Maker's. On the tongue this is a gentle quaff with light spice. It's not sweet, but neither is it overly dry. It walks a fine line of being undemanding but interesting. I get notes of cola and oak, cornbread, slight boiled peanuts and a bit of cinnamon. The finish is short and drying, leaving a slightly tannic bitterness. Overall its quite acceptable. This is a competitive bourbon for the money. I think I like it a little better than Maker's Mark, but this could change based on mood and day. I definitely think Maker's 46 is a better whiskey, but it's also a bit more expensive. I like this better than Buffalo Trace neat, but BT is better in mixed drinks (especially a whiskey sour where the slightly sour BT finish really works). I like Dickel 8 year bourbon even more, but it's quite a bit spicier. Larceny is a solid choice in the under $30 price category. It's not a world beater, but it's a good value and a good whiskey. I might not keep a bottle on hand, but I'm happy to enjoy it when the opportunity arises.

My first logged taste here, but this has been a long time resident in my liquor closet. There's not much I can add to the tasting notes found on this site and elsewhere online. This is a classic, well-made Irish whiskey. The nose is fruity with apricot, mango and pears balanced with a sweet cereal malt. The palate offers all of this and more with honey, slight vanilla, complex dried fruits and shortbread leading into a spicier, rich finish of moderate length. As with all good Irish whiskey that I've had, this is noticeable silky and easy to enjoy. The 12 year cask strength is a better dram and the 15 year less so but still superior, imho. Both are 25% more expensive. The most obvious competition is Green Spot and generally I'll have one or the other on hand. This 12 year expression is just a really well made product although its price may be pushing it into a lesser value proposition. In my market it's pushing $70+ and that's really more than its flavor profile is worth to me, but it's a welcome bottle on the shelf when I can get a deal (Winn Dixie offers 10% off a mixed four bottle purchase, so this is typically a part of that purchase run).

I've had a lot of Glenlivet, but I've never had a cognac finished whisky as far as I can recall. This was a $49.99 impulse purchase at Costco. Sampled neat from a NEAT tasting glass after several minutes rest. The nose is apple skin, white grapes that are still a bit underripe, orchard fruit, slight ethanol, confectioner's sugar and wet autumn leaves. It's got a very nice aroma, slightly complex and warmly inviting. Glenlivet tends to be an inoffensive dram in my experience. From the 12 year to the 21, it's all nicely rounded and easy to sip. This promised more of the same. Mouthfeel is silky, soft and without objectionable spice. There's very little heat and it's slightly thin. The flavor opens with cereal notes, bready sweetness, grape must, plum, and ripe fruits. There's a blush of ginger and slight white pepper. The finish is moderately long, very smooth and without appreciable hot spice. This is a very easy sipper. This is good, but not great. It's tasty, has a bit of complexity and no one will be offended by this bottle. The cognac finish adds interest to what otherwise I think would be a forgettable but tasty-enough quaff. This is slightly above average for scotch whisky under $60 in my market (Tampa), but isn't a game changer at all. I'll enjoy the bottle but probably won't replace it. All that said I have to think this might be a good whisky to experiment with in a Vieux Carré instead of the combination of rye and cognac. I think it might make for an interesting twist on a classic cocktail. I'll report back!