Tastes

Another interesting pour from Dewar's. After my experience with Ilegal (good for the price and an easy, undemanding sipper) I wanted to explore a bit more of the series. As I understand it the Japanese Smooth might have the least positive reputation of the group, Ilegal the best and this is in between. We shall see... Tasted neat and on a single large ice sphere. The color is a reddish copper as befitting the Port finish. The nose is classic Dewars with a bit too much grain alcohol, a whiff of peat smoke, a fair dollop of malt and a bit of fruit from the wine. This is a better casual sipper on ice than it presents as a neat pour. I'm not dinging it too much as I don't expect a $25 bottle of scotch to be a complex quaff. On ice that ethanol, grain alcohol note is diminished and the sweetness allowed to take the stage. I think maybe that's where this goes wrong. The finish makes this tastes cheap. It's okay, but not impressive in any way. There's the Dewar's functional whisky profile (disclaimer - I like Dewar's for what it is and I've been drinking White Label since about '84). White Label is certainly nothing special, but its attraction lies in the fact that its mistakes and misses are generally of omission and not of commission. There's nothing inherently good about it, but there's also nothing horrible or corrupting. That's the regular Dewar's. (12yr Ancestor is another thing, and much better) This expression has, on top of the Dewar's blended scotch profile, a tacked on sweetness from the finish. To my taste buds this doesn't work as well as the Ilegal. That lovely mezcal finish of the Ilegal went a long way to buying my happiness. But this... This bottle has nothing about it to recommend; it's just pedestrian and without a real saving grace. The port finish here tastes a lot like a Taylor jug and that's a shame. The finish actually detracts from the core Dewar's profile. It's more or less port-flavored box wine and, while adding fruit and sweetness, isn't well integrated. I think Dewar should have opted for a better finishing selection. I rate on a simple scale. 1 is just bad - I try to avoid drinking anything I think might be at this level as life as just too short to mess around with crap. 2 to 3 is average and a bell curve will predict most liquor will end up in this range. That's not a bad thing. 3 to 4 is very good, and 4+ is simply superb. Portuguese Smooth isn't a liquor that's heading to the top of my scale. I'll finish the bottle and enjoy it, but I won't get another. This is mediocre. Go for the Ilegal Smooth, it's a good guilty pleasure. This expression is just guilty.

This is one of the more surprising purchases I've made. Yesterday I stopped at Total Wine to refill the gin shelf and, while I was there.... So I grabbed this $37 bottle of Naked Malt thinking I was buying Naked Grouse, which I've never had. Got home and decided it would be the evening pour. Great decision! My immediate reaction was that this is Johnnie Walker Green Label in disguise. It's a cheery copper pour with a sweet nose of sherry, malt, apples, and slight pears with a blush of baker's chocolate. Really quite nice and devoid of ethanol and coarse grain whisky notes. On the palate this is all of that and a bowl of orchard fruits with sweet raisins, dark chocolate, sherry notes that brim with fruitcake, some baking spices and a touch of bitter wood. Really impressive presence for a neat pour of a blended scotch whisky. It reminds me a bit of Compass Box Spice Tree, but with the spice toned down and the fruit/sherry amped up a bit. Very tasty. I don't know a thing about this bottle. I haven't read a word and I don't know where its from or how it came to be. But for half the price of the JWG, this is definitely a sleeper and a great find. Really liking this one! This is a well-above average pour that, in my humble opinion, is punching way above its weight class in the value-for-money arena. I think this might be a good candidate for a scotch cocktail but at this very moment this could be my daily sipper. If push came to shove I could live with WT101 bourbon as my sole bourbon. The same goes for WT101 rye. Both are good enough that I wouldn't feel like I was missing anything. This bottle could supplant Johnnie Walker Black as my daily pour for scotch, and I like the JWB quite a bit for what it is. Nake Malt has no peat influence, where the JWB does, but they are fighting for shelf space at the same price point. I honestly think this Naked is the more accomplished of the two. I'll read up on this later. Right now I'm enjoying it and suggest you do so as well. This is solid.

I'm not a Dewar's fanboy, but I like their stuff just fine. In my mind its the scotch equivalent of Old No. 7. Dependable, consistent and not a bad value. So while I was standing in the local emporium wondering what might entertain my taste buds tonight, this was an easy $25 decision. Right away I can recognize the Dewar's White Label DNA. Classic blended scotch with just a bit more of a grain alcohol edge than I'd like, but not so bad that I'd kick her out for eating crackers in bed. It's the mid palate where I get something interesting. There's a nice agave sweet vegetal note, a bit of non-peat smoke, and an echo of mezcal that remains on the exhale. The finish is so fast as to be nearly a ghost, there's no bite and the SMOOTH moniker is truth in advertising. Nothing about this is offensive if you like scotch whisky and you're not a militant single-malt Ken or Karen. I rate on a simple scale where average, run-of-the-mill product will score according to a bell curve. The majority of offerings should place between 2 and 3 on this scale. Above 4 is the realm of the very best. Below 2 are liquids I prefer to avoid (think Black Velvet). This is solidly average and I'm adding a quarter point for creativity. This is a worthwhile taste and I'll certainly enjoy the bottle. There might even be another in my future.

To the best of my knowledge I've never tasted a Jefferson's release before this. There is no particular reason for this; the opportunity just never presented itself. While I've been aware of the Ocean series since its inception (and really think the idea is pretty clever) - and I've been aware of the brand for many years - to date I just haven't had any in a glass. This is especially odd since I have an unopened bottle of Voyage 11 in my bar closet. This is from a bottle of Voyage 23 opened about a week ago. I've had a couple of tastes. This review is sampled neat from a glencairn. About 10 minutes was given for the liquor to rest after the pour. The color is lovely. It is a crystalline light burnt-sienna and it shows substantial viscosity on a swirl. This does have a creamy mouthfeel. The nose is Werther's candy, nougat, vanilla, sweet cream and a trace of fresh ginger. There's a blush of white pepper and a bit of ethanol in the mix as well. It's a pleasant nose, but not terribly complex. It actually reminds me of Jack Daniel's single barrel barrel proof only quite a bit tamer. It's like the color drained from the picture and its washed out when compared to the hyper intense profile of the JDSBBP. For the record, this says more about the gigantic aromas of the JD and shouldn't be construed as a hit on the Jefferson's. I think the JDSBBP is pretty amazing and anything that reminds me of it is likely heading in the right direction. There is a bit more rye and pepper in the taste profile than there is in the aroma. There's also a bloom of brine, vanilla, caramel, burnt sugar, and fresh wood. The mid palate brings the nougat, a bit of sweetness, slight nuttiness, slight baking spice and black pepper. The finish is of medium length and low intensity with a slight warmth in the back of the throat, some oak bitterness, sweetness coating the mouth and a slight tingle in the lips. This is a very nice bourbon. I can absolutely see this being stellar in an Old Fashioned. It's modestly complex, interesting and without any significant flaws. It's a bit saltier than a lot of bourbons I've had, almost reflecting what I get from some coastal scotch whiskey. Tasty and satisfying. It's not a revelation and doesn't achieve new heights, however. The proof is okay, but I'm almost always of the opinion that excellence is exclusively found in over 100 proof in bourbons. The flavor profile is pleasing, but not exceptional. This is a good bourbon, full stop. Now the price. $80+ is a lot for this. Yes, the story is interesting. Yes, each "voyage" will be unique. Perhaps the best part of this whiskey is examining its path across the oceans while enjoying it in the glass. Jefferson's publishes a journey map for this expression -https://jeffersonsbourbon.com/jeffersons-ocean-voyage-23/ Still, we must accept that there are better drams for a third less cash and superior offers for the same money. This is above average, but it's not quite to the level to make it into my permanent rotation, which is generally above 4.0 in my grading system. It's a nice dram and a wonderful gift that I'll certainly enjoy.

I enjoy Islays, including many of Ardbeg's expressions. This one isn't my favorite. Purchased on a lark (along with a bunch of other bottles, nearly all of which are a grand bit richer in nature) I tasted this neat from a glencairn. This is a neck pour and my first exposure to this expression. Essentially I wanted to know what an Ardbeg entry level scotch whisky tastes like. Here's the short of it; it's good but it's weak and watered down. This is Ardbeg light. There's a bit of smoke, not too much iodine, a little bit of malt, some sweetness, and a complete lack of complexity. This tastes like a $40 bottle of scotch with a $60 price tag. I use a simple scale where a 5 is representative of a perfect expression and a 1 is indicative of a wholly substandard product. Statistical distribution tells us that the majority of liquid should score somewhere around a 2.5. This is as average as anything Ardbeg will ever make... I hope.

I'm a fan of the Dickel BiB, and I enjoy the Barrel Select. All in all I find their whisky to be approachable, flavorful and a good value. This is my first taste of the 15 year single barrel. My bottle is identified as bottle 210, but I don't see any obvious reference to the barrel itself, which is fine. I don't put much value in looking for a specific barrel and, to be honest, I find listings here of specific barrels to be counterproductive to creating a community review. That said... This bottle's been open for a month or so and it's down about 1/3. This review is based on a neat pour in a glencairn. The color of this bourbon is polished walnut and a swirl shows good sheeting with many small legs running to the bowl. On the nose the contribution of wood is obvious. Wet oak, barrel char, baker's chocolate, caramelized sugar and slight vanilla are all present. The nose is not indicative of a sweet dram, nor a spicy one. Instead it speaks of years in a barrel. On the palate this is a lovely and delicate measure. Its dry, slightly spicy and moderately complex. The wood - again - is in the forefront. To me that is what this expression brings to the party. This is a lesson in aging bourbon. I would almost say this is over aged. It stands right at the line of being over oaked without going over. As a sipper this is absolutely best enjoyed neat. Ice or water do nothing to improve the profile, in my opinion. There's a bit of ginger spice, light vanilla and a clean mid-palate that leads to a quick fade and a lasting trail that echoes bitter wood, slightly sour mash, and a very light pepper spice. I think this whisky could be an absolute monster when used as a flavoring agent. As an experiment I enjoyed a 50/50 pour of the 11 year Bottled in Bond and this 15 year single barrel. Wow! As a blending element this needs a lot more exploration. Both whiskies in my experiment were bettered by the blend. This bottle brings the age to other distillates that might bring the fruit or frosting. It's a bit difficult for me to give this a rating. On its own as a plain sipper its better than average but not exceptional. I rate on a 5 point scale where a 1 is unpalatable and a 5 is a perfect expression. Most offerings follow a bell curve and end up between 2 and 3. Much of what I write about is between a 3 and a 4.5 because I try to avoid buying the stinkers in the first place. This isn't a 4 on its own, but it's mighty close. What this whisky really is is a master class on when to empty a barrel. It's wonderfully balanced, but lacking that last bit of sparkle because of the low proof. I'd love to taste this at cask strength, but it may be too oaky in that condition. It's definitely the oldest tasting Tennessee whisky I want to drink. 3.75 and recommended as a great research investment before you wander off trying to buy a 20+ year old unicorn bottle for big bucks.