Tastes

Nose - cherry, vanilla, cereal grain, brown sugar, caramel, floral notes, cinnamon, black pepper, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - caramel, cherry, cinnamon, sweet vanilla, nutmeg, orange zest, brown sugar, sour oak, moderate alcohol bite, finishing fast with cherry, cinnamon, and caramel flavors. The sample I’m reviewing is not from the bonded release. This one is bottled at 47.5% and most likely younger as well. The nose is rather bright and youthful, but mild cherry notes accompany the standard caramel, vanilla, and cinnamon. Nothing special. The palate is hot for the proof. There’s a bit more here than on the nose, including some oak and citrus zest. As expected, the finish is nonexistent, with the flavors quickly fading to nondescript sourness. As with the four grain bourbon, this is much too immature to warrant a higher than average rating. Aging two years in Denver, Colorado is obviously very different from same in Hye, Texas. I would be interested in tasting the bonded version of this and determining whether the extra aging makes much of a difference. Overall, this is an extremely poor value for the money and should be avoided. The level of quality here could be tolerated at $20 a bottle, but this is multiples more than that.

Nose - brown sugar, honey, Cheerios, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Shredded Wheat, oat, vanilla cream, cherry, black pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, toasted almond, candied pecan, mint, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - vanilla, brown sugar, cinnamon, marshmallow, almond, rye spice, wheat, clove, spearmint, allspice, honey, chili pepper, cherry, moderate to high alcohol bite, finishing short with brown sugar, mint, and rye spice flavors. So I figured I’d pull myself back to reality after reviewing Taliskers, Laphroaigs, and Colonel Taylors. Indeed, one must experience the lowest of lows to more deeply appreciate the highest of highs. Well, this isn’t quite the lowest of lows, but it’s in my comfort zone of mediocrity. I purchased a Laws sampler pack a long time back and finally decided to put them on deck. The pack includes four miniatures, this four-grain bourbon, a rye, a wheat whiskey, and a malt whiskey. I’ll be reviewing the rest over the course of the week. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the nose. I’m immediately rocketed back to childhood breakfasts with large bowls of Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Honey Nut Cheerios on the table. Toasted and candied nuts join the party, along with vanilla and brown sugar. A sprig of mint lingers in the background, no doubt heralding the rye component in the mash. For a young bourbon, I’m cautiously optimistic. So things take a turn with the palate. Here’s where it becomes painfully obvious that this is only “at least” two years old. The arrival isn’t so bad, albeit slightly hot, with brown sugar, vanilla, baking spices, and a hint of minty cherry right out of the gate. However, the wheels really start to come off in the development. The nice flavors quickly fade, disappointingly replaced by bright, youthful sourness. The finish is wholly unremarkable, and I won’t remark further upon it. Buy the sampler pack or order it at a bar, if you must. The $75 price tag on this is disgraceful. Don’t support this tomfoolery.

Nose - earthy peat, brine, rocky minerality, lemon meringue, iodine, sweet chili BBQ sauce, pineapple rind, vanilla, plantain, oyster, mignonette, white wine, powdered sugar, cinnamon, clove, moderate to high ethanol burn. Taste - lemon meringue, sweet peat, rock salt, pineapple, marshmallow, salted caramel, cinnamon, flint, smoked meat, vanilla cream, clove, iodine, chili pepper, grapefruit, cinnamon, moderate to high alcohol bite, finishing medium length with lemon zest, sweet, briny peat, and rich tropical fruit flavors. Yes! This is how I want my Talisker to be. The nose is milder than I anticipated, but juicy, tropical fruit notes join that meaty, briny, peaty classic aroma I know and love. There’s a more pronounced mineral quality that conjures memories of shucked oysters with lemon and mignonette sauce. The palate is next level awesomeness. To say it’s mouth watering is an understatement. The rum finish is subtle, but adds a nice tropical juiciness not found in the core range. The smoky, salty, high proof arrival initially sucks the moisture from your mouth, which is then immediately quenched by juicy, citric fruitiness, only to be followed by the return of rocky, briny peat on the finish, drawing you back in for another sip. I need a bottle of this. Why didn’t I buy one when it released?! I thought for a good while about giving this a perfect score, but I think it just slightly misses the mark. Nonetheless, this is a phenomenal whisky that deserves your attention. If anyone has a line on one anywhere near retail, let me know. I’ve already spent a couple months’ worth of my liquor budget this past week, but would make yet another exception and add this to my collection. A big thank you to @jonwilkinson7309 for the sample. This one is special.

Nose - sweet peat, fig, sultana, brine, iodine, butterscotch, pear, honey, smoked meat, candied orange, vanilla, allspice, clove, green apple, black pepper, rich malt, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - sweet, oily peat, brine, green apple, pear, fig, plum, nectarine, spiced vanilla, salted caramel, iodine, allspice, kipper, honey cured ham, lemon zest, chili pepper, clove, spicy oak, mint, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium long with sweet peat, green apple, and cured ham flavors. This is great whisky. While it’s easily identifiable as Talisker, the malt is richer, the peat is subtler, and the spiced, fruit notes are more accentuated. The meatiness is still present, but it has more of a cured ham quality than the greasy, bacony off-note on the 10 year. Interestingly, it reminds me of a rich Speyside like Craigellachie or Benromach. So that’s all fine and good, but I have one major beef with this one. I like the 10 better than the 18 year. I thought this was the case initially, but poured the 10 year alongside and confirmed it. The 18 year is more complex and refined, but it lacks the grunginess that I love on the original. I’m aware that there is significant batch variation with the 18 year (mine is from 2019), and the older bottlings are thought to be superior. I’m also aware that the 18 year is known to deteriorate with time. This particular bottle was opened six months ago, so I doubt oxidation has impacted this significantly. Overall this is great, but I’ll be restocking the 10 year at $60 instead of this at $150, and I’ll be just as satisfied.

Nose - bacon grease, oily peat, iodine, brine, kipper, date, fig, strawberry, toffee, vanilla, cherry syrup, cocoa, orange blossom, chili pepper, honey, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - smoked meat, oily peat, brine, chili pepper, kipper, black pepper, iodine, date, fig, baked apple, candied orange, cherry cola, salted caramel, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, honey, lemon zest, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium long with smoky, salty meat, caramelized dark fruit, and chili pepper flavors. Talisker 10 year is one of my favorite entry level peated malts, so I’m very excited to give this a try. That familiar oily, briny, meaty peat greets me on the nose. However, dark sherried fruits quickly join the bouquet, providing a nice counterpoint to the savory backbone. The same experience continues on the palate with sweet, salty, spicy, and fruity notes harmonizing nicely from the arrival through the finish. I’m split on whether I like this more than the 10 year. Both are delicious and deserve attention, but I don’t think this is worth $100 when I can buy the standard offering for around $60. I have the same opinion of Lagavulin 16 year and its Distiller’s Edition variant. The cask finish adds an interesting dynamic, but it doesn’t completely transcend the original. If you think Talisker is great, you’ll probably think this is great too. And I do. Many thanks to @ContemplativeFox for providing the sample.

Nose - rich caramel, cocoa, vanilla, graham cracker, marshmallow, sweet floral notes, brown sugar, black pepper, candy corn, funnel cake, allspice, peanut butter, cinnamon, sweet oak, mint, leather, tobacco, apple, cherry, orange zest, nutmeg, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - salted caramel, milk chocolate, vanilla, apple, cherry, black pepper, brown sugar, marshmallow, candy corn, leather, peanut, tobacco, spicy oak, allspice, cinnamon, floral notes, black pepper, graham cracker, lemon zest, cinnamon, nutmeg, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium long with baking spice, rich caramel, red fruit, and chocolate flavors. Let’s cut to the chase. This is better than the Small Batch, at least the barrel @jonwilkinson7309 most graciously sampled for me to review. Roughly the same notes present here, but they’re all punchier and more easily identifiable. The fruit notes in particular are cranked up, providing a delicious juicy apple and cherry hit on the nose and palate. There’s also a peanut buttery nuttiness that I didn’t discern with the Small Batch, which is a welcome addition. While there’s still a bit of the same thinness I found on the Small Batch, it’s not as bad here. However, I don’t get any of its counterpart’s sourness, which indicates to me that this is much older than the average of the Small Batch’s components. Overall, I hold the same opinion as I do with the Small Batch. It’s absolutely worth the price at its $60 retail, but don’t touch it at the ludicrous secondary ones I’m seeing online. I’d love to try some of the other Taylor expressions, particularly a barrel proof release or a more aged version, as the only significant flaw I perceive, the thinness, would likely be minimized. Unfortunately, I’ll probably be waiting a while until I stumble upon one of those in the wild.

Nose - caramel, brown sugar, spiced vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg, orange zest, cocoa, graham cracker, leather, black pepper, marshmallow, apple, funnel cake, floral notes, tobacco, mint, barrel spice, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - caramel, apple, floral notes, vanilla cream, orange zest, leather, tobacco, brown sugar, black pepper, milk chocolate, mint, sweet oak, graham cracker, marshmallow, cinnamon, nutmeg, cherry, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with caramel, apple, baking spice, and sweet, tannic oak flavors. What can I say about the Colonel that hasn’t already been said? Probably not much, but here it goes. First, it’s easy to tell this is a Buffalo Trace product, as many have the same sweet, floral quality that I can’t quite pin down. The nose isn’t particularly complex, but it has most of the notes I like in a bourbon. It’s a bit like a s’more mixed with a funnel cake with mint and baked apples on top. The palate brings much of the same, but some flaws present here. It’s rather thin, with some unpleasant sourness entering in the mid palate, betraying its youth. Overall, this is excellent whiskey at $40 retail, but good luck finding it outside of the secondary market. Each time I’ve seen it hit a store in Virginia, there are lines around the building an hour before opening. I paid $90 for the opportunity to purchase a bottle, and there’s no value to be found at that price. Try it at a bar if you can’t find it close to retail. Next up, I’ll be reviewing the single barrel expression to see how it stacks up.

Nose - brownie brittle, chocolate chip, cinnamon, mint, graham cracker, caramel, spiced vanilla, leather, maple syrup, banana bread, wet nut, black cherry, sweet oak, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - chocolate chip cookie, burnt caramel, brown sugar, vanilla, black cherry, baked apple, cinnamon, nutmeg, leather, banana bread, marshmallow, toasted nut, sweet and spicy oak, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing short with burnt chocolate chip cookie, baking spice, and cherry flavors. Having only reviewed the standard bourbon offering, I’ve unintentionally ignored Woodford Reserve on my liquor tasting journey. The reviews seem to be all over the board on this one, so let’s jump right in. The nose is rather muted, with mostly dark, sweet notes in the mix. Burnt cookies, chocolate, and black cherries abound, with an undeniable yeasty quality that is rather pleasant. Most of these notes transition to the palate intact, while faint nuttiness, oakiness, and baking spiciness join in as well. The finish is disappointing short, with the flavors quickly morphing into a cacophony before slipping away. Overall, I like the idea behind double oaked bourbons (and Garrison Brothers Balmorhea is one of my favorites), but feel the execution is lacking here. Transcending to the next level would likely require more time in the barrel, a higher proof bottling, or some combination of the two. However, this would also raise the price point, which would limit the audience Woodford is obviously targeting, so it’s not quite fair to compare this to Balmorhea at triple the price. It’s easy to see why there are over 5000 reviews of this on Distiller. It’s a mild, sweet, and completely unchallenging bourbon, but not one I’ll seek out in the future.

Nose - salted caramel, cocoa, vanilla, brown sugar, honey, cherry, apple, pecan, cinnamon, soft grain, fresh oak, grass, black pepper, mint, moderate to high ethanol burn. Taste - cherry, apple, prepared caramel, vanilla, honey, brown sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg, grass, cocoa, mint, pecan, grainy oak, black pepper, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium short with caramel, baking spice, and earthy mint flavors. Based on the positive community impressions, I purchased this bottle of Maker’s Mark, a brand that I’ve never particularly liked. While the 46 bourbon and wood finishing offerings are reasonably serviceable, I find the standard offering to be rather subpar. Right off the bat, this is much more interesting than its diluted sibling. The caramel is strong with this one. Sweet, salted caramel. Apple and cherry also appear, which are rounded out by cocoa, baking spices, and youthful, grassy, oaky notes. Overall, while this is absolutely a step up from the standard offering, I don’t think it’s anything special. The aromas and flavors are punchier and more well developed. However, I wish it were aged a bit longer. The youthful graininess is front and center and ethanol is rather strong on the nose. I bet older aged Maker’s Mark would be pretty tasty, but alas, we may never know. I’m split between rating this one a 3.0 or 3.5. Given its very affordable $40 price point, I’ll err on the high side. If you like young, wheated bourbons or standard Maker’s Mark, this is probably for you. While I’m not disappointed I bought the bottle, I probably won’t buy another.

Nose - rubbery peat, tennis ball, spoiled red fruit, strawberry, raspberry, cherry, iodine, vanilla, coconut, caramel, lemon, cinnamon, clove, leather, smoked meat, brine, peach, moderate ethanol burn. Taste - citrusy peat, strawberry, apple, raspberry, cranberry, rubber, cherry, lemon meringue, mint, caramel, vanilla, cinnamon, clove, toasted coconut, leather, brine, moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with red fruit, mild peat, and citrus flavors. This is the end of my Laphroaig tasting series. I wish I could say that this is the best of the bunch, but it’s not for me. Don’t get me wrong, this is tasty stuff, but not quite at the level of the others I’ve tried. While present, that classic Laphroaig-ness is more difficult to identify here. I feel that they chose to bottle this at 52%, because it would have been much too anemic to sell at 43% or even 48%. The wine finish comes out more than the port on the nose and palate, and I wish that were flipped. The fruit notes are a bit off, which work really well in something like the Longrow Red Cab Sav I have, but it’s more dissonant here. Overall, it’s perfectly serviceable and I’ll happily finish the bottle, but I don’t feel this particular Cairdeas was worth what I paid, unlike the Triple Wood Cask Strength at the same price, which I liked very much. So my quest for an amazing Laphroaig continues. The closest I’ve gotten so far is probably Lore, but it’s unfortunately very far from a good value.