Tastes

On the sweeter side. Sour dark cherry, especially in the finish. Pepper. Slight toffee but it's pretty thin. Dry, wood tang. It's different, but just ok.

I don't usually find Irish whiskey to be all that great but this very much drinks like a Spey. There's an initial heat and spice. Orchard fruits, not as apple-y as Green Spot, but it's there. The wine is mellow and adds a dryness and a hint of fruit, but not sweetness. It's similar to that undertone found in Belvenie, but more welcomed here. The oak is present and adds to some slight spice and dryness. The feel and flavor of wine stays for awhile, especially on the exhale. It's much better than Green Spot while also much different, but not sure of the $60+ difference in bottled. Overall, for around $120 there are other things out there I know are better or I still want to try, but this was a nice change up from my Islay-heavy diet.

Green, fruity, peppercorn and dry oak flavor. There's a toasty taste and a spicy sweetness from the high rye but I don't get the chocolate in full. The combination of flavors I just listed will I guess equal dark "chocolate flavors." This is one of those high-to low-to high flavor profiles where the middle drops out to nothing. A splash of water really helped that gap of flavor and brought some leather and caramel to the middle. It's good and I appreciate the taste from a friend but have no need to have this again or to buy a bottle for $130+.

Good but I wanted more...am I wrong for putting higher expectations on a 12 year for only $50? There's a balance of sweet, smoke, and malt but not one thing shines and elevates it to more than average. With all the talk of Vikings I expected something that would spark my need to pillage, not sit and ponder if the mellow floral notes are more honey or hay. While many applaud balance, I find in this it comes out as flat due to a lack of any distinguishable highlights or true depth. If I wanted balance in my glass I'd have filled it with water. There's citrus and honey, grass, a smoke that seems to come from a grill flavor and not necessarily peat but not artificial like Walker. The sour and other notes of the wood is there but never takes off. The warm grass and flowers provide a first-days-of-spring vibe which I liked but then pepper and earth quickly turn it away. This is my first HP sip and I guess it provides enough reason to try the older expressions but there's nothing more than "good" about this 12. I also fear that there are so many other great bottles in that price range, or even below, that will call my name from the shelf and make me continue to walk past HP's offerings.

Classic Spey. Sherry and oak right away. Fruity, orange peel, coffee, leather. There's a puff of smoke reminiscent of it's younger bottles. No heat. It's thin and washes out quickly with very little finish. It's clean. Where the younger ones pop with sherry, this is subdued. But then it swells back with a creamy chocolate and more dry oak lingering finish. Strange how it disappears and reappears. It's great to have a 25 year for just under $200 but it's not a bottle I will seek out again. I don't get the bang for my buck. I like the 17, not more than this, but at half the price. Overall this is very, very good stuff if you are looking for a Spey with more depth than the usual.

Definitely good. Definitely Buffalo Trace stock barrel flavors. Definitely not worth chasing it down to pay more than $80ish. I get the rye, vanilla, and caramel right away. There's a quick transition to hot and bitter wood, with a dryness that builds. Nutty and butter at the end. While I'm rating this fairly high there are better or comparable options available at the same or lower (now gouged) price. In the end, it's bourbon, so my personal experience is once you get to over $100 there's no considerable difference in taste and quality (sorry, it's not Scotch). I'd gladly drink this again.

Yum. Smooth smoke, more veg than meat. Deep medicinal and iodine. Seaweed and slight brine. Leather and earthiness...wet rocks? Hint of sweetness of cereal and oak. It's an entry level Islay, not because it lacks quality, but because it doesn't open nooks and crannies of multiple layers of flavor like some higher level region mates. Still a great pour.

My questions are: Why? Did we need to mix this many barrels? Was the name and idea a marketing gimmick that someone really thought was supposed to create something special? It all supports previous assumptions that over-blending and mixing of young and/or lower quality, especially when paired with various random finishes, will always be a sum equal to its parts. The amount of places this goes and how quickly it goes really gets distracting. Vanilla, ginger, hot plastic, sawdust. Finishes quick with lemon rinds, brine, and a bitterness (bitter coffee?) that isn't pleasant. There's an overall "funk," but I'm still not sure if the various woodd fighting each other for space or just lower quality whisky. It's not hot from a lack of maturity. I'm lost. I find it close to Springbank 10, where I almost like or dislike it every other sip.

Really good. Not usually a Macallan fan but there's a lot going on here to enjoy...plum, cinnamon, fresh stone fruit, sweet orange, and oak. There's a continued honey throughout, ranging from honeycomb to sweet and dry. A coffee, toffee hint. There's a toasty puff at the end that is something I found unusual for Macallan but very enjoyable. I don't usually dabble in heavily sherried and sweet ones, and this certainly is not that one trick pony.

Rye and heat. Not very refined. Chewy. It's a step above a mixer but not quite a sipper.