Tastes

Got a dram guys? Well grab one...I'll wait. This is going to be a bit lengthy, I fear. So, I don't have a 12 year...but I might fix that soon. Anyway, I'm going to review this 21 and then compare it to the 15. I should note, I've already done this. So, I'm doing it AGAIN! There's a LOT of unpack here, and please just ignore the score and follow me...this is going to take a while. Quick house cleaning this one is just over 22 years old, about 22 years and 2-3 months and I'll be comparing it to 16+ year old "15 year". Now with the 25's, I've seen 29-year-old bottlings so...and I HEAR the 15 sherries which they don't label...some are pushing into the 20-year range fyi. Nose - I won't waste your time. This is about as good a nose as I've ever had on any whisky. It's not so complex that I need poetry to explain it. It's honeycomb cereal and hot cinnamon bun frosting (just the frosting). But it's so BOLD, vibrant, deep, rich...it's amazing. The alcohol becomes this enhancer that carries it through and the oak which is there is almost like this vibration of yummy that you just can't escape. I can't even explain it...this FEELS amazing to nose. I legit could just nose a glass of this until it goes bad. Taste - The approach is so insanely soft...it's just sweet gentle honey with some cereal grains slowly coming into play. An amazing soft and subtle beauty (you can insert your own whisky bible joke here). Then the oak comes in and provides this rich spicy but not harsh or off profile long long lingering finish. Honey, vanilla, oak spice, a touch of I want to say ginger but it's not THAT spicy...and just an insanely long long long finish. Simple, to the point, but in every possible way flawless. And yet, while the nose blows my mind...drinking it doesn't do that at all. Before I give my final thoughts let’s compare it to the retired and much missed 15-year-old. If the 21 is a dainty perfect white cloth, the 15 is a nice off white, perfect for a daily dinner table where you'll make a mess and might want to hide some stains. More fruit and more caramel coming into play but still a honey and oak candy experience. But darker and denser. Even drinking the 15, there's more there. It's more fruity and while not savory but comparison it is the difference in a kinda old caramel chew and a light drizzle of caramel on an ice cream cone. The finish even has a HINT of sour that you might even think is an off note. Is the 15 better than the 21? Well i reviewed the 15 and damn it, I need to re-review it because I under scored the living hell out of this 15. I was clearly thinking price and just maybe in a place where I was wanting "more" (peat or sherry) and I was wrong. With time I've come to find say a springbank 12 less enjoyable because it's younger and rougher than I love today. This 15 however is wonderfully well aged, gives off richness, and depth and complexity. And it does so while being both easy to drink and yet full bodied and mouth coating. A tick really hard to do for most distilleries. I'm now getting a touch of glue on the 15, I don't dislike it. It's odd in a way the 21 should be more like the 15...more punchy and "off" as it's had so much more time with these oak casks, but instead the 15 is both the older AND younger whisky here. Having harsher notes and more old-world oak elements. There's a bit more alcohol however on the 15 to remind you it's younger as they're both 47.8%. The final product, the 21 we're back to...it's truly amazing to smell, but it's not a masterpiece of a whisky to drink. I'm trying to reconcile this in my head. If this were just about the smell, I'd give a 5 star for the 21 and a 3.5 for the 15. The taste is however where things get challenging. The 15 has more going on but it has some notes you can be critical of. The 21....it's flawless but a bit dull. It's lovely and wonderful but dull. And yet I'm tasting it for 5 minutes after a pour. Maybe 10...15? So final score is a 4.25 for the 21 year. I'm giving this thing HUGE bonus points for smelling like nothing I've ever come across. The taste is a bit underwhelming in contrast to the nose but guys, at 250 this bottle was worth it to nose it. For those of you far more focused on drinking it, the mouth feel is really solid and the taste is too. I'd be more about a 3.5 if this didn't take me to my VERY happy place with the nose. That said...there's also not a single flaw to how this tastes or feels. If you like honey this is your whisky dream. Would I buy a 21 or 15 given the secondary on the 15 is MORE than this 21? This is interesting. I think the 15 is richer and more flavorful, but the 21 is just flawless. Honestly, I'd pay 200 for them both and consider them both for 250. These are just great bottles of whisky and I just have to admit I under scored the 15 the first time around. Anyway 4.25...I know it's crazy high but there's just something about it. And it shouldn't score that high on the flavor alone but the drinking experience here is just something else. Oh and I hear there go for about 300 in the states vs the 250 I paid in the UK. Just buy at 300. It's WELL WORTH IT! And normally I add in "single cask warning" but....they do an amazing job with these programs, maybe outside the sherry cask one (which I love but do look at color).

Picked this up today so I could take home that Cigar Blend...some might think "you paid MORE for a bottle to get another?" And that's sane, but I've wanted one of these forever but locally they're over priced. So I needed an excuse to over pay, and that was it. Nose - Classic Balvenie heather honey, oak, and hints of sherry. That said...it's got something off. There's this sweet and savory middle element that comes off...younger or cheaper...it doesn't have a place in a bottle that sells for 400+ in the states or about 300 USD in the UK. There's not enough depth or nuance here for the price tag and it's not nearly that different from a single cask 15 (bourbon or sherry) when you really get into it. Taste - This is so smooth, easy drinking, and yet it's got a complex and nuanced finish. Buttery and savory meets honey and light toasted oak. Smoke, toffee, chocolate, waxy oils, and just chewy. I love the balvenie malt. It's among the best malts in the world. That said... So I thought I had a 15 sherry around, I don't so I'm opening a 15 bourbon. Lets compare. Oh man...first taste and I'm thinking I have a pick. Those old 15 year old (this is 16) bourbon single casks have something magical about them. They have this dusty funky awesome element with that EPIC balvenie malt. And this one is no exception, it's truly amazing for what it was....a well under 100 dollar scotch!. So if the 1509 better than the 15 year? I think so....but I'm not saying it's for sure. I've had great 1509. This batch 6 doesn't wow me. So I'm at a 2.75 here. Pass guys. Buy the 15 sherry or bourbon cask if you can find them for up to 85% the price of this.

Batch 42 - The first rule of cigar blend - you don't talk about what you did to the store clerk to get it! OK jokes aside this wasn't an easy find. This is a neck pour review so please….don’t come at me if my notes are limited here. I’ll try and get a review of this on the channel with mike and I next time we get together. Nose - The nose is safe to say, pleasant. At 61.88 the alcohol has a presence but it's still letting the whisky creep out and say hi. A combination of light tobacco, sweet figs and perhaps raisins. Deeper in I'm getting honey with brown sugar (really heavy brown sugar going on), and chocolates along with light oak elements. This batch 42 marries together a touch of oak smoke, sweet bourbons, along with a healthy dose of those "fall" notes we've become so used to with these Cigar Blends (I need to remember where they're sourcing the barrels and get a bottle, I'm armagnac collection is limited but it's slowly growing thanks to "The Nose" and these releases. Sweet forward with brown sugar and some fruits and I dunno, it’s got a vegetal (not green!) savory thing going on too. Taste - The flavor on this one takes a bit of a turn from the nose. The alcohol here has no filter, it's big, spicy, bold, and a bit hot. You get what I'm reference as a very nice and very beam like arrival where you get big oak and what I'll also call "beam leather". Think old sun dried and almost falling apart leather vs a nice new soft as a baby's bottom leather that you might get more with a buffalo trace product. The second taste now acclimated to that fire and the sweet fruity notes of the armagnac and now some what I assume is MGP rye spice is coming into play. Now I'm getting more and more leather (I guess I left that out of my nosing marks) and getting I dunno, I'm bad with butter scotch and toffee when combined with other things but I think toffee. I also almost get a grape like note...I know maybe just armagnac but it's a bit more vibrant than I expect in this combination and I love it. Water impacts - so the first thing is just the nose really gets more rye forward bourbon, I"m not sure the mash bill on the bourbons used but that's what I'm detecting here. Mostly no real change however. On the taste my question about butter scotch and toffee is over, it's big old toffee dessert. That's now the dominate opening sweetness for me. Questionable notes – A new one but with this abv and body I had to. I can’t tell if I’m getting some citrus elements or if it’s alcohol. If it’s citrus this is one of the more tame alcohol forward cigar blends in terms of the nose, if not then I like the alcohol element here. Either way a plus. Overall, the long linger smoky and spicy finish is just awesome. My mouth feels just blow and away by now almost an oz of whisky. I'll be going back for a few more pours of this tonight. This isn't a bourbon to share with your friends getting into bourbon. This is for those who really like big bold and complex flavors who can spend hours with a glass. Oh goodness, I’m thinking some orange notes are in here too. Where did that come from? Anyway looking forward to researching this one. I know Nancy has notes on each batch. Hoping she gives me her take on butter scotch vs toffee and hoping she clarifies that citrus vs alcohol. And I certainly hope she got her some brown sugar on the nose, cause that’s lovely. Scoring - so back even just the couple of years ago I started doing this, I was a versed whisky drinker but I'd not had nearly as much as I have had now. Then these bottles were these mind blowing and life altering moments of wow. Today, I'm picking apart the elements of the bourbon and the play on the oak...it's all become a bit "simple" in way that's more and more making me look for dusty bottles of scotch (not even just high end scotch). I say this not to take away from this bottle but to set the stage for my score. This is a 4.25.

Nose - Fruity, young whisky notes, with hints of peat and if there's smoke it's minimal. I'd honestly explain this best as light and lacking. This desperately needed 48% or higher abv to save it at least on the nose. Taste - Light, soft, sweet, sugary, vanilla, light fruits, touch of toasted oak, and on the back end some peat. It builds as it sits in your mouth and the peat and light smoke build. Insanely boring and dull whisky. I'm not sure what I expected for just under 100 bucks from Compass Box but I guess I hoped for more peat. 1.75 - it's fine. It's ok. I can't imagine I ever want to pour another glass.

54.8 B080825053 bottled 2016/03/31 After some disappointments, I have 3 bottles to pop and review today. I'm hoping this one however is a winner. Nose - tooty fruity bubble gum meets vanilla and oak. I always tell people that a LOT of the quality of kavalan is the malt itself and it's clear as day on this one right on the nose. So fruity, inviting...this isn't a funky town expression. This is refined high end classic scotch like character. And yet I get a touch of oak and vanilla on here that take me back to high end bourbons as well. A perfect balance seems to have been created with intense hyper aging and likely another perfectly selected barrel. Taste - Creamy vanilla...heavy oak. I mentioned bourbon before...I'm a bit thrown here but yeah...this is drinking like a bourbon. I'm going to have to completely re-calibrate. This is a sweet and candied bourbon with noticeable oak bite, slightly better, slightly over the top with the bitter oak notes without the big warm yummy oak bits. 2.5. Darn good whisky but the mouth feel and the upfront sweetness are the show. The back end is disjointed and off. Time may resolve this all. So look forward to me coming back eventually. Re-review What a mess I made of those. Nose - Vanilla and shoe varnish bringing forth candy and light oak elements. Deep rich and while simple, it's full and insanely rich and complex in the depth of these single notes. Taste - Sweet malt, accented by vanilla, huge varnish elements on the nose coming full force here. Reminders of classic pappy van winkle bourbons with rich creamy vanilla malts added. The depth isn't that of 20 year old bourbon, but the flavors intensity and richness are on another level. Water brings out more youthful oak and drops the varnish elements. Not as enjoyable of a rich WOW experience, but you can see the quality nuance and depth continues. Moving this up to a proper 3.5

I'm really the first? 400th review here. I just got a case of this. Time to review the neck. Nose - So this likely won't be the note in a week but I get cinnamon, followed by some pepper and then a really sweet malt. I dig back in and I'm getting red fruits, almost kid's fruit snack strawberry or raspberry or made up random red smelling berry (actually, that's the one). I get hints of charred oak, some smoke, some off profile and off putting sherry cask notes (think signatory sherry casks which aren't my jam). I'm not getting springbank yet. Taste - Spicy oak...like I'm thinking of balcones malt here or a bookers cinnamon profile. Charred vs a true "fresh" sherry. I get some good sherry and some bad. But god...I'm getting texas whisky here. Red hot gum? Water - remains salty and now seems to bring salty sugars and brine against still an overcoat of charred oak. OK guys I've now had a LOT to drink of this and I'm starting to forget I'm drinking a springbank local barely. And that's a good thing. Because you know what this is? It's a well crafted 10 year old sherry bomb that's wasted world class malt. And I"m starting to get some malty spice and salt and peat notes. It's more mortlach than springbank but I get it now. 1.75...this is a down right travesty and I've got 4 figures in bottles of this.

I'm a fool...but 399th review. Might as well review something I have low expectations on. Nose - funky...someone else said but darn if it's not some kind of cheese meets some confectionery candy. Then I get young cooking red wine. Coastal levels of salt and roasted oak. I thought this was fresh, not another recharred? But it's coming off pretty darn sherry. It's a really meaty malty salty body with red wine funk and youth all over it. I don't however hate it. Taste - I don't hate this one at all! Oh goodness, there's some good stuff going on here. The arrival is sweet malty goodness with hints of milk chocolate. I get some fruity elements, some big bold malt, the wine that came off so funky before is pleasant and nice now. It's a bit sour at the back end, it's got some youth for sure, and everyone saying there's sulfur on here is dead on. And each taste there's more sulfer, but it's got such a nice clean arrival, it almost balances things out. Guys, I think this is a perfectly pleasant and reasonably enjoyable CS sherry bomb. You better be ok with sulfur and you better be ok with youthful alcohol bite. For me 2 stars, this is average whisky and that's perfectly fine for what it is. If you see one, I'd get. But you better not be sensitive to sulfur.

Who named this? 17 year old, 2017 bottling. These I think are a regular thing they do. nose - oh lets just dig in. Coffee, dark chocolate, oak, smoked oak, chocolate oak, creme brulee, vanilla, nutmeg, light spice, more chocolate. All this hits up front, there's this lighter fluffy almost marshmallow middle and then back to the spiced oak and chocolate at the end. All in the mix are muted jams and an honey and sugar and fruits. Taste - It's dark, spicy,, rich, so dark...so much chocolate. There's barrel and vanilla and burned vanilla and french vanilla and chocolate pudding and creme brulee, and frankly....the best I got...it's the center of a tootsie pop. But as you savor it you realize there is jam and fruit cake and all these fruity elements that come through. I think the sample a friend sent me was a bit better, but this is darker and more chocolate and cake and just RICH. I'm LOVING this one and I loved that sample. I can't say these are all on the same profile other than they're all epic. 4.25...I might come back to that score but for now....yeah, we talking 400-500 dollar whisky good! About 200 EUR or 240 USD for a 700 ml.

200 ml, the cork sucks and lets go! Also I don't know the details on this, my understanding is 7-14 year and a mix of casks but I didn't research. Nose - Oh wow! This is classic springbank 10 honestly. A bit of smoke, a bit of peat, sugar cookies, sherry, vanilla oak bourbon, and bucks of joy. Some purple berry elements coming in (port? Good sherry casks?). Taste - So here I get a lot of notes from the 10 but I get a bit more youthful bite and also a bit more smooth and mellow rich and creamy elements. There's a bit of stale bread and oak with so much salty and light smoke elements. This entire CV lineup has been a really cool exploration of blended age springbanks. Youthful and hot yet complex with explosive finishes even if a bit short. 2.0 And again 75 eur for the 3 pack of 200 ml's. OK the fun part which is the best CV? nose on all of them starts out pretty similar. I'm finding which ever has been in the glass the longest smells the best as they get sweeter and less of this off note from younger whiskies is there. Taste - The longrow does the most to showcase a mix of cask finishing and maybe comes off like it has the most youthful whisky in it. The hazelburn has an almost glue like element up front but the finish really does it some awesome justice. Hazelburn is a weird malt profile that I tend to like more than some others. The springbank is just good springbank and what I think we've all come to love about the brand. It's nothing special by their standards or anything like that, but it's well it's springbank. Not really a shocker but Springbank - Hazelburn - Longrow.

So I didn't research this one, but I assume similar 7-14 year and multie cask finished? nose - I swear that springbank funk is still here but when I first think PEAT, it's actually wood smoke. It's actually really coming together well, I could really dig in and spend time here. A lot of fresh cut fruits, strong and well matured oak, but kinda cuts off after that. I suppose the reality of an NAS...can't be that big and bold. Still wonderful sweet and fruity dram with a touch of funk and some nice oak elements. i'd have guessed 12+ year old whisky all day. Taste - OK disjointed, younger, but very flavorful and actually a good and medium finish. Port really stands out along with the bourbon casks. Thin on the mouth but big and bold on the finish. Now I'm getting good sherry notes, good salty/coastal elements. I dare say I like this one better than the longrow. A comp with the full CV lineup and the hazelburn 10's will eventually come. I'm happy at a 2 star, very average whisky, but this one packs a good bit of a punch. 75 euro for the 3 pack of 200 ml. OK the fun part which is the best CV? nose on all of them starts out pretty similar. I'm finding which ever has been in the glass the longest smells the best as they get sweeter and less of this off note from younger whiskies is there. Taste - The longrow does the most to showcase a mix of cask finishing and maybe comes off like it has the most youthful whisky in it. The hazelburn has an almost glue like element up front but the finish really does it some awesome justice. Hazelburn is a weird malt profile that I tend to like more than some others. The springbank is just good springbank and what I think we've all come to love about the brand. It's nothing special by their standards or anything like that, but it's well it's springbank. Not really a shocker but Springbank - Hazelburn - Longrow.