Tastes

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.

200 ml bottle, from god knows when and stolen with out citation for my own pleasure. Called "CV" for currívulum Vitae which is Latin for "The Course of Life". This has been matured in ex Rum, Ex Bourbon, Ex Sherry and ex Port cask from different ages that goes from 7 to 14 years. I'd also add...really a 200 ml with a cork? Use a damn screw top. I don't have backup 200 ml corks! Nose - I gotta say...not good? I get young young whisky. Sour fruits and every so slightly notes of sour milk. Now I'm getting some buttered bread (sour dough of course). Now as it opens I'm getting some wine and fruit sweetness, the good stuff. Deeper nosing where I expect peat I'm just getting ethanol and dusty oak. The more it opens the more I start to get some of that port and I don't want to call it rum but it might be (no rum expert) but it's an odd spirit note that I don't have a good placement for but it's making me think more rum like. Taste - Buttery, savory, with unique oak and funk. Then a transition to the saltiest and most peaty longrow finish I've had. That said it's also the shortest and thinnest. More youthful off the still sweetness but somewhat tamed and not giving me the off putting new make bitterness or overly shall I call it milky notes. The good - a lot of complex notes in here, there's a clear mix of casks fighting for their moment. Similarly I am getting older and younger notes...I know I know...I read all that but that's the best way to describe how disjointed and yet somewhat pleasantly so this is. I love how salty this is and how much peat is here. It's a badass longrow in some ways. The bad - it isn't that good. I get young whisky notes here that I don't love. I get a shorter than desired finish and I don't get enough here. I will say it's flavorful. I'm at a 1.75. 10 vs CV vs NAS notes to come. I paid 75 euro for a 3 pack with this, the hazelburn and springbank CV's. I'll also review those 3 here eventually. I hope to do it all tonight but....that's a lot to drink even if I'm doing half an oz per trial. 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. OK 10 vs NAS vs CV (Btw should I do these as separate review?) Nose - the 10 clean, sweet, oaky, and while not deep or dark it's complex and has nice sherry notes and dark fruits. It's good. The CV's nose comes off more sugary (cane sugar) but way less oaky and way less depth. It's like you're smelling around the rim of the glass but never into the heart of it vs the 10. A weird thing to say but completely what I'm getting. The NAS is salty and peaty dry cheap wood...no depth, no complexity. Taste - I mean see my 10 notes but a balanced whisky that while not older has depth and age to it. it's well put together and really does that sherry and bourbon blending nicely. The CV has a bit more bite both in a good salty peaty way but also comes off younger. The NAS comes off like whisky soaked in cardboard next to these and the finishes with new make notes. It does have the longest finish of the group, but I'm not sure I want the finish to last. I don't hate the NAS, it's raw young unrefined peat that doesn't have anything else to integrate it's flavors into. Instead it's just raw peat that needs to play on other elements as older peated whiskies get a chance to do. People always say peat goes away with age, but i disagree. I think peat gets a chance to grow and become a part of a great whisky with age. Here you get peat and nothing but peat...and weird oak. It's hard being a springbank product. You're siblinsg are all so good but today, in the least shocking decision ever. Longrow 10 > Longrow CV >>> Longrow Peated NAS. The more I drink the CV vs 10 the more i get port vs sherry which I love the contrast. And the CV has the longer finish, but it has a more short and thin mouth feel. The NAS peat is just a whole other animal, the other two are much much MUCH closer in profile. the NAS is truly a springbank without a comp. It is closer to the horrible god awful kill me now Killeran heavily peated trash than these others, but unlike those...this is still a quality whisky that was worthy of being bottled. I just don't really enjoy it anymore. The killkerran however...I just have batch 2 and never again! Oh getting some mint on the CV now...reminding me more and more of an islay malt now. That's a good thing! Anyway please let me know if you have any opinions on ANY of this.

2008 bottling Nose - very clean for a longrow. Sugar cookies all day with light toasted oak, vanilla, and an ever so savory/salty funk from springbank. As springbank/longrows go this is clean as it gets. Taste - It opens very spicy, a lot of pepper and heat. Youthful but not to the point of completely lacking any refinement. Still a young and hot whisky. A nice upfront sweet, hint of medicinal, and hints of sherry but mostly just fruity vanilla springbank malt. The finish brings a good peaty and earthy element with a short lived flavor but somewhat long lived slight puckering from the peat and bitter and alcohol. Wow it's really sweet right up front, it's like this spey or highland and then in comes the clouds and smoke and bitter. Honestly if you're a fan of younger peat bombs like laphorag and wanted a spring bank twist, this is it. I'll add a comp with the CV and NAS later. Stay tuned there. I paid about 130 for this dusty. 2.5, I'm digging it. Well above average but not refined or sophisticated enough. It's also a bit thin.

Neck pour - I'm already in trouble guys. Nose - First off, it's awesome. But what is it? It's super sweet. It's that funky longrow thing but heavy on barely and some kind of wine cask, I don't know how these were matured. I'm assuming bourbon and sherry, with a healthy amount of sherry. There's a meaty yet, no meaty note. It's almost like a maple brown sugar bacon type deal, but less salty and less sugary. It smells creamy if that's even a smell. Taste - intense for 46%, this one isn't holding back any punches with a huge and bright opening, sweet, savory, funky, weird, and oh so good. The mouthfeel on the finish is light and once the biting peat and sherry tame themselves you realize it's 46%, but it's packing plenty of flavor. I get some sulfer but it's mostly this smoked wood and then that acidic springbank bbq sauce note. Just rich full and awesome awesome stuff. And just topped off with spice and sugar cookies. I've always found the 18 to have a wonderful flavor but sometimes come off too muted and soft. This is packing one hell of a punch. I paid shockingly only about 150 before a pricey shipping cost but I bought in bulk so all good there. Overall, damn good whisky and I want more. I'm simple loving this. 3.75...it's that good

This has been on my radar for a bit and I got gifted a bottle to review (by no means full, lol). Nose - I'm already getting skeptical. Sweet sherry, overly oaked, and with this PX sweet candy thing that seems to contrast with harsh oak notes. Reminding me of some poorly executed Signatory single casks. That said the distillate isn't harsh,no off notes, and some malt character is coming through that seems to have a bit of meat and back bones to it. Taste - I'm not sure what I expect for 15 years. The sherry is very much that not great or really special sweet, slightly medicinal character. The alcohol is here and a ***** punchy. The mouth feel by contrast is a touch thin. Some figs and dates give way to hints of grape and chocolates. The malt reminds there but I can't separate the end of the oak, sherry, or malt. So how does it do vs balvinie 15 year? This isn't so dark and dusty bottle from some back cellar but it's likely an older bottle, and I did selected it based on being extremely dark. Still I don't think this is some early batch, and the barrel number is pretty high 4181. I'll leave the notes or review here and just say the nose is night and day better and while the taste does have some elements of harshness and it isn't some exceptional or perfect whisky, it's a much better combination of cask and malt. If you want a bit more bitter oak, sharp, and somewhat bitter yet clear sherry bomb notes like you'll often get on a signatory single cask, this is going to be a great value buy. If that isn't really what you're after then this will be a bit young and a bit aggressive without much reward. I'd rather pay more for the balvinie. 1.5 out of 5 but I want to stress that if you really like this profile you'll be at 2.5 and on my scale 2.5 is a very very high score on bottle going for around that 100 mark. I just I see some of these flavors as flaws and failings of the whisky, but I can just as easily see these are things people I know and respect seek out. 80 out of 100 and a 1.5 for me today. Effectively, this is the starting point for a whisky I'd enjoy enough to happily have a bar with friends before I'd decide the section wasn't good enough and I'd just get a beer. I think a lot of you however will enjoy this more and I can't by any means not recommend it. I'm just not going to recommend it either.

It's weird but it's gotten so I only know lagavulin as a CS distillate. From the 12 to the never ending UK only distillery bottles I am lucky enough to try over at Mike's, I'm almost confused with the existence of 46% whisky from them. Nose - Meaty smoky lagavulin with peach and then...I swear it's like an amber beer coming in. Not a Guinness at all to me. The smoke and sweet notes are really coming out of the glass up front but as you dig in, it's really thin behind that. The malt seems really watered down. Taste - Upfront it's just more smoke and peat with some youthful phenolic elements, a bit of bannana, a bit of off the still notes, and then this really sweet and noticeable beer element. It's a big bold and young islay and that's cool, but then we get to the finish. The finish is surprisingly long, surprisingly intense and really leaves you with a great overall lagavulin experience. The last edition really did come off a bit too young imo and I think this bit of a finishing cask has really helped add some elements that both distract and also complement the youth. On top of that, I think they just had better barrels this go round. If you want a big meaty in your face but youthful lagavlin for about 100 bucks, you can't really go too wrong. Nothing special but 2.5 stars, better than I expected and then some.

I can't disagree more with some of the reviews on this! So I'm not a fan of this series. They are odd bourbons finished in casks to save what seem like really off bourbon. Does 7 change my mind? Nose - So the first note is just sweet. And that might not sound like a note but the other blood oats are often bringing harsh bourbon oak notes, this is clean and sweet. It's candy sweet with some heaven hill over the top oak, but nothing too extreme. The overall impression is sweet candy classic bourbon rich higher proof notes and some nutty oak finish but subtle. Once it opens it's oak, nutty and sugarcane sweet with white wine notes. As it opens more white wine and sweet bourbon comes out. It remains a bit alcoholic for the age and a bit acidic. Overall, though I'm happy and it's uniquely nice. Taste - OK so I hate to say it but smooth. It just opens wonderfully sweet, subtle and smooth. It's a soft bourbon with some wine notes and it's watery. But then omg the finish comes and it's a BIG bourbon. The oak and nutty notes come in strong with the wine casks not leaving but getting over shadowed over time. The final product is heavy oak, decent white wine, and classic bourbon notes. 100 bucks? This is where I'm confused....it's better than a LOT of over priced bourbon I have. Given the market I get it. Would I buy another for 100 if I could? I don't think so. Will I buy the next batch? AT retail yeah....these are fun. Anyway 2.5, I really like what they did here but it's not great. This isn't as good as last year's batch. But it's close and better than the rum cask.

I have only really done this once before but I'm going to do this review on memory. The reason is simple...this whisky sells for STUPID amounts and I think there's a value in reviews from people who aren't really influenced by the hype. Nose - So this is where my memory is going to be a bit weak. It was wonderful bourbon and honestly about as good as you'd expect. That classic buffalo trace smooth and gentle oak with wonderful vanilla and caramel and some light cherry elements. Oak was wonderfully in play here. It wasn't deep it wasn't rich and it wasn't amazing, but as good a nose as you'd expect on 101 proof. Taste - my first sip was just wonderful. It was this perfect balance of sweet, well aged, leathers and varnish and lovely lovely aged vanilla with a great balance of oak and sweet. Sadly, two things went horribly wrong. First, the finish got more and more and more bitter and oaky. The first sip it was fine but you already knew something was off. Second, I went in for another sip and I don't get it but every sip of the 1 oz I had got more oaky and more bitter and the sweet notes subsided more and more. I've really never had a bourbon do this. If anything an EC 18 for example does the opposite. The end result was this overly oaked and tannic pour after just a few sips. It wasn't terrible even at it's worst but this went from this wonderful but not WOW bourbon to a really odd and then somewhat off showing. Overall - I like this bourbon and I'd happily buy one for about 100 and I would keep buying it at 100. I would get one at 200 and I might get one at 300. The difference is I'd never buy another one at 200 or 300. I love well aged bourbon, it's a weakness for me and I often get whiskies that I fully know don't compare to equal priced scotches, but I just love aged bourbon and I know the cost to enjoyment level is always out of whack on those. That said this is highly flawed and the 101 proof comes off too low or they did too much filtering, but it's lacking. I'm at a 2.75 for this one. So here's the thing, the first sip was a 3.5 level kind of bourbon, maybe 4.0. But each sip after the oak got bigger and bolder but while I like that generally, it was on the finish and it over powered things. Additionally the mouth feel was just a bit thin even at 101, it's like they overly filtered it. I mean 100 point scale this is like an 82-85 range, and I'd lean to an 84 because I think it does some stuff that's hard to do, but subjectively I might have gone 82 because despite the epic first sip, the more you dig into it the less you like it. It's really good and well above an average whisky which I score at 2.0, not 3.0 as many do here. But it's truly nothing special despite being a rather special thing in that you don't see 17 (actually 18 year if you read into the details) year old buffalo trace that often. At retail I think you should buy this one, but even a hint of secondary and this is a pass, at the REAL secondary this is a joke beyond words. This isn't going to be a bourbon people in 10 years are looking for, unless they collect verticals. No drinker is going to chase this at the secondary prices to drink it. It's not even remotely good enough.