Tastes

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.

Great scotts....I haven't reviewed this? Well, I have actually - Mike and I over on topshelf whisky (shameless plug to the 10 people that'll read this) did review it, but I could of sworn I did it here. Anyway, I'm trying to go through my bottles and catch up on reviews. It's staggeringly difficult to catch up and worse as I've become more and more a fan of obscure stuff...distiller STILL doesn't let you add bottles without using a damn phone! OK so as always I write these reviews off the glass in hand, not based on prior notes so if this comes off different from the video, sue me :) Nose - The first note I get is just PX sherry and it's over powering the bourbon in a way I don't recall on prior pours. And I have to say, I like! It's red fruits, berries, chewy red gummy bears, and then that distinct new charred barrel oak just comes in to remind you this is a bourbon and not a malt. A deeper drive and you quickly get back to the corn grains and that vanilla and caramel distinct bourbon profile. As I dig more into I get hints of apple and cinnamon, barton distillate is coming in strong. I however believe there is also some heaven hill in here which I'm not getting on the nose. That said there's a densely packed oak and corn element that isn't opening up and likely won't without water, so stand by. Water - actually not doing much here. What it does is brings the whisky together and makes it harder to pickup distinct notes. Instead it brings that sweet bourbon and sweet sherry together. I'm not getting rum notes fyi, not sure what if anything rum did here. Taste - Unlike the nose the first taste is unmistakably bourbon. It's hot bourbon, it's a bit unrefined, it's a bit aggressive, and it's AWESOME. The bourbon brings a bit of well aged oak and spice refinement upfront but the finish is hot and has a bit of a kick telling me there's some youth here. Research now tells me this is something like 10-11 year barton with 7 year heaven hill (and that might explain the cost, heaven hill "juice" isn't cheap even at that age). Figs and dates from the PX with both milk and dark chocolate on the finish. Slightly nutty elements come into play here and there, nothing distinct like say a peanut but it's there and it shows up middle and end. This is so rich, so deep, so full bodied...I absolutely am in love. Water doesn't really change much for me. The finish is now a bit more meaty and dense, and a bit more prominent. When I first got this I really struggled to pick the distillery they sourced the bourbon from. Over time I eventually decided it was barton, but I thought a weird off barrel or two were in here. Turns out they used some 7 year heaven hill barrels, I knew something was up....and I was also wrong. I think that 7 year bourbon does some good and bad. It adds some really cool complexity and nuance in the bourbon profile, but it also makes this whisky drink a bit younger and a bit less refined than batch 1 did. Overall - 200 dollar bourbon and it's worth that all day. Yeah I get it. It's bourbon, it has a bite you might not want on a 200 dollar product. It's not as sophisticated as a 21 year 43% single malt. Yeah but it's CS in your face rich complex bourbon goodness with an inanely good cask finishing that's added layer upon layer of complexity. These are just epic finishing casks and this is a bourbon lover's dream pairing of casks that enhances the bourbon, adds some new elements, but never dreams of over shadowing a very interesting and nice bourbon blend. My issue with four gate has always been that when they don't do some really cool finishing, they still want 180+++ for their whisky and I can't justify that. One even was 300??? But for this one? Guys....they hit this one out of the park! 3.75 out of 5. It's legit THAT FREAKING GOOD! And I might even debate coming back and giving this a 4.0, but it won't be based on this bottle which is nearly done. Thankfully I have back(s?)....I might go get a 3rd bottle tomorrow. Guys for 200 bucks you don't get better bourbon in today's market. Unless you win a lottery for a btac and even then, this is better than a lot of btac. A 2017 GTS this isn't....but I'd take this over the 2020 eagle rare all day.

Well, I'm being lazy as distiller makes adding new whiskies too difficult. This is however the batch 2 version of this. But hey not a lot of reviews here as is. Nose - There's this closed off oaky and yet not really oaky note I'm getting more and more on these younger "craft" bourbons that's coming off here. It's I think the result of using some of these more "fancy" grains or it could be something related to the smaller batches. I am generally not a fan of this note, but on this one it's not over powering. The impact is that I get notes of a young bourbon but with some elements of even a younger single malt. Effectively a bitter oak, vanilla, dusty/musty room, but overall the profile is a rather pleasing and approachable one once the glass as time to open up. Might even be a walnut or some kind of sophisticated nutty element here. Time brings up the sweet notes and pulls back on the musty odd oak and premium grain elements. It also starts to bring out some chocolate elements and even hints of cherry. Similarly, time open brings down the youthful nature of this as well. Taste - This is an explosive and full flavored whisky. Chewy oak with a lot of fruity flavors (think darker fruits with cherry and plum and figs, kinda those sherry notes but very much in a bourbon context), caramel is more noticed than vanilla, there's a bit of oak smoke, and it's just got this over coat of funk and youthful bitter with this huge depth and richness you get with older expressions. Water - so where this whisky shines is with the depth and richness that you really can only get at the full proof. Water cuts through a lot of that and lets you understand the real whisky under it...and that's 6 year old bourbon. Now I'm getting biting notes vs rich depth. That funk and oak that had me thinking of varnish and older whisky notes is gone and now I'm just picking up an interesting unique flavor profile but with younger notes. I'm sorry guys, I'm all over the map here. I really don't have a good comparison for this stuff. Woodville is really about as similar a profile as I can think of and that's another one that's all over the map. So I guess the question really comes down to if this is subjectively enjoyable and the objectively what is and isn't right here? Subjectively - I actually think this is a lot better than my notes might indicate. The youth and roughness around the edges is offset by that dense and deep flavor. There's huge complexity here. I love oak where it doesn't hide the rest of the whisky and here the spice and fruit and funk is every bit as potent as the oak notes. Objectively - 105 proof suits this whisky well, I'm assuming proofed down or batched to that proof. It has rough edges and some off youth notes, but I think they balanced that well and at 6 years this comes off with a lot of elements of older whiskies. The sour and bitter elements here are I think intentional and not the result of poor casks or bad blending. Objectively I think this is a well done but younger bourbon. Final thoughts - a rich, creamy mouth feel complements a really deep and rich bourbon. If all craft bourbon was like this and not so often rushed crap, we'd all be better off. Now this is pushing 100 bucks for a bottle. So I can't give this a strong recommendation at that price, but as a craft bourbon goes, I have nothing but good things to say. 2.75 out of 5. If you get a chance to try this, I'd recommend it. It's not an everyday whisky but it packs in the flavor and has a profile you rarely get.

Please note this is the same review as the longrow NAS until the last bit. So I have a longrow 10 on the way so I grabbed this to do a side by side, but instead of waiting for that to review this. Instead I'm going to compare haezlburn 10, springbank 10 and the longrow NAS. All costing 70-90 US today depending on when your store got them in. Normally avoid but color. The longrow might be lighter than the hazelburn but they're both about as pale as it gets, while the springbank 10 has some actual color. Nose - Longrow - new make notes are coming off with that just slight note of something off the still. I get a bit of vanilla, pear, smoke, earthy elements, and overall it's a relatively clean but youthful coastal peaty whisky. Forgettable. Hazleburn 10 - I honestly get vanilla and some kind of fruity and barely funky note I could say is springbank only because this is in my glass. Bread and perhaps marzipan (Not even fully sure I know that smell) are here with a slight fruity element. Springbank 10 - OK first off this is the most smokey whisky here and it's not close. After I get past the smoke the sherry elements coming in big time, good dark fruits, and wine elements. It's cleaner and perhaps missing some of the earthy notes of the longrow, the actual peat note. A very nice all be it not overly aromatic nose. Taste - Longrow - Once again new make and off the still elements come in. It's a bit sour and has some unripe and odd young and acidic peat notes. Then there is this nice very salty and earthy, dirty malt that's bringing that classic springbank under baked cookie (shout out malted man cave) and fresh breads. It's bold, it's full of flavor, but it's got off notes. Hazelburn - So on the first taste what really stands out is that there are multiple distinct layers that I'll need to address individually, already a sign of a more mature and complex whisky. The arrival is funky, sour, bitter and somewhat off putting. The arrivial is followed by the springbank malt and if there isn't some sherry casking here, there's something about this bringing with it a lot of fruity malt esters. Nothing over the top but enough to add a depth and complexity. Finally, the finish brings some nice oak tannins and mixes them with some coastal salts and a bit of a vinegar meets springbank funk. Springbank 10 - The opening brings that sherry note but then I get a touch of sour milk, transitioning to rich smoke, and then smoked oak and sweet malt. The finish on the springbank is by far the longest with it coating the mouth in a way none of the others do. Please note I have a full review on springbank 10 and I might update it. OK so this was supposed to be super easy but I'm a bit unsure on ranking right now. OK so I have my ranking. 1. Springbank 10. Why? Well the nose is the best of the bunch bringing in some sherry elements and with that smoke. The flavor profile doesn't at all stages top the hazelburn, which is surprising to me, but that smokey finish and the springbank malt character comes out the best on the finish. 2. Hazelburn 10 Why? Shockingly nice nose for this range of whiskies, sweet, pleasant, and incredibly inviting but not bringing me back. My memory of this one was always a fairly simple whisky but the finish is really impressive for a 10 year whisky and the depth is great here. 3. Longrow NAS - When people say Heavily peated...well remember peat is NOT smoke. It's that earthy element that often is accompanied by smoke. My favorite peated whiskies are the more smoke forward and this longrow is much more earth forward. The longrow is an intense pour but lacking in layers or depth. This being the Hazelburn review -I'm scoring this a 2.0 which is higher than I expected to give it. Honestly the finish on this should justify at 2.5 but that opening is just so much of this youthful earthy, distillate forward and not just distillate but very raw one. The lack of peat I think takes some balance out as well. Still, if you're a finish guy and I'm one and you dig this nose and I do...I think you'll be very pleased. I paid 90 for this and I'm not upset right now. But that's hardly a value either. Don't think of this as a 10 year old whisky. Think of this is a craft whisky by the best damn distillery in the world, and just know you're not getting their best here. But it's still springbank disitllate, unpeated...