Tastes

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 longrow review - I'm a bit disappointed here. Oh I'm getting mint now, should add that. It's a good peated whisky vs many of the other younger expressions. It really brings out some nice springbank character but it's just missing something. I hope to review this with the 10 once I get it. Anyway I think this is a 1.5 and I'm debating 1.75. It's a good whisky in the 70 range but as these are getting upto the 90 price point it's getting into a so so value range. The nose is really where I'm starting to struggle with going higher, I don't really enjoy the nose but I can't say it's bad. It's what you often get with these younger whiskies where earthy notes dominate and they don't get the time with the cask to have another element.

Baby Octomore? Nose - Peat and sweet barely dominate the nose. There are notes of youth but the overall profile is very similar to an octomore with a bit more sour and a touch more unrefined alcohol note. Perhaps a wider cut? Taste - The opening is pure smoke, then you get this rich sweet barely, and then dark burnt earth comes out in full force. Sweet smoked light and savory meat turning into a burnt beef brisket all driven by a sweet barely. Damn good. There's a bit more alcohol than perhaps is needed, it's just a touch bitey. This is a wonderful perfectly balanced young heavily peated whisky. About 80 bucks and it's better than the 10. Would I make a regular habit buying it? My first thoughts when I poured it, YES! But the more I go back the more I sadly find myself drinking a good whisky, but there isn't enough here for me to run out and spend 80. I'd rather save up for an octomore or get something a bit older. I'm looking for some fruits or something to add balance to the barely and smoke profile. This is where I think so highly of Ardbeg 10, that lemon lime thing it does creates a layer of depth and complexity needed so badly there (I know some aren't fans). Anyway I'm a solid 2.5 on this one. Clearly above average whisky but the lack of something else is starting to move this down the ranking for me. Oddly I've similarly recently moved Port Charlotte 10 down on my list of great affordable peated whiskies because....well good proof can't be in and of itself the reason to rank whiskies higher or lower when there's more to them.

I told myself I'd never go back....and here I am. Another over priced NAS ardbeg. Why do I hate myself so? Nose - That weird vanilla meets almost baby vomit or sour milk thing you get on younger peated whiskies comes right out to me. There's more smoked oak than normal. Mint. An irish springs soap. It's a weird ardbeg but it's ardbeg. I could use some lemon. Taste - Burnt clay and intense iodine peat jumped out and then you get this roasted and burnt oak...they nailed the "scorched" aspect of this, way better than I expected. I'd have bet a lot of money against them here. This is a giant massive peat bomb hitting on all cylinders. If you love peat and you liked overly charred barrel, you can't really go "wrong" but is it great? Is it good? That's where I struggle. I get the off notes of youth though turned down vs blaaack or drum or some of these other trash ardbeg's of late. It's not as refined as the Arrrrdbeg, but that thing was so refined, yet not old...it was boring. After the initional smoke bomb note, I now get candy cigarette, powered sugar, and some sweet oak notes. There's some pine and winter green mint notes to round this one out. A bold and for once I'm going to admit well put together gimmick from ardbeg. Worth of 2 stars and I finally can at least say, at least ardbeg didn't steal my money on an LE. Would I buy again? Nah. But hey it's a good enough whisky to try once and this bottle will be around a bit. Wish I"d gotten 2 of these instead of 2 blacks though...god that sucked.

Woodford double oaked is about as good a low proof bourbon that you can get on a regular basis. But does the double double oaked add enough to justify 50 bucks for a 375? I can tell you resoundingly, I've had a batch that was worth it. But 2020? Nose - Smoked oak with some spice comes off right away. It's reserved and muted, notes of what I'd call "I just added water to my bourbon" coming through. Digging in the oak notes really rise up, almost as if you're in a slightly burned/charred oak room 6 months after a fire. Surprisingly, the sweetness I think of on woodford double oaked, the vanilla and butter scotch and caramel and chocolate, and frankly that "this would go well on pancakes" flavor profile is somewhat muted. The oak however doesn't overpower anything. It's just the more dominate note. Still I get the general profile of woodford still here, it's just not as sweet and more neutral in nature. It's a nice spin on woodford and it's a bit more deep and refined than a standard woodford. Taste - Here the double oaked comes out. Classic woodford through and through with a heavy char more than oak to me. There is a fruity note that I'm not placing right away. Spicy notes and a burned some kind of danish or croissant with some kind of rich cream and chocolate. Mouth feel - paper thin, it's water. There's plenty of nice spice but it's killing me here with how thin it is. Finish - It's actually longer and much more impressive than you'd have thought. But there's not really much to speak of I didn't mention on the taste. This at CS, even if that were 48-50% would score pretty well, but ultimately it needs more sweetness and richness and some proof. 1.75 out of 5. Good enough but not great. I'm not sure I buy in the future, but I have had some really good double double oaked.

OK so, wasn't really all that excited for these, but there seems to be some interest and I've been told this was one of the better ones to try. Expectations aren't high. Nose - sweet notes such as pears and apples beyond what seems like a young, higher rye, a bit aggressive but not well done bourbon. I have to fully disclose, I don't really have much desire to drink this based on the nose. Taste - Up front it's what I like about 1792 with vanilla and some nice fruity bourbon distillate with I guess more kinda light fruits from the wine and then it's harsh and offensive on the finish. You get some interesting transitions and flavors. I get a cool minty element on the finish, like winter green gum. Water doesn't solve that spiced kick on the finish. I don't know what it is about this one, but I seriously don't enjoy it. I think these guys are making some good bourbon, but it feels like they're just sourcing all the good stuff or worse yet, they just don't have competent people there to blend it themselves. 1 star. It's drinkable and you might enjoy the kick. But it's a hard pass going forward for me.

Batch 2- i guess I should add a new whisky but I don't have my phone or the patience to add a whisky via a phone. Nose - Classic Irish effervescence with red fruits and lightly toasted cream and sugar. Just this wonderful old world aged whisky. A lot of plumbs and pears and just general fruity notes with light baking and dessert spices. Taste - Rich old oak, plumbs, chocolate, super spicy. I'm digging the fruits. I respect the spicy notes. I'm actually reminding myself of the last one, I get this IPA grape fruit / hop kind of note. Perhaps a tropical australian style hop. The more I go back perhaps it is toffee and caramel vs chocolate. Or maybe all 3. Just a neck pour and I'm going to explore this is a bit more with a comp before I give it a score. OK so next to the dair ghaelach the added age is coming through and the intensity of the wine cask influence is really intense. I'd not realized how intense as this is a blend of likely port, sherry, and likely bourbon though you could talk me into some kind of light virgin or recharred influence. I'd be down for a side by side with batch 1, but based on memory this is more wine and spice but not as nicely balanced. Could just need time. Same score as the last one. 4.25. I think again this is worth about 400. I paid 450, a slight over pay imo. Though with a few of my favorites for 500 now hard to find under 600, I may be out of luck.

So an A batch from 2021 where we have no idea where A's come from. Nose - Light oak sour not well balanced with richness. It's a boring nose. Spices are up front with light sweetness. It's almost a cleaner type thing, there's a nose but it's clean and simple. So overall you get this rye spice and light oak bitter with clean sugars and malts with not real overt notes. It's classic bourbon that feels a bit higher in rye. That's about all I can say. Taste - The taste is heavy cream, black tea spice, oak tannins a the end. Then you get rich vanilla and and some baked pie. I like it, but it's under whelming. It's also crazy clean and simple while having some rich feel from the ABV. I'm at a 2.25 for this, it's above average whisk but not special.

ok Rick house F about 8.5 years. 2021 release for ohio. Figured I'd come back to this after giving a horrible score to the last one. Nose - Chewy oak and vanilla and honestly just yummy nugget bourbon. Tastes - oak and more oak and lovely oak. Sweet spicy and tangy oak and vanilla and chocolate...It's great. I know I should give more here but it's just a creamy yummy oak forward savory bourbon. It's just middle of the road bourbon comments done wonderfully. Hell...3.0? 3.25? I'm going 3.0 and putting it at ECBP levels.

KY-1 How am I first? Anyway. Nose - classic barton's with apples, cinnamon, and some cherry. Nice sweetness that then leads into oak. Now I get some butter and some funked oak. What can I say it's classic sourced barton with a hint of savory elements, touch more oak, and everything I like about them. Taste - It opens soft and sweet. Fruity elements of apples, light spice comes in , and then oh goodness smoked oak. Such a nice wonderful smoked oak. Vanilla cream meets cherries meets caramel meets this butter scotch in the most creamy yummy form. This is possibly my new favorite barton blend/sourced deal. It's really good and at 150, I'm pretty dang happy. I say this fully thinking some old carter single barrels I loved weren't as good and I was happy spending more. God 3.5 people. This is an instant buy up to 200. It's a bit coyingly sweet up front but the finish saves that. It's not perfect and I can see a few bourbon drinkers passing, but this is awesome.

93? Amanda, go home, you're drunk. So this is already the least loved ECBP, perhaps ever. Nose - classic vanilla forward bourbon, really what I want in a bourbon. Oak notes at the end. Nothing epic but very very nice and pleasing. Slight smoked oak notes at the end, good char. As it opens it gets a bit bitter. It's lacking anything special for an ECBP but honestly just fine. Taste - This is where I get some of the issues with this batch. It's very very easy to drink for the proof. But that's also a problem,there's none of the deep richness or depth I expect on an ECBP. It's creamy with some nutty notes, great bourbon classic notes, but it's just missing ECBP depth and richness. Water, a lot of water, brings out some cherry notes which I like. I can tell this is aged and I can tell it's really well made. I both do an don't get some of the love hate here. I guess I should do a side by side but for now I'm ok with a 2.75 here which I've given 3.0 to better ECBP's but I think I've been overly critical in the past. This is way better than an average bourbon and even better than an average scotch. I will say this, there's no "WOW" here. I'll try and come back to this..