Tastes

2020 edition - 50.3% So I've never reviewed one of these and I have a few. So why not? Well, sherry bombs are tough to review imo and just haven't gone there yet. Nose - It's an interesting nose. A nice springbank under baked cookies and bread with old world european oak notes and light sherry elements. As it opens up the sherry comes out more and more, giving way to these dunnage warehouse elements, dark berries, earthy elements, and just straight up raisins. Taste - That raisen note on the nose gives way to the most intense raisin note on the taste ever perhaps. It's just straight brown sugar and raisins and soaked alcohol rum with sea salt and rich well aged oak elements. This drinks older than 13 years and yet it's vibrant grape juice and raisins and it lasts on the tongue. Yeah I'm a bit confused by the 50.3 as that feels like they watered it down randomly. None the less the fresh sherry is so good on this one. It's a poor man's version of my springbank 19 CS single cask and my god everyone deserves a poor man's version of that at a reasonable price and this is just that. 150 bucks is a big step up from year's past thanks to tariffs but it's completely fair. This is a hitter and one of the best sherry bombs under 200 bucks sold in the US, if not hands down the best one. Buy 3 and know you're getting the best sherry bomb that isn't a single barrel for the money in the US. 4.0 and I might be factoring in value here but I'm doing it anyway. Please note this review is for the 2020 edition, I do think it's better than the other 13 I've had and the 14. But I haven't done a side by side and I don't remember which year the other 13 I had was.

Can't believe I haven't reviewed this. Nose - the first note is opening a box of wax birthday candles. Next I get what i detect as a light sherry sweetness. I get some hearty grains in here. A good hearty bready malt with a touch of sherry and just a nice rich quality malt character. Taste - Creamy mouth feel and flavor profile. Light oak with sherry and just a wonderful overall complex light salted lightly peated (maybe?) malt. This is wonderful sub 100 dollar whisky but it's just a good whisky. I did the 16 vs the 12 a few nights ago side by side and I took the 12 by a clear but not overwhelming amount. Tonight doing them on after the other it's not closes. The 12 is a better bottle of whisky. I don't want to get crazy so I'm doing a 2.5 for the 12 but I could go higher. The 12 is just a great example of a complex and unique malt that's been put together in great casks. It's no world beater and it's expensive here, but good work guys.

Another of these bottles I've been saving to review and I guess I'll just do it. Also I never reviewed the 12? WTF? I'll have to fix that too. Nose - I get a glue like note with sharp sour and then some alcohol soaked apple, barely off the still (really 16 years?), a touch of perhaps a white wine note, and some yeast esters. It's a sweet, not overly oaked or even slightly cask forward expression, these better not have been first fill bourbon casks, if they were they originally had some YOUNG bourbon. Taste - A general sweetness with some ever so light peat, salt, and just a buttery vanilla slightly funky and off distillate. There's not really here guys. It's got some milk going slight bad notes, some cheese (white curds if you will) and funk. Now all this like sounds worse than it is. It isn't a bad whisky. It's just not good either. Every time I go back to this it disappoints me more and this is the most disappointing pour yet. I'm scoring it a 2.0 and I'm going to do the 12 next. If the 12 scores under a 2.5, I'm admitting I'm done for the night as to be honest I thought this would be 2.25 with me debating a 2.5 but not going there coming in. But I've had this next to all the whiskies I've had tonight on different tastings as well as by itself and nothing as really changed the overall final note of this isn't worth 140 bucks and it isn't better than the 12.

Batch 21 56.1, yes this is the new CRAZY one. I should create a new one but I have to use the ap and I hate the ap. Nose - so I'm getting a coffee cake with savory cream cheese on it. Then smoke and oak followed by rich intense gritty sweetness. Almost a reduction sauce meets a cooking wine with bread hearty savory full grain bread baking in the background. This is absolutely nothing like the first springbank 12 I had nor is it that similar to the 57.1 which I will say the likely first fill bourbon casks on that did a lot. Taste - The taste brings me back to springbank with the salty and savory notes coming out, but it's different. The wine is huge here but while the burgundy wood i found rich and earthy and meaty, this isn't that. It's sweet, very sweet. It's like the sherry casks were super sweet, the port enhanced it to ll and the burgondy just kinda added some new notes but let the sweetness keep going. These weren't even tired bourbon casks to add oak without vanilla, as there's vanilla here. The odd part is that it then hits with some spice and alcohol kick that wasn't expected or really wanted. The alcohol feels almost drying to the point the overall rich and creamy body comes off too drying and closes what should have been a really nice mouth feel. I keep going back to this and I keep coming to the same conclusion, this isn't a good springbank 12. It not bad either but if you're chasing that classic 12 profile this has gone a weird direction and one I hope they don't do again. I bought 2 and I'm ok with it. But yeah, A for effort but C- for execution. 2.50 which feels criminal for a springbank 12 but I have to be honest with you guys. The sweetness could work without the spice and alcohol notes. And trust me water isn't the solution either. Did one last sip and it come off a bit more traditional sherry with port and less spicy but then I was able to really notice the lack of finish or depth. A complex whisky that is just too disjointed and frankly just falls flat. I think springbank tried to add too many casks to what is still a relatively young whisky. This kind of blending is best saved for the older expressions where perhaps some secondary casks or active casks can wakeup a tired cask with age. Not for younger casks.

I've been holding off reviewing this over priced bottle for a bit but I guess it's time. 260 bucks and sub 48%. Oh my Nose - I always feel calm when I first nose a springbank and I get their classic every so salted and every so bready notes coming through. It's a warm place I know and hold dear and this one is no exception. We're at home folks. I then start looking for these some what sulfuric dirty sherry casks that they use and then something comes up, I'm getting something cleaner, sweeter, and not as complex. Yes I smell wine but it isn't MY springbank wine notes. It isn't even those umami driven burgundy casks or dark and dank dunnage port notes. No this is different. Crystalized sugars over a white mine, a very sweet and rich dessert one. I really don't know much about madeira by itself, but while I don't distinctly recognize it, it's still familiar just not in this context. The just a hair short of 18 years has left enough oak to be detected but hardly enough to really make itself known. As I dig in more some slight sour acidity comes through. Overall, while I'm not excited to get into this one, it's rich and complex and provides something different. Taste - Springbank's malt coming forward with a light and subtle yet noticeable wine finish. Up front while the wine casks aren't super over powering per say, they do over power the springbank malt pushing forward wine notes and some acidity but soon enough the peat and bready character of springbank pushes back and the rest of the experience is springbank's malt almost completely. What I however want on a good wood finished expression like this is the wood to play with the malt from start to finish, altering each stage and while it is ok from time to time to showcase the wood vs the malt, that should really only be when there's something spectacular about the casks which isn't the case here. Water does what it always does on springbank, adds more salt, gives it a bit more alcohol bite, but thins to body too much. Brings out some more oak spice. As big a springbank guy I am this is just overwhelmingly disappointing. 2.75 score from me, and this isn't one I'd want a backup of. I'd like to send myself a sample from the future to avoid buying the bottle all together. It's still good stuff but I'd rather have a springbank 10 given the price.

So this was on "fire" sale for 120 and I figured why not. I went in expecting it to suck and well...lets see. Nose - The first impression is that this is very suety and earthy. The "fire" concept isn't out of line at all, this is perhaps the most earthy highland park I can recall, I know I had a few NAS pours where they were as or more peated but still this is coming off more so on the nose. Then there's that port finishing giving way to this dark dark fruit notes that play very well off of the earth character to give you this thought of well kinda lava lol. It's like I'm thinking in my head light purple hues over dark warm earth. So purple it's a bit reddish if you will. Going back I'm starting to get salted meats as well and then I always get a bit of a cooking sheet wax and sugar sweetness off HP's spirit, which I think my buddy mike is saying it white chocolate, I don't agree but I think we're getting that same element. I'm personally not a huge fan but I appreciate where they went here. Taste - Up front I get a lot of sweet and waxy and lightly earthy notes. Plums and dates. Then as it reaches the finish it gets really dirty earthy and funky weird. I could see this has charred oak smoke. Vanilla, chia latte, smoked fish even perhaps and yes some kind of chili powder or other hot peppery note. A really unique series of spices and notes really come through and the whisky is just an ever evolving transition from the start to finish, never staying the same. This all brings me to a difficult score to give as there's a lot here I like and a lot I don't. I however think they really nailed their goal of a "FIRE" edition and in that I have to give some praise while at the same time fully believing most people won't really enjoy this one. As a result the fire is for me a 2.5 out of 5. It's a profile and flavor you can't get elsewhere, it's well executed in terms of their goal, but it's also just weird in ways I don't think others are going to want either. Give I got this 300 MSRP bottles for 120, I'm guessing i'm not alone in my thoughts.

Picked this up for st patrick's day and after some rave reviews from Telex and Malt Muser on their tuesday show. Lets jump in. Nose - Fruity orchard fruits, bubble gum, light malt and bread notes, twinge of red fruits, nearing the level of chocolate but perhaps white chocolate. There's an almost icing meats glue thing going on in the back transitioning to light toasted oak. Taste - Juicy fruit bubble gum transitioning to tropical fruits. There's vanilla and oak, sugary almost fast food bun notes, and perhaps some berries and cream. Finish - nice toasted oak and a light spice. Overall for 56 bucks you can't really beat this, unless you grab a powers 12 year. 1.5 score here. A bit below the average whisky I'd buy but I'm more than happy with the price to value. Ultimately, it's a bit boring and will be my go to pour until it is gone. I don't want to waste space with it but I'm enjoying every pour more than enough to go back to it. Edit going 2.0. It's a nicer better whisky than I thought. The hype hurt it for me and the price didn't help. But yeah I'm happy with this as a cheap really tasty bottle.

This is going to be a series from this distillery but I have a feeling I'll be adding most of the bottles. Citrus, vanilla, light salts, some light waxy elements and some floral notes. Pretty basic on the nose for me. The taste is a bit more of the same, but there's a lot more here. Creamy vanilla, citrus, floral, and toasted oak barrels. Little bit of spice from the oak and a nice medium lingering finish . Overall is a really nicely made bottle, good mouth feel, good body, rich flavors, and it really is that classic quality scotch. Solid 3.0 on this one. I think everyone will be really impressed for about 100 pounds. Edit - going back the lack of character here just keeps coming up each time i go back. It's just too classic and basic. 2.5 instead of the 3.0. Sorry for those who gives this 90+

So quick info, just pass on this. It's a joke beyond words. Just pass, these guys are putting out trash and charging these stupid prices. It's comical. But I was suckered in. Nose - Honestly, it's a weird nose. Kinda comes off like a young, ethanol forward bourbon. Taste - first off this feels like water and then kicks on the back like 200 proof, wtf is going on here? OK so it's vanilla and oak. I mean there's not really much more going on. It's almost as if someone flavored vanilla vodka with bourbon and oak. Just for sanity I poured me some belle meade reserve, all those rye spices and lovely balanced sweet and spicy notes. Lovely. The 400 dollar bourbon? It's sweeter, but it's almost like it tastes like a watered down bourbon as in I just added too much water, but then hits with alcohol. Water - oddly enough the water seems to be teasing out some things on the nose. Bringing out more bourbon oils and more of a mellow creamy note. The nose at first was crazy closed off. Getting a bit of odd mushroom sauce notes here, but mostly just oak and vanilla. Water Pallet - it's still pretty thin but it's not more thin than before. I'm getting more spice and tannins. The finish is medium but it's better now than before. Going back again to the belle meade, it's younger but it's not young. The flavors are rich and full as hell. Great whisky. The st nick is coming alive slowly for me and it's not a bad bourbon. I can't even guess where this is from. There's a legit note of buffalo trace with way more oak and bite than normal. Overall I'm scoring it a 2.25, but if price factors in at all, it's a 0. Seriously screw these guys.

At this point I feel most know what they're getting with these. This is a 3 year old whisky with 8% coming from an aberlour cask that was aged in a first fill sherry butt for like 2 years after a year in bourbon or something like that. And then a 22 year old imperial aged in first fill bourbon. I know nothing of imperial but the descriptions leave me expecting a pretty traditional highland/speyside type malt with a lot of vanilla infused from the bourbon casks. nose - orchard fruits, stone fruits, and even some more citrus orange like elements. Plenty of vanilla with some oak and an almost light smoke from perhaps the youthful first fill sherry just somewhat not mixing into the bourbon notes. Very fruity but not really compared to a lot of recent compassbox offerings which have gone to the moon on sweet fruity notes. I should note this isn't my first pour but the whisky seems a touch closed off. I reserve the right to adjust as needed. Taste - Clean simple cereal grain and fruit leads off then fades into a somewhat muted vanilla and light chocolate finish. Some oak tanins, some sherry elements. It's leaving me wanting. Water opens it up a touch brings the fruits together into a singular fruit cocktail and the oak and sherry elements move mostly into the finish where they make a fairly strong impression. I'm now down below the shoulder and I've poured 2 glasses each time I've spent time with this. You can tell they added young whisky to older whisky. You can taste more of that younger cask than perhaps you'd want but it does add something with that really rich sherry note. I had no idea what to expect coming in and to be honest, I have no idea what to expect as this opens up. And yet, it's still compass box and with that, i did know what to expect. For now I'm scoring this is a 2.0 but I'm leaving a strong chance this improves with time. As for buying it and the price, this is a risky buy and I'd generally say it might be one to think twice about for all but serious fans. It's good, you'll like it. But I feel this is pretty average stuff with some moments of very good and some moments of "I could do better for 70-80". Also the box is too big and flimsily. Phenomenalogy was that last well made quality box from them. I'm getting home with wrinkles on my boxes now every time I buy one. Sure I'm walking with it too much but still, come on guys, fancy labels need quality cardboard (I'm not asking for wood or anything crazy).