Tastes

Nose – ok let this one sit out for a LONG time and it punched me with vanilla. After the sweetness comes oak and funk. Very much a wooden cabinet. But I get a bit of a nutty element ,deep and old nuts. Touch of cherry and I’m thinking bourbon. Taste – oaky and funky for sure. Very high proof, super sweet for about a second then the sweetness comes back later. And then the funky oak blast hits you again. I’m struggling to get much more as this is just so much of a punch. Ok water was needed and now I’m getting more fruity notes. I also cheated and looked up that this has a port finish and yeah I get that. I don’t however get peat, unless that’s what I’m getting as heavy oak and funk. The thing is that the finish here reminds me of harbinger which I don’t like much. OK doing more, and yeah this has a peat like the new riff backsetter which I hated. So this is a hard pass. Too sweet. Too weird. The sweetness and the funk are both over powering. 1.75 stars but I could honestly go upwards of 2.25 just on how dang unique. I once again gotta thank Matt for samples and I'm so glad I got this one just again UNIQUE but yeah not really good.

Nose – some nice oak and then boom buffalo trace level’s of cherry but then it just keeps going, it’s cough syrup levels. There’s an odd muted kinda oak blanket coating bringing down the nose. It’s weird. OK there’s a but of fresh cut grass. Taste – It’s like port, spearmint, oak, it reminds me of that really good tasting grape cough medicine I had as a kid. What in the world. The finish is oaky but neither pleasant or not. Some leather and a touch of funk. I’m describing a really odd whisky but this is pretty cool. Has a lot of bourbon notes, it’s not “Texas funk” at all. I’d really be happy with this at 60-70, no clue the price point but under 100 and this wouldn’t be a terrible buy. I’m more like 50 if I were to get 2 bottles. Score 2.25. This is above average, unique, but not a wow bottle.

OK blind Texas whisky, we’ll see if I can even review this here. Thanks to Matt – Whisky Crusader. Nose – apple cinnamon roll? It’s orchard fruit, it’s sweet, so sweet. Then there’s a nice spice. Very much an apple pie or cinnamon roll or some kind of nice smelling fruity dessert. Very lacking in oak or char or really anything. Ok it's opened up some and it's more honey sweet and more mellow with some vanilla. Less fruity sweet. Taste – what in the hell is this. Sweet and so familiar with a wine cask finish for sure. It’s apple pie and odd baking spices, some bitter notes, some herbal for sure, and perhaps some kind of jam or jelly, and I just want to say the jelly is kinda yellow orange….I don’t know the fruit but that’s the color. Well hot damn, now to score this. I know ZERO about this whisky. I assume it’s a single malt. I’m going with 3.25 stars guys. This is shockingly good. No clue on the price but I’d buy this up to 100 bucks and I might go more. One note this is 56.2 so it might be a special cask? No clue.

Reviewing a sample which I hate doing and worse yet a 1 oz sample but I wanted notes on this one as I'll be deciding on a purchase based on this. Nose - this is the most grapefruity grapefruit ever. Dry very fruit forward without sugar notes. You get notes of oak, light and sweet, with vanilla and then a bit of old grain whisky comes through.With time some dark fruits start to creep in and some tropical fruit notes as well. Taste - Up front it's sweet and bold, then grain whisky with RICH creamy vanilla, then turns to fruits (mango, pears, and all kinds of topical notes with a touch of grapefruit bitter), and then finishes with lightly toasted oaks and malts. This whisky seems to change 3 or 4 times while in my mouth, with transition after transition. I can't dare myself to add water to this as it drinks just perfectly as it. Creamy and just viscous enough. Alcohol waits to hit and even then it's gentle and inviting. So the elephant in the room is if I'd buy a bottle at say 550 which I know I can get it for. And....I think I'm passing. At 400, I'm getting one for sure. less than that and I'd have 2. It's such a good whisky but I don't think it does anything so well that I'm compelled to rush out and get one. But I still really want a bottle. If Irish is your jam, this is a must. If you're like me and a bit more agnostic towards Irish, if you find a deal buy, but otherwise try before you buy.

batch 18-12 bottle 1379 I feel perhaps we need to discuss batches on this one more and this is going to be a case of this. Nose - sweet baby fruits and brown sugars. Sharp alcohol notes, really surprising on this, but yeah alcohol bites at 46%. Tart and tannic oak, very bitter. Those oak notes are tough to get past. Raisins and dates and all kinds of dark fruits with little sweetness are really strong here on the mid to finish of the nose. Up front no bourbon sweetness but it's there, just hard to get to. Taste - Dry, bitter, HEAVY oak and then on the finish it transitions to more oak. Not that vanilla barrel influenced oak, but more just a dry wood plank. There's just this light fruity sherry thing that's generic and boring that then gives way to the tannins. I'd give a more complete review but I can't get past the oak. This is one of the least enjoyable finished bourbons I have had. There is a good whisky in here, but it's been killed. I"m at a 1 star. That said I think some batches are less oaked and you'll enjoy them. But I want to be clear, this is a different oak than over oaked old whisky. It's young oak over oaked and I like that even less.

Hi, I'm Dustin and this review might trigger some people. So bought this recently because of my "Irish guy" and if you know me you know him, he RAVES about this. So I had to get into it. The first thing is WOW this is a nice box. And I mean that as a guy, read my reviews, who has had some nice bottles and with them some nice boxes. This might be near the top, right there with my best kavalan boxes and in some ways this is better even than them. OK so I wasn't impressed and with that, I'm trying this next to John Lane's 12 year to see if I'm crazy. Nose - First off the nose is soft and it's a struggle to pull things out. Certainly jammy, oak notes are here, it's very approachable, calm, but has the bones of some older oaked influence and some traditional irish unmalted barely grainy notes coming through. This would totally work as a higher end starter whisky if that makes any sense. Oh it's opening up more and now I'm getting more citrus notes, a bit of a bite from them, very cool change, but still that jammy sweetness balances it out. Taste - Again this is approachable upfront but there's a very good spicy kick at the end, almost too much for my starter group I listed above. There's a good oak note here. It's sweet, but overall it's a very generic irish whisky. So my first impressions were that this was mostly 12-15 year old whisky with some 20 year old stuff. I'm told it's mostly 10 year old with up to 25 year old whisky in it. So there's something to be said about the complexity of the oak and there's a nice spice and flavor profile here. It however does nothing to wow me and does nothing that 200 dollar bottle should do. Finish is however pretty good and long, but it's mostly just well aged irish on the finish, not old, just well aged. OK so back to that powers. It's bolder, fruitier, the spices are the same flavor but the way they approach your tongue is different, they're more scattered vs concentrated. It gives the powers a bit more of a younger and less refined feel. The Barry really is an irish take on showcasing oak and in a good way. The powers is bubbly and fruity and it's like meeting a lovely 21 year old blonde at a bar and talking to her. You're smiling because she's lovely and she's just full of energy and life, but lets be real....she doesn't have much to say. The barry is more of an interesting conversation with someone less "interesting on the eyes". It's objectively better, but I'm not sure I'd not have more fun with the powers. The thing is, while I do objectively see that the Barry Crockett is more expensive and better whisky, it's not that much better. But at the same time, maybe it is? And I say this because as I nose and drink the two side by side, I see the refinement that Barry has, I see the more concentrated older oak notes vs the more bubbly and sweet notes of the powers. But these are two whiskies coming from really really similar bases and neither strike a note of "wow" neither strike a note of "special" and neither have an off character that might send me elsewhere. So score, I gave the powers a 2.5 and frankly, I think I'd rather drink it. It's just a bit more flavorful and sweet, but Barry Crockett is a more refined whisky. So an objective score which isn't just about how much I like something, I have to give the edge to Barry crockett, but is it enough better for a higher score? Yeah, I think there's enough here. I'm going 2.75 and I know Im going to get some upset Irish whisky lovers on this one. I feel this is the irish whisky you get for a doctor or a lawyer to put on his shelf who wants a bit more flavor than a "very rare" gives. I don't think this is something anyone should buy who isn't just a die hard irish lover. And don't get me wrong, it's very well made whisky but it's very well made 100 dollar whisky and it's not the best of anything.

So I like or maybe even love the bay. It is one of my favorite low priced peated whiskies and as I mature as a drinker and become...well a bit of a snob it remains one that I still very much like and come back to. That said I've always kinda ignored this one due to the price and well, I'm not sure it's going to really work. So I bit the bullet, lets find out. nose - I get a distinct mint right off the bat. Heck it's spearmint. Touch of fruity elements but subtle. Then a slightly medicinal or putty clay peat. There's a lot here but it's not overly strong smelling. taste - Overly oaked, charred, BBQ, with a sweet BBQ sauce (some citrus and salty elements here for sure). That's this glass in a nut shell. The the finish is candy cigarettes, light oak, and just sugar crystals. There's a lingering slightly earthy and oak finished here too. Now I can see someone picking up some chocolate, some earth, a lot of dried leaves, and man it's menthol and spearmint all the way through. Do I like this more than the bay? Honestly, not really. It's a bit more complex and there's some older whisky in it. The higher sherry content however doesn't really help this one imo. It doesn't hurt it either, it's just a different expression. This is a HARD whisky to score. OK so talking out loud, it's insanely complex so 4 stars. The complexity has a lot to do with off and youthful notes. So maybe 2 stars? The alcohol is perfectly balanced and the whisky drinks far more full bodied and rich and intense than any 46% whisky, so 3 stars? Hell I'm going 3.25 stars here. There's a case that this is far better and a case that I'm over rating it. Overall a good buy at about 100 bucks. Really complex and a must try for peat lovers. Will I buy again? You know, I'll start buying each year's batch but maybe not backups.

I've got an irish or two to add some notes on here, this one was one that a friend just keeps raving about and I saw it at a store I get credit for buying bottles at and for 65 bucks I said, why not. Throw in I had an expensive car repair, and the itch to buy new bottles is much less damaging to my wallet with this one. I'll just add, almost certainly colored but non chill filtered. Nose - So the first thing that pops into my head is bubble gum and a light touch of "stone" fruits (a stolen tasting note). The more I dig in the more I think of that white powder on the bubble gum that used to be in baseball cards. After that I get a touch of a spice and a bit of unfinished cut oak. Taste - So right off the bat there's this butter and vanilla driven sweetness from first fill bourbon casks. The whisky then gives off very distinct notes of irish unmalted barely which I can only describe as grainy and a bit unrefined. The whisky then transitions to a very pleasant spice, which I will say when I first opened this, it was a bit much on the spice so i'm not sure if my prior dram has softened me to this, but I'm finding the spice much more enjoyable and less of a "bit much" right now. There's a hint of chocolate and there's a bit of a sherry fruit element, it's soft and subtle but those sherry cask are just barely saying hi. The finish I get the classic irish smooth and mellow cream and soft oak finish. The only other thing I got when I really swirled this around in my mouth and let the whisky saturate everything was a hint of grape fruit on the finish. This is something I get often on these 10-14 year old mostly bourbon cask whiskies, but this is a first on an irsh vs a scotch. I rather like that finishing note myself. I'll be blunt, this one blew me away for the price and frankly for being 46% and irish. I wasn't expecting much. I honestly think this is about as nice an irish whisky that you can get for the money and it's a darn good 12 year old whisky in general. 2.5 score. I know that might seem low but wowing me from the price isn't the same as being a wow whisky. This is a very nice pour, and frankly any 12 year old irish being over a 2.0 is a real accomplishment. A really well made product at an affordable price.

So this is actually my SECOND bottle of this, the first one was sampled out and well frankly I drank it lol. So onto bottle 2...and perhaps a chance to decide if I need a 4th or 5th bottle. Oh quick note, 12 year old MGP, 100 proof, aged 18 months in a sherry cask, I'm assuming first fill. Nose - On the nose right off I get honey, light berry's, rye spice, a bit of waxy/plasticy notes, a firm amount of very neutral oak. This is very sweet with likely a vanilla undertone. The MGP bourbon is mostly muted but that rye note that comes up and gives the fruity flavors a bit of an awkward arrival is almost certainly from that characteristic rye mash on MGP. This is rich, unique, and very special. Taste - The first thing to say is this is a bit drying and as such I think the 100 proof was a good decision. Upfront it's sweet and just sugary with this rush of honey that's had fruits soaking in it. I'm thinking a tart strawberry covered in honey that's been aging in an oak barrel. The finish however is dry, funky notes come out, some rye, some bitter oak, and almost a baby vomit like element has come to mind a few times and I don't have kids so I'm struggling with how or where I'm going here. So overall impression is that this doesn't drink like a bourbon. The sherry casks have absolutely taken over and now the MGP rye and sweetness is working just as a back end platform to show case these casks. It's very tannic likely from the sherry cask, this is both a good and bad thing and I'm having mixed feelings as it adds complexity but does somewhat have off putting moments. I love the fruity sherry flavor, it's really hard to put my finger on it exactly, I just think red berry but muted with oak and honey. So overall this is an incredibly different whisky and it's down right fun and enjoyable. I might have to strongly consider seeing if I can land another bottle...as I think one of the 2 backups I have is spoken for. So score is tough here. I really like it. But there's more to a score than if I like it. I have to consider that this bourbon was overwhelmed by sherry. I have to remember those tannins that over power. I have to debate if the finish is long enough. Is there enough complexity? And in doing that, I have to say this is short of being exceptional. So I'm coming down to a 3.0. I think once you break a 3 for me there needs to be some kind of mix of no flaws and some great notes or a wow factor that overwhelms the flaws. Here I don't think we get there and that's ok. I've been grading a lot more favorable lately I noticed so I'm also trying to get more centered and back to a consistent number. So if good springbank 12 CS's are 3.25 and I think that's fair, this should be a 3.0.

Duel Review - Rhetoric 20 vs 22, neck pour BLIND. So quick background, I did have either the 22 or 23, I think it was the 23...there's an empty bottle around somewhere because I saved it, so I'd remember which. Of course...where I put it? Hell, if I know. OK so I loved that dang whisky so I'm kind excepted. Both bottles bought at "retail" 2020 retail which put these at 174.99...yeah, a dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Nose - Whiskey 1 - fruity vanish, cherries, berries, and oh so much oak. Whiskey one is hitting on all those classic ultra-aged bourbon notes with a powerful sweet fruity nose up front and then slowly giving way to aged oak. Overall, we've at a near perfect balance for me where the sweet fruits, chocolates, and that leather vanish dominate and the oak is there to complement but not overpower. Whiskey 2 - While whiskey 1 jumps out of the glass and screams LOOK AT ME, this one is more subtle and subdued. I get very little sweetness, just alcohol notes and oak. Here I get a dusty closet and some peanut or some kinds of nuts. I wouldn't dare dream these two bourbons shared anything in common. Now after some time and swirling and frankly, slowly coating the glass the sweetness is starting to tease its' way out. Now some chocolate is coming, some sweet corn, but still even as the oak fades a touch it's mostly breads and baking notes on the back end where I'm looking for oak and very little up front. Taste - due to the notes doing whiskey 2 first. Whiskey 2 - The first thoughts are buttery oak, tannins, and a LOT of vanilla at the end. Caramel is minimal, fruits aren't showing up, and there's a second kind of vanilla here (one is standard bourbon and the other is almost waxy vanilla creamer). A very odd duck and frankly, not one I'm going back to. Whiskey 1 - Sweeter up front, far more just older bourbon character. It also gives off this alcohol and dryness often that comes from super aged bourbons where it dries you out a bit and gives off that vanish note. So here we get vanilla and caramel with old leather, alcohol soaked oak chips, tannins, and light sweet dark notes. I'm often one of the loudest advocates for OLD bourbon though I fully admit that the ultra-aged stuff can get a bit over the top with oak, those BAD ones. Here I think we're on the wrong side but despite also being a proof snob, I'm crossing my fingers water might just save the day! Nose - Water hasn't done much good or bad to our first bourbon. Perhaps it brought back out the sweetness which has somewhat fading while drinking it. It remains a wonderful bourbon nose. Whiskey 2 feels sweeter and more integrated. It's become a bit creamier, vanilla, and now I'm getting a sweet caramel. Still not getting more than perhaps a touch of a dusty leather that I'd expect with a super aged bourbon. Water opens both whiskies up as well bringing a bit more sweetness and a bit more oak. Balance isn't really found and the finishes on both are vanilla and oak. The opening for whiskey 1 is very good but misses greatness and then it finishes poorly, but the finish is long Oakey and lingers well. Whiskey two is bitter and while it too has a long enough finish, the buttery notes are still here. Ok pick 1 easily here. I am told the 22 is the best of the lot but frankly, if I had to guess, 2 is the older juice. Let’s see Whiskey 1 - 22 year Whiskey 2 - 20 year Welp so much for me guessing age. The 22 year just blows the 20 out of the water. 2 stars for the 22 and 1.5 stars for the 20. These are easy passes despite the 22 having a nose worthy of a 3.75 whisky and an upfront taste worthy of a 3.25.