Tastes
-
Powers John's Lane Release 12 Year
Single Pot Still — Ireland
Reviewed July 25, 2020 (edited February 25, 2021)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.65.0 USD per Bottle -
Bardstown Bourbon Co. Copper & Kings Oloroso Sherry Cask Finish
Bourbon — USA
Reviewed July 25, 2020 (edited April 8, 2021)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 3.0.135.0 USD per Bottle -
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 3.25.175.0 USD per Bottle
-
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 of my life 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 3.25.175.0 USD per Bottle
-
Bardstown Bourbon Co. Discovery Series #2
Bourbon — Kentucky, USA
Reviewed July 11, 2020 (edited November 16, 2020)Ok barton, heaven hill, and turkey 10, 12, and 14 years old. Not in that order. Anyway great stuff on paper. Nose - Pretty traditional bourbon notes here. So can you pickup the blended distilleries? Well actually, yeah you can. Barton rye notes are generally a touch off putting...sourced ok whatever, but I get them here. I then get that turkey funky note, and there's a hint of nutty elements but not peanuts that I get on heaven hill. For me it's a lot of 1792 barrel proof and rare bread with a touch of something else. Sweet, rich, complex, weird...and that classic bourbon vanilla, oak and caramel. One nice note to add is some apple cinnamon cider served in a hay barn. Taste - Once again just a swirling mix of flavors but so much just traditional bourbon. OK so this is more oak driven with some funky notes. I don't say this often with bourbon but it's almost starting to get into savory elements as the oak and bourbon are playing this perfect balance where neither the bitter oak nor the sweet bourbon are able to get too far out in front, though the net whisky is still caramel with a touch of vanilla forward. There's a nutty note. Some fancy french pastry like bready and chocolatey notes. Totally creme brulee. And just this tootsie roll, candy falling apart, aged stout, but yet vanilla forward thing. Then the oak gives you impressions of being in a barn and just in some funky turkey rick houses. I'm super impressed with this one. SO much of the sourced bourbon lately has been really just MGP, barton, or dickle. This brings in well aged versions of turkey and heaven hill and then by blending them you get a whole new and frankly better experience. It's a bit tough at first to jump into this one, it's a whirlwind of what is that, but at the end of the day, it's one of the most complex straight bourbons I've seen in some time. I'll go 3.75. The only real issue here is there's no wow element or moment of DAMN. It's all about the complexity and challenges of pulling apart these notes. I'm not sure however that a lot of people who aren't here want to do that. If I were just drinking this on the rocks....I'd like it but I wouldn't buy again. As a geek, I might get another if they're around in a year.135.0 USD per Bottle -
Compass Box Flaming Heart 15th Anniversary Limited Edition
Blended Malt — Scotland
Reviewed July 11, 2020 (edited January 3, 2023)4-5 years ago I was a bourbon guy, now if you see my reviews here, maybe you think I'm still one. Trust me, it's mostly because I'm just a scotch GEEK and most of my bottles are single barrels I can't post here (easily) that I buy now. But what changed me, what sent me down a path of exploration into the depth of scotch? Well, it was this blend of all things. It drove me to sail my boat right into the heart of the storm to explore these challenging flavors and experiences. I rarely save empty bottles, I have a handful, and mostly because I thought they'd make good infinity decanters. But this is one that I saved the bottle and tube from all those years ago. It's not the marketing but it's the memories of this once life changing whisky. Never before had I experienced peat and sweet in such a way. The mingling of two worlds I both very much enjoyed, but it was so different and unique. At that point I'd never experienced beyond I suppose rumors of what's in blue label, what I'll call ultra aged whisky (30 or more years old) but this also gave me an actual healthy 27% shot of that as well. So after years of dreams and one bar pour that wasn't in optimal conditions (I'd been DRINKING that day), will this one still live up to my memory? Nose - First off, this is an extremely rich and aromatic scotch. In terms of just total smells this is a 9 out of 10. There's smoke and earth at first but as it sits in the glass I'm getting domination by that waxy floral and apple orchard type clynelish malt. Charred barrel and whispers of some youthful spirits are mingled in nicely. An aggressive swirl and a glass topper bring out burnt rubber and hints of tar. Each whiff the whisky gives off a slightly new element. Now roasted vanilla and light faint whiffs of chocolate. Now every so slightly bitter oak. Balanced combinations of fruits, sweetness, earth, bourbon cask maturation, and every so slightly peat doesn't show up but it seems to balance into everything else here. Taste - The pallet takes on a different direction. Where the nose was a perfect blending of all these elements the taste profile brings up more notes of older islay, more oak, more earth, and perhaps more bitterness. Wax elements from the clynelish do arrive. Fruity yet almost vanilla bourbon infused ones arrive as well. While the nose is a 9 in intensity the whisky drinks more like a 6. Not muted but much more average in boldness, and at 48.9% that comes a bit surprising. The finish however almost amps things back up to perhaps an 8. Alcohol lingers and holds on to the gums leaving behind wood spice and well aged and peat faded caol ila. The flames have subsided a bit but they've imparted a wonderfully complex whisky. While on the nose I think the addition of younger highland blend perhaps added a nice element, here I could do without. There's a candy corn like note I think is coming from the youthful spirits, perhaps 10% was a touch high. It still shocks me each time I drink this that the alcohol doesn't even become apparent until the finish, it's to the point it's startling. So 4 plus years of drinking and this now bring among the less expensive scotches I own (at least retail), how does flaming heart 2015 hold up? Well....pretty bloody well. This remains one of the most pleasing and complete whisky experiences I can think of. A finish that lasts and lingers for days. A nose that is worth of song and dance. And while the upfront flavors are not wowing me, they remain pleasing, enjoyable, and really a perfect opening act for a finish worthy of replacing cigars with. There are flaws and imperfections along the way. A bit of roughness and spark from some cheaper whisky. Still for my dollars, this remains a steal under 200, maybe even under 250. I think a fair average price is going to be in the low 300's for this one. At that point, I might still want a backup for nostalgia but I'm not jumping to buy one at that point. Score - 4.25. This is outstanding and I reserve the right to bump this up.175.0 USD per Bottle -
Old Carter Straight Bourbon Batch 5 (2020 Release)
Bourbon — Indiana, USA
Reviewed June 29, 2020 (edited April 24, 2021)Sadly, while many of these old carter's give good details, this one doesn't. I just know they weren't expecting to release it and then boom, it was too good to hold onto. Nose - apples, spice BOMB, and alcohol all day. Water is getting added here but let me finish my early notes. Water opens this bad boy up. Just a flavor/nose explosion. It's not rich which is what I really want but it's spices and intense aromas. Taste - So with all the batched Old Carters I get this dusty oak. This one opens up insanely pleasantly and sweet. It's so neutral in being a clean and classic bourbon without giving me tell tale signs of a distillery. Lets get to water. Ok water brings out more of these baked goods and middle of the road oaks and tannins. Again Old Carter is that middle of the road bourbon blend with a focus on spice and flavor but perhaps not in my wheel house. I'm a bit torn as I don't love this but I see so much stupid quality. I'm giving this a 2.75. It's kinda the anti bourbon for the buffalo trace lovers as it's all about the spice and kick from that vs the sweet. And it's nothing like the nutty beam world either. A niche product for a niche consumer.166.0 USD per Bottle -
Laphroaig Cairdeas 2017 Cask Strength Quarter Cask Edition
Single Malt — Islay, Scotland
Reviewed June 29, 2020 (edited October 27, 2020)Cask Strength laphroaig in a different barrel, ok I'll bite. Nose - Alcohol, peat, creme, coconut water, and a bit of youthful new make spirit. I'm a bit concerned but at the same time nothing is sharp or offensive here, just youthful and the abv is high. Maybe we'll be ok. Also getting some spearmint, oak tannins, vanilla, and the very medicinal element of laphroaig. Taste - This quarter cask is an explosion of flavors, I get citrus, vanilla, pine, spearmint, every so slightly soured oak, coconut, and as I often get on younger islay some aspartame. Then we get a nice long finish of medical supplies, lingering classic peat, rubber, ash, fake vanilla candy, and this is different but waxy cigarette smoke. So let me take a step back. I actually really enjoy just drinking this. It's not my favorite and it's not one I'll get more of but I like it. But when I focus on the notes and trying to pull them out, I'm not loving it. It is young and offensively so in some ways. But it's also good in many other ways. It's a whisky to just drink and to get a unique take on big ass abv and peat. I think that's the goal and it does that well. Anyway I'm not the biggest CS laphroaig fan until you get into the older stuff. So keep that in mind but I'm a 2.0 here. This is very average whisky put together expertly for a niche who wants peat to punch them in the balls, abv to kick them there, and then they just want a different cask maturation so they get a new spin on it. For that group this will be a stand out and frankly I would take this over the triple wood and regular 10 CS if I were in that grouping just as I think this one is a bit more unique. Me, I still like the Fino which I don't think is CS but I do think is more complex, nuanced, and well just a better whisky....but it isn't a better shot to the nuts.90.0 USD per Bottle -
Glenmorangie Milsean
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed June 29, 2020 (edited December 4, 2020)Milsean is one of those bottles I kept passing up until I thought they were gone and then stumbled upon on and I just had to give it a go. I'll save you any suspense, it's pretty tasty and I'm glad to have it, but how does it score? I seriously wish I knew more about these but i'm assuming 6-14 year old juice and oddly I think more in the 10-14 range and interesting wine casks. nose - I get an oddly lightly soured and yet candy like note, perhaps a blue or purple sweat tart meets a sour sucker meets charred oak? Some barely and oak notes as well. I don't recall this sour note from earlier tastings but what remains is a sweet and very inviting candy experience, and thus the candy stripe box design. The more I nose the more I start to get some bourbon notes, perhaps some vanilla and caramel. Wow just went back to it after a few minutes and I can't even describe it, it's like a kid's sticky mess of a box of candy where they opened a bunch, just hit me with candy. Lemon drops and sour patch, and just everything. Taste - well it's a tart and sweet candy mix for sure. Everything from your cherry suckers to your perhaps lightly chocolatey notes. Then a lovely transition to a slightly tart and wood sour finish, showcasing the charred oak and a mix of almost a powdered sugar and light milk chocolate powder combination. This is just a delightfully easy drinking sweet and candied whisky. It's not super old or complex. It's not great by any means. But it's just an easy and super enjoyable turn your head off and have a scotch kinda pour. I'm thinking 2.0, but I'll bump it to 2.25 for how inviting it is. The unique notes here might justify a few more points but at the same time, the nose has a hint of wow but more in "wow what is that" and the taste is mostly enjoyable and inviting, not wow. Anyway it's a bit expensive at 100 bucks but I'd not be opposed to a second bottle.100.0 USD per Bottle -
Compass Box Rogues' Banquet
Blended — Miltonduff, Glen Elgin, Clynelish, and North British, Scotland
Reviewed June 29, 2020 (edited October 11, 2022)Bought this a couple weeks ago, had a pour so lets get back into it. Background I haven't really researched. I know we're looking at about a 75:25 malt grain mix and the vast majority of the whisky in here is about 25 years old with some 19 or 21 year old mixed in. So plenty of age. A bit of grain to bring down costs but still net net I think a pretty good value on face value. Lets see how it drinks. Nose - ok first off, just coming off my glass, it's delicate yet powerful and really inviting. Citrus, apples, vanilla, spices, and a touch of oak. Really a very delightful and all be it perhaps a bit generic kind of a fruity citrus notes. The spice, fruit and vanilla character with the under lying older oak notes are really playing on each other well here. I even dare say I get distinct clynelish elements which is shocking given how little is in here, but yet I can't miss them. Taste - The taste goes a different direction from the nose. While the nose brings out citrus fruits and it has a balanced and fruity well banquet of notes, the flavor is very different. It plays on some waxy vanilla notes, gives off oak spices, and then you move into the finish where it gets a bit savory and there are umami elements likely oak driven. That lingers on medium to long with toasted oak and waxy vanilla with it. I'm struggling to find the nice citrus notes from the nose however. Mouth feel is another issue here. The 46% drinks like a non chill filtered whisky with a nice coating to the mouth, but it's still dishearteningly thin. Just going into the 48-50 range could have really pushed this one to the next level. I'm at 2.5 with this one. Let me walk you through it a bit. There is the complexity and nuanced transitions of a 20+ year old whisky and in that this should be walking into the 4.0 range. The finish is long and lingering, again should be at least a 3.5 if not 4 as well. The nose has the makings of a sold 3+ as well. The problem then? It's just SO flat up front when you first taste it. Where there should be orchard fruits or something. I plan to go back to this in a day or maybe even today and see if I'm just off or missing it, but it's truly a depressing start to what is otherwise a wonderful whisky. None the less a 2.0 is an average whisky and a 2.5 is a firm step up and is moving into a very good, but not great. I wouldn't dismiss this whisky on my score as there are layers upon layers of depth that for many might be more than enough to push this into their 4+ ranges. I'm picky and I hate to say this one is just missing a mark or two. Short re review - see comments but I'm upping this to 3.0235.0 USD per Bottle
Results 241-250 of 507 Reviews