Tastes

I've brought you batch 18 so now lets go back 6 batches to batch 12. Nose - Very light, vanilla, cream, touch of oak, touch of caramel. There's a bit of oak spice at the end. Taste - A light toasted bourbon with focuses on sweetness, really bringing me back to a lot of the notes I get on say a well full proof or CYPB. It's that highly inviting and welcoming bourbon that I think has become out of hand popular. This one brings in some age and some refinement that makes me start thinking about the van winkles. Now, I'm virtually positive this isn't a wheated anything, and I don't taste wheat but it is that mellow and relaxed yet highly enjoyable balance here that I'm more focused on. I get some bubble gum notes, some kinda of puffed sugar, and just a touch of leather. Honestly, I'm not sure I'm getting 12+ year old bourbon here, but at the same time, I'm 100% sure I'm getting whisky that with a buffalo trace logo on it, would sell for 500+ secondary. So batch 18 vs 12? 18 is bolder, spicier, less refined, the finish is longer with sparks and bitter notes coming through. They do share similar flavor profiles as I get the creams and lighter vanilla notes, and perhaps say a hint of a vanilla wafer. The batch 12 is that van winkle refined whisky, the 18 is a store pick of weller 107, less refined, but still good. If you like a bit of punch get the newer batches. If you are looking for that refined ultra high end bourbon experience without a CS note, I think these older bottles will do it for you. I don't know when Nancy had to start using higher proof barrels but I do think something changed pretty materially between batch 12 and 18. As a whisky connoisseur I would be hard pressed side by side to not tell you the batch 12 is a superior product. I however as a whisky drinker think a lot more bourbon geeks might lean towards this 18. I gave the 18 a 3.25 which is a great score and this one has to come in at 3.75. The amount of refinement while bringing in some older whisky notes really to me pushes this one up in terms of overall quality, but for those who aren't looking for a bookers punch but still need a bit of a kick, batch 18 might be more your jam. Watch Nancy tell me batch 12 and 18 are basically the same and that I'm a fool. Either way, I'm a happy camper with the batch 12 while the batch 18 left me feeling something was off.

A curious bottle here. 140 bucks, ultra limited, distilled in Indiana, and "stored in oak for 12 year" and listed as a light whiskey. All at a 137 proof. OK fine, they got me interested so lets see what this George Town Kentucky distillery with zero history despite their marketing is doing with what could be a 12 year old MGP sourced whiskey. Nose - ok, this is delightful. It's brown sugar, cinnamon apple spices, pipe tobacco, dusty old wood (unfinished oak), and finishing in a pie crust dessert deal. Taste - the high proof creates a very dry experience bringing in notes that really match the nose. More oak here, drying and slightly bitter. Carried by ample amounts of sweetness from vanilla, caramel, brow sugar, apples, and dare I even say some honey. A couple of drops of water drops some of the dry and bitter, but the one issue with this is it isn't overly mouth coating, oily, or really a quality sipper as a result. I could bring the proof way down, but at that point the whisky will start getting too light and too thin. The marketing on these is horrible, the wax topper is as bad as they get, and well...not a fan of what they did in terms of really anything. Even the label was hard to read and I missed things in the store. Still, this has some incredible flavor, it noses amazingly, and overall 3.75. I'd put this next to an ECBP and expect it to come out on top everywhere but mouth feel. edit - Been sipping on this, I've had a few now. I'm starting to pickup a more clear picture of butter scotch on this one which I do get on more of these "american" whiskies. It's really nice, but it is making this more distinctly light whisky from bourbon. Either way, I like it but it was something I realized I didn't touch on earlier and it's an important difference as this note doesn't tend to come out as much on traditional bourbons.

Wish I knew more about this one, but I'm sure it's sourced and I highly doubt it is a single malt. So if you've had their standard 10 year, you'll really know most of these notes. Nose - Sweet butter scotch, some vanilla, nearly no overt oak, but light tannins at the end. There is still some pretty distinct spirt here. This reminds me almost of a grain alcohol out of scotland. A bit more buttery and rich than perhaps a scotch would be at the same age. Taste - The flavor is richer and more buttery but really it has all the same flavors from the nose. Butter scotch BOMB. That I really like is after about 2 months open it's really mellowed out. The 53% which opened hot is now very approachable. While oddly I think the 40% regular release is the one I'd rather have on the bar as this is just a sipper where you want an easy drinker without any real flaws, the 12 year CS brings with it more flavor but really just bigger flavor. I'm not sure it is really different in those flavors, I'm not sure the 12 years did a LOT...perhaps some more oak and chocolate might be peaking in. Anyway, I really enjoy this but at 80, it's a bit over priced. I like supporting the locals efforts. 2.25, this is just a very mellow easy sipper.

I haven't reviewed THIS? I need an excel file or something to track my whisky and reviews as this is just out of hand! Batch 62 59.9% About 35% left in this bottle and I'm guessing 5-18 months open. I have no idea. Still available locally for about 87 dollars though I know if I cross state lines I'm looking at 110. Nose - the first impression is this is a bit spirit forward. Alcohol is high enough to really prevent me from getting good nosing notes. As I dig in it's a very dry nose, oak is very much forward, and the sherry notes are well also a bit dry themselves. I get more of a dusty type of varnish than a traditional sherry punch. Only the faintest of sweetness is in the back. With water, this is a completely different whisky. It's now sweet and fruity. Vanilla is jumping out of the glass, red fruits have come out to play, berries and raisins, and a hint of milk chocolate. Taste - Here I get more richness, chocolate, toffee, fudge, some still almost shoe cleaner like notes, perhaps butter scotch, and there's a distinct oak. At the very back end I even get a bit of a cashew/walnut nutty note. OK lets add the water - it is instantly sweeter, chocolate has faded a bit but it yields a more complete and more traditional sherry forward experience. It is still dessert over a light oak note but now more fruity and certainly more inviting. I remain a fan of what is going on here. There are a lot of these CS NAS offerings or near CS (macallan?) and they all offer inconsistency from batch, a lack of refinement, and at times pretty good whiskies. I think A'Bunadh and tamdhu have been the leaders in this area just putting out overall better product then the glendronach, glengoyne, and certainly macallan offerings of late. Still, there is a balancing act that we as whisky fans will find ourselves with on these bottles. At these prices there are some outstanding independent bottlings of even yes first fill sherry casks at 8-12 years old that can be found at reasonable prices. I am finding each time I go back to these NAS bottles, even ones I have just had open, I keep thinking the same thing. I love the rich flavor, I love the abv kick, but gosh...it's harsh and unrefined. I guess where I'm going is that I used to find that these huge abv sherry bombs would hit me with intense flavor and it would mask the youthful exuberance of the spirit. Today i find myself picking that up and even finding myself questioning the casks used in these blends as if perhaps they were simply trying to get rid of a few bad casks and mask them in the high abv blend. Meanwhile other than the 43% offerings, I'm being drawn more and more back into the 12-18 year old whiskies which I used to feel needed more age (lets get into the PREMIUM stuff) or more proof. Anyway 2.75 score for me on this one. Water really breaks this one open and brings out a very nice oloroso sherry, but I still find it overly drying, bitter where it doesn't need to be, over oaked (how?), and simply a bit too unrefined. At under 100 dollars if you've become a CS sherry bomb fan, this is a good if not great option, but don't expect the finest quality whisky behind the alcohol and sherry bomb. This does beg the question if I went back to the macallan classic cuts (which I scored higher), where would I score them now? Even in the last 3 months I feel I've more and more been noticing the lack of refinement is just more and more apparent.

So today Erik Wait posted a youtube video (check it out btw) on this whisky and he got into his scoring methods, and it got me think a bit about what I"m looking for and why these young peated whiskies can and do get such high scores and why, I'm honestly rarely blown away. So I thought I'd put out what I'm looking for and where this whisky comes up, something I tend to not spend a lot of time on with my notes here, but maybe worth looking at. 1) Distinct intrinsic quality. What I mean is that all else equal we generally know what is and isn't a quality/expensive note. Young whisky vs old whisky can both be good and bad, but when we say we taste a young whisky, we or at least I mean I'm getting notes of new make which are flaws imo. Conversely, enough oak to the point of bittering could be a nice complement to a finishing or sweet malt, but can very quickly turn to a huge flaw as well. Both "flaws" could be discussed as flaws where as intense and extreme smoke is often a sign of youth that is favorable much like rich oak or complex transitions and depth can be good notes on older whisky. 2) The way the whisky smells, and here I think many reviewers don't value this much, it's really about the flavor to them. For me not at all true, it's 60:40 once I start looking at 3.5+ star review scores. 3) I need depth, complexity, transitions, and nuance. It has to do a lot either in a simple note (a sherry bomb might not transition but that flavor can be incredibly complex in that one thing) or in how the whisky flavor changes before we get to the finish. 4) Finish can save a whisky or leave it completely underwhelming. 5) It has to in at least 2 of these areas really move me to get past a 3.5 So onto this one. Nose - sweet, a touch of plum pudding (I guess I kinda get the sherry cask here), oak is present, and the classic laphroiag malt where I get some citrus notes and some good vanilla as well here. Taste - I get some medicinal, some earthy notes, a lot of vanilla (I keep thinking this is a better 10 CS, but i guess I like the sherry/quarter cask with bourbon). Finish - it's medium, but there's not much here. It's medicinal, oak, and well a standard laphroaig finish. So why is this getting so much excitement? Well, it's big, bold, and there's a lot of shall we say unblended or not melded together flavors. This however does lend itself to having a fairly decent amount of complexity. There is a youthful note at the end as well, not so much unrefined but it wasn't ready for the show. But I don't think a lot of islay fans find this off or to be a flaw and if you expect that perhaps it isn't. Similarly, the finish is longer than the average dram thanks to the CS, but nothing is really happening...you just get to savor what is a very nice pleasant note. It's full body and mouth coating as heck which I love and I'm sure others are loving too. So for me this is a 3.5 though closer to a 3.25 than a 4.0. 2.0 being average, 3.0 very really very good, and 4 being outstanding...after that you're into the best of the best. Ultimately, the whisky is complex but not greatly so, the finish is long but not special, and the nose while very enjoyable doesn't make me want to keep coming back. For under 100 bucks this is a good value and in and of that perhaps some will score it higher.

So store pick, was told 8 years old but based on bottle date can't be over 7. Nose - distinct wheat finish, vanilla, and a hell of a lot of nutty notes. I'm a bit confused at how nutty this is, very much a heaven hill or jim beam like note. Taste - very light bourbon but yet i still get a bit of alcohol bite and heat. Honestly, I'm struggling to get past alcohol, nutty notes, and then on the finish vanilla and a hair of oak. There's nothing distinct here. Full disclosure I bought this thinking it might mix well with coke or rootbeer. It doesn't, it actually disapears to the point I can't tell there's bourbon in the glass. A great thing for a college party, but not really what I want when I'd like to have a nice summer sipper where I still can enjoy some bourbon character. 1 star, nothing wrong with it. It's a bit spirit forward for the age and proof but i tend to find some cheaper bourbons when watered down almost seem more alcohol forward and not less. Not a bourbon I'd recommend to really anyone. I don't get enough wheater character to justify this as a replacement for other wheats and if you want something nutty maybe try a beam black, imo that's better juice.

So galenstein selection 7 109 or so price point. Nose - I get bread dough, vanilla, citrus candy, and oak. Taste - Simple, sweet, vanilla, a bit too much spice (cinnamon/red hot). It's a nice whisky up front but the spice has over powered the sweet. There's that wheat character. So any good? Yeah, it's good. Is it worth 110 bucks? hell no! This is a very nice whisky that is unique and in that i think us geeks will be ok with 109 or so bucks for, but frankly unless you want overly hot, cinnamon, and fankly not overly well aged whisky...maybe you like it? 2.25 - it's above average, but there's some nice quality here too. Boone County does well with MGP casks for the age, but no 6 year bourbon is special. This is bourbon vs wheat whisky and higher proof, but frankly I think the woodford wheat is about on par or better, not sure what I scored the wheat but I'd assume it's better. This does justify more price even if not as good due to proof.

So this is a pre review tasting and I'll adjusted for the real one. This is my second glass and I'm trying to decided where to go with this. Nose - young, medicinal, citrus fruits, banana, and maybe a hint of a red wine. Taste - young whisky. A mess of vanilla, oak, salt, brine, bananas, youthful casks, some acidic red wine, and then some sweet mellowing notes and then a spicy finish. Every time I try to talk myself into or out of this I come to the same two thoughts. The first is this is young as hell and it shows it in the worst ways and the second is there are some good wine casks used here to help. Overall at the end of the day, and I'll try and come back if things change...this is another massive failure when taken into context of price. This is corryvreckan with better casking and maybe a few months more age. Yeah I'm seriously disappointed in this one. It's not bad whisky...but I'm struggling to score it past a 2.0. With others enjoying this I am really looking to find some value, but I keep coming back to these young whisky notes, good wine casks but perhaps cheap bourbon casks leading to them. I guess where I struggle is if some of spices and finishes are sharp casks that were intended or raw spirit that has no place in this. I'm thinking it's youth. 2.0 an average whisky where I feel many will enjoy it beyond that and many will find this down right offensive. Dropping it to 1.50, I've had it a few times. It's just nearing terrible. Pass on this please.

Glengoyne 30 Year Seems I can’t add the whisky tonight…so I guess I’ll write this and see if distillers ever gets their system to work. It did, but there is an error and the abv is off, 46.8% Nose – there’s a distinct and strong oak character in this one. Beyond that is dark fruit and yet a sweet and bright malt that’s a bit unexpected. My understanding is that this is a mix of first fill and refilled sherry, unlike the 21 and 25 which are all first fill. I’m also not sure if they use some American oak here instead of exclusive European. It would not surprise me if we have some American oak in here. Taste – Oak remains on the flavor, this is really one of the more oak forward scotches I’ve had. The sherry casks of course bring with the oak everything you want from sherry. Dark fruits, raisins, chocolate, plums, and the oak brings spices as well. Just when you think maybe it is a touch oak bitter, the whisky transitions to what almost makes me think juicy fruit and oak along with raisins and brown sugar. Glengoyne rarely leads me to writing books, it’s a sherry showcase that in this one brings in a lot of really nice cool oak elements that might put some off. Me this is my wheel house, but their basic malt is fairly simple and with that, you really don’t get a lot for extra depth. 4.0 – outstanding whisky but at 600, I’m not sure outstanding is good enough for most. But I can’t say another bottle won’t be in my future from another batch. The quality is absolutely here.

57.1% batch 19 and 65% bourbon cask the rest sherry. I won't lie, I think these 12s have been best with more sherry but lets dive in. Nose - At first alcohol is a bit hard to unpack. The springbank funk and peat and light salt at there, but alcohol really is a struggle to get through. Once past that, the nose is super sweet, dessert levels. Heavy vanilla and creme brulee. Then i start getting jams and fruits. Rich, full body, but not overly complex by springbank standards at least. Taste - I think this takes the classic 12 funk, heat, intensity, and balance and just shifts things towards a really nice vanilla. I actually had a bit of a back and fourth on if this is heavy first fill bourbon cask or if perhaps there were some casks used just to start a whisky in bourbon and then those were used here. I tend to find first fill bourbon over the top but here it's high quality bourbon casking giving these rich vanillas, but where we disagreed was that I think the sherry casks in here are absolutely amazing for 35%. The fruity sherry notes come alive in the finish and carry this whisky to really great heights. As a savor this glass more, I'm starting to pickup that springbank BBQ note I get on these 12's and other more heavily sherried ones. I gave a black box 2015 a 3.25 which is a heck of a score and I'm doing the same here. I really love this bottle and at 100 bucks, I could consider buying another one or two.