Tastes

Been a lot of hype on this one and ran into a friend of a friend with a case so I was able to snag a bottle. Nose - vanilla bomb, some oak, some banana. Taste - more vanilla, this is heavy vanilla, very candied and sweet. I think of the oak here as a toasted barrel type finish. You get some of that jack banana and dr pepper as well, but the underlying flavor is all vanilla. The abv comes in about right but I guess a bit soft vs the double barrel barrel proof. Anyway, really good dram from jack, showcasing their over the top sweet profile in a very nicely made and drinkable version. 3 stars, well above average whisky and an impressive job by jack.

Well, if this sucks I got a fancy bottle. Nose - Very sweet and there's a mix of oak, bubble gum, a touch of cherry..pretty much a classic wheater style nose with a bit more alcohol and oak than you might get from some of the younger expressions. As it opens up I get a huge french vanilla like finish to the nose. Taste - really complex bourbon and sometimes wheat forward bourbons are a bit lacking there. There's a nutty element that while light is adding a nice complexity all throughout this one. Cherries, rich dark oak, caramel, burned brown sugar, and an very so light bit of vanilla. The 50% abv is perfect giving this full body, intense flavors, but not burning my tongue like heavily oaked cask strength bourbons can. If you want an older wheated bourbon, buy this over Pappy. It's better though it is a bit more traditional bourbon while the pappy line is sweeter. As always there is no true "replacement" for a 15-23 year old Pappy, but this is closer than a weller due to the added time in the barrels. 3.75, just short of exceptional but maybe i'm being too hard a grader on this. As always I reserve the right to come back and modify the score.

Welp my least respected distillery, but people keep raving about this to me. Lets find out how disappointing this is. Nose - fruity, baking spices, vanilla, surprisingly heavy amounts of sherry given the casks used. The sherry is almost reaching into a white grape juice level of sweetness. Taste - tired casks. Oak, muted, and off. There are nice sherry notes, some good vanilla oak, but the overall combination is really awful. I mean this is legit awful. There's too much oak, it's astringent, it's bitter, drying. Welp, macallan never disappoints anymore. Every bottle is worse than the last. Makes me sad given how good their stuff used to be and how most of that has vanished from the shelves. Giving this is a 1 star. It's not bad, but there's nothing good about this. I really can't find anything nice or good to say about it, but it's drinkable, you'll be perfectly happy to have a glass of this if it's free. But beyond that...why would you not drink a good whisky? A good whisky that costs 1/10 as much.... Edit - changed my mind. The nose is actually good on this. It's just a pathetic effort to blend a good whisky.

How do you follow up a popular but not superlative whisky? Why of course by changing every single thing about it! Too lazy to look up the ages for this review, but as memory serves this is a much younger and perhaps "cheaper" follow up in terms of quality, a recurring theme with compass box. Still, it sounds tasty and they upped the use of sherry casks. Nose - Soft peaty notes, cream, butter, and a bit of fruity notes. I get just a golden malty goodness with light peat and some waxy fruits. I'm getting excited to taste this. Taste - There's not much here. I can get the light sherry. There's a citrus and oaky bitter note. Then some nice all but it muted peat. There's just not a lot here. I knew to expect a very light peated version, but I'm not getting much. There's a lot of pepper that's starting to come through, reminding me of the talisker in it. Overall this isn't a terrible whisky but I don't think this is a winner. 1.5. 2.0 being average and frankly this is below average.

20 dollar budget....for a rye almost ultra budget. I don't want to write poetry about this. Nose - It's old forester with a bit of mint, a touch of herbal/floral spice, it's honestly old forester with rye and what makes it interesting is as I understand it they used a healthy amount of barely and a lot less corn than you'd expect. Still I get a rye that remind me of old forester with well some nice rye character. Taste - i get more old forester with rye spices but the more I dig in the more I kinda get a the woodford malt notes which is a whisky I really enjoy for 30 bucks. They've really packed in a lot of flavor a lot of complexity....actually 50+ dollar whisky complexity into a really well priced whisky. Now don't get too excited, you get some spirit, you get some youth, and you get some off notes, but this is a 100 proof 20 dollar bottle. I generally find whisky at this price in the 1.0 area, very drinkable, nothing I hate, but absolutely nothing special. This is actually really enjoyable. I'm going with a 1.5 for now and I might review later as there's a part of me wanting to go 2.0, but that's where I scored Glenoyne 15 year and I don't feel that was a bad score. This isn't a 15 year old single malt, but it's way closer than any 20 dollar, clearly young, spirit should be and on that note, I'm loving what brown foreman is doing. They hit a home run on this for the price. I can't speak more highly about the value that you're getting here.

I've been told this is one of those bottles to chase down before prices go up and the hype gets out of hand. I've also been told that as it opens up, it kinda goes flat so i'm reviewing my second pour (maybe 3rd....I had a few drink the last time i opened this so I might have gone for seconds). nose -well my first thought is I get brown foreman, or more directly I get old forester. Some chocolate, almost a raisin that's been oak soaked, brown sugar, a touch of maple, caramel...and this might sound crazy but it's almost got a dr pepper meets rootbeer thing going on. All classic elements I get in certain brown foreman expressions. taste - so I get a from start to finish light oak note, I don't always get oak at the very start, but it never goes from being just this light oak flavor. This is on the sweet side and yet it's somewhat bold. Vanilla, oak, a bit acidic, a touch of maybe banana, the finish has some youth to it with a bit of alcohol flavor in a bit unpleasant way. There's some chocolate as well. After some water I'm starting to get a touch of a nutty note at the end, all mixed in with that chocolaty, dr pepper/rootbeer note. Overall this is pretty good for 30 bucks. I could see myself icing this one however as the finish is clearly showing some youth off. Still for 28 bucks, this is a pretty nice bourbon and at 100 proof I'm all about recommending it as an alternative budget bourbon for those where 30 is budget. 1.75 out of 5. 2.0 is an average whisky. 1.0 is quality all be it not something I enjoy, below a 1.0 is simply not worth drinking. Please note, my average whisky is based on well over a decade of drinking and a willingness to explore some rather expensive and amazing spirits.

Recently got this in a surprise raffle that was held at a tasting I went to. Not a bad parting gift after tasting the full line of van winkle bourbons (2019). This however was the 2018 bottling, where a bottle like this has been for a year is beyond me, but it's mine and properly opened now. For fun in this review I've also poured a weller 107 as I don't have a 12 and my CYPB is off on loan to be picked up in the morning. Loaned it to a friend to do a youtube review. Anyway, I have had so many people try and tell me that Weller is comparable and frankly, I've never really seen it. There are similarities, but these tasting panels aren't idiots. Nose - Very sweet and fruity in nature. There's vanilla and certainly some oak but the overall profile is much more on the fruity and almost citrus notes with the vanilla and oak there to remind you it is bourbon. As you really dig in you get tobacco and spices. It's really nice nose. A very classic wheated bourbon note and really just buffalo trace in general. The 107 by contrast isn't nearly as aromatic to start with. It's far more spice and yes there is a similar wheated note and you do have the buffalo trace oak elements there. Still it lacks the complex and nuanced notes of the Lot B (which as it seems must always be pointed out, it's not part of the Pappy line, it's the reject). Taste - I should point out having had the 2019 and 2018 both in the same day, it was pretty clear that there were some clear differences between the two. the 2018 is a lot more bold while the 19 was much more refined and calm, I'm rather ok with both but would lean towards the 2018 more often than not. The 2018 brings oak and vanilla and spice together. It does have some astringent character and it doesn't shock me at all that they felt these barrels were no longer able to take additional aging. The 107 bring in a bit more sweetness, turns to what I find a bit of a muted and waxed over caramel, and then has this very distinct "weller" oak and vanilla note. It's a bit of younger oak (you don't get this on the 12 as much but it has some similarities). While the weller is this sweet and almost waxy bourbon, the van winkle lot b is more refined, more a cigar bourbon, and while still a dessert more of a french over the top heavy cream type, though being lot b, this is what you'd find at the so so bakery, not the good one. Overall, the lot b is a very good bourbon and one I've always really enjoyed for the money. I used to buy this for about 60 bucks 10 years ago and the price really hasn't moved with it going for 75 now. It's not the old stizel weller which was better, but the buffalo van winkle 12 year lot b remains a high quality bourbon well worth a place on your self and it drinks every bit as well as many of these recent "craft" and "sourced" 100 dollar bourbons. It of course would be nice if they'd bottle this at a higher proof. As for the roots to weller, certainly you'll get another wheater with some similar oak character, but there are distinct elements of a weller that they intentionally avoid in these bottles. While a store pick might be more on profile of the lot b, the standard batched products are clearly different and in my view clearly less refined and complex, but you might like their more bold sweetness and less "cigar" pairing qualities. I'm scoring this a respectable 2.5 stars, above average (my 2 star rating) but certainly not one you need to seek out (around where a 3.0 score would be if you're a bourbon lover). I don't get the hype or the secondary for this stuff, but it's a nice and enjoyable bottle for 75 bucks.

Not sure if this is the right picture for the review of this I believe 2018 edition. Nose - So i get candy cigarettes, lemon lime, a bit of a real cigarette smoke, iodine, and there's a savory note. This is oddly similar with a bit more citrus than some of their younger elements. Taste - elements of vegetable, vanilla, oak, powered sugar, some citrus fruit, oak almost mutes some of it. The finish is that candy and soft peat. Anyone who thinks 25 years will get rid of the peat punch is crazy, this is heavily peated by any standards. But with it comes so much complexity, so much nuance, so much just awesome whisky. I always struggle with nuanced notes on peat, but as a peat lover this is hands down my favorite heavily peated whisky to date, pushes the ardbeg 23 out of the way. I'm not honestly a fan of Laphroaig generally but this 25 year is amazing. I'm debating a 4.5 vs a 4.75 and i think I'm settling on a 4.5 but it's a STRONG 4.5. This is a bottle I'll replace at almost any price as I need this always in my collection.

The 25 is one of if not the best valued sherry whiskies on the market. How does the 21 year at a pathetically low 43% work? Nose - So I get oak sour and bitter notes, some sherry plums and raisins, and oddly I'm getting vanilla like I'd get from a bourbon cask which doesn't make any sense as this is all european oak sherry butts. I should add this isn't the first time I got these notes either. Very sweet, fruity, but vegtably. i get almost a sweet and sour sauce note as well. Really complex and interesting, but not exactly what I'd expect on this. This is about my 4th pour from this bottle in the last 3 days since getting it, so I've removed enough from the bottle for it to oxidize but odds are it still needs a week. As always, i will try and come back at some point if things change up. Taste - So up front you'll get the pathetic 43% and I'm not sure but I think this was chill filtered sadly (let me know). The result is that when it hits the tip of your tongue where often big bold whiskies blow you away without sweet flavors, it's almost a non event. Even as you get it into the middle of the tongue it's pretty boring. Then as you start to swallow, magic happens. The finish is this long complex fruity and well well aged oak note with some buttery elements, almost a burned caramel (not the caramel itself but the burned top). You get the spice from the European oak, the dark fruits from the sherry, but there's something else that's not expected that reminds me of a bourbon cask, it must be the from the malt. Anyway, for 150 which this can be found for, it's awesome stuff though I'd get a glendronach 18 currently for about 160 (local prices). Really good value and it brings out some of the best notes you get in a sherry whisky, but it's complex and has bitter notes unlike some of the more sweat ones. 3.5 star score great stuff.

1. I just want to thank whoever decided to vintage date the bottles for review as the 21 is night and day different each batch. 2. This is special guys! Nose - Sweet and savory elements but the dominate note is from the port influence. I get a bit of a grape bubble gum with a red wine element. behind that is light oak, some vanilla, some jam, and just a general springbank slightly salty malty experience. Taste - My first though it just how long and complex this one is. There's at least 3-4 transitions, it goes from sweet to bitter to savory. It starts a bit waxy sweet, muted flavors, but sweet. Then some oak tannins come in and it takes on this slightly bitter note still with this sweet and muted malt profile. Then things get crazy as it turns to these salty springbank elements and the flavor just goes all over the place and creates a wonderful long and complex finish. The fruity grape bubble game notes are there though I'm starting to think more juicy fruit with a drop of a wine element, the malt is very oak touched but not overly so giving it a very nice balanced feel. The 2019 springbank is somewhat hit or miss for me so far. My first few pours were outstanding but I'm not sure if it is me but right now this isn't blowing my socks off. It's incredibly complex, the 46% is just enough to give this a nice mouth feel while allowing you to swirl this in your mouth and really take it in without any alcohol fatigue. Overall this is really nice stuff. A must buy if you can afford and are an advanced whisky drinker (you need to like the whole spectrum from peat to wine finishing to oak and everything in between to get this one). 4.25 stars