Tastes

Nose - dusty corn, peanuts, some caramel, and dusty oak. Taste - The taste is a bit sweeter than the nose, but there's still that beam profile of peanuts, dusty corn, a lot of caramel, and oak. So I don't get this. The 9 year single barrel is really good whisky. The standard small batch is actually pretty good. But every time they bottle something officially with more age, they want to showcase everything beam does wrong. That nutty beam character is nice when it's subtle. Instead the salted peanuts overwhelm the bourbon character, it's oak and nuts. Why? We know for a fact that they have massive amounts of outstanding barrels, these 9 year store picks have been getting rave reviews, but as soon as beam blends together batches, we get absolute crap. I've been working on this one for a few weeks, kept putting off reviewing it due to sometimes think it is too hot, other times thinking I'm off. I wasn't and it is. This is just another poor effort from beam. Whoever is doing their blending should be replaced. That said, this isn't complete a disaster. It's a 1 star whisky, quality components but unless you're obsessed with that beam profile, avoid it. It's over priced to add insult to injury.

Shocked I'm not just the first review on batch 1 but on batch 2 and nobody has reviewed the younger batches. So....this is going to be a crazy review. Just get ready. Nose - intense! There is a lot of alcohol on this massive CS bourbon. It's sweet, fruity, rich, dark, and has some hints of chocolate. Taste - Rich and intense, drying, just a flavor bomb. You get a this amazing and layered caramel and fruits. Some dark chocolate. Some bitter oak, then some spice, then back to fruity characters. The finish is medium to long with all kinds of just over the top flavors. Yet there are smooth and subtle flavor, it's like you get a stream of sugary sweet notes under all the powerful alcohol and other notes. So I feel an obligation to bring this one way down in abv to see what I get. So my glass now smells like watered down buffalo trace almost, I added a LOT of water. So there's some bitter notes here. It's now giving me a bit of nutty flavor. it's got a lot of good bourbon notes. Clearly don't do this to your bourbon, 30% bourbon is stupid, but I wanted to bring this down to see what was there. It loses the sweetness which is funny, but now it's just filled with all kinds of cool bourbon elements. Anyway I'm going 3.75 and I'll be coming back to this as I bought 3 bottles. This has serious bourbon of the year potential if king of kentucky doesn't just blow me away again. A bit more harsh and unrefined than a btac but there's as much flavor and complexity.

This review is of batch 18. Would be nice if Nancy could pop in an let us know if anything has changed for this batch. Nose - So my first impression is that this is overly sweet, almost too much and almost getting into aspartame levels. I do still get a nice bit of oak, vanilla, caramel...it is a very traditional bourbon note and very on profile for a bit of a generic bourbon. That said it is amped up to 10, it's intense nosing, there's far more intense sweetness than a 103 proof bourbon should provide. Still, I can't really give high praise on nose alone, it's good. Taste - This is not the bourbon I remember from my first bottle. You definitely get that there is some older whisky in here. Adding water really helped this one. So with water you start to get some of the sweeter note but some fruity flavors are coming out too. I'm getting a hint of tobacco as I go. This is complex without anything jumping out and over powering the overall rich sweet aged bourbon profile. This is classic bourbon. It isn't nutty, it isn't chocolate, it isn't cinnamon, no mineral notes, no over the top oak. It is those vanillas, caramels, corn, and yes there's an oak note here but it's just classic bourbon oak. It's old enough, there isn't a lot of a "hug" or a bite but it's got a really good mouth feel and great proof. So I'm at a 3.25. A very very sold offering, a bit expensive, but the quality is here. There is a hint of a bitter finish that pushes me from 3.5 to the 3.25. I think the last bottle I had was pushing 4.0.

So this is The Whistler Oloros Sherry Cask Blend - the official name. Not just "The Whistler". I'd say I have plans to review the rest of their line, but those darn bottles just keep getting killed the second i get them. But if I can find another 7 year CS you better bet your butt, I'm buying a case. OK so this is their NAS (and given they have a 5 year, one must assume this is 3 years old) and it's presented at 43%. Also despite the name, this is a blend of bourbon and sherry...a bit misleading. OK so their marketing is annoying, though their cork has music notes on it which is just freaking cool. Nose - cereal grain, vanilla, hints of sherry, and there are a lot of somewhat "normal" fruit notes as in not influenced by oak, not bitter or soured as we often get on single malts, but just kinda if you're getting apple it's apple (which I am getting a hint of). I get a salty like note here, not sea breeze salt but just I think the oak is giving some salted like nosing marks. Taste - Again I get those grain elements that come with kind of a vanilla ice cream and a bit of minerality. There are also some savory like fruit notes, perhaps in the relm of a coconut but sweeter. I'm getting some icing. I don't get any malt character and to be honest the sherry doesn't do much to show itself as sherry, instead I get a lot of citrus and fruity notes. All and all this is a delightful and extremely inexpensive irish whisky. At about 35 bucks you can blend this, mix it, add coke, or have it neat. I really can't stress how darn good this is for what it is. Now it's got a bit too much alcohol on it for 43%. The mineral note isn't great. The finish isn't special, no transitions. 2 stars which I feel is an extremely generous score for this. I really think if you see this you should give it a shot.

I wanted to write a few more interesting reviews but the distillers ap is just such an awful tool and we still can't add whisky with an actual computer (well I guess I could install blue stack and then download the ap and use my desktop but what a pain just to add whiskies). Anyway, a bit more well known brand. Highland Park, perhaps second to macallan in terms of whisky prestige but unlike macallan they seem to be able to put out a good product at generally reasonable prices. This one coming in at 100 bucks for a 16 year age statement seems like a pretty big win. Nose - I get vanilla, some red wine tannins, a bit of a spice, perhaps a strawberry. Taste - Great transitions on this one. It opens with some sweet bourbon barrel cask notes, vanilla, caramel, cream, etc. Then it transitions to vanilla and red fruits, I'd think sherry if I didn't know it was a red wine. The the finish goes into this really nice long and lingering oak and perhaps some kinda of red wine like dryness. There's still some bourbon elements as well in there. Given HP uses peat I assume I'm getting some in the finish as well, but without knowing that I'd have thought it was more coming from the oak but peat sensitive people will notice it. I came into this one blind, neck pour, and my only review notes I'd heard were a few people who were fans, but not exactly people I tend to follow closely. Water is a pass on this one, brings out oak without much else. Anyway for 100 bucks and at 46.7% I think we've got a winner guys. I think this is a very reasonable value and I'm scoring it a solid 3.0. Absolutely worth picking up if you see it for about that price point and honestly unless you're ultra peat sensitive, I'd be willing to say this will be a winner for any scotch drinker and most whisky drinkers in general. I used to say HP 18 was the best way to show someone what scotch is. As the price on that has gone up and the abv remains 43%, I think this one might be the one in their lineup to introduce people to.

Nose - fruity, salty, a lot of alcohol, and there's a hell of a lot of really in your face oak. This is very on the citrus side with some perhaps sugar cookie notes. Taste - creamy, vanilla, oak, salt, citrus. Intense huge even. The body is mouth coating. Water really brings out the sweetness, almost a completely change in the sweet tones. Now I"m getting more baked goods. This is a perfect example of the new make from springbank with a lot of time in a very tired oak barrel. The overall effect is that of a really great sipping dram. I can't speak highly enough of this for those who don't want wine cask influence. It is a bit sour and the oak levels are a bit high. An extremely complex whisky for those who can appreciate a hell of a lot of elements that I believe are acquired tastes.

Nose - caramel, oak, touch of honey, and i know this will seem like the power of suggestions but lactose. Vanilla and powered sugar too. Very sweet and very candied. Taste - This is really unique. It's sweet but not as much as the nose indicated. There's oak but it's not overly oaked. It's got a good body but yet it kinda ends quickly. I can't describe this, it's like a werther's butter scotch candy with bitter oak and alcohol. Adding water and I get some kind of fruity note, but not a sweet fruit and then some unique savory bourbon notes. I don't get savory in bourbon much but this has some really savory notes. The oak effect and the bite of alcohol is very much a bourbon like experience but the upfront flavors could easily have me thinking scotch. I'll have to let this open up with some time, perhaps more of the chocolate notes will come out that I suspect are there. For now a unique experience, but run for the hills at 200+. 2.75 a very good experience but it's leaving me a bit short of a must try if money matters.

Little break from the single casks. OK so this is a single barrel, 4698, bottled 7/30/2019. 130 bucks and required me to spend 900 at the store for the right. I've had some great EC18's so I went into this pretty excited. I'll go back to this after my notes but I did a blind tasting of this vs 2 knob creeks (the new 12 year, review coming, and a 9 year store pick). I'll save you the spoiler but it wasn't a good result. Nose - I think the whisky shines here. There's a lot of oak, vanilla, it's dry, a bit spicy, but there's a funky oak note here. I'm not sure that'll go over with everyone. Taste - The problem with the taste is that funk on the nose is all over the flavor. There's so much oak here and not a nice sweet fruity oak. Not a nice inviting one, but just funky dried up oak. Still, there's vanilla, caramel, light spice, a bit of sour dough perhaps. What's confusing me is that on past 18's have gotten so much fruit and all these nice flavors and here the oak is a bit over the top, but it's not the oak that's ruining this. It's the lack of other flavors. This is an uncorking and as such I'm super hopeful this will change in the bottle, but so far...this is not doing it for me. 1.75 stars. I don't think most people will enjoy this bottle as it is. I however don't think this is bad whisky, it's got some stuff going on and I"m hopeful it opens up into a better but still disappointing bottle.

Ending my reviews for today on this one - a bit lighter and frankly easier to review whisky. Nose - vanilla, sea salt, and nice oak. There's a light note of berry or fruit, likely from some very tired old sherry casks. There's a also a bit of a waxy vanilla, don't think clynelish but more just a muted and earthy vanilla. I almost get a juicy fruit element but not that exact note. Taste - I get vanilla, oak, and a bit of salt (got more on the nose). Having had some springbank, it's really nice to see a showcase of just salt as I was starting to question if it was peated, yes there is a difference in salty and light peat and this one correcting my confusion. I get a light green apple on the finish with some earthy and savory notes. if I were to describe this it would be a lot of discussion on vanilla, clean, and yet salty. I generally don't get a clean malt flavor with salt but that's kinda what makes old pulteney so good. The one thing I am coming back to is that I think the old 12 year 43% is a better whisky, I know crazy.This is more complex, the finish is longer, but man I miss that caramel and vanilla ice cream with cookie dough I got on the 12. It's a real shame this is no longer going to be made as well as the REAL 12 year. I really love what this distillery has been doing, but it's just a shame that we're going to see a decline in quality and an increase in price. Anyway 2.25, a bit higher score than the 12 as the age and finish are better here. I still think if I could find the 12, even if price weren't a factor (and this bottle is 90 dollar more than that 12 I last bought). I'd still likely take the 12. Still whisky quality is more than "do I like it more" and here the 17 is a better made product. I am wondering however if I got an off bottle as I had a sample of this a while back and it blew my mind. I'm about 25% through this bottle and it hasn't come close to what I remember in that sample. So apologies if it turns out this was a dud and I under valued this bottle, that sample would have likely been a 3.25.

OK so I screwed up, this is an 18 year, not 19 year. Stupid cell phone (OK I should have caught it). Anyway, apologies. nose - this is dark and dank. It's fruity but again all the fruits are so dark. There aren't those lighter even say raisin notes, it's more aged fruit, stuff left out in vat over night. Sweet, there's molasses and some grape notes, heavy caramel. There's oddly no real burnt elements. It's a very clean sweetness with just a lot of darker elements. It's actually really inviting and I feel like this would be popular at least the nose with even people who are new to scotch. Taste - the taste removes any chance of this being inviting to a newbie. This is insanely complex. It's bitter, sour, oaky, alcoholic, salty, funky...it's like being in a dank basement with port elements all over it. This is springbank malt with a cask made to showcase how funky springbank can get. The port cask is clearly dominating the malt but it's giving off so much funk that I brings me right back to springbank. I'm noticing in this, the fresh sherry, and even the 25 year I have, they all give off a bit of a grape like note on the nose. I'm getting this more and more with higher end bottlings, Deanston 30 year also gave me that note. I really dig it and it's coming through more and more often which I love. A common note in all these heavily cask influenced springbanks is a bit more oak than I find ideal and there's a harmony between that oak and the springbank slightly peated/salty character. I think I've gotten it on honestly on just about every age stated whisky they have done that was at least 18 years. It's not a bad thing by any means, but a distillery consistency that helps me identify that we're drinking springbank. I keep saying it but it's just so true. This is another extremely unique bottle. Rarely do we see 18 years in first fill port barrel. The results are really cool. FYI - water brings out some more sweetness but also really spices up the oak, the finish becomes really heavy tannins. I'm kinda digging it and I don't tend to want that much tannin. 4.0 - another killer single barrel from springbank. This one gets huge credit for how unique it is, I'm not sure if this will appeal to everyone, the intensity of the port finish and even the oak barrels is going to chase some away. For me though, this is a good time in a glass.