Tastes

I don't get into Irish much, but i was talked into this one. Nose - orchard fruits, wax, touch of oak, some saw dust, a bit of citrus spice, and perhaps a bit of a really earthy high fiber cracker note. Taste - Fruit, more apple like notes, some caramel, a bit of sugar cookie, perhaps a bit of a grape fruit or pineapple, and then it transitions into a bit more of a bready malty note. I wasn't a huge fan when I first opened this. I would guess I got this 2 months ago and it's opened up and become a lot more complex and less just citrus. There's still a youthful oak note here but I'm actually digging how it plays with the sweet malt and citrus elements. I'm going 2.5 stars. Darn good pour for about 60 bucks, not one I'll go back to often but if you like these fruity citrus lighter single malts, this should be a good reasonably priced offering.

McKenna 10 has become a bit of a running joke with a lot of whisky geeks. These laughable awards it has received has all but removed all credibility in the San Fran awards. Perhaps too rude, but if you meet one of the judges you gotta do a quick point and laugh. Nose - Sweet bourbon vanilla and caramel, a bit of oak and the oak is giving me a hint of an aspartame note. This is definitely on the sweeter side of bourbon. Just for fun I'm pouring a buffalo trace store pick next to it. Buffalo has all this rickhouse nose with less sweetness and mostly just vanilla. I'm now getting a bit of a nutty note on the mckenna when going back and fourth, almost say a honey nut cheerio thing. Taste - This is sweet caramel and vanilla. It a very traditional bourbon but on the very sweet side. Again doing it next to the buffalo which is softer, vanilla, light oak, a touch bitter. The McKenna is heavy caramel, dark sweetness, and a touch nutty. I'm doing these two side by side as frankly, this is a very basic standard bourbon profile with a bit of focus on caramel and sweet. Perhaps some fruity and nutty notes but I wouldn't have really picked them up without trying a bit more basic of a bourbon (all be it a very good quality bourbon). I'd like to really give this crap with all the silly awards, but this is darn good bourbon. 2.75, a really high score for me on a fairly basic bourbon.

Tamdhu 15 year - is it just batch 3 CS at non CS? Nose - Berries, earthy oaky wine funk, vanilla, a get a hint of spice (cinnamon perhaps or maybe something else), maybe some ginger, hints of dry milk chocolate. Taste - sherry bomb for sure, but there's a good bit of oak character here, almost too much. It gets sweeter as it opens up, more vanilla, a bit of toffee, chocolate, and still more oak. Finish - dry sherry, oak, and some chocolate. I did this one a while back side by side with the batch 3 and it was shocking how similar the sherry notes were. This is a bit thinner (not cask strength) and there's a bit more oak here. I don't however feel the finish is longer or really that the age did more for this one. A part of me feels that those cask strengths are actually pretty old whisky or at least have a good bit of older whisky as it's really surprising how similar they are. Really good whisky but it's a bit bitter/oaky for only 15 years and not as creamy as the cask strength. That said still very good and one that I'll strongly consider getting more of if I can't replace the cask strength options.

Nose - red fruits, honey, vanilla, light pastry crust, a hint of soft younger oak, strawberries. Taste - banana, vanilla, toasted oak, some cream, and then the funky sherry wine note, very bitter. Miyagikyo brings the funky oak from the sherry really out with youthful spirit note and a lot of vanilla's and some new maker spirit elements. A bit of water seems to bring this one more to life, enhancing the sherry and pushing back some of that youth. Noticing some light peat notes here as well, I wasn't aware this is peated but if it is not, I'm way off and maybe I'll delete this review, but I'm getting more than a little peat. Perhaps the peat is some of the bitter notes I thought were from the sherry. This is an interesting effort from Nikka, while I do generally think there's quality here, it's just too young. The peat is not helping with the sherry. Honestly, i'd rather get more of the sweet nikka malt with sherry. I'm going 1.75 here, same score as the Yoichi though I'm more a peat guy so I'd buy the Yoichi again before this one. Neither are likely to be repeat buys unless I find them a bit more affordable.

Nose - bananas, vanilla, peat, lemons, and some kinda of pine/alcohol cleaner. It's not overly complex or aged but it's a very nice mix of notes on a younger whisky. Give this one some time in the glass and some of those younger notes will fade and you'll get some nice red fruits, a really nice reward for waiting just 10 minutes or so. Taste - Smoky and meaty over bright floral and citrus malts. Yoichi brings with it the sweetness of these NAS Nikka's with the complexity of a moderately to actually fairly heavily peated whisky. The finish is actually exceptionally long, earthy and vegetable peat. Coming back to this one a few weeks after I last had it (and I put a nice dent on this one so it's gotten some air) and some of the younger whisky qualities are coming out more. It's not that is is too young, but perhaps too young for the price point. I am torn between my appreciation of the complexity and use of peat and these off overly youthful almost new make like notes I'm getting. Ultimately, I have to error on the low end and give this a 1.75. I just can't reward the youth on this one.

So a blend of 11, 15, and 21 year old bourbon bottled at 56.37%. I'm sure there are some mixes of their different types but frankly I don't know a lot about four roses and I generally don't care for their bourbon. Nose - sweet vanilla, pine, some cinnamon, some kinds of pie crust and marmalade, leather, oak, shoe vanish. You really get that there's an old whisky in here. An almost dusty antique oak note. Water brings out vanilla and spice and pushes the dusty oak back just a bit, no real change in the notes I get, just how they come across. Taste - Cinnamon apple pie, oak, spices, vanilla. There are 3 or 4 transitions from sweet up front to a light spicy and lightly hot finish, but then it has a second finish where the spices come even stronger, and then a 4th just lingering spicy oak note. Water much like the nose brings a bit more sweetness out but doesn't change the transitions and spices over leathered oak and all the cinnamon apple pie like notes. Overall, this whisky has changed my mind on Four Roses. The complexity here is completely off the charts. it brings all the characteristics of good old well aged bourbon, the leather, that deep vanilla, that high quality oak note, and then it brings with it the punch and the fire of younger whisky (not so young as to be rot gut of course). I'm absolutely impressed with four roses here, now if they can just make more of the older stuff and less of their regular line up. I'm going 4.25 here. An outstanding bourbon, but lets not go crazy yet here.

2018 edition. 70% rum 30% first fill bourbon. 3,700 bottles. 46%. Color - cause you know it's a 21 springbank and they change the casks annually and don't color, it's a really rich gold/straw color. This looks HEAVILY first fill so I'm thinking a good portion of this was "fresh rum" as springbank calls it, but having a 19 year single cask fresh rum at cask strength this is darker so the bourbon has to be the driver of the color. Either way, I think we're getting fresher and younger casks than a lot of whiskies on the market and than say the recent 12 year batches which seem less and less enjoyable. Nose - salted vanilla, fresh oak, cooked vegetables, citrus fruits. The drivers are mostly the oak and the vanilla and salt. Really good nose for these casks but not exactly my favorite profile either. Taste - this is heavily distillate forward, really giving you the springbank malt with the casks just added sweetness to it. Salty, peat is pretty forward here (didn't get it on the nose), a bit vegetably (is that word?), a bit sour and bitter, and certainly some vanilla but it is not forward. The whisky then goes into this fruity and slightly bitter finish that lingers for days it feels like. There's oak and fruits and light spice. One of the absolute best finishes I've ever had in a scotch, especially a non wine cask influences or bourbon one. I do wish it had a bit more sweetness to balance with the bitter notes. I think that's where the sherry casks work best with springbank or perhaps even port. I think pure bourbon and/or rum are a bit too simple for the overpowering springbank malt. That said I'm a bit nitpicking and at 400+ a bottle please allow me to be a picky bastard. Still this is one of the best 21 year old scotches I've had, it's not my ideal profile as I tend to like heavy sherry or other wines and/or heavy peat more (even at this age I'm a peat man). That said this is already a very special bottle in my collection but I have a feeling if I ever see it the 2019 bottling will be more my wheel house. 4 stars but for the price you either need to be a springbank lover (me) or a huge fan of spirit forward older whisky.

store pick so take it as it is, but with 1792, 90% of the non small batch I feel IS a store pick. Nose - Sweet 1792 classic, vanilla, cotten candy, fluff, marshmellow, just classic 1792. Taste - So this is classic all in your face 1792 sweet bomb but there's a bit too much spice and well alcohol there at the end. Even with water there's some bite. The flavor is complex as all gets out here. But yeah there's a failure in the spice/heat note. 1.5 complex beyond words and I might just ice this to death for a nice drinker. But a lot of off notes.

I'm struggling with this review. Nose - This is a bourbon bomb. Just over powering with the vanillas and caramels and bourbon barrel oak. The peat actually is taking a back seat to a degree. There's also just a huge amount of earthy elements, much less smoke, and heavy peat and more that earthy note. Then there's a bit of alcohol on the back end as well. Taste - Just like the nose it's bourbon, almost bourbon candy, with bitter oak and then a wave of that earthy smoke and peat. It's deep and rich throughout. There's a bit of a wet oak note in the middle that's pretty interesting and it finishes with a lot of oak and and vanilla along with the ocotmore peat profile. The 9.3 was to me a showcase of the natural spirit and it was an incredible tributes. This is more a tribute to what I can only assume were very good bourbon barrels and a mix of sources to give it a more interesting bourbon note. It however somewhat under minds the spirit. 3.5 but I'll come back to this one as I wonder if it will open up with time.

Disappointing. Nose - Sherry and peat are extremely well blended giving off both the acidic nature of sherry and the more earthy notes of peat all at once. This is followed with light sugary sweetness which is so common and classic in an islay scotch. Taste - The problems start when you taste it. This is YOUNG whisky but it spent enough time with the sherry cask to get some astringent notes. I'm even getting some of that young whisky bananas. I don't want to be too tough on this, it's got a nice peat profile. it's not a sherry bomb so false advertised but still there's a good bit of sherry. It's just too young. 1 star....maybe 1.25. I'm not sure when, why or how I'll end up finishing this bottle.