Tastes

So this was either the most expensive bourbon I've ever bought or a great deal. 600 points for the RIGHT to buy, 1 point = 1 dollar spent in the store or a great 50 dollar bottle. I'm hoping BTAC is 1500 points but I'm betting 2500. Nose - Cherry oak buffalo trace warehouse. Yeah I can't smell some of these Buffalo Trace products and not smell being on the ground there more than a decade ago. As it warms up and just sits out it gets super super sweet. Taste - Cherry, oaked sweetness, vanilla, more cherry, caramel. Oh man, I'll be doing a blind ECBP and Stagg Jr soon. I might note it up and add it here. Bottom line is this is a perfect example of classic bourbon notes at an extremely high proof (I think this is the highest proof since the first release). I'm not wowed and I didn't expect to be. It's just awesome quality bourbon that should be available and on the shelves but the bourbon boom or buffalo traces marketing department have decided to make impossible for some parts of the country to get. 3.0 due to color, nose, proof, body, and just being darn tasty bourbon. Nobody who likes bourbon won't be happy with this one.

I figured I'd get one of the old boxes (just not the brand new black box, nothing OLD) before they were hard to get. I've never been a huge fan, but as I explore more whisky sometimes you change. Nose - toffee, vanilla, light milk chocolate, and some dark fruits. Much more dessert than sherry fruit flavors. I've never knocked on macallan for poor quality on the nose. I guess some ginger (there's spice and I know macallan always says ginger and I can't tell if I get that or if I'm just following their lead as they think sherry adds it to every bottle they make) Taste - Well this is rich and complex, sherry gives off chocolate, pudding, toffee, vanilla, so much complexity and despite the 43% the mouth feel is killing it. I need to get a glendronach 12 year to do side by side but I'm honestly thinking I need more of these old bottling. Anyone know a way to date these? This bottle is far far better than anything else I've had in terms of MaCallan's 12 year's. Man I love to hate on these guys and they put out plenty of awful for the price whisky but this old bottling is awesome. Anyone know if you can date a 12 year? This store was selling a 1995 18 year before it sold so this could be oldish. I seriously don't recall my last 12 year being this rich in flavor.

Nose - it's actually nice and buttery, really nice savory elements with some vanilla and of course smoke. Taste - Complex, explosive, fruity, vanilla, man this has a lot going on. So i'm getting a bit of a muted vanilla, huge amounts of fruits both orchard and dark and then it just goes to 11 with peat and salt. There's a medicinal classic Laphroaig in the middle of this but otherwise it's all over the map with all kinds of cool tasting notes. This I like more than the 10 cask strength, a lot more. The fino barrels are giving this all kinds of awesomeness.

Gotta love the NAS comments, though I guess technically I don't know exactly how old it is could have been a December 2002 distillation and a january 2012 bottling and it's only 9 years vs the more likely 10. Anyway these are all over kentucky and in the 30-40 buck range. Hard to pass at those prices. Nose - delicate vanilla, citrus, herbal notes. I get pears for sure over crackers and vanilla cake. Taste - a bit of herbal and vegable notes give it a touch of bitter, but after that it's all vanilla, apples, pears, toffee, and goodness. A moderately complex dram that really just does one thing and it does it really well. There's nothing special about it beyond the low price. If you're looking for a cheap scotch and like exclusive bourbon and spirit forward whisky, this is a great example. If you want anything special well this isn't that. Scoring a 1.5 but if value is something you care about, I am pretty sure I've seen this under the 40 I paid and with price in mind this would considerably move up my list. Old Pultny of course you buy 10x out of 10 before this.

Ardbeg and fish? Lets give it a shot. Nose - Pepper, even smoke, a bit of a fishy brine at the back end. I'm also getting distinct slightly burnt caramel. Taste - I don't to just start with this is 46% and it's hitting me as having too much alcohol. That's really disappointing. Similarly, I'm getting pepper, spices likely from the unique european oak used here. It's astringent, punchy, and frankly it leaves me not wanting to go back for another sip. Upfront it's a bold sweetness but god each time it goes back into this harsh bitter note and then I get hit with alcohol burn as if this is an extremely young whisky. Alcohol brings out more of the fishy element, it still is bitter, peppery, and now the sweetness up front which was nice is gone. The finish is more cigarette ash smoke with some charcoal thrown in. I can't get past how young this tastes, it's got some new make grain like elements and just terrible casks. I keep hoping this will change and everytime I go back I feel like I enjoy it less. 1 star - there's good stuff here so i can't go below a 1 where I'm more or less saying it's undrinkable and bad, but this is a strong pass.

It is always sad and joyful to drink an ardbeg. With so many of their bottlings being one offs, you never want to finish a bottle but it's a lot of fun to drink from one. This was sadly one I never saw the CR of and by the time the standard bottles made it to me, I assumed if Kelpie was still on shelves and Dark Cove was on shelves for over a year...surely Grooves would last. Sadly, I was wrong and this one was gone from shelves by me in record times. Nose -my first response is that that reminds me a bit more of Lagavulin's profile than Ardbeg. Those wine casks must be giving me a similar note to a PX sherry perhaps. Behind it is smooth smoke, sweet puffs, and a wonderful toasted oak. Taste - One of the things I love about Ardbeg in general is how broad the range of tasting sensations is and grooves takes that up a notch. I get sweet delicate wine notes up front with some sweet honey. Then it gets into these candied notes on the mid pallet almost like a lemon drop without the sour elements and not really a lemon flavor but the sweetness of that candy/sugar itself. Then we get into the peat and smoke as the finish brings with it spices and pepper and brine and smoke. With a lot of whiskies lately I bring up a distinct salt note, but not here. There is brine and with it salty elements but I don't get a distinct salt flavor. If you can still find grooves close to MSRP, get a bottle man! I'm putting this up there with some HEAVY hitters and I don't feel bad scoring it 3.5. It's no dark cove which spoiled us as that might have been a 4.5 at CS. Still get is a winner!

1. Sorry the picture I took I thought was better than what came through. Apologies. 2. I didn't love this when I first had it, but I had it recently in a tasting and it was so popular the raffle winner took this over the CYPB Weller. Anyway rumor is the 12 year is a single barrel and their is a 5.5 year which I believe there are 8 barrels of but don't quote me. Nose - Peanuts, light milk chocolate, some dusty corn, and just a lot of vanilla and funk. Taste - So I can tell you this, when I had it at the tasting this was awesome and I think for sure this one needs at least half an hour to open up in the glass, which is kinda an extreme thing for a 12 year bourbon. There's a lot of talk about this being possibly brown foreman's. I do get that chocolate here. There's a lot of dusty oak and corn and peanuts and vanilla. Gosh I can't get this to drink like the bottle did at the tasting and this being a single barrel I'd expected it to. It's too much of that oak and peanut for me to give this the score I'd want to give it. For me this is a barrel you blend to pass these over the top flavors into a whisky that came out flat, it's not a single barrel quality bottle. That said intense flavor, high proof, and a lot of quality elements. Gosh I wanted to put this in the 3's but I can't do it. That night at the tasting this was last among a lot of somewhat bad bourbons to be honest (despite being rare). 2.5, credit for the proof, credit for intense flavors, but you have to be so into the profile here to fall in love with this one. Re-review coming but as it has opened up and I've gotten more blind tastings with this, we're going into the 4.0 range. I completely misjudged this on the neck pour!

Was drum the point where Ardbeg jumped the shark? Was the CR even better than the standard? Lets find out. Double review will be posted to both. Drum CR vs Standard. Nose - On the CR Bannans, oak, light smoke, candied cigars (I get this almost always on peated whisky but especially ardbeg). I'm getting a bit of really young but used barrel oak notes. OK I'm getting similar notes here, but I'm getting more cigarettes. I'm getting more of a fire cooked fruit. Yeah the CR is more vanilla/bannana and the non CR has way more going on. Taste - CR - I do get the pineapple, the bannans, oak, vanilla, powdered sugar, light smoke, a bit of brine but not much. It's complex, it transitions, it does come off a bit young, but a lot of people want that on peat and actually it's really lacking the ardbeg peat punch. The non CR is more subtle, clearly watered down, but I get more from it. Most importantly I'm getting just a lot more peat more Ardbeg. Yeah there's more brine, more smoke and all those things I want in an islay and they really make themselves noticed on the finish. Well put some water in the CR! Nose on the CR does change a bit, but it's still not as complex as the non CR. It's more burnt vanilla forward. Taste - water here makes the CR drink younger with more harshness and more of that banana and youthful oak. It does extend the finish and gives me more of an ardbeg profile of smoke. The non CR has more of what I think of as Iodine (but to be honest I've only known that flavor through whisky discussions so grain of salt on that please). Overall - they're the same score for me, but the non CR has a better nose and taste. The mouth feel however on the CS CR makes up for both short comings. Are these good whiskies? They're ok. 2.0 and frankly they'll be a weird one to discuss. MSRP at some stores near me were the same for each. A few even sold the CR for less when it came out than the non CR. Legit know a store that did 120 for CR and 130 for non CR. So this is the non CR review and I just have to add in here, there's something about the lower proof that killed it on the nose out the gate and this was the same view I had neck pours on both and now with both having been open a while. As an ardbeg fan boy I'm disappointed with Drum, but I don't hate it and I don't feel like I personally got ripped off, but I fully get why some people disagree. It is flat out too young for the price, especially the non CR which is 109.99 in ohio and I've seen in the 130's in Kentucky.

Was drum the point where Ardbeg jumped the shark? Was the CR even better than the standard? Lets find out. Double review will be posted to both. Drum CR vs Standard. Nose - On the CR Bannans, oak, light smoke, candied cigars (I get this almost always on peated whisky but especially ardbeg). I'm getting a bit of really young but used barrel oak notes. OK I'm getting similar notes here, but I'm getting more cigarettes. I'm getting more of a fire cooked fruit. Yeah the CR is more vanilla/bannana and the non CR has way more going on. Taste - CR - I do get the pineapple, the bannans, oak, vanilla, powdered sugar, light smoke, a bit of brine but not much. It's complex, it transitions, it does come off a bit young, but a lot of people want that on peat and actually it's really lacking the ardbeg peat punch. The non CR is more subtle, clearly watered down, but I get more from it. Most importantly I'm getting just a lot more peat more Ardbeg. Yeah there's more brine, more smoke and all those things I want in an islay and they really make themselves noticed on the finish. Well put some water in the CR! Nose on the CR does change a bit, but it's still not as complex as the non CR. It's more burnt vanilla forward. Taste - water here makes the CR drink younger with more harshness and more of that banana and youthful oak. It does extend the finish and gives me more of an ardbeg profile of smoke. The non CR has more of what I think of as Iodine (but to be honest I've only known that flavor through whisky discussions so grain of salt on that please). Overall - they're the same score for me, but the non CR has a better nose and taste. The mouth feel however on the CS CR makes up for both short comings. Are these good whiskies? They're ok. 2.0 and frankly they'll be a weird one to discuss. MSRP at some stores near me were the same for each. A few even sold the CR for less when it came out than the non CR. Legit know a store that did 120 for CR and 130 for non CR. So this is the review for the CR. If you're like me and mouthfeel is HUGE, I think I might at the end of the day pick this one up, and full disclosure when I first had these two, I was 100% sure I'd say the non CR was better. I still think from an intrinsic whisky review standard it is better and I'm confused as to why. Does Ardbeg have better water than I do?

Kinda surprised I haven't gotten to this one yet. So I'm realizing as I do these reviews here, i'd never really picked up on the salt notes in the nose or the differerent flavor profiles I get from oak on some of these scotches. I feel with it however I'm starting to get it with everything. Nose - some ash, salt, and I'm getting a mix of bourbon's vanilla and some red fruits from I would assume light sherry cask maturation (certainly has the color of sherry casks though the bottle only mentions american oak so perhaps the malt is giving off some red fruits itself and wow on the color). Possible this has been colored unfortunately. Maybe a jam over toast (feel like I get that a lot of campbeltown). Taste - Oh yeah this is cambeltown at it's best. Oak forward notes and the sweet flavors, builds up into salty brine and this incredible finish. I want to say some kind of salted, chocolate, menthol, spiced bread of some sort and well yes vanilla. I'm a sucker for this. It's incredibly complex and I want to say there is about 70 bucks. Would I get this or a springbank 10 year? Well I'm getting both! But the 10 might be a hair better. Either way 2.75 to match the 10 year. This or the springbank 10 are where people with a limited budget need to get into Cambeltown. They showcase the region and while expensive they've at least more affordable. Oh and this is my wheel house so I LOVE this stuff, but objectively the quality doesn't push way up for those wondering why the score isn't higher. 3.0's are very VERY good whisky and while there's nothing wrong with this I think it's missing that WOW element that someone who doesn't care for this profile might still decide they want it.