Tastes

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.

Nose - vanilla, pears and oranges. There are spices, and a bit of an alcohol kick for 50%. The oak is giving off some toffee notes and perhaps even a bit of an oat note. More citrus and oak forward overall. Taste - The flavor is much more vanilla and cereal grains with the fruit notes becoming a bit more oak tannin and bitter. This however gives way to a nice oaky and vanilla finish that lingers medium long (pretty good for a 15 year). Water really opens this up, brings out more of the fruits, pulls back the tannins and takes some of the bitter off. This is really nicely done whisky. If you'd told me there was a very small portion of this in ex sherry casks I might have believed it, instead it's all ex bourbon and it's very good. I forget the price, I want to say 80ish and at that price it's getting difficult for me to recommend, but I'd still consider it a good pour. 2.25, it's a great whisky for ex bourbon cask lovers and it's got enough extra to push it past just being a whisky for that profile only. I also am digging the finish...actually I'm pushing it to 2.5 as the finish is on par with some 21 year olds I've had. The reason this isn't getting into the 3's as I realize I've been writing a love fest relatively speaking is that it's overly drying and that's taking away from my overall enjoyment. It however needs that abv as that's really helping with the mouth feel and giving it a creamy coating.

So this is a batch 2, no clue if they're different. Nose - Classic wheater notes. Unlike the standard weller's 107 and SR this has a good bit of oak note. The nose is far more aggressive and intense than the 107 despite the lower abv. I get cherry candy, vanilla...you know it's like the cherry Twizzlers a bit. Super sweet now getting fruity jams in the back end. Taste - I get more of that cherry, there's a bit of rye spice to it, oak gives it a bit of a waxy muted thing with some nice oak. OK so the question of the night. 107 vs CYPB. Now this is going to sound crazy but the 107 has less flavor. It has a hotter finish (heck of a lot more kentucky hug). But the 107 is smooth and mellow up front then turns into heat and gives a strong oak kick. The CYPB is sweeter, more mouth filling, mouth coating, and finishes much smoother (yeah I know meaningless) where their is still oak and some rye spice giving it a kick the 107 kicks way harder. I think the CYPB's cherry and waxy oak note are different from the 107's more caramel and oak forward notes. For those who saw my negative review of the 107, I'm comparing it to a FAR better 107 bottle which would get scored higher, so I did make sure to not only compare it to a 107 but a good bottling of 107. Verdict? I'm taking the CYPB and I hate saying it because I really want to hate this. 50 bucks (48.98). I don't like the 107 for this price. I'm ok with this at that price. 3.0. Please don't pay secondary for it.

Well my first add here. That's pretty cool. So distilled in 1985 so I had to get it and review it. Nose - I get light oak, apples, I get some butter scotch and a good bit of alcohol. Going to need water. Water, brings out some custard and baked bread and some honey. Taste - Oh man full body here. Sweet, some smoke, yeah some green apple, cork, oh yeah this got a lot of used oak barrels. Water gives me honey nut cheerios. Apples and pears, oh I'm almost getting the finish on an apple even. I'm pretty darn happy with this one. Complex and likely all ex bourbon cask (refill). It's awfully good and at 300 bucks..likely not worth this price but it's not far from it either. 3816 bottles made, if you see one and this is your wheel house it's a pretty easy pickup. 4.0 due to the age, batch strength, natural color and that really spicy and aggressive finish. I wasn't sure what I would be getting and I'm pretty impressed. I'm actually worried I rated it heavily based on my surprise as I frankly expected disappointment (which begs why I would buy a 300 dollar bottle with disappointment expected...I have a problem).