Tastes

I just got done reviewing Benchmark Single Barrel Bourbon, which carries a community rating of 3.5 on Distiller. I made a point to say that community ratings are pretty decent at aggregating sentiment and offering a relatively accurate point of view, but they're using .25 to .50 off in any given direction, since people get hyperbolic both about the things they do like and the things they don't, which skews the rankings. Blanton's is one of those that people get overly excited about beyond measure. And for decent reason, it's a good pour. I had it first back in 2012 or so, and at that point, it was indeed the best bourbon I've ever tasted. I didn't realize at the time how difficult it was to come by because it was a birthday gift and also maybe because it wasn't quite as hard to get in 2012. I like the design, I kept the horse cork. Cut to 14 years later. Blanton's is allocated. Maybe I'm not being fair because I have a bias against allocated shit. That doesn't mean I don't buy it when I see it because, living in PA, state stores are not permitted to overcharge at secondary market prices, so I can get Eagle Rare for $35, Blanton's for $60, Weller for SRP. So I buy it because I know I'm getting good product at a decent price. At the same time, I can't help but wonder about $60 for Blanton's. I can get Larceny Barrel Proof for that price. I can get ECBP for a few dollars more (hey there, Clint Eastwood), and frankly, now that 14 years have passed, I've had better. But I was at the state store in April last year, saw they had Blanton's behind the counter, and since they let you buy two, I bought two. I love the copy on the box, "The finest bourbon in the world comes from a single barrel," and "And that is why Blanton's is to bourbon what the finest single malts are to scotch and the rarest cognacs are to brandy." Um, no, and no. I mean, maybe the finest bourbons do, in the end, come from single barrels, but I've had Knob Creek Single Barrels much better than Blanton's. And honestly, the scotch comparison, well, I do prefer me some Islay, any Islay (maybe not Laphroaig select, but anything else) to Blanton's. Yet, they get me with their allocation scheme. I still fall prey to them making it a rare bird. People love to think they're above marketing but they're not. You're not, I'm not. Even when we're aware of their tricks, there is something subconscious going on that's like a tractor beam. So, notes, right? It's fucking bourbon. I get tired of notes sometimes. There's lesser and greater levels of complexity, but bourbons are going to have vanilla, caramel and oak. That's all here. Having mentioned Benchmark, the notes here of the same flavors are better than they are with benchmark, stronger, more prominent. Blanton's has a creaminess on the nose akin to a root beer float. French vanilla ice cream, a bit of root beer tang. The plate is fruity with stone fruit notes, peach, nectarines, juciy summertime fruits, as well as those bourbon notes, vanilla and caramel. The finish is mellow with the fruit becoming more prominent than the vanilla and caramel, adding not a touch of spice, like so many finishes but of sweetness. I mean, I guess I'm getting cynical because so many companies know how to produce good interesting spirits that even if Blanton's was special once, it's not really so special now. Is it delicious? Certainly. It punches it's weight. Does it deserve a 4.25 community rating: I would say that's hyperbolic. People happy that when they get their hands on it, it is in fact really good. But there are better bourbons that are more widly available, and with the market expanding and expanding and expanding, you don't really have to pay that much to get stuff to equal this. Blanton's seems to persist on scarcity and a myth of its own making which you can read about on the back of the box. They've hypnotized us with their legacy to make us think they're something special. They may once have been, but now, not so much.

Given what I know about people being hyperbolic and overrating the things they like and underrating the things they don't, a community ranking of 3.5 makes perfect sense for Benchmark Single Barrel. What you're getting here is a lower-end single barrel bourbon priced about $29. It's rare these days that I drink bourbon in this range (your standard Maker's Mark, Larceny, Knob Creek offerings), so I don't have much of a point of comparison. I would venture that Knob Creek 9 Year Bourbon is the better buy but it's about $10 more. I'd be interested in picking up a bottle of standard Maker's as a comparison, but truth be told, I'm always buying their Cask Strength or Wood Finishing if I'm buying Maker's these days. So my closest point of comparion is Evan William Single Barrel, which I'm really glad has reemrged in wider markets after it went distillery only for a while. That too is about $8 more than this, but I think it's worth it, since it's better. But that said, Benchmark isn't a bad budget bourbon. You get a swirl of caramel and vanilla on the nose like you're expect from a bourbon. It's not the wildest most complex nose, but it gets the job done, and I probably would have loved this as an option when I was in my twenties, especially if you're deflating the currency and a bottle of this might have been 15 bucks then. To that end, it's close to Evan Williams BiB in terms of value and I know a lot of people would swear by EW BiB over this but I've never been a huge EW BiB fan. The palate is more of the same, unassuming but also inoffensive with a bit of an apple note as well. It doesn't really evolve beyond that, but on the finish there's some cinnamon, again nothing to write home about but there's also nothing really awful here either. No youthful overly saccharine flavors or bitter oak. Benchmark seems to have found a niche in the budget category and as such, they deliver. I'm interested in trying the other products since they're promoting them at the local stores, Top Floor, Bonded, Full Proof, but I've been trying to avoid too high a proof lately just because of how hard hitting they are and the ways they can limit your enjoyment of the night. But I don't think you're going wrong if you're picking this up, given that it's probably got enough character to work in cocktails as well, but that's just venturing a guess because my wife it the cocktail drinker in the house and hasn't weighed in. I give it a 3 because it's pretty average, and a 3.5 seems to me the rating of someone who's thrilled to discover you can get something that doesn't taste like piss for under $30. I already know that, so I'm not astonished.

If you're like me and you read up on various reviews before deciding where to spend your money, you'll discover that Clermont Steep is a divisive one. Not only did Breaking Bourbon rate it 3.5/5, which in their ranking system is "Well Above Average," their admiration grew throughout the year so that they placed it on their Best Malt Whiskeys of 2023 list. Drinkhacker gave it a B+, not bad. It's got an expert review of 85 here on Distiller, which is also not bad. But if you also comb through the random blog reviews, the main complaint that people who dislike it is that it tastes young. And given it's aged 5 years, they're not wrong. There is a raw sense of graininess to it. But that doesn't necessarily make it bad outright. Maybe I'm giving it a little bit of a pass because I just recently tasted Garrison Brothers Small Batch and that came off as brown moonshine to me. I also recently tasted New Liberty's Bloody Butcher Straight Bourbon, which is better than Garrison but still retains something of a moonshine quality. Then again, both those are bourbons, corn is prominent, and this here is a single malt made with barley, and I've never tasted "white whiskey" (aka moonshine) made entirely from barley, so the youth here isn't as familiar. This is also aged 3 years more than Bloody Butcher and 2 years more than Garrison. But suffice it to say, I've tasted young whisky lately more so than usual, so comparing them, this one comes out on top. Aside from the notes of grain that are on both the nose and palate (not so much the finish), you get a sweet cereal note on the nose, vaguely reminiscent of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, the grain itself provides a vegetal note, a little like asparagus, and you get the feeling that when people are curious about what this whisky might be with a bit more time in the barrel, you have the feeling they mean it would lean more toward the former than the later. I won't say the vegetal note is a dealbreaker, but it is something that reminds me I'm glad I got this on clearance for $45 instead of paying the full SRP of $60. The mouthfeel is nice and thick and one of the better aspects of the dram. There's still a bit of grain but the sweetness overwhelms it. There's savory caramel and a bit of spice mingling with the cinnamon that makes it more Red Hots on the palate than Cinnamon Toast Crunch. In fact, this came off to me like a cinnamon bomb on the tongue with a bit of vanilla rounding it out. The finish evolved into a bit of peach and some creamy vanilla notes, and is quite honestly the best part of this whisky. So while I'm not quite as enthused about it as Breaking Bourbon seems to be, the reviews that don't prime expectations but treat it as a drinkable bottle with the potential to be more interesting with more years are onto something. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if Beam continues to manufacture it and decides to add a little age. As it is, not great, but not bad. I wouldn't necessarily recommend a bottle, but if you see it at a bar, give it a shot. That is, if the asking price isn't too steep.

For only $3 more than the standard Jameson, you can get the Triple Triple which is worlds better than the standard bottling, mainly because I find a lot of Irish blends have this metallic edge which gets taken off with rocks, but who wants to further water down a dram that's already 80 proof. Beginners, that's who. And that's fine. But again, if you want to point the beginners to an upgrade, look here. It's not terribly different than the standard Jameson, but the flavors are a little more intense. The nose is honey and apple, but it's very distinct kind of apple, more like a honey crisp or pink lady than a gala or a Fuji. It's a very bright refreshing scent, not terribly complex, but this isn't designed to work that way. There a hint of vanilla but it's buried beneath that apple. The palate is very light bodied with a similar but muted flavor profile as the nose. Obviously at 80 proof it's going to be light bodied, you don't get a whole lot of full bodied 80 proof whisky, but as mentioned above, that metallic clang isn't anywhere present. The finish is rather short and not terribly impressive, but again, this was built to be an easy sipper, smooth and rather undemanding, and in setting out to do so, they've accomplished exactly what they planned.

This one was a clearance steal. List price $280. I got it for $80. Truth be told I would never pay $280 for a bottle, so I'd never have gotten to taste this without it on clearance, and I opened it on Christmas Eve with my brother-in-law. I've had the Aberfeldy 12 and it was decent enough, and while the 21 retains some of the 12's Highland character, this is a much more complex beast entirely. Nose is a bit earthy, has a bit of a vegetal mushroomy quality at first. My brother-in-law once described that as kind of like the herbal dressings they sometimes put on hoagies. It's a unique aroma that I believe is imparted by the red wine casks, as it has a similar character to the Jura 18, which is finished in Premier Grand Cru Classe Barriques. A little time in the glass and this resolves to blackberries with a nice creamy vanilla tone to it, and eventually there's something a little like a hint of lemon curd. On the palate the earthiness disappears and the berries and vanilla take over front and center. The mouthfeel is nice and thick and viscous with the vanilla notes giving it a creme brûlée flavoring, and it coats the tongue in a lovely way. Works well particularly with desert, as pairing it with gingerbread cookies on Christmas Eve made a nice treat. The finish is long and the sweetness lingers a bit before resolving to a dry red wine flavor showing at the last moment the malbec barrels' influence. Overall, I don't know how I'd feel if I did pay $280, would I like it less or would I be tying myself in knots trying to convince myself I like it better than I do? Doesn't matter, because I got this bottle at a $200 discount and for that, this is excellent stuff.

Sometimes when delivering a review here, it can be confusing, particularly with single casks or single barrels where to drop your review because there's no single standard entry. It becomes especially complicated when they're store picks. Here, it lists this as a Bourbon Single Cask. That's not entirely accurate, but the picture matches what I have. What this is is Courage & Conviction Single Malt Single Barrel, finished in Bourbon Casks. Most of the time, you'll find this as a store pick, further diluting the review stream. I say that, not because store picks won't have variation, but because if you look at the people responding to store picks, you get 3 reviews, 4 reviews, and what I'm looking for is an aggregate. How are the store picks on average. So, I'll tell you this is a store pick from FW&GS. It didn't sell well so it went on clearance, hence the review right below mine: "Not worth the price," a sentiment I am very sympathetic with. Full price was $120. And though I'd had the standard Courage & Conviction and liked it, that was on clearance for $39 or so. Not the $80 list price at the time. This one, the single cask, also went on clearance, so instead of getting it at $120, I got it for $80. It's about 118 proof, and I ordered it with Highland Park 15-Year, which was also on clearance for $80, to get free shipping, so all in all, I got a bargain on the Highland Park, and I got this one for around what I would say it's worth (fyi, I didn't look at how much the reviewer below me spent, just his one-line review, which I understand). American Single Malt is really a crap shoot. Who knows what you're getting. To me, most Irish Single Malts are identifiable. They vary, but at 100% barley and triple distilled, you kind of get a gamut of the same flavor profile. With Scotch, you can get a sense of what you're getting by the region you're ordering from. Ardbeg 10 and Laphroaig 10 taste different. Most anyone who likes peat have tasted them side-by-side, but the difference is really subtle. You're getting variations on a theme. Whereas with American Single Malt, our country has yet to establish an identity, regional or otherwise, so often, if you haven't sampled it at a bar beforehand, you have no idea what you're getting. Only I did have some idea because I tasted Courage & Conviction in its 92 proof version, and I liked it. Can't remember what I said about it here and I don't really feel like looking it up, but it was grassy in a good way and had a citrus tinge. The closest comparison I can think of in the single malt Scotch world is Glenmorangie 10 (haven't tasted the new 12 yet), and even that isn't entirely accurate, just a comparison to let you know what this is. On the nose the strong scent of hay and heather is prominent with a slight note of orange peel (citric but bitter) with it rounding off with some sweetness, maybe shortbread cookie. On the palate the grassiness disappears, and the fruitiness starts off orange-like but soon becomes creamier and resolves itself into an almost strawberries and cream profile. The finish lingers long with a pepperiness and the strawberry flavor lingering. All in all, its' really not bad for a bourgeoning distillery, and again, it's just the price that is prohibitive. If you have the money to drop on this, you might better place it on the Highland Park 15, but like me, if they cut the price down, you might do both and get a good bottle from an established distillery while also throwing some down on an up-and-comer. They're making a good product at a price that might shoot them in the foot, but then, price isn't always dictated by quality but availability. Maybe if you have some goodness in your heart this holiday season, throw some of your cash the little guy's way. A quick Google search for Virginia Distillery Company tells me, "Angela Moore's husband, George Moore, founded the Virginia Distillery in 2011 and upon his passing, she bought out the other partners to make the business solely family-owned. Angela now acts at the chairwoman with her son, Gareth Moore, as CE." So it sounds like they haven't been bought out yet by someone bigger, though my favorite thing they've done so far is the Port Cask Single Barrel Single Malt, which was going for around $50 SRP. If you find that, don't hesitate. That one is a steal. This one, well, I leave it to you to decide your verdict should you be so brave.

The good ol' Whisky Advocate Top 20. I've been paying attention to it for the past four years or so, which I guess is almost half as long as they've been running it. I understand to take it somewhat with a grain of salt. WA is a lifestyle magazine mostly designed to move produce, but it's not terribly expensive and I like looking at glossy pictures of whisky bottles, sue me. Plus, lists are meant to be argued over, not definitive. But if I'm being honest, I usually get my hands on anywhere from 2-4 of the whiskies listed on it every year, and while I might sometimes wonder about placement (Jack Daniels Bonded at #1, really?) or whether there really weren't other more deserving whiskies out there (Ezra Brooks 99 Rye), I'm never actually disappointed in the whiskies themselves. Yes, even that Ezra Rye is quite pleasing as a sipper when you factor in that it's $23/bottle. Thing about this year is that even the ones that aren't cost prohibitive (I'm probably never going to drop the money it takes to get Maker's Mark Cellar Age even though I love almost anything Maker's I've ever tasted) weren't easily available where I'm located. I just sent my friend in Chicago a bottle of Torabhaig Legacy Series Sound of Sleat, this year's #9, because I could order it from Binny's to go directly to him while I can't ship myself a bottle because of my state's liquor laws. In any case, this dram #17, the Lux Row Bourbon, finished in PX Sherry Casks was on sale for $39 (SRP $60) and right there on the shelf of the FW&GS location right next to my therapist's office (one stop shop to get the two things to help your mental state, am I right?). And you know me, I brag about it all the time when I do my writeups here: I can't pass up a bargain. And this whisky is really solid. High rye tends to be how I prefer bourbon, and this fits the mold. Very sweet nose with both the corn and the sherry giving it a candy coated aroma, musky in a way that always make me think of a mix of cinnamon and coco powder. It's 112 proof, so the palate is nice and full but without too much fire (though sometimes because I drink higher proof whisky I don't think something is strong whereas others who don't drink strong whisky find it fiery, so take that with this disclaimer). The palate adds a touch of raspberry/blackberry to what's on the nose. There's a bit of cherry Luden's flavor toward the back end, and it's got that nice peppery finish. Having enjoyed it, I do wonder about the SRP. Is it worth $60, I'm not sure I can recommend it at that price, but for $39 it's a knockout. Very enjoyable. Of course my main problem with that Whisky Advocate Top 20 isn't placement or that I often don't think whiskies deserve to appear on it. After all, if I haven't tasted everything released in a given year (and that's how they do it, in case you didn't know, to appear there it has to be a new release that year...and new batches of old products like ECBP count), so how could I know whether a particular whisky deserves its placement. No, my main problem is that after a whisky places on the list, demand goes up, distilleries start to feel themselves, and they jack up the price. A prime example is Old Ezra 7 Year Bourbon. The year it placed at #7, it was $40, and worth every penny. The next year it was $55 dollars and maybe stretching it. Now it's about $80 dollars and if you're fool enough to buy it, more power to you for not knowing you shouldn't. I could see Lux Row pulling the same trick. I just hope they don't.

Before this, I never purchased a Garrison Brothers product. Given the price, you can get much more reputable bourbons that are safer bets. Then I see that the boot flask of this is on sale for $12.93, marked down from $45, and I figure, why not? Anyone who reads my reviews knows that I factor in cost, and I don't really trust anyone who doesn't. I'm not independently wealthy and cost has a lot to do with my decisions. And the product here? I think it can best be described as right next door to moonshine. Overly sweet and cloying, without much barrel influence at all. I believe it's a 3 year bourbon, but is that really any excuse for marketing something this putrid at a premium. This looks to be my last experience with Garrison. Given the flavor profile here and how repugnant I find it, I don't think I'd chance any of their other stuff even on clearance. I'd rather have Jim Beam White Label, which up until I tasted this, I counted as the worst whisky I've ever had. Congrats Garrison, you came along and took the crown.

This is a fairly typical Irish whisky in terms of flavor profile. I get honey, apple/pear notes along with vanilla and shortbread. Nose and palate are pretty much the same notes with nothing really evolving over the course of the sip. The 10 years gives it a bit more oomph than your garden variety Bushmills with a rounder mouthfeel and more viscosity. But what makes it prohibitive is the pricing here. Typical of a lot of brands these days, it's about ten dollars too expensive. I managed to pick it up at a $12 discount, and for $38 it's not bad. I wouldn't exactly call it a steal, but I didn't rue the cash. Overall, it's one that can be enjoyed best after tasting something better when you still want a whisky but you're not as discerning with what that whisky is. At 80 proof, it might be a bit more intense and interesting if you bumped the proof up, but then again, if you're using it to the effect of having something to taste to come down off your better whiskies, having something that's 80 proof doesn't hurt. PS. This is one of those odd whiskies where it tastes better sipping out of a shot glass than out of a tumbler or a Glencairn. I'm not sure what makes this happen, but I've noticed that every once in a while, a whisky comes along where this is the case.

We're coming full circle here on this last tasting for St. Patrick's Day 2025. Boxty Pancakes with Mushrooms and Cabbage has been consumed. I've reviewed Method and Madness Garryana Oak and Teeling Single Malt Red Wine Cask, and now, I'm finishing the night with Writers' Tears Double Oak. My first review ever on Distiller here was Writers' Tears Copper Pot, and I gave it a lukewarm reception, though I can't be bothered to look at what my rating was. Still, I remember what my opinion was: better than Jameson and Tully, but not enough to, at the time, charge double the price. I had a bottle of Double Oak before that, too, and I knew the Double Oak was better, but they were charging $45 or so and I thought that was too much. How times have changed! Double Oak is now going for $60, though this month, it's on clearance and back down to $45, which in today's market feels like a steal. Because this is certainly not a bad whiskey at all. And $45 feels right. The two oaks involved are bourbon casks and cognac casks, and I do enjoy a good cognac finish. What we talk about when we talk about cognac finished whiskies is always to me golden raisins. It's the first thing that pops to mind when we're talking cognac finish. It's on the nose, on the palate, all over the dram. With this, there's also honeysuckle aroma, which I feel like is splitting the difference between the bourbon influence and the cognac as well as mandarin orange. There's something about the scent too that reminds me of a woman's floral shampoo, a sort of fresh edge to the honeysuckle that reminds you of fresh washed sheets on a warm summer day, a lovely laundry detergent. The palate carries over that lemon detergent flavor, though I wouldn't compare it to drinking detergent, which would be disgusting. The lemon mingles with a vanilla flavor that's quite pleasant as well as those golden raisins coming back. There's not a great deal of complexity beyond that, maybe a hint of ginger on the back end as it transitions into the finish. But what it does, it does well. Maybe not $62 well, which was what this cost at full price after 5 years of inflation or so (I think maybe I bought this after it appeared on the Whisky Advocate Top 20 in....let me Google...2019. It appears as #10, so now it's almost 6 years), but it's certainly worth $45 now (though $45 felt steep then, but I was in...well, the same tax bracket actually, I'm just higher in that bracket now, but to put it in context, Old Ezra 7 appeared at #7 and cost #40 and is now $80). Ah the good ol' days when whisky was affordable. Honestly, I have no idea where I'm going with this other than it's been a rough fah-king decade so far, a topsy turvy world, and Writers Tears is a decent whisky that like a lot of other distilleries is maybe feeling itself a bit too much and overrating how much we're willing to spend on their whiskies, which may be why I found this on clearance in the first place. Of the whiskies I've tasted tonight, I'm reviewing this third and it's third in my heart and estimate. Which is not to say avoid it. Just make sure you're paying what it's worth. So yeah, after 179 reviews, I'm not much further than where I was at #1 with their Copper Pot. Relatively easy to drink, but certainly not an Irish heavyweight. Conor McGregor, this is not.