Tastes

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.

My wife and I picked this up on a trip to Total Wine in Delaware shortly after she brought back 9 bottles of Irish Whiskey from Ireland. The first one we'd opened was Teeling Wonders of Wood Swedish Wood, which was wonderful, and given I also enjoyed Teeling Blackpitts, which is vastly different than the Swedish wood, Teeling was batting 2-for-2 with me, so why not? The Red Wine finished bottle is cask strength (and I'd never had a Teeling Cask Strength) and it was marked down from $90 to $75, which, given Delaware doesn't have sales tax, why not? For this review, I'm following our opening Method and Madness Garryana Oak and doing a neck pour for St. Patty's (almost typed Thanksgiving there, didn't realize the pour of Garryana hit me that way but we haven't had dinner yet), and now I'm following it with this Teeling, which in fairness has been open for months and is near the end. Generally, I have preferred this one with a ratio of 1.5 oz and one small ice cube to mute its intensity, so that may give you an idea of where we stand with this, but for the purposes of this review, I'm going without a splash or ice. The only other review here states that the red wine is too intense, and I believe I'd concur when the bottle is first opened. Over time, with air in the bottle, that mutes the intensity, so that now, when I'm doing this tasting, the red wine aroma is well integrated into the whisky. The aroma is largely cherries jubilee with an underlying current of vanilla custard and an additional sweetness that reminds me maraschino liqueur. What I find funny, of course, is the general labeling of Red Wine Cask rather than a specific wine like Cabernet or Syrah or Pinot. Were there multiple barrels with multiple styles. It's a bit opaque which doesn't make it a bad whiskey but for those of us looking for answers...well, I suppose I could Google it, but I'm going the lazy route. Actually, the aroma is quite delightful as a dessert whiskey, and I'm enjoying it now a great deal, even if I haven't had dinner yet. On the palate, the cherry flavor continues with a bit of ginger and clove spice, granting a mulled texture to the taste that doesn't come through on the nose. Whereas the nose smells like dessert, the cherry here has a medicinal edge like cherry cough drops, which makes for an odd mulled wine. The mouthfeel is thick and rich, and this transitions into a mid-length finish that mingles sweet and sour in an experience that almost feels like the best description would be red sour patch kids. In the end, I'm not sure everything fits together perfectly, though maybe it does and it's just an experiment that ends up being an acquired taste? This is one of those whiskeys that have fluctuated for me over the course of the bottle. Sometimes I might have rated it 3.25 but now on the day of tasting I'm feeling generous and enjoying the sour patch kids/sweet tart cherries jubilee mulled wine mash up. If that sounds good to you, roll the dice. If that sounds disgusting, maybe this isn't for you. And just as a reminder of how subjective ratings can be (if you need another reminder), I just gave the Garryana Method and Madness 3.75 and this a 4.0 though I think objectively speaking, the Garryana Method and Madness is a more interesting whiskey, with more nuance and subtlety for an appreciator to mull over. The best comparison would be that the M&M Garryana is avant garde experimental music and this is mainstream pop.The latter is more easily enjoyed in many situations whereas the first requires time and effort and maybe sitting in a room alone, thinking deeply about it.

Rocking the neck pour here in celebration of Saint Patty's. I used to joke that this was amateur night, a night where real appreciators of spirits abstained. I suppose others have made that joke, but for me, it came out of my Buffy the Vampire Slayer fandom back in the early aughts where, according to the lore of the show, monsters didn't come out on Halloween. I'd walk through the streets of Philly on St. Patrick's Day seeing bros puking in the gutters and think, not really my idea of a good time. But over the years I've softened my stance, and since my wife brought back 9 bottles of Irish from Ireland this past July, we figured we would crack our 3rd of the lot (after Teeling Wonders of Wood Swedish and Bushmills Acacia Distiller's Exculsive) on this, Patty's Day 2025 while she cooks up Irish Boxty Potato Pancakes with mushrooms and cabbage. I always like bottle tasting notes because generally they're both broad and accurate. The back of all Method and Madness bottles have this, nose, palate, finish, and here we get from the bottle: Nose (smoked applewood, treacle, and golden raisins); Taste (crushed black pepper, coffee cake, toasted wood) and finish (clove spice, malted barley and coffee grounds) and most of those things are familiar to me with the exception of smoked applewood. Not that I've ever gone out of my way to taste coffee grounds. Smelled them, yes, but not tasted them. So I suppose I'm in a decent place to judge the bottle tasting notes and perhaps add a few of my own, for who tastes exactly what the bottle tells you to taste when you're tasting a whiskey? I get a grassy note on the nose mingling with tart red apple and a whiff of vanilla. Not really reinventing the wheel when it comes to Irish Whiskey, but here they're coming off full bodied, without any of the bitter tincture of metal you get from blends like Tully or Jameson, which is good given this bottle cost almost triple what they cost. Not that cost always equates with quality, but you'd hope that this was a step above your standard run of the mill Irish given M&M's reputation as experimental and all around satisfying (ok, so maybe that's just my experience with them, but really, over the years all the Method and Madness I have tried have been high quality). The tart sweetness, I suppose, could also be interpreted as golden raisin, as stated on the bottle as there's a pleasant sort of dusky dried aroma here too, which if I venture to guess would be what the Garryana imparts. But it also smells a bit citric like kumquat (the expert reviewer here notes lemon custard pie, and I'll buy that, different ways of interpreting the same thing). On the tongue, there's a strong vanilla element here. Where the bottle states, "coffee cake," I'd say there's a general baked goods quality to the palate. It's bready with a sweetness, but it would be a more subtle coffee cake, not your store bought variety with loads of sugar added, but the subtler variety made by your grandma to actually go with her serving your coffee with brunch, though I'd also venture the more I reflect on the note to call it belgian waffle. And of course, I'd agree whole-heartedly that toasted wood is another accurate description for part of what's going on here. There's a nice amount of spice here, which you can call clove or black pepper and a bitter citrus I'd venture to call orange peel that leads into the finish. Oddly enough, the expert reviewer here calls the finish short. I've always wondered about whether perception of the finish is subjective and I suppose it is because the flavors here linger long after the sip has gone down your throat, floating about in your mouth in a pleasant dry spice that coats the tongue and leaves you looking for your next sip. Overall, this is good stuff. I think I like the single pot still in chestnut oak a bit better, and although I wasn't terribly impressed with my first bottle of their single malt, I bought a second and that decidedly grew on me to the point where I wished I had more. I feel like Method and Madness is a brand to pay attention to. The stuff they're making can go toe-to-toe with Green and Yellow Spot and Redbreast, which for my money are the best out there (haven't tried Blue or Red Spot yet). My wife picked this up for 95 pounds, which in today's conversion is about $124, which is a bit steep. It might be a slight bit overpriced for what it is, but once the money is spent, you might as well get your enjoyment out of it, am I right?

Quick bit of editorializing before I begin: if you’re the type of person who blames the refs when your football team loses, you were also likely the kid who took his ball and went home when he wasn’t winning. If it’s a one-score game and there’s a horrible call, you maybe have a leg to stand on, but you still sound like a whiny child when you do it, so if you’re reading this, please just stop. I say this to fans of the team I support as much as I say it to fans of other teams. Stop. Please. Babies. Bad calls suck and they happen to every team. It’s part of the game. Am I jinxing it so that a bad call goes against the Eagles in a close game these week that I’ll feel compelled to complain about? Maybe. But you wont’ actually here me complaining because I walk the walk. Why I bring that up here is of course that I did this tasting that I’m writing up here while watching the Eagles beat the Packers, and there are a lot of Packers fans complaining that it was the referees and not Jordan Love’s three interceptions or even the Green Bay coaches’ game plan that lost them that game. It is what it is though. And the whiskey flowed. This week, I poured the following: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood, Talisker 2023 Distiller’s Edition, and Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release. I poured them in that order, going from lowest proof to highest proof, so without further ado, let’s jump right in: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood My wife went to Ireland this past summer. She visited Teeling and asked me what I wanted her to bring back. I said Blackpitts Cask Strength and Wonders of Wood Swedish Edition, which wasn’t yet available in the States at the time. She visited Middleton and asked what I wanted. I said Gold Spot, Powers John Lane Cask Strength, Method & Madness Garryana Oak. She visited Bushmills, and asked what I wanted, and I said, I have no idea, I don’t really drink Bushmills, ask if there are any distillery exclusives that you can’t get anywhere else. And she came home with two, the first of which we opened on Christmas Eve and then used again for this tasting, Bushmills with no age statement finished in Acacia wood. I don’t mean to throw much shade on Bushmills. They’re fine as an entry dram. I would take either Black or Red Bush in the absence of anything else on offer and enjoy it, but part of the drawback is the low proof. Here with the Acacia wood, the proof is actually a little higher than their standard offerings at 94, which bodes well. But there’s still a reason I chose it first in the lineup, having falsely believed it was 80 proof based on my experience with the dram on Christmas Eve. Nose: Grassy and fresh with cereal, light vanilla and light orchard fruit. Not much going on here, but not unpleasant, which I think is generally how you would describe any Bushmills, which in turn makes me wonder, what exactly is the Acacia wood imparting here? Palate: This has an apple tart/honey nut cheerios quality, that seems common to a lot of blended Irish whisky without the copper undertones, only this a single malt so I’d expect a bit more. There’s a light touch of peach in there and a gentle knock of vanilla. It’s still delicate but better rounded than the nose. Finish: short, spiced apple flavor. Overall, I’m not sure we needed a whole bottle of this. It’s the kind of dram you don’t mind tasting at the distillery, but as a token brought back from the home country, it’s wanting, and I’m not sure it’s any better than Black Bush. I would have been interested to taste them side-by-side, as I think from memory that Black Bush has a stronger character because it’s finished in oloroso sherry. I won’t entirely discount Bushmills Acacia Wood as worthless, but it’s maybe a half-step above middling. Talisker 2023 Distillers Edition The big news with the 2023 Distillers Edition bottles was the removal of the age statements. Given that I’m not tasting this against a previous edition, the question lingers, does the removal of the age statement mean that this really does taste younger than previous editions, or is it simply my imagination imparting that on the whiskey’s character because I know that they’ve intentionally removed the bottling dates? Nose: Obviously this was going to be completely different from the Bushmills and I intended it that way, as I often get more out of a tasting from contrast than similarity. On the nose, there’s a wine dark sweetness mixed with moderate peat, an aroma of black cherries, and very slight salinity giving it that Talisker cured meats undertone that was missing from the Tidal Surge 8 I tasted last week (at least for me). The last Distillers Edition I had was either 2019 or 2020, I can’t remember entirely and at the time I reviewed it, I noted how I’d have loved a candle with the scent of that whisky. I can’t say the same here, though it’s certainly good. It’s just not the one that won me over previously. There’s something missing here that was present in the previous versions, but I can’t place it. Palate: More sweet than peat. The Amoroso Sherry imparts a nice influence, though I do feel like it’s also lacking in strength on the tongue vs. previous Distillers Editions. Give that they bottle around 92 proof with each edition, it’s not that they’ve watered it down. Could it be younger whisky mixed in that isn’t packing the same punch as older stock? Is it that I tasted the barrel proof Tidal Surge 8 Year last week and the memory of a cask strength Talisker is still so clear in my mind? It feels a little like drinking the Talisker version of flat soda. The sweetness mingling with the peat is there as expected, but it’s just not popping. Again, I wouldn’t turn this down, but it’s not really up to the level of the last bottle I had, at least in memory. So is it simply memory making old times better than current times? Finish: The peat lingers for a moderate length and the salinity takes over at the back end. Overall, I enjoyed this, but it didn’t come off as well as previous Distillers Editions, and if you notice, the price doesn’t go down when the age statement comes off, so this might be my last Talisker Distillers Edition. Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release I had almost given up on this one. It was available in FW&GS stores throughout Pennsylvania, but it went fast, and as none of the local bottles were at stores it was convenient for me to get to during my workday, I considered this a loss. Well, there are always good whiskies out there, you don’t have to try every single one. Some are going to pass you by. Then we had a birthday party to go to over in Delaware mid-December, and Total Wine had a bunch of these at SRP. So I asked my wife to stop there first. And boy am I glad I did. Not going to lie, this was the best pour of the night. I’ve seen a lot of people comparing this to a souped up Wild Turkey 101. And honestly, I don’t know what 101 you’re drinking. To me 101 is a starter set with some decent flavors, but nowhere near the power or complexity of this one. Nose: Swirls of brown sugar and caramel, coco powder with a little oak, a slight nuttiness and traces of coconut. Palate: Milk chocolate, caramel, vanilla, and more prominent coconut, almost like a Mounds bar, creamy mouthfeel, with the brown sugar coming back on hard. Finish: long with both sweetness and spice intermingling, the chocolate quality lingers. Overall, I had considered buying a second bottle while there but didn’t because it was December, my credit card was already pretty high from Christmas presents, and now I regret that I didn’t get it. Probably would have stowed a second away to open a few years from now when the memory had faded, but at least I got the one. My wife joined me in this and loved it as well. We probably had a little too much, but that was okay. After the Eagles game, we put on Cameron Crowe’s Singles on streaming, which is one of our favorite movies, and thoroughly enjoyed the evening. Last week, I put out winners for nose, palate and finish, but there’s no question that the Wild Turkey took all three here. Great whisky, amazing price.

Quick bit of editorializing before I begin: if you’re the type of person who blames the refs when your football team loses, you were also likely the kid who took his ball and went home when he wasn’t winning. If it’s a one-score game and there’s a horrible call, you maybe have a leg to stand on, but you still sound like a whiny child when you do it, so if you’re reading this, please just stop. I say this to fans of the team I support as much as I say it to fans of other teams. Stop. Please. Babies. Bad calls suck and they happen to every team. It’s part of the game. Am I jinxing it so that a bad call goes against the Eagles in a close game these week that I’ll feel compelled to complain about? Maybe. But you wont’ actually here me complaining because I walk the walk. Why I bring that up here is of course that I did this tasting that I’m writing up here while watching the Eagles beat the Packers, and there are a lot of Packers fans complaining that it was the referees and not Jordan Love’s three interceptions or even the Green Bay coaches’ game plan that lost them that game. It is what it is though. And the whiskey flowed. This week, I poured the following: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood, Talisker 2023 Distiller’s Edition, and Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release. I poured them in that order, going from lowest proof to highest proof, so without further ado, let’s jump right in: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood My wife went to Ireland this past summer. She visited Teeling and asked me what I wanted her to bring back. I said Blackpitts Cask Strength and Wonders of Wood Swedish Edition, which wasn’t yet available in the States at the time. She visited Middleton and asked what I wanted. I said Gold Spot, Powers John Lane Cask Strength, Method & Madness Garryana Oak. She visited Bushmills, and asked what I wanted, and I said, I have no idea, I don’t really drink Bushmills, ask if there are any distillery exclusives that you can’t get anywhere else. And she came home with two, the first of which we opened on Christmas Eve and then used again for this tasting, Bushmills with no age statement finished in Acacia wood. I don’t mean to throw much shade on Bushmills. They’re fine as an entry dram. I would take either Black or Red Bush in the absence of anything else on offer and enjoy it, but part of the drawback is the low proof. Here with the Acacia wood, the proof is actually a little higher than their standard offerings at 94, which bodes well. But there’s still a reason I chose it first in the lineup, having falsely believed it was 80 proof based on my experience with the dram on Christmas Eve. Nose: Grassy and fresh with cereal, light vanilla and light orchard fruit. Not much going on here, but not unpleasant, which I think is generally how you would describe any Bushmills, which in turn makes me wonder, what exactly is the Acacia wood imparting here? Palate: This has an apple tart/honey nut cheerios quality, that seems common to a lot of blended Irish whisky without the copper undertones, only this a single malt so I’d expect a bit more. There’s a light touch of peach in there and a gentle knock of vanilla. It’s still delicate but better rounded than the nose. Finish: short, spiced apple flavor. Overall, I’m not sure we needed a whole bottle of this. It’s the kind of dram you don’t mind tasting at the distillery, but as a token brought back from the home country, it’s wanting, and I’m not sure it’s any better than Black Bush. I would have been interested to taste them side-by-side, as I think from memory that Black Bush has a stronger character because it’s finished in oloroso sherry. I won’t entirely discount Bushmills Acacia Wood as worthless, but it’s maybe a half-step above middling. And for that reason, having just looked up that my wife paid 75 pounds for this, I'm dropping my rating by a half-star. Talisker 2023 Distillers Edition The big news with the 2023 Distillers Edition bottles was the removal of the age statements. Given that I’m not tasting this against a previous edition, the question lingers, does the removal of the age statement mean that this really does taste younger than previous editions, or is it simply my imagination imparting that on the whiskey’s character because I know that they’ve intentionally removed the bottling dates? Nose: Obviously this was going to be completely different from the Bushmills and I intended it that way, as I often get more out of a tasting from contrast than similarity. On the nose, there’s a wine dark sweetness mixed with moderate peat, an aroma of black cherries, and very slight salinity giving it that Talisker cured meats undertone that was missing from the Tidal Surge 8 I tasted last week (at least for me). The last Distillers Edition I had was either 2019 or 2020, I can’t remember entirely and at the time I reviewed it, I noted how I’d have loved a candle with the scent of that whisky. I can’t say the same here, though it’s certainly good. It’s just not the one that won me over previously. There’s something missing here that was present in the previous versions, but I can’t place it. Palate: More sweet than peat. The Amoroso Sherry imparts a nice influence, though I do feel like it’s also lacking in strength on the tongue vs. previous Distillers Editions. Give that they bottle around 92 proof with each edition, it’s not that they’ve watered it down. Could it be younger whisky mixed in that isn’t packing the same punch as older stock? Is it that I tasted the barrel proof Tidal Surge 8 Year last week and the memory of a cask strength Talisker is still so clear in my mind? It feels a little like drinking the Talisker version of flat soda. The sweetness mingling with the peat is there as expected, but it’s just not popping. Again, I wouldn’t turn this down, but it’s not really up to the level of the last bottle I had, at least in memory. So is it simply memory making old times better than current times? Finish: The peat lingers for a moderate length and the salinity takes over at the back end. Overall, I enjoyed this, but it didn’t come off as well as previous Distillers Editions, and if you notice, the price doesn’t go down when the age statement comes off, so this might be my last Talisker Distillers Edition. Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release I had almost given up on this one. It was available in FW&GS stores throughout Pennsylvania, but it went fast, and as none of the local bottles were at stores it was convenient for me to get to during my workday, I considered this a loss. Well, there are always good whiskies out there, you don’t have to try every single one. Some are going to pass you by. Then we had a birthday party to go to over in Delaware mid-December, and Total Wine had a bunch of these at SRP. So I asked my wife to stop there first. And boy am I glad I did. Not going to lie, this was the best pour of the night. I’ve seen a lot of people comparing this to a souped up Wild Turkey 101. And honestly, I don’t know what 101 you’re drinking. To me 101 is a starter set with some decent flavors, but nowhere near the power or complexity of this one. Nose: Swirls of brown sugar and caramel, coco powder with a little oak, a slight nuttiness and traces of coconut. Palate: Milk chocolate, caramel, vanilla, and more prominent coconut, almost like a Mounds bar, creamy mouthfeel, with the brown sugar coming back on hard. Finish: long with both sweetness and spice intermingling, the chocolate quality lingers. Overall, I had considered buying a second bottle while there but didn’t because it was December, my credit card was already pretty high from Christmas presents, and now I regret that I didn’t get it. Probably would have stowed a second away to open a few years from now when the memory had faded, but at least I got the one. My wife joined me in this and loved it as well. We probably had a little too much, but that was okay. After the Eagles game, we put on Cameron Crowe’s Singles on streaming, which is one of our favorite movies, and thoroughly enjoyed the evening. Last week, I put out winners for nose, palate and finish, but there’s no question that the Wild Turkey took all three here. Great whisky, amazing price.

Quick bit of editorializing before I begin: if you’re the type of person who blames the refs when your football team loses, you were also likely the kid who took his ball and went home when he wasn’t winning. If it’s a one-score game and there’s a horrible call, you maybe have a leg to stand on, but you still sound like a whiny child when you do it, so if you’re reading this, please just stop. I say this to fans of the team I support as much as I say it to fans of other teams. Stop. Please. Babies. Bad calls suck and they happen to every team. It’s part of the game. Am I jinxing it so that a bad call goes against the Eagles in a close game these week that I’ll feel compelled to complain about? Maybe. But you wont’ actually here me complaining because I walk the walk. Why I bring that up here is of course that I did this tasting that I’m writing up here while watching the Eagles beat the Packers, and there are a lot of Packers fans complaining that it was the referees and not Jordan Love’s three interceptions or even the Green Bay coaches’ game plan that lost them that game. It is what it is though. And the whiskey flowed. This week, I poured the following: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood, Talisker 2023 Distiller’s Edition, and Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release. I poured them in that order, going from lowest proof to highest proof, so without further ado, let’s jump right in: Bushmills Distillery Exclusive Acacia Wood My wife went to Ireland this past summer. She visited Teeling and asked me what I wanted her to bring back. I said Blackpitts Cask Strength and Wonders of Wood Swedish Edition, which wasn’t yet available in the States at the time. She visited Middleton and asked what I wanted. I said Gold Spot, Powers John Lane Cask Strength, Method & Madness Garryana Oak. She visited Bushmills, and asked what I wanted, and I said, I have no idea, I don’t really drink Bushmills, ask if there are any distillery exclusives that you can’t get anywhere else. And she came home with two, the first of which we opened on Christmas Eve and then used again for this tasting, Bushmills with no age statement finished in Acacia wood. I don’t mean to throw much shade on Bushmills. They’re fine as an entry dram. I would take either Black or Red Bush in the absence of anything else on offer and enjoy it, but part of the drawback is the low proof. Here with the Acacia wood, the proof is actually a little higher than their standard offerings at 94, which bodes well. But there’s still a reason I chose it first in the lineup, having falsely believed it was 80 proof based on my experience with the dram on Christmas Eve. Nose: Grassy and fresh with cereal, light vanilla and light orchard fruit. Not much going on here, but not unpleasant, which I think is generally how you would describe any Bushmills, which in turn makes me wonder, what exactly is the Acacia wood imparting here? Palate: This has an apple tart/honey nut cheerios quality, that seems common to a lot of blended Irish whisky without the copper undertones, only this a single malt so I’d expect a bit more. There’s a light touch of peach in there and a gentle knock of vanilla. It’s still delicate but better rounded than the nose. Finish: short, spiced apple flavor. Overall, I’m not sure we needed a whole bottle of this. It’s the kind of dram you don’t mind tasting at the distillery, but as a token brought back from the home country, it’s wanting, and I’m not sure it’s any better than Black Bush. I would have been interested to taste them side-by-side, as I think from memory that Black Bush has a stronger character because it’s finished in oloroso sherry. I won’t entirely discount Bushmills Acacia Wood as worthless, but it’s maybe a half-step above middling. Talisker 2023 Distillers Edition The big news with the 2023 Distillers Edition bottles was the removal of the age statements. Given that I’m not tasting this against a previous edition, the question lingers, does the removal of the age statement mean that this really does taste younger than previous editions, or is it simply my imagination imparting that on the whiskey’s character because I know that they’ve intentionally removed the bottling dates? Nose: Obviously this was going to be completely different from the Bushmills and I intended it that way, as I often get more out of a tasting from contrast than similarity. On the nose, there’s a wine dark sweetness mixed with moderate peat, an aroma of black cherries, and very slight salinity giving it that Talisker cured meats undertone that was missing from the Tidal Surge 8 I tasted last week (at least for me). The last Distillers Edition I had was either 2019 or 2020, I can’t remember entirely and at the time I reviewed it, I noted how I’d have loved a candle with the scent of that whisky. I can’t say the same here, though it’s certainly good. It’s just not the one that won me over previously. There’s something missing here that was present in the previous versions, but I can’t place it. Palate: More sweet than peat. The Amoroso Sherry imparts a nice influence, though I do feel like it’s also lacking in strength on the tongue vs. previous Distillers Editions. Give that they bottle around 92 proof with each edition, it’s not that they’ve watered it down. Could it be younger whisky mixed in that isn’t packing the same punch as older stock? Is it that I tasted the barrel proof Tidal Surge 8 Year last week and the memory of a cask strength Talisker is still so clear in my mind? It feels a little like drinking the Talisker version of flat soda. The sweetness mingling with the peat is there as expected, but it’s just not popping. Again, I wouldn’t turn this down, but it’s not really up to the level of the last bottle I had, at least in memory. So is it simply memory making old times better than current times? Finish: The peat lingers for a moderate length and the salinity takes over at the back end. Overall, I enjoyed this, but it didn’t come off as well as previous Distillers Editions, and if you notice, the price doesn’t go down when the age statement comes off, so this might be my last Talisker Distillers Edition. Wild Turkey Jimmy Russell 70th Anniversary Release I had almost given up on this one. It was available in FW&GS stores throughout Pennsylvania, but it went fast, and as none of the local bottles were at stores it was convenient for me to get to during my workday, I considered this a loss. Well, there are always good whiskies out there, you don’t have to try every single one. Some are going to pass you by. Then we had a birthday party to go to over in Delaware mid-December, and Total Wine had a bunch of these at SRP. So I asked my wife to stop there first. And boy am I glad I did. Not going to lie, this was the best pour of the night. I’ve seen a lot of people comparing this to a souped up Wild Turkey 101. And honestly, I don’t know what 101 you’re drinking. To me 101 is a starter set with some decent flavors, but nowhere near the power or complexity of this one. Nose: Swirls of brown sugar and caramel, coco powder with a little oak, a slight nuttiness and traces of coconut. Palate: Milk chocolate, caramel, vanilla, and more prominent coconut, almost like a Mounds bar, creamy mouthfeel, with the brown sugar coming back on hard. Finish: long with both sweetness and spice intermingling, the chocolate quality lingers. Overall, I had considered buying a second bottle while there but didn’t because it was December, my credit card was already pretty high from Christmas presents, and now I regret that I didn’t get it. Probably would have stowed a second away to open a few years from now when the memory had faded, but at least I got the one. My wife joined me in this and loved it as well. We probably had a little too much, but that was okay. After the Eagles game, we put on Cameron Crowe’s Singles on streaming, which is one of our favorite movies, and thoroughly enjoyed the evening. Last week, I put out winners for nose, palate and finish, but there’s no question that the Wild Turkey took all three here. Great whisky, amazing price.

I’m going to try something a little different with my tasting notes this year. In the past, I’ve always focused on writing up one whisky at a time, but that’s not really how I approach drinking whisky. Usually, I sample two or three whiskies of an evening, and even if there’s not necessarily a common thread between them, even if I’m tasting a bourbon followed by a scotch followed by a rye, I get more of a sense of what I like, not to mention what I taste, through the contrast and comparison of the drams than on focusing on just one. To this end, sometimes order of the tasting matters. For example, if I have a weaker whisky before stronger whiskies, I might like the weaker whisky if I’m having it first compared to if I place it last in my tasting lineup simply because if it’s last, what came before was so much better, but it’s really not, in the end, a bad whisky, especially if it’s priced appropriately. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, unless you’re wealthy or you’re getting free samples, price actually does factor into enjoyment. So I will, in my writeups continue to talk about what I paid, how that factored in, and if I think it’s good but overpriced, I’ll discuss what I believe the whisky is actually worth based on my own wallet. Of course reviewing multiple whiskies at one time isn’t unprecedented. Shoutout here to @Richard-ModernDrinking, who will often conduct face-off reviews of similar styles of whiskies, say Larceny BP v. Elijah Craig BP, but I won’t necessarily be following rhyme or reason in my tasting menu most of the time. It really comes down to, what bottles do I own that I want to taste on any particular night. That said, this tasting was conducted last Sunday while my dad and I got together to watch the Eagles play the Giants in the final game of the Eagles’ NFL season. The Eagles had secured the #2 seed and couldn’t go higher or lower, so it didn’t matter if we won or lost. Our backups were in the game. We were starting our third string quarterback, and it just goes to show how rough this season has been for Giants fans in that we were playing their first team, they weren’t trying to throw the game, and we still won (fans always want bad organizations to tank so they can get a better draft pick, but I have a hard time believing players who have any sort of pride go out there and try to lose for this purpose). In any case, the three whiskies I served during the game, in the order they were served, are as follows: 1. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition); 2. Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition Indian Single Malt Whisky; and 3. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024. So without further ado, let us begin. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition) In past years I’ve read about the Diageo special releases and as tempting as they were, there were two impediments. First, they aren’t available in Pennsylvania where I’m doing most of my buying and second, they’re rather expensive. This year, we had family events in Maryland and Delaware late in the year, and since my wife has gotten more into the art and science of mixing cocktails, we stopped at Total Wine on the way to these events, expanding access to different bottles. Though I love Talisker 10 and the Distiller’s Edition, I’ve never had a cask strength Talisker and at $110, it’s the least expensive of the special releases, so I figured what the hell and bought myself an early Christmas gift. Even though the description of what makes it special—the single malt whisky here was matured in refill & ex-bourbon American oak and is finished in stone-spun & toasted American oak casks—is next door to meaningless to me, I was excited to dive in. On the packaging it boasts waves of apple and pear and maritime smoke, which sounds just up my alley, and though I’d opened it on Christmas Eve with my brother in law, who loves Talisker, I’d only had a small sampling that day, given the high proof and the fact that I knew I’d be drinking most of that day. But my tasting notes here are from nearly ten days later during that Eagles game. Nose: Having said that thing about maritime smoke being just up my alley, I’ll admit I’ve never really understood what those words mean exactly other than it’s really just a fancy marketer’s way of saying that you’ll get salt and peat out of the experience. Waves of pear and apple also feels a bit like hyperbole. There is orchard fruit here, and it’s closer to pear than apple to me, but it could go either way. There are, in nature, fruits that bear striking similarities and pears and apples are two of them. To argue about it would be akin to going to battle over whether something tasted more like peaches or nectarines. I understand there’s a difference, but whisky is neither pears nor apples and thus different palates are going to perceive the aroma and flavor differently. For me, the nose is more pear, salt, and peat, with the lightest touch of anise in the background. Admittedly, the nose is not quite as pleasant as the Talisker Distillers Edition from this year, which I also have opened but which, given I’m getting low on it, I wasn’t going to pour that day for a comparison. The Tidal Churn, however, is a bit more complex than the 10 in the added sweetness. There’s also a bit of vanilla, and the peat is nice in that it integrates with these other textures rather than overwhelming them. Given time in the glass, the note I detect as anise transforms into something resembling pine. Palate: On the tongue the salt hits first followed by sweet vanilla. The fruit flavor here is subtle and begins with a juicy sweetness reminiscent of pear but as it rolls around in the mouth there’s a bit of apple tartness that reminds me of pink lady apples. The peat, again is present but integrated well, and for the proof, there’s a decent amount of heat, but it’s not overwhelming if you’re used to barrel proof whiskies. Sometimes when I’m hanging out with my dad and I pour him a barrel proof off the bat, he’ll comment on the heat, but he wasn’t fazed by this, and agreed that it goes down well for a 117.4 proof dram. It’s not inordinately complex. The expert review here notes that there’s a meaty flavor to it, but honestly, I don’t get any of that bacon cured meat kind of flavor that’s present in the standard 10 but seems to get muted in the Distiller’s Edition and that I don’t really think is at all present here, unless by meat, you just mean salt. Finish: The finish lingers for medium length and is peppery, with a bit of fruit and vanilla remaining from the palate. Overall, I enjoyed this. I’m glad I tried it out, but at $110 this doesn’t necessarily make me wish to seek out future Special Releases because the quality just wasn’t high enough above their standard releases, and I couldn’t help but think that, although Ardbeg has been hit or miss on their special releases lately, I secured three bottles of their BizarreBQ at $85 a piece and that is a much better whisky than this one is. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll finish this bottle with great pleasure since I already paid for it, but as far as bang for the buck goes, there are better buys out there in the peated whisky, high proof category. If you’re wondering how it is with a little water, I’m going to disappoint you because I generally, as a rule, don’t taste with water. Paul John Christmas Edition 2019 Next up is the Paul John Christmas Edition 2019, which I purchased in 2022 when this and the 2020 Christmas Edition. At the time the going rate was $85, and I secured them on clearance for $42.50, which was a steal. I cracked the 2020 the year I bought both of them, but the 2019 has been sitting on the shelf waiting for its opportunity to be consumed, and I finally got around to cracking it on December 23rd while wrapping presents in my attic man-cave. I gave the 2020 edition 3.75 stars and noted that, much like this one, an Indian Single Malt tastes nothing like a Single Malt Scotch or Irish Whiskey. The fruit flavors that come through strike me as regional, though is that my mind playing tricks on me when I see that it’s from India or is that legit? My suspicion is that they legit play off eliciting the fruit flavors of native fruits. I served this after opening it on Christmas Eve to family and then again in the days that followed as family and friends swung by. Part of the reason I served it during the Eagles game was that I’d poured so much we were close to the end of the bottle, my dad hadn’t had any yet, and sometimes, you just want to offload something that’s so close to the end. Nose: Since I’d just tasted the Talisker Tidal Churn before this, I couldn’t help comparing. This was much darker in color but carried no age statement. On the nose, there was a hint of peat but the overall experience was fruitier, almost candied and creamy, to the point where it verged on a handful of Skittles with bright citrus aromas, lime and mango with a bit of heat/spice, again if it’s not playing into the stereotype, the spice might have been turmeric. Wonderful nose really, more complex and livelier than the Tidal Churn, punching way above its 92 proof. There was even a bit of banana coming through, though with the mixture of spice, peat and candied aromas, it was less Jack Daniel’s/Old Forester banana and more Runts. Palate: Compared to the Tidal Churn the mouthfeel was more delicate, here reflecting the lower proof. The peat and spice mingled upon entry before the fruit flavors reasserted themselves, though on the palate they were less candied and primarily mango and banana, with the lime from the nose all but disappearing. It was quite good in the shadow of the Tidal Churn, but I also couldn’t help wondering what this might taste like at cask strength. I’ve had Paul John Barrel Proof, which was quite good, but I believe the Christmas Edition to be more complex in terms of flavor than that was, even if lacking in intensity. Toward the end, there’s a touch of vanilla custard, which was quite creamy and pleasant. Finish: The finish hits the back of the tongue with a spice bomb of cardamom and cinnamon and lingers quite nicely. Overall, at the time I purchased these, I would have ventured to say I’d have been disappointed at full price, but perhaps my ideas of what this is worth have changed, and I think while $85 might be a bit much, it’s certainly worth $70; unfortunately, whiskies don’t go down in price and I believe SRPs are pushing $100 now, so this may be the last I see of the Paul John Christmas Edition unless I encounter a cask strength version at that price or they put them on clearance again. Given they haven’t offered anything besides Paul John Nirvana at FW&GS since clearing the deck on these, the decision seems to have been removed from my control. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024 This was one I was excited to sample again. I’d opened it on…you guessed it! New Year’s Eve, but it’s difficult to drink a 113 proof bourbon all night and make it to midnight so I switched to Paul John Christmas over the course of the evening. I’d purchased this in Jersey during my family’s beach vacation this year with opening it on NYE in mind. For NYE, we had a Jame Bond film fest where the family watched From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before switching the channel to watch the ball drop, and we had a great time. Vespers might have been more appropriate but I’m not much of a vodka or gin man (won’t turn my nose up at them, just prefer whisky). I should say off the bat that I’ve had several Barrell releases and I’ve liked them all, but I have yet to fall in love with a Barrell. Did that change here? Did I say above that I never water whisky down? Well, actually with Barrell, I have in the past put an ice cube in a pour of the Seagrass and the Vantage to make them a little more palatable. I’m still not much of a splasher, but I don’t mind a single ice cube in anything over 120 proof. Nose: Three whiskies in, and my notes themselves become a little thinner and less complex, which should be reflective of the whisky itself. Barrell NY 2024 filled my nostrils with intense waves of peach and caramel and vanilla cream. The game where I served it was only 4 days after I’d opened it for the first time, so it may all be in my head and it may be that chemically this can’t happen that quickly, but it felt like some of the initial heat had burned off with 1/5 of the bottle consumed and air getting in so it wasn’t as hot as it was when I tasted it on NYE and some of the burn was diminished. Then again, it was first in my tasting lineup NYE and third during this Eagles game, so that could have affected my perception. Having tasted the Talisker and Paul John, I’d built up some immunity perhaps to the heat and could better withstand it here, and I know that’s a real effect. Palate: Much the same as the nose, the palate has caramel and vanilla coming through loud and clear with the peach flavor hanging on a bit, though not nearly so intense here as with the nose. There’s also a baked bread quality to it that lends it an air of peach cobbler. I couldn’t help thinking that this would be a great dessert bourbon to go with cakes or pies. Finish: This feels like one of those rare whiskies where the fruit flavors carry into the finish and are more prominent than the spice or alcohol kick. The peach cobbler carries through to the end and lingers for a long time. Overall, the Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon might be my favorite Barrell product that I’ve sampled. If I’m handing out awards for this tasting, Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition had the best nose, Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon, the best palate and finish, which leaves me thinking that the Talisker is the one lacking and at least for this experience, I’d rank it last.

I’m going to try something a little different with my tasting notes this year. In the past, I’ve always focused on writing up one whisky at a time, but that’s not really how I approach drinking whisky. Usually, I sample two or three whiskies of an evening, and even if there’s not necessarily a common thread between them, even if I’m tasting a bourbon followed by a scotch followed by a rye, I get more of a sense of what I like, not to mention what I taste, through the contrast and comparison of the drams than on focusing on just one. To this end, sometimes order of the tasting matters. For example, if I have a weaker whisky before stronger whiskies, I might like the weaker whisky if I’m having it first compared to if I place it last in my tasting lineup simply because if it’s last, what came before was so much better, but it’s really not, in the end, a bad whisky, especially if it’s priced appropriately. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, unless you’re wealthy or you’re getting free samples, price actually does factor into enjoyment. So I will, in my writeups continue to talk about what I paid, how that factored in, and if I think it’s good but overpriced, I’ll discuss what I believe the whisky is actually worth based on my own wallet. Of course reviewing multiple whiskies at one time isn’t unprecedented. Shoutout here to @Richard-ModernDrinking, who will often conduct face-off reviews of similar styles of whiskies, say Larceny BP v. Elijah Craig BP, but I won’t necessarily be following rhyme or reason in my tasting menu most of the time. It really comes down to, what bottles do I own that I want to taste on any particular night. That said, this tasting was conducted last Sunday while my dad and I got together to watch the Eagles play the Giants in the final game of the Eagles’ NFL season. The Eagles had secured the #2 seed and couldn’t go higher or lower, so it didn’t matter if we won or lost. Our backups were in the game. We were starting our third string quarterback, and it just goes to show how rough this season has been for Giants fans in that we were playing their first team, they weren’t trying to throw the game, and we still won (fans always want bad organizations to tank so they can get a better draft pick, but I have a hard time believing players who have any sort of pride go out there and try to lose for this purpose). In any case, the three whiskies I served during the game, in the order they were served, are as follows: 1. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition); 2. Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition Indian Single Malt Whisky; and 3. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024. So without further ado, let us begin. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition) In past years I’ve read about the Diageo special releases and as tempting as they were, there were two impediments. First, they aren’t available in Pennsylvania where I’m doing most of my buying and second, they’re rather expensive. This year, we had family events in Maryland and Delaware late in the year, and since my wife has gotten more into the art and science of mixing cocktails, we stopped at Total Wine on the way to these events, expanding access to different bottles. Though I love Talisker 10 and the Distiller’s Edition, I’ve never had a cask strength Talisker and at $110, it’s the least expensive of the special releases, so I figured what the hell and bought myself an early Christmas gift. Even though the description of what makes it special—the single malt whisky here was matured in refill & ex-bourbon American oak and is finished in stone-spun & toasted American oak casks—is next door to meaningless to me, I was excited to dive in. On the packaging it boasts waves of apple and pear and maritime smoke, which sounds just up my alley, and though I’d opened it on Christmas Eve with my brother in law, who loves Talisker, I’d only had a small sampling that day, given the high proof and the fact that I knew I’d be drinking most of that day. But my tasting notes here are from nearly ten days later during that Eagles game. Nose: Having said that thing about maritime smoke being just up my alley, I’ll admit I’ve never really understood what those words mean exactly other than it’s really just a fancy marketer’s way of saying that you’ll get salt and peat out of the experience. Waves of pear and apple also feels a bit like hyperbole. There is orchard fruit here, and it’s closer to pear than apple to me, but it could go either way. There are, in nature, fruits that bear striking similarities and pears and apples are two of them. To argue about it would be akin to going to battle over whether something tasted more like peaches or nectarines. I understand there’s a difference, but whisky is neither pears nor apples and thus different palates are going to perceive the aroma and flavor differently. For me, the nose is more pear, salt, and peat, with the lightest touch of anise in the background. Admittedly, the nose is not quite as pleasant as the Talisker Distillers Edition from this year, which I also have opened but which, given I’m getting low on it, I wasn’t going to pour that day for a comparison. The Tidal Churn, however, is a bit more complex than the 10 in the added sweetness. There’s also a bit of vanilla, and the peat is nice in that it integrates with these other textures rather than overwhelming them. Given time in the glass, the note I detect as anise transforms into something resembling pine. Palate: On the tongue the salt hits first followed by sweet vanilla. The fruit flavor here is subtle and begins with a juicy sweetness reminiscent of pear but as it rolls around in the mouth there’s a bit of apple tartness that reminds me of pink lady apples. The peat, again is present but integrated well, and for the proof, there’s a decent amount of heat, but it’s not overwhelming if you’re used to barrel proof whiskies. Sometimes when I’m hanging out with my dad and I pour him a barrel proof off the bat, he’ll comment on the heat, but he wasn’t fazed by this, and agreed that it goes down well for a 117.4 proof dram. It’s not inordinately complex. The expert review here notes that there’s a meaty flavor to it, but honestly, I don’t get any of that bacon cured meat kind of flavor that’s present in the standard 10 but seems to get muted in the Distiller’s Edition and that I don’t really think is at all present here, unless by meat, you just mean salt. Finish: The finish lingers for medium length and is peppery, with a bit of fruit and vanilla remaining from the palate. Overall, I enjoyed this. I’m glad I tried it out, but at $110 this doesn’t necessarily make me wish to seek out future Special Releases because the quality just wasn’t high enough above their standard releases, and I couldn’t help but think that, although Ardbeg has been hit or miss on their special releases lately, I secured three bottles of their BizarreBQ at $85 a piece and that is a much better whisky than this one is. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll finish this bottle with great pleasure since I already paid for it, but as far as bang for the buck goes, there are better buys out there in the peated whisky, high proof category. If you’re wondering how it is with a little water, I’m going to disappoint you because I generally, as a rule, don’t taste with water. Paul John Christmas Edition 2019 Next up is the Paul John Christmas Edition 2019, which I purchased in 2022 when this and the 2020 Christmas Edition. At the time the going rate was $85, and I secured them on clearance for $42.50, which was a steal. I cracked the 2020 the year I bought both of them, but the 2019 has been sitting on the shelf waiting for its opportunity to be consumed, and I finally got around to cracking it on December 23rd while wrapping presents in my attic man-cave. I gave the 2020 edition 3.75 stars and noted that, much like this one, an Indian Single Malt tastes nothing like a Single Malt Scotch or Irish Whiskey. The fruit flavors that come through strike me as regional, though is that my mind playing tricks on me when I see that it’s from India or is that legit? My suspicion is that they legit play off eliciting the fruit flavors of native fruits. I served this after opening it on Christmas Eve to family and then again in the days that followed as family and friends swung by. Part of the reason I served it during the Eagles game was that I’d poured so much we were close to the end of the bottle, my dad hadn’t had any yet, and sometimes, you just want to offload something that’s so close to the end. Nose: Since I’d just tasted the Talisker Tidal Churn before this, I couldn’t help comparing. This was much darker in color but carried no age statement. On the nose, there was a hint of peat but the overall experience was fruitier, almost candied and creamy, to the point where it verged on a handful of Skittles with bright citrus aromas, lime and mango with a bit of heat/spice, again if it’s not playing into the stereotype, the spice might have been turmeric. Wonderful nose really, more complex and livelier than the Tidal Churn, punching way above its 92 proof. There was even a bit of banana coming through, though with the mixture of spice, peat and candied aromas, it was less Jack Daniel’s/Old Forester banana and more Runts. Palate: Compared to the Tidal Churn the mouthfeel was more delicate, here reflecting the lower proof. The peat and spice mingled upon entry before the fruit flavors reasserted themselves, though on the palate they were less candied and primarily mango and banana, with the lime from the nose all but disappearing. It was quite good in the shadow of the Tidal Churn, but I also couldn’t help wondering what this might taste like at cask strength. I’ve had Paul John Barrel Proof, which was quite good, but I believe the Christmas Edition to be more complex in terms of flavor than that was, even if lacking in intensity. Toward the end, there’s a touch of vanilla custard, which was quite creamy and pleasant. Finish: The finish hits the back of the tongue with a spice bomb of cardamom and cinnamon and lingers quite nicely. Overall, at the time I purchased these, I would have ventured to say I’d have been disappointed at full price, but perhaps my ideas of what this is worth have changed, and I think while $85 might be a bit much, it’s certainly worth $70; unfortunately, whiskies don’t go down in price and I believe SRPs are pushing $100 now, so this may be the last I see of the Paul John Christmas Edition unless I encounter a cask strength version at that price or they put them on clearance again. Given they haven’t offered anything besides Paul John Nirvana at FW&GS since clearing the deck on these, the decision seems to have been removed from my control. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024 This was one I was excited to sample again. I’d opened it on…you guessed it! New Year’s Eve, but it’s difficult to drink a 113 proof bourbon all night and make it to midnight so I switched to Paul John Christmas over the course of the evening. I’d purchased this in Jersey during my family’s beach vacation this year with opening it on NYE in mind. For NYE, we had a Jame Bond film fest where the family watched From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before switching the channel to watch the ball drop, and we had a great time. Vespers might have been more appropriate but I’m not much of a vodka or gin man (won’t turn my nose up at them, just prefer whisky). I should say off the bat that I’ve had several Barrell releases and I’ve liked them all, but I have yet to fall in love with a Barrell. Did that change here? Did I say above that I never water whisky down? Well, actually with Barrell, I have in the past put an ice cube in a pour of the Seagrass and the Vantage to make them a little more palatable. I’m still not much of a splasher, but I don’t mind a single ice cube in anything over 120 proof. Nose: Three whiskies in, and my notes themselves become a little thinner and less complex, which should be reflective of the whisky itself. Barrell NY 2024 filled my nostrils with intense waves of peach and caramel and vanilla cream. The game where I served it was only 4 days after I’d opened it for the first time, so it may all be in my head and it may be that chemically this can’t happen that quickly, but it felt like some of the initial heat had burned off with 1/5 of the bottle consumed and air getting in so it wasn’t as hot as it was when I tasted it on NYE and some of the burn was diminished. Then again, it was first in my tasting lineup NYE and third during this Eagles game, so that could have affected my perception. Having tasted the Talisker and Paul John, I’d built up some immunity perhaps to the heat and could better withstand it here, and I know that’s a real effect. Palate: Much the same as the nose, the palate has caramel and vanilla coming through loud and clear with the peach flavor hanging on a bit, though not nearly so intense here as with the nose. There’s also a baked bread quality to it that lends it an air of peach cobbler. I couldn’t help thinking that this would be a great dessert bourbon to go with cakes or pies. Finish: This feels like one of those rare whiskies where the fruit flavors carry into the finish and are more prominent than the spice or alcohol kick. The peach cobbler carries through to the end and lingers for a long time. Overall, the Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon might be my favorite Barrell product that I’ve sampled. If I’m handing out awards for this tasting, Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition had the best nose, Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon, the best palate and finish, which leaves me thinking that the Talisker is the one lacking and at least for this experience, I’d rank it last.

I’m going to try something a little different with my tasting notes this year. In the past, I’ve always focused on writing up one whisky at a time, but that’s not really how I approach drinking whisky. Usually, I sample two or three whiskies of an evening, and even if there’s not necessarily a common thread between them, even if I’m tasting a bourbon followed by a scotch followed by a rye, I get more of a sense of what I like, not to mention what I taste, through the contrast and comparison of the drams than on focusing on just one. To this end, sometimes order of the tasting matters. For example, if I have a weaker whisky before stronger whiskies, I might like the weaker whisky if I’m having it first compared to if I place it last in my tasting lineup simply because if it’s last, what came before was so much better, but it’s really not, in the end, a bad whisky, especially if it’s priced appropriately. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, unless you’re wealthy or you’re getting free samples, price actually does factor into enjoyment. So I will, in my writeups continue to talk about what I paid, how that factored in, and if I think it’s good but overpriced, I’ll discuss what I believe the whisky is actually worth based on my own wallet. Of course reviewing multiple whiskies at one time isn’t unprecedented. Shoutout here to @Richard-ModernDrinking, who will often conduct face-off reviews of similar styles of whiskies, say Larceny BP v. Elijah Craig BP, but I won’t necessarily be following rhyme or reason in my tasting menu most of the time. It really comes down to, what bottles do I own that I want to taste on any particular night. That said, this tasting was conducted last Sunday while my dad and I got together to watch the Eagles play the Giants in the final game of the Eagles’ NFL season. The Eagles had secured the #2 seed and couldn’t go higher or lower, so it didn’t matter if we won or lost. Our backups were in the game. We were starting our third string quarterback, and it just goes to show how rough this season has been for Giants fans in that we were playing their first team, they weren’t trying to throw the game, and we still won (fans always want bad organizations to tank so they can get a better draft pick, but I have a hard time believing players who have any sort of pride go out there and try to lose for this purpose). In any case, the three whiskies I served during the game, in the order they were served, are as follows: 1. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition); 2. Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition Indian Single Malt Whisky; and 3. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024. So without further ado, let us begin. Talisker 8 Year Tidal Churn (2024 Special Edition) In past years I’ve read about the Diageo special releases and as tempting as they were, there were two impediments. First, they aren’t available in Pennsylvania where I’m doing most of my buying and second, they’re rather expensive. This year, we had family events in Maryland and Delaware late in the year, and since my wife has gotten more into the art and science of mixing cocktails, we stopped at Total Wine on the way to these events, expanding access to different bottles. Though I love Talisker 10 and the Distiller’s Edition, I’ve never had a cask strength Talisker and at $110, it’s the least expensive of the special releases, so I figured what the hell and bought myself an early Christmas gift. Even though the description of what makes it special—the single malt whisky here was matured in refill & ex-bourbon American oak and is finished in stone-spun & toasted American oak casks—is next door to meaningless to me, I was excited to dive in. On the packaging it boasts waves of apple and pear and maritime smoke, which sounds just up my alley, and though I’d opened it on Christmas Eve with my brother in law, who loves Talisker, I’d only had a small sampling that day, given the high proof and the fact that I knew I’d be drinking most of that day. But my tasting notes here are from nearly ten days later during that Eagles game. Nose: Having said that thing about maritime smoke being just up my alley, I’ll admit I’ve never really understood what those words mean exactly other than it’s really just a fancy marketer’s way of saying that you’ll get salt and peat out of the experience. Waves of pear and apple also feels a bit like hyperbole. There is orchard fruit here, and it’s closer to pear than apple to me, but it could go either way. There are, in nature, fruits that bear striking similarities and pears and apples are two of them. To argue about it would be akin to going to battle over whether something tasted more like peaches or nectarines. I understand there’s a difference, but whisky is neither pears nor apples and thus different palates are going to perceive the aroma and flavor differently. For me, the nose is more pear, salt, and peat, with the lightest touch of anise in the background. Admittedly, the nose is not quite as pleasant as the Talisker Distillers Edition from this year, which I also have opened but which, given I’m getting low on it, I wasn’t going to pour that day for a comparison. The Tidal Churn, however, is a bit more complex than the 10 in the added sweetness. There’s also a bit of vanilla, and the peat is nice in that it integrates with these other textures rather than overwhelming them. Given time in the glass, the note I detect as anise transforms into something resembling pine. Palate: On the tongue the salt hits first followed by sweet vanilla. The fruit flavor here is subtle and begins with a juicy sweetness reminiscent of pear but as it rolls around in the mouth there’s a bit of apple tartness that reminds me of pink lady apples. The peat, again is present but integrated well, and for the proof, there’s a decent amount of heat, but it’s not overwhelming if you’re used to barrel proof whiskies. Sometimes when I’m hanging out with my dad and I pour him a barrel proof off the bat, he’ll comment on the heat, but he wasn’t fazed by this, and agreed that it goes down well for a 117.4 proof dram. It’s not inordinately complex. The expert review here notes that there’s a meaty flavor to it, but honestly, I don’t get any of that bacon cured meat kind of flavor that’s present in the standard 10 but seems to get muted in the Distiller’s Edition and that I don’t really think is at all present here, unless by meat, you just mean salt. Finish: The finish lingers for medium length and is peppery, with a bit of fruit and vanilla remaining from the palate. Overall, I enjoyed this. I’m glad I tried it out, but at $110 this doesn’t necessarily make me wish to seek out future Special Releases because the quality just wasn’t high enough above their standard releases, and I couldn’t help but think that, although Ardbeg has been hit or miss on their special releases lately, I secured three bottles of their BizarreBQ at $85 a piece and that is a much better whisky than this one is. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll finish this bottle with great pleasure since I already paid for it, but as far as bang for the buck goes, there are better buys out there in the peated whisky, high proof category. If you’re wondering how it is with a little water, I’m going to disappoint you because I generally, as a rule, don’t taste with water. Paul John Christmas Edition 2019 Next up is the Paul John Christmas Edition 2019, which I purchased in 2022 when this and the 2020 Christmas Edition. At the time the going rate was $85, and I secured them on clearance for $42.50, which was a steal. I cracked the 2020 the year I bought both of them, but the 2019 has been sitting on the shelf waiting for its opportunity to be consumed, and I finally got around to cracking it on December 23rd while wrapping presents in my attic man-cave. I gave the 2020 edition 3.75 stars and noted that, much like this one, an Indian Single Malt tastes nothing like a Single Malt Scotch or Irish Whiskey. The fruit flavors that come through strike me as regional, though is that my mind playing tricks on me when I see that it’s from India or is that legit? My suspicion is that they legit play off eliciting the fruit flavors of native fruits. I served this after opening it on Christmas Eve to family and then again in the days that followed as family and friends swung by. Part of the reason I served it during the Eagles game was that I’d poured so much we were close to the end of the bottle, my dad hadn’t had any yet, and sometimes, you just want to offload something that’s so close to the end. Nose: Since I’d just tasted the Talisker Tidal Churn before this, I couldn’t help comparing. This was much darker in color but carried no age statement. On the nose, there was a hint of peat but the overall experience was fruitier, almost candied and creamy, to the point where it verged on a handful of Skittles with bright citrus aromas, lime and mango with a bit of heat/spice, again if it’s not playing into the stereotype, the spice might have been turmeric. Wonderful nose really, more complex and livelier than the Tidal Churn, punching way above its 92 proof. There was even a bit of banana coming through, though with the mixture of spice, peat and candied aromas, it was less Jack Daniel’s/Old Forester banana and more Runts. Palate: Compared to the Tidal Churn the mouthfeel was more delicate, here reflecting the lower proof. The peat and spice mingled upon entry before the fruit flavors reasserted themselves, though on the palate they were less candied and primarily mango and banana, with the lime from the nose all but disappearing. It was quite good in the shadow of the Tidal Churn, but I also couldn’t help wondering what this might taste like at cask strength. I’ve had Paul John Barrel Proof, which was quite good, but I believe the Christmas Edition to be more complex in terms of flavor than that was, even if lacking in intensity. Toward the end, there’s a touch of vanilla custard, which was quite creamy and pleasant. Finish: The finish hits the back of the tongue with a spice bomb of cardamom and cinnamon and lingers quite nicely. Overall, at the time I purchased these, I would have ventured to say I’d have been disappointed at full price, but perhaps my ideas of what this is worth have changed, and I think while $85 might be a bit much, it’s certainly worth $70; unfortunately, whiskies don’t go down in price and I believe SRPs are pushing $100 now, so this may be the last I see of the Paul John Christmas Edition unless I encounter a cask strength version at that price or they put them on clearance again. Given they haven’t offered anything besides Paul John Nirvana at FW&GS since clearing the deck on these, the decision seems to have been removed from my control. Barrell New Year Bourbon 2024 This was one I was excited to sample again. I’d opened it on…you guessed it! New Year’s Eve, but it’s difficult to drink a 113 proof bourbon all night and make it to midnight so I switched to Paul John Christmas over the course of the evening. I’d purchased this in Jersey during my family’s beach vacation this year with opening it on NYE in mind. For NYE, we had a Jame Bond film fest where the family watched From Russia With Love and Goldfinger before switching the channel to watch the ball drop, and we had a great time. Vespers might have been more appropriate but I’m not much of a vodka or gin man (won’t turn my nose up at them, just prefer whisky). I should say off the bat that I’ve had several Barrell releases and I’ve liked them all, but I have yet to fall in love with a Barrell. Did that change here? Did I say above that I never water whisky down? Well, actually with Barrell, I have in the past put an ice cube in a pour of the Seagrass and the Vantage to make them a little more palatable. I’m still not much of a splasher, but I don’t mind a single ice cube in anything over 120 proof. Nose: Three whiskies in, and my notes themselves become a little thinner and less complex, which should be reflective of the whisky itself. Barrell NY 2024 filled my nostrils with intense waves of peach and caramel and vanilla cream. The game where I served it was only 4 days after I’d opened it for the first time, so it may all be in my head and it may be that chemically this can’t happen that quickly, but it felt like some of the initial heat had burned off with 1/5 of the bottle consumed and air getting in so it wasn’t as hot as it was when I tasted it on NYE and some of the burn was diminished. Then again, it was first in my tasting lineup NYE and third during this Eagles game, so that could have affected my perception. Having tasted the Talisker and Paul John, I’d built up some immunity perhaps to the heat and could better withstand it here, and I know that’s a real effect. Palate: Much the same as the nose, the palate has caramel and vanilla coming through loud and clear with the peach flavor hanging on a bit, though not nearly so intense here as with the nose. There’s also a baked bread quality to it that lends it an air of peach cobbler. I couldn’t help thinking that this would be a great dessert bourbon to go with cakes or pies. Finish: This feels like one of those rare whiskies where the fruit flavors carry into the finish and are more prominent than the spice or alcohol kick. The peach cobbler carries through to the end and lingers for a long time. Overall, the Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon might be my favorite Barrell product that I’ve sampled. If I’m handing out awards for this tasting, Paul John 2019 Christmas Edition had the best nose, Barrell New Years 2024 Bourbon, the best palate and finish, which leaves me thinking that the Talisker is the one lacking and at least for this experience, I’d rank it last.

For a long time, after I first tasted Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, I didn't have Elijah Craig Barrel Proof again. I was unimpressed. But that was also partially because I was a novice whisky drinker. This was maybe five or six years ago when I bought a bottle based on reputation and all I tasted was fire. I was probably going, at that time from drinking 80 proof whiskies, to whatever proof that particular batch was. Then I bought a bottle of Elijah Craig Single Barrel, a store pick from Sommers Point Jersey that was 94 proof and was watery, tepid, flavorless. I tried mixing drinks with it and those cocktails only tasted like the mixers. Actually, it tasted kind of like Rittenhouse Rye, another overrated dram that I would describe as tepid and flavorless. (Side note: my wife just bought a bottle of Rittenhouse after I told her it was flavorless and bad because her favorite YouTube bartender influencer Anders swears by it, and though I warned her she bought it anyway, and then realized I was right, but seemed surprised that I was right. "He described it as a bourbon lover's rye," she said. "Do you hear the words you just said," I replied, "Doesn't that just sound like shit to begin with?"). Anyway, back to Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, I gave it another chance starting in 2022, and though I prefer Larceny Barrel Proof by a long shot, I do buy ECBP anytime a new batch comes in. For a while it was still $65 here and now it's only $75, so even if I find it a little overrated in the way people lose their minds about it, I still think it's good enough to pay that much for. And a lot of people, since it lost the 12 year age statement, have complained that it's dropped in quality, but I find it pretty consistent from batch to batch, vanilla, oak, caramel, cherry, cinnamon. Yeah, certain batches are slightly better than others, but it's pretty consistent. Until now. Oddly, this is barrel proof bourbon that drinks like a barrel proof rye. Almost. And that's not nearly as shitty as describing Rittenhouse as a bourbon lovers rye sounds. It's actually quite good, but not as good as ECBP usually is. What I mean is this is perhaps the spiciest ECBP I've ever tasted. The spice is overwhelming. I mean this is like pumpkin spice bourbon with clove and nutmeg and cinnamon all commingling. The expert reviewer here plays up the cherry flavor, and oh, that's kind of there. But really, palate and finish is all about the spice with a tiny hint of cherry coming back at the very end to tingle your senses with like a Luden's cough drop tang. Overall, probably my least favorite of all batches in recent years, but still not bad. I've never been that guy who's going to do cartwheels about ECBP, but I'm also not that guy who's going to turn it down either. Ours is a fraught relationship with a period of estrangement last year when we didn't get C923 in our state and I was a little pissed off because it was supposed to be the best in years. Oh well. I thought both A124 and B124 were pretty decent. This one, this is the slightly above average batch. Sometimes when I like it I go back and buy a second bottle, but I won't be doing that here.