Tastes

Can a whisky be both good and a disappointment all at the same time? If so, I feel like this is it. Do I dislike it? Not at all. It's just there's something about it that's missing, and what's missing is a distinctiveness on the nose, which given the finishing barrels here, strikes me as extremely odd. No one likes a tease. I suppose that's how I'll start this. While I can often disagree with the expert scoring here, I rarely comment on the expert reviews. In fact, when I write my own, I avoid them so as not to overlap, so as to form my own opinion. The only time I really ever look at the expert reviews is when I'm not really sure what I'm getting from a particular aspect of a pour, whether it be the nose, palate or finish. In other words, when there's a flavor I don't have words for, I'll look at what others have said to see if that resonates. The problem here is the nose. All the aromas the expert review is citing are there, although they're faint, which is odd for a rye approaching 120 proof. Unless the aromas are overwhelmed by the alcohol, which I didn't feel was the case here. Also, as an aside, I love when people say things like, smells like apricot jam and peach preserves. It's like saying it smells like oranges and clementine. I get the impulse, but you're using two different fruits to get at the same effect. So, yes, Seagrass was finished in apricot brandy barrels. The apricot is there, but it's faint. Just a trace. Maybe that's what people are looking for, just that trace. They're not looking for it to be overwhelming, but to me, it's faint to the point of almost not being there at all. As for mint, well, yes, that's there too, but that may also be the proof, the ethanol combined with it being a rye. The mixture is nice. But when I see a 93 expert rating and a 4.2 community rating, I'm not really expecting nice. I'm expecting a bit more. Do you see what I mean by this is both good and disappointing. Who doesn't like apricots and mint? There's also a slight undercurrent of bubble gum, which is good. But again, 93/4.2? It improves as it opens up in the glass. You've got to let it sit for a while and the aromas become stronger. And I like it. But I expected to love it. I was hoping for love at first sight. But that doesn't always happen with a whisky. Even if the whisky ends up being good. Hey, maybe the nose isn't the main event here. So let's move on. But before I do, to get at what I was expecting, let me explain that I opened the bottle this past weekend during the Eagles/Jaguars game. The week before I'd opened the Talisker Distiller's Edition from 2021. Straight out the gate with the Talisker, I turned to my dad, who was watching the game with me, and commented: "Why do we ever drink anything else?" Because it was incredible. Great from the word go. Great from the first pour. Great from when we switched from the Seagrass mid-game and poured a dram of Talisker to recreate the experience of the week before. We're both Islay fans, of course. But we're also both rye fans, so I was hoping for something similar here, and that just didn't happen. My dad is less versed in drinking barrel proof whiskies than I am, and his response was, "woah, that'll take some nose hairs off." Which is all right. I got him an ice cube. But I was hoping to be a little more impressed off the bat myself. So, the palate is much better, and that, I'm assuming, is the main event here. As the expert reviewer says (and this is one of the most spot-on expert reviews I've seen on the site, so kudos), it's big, bold, there's chocolate (do you have to say both dark chocolate and cacao...are those different things?) and the raspberries are prominent, which is great because I adore raspberries. Letting it sit on the tongue a moment is a highly enjoyable experience and that combination of fruitiness and chocolate which gives way to citrus, mint and rye spice on the finish is really delicious. But I guess this is a question of expectation management: I expected mind-blowing. I got very good, highly solid. And so very good, highly solid is how I'm ranking this. I picked this up during a family vacation down the shore. It was cheaper than SRP at $78.99, which I appreciate. I went with this over Barrell Bourbon Batches 29 and 33 because, as I've stated before, I prefer rye to bourbon. And next time I'm down there, I'll probably pick one of those up. But I doubt I'll purchase this one again. It's an interesting experiment, and the palate is highly unique for a rye, but it's just not hitting the right mark for me to want to spend the same cash I could be spending to get another bottle of Talisker Distiller's Edition. Honestly, it might just be the lack of a nose. Because the more I taste the Seagrass, the more solid I think the palate and finish are. So this is a one-off. A one-off I enjoyed, but a one-off I also found myself a little disappointed in, if that makes any sense at all. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe this is just a case where I'm not ready for what they're offering. A case where it's not hitting me at the right time in my whisky journey. Oh, and a splash of water or an ice cube evens it out and makes it smoother, but also eliminates a lot of the uniqueness, so there's a trade-off there.

I opened this bottle two weeks ago. On a Monday night. For Monday Night Football. The Eagles were playing the Vikings, and I had to go into the office the next morning for the first in-office business meeting I've had since March 2020. Get me? What that means is, I needed to drink responsibly. And by responsibly, I mean I required an 80 proof whisky. Usually football games mean four pours. One for every quarter. And sometimes, I'll go higher proof for the first two quarters and switch to lower proof for the last two. But in this case, I had to wake up early the next morning, shower, dress in my Sunday best, commute, sit in a board room with superiors, watch slide shows, provide feedback. And this meant that, well, it meant I wanted to keep those four pours not affecting my quality of sleep, not only did I not want a hangover, I didn't want a dazed sort of half-waking that you get sometimes if you're up late drinking but you didn't drink enough for a headache. So, that's the first thing I'll say in Aberfledy's favor. The proof. 12 year, 80 proof. You know what to expect don't you? There's a certain standardization here. It's not going to rock your socks off if you're seasoned, but is it any good? You see a lot of reviews here stating that this is a decent entry-level pour. And it is. I'm a Dewar's fan (it was my starter Scotch blend). And this is one of the primary elements in Dewar's from what I understand. The nose is vanilla, honey and stone fruit, as you'd find in an older version of Dewars. As you find in many Highlands scotches. The palate is much the same, adding a touch of sherry to the honey and vanilla. The finish is short with a touch of spice. Truth be told, I like this better than Highland Park 12 these days. And I understand that, even though I found it for $45, it can be found even cheaper elsewhere. If you can get it for cheaper, go for it. It's good, and not bad to have around for those moments when you need something 80 proof and ask yourself, well, what do I got? (The answer in my case was Bowmore 12 also...and I brought that up from my basement storage area and decided to swap it for this Aberfeldy last minute). Now, the question remains, I can get carried away by interesting packaging, and you case see from my photo that I picked up the sarcophagus. What the hell do you do with this when you're finished the bottle? Suggestions? A friend says, you put your weed in there. But, um, I don't generally go that route for intoxication. So, any other ideas are welcome. P.S. Speaking of Highland Park, on that evening, I also drained the last pour of my Highland Park 12 Year Viking Honor. This was to celebrate my Eagles draining the Viking's honor on national TV.

Watching the Instragram scroll today, a Wild Turkey advert caught my eye. Today is 101 day, right? As in 10/1. It was effective. For a moment, I contemplated heading out to buy a bottle of the 101 bourbon before remembering that I already have a bottle of the 101 Rye opened. And obviously this fits the bill as well. (Plus the remainder of this month's bourbon budget is earmarked for Maker's BRT01 and BRT02, which have both reached the western region of our state but haven't quite gotten to the eastern shores yet. They'll get here, however, and when they do, that's what I have my money on. So, the 101 bourbon doesn't fit the budget.) Which is fine. I like the 101 bourbon just fine, but I think I've only ever bought it in the 1.75 L size. Why is that? Well, because it's a budget bourbon you're generally drinking on ice or as a mixer. It's fine on its own, but that's it: fine. I'd likely give it a quarter star less than the 101 rye, and if I have the choice, in that price range, I go for Old Tub. But that can also be simply because I like rye more than I like bourbon. Now the Rare Breed Rye, at $60, is awesome, and I actually picked up another bottle of that earlier this month when I saw it was back in stock. This is the toned down version of that, the baby brother. Much of the scents and aromas are the same, only a tad bit muted. The nose is rich with rye spice and a hint of mint and eucalyptus. On the palate you get the bergamot with some caramel coming through, and the finish, while not necessarily long like the Rare Breed is still tangy and peppery. At $22.99 on sale, this is a good choice much in the same way the 101 bourbon is a good choice. Not bad for a mixer or on ice and acceptable as a sipper. Now have at it with the 101 today. Now that I mention it, I know that a lot of you are going to want to. Wow, is that the shortest review I've written yet? It just might be...

I finally managed to track this down. It's been on my list for a while, but it's come in and out of the stores so quickly here that I wasn't able to get my hands on it last time it showed up. I'd spent my whisky budget for the month when it appeared, and by the time the month rolled over, it was gone. A shame too, because back then it was $65.99 and now, when I managed to get my hands on it, it had gone up to $73.99, but I figured, this is what everyone's talking about right? Got that 2019 Whisky Advocate #1, backed up with an A rating on Drinkhacker, backed up with a 92 expert rating here and a 4.1 community score. So how could it be bad? And it isn't. It is, in fact, the opposite of bad. It is very very good. Let's temper my judgment here by revealing a pet peeve. I read reviews here sometimes that annoy me. They're usually reviews of islay or islay finished whiskies that begin, "I don't like Islay, but..." let me give this 2 stars. It reminds me of mainstream critics who have never seen a horror movie they liked who end up reviewing the latest horror movie and giving it 1 star out of 5 when fans of horror would give it 4 out of 5. It's like, if it's not in your wheelhouse, leave it alone. Don't pull down the rating by talking about something you don't know the first thing about! That said, it's possible I'm going the opposite way and inflating the rating here. While I'm familiar with many styles of whisky, Japanese is the style I'm probably least familiar with. In fact, my only experience with it, prior to Nikka from The Barrel is Suntory Toki. But I have an understanding that one is superior to the other, and...well, at least if you're going to throw your hat in the ring, it's better to inflate the score on something you're unfamiliar with but find you really like than it is to deflate the score through simple ignorance. Are you feeling me? (Maybe I'm just mad because Islay gets judged like it's anchovy pizza and lots of people don't like anchovy pizza but I LOVE anchovy pizza). That said, I popped the Nikka open for a spin this past Sunday when my dad and I were watching the Eagles opener in Detroit against the Lions. And it was a hell of a game. Lot of people throw shade at the Lions because they haven't had a lot of luck in recent years, but man, they fought tooth and nail in that game, and though I'm glad the Eagles pulled it out, much respect Detroit, much respect. But enough about the football, onto the whisky. I had told my dad that I'd be opening Nikka from the Barrel, and in that spirit, he showed up with a bottle of Suntory Toki so that we could compare and contrast the award winning Nikka with a more run-of-the-mill Japanese whisky. Now the Nikka itself has a delightful nose that that begins savory and salty. I've seen some places that liken the saltiness to soy sauce, and that's fair. Umami is likely the more accurate term for its saltiness, but there's also an oak aroma, something vaguely vegetal and an underlying sweetness that comes to the fore the longer you nose it. It's like seaweed wrapped in toffee I suppose, with a faint trace of smoke or barrel char that wafts in now and again. I imagine some people might find that whole mixture a little weird, but I'm really into it. And I guess with the ratings this gets, a lot of other people are into it too. But it's not something I'm used to and certainly something I've never experienced with any other whisky. On the palate, the savory continues initially with the oak prominent but not overwhelming. This then gives way to a burst of orchard fruit that reminds me of highland scotch like Highland Park or Loch Lomond. And the finish brings back the smokiness and seaweed flavors on a fairly spicy and long finish. I'd say that I enjoy the palate and finish a great deal, but I feel like we're on more familiar territory here than the nose. Overall, it's a damn fine whisky with a good deal of complexity, and that came through more strongly when we transitioned, later in the game, to the Suntory Toki. I can't say the noses were worlds apart. That was something that actually surprised me. The Toki has the savory aroma, but it was missing some of the smoke and toffee present here. The palates were where the differences were more prominent with the Toki being two note: it was like liquified pear with a dash of vanilla thrown in and pretty much no finish at all. Though honestly, for $30 the Toki is a perfectly tasty whisky if you like pears. But the end of the game I was pretty tipsy, so while I'm writing this with a glass of Nikka in front of me, I'm trusting to memory on the Toki. When it comes to Japanese whisky, I would like to expand my knowledge, but I find they're not very good when it comes to value for money. While I don't regret spending $74 on this bottle, it's not necessarily going to be an everyday thing, and the other Nikka varieties in my area are all around $100 with no age statements and no discernible reason why I should pay that much when From the Barrel is their best reviewed bottle. Other than Nikka, there aren't a lot of options. Hatozaki and Fuyu are available but don't have glowing reviews here. Suntory Hibiki is also available but just went up in price by $10 to be $84, which is the same price as Ardbeg Uggie and Talisker Distiller's Edition. And Yamazaki 12 just went up from $125 to $150, and so...um, really? $150 for a 12 year? Unless availability goes up and pricing comes down I don't see this expansion of my knowledge happening anytime soon when there are whiskies of equivalent or higher quality at cheaper prices within reach. Oh, and as for the twist cap, harkening back here to my review of Alberta Premium Cask Strength ( I'm looking at you here @angstrom ), the metal top here vs. the plastic top with that elicit different emotions for me. A plastic cap makes me feel like a hobo on skid row. A metal top (coupled with the shape of the Nikka bottle) sort of make me feel like I bought this from a bootlegger in 1920s NY and am hanging out in a hotel with F. Scott Fitzgerald. So I guess I can say that it's not necessarily a screwcap that makes the Alberta's packaging feel cheap so much as the material its screwcap was made of? At least spring for metal is all I'm saying. PS. I just remembered that I've also had and reviewed here the Mars Iwai 90 Proof, so I misspoke when I said Toki was the only other Japanese whisky I've had. That said, the Iwai is more in the Toki range than it is in the Nikka From the Barrel range, but it was still good for what it was. Not quite up to this level, but good. So, there you go...I've had three, not two. PPS. Because whisky lovers everywhere abbreviate Nikka from the Barrel as NFTB, it will forever be the NKOTB of whiskies for me. Can't help it. That just springs to mind every time I see the acronym.

Seeing as I have both a bottle of Eagle Rare 10 open as well as a bottle of Russell’s Reserve 10, I was going to do one of those face-off reviews, but I decided against it. I’ve made my feelings on Eagle Rare clear in my own review (3.75) as well as in previous comments. If you don’t care to go looking, let me recap: I always buy a bottle or two of Eagle Rare if I see it in my area because it goes for the SRP of $29.99. At that price and at that age, I think it’s one of the best deals in bourbon. I also—and you might find this a contradictory statement—think it’s one of the most overrated bourbons out there. The community score here hovers above 4.0 and people seem to be willing to pay $70-$100 based on scarcity rather than quality. At anything over $40, I’ll pass. If we’re to get metaphorical, Eagle Rare to me is Sandra Bullock in 1994 right after Speed came out. Everyone is losing their minds over the hot new ingenue, and I’m sitting in the back row with my hand raised, saying, “Um, I don’t get it.” Don’t get me wrong, if Sandra Bullock lived in your neighborhood, she’d be that beautiful woman who lives in your neighborhood, but I never really considered her movie star beautiful. To put it another way, I have no problem watching her if she’s in a film I want to see; but you couldn’t pay me to sit down and watch The Blind Side. I know, I know, shouldn’t be comparing actresses with bourbon. You can give me shit about that if you want. I’m still not watching The Blind Side. Look, Eagle Rare is a good one. Great? No. And frankly, I like Knob Creek 9 just as much, and that’s more widely available. Hell, I liked Knob without the age statement better than I like Eagle Rare, but both are five dollars more than Eagle Rare, and let’s face it, I’m also pulled in by the allure of Rare’s scarcity. I can get Knob all the time. But if I find Eagle on the shelf, it’s my birthday. Gotta get it, right? It took me a long while to get to Russell’s Reserve 10. Part of that is it’s a little more expensive than Knob 9. Part of it is its ubiquity. It was always around. But with recent supply chain issues, RR 10 got scarce in my area, not Eagle Rare scarce mind you, but scarce enough that I figured when it went on sale for $36.99, it was time to pull the trigger, given that RR 10 has a good reputation in its own right. And honestly, if I can find another age statement bourbon below $50 that I enjoy, I consider it a win. And now that I’ve tasted it, well, here’s another bourbon that I enjoy more than Eagle, which is my whipping boy less because of what’s in the glass and more because of the hype and marketing that surrounds Eagle. And at 10 years, both it serves as a good comparison. General thoughts on Eagle is that it’s sweeter, fruitier, shading toward the berry/port wine end of the bourbon sweetness spectrum. Now while I enjoy this, I tend to prefer what we have in the glass with RR 10, which is an oakier bourbon. The nose has less of the fruity sweetness of Eagle and more of the vanilla, caramel, nuttiness that I favor in a bourbon. There’s also this unique tang on the nose that reminds me a bit of spicy brown mustard that I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered in another bourbon. I’m not going to say it’s world’s better than Eagle, just that I prefer this nose to that one. Oh, and another note, Eagle takes a while to reach its peak flavor. I’ve gone through three bottles at this point in my life, and they all tend to improve with a quarter of the bottle gone and the remaining liquid aerated while RR 10 is solid out of the neck. On the palate, oak, vanilla and spice become prominent. The finish is long, but the caramel becomes prominent again mixed with the spices, and it tastes a bit like the spices you’d add to a pumpkin or apple pie prior to mixing in the pumpkin or apple with a touch of oak tannins coming in at the very tail end. My conclusion here, given the buildup, might be disappointing, but my overall score for Eagle Rare and Russell’s Reserve are equal. I prefer one, yes, but I think that ultimately, if I’m trying to be somewhat objective, they’re punching at equal weights. If they were both equally available I’d likely but the RR 10 over Eagle Rare, but given the Eagle Rare’s rarity (plus the fact its SRP is $10 cheaper), I’d still have to opt for that one when I see it on the shelf. But if price and availability weren’t factors, I’d choose the Russell’s Reserve, and given Russell’s Reserve’s availability, I’m a lot more likely to pick this up more frequently. I’d love to try the Single Barrel but unfortunately, it’s not frequently available in my neck of the woods.

If you only had $30 to spend on a whisky, what type of whisky would you buy? I was having this conversation last night with my dad as we sat out back of my parents' house sipping on Elijah Craig Rye. The answer, hands down, has to be rye. Value meets quality most highly in this category. Think about it: you have Old Overholt, both the regular version, which isn't bad, and the bonded, which is better. You have Dickel Rye, which is pretty decent, Jim Beam Rye which is also decent, Rittenhouse, which I'm not terribly in love with but which a lot of people swear by, and you have Sazerac and Old Forester Rye, clocking in respectively at 27.88 and 28.99. Again, it's difficult for me, between those last two to tell you which I liked better. I think the only other style of whisky that even comes close in the under $30 bracket is bourbon, and I don't necessarily think those bourbons stack up quite as well against these ryes. And obviously, you're not finding any scotch, other than Speyburn 10 for this price. As for the Irish, well, there are good starter whiskies under $30, but I think most seasoned whiskey drinkers reach that point where, if you have only $30 to buy something, you're not reaching for Jameson or Tully. So this is my second rye in a row that I'm giving a four-star review. The last was Alberta Premium Cask Strength. Make no mistake, Alberta CS is superior to the Old Forester but list prices is also $40 more for the Alberta, which to my mind makes it so that I have no problem giving them the same score, because they're punching at different weights. This Old Forester Rye is better than a sub-$30 whisky has any right to be. The beauty of the nose here is a thick combination of vanilla, rye spice, mint and banana foster. The palate carries the spice forward adding a rich caramel flavor to the banana with just a hint of the mint, prominent on the nose, lingering as we transition to a nice peppery finish. I recently reviewed the Old Forester 86 bourbon and called it bland. I can't get the 100 Proof bourbon in my region though I spotted it down the shore and I'm regretting not picking it up and bringing it back home because at 100 Proof, OF does it right. Now what I have to do is pick up the higher end series, you know, the ones with years I can't be bothered to look up right now? I'd like to try all of them. The 1897 and the 1920 and...which one is the 115 proof, that's the one I really want to get. Only I think Wild Turkey Rare Breed Bourbon is next on my list of Wishlist bourbons. But here we're talking rye. We're talking Old Forester Rye and we're talking HIGH value for money. If you like rye, this is one you shouldn't sleep on. Because it disappeared for a while, I'm thinking this is one I might have to buy in bulk and keep this in stock year round.

Amusing: I’ve had the Green Spot Chateau Montelena. I’ve now had the Green Spot Chateau Leoville Barton. I’ve never actually had Green Spot. My understanding is that this whiskey is superior finished in wine casks, Zinfandel and Bordeaux respectively, but it also feels kind of bougie drinking whiskey finished in such a manner (Leoville Barton sounds like the rich popular kid with the sports car you would have loved to punch in the face in high school). But I don’t mind drinking something that sounds bougie. The important thing is the flavor of the whiskey itself, and both the Montelena and the Leoville Baton are good. But which is better? That’s what I can’t tell you. People who’ve tasted these side-by-side seem to favor Montelena. That one also appeared on the Whisky Advocate Top 20 a few years back, but I’m not so sure that’s my opinion here. Granted I had Montelena last year, and I have a glass of Leoville Barton in front of me now, and my favorite whisky often tends to be the one in front of me. But if I can speak from memory, I think your preference will come down to whether you prefer berries (Montelena) or citrus (Leoville Barton). The nose here, while harboring a touch of vanilla custard, is also full of mango, orange sherbet, and creamsicle. I also think Bellini. Mainly what’s there is a the citrus with a custard side. Not orange prominently but orange cream. When it comes to the flavor, I’ll note that this has been open about a month and half the bottle is gone. The nose isn’t too evolved from being open, but the taste has mellowed. There was an bite initially on the tongue that has disappeared with time and aeration. The creamsicle continues with tropical fruit and marmalade. The finish isn’t terribly long, and there’s a touch of spice like candied orange. And it’s enjoyable but not entirely classic. Don’t get me wrong, this is good stuff. Among the better Irish whiskeys I’ve had, and it might be better than Montelena. Might not be as good. But I’d like to be more enthusiastic. If I like it better than Montelena, I'm still downgrading a quarter star. Time evolves your taste, so that might be on the level with this too. It's good Irish whiskey and at $65, it's worth it, but for the $100 I've seen it in other places I'd save your money. The market is going insane and we're paying way too much for good whiskey posing as great. Like I've said: $65, Green Spot, don't raise the price. You're getting what it's worth out of this now.

I've had my eye on this one for a while before purchasing. There's been some hype around it, and I love rye, especially cask strength, though generally that love finds me buying Knob Rye Single Barrel Select for 60$. Although I did pick up a Sagamore 6 Year CS I haven't opened yet too. And that was $55. (Not to mention I just came back from my beach vacation with Sagamore 8 Year, Stellum Rye, and Barrell Seagrass...I'm thinking I might be in for a treat with all of those...and please don't mention Pikesville, I'm aware of it, my friends, it sounds like a wonderland in a bottle, and I'll get there soon). This one here was going for $70 before they put it on sale for $60, and I figured it was time to pull the tigger, and having had this, I might be willing to pull that trigger again since it's still on sale. Let's start off with a bit of honesty: this is WAY better than a whisky with a twist cap has any right to be. I mean the bottle design isn't terrible, but the twist cap screams low rent. Of course, Canadian whisky companies do know how to dress a pig (Crown Royal tote bags anyone?), but who knew they might take a beauty like this and put a pig nose on it? In any case, the whisky inside the bottle more than makes up for the twist cap. On the nose this bad boy is rich and luscious: spice heavy with rye and cinnamon, vanilla backbone with graham cracker and a touch of cherry. The palate continues that spice heavy journey adding that odd touch of Copper Tone Suntan Lotion that a lot of cask strength ryes take on along with the Earl Grey bergamot/citrus as well as off-brand cola, not so much Coke or Pepsi as RC. The finish is long as a summer's day and hits even more heavily with the rye spice. It makes your tongue kind of tingly, you know, like when you used to climb the ropes in gym class? Oh wait, maybe that wasn't your tongue. Anyhow... For a 132 proof pour, this goes down easy enough on its own, however, I like a shot and a half with a sliver of ice melted in it, which is not unique to this particular brand but how I'm finding I most enjoy almost all cask strength whisky these days. I expected to like this, but if I'm being entirely truthful the result here is a quarter star above where I thought it would be. Sometimes you should believe the hype. With Alberta Premium Cask Strength Rye, all the positive stuff you've heard is true.

The Devil went down to Georgia. By Devil here, of course, I mean my wife. She went to visit family, and before she left, she said, is there any whisky down there you can't get up here that you might want? I said, "Keep an eye out for Chattanooga, particularly the Islay finished version." I've wanted to get my hands on some Chattanooga ever since I saw this horror movie After Midnight (the movie is a great Horror Romance that, well, if you like horror isn't a bad one to watch around Valentine's Day...let's just leave it at that). Anyway, the guys in that movie go to the bar and drink Chattanooga 1816, and for some reason, maybe just the shape of the bottle or maybe because of how much I liked the movie, I wanted some too. And while my wife was down there, she came across the Islay finished so she picked up two bottles, and when she went to the counter, the guy told her that they had some Chattanooga Founder's Reserve in the back, so she came home with three bottles. Major score there. And last night I popped open the Islay. Damn this is good. I mean, it's right up my alley. Hudson released a rye last year that was finished in Islay barrels, and I enjoyed that, and I gave it a high score because of just how unique it was. But this one, this Chattanooga Islay finished is better. At first, I had trouble telling why I liked it so much. The nose was amazingly sweet and savory at the same time, but while I could tell that the savory was coming from the peat smoke influence, I couldn't tell what the sweetness was. It was candied and fruity, but it took me a minute to place the candied fruitiness as banana because I've never had a whisky that mixed those two aromas. I suppose you could also describe it as bubble gum, like a nice wad of Hubba Bubba. It's also got a nice woodiness counterbalanced with spice on the palate with a nice lingering peppery finish. This is one of those whiskies where, now that it's open, I'm going to want to drink it above all the other whiskies I have open, but then, it'll go too quick and I won't have it anymore. But wait, indeed I will, as I have that second bottle to hold onto for a day in the future when I want to do it all over again. That's the thing about bringing home whisky from a thousand miles away: if it's great, you can't get your hands on it all that easily. And with this being limited edition, well, I guess I need to savor it while I can. If you live in a region where this is available, pick up a bottle. Honestly, if I lived in a place where this was available, I'd pick up as many as I could, but you know I'm a sucker for the peat whether its an Islay scotch or merely the influence of Islay on an American whisky. It's probably not for everyone. And that leaves more for those of us who'll appreciate it.

They make it with Scottish barley to approximate an Islay, but it's not quite an Islay in that it's lacking the sea salt and brininess. That doesn't mean this isn't a fine whisky in its own right. A friend of mine tasted this at a liquor store in NY, and apparently, that place ships to my location even though many store don't. In fact, he sent me two bottles because the location couldn't ship from Chicago, and as happens with any gifted whisky, I was grateful, even though I'd never heard of McCarthy's. We had a FaceTime call, I cracked this one open. And... It actually reminds me a lot more of the peated Irish whisky Dark Silkie. The nose is peat smoke that has the faint trace of rubber with undertones of chocolate and coffee. There's a slight cured meat aroma but it's a very faint trace in the background. In other words, the aroma contains all I like in a peated whisky other than that brininess. Sometimes, people comment on youth in a whisky, and in this case, it's actually surprising that it's only 3 years old. I'm not saying it tastes like a 10 year. But it's punching above its weight. On the palate the peat continues but there's a sweetness like the darker chocolate aromas on the nose become a milk chocolate on the palate, a nice mocha blend with the coffee, a little bit of cream in there, you know? The finish itself has a bit of spice, but it's also smooth, no alcohol burn, and it lingers, I wouldn't say for days, but let's say, just long enough to give one an appreciation that this is a unique expression one's been lucky to get one's hands on. The buddy who shipped this to me actually shipped two bottles. Hold onto the second one for me, he asked. And on the FaceTime call he said, "I'm going to the distillery next month and if I can get my hands on some more to bring it back to Chicago, the second bottle is yours to do with as you wish. If I can't, well, it just means I have to visit again so we can enjoy it together." And hearing that, well, isn't that really a win-win in either case? A second bottle of good whisky for my own purposes or a second bottle of good whisky to enjoy with my friend? Truth be told, I'd prefer option two.