Tastes

I've seen a slew of Highland Park reviews coming in today on my feed from @cascode and I figured that since I have a bottle of the 12 open, I might as well join in the fun. I don't think he's gotten to this one yet, but I've also encountered a number of reviews over time from people I follow here where the consensus seems to be that the Highland Park 12 used to be better? I'm not sure how long ago that was. Maybe a few years? I do see here that it used to be an 80 proof scotch before they slapped the Viking Honour label on it, and for a moment, I thought, well, it probably wasn't better then given upping the proof usually improves the quality. However, after watching this documentary about the Bruichladdich master distiller where it was pointed out that Scotsman always splash their scotch with water, I did that with this and lo and behold, I think I like it more with a little water. But that's getting ahead of myself. Without water, my verdict here is....this is fine. But is "this is fine," really what you're looking for out of a whisky that's going for $60? Of course, I picked this up on sale and with a coupon, so I paid $44. But here's the reason I'm talking about price: on both the nose and palate, this seems identical to me to Jura 10. What that means is that you get the faintest whiff of peat smoke on the nose (I still maintain that if you drink Islay regularly, you don't even notice the peat in Highland Park or Jura), along with honey, vanilla and pear. And that's really the highlight here. Once it hits the palate those flavors blend in such a way that they're no longer distinct so it tastes like a muddled fruity desert with a dose of sulphur in the back (which once pointed out by @ContemplativeFox I can't really not notice) that doesn't ruin it but gives it an acrid edge in the finish. Now I don't have an open bottle of the Jura 10 with me to compare, but I don't remember that acrid note in it and the Jura is $45 full price and $40 on sale, so while I'm fine with having picked this Viking Honour up for $45, there's no way I'd ever pay full price for this when I can get the same profile for cheaper. And in the end, well, this may sound odd, but of the cheaper Highland Park, I like the Magnus, which is NAS and is a bit rough around the edges, but it's the roughness I like in there. It reminds of Ardbeg's Wee Beastie in that it's not as refined, but back when it was $35, it was a joy to have a bottle of it around. Like everything it's gone up $10 and I probably wouldn't buy it full price now, but if it ever goes on sale, I might consider it again. Oh, and I almost forgot, splashing this brings forth the fruit and vanilla and mutes the sulphur, so this one, even at 43% is actually better when you dial it down. So, there's that. Overall, I can't see myself reaching for this on the shelf again. And the 18, well, maybe on a real special occasion, but at $150, it's a little about my regular price range. We're going to put this in the category of I want to like this a lot more than I do, but I'm also certainly not dumping the bottle.

Is there a term for when you become so overenthusiastic about the neck pour that you run out and buy another bottle, then time passes and you taste it again and think, yup, still good, but not quite what it was. That's been my experience with Knob 12. Pulled off the cap, poured myself a double, took a whiff, and I found myself overwhelmed with aromas of cocoa powder and cherry. And those are some of my favorite aromas to get from a bourbon. The only other time this has happened, by which I mean the neck pour followed by diminishment rather than augmentation by air, was Lot 40 Rye where over time the palate turned from something delectable to sweat socks. With the Knob 12, it's still a four star bourbon for me. At $60, this 12 year old whiskey is prime value, and I like it better than say, Eagle Rare 10, which is another prime age statement value whisky. It's just that, as time has passed that cocoa powder aroma has cooled, become muted, and been replaced by oak and leather. The cherry character has assumed a secondary quality and what I'm left with is a palate of vanilla, oak and peanut. It's rather dry whereas before it was sweet. I've never encountered a whisky where the character has changed quite so much over the course of the bottle being opened and still remained solid. I suppose what bothers me is that the neck pour had this tasting like a wheated bourbon like some of the Maker's special releases. And those tend to be my favorite bourbons. So it makes sense I'd go snatch up another bottle, especially as it's not super widely available and I can't image the price remaining $60 forever. After all, the Knob 15 went from $100 to $120 in the course of a year, and given how quickly prices are going up on good whiskies, I figure buy in bulk so I have it when I can no longer afford (or let's face it, no longer really want to pay) the exorbitant prices these companies get away with charging us. So there you have it, neck pour was probably 4.5 star for me here. Time has reduced it to a 4. But that's still pretty damn strong. This is in that highly recommended category for me. Oh, and I suppose I should point out in closing that a single ice cube in a shot of this brings the cherry back strong, so that's the way I prefer it now. But in the dog days of summer, that's the way I prefer most of my whiskey. So me and the Knob 12 here are simpatico in that sense.

Does your favorite Irish blend have more to do with which one you were first introduced to rather than any objective measure of quality? Quick litmus test: which is yours? Is it Jameson or Tullamore? Or is it Bushmills? If you're American, it's likely one of these three. I've never met anyone who's intro to the genre was Powers here. Those who are introduced to it now have more choices that my generation did: Teeling, Busker, Writer's Tears. But back in the day, there was a trinity: Bushmills, Jameson, and Tully. For me, the intro was Jameson. I ordered it all the time. On the rocks. And I thought I was the shit because most of my friends were drinking Yeungling. But I hated beer. So, yeah. Jameson on the rocks. And at first I got drunk more quickly than they did. Then I developed a tolerance. Then the bar was out of Jameson and suggested Tully, and I thought, but that's not my brand. But really, how much of a difference is there? I don't drink a whole lot of blended Irish anymore. If I buy Irish, it's generally Green Spot or Redbreast. I actually have a fondness for Kilbeggan Small Batch Rye as my budget Irish. I think Writer's Tears is overrated. The Double Oak is good, but about 15$ too expensive. The Copper Pot is decent but about 15$ too expensive. I've had Teeling Blackpitts, which is amazing but also 75$ so it's not exactly an all-the-time purchase, and I have yet to experiment with Teeling Small Batch, though I'm tempted. When it comes to blended, I like Bushmills Red. It's 21$, so it's cheaper than both Tully and Jameson, and it's equivalent to Mills White but the bourbon finish gives it an edge that the white doesn't have. So the next question becomes, is Red better than Black? It's tough to say because the last time I had a bottle of the Red was St. Patty's Day 2020. And this bottle of Black, being the first one I'm tasting, is coming to me June 2022, a small portion I've poured off a bottle I bought as part of a part of my wife's Mother's Day Gift (I got her other things too and made her brunch, but she's also an Irish whisky fan, so it doesn't hurt to throw in a bottle). Whereas the RedBush is finished in bourbon barrels, this is finished in sherry, so there's that difference. Both are sweet but different in kind. I'm not sure one is better than the other definitively, but I can definitely say they're both better than WhiteBush. The palate here is golden apple and vanilla and isn't so grainy as most other Irish blends, so it has that going for it, as I've always felt the cheerios quality of Jameson and Tully mark them as feeling young, and there's isn't the metallic tincture here that are there with those, but I don't remember that being there with RedBush either. I hit this up at 29$, so compared to the RedBush this is 8 dollars more, and I'm not sure this is so much better to justify the cost. In fact, I'd say they were equivalent and the real choice is the question between sherry barrels and bourbon barrels, so it will ultimately come down to your mood and how much you're looking to spend. Both are likely bargains. I think the BlackBush has older whiskies in the blend too, so there's that, but in a blend I'm not sure how much you notice that as well. There's essentially no finish but that's to be expected. I'm pretty sure these are designed to be consumed on the rocks. And I'm holding them to a higher standard by tasting them straight, but aren't we all curious as to what they taste like on their own with no frills? And that's it for me, folks. We're heading toward bedtime and "dry July." This is the last open bottle I have that I hadn't review. And now I'm done. See you at the end of the summer, mofos.

Despite the fact that I love a good rye, I rarely keep an inexpensive bottle of decent rye around in my collection. Most of the ryes I've accumulated are premium. Sagamore Cask Strength and Tequila Finished, Knob Cask Strength, Alberta Cask Strength. So, maybe I should rephrase that. I don't keep a lot of regular strength rye around in the collection for mixing and general sipping when I want a rye that won't blow me out of the water. This, despite knowing there are plenty of decent ones in the 20-30$ range like Wild Turkey 101, Old Forester Rye, Overholt, and when they're on sale Russell's Reserve Rye and Woodford Reserve Rye (light in touch but delicious). If you'll notice, I left a big one out of that list: when it comes to the cheaper bonded ryes, I'm going to have to go with this one, the Overholt Bonded over Rittenhouse BiB, though I say that with the caveat I've only had one bottle of Rittenhouse and several of Overholt, Overholt Bonded, and Overholt 114. It's possible I have to taste Rittenhouse again, but the one time I picked it up, I was disappointed. I'd read so many reviews citing its strong flavor profile, its richness and robustness, but I found it bland. I had trouble, when drinking it on its own, teasing out aromas and flavors. It had me wondering if maybe, like a cola that sits too long, mine had gone flat. Even when I used it as a mixer, it was one of those that couldn't hold its own and the vermouth eclipsed it, the bitters eclipsed it. It didn't stand out. Overholt is one of those that, for my personal taste, I find serviceable as a sipper, but at a cost where I don't hesitate to use it in mixed drinks. It's not terribly complex: the nose is, surprise surprise, full of rye spice, with mingled vanilla, citrus and cherries with a yeasty note. The palate is almost straight cherry cola. It's almost as if you're having a whisky and coke without needing to add the coke, and let's face it, that's a good thing: if you're hitting your body with alcohol, you don't need to add all the high fructose corn syrup on top. The finish is peppery and rye-y, and if you're mixing it, it stands out and accentuates most drinks, like the manhattan, without overpowering. As I write this, I'm enjoying a Boulevardier with my wife, which if you're not familiar is essentially a negroni with rye instead of gin, and the Overholt adds a nice cherry tart sweetness and citrus notes to counterbalance the herbal bitterness of the campari. After, of course, I poured a slight Overholt straight so I could write this tasting, as this is my last heading into "dry July," to give my body a break. So yes, feel free to disagree about the whole Overholt Bonded vs. Rittenhouse BiB thing. Given the cost of both, I'm more than willing to try Rittenhouse again in the future, but that's only if I don't see a bottle of Sazerac sitting next to it on the shelf. Actually, if Sazerac is there, I'm not even glancing at either of these. But them's the breaks. The one thing I am kind of sad I missed out on was that had an Overholt 11 Year for a while on sale around here, but that was limited edition and is, alas, gone. But hey, them is also the breaks.

The only problem I have with this whisky is that I can remember what Old Ezra tasted like. But Django, you might say, Ezra Distiller's goes for $35 and Old Ezra is $60. Well, it wasn't that way two years back. No friends, gather round the campfire and let me tell you a story: two years ago Old Ezra was $40 and it was delicious. It tasted like someone had melted a stick of butter and swirled in some brown sugar until it had caramelized. Then, Whisky Advocated put Old Ezra on their top 20 and OE got a bit big for its britches. Those two years saw the price skyrocket to $60, and the problem with that? Old Ezra isn't worth $60 when I can get the Maker's Wood series bourbons or Knob 12 for that price. So this leads to another question? Are distillers aware that whisky drinkers know when a bottle crosses the threshold from affordably enjoyable to I'd drink it if offered but there's no way I'm paying that for it? Or is it simply that there are so many people willing to still drop the money out of ignorance it makes up for the fact that they lose the portion of the market that is in the know? For example, I've harped on this before, but Ardbeg Wee Beastie used to be $42 in my neck of the woods and it would go on sale for $37. Now I know there are differing opinions on the Beast but it's hard to find a better scotch at $37. Lo and behold, I walk into the store today and see that they've raised the price to $50, and I thought, well, I guess I'm never buying that again. Because my enjoyment of it doesn't match what they're asking. And it's the same with Old Ezra at $60. Now, Ezra Distiller's is bottled at the exact same proof as Old Ezra but it's three years younger, and it taste that way. If you look, you'll notice I've still given this a 3.5 because the price vs. pleasure factor is still in favor of me saying this is a bottle I've enjoyed and would consider buying again. It doesn't knock my socks off, but then, at $35 it doesn't have to. It just has to hit the spot on a day when I need that spot hit, you know what I mean? The nose is all vanilla, caramel and oak with maybe a slight touch of ethanol (actually there's something chlorinated about it, reminds me of the pool) but not enough to ruin it. In fact, I actually kind of enjoy that little stank on it here. It reminds me of buying that standard Ezra Brooks 90 proof 1.75 L bottle back in my 20s and nursing it over ice over the course of a night, only in slightly higher quality form here. The palate adds a bit of cinnamon to the caramel on the nose with a bit of sawdust and leather counterbalancing the vanilla sweetness. The finish isn't necessarily out of this world, but it suffices, and I only have to say that I hope they don't start pushing up the price on this one because while I might purchase it at $40, I'm certainly going no higher. I would say the main difference between this and the Old Ezra is really mouthfeel and the lack of that ethanol note in the more mature version. The buttery quality in the Old Ezra is absent here and that, like taking the road less traveled, really does make all the difference, but if you don't mind hanging out with the younger brother, this one might be for you. SPECS: Barrel No: 7539090

I always want to say something substantive in a tasting. If nothing else, I like to believe that every whisky you buy has a story behind it, and I think that's interesting. Why did you reach for that particular bottle on the shelf instead of the other? If you've lived with the bottle a while, what type of evolution did your journey with that bottle go through. And if the bottle is astoundingly good, I want to hear all about the tasting notes and complexity of it. On the other hand, sometimes there's not much substantive to say. I first read about Busker in Whisky Advocate and the high 80s review they gave most of the variations (blended, single pot still, single malt) cross-referenced with the lower prices, piqued my interested. Only thing is that they didn't sell Busker in Pennsylvania. Where they did sell Busker was in Jersey, and though they didn't carry the Single Malt, they had the Blended and Single Pot Still. And since I like Redbreast and Green Spot, and since I'm for the most part now averse to blended Irish in anything aside from mixed drinks (the Tipperary is a good one, anyone make that?), I was curious to see what a Single Pot Still that was $27 cheaper tasted like. And now, to the tasting notes: it tastes $27 dollars cheaper. Which doesn't mean it's undrinkable or even terrible, but the nose is like a mix of candied red apple (which I always expect in an Irish whisky) and vanilla with a slight tinge of nail polish (or perhaps nail polish remover...since, um, I don't regularly engage with either nail polish or nail polish remove but grew up with sisters in the house). On the palate, this one is sweeter than most Irish whiskies, if you can even imagine that, with a mix of lacquered cherry lollipop and Robitussin (which spell check doesn't recognize here but which I believe I've spelled correctly; and for those of you not in the know, that's cough syrup). The finish is short with a quick burn of more cherry candy. And so, in the end my assessment is either that you spend an additional $7 for Kilbeggan Single Pot Still (which I own and haven't tasted yet but have to imagine is better than this), drop the extra $27 on Redbreast 12 or Green Spot (both of which are light years beyond this) or turn this into Tipperaries (probably the best option). I'm giving this a 2.75 because I gave my first review here of Writer's Tears Copper Pot a 2.75 and they're equivalent in quality. When asked to choose between the two, it's a toss up, but I'd be likelier to spend the money on Writer's Tears. Anyway, here's the Tipperary recipe if you're in the mind for it: 1 1/2 ounces Irish whiskey 1 ounce sweet vermouth 1/2 ounce green Chartreuse 2 dashes Angostura bitters Garnish: orange twist Cheers! Oh, and p.s., I love the bottle design here. It won't make me give it a higher rating, but I figured I'd mention that. Lovely bottle.

Happy Father's Day to me. Happy Father's Day to my dad, who to me is the most amazing dad in the history of dads. I'm gonna let you in on something, I'm drunk right now, so you're about to see typos. I'm gonna let you in on something else, it's because of this bottle, this bottle that I bought a month ago, knowing that this was going to be the bottle I opened on this day to celebrate how much I love that guy. So, we both love Islay, we both love peat, we both love smoke. And I had my eye on this one, because, well, reputation, and the community rating here has this at 4.5. So, it's an obvious choice. If you haven't read some of my older reviews, let me sum up that sharing a scotch is the way me and my dad can start to relate. Once we share the scotch we get to talking and once we get to talking we have a good time and we realize how much we're alike and how similar the shit we go through on a day-to-day level is the same. So, I know you're interested in the scotch, but allow me first to have a little room for an aside. I have the most awesome kids any dad could hope for. They're nine and almost seven. And yesterday, they went to the Farmer's Market with their mom to get me gifts for today. And what did they get? Thoughtful ass shit! is what they got. My daughter bought me four chocolate whoopie pies with peanut butter filling and my son got me some local homemade hot sauce, and if you're a fan of Islay don't tell me you're not a fan of hot sauce; in fact, if you're a fan of whisky whether it be bourbon, scotch, Irish or rye, I'm pretty sure you all like the hot sauce, am I wrong? And my wife bought me a copy of Bull Durham on Blu ray, so I had a pretty good Father's day, are you feeling me? Then, a week back, my wife said, why don't you invite your mom and dad, because I'd like to roast a chicken and make a mole negro, and I was like, sounds dope. So, when you cross reference all that with a bottle of Lagavulin Distiller's, do you understand the kind of day I've had? Amazing. So I'm going to tell you that at 110$ this is the most expensive bottle I've ever bought, and I can't deny that that plays a role. But I am also going to assure you that if the bottle sucked, I would tell you that too. The only other whisky I've ever given a 4.75 is Laphroaig 2021 Cairdeas PX, which was amazing. Also peated, also finished in PX sherry casks, but whereas that was younger but cask strength, this was older and bottle at 86 proof. And this one was similar, but subtle. The nose was sweet and smoky, salted caramel, smoked meats, the palate similar with fruit notes added and a great lingering finish. Splashing with water makes it floral, like not just a garden but a forest of flowers, it mutes the smoke and brings forth the caramel as well as adding a note of black licorice. Overall, mighty tasty, and a nice glass to raise a toast to those putting in the world of raising the kids. Would I buy it again? No doubt. Did we finish half the bottle in the course of three hours? You bet. Wait, where are my kids? Oh, that's right, they're in bed. Don't worry. I drank responsibly. Whatever that means....

Back in the day, social media sites had that relationship status, "It's complicated." I've been married for eleven years now and haven't used Facebook for five, but if I were to describe my relationship with this bottle of bourbon, this is what I'd use, "It's complicated." Obviously, Larceny has gained in stature for its barrel proof whisky owing to great reviews and its selection as Whisky Advocate's Whisky of the Year in...2020? And it's been one of those that's been hard to get your hands on in my area. It goes on sale online only and there are usually only 75 bottles for the whole state, so you have to monitor the site and strike while the striking is good. So, whenever I catch wind it's available, I pick it up, especially since it's $50 around here still. Thing is, over the past year, I went through a cask strength phase, and it's possible my love affair with cask strength is waning? Part of this has to do with the fact that, although cask strength whiskies are generally more flavorful, they also hit harder and quicker, so if you want to enjoy a few drinks over the course of an evening, you'll be messed up by the end, and here's an admission that shames me, but I'll cop to it anyway: I've never really mastered the art of splashing with water. Either I add too little and the cask strength stuff tastes almost identical to what was in the bottle, or I add too much and it's like I'm drinking...well, in this case, it would be like I'm drinking Larceny Small Batch. And what's the point of getting my hands on the cask strength bottling if I'm just going to dilute it down to Small Batch territory? That said, this bottle, this offering, this whisky...it needs splashing. At 122 Proof, it's got a nice nose, mingling oak, maple syrup, cinnamon, and a trace of tart apple, but you have to take that whiff sparingly as it'll take a few nose hairs with it when you do. A splash of water (and I think I actually got it right this time around) mutes the heat and allows those aromas to come forward and be...enjoyable without the risk to your nasal cavities. On the palate, if you don't water it down, it's just fire. All the flavor gets lost. Without water, it's mainly peppery spice and oak and earth. And this is what I mean by "It's complicated." The neck pour was awful. I couldn't tease out anything but alcohol. Of course, I know from my experience with Maker's CS and Rebel Distiller's Edition, that I often don't like wheated CS bourbon until it's given a little time to air. So I drank a double (I might not have enjoyed it, but I wasn't going to waste it) and let the bottle sit in my cabinet for 3 weeks, every once in a while taking a slug straight from the horse's mouth to check if it had evolved yet. Do any of you do this? Do you ever find some whiskies are just more enjoyable when you drink them straight from the bottle? In an earlier review of Evan Williams 1783, I mentioned how no one talks about best whiskies to drink from a flask. Another of those underappreciated categories might be: what are the best whiskies to drink straight from the bottle? I mean, I don't want you thinking I'm a wino down on skid row, brown-bagging it; these were tiny sips of maybe a quarter shot, like dipping a toe in the water, and every time I went back I liked it more and more (I should also note that I don't roll with a lot of friends who like bourbon, so no one's clamoring to share this with me, meaning it's safe for me to swig from my bottle). In fact, I just stood up, walked across the room, away from my computer and the Glen Cairn glass I'm using to reflect and capture my final thoughts and took a sip directly from the bottle, and for some reason, the exact same liquid tastes better to me coming from that bottle than it does in my glass. From the bottle it's got that cherry pie note that wheated CS bourbons get that for some reason disappears in the glass. Only wait for it...it reappears if I pour a shot and let an ice cube melt in it. So, it's been a long time since I've said this, but...this is one of those whiskies that I actually like better on ice. Not "the rocks." As adding several rocks would make this into Larceny Small Batch, and as I've said, there's not point there. But maybe that one rock is exactly the right amount of water. Maybe that one rock is the splash I have trouble measuring properly out of a dropper. Who'd have ever thought to say, but it's a talent, splashing whisky is. And I have to work on it. In any case, without water, the finish is essentially one long draught of cracked black pepper. With the water, the cherry tartness lingers, or maybe it's apple tart. Either way, the water lets the finish remain sweet while having a slight edge of spice, which is really what I prefer. And of course, now that it's summer, that ice cube cools it down to a temperature that's proper for drinking out on your porch or deck on an otherwise hot summer night. So, in closing, I'm going to raise my glass of Larceny with one rock in it to the rest of you and say, "Cheers!" I think I was hoping for more from this. But it's a solid $50 Wheated Cask Strength Bourbon. I'm not sure it's worth all that much more than $50 (in fact, Maker's Mark CS is pretty much just as good, if not better with some batches), but I guess as long as there's a scarcity, people will be willing to go high for something as hyped as this is. To be honest, I won't be surprised to be priced out on this in two years time when it's SRP shoots up to $75/$100. I think it's already going for more than that when people flip it. So...what are you gonna do?

For as much fun as I have talking and writing about whisky, sometimes I don't want to think. I spend all day at work thinking. I have a wife, and I'm often thinking about her. How's she doing? What would make her happy? I have two young kids, and I'm thinking about them pretty much constantly. What's best for them? How are my actions affecting them? Am I being a decent father? I read a lot of books and when I read I'm thinking. What does this or that mean? What would I do if I were in this character's situation. Sometimes, for as much as I love interesting complex whiskies, I don't want an interesting and complex whisky. Sometimes, I want something like this. The Glen Moray Elgin Heritage 12 Year was an impulse buy where it was $3 off and there was a $5 coupon stuck to the bottle so I figured that 8$ off a $41 aged scotch wasn't something I could pass up. I likely wouldn't have bought this at full price, if only because tacking another $10 onto $41 gets me the Highland Park 12 when it's on sale. But $33 seemed like I couldn't lose. Even if I ended up having to use this as a mixer. On the bottle it says that this was aged in American Oak and tastes of vanilla and berries, and you get pretty much that. It's watery of course, but isn't that usually a given if you're used to higher proofs and you see 40%? The nose and palate are the same, vanilla and berry and a little bit of taffy, so it's pleasant. Think fruity taffy filling in between layers of a vanilla birthday cake; add to that a little bit of oak astringency on the finish, which is oddly pleasant as well, and what you have here, is a decent tasting pour that you don't have to put much thought into. And isn't that what we all sometimes need at the end of a long day? If I find this for 33$ again, I might actually pick it up again. But $41 could be pushing it.