Tastes

I don't always trust reviews on this site when they come one after another, when someone notes that they've been doing a blind tasting and they're commenting on whisky 5 out of 6, when the reviewer is getting inebriated and everything likely tastes good, when the profiles are changing and the contrast might not hold up stacked one against the other though the whisky might be fine on its own. So, feel free to disregard this. I'm violating my own rules. This is my third review in as many hours, and I'm tasting to close out my open bottles, to comment on all of them before stepping away from commenting for a bit. (I contradict myself; I'd like to imagine I contain multitudes, but likely that can just be interpreted as, I'm like everybody else, a raving hypocrite). I opened this one on a lark at the end of an evening last Sunday. I wanted something different from the Irish whiskies my friend and I were tasting, something different but strong, something that would hold up. And this was striking in the midst of all the stone fruity honeyed cereal based Irish whiskies. I had expectations here, as I love Glenmorangie. I love the 10 Year, I love the La Santa. I'm not going to argue either of those are the be-all-end-all of scotches, nor that they'll change your life, but what I will say is that they're delightful little daily drams that you can go to over and over that won't disappoint, and I've had the Quinta Ruban when it was also 12 year, but I've never tasted it since they bumped it to 14 and it earned a top 20 Whisky Advocate nod. But aside from the Whisky Advocate rating, Whisky Jug gave it 4.5, and it was on sale, so I picked it up. And what did I get? Oh, my lord, it's raspberry and creme brulee on the nose, with a little low brow bit of skittles candy, oh taste the rainbow of fruit flavors. The palate brings the port, red wine and chocolate to a head with a fine long malty finish that makes you bless the added two years. I'm probably rushing at this point and not savoring enough. I think there's ginger and pepper in every finish these days but let's go with that. Certainly isn't a bad way to end a tasting, to end a taste, to end a spirit. I'm getting a little drunk now, as I've said, this is my third tasting of the night and I had a little red wine with dinner as well. Oh, and is that 7Up and grenadine too? I think it is, as I'm finishing the last swallow and heading to the kitchen to rinse my glass. So now it's time to step back, take a break, do what I do when I've had my fill and exercise, get those healthy greens, take in a good night's sleep, but this is more than worth the price of admission. This is a buy again when it's on sale, this is a pick up whenever I have the loose change. This is a damn fine whisky to end your evening on. God bless you, Glenmorangie.

Having talked about my friend's visit in the last few tasting reviews, I'm going to make an admission here: there was a lot of drinking, and it's time for a detox. But before I detox, I'm trying to review all the bottles I have open. I just did Yellow Spot 12 Year Single Pot Still, and I mentioned in that review that though I love the Spot whiskies, I prefer the Redbreast profile. It's a matter of nuance, because in both cases you're talking about some of the finest Irish there is. And I'm not sure I can clarify why I prefer one to the other. I compared it, in my review of Green Spot Chateau Montelena, to The Beatles and The Stones. You can't go wrote with either really. But at the end of the day, if I'm in hospice and I want to listen to one final record before the lights go out, it's Abbey Road, no matter how much I adore Sticky Fingers. Although, maybe it's Sticky Fingers. It really might depend on the mood I'm in right then. Okay, so I'm going to admit something else. I might be giving the Redbreast 21, which I tasted last Sunday for the first time and which I just tasted again, the edge here based on the hype of it being 21 years old and costing $300. Tasting them again against one another, I might actually like this one more. Abby Road? Sticky Fingers? The thing about the 21, it's SO fruity, and the fruit flavors are tart, tart like the end of autumn, tart in a way where they're almost ready to turn over, tart in the way the sugar-mad wasps at the end of autumn will go absolutely insane to get to, tart in a way I've perhaps never actually tasted, tart in a way right before the type of tartness that would be too much, enough to make you pucker and think, fun dip? With the 12 Cask Strength, rather than tart, there's bite. Obviously the proof is high. I've read that Redbreast 12 Cask Strength is always phenomenal but that B1/21 has something special going on, and it certainly seems to be the case. The nose is all apple pie, with apple, cinnamon, nutmeg, vanilla bean and something even doughy or yeasty going on. The palate is that with a bit of an alcohol bit, but the sharpness is welcome to counterbalance the sweetness of the nose. You know, sugar and spice and everything nice? Well, I'm pretty sure that's what this whiskey is made of. Honestly, when you start getting into higher end whiskies, whiskies with both age statements and cask strength, whiskies from distillers with long and storied histories you trust, isn't it often splitting hairs? If it's not Beatles v. Stones, it's maybe that under-appreciated but great classic rock band that we all know is great but maybe not the Beatles or Stones, whether that be...Led Zeppelin or Creedence or The Kinks or a more obscure act like Love or the Velvet Underground. Actually, let's call the Redbreast 12 Cask Strength just that, it's neither Beatles nor Stones, but the Velvets. It's strong and it's got an identity you can't fuck with. This is Lou Reed and the birth of cool. Or maybe I'm making this all up and just riffing because I don't want to go to bed yet. Sometimes you don't. Sometimes you want to make the night last as long as it will last. And this isn't a bad glass to have by your side. If you're fortunate.

I've had my eye on Yellow Spot for a while. I haven't actually had the regular Green Spot. I've had the Chateau Montelena, which is great. I also have an unopened bottle fo the Chateau Leoville Barton waiting for an occasion. My understanding is the Montelena is a bit better than the Leoville Barton, but that doesn't seem like much of a step down given how good the Montelena is. The question in my mind was should I buy the Redbreast Cask Strength 12 or the Yellow Spot, which is a 12 but not Cask Strength. The Redbreast was $95 and the Yellow Spot was $99, so I went with the cask strength Redbreast. Cut to two weeks later. It was bonus time at work. My company has given bonuses every year I've worked there, and usually they were an extra paycheck, which I appreciated. This year, however, they changed their bonus standards, and instead of an extra paycheck it was 10% of my salary, and when I saw it, after doing the double take, I decided a treat was in order. The Yellow Spot was now on sale. $10 off, so it was $89.99. And I walked down the street at lunchtime and picked it up as a gift to myself. It was the dram I planned to open on St. Patrick's Day. My wife and I invited my mom and dad for dinner. My wife made shepherd's pie with greens and an apple cake for desert, and my dad and I and my wife had the Yellow Spot. And I have to say...upon opening? My thoughts were that it was just....okay. The neck pours were decent, but nothing to write home about, nothing to rave about on this site. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, but guests will always praise the free whisky you give them, and maybe I was having an off tasting night. It was oily and vegetal, only a slight bit sweet and honeyed on the palate. And the finish...let's just say, after pouring us each a glass of this, I switched it up, opened the Dark Silkie Peated, the Kilbeggan Small Batch Rye my dad had brought as his offering, gave them a taste of the Clonakilty Port Cask, the Jameson Stout Finished Irish. It doesn't matter that the Yellow Spot didn't live up to expectations, it was still a lovely night. The food was great, the whiskey was enjoyed, my kids were happy to see their grandma and grandpa, and I went to bed happy (side note: my wife is amazing. I said she made a shepherd's pie, but actually she made two; one with shredded beef for my parents and herself and my son, one with lentils for my daughter and myself because we don't eat much meat). Anyway, with a quarter of the Yellow Spot finished off that night, I figured I'd let it sit, check out if the aeration made the flavor profile improve. And if it turns out that my own palate was off that night (and sometimes it is), I wanted to return to it and see if my impression changed. I mentioned in my last few reviews that an old friend came to town over this past weekend, and he LOVES Green Spot, so I figured the best time to taste Yellow Spot again was when he got here, so while I didn't open with it, it was our third glass. And my how the profile had changed with a quarter of the bottle gone and two weeks time. The nose still has the vegetal elements. The distiller describes it as red bell pepper, and I can see that. That and honey and fresh-mown grass. The palate is lovely and tastes of honey and pepper and and nice lingering vanilla. It's rich and oily with a great mouthfeel, and the finish is of a decent length. I wouldn't call it long, but there's a nice slight fruitiness to it, with a trace of that vegetal note returning. It's dry, the finish is, like a good white wine. And I have to say, this is a damn fine whiskey. Then, of course, I opened the Redbreast Cask Strength 12 as a point of comparison, and well, I haven't written my review of that one yet, but I'll close here with saying, yes, I'm a Breast man. The 21 is better but the CS 12 has a half star on this one. It's in my nature I suppose. It goes back a long way, but that doesn't mean I'm overlooking the Spot. The Spot is good, too. If I can have it both ways, I'll take it.

There's always something exciting about getting your hands on a bottle that isn't available in your neck of the woods. When I was reviewing the Kilchoman Machir Bay Cask Strength 2020, I mentioned my buddy from Chicago had sent it to me, so that we could enjoy the same whisky during our periodic FaceTime calls. And that bottle was wonderful. Then there are my yearly trips to the beach, where the local stores, in addition to stocking bottles I can easily get, have a handful that I can only purchase there, so I stock up and bring them home with me. I mentioned in my last tasting, for the Redbreast 21, that my friend had come into town from Chicago, and in addition to generously supplying that Redbreast 21, he also came toting this Machrie More Cask Strength. We had discussed getting the Ardbeg 19 in place of the Redbreast 21, but since Matt's less of a peated whisky fan than I am, we went Irish, but he still, very thoughtfully, stored this one in his luggage. Being a fan of Arran, he figured he was meeting me halfway by bringing their peated line, and again, if I have to repeat it, I was highly appreciative. The only Arran available in my area is the Robert Burn Single Malt, which I have a bottle of but have not yet opened, so I'm unfamiliar with their array of offerings. That said, we both laughed upon opening this at the coloring. It's a pretty intense yellow, like initially my thoughts were not only was it urine yellow, but it was urine yellow after you've taken a B Complex vitamin. Does color change with aeration? This was only a few days ago, and granted, we were drinking it out of teacups in the airbnb we were staying in, but pouring it tonight, the color doesn't strike me as being of the same intensity. It's a regular gold in my Glen Cairn glass, and the aroma is delectably peaty. Oh that's right! Having said that thing about it being urine yellow, I probably turned you off, but this is a really good whisky. The peat mingles with sweetness on the nose, dances with it, twirls in a bit of a waltz. It is a peat mingled with honey and peaches and apples, and it mingled well in between glasses of Redbreast, almost complimentary, which strikes me as unusual, being able to shift back and forth between Irish whiskey and scotch so well. After a while in the glass, the peat even becomes secondary, muted when next to the fruitiness. On the palate, it's strikingly similar to what I would imagine Loch Lomond 12 might taste like at cask strength, like you just dove headfirst into a leaf fire in a peach orchard in late autumn with a peppery smokey long finish that lingers until the next sip brings back the fruit. So, in summation, my friend has left town, he left two days ago, and we had a great time. The concert was a good one, even if I got a bit claustrophobic five songs in and had to take a lobby break. The food we found was wonderful, especially the breakfast joint K'Far. But the real memories were the quality of the whisky we drank over those few days. The Redbreast 21 was a highlight, but so too, was the Redbreast Cask Strength, and as for this, this Machrie Moor that he left me with, it's the lingering memory of those few days away from work, away from taking care of my kids, and now, well, now it's back to life, back to reality, but at least I have a dram of this to keep my company and ease my way back in.

Today was a rough one. Yesterday, my old college roommate came to town from Chicago, and since he's also a whisky fan, we decided to get a really good bottle of whisky to taste together. Enter the Redbreast 21. We decided to get an Airbnb in Philly and hang out like we used to do back when we studied in Rome, but first he came to my house for dinner where my wife made some of her delicious homemade pizzas, and naturally, while there we dipped into my whisky collection. We tasted Yellow Spot and Dark Silkie and Maker's 46 and Glenmorangie 14 as well as popping open the Redbreast Cask Strength 12. Then, after dinner, we Ubered to our destination and popped open the Redbreast 21 and stayed up late into the night comparing it to the Redbreast 12 CS. And oh, the whiskies were lovely, and the conversation was great, and by midnight, I was so unbelievably drunk that I might have known today was going to be terrible if I was thinking clearly. Man, I haven't had that much to drink in a long time, and the vast majority of today was filled with nausea. As for the Redbreast 21, this is among the finest whiskies I've ever tasted. The aroma is rich, fruity like a vanilla bean cake frosting laced with candied oranges. On the tongue the candy continues, but not in an overwrought way. There's stone fruit, peaches mainly, and honey, as well as butterscotch on the back end and candied ginger on the long lingering finish. The expert reviewer is absolutely correct in that this is so good that you're first impulse is to drink this quickly. The 12 Year Cask Strength is also great and full of flavor but this one really takes it up a notch. For as good as the Spots are, I also prefer these to those, not really sure if I can express why but it was clear when I threw the Yellow Spot into the mix that my preference was for the intensity of the 12 Year CS and the 21. At $300 a bottle, I doubt I'm ever going to pick this up again. It was an occasion bottle, an old friends who haven't seen each other in five years getting the band back together kind of bottle. It's a short reunion. Tomorrow night we've got a concert and he's heading out on Wednesday morning, and this was the perfect bottle for accompaniment. Now I'm a little curious as to what the 27 Year Redbreast tastes like, but that's priced a little beyond my range. Hell, this one is priced beyond my range as well, but it's a once in a while thing, so I'm going to raise the glass and take this final sip as a tribute to my buddy who brought it. I'd almost say it was worth the hangover, but the hangover was really awful and makes me wish I could go back to last night and caution myself to slow down. Eh, you live and learn, right? Although I probably should have learned that lesson 20 years ago.

I don't have a lot of experience with Macallan. My understanding, from what I've read, is that they used to make some of the best scotch out there, but in recent years, opinions are divided. The comparison I've made, based on my limited experience, is that, if Glenlivet is the White Castle of the scotch world, Macallan is the MacDonald's. They'll scratch that itch and really get you there if you've got a craving, but it's not haute cuisine. Not anymore. But like I've said, that's based on reputation. My own experience is with the 12 year olds here: that's the Sherry Cask and the Double Cask. I opened the Sherry Cask on opening day for the NFL of the 2020 season, hoping for a stronger showing. My dad and I both enjoyed it, but it didn't blow us away, and at $75 a bottle, I was expecting to be blown away. That tasting, of course, occurred before I joined the fray here, and I don't have a strong enough memory of it to offer in depth tasting notes, and obviously, if I waited a year and a half to open the double cask, I wasn't in any hurry. Oh, right. I should say that as well. I bought both the Sherry Cask 12 and the Double Cask 12 at the same time. If I'd tasted the Sherry Cask 12 first, I may not have bothered with the Double Cask. Up front, I'm going to put this out there: even if my memory of the Sherry Cask 12 isn't a strong one, the Sherry Cask 12 is the better of the two. I was hoping this wasn't the case. The Double Cask 12 appeared on the Whisky Advocate Top 20, so I was thinking it had to be good. But different strokes and whatnot. I actually had to look at other reviews where they liked this after opening it to see what I might be missing, because to me...well, this isn't bad, but for at 12 year that costs $61.99 on sale it's simply not worth the price of admission. So what's the problem? The nose is strong with the sherry, the fruits, stone fruit mostly, apricot, peach. Vanilla, but you know...vanilla is in most whiskies. It's not bad, it's just not...well, the nose is actually the best part here. My problem really is with the palate, which has this acrid underpinning. I've seen it described as copper in tasting notes, and that's the big turn off for me. About a month before joining this site, I bought a bottle of Tamnavulin Double Cask. It was $35.99 and I figured you can't go wrong at that price. Even if you don't like it, you can use it as a mixer. But it was awful. Likely among the worst scotches I've ever had. I remember thinking that there were notes in there of what I would imagine urine might taste like if, you know, I was ever to have to drink it. And the thing about the Macallan Double Cask 12 is it has a similar profile and it's only slightly better, and I'm even wondering, not being able to taste them side-by-side if I'm only saying this is better because of the branding. I would suppose not because I felt like I had to choke down the Tamnavulin, even in mixed drinks, whereas this is one that I'd pour toward the end of the evening, after a few other drinks, where my taste buds are a little less sensitive, and it's fine in that capacity. Overall, this isn't undrinkable, but at the price they're charging, you can find LITERALLY hundreds of better whiskies out there. It give me the sense that no company has a more overinflated sense of their own worth than Macallan. It's as if they don't realize they're the MacDonald's of the scotch world now. It's a shame, because this is Jame Bond's whisky of choice, and it makes me doubt Mr. Bond's taste. He might have a license to kill, but someone needs to find him a higher-quality dram. Well, there you go...if I'm looking for a sherried scotch, I'm going with Glenmorangie La Santa every time. Much better than this or the Macallan Sherry Cask 12.

Holy Rubber, Batman. I'm going to begin here with a disclaimer: only buy this if you already know you love peated whiskies. Don't dabble with this one. And I don't say that lightly. Personally, I think the world would be a better place if everyone enjoyed peated whisky, but I know not everyone does. So it's important to say that ahead of time. Don't buy this if you don't already know you like peat, and even if you do, this is a doozie, like that first step Phil Connors takes off the curb into a puddle of ice cold water in Groundhog Day. I just opened this a week ago and only had two pours, and the reason I say holy rubber, Batman is that rubber is prominent in the aroma. My first thought upon raising the glass to my nose was one of nostalgia. Walking through Pep Boys as a boy when my dad took me there to pick up a part for his car. There's also notes of bacon, sea salt, and, this may sound crazy, hard-boiled egg. Yeah, do you see why I made that disclaimer above? Reach for this if you already like peated whisky AND ONLY IF YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR SOMETHING WEIRD....REALLY REALLY WEIRD. I'm so stuck on the nose, in fact, that it's going to take me a moment to get to the palate. So hang on... Given all of that, the palate is a little more standard with the peat hitting first, followed by bitter dark chocolate, think 90% cacao, and dried berries. It's closer to Kilchoman than it is to Teeling, say. So it's not necessarily immediately recognizable as Irish, though the underpinning of cereal is there if you go looking for it. The finish is moderate in length, at least for a peated whiskey. Don't think you're getting the kind of finishes you get with Ardbeg or Laphroaig or even Blackpitts. But at $43.99, this isn't a bad option if you want something unusual and relatively complex that isn't going to break the bank. Still, prepare yourself, this whiskey is the definition of divisive. There's not really a lot of room for middle ground here. It's a really like or hate type of thing.

Generally, I use a glen cairn glass for my tastings. I think most of us do, right? If we have them available? They let you swirl the whiskey, open up the aromas, really indulge and investigate and get to the bottom of what a particular pour is all about. Only, have you ever noticed how some whiskies taste better out of a shot glass? I suppose it's often the case that the less complex whiskies are the ones that taste better out of a shot glass, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the Jameson Caskmates Stout is a bad whiskey. It's certainly better than your standard Jameson blended. The Stout finish gives it a little something extra, a little pizzaz, and does a whisky have to be insanely complex to be enjoyable? I don't think so. I bought both the IPA and the Stout Jameson two years back, and I think I preferred the IPA back then. This year, pre-St. Patty's, I picked up the Stout again. I think my preference for the IPA was simply that the finish was a bit more obvious. I didn't have to work as hard to get the IPA notes out of the IPA than I do to get the Stout notes out of the Stout. But that was then, and this is...well, this is now. And I didn't pick up the IPA. I should note that the only reason I picked this up was that it was $7 off. This is a whiskey that, while it tastes better in a shot glass, is also a whiskey that I would say isn't worth it at the SRP of 36.99, but at $29.99 it's good enough to give you pause and indulge from time to time. I believe someone I follow here just tasted Jameson Black Barrel and said that Black Barrel took the place of their favorite Jameson over the Stout. I can see that. Jameson has its ducks in a row when it comes to the pricing of their lineup, and with Black Barrel only a few dollars more than this, Black Barrel is likely what I'm going to reach for unless, as I've said, this is $7 off, like it was this month. So the whiskey itself...? There are certain whiskies where they place the tasting notes on the label. I can appreciate this to some extent. Obviously distilleries are going to paint in broad strokes and advertise what everyone is likely to taste rather than go into the sommelier nuance that reviewers might. And on the label here, loud and clear and accurate, it states: rich coffee, smooth chocolate, butterscotch. This isn't going to rock your work, it's not earth shattering. But if you enjoy coffee, chocolate, and butterscotch layered on top of the traditional grain, green apple, and vanilla of your standard Jameson along with your standard Jameson alcohol bite at the end, this one is for you.

This is an incredibly solid bourbon for the price. Especially on sale. This was on flash sale last week for $33.99, and if you can get it for that pick it up. I bought my first bottle of Maker's 46 in the same circumstances right before the shit really hit the fan, on another flash sale, leap year day, February 29th, 2020. I cracked it during a Zoom call a month later with old friends, and I thought it was good. But now, two years later, around the same time, I'm actually sitting down, sniffing and tasting, formulating my thoughts. Disclosure ahead of time: I love Maker's, probably my favorite brand of bourbon for its quality, availability, and the fairness of price for what you get. So what do you get? This 46 is unusual among bourbon in that it's savory forward rather than sweet on the nose. The initial aromas are spices, not so much like a wheated bourbon, but almost like a rye. I get cinnamon and all spice along with tobacco with hints of vanilla and butterscotch in the background. For as much as I made fun of Maker's for marketing FAE 02 based on mouthfeel, when this hits the tongue, it's nice and rich and buttery. The palate is sweeter than the aroma, though there's a nice bit of spiciness on the palate as well, pepper and cinnamon, but then vanilla and dried cherry. I also feel like I'm getting traces of mint on the sides of my tongue as it moves along. It's definitely one to let sit in the glass and develop. The finish mingles all of these for a wonderful experience altogether. Just a note on finishing here: I've had the Cask Strength version of 46 recently, and the 94 proof standard is yards better. The CS version is good with a bit of water to even it out, but for some reason, this is one of those whiskies where I think the distiller has found the sweet spot in the proof and is selling it for a reasonable price at that point. It's tough because at regular price, $39.99, this is equal to standard Maker's Cask Strength, so it's a toss up in my mind as to which you should buy. I'd likely reach for the standard Maker's Cask Strength. But this isn't bad either. I don't think you'd lose out by closing your eyes and taking whatever ends up in your hand, unless of course, with your eyes closed you knock it off the shelf and have to pay for a bottle you can't drink. So, scratch that. Don't make the choice with your eyes closed. Follow your gut. Oh, and a final note: I got the old bottle. I haven't seen the bottle with the manila folder label that's in the picture as I write this yet, but it's a poor move changing the branding, as the 46 has the best bottle design in the Maker's stable. PS. Ten minutes after writing the review above, still sipping on the glass, it astounds me I didn't comment on the oak tones here. It's the oakiest of the Maker's lineup, obviously taking its name from the French Oak staves they use in creating the profile, so yes, perhaps it was so obvious it goes without saying, perhaps I was just so focused on the other flavors I didn't think to comment on it.

The expert review ranking of 96 here strikes me as hyperbolic. If it wasn't a single barrel, I'd even go so far as to say that ranking is absurd, but I'm not drinking from the same trough as the expert reviewer here, so I'll try to show some humility. Maybe an excellent single barrel of this is worth a 96? As is, I think I got a very good barrel. If I was ranking by the expert metric here, I'd be tempted to go 88. Thing about this is, Evan Williams Single Barrel, at least my bottle, represents everything you'd want from a bourbon. There's a good balance on the nose of oak and sweetness, leather and vanilla, spicy cinnamon and cotton candy, and what follows on the tongue is much of the same with maybe a bit of milk chocolate and cherry pie thrown in. You get a decent finish, and overall, it's about as complex as you're going to get from a $30 bourbon. Truth be told, if you offered me this or Eagle Rare, I might go 50/50 on it, half the time choosing Eagle and half the time choosing this. Of course, the question then becomes, is this really so much better than other $30 bourbons like Knob or Elijah Craig or even Wild Turkey 101 that are more widely available? Are we elevating the Evan Williams Single Barrel because of its relative scarcity and single barrel credentials? Well, we likely always elevate something we can't get our hands on as easily, and it's probably better than Wild Turkey 101 and Elijah. I've always had a soft spot for Knob, especially now that it's back to having an age statement. But Evan Williams, being a single barrel and being more difficult to come by, feels like more of an occasion bottle. But then, sipping it, you also can't help but wonder, what would this taste like at a higher proof, and the answer I come by is that it would actually probably taste more like Old Tub. In the end, you can't help but feel that a higher proof would benefit this whisky, and having tasted Evan Williams 1789, you get the sense that, while the single barrel is more interesting, the higher proof with the 1789 gives the umph you're looking for with this for $10 less. In the end, this is the best Evan Williams I've had, but with the availability of 1789, the new proofs of 90, and the fact that it's $10 less, that's the one I'm likely turning to more often. And the comparison between that and this makes me glad that 1789 exists and that they've tuned it up as well as they have. Still, if I see this out there, I'm buying it, and I'm enjoying it. Is it a 96? Hell no. But it's a damn fine lower proof lower price option. So even if I disagree, I can maybe see where the expert is coming from.