Tastes

This was a dream bottle for me, so I don't know if I'm giving it a 3.75 because it failed to live up to my expectations, or if I'm giving it a 3.75 because I'm being objective and honest with myself that it's simply not as good a whisky as I might have expected. I hope it's clear from what I just wrote that I'm a fan of Laphroaig and peated whiskies in general. You know how sometimes you're a peat fan and you read a 2-star review of one of your favorite whiskies and the comment is, "I don't like peat!" and you're thinking, then why the fuck did you chime in in the first place you rank amateur? Well, to each their own. All I'm saying is, I'm the intended audience for Laphroaig Cask Strength. I love peat. I love Laphroaig 10. I love the last two Carideas bottles, the PX and the Warehouse 1. I love the standard Ardbeg bottlings. I love the Lagavulin Distiller's Edition. I suppose you can say I haven't had them all, but I've had enough to know it's my favorite style whisky. So why, you might ask, do I rate this 3.75? Let me begin by telling you about McGlinchey's. You see, there's a bar by that name in Philadelphia. It's a dive bar. And when the city passed an ordinance intended to ban smoking inside bars and restaurants, McGlinchey's found a way around that, some kind of dispensation, I don't know the technicalities of it. All I know is that in the early aughts, my friends were smokers and they liked to convene there. Now I'm not a smoker myself and wasn't then, but I'd go for the sake of camaraderie and I'd come home smelling like the bottom of an ashtray. And that's the problem with a straight pour of this without any water: the nose is lovely, the palate is lovely, and the finish is like licking the bottom of an ashtray. In other words, 3.75 as a straight pour without adding water and maybe even grading on a curve when it comes to that finish. So, in short, to make the finish work, this needs water. Without it, the nose is tar, ash and leather. The usual iodine and band-aid aroma I expect from Laphroaig 10 simply isn't there. And I like the nose without water. Without water, the palate adds the slightest edge of caramel sweetness to the tar, leather and ash, and that's nice as well. But it's just that final note, the ashtray note, that without water, ends up detracting from the whole experience. Now I opened this on New Year's Eve last week after tasting several other whiskies, and I wondered if that tainted the experience, and I have to say, to some extent it did. This ashy finish was worse after an evening sampling sweeter whiskies. When I drink this straight as the first whisky of the evening, the ash isn't as prominent and I'm grateful for that, but it's still present and biting, and simply put, I don't appreciate it. So, you add a splash of water and what happens. Well, the nose I like becomes a nose I like less but still find interesting. Tasting this with my brother-in-law over the weekend, he put his finger right on the button of adding water to the nose: "Smells like shorted out electronics." And he's right. And also, he should know because he's an electrical engineer. My dad was with us and he offered up, ozone before a lightning storm. Which is about as poetic as my dad gets, bless him. Is that better than tar, leather, and ash? I leave it to you to decide, but I've got to be honest, I've never smelled ozone or shorted-out electronics in a whisky so that was a first, and Laphroaig 10 CS deserves points just for that. With water, the caramel note pushes the leather and tar to the background of the palate, and the ash is all but gone on the finish, leaving it more peppery. So overall, if I could merge the nose of the straight version of this, with the palate and finish of this with a water splash, that would likely push this up to 4.25. As is, I'm sticking with a 3.75, but that's a 3.75 against other Islay whiskies. If I'm going against all other whiskies I've tasted, it's closer to a 4-star rating. Three years ago I had my eye on this, but at the time, it was beyond my budget. Now, it's right in the budget and though there was a limited release near me, I was all over it. Am I glad I got my hands on this? Definitely. Would I buy it again? You bet your ass. Do I prefer the Warehouse 1 despite the fact that that one seemed divisive among fans? Yes, I do. And I may buy another bottle of that if it's still around next month. Nevertheless, I wouldn't pass this up either. It's 100% unique. Ozone, my friends. Burnt electronics. Have you ever heard the like?

Local stores have a limited selection of Indian Whiskies. Most of what they have had has been Paul John, so I've had the Nirvana, which for an 80 Proof $26 whisky holds its own. Neither great nor bad, and it's certainly something I'd drink if offered, but it's not something I'm likely to buy again. Then, they had a Select Cask, the Christmas 2019 and the Christmas 2020, all of which I kept an eye on. I was kicking around the idea of purchasing a Christmas bottle for the holiday even back in September, but $85 seemed like a lot for a brand I wasn't all that familiar with. Cut to November, they all went on clearance for 50% off, so I bought all of them. I opened the Select Cask first and was impressed enough that I started looking forward to this. The problem with the select was a lack of balance, and that problem doesn't recur with the Christmas 2020 edition. I was actually planning to open this last night when we were hosting Christmas Eve. My dad was going to be here for the Eagles game anyway, and my brother-in-law was supposed to come as well, and if you follow my reviews, you'll recognize these are my two primary drinking buddies. But then my brother-in-law and his wife came down with COVID and my dad offered to pick my sister up to bring her here and drive her home, so he wasn't drinking, and my plan to pop this bottle went awry, so I actually opened it last Sunday instead. But I'm tasting it again tonight because my wife got me some fancy new Peugeot tasting glasses, theses ones with the dome in the middle and the metal base to put in the freezer to chill the whisky without having to add ice, and I wanted to test them out, so here we are. Sitting around, quite full still from dinner last night, watching Limitless on Disney Plus with Chris Helmsworth, and swirling Paul John Christmas 2020 in my glass. The nose is lovely and rather unique. It's a mixture of candied tropical fruits and a slight hit of peat. My wife made these candied oranges over the past week, and there's a mix of citrus in there along with a little bit of clove and cinnamon that certainly makes me wonder if they specifically created it to feel like something one would drink on Christmas or if I think that because the word Christmas is printed on the side of the bottle. The palate itself goes heavy on those same spices with the clove being prominent and combining with the citrus to give it a mulled wine sort of feel that's quite lovely on the tongue and carries through to a nice spiced finish. Overall, I'm happy to have this and might consider purchasing next years, even at SRP. Having nabbed this for $42.50 feels like a great deal, and I'm certainly happier with this than I was with the Paul John Select Cask. The 2019 remains unopened in my collection and might end up being next year's Christmas Eve/Day dram if I can't get my hands on the 2022. The 2021 Christmas Edition appeared briefly, but there were only 6 bottles in a store near me and it wasn't a priority, nor do I feel too bad about missing it. It's certainly not a whisky to go out of your way to come by, but if it's in front of you and you're looking for something for the holiday occasion, I'd certainly say, "Go for it."

I've bought the Maker's Wood Finishing Bourbons since I knew they existed. This means that I missed the 2019 bottling. But I have a bottle of the 2020 as well as both 2021s and both 2022s. The only one I've opened and tried so far has been the second 2020 FAE-02, and after finishing it, I liked it so much I went out and bought another bottle. I've long been a Maker's guy. They're likely my favorite bourbon brand, and selling their special releases for $59.99, well, that gives me a loyalty to them that I don't have for the brands whose releases just keep getting jacked up. I opened this tonight to have something special for Christmas Eve. I also opened John Paul Christmas Whisky last Saturday to have a special Christmas dram, but I opted for the Maker's tonight as the last thing I'd have before my wife and I put presents under the tree. Of course, I still have to read The Polar Express to my kids, and usually, I'd be doing that now, but my dad isn't quite ready for his yearly jingling of the bells outside our window. This is a tradition my grandfather did for me and my siblings when I was a kid, and my dad does it for my kids. We coordinate him standing under the window while I'm reading my kids stories for the night and I crack the window, and he jingles the bells and my kids think it's Santa going by. I love it. My daughter is aging out. This may be the last year he does it, but at least, he's spry and after jingling them he gets away. It ended with my grandpa when my brother ran out front and caught him trying to slip off. As for the Maker's BT 01, it's good. And it should damn well be given how they made us wait for this. Last year, when they released the FAEs, the first came in spring and the second in fall. This year, they both dropped in fall, and I was actually wondering if maybe I'd just missed the first. The simplest review I could give for this is: Maker's Mark does Eagle Rare at a higher proof. Because the nose and palate are a lot like Eagle Rare but better because of the higher proof. The nose is dark berries: blackberries and blueberries. With a hit of dark chocolate and a touch of saddle leather and tobacco with maybe some black coffee in the mix. All in all, it's a lovely nose, but I'd heard this described as lighter than BRT 02, and it doesn't feel at all like a light whiskey to me. On the palate the berry flavors continue and they come on strong. The chocolate and coffee mix close together to make it feel like a cocoa laced coffee and the finish is nice and long and spicy with mainly the coffee taste lingering. For some reason, I keep putting off opening these. Because of my love of Maker's, they definitely feel like special occasion bourbons. And since my brother-in-law and my dad, who are the main people I drink whisky with, prefer other styles to bourbon, I generally save the special bourbons for special occasions when they're not around. This is definitely worlds better than the Jack Bonded, which is the last bourbon I rated here and the last bourbon I finished, knocking the last of it back last night so that I had room on the shelf to open this. I really look forward to Maker's releasing these, and it rounds off what was a lovely evening with my wife's sister and her husband and their daughter and my mom and dad and my sister gathering around to eat baked ziti, have deserts and watch the Eagles lose a close one (don 't worry, they beat our backup by 6; I get the feeling the Cowboys can't keep up with our team if we have our starter in, but I give props to the Cowboys for a game well-played). And now, well, tomorrow, my kids will wake me at 6 a.m. and we'll sit around watching TV and listening to carols and maybe I'll pour the Paul John then and give you a Christmas day review. The Paul John 2020 Christmas dram is also lovely, but not quite as hearty or robust as this. But what it lacks in heartiness or robustness, it makes up for in its citric qualities and peat hints. But I'm getting ahead of myself. That's a different review. Just remember, if this is too long to read the whole thing and you scrolled down and skipped to the end: Maker's BRT 01 is Maker's doing Eagle Rare with a higher proof and more intense flavors. That pretty much sums this up. If it's not sold out, I'm gonna try to get my hands on another bottle. Ah, fuck, they're out of stock. Guess I'll just have to enjoy this bottle while it lasts.

There's not as much of a story behind this one as there often is with the whiskies I buy. It's not particularly an event whisky. I like Rye. This one's cask strength, made by the same people who make Barrell, and in Jersey, where I spied it, it was $46.99 which makes it the cheapest cask strength rye I've found (and that's also a tad below MSRP I believe). That said, it isn't as good as Alberta Premium Cask Strength. Nor is it as good as Wild Turkey Rare Breed Rye. Nor is it as good as Sagamore Spirit Single Barrel Select Barrel Proof. Nor is it as good as either of the Knob Creek Single Barrels I've tasted. And the main reason it's not as good isn't because it's bad, but because it lacks the complexity of those other high-proof ryes. What it has going for it is that neither the nose nor the palate smell or drink like a rye of 116 proof. In fact, side-by-side, it's maybe a bit more strong than the Russell's Reserve 6, which is the only other rye I have open, but not by much. In other words, it's much gentler than its proof would speak of. But I mentioned lack of complexity. Not necessarily a bad thing, as this is still strong in the flavors it offers (sometimes songs with just three chords can still be amazing songs), which are mostly spearmint and rye spice, maybe a bit of clove and cinnamon. It's like an alcoholic stick of Wrigley's on the nose with the mint being prominent, whereas on the palate, the rye takes over and the mint takes a backseat. There's a nice moderate finish of cloves. And overall, I'm certainly not regretting paying $47 for this bottle. I'll put it to good use. But it's not necessarily one to go out of your way to purchase, and it's certainly not something to overspend on. Honestly, it's got a certain evergreen quality, maybe a little pine running through it, refreshing like that pine tree air freshener I used to beat against the dashboard of my friend Pete's 84 Ford Escort to make the car smell less like four teenage boys and antifreeze. And it's not a bad dram for the holiday and my end-of-year vacation. Tonight I've put on National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, so that's what I'll be doing for the next hour and a half, sipping Stellum Rye, watching Chevy Chase act like a fool. All-in-all, not a bad way to spend and evening. Now let's just hope I don't spill it and fall asleep. I don't want to wake up hearing, "Why is the carpet all wet, Todd?" and have to respond: "I don't know, Margot!" Now let's try it on ice.

My first exposure to Johnnie Walker came before I was of drinking age with the first line of the Academy Award nominated Elliott Smith song on the soundtrack to Good Will Hunting, "Miss Misery": "I'll fake it through the day with some help from Johnnie Walker Red." As first lines go, it may have been equaled, but I'll throw down here and say it's never been surpassed. It roused my interest in having JW Red, but it would be a few years before I actually began to drink, and a few more before I moved from Irish to Scotch. My second exposure to Johnnie Walker came a bit after I tried the Red. My first serious girlfriend had left me and I was heading out on Valentine's Day to an Anti-Valentine's Day party. I decided before I went to splurge on a bottle of Black. This was 2003, and splurge is the right word because I was making $28K a year in my entry level job and Black was the height of luxury at the time (I think it might have been $30 a bottle back then). I got drunk before I got to the party, and I brought the bottle with me and got trashed at the party, fell asleep in a corner, and someone stole my wallet. A friend brought it back later with all identification and cards but minus the 20-some dollars cash. This is a story of my 20-some years, and I'm sure we all have stories like that. My third exposure to Johnnie Walker came during a Disney cruise I took with my family in 2018. Everyone had a special thing they did on the cruise. My wife got a massage. My daughter got a makeover. My son got to be a pirate for a few hours. And I got to go to a whisky tasting with my brother-in-law where they served JW Blue. They also served Glenmorangie Signet. I remember thinking the Signet was damn fine whisky. I remember thinking of the Blue: "People really spend $250 on that?" Alas, that tasting may likely be my last experience with the Blue. Now I'd heard that the Green is actually the finest in the line in terms of price meeting quality. In other words, when it comes to JW, Green is the best value for money. So I bought a bottle. I slept on it, like I sleep on so many whiskies. Just a few months ago it was $61.99 and when I nabbed it, it had gone up to $64.99, but eh, what are you gonna do? Inflation. Am I right? And I popped it open maybe four weeks back during an Eagles game-day tasting with my brother-in-law and my dad, and it turned out to be a pretty big hit. A lot of the reason is just how smooth and well-balanced this is. Now there's smooth, as in Jack Daniel's Bonded smooth, which I reviewed last night. Not necessarily a standout in terms of complexity, but, you know, smooth. And then there's smooth like Johnnie Walker Green. There's honey and a whiff a peat smoke and maybe a trace of iodine in the background with some pear in there. What you have here is a 15-year-old scotch made of Talisker and Caol Ila and Craggenmore. bottled at 86 proof, and there's a sort of urge to shout amen after sniffing it. This is certainly not the JW Red that Elliott Smith was consuming just to help him make it through the day or the JW Black that put me down and made me lose my wallet at that Anti-Valentine's Party two decades ago. This is a mature man's drink, a smoking jacket and cigar kind of drink, a Hugh Heff kind of dram, though I suspect Heff might have preferred the Blue just because, you know, being able to purchase and drink that night-after-night would be a symbol of your alpha male status. But those in the know would likely acknowledge that behind closed doors he really preferred the Green. The palate continues the pear and peat smoke explosion. Not that the peat smoke will overwhelm anyone. In fact, it seems like a good gateway peat smoke dram. Perhaps even more so than the Highland Park 12. There's less astringency here than there was in my recent bottle of HP 12, which had a sulfuric note that's simply not there on the JW Green. There's citrus as well, sort of hovering between lemon and orange, but subtle and maybe even a little rich dark chocolate flavor in there on the back end as it comes to a finish. I can see myself buying this again if the price remains where it is. It's not going to blow anyone's mind because it's not necessarily unusual or distinctive enough, but even seasoned veterans aren't going to turn their nose up at this. Simply put, this is that song that, when you put it on at a party, even the most die-hard "I never dance" people will end up hitting the dance floor with and enjoying themselves. This is the "Groove is in the Heart" of blended scotches. And that's not a bad thing. It might even be a wonderful thing. I wouldn't ask for another! Or maybe I would...

When the Triple Mash and Bonded versions of Jack Daniels were released earlier this year, I had a passing interest, but there always seemed something in the price range I was more interested in. This happens often. It's inevitable that I'm always interested in more whisky than I have the time to try or money to buy. And like many, I'm assuming, what made me pull the trigger was this appearing as Whisky of the Year on Whisky Advocate's Top 20. Even then, I might not have rushed out to get it, but when I checked the website of the local FW&GS this seemed to be flying off the shelves, so I figured that while supply was still available and before they raise the price $30 like Old Ezra did after appearing on the list (basically guaranteeing that despite the fact I liked it I was never going to buy it again), I'd pick it up. The thing about lists, of course, is they're never definitive, but more a springboard for conversation among enthusiasts. I like the Breaking Bourbon lists as well, but the problem with their list is pretty much nothing they choose is widely available or under $150 dollars. For as much as I might like to get my hands on the Russell's Reserve 13 or the latest Masters Keep, it just doesn't look to be happening anytime soon (not to mention Masters Keep is priced beyond what I'm willing to drop on any whisky). Then there's the Drinkhacker Top 10, which I appreciate much in the same vein: most of the stuff on there is also $150 and up. While I recognize that a magazine like Whisky Advocate has a potential conflict of interest in the fact that much of their advertising revenue comes from the top whisky brands, incentivizing them to have said brands appear on the list, they at least give the impression of fairness in that they’re supposed to be tasting blind, and ultimately, what I appreciate is there are always at least a handful that are widely available as well as affordable. The Jack Daniel’s Bonded here is a perfect example: in my corner of the woods, this is going for $36.99, so it’s certainly not going to break the bank. And until it won the Number 1 spot on that Top 20, you could still lay your hands on it. In fact, after it was announced as Number 1, my county ran out of stock entirely. Three days later, 6 bottles arrived at the store down the street, and the next night, when I decided to pick it up on the way home from my office holiday party, there was only 1 bottle left. The clerk said, “This has been flying off the shelves fast.” And I said, “Yeah, it was given the top spot on a whisky list.” And he said, “That’ll do it.” As for the rating they gave this when they announced it was Number 1: 97. Which, even before I cracked the bottle and tasted it, I thought was likely rather absurd. And now that I’ve tasted it, I hold to that notion. Here’s the thing: this is fine whisky. It’s got a nice aroma of cherries, banana, oak, peanut, and graham cracker. The palate blends the oak with that same fruitiness, and the finish adds a nice sort of cake spice farewell. In short, it’s far better than your standard Jack Daniel’s #7, but not nearly as good as the Single Barrel Barrel Proof I bought last week. Other reviewers here have made much of the fact that it’s 700 mL instead of 750 mL (likely to help sell it in overseas markets) but they’re still charging around $40 for it while other BiBs in the same range are still giving you the 750 mL and a decent pour at the same price (looking at you New Riff). If this were going for $30 (as some sites quote the MSRP), I could see myself purchasing it again, possibly. But I just don’t like it enough for it to be a repeat buy. If I were going to pick up a Jack product again, I’d drop the extra dough and get the Single Barrel Barrel Proof over this. I agree with the Advocate’s write-up that the flavors are well integrated. But it doesn’t result in the vibrant whisky they’re trying to sell me on. And “sell me on” might just be the right way to put it. I wonder, to some extent if, even if they’re tasting these blind, there’s some sense in which, tasting the standard Jack banana notes, people evidenced a preference for this based on wanting to elevate them to No. 1 and please some of their advertisers, but I’m not going too far down that rabbit hole, as I tend to be allergic to conspiracy theories. That said, I tased the WA Top 20 #9 Whisky, Bruichladdich Barley 2013 and it’s phenomenal. Far better than the Jack Bonded, so I’m throwing down that gauntlet that, of the two I’ve tasted, the Barley 2013 should have held the top spot, but that’s sort of the fun of lists, right? You get to disagree. You get to discuss. You get to spend time thinking about what makes a stellar whisky to you. And this Jack isn’t stellar. WA runs a category I like called “Best Value.” In fact, back when my kids were in daycare and I had less to spend, it was the reason I caught onto the magazine. The value picks were often cross referencing price and quality and when I could find them, they were perfect for the place I was in at the time. And the Jack Bonded? It’d make a great "Best Value" pick. It’s just not #1 for the year. They’ve been drinking crazy juice over at that magazine. Still, I've got to admit: I really like the bottle design.

This is a 4.25 whisky that I'm upgrading to a 4.75 because there are only six reviews and some dipshit gave it a .25 bringing down the rating, making the community rating 3.18, which is the lowest community rating of the whiskies I own. The Bruichladdich Islay Barley 2013 hardly deserves that. Like I said, this is a straight 4.25 with no argument, no doubt. This is one of those I purchased during my shore trip this past summer and only opened now. And why did I open it? Well, it just made #9 on the Whisky Advocate 2022 Top 22, which always makes me curious about a pour whether I agree or disagree, plus the Eagles were playing the Giants. Huge divisional rivalry and I felt it deserved something special. I also have to admit that when I saw this on the shelves I picked it up without knowing anything about it other than the brand. I assumed it was peated, got back to the beach rental, read the words unpeated on the container and thought, well, hmmm. Then I looked up reviews and saw that Thijs Klaverstijn gave it a glowing review on his site Words of Whisky. And if you don't know Thijs Klaverstijn, he's one of the harder to please of the expert reviewers on Distiller, so I kind of, you know, trust him, though my tasting notes seem to deviate somewhat significantly from his (though not my appreciation). The nose here reminds me a great deal less of a standard Islay and more of Dalwhinnie. It's floral, full of honey with the slightest trace of smoke thought since it's unpeated that's more of a barbeque smoke than it is a peat smoke. Barrel char? On the palate the floral honeyed notes continue with a slight citrus edge and pear. The finish is long with a white pepper, ginger tang. Now this was only the first taste and it was one pour so it may evolve over time, but this drinks older than the 8 years it professes on the packaging, and I'm looking forward to trying this again. We didn't continue throughout the night with this, as we watched the Eagles trounce the Giants (with all due respect there were questions after Philly lost to Washington and then barely eeked by Indianapolis whether they were the real deal, but after the past three weeks, is there any doubt?) , but shifted to various other whiskies. I got my dad a bottle of Teeling Blackpitts for his birthday, which we sampled. Then we switched to JW Green and finished with the JD SBBP, so it was pretty much a high quality pour day, but the Bruichladdich stood high among the pours. Like I've said, I'm grading on a curve to pull the community score up. .25? really? I wouldn't even rate the piss that is Jim Beam White Label .25, and certainly a dram like this shouldn't be that low. Don't know why it bothers me that much except the review was a mix of non-sensical words and the profile looks like a bot, and I feel like that does a good whisky wrong, and if we don't stand up for the good whiskies, well then, who will? Am I right?

Tonight's not a bad night. I'm watching Die Hard next to the Christmas tree and sipping on some Jack Daniel's Single Barrel Barrel Proof. It took a bit of convincing for me to divorce my idea of Jack Daniel's from trashy rock bands I don't like all that much (e.g., Aerosmith), but I tried the standard single barrel and that was decent, and I've coveted the Special Releases of the past few years (Rye, Coy Hill, Single Malt), even when I couldn't get my hands on them. The Single Barrel Barrel Proof was on my list, but I just couldn't seem to find the will to drop $67 on it. There always seemed something in that price range I simply wanted more. Enter the 375 mL bottle. This came to stores around here about a month ago. And honestly, I wish there were more brands available in 375 mL or even 200 mL. Seems I'm always having to buy 750 mL of the pours I want simply because that's what's available and by the time I get through half the bottle, I'm a little tired of it and want to move on to something else. Doesn't mean I don't like the whisky, but I'm just craving novelty, and I'm not the type to keep 40 open bottles of varying liquid levels in my house. I open 2 or 3 and that's what I'm drinking until they're done and I decide to open another. So, the 375 mL with the JD SBBP was $35, which means if I had bought a full bottle I would have saved $3, but the full bottle didn't seem worth it. Now for the opening. The nose is delicious, wonderful. I get rum raisin, candied orange and ginger, not to mention banana, which is the standard JD aroma and flavor right? Only with JD SBBP, I would talk about that banana the way Bubba talks about shrimp in Forest Gump. It's banana bread in certain whiffs, and banana pudding in others. Bananas foster in some and pureed banana smoothie in others. Upon first opening the bottle, there was a slight edge of mint/ethanol in the background, as in, it was obviously an alcohol aroma but it was sweet and wasn't horrible, and at 130 proof, obviously that was going to be there. Though also, at 130 proof, it doesn't drink harsh. Seasoned drinkers should be able to take it without splashing or ice and still find it smooth. However, with that comes a caveat. After having this last night, I poured a Wild Turkey Rare Breed and the Rare Breed, at 116 proof, was much subtler, gentler, and overall, better (I would choose that over this if offered a bottle, and WT RB is about $20 cheaper), but that doesn't mean I regret buying this at all. This is a solid pour and the palate continues the banana citrus ginger extravaganza. With the bottle open one night and this being my second pour that I'm reviewing, I can say, it's quite delicious, and the finish lingers longer than almost any finish I can think of, by which I mean, it lasts for the next few minutes after you've swallowed, and it's straight up banana bread here. Would I buy a bottle? I see some reviews ending that way. And here the question would be would I buy a 750 mL bottle? And the answer is, sure, but there are also so many other whiskies to try before I get around to that, that it may never happen, so I'm thankful for the 375. And when it's gone, will I miss it? Probably not. There are many other kingdoms to see, many other pleasures to partake of. And now, in closing, given what I have playing in the background, I'm gonna raise my glass to all of you and say: Yippie Ki-yay Motherf----

Anyone following me here knows, that in addition to loving a top notch rye, I also love a decent budget rye so I'm always on the lookout. I'm of the opinion that rye tends to be the best value for money style of whisky out there in that you can get really decent stuff without breaking the bank, and even though I have a couple favorites in the under $30 range, my blind spot is the $30-$50 range. If I'm not going for the budget rye, I'm going bigger: cask strength stuff with higher age statements. But there are a few in that $30-$50 range I've been meaning to try that I simply haven't reached: WhistlePig Piggyback comes to mind as well as Michter's and Jack Danie's Single Barrel Rye. But recently, having tasted the Russell's Reserve 10 Year bourbon and seeing this on sale just yesterday after getting out of a meeting where I thought I should treat myself, I figured it's time to hit up the Russell's 6 Year rye, since the community score here for this is exactly the same for the bourbon (currently: 3.75), which puts it in the expect it to be decent but not knock your socks off category, right? Well, that's exactly what this is, though I'm going to have to go 3.5 myself. It's not going to change your idea of what a rye is, it's not going to rock your world, but unless you're a super snob, you're also not going to pour this down the sink. The nose is nice and full of rye spice with a slight edge of sweetness. At the edge of the spice could either be vanilla or bubble gum here. I've seen other reviewers mention both, and it really could go either way. The complaints about it being 90 proof seem fairly well founded when it hits the tongue, because it's got an ultra-light mouthfeel with the nose spice muted (even though I also can't complain about sipping on a 90 proofer from the perspective of feeling it less tomorrow morning). The finish is of medium-length and the sweetness takes over from the spice on its way out, definitely becoming heavier on the vanilla with a slight hit of mint, but the impression doesn't last terribly long. It's been about two years since I've had Woodford Reserve Rye, but if I can trust my memory at all, these two bear a striking similarity in profile (as well as price range), but if I had the choice, I think I'd favor the Woodford. Having said that, there are two under $30 ryes that come to mind that I like better than this in both Sazerac and Old Forester (not to mention I gave this whisky's cousin the Wild Turkey 101 rye the same score as this one and that bottle is $15 dollars less), so while I don't think I'm going to have any trouble finishing this bottle (and while I'll likely give some to my dad when he comes over for the football game Sunday to see what he thinks), I doubt I'm going back to this well. If I'm going to drop $36.99 on a Russell's product in the future, it'll be the bourbon, which is amusing in a sense given how much I favor rye. The bourbon is simply the superior product in this line.

Paul John, as a brand, first came on my radar, when the Nirvana hit the Best Values section of Whisky Advocate's reviews. Now I've said this before in comments, but I'm not sure I included it in a review: I don't necessarily takes what the Advocate says as verbatim truth. They are a lifestyle magazine, but a subscription costs $22/year and you get decent articles, glossy pictures of whisky bottles, and although the reviews never seem to dip below 87 for anything, their Editor's Choice, Best Value and Collectibles Choices are pretty spot-on. Or, I should say the Editor's Choice and Best Value are. I don't really have the deep pockets for their collectible recommendations. If the Best Value picks are in my region, I almost always pick up a bottle, and that was especially the case when I had two kids in daycare and was barely making ends meet (thank god for public schools, am I right? If nothing else, they let daddy afford more expensive whiskies). The Nirvana is Paul John's 80 proof single malt expression, and while it's never going to change anyone's life, at $26 a bottle and with some nice fruitiness, it punches at a weight really only challenged by Dewar's 12. I've only ever had the one bottle about two years ago, but I remember it being entirely serviceable and I wasn't embarrassed to serve it to company. The only other expressions available in my region were the Christmas 2019 and the Christmas 2020 as well as this Select Cask. Given the community score here, I wasn't really seeking the Select Cask, but the Christmas editions seemed appropriate for the festive season, and I was waiting for the festive season to purchase them. Apparently, waiting paid off, as both Christmas expressions went on clearance at 50% off, so I scored them both for $45. And the Select Cask went on Clearance for the same, so instead of $100, it was $50. And so, like any self-respecting curious whisky fan, I snatched up all three, even if the community score for the Select Cask was only 3.4, the lowest of all the whiskies in my collection on this site. This absolutely boggles the mind because this whisky is definitely better than a 3.4, better than deserving the lowest score of anything I own (to put this in context, Tullamore DEW's standard expression is a 3.5). It might be the price. If I hadn't picked this up for $50, I might have felt that it didn't live up to what I paid. But then again, I generally only pay $100 for Islay Scotches. So I'd have never bothered with it if it hadn't gone on clearance. I opened this, this past Sunday, the same day I opened a Johnnie Walker Green, and the Green was far superior but there were similarities in terms of bright fruitiness, even if the fruits differed. Nosing this, there's an odd funk that comes from an admixture of papaya, kiwi, coconut, and mango. I'm curious as to how this comes about. How you can take grains and get such variety of scents. And honestly, I've never had these aromas in anything else. But I'm still trying to figure out what the funk is, because if it were just those scents clean, this would be an amazing dram. There's also something of a solvent in there, something chemical that keeps this from being top tier. But that solvent isn't enough to ruin the nose. The palate, overall, is a combination of the tropical fruits in the nose that end up coming of as a tropical fruit punch with that alcohol edge you get at 102 proof. I gave a sip to my wife, who prefers bourbon and Irish whiskies, and she started coughing because it went down the wrong pipe, but whereas some 117 proof whiskies don't drink like their proof, this feels like it drinks a bit higher than 102. Not that I mind, it's not harsh, but it's...sharp? The finish remains fruity with a slight slight bite to it. And really, what keeps this from being a higher rating is a lack of balance. All the elements are here to make a good whisky, but they just don't come off perfectly. It's like when you watch someone do a great routine on the balance beam, perfectly execute a double backflip off of it, and then just stagger a step as they hold their arms up in the air. Oh, I'll be finishing this bottle with relish, but you can see how this doesn't quite reach it's full potential. When they figure it out, this could be absolutely amazing.