Tastes

Luxury brand collaborations make me nervous, really nervous. Too often, nothing good comes out of two luxury empires combining their prestige to sell a sub-standard product unworthy of both companies (see the Porsche, Aston Martin, Bentley, etc. crossovers with the mechanical wristwatch world). Macallan's Edition series therefore made me a bit apprehensive when I heard the concept. One of the finest scotch distilleries in the world, working with specialists from other disciplines (perfume, food), sounds promising to some, but I feared that the result would just be double the marketing and half the product quality. Happily, Edition No. 2, which is a collaboration between Macallan and the Spanish chefs behind one of the world's most renowned restaurants (Celler de Can Roca), actually lives up to the hype. The nose of this whisky is more captivating than Rare Cask, which is triple the price. I'm brought back to the ice cream shop where I worked after senior year of high school, with caramel ice cream sandwiched between some graham crackers. After a whiff or two, I'm also getting some chocolate syrup drizzled on top. There is a pleasant, rich oak presence throughout the nose, which acts as a frame for this well-integrated and harmonious bouquet. The sherry influence here doesn't produce the standard dark fruit flavors that one would expect, but instead exudes an alluring, almost bourbon-like richness. The palate features some of the best balance in a sherried whisky I've experienced: cherry syrup with a slightly medicinal tinge, complex fruit (some orange, some peach, some pear, some apple), and loads of aromatic wood and piquant wood spices. The 5% ABV jump between the Rare Cask and this expression also produces better mouthfeel, as Edition No. 2 is thick and substantial. The finish is not quite as long as I'd hope, so mark it down as this whisky's main flaw, but it's a good, creamy combination of sherry fruit, taro, and candied ginger. Although I'm not the biggest fan of the distillery as a whole, this is the best Macallan I've tried. This shows up online for under $100, where it is surprisingly good value, particularly relative to some of the stratospheric prices that Macallans can command.

As I said in my two previous reviews (Old Forester Birthday 2015 and 2016), I just had a flight of these three bourbons. My excitement beforehand, and my disappointment afterward, could not have been more polar opposites. Sadly, the newest Birthday release is not the Cordelia to 2015’s Goneril or 2016’s Regan. There just is something about this line that does not sit well with me. Where are all the incredible flavors bursting out of the no-age-statement Old Forester 1920, which may be my favorite regular release bourbon? Perhaps there is something about Brown-Forman’s juice that just does not benefit from aging up to the tween years, as Old Forester 1920 is probably a blend of product in the 4-8-year range and is amazing. 2017 actually takes a step in the wrong direction on the nose, with similar aromas to 2015 but with a slightly artificial caramel and glue melange that’s messing with my senses. The palate is another wallop of oak and another desperate search for sweet notes. If anything, bitter flavors of resin, tobacco, and shoe polish grow in strength through yet another dry finish. I saw this at my local liquor store for $130 and am so grateful I didn’t grab it. I just purchased two Four Roses Private Selections for less than that while in Indianapolis, which is indicative of the incredibly bad value that Birthday Bourbon has become in the current climate.

As I stated in my review of Birthday 2015, I recently had a chance to do a tasting flight of '15-'16-'17, which made for an interesting comparison. Unfortunately for me, I didn't really care for any of the three. Apparently the Brown-Forman guys liked the way 2015 came out, because they specifically pulled 2016’s version from barrels near the windows that got extra sunlight. The scents that come out of this bourbon are amazing and unusual: there are intense chocolate-covered raisins, guava, Fruit Roll-ups, and earthy tobacco practically leaping from the glass. But this makes the letdown at the palate (a common theme in this flight) even more brutal and disappointing. There is too much oak again, some orchard fruits like underripe apples, and significant astringency. Some of those notes from the nose do pop up, but as distant background music, and I want them front and center in the worst possible way. The end doesn’t redeem this one, as it’s dry, astringent, and overly reliant on rye flavors. If I had to choose one, the 2016 Birthday Bourbon is the best of the three, but not by much, and mainly because of that amazing nose. I’m bemused by these whiskies because normally I don’t see myself as a fan of sweet flavors, but I’ve recently had some dry, dusty bourbons that are making me reconsider that self-assessment. These bourbons just need a touch of something sugary! I’m also bemused because I read some of the amazing reviews for these and am left thinking, are we even drinking the same whiskey?

I'm normally pretty in tune with the reviews on this site and the critical community, sometimes varying in ways that make sense given my distinct flavor preferences (Islay scotches are always going to get high marks in my book, compared to the general consensus). But every once in a while I encounter a whiskey that just completely mystifies me. In some cases, I can't figure out why it's rated so low compared to my assessment (such as Old Forester 1920 on this site, just to give one example). At other times, I can't figure out why people like a whiskey that much after I've tried it (sorry, Octomore line!). Old Forester Birthday falls in the latter camp for me. It's nearly universally praised, so I was excited to try a tasting flight of the 2015-2016-2017 editions. I left thinking, are we really all talking about the same bourbon? The distillery describes this bourbon as having "robust" or extreme oakiness thanks to its aging, and it's right on with that description -- although it ends up not being a good thing in my assessment. On the nose I immediately detect that resinous, bitter oak characteristic of heavily woody (or overly woody) bourbons, but balanced with a concentrated vanilla and butterscotch combination. Occasionally, some burnt brown sugar comes to the forefront. Unfortunately, the rest of the experience doesn’t come close to the aroma. The overpowering oak has neutralized a lot of the sweet, dessert flavors I associate with rich, well-aged bourbons. The right tasting note is almost “splinters” — it’s just a rough, heavy dose of oak that’s not in balance with the weaker, simple syrup-esque sweetness that struggles to make itself heard. On top of that, there was a raw rye flavor that I wasn’t loving without any accompanying fruit or caramel. That oakiness is the standout characteristic of the relatively quick finish as well, although I did enjoy some flavors reminiscent of cherry at the end. Sorry, I just am not seeing why this is so highly rated. I'd honestly rather drink Devil's Cut, which is woody as hell but also a quarter or less of the price.

I was privileged to try a sample of this 19-year old single-cask expression, aged in a port pipe that yielded 252 bottles at cask strength, thanks to the generosity of Telex. The nose exhibits some notes that are similar to the 17-year old Sherry release, with that chalky vitamin tablet signature leading the way, followed by some licorice, cherry, and plum. That plum is a unique note that I haven't noticed in any other Springbanks that I've tried and recalls to me some fond (and not so fond) memories of getting tanked on baijiu during past trips to China. On the tongue, this scotch stays faithful to its family by highlighting its dry, woody, minty, and medicinal side. That light touch of plum dances across the tastebuds ever so briefly, and there's some orange as well, but this -- like all other Springbanks that I've tried -- would never be called a fruity scotch. Springbank's distillery character is so strong that, in all variety of cask finishes, its minerality shines through and is the dominant flavor. That means that you have to love that core flavor if you're going to truly love Springbank. The finish on the 19 is the best of any Springbank I've tried to date, with the most well-rounded combination of mint, smoke, chalk, and plum.

In my four-sample Springbank tasting, I moved on from two 12-year old expressions to jump up the family tree to a significantly older single malt, this 17-year old aged in a variety of sherry and refill sherry casks, butts, etc. Once again, the aroma is instantly recognizable as Springbank. Oh, there's sherry here, but it's sherry on Springbank's terms: mild, dry, and with another wallop of that chalky minerality or medicinal flavor. Springbank is a distillery with a big personality, and it won't let you forget that it's in the room. The taste follows along the same lines, with dry sherry, a good meaty malt flavor, orange peel, and cherries. There are wisps of smoke on the palate and, you guessed it, more minerality. I wasn't able to appreciate any marked difference between this older expression and the younger, 12-year old cask strength ones, which somewhat surprised me. My experience of some single malts, like Laphroaig, is that they develop some more idiosyncratic, exotic or tropical fruit flavors over time, but there still is not a huge amount of fruitiness or sweetness in this older Springbank. It is creamier in texture, which may be the main improvement. This scotch waves goodbye with a medicinal coda combining smoke and mint.

The nose on this scotch reminds me more of the vineyard itself rather than the winery, if that makes any sense. The scents are earthy and suggestive of hard work out in the fields: fresh sapling wood, leather, dark soil, farm funk, and some permanent marker. I did not experience much sweetness on the nose. This felt like a slight twist on that dry, chalky distillery character. The palate is dry and slightly astringent, with a big dose of medicinal minerality again, bittersweet apple skins, mint, and herbs. On the swallow, more of the same: brine, spearmint, and dry minerality. It seems as if that distillery character or signature powered through the cask selection, or even gained strength like a hurricane over warm water, drawing the earthy and dry notes from Burgundy wine rather than the sweeter, fruitier notes. One final curiosity is that I haven't seen any discussion out there about whether the casks used were red or white wine, or a mix of both. Given that this is not a single-barrel release but in fact was several thousand bottles, the distillery easily could have done a mix of a few different types of casks (Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, etc.). My personal guess would be that there's more white than red in here, or that the reds were quite dry, because there is not a huge amount of fruit in this release. That being said, the dark color suggests that a decent proportion must be aged in red wine casks. Thanks to Telex for the sample!

Thanks to Telex for sending me several Springbank samples, which allowed me to do a vertical tasting last night and get a really good sense of the distillery's character. Springbank has a signature flavor that I first noticed in the 10-year and now, having tried four other expressions, has dominated every single one, particularly on the nose. Springbanks always have a chalky, dry aroma, which I'd liken to the scent of gravel or -- when combined with brine -- to the scent of river rocks. Minerality might be the best single term for it, although I have a hard time describing it. It's medicinal, like the coating of adult vitamins (remember that first time when you switch from kids' chewables to the chalky adult vitamins and have to learn to swallow them whole?). In addition to that signature, the 12-year edition has some pear and crisp fruit and an underlayer of vanilla frosting. The first sip's going to be pretty prickly because of the high alcohol content, but it quickly transforms into a complex mixture of that minerality, wood, spice, brine, menthol cigarette, and honey. Another common characteristic of Springbanks is that they are not sweet whiskies, even compared to Islay scotches, which are smoky as all get-out but also have some rich fruit flavors in the mix. I do not get much fruit in any Springbank I've tasted, so the palate is a little heavy on the bitter and earthy side of the spectrum for me and suffers from a lack of ideal balance for my tastes. The finish has similar notes of brine, spice, a bit of barbecue smoke, and then that final dose of minerality. I see in the description that there is a significant proportion of sherry casks in this expression. To be honest, I did not get much sherry in this dram, so would not have guessed that was in the mix before learning that fact.

Unfortunately, with the explosive popularity of their other line, Pappy Van Winkle, these Wellers are getting harder and harder to find (and liquor stores are taking advantage to price them at a huge premium). This bourbon has a great nose of old, leatherbound books and shoe polish, like the library of a men's club, tons of oak, caramel, and vanilla. The palate emphasizes corn and wheat sweetness, manifesting often as cherry. There's also the same strong caramel and oak notes from the nose. That being said, there aren't a lot of unexpected flavors and there is more heat than is ideal. It's also a little more watery than I expected, probably because this is a 7-year old bourbon rather than the 12-year-plus aging of its more famous siblings. Weller Antique concludes in a hot and spicy fireball, with lots of cherry. There's a hint of astringency at the end. For some reason, although Four Roses does not make a wheated bourbon, there is something in the corn flavors and oiliness of this one that reminds me a lot of Four Roses' signature flavor.

I remember enjoying this as a bar pour before I really got into scotch, but did not remember the sherry influence being quite this dominant. This whiskey reminds me a lot of Macallan 12. Sherry and cherry ice cream are the dominant aromas, although there's also a classic Balvenie vanilla note there. The palate is comparatively mild, which makes sense given the low ABV, creamy, and has a rum raisin ice cream flavor. The finish is toasty, with the matchstick smoke that's characteristic of sherried whiskies, malty, and a little dry.