Tastes

Visual: In the glass it is a deep amber/gold color. Medium, lasting legs after a swirl. Nose: From a distance: floral and vanilla. Up close, more vanilla and, surprisingly, Juicy Fruit Gum in spades! (Note: I wrote my notes before reading the Distiller review, and I found it interesting that Distiller noted Juicy Fruit in the palate notes, whereas I pick it up very distinctly in the nose). This is a good thing if, like me, you like fruit-bomb whiskies. Palate: More vanilla, with a touch of leather. The rye spice comes through a bit more on the palate than the nose, and the fruit morphs into more of the dried, trail mix variety. On the spice side, I detect some difficult to pinpoint baking spices and perhaps a soupçon of mint. Finish: The finish is fairly long and drying, with some tannin bitterness and some heat from the 45% ABV. Empty glass: Pecan pralines. This is one I think I could drink and drink. Do I think it is the best whiskey in the world, and worthy of Mr. Murray’s accolades? Probably not. Also, I’ve read some opinions on-line (after preparing my notes) suggesting that there is some notable batch variation, so it is possible that my bottle differs from what the bible author tasted. I can assert, though, that this is a stellar dram for the price, with its only real flaw being a slightly hot finish. At $33 USD in my neck of the woods, it is a 5-star value, especially if you’re a fan of north American whiskies.

Visual: In the glass it is a medium amber color/gold color. Medium, lasting legs after a swirl. Nose: Floral, and a mite tart, with hints of vanilla and toffee, as well as lemon zest and orange peel. Light and crisp. Palate: More citrus zest appears on the palate, along with some sweetness and vanilla. It is light and thin, which might be owing to many factors, including the mild 40% ABV, the lack of maturity (I’m guessing), and the lowland triple distillation process. Finish: The finish is short, with a bittersweet dark chocolate note and some barrel char. Empty glass: Little to report. This is a smooth and drinkable whisky. A great beginner’s scotch, or scotch intro for bourbon drinkers. It lacks challenge and complexity, but is nice and inoffensive. It would be a 3-1/2 star dram at a higher price point. At less than $40 USD, I’m bumping it to 4 stars.

Visual: Medium amber/brown in the glass, with moderate legs on swirling. Nose: Big vanilla and oak at first. Later comes dark chocolate cherry cordials and a faint wisp of cotton candy sweetness, like catching a whiff of it on the breeze in passing at an amusement park. Of all the aromas, though, oak is the most prominent. Palate: Decently substantial mouthfeel, but not as velvety as some. Sweet at the onset, with vanilla and baking spices (cinnamon and clove). Some prominent oak mid-palate, but not much more develops. Quite hot. If I were tasting blind, I would swear it was over 50% ABV. At 47%, it’s expected to be stout, but is still hotter than I would have expected. Finish: The medium finish is warm and full of oak, with a tannin bitterness and hints of candied citrus. My overall impression is that the nose is just okay, along with the finish. The palate is not very complex, and a bit on the hot side, making the overall experience a bit hollow. It is an oaky one-trick pony. I’ll have to try it on the rocks or with a mixer to get through the bottle. From reviews I’ve read, I expected more. Fortunately, it isn’t expensive. I would give it 2-1/2 stars, but given the unavailability of halves, I will kindly give it a 3. Reviewed Batch 17C14.

Visual: Light amber/gold color. Medium legs that take their time sliding into the glass. Nose: Delightful nose of citrus fruit, Juicy Fruit gum, vanilla, caramel, and baking spices. Slightly earthy. Palate: Sweet and rich. It is not as grainy as the Teeling Small Batch, which I tasted alongside. It is darker, with a nuttier profile. There are some tropical fruit notes, as well. I detect papaya. I have a papaya tree in my backyard, and I sometimes notice an almost smoky character to the fruit, along with a richness and earthiness. I get those same vibes from the Revival. Finish: The finish is relatively long and warming – with the warmth expected from the 46% ABV, with less of a bite than the Small Batch, likely the result of longer maturation. The finish is less bitter than the Small Batch. Barrel spices are infused in the finish, which is longer than the Small Batch. Breathing back through the nose, more papaya is detected. Empty glass: Oak and toffee. I really like this whiskey. I wish I could find it locally. If I could give it a 4+ or a 5-, I would. I think I’ll stick to 4 stars; but a strong, solid 4 stars.

Visual: Light amber/gold color. Medium legs that take their time sliding into the glass. Nose: Pretty closed at first, yielding little but some faint apple juice. Given a few minutes, a fruitier, almost Juicy Fruit gum note comes through, along with some vanilla, and a faint earthiness. Even more time brings out some tropical aromas such as pineapple and coconut, although these are subtle. The nose of this Emerald Isle offering is a regular Tuan mac Cairill, a mythical Irish shapeshifter. Palate: Sweet and very grain forward. Honey and cereal, with a dash of hay. The palate does not bring as many wonders as the nose, but it is smooth and drinkable. On the back of the tongue, just before the finish, a slight spiciness asserts itself. Finish: The finish is relatively long and warming – with the warmth expected from the 46% ABV. The finish is slightly bitter in the way hops make an IPA bitter – not unpleasant if you’re into that. Empty glass: Oak. Locally, this can be had for well under $30 USD for 750 mL. This is a very serviceable dram for that price, so it is impossible for me not to figure that into the equation when giving this a four-star rating. There certainly are whiskeys for more money that are less satisfying.

Visual: Medium amber/gold color. Darker than the 12-year and 14-year, but since they are all artificially colored, I think the distillery’s coloring choice has more to do with it than maturation. Thin to medium legs that take a little while to slide into the glass. Nose: Nutty and grainy like the 14-year, but with more vanilla and spice. Two extra years in ex-bourbon casks seem to have had an effect (note that even though the name says sherry cask, the sherry casks are only introduced for the final six months of maturation). This definitely has a more bourbon-like nose than its younger sibs. Palate: Sweet and nutty like the nose, with some grain and a little spice. The savory notes of the 12-year and 14-year are diminished in the 16. Also, all the flavors seem to be muted as compared to the 14-year (which I tried side-by-side), which I suspect is the result of the lower, 40% ABV. Like the 14-year, there is a nice sweetness, but it is not over the top. Finish: The finish is woody, and slightly bitter, with a bit of almond. The length is medium, and the warmth is surprisingly similar to the 14-year despite the lower ABV. Empty glass: Candied nuts. I like this better than the 12-year-old, but not as much as the 14. I think this might just be the superior juice if it weren’t diluted to 40% ABV, but I guess I will never know. I’m giving it four stars as I did the 14-year, but it is a less robust four stars (call it perhaps an 84 versus an 89).

Visual: Medium amber/gold color. Thin to medium legs that take a little while to slide into the glass. Nose: Candied Almonds, hazelnuts, and pecans are first to arrive, followed by honey and cereal, a la Honey Nut Cheerios. Citrus zest and apple juice follow. Thankfully, the initial objectionable sourness that I found in the 12-year-old was not present at all here. Palate: Sweet and nutty like the nose, with some grain and a little spice. I get a little of the savory note that I found in the 12, especially when breathing out through my nose. Nice sweetness, but not over the top. Finish: I agree with those who experienced a dry, oaky finish. The dryness and slight bitterness are not off-putting. The finish is medium length and warming, but not too hot. Empty glass: Lightly nutty. Overall, I like this much better than its 12-year old younger sibling. I especially like the nose better, but the entire experience is much better than the 12. I believe the 14-year benefits from being bottled at 46% ABV instead of 40%. I would buy a bottle of this for sure. Four stars.

Visual: Medium amber/gold color. Thin to medium legs that take a little while to slide into the glass. Nose: Out of the bottle and into the glass, the first impression was objectionable to me: sour, almost like the smell of a used vacuum cleaner bag – seriously. Fortunately, this dissipated rather quickly and was replaced by much more pleasant notes. Wildflowers, vanilla, and amaretto. Not much alcohol burn at all, probably due to the low (40%) ABV. Palate: It begins sweet on the tip of the tongue, but the sweetness is soon overcome by a wash of savory/vegetal notes like legumes (edamame?). After a bit of a swirl on the tongue, some vanilla comes through, and I also get the nougat that others have mentioned. An interesting juxtaposition of sweet and savory notes in this one. Finish: The finish is short and a tad bitter. Empty glass: Lightly nutty. While this whiskey has a nice nose (after opening a bit) and an interesting sweet/savory thing going on, I thought lacked something in the complexity department, and was also a bit anemic. I think it would benefit from being bottled at a slightly higher ABV. Perhaps 46% would be ideal, but even 43% would likely have been an improvement. This gets three stars.

Visual: Light amber/gold color. Thin legs. They don’t persist for long. Nose: Out of the bottle and into the glass, the first impression was perfume – floral and light, with some alcohol. Upon approaching the glass closer, I caught more alcohol, and some floral/herbal notes not unlike gin. After some time to open up, these notes dissipate completely, and are replaced by vanilla and honey – almost like a baklava topped with whipped cream to which a light dusting of vanilla bean has been added. Palate: Comes across at first as very bourbonesque, with vanilla and spice (like a high rye mash, with some barrel spices thrown in), but develops on the mid-palate with much more cereal grain than a bourbon. Some peppermint and faint smokiness (not at all like peat; more in the realm of barrel char) also develops on the palate. Finish: The finish is fairly long and warm. The finish is dryer than the nose and initial palate, with some oaky tannins remaining for a while. Empty glass: Toffee and pecans. I approached my late Irish whiskey excursion with some skepticism. There are certain Irish whiskeys that I’ve tried that just didn’t do much for me. I must say that my most recent samplings have started to change my impression. This whiskey was really good – I mean, not Lagavulin 16 good, but few are. I kept thinking “I could drink this.” As it is available locally, I just might. I also might consider giving it as a gift to somebody not super familiar with Irish whiskeys, as it is approachable and easy to sip. This whiskey deserves four stars.

Visual: Medium amber/gold color. Nice, languid legs. Nose: Right out of the bottle and into the glass, the first impression is milk chocolate. Later, some vanilla develops, along with raspberry, blackberry, and other dark fruits. I’m used to Irish whiskies being somewhat “light” (the Tullamore D.E.W. 10-year single malt certainly is), but this is much darker in character – and sweeter – on the nose than expected. The combination of bourbon, oloroso, port, and sherry cask maturation seems to have worked a bit of olfactory magic. The aroma says dessert. Palate: At the outset, it is much less sweet than the nose, although there is a bit of honey. Mid-palate, the milk chocolate from the nose joins in, along with caramel and the expected cereal grains. A little dark chocolate on the pre-finish. Finish: The medium length finish is nicely dry, with a bit of dark chocolate and oak tannin. There is a nice lingering warmth. Empty glass: Toffee and pecans. Nice whiskey, especially for chocolate fans. Unfortunately, checking prices on-line, it appears to be hard to get around these parts, and a little pricey (this tasting was from a 30-mL sample). There are single malt scotches I would rather have for the same money or less (Lagavulin 16, anyone?). Still, it is nice. Worthy of 4 stars just on the nose alone.