Tastes

Since no one has reviewed this yet, I wrote up something substantial to give people an idea of what to expect.  Nose Vanilla/creme brulee, lavender/heather, and dark honey.  Almost like a Speyside, but with more depth and spicy bite on the back-end.  Palate The spice becomes more-noticeable and is followed by vanilla cream soda, butterscotch, honey, and a little salt.  The salt and spice keep the taste from being as sweet as it may sound.  This whisky is slightly peated, which brings out a mild smokiness that blends in well into the background.  There's an earthiness to it that I find appealing. Finish Spice comes back on the finish, resulting in a spice-to-honey/lavender-back-to-spice progression from the initial palate to the finish.  Smoke shows up more on the finish, but it's like barrel char more than a peat fire. Overall I looked into the details of this whisky (helpfully provided by a QR code on the bottle) and saw that it's made of a vatting of 5- and 6- year barrels.  That explains some of the obvious spiciness and relatively narrow range of flavors, but, like with Kilchoman's whiskies, careful distilling and barrel management overcome the youth quite a bit.  Knowing that this is a young distillery that's making an effort to be sustainable and a good member of its community made me buy the bottle to support them, but also gave me modest expectations.  I was impressed, though.  The whisky has an uncommon character and I appreciate that, for a young distillery, they didn't lean hard on peat or sherry to make up for the lack of maturation.  At $55 a bottle, I think this is a reasonable value, given how much personality it has.  If Ardnamurchan can maintain this quality, they'll be giving the big boys a run for their money in 6-7 years.

Nose: There's a lot going on here. The distillery's own notes provide an extensive list and, for once, it's not an exaggeration. It's like eating a dark chocolate chip while sitting in a wildflower meadow between an hay field and a plum orchard. It's hard for my brain to track it all. Palate: What's interesting about the palate is that all the notes on the nose are there, but muted by a surprising ginger-cinnamon spiciness. It's very spicy, but not unpleasantly so. Finish: The palate fades pretty quickly, but repeated tastings bring out some barrel char. Summary: This is a young whiskey at three years, but it's possible that the youth lets all of the complexity shine through- and this is surprisingly one of the most complex whiskies I've had. I do wonder how this would develop with age, though, if I were to dock this whisky a star for youth, I'd have to give it right back for its unique character and the sustainable way it was produced. If you aren't deterred by the price tag, then I'd recommend searching this one out. It's worth supporting a distillery that's bringing something special to Irish whiskey.

Seems that liked this better than most others. Maybe I was just in the right mood. Nose: Pretty rich and earthy for something that is also recognizably bourbon. Standard Jim Beam peanut shells and cherry show up on the nose and run into the palate. Palate: Some cinnamon spice, but definitely not as spicy as a heavy rye bourbon. The oats show up, though they don't dominate. If someone gave this to me blind and then told me it was Jim Beam, I'd believe them, but ask what happened to it. It's like they put a spoonful of slow-cooked oats and brown sugar into a bottle of slightly high-proof Beam. You may not love it but it's hard to dislike. Finish: The spice and sugar drop off fairly quickly leaving an oily finish behind. I liked that. Overall: I'm glad I tried this, but I'm also glad I bought it for $20 off the MSRP of $50. It's got more character than a lot of bourbons and is a nice variation on the standard Beam style, but paying full price is about the rarity of the bottle and not because it's exceptional. In other words, good whiskey, if not a great value. Note: $50 is for 375 ml.

Nose Like a toasted merengue. There's a distinct sense of white sugar, but slightly browned. Fairly simple. Palate Reminds me of nothing more that a creme brulee is had one time where lavender had been slightly boiled in the cream. Like that, but if you had over-flamed the sugar on top. Quite nice, really. For a slightly-elevated proof, there isn't much burn, but it has some backbone. Finish More creme brulee that tapers off into some oak tannins. Not as heavily-oaked as you'd expect from something this old Overall I bought this as something like a birthday present for myself because I wanted to taste a really old whisky. If that's your situation and you're willing to drop $120 on half a bottle of whisky in order to satisfy your curiosity, then I recommend it. There's nothing earth-shattering here, but you won't be left with an un-drinkable novelty, either. It does just a few things and it does them all quite well.

Nose Good bit of spice and char, but also red fruit, like cherry or plum. Palate It's like barrel-finished French toast with cherry compote: sweet maple syrup, whipped cream, and cinnamon, along with a distinct charred note bringing heft and body to a whiskey that's only about 5 years old. Finish Long and unsurprisingly sweet, after the palate. It just fades from the spicy char to the fruity, vanilla sweetness, leaving just a hint of spice behind. Overall In appearance and taste, this whisky gives a surprising suggestion of a wine-cask finish, even though it isn't. The closest thing I can compare it to is the Knob Creek 15 year, even in spite of the big difference in age. It compares favorably to Woodford Double Oaked, but I think it avoids the tart tannins that take some of the fun out of the Woodford, though the price is the same. I generally don't like wheated bourbons, but, after doing a tasting at the distillery, this is the only bottle I bought there.

Nose Caramel and floral, like jasmine. Some buttery cinnamon and zinc in the background. Palate Medium-bodied and spicier than the sweetness of the nose suggested, but it's a cinnamon spice, so it's not harsh. More bitter, metallic grain taste than I'd expect from an 18 year old. Fairly simple mix of sweet and spicy. Finish Quick and thin. Everything on the palate just fades down to a watery bitterness. Overall This is probably a better whisky than it sounds, but it's also the worst 18 year-old scotch I've had. It's probably more disappointment than anything else that's affecting my opinion. I ended up pouring some of it down the drain just so I could move on to another bottle of whisky. I found this at Total Wine and More and was curious to try something I've never heard of, but I think most standard mid-shelf scotch blends like Buchanan's 12 or Grand Old Parr are better. This can't hold a candle to Dewar's 15, which usually costs less.

This is a small batch (306-bottle) release that was selected by Pearson's Wine and Spirits in Washington, D.C.  Catoctin Creek took a 3 year, 92-poof barrel of their rye and and finished it in a Laphroaig cask for 6 months. Nose:  A bit of the old bookstore funkiness that I recognize in Catoctin Creek, along with some of the typical cinnamon, vanilla, and herbal notes that you get with a typical rye.  No discernable smoke. Palate:  Comes on like a fairly young rye, but also has a butteriness to go with a cinnamon and black pepper taste.  The peat influence is pretty subtle, at first, and only builds after repeated tastes.  The major effect of the Laphroaig Cask is to make the Catoctin Creek more robust and complex. Finish:  This is where the peat is most-notable.  The spice lingers, but is joined by a restrained, but clear smoke note.  If I didn't know how this whiskey had been peat-cask finished, the taste would probably be a bit mysterious.  As it is, it's like running into an old friend at a bar when you weren't expecting him. Overall:  This is a really welcome effort by Catoctin Creek and I wish they'd make it a standard part of their line-up.  They took the whiskey out of the second barrel at the right time, not overdoing the Laphroaig finish.  The rye still serves as the main event, with the Laphroaig enhancing the best things about the Catoctin Creek.  I think this would be good for people who prefer rye in general and are looking to try something a little different.  Reasonable price, too, for a rare whiskey.

Nose: Red fruits; smoked cherry and a little plum. A surprising touch of lavender and honey. Palate: Smoked cherries become stronger, along with a general sweetness like clover honey. The proof makes it all quite robust and not as delicate as it may sound. Finish: Like many blends, the grain whiskey comes in strongest on the finish. Slightly bitter, but with a nice vanilla creaminess that wasn't present on the nose or the first part of the palate. It leaves the impression of a bold cherry cream soda that someone put a few drops of liquid smoke into. General: This has all of the things that are good about the Glasgow blend, but turned up a notch. It's such a pleasing combination of smoky, fruity, and creamy that I do think you could drink it any way you like, as it says on the label. Water just brings out more creaminess and I think it would hold up OK to an ice cube. It would make a solid contribution to any cocktail you put it in. The only reason I didn't give this whisky 5 stars is because, though it's a solid daily drinker, the proof and boldness wear a little thin if you do drink it regularly. It doesn't have the complexity of a 5-star whisky, but it's good for the price.

Nose: Bright, lavender, and somewhat buttery. Whiff of smoke, like burning fresh wood. Palate: Lots going on. Almost tastes different every time you drink it, but it's comparable to a Speyside whisky. Honey and lavender are at the front with some vague fruitiness. The smoke from the nose shows up on the back end like burning cherry wood. Finish: At first the finish makes a good impression, but it grows old on repeated drinking. It's quite complex, but the dominant notes from the palate taper off into something slightly sour and bitter like flat beer and that's what leaves the lasting impression. Overall: This is the most-sophisticated American Single Malt I've had and I think that's what makes such a strong impression on most people. For that, I give it 4 stars because it's definitely good for an ASM and I'm comparing it within that category. Unfortunately, it can cost $100 or more. If I compare it with other whiskies in that price range, especially scotches, it's more like 3 stars. This doesn't hold a candle to Balvenie 12, for example, which can cost half as much. Over time, I expect this whisky will improve in later editions because the distillation part seems to be going well. I think improvements will come on the barrel management side as the distillate ages and St. George can vat in some more-mature batches.

Nose: Spicy and syrupy.  A bit of alcohol burn. Palate:  Cinnamon, but in an Atomic Fireball way, not a cinnamon roll way.  There's a good amount of sweetness on the palate, but the spice is a parallel experience. There's a funky character that feels a bit like sticking your head in an old whiskey barrel and breathing deeply. Finish:  Looong and sweet.  This reminds me a little of their hickory-finished rye in how the finish is so long and syrupy.  The spice on the palate fades pleasantly and you're left with a nice warming sensation that's not just from the proof.  Adding water: This is a good whiskey, but I wondered what the fuss was all about until I added water. Water opens everything up and makes it easier to find all the good parts in the drink, drawing out the better characteristics and taking some of the sharpness out of the heat.  The funk I mentioned earlier turns into a pleasant earthiness or something like an old bookstore full of leather-bound books.  It seems funny to have to reach for so much poetry to describe a whiskey, but this is the most-complex rye I've had. Overall: From the first sip, this tastes like a Catoctin Creek rye and nothing else.  Catoctin Creek has a unique, baked-goods-and-earthy character to it that you don't get with other ryes.  That alone should reassure you that you aren't getting just another one, but at a higher price. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars is because I wish I didn't have to guess at the proper amount of water to add to get all of this good stuff to show up. Also, this stuff is pretty expensive and hard to find. But you could say worse about a whiskey.