Tastes

This was my first bottle from Ardbeg. I was searching for an Islay scotch to try when I first started drinking scotch and while Ardbeg 10 year seemed to be the safe choice, I read a ton about this bottle, so I decided to forgo the 10 year and go with this one. I was blown away when I first tried it, which quickly led to buying the 10 year (which is also very good). The nose hits you quickly with the peat, some vanilla, spices and sherry. On the palate you get hit with the peat, but it opens up to reveal citrus peel and some sweetness. It definitely has some heat to it, which isn't unexpected given the high ABV. The finish is very long with smoke, pepper and a touch of bitterness. I typically don't add water when I'm drinking scotch neat, but with the higher than usual ABV, I did try it with a couple drops and it does seem to tone down the burn and add a touch of raisin and fig on the palate. Either way though, it is a very balanced scotch and while not for everyone, since it does lean heavily into the peat, I still think it's one of the better offerings from Ardbeg.

The Macallan 18 year is the first single malt that I ever bought that was over $100. I had heard great things about it and so after getting a promotion, I dropped nearly $180 on it. Thinking back, I wish I had bought more than one bottle because it continues to rise in price and while it may not be as outstanding as I remember, it's still a very good whisky. Right off the bat you smell the sherry influence, with heavy fruit, like raspberries or strawberries. On the palate you get the oak with some nice cherry notes, along with some stone fruit, thinking apricots. It has a very rich and smooth feel to it. The finish is pretty long, with little to no burn and some nice tobacco and chocolate notes. It may not be as good as the 25 year, but for the value (tough to say that when it costs well over $200) it's probably the better option. I may be a bit biased with this one seeing as it was the first big purchase I ever made, but I still think it holds up and is a very good single malt scotch.

I reviewed the 80 proof Old Overholt rye a while back so when I saw that they increased the proof I figured I would give it a try. For less than $20, I would say this is a very solid value. The nose features the typical bread like notes along with vanilla. I wasnt very impressed with the nose to start but the palate is solid with cloves, nutmeg, butter and dark cherry. It is a touch thin, but nowhere near as bad as the 80 proof version. The finish is pretty short with little burn, some sweetness and pepper. I will say this is a considerable improvement on the 80 proof. It may not be that complex, but it's a very good value and may be an everyday no fuss dram candidate. Is it better than Rittenhouse or Bulleit, no, but for the cost it's hard to complain. It even is decent in citrus forward cocktails. Removing the price, it's a 3 but with the value component I'm bumping it to a 3.25.

I'm not a huge fan of drinking rye whiskies neat but I do love them in cocktails so I figured I would try this one to see if it can surpass my go to rye (Rittenhouse). The nose was pretty surprising with mint, oak and a fruity note that I couldnt put my finger on. On the palate it has a touch of sweetness but a ton of traditional rye bread and a kick of spice. The finish isn't terribly long but features the oak and pepper. At 95% rye, you definitely get that spice kick. Do I like it better than Rittenhouse, not really but it's close and maybe equal to it neat. I still prefer the higher proof Rittenhouse in cocktails though (plus it's much cheaper than this), so I'm going to go with a 3.5 but still a solid dram and definitely one to consider if you like your everyday dram to be a rye whiskey.

The low end offering from Four Roses, the yellow label is a pretty good value bourbon. I would even go as far as to say a great everyday dram. The nose is a bit boring, oak, heat and a bit of green apple. On the palate though it opens up. I get strawberries, touch of caramel and rye bread. It may be a touch thin, but very smooth. The finish has a nice spicy kick to it with only a little bit of burn. Again, it's a great everyday bourbon. It may not be crazy complex, but for $20 it's hard to beat the value. As a cocktail ingredient, it holds it's own. The lower proof doesnt make it ideal for some spirit forward cocktails, but those with citrus juice seem to work well. Overall though, very solid value and quite useful for the home bar.

I have never been a big fan of Dewars, so I had pretty low expectations for their 12 year and while it was better than I thought, I still wouldnt go out of my way to have it again. The nose leads with smoke and orange peel and after a bit I get some dried fruit, maybe apricot. The first sip i get green apple and some light peat. It definitely is sweeter than expected. The finish has decent length, with a light burn, salt and spice. I can see this as an everyday dram, but I didnt find it all that interesting. At the cost, which isnt too bad, I would still stick to Johnnie Walker or Famous Grouse.

Compass Box is my favorite blended whiskey company. They rarely disappoint, however in recent years they have continued to release expensive, limited edition bottles, which is making it tough to continue to support them. Even more annoying is how limited some of these releases really are. In many cases you dont even see them in stores for more than a day. Despite this though, I cant say any of these bottles have been bad by any stretch, some even great. For this series James Saxon/Jill Boyd and company attempt to dispel the wrong assumptions that many have around scotch. For the most part, I think they achieved this. The first bottle in the series is from Balblair, a distillery that I have never tried before. While solid, I was not as impressed with this bottle. The nose is probably the best part of this bottle, leaning heavily on pineapple and tropical fruits, as well as peach and lemon peels. The palate is very sweet and quite rich with some honey and malt. The finish has decent length, with a touch of pepper and minimal burn. I tried all three of the Myths and Legend series, which may be why I liked this one the least. It just didnt have the complexity or uniqueness I was seeking. By no means is it bad, but the other two are much better.

I really enjoyed this bottle in the Myths and Legend series. The idea behind this bottle was to illustrate that blending single malts from one distillery influences the final flavor not the region. I think they accomplished this goal. The nose starts with black tea (maybe assam leaves) and dried stone fruits. The palate is surprisingly light and a bit creamy. It's not even close to as sweet as the first entry. The tropical fruits are very pronounced, with a hint of baking spices. The finish has decent length, with little to no burn. After the first bottle in the series, I was very impressed with this one. The silky smooth taste was pleasantly surprising and while it may not be as complex as III, it's still very good. Is it worth the money, maybe not, but you could do much worse.

Of the three Myths and Legend bottles, this is my favorite, albeit just barely over II. The addition of Highland Park and Caol Ila to the components of II provide just the right amount of peat to make it the better of the two in my opinion. The nose hits you with smoke, green apple and a bit of citrus peel. On the palate I get sea salt, honey, caramel and peat, although not an overwhelming amount. It's very well balanced. The finish is the longest of the three and has some spice, sulfur and only a touch of heat. Overall, I really enjoyed the last two bottles in the series, less so the first one. The prices for these are a touch high, especially for the first one but if I had to choose one I would pick this but if you are not a fan of peat, then I would go with II. I nearly picked the second one as my favorite but the finish put this one over the edge for me.