Tastes

I've recently put myself in an inconvenient position of being unable to mentally pass on from one distillery to another leaving the most of its off-the-shelf range whiskies untried, so here's yet one another review about the lot offered by the newly reformed Loch Lomond distillery. Due to the scotch whisky regulation issues LL Single Grain cannot be considered to be a single malt though they use only malted barley during the production. The reason is simple and it lies beyond all the adequate measures - at Loch Lomond they use way too many different techniques so it's hard to tell if the malted barley that has undergone the continuous distillation in a Coffey still can still be considered a single malt at the end of the process. Well, off we go to the whisky itself. It definitely has much from both single malt and single grain types of whisky and still it remains a whisky from Loch Lomond what becomes obvious as soon as you open the bottle. Aroma is full of bright vanilla, even Vanilla Coke as vanilla here is massive, heavy and biting. Also there are some ripe peppery-sweet yellow apples and pears. It lacks of a certain complexity relevant to all the single malts but still is a better piece of a whisky-art then Girvan for example (no matter how many years this bloody Girvan has been matured in oak casks). The taste is bold and aggressive with sour notes, fresh herbs, vanilla and some oriental delights such as baklava and rahat-lokum. The finish is nice, short and warming and it also delivers a vodka style so familiar from the Girvan tasting. LL Single Grain is nice in overall and I place it higher than LL Original Single Malt but that's only because the Original was a bit of a disappointment. As I see it, the single grain whiskies have already lost a war against single malts over the market no matter how much some of the big companies try to start this "matured single grains are no worse than classic single malts" trend.

Light golden wheat-y colour. Butter cream, rich vanilla, wood and true white wine-ish aroma to the nose. It also has some distinct grain spirit aroma. Same to the tongue at the start. Creamy, mouthfilling, candied and blanket taste with a true “vodka” finish at the edge of the tongue and on the palate. Aftertaste is short and satisfying. A bit bitter on a palate. Some vanilla, wood and grain too. It seems to really diverse to single malts or blended whiskies mostly by its ultimately different grain nature which gives something of a distinctive (again somewhat a candied) vodka style. In second tasting it reveals even some steak meat tones to the nose.

A little less passionate compared to the extraordinary 10 y.o. version. To the nose: heavy peat, many fresh notes and orange peel. The taste is same - very peated; pleasantly sweet on the edges of the tongue, some citrus, deep smoked barley; but somewhat pale relatively to the 10 years version. Finish is decent - smoky, mouthfilling, “oily”; there is some barley too. It seemed to be very likely to Ledaig 10 y.o. The second tasting reveals much more mature and sweeter nature (same bottle, after 2 months since opening - does not seem to deteriorate). Cool. With a touch of water it gives you some more citrus and cream. Well-deserved 4.

Deep and complex. Sharp and heavy at first but then it reveals its full sharm by enhancing the warmth and showing some mildness in character. The nose is mid-peaty and a bit smoky, also some feebly-marked spirituous notes. The malt comes next and so do the various sweet notes (some honey, fresh red apples) but they are all secondary to the nose. At first sip you get all the peatyness and the bonfire smoke but after comes the complex yet sweet taste of baked cake with apples or maybe a cheesecake. A handful of caramel, a bit of toffee. Fruits, a coating of chocolate, surely some citrus. The aftertaste is not that gentle, it contains tons of smoke, peat and a bit of spices.

Stunning colour. Deep dark as though it was heavily poured with iodine. The nose is powerfully warm, full and alluring so one might not back away from the glass and then really get dizzy. Aroma is full of really dry and a bit bitter raisins, prune, dark chocolate, black currant, burnt sugar and almond. Polish and citrus zest notes typical to Auchentoshan are recognizable in Three Wood but they tie up with that plummy bitterness though. With time it starts to reveal some splendid sticky-sweet dried ashberry and chokeberry aroma and it even has a light but piquant jojoba oil fragrance-alike scent. The taste correlates with the aroma - full bodied, warm, complex and sweet - unputdownable. The citrus hints and bitterness are a bit more expressed so are the sugar and prunes as well. Some spices, fig, syrupy cherries (sherry cask influence), licorice and creamy biscuits. The finish is all sweet again. Not very long with a bitter end on a palate. Auchentoshan Three Wood is one of the sweetest malts I’ve ever tried so it might be compared to bourbons in its sweetness and not lose a game in that case.

Very interesting and unusual. Light golden colour with some brown flake. Cloves and dark honey are primary to the nose. Then come tones of fresh green apples (as it is with Balblair, also a vintage), some citruses, vanilla and caramel. The taste is totally smooth, even watery, no spiritous notes at all. Pleasant, mouthfeeling but not very well balanced. Again - much honey, apples, a bit of spices. Finish is real good. It can be truly identified with bourbon (Buffalo Trace, perhaps) if we'd judge it only by its aftertaste. It’s long, sweet, full of nuts and wild berries. Glenrothes is ultimately satisfying, intriguing (mostly due to its incredible aroma) but lacks a bit of a balance. A perfect whiskey to get acknowledged with the distillery and not a bad partner for a lonely night or cigar.

Very light and simple and quite enjoyable example of a classic speyside single malt. Light golden colour, rich creamy vanilla and fresh apples to the nose. Same to the tongue. Again very light, sweet, a bit “watery” perhaps, almost without any of spiritous hints. Finish is also sweet with fruity hints and oak on a palate; not very long yet satisfying. These all make it a simple but still a gentle and a pleasant whisky - a one to drink from day to day but definitely not to keep it as a part of a solid collection. I may call it quite similar to the Glenlivet Founders Reserve.

The nose is warm, sweet, heavy sherry with some wine-ish hints, but a bit sharp and “thin” because of strongly marked spiritous notes. Definitely raspberry or even raspberry fruit-drink as well. The sweetness in the taste is truly overwhelming, it’s nutty, rich with creamy vanilla but again - a bit sharp with pure alcohol notes and bitter on a palate. Some fruits, spices, even watermelon too. It possesses the same structure to the original Tullamore Dew - it’s sharp, poorly balanced, spiritous but now with a gentle touch of elegance and mildness which probably the 12 y.o. maturation in old bourbon and oloroso sherry oak casks gives to a whiskey. Aftertaste is decent but nothing more than that. Some nuts on the tongue, dry oak on a palate. Very easy-drinking whiskey but not the one to truly appreciate.

Colour is well brewed black tea but with no frills and with some pale orange/red shade. The nose is sharp but not spiritous at all, it’s heavily spiced with many fruity and flowery notes. Might be described as a sour fresh berry tyrolean pie. Traditionally some vanilla, butterscotch and even banana. This will sound absolutely nonsense but I definitely feel the vibe of some threadbare dusty commode. The taste is boisterous in spice again, some varnish (like in Auchentoshan), wood, tobacco, lemongrass dominating on a palate, also some fruity/vanilla and butterscotch sweet. And something like a “iodine brown sugar syrup”. Finish is watery sweet with some dry and bitter notes, some citrus zest; lasts fairly long. In overall it might be described as a more spiced typical middle-aged highlander. Or as an unpeated version of Inchmoan 12 what is probably an absolute true.

The original Wild Turkey is a telling example of how average an all-time classic straight bourbon can really be and why the word "classic" is a bit overestimated in terms of whiskey. To the nose - chocolate, plum, fresh grass, a bit spiritous. To the taste - smooth “straight” bourbon to the core with silky hints of caramel, spices and raisins. Finish is unimpressive and very predictable. Tbh I liked it in a manner and it's a decent drink so to say but I'd rather replace it with a less promoted but more remarkable bourbon since there's some in the market.