Tastes

Here I sit, staring lovingly at this bottle that I originally opened back in April at Whiskyfest DC to share with my pals, @Telex and @Generously_Paul, in our hotel room bottle share. I brought the bottle home, poured a few more samples for friends on my mailing list, and other than that the remains of this bottle have sat, unopened, ever since. 3 months of dust on the outside of the bottle and oxidation inside. I gotta get back inside this one. Now, I’ve had bottles of the 10, 15 and 17 year Fine Oak and found them all to be very good. The biggest discrepancy is the cost increase involved in going from the 15 to the 17- it was about $130. It wasn’t worth it. Both of those were 4 star drams, there just wasn’t of an enough increase in quality over those 2 years to justify doubling the price point. Cue this 21 year old- it’s $200 higher than the 17, at $425. Is it worth it? Well, to be blunt- hell yes it is! This is bottled at a standard 43% ABV and is a beautiful orange, gold in the taster. Big, thick and oily legs run down the Glencairn- teasing you like the most athletic stripper you’ve ever slid a fiver under her garter belt. Healthy droplets of water form after a minute or so- this has been blended down a bit. Why Macallan, why? The nose is so delicious. Dried, red berries and chocolate covered orange wedges, vanilla and caramel creme candies and the most luscious, sherry cask notes I think I’ve experienced in a Macallan. Even more so than the Rare Cask. The depth here is mind-blowing. I could nose this one until it evaporated away. Even some wood notes creep in if you keep your nose down in there. Incredible. The palate brings tropical fruits to a level that would make even the most fruity, Caribbean-island mixed drinks jealous. Orange marmalade, brown sugar, vanilla and more sweet sherry notes dance together almost too perfectly. It’s thick and oily on the tongue and actually felt like it stuck to my tongue at one point. The complexity with the wood tannins and slight ABV heat reel you back in and remind you you’re drinking whisky. It’s that instant that I think I fell in love with this dram. The finish is medium length and surprisingly wood forward. Here’s all the casks making their presence known, forming what amounts to the perfect trifecta: fragrant nose, luscious palate and satisfying finish. That’s how a perfect whisky wins the day, my friends. When you find one that does all 3 so well, well I guess you should stop. I can’t stop because I clearly have a problem, lol. Overall, this is hands down the best Macallan I’ve had to this point- and I’ve had quite a few. I can only imagine what the 30 year Fine Oak might taste like, but the $3500 price point makes that a lottery winning purchase only for me. This one, however, gets 5 glorious stars! Find a bottle, buy a pour and experience this one for yourself. It’s worth every penny. Cheers.

This review has been transferred over from the Barreled App. I initially reviewed this back in Nov of 2016: So, I'm down to about 4-5oz of the wonderful Macallan 15 year fine oak left and I really want to do a side-by-side comparison with the 17 year version. It's now or never... At first glance, there is a very noticeable difference in color. Both are a shiny, golden yellow with the 17 showcasing a slightly darker, shadowy hue as it sits in the Glencairn. Both come in at 86 proof and neither produce very noticeable legs after a vigorous swirl. Upon nosing them they both really bring fresh, vibrant oak to the forefront. There's a bit more sweet vanilla in the 15 year, while the 17 is nicely balanced between vanilla and sherry. Very nice. On the tongue, they both have a magnificent fresh oak blast that really makes you take notice. The smooth and refined Macallan flavor profile immediately pops to mind and I instantly love them both, equally. The finish is so luscious that you can't really go wrong with either one. Long, smooth and freaking delicious. It's so hard to bash the 17 year, even though it's substantially higher in price than the 15. I know the 17 is $230+ and that's expensive as hell. I'm reminded it's Macallan we are talking about here so you are expected to excuse the price tag and just remind yourself it's a luxury whisky. Well, I can't always do that but this time I gotta give them a pass. Pony up the money, fanboys. Its Macallan! Cheers. (Drops mic). Lol

This review has been transferred over from the Barreled App. I reviewed this way back in Sept of 2016: It seems like it's been a couple of months since I had a bottle of Macallan open. I finished the 10 year Fine Oak back in April/May of 2016 and immediately went out and bought the 15, 17 & 21 year versions because I enjoyed the youngest so much. I had to look back at my notes and reviews to see if I remembered any specific thoughts I wanted to compare with its older siblings. To be a triple oak barrel blend there is a surprising absence of wood on the nose. There's lots of sweet fruit and flowers with just a hint of oak and sherry cask. The oak waits until it rolls across your tongue, then it makes a big presence- vanilla and heavy spice. Just a tiny bit of raisiny sweetness before finishing pretty smooth like almost every Mac I've had. My notes lead me to believe the 15 is marginally better than the 10, and I wanna say the price point was only $20-30 more than the entry level of the fine oak series (the 15 was $70 IIRC). Unfortunately I don't have any 10 year laying around to do a proper side by side, but I'm pretty sure the 15 would win and be the one I'd recommend. I still have the 17 and 21 year on hand, so I think things are only gonna get better. I always recommend Macallan because they are the pinnacle of Highland/Speyside scotches IMO. Sadly, they know it and are almost always significantly more expensive than most of their neighbors. A lot of times though they really are worth it. This is easily a 4 star dram. Cheers.

What we have here is another sample from, what I like to call, Bunnahabhain’s Unpronounceable Series. This is a travel retail exclusive and I received a sample of this from my friend @Telex, after I traded this bottle to him for something else that escapes me right now. He was gracious enough to send me a hearty pour so I can review it. This is a deep gold in color with undefined legs that snake their way down the Glencairn after a vigorous spin. It leaves behind tiny, watery droplets even though it’s bottled at a hearty 50% ABV. I paid just over $110 for this 1L bottle from an online shoppe out of the UK. The nose has lots of campfire and creosote smoke initially. There’s a nice splash of red berries, but that charcoal note permeates the fruitiness. Then I get a hit of an odd, musty smell. It doesn’t belong at all- sometimes I get that same type of band aid note from a few Islay whiskies and I think it’s out of place. It’s not off-putting, it just doesn’t quite belong. Thankfully, it fades but so does the berry note- leaving just the smoke. The mouthfeel on the palate is nice. There’s smoky, earthy peat mingling with some fresh pastry notes. Those delicious red and black raspberries come along again. It’s a tad thick, especially for such a high ABV, but it works. The finish is medium to long, but it turns quite harsh and leaves a good bit of heat from the alcohol lingering longer than I’d like. The smoke is gone, the fruits are gone- it’s just abrasive alcohol. This is where some well-aged whisky needed to swoop in and save the dram- but it doesn’t and that’s a shame. Overall, it had a lot more potential than I think it capitalized on. The funky nose and high heat finish really hurt this one on the overall score. 3 stars. Cheers.

So, thanks to @Richard-ModernDrinking I am able to try a few more variations of the Compass Box Great King St Artist’s Blend Single Marrying Cask (whew, that’s a mouthful). This is Artist’s Blend refilled back into some of the casks used to make the original blend and aged for another year, then bottled at near cask strength. This particular cask (No 1) was bottled at 49% ABV and offers a deeper reflection of what the Artist’s Blend can be if left alone a little longer. It’s yellow gold in the Glencairn and appears somewhat watery with lots of runny legs that form quickly when you spin the glass. A nice oily slick remains awhile, but there still significant indication of water added to get the ABV down to bottling strength. It’s still 6% higher than the regular AB. The nose is initially grainy with nice pops of lemon zest. There’s a weaker oak profile throughout, but a nice juicy fruit gum note permeates the entire nosing. Waxy malt notes are present, as well. The palate is slightly fruitier than the original Artist’s Blend. It’s lemony smooth on the tongue with a nice, oak barrel backbone offering solid structure. This is better than the Bounty Hunter Cask #69 bottle that I purchased and reviewed a few months back. The finish is short, but oily and warm. I think I like this even better than the mass produced Artist and Glasgow Blends. Overall, this one is close to being a 4-star dram for me. The juicy notes kick it up a notch and it’s still waxy and velvety smooth like most Compass Box whiskies. It’s a shame this one is more limited because I wouldn’t mind having a bottle or two of this sitting behind the bar. Thanks again, Richard. I’m looking forward to the other samples you sent. Cheers.

My buddy @Generously_Paul sent me a pour of a 1792 Full Proof, Single Barrel that he acquired from a friend in the Georgia Bourbon Society. This bottle was 8 years, 3 months old and was bottled way back in 2016. I believe it was the same proof as all the Full Proof bottles- 125. It was a deep, rich mahogany and made tons of oily legs, while leaving behind quick forming, tiny droplets around the rim. The nose on this one caught me off guard every time I went in for a sniff: an odd, sulphuric rotten egg note was there every single time. I let this thing sit for almost 45 minutes- periodically going back in to see what the hell was going on. It was there every single time. It was very strange and funky, but once it disappeared I got everything I was expecting: wheat bread, sweet malt, butterscotch and lightly charred oak. I believe there was a hint of dill in there, too. I actually started chuckling every time I went in, knowing what was coming: wet farts. The palate was delightful and practically perfect, though. Toffee, chocolate and sweet wheat. There’s a sense of well-aged wood with every sip, too. Ultra smooth on the tongue, oily with little to no issues from the super high ABV. Great stuff. The finish was medium to long, warm and buttery while still being as smooth as a baby’s bottom. I could drink this all day- if I could find and afford it, that is. Thanks again to Paul for sending me this pour. It truly is spectacular. 4.5-4.75 stars. Near perfect. Cheers.

To say I was excited to get my hands on the newest Kilchoman: Port Cask Matured was an understatement. I had visions of the Laphraoig 2013 Cairdeas and BenRiach Solstice (both 4.5-5 star drams) dancing in my head. Every Kilchoman I’ve tried to date has been great to fantastic. I’ve been extolling how the whisky world will be a better place once these guys get some 12-15 year juice to market, blah blah blah. Well... The 2018 version of the Port Cask, the second edition I believe, is not a very good malt. I’ve drank craft beer for well over a decade and I have grown to love sour beers. When a brewery accidentally bottles a sour that hasn’t finished fermenting it develops diacetyl acid and ruins the flavor of the beer. It leaves behind a fake, popcorn butter flavor that overpowers everything else. I get this flavor in this new batch of Kilchoman Port Cask. It’s so buttery it actually masks most of the traditional, Kilchoman smoke (which is one of the best on Islay IMO). I get some wine sweetness on the very backend of the palate, but it’s all laced with that butter and rich toffee flavor and is almost undrinkable. I finished the bottle but it was mostly done chasing it with better whisky, as to wash the flavor away. This is bottled at 50% ABV and cost me just under $90 to get a bottle shipped in from the UK. I believe it’s headed to North America by the end of summer, but I recommend you leave it sitting on the shelf. It’s just not good. It hasn’t ruined future Kilchoman for me, I hope it’s just a blemish on their excellent track record so far. Spend your hard earned money elsewhere- buy a Loch Gorm or Machir Bay instead. 2 stars. Cheers.

I’ve been a big Tomatin fan ever since I tried their 14 year, port finished and French Oak offerings, then the Cu Bocan variations sealed the deal. These guys make some of the best, reasonably priced single malts on the market. Ironically, the older bottles I’ve tried didn’t deliver the goods like the younger ones (while also jumping in cost). My advice: stick to the 10-14 year olds with various finishing treatments and the Cu Bocan. I have a bottle of 25 year old, but I’m not exactly excited to open it. This 11 year old is from a single cask designated to Lukas Wine & Spirits out of Missouri. I threw this bottle in on a small order of Compass Box whiskies for the measly sum of $34. It’s obviously cask strength at 56.6% ABV and it continues the good vibes I get from other young, cheap Tomatin. I’m guessing they sample various casks 4-6 months prior to bottling the core 12 year and offer up some nicer ones for single cask, store pick bottles and market them by vintage year and as 11 year old juice. This one was ex-bourbon cask aged and is champagne gold in the glass. Cask strength means little or no legs and only tiny droplets forming around the rim when you spin it. Nice and oily appearance, too. The nose is typical Tomatin: lightly sweet vanilla, oak and pepper spices and a nice little pop from the ABV. It’ll burn if you inhale too deeply, but it still maintains a sweet vibe if you’re a little more gentle with it. Extra time doesn’t offer up much change. The palate is also warm to hot, depending on how you roll it across the tongue. The oak is the star of the show and I think this one would play very well for bourbon lovers. It tastes like some better bourbons I’ve had and subsequently had to pay significantly more for (I’m looking at you Woodford and Jefferson’s). It’s not as sweet as most “wheaters”, but not as corn forward as most bourbons. It’s in-between. The finish is short to medium and dry with oak tannins hanging around a bit too long, but somewhat expected. Overall, I can’t score this like some miracle whisky because there isn’t much complexity, but it delivers a steady, nice punch of flavor and power. I just checked the Lukas store website and they’ve lowered the price in attempt to move more bottles. It’s $30 now. At that price I recommend a buy- hell, buy 2. That’s a solid deal for an 11 year, cask strength anything! 3.5 stars, bumped to 3.75 due to value for money. Cheers. PS- As a whisky advocate I want to take a moment to encourage those of you here in the States to start harassing your congressman/congresswoman to do something about opening up shipping of beer/wine/spirits across all 50 states. These crazy laws that complicate and limit our buying power need to be eradicated. The current US President is a bit of a nut, but he does like to support American business and what better way to support them then by allowing people everywhere to get easier access to their product. Perhaps they’ll listen if we raise our voices a little. I’ll get off my soapbox now, lol. Man, I need a drink.

So, our little distillery sample group has reached the end of our quest with the final 10 distilleries to claim: two per person in our 7th round of trades. After so many mediocre malts I decided I wanted to send out two higher quality pours to wind this thing down. We had an agreement to spend a maximum of around $100-110 per bottle for this quest, but I splurged for this independently bottled Braeval offering. Samaroli is an Italian bottling company that typically chooses some crazy good casks for their line of products. This one is a 22 year old, ex-bourbon cask that cost me $209. Let’s see how it plays... Firstly, a bit of history for the Braeval Distillery. They were founded in 1973 by Seagram Distillers and were originally called Braes of Glenlivet, because of their desire to use the infamous water source nearby. They actually held their first mash before the distillery even had a roof over it- their Canadian owner was flying in and wanted to sample some new make ASAP. They were sold to Chivas in 2001 and subsequently mothballed from 2002-2008, before being refurbished and reopened. They currently do not offer a single malt bottling, but a few IBs had access to some casks in the early 1990’s. They currently are still used for blends and produce 4.2 million liters per year for Chivas. This is a beautiful, shimmering gold and makes a lot of skinny, runny legs in the tasting glass. It’s NCF’d and has no color added, while being bottled at 45% ABV. The nose is initially floral and oaky, but given some serious time (30+ minutes) some really great flavors begin to seep out: vanilla, marshmallow, sweet breads and light orchard fruit. The palate is very delicate but packs a lot of flavor: pears, golden delicious apples, sweet vanilla that’s velvety smooth and constant. Keeping it on the tongue allows the oak to slightly burn before turning a bit dry. The finish is medium and full bodied. It’s very balanced between oaky and sweet. It lingers on the dry side, but it isn’t harsh at all. A very delicate and complex sip from start to finish. Overall, it’s a fantastic offering from Samaroli and I can see why it’s so expensive. This was bottle 101 of 222 total. It won’t wow you with super complexity, but what it offers is very, very nice. Easily a 4.25-4.5, regardless of price. Great stuff. Cheers, my friends.

I had a pour of this one sent to me by a new friend out of the Boston area. I’ve heard good things about Whistlepig and I know the prices of their bottles have skyrocketed recently, so I was glad to get the opportunity to try this heavy rye whiskey. It’s a shiny, new penny copper in the highball glass and doesn’t form any legs when you give it a nice swirl- just some tiny beads at the top of the oily slick once the liquid settles back down. That’s a good sign. Now, anyone that knows me knows that I don’t really like American whiskey, in general, and especially rye. It takes a softer rye spice profile to win my approval, so please don’t take my overall score as an influencer over your purchase thoughts- especially if you love high rye juice. That said, let’s delve into this one... The nose started out very perfume-y for me with some very strong, yet clean oak pepper and spice. Faint rye bread swirls around the glass along with some nice florals. The first thing I noticed with the palate is how incredibly smooth it is- like buttah! Scary smooth with a delicate mouthfeel. I never thought I’d say that about a rye, but man it’s luscious. More rye bread and pepper with just a hint of dill spice here. Mid sip even feels more oily and tongue coating, which lead to a longer finish than I expected. A lingering, warm pepper hangs around until long after you wash away the sip. I think the thing I like the most is that this is a non-challenging rye. I can see where serious rye drinkers would bash this one for being too gentle, but the 15 year aging really calms what probably should’ve been a beast. I think I heard that bottles of this are going crazy on the secondary market, so I doubt I’d chase a full one- but every single time I got offered a pour I’d gladly accept and do my best Tiny Tim impression “please sir, can I have some more?” Good stuff. A big, hearty thank you to my Boston connection for this (he wishes to remain anonymous, but he will certainly read this). Daddy like. Daddy like, a lot. 4.5 stars. Cheers.