Tastes
-
J. Riddle Peated Bourbon
Bourbon — Michigan, USA
Reviewed January 23, 2018 (edited January 25, 2018)So, I decided to rifle through some samples that have piled up lately and I found this local, craft bourbon that was sent to me by my friend Paul, of suburban Detroit. It’s a local distillery to him (Two James Spirits) and I believe he’s sent me 2-3 samples from these guys that were initially made from sourced distillate. This one is supposedly their first use of some good ole, home grown sauce. It has a mash bill of 79% corn and 21% of peated barley that was sourced from the U.K. So, this is basically a peated bourbon. It should be interesting. It’s 91 proof and I believe it is chill filtered. The nose is heavily bourbon influenced with oak and vanilla taking the forefront before slight wisps of smoke and earthy peat moss mingle in. There’s also an underlying sweetness reminiscent of honey and sugary cereal that lingers when you give it time to breathe. Pretty good nose. The palate is grassy, earthy with a heavy dose of malted barley. It falls kind of flat here and feels very uninspired. The smokiness is seriously muted and a strange, weird taste creeps in that wasn’t present on the nose: it threw me a curveball that I couldn’t detect even after multiple attempts. By then the sample was gone so I just gave up on trying to determine exactly what it was or what it resembled. It left me perplexed. The finish is short and heavy on the corn. It’s plenty smooth, but not lively at all. I’d like some zip at this point, especially at 91 proof, but it never came. I think it needs more time in the barrel but then I believe any trace of smoke would be lost and therefore render this “peated bourbon” without much peat. Thanks to @Generously_Paul for sending me something I’d never get to experience. I think Two James has potential, I just think they shouldn’t focus on experimental stuff at this point and prioritize their base whiskey before trying more of these one-offs. But, that’s just my $0.02. Cheers, my friends. -
Well well well, it appears I’ve reached the 200 review milestone here on Distiller. I wonder what perks I’ve unlocked. Nothing, @Distiller? Fair enough. So, I keep looking through Jim Beam’s product line for variations to my bourbon and Coke cocktails that I enjoy when I’m not sipping on single malt scotches. I normally just buy a half gallon of the standard White Label, but I’ve recently been experimenting a bit with the Bonded (100 proof) and now this Double Oak. I need to give the Distiller’s Cut a go soon before I truly decide if a change from the standard is in order. The Double Oak is 86 proof and advertises being normally aged in charred, white oak barrels and then being transferred to freshly charred oak for a second maturation. I’m not sure of the lengths of time for either maturation and I’m actually not all that interested in doing the work to try to find out. Needless to say, this bottle doesn’t work for me as a cocktail. It’s too “woody” to play well with Coca Cola. I went ahead and did a dram neat so I can see what’s what. This is a review of that dram. The nose is wood and char with quite a bit of spiced vanilla. The palate is smooth enough but there’s just too much oak to even make it enjoyable as a sipper. The finish is still kind of short and, dare I say, boring. I wouldn’t want to drink this on a regular basis and I even poured the last couple of drams down the drain. For the record- I wasn’t a fan of the Woodford Reserve Double Oaked whiskey, either. I guess it’s just too too much. It doesn’t play well with Coke. The heavy oak presence feels artificial and the only way to calm it is to add more cola. I normally like to add a splash just to enhance the bourbon but this can’t be accomplished without turning this into a overly sweet mess of a drink. So, in conclusion, it’s a no as a neat sipper and a no as a mixer. I think I have to get a bottle of Distiller’s Cut and give it a go or just declare the Bonded as the winner. This is one I would avoid. I hate giving it a bad score because I love Jim Beam, but this one isn’t worth the price to play. 2 stars, if I must. Cheers.
-
I had a great time drinking my way through this cheap, NAS bottle from one of my favorite budget distilleries: Tomatin. This bottle has been rebranded for its release here in North America. Here it’s called “Dualchas”. I don’t know what that means or why it was necessary to rename it, but it is the exact same single malt they call Legacy everywhere else around the world. Shrugs. This stuff is aged in a combination of ex-bourbon casks and new, virgin oak casks and then blended together before bottling. I didn’t see any indication of possibles ages here, but based on flavor profile and how insanely smooth it is I’d guess it’s between 6-8 years old. The nose it typical Highland style: lightly dusted apples, vanilla and oak spices. All indicators of the casks in play here. The palate has plenty of wood notes (especially pine) and a little sugary lemon. It feels pretty smooth, if a little thick, on the tongue. There’s nothing harsh or offensive at all. It’s solid from start to finish. Speaking of finish, it’s short to medium in length, sweet before becoming a tad bit dry. Overall, this is the definition of a baseline whisky from Tomatin. It’s surely “crushable” to me, as I believe I worked through this entire bottle in about 2 weeks. I used this as a primer for my tasting sessions and even cleaned up with it after a night of heavier-than-usual sipping. It was easy to reach for this one. If you factor in that this bottle can be bought for less than $30 everywhere- that makes it a winner. If you don’t go in expecting big things I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. I would take this bottle over every single bottom shelf blended whisky and feel like I hit the VFM lottery. 3 stars for the whisky with a half star bump for the value. 3.5 stars, my friends. Cheers.
-
Balblair 1999 2nd Release
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed January 8, 2018 (edited July 25, 2019)I’m beginning to wind down the samples that were sent to me as part of our fourth round of the Distillery Tour group. This Highland malt from Balblair is the second edition of the 1999 vintage. I believe this is considered a 15 year old single malt, I’m just not sure why it’s not openly declared on the labeling. This malt comes in with a slightly elevated ABV of 46%. I’m also not sure whether it’s NCF’d or has additional coloring added. It’s a beautiful gold color and gives you some silky, skinny legs in the Glencairn. The nose opens with faint oak and it isn’t until you really give it 25-30 minutes that you are rewarded with some sweet honey and sherry notes. There’s a bit of spice cake in there if you really invest the extra time and energy required to extract it. The palate is seriously complex with a sensational, full mouthfeel. It starts with vanilla and apples and transverses between sweet and light spices frequently during the entire sip. It’s mesmerizing. The finish is medium to long, constantly warming yet incredibly smooth. Overall, this is a Highland malt I could seriously get behind and purchase over and over and be completely happy with it from one bottle to the next. It won’t WOW you with surprises, but you could reach for this one during every session and just be thoroughly content every time. Thanks to my new buddy, @Telex for this sample. Excellent choice! 4.25 stars. Cheers. -
Glengoyne 12 Year
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed January 4, 2018 (edited January 5, 2018)Well, it’s back to working my way through the Scottish Distillery Tour group samples after taking a bit of a holiday break whilst breaking open a few new bottles of my own. This time it’s Glengoyne 12 year old. This one was supplied by my friend Scott, from Long Island. It’s a Highland malt, 43% ABV and is a golden yellow in color and produces runny, oily legs in the tasting glass. The nose is atypical of a Highland malt: caramel & toffee apple, tropical fruits, honey sweetness with a touch of charred oak barrel shining through. The palate starts out smooth, with some milk chocolate notes, that return back towards the nose with honey and vanilla. The oak is restrained here because the mouthfeel turns a bit flat. I wouldn’t call it oily, it just reminds me of a flat, soda pop type of feeling. Let’s just say it’s the opposite of lively. The dram kinda falls on its face here. It’s a shame because the nose and initial sip were solid. The finish is long and slippery, but quickly turns bitter. A very unpleasant bitter. Dammit. Overall, this one just doesn’t cut the mustard when it comes to highland style single malts. The nose starts out promising but the palate and mouthfeel don’t deliver, while the finish really kills it with the bitterness. Thanks to @Scott_E for this sample, but I just think that you may have to climb higher into the age statement offerings here if you want to see a Glengoyne that shines. 2.75 stars. Cheers. -
I went ahead and added this newest Compass Box release to my little side by side comparison of Peat Monster and Peat Monster Cask Strength. Why you ask? Well, because it’s written on the packaging for No Name that this was CBW’s peatiest scotch yet and it was a natural progression up from Peat Monster- that’s why. So, me being a (humble) scotch connoisseur- it just felt right to have it there. Thankfully, my brother from another mother- @PBMichiganWolverine, had sent me a sample back in November. Now, I also have to add that I wasn’t expecting too awful much from this bottle. I’ve heard all the “peatiest yet, most powerful, blah blah blah” jibber-jabber and thought it was just posturing. Plus, I’ve had lots and lots of Octomore. Boy, oh boy... Let’s start from page one, though. The ingredient list is quite tantalizing: 75% Ardbeg, 10.5% Caol Ila, 13.5% Clynelish and just under 1% of CBWs base blend (Clynelish, Teaninich and Dailuaine blended together and aged longer in French oak casks). That’s a big percentage from all the smokiest players on Islay. I believe CBW even re-charred the casks from those guys and aged the final blend a bit longer. Impressive stuff. Guess what, fam? It delivers. The nose is flat out amazing. It took a little while longer than usual for it to really open up, but when it did it told a story like my mama used to read to me when I was a little boy. The nose builds anticipation like no other Compass Box before it. It’s floral, smoky as hell and then the candied fruits and red berries appear. Boy, it really teases you along. It even disappears briefly before returning sweeter, then smokier, then sweet again. It’s a real page turner of a scotch. The palate opens with a smokiness on par with Peat Monster before a lovely fruitiness arrives that’s reminiscent of a certain Lowland distillery. The floral notes, too. It forms a delicate balance and never gets ahead of itself, never gets harsh. I almost don’t believe this whisky is almost 49% ABV, either. Do Not Add Water To This Whisky. Or at least wait until after you’ve tried it neat. It doesn’t need to be cooled a bit. The finish is medium length but I have to say that this is the juiciest, most mouth watering finish I think I have ever experienced in a scotch, single malt or blend. It is an amazing achievement. This is also as close as I think we may ever see Compass Box get to mimicking a peated, port barrel finished whisky. And my motto is that port and peat play perfectly when paired. This blend nearly accomplishes that without a port barrel. In conclusion, this whisky cracked my Top 6 favorite whiskies of all time and is also better than This Is Not A Luxury Whisky. Which had been my favorite CBW to date. It’s easily a 5 star dram. Now I have to just figure out how many of the 15,000 available bottles I need to hoard. I gotta go, I can hear my credit card whimpering. What’s $129 times 6? Find this bottle and experience it for yourself. It’s worth every penny. Cheers, my friends.
-
Compass Box The Peat Monster Cask Strength
Blended Malt — Scotland
Reviewed January 2, 2018 (edited September 16, 2021)I’ve been eyeing this crazy, magnum (1.75L) bottle ever since I bought it back in 2016. I told myself I was going to open this one around the holidays and do a side by side with the standard CBW Peat Monster. Well, tonight is the night. And what the hell, why not open CBW’s newest peaty beast, No Name, and make it a three-way... Peat Monster Cask Strength is just what the name implies: everybody’s favorite Peat Monster just as it comes from the proverbial teet. It’s a beastly 57.3% ABV, has no color added and is NCF’d like every CBW before it. It’s a pale yellow, oily slick that doesn’t make any legs in the glass. Peat Monster is made from a blend of 40% Laphroaig, 20% LeDaig and 13% Caol Ila from the Scottish Isles and Islay. There’s 26% Highland malt from Ardmore also mixed with a little of CBW’s base blend (Clynelish, Teaninich, Dailuaine). This special bottling was limited to 2,000 total bottles and was released in 2015. Good luck finding one now, though. I paid $165 for this half gallon monstrosity. The nose is smoky and salty with light toffee and caramel notes hiding some subtle vine fruits. The extra ABV adds some sting, but still doesn’t really get in the way like I thought it might. The palate is fruity with some bees wax and earthy peat and smoke that turns salty and drying around mid sip. The finish is long- mostly due to the extra horsepower from the cask strength. There’s a final briny malty aspect that rounds out the finale. Overall, it’s a fantastic dram that will make you see the genius behind John Glaser’s madness that is Peat Monster. The way he brings this down to the standard PM release is pure brilliance. Drinking it side by side with the regular PM made me go back and realize how wonderful that bottle is. Peat Monster is a bottle that belongs at every man’s bar. No questions asked. The cask strength version is a 4 star dram and the original PM is a lofty 4.5 stars. Try them both if you get the chance. Cheers. What about the 2017 release No Name, you ask? More on that in awhile... -
Macallan Classic Cut (2017 Release)
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed December 31, 2017 (edited October 17, 2019)It’s time for the newest, limited release Macallan: the Classic Cut. This fall 2017 special offering is a NAS re-imagining of the Cask Strength bottling from the early 2000’s. This bottle is even stronger, coming in at 58.4%. The thing is- I don’t think this is truly cask strength. It’s not a single cask and all bottles are the exact same ABV. This is just younger spirit that was probably blended down from somewhere just north of 60%. There is definitely color added because it’s a deep, rich mahogany in the glass. So, what we essentially have here is a test batch for the possible replacement of the standard 12 year old? If that is the case I kind of like it. Here in Virginia this bottle is only $21 ($89+ tax) more than the 12. I’d gladly pay that for the increased ABV. There isn’t much else different between the Classic Cut and the age statement 12 year sherry cask. The nose is red berries, raisins and sugary malt with the extra heat blocking much of the oak. Which, let’s be honest, is probably a good thing when it comes to younger spirit. I’m guessing this stuff is between 7-9 years old. The palate still has the dominating Macallan flavor profile along with a solid showing from some well selected sherry wine casks. I was hoping for a harder hitting version of the Rare Cask, but that didn’t materialize. It’s just a harder version of the 12 year. The reason I say I expected Rare Cask is because the labeling on the bottle and box is kind of similar to what they advertise for Rare. And who wouldn’t love a Rare Cask clone for 1/3 of the price? The finish is long, long, long. The drying aspect of the oak is the only flaw I can actively find. Almost every Macallan I’ve tried (minus the Fine Oak series) leaves your mouth oily and watering. This one cannot do that because of the strength. I’ve come to expect that mouth watering feel from Macallan but it isn’t found here and that’s disappointing. Overall, I really enjoy this one. There’s plenty of bang for the buck, plenty of the Macallan-esque flavor profile, and extra oomph to get you across the finish line when you’re looking to “tie one on”. 4.25 stars. Cheers and Happy New Year, my friends. -
Ah, how do I begin to express my feelings about this simplistic Compass Box release: The Double Single? Well, suffice as to say that it took me nearly 2/3 of this bottle to finally get into the nitty gritty of this one. Maybe it was me, maybe palate fatigue, maybe just the change of seasons and the early onset of darkness that winter brings...who knows. It just took me awhile to warm up to this one. And I’m not sure I really did. Here’s the info: this is CBW trying to prove they can make a stellar blended whisky with just 2 simple ingredients- a well-aged single malt and a mass produced single grain. The single malt is 19 year old Glen Elgin and it makes up 72% of this blend. The remaining 28% is grain whisky from Girvan. It’s bottled at 46% ABV and like all Compass Boxes it’s NCF’d and has no artificial color added. It’s a lovely champagne gold and makes skinny, fast forming legs in the tasting glass. It doesn’t appear very oily at all. The nose is dominated by salt-&-toffee-covered green apples with the tiniest bit of light oak mingling with the orchard fruitiness. No real hint of alcohol or general spirit here either. Light and enjoyable. The whisky greets your palate with what initially caught me as Wrigley’s Double Mint gum. There’s spearmint and menthol that fades away to apples and cereal malt. It has a salty mouthfeel as it dries on the tongue and begins to warm you the way any spirit should, but at no point did it feel smooth or oily. I would call it abrasive if you accept that I mean that in a neutral/good way. The finish is long and full of spices that nail down the salty, dry feeling you get right after you brush your teeth. You can actually feel the alcohol drying and evaporating off of the tongue. It’s very lively. Overall, if I just take into account (as John Glaser probably wants) that there is just 2 simple ingredients I would have to bow down and say it is a wonderful creation. If I take it as an entire CB whisky experience (like I want to) then I say it falls short for making a statement, like most other CBW whiskies do IMO. If I factor in the crazy price tag of $155- well, then I think I should start to deduct grades. It’s a valiant effort with a ridiculous price tag. I can’t say I’d replace this bottle either because you can find plenty of other blends that leave you wanting something more for a whole lot less. This isn’t a fail- it just isn’t a win for me. 3.75 stars. Cheers, my friends. Happy New Year, as well. Bring on 2018!
-
Glenglassaugh Torfa
Single Malt — Highlands, Scotland
Reviewed December 28, 2017 (edited April 21, 2019)I randomly selected another fine sample from our distillery tour samples last night. The Glenglassaugh Torfa was supplied by @Generously_Paul in this round. It’s their take on a peated whisky. It comes in at a strong 50% ABV and is a pale, straw color in the Glencairn. The nose is really smoky- BBQ’d bacon and brisket with a heavy sweet fudge and toffee hiding just behind it. There’s no sea air or salt notes here at all. Sweet barbecue smoke...and it is amazing. The first thing I noticed on the palate is that it’s velvety smooth. There’s smoke, chocolate and hints of vanilla. They dance around wonderfully and keep all of the heat well restrained, especially for a 100 proof whisky. The finish is sublime. There’s a very nice buttery warmth that just lingers on and on. Those same chocolate and toffee notes sort of dry coat the tongue and will stay there until you rinse them away. Overall, I really like this malt. The constant presence of underlying sweetness doesn’t sound like it should be there in a peated malt, but Glenglassaugh somehow makes it work. It’s a sweet dram, no doubt, but the smoky meats and peat really work here, too. This bottle runs about $70 and I think I could find room for this during some tasting sessions from time to time. It’s a solid whisky that I really recommend. It’s a good way to introduce a newbie to peated whisky. Thanks for the sample, Paul. 4.25 stars.
Results 321-330 of 529 Reviews