Tastes

This is the third installment in the Glenmorangie Legends Collection: The Tarlogan. It follows the previous releases of Duthac and Tayne. All 3 releases are travel retail exclusives designed to represent locations in and around the distillery. The Tarlogan is named for the Tarlogie water source used by the distillery. Its a blend of whisky that was matured in virgin oak and ex-bourbon casks. It’s a pale, straw yellow in the Glencairn and produces watery, thin legs and medium-sized drops after you give it a spin. It’s bottled at 43% ABV and I picked the bottle up online from Whisky World for $46. The nose starts with a lightly, charred oak, apples, pears and fresh muddled spearmint. There’s an intrusive menthol and eucalyptus note that permeates the entire dram before ultimately yielding to typical ex-bourbon barrel standards like vanilla, leather tannins and sawdust. The palate is a bit more adventurous: pears, banana bread, berry fruits and apples. The spirit is young and can’t be masked, especially when aged in virgin oak, so it’s naturally harsh and somewhat hot, even though it’s blended down to 43%. The thin mouthfeel allows all the abrasive aspects to wreak havoc on the tongue. The finish is medium-short and very dry. It ultimately tastes and feels like you’ve licked the inside of the cask. Wood, wood and more wood. Overall, I’ve tried the Duthac and found it to be just like this one: very middle-of-the-road and uninspired. Reviews of The Tayne lead me to believe it’s the best of the 3 Legends Collection releases and the one to seek out. This, unfortunately, is just more TRE/NAS mediocrity from Glenmorangie. I can’t recommend it to anyone other than ‘Morangie fanboys. 2.5-2.75 stars. Cheers.

Ah, home sweet home. There’s nothing like a locally produced spirit. Virginia Distillery Company is located in the mountainous region of Virginia, Nelson County to be exact, and they’ve quickly ramped up production on their own interpretation of Scottish single malt style whisky. They love Scottish whisky so much that they’ve blended it into their initial releases until their own whisky has matured enough to be released on its own. They take small amounts of Virginia malt mash, blend it with an undisclosed Highland distillery single malt and then finish it for around 12 months in a variety of different casks. This particular release is finished in ex-Chardonnay wine casks from 4 Virginia wineries. It’s a beautiful, straw gold in color and produces fast running, undefined legs and heavy drops in the copita glass I’m using for this tasting. It’s bottled at a robust 46% ABV and this bottle is available state-wide and also in quite a few neighboring states for $65. That’s quite an expensive buy-in for a youthful spirit, but we are talking about craft distilling here, so elevated prices are usually the norm rather than the exception. Is it worth it? Let’s see... The nose blasts forward with sharp and biting oak if you go in right after the pour. There’s a light, minty note as well. If you let it settle and relax, which you should, you’re rewarded with honeysuckle and pears galore. Richer fruit like cantaloupe and melon, along with fresh cut apples, also show up after awhile. The presence of the alcohol also checks in and definitely breaks up the party a little too soon IMO. The palate arrives with orchard fruits and quite a bit of bite and warmth. Cinnamon candy sweetness and oak dominate the front side of this whisky. It’s only after the heat subsides can you pick up on some subtleties, like vanilla, grapes and some floral properties. The hot and youthful spirit is very dry, like most Chardonnay’s I suppose, and it doesn’t lead to much of a finish. Speaking of finish, this is finally where the Chardonnay casks make an appearance- the white wine aspect comes into play with a lightness and dry character that invites you to go back for more. There’s a crisp-ness that you don’t usually associate with whisky, especially most Highland whiskies. That must be the wine cask asserting itself. It’s short to medium in length, crisp and dry, but mostly enjoyable. Overall, it’s tough to find a lot of depth here. I’m not sold that this Virginia/Highland blend is the right base for a Chardonnay wine finish. This whisky benefits from a juicer style cask treatment, like the award winning Port finished version. It’s definitely a stretch asking drinkers to pay $65 for this, even though the craft spirit industry pretty much demands it. I think if I was left having to pick a bottle from the VDC’s Commonwealth Collection- this wouldn’t be it. 3.5 stars with a slight reduction to 3.25 due to price point. Cheers, my friends.

Directly from the Isle of Mull, Scotland’s Tobermory distillery is in the midst of a sort of rebrand. They’ve changed the labels, packaging and tinkered with some of the age statements and finishes to their regular lineup. They are pushing the age statement, and subsequent price point, upwards and focusing on 12 year old whisky with different finishing casks. I don’t think they’ve left the standard 10 year in the dust, but they are actively marketing the 12 now. Cheers to that, except for the $15-20 per bottle price increase. This particular bottle was finished in Fino Sherry casks for an unspecified amount of time and I paid $102 for the bottle from a specialty shop out of the UK. It’s an attractive, deep amber/copper mix and makes thin legs and tiny drops thanks to the elevated ABV of 55.1%. The smell reminded me a lot of Kilchoman and Caol Ila, minus the earthy peat. Definitely maritime and salty, but the dry sherry adds a nice, sweet aroma to the mix. Fresh oak spirals, apples, raspberries and a slight cough syrup note waft up from the Glencairn and give way to a lingering burnt tea leaf note. It’s a bit mixed up and a little uneven, but complex. The palate is overwhelmed by sherry cask notes. It’s fruitier than expected from Tobermory, but the finishing time definitely overpowers the sea spray and terroir of the Scottish islands. It’s not a bad thing, but it was unexpected. I find it hard to believe the extra 2 years has taken the edge off of the spirit itself, but maybe it has- or those fino casks had some extra oomph in them. The mouthfeel still tends toward the drier side and it left me feeling a little parched by mid sip. The fruitiness persisted, though, and that was fine. The finish was long and dry, warm and slightly abrasive, but still mouthwatering at the very end. There was a lingering saltiness that persisted even after a delayed slug of water. The ABV and salt really play hardball after the dram ends so be prepared to feel the need to reach for a chaser of some sort. That wasn’t nearly as bad after some oxidation, but it still effected the overall experience in a negative way. Overall, I like the experimentation and finishing cask choice, I just think it’s a little too powerful, ABV-wise, and that plays havoc with the total sipping experience. If you like your whisky fruity, hot and dry you’ll be happy I think haha. That’s a weird combo, in my opinion, but hey- different strokes for different folks. As it is, this is a 3.5 star dram/experience. Cheers. PS- if you enjoy watching video whisky reviews on your phone/computer and you’d like a little comedic relief to go along with it please check out @Generously_Paul’s YouTube channel, Dapper Drams. If you look closely enough you might even catch me acting foolish from time to time. Please Like, Subscribe and tell your friends. Thanks.

It’s time for another deviation from scotch whisky. This sample comes from my NJ connection, Mr @PBMichiganWolverine. Whip Saw Rye is, obviously, a rye whiskey from a blending and bottling company called The Splinter Group. This particular whiskey is comprised of 76% rye, 21% corn and 3% toasted barley. It’s then finished for an unspecified amount of time in Pinot Noir and ex-Cabernet Sauvignon wine casks from Napa Valley and bottled at 45% ABV. It’s a wonderful, dark mahogany in color and makes some of the slowest-forming, fat legs and tiny droplets in the tasting glass. It’s also ridiculously oily and thick appearing. The nose reeks of cherries and wine grapes that have been dusted in Christmas spices- like nutmeg, cinnamon and black pepper. There’s a faint bell pepper bite as well. Toffee and charred oak reveal themselves if you wait them out. It’s very lively and tempting. The palate comes out of the gates as a sweet syrup. Cherry juice, grapes and light dill. The spices also warm the tongue while the syrupy-ness coats every corner of the mouth. It’s rich and inviting, but also biting and spicy- it’s the best of both worlds commingling together. The longer you hold it in place the hotter it gets and the spices begin to cut through the syrupy aspect and that’s a welcome sensation. The finish is the most lackluster part of the dram as it came across as short to medium in duration and even the warmth and spices fade rather quickly. All the reason to go in again, I suppose, but I only had a couple of ounces to work with. In the end, this is another example of a fine, balanced rye whiskey. I’m still on the fence when it comes to rye, so I’m not sure if I’d ever finish a full bottle if I bought and opened one. But, if rye is your jam, then I highly recommend this one. I think the availability is widespread and the price point is reasonable. Seek it out and try it for yourself. 3.75-4 stars, which may be a little low just because I’m not a huge rye fan- your mileage may vary. Cheers, my friends.

I found this sample hiding behind several knickknacks on the top of my refrigerator. It’s an old sample sent to me from my buddy @Generously_Paul, in what was probably a trade from over a year ago. It’s been even longer since I had a bottle of the Octomore 7.1. I guess it’s long passed time to get into this one, so let’s do this... The Octomore 7.2 is a 5 year old, heavily peated whisky from Bruichladdich. This series was also the last one done by master distiller Jim McEwan took part in- so, he made sure it was the most heavily peated ever: 208ppm. 7.2 was a blend of whisky aged in ex-American oak and French Shiraz wine casks. It’s bottled at 58.5% and I believe the bottle ran just shy of $200. This one was also considered a travel retail edition- so it was more limited. It’s a dull yellow in the taster with very oily and thin legs. Tiny droplets also form after a rigorous spin. The nose is typical Octomore: ashy peat and BBQ smoke with a side of salted fish. Tar and a slight band aid note add a special funk I don’t recall from any other Octomore I’ve tried (although it’s been awhile since I’ve had one and I’ve killed millions of brain cells since then, lol). The typical Shiraz wine notes aren’t apparent on the nose: I’m missing the grape must, tannins and dark chocolate- the peat is just too strong. The palate is deeply rich and full of peat and salty, sea air. The BBQ flavors are what’s subdued with this one. I did pick up some dark chocolate notes after adding a spritz of water to the sample, but it also brought forward some citrus notes instead of the wine fruitiness I was expecting. The mouthfeel is still luscious and somewhat heavy, but this is Octomore so that’s to be expected. There’s not much heat from the ridiculously high ABV, but we all know why that is, too. The finish is longer and spicier than I remember from other Octomores, but I do like that aspect. Scratch that- I LOVE that part. As the smoke and earthy peat tang fades it turns drier, but there still isn’t enough wine fruits to indicate the Shiraz casking. It’s not a bummer, just an observation. Ultimately, this is still a wonderful dram. I love the constant attack from the peat and salt and the richness just hangs there trying to make you whimper. The absence of heat is slightly scary, as I could keep filling the Glencairn if I had the bottle in front of me. It’s not better, and if I’m honest, not much different from what my notes about the 7.1 indicate- so, there’s no real reason to chase the exclusivity of this one over the 7.1. It still doesn’t live up to the Series 6, but I also wouldn’t toss this bottle out. 3.75-4 stars, maybe stretching to 4.25 when I’m in an Octomore frame of mind. If Bruichladdich keeps making these, I’ll keep trying them. Cheers. Also, speaking of @Generously_Paul - please check out his new YouTube channel, Dapper Drams. If you like your whisky review with some humor and shenanigans then you’ll be in luck and, if you look hard enough, you might even spot yours truly every now and again. Please support his hard work with a Like and maybe even a Subscribe. Thanks.

I don’t have much experience with Benromach. I believe I’ve had the 10 and maybe 1-2 of the vintage Peat Smoke offerings, but that’s it. I wouldn’t say I avoid this distillery, as everything I’ve tried has been solid to very good, I just don’t seek this one out. No real reason why, I just don’t. However, my friend @Telex (from MD) graciously sent a bunch of us a pour of this one: known in the US as Benromach Imperial Proof (not to be mistaken with the 100 Proof bottling- both are the same whisky and are just labeled differently depending on market). Imperial proof is 57% by U.K. standards. So, this one is 57% ABV and is a muddy copper in color and oily, with sparse legs and very tiny droplets left behind after a spin in the taster. The nose has lots of spicy aromas: black pepper, wood spice, even a little Christmas spice mingles about in there. The backbone here is provided by a fresh, leathery note and some light orchard fruit. Crisp apples and pears imply a subtle sweetness awaiting you on the tongue. The palate really kicks things into gear with the woody notes washing across the tongue. Orchard fruits keep the heat at bay, initially- but when it arrives it really takes command and pushes the soft stuff away. The nose doesn’t prepare you for the onslaught of heat that comes by the middle of the sip. There’s a real fire here that can’t be denied, although it is surprisingly smooth for not only the age, but the higher strength. You really need to enjoy a wood-soaked style of whisky here to be thoroughly entertained IMHO. The finish is long, steadily warming and once again, woody. I can’t get over how butter smooth the liquid is, though. I would’ve guessed this was a much older dram that was left lingering in virgin oak had I not known what I was getting into. This one seems like it would play well for a barrel strength, wheated bourbon drinker. In the end, it acts older than it is and that should be its claim to fame. It’s not complex and it just does what it does quite well. I’m not exactly sure of the price point, but if it was a $50-60 bottle I’d say it’s a great deal. I have a feeling it’s more expensive, since it’s single malt, and that’s where I’d have to hold it more accountable for its shortcomings, like lack of depth and complexity. Not knowing price- it’s a 4 star dram. Maybe I need to look into more Benromach offerings- especially for those times I want to feel like I’m drinking a well-crafted bourbon instead of a scotch whisky. Cheers, my friends.

It’s time for another Costco store brand whisky, this time it’s a 20 year old, Speyside single malt scotch. It’s bottled under the Kirkland brand for Costco and it’s believed to be ex-bourbon cask Mortlach or Longmorn whisky that’s been finished for around 6 months in an ex-sherry barrel that previously held Macallan. It typically sells for around $55-60 and bottled at 46% ABV. Thanks to Virginia liquor laws, I’m unable to buy it locally and I have to rely on a sample from a friend. Thanks @dubz480 for the generous pour. It’s a wonderful sunset copper in the Glencairn. It’s also seriously oily and thick appearing, with fat legs and slow running drops. The nose begins with a delicious grape jam note that segues into buttery, rich sherry. There’s a surprising heavy oak cask bite that acts as a backbone to all of the sweetness. It even gives off a new, virgin oak vibe- sawdust and biting wood that’s peppered and lightly charred. There’s no heat, even at 46%, and I think that’s due to the spirit taking on the properties of one that’s been triple distilled, even though I’m sure this one wasn’t. The palate is also butter smooth, which is no surprise to something that’s been in a quality cask for two decades. Again, the grape must and sherry note leads the way before relinquishing it’s hold on the tongue for the late, back end vanilla and toffee flavors. The transition seems timed and there’s a lingering, vine-ripened fruit and berry note that permeates the finish. It’s a rich, warm finish at that- medium in length with some oak tannins and cask tones that reveal a well-aged whisky. Overall, for $55 this can compete in just about any value for money competition. It would even hold its own in a Speyside sherry-finished whisky contest, regardless of age. The two decades it spent are noticeable, the sherry finishing is apparent, but it doesn’t mask the ex-bourbon properties either. This is a very fine whisky and one Alexander Murray and Costco should be very proud to offer. 4 stars with a bump for the price point. 4.25 stars, quite easily. Cheers.

Let me start this review off with the best advice I can give: DO NOT BUY this whisky. If you are the type of person that just looks at Star Level ratings or hope for a quick synopsis before making a purchasing decision you can stop here. 1 star and a Do Not Buy recommendation. Do you want an explanation or hear more. Continue on.... This Bowmore 10 year whisky is a limited, travel retail exclusive. They must’ve added the Dark & Intense subtitle to it in hopes they’d lure in the suckers. (Yeah, I know...they got me, for starters. Hush up.). This particular release is bottled at 40%, has added color and is also chill filtered. It’s sold in one liter bottles for a reasonable $30-35. Hey, that’s not bad. Oh, but it is. Let’s address the Dark & Intense moniker in detail: DARK- yes, it’s a dark cherry in color. It’s watery and leaves behind fat legs and big drops when you play with it in your tasting glass. The problem here, obviously, is that Bowmore decided to add colorant to this. So, it’s not naturally dark. It’s FAKE dark. Bad Bowmore, bad. INTENSE- well, it’s got an age statement of 10 years. That sometimes leads to intense flavors because it’s still quite young. It could be a little aggressive because it needs more time in the barrel, they could’ve chosen a first fill cask and flooded the malt with intense sherry or ex-bourbon flavors. Nope. Neither of those happened here. Instead, they blended the ABV down to 40% in an attempt to wring out a higher bottle count. So, it’s NOT intense, at all. It’s weak. Bad Bowmore, very bad. Here’s the tasting notes, if you’re interested and still reading along: NOSE: light peat, distant sherry flavors, no oak, no heat, and worst of all no smoke. PALATE: lack of peat, light sherry and a brutal cough syrup consistency and flavor on the tongue. It’s a tiny bit harsh with an artificial tasting sweetness. FINISH: it’s pretty short, with nothing lingering except some light berry sweetness and a simple, sugary mouth coat. Overall, no scotch drinker, from a noob to a well-seasoned connoisseur, should waste their time or money with this bottle. I added it to a small, international order as a filler bottle and I’ve subsequently moved it over to my experimental blending station. The only positive it brings to my blends is that it’s great for adding a depth of color to them, but then I get kinda mad knowing it’s adding artificial depth of color. I could just buy some E150a and do that myself. This bottle is awarded 1 star because you get a liter of cheap, single malt for around $30. That’s it. Avoid this unless you are a college kid and want to get drunk as cheaply as possible. Cheers.

Oh, Glenfarclas. I’ve kind of always looked down my nose at you. You offer up name brand, department store quality at Walmart prices. You are the dollar menu whisky. I’ve tried multiple ages of official distillery bottled Glenfarclas: the 12 year old all the way to the 25. I believe I’ve had unspecified, independent bottles of even older stock. My previous reviews have been borderline unfair, as I bash away because I haven’t experienced anything earth shaking. It’s almost always just solid, sherry cask single malts. I’m sorry for that unjust oversight. This bottle of Glenfarclas 105, no it’s not 105 year old whisky, is the cask strength offering that’s bottled at 60% ABV. It’s light copper and gold in the tasting glass and produces very thin and sparse legs when you give it a whirl. A nice, slick oily appearance and tiny beads around the rim indicate it’s of very high proof. The fact you can get a 1L bottle of this for around $30 is astounding. The nose is immediately as harsh as you’d expect. Heat from the ABV and cinnamon lead the charge, but if you let it rest, and maybe add an ice cube or a few drops of water, you are rewarded with tea leaves and toffee. Flambé fruits seem to sizzle your nostrils just as you move in for a sip. The palate reveals semi-complex sherry notes: grapes, orchard fruit and barley. The oak adds some astringency while the super hot mouthfeel turns slightly oily and leaves some over-ripened berries heading into the finish. It’s a long and abrasively hot finish, too. Lingering oak and a satisfying grape and vanilla note help cool the burn provided you don’t find yourself chasing them away with some water. Overall, this is my favorite Glenfarclas to date. I think the cask strength keeps you on your toes long enough that you end up really appreciating the sherry flavors that eventually come home to roost. Factor in price and this is a big time win. I’ve worked on this bottle for a month or so now and I’ve even slid it over into my blending experiments simply because the high proof and pleasant sherry helps make a wonderful foundation to any blended whisky you can dream up and the ABV helps keep your total alcohol percentages above board. I will be replacing this bottle every time it goes dry. 4-4.25 stars for ticking all the right boxes. Cheers, my friends.

It’s time for another bonus pour from the now defunct whisky tasting group @Generously_Paul and I founded a few years ago. The goal to try a whisky from every active Scottish distillery was completed back in the Fall of 2018, and Paul sort of resurrected it as new juice has hit the market from the newer distilleries- well, he also decided to chase down a few bottles from closed, or ghosted, ones now. That’s where this little gem comes from: Cambus distillery, from the Lowlands region. This was a grain distillery that was used in lots of blends. The sample he sent was from Whiskybroker, a warehousing cooperage that apparently dabbled in releasing bottles from their vast collection. This Cambus is a glorious 25 year old example. It was filled in August of 1991 and bottled in August of 2017. It was sherry butt matured and bottled at a robust cask strength of 56.9%. It’s a beautiful, shiny gold and produces oily and quick running legs and tiny beads after a spin in the Glencairn. The nose starts and remained grainy, even after a good rest in the glass. Cereal notes turned honeyed and buttery with a strong macadamia nut flavor that never seemed to fade. There was some weak sweetness, but it was harsh and hot and very hard to decipher. The palate was more forgiving with an overall sweet profile. Sherry grapes, red berries and even some tropical flavors work through the heat and grainy aspects. There’s depth here, especially with a splash of water. Roasted nuts and malty goodness helped calm the lasting negative effects of the cask strength ABV. It felt oily and stuck in the crevices of the mouth, even as it left a slight burn in those places, too. The finish was long and surprisingly sharp for a grain whisky. It stayed warm and inviting and left a lingering sherry presence long after I was done with the dram. The dry glass was still delivering a healthy nosing experience the next morning. Overall, this was an excellent cask selected by the bottler. Most grain whisky is one dimensional, sometimes even after a long rest, but this cask must’ve had some serious magic left in it. A quality dram and for the price point under $100- this was a gem of a find. I have a feeling this was a one-off, because if the distillery was making whisky this good they wouldn’t have went under, but that’s all just speculation on my part. This was a wonderful experience- 4 stars. Thanks again, Paul. Cheers.