Tastes

From looking through various reviews, it appears that this pour can be polarizing. Some claim it's lacking in taste, strong ethanol on the nose, too expensive, etc. Others point to its numerous awards and remark on its craftsmanship. I have some thoughts. You're reading those thoughts. Here we go. To look at this as an 18 year old whisky and treat it and evaluate it the same way you would an 18 year old Scotch would be doing this whisky a disservice. Yes, they share an age statement, but are made by very different processes. Learning more about how this whisky was made really enhanced the tasting experience for me. It's mostly corn, and not only that, it's distilled to a ridiculously high proof (something around 95%), and put in the barrel to age. At that high a proof, it's mostly a neutral spirit, so in approaching this pour, it's really a study in oak. It is blended with a small amount of 18 year old rye, but this is mostly all flavor from the barrel. Wisers is really taking advantage of those loopy Canadian liquor laws. After resting for about 20 minutes, none of the ethanol folks complain about in other reviews are present on the nose. In its place is a big hello sailor of classic Canadian notes-vanilla, maple, rye, some dried fruit, as well as that characteristic lumber note I tend to find in Canadian whiskies. It's quite elegant and complex. The taste, even at 40%, has gentle, sweet barrel spice, more vanilla and maple, butterscotch, toffee, pepper, and a little tobacco. Right on the back palate is a pithy, citrus note reminiscent of grapefruit or the orange peel from an Old Fashioned. The finish is surprisingly long, with a cooling effect, along with a lingering note of pencil shavings from elementary school while integrating all of the palate flavors. WOW! A great pour indeed. Definitely don't regret picking up the bottle. Look, I know that here in the States we can't get most of the really good Canadian stuff (though I just heard that Lot 40 CS is coming to MA & IL). This is one of the good ones. "But it's overpriced". I've paid $130-$160 for 18 year old Scotch, so no, it's not overpriced. An 18 year old whisky for $60-$70? Sign me up. "But it's 40%". Who cares?! I've been guilty of being a snob about that in past reviews, but I'm changing my tune for some bottles. There's a time and a place for 40% ABV. Not every night is cask strength night. I would pick this one up. You have to let it breathe. That's the key. If you do, you're rewarded with one of the best expressions this category has to offer. If you still hate it, you can sob into your glass while cursing my name, but this one's a winner for me. Cheers!

The wildest Wild Turkey! A barrel proof beast that packs a wallop of butter, cinnamon, and spice. A fine Christmas present from my wife, indeed. As I continue to move through the whiskey world, particularly bourbon, I keep finding myself going back to Old Forester and Wild Turkey. OF gives me chocolate, cherry, and caramel. Wild Turkey gives me pepper, cinnamon, and brown butter. Two distinctly different profiles, but equally tasty to me. So much that they're the ones I choose to keep both of their barrel proof versions around at home amidst all the single malts. Who doesn't love a little variety. Bourbon was my gateway whiskey after all. The nose is 101 amped up to 11, but with less oak and more cinnamon. A younger spirit, perhaps, but a fighter, and full of flavor. A little H2O rounds out the spice and brings the buttery notes to the fore. Classic Turkey. On the palate, you get an explosion of flavors. Oak. Check. Cinnamon. Check. Pepper. Check. Mouth numbing goodness. Check. Endless finish. Check. Definitely my favorite Turkey to date. Real good stuff folks. If you're thinking about dipping your toe into the barrel proof bourbon pool, this one is as good of a place as any to start. Cheers!

Ok, I'll admit it. I like Canadian whisky. Perhaps some context is in order. I popped over to Total Wine for a "look" to see if they had anything interesting or new in stock since the new year. The bottle selection was pretty much the same, but I had noticed that the prices on my favorite Scotches had gone up an average of $10. Damn tariffs. I noticed that the Diageo products (Talisker, Lagavulin, etc.) had gone up considerably. How kind of them to pass those on to us... In light of this, I'm taking a renewed focus on some categories I've neglected in the last few years, namely Canadian whisky. I feel like it deserves a second look. Here's why. Rumor has it (and YouTube confirms it) that Canada keeps most of the good stuff for themselves. I can't find a shop anywhere that sells J.P. Wisers 23 Year Cask Strength or Lot 40 Cask Strength. Some folks carry the Forty Creek limited editions, but those are infrequent and spotty, though some are highly rated (such as Unity or Victory), so I started to do some research. Davin DeKergommeaux writes about Canadian whisky for Whisky Advocate, and has a fantastic website (canadianwhisky.org) where there are detailed reviews of a multitude of Canadian whiskies. @Kteach also has a fantastic YouTube page called Whisky Neighbour where he talks about a number of Canadian whiskies and I've learned a lot from his videos. Check both out if you get a chance and give this category another look. It's not all Crown and Club. Now...this whisky. I have a lot of nice bottles, particularly Scotch and Bourbon. I'm looking for something different this year. I remembered having a great experience with the 40 Creek Copper Pot, with my only gripe being a slightly astringent finish, which water tamped down a tad. 40 creek has higher rated expressions than this one, but I was intrigued by the idea of "Canadian terroir" on this one, it being primarily aged in Canadian Oak barrels rather than American Oak. Supposedly the slower growing process in Canada results in stronger vanillin being imparted into the spirit. How often do you see this? Usually oak is either American or French. If this isn't Canadian whisky, I'm not sure what is. On the nose, I get a similar profile to the Copper Pot, but more refined, aged, settled. There's vanilla, butterscotch, tannic barrel notes, and a smell that I can only describe as the lumber section at Home Depot (lumber is a note I see a lot in Canadian whisky reviews, so maybe I'm not crazy here). It arrives gentle on the palate, with maple brown sugars, toffee, dark berries (I'm thinking blackberries & raspberries ) moving into a smokiness (note: not peatiness) on the back palate. This leads to a surprisingly long, sweet, coating finish. It reminds me of a Kentucky hug, but perhaps we should call it the Ontario hug instead. I like this. Really like this. Enough that I think most of my purchases this year will be from North America rather than Europe until they can sort out this tariff nonsense. I have plenty of Scotch in tow to last me a while, but this, this is worth another look. Cheers! P.S.- Remember that "no new bottles for 2020" bit I put out a while back? Ya...made it 11 days. C'est la vie en whisky.

I must admit. This doesn’t suck. Mind you it’s still not good whisky, but it isn’t irredeemable. This was a leftover from a tasting kit I got months ago for my birthday. I wasn’t in a hurry to try it, but I’m making room for better stuff in my cabinet. I did stick it in the freezer for a while as the bottle suggests. Definitely young grain whisky on the nose, but the cold ramps down some of the more metallic notes found in JW Red. Palate is soft, rounded, creamy, with a hint of nail polish. Mmmmmm. Really sells this one. Finish is mercifully short. It’s better than JW Red, but that’s a low bar indeed. If you MUST get one of the Game of Thrones whiskies (disappointing finale notwithstanding), go for the Talisker or Lagavulin. I heard the Clynelish and the Mortlach were also quite nice. Let this one fade into oblivion just like the Night King...

Here I find myself again on my annual Lagavulin purchase. I was real close to buying the Distillers Edition after my delightful experience with the Talisker DE, but I opted for this younger (and less expensive) bottle instead. I must say, this is quite unlike any whisky from Islay I've tried so far. Complex yet approachable. Peaty yet fruity. Young yet full of layers and vibrancy. Let's get started, shall we? I commend Lagavulin for putting out a single-digit age statement expression. Not a lot of places have the stones to do that, but rather opt for NAS releases. Pansies. The nose on this one is unmistakably Lagavulin. Rich, meaty smoke that isn't cloying or acrid at all. Beneath that is a layer of aromas that show off the youthfulness of the spirit. Notes of pear, light sea spray, and peaches. There's a savory note that reminds me of new make spirit I try when I visit local distilleries, showcasing just how slow maturation in Scotland is. While the smoke is reminiscent of its older brother Lag 16, this younger sibling is clearly trying to stand on its own. As you sip it, the spirit is light on the palate. Not the smoke bomb of the 16, nor the fiery, temperamental peat of Ardbeg 10 or Laphroaig 10. The smoke eases in gently, and reveals layers of malt, sultana, apricot, and a dry white wine quality. The smoke lingers through the mid-palate and coats your throat in a warm, drying effect. At 48% ABV, while perhaps the sign of a brittle spirit, the warmth lingers for some time. Lovely! As y'all work through your bottles of Lagavulin 16, and want to try something different yet within the same ballpark, check this one out. I may leave this one on the shelf through the winter and break it out again as a summer dram. It's light yet complex, and easy to drink. Try a bottle for yourself! Cheers!

Tonight we're gonna try something different. In light of standalone tasting notes and a rating, I thought I'd take varying combinations of the bottles in my collection and those of my friends and do an occasional head-to-head series, where I taste and compare two bottles of similar provenance that often get lumped together in the same category (think heavily peated scotches or barrel proof bourbons). Hopefully this helps you, the reader, to decide which bottle is best for you if you are faced with choosing between two equally delicious but different options. Tonight's lineup: Whiskey Del Bac vs. Colkegan Category: American Single Malt Style: Mesquite Smoked Single Malt Age: 2-3 years old Price Point: $50-60 USD Tasting Setting: Neat, Glencairn glass, rested for 5 minutes before nosing, both bottles approximately half full Nose: The nose on the Colkegan is subtle, gentle. There's an earthy, grassy quality to it, with just a wisp of smoke, belying what is underneath, and right at the end is a minty/menthol note. The Del Bac by comparison comes bellowing out of the glass with a meaty, briskety aroma leaving nothing to the imagination as to what you're about to experience. To compare it to a peated single malt, the Colkegan is reminiscent of Caol Ila, and the Del Bac is Lagavulin. Palate: Colkegan arrives gently, with a creamy mouthfeel. There's a lower percentage of smoked malt in this one, and it's aged at a higher altitude than Del Bac (Santa Fe vs. Tucson). The smoke shows up on the mid-palate on the Colkegan, but it doesn't overwhelm the malt, but rather is integrated, again, like Caol Ila. When the Del Bac hits your tongue, you get a big blast of that mesquite smoke. It's like walking into a smoky Texas BBQ pit where they've been smoking meat non-stop since the 19th century. It coats your mouth, and while you can taste the malt in this one too, the smoke is much more prevalent without being drying. Finish: The Del Bac lingers on your palate for a while, which is curious since Colkegan has a slightly higher ABV (45% vs. 46% respectfully). The smoke from Del Bac isn't drying, but it has a slightly numbing effect as it sits in your throat, which keeps the smoke on your palate longer. The Colkegan doesn't linger quite as long, and the smoke dissipates before the finish. What you're left with is a lovely, malty aftertaste similar to and Irish single malt or Lowland Scotch. Final Thoughts: Two excellent malts! You can't go wrong with either, but it's unwise to think these two are the same, no more than two malts from Islay are. The Del Bac is for those of you who love big, bold, smoky malts like Lagavulin, Ardbeg, or Laphroaig. The Colkegan is more the speed of Caol Ila, Highland Park, or BenRiach, where the smoke is more equally integrated throughout the dram. These two are often held up as the standard bearers of Mesquite Smoked American Single Malt, though there are other up and comers, such as Andalusia Stryker and Ranger Creek Rimfire. In terms of availability, I don't believe either one currently (as of January 2020) has national, much less international distribution. I bought the Colkegan while on a business trip in Albuquerque, and I had my local whisky shop special order the Del Bac for me (which is a luxury I'm afforded by living in whisky-crazy Austin, TX). There's a lot of competition for your whisky dollar, especially from the craft corner, and I feel like a lot of them aren't good VFM. These two are. When the craft distilling bubble inevitably bursts sometime this decade, I see these two surviving. They're among the best of the American Single Malts, and I predict that the southwest will be to American Single Malt one day what Islay and the Islands are to Scotch. Good hunting, and enjoy the journey!

Tonight we're gonna try something different. In light of standalone tasting notes and a rating, I thought I'd take varying combinations of the bottles in my collection and those of my friends and do an occasional head-to-head series, where I taste and compare two bottles of similar provenance that often get lumped together in the same category (think heavily peated scotches or barrel proof bourbons). Hopefully this helps you, the reader, to decide which bottle is best for you if you are faced with choosing between two equally delicious but different options. Tonight's lineup: Whiskey Del Bac vs. Colkegan Category: American Single Malt Style: Mesquite Smoked Single Malt Age: 2-3 years old Price Point: $50-60 USD Tasting Setting: Neat, Glencairn glass, rested for 5 minutes before nosing, both bottles approximately half full Nose: The nose on the Colkegan is subtle, gentle. There's an earthy, grassy quality to it, with just a wisp of smoke, belying what is underneath, and right at the end is a minty/menthol note. The Del Bac by comparison comes bellowing out of the glass with a meaty, briskety aroma leaving nothing to the imagination as to what you're about to experience. To compare it to a peated single malt, the Colkegan is reminiscent of Caol Ila, and the Del Bac is Lagavulin. Palate: Colkegan arrives gently, with a creamy mouthfeel. There's a lower percentage of smoked malt in this one, and it's aged at a higher altitude than Del Bac (Santa Fe vs. Tucson). The smoke shows up on the mid-palate on the Colkegan, but it doesn't overwhelm the malt, but rather is integrated, again, like Caol Ila. When the Del Bac hits your tongue, you get a big blast of that mesquite smoke. It's like walking into a smoky Texas BBQ pit where they've been smoking meat non-stop since the 19th century. It coats your mouth, and while you can taste the malt in this one too, the smoke is much more prevalent without being drying. Finish: The Del Bac lingers on your palate for a while, which is curious since Colkegan has a slightly higher ABV (45% vs. 46% respectfully). The smoke from Del Bac isn't drying, but it has a slightly numbing effect as it sits in your throat, which keeps the smoke on your palate longer. The Colkegan doesn't linger quite as long, and the smoke dissipates before the finish. What you're left with is a lovely, malty aftertaste similar to and Irish single malt or Lowland Scotch. Final Thoughts: Two excellent malts! You can't go wrong with either, but it's unwise to think these two are the same, no more than two malts from Islay are. The Del Bac is for those of you who love big, bold, smoky malts like Lagavulin, Ardbeg, or Laphroaig. The Colkegan is more the speed of Caol Ila, Highland Park, or BenRiach, where the smoke is more equally integrated throughout the dram. These two are often held up as the standard bearers of Mesquite Smoked American Single Malt, though there are other up and comers, such as Andalusia Stryker and Ranger Creek Rimfire. In terms of availability, I don't believe either one currently (as of January 2020) has national, much less international distribution. I bought the Colkegan while on a business trip in Albuquerque, and I had my local whisky shop special order the Del Bac for me (which is a luxury I'm afforded by living in whisky-crazy Austin, TX). There's a lot of competition for your whisky dollar, especially from the craft corner, and I feel like a lot of them aren't good VFM. These two are. When the craft distilling bubble inevitably bursts sometime this decade, I see these two surviving. They're among the best of the American Single Malts, and I predict that the southwest will be to American Single Malt one day what Islay and the Islands are to Scotch. Good hunting, and enjoy the journey!

Next stop in my Christmas gift tasting list is this beauty. Here's the story. I'm out to a nice dinner with my wife, who's been lukewarm at best about my whisky hobby, and I ask the bartender how much for a pour of each of the following: Laphroaig Lore, Yamazaki 18, and Macallan 18. The price isn't important, only you should know this place WAS charging more for Mac 18 than it was for Yamazaki 18, but I digress. I had already imbibed a few cocktails, and the price they wanted for each of those pours seemed too steep given how much I'd already consumed. Fast forward to Christmas morning, and I unwrap a bottle of Wild Turkey Rare Breed my wife had bought me (score!), and she's very adamant about how she's not buying me any more whisky. Fair. I bought a lot last year. After presents, I make breakfast, and we go about our Christmas day, when she pulls out another present for me, and inside is this bottle. My jaw about dropped to the floor. Normally I wouldn't indulge Macallan's overpricing (my opinion), but my lovely wife outdid herself this year. High marks just for that. It certainly looks stately on my shelf, but how's it taste? The nose is like the few other Macallans I've tried: crisp, clean, balanced, evident of good cask management/quality. It took some time for the nose to open up. About 20-30 minutes in the glass before a nosing. This "fine oak" version has both bourbon and sherry matured malt in it, and the balance is on display. Good blending. No one note is overpowering the others. Clearly a sum of its parts. On the taste is where the age and the oak come in to play. Rich, coating, slightly tannic, slightly fruity, lingers on the mid-palate, and then drying on the finish. I'd like a bit of a longer, stronger finish, but that's what you get for 43% with chill filtering. I suppose the casks do a number after 18+ years. I confess, I haven't tried many Macallans. Their price point seems like an overall poor VFM to me, and I can get better sherry matured malts (and have) for a fraction of the price. A lot of Youtube videos do this one (and the sherry cask one) head to head with the Glendronach 18 (I know, I talk about Glendronach a lot, but hey, they're that good to me), and the GD comes out on top every time. The reviews for this particular bottle I've read aren't exactly encouraging, but here are my final thoughts: This is a subtle malt. Nose, palate, taste, finish, everything has been put in its place for a specific experience. No sherry punch, no overly oaky notes, no peat. Just a clean, curated experience. It reminds me of an elegant, multi-course French meal, where everything is in its place and the subtly of flavor is celebrated. This bottle also now has sentimental value to me as it was gifted by my wife, who went through the trouble of tracking this down with next to no knowledge of whisky. Final score is a 92 for me, and should other Macallans find their way into my collection, then I look forward to those experiences as well. Cheers!

Time to begin reviewing all the bottles I received for Christmas this past year, starting with the "lowest rated" one, and moving my way up. This bottle came to me courtesy of a coworker who knows I like whisky but is on a budget. Regardless of how the tasting goes, this was a thoughtful and considerate purchase on their part, and I'm grateful to have it on my shelf. As an added bonus, it's a great pour! Marketed as an Irish blend with not a ton of information available about it, this punches well above it's weight, kind of like the Irish version of Wild Turkey 101. The nose is shy, but inoffensive. None of the shiny, spiky metallic grain notes you find in Jameson or other budget blends. I'm guessing there's a high proportion of malt in this one. The taste really shines. Like warm honey on a hot, buttered roll at Thanksgiving with that biscuity, malty aftertaste you get in a lot of Irish whiskies. I'm digging this! And at $23 a bottle, I may keep this one around as a fine daily drinker. Unfortunately I feel like this pour has suffered from the infamous "Low Distiller Rating", and doesn't get a lot of traffic. This isn't a world-changing whiskey, but hardly worth the middling mid-70's rating it received here. I'd rate it at a solid 85-86 at least. Cheers!

Lots of hype around this dram. Haven't heard anything bad about it. Thought it was too good to be true. Saw it at the bar tonight and ordered a pour much to the Mrs.'s chagrin, but it was worth it. Believe the hype. I've had most of the entry level peated drams out there, but never have I tried something so flawlessly integrated. The interplay between the peat, the malt, and the smoke are a sight to behold. This malt does for peated whisky what Glendronach does for sherry'd whisky. It's just that good. I didn't get any of those rubbery, medicinal noes some folks get, just a lovely, thoughtfully made, peated dram. I told myself that I wouldn't buy any new bottles this year until I've worked through what I have open (which is an ample amount). Once I'm through those, this is the first thing I'm buying and doing a head to head with Talisker 10 to see what my favorite peated dram is. Cheers!