Tastes

Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve not yet reviewed. I haven’t had Noah’s Mill in quite some time. I recall first having it at a party, and I liked it, so I bought a bottle (apparently there are different releases, so I don’t know if the one I had at the party was the same release as the one I’d bought later). I haven’t had any in a long time, and with all these other bourbons and whiskies begging for my attention… Pantone 144 in color. Interesting nose: my initial impression was Balsam Fir, which morphed to fruit cake, corn syrup, Heath bar, some rye, a whiff of vanilla, and quite a lot of spearmint coolness. Smooth, creamy mouthfeel with a nice viscosity. Some of the Heath bar toffee shows up again on the palate, along with dried orange rind. The heat is noticeable on the back end, though it’s not disjointed. Finishes medium to not-quite long with vanilla, some char, and a touch of rye spiciness. There’s a lot to like about Noah’s Mill. Like the Jefferson’s Ocean Voyage 17 that preceded it, Noah’s Mill shows more rye than I’d expected, and as such lacked some bourbon typicity (though not nearly as much as the Jefferson’s Ocean). After repeated tasing of the Noah’s Mill, I poured some Maker’s Mark (a wheated bourbon) as a benchmark for comparison; this batch of Noah’s Mill is no-doubt high-rye. Wild Turkey’s mashbill is also high-rye, and I love it; so it’s not the rye per se. It simply lacks overt bourbon typicity. The overall impression is a smooth, creamy, high-proof, high-rye bourbon, but I recall liking this much more in the past. This is not a sipper I’d enjoy; nor is it something I’d use in cocktails. There are far cheaper high-proof cocktail bourbons (Benchmark Full Proof or Old Grand Dad 114); or, I’d rather spend the extra $20-30 for something like Elijah Craig Barrel Proof, which has a 12-year age statement as well as another 15 or so proof points on average, and is far superior in every way, regardless of which of the three annual releases of it one happens to have. Or if I want rye, there’s numerous ryes I could have. Would I buy Noah’s Mill again, even knowing that it was a different release? No. Batch 18-36. 114.3 proof. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve not yet reviewed. I received Voyage 17 of Jefferson’s Ocean Aged at Sea as a gift. The “Aged at Sea” seems like a marketing ploy. According to the company, “Barrels of Jefferson’s Ocean Aged at Sea® Bourbon travel aboard ships that visit ports all around the globe. The constant motion of the sea churns the whiskey, increasing its interaction with the wood of the barrel. Extreme weather ranging from the coldest of coldest to the warmest of temperatures hyper-ages the liquid in ways no rickhouse could. Jefferson’s Ocean Aged at Sea® Bourbon is Aged At The Mercy of The Sea. Experience a voyage yourself.” It’s an interesting concept: the churning and warmer weather corroborate (conceptually) with the claim of “hyper aging,” though this claim is rendered moot due to the lack of an age statement. And I’m not so sure about the coldest aspect helping with the aging. At any rate… Color is a clear Pantone 138. There’s a certain dusty reticence upon initial nosing, but this fairly quickly resolves to dill pickle, rye, a little vanilla, and spearmint. The palate starts afresh with more rye, and then amplifies it with rye spice, and more heat than the 90 proof would suggest. The finish has some light woody tannins (perhaps due to the swirling of the distillate on the ocean) and a long finish of…rye. Rye, rye, rye: significant rye on the nose, palate, and finish. Since it’s labeled a bourbon, the mashbill has to be at least 51% corn, but I’d wager the remaining 49% is rye. This is a bourbon to me that is initially offputting because it lacks bourbon typicity. It’s like tasting a glass of orange juice that is actually limeade: it’s not bad, but the confusion detracts from the drinking experience until you recognize the familiarity of the unfamiliar. The marketing aspect is not perfunctory; apparently there are separate URLs for each voyage, replete with an interactive map, photos, and a “Captain’s Log” (Voyage 17 can be found here: https://jeffersonsbourbon.com/jeffersons-ocean-voyage-17/). The last sentence of the Captain’s Log exhorts the drinker to “get yourself…an ice cube or two and enjoy”: call me a purist, but when the company itself is telling you to drink an already diluted spirit with ice which not only dilutes it further but reduces the aromatics and taste due to the the physics of cooling, I can’t really take it too seriously. And although this was a gift, I’m not interested in spending $75-80 on a bourbon that doesn’t taste like bourbon, is only 90 proof, and is cloaked in heavy marketing (even if it is interesting, innovative, and perhaps somewhat legitimate). Would I buy it? No. Small-batch blend of straight bourbon whiskeys, so it’s at least two years old. 90 proof. 2.25 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Continuing to work my way through whiskies in my collection that I've not yet reviewed. I bought this bottle a few years ago, and apparently it's since been discontinued. It was another impulse purchase when Japanese whisky was really taking off, and my favorite (Hibiki 12) was getting very scarce. Color is a clear Pantone 137. Nose is reminiscent of fruitcake and honeycomb, with saline, malt, and some yeasty bread dough following. Not nearly as viscous as the Mars Iwai Tradition I reviewed immediately preceding this, but there is some creaminess; it's not thin, and the flavors are fuller and more intense. There's some sweet dried orange, and a little smoke and charcoal on the finish. While this whisky is pleasant enough, it pales in comparison to its Nikka Whisky From The Barrel sibling, which is divine. This is a blend, and qualifies as a "Japanese Whisky." 3.5 on the Distiller scale. Would I buy it again? That's something of a moot point, as this particular release has been discontinued--although there is a 2020 (and continuing) bottling with a different label and a "refined formula" according to the company. 43% ABV. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

After reading a review of this whisky by @Jose-Massu-Espinel earlier today, I recalled that I had a bottle which I'd not yet reviewed. I believe I purchased this a few years back when the Japanese whisky boom was just getting started. It was a not-inexpensive impulse buy; the bottle still has the $63 price tag affixed. Color is a clear Pantone 144 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). The nose shows some malt, sweet apples, quince, cut grass, and an ethanol/paint element. Palate has a slightly viscous mouthfeel, with a corn sweetness that continues on the finish, plus a pinch of white pepper and a little smoke at the very back. I actually do like this more than I had recalled; the whisky has an interesting combination of bourbon and scotch characteristics. But I dislike bare-minimum 40% ABV whiskies on principle. The economics of it are diametrically opposed to artisanal craftsmanship. Minimum-standard ABV (which 40% is) is not some magic level that achieves an optimum flavor profile; it is entirely an economic decision, using the maximum amount of water dilution to achieve a whisky designation and maximize production. Granted, there are many whiskies which I very much like which are only marginally higher at 43%; but at least that is a token gesture towards a not-total focus on economics. There's also the issue of a nonstandard bottle. It does hold 750ml, but the slightly bulbous bottom seems to show some mountainous profile around the base, apparently signifying the fact that this is Japan's highest distillery at roughly 2,600 feet. The corresponding shoulders seemingly display some sort of liquid rivulets, akin to the "legs" that one can see after swirling whisk(e)y or wine. Whisky shelves are crowded, to be sure. But the path to consumer loyalty has nothing to do with the bottle or label. Would I buy it again? No. There are no hard edges, and I've had whiskies that are far worse. But there's no reason to use it in a cocktail at only 40% ABV when numerous cheaper and higher-proof options abound, and while it's not simple per se, it's not unique enough to merit keeping on hand. Would I buy it at a higher proof and some additional disclosure? Perhaps. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 40% ABV. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

WHISKIES I DON’T CARE FOR: ROUND 2 George Dickel Bottled in Bond vs Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey (I'm just now realizing that this review, which was done August 15, 2022, was not posted to the George Dickel 13, so I'm including it now). (These first two paragraphs are largely boilerplate from my Round 1 review). Lately I’ve been doing several side-by-side tastings. I have plenty of whisk(e)y that I love—probably too much—but I’ve also got some that I don’t care for, so I thought I’d mix it up and try to discern just what I don’t like about them. My mental shelving of them into the “not like” category means that they’ve been in the penalty box for some time; thus it’s instructive to ascertain whether or not they belonged there to begin with. The whiskies I selected for this round were picked randomly; they happened to be two that I recalled not liking. Unlike some of my other showdowns (Islay, BTAC, etc.), this side-by-side tasting has nothing to do with a specific region or type; rather, both of these are simply two that I haven’t drunk much (if any) because I didn’t care for them to begin with. George Dickel Bottled in Bond This bourbon won Whisky Advocate’s Whisk(e)y of the Year in 2019. (A digression: Whisky Advocate is part of Marvin Shanken’s portfolio of lifestyle magazines, which also includes Wine Spectator, Cigar Afficionado, and other industry publications. WA is not about finding “the best”; rather, it’s about marketing, business and “spreading the love around” so that retailers can have something new to push. To be fair, their methodology for the annual Top 20 excludes so-called “hard to find” whiskies. And of course, whisky and whiskey is anything but monolithic, so the comparison isn’t apples to apples. Are there repeat winners, or even repeat top-20 selections? I can’t find any since the list began in 2017. I love Lagavulin; but how is Lagavulin 11 Offerman Edition--not as good as the Lagavulin 16, or the Lagavulin Distiller's edition--the best of that year on any metric? Of course it doesn’t mean that all of their picks are bad: 2020’s #1, Larceny Barrel Proof, is outstanding. 2018’s #1, Nikka Whisky From the Barrel, is fantastic.2017’s #1, Elijah Craig Barrel Proof B517, is great. This isn’t my subjective opinion; it’s empirical statistical analysis. Five years. 100 whiskies. No duplicates. Dickel BiB was #1 in 2019, but hasn’t been able to crack the top 20 since? ECBP B517 was #1 in 2017, but couldn’t again crack the top 20 in the next five years? Off soapbox). As with all whiskies that win WA’s WOTY, this one got scarce for awhile. I found a bottle during the hype and counted myself lucky. Then I tasted it and put it aside. GD BiB has a 13-year-old age statement. Color is a deep, tawny burnt orange. On the nose there is a quite pronounced—and quite odd—note that many have described as “peanut” but I have described as “Flintstone’s chewable vitamins.” I’ve gotten the same note on the only other Dickel I’ve ever had (the regular 8-year-old expression). This time, I am getting more of the peanut aspect, and there is a certain pervasive richness to it. Perhaps this peanut-cum-Flintstone-vitamin thing is just a polarizing thing, like Julia Child and cilantro. Part of me wants to find something positive to say, like concentrated nectar of Snickers, but I just can’t get myself to say it. There’s also a cool spearmint note. The palate is an improvement: it is smooth and rich, with a chocolate-covered-cherries sweetness. The 100 proof shows itself on the back end of the palate, and continues on the finish, with a pleasant (and expected) bit of heat, finishing with lingering vanilla and additional cool spearmint. GD BiB is smooth and rich. So is clam chowder, and I don’t like clams. But if you like peanuts or children’s chewable vitamins in your whisky, you may like it. 2.5 on the Distiller scale. Of course, there are other polarizing whiskies: one that I love is Woodford Reserve Master’s Collection Five-Malt Stouted Mash (reviewed 5/19/22). But whereas the Woodford was a special project with a specific goal that was (objectively) accomplished, the GD BiB is just…odd. One more thing. I’m not a Dickel fan based on my experience with two of their offerings (I’m stubborn though, and would surely at least try another if it was given to me). My position became more entrenched when I realized that this distiller offers a spirit aged in Tabasco barrels. I say “spirit” because it doesn’t qualify as a whiskey (it’s only 70 proof). Can any whisk(e)y connoisseur take that seriously? For more info on Dickel’s marketing master stroke with Tabasco, enjoy whisky.com’s Ben Luening’s comments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wN5CWRHLrk). Skip to 5:17 for the fireworks. Hudson Baby Bourbon Whiskey Apparently this bourbon is now a relic, having been discontinued sometime in the past few years. It appears that Tuthilltown Distillers, which the label describes as the first New York distiller since Prohibition, has been bought by Scotland’s William Grant & Sons, and the offerings have been revamped. This particular bourbon appears to have been replaced by the “Bright Lights, Big Bourbon” brand. This discontinued bottle is only 375ml, 94 proof, “made with 100% New York corn,” and aged “under 4 years” without saying how long. Had I realized the mashbill, I would’ve included it in my “Corn Whiskey Showdown” (6/29/22). The nose is unmistakably corn and oak. The mouthfeel is nice, with a viscous, syrupy quality, along with corn-syrup sweetness. There is some corn sweetness and a little spiciness on the finish. Essentially a one-man band playing the same note. 1.5 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

BUDGET BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN Evan Williams Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Wild Turkey 101 Okay, I know that the WT101 isn’t bottled-in-bond; but it is budget, and it is bourbon, and it’s only 1 proof point above the other two, so that’s close enough for me (even if it is a bit older). I thought that a side-by-side comparison between the three would be interesting. Also, it’s college football Saturday, and this is a little pregame activity. Evan Williams Bottled-In Bond I’ve never had this bourbon, which is a Heaven Hill brand. Clear Pantone 138 in color (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Sweet nose reveals an initial hit of tangy barbecue sauce, with orange, caramel, and vanilla. The palate is robust: great depth of flavor with sweet corn, simple syrup, and peppercorn spice, with a pleasant ethanol burn. The medium-length finish is primarily sweet, oaky vanilla. No hard edges or bitterness. This is flat-out delicious. Great aromatics and depth of flavor, and the BiB designation is wonderfully apparent. This Evan Williams expression qualifies as a great sipper neat, and at 100 proof would be great in cocktails as well, without breaking the bank. At just a tick over $20, the value here is amazing. I cannot believe that this is the first time I’ve tried this bourbon, but it definitely won’t be the last, and I’ll always have one on hand. Easy 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub is a Jim Beam brand, and this is also my first experience with it. Clear Pantone 144 in color. Fruity nose, much different than the EW: pomander, apple pie, caramel, and vanilla. Palate is no wallflower, with sweet mulled cider and cigar notes. Cinnamon finish, with a little vanilla, short to medium in length. The ethanol is there, as it should be, but at an appropriate level corresponding to the flavor intensity. I’m similarly pleased that I’ve tried Old Tub. Like the EW, this could function as a sipper, on the rocks, or a cocktail base, given the 100 proof. It’s also around $20, and as such represents a great value. Not quite the experience for me as was the EW, but I’ll always have one of these on hand as well. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. Wild Turkey 101 Wild Turkey 101 is, of course, a Wild Turkey brand, and I’ve had it many times. Clear Pantone 138. The nose is focused more on caramel and vanilla, far more than the EW and OT, with banana bread and a splash of orange. The classic WT high-rye spice is immediately apparent on the palate: there’s a light viscosity—more than the EW and OT—likely the result of longer barrel aging. It finishes medium to long, with vanilla and cinnamon. Wild Turkey 101 is a must-have for me; I’ve never had any WT product that I didn’t like. They have a distinct house style, with a single mashbill for their bourbons. It retails for $1-2 more than the EW or OT, but likely has more age as well. Outstanding. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

BUDGET BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN Evan Williams Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Wild Turkey 101 Okay, I know that the WT101 isn’t bottled-in-bond; but it is budget, and it is bourbon, and it’s only 1 proof point above the other two, so that’s close enough for me (even if it is a bit older). I thought that a side-by-side comparison between the three would be interesting. Also, it’s college football Saturday, and this is a little pregame activity. Evan Williams Bottled-In Bond I’ve never had this bourbon, which is a Heaven Hill brand. Clear Pantone 138 in color (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Sweet nose reveals an initial hit of tangy barbecue sauce, with orange, caramel, and vanilla. The palate is robust: great depth of flavor with sweet corn, simple syrup, and peppercorn spice, with a pleasant ethanol burn. The medium-length finish is primarily sweet, oaky vanilla. No hard edges or bitterness. This is flat-out delicious. Great aromatics and depth of flavor, and the BiB designation is wonderfully apparent. This Evan Williams expression qualifies as a great sipper neat, and at 100 proof would be great in cocktails as well, without breaking the bank. At just a tick over $20, the value here is amazing. I cannot believe that this is the first time I’ve tried this bourbon, but it definitely won’t be the last, and I’ll always have one on hand. Easy 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub is a Jim Beam brand, and this is also my first experience with it. Clear Pantone 144 in color. Fruity nose, much different than the EW: pomander, apple pie, caramel, and vanilla. Palate is no wallflower, with sweet mulled cider and cigar notes. Cinnamon finish, with a little vanilla, short to medium in length. The ethanol is there, as it should be, but at an appropriate level corresponding to the flavor intensity. I’m similarly pleased that I’ve tried Old Tub. Like the EW, this could function as a sipper, on the rocks, or a cocktail base, given the 100 proof. It’s also around $20, and as such represents a great value. Not quite the experience for me as was the EW, but I’ll always have one of these on hand as well. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. Wild Turkey 101 Wild Turkey 101 is, of course, a Wild Turkey brand, and I’ve had it many times. Clear Pantone 138. The nose is focused more on caramel and vanilla, far more than the EW and OT, with banana bread and a splash of orange. The classic WT high-rye spice is immediately apparent on the palate: there’s a light viscosity—more than the EW and OT—likely the result of longer barrel aging. It finishes medium to long, with vanilla and cinnamon. Wild Turkey 101 is a must-have for me; I’ve never had any WT product that I didn’t like. They have a distinct house style, with a single mashbill for their bourbons. It retails for $1-2 more than the EW or OT, but likely has more age as well. Outstanding. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

BUDGET BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON SHOWDOWN Evan Williams Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Wild Turkey 101 Okay, I know that the WT101 isn’t bottled-in-bond; but it is budget, and it is bourbon, and it’s only 1 proof point above the other two, so that’s close enough for me (even if it is a bit older). I thought that a side-by-side comparison between the three would be interesting. Also, it’s college football Saturday, and this is a little pregame activity. Evan Williams Bottled-In Bond I’ve never had this bourbon, which is a Heaven Hill brand. Clear Pantone 138 in color (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Sweet nose reveals an initial hit of tangy barbecue sauce, with orange, caramel, and vanilla. The palate is robust: great depth of flavor with sweet corn, simple syrup, and peppercorn spice, with a pleasant ethanol burn. The medium-length finish is primarily sweet, oaky vanilla. No hard edges or bitterness. This is flat-out delicious. Great aromatics and depth of flavor, and the BiB designation is wonderfully apparent. This Evan Williams expression qualifies as a great sipper neat, and at 100 proof would be great in cocktails as well, without breaking the bank. At just a tick over $20, the value here is amazing. I cannot believe that this is the first time I’ve tried this bourbon, but it definitely won’t be the last, and I’ll always have one on hand. Easy 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Old Tub Bottled-In-Bond Old Tub is a Jim Beam brand, and this is also my first experience with it. Clear Pantone 144 in color. Fruity nose, much different than the EW: pomander, apple pie, caramel, and vanilla. Palate is no wallflower, with sweet mulled cider and cigar notes. Cinnamon finish, with a little vanilla, short to medium in length. The ethanol is there, as it should be, but at an appropriate level corresponding to the flavor intensity. I’m similarly pleased that I’ve tried Old Tub. Like the EW, this could function as a sipper, on the rocks, or a cocktail base, given the 100 proof. It’s also around $20, and as such represents a great value. Not quite the experience for me as was the EW, but I’ll always have one of these on hand as well. 3.5 on the Distiller scale. Wild Turkey 101 Wild Turkey 101 is, of course, a Wild Turkey brand, and I’ve had it many times. Clear Pantone 138. The nose is focused more on caramel and vanilla, far more than the EW and OT, with banana bread and a splash of orange. The classic WT high-rye spice is immediately apparent on the palate: there’s a light viscosity—more than the EW and OT—likely the result of longer barrel aging. It finishes medium to long, with vanilla and cinnamon. Wild Turkey 101 is a must-have for me; I’ve never had any WT product that I didn’t like. They have a distinct house style, with a single mashbill for their bourbons. It retails for $1-2 more than the EW or OT, but likely has more age as well. Outstanding. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

NIKKA COFFEY-STILL SHOWDOWN Nikka Coffey Malt Whisky Nikka Coffey Grain Whisky Continuing to work through the bottles in my collection that I’ve not yet reviewed. To begin, “Coffey” is not a typo; it doesn’t refer to the bean or drink, but rather to a type of still that is used, which originated in early 19th-century Scotland and was brought to Japan in the early 20th century. I currently have four Nikka whiskies: these two, plus the Taketsuru Pure Malt and the Nikka Whisky From The Barrel (which I need to review again, as the last time was over a year ago and only rated 4.25; I’ve had it since and thought it was even better). I’ve had the Coffey Malt and Coffey Grain for some time, and recall that I didn’t care for the former but very much liked the latter. Nikka Coffee Malt Color is a clear and bright gold, akin to Pantone 116 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). It’s been a long time since I’ve had this, but I recalled it reminding me of a Halls Honey Lemon cough drop. The nose is initially reluctant, but does have a lemony-honey-eucalyptus aspect; this sounds odd, but it’s not as bad as it sounds. On the palate, there’s a honey sweetness and a light, round glycerin mouthfeel. There’s a lingering coolness on the finish, some chile spice, and a touch of bitterness on the finish (could be some woody tannins, though I’m unaware of the barrels used, other than being relatively certain that this is not Mizanura oak, which would likely be displayed prominently on the bottle). This is a unique whisky, unlike anything I’ve ever experienced, and is perhaps worth seeking out for the exploratory connoisseur. I’d imagine that it’s polarizing as well. Nikka states that this expression was released in 2013 to “offer more excitements [sic] to afficionados.” Additionally, some distillate from Ben Nevis is used, and thus doesn’t qualify as Japanese Whisky. I recall paying about $60 a few years back, and a quick Internet search shows that either can be had for about $70 today. The 45% ABV is appreciated, and the flavors are robust enough to support it; a higher proof also displays more attention to quality than economics (i.e., water dilution and more yield). The quality is there, as is a robust flavor profile; but the flavors themselves are unusual. That being said, I do like it much more than the last time I had it, and I’d keep a bottle onhand as a diversion. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. Nikka Coffee Grain Whisky Color is a robust Pantone 123, with just a bit of an orange tint vs the more gold Coffee Malt. The nose is nothing like the Coffee Malt: the nose is sweet, with bourbon-like elements of caramelized sugar, a little vanilla, cornbread, and some mint. Nosed blind, I would’ve guessed bourbon. The palate hits you like the Pillsbury Dough Boy: soft, round, heavy, and not going anywhere. Viscous mouthfeel, with Honey, Cheerios, and orange, finishing with the same chile (not pepper) spiciness, and again a hit of vanilla. Nice finish. I LOVE this whisky. Unsurprisingly, due to its bourbonesque characteristics, Nikka states that it is “predominantly made from corn.” Like the Coffey Malt, also 45% ABV, which is both noticeable and well integrated. According to the company, the Coffey Grain does meet all the criteria for “Japanese Whisky” (I was unaware that the corn-primary mashbill would allow for that). Rich, sweet, and bold, Nikka Coffey Grain fires on all cylinders and offers another unique drinking experience, given the origin. I would always have this onhand (I’ve had a backup for some time now). An easy 4.25 stars on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

NIKKA COFFEY-STILL SHOWDOWN Nikka Coffey Malt Whisky Nikka Coffey Grain Whisky Continuing to work through the bottles in my collection that I’ve not yet reviewed. To begin, “Coffey” is not a typo; it doesn’t refer to the bean or drink, but rather to a type of still that is used, which originated in early 19th-century Scotland and was brought to Japan in the early 20th century. I currently have four Nikka whiskies: these two, plus the Taketsuru Pure Malt and the Nikka Whisky From The Barrel (which I need to review again, as the last time was over a year ago and only rated 4.25; I’ve had it since and thought it was even better). I’ve had the Coffey Malt and Coffey Grain for some time, and recall that I didn’t care for the former but very much liked the latter. Nikka Coffee Malt Color is a clear and bright gold, akin to Pantone 116 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). It’s been a long time since I’ve had this, but I recalled it reminding me of a Halls Honey Lemon cough drop. The nose is initially reluctant, but does have a lemony-honey-eucalyptus aspect; this sounds odd, but it’s not as bad as it sounds. On the palate, there’s a honey sweetness and a light, round glycerin mouthfeel. There’s a lingering coolness on the finish, some chile spice, and a touch of bitterness on the finish (could be some woody tannins, though I’m unaware of the barrels used, other than being relatively certain that this is not Mizanura oak, which would likely be displayed prominently on the bottle). This is a unique whisky, unlike anything I’ve ever experienced, and is perhaps worth seeking out for the exploratory connoisseur. I’d imagine that it’s polarizing as well. Nikka states that this expression was released in 2013 to “offer more excitements [sic] to afficionados.” Additionally, some distillate from Ben Nevis is used, and thus doesn’t qualify as Japanese Whisky. I recall paying about $60 a few years back, and a quick Internet search shows that either can be had for about $70 today. The 45% ABV is appreciated, and the flavors are robust enough to support it; a higher proof also displays more attention to quality than economics (i.e., water dilution and more yield). The quality is there, as is a robust flavor profile; but the flavors themselves are unusual. That being said, I do like it much more than the last time I had it, and I’d keep a bottle onhand as a diversion. 3.75 on the Distiller scale. Nikka Coffee Grain Whisky Color is a robust Pantone 123, with just a bit of an orange tint vs the more gold Coffee Malt. The nose is nothing like the Coffee Malt: the nose is sweet, with bourbon-like elements of caramelized sugar, a little vanilla, cornbread, and some mint. Nosed blind, I would’ve guessed bourbon. The palate hits you like the Pillsbury Dough Boy: soft, round, heavy, and not going anywhere. Viscous mouthfeel, with Honey, Cheerios, and orange, finishing with the same chile (not pepper) spiciness, and again a hit of vanilla. Nice finish. I LOVE this whisky. Unsurprisingly, due to its bourbonesque characteristics, Nikka states that it is “predominantly made from corn.” Like the Coffey Malt, also 45% ABV, which is both noticeable and well integrated. According to the company, the Coffey Grain does meet all the criteria for “Japanese Whisky” (I was unaware that the corn-primary mashbill would allow for that). Rich, sweet, and bold, Nikka Coffey Grain fires on all cylinders and offers another unique drinking experience, given the origin. I would always have this onhand (I’ve had a backup for some time now). An easy 4.25 stars on the Distiller scale. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.