Tastes

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.

GLENMORANGIE SHOWDOWN Glenmorangie 10 Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish Glenmorangie 18 I was inspired to revisit some Glenmorangie following @DjangoJohnson’s review of the Glenmorangie 12 Lasanta Sherry Cask Finish a couple days ago. I don’t have a lot of experience with this producer, but I do have three bottles in my collection, so I decided to break those out. Glenmorangie 10 Color is a clear version of Pantone 130 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Muted nose (I came back to it 20 minutes later and it was still not showing; it reminds me of a wine in a “dumb” phase); I’d recalled honey and apricot but I’m not getting much of anything on the nose after a few minutes in the glass. The honey does show on the palate, with some glycerin mouthfeel. Vanilla commingles with some bitterness on the finish. Due to the “youthful” (for scotch whisky) 10-year age statement, I would not think this would be attributable to wood-sourced tannins. 43% ABV. Disappointingly simpler than I’d recalled; 3.0 on the Distiller scale—but a 3.0 that nevertheless I’d keep onhand. Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish A crystal-clear Pantone 167 color; far darker than the 10-year-old expression, due to the aging in ruby port casks. Welcoming nose of chocolate covered cherries, candied ginger, brown sugar, and orange oil. Sweet palate entry, with a slightly viscous mouthfeel and dark caramelized sugar leading to a pleasant bitter note of café Cubano, dark orange, and white pepper on the medium-to-long finish. Typical 43% ABV very much kept in check. Non-chill filtered. 43% ABV. Wonderful, and better than I’d recalled. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Glenmorangie 18 Pantone 138 in color. Nose emits braised peaches, white chocolate hazelnut cookies, cocoa, spearmint. Later, concord grape juice (a first for me). Sweet palate shows bittersweet chocolate and mulled apple cider. Some espresso bitterness on the finish, similar to the Quinta Ruban, along with some vanilla and lingering mild chiles. The bitterness, while pleasant, detracts from the smoothness often experienced with other 18-year-old whiskies. With air (more commonly stated when tasting wine), it does seem to acquire additional smoothness, and even sweetness. 43% ABV. Very nice, but not enough “wow” to break into the 4.0 class; 3.75 on the Distiller scale. The WOTN (whisky of the night) for me was the Quinta Ruban. Both the 10- and 18-year expressions showed worse than I’d remembered. But the wallet speaks the loudest: I’d definitely keep the Quinta Ruban on hand, as well as the 10-year; but I’m not sure about the 18. The gargantuan fancy packaging and “Extremely Rare” verbiage on that bottle is too suggestive, and amounts to more sizzle than steak. It has its merits, and is something of a “value” at around $120 for an 18-year-old whisky; certainly “nice to have,” but not a “must-have” (insofar as “must” is even applicable to a luxury such as a whisky collection). None of these are undesirable, and the Quinta Ruban is in fact quite desirable. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

GLENMORANGIE SHOWDOWN Glenmorangie 10 Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish Glenmorangie 18 I was inspired to revisit some Glenmorangie following @DjangoJohnson’s review of the Glenmorangie 12 Lasanta Sherry Cask Finish a couple days ago. I don’t have a lot of experience with this producer, but I do have three bottles in my collection, so I decided to break those out. Glenmorangie 10 Color is a clear version of Pantone 130 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Muted nose (I came back to it 20 minutes later and it was still not showing; it reminds me of a wine in a “dumb” phase); I’d recalled honey and apricot but I’m not getting much of anything on the nose after a few minutes in the glass. The honey does show on the palate, with some glycerin mouthfeel. Vanilla commingles with some bitterness on the finish. Due to the “youthful” (for scotch whisky) 10-year age statement, I would not think this would be attributable to wood-sourced tannins. 43% ABV. Disappointingly simpler than I’d recalled; 3.0 on the Distiller scale—but a 3.0 that nevertheless I’d keep onhand. Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish A crystal-clear Pantone 167 color; far darker than the 10-year-old expression, due to the aging in ruby port casks. Welcoming nose of chocolate covered cherries, candied ginger, brown sugar, and orange oil. Sweet palate entry, with a slightly viscous mouthfeel and dark caramelized sugar leading to a pleasant bitter note of café Cubano, dark orange, and white pepper on the medium-to-long finish. Typical 43% ABV very much kept in check. Non-chill filtered. 43% ABV. Wonderful, and better than I’d recalled. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Glenmorangie 18 Pantone 138 in color. Nose emits braised peaches, white chocolate hazelnut cookies, cocoa, spearmint. Later, concord grape juice (a first for me). Sweet palate shows bittersweet chocolate and mulled apple cider. Some espresso bitterness on the finish, similar to the Quinta Ruban, along with some vanilla and lingering mild chiles. The bitterness, while pleasant, detracts from the smoothness often experienced with other 18-year-old whiskies. With air (more commonly stated when tasting wine), it does seem to acquire additional smoothness, and even sweetness. 43% ABV. Very nice, but not enough “wow” to break into the 4.0 class; 3.75 on the Distiller scale. The WOTN (whisky of the night) for me was the Quinta Ruban. Both the 10- and 18-year expressions showed worse than I’d remembered. But the wallet speaks the loudest: I’d definitely keep the Quinta Ruban on hand, as well as the 10-year; but I’m not sure about the 18. The gargantuan fancy packaging and “Extremely Rare” verbiage on that bottle is too suggestive, and amounts to more sizzle than steak. It has its merits, and is something of a “value” at around $120 for an 18-year-old whisky; certainly “nice to have,” but not a “must-have” (insofar as “must” is even applicable to a luxury such as a whisky collection). None of these are undesirable, and the Quinta Ruban is in fact quite desirable. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

GLENMORANGIE SHOWDOWN Glenmorangie 10 Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish Glenmorangie 18 I was inspired to revisit some Glenmorangie following @DjangoJohnson’s review of the Glenmorangie 12 Lasanta Sherry Cask Finish a couple days ago. I don’t have a lot of experience with this producer, but I do have three bottles in my collection, so I decided to break those out. Glenmorangie 10 Color is a clear version of Pantone 130 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). Muted nose (I came back to it 20 minutes later and it was still not showing; it reminds me of a wine in a “dumb” phase); I’d recalled honey and apricot but I’m not getting much of anything on the nose after a few minutes in the glass. The honey does show on the palate, with some glycerin mouthfeel. Vanilla commingles with some bitterness on the finish. Due to the “youthful” (for scotch whisky) 10-year age statement, I would not think this would be attributable to wood-sourced tannins. 43% ABV. Disappointingly simpler than I’d recalled; 3.0 on the Distiller scale—but a 3.0 that nevertheless I’d keep onhand. Glenmorangie 14 Quinta Ruban Port Cask Finish A crystal-clear Pantone 167 color; far darker than the 10-year-old expression, due to the aging in ruby port casks. Welcoming nose of chocolate covered cherries, candied ginger, brown sugar, and orange oil. Sweet palate entry, with a slightly viscous mouthfeel and dark caramelized sugar leading to a pleasant bitter note of café Cubano, dark orange, and white pepper on the medium-to-long finish. Typical 43% ABV very much kept in check. Non-chill filtered. 43% ABV. Wonderful, and better than I’d recalled. 4.0 on the Distiller scale. Glenmorangie 18 Pantone 138 in color. Nose emits braised peaches, white chocolate hazelnut cookies, cocoa, spearmint. Later, concord grape juice (a first for me). Sweet palate shows bittersweet chocolate and mulled apple cider. Some espresso bitterness on the finish, similar to the Quinta Ruban, along with some vanilla and lingering mild chiles. The bitterness, while pleasant, detracts from the smoothness often experienced with other 18-year-old whiskies. With air (more commonly stated when tasting wine), it does seem to acquire additional smoothness, and even sweetness. 43% ABV. Very nice, but not enough “wow” to break into the 4.0 class; 3.75 on the Distiller scale. The WOTN (whisky of the night) for me was the Quinta Ruban. Both the 10- and 18-year expressions showed worse than I’d remembered. But the wallet speaks the loudest: I’d definitely keep the Quinta Ruban on hand, as well as the 10-year; but I’m not sure about the 18. The gargantuan fancy packaging and “Extremely Rare” verbiage on that bottle is too suggestive, and amounts to more sizzle than steak. It has its merits, and is something of a “value” at around $120 for an 18-year-old whisky; certainly “nice to have,” but not a “must-have” (insofar as “must” is even applicable to a luxury such as a whisky collection). None of these are undesirable, and the Quinta Ruban is in fact quite desirable. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

OBAN SHOWDOWN Oban 14 Oban Distiller’s Edition Oban 18 Oban sometimes gets a bad rap because of its gentleness (I say this in particular about Oban 14), which leads some to proclaim it as a “beginner’s” scotch—as if an approachable whisky is mutually exclusive from one that could be enjoyed by a more experienced imbiber. Whisky afficionados shouldn’t conflate gentleness with simplicity, which Oban 14 is not; rather, it is subtle and refined, and requires some attention to tease out its complexity. Perhaps the Oban Distiller’s Edition, which was first released about 25 years ago, and the Oban Little Bay, which was first released about eight years ago, are responses to the market leaning towards power rather than finesse. But I digress. Oban 14 Color is a clear version of Pantone 138 (I have no affiliation with Pantone, but am using it in an attempt to achieve a little more visual precision). The nose is pear paradise: pear purée, pear nectar, pear tart. Then saline, hay, some very light peat, and a subtle not-quite-smokiness that is perhaps closer to a cured meat, like speck. The palate has a creamy mouthfeel, with sweet honey, and a floral gardenia quality, if the smell of that flower could be tasted. There is a long finish with salt, a pinch of pepper dust and some spicy oak. Joyous. 43% ABV. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. Oban Distiller’s Edition I’ve always enjoyed the sherry-finished Distiller’s Editions of Diageo’s single-malt whiskies. Color is the darkest of the three, nearer to Pantone 152. But this is not due to the sherry aging, as the sherry here is Fino, which is far lighter than the more commonly used Olorosso. The Distiller’s Edition is a weightier expression, occupying a sort of middle ground between the 14 and 18 in nose, palate, and finish. The nose is near to a peach cobbler, with a reminder of breakfast bacon continuing to waft through the kitchen. The palate maintains a light glycerin, and salty sweetness continues on the finish. 2021 bottling. Identical 43% ABV. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. Oban 18 Color is a touch darker than the Oban 14; more like Pantone 145. This is a fuller, rounder version of the Oban 14—but at the expense of the 14’s vibrancy, not unlike an aged wine. What was once a bouquet of fruity pears has morphed into a cozy mélange of baked pears and applesauce, sprinkled with brown sugar. The palate is creamy like the 14, with a sweetness less honey and more sorghum, and a finish with fine pepper more muted than the 14, along with fine leathery dryness. Only four extra years in a cool, damp climate, but the difference is noticeable. If Oban is a feminine whisky, this is an older version of the same beautiful young woman; each has their charms. Identical 43% ABV. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. On the whole, I prefer the younger Oban 14 over the Distiller’s edition and its older 18-year expression. The 14 drinks as if it’s at the height of its charms; its two older siblings aren’t as lithe and sprightly. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.