Tastes

RANDOM BOURBON SHOWDOWN ROCK HILL FARMS BOURBON HENRY MCKENNA 10-YEAR BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON I’m beginning to revisit whiskies that I haven’t reviewed in some time, and found that I hadn’t written notes on either Rock Hill Farms or Henry McKenna since May 2022. Time for another Showdown. ROCK HILL FARMS BOURBON Clear amber, a shade lighter than the Henry McKenna (Pantone 144). The nose leads with a distinct apple note (more like apple juice following the McKenna), along with vanilla wafers, sweet hay, mulled cider, rosin, alcohol, oak, a touch of menthol. Lightly viscous mouthfeel, with oak and vanilla on the palate. The 100-proof alcohol makes its presence felt, and the finish shows not-insignificant espresso bitterness, chai spice tea, and lingering oak. Rock Hill Farms bourbon is something of a paradox. It starts out gently with that apple note, then finishes tight with a bitter streak that is both espresso-like (a positive) and akin to woody tannins (not so positive). The effect is more disappointing than off-putting. RKF is difficult to obtain, however, and if you can find a bottle, expect to pay north of $400 at today’s prices (I traded for the ones I have some time ago). I’m kind of glad I have a couple bottles left—perhaps I’ll be able to trade them for something else. To be fair, these are single-barrel offerings, which means that there may be more bottle variation than normal. Perhaps my barrel(s) weren’t as good as others. Would I buy it again? No. It’s nice to have in a collection, but having tried it now on multiple occasions, I wouldn’t seek it out. 3.5 on the Distiller scale (vs. 3.75 on my previous review, 5/4/22). 100 proof. NAS. HENRY MCKENNA 10-YEAR BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON Orange mahogany; a touch darker than the Rock Hill Farms (Pantone 152). Chocolate-covered cherries, cocoa powder, plums, light clove, oak, some raisins, brownies, and a whiff of spearmint. Very sweet on the palate with more cherry and oak. The 100-proof is very well integrated; the finish is long, with copious pipe tobacco caressed in vanilla, along with some char. I’ve loved Henry McKenna from my first sip years ago. It’s complex; has great depth of flavor; wears a 10-year age statement; and carries a higher-than-average proof. If you look hard enough, it can be found for around $75, though I typically see it around $100. Would I buy it again? Yes, especially at the retail price. It’s a value considering the experience it delivers. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.5 on my previous review, 5/24/22). 100 Proof. 10-year age statement. CONCLUSION Despite their similar proofs, these two bourbons are very different. The Rock Hill Farms starts out with a wonderfully evocative nose but goes downhill from there—a decline exacerbated by the initial high expectations. The Henry McKenna is not quite at the “great” level (I rated it 4.5 on my previous review), but it satisfies on the nose, palate, and finish. Showdown reviews aren’t intended to be about winners and losers per se, but rather to serve as exercises to illustrate what context—in these cases, different whiskies side-by-side—can do to sensory perception. But I didn’t get anything particularly different from either of these when tasted next to each other. Rather, my opinions were reinforced. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

RANDOM BOURBON SHOWDOWN ROCK HILL FARMS BOURBON HENRY MCKENNA 10-YEAR BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON I’m beginning to revisit whiskies that I haven’t reviewed in some time, and found that I hadn’t written notes on either Rock Hill Farms or Henry McKenna since May 2022. Time for another Showdown. ROCK HILL FARMS BOURBON Clear amber, a shade lighter than the Henry McKenna (Pantone 144). The nose leads with a distinct apple note (more like apple juice following the McKenna), along with vanilla wafers, sweet hay, mulled cider, rosin, alcohol, oak, a touch of menthol. Lightly viscous mouthfeel, with oak and vanilla on the palate. The 100-proof alcohol makes its presence felt, and the finish shows not-insignificant espresso bitterness, chai spice tea, and lingering oak. Rock Hill Farms bourbon is something of a paradox. It starts out gently with that apple note, then finishes tight with a bitter streak that is both espresso-like (a positive) and akin to woody tannins (not so positive). The effect is more disappointing than off-putting. RKF is difficult to obtain, however, and if you can find a bottle, expect to pay north of $400 at today’s prices (I traded for the ones I have some time ago). I’m kind of glad I have a couple bottles left—perhaps I’ll be able to trade them for something else. To be fair, these are single-barrel offerings, which means that there may be more bottle variation than normal. Perhaps my barrel(s) weren’t as good as others. Would I buy it again? No. It’s nice to have in a collection, but having tried it now on multiple occasions, I wouldn’t seek it out. 3.5 on the Distiller scale (vs. 3.75 on my previous review, 5/4/22). 100 proof. NAS. HENRY MCKENNA 10-YEAR BOTTLED-IN-BOND BOURBON Orange mahogany; a touch darker than the Rock Hill Farms (Pantone 152). Chocolate-covered cherries, cocoa powder, plums, light clove, oak, some raisins, brownies, and a whiff of spearmint. Very sweet on the palate with more cherry and oak. The 100-proof is very well integrated; the finish is long, with copious pipe tobacco caressed in vanilla, along with some char. I’ve loved Henry McKenna from my first sip years ago. It’s complex; has great depth of flavor; wears a 10-year age statement; and carries a higher-than-average proof. If you look hard enough, it can be found for around $75, though I typically see it around $100. Would I buy it again? Yes, especially at the retail price. It’s a value considering the experience it delivers. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.5 on my previous review, 5/24/22). 100 Proof. 10-year age statement. CONCLUSION Despite their similar proofs, these two bourbons are very different. The Rock Hill Farms starts out with a wonderfully evocative nose but goes downhill from there—a decline exacerbated by the initial high expectations. The Henry McKenna is not quite at the “great” level (I rated it 4.5 on my previous review), but it satisfies on the nose, palate, and finish. Showdown reviews aren’t intended to be about winners and losers per se, but rather to serve as exercises to illustrate what context—in these cases, different whiskies side-by-side—can do to sensory perception. But I didn’t get anything particularly different from either of these when tasted next to each other. Rather, my opinions were reinforced. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

I’ve been exploring some Irish Whiskies of late, and when I read in @stephaniemoreno ‘s profile that her go-to dive-bar whiskey is Bushmill’s Black Bush, I decided to give it a try on this New Year's Eve, before heading out with friends. Color is a dull khakied amber (Pantone 142). Nose of golden raisins, apple pie, brown sugar, a little orange oil, ripe carambola, and ripe banana. The mouthfeel has a gentle quality that rolls around on your tongue; the palate shows light sherry, and some sugared vanilla. On the finish there’s a touch of woody tannic bitterness, along with more vanilla. I tried Bushmill’s Black Bush because @stephaniemoreno states in her profile that it’s her go-to dive bar whiskey. I can’t disagree with that. It has some age; is finished in sherry casks; and is quite drinkable, if a bit simple. But dive bars—which I love—aren’t about complex whiskies. They’re about other things. And if the next one I’m at has it, I’ll likely order it. Bushmill’s Black Bush can be found for $40. Would I buy it again? Yes. It’s not a particularly good value—especially considering the bare-minimum 40% ABV—but it does seem to fill a niche at the moment. 3.25 on the Distiller scale. 40% ABV. 8-year age statement (not on label; per company website). E150a coloring added. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 I’ve been a big fan of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) for a long time. I own (or have consumed) most of the triannual releases for the past 6-7 years. I’ve reviewed them individually in addition to doing Showdown reviews comparing releases from the same year. This Showdown review compares three highly rated ECBP releases from different years: B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year; B520, which is thought by many to be one of the best ECBP releases; and the C923, which I recently rated 4.75 and has received a lot of fanfare from the bourbon community. How do these compare? Let’s find out. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 Deep orange mahogany color (Pantone 153). Complex nose reveals cocoa powder, pomander, oiled leather, caramel, vanilla, Luxardo cherries, charred oak, a Wild Turkey-like dust, grape jelly, and spearmint. The palate has a nice viscosity, with sweet oak and caramel. The alcohol is kept in check with the robust flavor profile, and the finish is long, with crème brûlée and lots of oaky vanilla. While whisk(e)y drinkers debate whether Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year is a marketing merry-go-round or an objective assessment, the winner is typically very good, and the ECBP B517 is certainly that. There is plenty of complexity; a high, well-integrated proof; and a reasonable price, considering. Current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is one of the best values in bourbon. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.25 on my last review). 124.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Deep mahogany color, a shade darker than the B517 (Pantone 160). Fantastic nose reveals chai tea, milk chocolate, strawberry preserves, cocoa, graham cracker, cappuccino, orange oil, cherry pie filling, mulled cider, spearmint and maple syrup—all of this without noticeable alcohol. On the palate, there is a light glycerin mouthfeel, and a sweetness Finish has plenty of cinnamon red hots and vanilla extract. The ECBP B520 nose is very complex. Nosing through each release in succession, and continuing to cycle through them all, I kept getting different olfactory elements from the B520. It is both powerful and refined. As stated previously, current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Every time. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 Burnt orange meets mahogany; a half-shade lighter than the B520 (Pantone 153). Out of the glass, the C923 fills the nose with a pervasive warmth. Orange oil leads the way, followed by cedar, Chinese five spice, dust, apples, tangy BBQ sauce, soy sauce, and a whiff of menthol. Like the B520, there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The mouthfeel has a similar viscosity, though the palate isn’t quite as sweet as the B520. The high proof becomes noticeable on the back end, transitioning to a finish with brown sugar, oaky vanilla, drying leather, and a big Kentucky Hug. For the third time in this review: where else are you going to find a bourbon with high proof, high complexity, and such a robust flavor profile? There’s a reason why the bourbon community is raving about ECBP C923. It Would I buy? 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 133 proof. 13 year, 7 month age statement. Non chill filtered. METHODOLOGY High-proof bourbons need to be approached with a little trepidation—and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves hazmat whisk(e)y. The first sips start very hot, and it takes a few for the mouth to become acclimated. Only then can the actual tasting begin; and for me, that translates to a 10-12 minute warm-up. For this Showdown, I nosed each one in succession, occasionally taking a small sip, and then wrote a one-word descriptor or short phrase before moving to the next one. I continued this process until I’d ran out of differentiable identifiers. Then I sipped each one and recorded the taste and finish in the same way. Further, I passed through everything again. And finally, I repeated the process the next night, and only then began to craft each paragraph. CONCLUSION These three releases of ECBP, spanning six years, show a commitment to consistency. Each release shares similarities and overlapping descriptors. As @djangojohnson has mentioned elsewhere, separate releases of the same bourbon can be subtle. The biggest differences in this case aren’t in the flavor profiles themselves but rather their pervasiveness and intensity on the nose, palate, and finish, as well as the presence and integration of alcohol, regardless of the proof. Succinctly: power and balance. The B517 is very good, and I’m happy that I’ve got a couple more bottles in reserve; but despite its power and complexity, it is a notch below the B520 and C923. That is not an underhanded compliment, because the B520 and C923 are world-class. The B520 is exquisite: every time I come back to it—over the past two days I’ve logged dozens of sips amongst the three—I find something different. The C923 is the most powerful amongst the three. The proof is a little higher, and it is noticeable as it should be, and there is an effusiveness of flavor that floods your nose and coats your palate. It reminds me of the opulence that comes from a William Larue Weller or George T. Stagg. It is ostentatious, but not brash. It displays a sophisticated heaviness, like a fine shearling coat. It demands your attention unapologetically, and its big Kentucky hug reminds you that you’re in its house rather than the other way around. But the C923 is a bit out of balance. It’s robustness doesn’t quite stand up to the 133 proof. Were the alcohol a little more integrated, the C923 would be a 5.0. But in this Kentucky Derby, the B520 wins in a photo finish. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 I’ve been a big fan of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) for a long time. I own (or have consumed) most of the triannual releases for the past 6-7 years. I’ve reviewed them individually in addition to doing Showdown reviews comparing releases from the same year. This Showdown review compares three highly rated ECBP releases from different years: B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year; B520, which is thought by many to be one of the best ECBP releases; and the C923, which I recently rated 4.75 and has received a lot of fanfare from the bourbon community. How do these compare? Let’s find out. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 Deep orange mahogany color (Pantone 153). Complex nose reveals cocoa powder, pomander, oiled leather, caramel, vanilla, Luxardo cherries, charred oak, a Wild Turkey-like dust, grape jelly, and spearmint. The palate has a nice viscosity, with sweet oak and caramel. The alcohol is kept in check with the robust flavor profile, and the finish is long, with crème brûlée and lots of oaky vanilla. While whisk(e)y drinkers debate whether Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year is a marketing merry-go-round or an objective assessment, the winner is typically very good, and the ECBP B517 is certainly that. There is plenty of complexity; a high, well-integrated proof; and a reasonable price, considering. Current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is one of the best values in bourbon. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.25 on my last review). 124.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Deep mahogany color, a shade darker than the B517 (Pantone 160). Fantastic nose reveals chai tea, milk chocolate, strawberry preserves, cocoa, graham cracker, cappuccino, orange oil, cherry pie filling, mulled cider, spearmint and maple syrup—all of this without noticeable alcohol. On the palate, there is a light glycerin mouthfeel, and a sweetness Finish has plenty of cinnamon red hots and vanilla extract. The ECBP B520 nose is very complex. Nosing through each release in succession, and continuing to cycle through them all, I kept getting different olfactory elements from the B520. It is both powerful and refined. As stated previously, current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Every time. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 Burnt orange meets mahogany; a half-shade lighter than the B520 (Pantone 153). Out of the glass, the C923 fills the nose with a pervasive warmth. Orange oil leads the way, followed by cedar, Chinese five spice, dust, apples, tangy BBQ sauce, soy sauce, and a whiff of menthol. Like the B520, there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The mouthfeel has a similar viscosity, though the palate isn’t quite as sweet as the B520. The high proof becomes noticeable on the back end, transitioning to a finish with brown sugar, oaky vanilla, drying leather, and a big Kentucky Hug. For the third time in this review: where else are you going to find a bourbon with high proof, high complexity, and such a robust flavor profile? There’s a reason why the bourbon community is raving about ECBP C923. It Would I buy? 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 133 proof. 13 year, 7 month age statement. Non chill filtered. METHODOLOGY High-proof bourbons need to be approached with a little trepidation—and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves hazmat whisk(e)y. The first sips start very hot, and it takes a few for the mouth to become acclimated. Only then can the actual tasting begin; and for me, that translates to a 10-12 minute warm-up. For this Showdown, I nosed each one in succession, occasionally taking a small sip, and then wrote a one-word descriptor or short phrase before moving to the next one. I continued this process until I’d ran out of differentiable identifiers. Then I sipped each one and recorded the taste and finish in the same way. Further, I passed through everything again. And finally, I repeated the process the next night, and only then began to craft each paragraph. CONCLUSION These three releases of ECBP, spanning six years, show a commitment to consistency. Each release shares similarities and overlapping descriptors. As @djangojohnson has mentioned elsewhere, separate releases of the same bourbon can be subtle. The biggest differences in this case aren’t in the flavor profiles themselves but rather their pervasiveness and intensity on the nose, palate, and finish, as well as the presence and integration of alcohol, regardless of the proof. Succinctly: power and balance. The B517 is very good, and I’m happy that I’ve got a couple more bottles in reserve; but despite its power and complexity, it is a notch below the B520 and C923. That is not an underhanded compliment, because the B520 and C923 are world-class. The B520 is exquisite: every time I come back to it—over the past two days I’ve logged dozens of sips amongst the three—I find something different. The C923 is the most powerful amongst the three. The proof is a little higher, and it is noticeable as it should be, and there is an effusiveness of flavor that floods your nose and coats your palate. It reminds me of the opulence that comes from a William Larue Weller or George T. Stagg. It is ostentatious, but not brash. It displays a sophisticated heaviness, like a fine shearling coat. It demands your attention unapologetically, and its big Kentucky hug reminds you that you’re in its house rather than the other way around. But the C923 is a bit out of balance. It’s robustness doesn’t quite stand up to the 133 proof. Were the alcohol a little more integrated, the C923 would be a 5.0. But in this Kentucky Derby, the B520 wins in a photo finish. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF SHOWDOWN ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 I’ve been a big fan of Elijah Craig Barrel Proof (ECBP) for a long time. I own (or have consumed) most of the triannual releases for the past 6-7 years. I’ve reviewed them individually in addition to doing Showdown reviews comparing releases from the same year. This Showdown review compares three highly rated ECBP releases from different years: B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year; B520, which is thought by many to be one of the best ECBP releases; and the C923, which I recently rated 4.75 and has received a lot of fanfare from the bourbon community. How do these compare? Let’s find out. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B517 Deep orange mahogany color (Pantone 153). Complex nose reveals cocoa powder, pomander, oiled leather, caramel, vanilla, Luxardo cherries, charred oak, a Wild Turkey-like dust, grape jelly, and spearmint. The palate has a nice viscosity, with sweet oak and caramel. The alcohol is kept in check with the robust flavor profile, and the finish is long, with crème brûlée and lots of oaky vanilla. While whisk(e)y drinkers debate whether Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year is a marketing merry-go-round or an objective assessment, the winner is typically very good, and the ECBP B517 is certainly that. There is plenty of complexity; a high, well-integrated proof; and a reasonable price, considering. Current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is one of the best values in bourbon. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.25 on my last review). 124.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Deep mahogany color, a shade darker than the B517 (Pantone 160). Fantastic nose reveals chai tea, milk chocolate, strawberry preserves, cocoa, graham cracker, cappuccino, orange oil, cherry pie filling, mulled cider, spearmint and maple syrup—all of this without noticeable alcohol. On the palate, there is a light glycerin mouthfeel, and a sweetness Finish has plenty of cinnamon red hots and vanilla extract. The ECBP B520 nose is very complex. Nosing through each release in succession, and continuing to cycle through them all, I kept getting different olfactory elements from the B520. It is both powerful and refined. As stated previously, current releases of ECBP can be found for $85. Would I buy it again? Every time. 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. Non chill filtered. ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF C923 Burnt orange meets mahogany; a half-shade lighter than the B520 (Pantone 153). Out of the glass, the C923 fills the nose with a pervasive warmth. Orange oil leads the way, followed by cedar, Chinese five spice, dust, apples, tangy BBQ sauce, soy sauce, and a whiff of menthol. Like the B520, there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The mouthfeel has a similar viscosity, though the palate isn’t quite as sweet as the B520. The high proof becomes noticeable on the back end, transitioning to a finish with brown sugar, oaky vanilla, drying leather, and a big Kentucky Hug. For the third time in this review: where else are you going to find a bourbon with high proof, high complexity, and such a robust flavor profile? There’s a reason why the bourbon community is raving about ECBP C923. It Would I buy? 4.75 on the Distiller scale. 133 proof. 13 year, 7 month age statement. Non chill filtered. METHODOLOGY High-proof bourbons need to be approached with a little trepidation—and I say that from the perspective of someone who loves hazmat whisk(e)y. The first sips start very hot, and it takes a few for the mouth to become acclimated. Only then can the actual tasting begin; and for me, that translates to a 10-12 minute warm-up. For this Showdown, I nosed each one in succession, occasionally taking a small sip, and then wrote a one-word descriptor or short phrase before moving to the next one. I continued this process until I’d ran out of differentiable identifiers. Then I sipped each one and recorded the taste and finish in the same way. Further, I passed through everything again. And finally, I repeated the process the next night, and only then began to craft each paragraph. CONCLUSION These three releases of ECBP, spanning six years, show a commitment to consistency. Each release shares similarities and overlapping descriptors. As @djangojohnson has mentioned elsewhere, separate releases of the same bourbon can be subtle. The biggest differences in this case aren’t in the flavor profiles themselves but rather their pervasiveness and intensity on the nose, palate, and finish, as well as the presence and integration of alcohol, regardless of the proof. Succinctly: power and balance. The B517 is very good, and I’m happy that I’ve got a couple more bottles in reserve; but despite its power and complexity, it is a notch below the B520 and C923. That is not an underhanded compliment, because the B520 and C923 are world-class. The B520 is exquisite: every time I come back to it—over the past two days I’ve logged dozens of sips amongst the three—I find something different. The C923 is the most powerful amongst the three. The proof is a little higher, and it is noticeable as it should be, and there is an effusiveness of flavor that floods your nose and coats your palate. It reminds me of the opulence that comes from a William Larue Weller or George T. Stagg. It is ostentatious, but not brash. It displays a sophisticated heaviness, like a fine shearling coat. It demands your attention unapologetically, and its big Kentucky hug reminds you that you’re in its house rather than the other way around. But the C923 is a bit out of balance. It’s robustness doesn’t quite stand up to the 133 proof. Were the alcohol a little more integrated, the C923 would be a 5.0. But in this Kentucky Derby, the B520 wins in a photo finish. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think ‘Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight’ given so many other choices.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think ‘Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight’ given so many other choices.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think ‘Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight’ given so many other choices.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 96-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES COMPASS BOX HEDONISM BOWMORE 18-YEAR LAPHROAIG 10-YEAR LAPHROAIG 15-YEAR 200TH ANNIVERSARY LAGAVULIN DISTILLER’S EDITION TALISKER 10-YEAR (Caveat lector: somewhat unexpectedly, this became a long-form review.) In my never-ending quest to educate my own palate and attempt to both explore the aesthetics of whisk(e)y and quantify qualitative scoring, I’ve been thinking about different Showdown possibilities. For this one, I decided to rank my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Currently, I have one 97-point bottle (the Compass Box, which met its emptiness at this tasting), and five 96-pointers, so I grouped them all together. As a result, this Showdown (and others like it that I plan to do in the future) will usually not be an apples-to-apples comparison: first, there are different reviewers providing the official Distiller scores. Second, the scores are given irrespective of type: in this current grouping, all are Scotch whiskies: the Compass Box is a blended grain whisky, and the other five are single malts, and (coincidentally?) happen to be Islay. But as I continue doing this type of Showdown, a group might include Irish and Japanese whiskey, American bourbon, Scotch whisky, and the like. How do high scores stack up against one another as far as different types of whiskies are concerned? A thoughtful tasting of six whiskies is no small challenge. From a combinatorial perspective, this is an “n-choose-k” problem. To simply compare two whiskies side-by-side in a set of six, there are 15 possible combinations. Choosing three from six results in 20 different combinations. Suffice to say, the empirical analysis (or ”work”) behind this Showdown will surely take a few days (I’m aiming for three). I plan to sample three whiskies on consecutive nights, with brief notes on each, and then all six on the final night. Very small pours, I assure you. Let’s get started. COMPASS BOX HEDONISM Pale straw color (Pantone 121); clearly no added coloring. Fruity nose with papaya, a little grapefruit, and tangerines, as well as marzipan, a little tanginess, and vanilla. The mouthfeel shows gobs of glycerin, and oaky vanilla notes become predominant on the palate. There’s the tiniest pinch of white pepper on the back end, and then the finish is more vanilla, with some of that woody tannic bitterness I noticed on my last review. If “hedonism” is just another word for “vanilla bomb,” then Compass Box Hedonism nails it. And in case you couldn’t ferret that out, fear not: the words “RICH—VANILLA—ALLURING” shout it out to you in ALL CAPS right on the front label. This vanilla is exacerbated when tasted following any of the other whiskies in this Showdown. Per my review on 10/11/23, 30% of this whisky is 20 years old, and over 9% is 26 years old, all from first-fill bourbon casks, so the vanilla is perhaps unsurprising given the long wood contact. This Compass Box expression can be found for ~$120. Would I buy it again? No. 2.5 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 11/11/23 review). 43% ABV. Non chill filtered. No added coloring. Series MMXVI-C. BOWMORE 18-YEAR Color is a clear russet mahogany (Pantone 153). Nose shows the sherry influence with dates, rugelach, brown sugar, and cocoa over a foundation of more typical Islay peat, smoke, iodine, salt, band-aid, and seaweed. These same sweet and savory notes continue on the palate, with well-integrated alcohol (not difficult considering the hoi polloi 43% ABV). The medium-length finish continues with a straightforward version of the same sweet and savory elements. Bowmore 18 competes with (and compares to) other sherry-cask-finished Islay scotches like Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition and Ardbeg Uigeadail. But the Lagavulin DE has the B18 beat on the sweet and the peat, and while the Oogie lacks an age statement, it’s in a completely different league in terms of power and complexity, offering a richer, more satisfying experience than the B18. But wait, you might say: what if I prefer less-ostentatious, more gentle whiskies rather than cask strength ones? There’s a difference between a whisky that is elegant and refined versus one which has a not-dissimilar gentleness but lacks complexity. The Laphroaig 15-year 200th Anniversary Edition is an exemplar of the former, whereas the Bowmore 18 is part of the latter group. It’s not a powerful whisky, which is a matter of preference, but it lacks the elegance and complexity of the L15. And you might say: “But the L15 is a special release; it’s not the same thing.” To which I’d reply: “exactly.” And that’s the point. They are scored at 96 points. Ultimately it begs the question: why? I’d certainly drink the Bowmore 18 again, but in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think “Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight” given so many other choices. I do not mean that in a haughty way. But when one has worked their way through literally hundreds of different whiskies—including many in side-by-side Showdown format—the interesting ones become apparent, especially when price is considered. B18 can be purchased for around $150. It’s nice, but not “special” nice. Not 96-point nice. I’m happy to have had a bottle for empirical purposes, but would I buy it again? No. 3.5 on the Distiller scale (up from 3.0 on my 10/3/23 review). 43% ABV. 18-year age statement. Chill-filtered. Coloring added (E150a). LAPHROAIG 10-YEAR Clear and non-adulterated straw color (Pantone 143). Nose shows peat smoke, kelp, iodine, Band Aid, bacon fat, sage, fresh figs, white pepper, apple, speck, and orange marmalade. The palate has a fig and honeyed sweetness, and if you didn’t know better you’d swear that you’d have just licked the slicked seasoning of a cast-iron griddle after years of service. Mild alcohol given the cornucopia of flavors (this needs a higher proof, and the Cask Strength version delivers on that point), and the finish is long with some light fruity elements and both peat smoke and ash. Laphroaig 10 is an iconic Islay whiskey that is readily available for around $50. While the “burning hospital” flavor profile can be somewhat polarizing, this is one of the most complex whiskies out there and represents one of the best values in all of whiskyland. Would I buy it again? Damn right I would. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (up from 4.25 on my 11/17/23 review). Somewhat tangentially: how is it that Laphroaig 10, as good as it is, is ranked by Distiller two to four points higher than various numbered batches of its Cask Strength older brother, which is a purer and inherently more complex form of the junior version? This is in part a rhetorical questions, but it is a question worth asking. I poured some Cask Strength Batch 13 to compare, and if Laphroaig is 96 points, then the Cask Strength should be even higher. 43% ABV. 10-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). LAPHROAIG 15-YEAR 200TH ANNIVERSARY Bright amber (Pantone 123). Nose shows cocoa powder, honey, gardenia, apple crumble, gentle peat, scones with strawberry jam, iodine, kombu, nori, damp cardboard box, smoke. On the palate, it’s light on its feet, with some of the same honeyed sweetness from the nose, followed by white pepper, salt, copious ash, and lingering smoked meat on the finish. L15 is sophisticated, graceful, and wonderfully complex. Because of its scarcity as a limited release, online prices now range from $500 to $1,000. Would I buy it again? Yes, at the price I originally paid (a little more than $100, if memory serves). I’m fortunate (and happy) to have it. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 11/17/23 review). 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). LAGAVULIN DISTILLER’S EDITION Deep orange amber (Pantone 139), darker than the L15. Dates, raisins, prunes, banana baby food, Frangelico, milk chocolate, and a whiff of vanilla on the nose, all covering the typical Lag16 kelp and iodine notes, as well as some Sharpie, like a thin blanket—the Lag16 typicity is there, but underneath the covers. The palate greets you with a hit of brown-sugar simple syrup, and then the blanket is removed, revealing classic Lag16 notes of kelp, iodine, and smoke. Some white pepper, brief brown sugar, and lingering smoke on the finish. From nose to finish, LDE moves from sweet to peat. This is a far more sophisticated and elegant example of marrying Islay malts with sherry casks than either Bowmore 18 or Ardbeg’s Uigeadail (not part of this tasting due to its Distiller score, but I did pour a tiny bit for comparative purposes). Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition can be had for around $110. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (down from 4.5 on my 7/29/22 review). 43% ABV. 16-year age statement. Batch lgv. 4/507. Coloring added (E150a). TALISKER 10-YEAR Clear burnt orange amber (Pantone 138). Cotton-candy-like sweetness. Grape Kool-Aid drink mix. Powdered cocoa. Apple pie and a little smoke. Smoky peat and BBQ sauce. Oily mouthfeel; more viscous than the L15 and LDE. Honey and concentrated pear extract on the palate. White pepper, honeyed biscuits (American, not English), brown-sugared oatmeal, and smoky peat on the finish. Talisker 10 has always been one of my favorite Scotch whiskies. That opinion is reinforced here. It’s more powerful and more youthful than any of the whiskies to this point—yet despite its relative youth, still very complex. Talisker 10 can be purchased for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. I don’t have a choice. Incredible value. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (up from 4.0 on my 10/11/23 review). 45.8% ABV. 10-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). E150a RANT I’m beginning to learn more about E150a, which is caramel coloring that distillers often add to whisky to enhance appearance (see https://whiskipedia.com/fundamentals/spirit-caramel). There is zero—zero—reason why an ostensibly high-end whisky with an age statement should have artificial coloring. On a prior review of Bowmore 18 (10/3/23), I wrote: “the added coloring is for all intents and purposes lying. What is the point? What is there to hide? What is the rationale?” None of these whiskies are bottom-shelf. Their target market is the whisky connoisseur. Tradition and simplicity and rules are what make Scotch whisky what it is: it is made from only cereal grains, water, and yeast; must be matured at least 3 years in oak casks; etc. (specifics: https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/insights/protecting-scotch-whisky/legal-protection-in-the-uk/). Neither extra flavoring nor sweetening is allowed. Why then is coloring? If a whisky is dark (like Edradour 10, which uses no coloring), I want to know that it’s dark because of the natural cask maturation process—NOT because it’s being “faked.” Germany requires full ingredient disclosure for whisky sold there, including whether or not E150a is added. So you can go to a site such as https://www.scoma.de (there is an option to select German or English, but there’s no reason to select English if you don’t know German because the disclosure language is in German); type in a whisky like “Lagavulin”; select the “Produktdetails” (German) or “Product Details” (English), and then the German “Farbstoff” or the English “Coloring”, and then you’ll see (in German, regardless of what language is selected) if coloring is added or not. “Yes” is ” Ja, Zuckerkulör E150a”, and “No” is “Nein.” I believe strongly that serious consumers of high-end whisky want the truth—that is, what is “real.” Springbank whiskies are typically of a light color. Why? Because they do not use coloring. And no serious whisky lover rejects them on that basis. Compass Box also sells expensive whisky that has no added coloring, and no one rejects them on that basis. Why do Bowmore (the 18 is fairly dark) and Laphroaig (less so) and Lagavulin add color in varying degrees? It’s fraudulent. And from an economic perspective: one less ingredient is one less cost. Why are these distillers trying to pull the wool over our eyes? If there’s still one reader who has made it this far, weigh in in the comments! CONCLUSION What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. In this Showdown, two whiskies are outliers relative to the others: the Compass Box Hedonism and the Bowmore 18. The Compass Box is monolithic by its own admission (VANILLA shouted on the label), and I concur. It’s not that the whisky is bad in and of itself. But one-dimensional whisky, or nearly so—especially expensive one-dimensional whisky—isn’t worthy of 96 points. Aside from the quite-old whisky in the blend, there isn’t anything to justify its super-premium price. John Glaser is to be admired for his transparency; the disclosure of the specifics of the blend is amazing, and this forthrightness should be an example for all producers. The same goes for the fact that there’s no added caramel coloring (E150a). But that doesn’t change the way the whisky drinks. The Bowmore 18 is more egregious that the others in this Showdown with its darker artificial coloring. There are better, and cheaper, whiskies in the same style; there’s no “must-have” aspect for a whisky that is rated 96 points by Distiller and retails for $150. The others are exceptional for different reasons. The Laphroaig 10 represents tremendous value for its “burning hospital meets beehive” complexity at a $50 price tag. The Laphroaig 15 200th Anniversary Edition is a fine exemplar of restraint and grace—not simplicity—with the added benefit of a 15-year age statement. The Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition strikes the sweet/peat balance better than the Bowmore 18, with a sophistication above another offering in that same space—Ardbeg Uigeadail (which was sampled in this tasting for comparison, but not reviewed because while I do own it, it is not scored 96 or better by Distiller). And finally, the Talisker 10 also represents tremendous value for a youthful, more powerful Islay that has both sweet and peat characteristics that attack your senses, offering intellectual and hedonistic pleasure. These four are winners in this Showdown for different reasons, and are worthy of a high Distiller score. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)