Tastes

This bourbon is 101 proof (of course), with a mash bill of 75% corn, 13%rye, and 12% malted barley. I wound up wishing for less rye, as the spice was too much sometimes. The color is amber, with just a tinge of red in it. The legs form very slow, run slowly, and are close together. I paid $12.99 for a 375ml bottle. RIGHT OUT OF THE BOTTLE Nose: Fruity, sweet, with spice and oak, with corn underneath. Taste: Spice, corn, and oak. It's not as complex as I had expected given the reputation Wild Turkey has. Finish: It begins with a long spiciness, fading to a mild oak that lingers. WITH A SPLASH OF WATER Nose: Oak, faint floral notes, a faint mustiness, and honey. Taste: With water the bourbon acquires a creamy mouthfeel. There's mild spice, honey, and a very faint oak note. Finish: Spice and oak, with the oak fading out. AFTER SITTING FOR 10 MINUTES Nose: Floral and fruity, with a faint oak note, and a very strong alcohol burn. Taste: Spicy fruit - something like apples and cinnamon, though not really that, with honey cough drops, strong spice, and faint oak. Finish: Spice and oak - the spice becomes painfully overpowering if I hold the sip too long. Wild Turkey 101 is all right, but it's not the best bourbon I've ever had, and it doesn't live up to its reputation. It's best with a splash of water, second-best right out of the bottle, and mediocre or worse after it sits for a while. I don't regret trying it, and eventually I'll finish the bottle, but I don't know that I'll ever buy it again.

86 proof, 100% malted barley mash bill, age 14 years in rum-seasoned American oak barrels This is my very first encounter with Scottish whisky, and it's a revelation. It's entirely different from the American whiskies (bourbon and rye) that I've evaluated previously. The color is a nice gold, somewhat darker than ripe wheat. The legs form quickly, are widely-spaced, and long. The nose of this whisky kept unfolding and unfolding. Every time I nosed it I got something new. The summary is a first impression of caramel apples, with some kind of smoky background (is that peat? this is a Speyside whisky, and knowing essentially nothing about Scotch I don't know if they dry the malt over a peat fire). Then came notes of apple juice, a mild woodiness that isn't the authoritative oak of charred American barrels, a transitory note of something baking (bread, I think), and then a pleasant mustiness that grew quickly once it appeared. There was no burn from the alcohol, and the overall impression of the nose was a warmth as of a working furnace on a cold day. When I tasted the whisky I found, to my surprise, that it came across as much less complex. The mouthfeel is oily. I got chocolate foremost, with some kind of spice coming in afterward. And then there's a slight taste of oak, again nothing like as prominent as in American whiskies. This is the first whisky I've tasted, of any proof (I've previously tried whiskies ranging from 80 to 100 proof), which I could comfortably hold in my mouth for some minutes without the alcohol becoming painful. The finish is long, beginning with spice, then apples, and a very strong note of oak, which then becomes smoky before reverting to a very long spiciness. I got this as a sample, but the Total Wine site for "my" store here in Albuquerque lists a fifth at $84.99, which is way outside my price range, so I am very grateful to the individual who sent it to me. I realize that there are different whisky regions in Scotland, and that within a region there are variations, but if this is a fair representative of Scottish whisky, I'm a fan.

This is only my second rye whisky, and my first which is a straight ahead rye - the mash bill is 95% rye and 5% malted barley. It's 90 proof, and while there's no age statement it was in the barrel for four to seven years. Coming to it right out of the bottle I found the nose to be spicy oak, vanilla, and cotton candy, with little alcohol sting. The mouthfeel was creamy, the most I've encountered in my short experience. The taste was spice and oak, without much alcohol burn. There's a long finish - spicy, changing to oak. Putting a little water in I got a nose of spice and oak, with some sort of "edge" that I can't identify. The taste begins with mild spice that grows to medium, then fading to oak, with a still creamy mouthfeel. The finish gives strong spice that quickly fades to oak, with the spice returning to mingle with the oak. I next poured a new glass and let it set for 10 minutes. Thereafter the nose was cotton candy, vanilla, and something fruity that had Apple in it and perhaps banana. The palate surprised me, beginning with spring water leading into the spice of the rye, a fruit note that might have been strawberry, with a tinge of oak underneath. The finish starts with a quick note of oak that leads into a long taste of oak. The mouthfeel is now lightly creamy. This is by far the most complex whisky I've yet encountered. It's a taster's delight, but for casual drinking it may require more attention than I'll want to take away from whatever else I might be doing. I paid $15.49 for a 375ml bottle.

This was my first rye whisky, and I had my first drink of it tonight. I couldn't find any information about the mash bill other than it's at least 51% rye. There is no age statement, but it's aged up to nine years, according to what I could find. It has a pleasing amber color with a reddish tinge. The legs are very slow to form, and are thin and widely spaced. I evaluated the whisky three ways - straight out of the bottle, with water, and after resting for 10 minutes. BOTTLE: The nose is oak, spice, a hint of banana, and something sweet I can't identify. On the palate I get spice and oak. The finish is medium, with oak and spice. WATER: I inadvertently got more water in it than I intended, which might make a difference. The nose is candy, oak, and there's no lessening or amplifying of the alcohol, which in any event isn't prominent even at 100 proof. There's a hint of a wood fire - not oak itself, but some sort of wood burning. The palate begins sweet, and transitions into oak, which then becomes a greater spiciness. The finish remains medium, with oak and spice. REST: The nose is sweet - is that corn? - with a faint note of oak. The taste is sweet, then mild spice, with oak coming through. The finish is a very definite spiciness, moving into a long period of oak. Given that this is just barely a rye whisky it surely isn't representative, but it is good. It's my first real encounter with rye spice, though Bulleit bourbon has rye in the mash bill, and I like that. This whisky is good straight out of the bottle, with water, or after setting for a few minutes - indeed, it seems to improve with time. This is at least as good as Bulleit bourbon, which for now is my standard of quality, having not had anything better by which to judge. I got a 375ml bottle at Total Wine in Albuquerque for $18.99.

Tonight I let the Bulleit sit for 30 minutes before tasting, and boy, did it make a difference. Nose: Spicy, with a more definite alcohol impact that right out of the bottle. The fruitiness I noted last night is absent, and the woodiness I detected last night is slightly stronger. Palate: Very fruity at the front of my tongue, berries perhaps, though I'm not sure. The back of my tongue gives me the spiciness again, and all through my mouth the alcohol burn is significantly stronger than right out of the bottle. The woodiness I noticed in the taste last night seems missing, or at least I can't detect it. Finish: Fairly long, with a very definite spice, blending into a most clear woodiness. That reverses the finish right out of the bottle, and it's also a longer finish. I still like the stuff, but resting took it down a notch. I like it better when it's straight out of the bottle.

I'm new to whisky - just over a month in - and to bourbon, so my rating may be higher than really proper. But this is absolutely the best bourbon I've ever had, by miles. On the limited scale by which I can judge, it does get five stars. Mash bill: 68% corn, 28% rye, and 4% malted barley. Proof: 90. The nose is very fruity and pleasant - there's alcohol in it, but nothing to burn the sinuses. I think I get a faint trace of woodiness (is this was experienced whisky drinkers describe as oak?), but it might be just my imagination. On the first sip I notice, for the first time in my limited experience, a distinct mouthfeel - creamy and smooth. The taste is spicy on the front of my tongue, which I understand is a characteristic of rye, with something else underneath that I can't identify; it is pleasant, however. Continuing to take sips, I find the spiciness is more pronounced on the back of my tongue, with a clear woodiness which, however, complements rather than tussling with the spice. The finish is moderate in length, with the clearest woody taste yet, which gives way to the spice, which then fades into a pleasant burn on the back of my throat. I forgot to note the shelf price, which of course is less than what I actually paid, but I believe it was $29 and some odd cents for 750ml.

This was the first whisky I'd tasted in nearly 40 years - and it was awful. Granted that I was new to the stuff, but this is exactly the sort of taste that made me think for years that all whisky tastes like turpentine. I got rid of the bottle without a second try, and won't ever buy this junk again.

From the first sip I regretted spending money on this stuff. It's what you should think of when someone says that whisky tastes like paint thinner. I tried it once, and put the bottle in the trash.

This is unaged corn whisky - the label says "moonshine" but it is legal corn likker. The nose is very powerful, with the alcohol overpowering a slight sweetness. There's also a slight sweetness on the palate, with no particular flavor, and a distinct alcohol burn which numbs my gums. The finish is bland, with a lingering burn from the alcohol. This stuff isn't bad, exactly, but unless white whisky is universally just pure alcohol without much flavor, it's a poor representation of the variety.

The nose gives me a definite smell of apples, while the palate is apples and a hint of cherry candy. The finish provides a strong and pleasant smoky taste. This bourbon is watery, though, and doesn't seem to be the 80 proof of the label. It's a good introduction to whisky, but I'll look for something more substantial to be my regular tipple.