Tastes

I couldn't find any information on the mash bill, but I would wager it has a fair amount of rye in it. It aged for nine years and is 100 proof. I spent $18.99 for a 375ml bottle at Total Wine. The color is a deep amber. The legs are long and close together, forming at different times around the "swirl edge." RIGHT OUT OF THE BOTTLE Nose: Caramel, vanilla, a faint something - oak? - that was very difficult to identify, and a slight alcohol burn. As I put my nose further into the glass I got oak, vanilla, and a little bit of honey. Taste: The mouthfeel is a nice creaminess, not sloppy or sticky but definitely creamy. First there's a refreshing taste of spring water, followed by oak, spice, and a faint generic sweetness. Finish: Long, spice and oak equally, then the spice fading out leaving a definite oakiness. WITH A SPLASH OF WATER Nose: Faint even with my nose all the way into the glass - the notes were vanilla with a little bit of honey. Taste: The mouthfeel remains creamy, but not as emphatically so as right out of the bottle. There's much less spice on the tongue, and the taste is just tepid spring water. Finish: It's long again, predominantly oak with spice coming in, and then the oak fading. AFTER SITTING 10 MINUTES Nose: Notes of vanilla, oak, and alcohol. Taste: Creamy, though not so definitely so. The first note is creamed corn, with spice and oak coming in. Finish: Oak and spice, with the spice peaking and leaving a dry oak. This isn't bad bourbon, but it doesn't quite measure up to Bulleit, and it's a fair way behind Maker's Mark. It doesn't take well to modification; it's best right out of the bottle, and falls off noticeably when you put in some water or let it "rest."

The Albuquerque Total Wine Web site lists this at $51.99 for a fifth. It's a 95 proof bourbon, from a mash bill of 72% corn, 18% rye, and 10% malted barley. This bourbon is a red gold in color, and the legs form and run quickly, run long, and are here and there around the glass, without any pattern. Nose: Begins with caramel and vanilla, with some slight spice. Moving into the glass I got some alcohol burn, and a strong vanilla. Taste: The spice from the rye is very forward; it tastes like a rye whisky when it first hits the tongue. Then there's a medicinal note, which I don't want in my whisky, chocolate, and an oak note that leaves a grainy feel on the tongue. Finish: Fairly short, with mixed oak and spice. This is a very over-priced bourbon. It's not bad, but it's not even as good as Bulleit, which costs considerably less. I expected far more than I got; if it were a 20 or 25 dollar bottle I would have expected what this whisky actually delivers.

This whisky comes from a mash bill of 80% corn, 8% rye, and 12% malted barley. It's 80 proof, and cost me $8.29 for 200ml at the Total Wine store here in Albuquerque. The color is amber, and the legs form quickly, run long, and have an even spacing. RIGHT OUT OF THE BOTTLE Nose: Alcohol first and foremost, which is always a discouraging sign. Then come a faint floral note and some vanilla. With my nose further into the glass I got vanilla alcohol. The nose gave a comfortable warm feeling throughout. Taste: There's a thinly creamy mouthfeel, and notes of spice (more than I expected from so little rye), vanilla, oak, and a faintly medicinal note. Finish: It's short, and consists of nothing but spice and oak. WITH A SPLASH OF WATER Nose: Weakly floral, with some vanilla, a hint of oak, and with my nose fully in the glass strong vanilla with bananas. Taste: The thin creaminess is still there, but the only taste is spice and some oak. Finish: The same as before - spice and oak. AFTER SETTING FOR 10 MINUTES Nose: Vanilla - nothing else. Taste: Still the thin creaminess - that seems untouchable. The only taste is still spice and a little oak. Finish: Spice and oak again. This just isn't much of a whisky. Perhaps it works well in mixed drinks, but to just sit and sip it's mediocre at best. I frankly don't know what the big deal is about the Jack Daniel's distillery; this is better than Jack black, but only because the Old No. 7 is undrinkable.

This rye whisky has a mash bill of 95% rye and 5% malted barley. It's 97 proof, and isn't available at Total Wine here in Albuquerque - I'm tasting a sample someone gave me. The Tucson Total Wine store lists a fifth at $49.99. The color is amber, with perhaps a faint red tinge. The legs form very slowly and close together, run down very slowly, and are erratic - one leg will be far down while the one next to it will be just beginning to run. The nose on this whisky is fantastic. It begins with a very clear floral note, then a fruity aroma, with a very faint note of oak coming in. Putting my nose deeper into the glass brought forth smells of gingerbread, bananas, caramel, and a tinge of rye spice. This was a very pleasant nose, and prepared me for great things, which, alas, didn't come to pass. On the palate this whisky was far less complex. There was most definitely the spice of the rye, with a slight fruitiness and a faint taste of oak. The finish was short, with a very powerful spice, and oak along with it. I frankly much prefer Bulleit rye, which has a simpler nose but a more complex taste and finish, and is better overall, or even Knob Creek rye, which isn't quite up to the Bulleit standard. The nose is by far the best part of the whisky. The distiller needs to put in a lot of work to get the taste and finish up to the standard the nose sets. I would be willing to pay $15 or $20 for this, but there's no way I would ever pay $49.99 for it.

As I always do (now - I've formed this system only in the past couple of weeks), I evaluated the whisky in three different ways. I nosed and tasted it straight out of the bottle, then with a splash of water, and then after letting it set for 10 minutes. Maker's Mark is 90 proof. It comes from a mash bill of 70% corn, 16% wheat, and 14% malted barley. It's the wheat that moved me to try this brand; I wanted to give a wheated bourbon a whirl. At Total Wine a 200ml bottle ran me $9.29. In the glass the whisky is a butterscotch color. The legs form quickly, and are long and evenly spaced. BOTTLE Nose: For the first time I was certain I was getting corn in the nose; apparently the rye in other bourbons drowns it out for me. There were also notes of caramel, and it was a very mild and gentle nose. Even with my right nostril, which only detects the alcohol burn (and does so better than my left), I experienced no discomfort. Taste: The mouthfeel is slightly creamy, with notes of caramel popcorn, caramel (separate from the caramel popcorn), and honey. Finish: Mild, with oak coming in slow and gentle. Corn and honey are there very faintly. WATER Nose: The alcohol comes through more strongly, along with corn, a slight honey note, and a faintness of oak. Taste: The mouthfeel is still creamy, and there's a strong taste of butterscotch. Rainwater comes in as well, but with water the taste is less complex. Finish: It begins as oak, with corn growing as the finish goes on. SET Nose: Corn, faint oak - it reminds me somehow of an old, comfortable wood house. And then there's a note of caramel Taste: Again it's less complex than right out of the bottle - all I got was sweet corn. Finish: Sweet corn, oak, and caramel. OVERALL Various adjectives come to mind - luxurious, sensuous, voluptuous, gorgeous, glorious. Whisky reviewing is, as I've learned, a highly subjective process, and this whisky is extremely so. I find myself reacting to it emotionally, as the adjectives indicate. This is a comfortable whisky, something like sitting with my wife in a warm room while it snows outside.

This whiskey isn't as bad as Jack Daniel's Old No. 7, but it's not any better than Jim Beam. I have to believe that this stuff isn't representative of Irish whiskey. It's 80 proof, from a 100% malted barley mash bill. The color is amber, with long and well-spaced legs. Nose: The first whiff is truly amazing - the most glorious nose I've yet encountered in my short time with whisky. But it breaks down into strong butterscotch, mountain water, and an underlying smoky mustiness. It's not a complex nose at all. Taste: Sip after sip yielded only a watery mouthfeel and a generic whisky taste. Finish: The finish is medium long, and is nothing but alcohol and oak. I just have a sample, so I don't have enough to give it a thorough test with water or time, but I can't imagine that either method would greatly improve this mediocre stuff. It's drinkable, but that's all. The Albuquerque Total Wine site lists a fifth of Sexton at $28.49, which is about twice as much as it's worth.

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.