Tastes

The end goal of my birthday weekend was to finally try an official bottling of Port Ellen. A bucket list item is crossed off... for $30! The bottle: 7th release distilled in 1979 and bottled in 2007 at cask strength of 53.8%. This was at Jack Rose. I asked for a 1 oz pour, but the bottle had just about a half oz left. The bartender ended up charging me less than a third of the price. Initial nose: lemon scented embalming fluid, shoe polish. Cadaver lab back in med school. Except this time I’m looking forward to this shit, but it’s far from being ready to drink. It’s a little nervous. As I’m I. Subsequent noses: much less chemically. A rich and buttery smoke. Lemons, honeycombs, marigolds, and elderflowers, Chinese oolong. Tasting neat: a tobacco smokiness balanced with medicinal smoke. Deep fried minnows. Eucalyptus, parsley, mint. Lemons and grapefruits. Fennel, vanilla, and slight chili. Very oily, but not nearly as viscous as the Brora I had yesterday. Finish: I still have hints of this 8 hours later. How!?! First of all, no morning breath. A grassy smoke is the dominant theme. Smoked cactus, overbrewed Oolong, burning cooking oil. I give the edge to the 1978/2014 Brora after nose and palate, but this finish wins it for PE. I give the finish 102 / 100. Really. For reviewers who are afraid to give perfect scores because “what if I taste something even better?” Easy, you just give it better than 100%. No one will arrest you. Two drops of water: more somber. The green notes are relegated to some mint at the end. More black tea, more spicy, more earthy. Petrol. Clay. The biggest drawback is now I have to return to reality, after 3 sips of God’s dram. Will those 12 year old Lagavulins ever bring as much joy again? Will those old independent Caol Ilas I keep getting because they approximate independent Port Ellens even matter anymore? Will independent Port Ellen’s now feel like slumming it? Anyways, here’s the top 10 drams from my epic weekend: 1. Port Ellen 28y OB 1979/2007 53.2% - 98/100 2. Brora 35y OB 1978/2014 48.6% - 97.5 3. Port Ellen 23y DL OMC 1983/2006 50% - 95 4. Talisker 25y OB 45.8% - 95 5. Johnnie Walker Blue Brora & Rare NAS 46% - 94.5 6. Old Pulteney 21y OB 46% - 94 7. Redbreast 21y OB 46% - 94 8. Talisker 30y OB 45.8% - 92 9. Caol Ila 29y CA SB 1984/2013 55.5% - 90 10. Strathisla 33y HB FC 1967/2000 46.3% - 87

1oz pour at Jack Rose. I was thinking of buying a bottle of this. Thank god I thought of trying it first. You just can’t trust these glowing reviews of Asian whiskies. Are they really that good? Or are people just happy to jump on the bandwagon and try something different? This is different. Prune juice. Robitussin cherry. No. Fuck that. Buckley’s. It tastes bad, but it will cure you of constipation and upper respiratory infections. I struggled to see how this could have won so many awards. It needed a lot of water before I got anything pleasant in the form of a desert wine. Still, it’s just too much raisins and prunes. The finish is a fight between syrupy sweetness and bitterness that I preferred to stay out of. What would I pay for a bottle? $40. Haha. 80 / 100

1oz pour. On the nose, even better than the 25 year old Talisker. One of the best noses of any whisky I’ve had. Infinite layers of succulent sweetness and savory brine. Really transcends notes. On the palate, I definitely liked the 25 better. This felt softened to oblivion. Subtle complexity is sexy, but there is a point where you can be so subtle that you fail to get any notice. I much preferred to keep this dram around on the side to smell it. Not worth it in the mouth. 92 / 100

The 45.8% ABV bottling from 2011 My starter for my birthday weekend in DC, which will feature ridiculous pours and bottles. This was at Minibar, where they gave me the rest of the bottle, which halfway filled up the Glencairn. We will call it a generous 3 ounces. Sipping on this during a 2 Michelin starred 20 course tasting menu is unfair, but this dram held its own. Not as complex as the food, but it was actually a very good complement to many dishes that were briny and gamey. The best way to describe this is if they turned the ocean into silk. All of the aggression from the 10 year old that was refined in the 18 year old is now completely subdued in the 25. Because it’s not trying to slap you in the face, you can focus on the layers of complexity. Thick brined fruitiness on the nose. Grapefruits, mandarins, pears, peaches. Lightly floral. On the palate, just layers of gentle ocean flavors and fruits that are perfectly blended into one another. Seaweed, kelp, rope, iodine, and still a little antiseptic medicinal peat, but so well rounded. Buttery, silky, with gentle honey, oak, spices, and that medicinal peat on the finish. My wife, who loves Macallan, and ordered a pour from some Macallan diamond earring cask, denounced Macallan in front of everyone and declared Talisker her favorite after trying this. Great! Time to buy this bottle, and a bottle of the even better 1985 maritime edition. 95 / 100

Paid $66 for this bottle. This is a bottle kill review. I will try to summarize what this bottle offered. Nose: Sultanas, other dried preserved fruits, and fresh dough. Quintessential Olorosso sherry. Try nosing some mid-tier Oloroso, and you can see where this Macallan is coming from, instantly. Palate: One note: sherry fruits. But it’s done classy. Very rich and mouthcoating; can handle some water. Not too sweet. Simplicity done right. Finish: A mild spiciness, wood bitterness, and char that I can’t decide if it adds to or detracts from all that sherry. $60+ is too much. Unfortunately, this is such a staple, I am loath to keep it stocked, but I will be looking for sub-60 price tags, which are around with a little searching. Pros: This is an easy choice for an introduction whisky for those folks who you can sense are the spectator type. And I don’t mind drinking this with them. It’s simple but delicious. Simply declicious. Cons: This is the introduction for a brand that I’m not sure is good for Scotch. On the one end, it is the leader for bringing single malts to the general public. And the recent diversification of expressions, across the board, is a boon that Macallan’s popularity helped create. On the other end, Macallan is promoting over-premiumization and brainwashing-marketing, which I hate. I have to keep giving it up for this expression, however, as long as it is pure Spanish oak. Mark: 83/100 (range 81-87. N = 4)

Kilkerran has been releasing well-received works in progress; undermatured whiskies that can only appeal to the whisky nerd. This is their first “final” product, a 12 year old blend of their bourbon and sherry matured whiskies. This is still a work in progress. This is still undermatured. This still will only appeal to whisky nerds. I am a practical whisky nerd. I know this represents a well-crafted and honest whisky product, but this could be better. There is no opportunity for Kilkerran to put any makeup on this 12 year old because its oldest whisky is 12 years old. More established distilleries will use older-than-age-statement whisky to smooth out blemishes and add a certain richness that this Kilkerran lacks. The nose is so incredibly dry, that I’m shocked it’s from the canonized producers of Springbank, Longrow, and Hazelburn. There are unaltered esters from the spirit that still dominate the nose. What this has going for it is the well-integrated peat, and meaty sulphury notes that Springbank does so well. But the best thing is the viscous palatte. Like a 35-year old whisky in texture, this tastes almost like an ashy lemon Jell-O. With that viscosity, you know this can handle water, and I do not know any other 46% ABV spirit that can take as much dilution. This whisky is rather extreme. At 12 years old, it is still underdeveloped, and dominated by the spirit. Somehow, it is so viscous, that it is gooey. It has some of the unfriendly flavors of Springbank including a Sulphurous funk, and it is not hidden away by fruity sweetness here. For a very close, but even more extreme example of the Kilkerran 12, try the Signatory Un-Chillfiltered Collection Craigellachie 13 year old. That one is just missing the viscosity. I don’t know how this Kilkerran is so oily! I can only imagine what Kilkerran will become in the next few years. PRESUMPTIVE MARK: 89/100.

2oz pour Had an interesting experience with this one at a bar. For me, this was a pretty good dram. I’d buy a full bottle if I saw it for ~$150, but it’s nothing I’d hunt down or pay way over retail for. But the couple sitting beside me was curious, and the height of their whisky experience was Glenlivet 18 and Macallan 15. I let them smell, and they were mind blown, and ended buying their own glass. The hook of Japanese whisky, and why demand is so high, is there is stunning beauty on the nose, but the palate is soft and approachable. And the finish is gentle but lasting. It’s Geisha-esque. This particular dram had an intoxicatingly rich butterscotch vanilla cream essence that you could smell 6 feet away from the glass. Smoke is there to add support, but is almost unnoticeable. The palate is soft and juicy, and the juiciness continues into the finish, which is wonderfully fruity and not at all drying, unlike most Scotches. To the beginner malt drinker still singing praises for the Glenlivets and Macallans, Scotches don’t stand a chance. 91.5 / 100

Curious indeed. Apples and bacon are a time-honored combination, and this offers that and more. On the nose, it’s not much. Some inky smoke and Speyside fruitiness, tea and butter. Nothing special. But the palate really raises the eyebrows. Lovely texture. A slimy fruitiness, like nectarines and papayas, immediately and completely overwhelmed by a savory and ashy peatiness. But the seaspray salt/iodine is lacking, which is interesting. Curious indeed. The finish is dry and ashy, lacking the maritime soul of Islay. I recommend this bottle. Benriach is one of the distilleries that are getting better. This dram is a proper Speyside interpretation of a peat monster. PRESUMPTIVE MARK: 87/100.

This is not a review. The bottle is very interesting. The contents are interesting too. But not as much as the bottle, which is ironic. The bottle misses the irony, as well. It should be labeled “This is not luxury.” The famous painting this Compass Box release draws inspiration from is a Rene Magritte painting of a cigar pipe that reads “Ceci n’est pas une pipe (This is not a pipe).” And it’s not a pipe. The painting is an abstraction of the object. This bottle of whisky is an object, and luxury is the abstraction. Hence, potentially, Compass Box could have had the clever, artful flip, scrutinizing an object representing the abstraction; the opposite of Magritte’s painting. But they missed the cleverness. “This Is Not a Luxury Whisky” is just a clunky reference that feels like a gimmick. And the message telling you that a whisky is about the liquid, and it should be drank is nauseating exposition. “This Is Not Luxury” would have been the perfect name. No exposition. I mean, you can include notes and objective information. But I hate being told how to interpret something. And it’s not luxury. It’s got grain in it. 40 year old grain whisky, but it’s grain whisky, and I’m not into it. Not my thing. Most of this whisky is 19 year old Glen Ord malt, and that gives this blend a Highland fruity and floral base. But I can’t escape the feeling that when you mix 40 year old grain with a 19 year old malt, you get something that tastes like a 15 year old whisky. It’s those acetone, banana notes. It’s richer and more oily here, but it’s not something I immediately am going to like. Yeah, I’m not sure about the grain. It’s one of those things that is interesting for me, but not necessarily attractive. Like dwarves. Anyways, the grain loses its grip on the spotlight quickly, and things get better. The finish is one of the most dynamic and complex of any whisky I’ve had. The Islay minority that was suppressed on the nose, and the arrival, starts to unpretty this whisky, and it just goes back and forth between salty and savory, and sweet and toffied for a long time. And at 53.1% ABV, you get some great aftertastes if you exhale the right way. Water in a blend generally kills the oldest components first. So, on the one hand, I may actually enjoy this more without the obvious contribution from the grain; on the other hand, adding water makes this more common, and less worth the price tag. This is a great whisky. Is it worth two Flaming Hearts? No. PRESUMPTIVE MARK: 94/100.

This is a review of the Famous Grouse 18 year old. This is a discontinued bottling that deserves a lil backstory. 10 years ago, I could not afford a Macallan 18 bottle. Even the 12 year olds, though, were legendary. Yet, they were being used for blends. Little did they know..: Now that most Macallans are overrated and insanely overpriced, it’s no wonder that the aged Famous Grouses, which contain a healthy portion of Macallan and Highland Park, are discontinued. I can now buy the contemporary Mac 18s without guilt, but the old 18 bottlings are over $1000, and outside of sanity for the whisky drinker. The closest thing to a bottle of the old 18 I managed is this Famous Grouse 18, for $60. This is not Macallan 18. But It contains 18 year old Macallan from before the transition to Edrington. It also has an obvious dose of Highland Park. This is probably from less desirable casks. Still, the sherry influence is overwhelming. It smells like sweetened grape juice. You just don’t get that anymore with today’s whiskies. On the palate, rich raisins and plums. Grape peels. Chocolate. Wood spices. And a definite brine from the Highland Park influence. The finish is somewhat short, and overall this suffers from being watered down. Still, if you find this on a shelf for less than $100, this is a recommended purchase. MARK: 86 / 100