Tastes

N: Oak, sweet corn, corn bread, and a vague nuttiness. Something vegetal in nature (grilled asparagus, maybe?). Vanilla and caramel (unsurprising). Strong and numbing ethanol scent - medicinal in quality. Sweet and a bit earthy. Vanilla gets more intense, approaching vanilla ice cream, with hard swirls. Hint of toffee. Vanilla extract - more vanilla - but tinged with sweet corn. Vague fruitiness at the edges of the glass. P: Vanilla, caramel, and oak. Boozy with some bite. Relatively smooth and easy drinking. More caramel as it opens. Some non-descript bread notes. Finish has some heat - chili pepper in nature, a step beyond the usual cinnamon, but not terribly hot. The bread and caramel carry through the finish. Some puckering tannin influence (especially at the cheeks), but it avoids bitterness. Generally slick and sweet on the mouthfeel, but not overwhelming. Drinking this straight. Took a few tries (two cubes, one cube, just water) to figure out how to drink this. Ice and/or water just made it disappear. Straight is the way to go, and that feels like an accomplishment at this price point. It's solid and unassuming, but not particularly good. For entry-level, this is less interesting, less complicated, and more expensive than either Evan Walker BIB or Wild Turkey (either the 81 or 101). Doubt I would do this again. But I can see where the 101 MM might compete - will have to give that a shot.

N: Campfire smoke, earth, salt water on wood docks. Moss, mint, forest morning dew. Vanilla and brown sugar, which suddenly break and make way for peach, pear, and pineapple (which is especially strong on hard swirls). Almond extract in the background. Hints of bread and treacle. Simply wonderful. P: Fruit forward with peach, pear, hint of green apple (maybe), and a dash of sour pineapple. Vanilla, smoke, ocean water, black licorice. Salty and slightly bitter, but also syrupy sweet on the tip of the tongue and sometimes at the edges. Finish is a bit subtle - hearty dark chocolate powder slowly shifts to what I imagine it would taste like to take a mouthful of ground coffee (good coffee though). Then, after a few sips, you notice the escalating chili pepper burn - less than habanero hot, but maybe a little more than jalapeno. It's hotter than most bourbons, for certain. And yet, there's little noticeable tannin influence. This might be the best entry-level single malt in the world of Scotch. I'm not sure what else you could ask of it. It's delicious. Period. But it's also damn interesting - when you think it'll zig, it zags; when you think it'll zag, it zigs. It's funky, offbeat, and even feels artistic (IDK what I mean - just a gut feeling), but remains approachable. There's no trade offs, as you might expect at the price point: this is just good, interesting, unique, approachable, shareable, and it's never boring. I will be buying this again. No question.

N: Mizunara, obviously. Duh. Bought this to get a better sense of what that is, basically. Everyone says sandalwood. Unfortunately, I don't know what that really smells like either. But what stands out here, and reminds of Japanese whisky, to me, is a soft, delicate, woody, sawdust sort of smell layered with marshmallows, vanilla cream, and candle wax. It's something I recognize from Japanese whisky, but had not realized what it was before. Now I know. Mission accomplished. Beyond the Mizunara, there's some traditional scotch fruit - peach and pear - with slightly more than a hint of booze. Digging deeper, surprising citrus with lemon cookies and maybe a dash of baking spice. P: Mizunara on the palate comes across smooth, not very tannic, with a taste that's similar to the nose, but maybe a little more blended - more like a woody marshmallow vanilla cream than the separate parts from the nose. After that, big red fruit flavor with dried cherries making the most obvious noise. Orchard fruit and stone fruit follow, more subtle. Almond slivers follow in abundance. Sweet bread backbone leads to the baking spice finish - mostly cinnamon, not too hot, but it lingers a good while and plays nice with the still present wood and vanilla from the Mizunara. Also hints of cardamom, coriander, and dried ginger. Super interesting experiment whisky. As I said, I bought this to see if I could learn what Mizunara adds to a whisky. I think it worked - there are flavors in this that are very recognizable from, and seemingly unique to, Japanese whisky. I can only assume, until proven otherwise, that they come from the Mizunara. That experience, for a whisky nerd, is worth the price of admission here. And, honestly, this is pretty damn tasty - if the price was right, I'd probably just grab this again occasionally to have a nice weeknight sipper. $50 MSRP is a bit steep, but you might find it closer to $30 - worth it there.

N: Mineral water, coconut water, passion fruit, shredded coconut, green apple, cinnamon. Ethanol numbs you after a bit, but you never really smell it. Let it sit, rest the nose, come back: banana, vanilla, bread pudding - actually sort of has a Nilla Wafer thing going on, which is kind of amazing because I hadn't thought of those things in like a decade plus until just now. Oaky, sort of vague pot still spices finish it out. P: Oh, that's dry - first thought. Smooth, coating, rich mouthfeel, but not quite rising to oily. Bitter finish. Struggling to grab specific flavor notes - it's a lot of dry, bitter, and tannic pucker. A cinnamon Red Hots type heat settles in late in the finish, but it's only in spots, not the tongue tattoo you get from some bourbons. Late in the pour, starting to get some vanilla and cherry, faintly sweet bread pudding, and maybe some sour green apple. There's a chalky, mineral aftertaste that you notice basically after the finish has run its course (still some lingering tingle, but mostly done). This makes me go back and think more in that direction while tasting: fresh pour comes across earthy and a bit like a hoppy beer. Maybe there's some pine needle in it. I feel like what I wrote above is not a great review. And really this is not a great whiskey, best I can tell. But it is kinda interesting and, after 2.5 months with this bottle—which is now about one pour from empty—I never hated it, never really thought that I was struggling to get a flavor profile (until I tried to write it down). It is very untraditional - for pot still or for whiskey generally. It's an experiment, with the Irish oak and all.* I dig that - probably not enough to buy it again, but certainly enough to take a chance on the next Glendalough bottle, Irish oak and all, and to recommend others do the same. I'd like to think there are innovations to be made in distilling. Glendalough seems to be looking for them. *The line between experiment and gimmick can be pretty thin, but this seems to land on the right side of that line. Trying a new wood seems inherently risky rather than an attempt to create and/or cash in on a trend - kudos to Glendalough for taking a shot.

N: Generally fruity with white grape, peach (and other stone fruit), pear, and a little bit of apple - both red and green. Vanilla and bread pudding. Nice little kick of spice. Something tangy lingers at the edges - more of a sensation than a specific flavor. Decent swirl kicks up some red wine and makes this reminiscent of a good Irish single pot still (like a Spot line kind of smell). That's a fleeting profile (unlike the Spot drams), but it punches well above its class while it lasts. Finishes with a pleasant mineral water, a sort of dry calcium earthy/metallic note. P: Sweet and ripe red fruit, peaches, slightly bitter (maybe underripe) pears. Vanilla and bread notes follow, like the nose, but a mild tannic bitterness and a good hit of fairly hot baking spices joins. Spices linger into the finish, but fade fairly quick. After the spice fades, finish is earthy, metallic, and bitter. Final note is just a hint of alcohol burn. Pretty good for a $30 dram that's cross-branded with a TV show. It's a Highland profile, no doubt, but the minerality of it is interesting - perhaps a reference to the Starks being more of a "salt-of-the-earth" sort of family? IDK. Maybe that's just a normal Dalwhinnie trait - I also don't know, but I'll be more likely to grab the next Dalwhinnie I see because of this bottle (cross-branding win!). Regardless, a decent and tasty dram for the price.

N: The barrels rule the day here: just about equal parts oaky bourbon and silky red fruit, favoring the oak just slightly. The two are married here. I find it really tough to separate the two profiles. So you end up with a woodsy cherry, orchard fruit that's still in the orchard, little bit of black AND red licorice (never gotten that before). It's all interesting and fun, but doesn't have a lot of depth (which is fine, considering the price). P: Smooth and rich. Leans even more toward bourbon on the palate than the nose. Quick hit of caramel, vanilla, cherry, before the anise/black licorice drops in and lingers. Caramel comes back atop a bread pudding profile. Finish is sweet with lots of red fruit, dash of cayenne pepper, and a lingering chocolate powder. This is tasty, cheap, unique, interesting. It is not complicated, so it can't really compete with drams higher up the price scale. But the craft is on display - the distillery has clearly put thought and effort into making something that approaches an Irish twist on a traditional bourbon, and affordable at that. The end result is better than a cheap bourbon or a cheap Irish whiskey, but not better than the upper-middle range of either. Not even close, really. But it's not trying for that. It's just an interesting outlier. I'm good with that. Might even pick it up again because I can't really think of anything else quite like it, especially at the price. Long story short: this is far from amazing, but unique, interesting, and super easy to enjoy at the same time. Perfect for a sub $25 bottle.

N: Ripe berries, caramel, brown sugar, spearmint. Leather with citrus oil. Raw tobacco leaf, or at least what I imagine that smells like. Herby with a lean toward basil, but that's cut through and balanced by the sweeter caramel and brown sugar from before. Oak and cinnamon. More leather and unlit cigar tobacco. More berries and red fruit. P: The berries hit first, like the nose. Caramel and vanilla follow. Both are well developed, but the vanilla is particularly nice with a palate filling creaminess. Oak and cinnamon next. Good deal of baking spices. Finish is medium long, spicy and tannic. Spice is cinnamon first, but quickly builds and turns to a chili pepper heat - noticeably hot, never overwhelming, really nice. Lots of oak tannin in the finish, but, again, the bitterness eases in and eases out - there are no sharp edges in this bourbon. I'm not saying anything new here, but this may be the best VFM bourbon on the market. It has the traditional caramel and vanilla notes that you expect (at a minimum) in a value bourbon. But neither of those flavors are presented at minimum here - both are developed and robust with complication, interplay with other flavors, and nuance. Very well done. More interesting, however, is the fruity, berry flavor that leads the way. That is way above the bar for a ~$30 bourbon. This easily drinks like a $60 or maybe even $80 bourbon. This is one to put on repeat.

Review #100. Picked a classic. N: Delicious, delicate, and perfume-y peat smoke that's more tinged with maritime scent than anything from Islay. It actually reminds me of a cross between Islay and Campbelltown traditional profiles, which, come to think of it, sounds like a great idea. Iodine, sea salt, saltine crackers. Seaweed, sour fruits, overripe fruits, peach, pear, green apple. Feels like more earthy peat than smoke, but there's a faraway campfire in it, for certain. Moss on a tree in a rainy forest on a cold Saturday mid-spring - like after the snow has mostly melted, but the air still has bite to it. Fresh fish hanging on a line on a dock. Dried fish. Salted fish. Most other types of fish, but it's still not fishy, thankfully. Apple juice. Cold cuts. Almond cookies. Dash of mint/menthol/anise - hard to pick which. A fresh, soapy coriander. P: Caramel, vanilla, mint, peat, pine needles, cinnamon. Rich, sweet, smoky, and spicy, but very well balanced. Just right on the bitterness, which feels tannic in nature. Good dose of salty too. Milk chocolate and Milk Duds. A super mushy vanilla bread pudding with a caramel drizzle over the top. Honey in white tea. Less fruit than on the nose, but there's some red fruit and orchard fruit in the background. Finish is a great mix of sweet, tannic bitter, salty, and pepper heat. It's cinnamon plus - cinnamon sort of flavor, but heat is a bit more. There's a good bit of chocolate and honey in the finish too. Oaky, tannic bitterness lingers. Salt pervades it all, adding some character and interest. There is not a damn thing wrong with this dram, except that Lagavulin 16 exists. I can hardly choose between the two. I think the Lag 16 is slightly more complicated, perfume-y, and interesting, but it's also 50 to 100% more expensive. The fact alone that I'm willing to pay that difference to get a Lag 16 makes me think it's the slightly better dram. But the Talisker is a far better value and, in reality, I will probably choose this most nights over the Lag because it's just easier to replace. And just about as good. Regardless, this is a question with no wrong answer: Talisker is excellent; Lagavulin is excellent. Can't go wrong either way.

N: Butter and caramel. Huge butter scent, actually: toasted butter in a cast iron skillet, buttered corn, buttered bread... Lavender, shaving soap, wood stain, strawberry, bacon soaking in maple syrup, black licorice, caramel coated red fruit. Plenty of ethanol, but doesn't feel quite up to the proof. Some wood scents: fresh cut lumber, sawdust, very distant campfire/burning wood. A really nice raspberry note develops after it's been in the glass for a bit. The raspberry tends to merge with the butter and maple syrup, soften it, and turn it all towards a raspberry vanilla cream. That, in turn, is punctuated with black licorice hits - which I would not have expected to be complementary to the raspberry, but it is here. It is an incredible nose. It comes across a little young and mildly harsh at times, but it really keeps giving and giving and giving. P: Caramel and vanilla first. Oak tannins, then both wood and ethanol burn. Straight drinks a bit too hot for my taste. Has that melt on the tongue feeling (ECBP has it too). Rocks glass, two cubes, just enough whiskey to float them, and then wait for them to melt - this seems to be where the palate works for me, but it blunts the nose, unfortunately. Cubes are good and melted now: caramel and vanilla are still there. Honey is added. A very raw feeling cinnamon joins - it's like how a cinnamon stick smells before it's ground down: full of potential. Raspberry returns, but all by its lonesome now. Black licorice, mint and menthol, some herbal tea notes. Still lots of oak flavor and bitter tannins. Letting it sit on the tongue a very long time - long enough to warm up - adds some baking spices, some bready, baked goods notes, a healthy dose of chocolate powder, and a hint of coffee. Finish is very long with cinnamon burn and tannin pucker sitting on the sides of your tongue for what feels like a couple of minutes after your last sip. Hint of chocolate and honey in there too. Almond and peanut are suddenly noticeable as the spice fades. Last note is a hoppy, herbal bitterness. Picked a big one for review #99. No idea what's going to be #100 yet. I have to say, on the whole, I don't really like this whiskey. The nose is incredible, but drinking it takes effort, planning, thought. If you ice it, as I did, then you lose a lot of the nose. Maybe experimenting with varying amounts of water would yield better results for both nose and palate, but I've got other whiskies to drink - I don't really care enough about this one in particular to try and draw out all its nuances. Neither do you, probably. I love uncut, cask strength, barrel proof, untouched, unadulterated, whatever-you-want-to-call-it whiskey. But this is one that probably could be improved if someone in-house, with lots of time to tinker (on the company dime, obviously), could find exactly the spot where the nose and palate work together as a cohesive whole. Is that cut down to 55%? 50%? 46%? I don't know, because I don't like math that much and, as stated above, don't care enough to figure it out for this one bottle in my collection. The point, ultimately, is that the barrel proof here is not doing this whiskey favors - it needs to be cut, likely at a very specific ratio, and Larceny (Heaven Hill) was kinda lazy in not doing that. Think about Russell's Reserve at 55% - why? Why not just barrel proof it? Because someone took the time to think about it, taste it, test it, and decided it was better when cut to some very specific degree. Same is true here, but Larceny decided to let you do that work (or not). I can see some people appreciating that. I can also see how that looks like an attempt to cash in on the barrel proof trend. Whatever it is, it worked. See Whisky Advocate, Winter 2020, p. 61. On the whole, I would pass on this at what I paid. At normal retail, maybe two bottles gets you a good shot at finding an excellent balance of water to whiskey with just enough left to enjoy. But I'd rather just drink another whiskey than put in that effort.

N: Barbecued vanilla frosting and iodine. Smoked mint, tarragon, and other garden herbs. Turkey bacon with a smoked raspberry jam. Definitely medicinal, as its reputation would lead you to expect. It's an ethanol sort of medicinal, slightly numbing, but far from unpleasant. Caramel and old tennis balls (which is noticeably different from new tennis balls). Some rich red fruit hiding inside an unbaked wheat flour dough ball. Additions after beginning to drink: new tires, anise, chlorinated pool water, gasoline (but just barely - like the pleasant, sweet first note and then no more), middle school gym class, black tar... P: Medicinal first - not ethanol this time, it's something more bitter, sharp, and herbal - like a really strong tea (probably black, but some white in it too). Behind that is a really nice traditional profile of caramel, vanilla, and dried red fruit. The ethanol does hit a little later and, like the palate, it's not unpleasant - just doesn't add much either. Grilled pineapple, dark chocolate, dark roast coffee. Very faint stone and orchard fruit deep in the background. Finish is dark chocolate (bitter), mild cayenne pepper heat, and more of the herbal/medicinal character. This whisky is fantastic. It has depth, character, a story. It's truly delicious. But I still think it's a step behind the Lagavulin 16 - unfair comparison as that may be since 16 year olds usually beat up on 10 year olds in any competition, but I don't make the rules about the best known and best selling Islay whiskies. (The Laphroaig 10 is actually better selling, I believe, so maybe 10 year olds can beat 16s at something.) Worse, I don't make the rules about the best peated Scotches, generally. If I did, however, I think I favor the Talisker 10 and Highland Park 12 over this, just slightly. Each of those are closer in price (and, probably related, age) to this, and yet both offer a slightly more robust and diverse palate. Basically, I don't love the medicinal nature of this. A lot of people do love it - maybe you will! I think this is a personal preference dram - if a somewhat bitter, medicine character appeals to you, then this is your dram; if you want Islay smoke and character, but less medicine, drop a few extra bucks on the Lagavulin; if you want smoke, not the bitter pill, and want to stay around $50, grab the Talisker if you can find it, or the Highland Park. Regardless, no disappointments with any of those drams. All of them are excellent.