Tastes

N: Maybe just me, but I get almost nothing. Slight woodiness peaking through ethanol. P: Oak dominates here - it's like licking a stave, or maybe an oak tree. I don't mind some tannins as a complication, but not sure I've ever drank a whiskey or wine or anything else that seems to feature tannins as a primary flavor. But that's what I'm getting tonight and have gotten through the whole bottle over the last 10 days or so - cheek puckering tannins. If I think really hard about it, I can imagine a little dusting of chocolate on that oak tree I'm licking. The finish kinda lays a cinnamon spice on top of the tannin astringency. It's not a great feeling. This one doesn't work for me. Too much wood for my taste.

N: Every version of mint you can think of, and very intensely so. Mint leaves, mint gum, menthol, eucalyptus leaves. (Guess I couldn't think of very many.) There are also earthy, mineral, herbal and even a some vegetable (bell pepper) notes in it. If you didn't know it was whiskey, it could almost pass as one of those aggressive herbal healing teas. P: After you've cut through the mint garden, there are some nice, rich malty and woody flavors here: a sweet rye bread with a hot cinnamon-caramel drizzle and a side of whipped vanilla cream. Cinnamon sticks around for the finish, but never gets as rowdy as the green fellas - on exhale, it's like I just ate a breath mint. But the warmer flavors feel thick and coating on the tongue. That richness tends to counterbalance the mint some and keeps this moving away from undrinkable. This is clearly aimed at the cocktails market. Even the name, Double Rye!, would look great on a rotating paper bar menu next to trendy ingredients like egg whites, ginger beer, or lavender bitters. I can imagine a great cocktail that tames this beast and brings out it's best qualities, but as a sipper, it's overwhelming.

N: Tropical fruit and/or flowers, particularly pineapple and whipped banana. There's wood under that along with sweet breads or even bread pudding. A tart overripe green apple note comes in later. It's a quite pleasant nose. P: The fruit is there up front, but more subdued and with less separable flavors. Caramel, vanilla, and some spice - with a bit of a surprising pot still character no less - are more assertive, as one might expect. Other subtler flavors: toffee, butterscotch, and a rich but less sweet bread than the nose would suggest. Then the hops start to hit the palate: dank and bitter with a mild souring nature. I'm not really sure where the finish starts here: the spice hits fairly early, but never leaves; much later the hops come in and leave you with a grapefruit-like bitterness (albeit far less bitter than actually drinking an IPA) and occasional floral hits. That said, wherever the finish begins, the mix of the whiskey and IPA flavors is very hit and miss - sometimes it works really well and sometimes it's almost cringe inducing. That said, the IPA bitterness has grown on me some - I hated it at first, but now, at the end of maybe the third bottle of this I've had in ~3 years, it feels fairly well balanced against the spice in the finish. It's an interesting and odd experience, though, to take a sharp inhale after a sip and feel both that pot still spice and a hoppy IPA run through your nasal cavity. I have a hard time reconciling the ideas, although I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that can love it. Generally, I kinda just don't hate it (anymore). Side note 1: I'm fairly new to thinking seriously about whiskey (drinking at home is a silver lining of the pandemic for me), but I've been a serious beer drinker for nearly two decades. I've tried thousands of beers, written hundreds of reviews of beers, traveled for beer, attended beer events, written seriously about beer from a legal and academic perspective, visited dozens of breweries, etc, you get the point. I can count on one hand how many barrel-aged IPAs I've had - two, maybe three if I forgot one. The ones I have had were more of a novelty than a truly memorable beer. Barrel flavors and extreme hop flavors don't play nice together. You have to build a certain type of IPA in order to make it work with barrel flavors, and it's not what most people think of when they think of IPA, and even then it's just not likely to be great. I'm still (anxiously) waiting for that great whiskey barrel aged IPA. So this begs the question: where is all of the Jameson barrel aged IPA that would be required to allow Jameson to put dozens of bottles of this IPA barrel aged whiskey on every grocery and liquor store shelf in the United States (primarily, I assume, as I don't know that IPA means as much or has the same marketing value in most other parts of the world)? Something just doesn't add up. Even if Jameson uses the IPA barrels multiple times, which I have to assume would have diminishing returns, it seems there would need to be far more barrel aged IPA sitting on shelves somewhere in the world than I think it's likely that there is. I don't really have a conclusion to draw from that, just an observation and a hmmm moment. (And, yes, I have looked into where Jameson sources the barrels and the answers I found suggest that either Ireland is awash in barrel aged Pale Ales/IPAs - unlikely - or my question still stands.) Side note 2: I don't really think this blend is exactly the same as regular Jameson. There just seems to be a slightly different core flavor here, and it seems to match too well with IPA flavors. The bitterness I talked about in my regular Jameson review doesn't show up here - there's nothing tannic in this. I doubt that throwing Jameson in an IPA barrel for a few hours or few days or whatever "finishing" means to Jameson would change that tannic bite. More likely is that it's easier to just adjust the blend a little and get a product better suited to the IPA flavors. Wouldn't be a bad idea either.

N: Cinnamon and medicine scents. Some wood. More ethanol than I would like. Not getting much else. P: Very spicy from start to finish. Lots of wood and wood tannins. Maybe some bland vanilla custard and caramel sneaks in under the cinnamon spice. Little sweet corn sweetness early, then turns overly bitter on the finish. The more tactile feelings of this - the spicy, the sweet, the bitter - overwhelm any specific flavors for me. It's not a pleasant experience. Maybe I got a bad bottle or something, but this is the first Four Roses I've had that disappoints. The Small Batch Select is fantastic. The basic entry level Four Roses is a great value. This middle ground bottle is a hard pass for me. Given the generally positive reviews here, I'm inclined to think there's something off in my bottle, however unlikely. I'll give it another shot someday, but not gonna be in a hurry for that.

N: Raspberries and cream. Peach, honey, and flowers (maybe roses even, but I don't trust my sense of specific flower smells). Tea and driftwood with possibly a light whiff of smoke. Little bit of a medicinal mint or even menthol. Tiny drop of water in a Glencairn brings out a little bit of stone and orchard fruit, but doesn't feel like this blend is really holding much back - it already smells fantastic. P: Lots of vanilla, caramel, and then some apples. The raspberries and cream is there too, but diminished and pushed to the background. There's a dried berries character in it. Subtler hits of leather and, like the nose, maybe a little bit of smoke. Finish is cinnamon spice, tannic and drying with a mild bitterness that comes in and out against the spice. Dried fruit also sort of plays against the spice and mingles with the bitterness here and there. The finish also feels very close to a good bourbon, more so than most scotches I've tried, and gives it a kind of odd American feeling. (The Compass Box website provides a breakdown of the component whiskies, and 72% of them were aged in first fill bourbon barrels, so perhaps that kind of explains that bourbon character.) I loved this. The nose is unique and shows the range that can be achieved with blended scotch. The palate is about a step behind the nose in terms of complexity, but that's not always a bad thing and it feels acceptable here. The bold, bourbon-style spicy hot finish is pretty aggressive for a blended scotch, but unless you just hate bourbon, it's interesting to see and drink the crossroads of ideas that comes out of this bottle. And, like the Glasgow blend, this is an excellent value dram.

N: Caramel, vanilla cream, and a vague and generic fruitiness - peach? pear? apple? all of the above? none of the above? - hard to say, but not unpleasant per se. Occasionally (very rarely) that fruit hits like the distinctive character notes of the aged Dewar's blends, but that feels like too strong of a compliment here. Finally, there's the feeling of ethanol without the scent. Neat trick that. P: Sweet and generally just palatable. Not a lot of strong identifiable flavors. Some caramel and vanilla, of course. Finish is interesting: starts with a noticeably woody, tannic bitterness that sticks around a bit before giving way to cinnamon spice. The bitterness is almost too much and I think is a huge player in defining the character of this dram, but also feels like something nearly unpalatable (almost contrary to what I said above). It's an interesting choice. It basically functions as a beauty mark: something that is not generally objectively desirable, but when placed in a certain context, it creates a uniqueness that elevates the subjective desirability of the entire package. To do that on the mass production scale that Jameson is on is kind of a breathless thing to behold. It could so easily not exist, and yet it does, and so much of it too. I have a long history with Jameson. It may well be the first whiskey I ever had, and it is certainly the first I ever enjoyed/appreciated/abused/etc. From endless shots of "Jay-mo" during Chicago happy hours, to picklebacks in L.A. (why? I don't know), to asking for scotch in the lamest college dive in Ithaca, NY and being asked in response if I had ever tried Jameson... And I think this is the first time I've ever really sat and thought about it (which is why I bought this bottle - to do that for the first time). It's easier to drink than I remember, but then I've sworn off it enough times and returned to wincing swallows of Jameson shots anyway that there may be trauma in my brain related to how "easy" I think this is to drink. But it's also more complicated than I expected/remembered. On a numerical scale, it's not a zero in complication. Really, I think it's one damn well thrown curveball in a series of fastballs, and that's just enough to make Jameson the household name it is today.

N: Peat smoke. That's it. It is a robust peat smoke with what feels like a few layers to it, sometimes more earthy peat, other times more ashy smoke, and occasionally a nice burning wood scent. And, for as strong and overwhelming as the peat smoke is, it is not unpleasant or boring. There is some ethanol as well. As it warms and oxidizes a bit, seems to reveal some fruit notes, but I'm not sure if I'm imagining that or not. (Not imagining: there's a real orchard fruit note in it. Really nice.) P: More peat smoke, but many more layers on the palate: cola, chocolate, peach, and cherry, to start. Thick-cut white bread, like a Texas toast sort of thing. All of this is shot through with the peat smoke - every sip, inhale, and exhale is smoky. And I'm not complaining in any way. A nice, spicy finish builds through the glass. It's a cinnamon spice, but with more heat and power and a lingering hold on the tongue. It is the only taste in this that cuts against the peat smoke and it's a welcome foil and complication. This is a nice, balanced, smoke-forward blend. I really enjoyed it, but there are probably a few smoky single malts at or near the same price that offer a broader range in the nose and palate. Still, it's interesting, tasty, a bit complicated, and feels like it was made with a lot of thought and great care.

N: Honey, dried white bread, some orchard fruit, and then there's that sort of earthy, mineral quality that each iteration of the Grouse has. Caramel, maybe light cinnamon (or cooked ginger?), and a mild seafood salty idea of a scent on a second level. P: Sticky toffee and bread pudding, milk chocolate, sea salted caramel. Hiding in the chocolate are a bunch of fruit flavors, like chocolate covered fruits: orange zest, cherries, cranberries, and maybe just a hint of raspberry. Finish is soft and supple, mostly more chocolate, but there's a spiciness that builds at the tip and sides of the tongue over time. Spice is cinnamon or even chili pepper heat - the label on the bottle really wants to you think it's gingerbread spice... Maybe, but feels just slightly too hot and also lacks the ginger flavor (it might be in the nose, it's definitely not on the palate). It's closer to a Mexican hot chocolate. Mouthfeel is absolutely luxurious - hits the exact right spots for rich, heavy, and creamy - not too much, not too little of any of those traits. As a winter blend, this would do quite nicely next to a gas fire pit on those blisteringly cold 60 degree evenings in deep January we get here in Los Angeles. Sarcasm aside, I'd want more spice from a dram I actually intended to drink in cold weather, but this is smooth, rich, silky, tasty, and cheap. Hard to ask for more. Winter or not, this my favorite version of the Grouse so far. It's rich and full of flavor, basically at any price, but especially so for sub-$30. I'll probably grab another and save it for the gas fire pit in a few months. Side note: Great label! The white grouse foreground with the snow capped mountain background that comes into view as you drain the bottle... Loved it.

N: Cola, sweet and dark red cherries, peach and pear, dried peat (but no smoke), caramel, vanilla, bread pudding with maybe a faint chocolate drizzle. Tried different glasses for this one (above is rocks with one ice cube, my normal preference as I like to see how a dram opens as it both warms and waters). Glencairn reveals some interesting characteristics: bacon and then s'mores - like, fully cooked, right off the campfire, not the component parts. I still don't get actual smoke, just smoked things. Very intriguing. Neat glass is a disappointment - fruit is more pronounced, but nothing is really added. P: Creamy, smooth and rich. Vanilla creme and/or custard, dark red fruit, hints of chocolate, and (yeah) Graham crackers (there's the s'mores, minus the smoke). Little corner hits of caramel and sea salt. A little woodsy and bitter at the start of the finish, then moves spicy. Spice doesn't seem to have a taste per se, just lingering heat (like capsaicin). The tannins and bitterness stick around, but at acceptable, maybe even pleasant, levels. Over time, there's more chocolate on the finish, but it's less pronounced than on the 15 year. (Also, no real difference on the palate between glass types.) Bought this thinking intentionally to compare it to the 15 year that I reviewed a few weeks back. Thought that was a great blend for the money and a substantial step up from the 12. This, however, is really more just different from the 15, not inherently better. This is, no doubt, subtler and perhaps more nuanced, particularly in the nose, but the overall experience is probably not worth the extra 10 bucks - unless you really like packaging that feels fancy, but is still cheap plastic and cardboard. This bottle has that in spades - overly large box with a side slide opening and a heavier, more ornate bottle. Tossed the box immediately and have no intention of keeping the bottle. Begin rant: (Actually, there's a hint of pretension (and waste) in all that that kinda annoys me, now that I think of it. It's all designed to be kept after drinking as some special prize, but it's a widely available $50 blended scotch, man! If you're keeping this for the display case... Never mind. I don't keep any bottles. Pictures of half empties are good enough for me.) End rant.