Tastes

I was trying to cut down on full bottle purchases to try and clear my backlog but this popped up on sale and 3 bottles later the backlog had grown again. 2 I bought without tasting this and the hazelburn 13 2004. Not the best idea. One over sulfated and this. Now its a quality dram, balanced, zilch burn and goes down easy. It's just not my taste profile. Granted I've been spoilt recently on the bourban front but the vanilla on the nose seems a bit artificial and its a bit too Dr pepper aka sweet cherry forward. I'll be donating large amounts of this one I think. 3.25

The last drop I had was the 2003 bottling with 12000 made. This is the 2004 bottling 1 of 9000. I did something I rarely do these days and bought a bottle without having sampled off the back of the previous years edition. So was it worth it? Beautiful olorosso jammy toffee, burnt caramel are all pluses. I can't remember when or if I've had such a strong sulphur taint though...man struck matches galore on the palate and gun powder on the nose. Reminds me of a gunpowder rum I once had (with actual gunpowder in). This year's bottling was 3000 less and I'm wondering if it was due to sulphur taint but they still mixed in a few affected barrels. My tongue really has a sulphur tingle which builds the more I drink. I think I hold off on rating for now. The whisky itself is at least a 4 maybe 4.25 but the taint drags it down a fair bit. I'll wait to see how the bottle evolves with oxygen. Update: It didn't and so I did something I never have done before or since - return it!

Yeah I'm rating a 2.1 average whiskey a 3.5. Why? Well for starters I like it. It's got a rough smokey ethanolly edge which ticked a few boxes. I'm in a great mood which boosted it some more and its $20USD a bottle. I have never ever drunk such a cheap whiskey (that I know of) so VFM must gain it coudos. I don't remember liking the blue as much but then it was $130USD so stars should have been shinning out it's you know what (they didn't). Don't know if I'd call it a 4 but in my slightly inebriated state I was tempted.

Good things in life should be celebrated. Birthday's, weddings, project go lives...and there are the are the sadder things...departures of work colleagues you like. It was a project go live and a departure which prompted this drink after a pint of beer. This was like the beer in that it was almost a session whisky...pleasant but not distinctive. Usual dalmore mild polished caramel profile. 3.5 and could swing between a 3 or a 4 on vfm but I wouldn't be hanging out to drink again so 3 it is.

Hmm. Not really one for me. Quite an acidic sharper peat. One step down from the 16 year Port Askaig. Solid 3 I'll give it.

I remember this one being a bit polarizing in past reviews. Some for some against. I think it actually might be a bonafide case of distillery batch variation as I had the same thing happen to me with the Tamadhu cask strength. People raved and I got nothing out of it. This time it's different I really enjoyed this. Now it's not as complex as the Macallan whiskey makers edition. But it does what it has well and has none of the MWME bitterness on the aftertaste. Currants, toffee and more..nice dram. 4

Interesting..after Port Askaig 16 peated I tried this and got inner rubber bike tube on the nose and then liquid honey on the first taste. Then currants, raisins, xmas pudding fruits, toffee, orange rind, ginger and more. Very, nice. The burnt caramel ethanolly bitterness builds at the end unfortunately like most macallans I've tried which brings it down a peg. I don't seem to notice it at the beginning but towards the end of the dram its more noticeable, again like a number of macallans I've tried. Without this it'd be 4.25 easy with brings down to 3.5 to 3.75 territory. I wouldn't buy a bottle but quality dram if a bit highly priced at $120 USD here.

I wouldn't say I'm a betting man largely because I bet on horses infrequently and badly. On this whiskey I would bet my house it's Caol Ila. It's nice, pleasant, agreeable but not exciting. Mild CI profile peat, vanilla etc. If you've drunk the 12 you know what I mean. It's very much like ground hog day with most bourbon barreled CI's for me (although some are definitely a step ahead than others). At $100 this is 3.5 for me. I'd plum for the 18 yr CI for a bit more $ but a lot better.

They say a sample sometimes doesn't do justice and you need to work your way through a bottle to really let it reveal itself but I often have the opposite problem in that I love a sample and then buy a bottle and it just doesn't measure up. I loved the sample of the 13, bought a bottle and it never hit the peak I remember. It could be a number of factors but maybe it's like your first time of any unique experience, subsequent tastings just don't hit your memory of the greatness, the element of surprise being lost, replaced instead by expectation of a high benchmark it should meet. This theory was reinforced when I shared with friends and one of them rated it how I once initially did despite me being by then a bit meh. The 17 is how I remember the 13 to be in a way. I rated the 13 a 4.25 but now just pushing 3.75 on a good day. This shoots to 4.25 with it's warm, honey sulphurous taste. Having tried both before and after the 13 seems quite flat, a shadowy variant lacking the vibrant viscosity and retaining the sulphuric note which now seems a bit naked, exposed and unbalanced. I'd love to swap my bottle of the 13 for a 17 but it's not available in NZ and probably a good thing as my personal experience may repeat itself yet again.

Interesting. Love the French Oak influence...vanilla creme brulee, candy floss thing going on. Quite unique. I've had a few of these distilleries offerings now and it's been not a bad hit rate 2 out of 3. Not sure if I'd drink a lot of it as it's on the sweeter side but still has unique character. 3.75