Tastes

This Baker’s is the original 7 year; the one that was part of the Small Batch series. Through the years, the Baker’s line has garnered significantly less attention than it’s Jim Beam Small Batch series counterparts. Now, it seems that the advent of Legent was not merely an addition to the line; it is to serve as Baker’s replacement. The switch to a single barrel seems to be a move to generate excitement around the product. Even so, the bourbon itself has always been of a high quality. It’s always been one of the highlights of the small batch series to me, in fact. This one is from from Batch No. B-90-001. Let’s get into it. Nose: Classic Beam peanut and rich caramel. Almond. Heavy dose of oak and barrel char. There’s also butterscotch, toffee, brown sugar, and cocoa. It’s a relatively sweet affair, but there is also a fresh orange citrus in there as well. Cola. Steak sauce (which I get in certain Booker’s batches.) And of course, the spices. Cinnamon, nutmeg, clove, and allspice. Great start. Palate: Caramel, brown sugar, vanilla, and leather. Peanut and cola are also present. Maple. Still heavily oaked, and very spicy. More cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, now with the additions of black pepper and ginger. A bit of barrel char that presents itself as a red meat note. The steak sauce is still here. A bit bitter, but not in a bad way. It’s just worth noting. Quality palate. Finish: Initially, there’s a note I can only describe as “floury.” After that, it’s a wave of brown: caramel, brown sugar, cocoa, and charred meat—with the steak sauce. Then the spices take over: cinnamon, clove, and nutmeg, all adding up to what makes a for a long finish. The 107 proof that was relatively unnoticeable until now hits like a freight train. Don’t fix it if ain’t broken? That’s my opinion with this one. This was one has performed very-well as a small batch release for years. It’s still 7 years old, sour mash, 107 proof. Now Single Barrel instead of Small Batch. Now in some modern-art inspired bottle instead of the classic Booker’s style bottle I’ve come to know and love. I’ll try the new SB with an open mind. Given how good this one is, I’m excited for it. In terms of bang for buck, this way up there. $50 for an age-stated, high-octane, elite quality bourbon? I’m in. I’ll give it a 4.75. Don’t screw this one up, Beam. If anything, I’d have said to fix Basill Hayden’s, but I suppose it’s selling quite well, and a lot better than this one. Regardless, this one is a stalwart that somehow got lost in the mix. Apart from the single barrel status, this one remains largely untouched. Hopefully that’s how it stands, because this is phenomenal stuff.

This limited-edition double cask offering from Wyoming Whiskey brings my tally of U.S. state whiskies up to 4. It utilizes a cask combination that’s common in Scotch (substitute virgin oak for ex-bourbon here) but relatively unusual in the world of bourbon. And it’s a wheater to boot. The only other thing I can really compare to this to is Legent from Jim Beam, and even that is significantly different, even just on paper. At any rate, I expect this one to stand out for multiple reasons. Let’s find out. Nose: Cherry, brown sugar, wintergreen, cinnamon, and heavy oak right out of the gate. The sherry cask is evident, with grape jelly, raisin, fig, and cranberry popping out of the glass. A bit of leather. It’s bitter as it is sweet. Caramel and cola round this one out. Some barrel char as well. This has developed quite nicely as the bottle has sat open for a couple months. The Distiller notes are quite accurate here. Palate: Cherry, brown sugar, vanilla, caramel present standard bourbon notes. However, like on the nose, the palate has a heavy sherry-influence. Jelly, raisin, fig, and date hit hard in the next wave of flavor. It’s leathery, syrupy, and tart. Cranberry, goji berry, almond, and flax seed make this one reminiscent of trail mix. Orange peel and barrel char add bitterness and smoke. Sweet but dry red fruit, and cinnamon, nutmeg, and clove provide major spice. Many layers, much to love. Finish: Oak, leather, orange peel, brown sugar, and caramel transition into baking spices such as cinnamon, clove, and nutmeg. It’s a medium-length finish that reflects some of the prominent aspects of the nose and palate. Good whiskey that has become great with time. WW made a great choice with this one. The unique combination of sherry casks, a wheated mash bill, and whatever the Wyoming climate brings to the table make this respectably proofed whiskey a standout. 4.5, VFM considered. It ran me $50, and I’d happily spend $50 in the future. Since buying this one, I’ve added a High West bottle, bringing the total to 5. 10% of the way there… I’ll likely add a couple more bottles from WW before I even come close to hitting 50 states. This one tends to rate higher than the others made by WW, so it could be an outlier. But after trying this one, I’ve got an open mind. Buy it if you see it. Here’s to a damn fine effort from Wyoming.

When it was announced that Glenmorangie was breaking up their 12-year line up, I decided that was the time to get the remaining bottles. I already had the Quinta Ruban, which I scored a solid 4.0. This Nectar D'Or has been renamed the "Sauternes Cask Finish," and has dropped from 12 y.o. to NAS. I'm sure I'll one day grab the NAS to compare, but for now let's see how the most expensive of the original 12 year trio rates. Nose: Sweet all the way through. Vanilla, honey, toffee, and (vanilla) icing. Butterscotch. White grape (I'm far from a wine expert but it's darker, like a pinot grigio) and orange citrus, and raisin. Pear and apricot. Floral and malty. No trace of ethanol. Not too complex, but very inviting. Palate: It's a dessert whisky if I've ever had one. More vanilla and honey, as well as orange and raisin. Classic Glenmorangie apple and pear add a layer of fruity sweetness. White grape. Malt and toffee. Caramel and milk chocolate. Almond and hazelnut appear on the mid-palate, followed by a hit of cinnamon and oak. Finish: The cinnamon and oak persist into the finish, playing along with the vanilla, honey, and white grape sweetness. When the sweetness dissipates, those notes are replaced with the almond, hazelnut, and caramel which ride out alongside the cinnamon, oak, and baking spices to the end of what makes for a moderate length finish. Good stuff here. I've got nothing to compare this to in terms of Sauternes finished whiskies, so instead I'll turn to its peer, the Quinta Ruban. Judging them strictly on the experience, they're quite similar. The port cask delivers more complexity to the QR, if anything. I feel the respective black and white colored packing were aptly chosen. The QR is jammy, dark, and juicy, while the ND is light, airy, and sweet. Which is better? Factoring price, the QR. The Nectar D'or commands, on average, a $15 premium over its 12-year counterparts. Personally, I don't see any reason why this one should be priced ahead of the QR and LS. Maybe the rarity of quality Sauternes Casks? That's all I can come up with. At any rate, this is good stuff. Perfect choice for a background whisky and is a great choice for a fan of the Speyside/Highland profile looking to branch out. At $68, I don't regret my purchase, but understand full well that there are better options in this range. It's a good malt that I hope won't be ruined by a dip in age. Overall, pleasant experience; would consider grabbing another before the 12 year expression is totally extinct. 4 plus years later and this is long-since discontinued. I ended snagging one last bottle though, and ended up boosting the score up to 4.25. There is a lot to like here. The nose is more complex than I gave it credit for. The VFM is even better; most bottles have seen massive price hikes but Glenmoramgie remains one of the few to only introduce a slight prife increase. The nose and VFM boosted my score a quarter star each, bringing this from 3.75 to 4.25.

The Macallan Edition Series never fails to send single malt collectors into a buying frenzy. After working my way through the Edition No. 3, I thought it was a good bottle, but certainly not worthy of the hype. Not to be deterred, I've picked up it's successor and here to see how it stacks up. Nose: Sherry notes are abundant. Raisins, dates, cranberry, and fig. Plum and a bit of cola and caramel. Some nail polish (like with No. 3, but not so prominent). Interesting wintergreen note. Finally, I get honey, toffee, and orange citrus. Leather is not immediately detectable but develops over time. Palate: More of the raisin, date, fig, and plum from the sherry influence. Cola and leather. Poundcake. Caramel, toffee, brown sugar, milk chocolate, vanilla, and syrup (not maple). The orange returns, accompanied by some apple. Finally, oak spice reveals itself in the form of cinnamon, clove, and nutmeg. Very similar to the nose, but offers a good deal more depth. Finish: Starts with some bitter orange peel. Vanilla and milk chocolate play together like ice cream cake, a note I regularly get on a Macallan palate/finish. This is brief though--it quickly transitions to cinnamon, nutmeg, and clove spice. Moderate in length. I think I gave the No. 3 a 3.5. I did a side-by-side with the two, and they came out about equal. I can't go above 3.25 for this one. That means it's time to reassess the No. 3... Anyway. Good whisky. Worth the craze? Absolutely not. I'd be quite happy with my purchase at $50. For the $100 I paid? No thank you. Secondary market prices? You'd have to be an absolute fool to pay anything north of $100. They nailed it on the palate, while the nose and finish are completely unremarkable. For $100, I want remarkable. This is heavily factored into my scoring. At the price point, the Macallan 15 remains the clear winner from this distillery, beating No. 3 and 4 by a healthy margin. No. 2 is on the way, and, spoiler alert, it will fare much better than its successors. Good whisky, poor value, misplaced hype.

This one isn't too far off from the 2017 in terms of notes. The quality is all there. If you happen to have read my review for the 2017, you would know that I hold that one in the highest of regards. It's my immediate reaction whenever somebody asks me my favorite whisky. I had lofty expectations for this one, and, spoiler alert, it absolutely delivers. Nose: Medicinal peat, iodine, campfire smoke, sea salt, and brine are immediately present, true to Lag. Beyond that is a creamy lemon note (think lemon custard pie). Interestingly, there are some floral notes, as well as sweeter ones like vanilla and honey. There is also a bit of orange, as well as some other fruits that I couldn't quite pick out. With a little help from the internet, I've determined it's a combination of raspberry and peach. Like a blue raspberry lollipop. Cask strength? Not a whiff of booze. Instead, you get layer upon layer of goodness. Wow. Palate: Bonfire smoke and bean chili spice explode upon entry. Beyond that is a citrus punch: think lemon and grapefruit. Sea salt and brine still present. Smoked BBQ meats, ash and char. Salted caramel and milk chocolate. Rounded off with some heavy cinnamon and black pepper spice. Oaky. The ABV rears its head here, but I welcome it. Wave after wave of rich, intense flavor. Amazing. Finish: Salty smoked salmon like with the 2017, but a bit less prominent. Transitions to more citrus: lemon, orange, grapefruit. Then we move to the sweet portion: more milk chocolate and caramel. A late-game cinnamon and pepper kick revitalize the finish until it finally extinguishes. When this long finish is finally over, I'm left feeling like I'm driving home from a much needed day at the beach. Refreshed and relaxed, but also in serious need of some water to combat the salt! 5-star rating. Don't feel as though I need to explain that one. I hate to give out too many of those, but it really was inevitable with this one. Where this gets interesting is how I compare it the 2017 release. The reality is, I need to pick up another bottle of each and put the two to task. Before tonight I'd have said the 2017 with ease, but as time has passed, this one has really opened up. Lag fans, peat heads, and cask-strength lovers rejoice. This is an automatic purchase if you can handle a good dose of smoke and ABV. Cannot wait to try the 2019; I'm also eyeing a 2016 release that I saw on the shelf at a local store as recently as a month ago. Lucky me. This is worth every penny of $130. Buy with confidence.

I've got here one from batch 1214E, clocking in at a formidable 60.2% ABV. 16 years old, bottled in 2014. Many have claimed that Glenlivet's core line is too-watered down, tampered with, and generic. Let me be one to say that this a viable expression of Glenlivet for those of you who write them off for those reasons. Nose: Fruity and floral. Pear, peach, coconut. Marshmallow, toffee, and vanilla, and a bit of honey. Some caramel and orange citrus. Touch of cinnamon and oak at the end, but nothing that would indicate a whisky that clears 120 proof. Very good, not remarkable. Palate: Heavy on the bourbon cask notes. Vanilla, caramel, toffee, and cola. Very fruity; apple, plum, pear, apricot, and orange. Roasted cashew comes through in a big way. Graham cracker. About midway through, those subtle cinnamon and oak spice notes from the nose get turned up to 10. As the back of the box describes, the lack of chill-filtering results in a creamier and more full-bodied mouthfeel. Fantastic; this is where the whisky really begins to shine. Finish: It's more of the roasted cashews, and interesting barrel char note. Some of the darker fruits from the palate linger: Gala apple and plum. Cinnamon, baking spice, and oak carry this on and on for what is long and stellar finish. One of the best mainland Scottish malts I've had in some time. Hell, it may even be the best I've ever had within that specification. Uncut, non-chill filtered, 16 years old, under $100 (ran me $87). A palate fit for Gods and a finish that goes on forever. Nothing to complain about here. It's a shame that they dropped the age statement with the Nadurra releases. I'm fortunate to have found this one in 2019. At $87 this is a steal to the highest degree. This will be the first mainland Scotch I award the full 5 stars since I began writing full reviews and actually took the time to critically evaluate what's in the glass. This will be the new benchmark for quality and value. Absolute must buy. At this point, I'd say it's the only way to drink Glenlivet. Hopefully they bring back the age statement. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But with something this good, I'd prefer to remain optimistic that I will one day get to try it again in this very form. If you're lucky enough to see one of these in 2019, you know what to do. Cheers!

Here we've got one from Japan's number 2 brand, Nikka. Suntory and its products take the cake as the clear number one, but Nikka isn't too far off in second place. This only refers to notoriety, not necessarily quality. I need to do some more digging to determine the latter. So here it is, my first Nikka review. Nose: Huge honey note, followed by banana, toffee, butterscotch, and vanilla. Graham cracker and marshmallow. Extremely sweet, even a bit syrupy. Some brown sugar and maple. Slightly nutty (walnut). This one drives right up to the border of overly-sweet, but stops just short. It noses like banana walnut pancakes with maple syrup. Very good. Palate: Still big honey, vanilla, butterscotch, toffee, brown sugar, and marshmallow notes. Walnut as well. The banana is now accompanied by some apple, pear, and apricot. There's chocolate, but it's more akin to a powdered hot chocolate than anything else. Slight oak spice. The palate trades the pancakes for a fruit bowl, but is otherwise relatively close to the nose. *5 months later and I'm back. Definitely some tropical fruit here. Mango and pineapple. Especially mango. In fact, I'd say that's now the most dominant note on the palate. Interesting what time and oxidation do to a whisky. Finish: The idea of the banana walnut pancakes with maple syrup resurfaces here, but very briefly. Then it's cinnamon, nutmeg, and oak spice for what adds up to moderate finish, maybe even on the short side. A bit underwhelming compared to the rest of the experience, but it's respectable in its own right. Damn good stuff. The Suntory products have always reminded me of Scotch. This Nikka Coffee Malt, however, is completely unique to any other category of whisky. A lot to like here. Great balance, only dropping off slightly at the finish. I paid $63, and feel I got my money's worth. I'll admit that Japanese whisky, in general, is overpriced. But within the context of the category, this appropriately priced. Great experience, looking forward to the Coffee Grain next. Nice job, Nikka.

Yet another whiskey that has achieved a cult status derived from a combination of quality and rarity. Let's see if the Willett leaves up to the hype. Nose: Very bready, doughy, and spicy. Rye bread, dill, and cinnamon, leap out of the glass. High ABV is evident, not unpleasant. Beyond that is cherry, banana (almost like banana bread), toffee, and wintergreen green, rounding out a superb nose. Palate: Still predominantly rye bread, dill, and cinnamon. Big dose of vanilla now. Something reminiscent of hay. Clove, nutmeg, and pepper compliment the cinnamon spice. Chewy caramel and a distinct banana bread note. Apple cider. Very slight cherry note. Just as spicy, but less fruity than the nose. Even more vegetal and earthy. Very nice. Finish: The finish goes on damn near forever. Black cherry and white chocolate notes provide rich sweetness. Banana bread and walnut. More of the clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, pepper spice take over once the sweetness disappears. The experience concludes with a woody, oaky note. It's amazing that the finish offers just as much complexity as the palate; I find this an absolute rarity but it's true with this one. 5 stars. Best rye I've had. I say both without reservation. Phenomenal from start to finish. Especially the finish. At $60, it's a steal. Would love to try one of the other age-stated Willett ryes. It seems most of those were one-offs while this is their own only staple offering. Cannot recommend this stuff enough. If you see it for anywhere near this price point, pull the trigger. I've already said too much. Enjoy!

After having a good experience with the Special Reserve and a phenomenal experience with the 12, it's natural that I've had my eye on the Antique 107 for some time. I've been a huge fan of the Weller line (it's a shame to see prices skyrocket). Let's dive in. Nose: Red hot cinnamon and spicy oak. Strong black tea note. Behind that is caramel, leather, and nutmeg, brown sugar, and allspice. A touch of spearmint that I also got in the 12 year. There is a faint cherry note, but it's more subtle than most BT products. High ABV is evident, but it's welcome here. Good start. Palate: Here, the cherry note is out in full force. Almost Cherry-coke like, as opposed to the cherry Vick's Vapor Rub I normally get with BT. A bit grassy and very sweet: brown sugar, vanilla, and even a slight hint of apple pie. A tinge of orange peel. Big spice as well: more cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, now with black pepper. Rolling it around the tongue reveals a leather note that has been relegated to a background presence. Big oak. Solid. Finish: Cinnamon bomb. Also some black pepper and nutmeg. Loads of oak and bit more of the orange peel. Not too complex but long and enjoyable in its own right. Weller 107 is some brash stuff. The higher proof makes it more interesting and thus slightly superior to the SR. But the balance and and nuance that can only be achieved with age makes the 12 year the clear winner for me. Still, there certainly is a place for the kick-in-the-door style that the 107 takes on. Having tried this, I'd love to see what the Full Proof looks like. Sadly, it's $500 at my local store. The CYPB just sold for $300... Retailers are pricing me out of this line, and BT products in general. Fortunately, I was able to find this for $80, which, considering the ludicrous over-pricing (I've seen $300 for this), was well worth the cost. 4.25. Worth the hype? Depends who you talk to. Certainly is not worth secondary market prices. But it gets the job done for me. An absolute beast of a bourbon. If you're a fan of the Weller line, or high-proof bourbon in general, I say pull the trigger. If you can find it for a reasonable price, that is.

Here we've got an NAS limited edition release from Old Pulteney. Old style packaging; they've recently revamped their entire line-up; this one did not make the cut. This Navigator release comes from the previous generation of Pulteney products. Let's see if this an NAS release is on par with the (old) 12 year of which I am very fond. Nose: At 46% ABV this thing really pops out of the glass. There is a big jam note that bears credence to sherry cask-aging. More standard notes of apple, honey, vanilla, and toffee. A little grainy, and obviously young. A sulfuric note that is a bit unpleasant. Palate: True to its reputation as a coastal malt, there are some distinct salty, maritime notes. A bit of cranberry and fig/date representing the sherry cask, while more of the standard toffee, honey, vanilla, apple, caramel, cereal, and butterscotch fill out the palate. Green apple jolly rancher. At the back end I pick up some milk chocolate and some citrus notes (a bit of lemon and lime juices.) Big improvement over the nose. Finish: Woody and spicy. There's still some sea salt, but now it's complimented by black pepper and cinnamon. The higher ABV makes itself known here. More green apple Jolly Rancher. There's a bit of jammy, fruity sweetness before this moderate-long finish reaches its conclusion. Certainly a good one. Definitely not a great one. Outside of the maritime qualities, it's not particularly unique. It's young. If you can get the Oban Distillers Edition for around $75, I would spring for that as your sherry/bourbon cask aged coastal highlander. This was $49 for reference. Head to head with the (old) 12 year, I'd choose the latter. The 12 is just a better expression of Pulteney's potential. Though I will say, I think 46% was a good choice for this one and would be a good choice for the 12. As for the Navigator, it's good as is, but I'll admit, you aren't missing much if you don't pick it up before it's all gone. This simply needed more time in the casks, or perhaps just better casks. Either way, I assign this a 3.0 for being perfectly average. EDIT: Three months later and I'm back. The nose is lacking and even a bit unpleasant, but the palate and finish have improved greatly. This has really opened up. Bumped from 3.0 to 3.75. Furthermore, I may have changed my stance on how this stacks up to the 12 year (old packaging). More on the latter to come later on.