Auchroisk 19 (That Boutique-y Whisky Company) (Batch 5)

Nose is very light with pineapple, apple, mild spices, hay and lemon. Palate is grassy, semisweet, citrusy, mildly peppery with a little caramel. Finish is woody and dry with green tea note. This was an interesting whiskey for sure, not run of the mill. Not sure if I really liked it, would probably need half a bottle to decide. Thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the sample.

Rating: 17/23 I haven't heard much about Auchroisk before, but I understand that it has kind of a particular flavor to it that nothing else does. I've been wanting to try this bottle for a while, but had it marked as reserved. I got some substantial work done today and it's almost Halloween. The bottle has zombies on the side. Seems like I'd better open it. N: There's a sweet, super soft graininess that's sort of like slightly watery skim milk. There's also a bold, bitter waxiness that has a zing to it that isn't quite tart. The waxiness turns into grassiness a bit. Oddly, I really don't get any fruit here. P: A bit of alcohol quickly turns into that bitter, somewhat zingy waxiness. Beside that, theres a bit of restrained heat that's spicy like a kind of mild clove, having less of that bold woodiness and being less numbing (though it definitely does retain those core clove characteristics a bit). Moving out of the waxiness (but retaining the spice), the bitterness starts letting up and some grassy flavor with a little bit of other herbal character comes in. A brush of light vanilla. As the grass and vanilla fade, it becomes apparent that this palate has all been layered on top of some super smooth, slightly full, soft as a down pillow grain flavor. This is where some sweetness finally makes its way in. If I hold this on my tongue for a while, I do start to get a bit of that watery skim milk flavor from the nose. This is an enjoyable and unique palate with good balance and suggestions of maturity, but it's far from being terrible complex. With a fair amount of water, the alcohol and burn are softened and some more herbal nucance comes out. The flip side is that that nice milky flavor is substantially diminished. Despite the spice and heat, this drinks at a lower proof than the 49.4% that it is; I'd have guessed more like 45%. That's because of its smoothness. It isn't especially viscous, but it isn't thin enough to make me guess a lower proof. F: That pillowy grain flavor increases its presence, revealing its watery skim milk side, which is somehow actually a good thing. Light grassiness and very subdued waxiness form an interesting background before eventually taking back over in the long finish. Some spicy clove heat remains, though it is never the central flavor. - Conclusion - This is quite unique in an enjoyable way, though if the grassy bitter wax and skim milk were more common in scotch profiles, I don't think there's much that would make this stand out. It's really earning a lot of its points for uniqueness here. Based on the kind of bitterness to the wax and clove, I suspect that this might have been aged in French oak. It makes me wonder if American oak might have added more complexity or if a combination of the two could have balanced the austere French and sweet American oak flavors. Without trying this side by side with anything else yet, Im looking at a 15 to 19 for this. Cadenhead's Tullibardine 25 (1993) (18/23) is another one that is just different enough from the standard formula to be interesting. They're both well executed variations on a clean style with an interesting bitter twist to them. The Tullibardine's twist is Manuka honey, whereas this has the grassy wax and milk. The complexities are about the same too. It's a tough call between the two, but I'm leaning toward the Tullibardine. They're actually really close though. What strikes me more is how much more complex Glen Grant 18 (17/23) is than either this or the Tullibardine. Maybe I overrated the Tullibardine and/or underrated the Glen Grant. I feel like the Glen Grant should be an 18 and maybe the Tullibardine should be a low 18? Or maybe the Glen Grant should be a 19. The glen Grant really is a more cohesive and better-executed product than this is by a substantial margine. Considering that, it would seem that this should be with a 16 or 17, depending on whether the Glen Grant is an 18 or a 19. Going from refined, delicate spirits to something a bit more funky: Loch Lomond 12 (16/23). This has a bit of refinement, that I like better, but honestly it does still show its alcohol and burn. On the other hand, the Loch Lomond has less alcohol burn, but it has a bit brasher character that doesn't quite always land. I'm hovering in the 15 to 17 range now. This is good and I enjoy its interesting character, but I just don't see this as a great whisky, unfortunately. I'm glad I tried it and I'll enjoy the rest of my bottle, but I'd need a real reason to buy another bottle of Auchroisk in the future. As much as I'm enjoying Auchroisk, the value just doesn't seem there based on this bottling. When Loch Lomond 12 and Glen Grant 18 are options, I can't see myself dropping the cash needed to buy more of this. At this point, I'm inclined to put this ahead of Loch Lomond 12, but behind Glen Grant 18. I think I'm going to go with the 17.