Craigellachie 13 Year

Rating: 15/23 N: Damp socks, a bit of sweet, watery mineral, the faintest of tangerine with a floral character to it. This nose is really lacking. Gradually, some meat and spiciness come out. I'm really struggling to find much here. This nose is not appealing. Eventually, I get spices (black pepper, white pepper, cinnamon, ginger). Vegetal character builds, but it's restrained and there's a crisp herbal profile balancing it. I get A touch of menthol and maybe a hint of just the rindiest melon rind. P: It starts fruity and a bit light, but then smoke and funk come in and make this a lot more interesting. A bit of sulphur does come in, but it isn't too much. This tastes a little youthful with that initial lightness and the later sulphur coming in. Flavor-wise, I get malty sweetness, cinnamon, black pepper, some vegetal character, white pepper, vanilla, a bit of tannic wood. The malt reveals a bit of melon and a little glacéd apricot at times. Dry grass, a bit of toastiness. Some sort of mild dirt. This reminds me of Springbank, though it doesn't go all of the way there. The flavors here are less crisp and that sulphur does come in. F: Vegetal, wood, spices, a little vanilla. Kind of numbing and flat, aside from the sweet, prickly spices. Some lasting sulphur. - Conclusion - This is some nice competition for Springbank. It tastes quite good and has some really enjoyable complexity. I'd give the win to Springbank 10 here and I'd certainly take Springbank 15 over this, but this is no slouch. The extra time aging has really show when putting this side by side with Craigellachie 9 (2004) (Hepburn's Choice) (13/23), which is less refined and more fiery. This has a good amount going on, but Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) seems better put-together than this does. Highland Park 12 (12/23) has a nice spicier boldness than this does, but it doesn't have as much of that nice funk and certainly has a lot more sulphur. I put this close to the level of the Loch Lomond, so it's either a 15 or a 16. If it weren't for the sulphur, I think this would get the 16. Sadly, because of the sulphur, I'm giving this a 15. Thanks for the sample @ctbeck11 and a happy New Year to all!

Not really into scotch, but you have to broaden horizons if you are to fancy yourself a whiskey connoisseur. Thought I would therefore jump in Normally I find most scotch a bit band aids and iodine. Lacks the sweet, rich, candied flavors I crave in bourbon. This one though....I could be won over to at least accepting bourbon's across the pond cousin. The nose is sweeter. I get vanilla pudding, a bit of barnyard hay, and some tropical fruit -almost like very ripe mango. The palate is more rich than expected. The nose carries through with vanilla pudding mango, a touch of coconut, and lemon meringue pie ...but with a layer of tang. Reminds me of sweet and sour sauce a bit as it goes down. I do also get a little of the bitter "hospital fire" on the back end- a dash of burning rubber bandaid and iodine. Finish is shorter. I find most scotch to not be as coating and lengthy on the finish as bourbon unless it is peaty offering. Overall- As a bourbon and American Rye drinker, I am not offended. I know that this is an entry level offering, but it is the backbone of things like Dewers. I wouldn't kick it off my bar, but would not be something I would ever crave.

Nice and smooth

Nose: coastal, briny, oak, vanilla, orange; going back, it smells more vanilla malty, floral. Palate: buttery, malty, honey, red fruity. Medium finish.

Pretty surprised by this one. Nice and smooth. A whisky that really grows on you. There are better ones in this price range though.