Deanston 12 Year

I am not so sure about this one… I think that it was a decent “Bourbon”? Definitely not what I would expect from a Scotch. It did lack refinement and depth. I tried it neat and on the rocks but, I couldn’t even make it halfway the bottle. Perhaps, it’s just a matter of style and taste so, give it a try, you might love it!

Rating: 14/23 I forgot I had this sample both when I bought my Cadenhead's Deanston 19 and when I reviewed it, so I'm pulling it out now to find out how it is. N: Not a lot happening here. A touch of sweetness with tangerine and a touch of grain. Possibly some malt merging them. Maybe a hint of wax, but maybe I'm just expecting that based on my last Deasnton experience. Oh, there is a hint of dirty still here. This isn't a bad nose, but it's an incredibly boring one. P: The palate has a nice richness to it. It's around medium viscosity. There's a lot of burn to it, but it isn't overwhelming. There's a malty, nectar, tangerine, vanilla sweetness going on and also a bit of coconut. There's some loud spiciness coming out of the burn, with cinnamon, ginger, black pepper, and clove. There's a bit of dirty still, but not a lot. Despite the dirty still flavor and kind of bit of muddled character it adds, this doesn't have any sulphur or more than a hint of ethanol. It's overall a mostly nice, balanced palate, with some nice bold flavors from the slightly high proof. It's tasty, though not super interesting, and it does burn to an unpleasant degree. F: The malt remains and gets a bit more bitter as more grain comes in. Maybe a touch of wood. Some vanilla nectar, with faint hints of tangerine. The burn really lingers, though the particular spices don't come through so much anymore. - Conclusion - This doesn't have the same loudness, distinct flavors, waxiness, or tropical fruit that Cadenhead's Deanston 19 (1994) (15/23) has. But it also burns a lot less. It seems like Deanston just tends to burn, unfortunately. The Deanston 19 is 56.4% ABV with a lot more burn, but substantially better flavor as well. This has a more generic profile that I like but don't find that memorable. Loch Lomond 12 (16/23) is more challenging, but I think that its funkiness is tastier overall. It's also substantially less harsh. This has some more standard scotch flavors that come together well, but the Loch Lomond is more decadent and interesting. In no surprise at all, Monkey Shoulder (14/23) is much smoother with a lot more alcohol showing. It's really hard to compare these two. I'm inclined to give this the win. Monkey shoulder is on the lower end of a 14, so this could still well be a 14. It's a 14 or a 15, I think. Old Pulteney (14/23) is more muddled, but it still has some nice flavors coming out and decent complexity happening. The two are pretty close in quality. There's some really nice flavor here. It's not super interesting, but it's still quite good. It's held back by how much it burns, but it isn't held back tremendously like the Deanston 19 is. I'm torn between a high 14 and a low 15. I think that the deciding factor here is going to be the burn: because of that, I think it's a 14. And a final sip of Loch Lomond 12 gives me renewed confidence that even without the excessive burn this wouldn't be as good.

Pas vilain mais pas un grand cru non plus. Ressemble un peu à son petit frère Virgin Oak mais sans justifier le temps supplémentaire en fût ou la majoration de prix! Toutefois, il est plus rond et épicé, sans la fin fumée du Virgin Oak. Je suis content de l’avoir essayé mais j’en achèterais pas une autre bouteille. Bouteille ouverte en mars 2022.