Delamain Pale & Dry XO Cognac

Brilliant deep straw to light golden. Not really pale. Intense nose of apple, pear, flowers, cold pineapple and light peach over cool rainwet rock. Medium bodied textured attack. Fruit forward with elegant apples and mineral texture. Light orange zest. Dry, but smooth and with good length. No overdriven oak or spices, really transparent and refreshing. Great stuff B6 l5 i5 c5 s5

Nice for a dry cognac. The balance is key. Not my preferred style, but I can appreciate it.

Cumple muy bien y es una alternativa a los cognac comerciales que invaden las tiendas, por lo menos en México no es tan conocido, por lo tanto se aprecian sus notas más rústicas como madera, tierra y panadería francesa. It complies very well and is an alternative to the commercial cognacs that invade the stores, at least in Mexico it is not so well known, therefore its more rustic notes such as wood, earth and French pastry are appreciated.

Rating: 17/23 E: Lighter than Pierre Ferrand Double Cask. They must not have been lying about the "Pale" aspect of this brandy. N: On the dry side with a slightly waxy orange peel. A hint of candied orange comes out when I dig and I get some faint , mellow wood and spice. P: Dry, smooth, light. Some sweet fruitiness comes out that's almost like thinned orange Jello. As the palate progresses, a big bitter character comes out - almost like a braaap of wood with the faintest of creosote, but it gradually mellows out. Sparkles of spice dance around. This doesn't taste super young so much as it tastes refined like a nice champagne. There's enough subtlle nuance that I really have difficulty describing to keep me engaged with this one. It has far less forceful of a personality than Pierre Ferrand Double Cask, but it also has less of an alcohol character coming through. Still, I'd like this to be less of a challenge and it certainly isn't at the level of A De Fussigny XO. F: I really like the finish here. I get that bit of orange Jello lingering for quite some time along with a faint bitter orange oil and some subtle woody spices. - Conclusion - I was pretty disappointed at first sip, but this grew on me. It's a fine dram, but it's certainly very mellow and subtle. This is for those looking for the smooth experience rather than the interesting one. 14 is as low as I'll consider and 17 is the high end. It's so different from Pierre Ferrand Double Cask that doing them side by side might just have created confusion. If I had to guess which was older, I'm pretty confident that I could identify that the Pierre Ferrand is not super old, but I'm less sure that I could guess the age of this. It's smooth enough that I'd probably guess it had been decently aged, but it's like those scotches that sit in tired barrels for ages - they could be 15 years or they could be 50. I think if you offered me a bottle of one of the two for the same price, I'd take this one. That maturity really is showing through for me here. in a way that demonstrates sophistication not present in the Pierre Ferrand. I would take the A De Fussigny XO over either though. I'm starting to think that this maybe could be as high as an 18. And that 14 ship has sailed. I also opened a bottle of ABK6 VSOP. It struck me as similar to this in profile, but a bit sweeter and less sophisticated. I like them both, but this is clearly better. I gave the ABK6 VS a 14 when I last tasted it. That might have been high, but I'm pretty confident that the ABK6 VSOP is no worse than a 14. This is better, so it must at least be a 15, and that also seems a bit low. As a final point of comparison, I opened a bottle of Rémy Martin 1738. The Rémy was better than I'd remembered, but it wasn't quite at the Delamain's level. Most realistically, this is going to be a 16 or 17. Actually, I completely take back that statement about it being an 18 maybe - that isn't happening. I'll go with a 17. I'm really surprised - based on my first sip, I really didn't think I'd go anywhere near this high. I spent a while on the border between 16 and 17, but now I'm pretty set on 17. Thank you @ctbeck11 for sharing this!