Dewar's Double Double 21 Year

Maybe because I come from a bourbon world where anything with a little age on it shoots up in price and you can’t find it anywhere but this little 1/2 of a fifth Dewar’s 21-year-old is a steal at $50. And while many just see Dewar’s as the bottom-shelf scotch, I was pleasantly surprised at this dram. Nose: dessert scents like cinnamon, toffee and cherries, also hints of citrus and wood Taste: more dessert (bourbon lovers would appreciate this) including caramel, nutmeg, vanilla, dusty corn and musty barley at the end Finish: medium but one-dimensional Approachable way to explore an older scotch. Interested to try their 27-year of this same line.

Dewar’s, to me, has long been a staple of the end-of-year office holiday party. I get in line with my coworkers, wait for the open bar, and the hotel, or bowling alley, or boat, or restaurant will generally offer three whiskies in the holiday party package: Jameson, Jack Daniels Black Label, or Dewar’s White Label. Sometimes I’ll opt for Jameson. I wouldn’t touch Jack Daniels, even in my younger and less discerning years, but most of the time, even now, I’ll order Dewar’s on the rocks. I’m not sure there’s a valid reason why. Perhaps it simply rolls off the tongue more smoothly than saying "Jameson on the rocks," effectively allowing me to order my drink more quickly. Plus of the blended Scotches without an age statement, I’ve never minded Dewar’s. It’s better than Johnnie Walker Red, less expensive than Chivas (which, on further reflection, has a 12-year age statement), and when compared to Cutty Sark…well, Cutty has always struck me as vilely medicinal like a lemon menthol cough drop. Though really, if you let the ice melt in almost any Scotch, you can drink it without noticing as you listen to office gossip and make wise cracks about the latest HR initiatives that obviously aren’t going to have an effect on morale and are just for show. As for having a bottle of Dewar’s in my house, I haven’t purchased White Label, even for mixing, in over a decade. Last year, I copped a bottle of Dewar’s 12 Year for $22, and despite the low community rating here, I quite enjoyed it, especially for that price. And in the middle of 2019, I noticed this Dewar’s Double Double 21 on the shelves at my local FW&GS shop with the nice package, the ornate bottle. It was enticingly presented, and I almost bought it before I realized it was 375 ml. Not that it isn’t an alluring prospect: getting 375 ml of a 21 year old whiskey for $50. After all, in the single malt category, most 21 Year Old varieties are beyond what I’m willing to spend. But at the time, I wanted more bang for my buck. I was already aggregating scores from various whisky websites, then comparing aggregate scores against local pricing before making my decision, and buying this then simply didn’t make sense when there were cheaper whiskies with better ratings to be had. But I never forgot about it, not entirely. Not until it looked like the stores were out of stock, and I’d missed the opportunity. Oh well, I thought, you can’t taste every single whisky you have a slight interest in. You have to pick and choose. Then, of course, Whisky Advocate selected this as their #2 of 2019, and I noticed that a limited quantity had made its way back into my local stores, and my interest was piqued again. I try to get new and interesting whiskies whenever September rolls around. Football season is coming back around. I’ve mentioned this in other reviews, but my dad and I watch the games together, and while we watch, we sip whisky. So, the question was, what do we start the season with? And I figured a 21 Year Old Scotch should do the trick. The community reviews here could be lukewarm to great, but I wouldn’t know until I found out for myself, would I? And so Sunday the 12th came, the Philadelphia Eagles fielded a team we fans had little knowledge and even less expectations of, and my dad and I took our seats on my back porch with the TV set up on the deck table (our post-COVID setup that allows us to socially distance while watching outside to allow the sunlight to hopefully kill any virus that might otherwise pass between us). I cracked the bottle and poured a bit for me, a bit for him, and a bit for my wife, who while not interested in football, had helped me set up the deck for watching and who had cooked Blondies for us to enjoy with our whisky. And the first thing she said, having tasted it, was “Smoky.” Now, I should say, that wasn’t the first of the aromas to hit me, but that might be because of how frequently I sip on Islay Scotch and how muted the smoke is compared to what you’d find in an Islay, but it’s reminiscent of the smoke you’d get from other Highland Scotches such as Highland Park. What stuck out to me was how honeyed the nose is, how sweet. Reading through the Distiller review as I sip again, the touch of brininess noted here is certainly present and enjoyable, but not overwhelming and certainly, again, not of the sort you’d get with an Islay, but overall, it’s got a nice solid aroma, certainly mouthwatering, and I enjoyed a few whiffs, as I watched my team drive down the field and score, much to my surprise. The palate wasn’t quite as smooth as I was expected for a 21 Year Old Scotch, however. I can’t say it’s disappointing. It retains the honeyed sweetness on the tongue, but I suppose I wasn’t expecting the bite that comes with. It’s not the kind of thing where I’d decline the offer of a glass of this based on that, but it is the type of situation where I’m not sure I’d feel the need to buy another bottle based on sheer enjoyment. Drinking this Sunday, comparing notes with my dad, I said that the palate adds berries and chocolate, though having a taste now, a few days after the fact, I’m not sure I taste the chocolate I noted anymore, making me question whether it was there at all or if it faded now that the liquid has had a little exposure to the air. To some extent, to write about a whisky with knowledge, to form an opinion I’ll stand by, I have to live with the whisky a while, taste it a few times and reflect on the experience of various rounds of tasting, and that’s the main drawback of a 375 ml bottle you plan to share with others: there’s simply not enough time to gain more than a passing familiarity with the liquor. My dad and I might have finished it that afternoon even, but I figured that after two pours each—with the Eagles heading into halftime leading 15-6—I’d take the opportunity to switch gears and try out a 375 ml bottle of Woodford Double Oak that I’d also picked up out of curiosity. And while we always need to keep in mind that taste is subjective, I think I appreciated the Woodford more than this bottle of Dewar’s. It might be it was more my speed, or simply because the finish on the Woodford, with its deep flavor of toffee and butterscotch (and might I even say a trace of those packets of Fun Dip I used to love so much as a child), was such a memorable experience. But that’s something I’ll save for my Woodford Double Oak write up. I just figured it’s always helpful to have a comparison whisky to add contrast, even if the comparison whisky is of an entirely different character. Overall, I’m not disappointed. Dewar’s Double Double 21 is tasty, and I’d concur with the community rating of 3.75 here. Worth a shot for the experience, but not a mainstay or regular whisky to stock on your shelves. It’s certainly more interesting than others here that have a similar community rating (I’m thinking Writer’s Tears Copper Pot). But overall, if I’m being offered a choice between the two whiskies I tasted that afternoon, I’m opting for Woodford Double Oak.

N: First impression: this goes deep. Rich, ripe stone fruit soaking in caramel and sweet coffee (with milk even?). Peach and plum stand out. Vanilla cream mixing with caramel and chocolate. Hard swirl brings out tons more chocolate - milk chocolate, hot chocolate (again, with milk?). Then it goes back to the fruit, sour this time. Then a creamy hard candy note that's both vanilla (more) and fruity (less). Tiny bit of earth and maybe petrichor. Feels like there's some generic wood, but it's not totally distinguishable. It keeps going: chocolate covered orange; flashes of honey, almond, and cherry; maybe a hint of smoke, but it's hidden behind the chocolate; chocolate covered flowers (that's a thing, right?). Like I said, deep. P: Peach, pear, cherry. Hot early, but not in an unpleasant way - cinnamon, toasted oak, bit of mint. Ethanol, I suppose - really just enough to remind you it's there. Vanilla, chocolate, light roast coffee, toffee, caramel. Earthy, woody, even a dash of pine. Over time, the fruit at the front end begins to feel stewed, heavy, sugary (although not terribly sweet). The cinnamon, oak, and mint from early on continue long into the finish. The mint develops and becomes more noticeable. There's also dark chocolate, less hot baking spices, different shadings of wood (pine, little bit of sawdust, some funk and moss, etc.), more coffee - getting darker now - and very mild and subtle bbq smoke note. Some tannic bitterness starts to develop about halfway through a second pour, and it merges with the fruit to land at a bitter fruit note that reminds (a little) of a hoppy beer (although far more subtle). The heat of the spice never gets crazy, but also never goes away - one of the longest finishes I've experienced. This is fantastic. It's rich, strong, well-developed, has no obvious weaknesses, and never quits - there's something new in it every time you take a sip. At a subjective level, this is not my personal favorite flavor profile - I've had other drams I "liked" more - but it's easily the best execution of a classic blended Scotch I've ever had, and maybe the best on the market.* VFM is fine, although I wish a full bottle was available. If I could get a 750 of this at $80, I would probably never not have it. The half bottle format is cute for a one-time purchase, but annoying if you really just want to have this dram around. Anyway, minor complaint. This is a phenomenal dram, worthy of its awards and reputation. * Example: I think some of the Compass Box blends are a little more interesting, but also more experimental (i.e. not "classic") and so not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.

Deep and rich with a strong chocolate note. I swear this is a single malt. I can't believe this is a blend. Definitely in my top 3/4 scotches I've ever had.....

A little over a year ago when I started this whisky journey my first budget scotch was Dewars white label. Not the best intro, however since then the 12/15/18 and even Caribbean cask have repaired the relationship. Excited to try the 21 with its almost wine like color and higher ABV. The nose is unsurprisingly rich, with decadent jammy fruit notes. Sweetness is provided from smells of dates and raisins. The grain portion of this dram does show up with some shiny ethanol dominating the middle layer, but if you work through that you find malt and cocoa way in the back. The palate starts off with some funk, which makes sense when thinking about the number of, and type of barrels this liquid went through. The malt that was lacking in the nose shows up here, paired with honey and baking spice. The 21 years also softened all the edges, so the hope of any drama comes from the 46% which this desperately needs. So far so good, except there is a thinness here snatches all this flavour from you before you are finished. I’m not sure if this is due to the blend of grain or age, but it’s noticeable. With that said there isn’t much to share with the finish, some oaky notes and a little dried fruit, but not much else. It’s just over too fast. 39 CAD for a 21 year old anything is pretty good, and that’s how I’d classify this. The flavours are good and it tastes expensive, but only for a flash and then it’s gone. I don’t regret snagging it, but it just isn’t good enough to buy again.

Nose: Hint of peat, honey, vanilla Palate: Light peat, caramel, citrus