Rare Perfection 14 Year Canadian Whisky

A little sweet up front. A brief heat in the middle and medium finish.

N: Big hit of buttery pecan, cinnamon, butterscotch. Slight linger of rubber. P: butterscotch, carmal, almost artificial in a sense, extremely smooth for a 100 proof.

Rating: 10/23 N: Formaldehyde mixed with orange pith, small amounts of rancid hazelnuts, and just a general oiliness like a single grain scotch. Not an inspiring nose. P: There's a sweet layer of light caramel, but then the bitterness takes over, delivering that single grain profile of bland bitterness with oil and heat. There's a bit of clean water in here as well. I taste the bitter alcohol for sure, though there are hints of sweetness. Maybe a hint of rancidity. The oiliness isn't especially nutty, but there might be a hint of that there too. A little bit of ginger and white pepper, but mostly just spicy burn. F: Burning with unpleasantly bitter oil and hints of white pepper. Bland and not tasty. - Conclusion - This is far from perfection and it's far from rare. I can find this approximate flavor profile in just about any mediocre single grain scotch aged in the high number of teens of years. That high age statement comparison is unfortunately not a compliment so much as it is a statement about the low quality of single grain scotch. A low quality that this shares. I got a bit of funky rum (think Smith & Cross) at one moment, but it was still surrounded by that single grain burn. This just isn't very pleasant. Obtainium 13 Light Whiskey (13/23) has less of a corn scent to it, but it's also less bitter and has a little bit of a fruity vibrancy to it. Sure, the Obtainium burns more, but it's very high proof. This tastes older, but in the sense of spending too long in the barrel. The Obtainium is still not great, but it has cleaner flavors with more complexity and sweetness. It sure does burn, but it's clearly better than this. I'd be very surprised to give this a 12. I'm thinking an 11 is the high end of what I could give this. The Sexton (9/23) has a muddier flavor with more fruitiness and sweetness, but also just a more intense bitterness that is really hard to get past. It's like the difference between licking charred wood and licking ash. I'm not really sure if this is better, but I think that considering how the comparisons are focusing on the is point on how actively bad the drams are, this is probably at least as good as The Sexton. It's either a 9 or a 10 and I'm thinking a 9. Ouch. Some "perfection". Actually, considering the real graininess that The Sexton has, I can imagine giving this an 8. This is actually a bad whiskey. This has enough vanilla decadence though that I think an 8 is unreasonable. Coming back to this, I'm getting a lot more vanilla. It lacks the bold grain and fruit of Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) (12/23), but it doesn't burn as much and has some nice vanilla that largely escaped me last time. I overall prefer the Caledonian for its greater nuance, but it's not a massive preference. I think that my earlier 9 was too severe. Pulling out my Compass Box Hedonism (12/23), this is certainly less thin, but there's none of that apricot hint to this and the hedonism is certainly easier to sip. There's more vanilla and coconut here though. Honestly, I'm liking this better side by side right now, which is a real surprise. Maybe I gave the Hedonism too high of a score. There is a hint of something sort of yeasty in the Hedonism that I'm liking though. It's almost like a few drops of Stranahan's Blue Peak snuck their way in. The more I try these two side by side, the less enamored I am with this one. Still, I can't deny that it's better than I thought previously. I'm going with a 10 or 11. It's a tough call, but I'm ending on a 10 here. Thanks @Milliardo for the sample. I'd been very curious about this one and I'm glad to now know how it really is.