Rating: 7/23
I'm not a fan of Irish whiskey, but I've heard good things about this one. Not amazing things, but I've heard it's good for the money. Not the best for the money, mind you, but good. Let's find out.
N: Not a great start here. The first thing I smell is that meaty, sort of blue cheese/dirty feet alcohol smell that is common in cheap vodkas (see: Everclear) and some other young, low-end spirits. Behind it, there's a hint of fruit in the apple-apricot range, but not much. Well, there's actually a decent amount, but the meatiness is shouting it down. After a few minutes, the meatiness dies down a bit and some light floral grainy notes start to come out, but that's as far as it goes with this nose.
P: It's decently full, but still a bit on the watery side. The palate is young with fairly little development, some problematic flavors, and harshness. Fortunately, there's no sulphur note shouting here, but there's a lot of that meatiness happening (though mercifully less than the nose suggested). Oh, and it's pretty harsh, though there's a little prickly spice trying to cover for it. Now, there is fruit (apple and maybe just maybe a tiny bit of apricot) at the beginning and it does continue throughout, but the meatiness and harshness build, shouting over it. There are some bland minerals in here too and aside from the harshness my overall impression is that it's a watery whiskey. Only side by side with Pure Scot (the regular one, not the Virgin Oak) do I start to be able to pick out some dusty vanilla, kind of like in Don Julio.
F: Some grainy mineral and meaty harshness remain. There isn't much going on here, but frankly that's good in my book because I wanted this experience to be over as soon as possible.
- Conclusion -
I actively dislike drinking this. The experience reminds me a lot of Pure Scot (not the Virgin Oak) with its blandness and harshness. Between the two, the harshness is similar and so is the meatiness. I think that the harshness and meatiness are a bit greater in the Pure Scot, though the harshness goes better with its more traditional Scotch profile. I'm going back and forth between these two for which I prefer.
Side-by-side, I would probably take Grant's (yeah, Grant's) over either of them simple because it's smoother and a little more complex. The gaps separating the three are not large though. I'm looking at a 6 to 7 for this one, though it could be as low as a 5. I think that the Pure Scot is actually substantially harsher, so I won't go lower than it. After some recalibrating, I might be prepared to go as high as an 8 for this since it isn't comparatively as harsh as I'd initially believed.
Certainly on the nose the meatiness is worse in this than it is in Pure Scot. I think that applies to the palate too, though they're pretty close. The harshness in Pure Scot is way worse though. Considering that, I think I need to conclude that this is better than Pure Scot. I'm now looking at a 7 to 8 for this based on a side-by-side with Grant's. The harshness is worse here, but not by as much as I'd thought it would be. This is also meatier, but I'll take that over the sulphur in Grant's.
I'm currently thinking that this might be as high as an 8 due to a last-minute recalibration of the harshness and a save by the nice dusty/papery vanilla flavor. This is definitely better than Pure Scot, but I'm not entirely sure I prefer it to Grant's I'm leaning that way, but I'm still very on the fence and I spent quite a while agonizing over giving this a 5 or 6, so I think I need to go with a 7.
This is $24. Pure Scot Virgin Oak is only $25. The choice is clear.
24.0
USD
per
Bottle