Rating: 16/23
I recall not being all that impressed with this last time, but I've seen been really happy with Bruichladdich products and my tastes have changed, so since I was running low on London dry gin, I grabbed this as a reasonable substitute.
N: The usual gin juniper and sort of papery London dry character. There's a bit of mustiness, some lemon tartness, and also some sweetness.
On a tangent, I've never really gotten why London dry is called "dry" when it's so sweet, but this nose fits that profile pretty well. I don't really understand modern gin either. I mean, Monkey 47 and Hendrick's are certainly unusual, but a lot of them could pass as London dry easily.
Back on topic, a lot of herbal nuance is going on, but I'm having trouble picking out individual scents. It's a bit rich. I get a touch of meat, but I guess it's not enough to be bad. There's also some slight rich vanilla. I'm getting less aggressively fishy Sipsmith mixed with the mellowness of Plymouth and the herbaceousness of Ford's. It works well, but it certainly isn't blowing me away. Theres a hint of something fruity and a touch floral, but not too much.
P: Sweet musty herbal papery vanilla hits me first, along side a spicy kick, and then a junipery bitter bite. Lemon for sure, which mixes well with the other flavors of fruit flowers that flow into the vanilla. Some faint minerality that doesn't disrupt the rest of the profile. There's a lot going on, but I'm struggling to pick out individual flavors a lot of the time. There's some burn here, but it's within reason.
This is a very well balanced gin with nice complexity. It really does taste a lot like an amalgamation of various London dry gins though. But it's definitely sweeter and more floral. I get a fruity side to the floral flavor, but the flowery nature is stronger. It's long orange blossoms and lemon blossoms or something.
Ah, now the green, freshly cut nature of the botanicals is hitting me. There's a bit of pepper along with that too. I do get a hint of that meat from the nose, but it's like chicken breast cooked until it's, dry without seasonings. It reminds me a little bit of Sipsmith, but it mercifully isn't fishy. To be clear, that flavor is really under control here.
F: That papery, meaty, vanilla mustiness really lingers. Some spicy burn. Lots of muddled herbal flavors that veer a bit more toward vegetal now. Floral fruitiness in with that vanilla.
- Conclusion -
Ford's (15/23) has sharper, more distinct flavors, and more of a bite. The mellower flavors here make this a better sipper, though perhaps not a better mixer. The Ford's is pepperier with more burn than this has. This is definitely fruitier and more floral. This strikes me as the more refined and enjoyable gin, so I'm placing it ahead of the Ford's. The difference isn't immense though and I'm not considering capability as a mixer here, so Ford's is still a real contender, especially at its significantly lower price.
Hendrick's Lunar (17/23) is sweeter with a more interesting and fun character. I really like the Hendrick's as a sipper, but it's definitely more situational. This is more versatile, though it does risk being decent at everything, but excellent at none with this balancing of characteristics. Between the two, my inclination is to give the win to the Hendrick's, but it's a weird comparison.
I think that this is about a 16. It's quite an enjoyable gin at a solid price, but it's nothing too amazing. I'd be happy to keep it in stock though. Honestly, I might be on the low side of a 15 here, but I'm not sure. The Hendrick's is just so much more refined and elegant, but it's also so much more sweet and weird. It also burns less, but that could be the proof at play. Eh, I think considering the weirdness that this is probably a little closer to the Hendrick's than to the Ford's, but it's kind of a close call.