Rating: 19/23 N: Whoa, there's a lot of complexity here! It's a super funky nose that shows a lot of character from the still. It makes me think of Glenfarclas. Sure, there are lots of heads and tails in here, but the 21 years of aging in sherry casks help a lot. It's sulfuric and lightly smoky with a lot of vegetal-herbal flavor to it. The sweet strawberry and cherry from the sherry seem almost like afterthoughts, but they're there. At times, the sulfur exudes a dash of chocolate. I really love it, except for the degree of sulfur. It would be challenging even without the sulfur though. It's light, yet bold and also complex and mature. P: There's a nice hit of the sherried strawberry with some sulfuric smoke, prickly herbal spice, and a really funky vegetal layer coming out of the herbal one. I get some leathery cinnamon and tart cherry at times, bringing out a nice oloroso character. It has a nice richness and fullness - I probably wouldn't have guessed that it was only 43% ABV (more like 46%)! I get a decent amount of tobacco in here. There's a little bit of dusty woodiness with a dash of vanilla too. Although it doesn't have this immense, bold flavor to it, this does taste mature with some nice nuances and smoothed corners that express age. The profile reminds me a bit of both Dalwhinnie 15 and Highland Park 12, possibly with a dash of Aberlour 12 influence. The funkiness also reminds me of Glenfarclas on the palate. Between Highland Park 12 and Dalwhinnie 15, I think that this is more like the Dalwhinnie with its less sulphuric and more biting character. Aside from the sulphur, the flavors are all really good. It's super complex and interesting, but definitely a challenge. The way that the flavors swirl and evolve is captivating. They are far from muddled. The one big problem keeping this from superb greatness is the high amount of sulfur. It does sometimes become more like chocolate (and therefore acceptable), but it never get gets fully out of the way. F: I continue to get herbal flavors, some richness with sulphur, and just a tad of the strawberry fruit snack sweetness. It's a tasty and complex finish, but the sulphur is still a problem. - Conclusion - So it all comes down to the sulphur here. This is a fantastic scotch that has too much sulphur flavor. I still do really enjoy it, but it is challenging at times. Compared side-by-side with some other scotches, it's apparent that many (especially the low end ones) have much more sulphur. Aside from the high amount of sulphur, there's aggressively challenging but complex character that reminds me a bit of Springbank. Actually, it even has a little bit of the same waxiness as Springbank 10. I like this better than Highland Park 12 or Dalwhinnie 15, though the Dalwhinnie is closer. With the Dalwhinnie being a 16, I can't see this going below that. I think that at least a 17 is more likely. This is just so fascinating, which is never something I've thought of Dalwhinnie 15. They aren't terribly similar, but the quality of this strikes me as similar to that of Bladnoch 17 California Red Wine Cask Finish. I'm currently thinking of a 16 to 18 for this. For the money, there are better options, but this is a unique and fascinating experience. I don't know, I just had a favorable side-by-side with this and Lagavulin 16, so maybe take this super seriously? At the end of the day, the complexity here is phenomenal and most of the flavors are really good. There are a couple of rough edges, but this is a hard one to beat. There are some notes that lack the maturity of a rich cask, but it mostly tastes mellowed like it has had a long time in relatively spent casks. In this case, that really works. I really get a bit of a Glenfarclas vibe here with the funkiness. Compared with Glenfarclas 105, the flavors here are more refined (less gasoline, less alcohol, more complexity) with less burn. I have no question that I would takes this over the Glenfarclas 105 any day by a long shot. This doesn't have the rich maturity of Glenfarclas 25 either, but it tastes somewhere between the two. I'd need to try them side by side, but I can imagine that this bears some solid similarity to Glenfarclas 17 (or thereabouts). The thing is though that the complexity here is really impressive and the slight youthfulness really works here because it brings out so many dimensions. I'm really struggling with the rating here. It seems to be violating the notion of transitivity of preferences by making Bladnoch 17 California Red Wine and Dalwhinnie 15 taste much better than they usually do, while making Glenfarclas 25 come across as worse. I have no doubt though that this is at least a 17. I'm skeptical of a 21, but maybe. I think 17 to 20 is the range I'm looking in. Springbank 12 really puts this in its place, but it doesn't grind it into the curb. At this point, 17 seems too low to me. I'm was mainly waffling between an 18 and a 19, but then I had to admit that I keep coming back to this one because it's so tasty. It's still no Springbank 12, but I think it's more in the 19 to 20 range right now. And a 21 is starting to seem more plausible. Getting really cross-category here, this compares favorably with the funk in Wild Turkey 116.8. I think I'm going with a 19 for now. Holy cow, this was only $70?! I thought I remembered buying it for around $90 and thinking it was cheap. At $90, there are definitely plenty of options that could easily enough out-compete this, but at $70 that becomes a lot harder. I'd have no problem with buying another bottle at $70. In fact, I might add it to my list. As sort of a side note at the end here (this doesn't affect my rating), I'm really digging this tube and bottle. There's sort of a leather exterior on the tube and the bottle has a sleek cylinder design with engravings and the cork is a fat, real one with a nicely stained piece of wood on top of it.