I've mentioned this before here, but it bears repeating: I don't like it when people don't factor price into their assessment of whisky. The whole "This review was done without factoring in the price of the whisky" thing really grinds my gears because I pay for my whisky. The quality of the whisky cross referenced with the price greatly affects my enjoyment of it. Case-in-point: these Method & Madness Irish Whiskies. I got the Single Grain, this Single Malt, and the Single Pot Still for 50% off SRP. When I rated the Single Grain, I was surprised at how much I liked it and gave it a 3.5 based on getting it for $32.50 rather than $65. I even went out and picked up a second $32.50 bottle right after to keep in the coffers. Strange thing about it though, despite the 3.5 and the fact I bought a second bottle, I couldn't recommend rushing out to grab one at $65. So what would my rating have been if I'd had to pay $65 for it? I'd probably have docked it half-a-point and let it stand at a straight 3.0. I didn't think about this at the time I rated that. I'm thinking about it more now because the Method & Madness Single Malt is $85 at SRP and frankly, it isn't as good as the Single Grain. So even though I nabbed this one for $42.50, I didn't jump at the chance to get a second bottle at that price and I could have. The one that went quickest, surprise surprise, is also the one generally better rated, the Single Pot Still, which lands also between the two price-wise for an SRP of $75 (for me it was $37.50). Thus I'm in that conundrum zone when it comes to the star rating at least: at the price I paid, I might give it a 3.0. At SRP, I can't really recommend anyone rush out and pick this up, not that it's bad. It's simply overpriced. It's the type of whisky where, if a friend were to pour you a glass at their house and hand it to you, you'd gladly drink it. Depending on how you feel about Irish whisky and how well you know the friend, you might ask for another. Or, if you friend offers another, you might simply say, what else you got? My first ever distiller review was for Writer's Tears Copper Pot. I gave it a 2.75. It would make for a wonderful intro Irish Whisky, but after 20 years of tastings, it's not my speed, and honestly, I think the Copper Pot might be better than this M&M Single Malt. This is also odd given, from what I've read, there's some 14 year old stock in here. Is it all 14 year old? How much younger stock is mixed in? Dunno. Thing is, the aroma here is so faint. I poured the glass ten minutes ago and I've decided to let it sit to see if I can tease something out, because I've had pours on other nights where I've just gone to sipping and the nose was faint then too. As I've let it sit, I'm getting a stronger aroma of a combination of orange and shortbread, sort of a citrus cookie aroma that's pleasant enough. There's maybe a slight edge of vanilla, but if a whisky doesn't smell like chocolate, there's usually a trace of vanilla in there, isn't there? Is it $85 pleasant? Not at all. I'm not sure it's $42.50 pleasant. For $42.50, you can get Knappogue Castle, which also had a faint nose and is on par with this. I'd probably rate them about the same (though it's been a year or two since I had Knappogue). I've also seen Tullamore 12 on sale around here for $43, and if memory serves, I preferred that, though again, I'm basing that on memories of a year or two ago. But that's just the nose. The palate is better and might actually be worth the clearance price. The citrus is strong with the orange note on the nose remaining but evolving toward marmalade and into pineapple in the back end toward the finish. The cookie quality is there with a slight trace of butteriness. And of course, there's a little bit of vanilla, but you know, see my note about vanilla above. There's also a little apple, which is odd because apple and orange are fabled to not go together, but then again, they don't hit at the same time. It has a longer finish that a lot of the Irish whisky I've had, and with its strong citrus creamy edge, I'd say this reminds me of Green Spot Chateau Leoville Barton, but the Green Spot has a creamier fuller mouthfeel that I'd favor if you can get that for $65, which is what it goes for in my neck of the woods. Speaking of wood, that was actually what I liked about the M&M Single Grain, the pencil shavings coupled with the sweetness. It's what made me buy a second bottle. This Single Malt certainly is not a bad whisky, but when you consider that it goes for $84 a bottle at SRP which is the same price as Talisker Distiller's Edition or Laphroaig Cask Strength or the Templeton 10 Year Single Barrel Rye I just reviewed, it's hard to think that this is the bottle you're going to choose unless you favor Irish above scotch or rye, and maybe that's your bag. It's not mine, and I didn't opt for a second bottle of this. Still, I'm going to stick with a 3.0 on this one. Quality wise, it is a touch above that Writer's Tears of my first distiller review (and of course, I'd be remiss if I don't say I also prefer their Double Oak to this, though at $60 that's now madly overpriced). I don't know, I guess I'm getting to that point where price matters and everything seemed to expensive. It's possible we're just getting to that point where I feel like Danny Glover: "I'm getting too old for this shit." The prices these days are starting to make me cranky. Give me the best value column so I know where I'm getting the bang for my buck, people. That's all I ask.