Rating: 12/23 N: It is malty and sweet for sure. It smells a lot like Arran 10, but it's a bit fuller with a little more clean water and fruitiness instead of a hint of grain, hay, and salt. It doesn't have that same dry, tart scent that Westward does, but it doesn't have the rich, funky fruitiness of Glenfarclas 105 either. This is a more traditional scotch nose with some fruit (sultanas), but it being on the light side. There's some musty wood or perhaps cardboard, but nothing foul. Its'd definitely not a super rich or interesting nose, but it lacks flaws and is representative of Scotch. P: The palate is fairly smooth and quite light. There are some prickly bits of pepper, but I don't get an alcohol flavor. The mellow maltiness comes out and the flavor is good, albeit on the young side and definitely a bit boring. Still, I could drink this. There's a bit of wood and it is generally sweet. There's sort of a clean river water essence to it, but also a bit of spice like cinnamon. I suspect that this was aged in bourbon barrels, though with the sultana nose and a little bit of sultana flavor, there's a chance that they used refill Sherry barrels instead. As it goes on, I do start to taste the alcohol bitterness a bit and this becomes less pleasant. This would not be my first choice of scotch to sip by any means. Westward has a lot more character and interest and it hides its alcohol better. Westward's funk certainly is contentious, so some might find this BenRiach better, but I wouldn't go around recommending it. Arran 10 has some more richness and a hint of smoke. They both have that sultana sweetness, but the Arran has more of a traditional highland profile with some more grain and a hint of dry grass coming through. Neither is terribly complex though. This is sweeter and it seems almost like there might be some sort of other fruit in here, but I'm hard-pressed to identify it. The flavor is less bold and fruity than that of Glenfarclas 105, but it's also less brash and unrefined with less of an alcohol flavor as well. So far, I'm not really a fan of either of these two, so I'm not sure which I would take. I guess if I were looking for a challenge, I'd go with the Glenfarclas. For something to sip without thinking too much, the BenRiach. Despite its somewhat light mouthfeel, it does have a nice sweet malty presence to it that gives it character. Still, it does have a lot less presence than Carn Mor's Glen Grant 26 (1992) does and I usually think of that as being a fairly characterless whiskey. I wouldn't be shocked if this tasted a lot like that Glen Grant if it were aged out to 26 years. This is a lot less spicy, but it does show more alcohol, as well as more fruit. There's some vanilla and sultana here, as well as maybe something a little bit tart and some cinnamon (and of course a bit of wood), so it's not totally characterless, but this is far from a dram that makes a statement. I would take the Car Mor Glen Grant over this in a heartbeat, though I'm not sure that I would if I had to pay the price. I do gradually get some complexity in here, but it isn't a ton and the alcohol just continues to grow (though it's never tremendous). F: There isn't much of this. The tannins from the wood remain and the malt lingers for a while with the vanilla and a hint of sultana. But there's alcohol too. It's an acceptable finish. In the end, this isn't a bad dram. It's not great by any means, but I could drink it. I'm thinking around a 12 for it. This doesn't match the quality of Glenmorangie 10 and it's far from the quality of Springbank 10, and Port Charlotte 10, but it's a heck of a lot better than most of those no-name scotches sitting on the shelf at Total Wine. Still, $45 for a bottle of this? No thanks.