Rating: 10/23 This is from cask #231001 So, the sample bottle says "Single Malt", but it's a Lowlands distillery and I've never heard of any malt whisky coming out of North British. Furthermore, the first thing that the distillery's homepage says after "Welcome to The North British Distillery Company" is "One of Scotland's oldest and largest Scotch grain whisky producers". So, I call bull on it being a malt even before nosing or tasting it. N: Kind of sharp, but it also has a bit of a waxy richness that kind of reminds me of Clynelish. There's a bit of a floral smell that sometimes turns into fruitiness in the vein of peach and lemon. There is something a bit savory as well. It's an acceptable, but uninteresting nose. P: So, this definitely tastes like a grain whisky to me, but it tastes like a surprisingly good one. Now, it is quite harsh, so that's a problem. The alcohol doesn't really stand out though. I get a nice pepperiness mixed with that Clynelish wax, a hint of lemon, and a moderated floral flavor, all backed by a sort of sweetness and richness that are refined, more like what I'd expect from a 15 year old scotch and that carry a more malty character than I expected, but maybe what I'm getting is a surprising effect from the corn, which adds a nice sweetness. It's weird because there isn't much alcohol flavor and there's this nice smooth backing layer, yet this is only 7 years old. There is a harsh layer to it though. This is actually quite a nice palate. I was prepared to judge this before trying it and that was a mistake. I wouldn't say it's complex, but it's surprisingly easy to sip. F: It's a long and quite nice finish. That richness kind of stays with just the right amount of sweetness and occasional hint of fruit. It still isn't complex and some of the harshness till remains, but it is nicely balanced. Some of the grain character comes out more here as well and I start to get notes of hay. I didn't think I would like this, but I quite enjoy it. It's far from amazing, but I found that my 30 ml sample went far too quickly. It would be great if it were more complex, but the balance is there and it has clearly been crafted to be deliberately moderate in richness and fullness, toeing that line elegantly. If I could actually find a bottle for $48, I might buy it, but it would be largely for novelty. I like it well enough, but It still isn't a great whisky. It's better than the bargain bin stuff, possibly even including Sir Edward's 12 and Highland Queen Majesty Sauternes, but it just isn't a whole lot better and it certainly isn't as rich or nuanced. It's a clear step down from Aberlour 12, sadly, as well. Maybe I'm mostly just impressed because I expected disaster, but got drinkable. A 10 seems fair for this and an 11 might be reasonable. Whereas The Epicurean was straddling the line between 8 and 9, this is straddling between 10 and 11. I'm going for 10.