Rating: 6/23 Every time I read the name of this whisky, I ask "why is there a particular grouse that's famous?" According to the company's website, it was changed from "The Grouse" after several decades. OK, then. Still no idea why it was called that to begin with, but at least I know it didn't get its name from one particularly awesome bird. N: Oof, I get a lot of sulfur. There's also some caramel, along with hay and maybe a little apple and mineral. Even after a few minutes, it's hard to pick anything else out. Really, it's an unpleasant nose. Definitely inferior to Bell's, but it does smell like it could be a decent scotch if it just had less sulfur. P: Yep, I get that sulfur. It's kind of full flavor-wise, but also thin. It's kind of savory, but there is some sweetness here. I get some ginger and cinnamon as well and something peppery to go along with them. There's quite a dose of caramel, but it is very artificial side. It's fairly harsh and has a lot of alcohol flavor as well. Some smoke eventually fights its way through what is otherwise generic sulfur. F: That alcohol sure lingers, along with the sulfur, but some smoke remains as well and even transforms a bit into hay. Some hints of apple and lemon come out, but they don't help much. It's really hard to get much else here. Oh, except for the continuing alcohol flavor. Wow, I kind of had hopes for this, but it's pretty bad. I really wouldn't want to drink this. This has less spice and sweetness than Grant's does while also being harsher with more alcohol flavor. Grant's is probably superior with its better balance, richness, and complexity, though it also has some more sulfur. This is substantially less harsh than Glen Logie and also has far less alcohol flavor, so it's definitely an improvement over that, fortunately. I'd say that the improvement is substantial and this deserves a 6, putting it just below Grant's. I'm appalled by how expensive this is.