@Soba45 For consistency, I judge each spirit I review on my impressions of it neat, or with a bit of water if it has a high ABV. I suspect this could lead to issues with gin, where I may like one neat the most and not so much mixed with tonic. For example, the gin I’ve scored highest so far (Drumshanbo) has a comparatively mild nose and palate, with little brash, herbal spiciness. I wonder if it’d get lost with mixers in a way that the spicier, juniper forward ones don’t. Guess I’ll just have to do another round of reviews for each of these in mixed drinks :)

Out of interest did you try it both straight and mixed?

Yeah this one is interesting. When i first tried it i rated it a 3 out of 5. The next time I really enjoyed it and gave it a 4.25. After your review I thought I'd do a decider and the result was....after a couple of beers...I still like it. Maybe not as much as 4.25. More a 4 but i drank it straight and swirling it around my mouth there is something that gets me. It marries well with an East Imperial Royal Botanical (botanics from Kew gardens in London - I personally find Fever Few watery and artificial tasting). The diversity of gin botanicals means alot of polarization - some excellent gins which people rave about I hate (anything floral e.g. rose, lavender I hate the taste although oddly I love the smell). So in summary a great gin but yes not in the same league as Roots, Monkey 47, Method and Madness and others. It is a subtle gin and will get easily lost in a wrong mixer. To add I definitely wasn't taken in by the the Bruichladdich label as of the dozen offerings I've had other than the: Black Art 4 1990; Octomore 10 yr Dialogos which were excellent the rest were either good but severely overpriced or mostly average.

@bigwhitemike Yep, branding and subconscious associations are very potent. I’ve read a lot reviews that have tasting notes that align closely with an islay scotch. Hell, even I thought the nose had a bit of smoke on it. Who knows if it’s actually there or whether I’ve been brainwashed to make that connection.

If imagine there is some savvy brand management at play pairing (unimportant) associations and an intelligent price point. Scotch drinkers generally worship Islay in nearly all its forms, and also don’t blink an eye at a $40 bottle. The Botanist is to Scotch drinkers what GoT bottles were/are to the viewers - the just affordable enough gateway cross-over.

Thanks, @cascode and @ContemplativeFox. It was pretty solid, but I don’t think there’s much value at the $40 price point a bottle here.

@cascode I’m thinking the strong brand name of Bruichladdich may have something to do with this

I agree completely, and great tasting notes 👍. The Botanist is a "good" gin, no more, no less. It's a straightforward London Dry style of distillate, but it does seem to rate higher than might be suspected from any objective tasting.

Nice assessment. IMHO this is a bit overrated and it's confusing that it shares the "modern" moniker with Monkey 47. As a fairly traditional gin, this is great though :)