Review 206: Highland Park Loki 15 Year

Review 206

3/14/14

Highland Park Loki 15 Year: 48.7% abv

Background: This is a pretty special review for the KCM crew here. This is the first time we’re reviewing a truly limited edition bottling, albeit this is limited edition in the sense that there was a bottle of whisky that came before it and one that’ll come after it, and they’ll be presented the same, but they’ll be different…somehow. So you might call this a “vintage release without the vintage”. Highland Park Loki is part of their Valhalla collection. The whisky is at least 15 Years old, and bottled at almost 49%, which is a nice thing considering how much you pay for the whisky. Highland Park spends their time telling you about Loki in Norse mythology and how it relates to the whisky, but I’m not going to do that. What I’ll do is tell you how this is a 15 Year whisky at $275 a bottle. Obviously you’ll be wondering, why would I pay that kind of money for such a young whisky?

Straight

Nose: The Highland Park Loki starts off in the nose with a battle between a huge fruitiness and a coastal saltiness. The fruitiness is consistent of HP classic orange marmalade, citrus, green grapes, blueberry, dark cherry and other tropical fruits like bananas. There is a complex oak and malt, coupled with creamy vanilla and custard. This whisky also brings out spicy notes of chai tea, clove and allspice. The whisky also has a profound, deep floral smell to it. In additional, cinnamon apple contributes to a smell of both spiciness and sweet fruitiness. There is a very green, earthly aroma that presents itself in the nose as well. It is almost a mossy type aroma that comes through.

                           

Arrival: There is a lot of malt in the arrival, along with a tart cherry sweetness. Plenty of oak can be found in the arrival, along with a substantial amount of spiciness. The whisky is pretty coastal in the arrival, with a slight amount of saltiness and tropical fruits as well. There is a lot of spiciness in the arrival, with mild black pepper, cinnamon, allspice, and gingerbread coming through.

Body: The body is very strongly herbal, with a  large amount of cilantro and mint coming through, along with an earthy presence as well. There is a strong maltiness, along with green apple, lime citrus, green melon, and body.

Finish: The finish contains the same amount of herbal presence as the rest of the whisky, including the mint and cilantro seen before. There is a lot more of an herbal quality to the finish than in the body. There is also a leathery quality to the whisky in the finish, that would be associated with a much older whisky. The finish is absolutely medicinal, and contains a bitter green tea flavor as well. There is a small amount of malt that fades off with the finish.

With Water

Nose: The herbal and citrus notes are very dominant after adding water. The whisky starts off with a much more potent nose. There is a change of balance, as some of the vanilla sweetness gets lost, and is replaced with an increase in bitter floral notes and coastal saltiness. There is a little bit of graham cracker in the nose as well now.

Arrival: The arrival stills contains some beautiful spiciness, along with some maltiness and herbal notes. The arrival is more mild than before.

Body: The body becomes intensely more herbal than before adding water, with bold flavors. There is also more maltiness, with the sweetness from the whisky becoming more dormant. There is a vanilla wafer flavor that comes through in the body as well now. There is a good amount of woodiness in the body, that bleeds into the finish.

Finish:  The finish is woody, with some old notes of leather and wood polish. It still is hugely herbal. There is a high dominance of woodiness in the finish that seems more prevalent than before adding water.

Final Comments: Wow…this is a whisky which raises the bar. This is complex, balanced, unique, and all around a beautiful statement by Highland Park. The KCM crew believes this whisky has some older whiskies in it by its taste profile, and it contributes to a more mature, complex flavor than you would expect from a 15 Year.  Now, let’s be clear. I’m not going to spend the next few minutes telling you about how this whisky is worth $275, because it really isn’t. The reason it isn’t is because for $200 less you could buy something of marginally worse quality and still have an undoubtedly fantastic whisky. So this bottle is for people who have the money to spend; and if you do, this HP will not disappoint. If you were going to buy a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label, this would be a better alternative and you wouldn’t look like an ass.

 

Why you’d buy it: You have a lot of money and want something you can appreciate and use to decorate your mantle.

                                                                                                          

Why you wouldn’t: You’re like most people and don’t want to spend almost $300 on a consumable bottle of liquid that actually does more to dehydrate you than offer sustenance.

Score:  10/10

Review 182: Smokehead Scotch Whisky

Review 182

11/11/13

Smokehead: 43% abv

Background: After a most certainly disappointing experience on the last review (which I didn't bother posting), I decided to start fresh again and to a Single Malt Scotch that I knew wouldn’t disappoint. This is Smokehead, and what an ominous title for a whisky to hold, not to mention the packaging. This bad boy was one of the two peated Islay malts that KCM tried last year. You might be asking yourself about the “Smokehead” Distillery, so let me clarify. This is actually an independent bottling, branded as its own Scotch and distilled in Scotland. Smokehead doesn’t divulge where it hails from, but I get the distinct impression it is Argbeg’s dirty work. It is a smoky one, as you might have guessed. The next question you might ask is “But K, tons of marketing, little information, and fancy packaging, isn’t this just another marketing gimmick then?”. Not exactly. Unlike Pumpkin Face Rum *shudder*, this Scotch actually offers something in terms of value. I’m about to prove it to you.

Straight

Nose:  As soon as you bring the glass to your nose, you will believe. The smell is immediately smoky, rich, and intense, delivering on every promise the title of this whisky has implied to you. The nose is almost chocolatey, it is so rich, with a dark, deep peat smell to it. It is, without a question of a doubt, a beautiful smell. The smell is full of wood smoke, saltiness, and savory notes is prominent. There is smooth, vanilla flavor as well. Specific flavors are not as exposed in the nose, but the whole experience is huge.

Arrival: The arrival is relatively dry, with a slight peppery spice, and some zesty peat coming through. Unfortunately, the thick flavor doesn’t come through true and strong in the arrival. That being said, there is a still a complexity of spice and saltiness. There is some molasses and honey coming through, but a relatively youthful barley spirit taste.

Body: This is where the whisky really shines. The spiciness, saltiness and peat come to full fruition at this point. There is a definite fruity sweetness that comes through, which seems to really differentiate this from Kilchoman, although the two have some commonalities (minus the intense tobacco which you don’t find nearly as much). There is even some peppercorn bitterness in the body, which is not overwhelming, but adds dimension to the whole event.

           

Finish: The finish is an interesting, intense moment with Smokehead. It lasts a long time, and truly brings out a cluster of flavors. The peatiness is there, but the seaweed and salt flavors, with a dark, smoky chocolate are the stars of this show. There is some molasses adding richness, with cloves and allspice adding zest. There is just a little bit of mint as well. This isn’t the most complex whisky, but it is really bold, and it’s quite enjoyable.  

With Water

Nose: With water, the nose brings out intensity of vanilla and sweetness, which starts to balance with the peat quite well.

Arrival: With water, the arrival becomes much sweeter, with some amount of agave and honey coming through, as well as some sugar. Interestingly, as the whisky sits, more wood smoke becomes apparent.

Body: The body mellows out with water, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. The spicy intensity backs off and more vanilla comes to the front. There is still a good amount of peat, but there is a berry fruitiness that comes through.

Finish: The finish is very interesting with water added. There is a different sweetness becoming apparent. There is definitely some fruit sweetness, akin to pears and apples, with smoky caramel and slight tobacco. It is a light smokiness, with heavy overtones at the very end. It becomes nicely savory after a while, like some spicy bacon. This is very subtle though.

Final Comments: Smokehead is inconsistent, to say the least. It is dark and rich in the nose, light and somewhat diluted in the arrival, and then massive in the body. Somebody who doesn’t drink peated whisky might not feel the same way, but in comparison to some of the Laphroaigs and Ardbegs, this lacks some of the intensity. That being said, this is a very decent whisky for the money, and it is something different from your standard offerings. I think what would set this Scotch over the edge would be bottling it at a higher proof. This could even stand to be at 48%. In any case, there is plenty of room for growth, but it is a good start as it is.  

 

Why you’d buy it: You’ve tried the big dogs, and want variety

Why you wouldn’t: It is really hard to compete with Laphroaig 18 Yr

Score: 8.25/10

Review 173: Isle of Jura 10 Yr

Review 173

8/19/13

Isle of Jura 10 Year: 43% abv

Background: Isle of Jura is a single malt Scotch whisky off the…well…the isle of Jura, to be frank. Jura is not the most climactic of all places when you put it in perspective, netting at 142 square miles of land with one road, one pub, one distillery, and a population of 188 people. You could say then, that the people of Jura are probably pretty well familiar with each other. Despite my seemingly scathing remarks of Jura, pictures show it to be a fairly gorgeous island, not unlike most of Scotland’s landscape. How about the distillery, though? The good people of Jura had self-entitlement to distil liquor until 1781, where authorities decided that they needed a license. In 1810, Jura distillery was founded. At some point, the distillery was mothballed, only to be rebuilt in 1960. Currently, Whyte and Mackay own Jura. Jura yields a yearly capacity of about 2.2M liters a year, produced by 4 tall stills. This particular whisky is their 10 Year offering, netting 43% abv and what looks to be natural coloring. This particular Scotch has been a mystery for me for as long as I’ve owned it, because I can’t seem to place my finger on whether or not I like it. Today I do a formal review.

Straight

Nose:  The nose, on immediate visitation, relays flavors of both citrusy white wine and some amount of corn and light grain. This nose gives the impression that the whisky is fairly young, with a light, fresh smell to it. There is a slight hint of maltiness in the nose, but it is overwhelmed by misplaced smells of other grains. There isn’t a strong sense of woodiness dominant on the nose (with exception to the odd sawdust smell that you get if you spend enough time with it), but there is a consistent nuttiness that comes through. If you dig deep enough, there is almost a slight hint of sherry to it, but it smells coincidental, not intentional. There is a subtle seaweed/sea salt type implication to the whisky, but it doesn’t come through like your Old Pulteney’s would. Overall, it is a mellow nose with some interesting flavors, but it is flat and shallow flavors that come through. There is not a lot of intensity to the nose.

Arrival: The arrival starts off sweet, making it seem as if there was some play from a sherry cask that might not have been assumed before. There is a hint of maltiness, caramel, and then with enough time, some salt and pepper that burns through. There is a sweet vanilla that contradicts a sense of saltiness, with some mixed berries and orange marmalade to accompany the flavor. There is a sense of tartness that comes through, akin to sweet lemon candy flavor.  The arrival is bold and complex, and certainly a respectable entrance into this whisky.

Body: This is where you might start losing the familiarity of single malt Scotch. There is not maltiness to be found in the body. There is a strong sense of salty nuttiness that is very prevalent (maybe almonds). The body is not very climactic, which can be common after a big arrival, and especially leading into this finish. There is some sense of corn that comes through in the body, almost reminiscent of soft bourbon flavor.

           

Finish: There is a confusing mixture of flavors coming out of the finish, most unfortunate of which is the sense of burnt wood that reminds me a lot of the Dalmore 12 we just tried. The corn-like grain flavor persists into the finish, with somewhat of a fluoride-like aftertaste that acts as the last flavor standing. Other than that and some light citrus flavors, with the small hint of sherry coming through, Jura falls flat in the finish. I don’t think this finish is what it could be, and with such a promising arrival, it’s disappointing to see it come to this conclusion. The finish is short and what lasts is bitter and strained. We are still waiting to see how water may help make this whisky better.

With Water

Nose: After letting this Scotch marry with some water for a few minutes, you will find in the nose that the barley starts to come through more. There are still very similar notes as before, but some confectionary subtleties start to emerge as well. There is a slight pear-like scent that can be found, as well as a small amount of green tea smell.

Arrival: The arrival, after water, is smooth and sweet, with similar flavors as before. The sherry, mixed with some lime tartness, is a prevalent sweet and sour combo up front, with some herbal notes later on.

Body: The herbal, grassy flavors bleed into the body, presenting it with a little more character than before. All the same, the body is still pretty subtle and short, just dying off from the arrival.

           

Finish: The finish has not been salvaged from the addition of water. There is still bitterness to be found in the finish. It also comes across as slightly vegetal. The slight burnt flavor seems to reside quite a bit in this instance, and there is a bit more malt richness to carry through, but it seems compromised by an almost plastic-like flavor. This is just not hitting the right way.

Final Comments: I would like to start by saying I have nothing against the Isle of Jura or its people (all 188 of you). I think the fact that they have a distillery to represent them is excellent, and Jura does have some great representation in terms of bottlings. Personally, I am not a fan of the 10 Year, and I don’t want to drink more of it. It is unique, it has a nice arrival, and it has some complexities to it. I would recommend trying this, for anybody who wants to learn more about single malt Scotch, but I have a bottle of it that I’m not too keen on killing off. That being said, I will continue to do experiments with this bottle and learn more about it. Bottom line, this is not on the top of my purchase list, and as a casual drinker, I wouldn’t put it on the top of yours either.

 

Why you’d buy it: You like trying new things, even if you’re told not to

Why you wouldn’t: You listen to the advice in my reviews (poor judgment call, if you ask me)

Score: 7.0/10

Review 168: Dalmore 12 Year

Review 168

6/30/13

Dalmore 12 Year: 40% abv

Background: Dalmore is the pinnacle of marketing class. The bottle design is elegant and sexy, there is a metallic-looking stag on the front, and it takes a minimalistic labeling scheme. With all of this, it is tough to walk through your single malt section of the liquor store and not let it catch your eye. Dalmore distillery is a Highland distillery in Alness, Scotland. The company is owned by Whyte and Mackay. The distillery was established in 1839 by a trader who was pretty into the whole opium trading thing, as I’ve heard. In 1886, the distillery was bought by the MacKenzie family, of which one of their predecessors allegedly saved King Alexander III from a rampaging stag. This resulted in the MacKenzie bloke to be able to bear the emblem of the 12-point stag. That brings us back to the bottle, which has used this as a means of marketing shenanigans. This bottling is the 12 year, which doesn’t tell us that it isn’t chill filtered, or that it is naturally colored, and it does get bottled at only 40%. That being said, none of that guarantees us that this is a poorly made Scotch. That’s why we’re here to tell you exactly what to expect before buying a bottle. Before we dive into this, we can tell you a bit about how this is aged. Dalmore tells us this whisky sits for 9 years in bourbon casks, and then is divided (carefully, they say). One half of the whisky sits for another 3 years in bourbon barrels, and the other half sits in “30 year old Matusalem oloroso sherry casks”. What does this mean? Not a whole lot.

Straight

Nose: So right out of the gate, this nose gives off some hints of harsh alcohol, implying maybe not the best quality of spirit. Dig further, you’ll get a signature oloroso nuttiness and sherry combo coming out nicely. There is a sense of wet grass and burnt wood in the nose, with some stale malt flavor coming in the background. It doesn’t start as a fresh nose, quite honestly. It isn’t very crisp or refreshing, but more heavy and compacted. That being said, there are some nice dark apple flavors coming out of the nose, with small hints of butter and honey. The nuttiness seems to dominant the nose at the end of the day, but it reminds me of a toasted almond that got burnt. I have to confess, this is a relatively confused nose.

Arrival: The arrival starts off butter and butterscotch, almost like you are grabbing some popcorn. There is a pale maltiness that lurks in the shadows, and a bland sense of fruitiness comes through. It feels pretty worn and unimpressive. After a couple of sips, the best guess for a flavor is dried cranberries and grapes. There is still some burnt wood flavors coming through as well. The arrival is pretty flat.

Body: Into the body, you will get some more of the nuttiness coming out in the whisky, which is good. The overall sherry idea is somehow loss in the flavor. There is a sense of marzipan in the body, with again a reoccurrence of dried fruit flavors. There is slight vanilla notes involved. The maltiness in the whisky is uninspired and flat, and does not pop in the flavorful, fresh manner that we saw in the anCnoc.

           

Finish: There are terribly dominant notes of popcorn kernels, sherry, and chocolate in here. There is hardly much to talk about, minus a slight residual hint of tobacco. There is still a nuttiness from the beginning of the flavor, with some vanilla and more burnt flavors. It is really a short and simple finish that doesn’t excite us a whole lot.

With Water

Nose: Water seems to just exacerbate the rough spirit smell that starts at the beginning. There is still the burnt sensation that is apparent in the beginning of the whisky. That ashy smell seems to over dominate the nose again. Not worth continuing with more notes on the nose.

Arrival: Finally, there is some salvation. You may have thought this review was going to be 100% negative, but alas, in tasting the whisky after adding a teaspoon of water, it seems like the maltiness has jumped forward much more, along with making the fruitiness more lively. There is actually some caramel coming through, with some light spiciness and a sort of peanut butter cookie flavor. This isn’t a perfect arrival, but it is certainly MUCH better with some water.

Body: The body carries over some of the burnt flavors still, but in addition there is a sense of confectionary notes as well which help to balance out the ashy character. There is some apple character and some cinnamon sugar flavor coming through as well.

           

Finish: Those peanut butter cookies are interestingly lasting through the finish, with a sense of chocolate and cinnamon as well. There is some tobacco notes in here, but there is still some nuttiness, apple and cranberry flavor, and gingerbread. This is a much better surprise than the initial flavor content. There is also a citrus, orange flavor coming through at the end.

Final Comments: There is a terribly disappointing quality issue here. When we talk about “flatness”, we are not talking about carbonation, but rather a lack of dynamics and assertive flavors in the whisky. This is a flat whisky, and the flavor doesn’t pop out in the arrival, or in the body, or in the finish. Without water, there is not much flavor to be had at all, and we were disappointed by how much we didn’t enjoy unassertive notes. The saving grace to this whisky is that with a bit of water, there is some more complexities and flavors to overcome the shortcomings slightly. That doesn’t make this whisky “fantastic” by any stretch of the imagination, but it does provide some hope that it could be drinkable. Also, don’t think this means we’re dismissing Dalmore. I hear there are some great independent bottlings of Dalmore.

 

Why you’d buy it: You want a nice centerpiece for your table, and that bottle just really hits your “I want this as my centerpiece” buttons.

Why you wouldn’t: You don’t want to spend $50 on disappointment.

Score: 6.5/10

Review 167: anCnoc 12 Year

Review 167

6/18/13

anCnoc 12 Year: 43% abv

Background: Let’s get this straightened out: anCnoc (meaning “the hill” in Gaelic) is pronounced a-nock. The namesake of anCnoc has not been around for that long, but the whisky itself has been around for quite some time. That’s because anCnoc whisky is formerly known as Knockdhu Scotch, which comes from the Knockdhu Distillery, in Knock, Scotland (Knock on wood…). In 1994, the distillery stopped calling its whisky Knockdhu, because the distillery was being confused with Knockando Distillery. In 1894, the distillery was founded. They currently have about 1.7M liters of capacity, and from an outsider’s perspective, they are gaining presence. The 12 Year is one of two regular main stays in the reasonable price range, with the 16 Year being its right-hand man.  So reasonable is this whisky, it sits alongside the Glenfiddich 12, Glenlivet 12, and Macallan 10 price range. So does it warrant you moving away from these classics to potentially adopt a new staple into the liquor cabinet?

Straight

Nose: You might get some green fruits of the nose of this whisky. The two we thought of immediately were white wine and pears. You will definitely find a malty character to the aroma, complimented by a natural wheat flavor in the background. The vanilla character associated with this Scotch is pretty dominant, and ultimately you do not suspect the influence of peat or sherry in this whisky. It would be safe to say that there is not much influence outside of bourbon casks. There is, however, a very subtle salt note that comes through in the back of the nose. Even to an extent, there is some agave coming through as well. After further analysis, there is a noticeable piece of ginger aroma within the AnCnoc.

Arrival: Well, if you like malt, you won’t be disappointed here. This is an absolutely fantastic blast of malt flavor right in the front; this is a pure, creamy and malty flavor, which feels like the perfect flavor extraction from the distillation process. I might venture a guess that this would actually make for decent white whisky. There is a sense of dried fruit, oak, and vanilla that come through. There is a tart flavor that comes through as well. There is a mysterious spiciness that will be evoked in the arrival as the single malt opens up.

Body: There is still some good maltiness in the body, but there is an addition of wheat, vanilla, cream, and even some saltiness. The evolution is quite smooth, but also noticeable. It is an oxymoron of dynamic and subtle at the same time. It is ultimately incredibly smooth. There is a sense of pear in the body as well. There is a sense of slight tartness in the body, which carries over from the arrival.

           

Finish: You would never guess it, but you guessed it. This finish is super malty, with some earthy, floral notes involved too. The vanilla is dominant, along with some residual tartness, subtle wood flavor, and a long lasting creaminess that almost reminds you of ice cream. Right from the body into the finish, you will find a Laffy Taffy banana flavor that jumps in, which is a weird descriptor, but truly hits the nail on the head. As an accent note, there is a very negligible, almost invisible note of smokiness that comes through in the finish.

With Water

Nose: The nose, although quite similar, brings forward some of the more dominant flavors of the Scotch. There is a sense of lemon that starts coming through, accompanied by a candy sweetness. There is more floral harshness in the nose with a significant vegetal quality, but it still retains the sweetness from before.

Arrival: The arrival is pretty similar to before, with the thought that maybe there is a slight increase in woodiness.

Body: There is a small amount of spiciness into the body that wasn’t as prominent as before. This isn’t necessarily a black pepper spice, but something more hot and flavorful, without breaching the realm of red pepper potency.

           

Finish: The finish comes across as a little less prominent than before, without much flavor change. It is a softer ending, but not too much shorter. The vegetal earthiness that comes through in the finish is a little more dominant now than before water.  

Final Comments: Yes. This will replace Macallan 10, it will replace Glenfiddich 12, and it will DEFINITELY replace Glenlivet 12. Take the price out of the equation for a second. The quality of this whisky is great, no matter what the age or the price is. It tastes fresh, but the creamy, pure malt flavor feels like exactly what good distillation should be. The complexity of this whisky isn’t groundbreaking, but that doesn’t mean it is dull. The whisky takes a contradictory path of smooth, mellow character met with deep, engaging flavor. We truly enjoyed this single malt a lot, and to be honest, it is almost TOO easy to drink. For the price, it is a must try. We would advise you to review the flavors, to understand what you’re buying, because unlike Glenfiddich or Glenlivet, this is not as much about dark, rich fruit flavor, but rather crisp, fresh, but slightly dried fruit flavors with a super blast of maltiness. If you like a dram of Glen Grant 10, this should definitely be on your list.

 

Why you’d buy it: It is good.

Why you wouldn’t: I don’t know.

Score: 8.75/10

Review 160: Macallan 12 Year

Review 160

5/17/13

Macallan 12 Yr: 43% abv

Background: We are back to our second review of Macallan. You might observe that we bought a miniature of this single malt, and you might be wondering why. Well that is a perfect opportunity for me to get on my soap box and talk about my problem with Macallan. My problem with Macallan is not that they are a large scale producer of Scotch. My problem is that they have started advertising in partnerships with people NOT involved in Scotch. Do you know what that is? It is a distraction from what really matters. Macallan’s late and “great” 22 year old “The Flask” Scotch is a partnership between Oakley and Macallan. What does Oakley know about Scotch? Nothing. To make matters worse, the 22 year old Scotch is $1,500. I haven’t heard anything about the Scotch itself in all of Macallan’s advertising. That is why KCM chooses not to buy a lot of Macallan. They are focused more on brand recognition than they are their spirits. That being said, Macallan 12 is a very common single malt to see at the bar, and you need to know if you should take your chances with it.

Straight

Nose: This is probably one of the simpler and more straightforward sherried Scotches available. You certainly get that right in the nose, with a huge sherried, raison-like smell, with even some red grape and confectionary smells in the nose. It has an interesting blast of sugary sweetness to it, and throws some vanilla in to compliment the soft, pleasant aromas. Then again, this distracts you from the malt character that you might be getting otherwise. There isn’t much grain to be found here. Instead, you might find some vegetal qualities, with even some rose-like floral compliments, albeit they aren’t hugely prominent. Interestingly, there is also a rather leathery quality to the Scotch which you wouldn’t really expect from a 12 Year old, but it is a pleasant contrast to the sweetness. Despite all of these pleasant notes, you will still get some tingling and burn from the smell, and a mild spiciness, akin to cloves and mild white pepper. Overall, the sherry dominates the smell, but take the time and you will find some interesting alternative smells in there.

Arrival: Despite the strong smell, the arrival to this Scotch is actually pretty light. This certainly has a taste which creeps into the picture. It does not start off big or eventful, breaking down the doors. What it does do, is introduce some initial sweetness and gives off some graininess that you missed in the nose. There is also a hint of black pepper that can be evoked if the whisky is rolled around the tongue. On a different note, now and again you might start to notice an almost plastic-like taste coming forward in the later part of the arrival. I don’t get it all of the time, but it can be slightly unpleasant if you hold onto the flavor too long. You will start getting the sherry in the arrival, but not nearly as much as you would think. Just wait…

Body:  Here is where you start to get the sherry profile in the whisky, but it also introduces a decadent milk chocolate flavor right up front. It is a sweet, whipped chocolate and sherry flavor, which inspires. Why not make a sherry chocolate cake? First person who does this, let me know how it works out. You will also notice a mild pepper note will carry over from the arrival, along with some malty barley. The body does have a pretty big presents with big, sherry flavor.

           

Finish: This is where the sherry really takes over, which is saying a lot considering how much it plays into the whole presentation. There is some significant maltiness that comes through at the end here, which is complimented with the notes of vanilla, milk, and rich chocolate which resonate from the body through the end of the Scotch. This is a pretty substantial finish, but doesn’t strike me as the most complex either. Like in the nose, you get a sugary, confectionary finish which has some semblance to Drambuie.

With Water

Nose: Well you might suspect that water will have an impact on this Scotch. It hasn’t really changed the nose at all. I mean, it is really exactly the same. Even after giving it fifteen minutes to marry with the Scotch and open up the flavors, it smells overbearingly of sherry.

Arrival: We have really pulled forward some grain character after adding water. It seems the arrival provides a much more malty and earthy character after a little water. It is actually a nice addition to the arrival, and it is much appreciated. Vanilla is also a big player here.

Body: The body doesn’t change much, although water does seem to help remove some of the less favorable tasting notes. There is still some pepper coming through here, but the sherry seems to become drier with the addition of water. There is some spiciness in the body as well, that wasn’t nearly as present before adding the water.

           

Finish: The finish actually pushes back some of the sherry after water, and brings out some vegetal and custard-like notes. It is a pleasant addition of complexity that really makes this a more interesting and diverse experience. There is definitely something with the aftertaste of fresh greens that jumps to the forefront after a few seconds. We got really excited when we started to taste some apple and even more so some pear in the finish, complimenting and adding to the raison quality that was already there. The diversification of fruit flavors makes this a less boring experience. After sitting for a second, wait and you might get some pleasant subtle nuttiness coming through as well. On the flip side of things, as was present in the arrival of this Scotch, there does appear to be a small hint of some worn flavors, that seem tired and almost stale. This comes in the aftertaste, and we believe this probably comes from the overuse of the cask or even just less quality grain.

Final Comments:  This is actually one of my favorite Scotches to get out at the bar. It is affordable, pleasant, and more complex than it initially seems. It is also fairly easy to find if you aren’t looking for it at McDonalds. When comparing this to Glenfiddich or Glenlivet 12, I always grab this particular Scotch. There is no comparison in quality and complexity, and I truly enjoy the simple, but not overbearing presence of sherry, probably even more than I like drinking sherry by itself. That being said, it does not compare in the maturity of flavors, to a Glenfarclas or Highland Park, but I don’t think it is really meant to. I believe Macallan’s quality will continue to diminish, but for the time being, this is actually a really decent offering for a reasonable price.

Why you’d buy it: You want to know what a sherry-aged Scotch is.

Why you wouldn’t: You are like us, and don’t like ridiculous marketing.

Score: 8.25/10

Review 157: Auchentoshan 10 Year

Review 157

5/2/13

Auchentoshan 10 Yr: 40% abv

Background: Auchentoshan has been discussed before in a review of their Triple Wood, so there should be some background to this distillery. But in case you need a refresher, this is a lowland distillery that uses triple distillation, a technique found more commonly in Irish Whiskey production. This particular whisky is nothing special. The 10 year bottling is a standard bottling that we bought as our first lowland whisky purchase. In Michigan, you can grab it for about $30 a bottle if you can find it. The question is, should you?

Straight

Nose: The nose starts off with an interesting aroma of mild malted barley, usurped in power by slightly vegetal notes and moderate spiciness. This spiciness can be related to an almost burnt peppercorn smell, the kind you might find on a peppered steak that’s been cooked too hot. Fortunately, this doesn’t over-play the soft fruit notes of pear and some grape. Oddly, though, there is some burnt wood smell that just doesn’t seem to relent when nosing the Scotch. One could also cite the experience of slight dill pickle smell emerging through the layers, although not in a horribly prominent fashion.

Arrival: The arrival is sweet, in a good way. There is some candied lemon, citrus-like flavor that comes about with some honey and sugary malt right in the beginning. In reality, this isn’t a complex arrival, with a slight lime and tart apple presence, but not much else there.

Body:  This whisky starts to dull with the taste of over-used casks, burnt wood, and even some burnt tobacco notes right in the body. The body  does not last long, and with a harsh, bone-dry grain flavor that seems uneventful and disappointing at best, it is best just to move on.

           

Finish: There is some stewed apple in the finish here, with slight malt and citrus notes as well. Unfortunately, this is overshadowed by the same burnt characteristics that the body contains. This is just a very disappointing finish.

With Water

Nose: The nose, after adding a teaspoon of water, still comes off as dusty, with strained notes of malt and slight hints of fruits, although the vegetal quality has left. It is not by any means an enjoyable or complex experience.

Arrival: With small pieces of vanilla and strawberry coming through, the arrival has brought about some new unique notes, but is unfortunately still not complex enough.

Body: The body doesn’t change much, although water does seem to help remove some of the less favorable tasting notes.

           

Finish: The finish remains pretty well the same with the addition of water.

Final Comments:  This Scotch was the first $30 single malt we’ve experimented with, and we were honestly not impressed. The flavors weren’t there, and the ones that were felt strained and unpleasant. This isn’t a knock on Auchentoshan, either. They make some fantastic bottlings, but this was not one of them.

Why you’d buy it: You want a single malt on a budget.

Why you wouldn’t: You’ve tasted it before.

Score: 6.0/10

Review 155: Glenlivet Nadurra 16 Year

Review 155

4/7/13

Glenlivet Nadurra 16 Yr: 59.7% abv

Background: Glenlivet is a Speyside malt, as you may already know. If you know any single malt Scotch, you probably think of one of two distilleries: Glenfiddich and Glenlivet. Although Glenfiddich holds the crown for being the bestselling single malt in the World, Glenlivet is more popular in America, being the #1 selling malt whisky in the US. So, with a volume of about 5.9 million liters being produced per year, there is quite a lot of Glenlivet going around. We aren’t huge fans of the 12 year, which lacks a great balance and appears far too fruity for its own good. So why would we review a Glenlivet then? Nadurra, a non-chill filtered, 16 year version of Glenlivet at cask strength, which is aged in French Oak casks, takes Glenlivet to a different level in terms of quality and notability.

Straight

Nose: The nose starts off the with classic Glenlivet notes, including some champagne and green grape notes, along with a cooked apple smell, which contributes a crisp, refreshing aroma to the whisky. If you dig deep enough, you can get the soft, ripe smell of a banana in the nose as well. It is a very malty nose, with wood and grain notes making for a dry, sweet smell coming through. The wood notes include some maple and oak tones, with vanilla influences from the wood coming out as well. There is a subtle citrus note that cuts through, but it doesn’t over-dominate the aromas. Along with the sweet notes, you get some allspice and nutmeg smells coming through.

Arrival: Naturally, in a whisky at this proof, there will be an intense spiciness that presents itself. There is some cinnamon intensity, with vegetal, bitter notes starting off the cadence of this whisky. There is a small amount of honeydew and vanilla that adds to the sweetness in the arrival, which is relatively masked by the burn of the alcohol.

Body:  There are some tropical fruits coming through in the body with pineapple notes. There is a large contribution of maltiness to the body. The cinnamon presence from the arrival continues through to the body, and lingers onward. There is also a dominant vegetal characteristic to it that seems to provide a grassy character to the whisky.

           

Finish: The finish holds some bold malty flavors, with some grapefruit citrus notes coming through. There is some green grape that come through as well. There is vanilla bean flavor that resides in the finish, with some cinnamon notes and fresh mint as well. The vegetal quality of the body lingers through to the finish and does not at all diminish.   

With Water

Nose: With a little bit of water, I would venture to guess you’d find this closer to its distant cousin, bourbon. The nose brings out some soft melon notes, akin to cantaloupe, with a contrasting grapefruit smell. Along with this, it is more creamy and soft. It becomes more vegetal as well.

Arrival: The arrival, after some water, will be much more pleasant than you last remembered it. There is a malty creaminess to it, almost like a vanilla malted shake.

Body: The spiciness is less prominent than before, with a good balance coming about as a result. There is still a big vanilla character involved, which seems to dominate the flavors on the palate in the body. Nothing more really happens in the body at this point, and it isn’t until the finish that big flavor changes happens.

           

Finish: The finish, after adding water, becomes more sugary and sweet, retaining the big malty character from before, and holding onto some of the grape character that came from the arrival. There is some orange rind that we noticed later on in the finish, and some grain bite as well. There is also an odd pumpkin spice note that starts to develop as you focus more on the departure of the flavors. There is still some smooth banana flavor that comes in.

Final Comments:  This is quite a hot whisky out of the gate. You might not expect this out of a Speyside, or even a Glenlivet for that matter. Fortunately, despite its hotness, it has quite a bit of engaging material to offer up to your palate. After water, there is more balance and complexity, but be weary. With too much water, the body will lose some of its rich complexity that you’ll find at the natural presentation. The real problem with this bottling of Glenlivet is that it shows that Glenlivet can make a super-high quality whisky, and people should expect that from them. For this reason, KCM encourages NOT to buy Glenlivet 12 Year, or Glenlivet 18 Year, but if you’re going to buy Glenlivet, this one is the way to go.

Why you’d buy it: Because you enjoy intense cask strength whiskies and want to see how French Oak plays into the taste profile

Why you wouldn’t: It is far too intense or intimidating

Score: 9.25/10