I saw this on the shelf, at my local liquor store, and thought it was time to revisit it. Fifteen years ago, I was a big fan of this single malt. It was a nuanced honey, barley, golden cereal type of flavor profile that exhibited impressive complexity. It was totally in my wheelhouse: a classic Speysider on the lighter honey based flavor map. Back then, Glenfiddich 15 Solera had a place on my shelf alongside other malts with similar flavor profiles like Cragganmore 12 and Glenmorangie 12 Nectar d'Or.
So, while the security cameras watched my every move in the liquor store, as I hefted the bottle in its tube, I decided to pull the trigger, and approached the cashier. $99! Times have changed. Used to be much cheaper. But, I thought this is a fifteen year old single malt and given that age statement, $99 in Canada is fair. My friends south of the Canadian border are probably getting it for $70 or so. Still fair I think at first glance.
So, I get this bottle home, sit out on the back deck, pull the cork, pour a dram and just let it sit for about 10 minutes or so. Let it breathe. I do this because sometimes the first dram poured too soon tastes a little tight or hot with some single malts. Highland Park 18 comes to mind. Best to open the bottle, have a dram after twenty minutes, and it will taste even more mellow a week from then because of oxidation.
Solera?
While my dram breathes, I think about 'solera' on the label, and what it really means. 'Solera' is a method of aging port and sherry that originated in Portugal and Spain.
Imagine rows of barrels or casks, stacked five or so levels high, all connected by pipes, and sherry drained from the ground level casks is the oldest, and the empty space in the cask is replaced with sherry from the cask of the row above. Meanwhile, as the oldest sherry is bottled by draining the floor level barrels, more young sherry, is poured into top row barrels. This is the purported Solera system, but from what I have read, the term is used very loosely meaning the actual aging and blending of spirit may not be adhering to Spanish tradition outlined above.
The solera technique also is purportedly used by some rum producers. However, I read one rum expert write he had never seen a Solera system employed at any distillery as described above. So, who knows what the truth is? Anyhow, you and I now have some understanding of what Glenfiddich wants you to believe. I suspect the use of the Solera term is more marketing than fact.
Category
Single Malt
Region
Speyside
Age Statement
15 years
ABV
40%
Artificial Color
Yes.
Chill Filtration
Yes.
Availability
Widely distributed.
Price?
For a 15 year old single malt, the price was reasonable. Most single malts of this age statement are priced 40% or so higher.
Wood Management
Ex-sherry casks, European oak, New American Oak.
Nose (undiluted)
Honey, dandelions. Pleasant. Speaks of quality. Light aromas.
Palate (undiluted)
Apple juice, honey, apricots, white grapes, a hint of raspberry.
Finish (undiluted)
Short. Tastes young on the finish of flabby white grapes. Hint of bitterness. Is that ginger? For a 15 year old single malt there should be some length of flavors. Faint, stale note of New York City, yellow taxi cab, cigarette smoke hanging in the backseat.
General Impressions
This may say a 15 year old single malt, but the ingredient whiskies are tasting much younger. Notes of pearl onions . . . ahh not in a good way.
Really disappointing.
15 years ago or so, I really liked this malt, but not now. Somehow, it tastes young. Maybe the ingredient whiskies are much closer to 15 years age statement and years ago it was composed of more older whiskies closer to 18 years? Can't say for sure, but does taste that way.
In a peer review, this used to be on par with Cragganmore 12, but not anymore as Cragganmore continues to outshine this malt. As for Glenmorangie Nectar d'Or, the age statement has been sadly dropped and it too is now a disappointment.
Most people know I am an eccentric with a wide variety of eclectic interests and fixations, none of which are lucrative. Life coaches say: make millions following your passion in life! If I did that I would have a closet full of Saville Row bespoke clothes, every New Yorker magazine cover framed, all coffee table books devoted to Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, and a bank account far in the red.
Like the eyes of a cat fixed upon a bird chirping in a tree, my focus is often upon the weighty matter of good whisky. And so, at whisky festivals, line-ups at the bank, grocery stores, and anywhere else I happen to be, the most common question I get is:
What scotch do you recommend?
Without knowing anything about the person, other than the fact that they have no inkling of what they like, I respond authoritatively with the zeal of a megawatt smiling YouTube life coach:
Cragganmore 12 year old. Try it. If you don't like it, I will buy the bottle from you.
Money back guarantee always seals the deal! And you know what? I have never had to buy a bottle yet. You see, Cragganmore 12 is what I regard as the gateway drug of the single malt world. This Speyside malt with loads of honey, caramel, marzipan, the incredible lightness of clouds with a touch of smoke and a wee pinch of peat delivers satisfaction and that Day Tripper hook, that reels you back for one more sip. Works every time! So, when I spied the Cragganmore Distiller's Edition on the shelf at the store of my local purveyor of incredible lightness of being, I had to have it.
Now, I need to have a word with you about distiller's editions. When these are released it is usually a new twist upon the standard malt offering of the distillery. Often I have thought some distiller's editions are distiller's disappointment. The higher priced DE fails to impress and often just falls flat. The ABV is not even higher and chill filtration is still going on. So, what am I paying extra for? A different label and slightly different casks used?
So, I also had some trepidation when I purchased the Cragganmore Distiller's Edition (distilled in 2007 and bottled in 2019).
Cragganmore 'The Distiller's Edition'
Distilled in 2007.
Bottled in 2019.
Closure
Cork Stopper.
ABV
40%
Chill Filtration?
Yes.
Artificial Color?
Yes.
Wood Management
Here is the twist, what you are paying for: aging in port casks for an unknown period of time. I like port finishes, so here's hopin'.
Price
About 25% higher than the standard 12 year old release.
Nose (undiluted)
Fruit forward, raspberries, strawberries, very floral too, roses?
Palate (undiluted)
Spicy, rich red liquorice, velvety texture, full mouth feel, big body, weighty, black grapes, orange peel and a complex tapestry of caramel and maple sugar.
Finish (undiluted)
Medium length balsamic vinegar, pears, port wine, and a dusting of smoked almonds.
General Impressions
Wow! In spite of an ABV of 40%, this tastes heavier and more complex. Complexity abounds in the warm almond/cashew and maple sugar profile with a little smoke. Not too sweet. Such balance. I am really impressed. So impressed, I bought a second bottle.
I always seem to gravitate to whiskies with a port finish and this whisky is no exception. It is less heavy on the port notes than say Glenmorangie's Quinta Ruban, and instead offers a delicate/more complex port finish.
This bottle is a testament to how chill filtration and the use of distiller's caramel do not diminish the magic in a bottle.
I like the Compass Box Company. They put out some really interesting releases. So, when a reader suggested I continue to explore the product line of this innovative independent bottler, the question was 'where to next?' My reader suggested 'Hedonism.'
'Hedonism' is different from nearly all other offerings of Compass Box or frankly most other Scotch brands period. How is it different? Simple. It's not a single malt, blended malt or blended Scotch whisky. Hedonism is a 'blended grain whisky.'
A blended grain whisky from Scotland will have a little bit of malted barley but is principally a mash bill of other grains like wheat, corn, oats, etc. The various grains are cheaper to acquire than barley. The lower cost grains and the whisky they produce is the chief reason they are used to bulk up blended Scotches.
Additionally, grain whiskies don't enjoy the best reputation because they tend to be young and often aged in inferior casks. So the taste aint the greatest leading to a less than stellar reputation. Think of say Ballantine's Finest, a dreadful blend in my opinion. It is made up of a lot of young grain whiskies that I think were aged in lower quality casks (e.g. not 1st fill or even 2nd fill).
Grain whisky can be good whisky. It can be a delight, but the whiskies need age, careful blending, and good wood management. What would happen if you had an attentive master blender, using aged grain whiskies that matured in first and second fill casks? Would it be good? This is what Hedonism by Compass Box attempts to do.
Region
Scotland
Category
Blended Grain Whisky
ABV
43%
Format
700ml
Age Statement
None
Artificial Color
No
Chill Filtration?
No
Wood Management
Aged in 100% first fill American oak or rejuvenated American oak hogsheads.
Nose (undiluted)
Sweet breads, orange blossoms, honey and buttercups.
Palate (undiluted)
Sweetness but not cloyingly so. Creamy, vanilla, sponge cake, white cake bread, Dutch butter cookies. Oven warm dinner rolls.
Finish (undiluted)
Transition from sweet to dry with kitchen spices of kosher salt, tarragon and oregano. Nice structure of wheat and cereals, and lemon pith too, but just faintly.
General Impressions
I really like this and demonstrates that you do not have to have a single malt in order to enjoy a quality Scotch whisky.
Not sherried and very little if any peat. When this dram passes your lips you are left with a nice lingering spiciness.
I think this would be very well liked by the novice Scotch fan. A newbie would like this. Old whisky dogs might be taught a new trick with this one too.
If you like Glenmorangie 12 Nectar DO'r or Glenfiddich 15 Solera, then you will like this.
This tastes like pineapple, honey, malty with some lemon juice in the background. If I had a slight criticism, it would be that it is quite sweet. However, I don't mind it. For this reason, I really think the Scotch newbie would enjoy this dram.
The brittle leaves, once green, had turned custard yellow, clay brown, red, purple and every stained-glass shade in between. Nippy autumn gusts had scattered the kaleidoscopic foliage all over Roger's lawn.
Our friend had invited Keith and I over this sunny Saturday afternoon to ostensibly hang out, but what he really wanted was cheap labor to rake his yard. While I look fairly rugged in my fir green waxed cotton Barbour and Keith in his worn and patched M65 field jacket, we are actually fairly averse to perspiration. Yes, I know, shocking.
So, we were not warming up to these weekend plans, and instead made collective faux groans of tiredness over steaming espresso. We hoped this near maudlin tactic tinged with a wee larceny would elicit some attempt at bribery from our good friend.
"You guys are shameless," Roger muttered in an Italian sandwhich bistro that morning. He was sipping steaming Earl Grey with extra bergamot, and staring off at college-grade abstract canvasses hanging on the opposite exposed reddish-brown brick wall. Suzanne Vega echoed off the terra-cotta tile floor. Roger liked this quirky artist friendly cafe with the gently whirring ceiling fans, skylights and glass bead doorway separating the kitchen from behind the counter. A place where hemp necklaces, eyebrow piercings, Birkenstocks and back issues of Mother Jones did not seem out of the ordinary. Patrons sip from recycled paper cups containing unbleached tea bags while their sedate, eco-friendly Subarus and Volvo wagons lie in wait curb side.
"Shameless? Maybe," I thought to myself, and as if on cue, Keith and I resumed to catalogue our respective aches and pains to the point of harmonizing like Crosby, Stills & Nash at Woodstock. Suzanne would have jammed with us if only her tour schedule permitted it.
After some back and forth, we negotiated in exchange for our highly sought rake-wielding skill set: barbecued steaks in Cabernet-thyme sauce, adorned with pan fried mushrooms and sweet red onions, baguette, Gorgonzola cheese, spicy frites, and some Saint-Émilion vin Rog had tucked away. I would supply the whisky. Keith agreed to bear half that cost when he got paid next week, which meant I would bear the full cost.
Now, you may think that we were taking Roger for a ride, but he was paying for more than Fall leaf removal. I had expertise to deliver in whisky meal pairing that he would benefit from for years.
I had to earn my supper, so I started thinking.
The question I had to ponder is what is an appropriate whisky in autumn that suitably compliments a steak-frites meal.
A Fall whisky has to be heavy. Fairy dust light Lowland Scotches like Glenkinchie and Auchentoshan are for Spring.
Islay?
Never with grilled steak!
Islay is for seafood. Pair your Ardbeg with oysters or pan fried scallops in butter, a match made in heaven.
What about Speyside honey and spice whiskies like Cragganmore 12, Glenfiddich 15 and Dalwhinnie?
No! Absolutely not! They are orchid delicate. The flavours and complexity are blotted out by the barbecued tenderloin and the spicy frites.
You need a malt flavour profile that can go toe-to-toe with a Gorgonzola and still be there in the 12th round!
You need a sherried malt, hell, a sherry bomb. Think GlenDronach, Glenfarclas, Macallan, Balvenie 15. So, in that vein, I thought I would try something new: Tomatin 18 years. The Tomatin 14 years in Portwood was a dream and suitable, so the 18 should be better.
Tomatin 18 years single malt Scotch is aged for fifteen years in bourbon hogsheads (purportedly Maker's Mark), and then finished for a further three years in first fill Oloroso sherry butts. With an ABV of 46% this non-chill filtered malt should have the strength of flavour and character to not be bullied over by barbecued steak in rustic Gaulic gravy.
Nose (undiluted)
Powerful, punchy red fruit, you smell sherry big time, but woody too, all chased by Cabernet Sauvignon notes.
Palate (undiluted)
Sweet red licorice quickly turning to bold sherry. Mid-palate there is a transition to steak spice, Montreal Steak Spice, Lea and Perrins, or in other words Worcester sauce.
Finish (undiluted)
Tarragon, sage, summer savoury, oak, too woody, damp wood, and in some way is spoilt. Part your lips and breath and taste stale cigarette.
General Impressions
For an 18 year old single malt, this disappoints. It lacks complexity of flavours, the sherry tastes old, stale and somehow spoilt. There is a funkiness, a barnyard quality and Worcester sauce on the finish that makes you wish you had your money back. My gut feeling is that there is a problem with wood management. The quality of casks is just not up to snuff.
This bottle is not flawed, its just a style of whisky with less than ideal ex-sherry casks. It tastes a lot like Tobermory, another less than stellar sherried malt.
Many 12 year old sherried malts would deliver equally well, if not better: GlenDronach 12 comes to mind.
. . .
What did Roger think?
He liked the funky finish of barnyard and spoilt sherry. He said it was distinctly French and something uncouth Anglophones like me could not understand. That's ok, I am content to listen to a Francophile, hailing from Lancashire, spout forth, as I smoke his last Cuban. I can be bought, just not cheaply. So can Keith, our Chinese Canadian friend, who takes another swig of Saint-Émilion vin. We can even endure some more Suzanne Vega, if need be.
Nose (undiluted)
I detect a sweet nose of sherry that is a distinct signature of this blend. With the sherry sweetness is also some peat, wood smoke and anise.
Palate (undiluted)
Sherry red fruits, sweet grains that meld with fennel, anise and hickory wood smoke.
General Impressions
In this category, I am impressed. The grain whiskies are not bitter or overly sweet. They are counter-balanced by the peated malt of the Glenturret Distillery. Nothing offensive here and the smoky backbone underneath the sherry body keeps reeling you in for another sip!
I was at a whisky tasting last night in Jarge's backyard and there was a brand new, unopened, bottle of Lagavulin 8 years, courtesy of whisky dawg Ken. He picked it up in Manchester, New Hampshire for $50 on sale (normally retails for $65-$70).
Any single malt under ten years of age makes me shiver. Scotch needs time in the cask to soften it up. A lot of time is needed to tame the bite of the white dog, the smoke, the peat and iodine of the sea when dealing with Islay. So, I viewed this recent release from the Lagavulin distillery with some trepidation. I wanted it to be good because I like and respect the 16 year old so much. But, bottling whisky from the same distillery at half the age? That is fraught with danger!
Bottled at ABV 48% made me think this is gonna be really strong and in need of water. It was aged in refill ex-bourbonAmerian oak casks. European oak aging is also reported too.
Holding the glass up, I notice it is very pale which to me suggests no artificial coloring, but apparently this is not true. I have read that it is colored with E150. Oh well, you purists can stop reading now, but for the rest of whisky tramps, read on!
From the first sip I was hooked. It may be 48% ABV but sure was smooth like the coat of a well groomed Doberman, without the bite. While it was peated and smoked with mackerel notes, there were also intriguing dark red fruits making an appearance. Complexity abounds. There is a sweetness of the smoke and iodine that intertwines with dark plum, fig and even some citrus notes. I added water, maybe a little too much on a second glass and kinda diluted it a bit too much. Water should be administered in drops.
This is a great place for a novice wondering about Islay whiskies. It is also a great place for a mangy old whisky dawg like me.
At half the price or lower than the 16, Lagavulin 8 years is highly recommended!
In his book, the Whisky Bible 2016, Jim Murray declares Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye to be the "World Whisky of the Year." Another quote of Mr. Murray's praise for this Canadian whisky:
"To say this is a masterpiece is barely doing it justice."
Being Canadian, I was proud and at the same time dismayed because I was happy Canadian whisky was getting international recognition, but worried about the source of the attention.
Jim Murray has a history of making baffling selections for best whisky. In 2013, he awarded Sullivans Cove French Oak Cask the best single malt of the Southern Hemisphere. A whisky that several members of my whisky club purchased and decided was the worst whisky they ever tasted period. I found it to be terrible. A bizarre selection we thought.
In 2011, he assessed Ballantine's Finest 17 year old blended Scotch to be the best whisky in the world, even better than all world single malts. I do not have a problem with a blend being declared better than a single malt, indeed Hibiki 17 or 21 yrs is a prime example of a blended whisky that beats out the vast majority of single malts in its price range, but for Ballantine's to beat all whiskies, I found that hard to accept. I bought a bottle and wrote about my disappointment: here.
So, here we are again, he has selected a Crown Royal release, Northern Harvest Rye, to be the best world whisky for 2016.
It is that good?
Jason, have you tried it?
Jason, are you going to review it?
In the past week, I have probably received about fifty such emails. This blog gets about 75,000 hits a month and has had 3.7 million hits to date, and guess what they are all looking for? As of late, a review of Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye. It does not matter that the whole concept of best whisky in the world is absurd, people want to know if this selection is any good? You want to know, and you know what? I want to know! So, I bought two bottles.
Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye
Category
Blended Canadian Whisky
Price
$35 (in Canada)
ABV
45%
Age
No information is available with respect to the constituent whiskies. If I had to guess I would say a lot of younger (ie. 3-6yrs) whiskies are present.
Nose (undiluted)
Rye toast, copper pennies, cinnamon, damp wood.
Palate (undiluted)
Initial spicy and crusty rye bread notes grip the palate, raw ginger, brown sugar.
Finish (undiluted)
More ginger, oak, tingling winter mint, fine black pepper milled to powder and then waves of rye return, and a wee little heat.
General Impressions
Upon opening this bottle two nights ago, I found this whisky tasting young, untame and a little raw. The following night, it was the same. Tonight, it has smoothed out a fair bit and is drinking gentler. Oxidation can be a good thing.
Adding water doesn't improve the flavor profile. Just smooths it out. While it is 45% ABV, it is not strong or over the top with rye flavors.
I think for $35 you are getting fair value for money. I think it is not a great whisky because it lacks great complexity. The flavors are not simple, but not sufficiently refined to make me sit back in awe, as some other whiskies have done. Really, for a whisky to be great in my eyes, it has to exhibit amazing complexity that leaves you blissed out. It's not happening here. There are the beginnings of complexity but only the beginnings. And again, I do not find this whisky to be what I would call refined.
In my video review of last night, I observed the whisky tasted young and raw. Tonight, it is more tame with time in the bottle and some extra air in there. Still not knocking my socks off.
What really bothers me about Jim Murray's assessment of this whisky being the best in the world is that it will turn a lot of people off from the Canadian whisky category. People will think that if this is the best of the Canadian whisky category, they will pass on trying any others. That would be a mistake. There are a lot of truly great Canadian whiskies like:
(1) Wiser's Legacy
(2) Canadian Club 20 years is a very fine Canadian whisky for $60! Complexity abounds in the flavors and never offensive. Highly recommended and far superior to Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye.
(3) Gibson's Finest 18is classic Canadian whisky, smooth, totally inoffensive, but with some substance. Price is sharking up though. I still think it is a great example of Canadian whisky.
Alberta Premium Dark Horse
The availability of Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye is going to be a problem for most of you reading this review. I was fortunate to get a couple of bottles due to sheer perseverance with a certain retailer. But, what do you do if you can't get a bottle and still seek a nice Canadian rye of similar quality and price point? Please consider Alberta Premium Dark Horse.
Category
Canadian Blended Whisky
Price
$30 (in Canada)
ABV
45%
Age
No age statement on bottle label, but we do know that Dark Horse is comprised of 12 year old rye whisky and 6 year old small pot rye. Added to this is an 8% dollop of aged corn whisky and actual sherry wine has been added to the blend. Very high rye content overall. Aged in heavily charred American white oak barrels.
Nose (undiluted)
Dusty roses, black berries, cherries, very floral, raspberries.
Palate (undiluted)
Robust rye bread wrapped in sherry and prunes (in a good way), orange peel, red licorice and dried figs and strong brown sugar. French roast coffee beans and cognac notes. Nice!
Finish (undiluted)
Long lingering old port/cognac notes drying across the palate coupled with powder dry sherry.
General Impressions
The flavors are deeper, with notes of brown sugar, port, sherry, and of course plenty of rye, but the rye is swaddled in the aforementioned flavors that makes it truly interesting and very comforting at the same time. The price and great quality make this what Teacher's Highland Cream once was to blended Scotch, great value/bargain blend.
No need to add water. Great stuff!
In a match-up with Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye, I am going to grab Dark Horse every time, save $5 and enjoy better flavors.
I ran into Davin de Kergommeaux at a recent whisky festival. He is the leading authority on Canadian whisky and if you want to learn more, please visit his website: http://www.canadianwhisky.org/ You will get plenty of ideas in your exploration of Canadian whisky and learn that this spirit is no longer simply the smooth cocktail mix of your parent's 1970s toga parties.
Cheers!
Jason Debly
P.S. Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye is no masterpiece of whisky. For a masterpiece, see my next review.
The typical whisky review starts with the writer trotting out a brief biography of a colorful founder, followed by a quaint history of the distillery, which invariably involves a fire, valiant reconstruction, and a succession of owners that reads like the biblical lineage of the House of David. After the scintillating history lesson, the author veers, as if Stevie Wonder is behind the wheel, into a geography lecture involving an explanation of how the heather adorned landscape, peat bogs and the water running through impacts the flavor profile of the whisky, a narrative that deep down you know it is about as reliable as consulting an astrologer with respect to your love life. Eventually, the whisky critic may move into some utterly confusing technical geek speak about the special steps in distillation and types of cask wood, which frankly, nobody cares about (other than engineers. They always want to know how things work). Finally, we get to the tasting note, which is where we wanted to be in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with the above convention of writing, other than it gets stale mighty quick. I, like many others, am guilty of such fallen cake, yesterday's forgotten donut, style of whisky writing. So, lately I've been trying to stretch the genre a little. I will take ideas from anywhere that spur unusualapproaches to a whisky review and try and run with it. Let's introduce some yeast to the old unleavened writing recipe.
It is interesting how random thoughts lead to other random thoughts that lead to a new way to write about whisky or lead to more random thoughts that lead to very confusing and nonsensical blog posts. My penchant for following my thoughts in absurd directions happened earlier this week when I was in my old college library (pictured above), on a noon hour to do a little work related research. But, once in the library my mind meandered from the reason I was there to a place long ago.
For a couple of years, oh hell twenty odd years or so, basically since I was a student last, in the dark recesses of my mind, I have been haunted by a damn good poem. No! Not of the Andrew Dice Clay variety that were circulating my peers dorm rooms (even I have more class than that).
Back in the mid-1980's, when Belinda Carlisle was a hottie about whom I had impure thoughts, I was in the library ostensibly to write an overdue essay. So, with the Dewey decimal call numbers of some books scrawled on a piece of paper, I and my armload of musty tomes, collapsed into a leather wingback chair in a quiet corner of the library.
Rather than crack open a book and start reading, I, a 5th degree black belt master of procrastination, noticed a couple of volumes on a little table. The remains of some other student's abandoned essay research, no doubt. Modern American poetry books. And what pray tell was my interest in poetry? Nil, nada, non, zilch, zero. But! It beats getting to the task at hand, namely reading some texts for my essay.
As I read, most of the poems were either too hard to understand, downright bizarre, monstrously boring, or snorefests that would cure one's dependence on Ambien. So, what did I do? Yes, that's right! I kept on reading. Finally, I stumble upon a poem that was amazing. It's about this couple walking through a town fair. They are young, in love, yeah it is a little sappy, but well done. I think the poem was called "The Fair" or "Town Fair" by Katherine Anne Porter or Anne Porter. I tried to make a mental note, and thought I will have to copy that poem down and refer to it again.
Years pass, my procrastination abilities well honed, until one day I decide to do a Google search for that poem. The search is a failure. I can't find the poem, and I am unsure which of the two Ms. Porters' wrote it. But, my Google search does lead to an interesting website with a poem by Anne Porter. The interesting little website is called the 'Poem Elf.' The premise of the blog is quite inventive. The lady running the site likes straightforward poetry that one can understand on the first read, and then she likes to tape hard copies of poems on trees in a park, a storefront, park bench, etc. You see, she writes:
"Poem Elf was born out of two inclinations: I like poems and I like secret tricks. The mystery of a poem and elfin mischief come together as I loiter about until I can post these poems in secret around my mid-western city and wherever else I may be.
I am neither a poet nor a scholar. My tastes are pretty simple. I like poems I can comprehend on the first reading and understand over a lifetime. These posted poems are intended for everyone, not just for those few who own a shelf’s length of chapbooks, but also for those who last read a poem on a graduation card.
And what happens to each poem after I leave? Perhaps it lands in a trashcan, pulled down from a wall by an amused janitor; or it’s blown away from its scotch tape fastenings, picked up by a bird, and woven expertly into a nest; or raked into a leaf pile and composted, helping things grow in a different way than I had intended; or shoved in a back pocket, forgotten, and balled up in the wash; or, my best hope, tucked in a stranger’s wallet, pulled out from time to time, each reading bringing an expansion of sorts, each reading taken in like a drink to quench the deep thirst we all have for meaning and beauty."
What an inventive way to promote poetry and enjoy that fine hobby!
So, the Poem Elf got me thinking that maybe there is space in this world for even more elfin mischief: Whisky Elf! I could print off some tasting notes of various whiskies, armed with masking tape, post them in secret around my town. You know, I could visit the local park and tape my tasting note of Highland Park 18yrs to a tree, and maybe the note would resonate with someone and they would go buy a bottle, read the note as they tasted it. Maybe I could post a tasting note of Oban 14 years in a retail garden center, maybe on the pot of peonies, or on the windshield of a car at a dealership and the customer would take the note, buy a bottle and be as enthused as I. Or maybe the customer would call the police, claiming this public enemy number one is promoting alcohol among our youth. An investigation of public mischief and charges of crimes against the public morals would be laid. The criminal inquiry would start with determining who are the usual suspects that would create such a public disturbance and corrupt the morals of the local population? Hmm the coppers would think . . . who could it be? Before I know it, I would find myself, in a basement interrogation room with a naked light bulb paired with a lone mosquito buzzing around it while a burly officer, who looked like he walked off the label of a bottle of Beefeater Gin, would stare at me with folded arms. With his first question, I'd collapse like a folding chair at the beach into a fevered confession. At sentencing, the judge would shut this blog down, I would lose my job and be the scourge (okay, a bigger scourge) of my local town, that would prove once and for all that my community is indeed dripping in Victorian drool.
So, I abandoned the idea of being the "Whisky Elf" of my town, having followed the logic of my above noted random thoughts. Instead, I will continue to just write with elfin attitude, and a mind attuned to new possibilities as to how to bring more people into contact with whisky. Whether it be a conversation with Big Bird in Central Park or me acting as a commentator of a whisky death match, just remember, I am trying to stretch and reinvent the whisky writing genre in an effort to bring more people into our little world.
Let's think about the Olympics for a moment. How are medals awarded? Gold for first place. Just ask Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps. Silver for second. Yup! Keep goin'. Yes, bronze for third place. If you place fourth, fifth, etc, well you get nothing. That's competition right? Well, maybe in the Olympics and some other competitive sports, but not when it comes to how medals are handed out by the International Wine and Spirits Competition (hereafter referred to as the IWSC).
Not so, says the IWSC. This body awards multiple medals in the same category. Huh? Multiple medals? You mean a couple of silvers and bronzes? Yup! How can that be if there is only one second place finish and only one third place finish? I am not sure it can be, but this is what the IWSC are doing. For example, in the category, 2010 Scotch whisky - Blended - No-Age-Stated, there were the following medalists:
Highland Earl Blended Scottish Whisky - Gold Best in Class
Dewar's White Label - Gold Medal
Clan Gold - Silver Medal Matisse Old Blended Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Label 5 Classic Black - Silver Medal Black Bottle - Silver Medal Scottish Leader Standard - Silver Medal Scottish Leader Supreme - Silver Medal Ballantine's Finest - Silver Medal Grant's Family Reserve - Silver Medal Co-op Finest Blend Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Black and White Choice Old Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Haig Gold Label Original Blended Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Vat 69 Finest Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Hankey Bannister Blended Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal Waitrose In Partnership with Blended Malt Scotch Whisky - Silver Medal
William Lawson's - Bronze Medal Tesco Special Reserve Scotch Whisky - Bronze Medal Queen Margot Scotch Whisky - Bronze Medal J & B Rare - Bronze Medal White Horse Fine Old Blended Scotch Whisky - Bronze Medal
By my count, there were two gold medalists, fourteen silver medalists and five bronze medalists! Makes no sense to me. Often 'winners' at the IWSC will make prominent reference to the 'medals' won in their advertising. I say 'beware.' When a whisky or scotch is bestowed 'gold,' 'silver' and 'bronze' medals, one should realize that their 'achievement' is not the same as the gold medals of Michael Phelps or Mark Spitz. Phelps and Spitz had the best times in their competitive swimming. They were the fastest. They were the best. The same cannot be said of a whisky that wins 'gold' while another wins 'double gold' or one whisky is awarded 'silver' while fourteen other 'competitors' also got silver.
Who is the IWSC?
Visit their website and you will read:
"The Competition is backed by a group of vice presidents made up of the most influential men and women in the trade, including Baroness Philippine de Rothschild, Miguel Torres, Marchese Piero Antinori, Robert Drouhin, Robert Mondavi, May de Lencquesaing, Kenneth Graham and Sir Anthony Greener. Frances Horder, Competition Director, explains why the great and the good of the industry support The Competition above all other competitions.
The Competition has the support of many of the world's top wine and spirits producers, because we strive to set the international benchmark for quality. The unique combination of detailed technical analysis and specialist judging panels means that gaining any Competition award is an outstanding achievement. Our focus is to communicate the value of our medals to retailers, restaurateurs and consumers in every major market. Our vice presidents are now working closely with us through our new Advisory Board to bring increasing international awareness."
(emphasis added)
So, I guess we take away fromt the above passage that the IWSC is heavily funded by the wine and spirits producers of the world. It will also come as no surprise that the same industry heavy weights have representatives who serve as judges. I should point out that there were some lay judges, but they numbered 20 and there were 164 trade judges.
Bearing all of the above in mind, I think you now can draw your own conclusions about medalists of the IWSC. So, returning to the question posed by this post, I would say, you would be best served by ignoring any marketing puffery on the part of any distiller or blender declaring to be a medalist of the IWSC.
Cheers!
Jason Debly
P.S.: Frankly, anybody who would award medals to Ballantine's Finest and J&B Rare, but not to Teacher's Highland Cream has no credibility with me anyway. A reader of the blog also pointed out that it is ridiculous for Ballantine's and Dewars White Label to rank higher than White Horse.
Above is a picture of my favorite shoes. They are old, beat up, worn, cracked, soft leather that fit perfectly. My wife has delicately suggested I not wear them to work. I think she would also rejoice if I decided to toss them out. That will never happen. I like them because they are so damn comfortable!
Nose (undiluted)
Very sherried. Not particularly elegant. Let’s hope it tastes more exceptional than what is presented on the nose.
Palate (undiluted)
Quite sherried. Lightly spiced. Rich, sweet, red fruits like strawberries and red currants. Very light peat. Medium bodied.
Finish (undiluted)
Some somewhat dry sherry, raisins and cloves linger a decent amount of time. Finally, there is a zing of burnt toast with strawberry jam and some rasberries. Oak is there too. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Nose (diluted)
Addition of water makes the aromas less sherried and more floral. Maybe dandelions.
Palate (diluted)
More creamy. The sherried flavors still dominate, but less so.
Finish (diluted)
Flavors linger much less with water added. Sherry flavor still there but transitions to carmelized onions that usually fry up to go with your Saturday evening barbecue steak. A flavor that neither adds nor detracts to the over all tasting. In general, I prefer drinking this single malt without water.
Value for Money
Great low price! At least where I live, this is probably one of the lowest priced 12 year old single malts. It delivers rich flavor, red fruits, oak and some complexity of flavor. A good choice for the scotch newbie and the tramp (that would be me).
General Impressions
When I first tasted GlenDronach, I regarded it as an average, middle of the road, girl next door, 12 year old single malt. Not bad, but not great. The flavor profile is straight forward . . . or so I thought. A little complexity mid-palate when you taste the crunch of burnt toast and strawberry jam. But! Upon subsequent tastings it really started to grow on me and I started to unlock some complexity of flavor.
It’s smooth, tremendously easy drinking, coupled with a low price, makes it attractive. No bite or bitterness on the palate. Easy to like. Not grainy and basically not offensive in any fashion. No towering peat and smoke either that is generally not a hit with the novice scotch fan.
Over all, I am happy with this recent purchase. A very consistent taste from opening to the last drop. This represents good value for money. When you just want a nice scotch while you watch the game or chill out in the backyard after a long day, this works well. I wouldn’t pull this out for your scotch fan or the father-in-law you seek to impress. This is a “go-to” economy 12 year old single malt for the budget minded person seeking a decent single malt with a flavor profile that is familiar yet interesting. Comfort food. That’s what this scotch is. Just like my old pair of shoes that I just can’t stand the thought of parting with.
In the classic 1971 film, Dirty Harry, Clint Eastwood's character, Harry Callahan, utters one of the most famous lines in the history of cinema:
". . . you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?"
"Well, do ya punk?"
My answer would be: "Yeah! I do because I received a great email the other day."
Here it is:
Jason,
Just wanted to drop you a quick line thanking you for being a beacon of refreshment in the otherwise pretentious laden arena of scotch reviewing.
Within the past month or so, I have delved into the wonderful world of scotch - primarily driven by the direction of my professional life (got tired of being the odd man out when it came time for a dram as my earliest memories of scotch was back in high school when me and a buddy sneaked some of his father's one night - needless to say it was a mess and I never had tried to recover from it).
As I started looking into the various distilleries, types, ages, etc - my eyes glazed, then went bloodshot trying to figure everything out. So I figured the best approach would be to read reviews... I figured that if I could find a "generally accepted" scotch that, that is where I should start.
Well, after reading, oh I don't know, about 150 reviews - all which used terms like "hints of silicone, leather, and blackmary (is that even anything?)" My eyes started to glaze over again.
I finally got a foothold after going to a local liquor store and speaking with an employee. He started me on a sample box of small JW black, gold, and blue. It took a while to get through them, but as I did - I found your blog and have used it as a rough guide and it has truly served me well. The reviews just plain makes sense and I seem to have a similar tastes. I now have a very rudimentary understanding of locations and distilleries and also feel that I am starting to appreciate all the varying subtleties that lay within the drink.
Now that I am about 6 different bottles in I am really starting to enjoy the process and more importantly the taste of scotch.
Thanks again,
Chandler
. . .
When I receive an email like that, I do feel lucky. Hell, it "makes my day" (to borrow another well worn Eastwood line from another one of his films: Sudden Impact). It validates the experience I went through when I first started to develop an interest in whisky. It is also exciting to meet someone who is starting to develop a keen interest in whisky!
I will receive an email of this nature every couple of months, which means that readers have a need for scotch whisky (and other whiskies of the world) to be de-mystified. We are not talking rocket science here. It's all about likes and dislikes . . . your likes and dislikes. My aim is to get you to trust your own judgment!
Read scotch reviews on the web and out of books, but if a reviewer consistently praises whiskies that you dislike, then stop reading his or her reviews. Their tastes are not congruent with your own. Find a reviewer's whose tastes match your's. In my case, I find that I agree mostly with the reviews of the late whisky expert, Michael Jackson (not the late entertainer who needed a check-up from the neck up). Conversely, I do not agree with many of the scotch reviews of Jim Murray, the world's current, best selling whisky authority. Hence, I don't bother to read his reviews. Mr. Murray is an enormous fan of the Ardbeg distillery. Clearly, he enjoys the peat bombs. While I like peat in scotch, it is not the most important aspect of the flavor profile.
Anyway, you get my drift. If my reviews and recommendations miss the mark for you, tell me so, and stop reading them. Find a reviewer who can provide a road map of sorts during the scotch whisky journey that you are a part of. Don't let some snobby SOB (how's that for alliteration!) in your workplace or at the golf club make your purchasing decisions for you. Have faith in your own judgment.
My only caveat would be that over time, it is very possible that your tastes will evolve. Be open to other points of view, but not dogmatically accepting them.
Until next time . . .
Cheers!
Jason Debly
Photo Credit: Screenshot from the DVD version of the 1971 film Dirty Harry, extracted from Harry's infamous "do ya feel lucky" monologue
Before I started this blog, I would conduct a little online research regarding single malts or blends that I was considering buying. I am sure you, as I have, purchased a scotch or other whisky, took it home, poured a dram, had a sip, and quickly realized the purchase was a huge mistake.
During my research, I quickly discovered that all single malts and blends are glorious. None were bad, poor, weak, etc. They were all just a great ray of sunshine. How can that be? Well, it can't be. I can appreciate that I might dislike intensely a whisky that you like a great deal. I have no problem with that. We all have our respective likes and dislikes. What I have a problem with are reviewers or sites with whisky reviews that praise all whiskies, finding no fault in any. That, I say is impossible. So, how do I explain this peculiar phenomenon?
Here's my theory.
Free Samples
A lot of the whisky bloggers are posting reviews of the latest releases from distilleries. Some of these whisky releases are very expensive. How do they do it? Simple, they don't. I mean they do not purchase the whisky. They are supplied free samples by the distiller or more properly by the multinational company that owns them, and asked to do a review. That's like Pablo Escobar handing a kilo of cocaine to Keith Richards and asking him for his thoughts!
In my view, the trouble with free whisky samples is that it will taint the ability of the reviewer to provide an impartial opinion. You can't be a little bit pregnant. If I take a free bottle or whatever, there is a pressure on me to write a positive review or at least take a bad whisky and put a positive spin on it as much as possible or downplay what I dislike. If a reviewer writes too many negative reviews, he or she jeopardizes access to freebies in the future, as well as invites to exclusive tastings, etc.
So, I asked a couple of these reviewers what their thoughts were and they said I was wrong. They said that they could give unbiased reviews. Hmmm. I don't buy it. When I posted comments on this subject on other blogs, the bloggers often deleted my comments. If I posted a comment that I didn't agree with their review of a whisky, my comment got deleted. There were some exceptions but not many. All of this makes me wonder if some apparently amateur whisky blogs are not actually owned or heavily subsidized by industry players. I wonder. I also find it very interesting where one blogger seems to have multiple websites and presence on Youtube with respect to his/her reviews. Why so many sites. How about just one? Are you in this for the money or for the whisky?
The Multinationals
Whisky is big business. A multi-billion dollar business. Marketing is extremely important to maintaining and/or expanding market share. These multinational drinks companies have no problem supplying free samples to reviewers, inviting them to dinner, maybe paying their expenses to travel to a tasting or even be a consultant for one of their distilleries (it has happened to one reviewer). It is perfectly legal for these companies to do that. There is nothing wrong with marketing by whatever means. I think they are trying to encourage "organic" marketing on the internet, create a "buzz" that causes people to buy their product. Hey, that's fair for them. I am a capitalist too. Go for it!
The trouble for you and I though is that we don't get the straight goods on the merits and flaws of a whisky if the reviews we read are by reviewers who lack impartiality. So, when reading another blog or website, how can we tell the reviews or idiotic ramblings (especially true in the case of myself) are of a total outsider of the industry or a person who is very much a part of the industry or essentially "in bed" with the whisky industry?
Here are some tell-tale signs:
Reviews of very expensive scotch or other whiskies that are beyond the wallet of the average consumer. One blog reviewer was reviewing a bottle that cost nearly $1,000.00.;
The reviewer is travelling all over the world to whisky tastings in the trendiest places and have the professional photos to back it up.
The reviewer seems to review a different whisky for each day of the week. Something the average joe cannot afford.
The website is so slick that you think you are in the embrace of a used car salesman.
There are no negative whisky reviews!!!!!!!!!!!!
So where am I in all this?
Do I make money off this blog? Ahh no. To date, nearly a year online, Google owes me a grand total of $9.42. I am not in this for the money. Money is generated when a visitor clicks on the advertising. For example, Amazon has an ad for whisky books on this blog. If you click on that ad, I will earn around one cent. Yup, you read that correctly.
Anyway, that is my rant for this evening. I hope I do not sound to holier-than-thou or sanctimonious because that is not the intent.
Readers, if you read any review on this blog that you do not agree with, fill your boots and give me an earful. I will not delete your comment. The only exception is for libelous or profane comments.
Ok that is the rant for tonight. Comments? Please, I welcome them.
Now, I need a drink!
Cheers!
Jason
P.S. I guess the bottom line is that you have to consider the perspective of the person writing the review. What is their association with the whisky industry?
I know that the title of my blog is "Jason's Scotch Reviews." Nevertheless, I do add in the occasional review of another spirit when it is truly remarkable and I suspect my readers might be interested. Mount Gay Rum is such a spirit worthy of note.
Remember that All-Inclusive Caribbean Resort . . .
You know how you go down to Barbados, Jamaica, St. Lucia or another Caribbean island resort and find the rum and coke or rum based mixed drinks taste so much better than back home, and you can't figure it out because when you get back home, you buy the Bacardis or the Captain Morgan or whatever, make up your drink and it doesnt taste the same and you are dumbfounded and disappointed. Well, the reason for it is not the sunshine, the sandy beach, bath water temperature ocean at your feet and that hot tourist looking at you longingly. The reason is the rum. The rum you are drinking "down de island mon" is Mount Gay, mon, made from sugar cane, processed into molasses, aged in bourbon casks and served up in your drink. And guess what? They sell it in the United States. You just have to look for it, and if you are a little insecure, have a heart to heart with yourself and acknowledge that the name of this splendid spirit has no bearing on your sexual orientation.
Not Well Known in North America
This is not a well known rum in North America mainly due, I suspect, to a lack of advertising. In fact, I cannot recall any advertisements in the media. While it is not a bestseller, it is, without a doubt, a superior rum to all of its peers, without exception, and I am not exaggerating. People who know rum quickly acknowledge that it is very, very good. More people would drink it if it was more widely available. Needless to say, I am a huge fan of this rum, and the aim of this review is to convince you to try it.
A Message to the Rum Drinkers
I have a number of friends who identify themselves as principally, rum drinkers. A badge of honor of sorts, much like scotch and wine nuts, a category that I fall into. These rum drinking friends of mine are "Bacardi" or "Captain Morgan" drinkers or some other popular brand that have advertising campaigns that centre on pirate themes (a theme that struck fear into the hearts or should I say bowels of men during the last century, now seem to impress us). When I tell these guys they should try "Mount Gay" there is usually a snicker followed by some locker room reply like "sure, tinkerbell, I'll get right on that." So, I usually bring a bottle along to these neighborhood barbecues where the testosterone is coursing through the air much like fists flying at an Irish wake (ok, a little politically incorrect, but I am Irish, so I can make the dig). Matter of fact, I mixed one of these guys a rum and coke, handed it to him and said "drink! youfool" (complete with the Mr. T enunciation). He accepted it because it was free. A couple of swigs and he was nodding his approval. "Smooth, man, smooth. . ." He would be reaching for other words but not finding them. So, let me try. . .
Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself . . .
Mount Gay Eclipse Rum is produced in Barbados and this distiller claims quite legitimately to be one of the oldest rum producers in the world. This is indeed true. Rum has been produced for over 300 hundred years in the northern part of the island. Matter of fact, a Lieutenant William Gay and Ensign Abel Gay, back in 1663, bought a parcel of land in northern Barbados that came to be known as the "St. Lucy Estate." Since 1703, rum has been produced continuously from sugar cane, spring water and molasses. It is the sugar cane that gives it a very distinctive and inviting flavor that simply cannot be replicated by the big multinational conglomerates.So, now let's turn to the task at hand. A tasting note if you will:
Suggested Serving
In a nice crystal tumbler with some heft to it, mix yourself a double rum and coke. You might not be accustomed to mixing doubles (so do let me introduce you) as this rum is so smooth that you can luxuriate in the flavors without any and I mean any "bite" that you would normally associate with a double rum. So, indulge me on this point. You will thank me later.
Nose
Normally, rum is not known for being particularly friendly to the nose. Usually one has a fear of acetone inhallation. This rum does smell of alcohol, but beyond that there is some pleasing fragrance to be had. Some vanilla on the nose is what I detect.
Palate
Take in a generous mouthful, hold it for a sec, and you will experience very smooth and sweet vanilla flavors complimenting the classic rum notes of this wonderful drink. You will detect some oak, molasses and sugar cane.
Finish
And now for the grand finale, you swallow. Your brain tells you that you made a double and now you must brace yourself for the "bite" of the alcohol. Though you may brace yourself, the "bite" never comes. In its' place will be silky waves of more sweet vanilla/oak tinged rum that is swallowed. You will be emotionally transported back to that all-inclusive resort where you last tasted a rum and coke this wonderful.Having downed the drink, there is no accompanying burn or heat, just the faintest embers of warmth (like the camp fire on the sandy beach), and the flavor is gone, leaving you with the enviable task of considering when to take another drink.
General Impressions
When I drink this rum, I am impressed by how smooth and totally inoffensive this rum is. Words like "silk", "refined" and "polished" seem most appropriate. You can pour your drinks very strong yet, they are smooth and still no bite. That is how smooth it is.It was only two weekends ago that I introduced my friend to this rum at the barbecue and a week later he sheepishly told me he picked up a bottle until his wife piped up and said "I had to go in and buy it. He made me. Next time he can buy it and I will take a marker and change the "G" in Gay to a "B" so that his buddies will think he is drinking 'Mount Bay". In that way his manhood remains intact."
Bottom Line
Buy this rum. You will not be disappointed. I normally do not like rum, but I make an exception for this one. Buy it!
I bought a bottle of Old Pulteney 12 yr single malt Scotch tonight because I had read a lot of positive comments about it on a couple of whiskey website forums that I participate on. Moreover, Jim Murray, whisky authority, wrote that this whisky is "unashamedly excellent and deserves so much more recognition around the world." I had to decide for myself whether or not this single malt scotch is deserving of such praise.
Palate (undiluted)
Salty taste of the foaming sea, lemon rind, rosewood, a hint of Ocean Spray Cranberry Cocktail, faint oak.
Finish (undiluted)
Short but interesting. Notes of bacon, mackerel, kippers but rhubarb too, ginger and lemon again.
General Impressions
The lasting impression of drinking this is that of sea water. Just not very interesting. Simple in a word. It may be somewhat intriguing for some in terms of this sea salt based flavor profile which finishes with some lemon and a cleansing saline zest. Not what I would call a complex single malt. This whisky is decent and reminds me of what comes out of Scapa. Frequently on sale and that is when you want to grab it.
In terms of the praise for this scotch, it is not deserved, and I think Mr. Murray was given to a little hyperbole when he described this whisky as "unashamedly excellent." It's 'good' but not 'excellent.' The flavors offered up are different than what is encountered in most other single malts, but, as I said above, the problem is that it is not complex and at times one thinks they are just drinking salt water out of the bottom of a beached boat.
P.S. While I am not a huge fan of this single malt, one of my regular readers is. Adam's positive review is available by clicking here.
Ballantines Finest is the oldest in the product line of this Scottish blender of whisky. It all started back in 1827, where an enterprising gentleman, George Ballantine, opened up a grocery store and started selling some whisky (not his creation). Eventually, he let his son take over while he set up an establishment in Glasgow that did feature his own blends. Within his lifetime he was supplying the Royal Family. Ballantines Finest that you can drink today is based on a blending recipe from those days.Today, Ballantines is very popular in Europe and Asia. In addition, BallantinesFinest has won some awards. In the International Spirits Challenge: 2006 Gold; 2005 Silver; and in the International Wine and Spirit Competition: 2006 Silver; 2005 Bronze. That said, generally, serious connosieurs of scotch do not like this blend because they consider it rather uninteresting, boring, bland. More about such observations later.
Suggested Serving
This blended whisky is so gentle and sweet that the addition of ice, in order to mellow out any roughness or burn that is common with cheaply priced whiskies, is not necessary. However, if you like a little ice, I would suggest a single ice cube.
Nose (undiluted)
Cheap and malty. No peat whatsoever.
Palate (undiluted)
Very sweet like a bowl full of Splenda or NutraSweet mixed with grain alcohol. Terribly grainy.
Finish (undiluted)
Smooth. No rough edges here. No burn or excess heat. Just horribly sweet, with bad malty flavors that fortunately disappear from the palate quickly but not quick enough from one's memory.
Add Water! Tasted neat, this blended scotch whisky is too sweet and grainy. Add a teaspoon of water and it will greatly reduce that grainy character and add a nice malty note to the flavor profile. How much water? Try a teaspoon to a 1 and half ounce shot.
General Impressions
On a hot summer day, this will work very well as a key ingredient in a mixed drink. Alternatively, over ice it will prove to be barely tolerable.
This is bottom shelf blended scotch. In that price range Ballantines Finest is a step above the likes of Whyte & Mackay, J&B or Jameson (no age statement). But that's not saying much. This is nowhere near the best economy blend. In the category of blended scotch (no age statement) Teacher's Highland Cream and Johnnie Walker Red are better buys.
The chief defect that prevent this blend from being a decent one is due to a flavour profile that is far too sweet to the point of being like corn syrup and overall the flavour profile (very grainy at times), while interesting initially, soon can become boring for someone seeking intriguing flavours. For those who like a lot of peat notes in their scotch, BallantinesFinest will disappoint. What it does offer is an inoffensive, very sweet/grainy dram that will serve as a gateway to great blended scotch. If you are new to scotch, this may be pleasing to you. Drink it, make notes and then move on to better stuff. When you progress to superior blends (ie. Teacher's, White Horse, Chivas 12, etc.) refer to your notes and you will soon realize how dreadful Ballantines Finest is. Cheers!
