MrWizard's Ramblings

I’ve been reviewing a lot of samples that are or not related to tastings for a while now. It’s been a long-ish time since I’ve wrote about what is living on my shelf currently and quite a few things there need an overview so that I’m able to finally catch up and not feel too guilty about not mentioning them. Bottles have feelings too ya know!

Cragganmore 1997 Distiller’s Edition, 2012 Port Cask
Link to someone else’s review: https://thewhiskyphi … dition-bottled-2010/
Oh boy, it’s been so long since I wrote about my shelf that this bottle is almost empty now… Perhaps it’s a testament of my enjoyment of this style. I made no secrets of liking red wine finish on single malt and this one is port wine finish. A little bit about this bottle, it’s been distilled in 1997 and then bottled in 2010 as part of Diageo’s “Distiller’s Edition” line. The older style and bottling makes this a bit of a dusty bottle which is great for me. While spirits do not age in the bottles further, the distillation year has a huge impact on overall source quality of the malt and it could be argued that the average quality for newer distilled spirits have been slowly lowering itself as mass market demands more and more quantity without much of a concern for quality. End Rant.
This is deliciously red port wine forward and highly malty on the nose. The palate is very sweet, has a teeny bit of smoke notes, but they are barely noticeable. Has a luscious viscosity in the mouth… and is almost a let-down on the mouthfeel… with 40% abv it’s just too watery, the palate starts amazing… and then sorta falls through into flatness. Thanks Obama Diageo! The aftertaste has notes of ginger spice, malt, sweet red port wine, some honey and is great. If this would have been a 43% or 46% abv, it would have been amazing… As is… it’s a great, highly complex, dessert whiskey that is somewhat let down by its low proof, though I could concede that it may become too sweet if proof is higher.
Score: B

Balvenie 14, Caribbean Cask (Recent Bottling)
Before I start, I wanted to note that this is the more recent bottling of Caribbean Cask which could be different from older ones by having a tan-colored label vs the older ones that were printed on white paper. Is there a difference? It’s hard to tell since I don’t really have a side by side comparison to compare and it’s been years since I had the older one.
I’ll give you a short version here… I’m a fan of Balvenie spirit. This was aged in bourbon casks and then finished in rum casks to amp the sweetness up. This is fantastic intro single malt for anyone that’s interested and should be all around crowd-pleaser. Rum cask finish gives this sweetness, and balvenie is vanilla oak, matly, slightly spicy and for the lack of better phrasing… ‘clean’ spirit. If you’re a fan of sweet non-smoky and non-sherried malts this is right up your alley. Could this be a little more interesting? Sure. But this is a general release from the core range that’s been around for years now, this is about as good as it gets its market space.
Score: B

Glen Grant (GlenGrant) 15, Batch 1
For some inexplicable reason the distillery name is written as one word on a lot of packaging.
This review will concern their 15 year old bottling that’s bottled at ‘batch strength’, which, for the record, means absolutely nothing to regulation but for whatever reason happens to be set at 50% abv by the distillery. Regulatory nonsense aside, how does this taste? Well good news… it’s actually really good. My wife described it as a “Sav Blanc” of whiskey and I am agreeing with her on this. This is very citrus, green orchard fruits, and melon forward mixed with sweet malt flavors. The nose, palate and aftertaste are in line with each other and this is just great overall. 50% abv does not hinder it whatsoever and and makes for a very flavorful tasting. There are some wood and vanilla notes on the palate meaning it wasn’t just aged in inert barrels. Overall, and especially considering the price ~$60 currently, this is a great deal and very worth trying or even stocking for the home bar. Very slight edge on Balvenie 14 by being a higher proof.
Score: B+

Bruichladdich, Classic Laddie 50% Abv
This isn’t actually an open shelf bottle, but instead a sample… but I do what I want.
This is classic unpeated Laddie, this should be on average about 10 years old spirit, I don’t have exact bottle spec of this being a sample but it’s some sort of a big batch of different barleys and barrels… Very minor remainder of smoke mostly from water and environment. Super malty and super flavorful. I cannot quite put a finger on what exactly the taste evokes in me. Almost savory but at the same time sweet and malty that sweet-salty balance is fantastic. Laddie spirit is just generally great stuff. This happens to be wood/residual smoke/malt balance. Very slight varnish notes in the glass. Old woodshop experience is in there. If I were to compare it to food, perhaps it reminds me of caramelized onions or a good burger where everything works together so very well that the smoke isn’t a detriment but instead works as an enhancer of the other flavors. (I must be hungry while writing this review). It’s a great intro into unpeated islay malts of which there are a handful and this particular expression remains somewhat underrated of all the others available. Is it worth trying? Yes. Are there better options? Also yes. Speaking of better options, more sherry or an interesting cask finish would elevate this into greatness! Is it slightly too residually astringent for those that aren’t fans of smoke? Probable yes?
Score: B-
—
Scoring Breakdown: https://www.aerin.or … age=scores_breakdown

Now with a tasting having been involved… So may as well record sample notes for those I’ve not done a small write up yet.

Ah, Compass Box or as some call it: “The Clynelish Fan Club”… Seriously pretty much everything they do has Clynelish in it. Also all their recipes are posted on their site or can be found out by simply emailing their front email. As a company they’re great and hugely innovative in blending space. Frankly, they have pioneered the concept of ‘interesting blended whiskey with a story’ instead of ‘generic blend for consistency’ as is most of the scotch industry used to be. Also generally speaking, since their blends come effectively in ‘editions’ they will vary slightly batch by batch or year to year.

Quick Impressions of what not been previously covered by https://www.aerin.org/?x=entry:entry190705-072717 :

Great King St. Artist Blend
Clynelish contents 38%, with 47% being from Cameronbridge Single Grain.
The palate alternates between being malty and lightly sweet, and iis consistently peach/pear forward. Very tiny bit of smoke remaining from Clynelish but oak and and vanilla coming from the grain. Great drink, not too heavy, but a little bit on the softer side due to grain inclusion of course. Great nose too, though it’s mostly Clynelish-dominated which throws it into mis-balance with the sweeter, fruitier palate. Unfortunately being a mix of malt and grain, this excels at neither. Thumbs up but it’s not a ‘chase it to the ends of the earth’ pour. Stock in the cabinet for guests and happily drink at a bar or with food, or even during a good conversation @work, but don’t make your experience only about the whiskey. It’s an enhancer, not a centerpiece.
Score: C+

Great King St. Glasgow Blend
Clynelish contents 2.6%, with 35.2% being from Cameronbridge.
Sorta meatier, heartier, smokier version of Artist’s Blend, more malt and more smoke to support each other. Palate is some sherry sweetness, rich fruits and savoriness. At the end of the night, peated whiskeys aren’t my thing and this also settles into slightly metallic aftertaste suggesting quite young peat in the mix. Pretty much it’s a peated and more flavorful version of Artists blend to maintain some of the balance. Even more than the other Blend, the inclusion of single grain doesn’t provide it any favors as it dilutes malt aftertaste and lets smoke dominate somewhat. Is it great? No. Is it good? Yes, for what it is. Not my favorite because young peat. Repeating myself from the previous review: “Stock in the cabinet for guests and happily drink at a bar or with food, or even during a good conversation @work, but don’t make your experience only about the whiskey. It’s an enhancer, not a centerpiece.”
Score: C

The Spice Tree
Clynelish contents 14%
Yay a proper malt! Ginger and some light baking spices surrounding the core of fruity maltiness. Solid, tasty great drink. Low peat doesn’t hinder it and some residual smoke from Clynelish enhances the flavor if anything. Reminds me somewhat of smells of a good wood shop. The combination of oak and wood and some bits of leftover lacquer is very much what I’m getting out of my glass. At the same time the flavors and smells aren’t overwhelming either. Decent aftertaste that’s very much inline with the primary palate, lasts for a while and, seems to get better as more ginger and other spice notes come and go in waves. Tiny bits of bitterness on the initial palate, origin of which I cannot quite place, lower the overall enjoyment and the more I am tasting my glass the more noticeable the bitter notes are as my palate adjusts to this pour.
Score: B-

The Story of the Spaniard
Clynelish contents 0%…
Of all the samples in the tasting, I’ve been looking forward the most to this one as I made no secret that I’m a fan of red wine barrel finished whiskeys. Surprisingly, there’s no Clynelish. What it does have, is a mix of different distilleries aged in sherry and red wine casks, ostensibly all from Spain. The nose is very rich and creamy and sweet and very sherry forward. A rare note on proof, while being 43% abv, it smells richer and heavier than what the proof number suggests it should. On the other hand, the palate is surprisingly thin when compared to the nose. It’s still full of sherry sweetness and some red wine notes and spices… but after the luxurious nose, the palate is almost a letdown. Long and delicious finish isn’t though. Lots of tasty notes in this one that continue from the nose. If you’re a fan of sherry and sweet malts… this may be one to try for you. Don’t hesitate to get a bottle and make your own opinion. The only real letdown is the proof as it dilutes the palate.
Score: B

Flaming Heart 2015 Limited Edition
Clynelish contents 24.1%… Scotch Noob does a fantastic review of this bottle here: https://scotchnoob.c … g-heart-5th-edition/
A little bonus review addition, as I happened to have a bottle of this, separately from the tasting samples. Aside from this being a peated whiskey… this has all the benchmarks of an outstanding pour, the age transforms peat smoke into much more complex smoky flavors as it does with all old peat. Since I’m a sucker for sweet (old) peat, this thing is great! Sweet, a little savory and smokey, notes of some zesty sourness are in there to balance out the savory. It would pair fantastic with either cheese or chocolate. This is essentially vanilla, oak, aromatic campfire without smoke going into your eyes kinda experience. Very elegant and well balanced with neither flavor overwhelming the other. An excellence of study in blended peat and layers that it can produce when blended with a light touch and masterful hand. Quality components don’t hurt either.
Score: B+

Overall:
Forget about the stigma of blended whiskeys when it comes to Compass Box products, while there are always winner or losers in any company releases… Compass Box have been consistently putting out releases that have not been any less than ‘good’ and spiraling into ‘great’ and ‘fantastic’ for their limited edition releases, though those do depend whether or not any consumer really enjoys that particular flavor profile or not. Either way. They’re all great bottles. Give them a try, yada yada. Some acceptance of peat is required though due to proliferation of Clynelish or other peated whiskeys in almost everything they do.
—
Scoring Breakdown: https://www.aerin.or … age=scores_breakdown

My list of open Jim Beam Products that have pending reviews is way too long. So let’s try to get through most of them in a series of side by side tastings. So one important note on Beam products, they all have a very distinctive cinnamon undercurrent in their flavor. There are other folks that are much better informed than me and can certainly offer an opinion on why that is, but for all the reviews below, and for every Beam product I’ve ever tried, there’s always that cinnamon ‘character’ to the primary spice flavor profile.

Knob Creek 2001 Small Batch #2
Nose: Wood and spice. Bits and pieces of cologne notes, excellent.
Palate: Wood, cloves, Beam cinnamon. Not overly sweet and well balanced, almost a little savoury under the spice and the wood.
Aftertaste: Warms up as it goes down and settles into medium-long roasted walnuts and wood bitterness without being unpleasant.
Conclusion: Excellent bourbon that is highly overpriced at its MSRP as store pick single barrel bottles are occasionally attainable at $50-75, and (anecdotally less interesting) 15 year old limited small batch did show up recently at about $79. If you can get this at or under $100, this is well worth it though.
Score: B+
vs
Old Tub Bottled in Bond
Nose: Sweet cinnamon corn, nose is reasonably young and sweeter than the KC2001. Does open up in the glass a little bit by losing some of the funk notes and leaving sweeter perfume.
Palate: Sugar, spice and Beam cinnamon, and of course some wood… I mean, it’s a bourbon, there’s always a strong wood note due to new barrel requirement. Well balanced, the corn from the nose is noticeable, the palate is quite in line with the nose. Compared to KC2001, doesn’t have that mouth-coating texture, as expected due to age.
Aftertaste: The youth betrays itself here. Slightly off-balance and not overly complex or too long. Descends into slightly bitter wood territory before fading with a ginger tongue prickle, reasonable. If it was any longer, it’d be unpleasantly bitter.
Conclusion: What sort of sophistication was being expected out of $17 bottle of whiskey? Well, color me impressed in the price band. Solid release from the Beam folks.
Score: B-

(Unfair) Conclusion:
It isn’t a fair comparison of a 15 year old distillate to a much younger, no age stated version, even if they come from the same stills, yet alone being under different labels and with easily 5 times difference in MSRP. So there’s no winners or losers in this comparison, but it should be noted that Old Tub holds its own even and is well worth getting a bottle. Old Tub and Fighting Cock (Heaven Hill) have easily exceeded all my expectations for their price and are both great representatives for their distilleries and are miles ahead of the generic bottom shelf swill. If I must draw a ‘vs’ conclusion here, then Old Tub certainly wins on value for the money while obviously KC2001 wins the palate… but as stated before, this is not a remotely a fair comparison here.
—
Little Book chap. 3 “The Road Home”
Nose: Brown sugar, Beam spice, wood and lots of nice. Also some of the notes of old, well-maintained leather. Very old craftsman workshop notes in the nose of this pour.
Palate: Brown sugar, Beam cinnamon/spice. Wood. Delicious.
Aftertaste: Brown sugar, wood, and cinnamon that lasts for quite a while.
Conclusion: Smells and tastes like a really good Booker’s (which it really is in Chap 3), with just a tad too much wood as is typical with most Beam products. This really benefits from sitting in a glass for a while to open up.
Score: A-
vs
Little Book chap. 4 “Lessons Honored”
Nose: Sweeter and lighter, with less cinnamon on the nose than chap 3 and more of a typical good bourbon nose that’s high rye (or perhaps almost no corn notes to speak of). Aromatic toasted sandalwood is what comes to mind.
Palate: Little lighter and a little sweeter in the mouth than Chap. 3. This one brings more sweet caramel notes to the table. I don’t usually talk about viscosity of the drink, but I’m getting a feeling that the mouthfeel is a tad thinner compared to Chap 3.
Aftertaste: Beam spices and wood, cinnamon and ginger. Doesn’t fade too fast and due to lighter viscosity of the drink, not as long lasting and lighter, compared to Chap 3.
Conclusion: Certainly interesting and worthwhile to try drink that would please any Beam fan, it’s not something special enough to chase down compared to regular Booker’s releases and the yet another MSRP increase to $125 this year doesn’t make it a ‘must buy’.
Score: B

Conclusion:
Overall, having tried some of the Little Book line and knowing that these are essentially Freddie Noe’s experiments aimed at the whiskey enthusiast market, both are excellent on their own and well worth trying… but of the tonight’s side by side I have to give a slight advantage to Little Book Chap 3. In many ways it is a quintessential representation of Beam’s brands, by being a literal mix of the 4 premium lines and is very-very Beam to its core. Chapter 4 comparably is more of a whimsical experiment that’s delicious on its own but doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the cool kids clique.
—
Booker’s 2018-01 “Kathleen’s Batch”
Nose: Subdued and woody. Almost restrained in its potency and slightly savoury. Brown sugar and molasses.
Palate: Delicious and amazingly balanced. The usual Beam bourbon flavors apply just somehow the razor-edge of the balance between them is maintained.
Aftertaste: Medium yet again as is the case with most bourbons. Tiny bit of woody bitterness in the very end.
Conclusion: If you like Beam flavor profile and aren’t afraid high proof… This is the Booker’s for you. There are many many other products that are way less interesting than this batch.
Score: A-
vs
Booker’s 2018-02 “Backyard BBQ”
Nose: Ever so slightly more brown sugar on the nose than the 2018-01 batch but somewhat similar for the most part. Really, it’s Booker’s so they’re all mostly similar.
Palate: Ah, were we go! Brown sugar galore, Beam cinnamon spice and lots of things nice. Rather on the sweet side. Perhaps a little bit too much rye spice in this one and few metallic notes come though.
Aftertaste: Very in-line with the plate. Medium length and very pleasant, thought notably bitier (ginger?) and some slight alcohol burn which suggests its out of balance a little bit.
Conclusion: A very typical Booker’s release that’s by no means bad but also not very exciting. If you need a Booker’s, sure buy this… If you already have a batch at home… You can spend money elsewhere.
Score: B

Conclusion:
Whelp, these are Booker’s, alright. On paper, they are all mostly similar to each other in majority of the specs and notes, varying slightly on the balance and proof batch to batch. On the palate the story is very different and this is an excellent example how even slight differences in very similar product can change the taste greatly when compared to each other. You’re not going to be dissapointed with either of these or for that matter likely with any Booker’s release but in the side-by-side comparison Kathleen’s Batch balance easily trounces Backyard BBQ sweetness. Winner: 2018-01!
—
Scoring Breakdown: https://www.aerin.or … age=scores_breakdown

Alrighty! For the sake of science, I’ll subject myself to the evaluation of the 12 days of Whiskey Set released by Diageo circa 2016. It’s set of 12×50ml mini bottles from Diageo’s brands. I will try to power through the samples within a handful of days and do a brief rundown on each. I was hoping these were going to be glass bottles to be reusable for samples but all except for two are plastic which makes them not very suitable to be given away.

Disclaimer: There are 3 flavored whiskey ‘products’. They get automatic F-, but I’m replacing that with N/A as I rate whiskey, not flavored syrup, but because they’re higher proof and strongly-flavored they may be of some limited use as a flavoring in a mixed drink or baking. Yes, I did try bit from each of them. Yes, they are terrible… I’m suffering for science.

1. Seagram’s 7
Interestingly enough, this is American Blended Whiskey regardless of Seagram’s name’s Canadian origins. Actually not terrible taste for a 40% abv and being 75% grain neutral spirit (vodka). Is it ‘good’? Totally not. Is it awful… not entirely. I’ve actually finished this sample. Sweet, uncomplicated and a little nutty. Tastes sorta like beginner ‘whiskey’ supposed to taste if I were to describe it to someone. The amount of neutral spirit suggests flavorings and coloring and that’s a big no-no for me. I was expecting it to taste worse, but I’m finding myself not hating this. Am I going to want to drink it? Oh hell no!
Score: F+

2. Crown Royal Reserve
An interesting one here. First thing that came to mind was ’smooth’. Arguably should be the fanciest of the bunch… but it’s really a 40% proof, (very) high rye blended Canadian whiskey… bottled in Connecticut. Tastes like a mediocre sweet rye. Its… meh. Lets just summarize it as a ‘meh’. No wonder everyone makes fun of Canadian whiskey blends. Is it drinkable? Yes. Try at a bar once and find something else, is my recommendation. Just like regular Bulleit bourbon, this isn’t worth your taste buds or time more than once in your life, preferably before trying the good stuff.
Score: C-

3. Crown Royal Blended
Weak paint thinner with slight maple sirup notes and highly unpleasant wood/metal aftertaste. Like licking old wooden spoon and then a battery. Avoid,
Score: F

4. Seagram’s VO
This one looks like actual Canadian Blended Whiskey. It is still uncomplicated like Seagram’s 7 but just little sweeter and nose and palate has distinct notes of maple syrup. The aftertaste has a bit of spice (ginger?) going on but overall this is clearly not interesting of a drink. At all. Five minutes later I’ve already forgotten what it tasted like.
Score: F+

5. Johnnie Walker Black Label
Ah Black Label. Technically drinkable, but the fact that this contains a lot of grain whiskey instead of malt betrays itself by lack of any depth of flavor. Basically a better version of Red. Just skip it altogether and start at Green Label which is actually a mix of 100% malt and no grain whiskeys in it so it would have actual flavor.
Score: D+

6. Piehole (Canadian whiskey with Pecan Pie Liquor)
‘Whiskey’ and sugar syrup that’s flavored with pecan flavor. Actually does taste like a pecan pie. Why anyone would actually drink this… escapes me.
Score: N/A (F-)

7. Johnnie Walker Red Label
Technically a scotch. But tastes like someone’s idea of a scotch. There’s some sweetness and smoke, but no body. Not worth even trying. Generally considered acceptable for mixing by some, but starting with quality ingredients usually makes for better drink and this isn’t a quality ingredient. Somewhat drinkable enough for me to force though the sample.
Score: F+

8. Crown Royal Regal Apple
Canadian Apple-flavored whiskey. As usual with flavored whiskeys sugary-sweet and very apple-y as well as thick, likely from sugar. Drinks like a strong liquor rather than actual whiskey… The alcohol gives this a bitter aftertaste though.
Score: N/A (F-)

9. Jeremiah Weed (Cinnamon whiskey)
Cinnamon liquor and whiskey together. What a terrible idea. Avoid this abomination.
Score: N/A (F-)

10. Bulleit Bourbon Frontier Whiskey
Not utterly terrible. It’s still very uninteresting, but it’s not a bad whiskey all in all. Tastes like a cross between generic versions of Four Roses and MGP perhaps. with not the most pleasant of aftertastes. Not revolting and technically a straight kentucky bourbon. With so many better choices out there, this isn’t worth your time.
Score: D+

11. George Dickel No.8
A mix of bitter-sweet peanuts are pretty all there is to say about this sample. Don’t do it. The bitterness is overwhelming and unpleasant.
Score: F

12. Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye
Doesn’t disappoint for the most part. A solid canadian rye. Excellent for mixing and even occasional sipping. Rye isn’t my thing but for the price there are plenty of bottles that are way worse. It should be noted that this won whiskey of the year from Jim Murray in 2015 but ostensibly batches do vary by year or even month. So your mileage may vary. Is it decent? Yes. Is it great. No.
Score: C

Overall Thoughts:
This is an abomination of a whiskey event calendar and having a handful of options in there that could be finished doesn’t justify the idea of having to drink the others. Whoever came up with this lineup should be ashamed of themselves and the entire thing is basically a disservice to whiskey.
Overall Box Score: F

—
Scoring Breakdown: https://www.aerin.or … age=scores_breakdown

Starward Capsule Thoughts:
Another tasting today, this time with Australia’s Starward Distillery. I believe I’ve covered Starward Nova earlier here: https://www.aerin.or … y:entry200912-201749 but there were also Two Fold and Solera samples to try. Nova and Two Fold are fully aged in red wine barrels and Solera aged in Apera (Australian Sherry) casks. Overall, their offerings are delicious, very cask type-forward and quite sweet, which I like personally. They are almost dessert-like whiskeys. My personal preference going to Solera as its got that nutty sherry profile which I like. The only minor downside is that I wish there were bottled at somewhat higher abv but at the price vs taste its really hard to complain about. All the whiskeys from this distillery I’ve tried so far have been delicious, though uncomplicated compared to older scotch. They would make fantastic @work treats or starter bottles for those that like sweeter malt. There’s a lot of value in Starward bottles as stocking stuffers or a great bottle to take to the party as just about any of them are super enjoyable and more than drinkable even for those that aren’t used to malt whiskeys. I’m told they also work quite well in highballs cocktails, due to higher sweetness and wine influence. I’m also red wine barrel-biased as I enjoy that profile combination with single malt. Personally, I’m unlikely to stock any bottles but it doesn’t stop me from recommending it.
Score: Nova B-
Score: Solera B
Score: Two Fold B-
Overall Grade: B
—
GlenDronach Tasting
Quick reviews on lineup and then overall thoughts afterwards.

GlenDronach 12
Previously covered here: https://www.aerin.or … y:entry190105-080208, this is solid, everyday, somewhat uncomplicated, yet satisfying drink.
Score: B-

GlenDronach 15 Revival
This has a story for sure, not too much of a secret but around 2010s GlenDronach was running out of 15 year old barrels, so someone at the distillery insisted on bottling much older stocks instead of discontinuing or pausing label production. So if one were to find an older bottling by chance (it will state that it’s “Exclusively Matured in finest Oloroso Sherry Casks” vs current is “Pedro Ximenez and Oloroso”) it can contain up to 21 years old whiskey inside. Although history is great, let’s get back to the current sample. The nose is sweet sherry while the palate is all leather, tobacco, sweet sherry and toasted nuts overlay. Deep and well balanced flavor that leans to the sweeter side, with some nice complexities that are starting to come through and shine well. Still slightly muddled individual notes but the greatness is starting to be visible palatable. Great mid-range price and fantastic flavor profile typical to the distillery bottlings makes this a must try and highly versatile crowd pleaser even for a discerning audience.
Feel free to read better-written brief history/review here: https://whiskyreview … ndronach-15-revival/
Score: B (A if from ~2015)

GlenDronach 18 Allardice
Notably darker than the 12 or 15, the 18 is a departure from the ‘norm’ in some ways. It’s still obvious to see its a sherry bomb, but the nose is a lot dryer than 15 and there’s more leather coming through that’s not overwhelmed by sherry sweetness. Big and bold flavors on display yet again, as is the case with all the samples from GlenDronach, though with 18 I feel it suffers somewhat from too much wood or perhaps different balance. Whatever it may be, it feels oddly unbalanced and leans towards sweet wood/leather and isn’t what 18 year old ‘flagship’ should represent. Surprising to myself I’m finding it hard to recommend for others to buy a bottle. Certainly try it at the bar as its got that bold big flavor that’s easy on the palate, but even then you may be better served by having a 15 at roughly half the price. It is growing on me with time and repeated tasting from the glass, but it does occupy that weird niche between excellent 15 that’s much cheaper, and a 21 that’s not excessively more expensive, without having something outstanding about itself other than ‘great scotch’. I’d expect decent sherry finished ~20 year old Kirkland from Costco at about $70-$80 to have about same kind of balance and profile.
Score: B (B- for value)

GlenDronach 21 Parliament
This is great stuff. Nose, palate and aftertaste are in perfect harmony. Basically what I wrote for 15 year old above… but ‘better’. All those great notes and the balance are back and are in perfect harmony. Fantastic stuff that’s great for connoisseurs and novices alike… Oddly enough this reminds of older bottlings of 15 year old Revival… Oh wait, it’s likely that’s exactly what I’ve had at the time and I mentioned I’d be happy to be marooned on an uninhabited island with supply of this back in the day. This is great stuff. End of review.
Score: A

GlenDronach ??? (1993 Master’s Vintage)
Assuming you are a fan of sherried unpeated single malt, this sample is amazing, all the praises. Full stop. By all rights, this shouldn’t be in my hands for a zoom tasting. Even more so, it shouldn’t be a sample. This bottling is an exemplar of what defines (sherried, unpeated) single malt scotch and why many many folks are obsessed with older bottles. The sample turned out to be a 25 year old Master’s Vintage, a mix of 17 casks from 1993. This quality level is from a bygone era and is essentially out of reach for regular consumers. Do better options exist? Sure, but easily at twice the price or perhaps in private casks but those don’t show up in retail. This is certainly up there in the top ranked bottles I’ve ever tried in this style.
https://www.whiskyba … 680/glendronach-1993
Score: A+

Final Thoughts
If Macallan essentially paved the way for sherried single malt bottlings, GlenDronach is effectively current reigning king since all their bottles are sherried. Amazing work by amazing brand ambassador Rory Glasgow who went above and beyond on this tasting. One of the first tastings I had over Zoom and definitely one of the greats. The sample kits were amazing. The personal touches were fantastic and the lineup was mind-blowing. Not to mention and quality and the quantity of swag; branded Glencairn Glass helped too :). This tasting has set essentially unreachable bar for any other one so far, even more so that this was actually free.
Overall: Exceptional
—
Scoring Breakdown: https://www.aerin.or … age=scores_breakdown