Taste Off Reboot! Chivas Regal 12 year old (2015) versus Johnnie Walker Black Label 12 year old (2015)

As you read this right now, I am driving across the country, going as far as I can from my old home in Long Beach.  The destination is a one month respite in Upstate New York, with a 9 day Scottish excursion hidden within that month, and then an arrival in my new home of Columbus, Ohio.  And so, in honor of Los Angeles County and the film industry which I have left behind, I am doing something that I have already done before.  It worked so well the first time that I definitely had to do it again.

Welcome to The Johnnie Walker Black Label versus Chivas Regal 12yo Taste Off!!!  49 months ago, I posted a Johnnie Walker Black Label versus Chivas Regal 12yo Taste Off and it became my most popular review ever.  I'm not saying it's my best, I'm saying it's my most viewed, thus my development executives say I need to reboot it.  To my long time readers, I'm sorry, I know I promised never to review Johnnie Walker Black again, but I need to bury some ghosts, if ghosts can be buried.  Perhaps they can be buried in the commas I've used in this paragraph.,

I come to this Taste Off with mixed feelings.  Over the past couple years I've had a number of disappointing bar pours of Chivas and Black Label.  And, with so many of Pernod's and Diageo's brands going NAS, I've been wondering if more 12 year old malt whisky is going into these two blends than in all of the 12 year old single malt scotch bottlings put together.  Maybe I should just try these blends, then comment.

Note: Both of these whiskies were bottled November 2015.

CHIVAS REGAL 12 YEAR OLD

Brand: Chivas Regal

Ownership: Pernod Ricard (via Chivas Bros. Ltd.)

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 12 years

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Bottling: November 23, 2015
(200mL purchased at a local liquor store)

versus

JOHNNIE WALKER BLACK LABEL 12 YEAR OLD

Brand: Johnnie Walker

Ownership: Diageo

Type: Scotch Blended Whisky

Age: minimum 12 years

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Bottling: November 4, 2015
(200mL purchased at a local liquor store)

NEAT TASTE OFF

Chivas 12yo
Its color is a somewhat subdued medium gold.  The nose starts with vanilla and caramel, never shaking those off.  Smaller notes of orange and lemon and apple peels, salty corn chips, mint candy, and coconut appear in the mid- to background.  Caramel and brown sugar lead the palate.  Some tangy orange meets sea salt, cassia cinnamon, and spearmint leaves.  But WOW mostly caramel.  It finishes on cinnamon, sugar, mint, caramel, and......vodka.

JWBL 12yo
Its color is DiageoDoublePlusOrangeGold™.  The nose starts off with the caramel too, adding in overoaked buttery chardonnay.  But then that's met with mild pepper and smoke, roasted almonds, hint of flower blossoms, and a slight raisiny cheap cream sherry thing.  Toffee and nondescript underripe citrus lead off the palate.  The mash-up of the supposed 43 different single malts leaves a bit of a Brown character, like a mush-up of 43 different colors.  There's a slight spicy zing and Sugar Daddies.  The "smoke" note isn't really smoke, rather a combination of mild earthiness, cracked pepper, and road dust.  Its mouthfeel is thinner than that of the Chivas.  It finishes with vanilla, the aforementioned "smoke" (quotes included) note.  Caramel, a mild bitterness, and more vanilla.

WITH WATER (~30%abv) TASTE OFF

Chivas 12yo
The nose leads with orange Smarties and Pixy Stix.  Then caramel and vanilla.  Then celery and parsley.  The palate has somehow picked up more raw heat.  There's caramel, lots of sugar, and a weird bitter note that's neither woody nor herbal.  It finishes identically to the palate.

JWBL 12yo
Much louder raisins on the nose.  A hint of hot tar and moss.  More of that buttery chardonnay thing.  The palate moves closer to the neat version of Chivas.  Very sweet with caramel, mellow sherry, and a woody bitterness.  In the finish there's sherry, caramel, butter, a bleh sweetness, and a dingy smoky aftertaste.

---

THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, OPINIONS, ETC...

Black Label wins again, though both of their scores are much lower than last time.  I'll do some pros and cons here...

Chivas Pros: It's much better when served neatly.  It has a respectable mouthfeel considering how much it has been filtered and watered down.  The neat palate doesn't completely suck.  Likely has less added colorant than Black Label.

JWBL Pros: Every element has more complexity than the Chivas, making for a more engaging drink.  It too is better when neat.  Holds up better on the rocks.

Chivas Cons: There can't be more than 20% malt content in this thing.  It's almost grain whisky.  It finishes poorly.  It sucks with water.  It vanishes on the rocks (maybe not totally a bad thing in some cases, which in turn is a bad thing).

JWBL Cons: Though its more complex than the Chivas, that's not saying much.  The finish is uninspiring and the palate is only one step above that.  Don't add water.

Overall Pros: I didn't buy 750mL bottles of either of these.  The Black Label was better than the recent bar pours I've had of it.

Overall Cons: I'm probably done with Chivas Regal 12.  Though these were 200mL, I had little interest in going past the 120mL mark of either of these.

I feel somewhat better now, since I doubt that much 12 year old malt whisky actually goes into either of these.  As I referenced above, you could have told me the Chivas was all grain and I would've believed it.  Black Label probably has more malt in it......or it is just some Caol Ila and Talisker livening it up a bit more than the Glenallachie and Tormore do for the Chivas?  I feel like I should be bummed about how far the Black Label's quality has fallen, but I don't.  Keep up the great work, Diageo!

I'm having a sip of Glenfiddich 12yo right now and it beats the pants off of both of these whiskies.  If 'Fiddich 12 is only $5-$10 more than the Chivas and Black Label in your market, it's worth paying up for it (or, even better, Tomatin 12).  Hell, Buffalo Trace, Elijah Craig 12yo, and Old Grand Dad 114 bourbons are about the same price as Chivas and JWBL and they are so much more fun than either scotch.  Just something to consider...

Chivas Regal 12 year old (2015)
Availability - Wherever scotch is sold
Pricing - $20-$40(!)
Rating - 74

Johnnie Walker Black Label 12 year old (2015)
Availability - Like Trump's face on CNN, it's everywhere
Pricing - $25-$45(!)
Rating - 79

Sku's A.H. Hirsch Blind Tasting Experience

Sku (he of Recent Eats) recently conducted a blind tasting of two bourbons by providing two samples (named only 'A' and 'B') to twelve very innocent volunteers.  One of those two samples contained one of the most famous non-Pappy bourbons in recent history, the A.H. Hirsch 16 year old (distilled in Pennsylvania(!) and now selling for over $1000).  The other sample was a current on-the-shelf mystery bourbon.

I was amongst the twelve volunteers Sku selected.  (Riveting Disclosure: I had never tried the famous Hirsch before, thus had no idea what the thing smelled or tasted like.)  We all emailed our findings to Sku and then, this past Wednesday, he published the results.  First off, the mystery bourbon turned out to be Elijah Craig 12yo (with the age statement on the back label).  Then secondly, the overall results turned out to be a tie.  Six of us preferred the Hirsch and six of us preferred the EC12.

Below you will see two sets of notes.  The first set are the very notes I sent to Sku immediately after the blind tasting.  The second set of notes is from my retaste of those two bourbons, one week after the blind tasting, now knowing what I'm drinking.

---

BLIND TASTING

"I liked Whiskey 'B' better than Whisky 'A'. I don't know if I should hope that Hirsch was "B" or that a current and more easily accessible whiskey was 'B'."
Whisky A:
Nose: A lot of barrel char, burnt notes, tobacco, and caramel. Smaller moldy oak and medicinal notes show up after some air.
Palate: A solid fruity and peppery start. Cherries, brown sugar, and cream soda. Improves with time.
Finish: Cherry juice, molasses, pepper, ethyl heat.

Whisky B:
Nose: Three Musketeers bar, toffee, and apples arrive first. Then pepper and horseradish. Some wood smoke appears later on.
Palate: Soft, creamy, lightly spicy, lightly tangy, graceful, and subtle. Adjectives! Creme brulee, citrus fruit, brown sugar, and simple syrup.
Finish: A burst of baking spice, almost like a rye. Citrus, vanilla, sugar, and a slight good bitter note.

"'A' was okay, nothing I'd run out and get, no matter the price. I'd drink it again though, so it would probably fall in the C+/B- range. I did like 'B' right from the start. Great nose on it. Somewhere around a B+. I'd buy it, though not for three or four figures."

Reveal:

Whisky A was A.H. Hirsch 16 year old Famousness.  Whisky B was Elijah Craig 12yo.  So, yes, I was one of six folks who liked the EC12 better.  I really do like the EC12 a lot and that letter grade I gave it above matches the number grade from  my March review.

---

POST-REVEAL TASTING

A.H Hirsch 16 year old (gold foil)
Nose: Lots of caramel and vanilla.  A mild cherry fruitiness meets wet moldy cardboard.  Werther's Originals, orange oil, and furniture polish.  After a lot of air, it develops a rich maple syrup note.
Palate: Ethyl heat, baking spice, mint, and lots of oaky bitterness.  Smaller notes of mild rye, wood pulp, and black pepper.
Finish: Endless oaky bitterness, ethyl heat, and black pepper. It's a little sweeter than the palate and picks up some caramel along the way.

Elijah Craig 12 year old Small Batch (the final edition)
Nose: Brighter, less oaky, fruitier.  White stone fruits and apricot preserves. Hints of lemon, caramel, and orange gummi bears.  Some less pleasant tree bark and peanut notes show up occasionally.
Palate: Lots of tart limes and pepper.  Rye, salt, pixy stix, and a little bit of tangerine.  Some ethyl heat here too.
Finish: Rye, salt, and a mild bitterness.  Vanilla and tart citrus candies.  More oak than the palate.

I still enjoy the EC12 more than the Hirsch, but the distance between them lessened slightly.  The Hirsch's nose needs time to open up because it doesn't start well, but once it kicks into gear it's the best part of the whiskey.  I really don't get much from the palate except lots of oak and heat.  Maybe I'd bump it up to a solid B- on a happy day, but that's about it.  Meanwhile the Elijah Craig seemed fruitier this time, which is good, but also picked up some disappointing qualities in the nose.  Its palate works better for me than the Hirsch's because the oak is more restrained, resting in the mid- to background.  I wouldn't call either of them complex or fascinating, but I'd prefer drinking the Elijah Craig without a second thought, though it drops to a B grade here.  (On a side note, Kristen preferred the Hirsch.  Bingo.)

---

I have two not-particularly-profound things to say in conclusion:

1.) My palate doesn't like to be bludgeoned by oak staves, so I tend to not enjoy most bourbons older than 12 years (my palate saves me money that way!).  That's a partially a personal preference, but on the objective side of things a load of oak can narrow a whiskey's palate and ruin much of its complexity.

2.) As Sku's experiment demonstrated, it's quite possible that there isn't much difference in perceived quality between these two whiskies.  So then, why pay 40 to 60 times as much for the Hirsch?  It's for the story, the scarcity, the history, and not the liquid itself.

Single Malt Report: Laphroaig 10 year old Cask Strength, batch 007

'Twas requested, now here it is: a review of Laphroaig 10 year old Cask Strength, batch 007.  My bottle of batch 005 was such a disappointment that I now refuse to buy any batch of the Laphroaig CS blind again.  Batch 006 was a definite improvement, but still had a noticeable amount of the unfortunate sugar+oak that plagued 005.  While I still refuse to lose hope that Laphroaig will right their ship and get their classic 10yo expressions right, I was skeptical about batch 007, even though it received a great review from sausagemeister.com.  Luckily my friend, Brett With The Labelmaker, immediately offered up a sample of the 007 after the 005 & 006 review.  Thanks, Brett!

On a related note, most local whisky stores here are still selling batch 006 and haven't even gotten to 007 yet.  Is this due to overproduction of recent batches or did 005 put a real dent in Laphroaig CS enthusiasm out here?  Meanwhile, batch 008 has already been released in Europe.  But back to batch 007...

Distillery: Laphroaig

Owner: Beam Suntory
Region: Islay
Maturation: ex-bourbon barrels

Age: minimum 10 years
Batch: 007, Feb 2015

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? Probably

Alcohol by Volume: 56.3%

NEAT
A further reduction of the sugar and vanilla and butter on the nose.  Yay!  But it's also not a peat monster.  Lots of limes, hints of mango.  Dried basil, smoky chocolate, new carpet.  Mossy and salty peat, but no medicinal notes to speak of.  The palate is pretty sharp and edgy, really peppery (green and pink peppercorns).  Herbal, salty, not sweet.  An enormous herbal bitterness starts to take over at the 10 minute mark.  Big spirit and little oak in the finish.  Cigarettes, soil, roots, and bitter smoke.

WITH WATER (~48%abv)
More anise in the nose.  Fresher herbs (oregano?), one flower blossom, and a much woodier smoke.  Whew, if there was any sweetness when it was neat, water washes it right out of the palate.  No soft notes, all aggression.  Bitter greens, earth, peppery mint leaves, and peppercorns.  Bitter smoke in the finish, with those bitter greens too.  Seaweed, tart blackberries, and dark chocolate.

COMMENTARY:
This is a definite change of pace from the previous two batches.  Though the nose has its pretty sides, its palate is a real smack in the mouth.  I dig the herbal bitterness and huge pepper notes, and the neatly served finish actually feels like Laphroaig.  So, to me, this is another step up for the CS.  But it kinda has to be your sort of thing, with the bitterness and pepper.  It's missing the iodine, medicinal stuff, and more of the unique Laphroaig style, plus I wouldn't mind some sort of added dimension to the palate.  But, thankfully, they're approaching their old form.

Availability - Many specialty retailers
Pricing - It's still $55-$85 depending on where you live.  Winesearcher's charts show that its average US price has gone up only 10% over the past 5 years. Remarkable.
Rating - 88

Single Malt Report: Laphroaig Lore

Don't worry this isn't another TL;DR post full of declarations about the consumer's soul.  It's just a review about a whisky, a relevant whisky too!

Though the word "lore" usually refers to the past, Laphroaig Lore is yet another NAS release chock full of blending and various casks, clearly following the path of The New Laphroaig.  Because it was NAS, some of us cynics wondered why it was going for 3x-4x the price of Laphroaig Select.  In March, @RecursieWhisky planted a nice jab on Twitter about this issue, which was enough to get a response from Laphroaig's distillery manager, John Campbell.

@RecursieWhisky not being cheeky but facts are wrong on this liquid. 7-21 year old liquids with 3 more ages in between. Hope this helps

— John Campbell (@LaphroaigJohn) March 10, 2016

The full conversation is worth browsing if you get a chance, especially when Recursie asks why they then don't proudly list the 7yo age statement on the bottle.  Campbell responds, "because it's not a 7 year old liquid".  Well, it is 7 year old liquid according to the Scotch Whisky Association.  Perhaps Laphroaig may want to join Compass Box's campaign to allow for more disclosure of whiskies' contents.  Or perhaps they don't.  As long as customers continue to pay three figures for mystery meat, why would they want more transparency?

Ruben of Whiskynotes mentions in his review of Lore, that this is the unofficial replacement for the 15yo and 18yo.  If Laphroaig disclosed the contents of every Lore batch, then this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  Otherwise: mystery meat.

Distillery: Laphroaig

Owner: Beam Suntory
Region: Islay

Age: 7 years and older
Maturation: Quarter casks, virgin European oak casks, refill casks, first fill ex-bourbon casks, first fill ex-oloroso casks, and possibly more.

Chill-filtration? No
Caramel colored? ???

Alcohol by Volume: 48%
(Many thanks to Josh of The Whiskey Jug for this sample! The man loves this whisky.)

Its color is a light gold.  There's plenty of the New Laphroaig sugary and oaky style in the nose, but there's also quite a bit of dank dingy peat beneath it.  Both the dark and the light existing simultaneously but separately.  Then there's vanilla smoke, wet sand, salt, tar, and sugar cookies. Some peaches in the far back.  The palate is very toasty.  There's a nice graceful peating up front, met by a good brisk bitterness.  More herbal (oregano?) than sugary.  Some floral peat that's reminiscent of older Longrow.  With lots of air, some gnarly rough peat rises up, met by cinnamon bread, and salt.  The bitterness expands in the finish.  Sharp peat smoke, seaweed, and miso.  An angrier Laphroaig than in the nose.

COMMENTARY:
This is an odd cat and a rare instance (for me) of the palate being more impressive than the nose.  The old and new malt, along with the assortment of casks, never merge in the nose which gave me reason for concern.  But the palate salvages it.  It's a tasty one, developing gradually from grace to power.  Since it's whisky, thus it's intended to be tasted, I'll weight the palate heavier than the nose.

I wouldn't doubt if Lore does indeed replace the 18 and 15, being that it exists in the late 18's price point.  I think the 18 was a better all around whisky (especially for its last two years), and I found the recent limited edition 15 year old to be more consistent in the nose than this.  But Lore tastes great and delivers a quality Laphroaig wallop at the end.

Availability - most specialty retailers, except it's slow to get to California as usual
Pricing - $110-$145
Rating - 86

No Whisky Consumer is Ever Really Powerless, and a review of Booker's Rye

It sucks when you can't afford the thing you like.  It sucks worse when you feel powerless over this inability to purchase your desire.  Thus the commodification and premiumisation of whisky sucks.  It sucks the simple pleasures away and replaces them with the reminder that you are impotent in the face of large outside forces.  You feel anger because the stuff you like has been taken from you.  So you react.  Either you buy things you can't afford anyway.  Or you rage about these offenses against mankind on the corner of every online avenue.  Or you recognize that, damn, you've become emotionally dependent on an inanimate object, and that the people and systems that created this thing do not care about your existence.  And then you're left trying to figure out how you got to this point.  But rather than confronting this personal issue, you find it much easier to complain about prices, publicly swear you're not going to feed the market animal, and then quietly continue to buy whiskies at many times the rate at which you'll consume them.  Trust me, you'll be angry again.  Very soon.

This is my review of the new limited edition Booker's Rye, now selling and selling out for over $300.  Many many thanks to The Whiskey Jug for this sample.

Owner: Beam Suntory
Brand: Booker's
Type: Straight Rye Whisky
Distillery: Jim Beam Distillery
Location: Clermont, Kentucky
Mash Bill: known only by a dead man, apparently
Age: 13 years
Batch: 1
Alcohol by volume: 68.1%

REVIEW:
There are so many dessert elements in the nose: toffee pudding, vanilla pods, almond croissants, milk chocolate, and toasted coconut.  Then there's something in between creamsicles and orange sherbet.  Puffs of wood smoke here and there.  Occasional moments of old oak framing the spirit.  Sometimes there's a hint of maple.  The palate leads with caramel sauce.  In fact its texture is almost as thick as caramel sauce.  Roasted almonds.  Tart raspberries and tart cherries.  Maybe some sour fruit candy.  Again, some wood smoke.  Rolos infused with cayenne pepper in the finish.  More of the caramel sauce, with tart berries and cherries.

COMMENTARY:
What do you pay for when you buy a whiskey?  Are you buying the story?  Are you buying the packaging?  Are you buying the exclusivity?  Or are you just buying the fluid in the bottle?

We put our trust in the producers that the information on the label is correct, that the whiskey is X years old, so-and-so abv, that it's "Straight", that it's bottled-in-bond or a single barrel.  These are regulated by a government unit, but it's an entity that can't even get its own rules right when approving alcoholic products.  And that's just the label.

Then there's the story.  Story is essential, or so a revered whisky writer said publicly to a group of craft entrepreneurs a couple years ago.  So story is what we continue get, from both the little guys and the big guys.  Sometimes (if not the majority of the time), there's no truth behind the story.  Rather than take one element of a product and exploit its indispensable nature, many companies support the marketing approach of The Complete Lie, horking up a sticky web of effluvium to capture revenue.

But sometimes the tale may be true.  Booker Noe probably did make this one batch of high-rye rye whiskey before he passed away, taking the recipe with him.  Maybe this is legitimately limited and scarce.  Does that thrill you enough to entice you to pay triple the price of what you'd normally see for a pre-pubescent rye?  And speaking of the listed age, there isn't much 13yo rye out there to begin with, so does that get you to pay considerably more than you would for an 8yo rye?  I'm not talking about market forces.  I'm talking about the human behavior behind those forces.  I'm talking about we, the micro.

But am I anything more than superficially part of the 'we"?  Whisk(e)y pricing doesn't make any sense to me.  People buying whiskies at five to ten times the rate they consume the stuff doesn't make any sense to me.  People piling up credit card debt to buy things just to keep up with the cult doesn't make any sense to me.  I can't relate to any of this.  It's been years since I felt the ache of this consuming addiction, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not committing to the chase.  Does this make me a bad whisky blogger?  Does this make me unreliable?  Am I no longer part of the club?  Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck.

Booker's Rye is one of the best ryes I've had, comparable to the finest of Willett/MGP and Buffalo Trace.  While its nose is tremendous, its palate is merely awesome.  While I usually have issues with overbearing oak in whiskies half its age, that's not the case here.  The oak merges and heightens the well-matured spirit.  What a treat!  Would I buy it for $300?  No.  Would I buy it for half that price?  No.  But, though I've never paid $100 for an American whiskey, I would probably break that rule with this one.  The scarcity and the story do not move me as much as the whiskey itself does.  So I could recommend it at $100.  If the backstory affects your wallet's emotions and enhances your buying and drinking experience enough to pay thrice that amount, have at it.  But don't get angry when the next rye with a three-act structure enters the market with a $400 tag.  Especially if it's another rye by the same company.

Availability - Primary market? Good luck with that. Secondary market? Aplenty.
Pricing - $300 is the floor, there is no ceiling
Rating - 92

Single Malt Report: Islay Distillery 8 year old 2007 Exclusive Malts, cask 1601

I reviewed the 7 year old 2007 single cask yesterday.  Today I'm posting about the 8 year old 2007.  I tasted these two very different whiskies side by side a few nights ago.  I was a big fan of the 7yo, let's see how the 8yo fares.

Distillery: Lagavulin
Ownership: Diageo

Independent Bottler: Creative Whisky Company
Range: Exclusive Malts
Age: 8 years (October 17, 2007 - February 2016)

Maturation: probably a refill hogshead
Cask #: 1601
Bottles: 320

Alcohol by Volume: 56.2%

NEAT
Its color is amber, much lighter than yesterday's younger whisky.

The nose is rawer, yeastier.  It's lemony and very vegetal.  Cruciferous veg, probably.  There's also some vinegar, cucumber, sweat, and plenty of moss.  Hints of bacon and Dove soap.

There's burnt rubber and burnt ham in the palate.  If yesterday's Lag was steaky, this one is porky.  But its biggest note, that almost overwhelms, is hot cinnamon candy.  There's also brown sugar, basil, and ethyl.

Brown sugar, cinnamon, ethyl heat, burnt rubber, and dry cheese in the finish.  It's sweeter than the palate.  There's a slight sourness to it and the heat lasts the longest.

WITH WATER (~43%abv)
The nose remains vegetal, but it also picks up an herbal quality.  It's a little floral with gentle peat and wood smoke.  Some cardamom too.

Still some heat in the palate.  Hot cinnamon candy leads the way.  Some salt.  A decent herbal bitterness like a German digestif.

Almonds, brown sugar, cinnamon, and the sour note in the finish.

COMMENTARY:
This one embraces its youth, trending towards the Classic of Islay style, though at thrice the price.  You're going to have to like young raw peated stuff if you're chasing this bottle.  Though I usually prefer less oak in my scotch, I found the 7yo's rich barrel gave it more complexity, character, and thrills than the 8 and its (possible) refill barrel.

The nose is the best part of this whisky, though I enjoy its type of challenge.  The palate and finish prove narrow, but are still of interest.  I think the whole thing benefits from some water.  If you've already purchased this one, I recommend hydrating it a bit, adding a little water at a time to find its sweet spot.

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I don't really understand the pricing on these anonymous Islays.  Nor can I fathom the massive €€€ on the infant Caol Ila single casks (via other European independent bottlers) now hitting shelves in Europe.  Is everyone just chasing Kilchoman's single cask prices (of which 5yos often sell for $130+) at this point?  And is that wise?  Whisky Dave, Mr. Exclusive Malts, commented on yesterday's post about the expense, and I do look forward to some more thoughts from him on this issue, because these baby Islay price hikes may ultimately lead to a shrinking customer base.

Availability - Many US specialty retailers
Pricing - $150ish
Rating - 83

Single Malt Report: Islay Distillery 7 year old 2007 Exclusive Malts, cask 904

The last time I reviewed something bottled by the Creative Whisky Company, my post caused a bit of a hubbub.  But rather than shying away from more hubbub, I'm going to just keep reviewing what've I got here.  And what I've got here is an Exclusive Malts whisky.  In fact I have two Exclusive Malts whiskies.  And, in keeping with this week's theme, they're both (allegedly) Lagavulins.  Let's see if I can stir up any shit this week.

Today's "Islay Distillery" whisky is a 7 year old from 2007, while tomorrow's is the 8 year old 2007 (currently on the shelves).

Distillery: Lagavulin
Ownership: Diageo

Independent Bottler: Creative Whisky Company
Range: Exclusive Malts
Age: 7 years (August 15, 2007 - January 2015)

Maturation: first-fill bourbon cask (hogshead?)
Cask #: 904
Bottles: 293

Alcohol by Volume: 54.6%

NEATThe color is a light gold, noticeably darker than the EM 8yo.

The nose leads with big gorgeous peat, then mint, menthol, and burlap.  After 20+ minutes of air, the whisky picks up vibrant notes of strawberry bubblegum, whipped cream, tangerines, and praline.

Sweet aromatic peat in the palate.  Rosewater syrup, almonds, agave nectar, and honey butter.  It's spicy (chili oil) and steaky.

The finish is slightly rubbery, but also sweet and peppery.  Peat syrup.  Almonds/marzipan.

WITH WATER (~43%abv)
All sorts of new nose notes, like flower blossoms, butterscotch, rich vanilla bean, and baked apple.  The peat gets more moderate.  The mint and whipped cream notes remain.

The peat remains just as intense in the palate, though.  Some cinnamon sneaks in now.  Salt, vanilla, brown sugar, and a hint of the nose's florals.

The salty and meaty notes show up in the finish.  Along with peat, pepper, sugar, and a hint of herbal bitterness.

COMMENTARY:
Yum.  Now we're talking.  This isn't an example of a cask being pushed to the market early only to take advantage of the single malt craze.  This thing was plucked and bottled at the right time, rich at 7 years.  Had this been left to age until 10 it may have been totally overoaked.

The nose reads excellently with or without water.  The palate, though not terribly complex, is still very good, though better without water.  Unfortunately, the price on this whisky is/was beyond my comprehension.  Though it's a different whisky style than the official 12yo CS, it is of comparable quality to some of those batches, thus I'd have recommended it at $100 or less.  But at $160+, it's something for which you'll need to utilize your own value system.

Availability - A few US specialty retailers
Pricing - $160-$180
Rating - 89 (when neat)