NOT Single Malt Report: Evan Williams Green Label Straight Bourbon Whiskey (2013)

Heaven Hill distillery produces some small miracles.  There's the Elijah Craig 12yo Small Batch (if you can find it) and McKenna 10yo BIB, low-priced high-quality well-aged bourbons at excellent prices.  Then there's the Evan Williams brand which is basically good quality bourbon priced SUPER cheaply.  Having spent most of my time and energy dealing with Scotch whisky, I can't even begin to understand how Heaven Hill can sell a very drinkable whiskey (Evan Williams Black Label) for $10.

Unseen in most states, Evan Williams Green Label is even cheaper than their Black Label.  I've been trying to get my hands on a bottle for review purposes for a few years now.  Luckily, I just happened to drive through 12 states last week and quickly found a 375mL bottle of Green for $4.99.  The liquor store also had a 750mL bottle for $8.  Yes, eight dollars.  I went with the smaller bottle because I am that cheap.  I couldn't wait until the end of my trip to open it...

Discovered that Evan Williams GREEN Label in a hotel plastic cup is better than blended scotch x3 its price in a glencairn #AmericaWinsAgain

— Michael Kravitz (@kravitz_hubris) July 3, 2016

So in honor of July 4th, I'm reviewing an American whiskey on July 5th.  USA! USA! USA!

Distiller: Heaven Hill
Brand: Evan Williams
Type: Straight Bourbon Whiskey
Region: Louisville, Kentucky
Maturation: New American oak
Age: ???
Mashbill: 75% Corn, 13% Rye, 12% Malted Barley (I think)
Bottle Code: L3102
Bottling Year: 2013

Alcohol by Volume: 40%

Nose - In a Glencairn it's loaded with vanilla, caramel, and orange peel, followed by moderate notes of cherry bubblegum and corn syrup.  In a tumbler there's a little bit of vanilla and caramel.  Slightly salty with some lumber notes.

Palate - In a Glencairn there's mild barrel char, mild heat, and mild rye notes.  There's a good Heath bar note, though it's not too sweet.  A hint of pencil shavings around the edges.  In a tumbler there's peppery heat and prickly wood spices followed by sharp tart limes and caramel corn.

Finish - In a Glencairn it's mostly baking spice and barrel char.  No sugary sweetness.  In a tumbler it has a nice simple peppery/chili kick that lingers long.

Cocktails - Green Label shows best as a highball or an Old Fashioned.  Very crisp and refreshing for warm summer evenings.

COMMENTARY:
I'll repeat what I said in my tweet above, this is better than most or all blended scotch in the $25 range.  It smells gorgeous in a glencairn glass though it seems to taste and finish better in a tumbler.  It works in cocktails and hotel plastic cups.  I'm not going to tell you this is a sophisticated whiskey, nor an excellent whiskey, but it delivers in full and that's more than a person can reasonably expect from a $8 whiskey.

Availability - Some states but not others :-/
Pricing - $8-$11 (750mL)
Rating - 80

Eighteen Old and Older Blends with The Malt Nuts

On June 16th, I attended my second, and possibly final, Malt Nuts event.  I had enjoyed the Mannochmore-themed May event, so as soon as I'd heard about the June event I made sure I could attend despite the onset of packing and moving exhaustion.  This tasting's theme was old and older blends, as in blended scotch bottled in the 1980s or earlier AND current blended scotch aged 20 years or older.  Since I spent many hours scouring Long Beach for good dusties and winding up with mostly bizarro semi-dusty scotch blends, this event was totally my bag.

We tasted eighteen blends.  That's a hell of a thing, so structure was required.  The eighteen whiskies were divided up into six categories, all noted below.  As before, these were all tasted blindly within their groups.  For more info, more photos, and a different take on the whiskies, see The Whisky Jug's recent post on this event.

Panorama shot!

PART 1: 1970s and 1980s blends

1A - Harvey's Blended Scotch, bottled late '70s, 40%abv

Review: The nose is quiet.  Vanilla, toasted oak, cherry candy.  Lightly soapy and buttery.  The palate is rough and dirty, burnt, hot, with some black pepper.

Comments: Off to a rough start with this one.  Struggled to find the nose, then wished I hadn't found the palate. It quickly proves that not all dusty cheap blends were better than current cheap blends.

Grade Range: D/D+

1B - King George IV, bottled '70s, 43%abv

Review: The nose is grainy, mild, lightly honeyed.  Hard to find, again.  On the other hand, the palate doesn't hide.  Lots of stone fruits, mint leaves, and musty Old Bottle Effect.

Comments: A decent palate helped offset another quiet nose.  This would be a welcome option in the $15-$20 range today.  Might be able to compete and top the current J&B and Chivas 12.

Grade Range: C

1C - Pinch 12 years old, bottled early '80s, 43%abv (my bottle!)

Review: Rubbery sherry, prunes, and musty old oak in the nose. The palate is fresh, malty, slightly tangy with some drying tannins.

Comments: With much more sherry and malt than most of the the dusties from this tasting, the Pinch was my favorite of the first group and such a happy surprise that it was my bottle!  I'm glad I have another bottle in the stash.

Grade Range: B-

1D - Catto's Gold Label, bottled '70s, 43%abv

Review: The nose is nothing but floral perfume.  The palate was Glenfiddich 12yo-like with pears, malt, and caramel.  It's also spicy with a bitter bite in the end.

Comments:  So three out of four of the whiskies in this group had much better palates than noses.  And I recommend leaving three out of the four of this group's whiskies on the dusty shelves if you find them.

Grade Range: C-/C

---

PART 2: Cluny vs. Cluny

2A - Cluny Blended Scotch, bottled mid '80s, 40%abv (my bottle!)

Review: Big pretty florals (flowers, not perfume) on the nose.  Peach skins and almonds.  The palate is all sugar, vanilla, and coconut.

Comments: I had tried this one with Florin (a prince) the weekend before this event.  It's essentially a grain whisky and may counter my theory that all older blends had higher malt contents than today's crop.  I look forward to reviewing this whisky more thoroughly later this year.

Grade Range: C/C+

2B - Cluny 12 year old, bottled '80s, 43%abv

Review: Mango, limes, and sugar on the nose.  Meanwhile, the palate is impressively malty with bursts of orange oil and chili oil.

Comments: A very respectable whisky.  Not only would I drink this again, but if I found this collecting dust on a shelf, I'd get a bottle.

Grade Range: B-/B

---

PART 3: Current 20+ year old blends

3A - Grangestone 30 year old, current, 40%abv

Review: Sneaker rubber, yeast, and urine in the nose.  The palate is a little brighter with vanilla extract and white fruits.

Comments: Lord, what a crap nose.  The palate ain't bad, but I can't believe this is 30 year old stuff.

Grade Range: D+/C-

3B - Grangestone 25 year old, current, 40%abv

Review: The nose has notes of rubber bands and halvah.  It's plenty nutty and grows fruitier with time.  The palate is malty and nutty with a good texture to it.

Comments: A leap better than the 30yo (though Whisky Jug felt the opposite), I'd get this Grangestone over the older one any day.

Grade Range: C+/B-

3C - Annasach Reserve 25 years old, current, 40%abv

Review: Peated manure, orange oil, and limes in the nose.  Sugar, vanilla, marijuana, cream soda, lots of fresh herbs, and a good bitterness in the palate.

Comments: Fun! This one was so much more lively, complex, and interesting than everything that came before it.  Allegedly there's some old Laphroaig in the mix too.  Wish they'd have bottled it at 43 or 46 percent, though, especially since it's three hundred freaking dollars.

Grade Range: B

---

PART 4: Two Cuttys and Two vatted malts

4A - Cutty Sark, bottled early '80s, 43%abv

Review: Burnt bread and butter and caramel in the nose.  Bitter herbs, milk chocolate, and caramel in the palate.

Comments: In my humble opinion, Cutty continues to be the worst current major blend in existence, all turpentine and disappointment.  Unsurprisingly, Southern California corner liquor stores are lousy with older bottlings of this delight.  The good news is that this '80s version is better than today's, a huge accomplishment.

Grade Range: C-

4B - Cutty 12 year old, bottled '70s, 43%abv

Review: The nose is very herbal, think cardamom and Ceylon cinnamon.  Quite aromatic.  Lots of rich caramel.  The palate is spicy, bright, and mildly sweet.  A light Old Bottle Effect note thoughout.

Comments: Then there's the Cutty 12.  I've actually polished off two bottles of this oldie myself.  This first was so-so.  The second was quite good.  The bottle from this tasting leaned much closer to my second one.  There's even a "yum" written in my notes.

Grade Range: B-/B

4C - Cadenhead Creations Rich Fruity Sherry Blended Malt, current, 46%abv

Review: The nose is all wet matzah and vanilla.  The palate has much more going on with some dirty peat, earth, and a light bitterness.

Comments: Um, I found neither sherry or fruit.  I wasn't the only one with this discovery during the tasting.  In any case I liked the palate but the nose just wasn't happening for me.

Grade Range: C

4D - Glen Turner 12 year old Pure Malt, bottled 1980s, 43%abv

Review: Not much going on in the nose.  Some malt and soap.  Weird milky papery note in the palate.  Cinnamon and bleh.

Comments: I wouldn't call this a mess, just kind of strange.  Some folks at the event liked it.

Grade Range: C-

---

PART 5: The Creative Whisky Company Blends

5A - Exclusive Blend 21 year old 1991, current, 46%abv

Review: Mothballs, plums, and oranges in the nose.  A dense, spicy, malty, "yummy" palate.

Comments: Much bigger than everything else that preceded it.  It's not complex, but it's a very good drink.  Recommended if you can find it.

Grade Range: B

5B - Exclusive Blended Malt 20 year old 1994, current, 46%abv

Review: Sherry and dark chocolate dominate the nose, followed by subtler savory and peaty notes.  A big loud gooey palate.  Loaded with sherry and dark fruits.

Comments: Winner.  Period.  Recommended.

Grade Range: B+

5C - Exclusive Blend 35 year old 1980, current, 46%abv

Review: A clean, grain dominant nose with moderate notes of flower blossoms, white fruits, and berries.  The palate has a nice combination of perky fruitiness and a sharper earthy note.

Comments: These Exclusive blends really won the day here.  I do prefer the 20yo blended malt, and it's a toss up between the 35yo and 21yo.  The 35yo is subtler, less immediate, but has a good balance to it.

Grade Range: B

---

PART 6: Ballantine's versus Ballantine's

6A - Ballantine's 12 year old, bottled '80s (that's my guess from what I noted on the bottle, though the folks there said it was from the '70s), 43%abv

Review: The nose is raw, rough, not noticeably whisky.  The palate is awful, all plastic and chemicals.

Comments: I'm going to guess/hope there was a storage problem with the bottle because this was just gross.

Grade Range: F

6B - Ballantine's 17 year old, bottled '50s (yup), 43%abv

Review: The nose is minty with pears and fermented apples.  The palate is very herbal and minerally, with a weird chemical bitterness sneaking in at the end.

Comments: I love the label much more than the stuff in the bottle.  The nose was fine, but the mouth was a bit wacky.  Most very old blends need 30+ minutes to wake up, I gave this one as long as I could (10-15 mins) but it didn't do much.  I like the current 17yo much better.

Grade Range: C

---

THE TOP FIVE!

1. Exclusive Blended Malt 20 year old 1994
2. Exclusive Blend 35 year old 1980

3. Exclusive Blend 21 year old 1991

4. Annasach Reserve 25 year old

5. Cutty 12 year old (1970s)

I've long been biased in favor of old blends, so much to my great surprise, the current blends dominated the dusties at this event.  It did help that most of the current ones had some age on them and that the Exclusives were all bottled at 46%abv.  But other than the Cutty 12 and Pinch 12, I wouldn't recommend any of the dusty blends tried here.  It's about time I stop buying dusty blends, no?

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