It's Always Sunny in Port Ellen

On our first morning back in America, I woke before the sun.  All night I'd dreamt lightly about moving my family out of a well-weathered stone Scottish house, refusing to hand over prized shrubberies to neighbors, instead doing guerrilla plantings in broad daylight in strangers' backyards.  Once awake I wondered how on earth I was going to organize my travel experiences into blog posts.

Aside from 48 hours of drizzle in the Highlands, the sun never set in Scotland.  Almost literally.  Sunrise was 4:30ish, Sunset 10:30ish.  In the Highlands, the dying daylight glow drifted past midnight.  The temperature floated between the the low 60s and the low 70s the entire time.  Such was the gorgeous sunlight that I received a blistering sunburn......while we were on Islay.

Edinburgh remains, aesthetically, my favorite city in the world, though the Royal Mile has now become Tourist Trap Mile.  Also, The Queen was staying in the Palate of Holyroodhouse and she wouldn't let anyone in.  Dammit Liz, go home.  Drumnadrochit continues to be quiet and peaceful despite the all its new construction.  But Islay's beauty took me by surprise.  I expected a slightly dingy fishing island, but instead its geography, which shifts every few miles, glows in its wild freedom.  And Campbeltown, which I expected to be a very dingy shipping town, was full of lovely architecture (whether sturdily intact or romantically crumbled) that revealed its great prosperity from a previous century.

Then there was our questionable car, excellent seafood at every stop, Finlaystone House, Loch Lomond National Park, two Loch Ness Monsters, and 56 whiskies sampled in 7 days.  Even Kristen tried a few single malts, with positive results.  As I write this, early in the AM, I still don't know what I'll be sharing here or how I'll do so.  But here are some photos in the meantime...

To The North Sea Go We!

All things being equal, I'd rather be in Drumnadrochit.  So we're going.  Today.

I had planned two other trips to Scotland over the past decade but they never came to be.  Those were different times for the Scotch whisky industry and my opinion of it.  But I go now during a time of stagnation (or worse) in volume sales, all the while the high-end of the market is flooded with decadence.  I've come to the realization of what a terrible value Scotch has become compared to the rest of the world's whisky markets (save for Taiwan).  I'm enjoying $10-$25 bourbons much more than $50+ scotches.

Though I still have a great love -- or maybe "an unending deep interest" is a better phase because it's a commodity not a person -- for Scotch whisky and many of its distilleries, it is a feeling that's no longer innocent and pure, having been corrupted by the actions of the industry itself.  Watching the output from my old favorite distilleries, like Talisker and Laphroaig, getting thoroughly abused in the name of, what, product line expansion or veiling problematic spirit has inspired me to buy less or none of their products.  Experiencing the industry at large pushing more active American oak into their whiskies in failed attempts to either mimic bourbon or artificially speed up aging, I've found that they're transforming scotch into a new product as a whole, and I don't like the way it tastes.  Tasting whisky is sort of the point, right?

As I mentioned in posts from years ago, I took an interest in Scotland itself, its land, its history, its people, at least a decade before I started regularly drinking scotch whisky.  The month I spent in Scotland and Ireland in 2002 was one of the most uplifting and cleansing experiences in my life.  But I drank no Scotch that month, aside from a glass or two of Black & White on the rocks.  Yes, I probably missed out on some of the greatest whisky in history, but if I were to do it again I wouldn't change a thing (except maybe magically having more money).

So now, in 2016, I travel back there with my wife (Clan MacMillan in my house!), a woman whom I may not have met or wooed successfully if not for my original Scotland experience.  (It's a long, boring, personal story.  Just trust me, it's true.)  No, I am not going to 75 distilleries and 300 pubs in 9 days.  We just moved across the United States and we're tired.  Rain or shine or rain, we're going to do some historical stuff, lots of walking, eating, and resting.

I realize this post strikes of being short on enthusiasm.  Sorry, I'm worn out from a difficult three months (or five years?).  Inside I'm f***ing stoked!  We're going to Scotland and doing some really sweet s**t!  We will be going to distilleries.  We will be going bars and restaurants and touristy things.  I'll have my fancy DSLR, which has taken very few non-Mathilda photos, and (nope, need room for bottles) my cell phone and my laptop, so I will try to post photos here as often as time allows.  I will be bringing whisky and toddler toys back with me, I may write about one or the other upon my return.  Stay tuned...

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