First pour tonight, and I gotta say it's pretty good. I'm no professional, but if you like Lagavulin's other offerings you will probably like this.

It's sweet, like really sweet, but I think the peat and smoke counteract it well.

On the nose, the rum barrel didn't really stand out to me, it smells like Lagavulin, but just a little different.

The taste is immediately sweeter than standard 16, but still tastes familiar. Milder on peat, and big on vanilla.

And the finish I found good, the rum fades away, and the peat lingers.

I paid $89 for it and I'd say it was a good buy, I wouldn't pay more though.

Balvenie distillery is a Speyside single malt Scotch whisky distillery in Dufftown, Scotland, owned by William Grant & Sons. One week a year Balvenie turns their production to making a limited run peated whisky. According to Balvenie's website, this practice started after distillery manager Ian Millar visited Islay. He ordered a batch of Speyside peat for the kiln and built a peat burner on the side ‘for, well, extra peatiness’ with the intent to experiment with their The Balvenie profile.

Due to the strong influence of peat, they separate the remaining low wines and feints, basically low-alcohol spirit, and store them in a tank until the following year’s peat week, so there is a year-to-year link between one peat week and the next.

It is bottled at 48.3% ABV. Other than that... I don't seem able to find any details about the maturation, coloring, or possible chill filtration process. Balvenie dedicated a lot of time to crafting a web page to highlight the history behind the making of this bottle, but they offer very little details on the bottle itself beyond their tasting notes.

Regardless, I was excited to try this. I've never had anything from Balvenie before, and I've recently become more interested in Speysides. I've only tried a handful of Speysides so far (the bulk of my whisky experience is focused on Islay so far), but my impressions so far have been very favorable. None of those have been peated, so this seemed like a win-win.

Nose: Canadian bacon, lemon, brown sugar

Palate: smoke, peat, vanilla, chili, apple juice

Finish: lingering burn and sweetness.

Notes: This was very disappointing. It lacks complexity, it’s a bit too sweet, and the peat and sweet that dominate aren’t even well integrated. It doesn’t taste actively bad, but I’m just not finding anything positive about this. Of all the whisky I've tried in the past couple of years, I can honestly say that I enjoyed this one least of all.

Score: 3.5/10

Scoring guide

0 - Undrinkable

1 - Awful

2 - Bad

3 - Flawed

4 - Below Average

5 - Average / Mediocre

6 - Above Average / Decent

7 - Good; a solid choice

8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day

9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions

10 - Mythical/perfect

From Master of Malt:

“Seaweed & Aeons & Digging & Fire 10 Year Old Whisky hails from an undisclosed Islay distillery, with a quarter of its content having been matured in first-fill oloroso sherry casks. This whisky is known for its succinct name which gives a clear indication of its profile: straightforward, smoky, intricate, subtly sherried, well-balanced, and imbued with coastal characteristics. It is an ideal choice for those who appreciate the unadulterated nature of Islay whisky and prefer minimalist design.”

40% ABV.

Nose: Salty brine, bandaids, dark chocolate, seaweed baking in the sun.

Palate: lemonade, wakame, oyster shells, brine, peat, earthy loam, coffee.

Finish: Surprisingly thick with a strong chili and black pepper burn mixed with light caramel. The finish fades pretty quickly.

Notes: I’ll admit I was skeptical, largely due to the name. It just seems a touch… gimmicky. But it’s surprisingly good. None of the notes seemed out of place, and it definitely fit some of the themes in the name: I got clear notes of seaweed on the nose, and I did detect something in the palate that reminded me of heavy, fertile soil. Oddly enough I didn’t really get much smoke (there was plenty of peat, but I find peat and smoke to be rather distinct from each other), although perhaps the “fire” refers to the spicy burn on the finish? I have no idea what “aeons” would taste like.

I can’t say I’d seek out a bottle of this, but I would be perfectly content to order this at a bar or enjoy a dram if offered by someone who did buy a bottle. I think it is easily on par with other OB Islay 10 year old single malts.

Score: 7.8/10

Scoring guide

0 - Undrinkable

1 - Awful

2 - Bad

3 - Flawed

4 - Below Average

5 - Average / Mediocre

6 - Above Average / Decent

7 - Good; a solid choice

8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day

9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions

10 - Mythical/perfect

Elements of Islay was launched by Speciality Drinks Ltd, now Elixir Distillers. Their Cask Edit release is a blend of single malt from an unspecified south coast Islay distillery along with a fruitier style from an unspecified distillery on the north coast. It is a naturally colored non-age statement whisky that’s been aged in first fill and refill bourbon barrels and sherry casks and is non-chill filtered. It is bottled at an ABV of 46%.

Nose: Smoke, vanilla, iodine, chocolate, brine.

Palate: Very smokey, wood smoke and peat smoke. Caramel, brine, creme brulee.

Finish: long, oily finish with salt and a maritime brine and a light caramel sweetness.

Notes: Smells like Lagavulin. The taste reminds me a bit more of laphroaig, but there’s a slight taste of something that reminds me very strongly of an artificial sweetener. I’m not saying that there’s a sweetener in it, but there’s something in there that just triggers that association for me. It’s a bit between an artificial glycerine sweetener and that aftertaste I get from sucralose. If it wasn’t for that sweetness I’d enjoy it much more. I don’t know if this is just a tasting note that hits me wrong, or if something is throwing my palate off. I didn’t alter my usual timing and routine for my whisky reviewing, so I don’t think it’s my palate, but I do wish that I had more than just the 3cl sample so I could try this again another time and see if I still get that saccharine note. As it is, I have to drop its score a bit.

Despite my dissatisfaction with the sweetness, it is a solid Islay whisky that highlights some of the best aspects (elements, if you will!) of Islay: peat, smoke, and strong maritime notes.

Score: 7.7/10

Kyrö Distillery is a Finnish distillery that makes rye whisky and gin. The company was started in 2012, allegedly during a discussion in a Sauna. The founders appear to have kept a sense of humor as core to their identity, and their site (which is somewhat NSFW) has some pretty fun accounts of the company history, including a rather oddball introductory video.

They use Finland-grown rye for their distillation.

Kyrö wood smoke is made from 100% malted finnish whole-grain rye. Following an old northern tradition the malt is alder smoked in a 100-year-old barn. The whisky is double pot-distilled and matured in ex-bourbon, French oak and new American white oak barrels, resulting in intense pepperyness and sweet notes of caramel and vanilla lifted by crisp alder smoke.

47.2% ABV. NAS.

I could not find anything on their website about chill filtration or color, but I did see some reviews saying that they use neither. I can’t validate those claims, so let’s take that with a grain of salt.

Nose: oatcakes, grapefruit, red licorice

Palate: Swedish fish (does Finland make their own version?!?), wax, almond, rye, pine, subtle campfire smoke.

Finish: A thick, oily mouthfeel producing tobacco and juniper flavors gives way to candied fruit mixed with a lingering tannic bitter note that eventually fades to a mild pine.

Notes: I am not sure what I expected from a “peated Finnish rye whisky”, but this… most definitely was not it. The nose also did not prepare me for the taste. I found the nose pretty inviting, if a little overly sweet (more licorice than oatcake by far). The taste, though, is very different. It was actually sweeter than the nose suggested, which is saying something, but there’s a lot of complexity on the palate. The finish was also surprising, changing the character from “eating booze-soaked candy in the forest” to “did I just drink whisky-flavored gin?”.

Overall, I liked this, particularly for the complexity and because it’s very, very far from any other whisky I’ve ever had, but in general it was far too sweet for me. I haven’t had a lot of grain whisky, but what I have had I’ve found a bit too sweet for my liking, so this is probably more of a personal preference thing than a deficiency in the whisky itself.

Score: 7.9/10

Scoring guide

0 - Undrinkable

1 - Awful

2 - Bad

3 - Flawed

4 - Below Average

5 - Average / Mediocre

6 - Above Average / Decent

7 - Good; a solid choice

8 - Great; I'd happily drink this any day

9 - Excellent; for truly special occasions

10 - Mythical/perfect

Teeling Blackpitts Peated Single Malt is an Irish whiskey from Teeling Whiskey. Triple distilled and then matured in a combination of ⅔ ex-bourbon and ⅓ ex-sauternes white wine casks. It is bottled at 46% ABV without chill filtration. There’s no mention of whether they use colors on Teeling’s site, but it is quite light colored and coupled with the lack of chill filtration I’m inclined to believe they don’t add color.

Nose: peach, grape must, peat, black pepper, orange zest.

Palate: Lemony, peppery, light peat, pineapple juice, light salt brine

Finish: Lingering light notes of pepper, mild dish soap, grilled oranges.

Notes: The nose is light and delicate. The flavor is also rather delicate. It’s a really nice mix of fruit and pepper in nearly equal balance. The peat is more of a backdrop. Part of Teeling’s marketing was that the triple distillation process removes some of the “medicinal” taste from the peat smoke; I initially dismissed this as marketing speak, but it really does seem to present the peat in a different light. I’m guessing that is why the peat falls into much more of a background note.

I really like this. It is a nicely light and refreshing dram, and I enjoy the contrast in the flavors. I’d absolutely try this again.

Score: 8.2/10

#Sample 2

I couldn't find much information about Peat Bomb 8 Year Old. According to the listing on Master of Malt it is from the Whisky Bombs brand. The blurb for this bottle is:

Do you love whiskies that pack a big ol' blast of smoky brilliance? Then Peat Bomb is a single malt that's well worth a look! This expression is an 8 year old single malt from an undisclosed distillery on the isle of Islay, and as the name suggests, it's mightily peaty indeed. Earthy smoke, bonfire embers, simmering spice – it's all there and more.

It is bottled at 40% ABV. I could not find out if it is chill filtered, or if it uses artificial colors.

#My review

Nose: Apple cider, light shellac,faint peat smoke, Brunswick stew.

Palate: peat, smoke, raw hardwood, heavily charred bbq meat, burnt sugar, toasted chestnut.

Finish: thin, watery finish of lingering mixture of wood smoke and charcoal smoke. A bit like you had a wooden spoon, set it on fire, let it burn a bit, blew it out, and then used it to eat some soup.

Notes: When I first opened the sample I was immediately hit with strong peat, which was no surprise at all. What was surprising is that after letting it rest the peat on the nose became very subdued. Even more surprising was how all of that immediately went out the window once I tasted it; the palate, at least, absolutely lives up to the name.

If you don’t mind the peat it’s quite an easy sipper. Presumably this is helped by the low ABV; while the lack of alcohol burn makes it easy to drink, it also leaves it thin and, imho, somewhat disappointing. All bark with no bite, if you will.

Although there were a few notes I found somewhat off-putting (the raw hardwood and burnt sugar on the palate weren’t great, and the lingering char on the finish was borderline unpleasant), it wasn’t a bad dram (assuming you enjoy peat). Aside from the nose (which promised a lot more than was actually delivered) it was a bit simple, though, and the thin, watery consistency really hurt my enjoyment.

Score: 6.6/10

Today is the first day for my advent calendar. I figured I'd try and write a review for each one (although I can't promise to publish them daily). I did cheat a bit and look at the list of what should be included, but there's a possibility that some substitutions will be made. That being said, almost all of these will likely be to be brand new to me.

#Sample No. 1

Torabhaig is the newest Isle of Skye distillery, opened in 2017. This makes it the second Isle of Skye distillery in 200 years of legal Scotch distilling. As a new distillery, they don't have an extensive library of releases yet and everything released appears to be NAS.

The distillery provides a nice amount of detail for their bottlings. The official description for this second release of Allt Gleann is:

Our second release in The Legacy Series, Allt Gleann is named after one of two burns that feed the distillery. An evolution on the 2017 inaugural release, Allt Gleann introduces Laureate malted barley alongside Concerto, Safspirit M-1 yeast alongside Pinnacle MG+, and re-fill whisky barrels in maturation alongside first-fill bourbon barrels. There is a little more peat and added complexity compared to the 2017 inaugural release, elegantly showcasing the evolution of our spirit.

They elaborate that the finish is 80% First fill bourbon and 20% re-fill whisky barrels.

Spirit phenols are 77ppm, and whisky phenols at 17ppm. This is not information I've seen listed on other distillery sites (admittedly I'm still very new to scotch, so maybe this is more common than I think), but I think it's very cool that they offer it. This seems in line with Torabhaig being a new distillery with a focus on craft distilling. Accordingly, their bottlings are not chill filtered and they don't add color.

The second release of Allt Gleann is bottled at 46% ABV and has no age statement.

#My review:

Nose: Peat, ocean brine, orange, bowling shoes, wood smoke.

Palate: Early sweetness, then waves of peat and salt, then a spicy burn at the end. Vanilla cream, peat, salt, chili, and black pepper.

Finish: It’s a light finish that fades fairly quickly, but leaves a bit of a spicy chili burn, salt, and fruit.

Notes: The nose is intriguing. It’s salty and funky, but there are undercurrents that remind me of fruit, without being overtly fruity (if that makes any sense?). The nose reminds me of an Ardbeg 10 but with a lighter, fresher note. The palate is not complex. It’s very straightforward: mostly salt and peat. But there’s an underlying sweetness running through the palate that makes a really interesting contrast. This is a brash, young scotch that highlights two rather unsubtle flavors, peat and brine. While that sounds a bit unflattering, it does a pretty classy job of it. In a way it reminds me a bit of Ardbeg Wee Beastie: unrefined, raw, but with more sophistication than you might expect.

I enjoyed this dram. It's not something I'd reach for every day, but it is interesting and I'm glad I tried it. I'm looking forward to seeing more from this distillery.

Score: 7.2/10

I am a noob when it comes to scotch, but this was quite tasty, so I picked up a bottle. It turns out that I like smokey scotch, and this one has a bit of sweetness as well.

Late last year, a hidden trove of whisky was discovered in a cellar room deep within a 13th century Scottish castle. The liquid was subsequently tested and determined to have been distilled back in 1833, making it the oldest known scotch in existence. Now two dozen bottles of it are going under the hammer in a November auction.

My wife got me this for the upcoming holiday season. Waiting until December is going to be hard! A bunch of stuff in here that I’ve never tasted before, including a couple (hopefully; actual contents could vary depending on availability/supply) that have been at the top of my “must try” list: Kilchoman Loch Gorm and Ledaig 10.

Are you planning on opening a special bottle (or two, or three, or more…) for the upcoming holiday season? I’d love to hear what you have in mind!

Has anyone had issues with Lagavulin having inconsistent quality? Some bottles of the 16yo are great, and also have quite a strong peaty flavor. Other bottles have almost no smoke, and in general just taste "okay". It's not just about the smoke. The whisky itself is inconsistent. All bottles I tried are freshly opened. I think it's about a 50/50 chance of getting a nice tasting whisky. Any explanation for this? Are there fake bottles making the rounds out there? Is there a way to spot the good bottles from the bad? Please help! this used to be my favorite whisky, but now I don't know anymore...

The first entry in Ardbeg's new ~~cash grab~~ Anthology series, The Harpy's Tale has been matured for 13 years in rare Sauternes wine casks and married with classic Ardbeg ex-bourbon. As per Ardbeg standard, it is not chill-filtered, and no color is added. It is bottled at 46% ABV.

For my review, I drank this neat from a Glencairn after letting the pour sit 10-15 minutes.

Nose

The first thing that hits me here is a strong sweet undercurrent of sugar cookies, pineapple, and vanilla. Following quickly behind that is a mix of peat and a metallic tang reminiscent of copper. Following behind it all is a faint waft of ocean brine. Overall, it is very pleasant and suggest a complex spirit.

Palate

The nose does not lie. This is a complex spirit, and there's a lot going on with the flavors. At various points I caught strong hits of spice, including black pepper, coriander, cardamom and clove. There's sweetness there, a creamy vanilla mixed with hints of apricot, but not as strong as I expected after the nose. The peat is very strong, and brings with it some bitter notes that stay with you well into the finish. The seawater brine is here, too, as are some notes of pine.

Finish

I was disappointed at first with how quickly the finish dissipated, but halfway through my first dram the finish was lingering significantly longer. Pepper and spices mixed with vanilla coat the tongue pleasantly. However, they're joined by a not-so-pleasant lingering ashy bitterness that I find hard to ignore. There's also lingering peat, as well as raw wood that at times strongly reminds me of popsicle sticks.

Comparisons

I'm trying to include at least one comparison in my reviews since I find the tasting notes to be so subjective. Being able to use other bottlings as baselines for comparison seems a little more... useful? For this bottling, though, I'm not sure which would be the most appropriate Ardbeg to compare it to.

The Ardbeg 10 can be a good baseline for comparison for anything in the Ardbeg line, since it is part of their core line and has some very characteristic notes. The Harpy's Tale does fairly well compared to the 10, in that it is far more complex. I like Ardbeg 10 quite a bit, but it is fairly simple. Harpy's Tale is nowhere near as sweet, nor does it have the strong citrus flavor I associate with the 10. Both have strong peaty smoke, but the Harpy's Tale brings significantly more ashy bitterness with the peat. Though both are bottled at 46%, the Harpy's Tale does have a stronger finish.

Considering the price point and the complexity of the Harpy's Tale, Ardbeg Uigeadail is worth mentioning, too. I find Uigeadail to be much more complex than the 10, as well as a bit pricier. Harpy's Tale beats Uigeadail in both regards. It has a lot more flavors vying for attention, and is certainly much more expensive. However, Uigeadail just feels more... polished. Some of that may be the difference between cask strength and the 46% Harpy's Tale release. I think Harpy's Tale may have been better served bottled at cask strength. I'm not sure if it would have avoided the lingering ash-and-popsicle-stick finish, but certainly the $140+ price tag would have been more palatable if it were cask strength.

In the end, though, I think the main way that Harpy's Tale loses out to Uigeadail is that it is, well... just kind of all over the place. I find the various notes interesting. Enjoyable, even. But I'm simply not sure they work together. Certainly some of the notes seems to fight against others. Sometimes that works well, like the peat countering the sweetness on the palate. But in other cases I just don't think it works out. Uigeadail, by comparison, is a strong, polished whisky that builds a cohesive whole from the sum of its flavorful parts.

Conclusion

I was a bit hesitant to pick this one up, despite my general appreciation for Ardbeg. The only one of the special releases I've tried was Scorch (for the record, I liked it, but I also didn't have a lot of other heavily peated whiskies to compare it to). The reviews across the recent special releases have been pretty consistent in their criticisms: the uniqueness isn't justified by the premium price, even when the uniqueness "works".

I'm inclined to agree, including the Harpy's Tale.

Overall, I did enjoy it, and I am glad that I pulled the trigger on this bottle. It's interesting. I do enjoy savoring it and moving my focus from flavor to flavor in a way I can't with the other Ardbegs I've had (10, Wee Beastie, Uigeadail, and Scorch). I wish it worked better, though, and while I wouldn't turn down a dram offered to me, I also wouldn't buy another bottle. There are too many jarringly off notes, and the price makes me a bit resentful that it isn't cask strength. I have a suspicion, as well, that some of the unflattering notes are due to the watering down.

While perusing my local liquor store over Labor Day weekend, I found something I simply couldn't resist. Art of the Spirits is a small distillery out of Colorado Springs with a few interesting selling points. Most obviously, the artwork - each bottle has a label based on an oil painting by Danial James or David Uhl, two Colorado artists made famous by their work for Harley Davidson motorcycles. I'm a big believer that a handcrafted whiskey is a work of art in its own right so I love the pairing here. Less obvious is that this distiller has specifically targeted the barrel pick market. Each of the five whiskies shown here is a cask strength single barrel selected by Goody Goody. The three Bonnie-and-Clyde themed "Final Run" bottles are actually the same spirit, just finished in different ways to bring out different flavors, whereas we also have as "Easy Elegance" and "The Originals" are a bit different. All five bottles were in the $80-$100 range each at my store.

I will put my individual reviews below, but overall I am impressed by Art of the Spirits. This is a very competitive price point, and none of these are likely to become an everyday favorite. Keeping in mind that these are cask strength limited editions I always felt like I was getting my money's worth though. Which is best? That's hard to say. "The Originals" was my least favorite and the one of the five I wouldn't recommend. The flavor profile was certainly unique but not something that really clicked with me. I can also say that I preferred the Ruby Port "Final Run" over the "Tawny Port" as those are similar enough that a head-to-head comparison feels fair. Between the Ruby, the Madiera, and they surprisingly complex Rye "Easy Elegance" I find it impossible to crown a victor however. All three are excellent and which I prefer depends entirely on my mood at the moment.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/5251742

I was very surprised after waiting all year to see them drastically cut the price a day after our summer tourist season ended. From $69 to $39 for a 2019, 2020, and 2021 cask strength releases 375ml. It has had the asterisk on the full price tag for awhile now and I was hoping this day would come. About a full pallet left when I got mine.

Ardbeg's Wee Beastie is a n Islay single malt whisky aged a minimum of 5 years in a combination of ex-bourbon and Oloroso sherry casks. It is the youngest whisky regularly sold by Ardbeg, and I believe is also generally the cheapest. As to be expected from Ardbeg, it is not chill-filtered, and has no artificial coloring added. It is bottled at 47.4% ABV.

The bottle describes it as:

Young and intensely SMOKY, with a rich explosive mouthfeel of CHOCOLATE, TAR, and SAVORY MEATS. Cracked BLACK PEPPER and sappy PINE RESIN on the snout.

Honestly, the idea of a cheap 5 year old whisky had me ignoring Wee Beastie, but I saw some surprisingly positive reviews and, in the interest of trying to learn the full range of Islay malts readily available in my area, I decided to pick up a bottle.

Tasting Notes

Rested 15 minutes in a Glencairn, served neat.

Nose

There's no subtlety to the peat, which should not be a surprise given the age and the marketing description. I also could detect hints of black pepper (a rare case where my senses agree with the marketing!), and also iodine. Behind it all is a tang like iron and copper. There's not anything sweet in the nose; it comes in strong and harsh, but not in a bad way.

Palate

The initial flavors are some of that sweetness missing from the nose. I tasted an initial hit of vanilla mixed with plum. That's quickly replaced with a massive wallop of peat and peat smoke.

Finish

Peat, smoke, more peat, and perhaps some salty vanilla cream at the end.

Comments

This is an intense bottling, and really surprised me. Despite the overwhelming peat there's a lot more complexity and depth to this than I expected. When comparing this to Ardbeg's 10 year, I actually feel like the Wee Beastie is the more complex spirit. There's a lot going on with it, even if that's mostly peat, smoke, and more peat. The 10 year is sweeter and much more of an everyday drink, however. Despite my surprise and appreciation for the Wee Beastie, I don't foresee myself reaching for this often. It's harsh, oily, and a massive peat bomb, as advertised.

That being said, this whisky is a great buy for the money, particularly when you are looking for a real punch of peat.

First, an overly-long introduction! Please feel free to skip down to "Octomore 13.2: the actual review part" if you just want to know what I think; otherwise, you're in for an in-depth description of why I think whisky reviews are mostly crap. You've been warned!

I've been wanting to try my hand at a whisky review for a while, but honestly I find most reviews to be.... kind of confusing. Every time I try a whisky I diligently write down notes about the experience.

I spend several minutes carefully inhaling noseful after noseful, struggling to separate odors from the whisky into concrete flavors that I can describe. Once I've convinced myself that I've been able to extract "notes of ripe stone fruit" or something similar, I move on to tasting it only to once again wrestle with the concept of taking a flavor that my brain identifies as "whisky" and tease out multiple distinct components.

When I'm done, I take a few moments to try and actually focus on the whisky itself, which by this point it honestly feels like maybe I've neglected. I then look at my notes, trying to decide if I'm finally starting to get the hang of it, or if I'm just fooling myself.

Inevitably, doubt sets in and I resolve to "cheat", and compare my notes to the tasting notes of others who presumably know what the hell they're doing and aren't just bluffing their way through the process.

Instant regret. Every. Single. Time.

I never get it right.

Lagavulin's Offerman Edition? Instead of "Pungent, peaty, woody and spicy. Flavours of cocoa and sweet berry notes. Chocolatey and warming on the palate with a lingering and spicy finish," I got "copper and peach with bandaids. Tar, salt, and apples."

Lagavulin's 12 Year Special Release 2021? The distiller describes it as "Mild, drying and soon, wonderfully aromatic; clean, fresh and maritime, with top notes of sea air and Himalayan salt, supported by fragrant smoke-dried Lapsang Souchong tea, mineral salts and light cleansing salve. Beneath these lie drier notes of cocoa powder and dried seaweed, with a squeeze of lemon zest, this salty sweetness imbued with wood-smoke from a distant bonfire on the shore.". Me? I got "leather and peat with black pepper and sugar cookies."

Its enough to make me feel like perhaps I'm suffering from some rare genetic disorder that results in my only having a small percentage of the taste buds gifted to others.

Except... maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one trying to bluff my way through this. Maybe everyone else writing these reviews (or at least a large portion of them) is just, for lack of a better term... bullshitting their way through the process?

I started looking through reviews on whiskybase and other places, looking for patterns among reviews for specific bottlings. I haven't found any. One reviewer will call out the "strong notes of red fruit". Another will talk about pineapple, peach, orange and mango (none of which are red). A third reviewer will describe it as bacon and caramel.

Maybe I was onto something with this all being a bunch of bullshit? The more reviews I read, the more I was convinced. What else should I think when one reviewer describes the nose of Octomore 13.2 as "chic, blackberry, sweet dark fruit tones ... so sweet, honey undertones, heavy tar on a hot railroad", another says "leather and flavored tobacco, raisin bread, plums, dried figs. A note of peat smoke that is not too clear wafts over it. Seems naturally sweet, but not sweet yet," and still a third says "Honey, citrus and salty, dirty with cow sh*t on a farm land, grassy, tart."

So Octomore 13.2 is sweet, but not sweet, smells like fruit, but also smells like cow shit?

Then I saw a review where the nose was described as "precious stone, jasper, quartz, tourmaline" and the palate as " the impression of tasting diamonds".

Okay, that settles it. I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I've done some rockhounding, so I'm well aware that tasting rocks is a thing, but you cannot tell me that any scotch smells like jasper, quartz, and tourmaline and expect me to take you even remotely seriously. Okay, wait. Maybe I'm just being close-minded. Maybe I should sniff some of my rocks before judging, just to make sure. I'll be right back.

Nope. I just checked. My tourmaline smells exactly the same as my jasper. My quartz actually had a slightly iron smell to it, but that's still an iron smell. Not a quartz smell.

So, anyway, the gist of all of this is that I no longer care if I get it "right". Plus I'm no longer convinced that reviews that call out "tasting notes" are meaningful. What good does it do for someone wanting to try a new scotch if I tell them I taste campfire and oysters, but they take it home and taste strawberries and a chocolate-covered hamburger?

Thus, my first review.

Now that I've got all that out of the way, here's what I actually think about Octomore 13.2.

Octomore 13.2: the actual review part!

I'd be remiss if I didn't start by providing some facts about this drink.

Produced by Bruichladdich Progressive Hebridean Distillers, Octomore 13.2 is a "super heavily peated" expression of Islay malt at 137.3 PPM. It is bottled at near cask strength, with a 58.3% alcohol content. It is a five-year-old spirit that spent its entire life maturing in Olorosa butts from Fernando de Castilla, Spain. Basically, it's the same 100% Scottish mainland barley spirit from Octomore's 13.1, peated to the same level, but aged in the Olorosa sherry casks instead of the 13.1's American Oak casks.

Despite my skepticism over the traditional tasting descriptions, I still begin with smelling it. I poured it neat into a glencairn and let it rest for about 10-15 minutes.

My first impression was that this is very different than other whiskies I've had (I've tried most of the "standard" Islay malts from Laphoaig, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Kilchomen, etc. ). The nose is primarily sweet, although there's a strong wine note from the Olorosa casks. But that's too simple of a description. There's a lot going on in that nose. The sweetness could definitely be described as several kinds of fruit (I was reminded of plums and peach, for what little that's worth), but I also felt there were more "refined" sugar odors mixed in. Behind all of that were odors that were more inorganic in nature. The end result was a deep, nuanced complexity that had me sniffing repeatedly just to explore everything that was offered. After several minutes of just smelling this, I felt like there was still more that I could find if I kept at it. But at this point I was impatient to taste it.

The taste did not disappoint, and was considerably more complex than the already impressive nose. Honestly, this stuff is crazy. As the nose suggests, there's a great deal of sweetness, but there's so much more going on here. After the initial wash of flavors I kept getting strong impressions of salty water mixed with the other flavors, but without overwhelming. What I found most surprising was the smoke and peat flavors. Despite the "super heavily peated" 137.3 ppm, the smoky flavors were shockingly well blended with the other flavors. Where Bruichladdich's Port Charlotte 10 year uses the peat as a banner to wave in your face to remind you with every sip that you're drinking a heavily peated Islay malt, Octomore 13.2 uses that peat as a backdrop. It is undeniably there, but it doesn't grab your attention. Rather, you have to look for it, moving your focus away from everything else that's going on with the flavors. My original notes from my first tasting stated "the smoke flavor seems to bridge between the fruits and the salt," and I think that summarizes what I experienced pretty well.

The finish was a somewhat amusing experience for me, as this was the first time I was convinced I really tasted "chocolate" in a scotch. I also felt there were lingering notes of cinnamon, plum, and leather. Of course, after reading Bruichladdich's description of the finish, I was "wrong" as usual. I should be noticing "earthy peat notes com[ing] to the fore ... along with the fruit and the nutty aromatics of the oloroso casks." A "salty tang of sea breeze" was supposed to finish it all up. But after two drinks, I still have a lingering taste of chocolate mixed in with an oily brine. More relevantly, there's a very pleasant mouth feel that lingers for a long time after finishing.

My overall impression is that Octomore 13.2 has a tremendous depth to it, with enough complexity that I had trouble focusing on just one note at a time, instead of hunting around trying to tease out aspects of the overall flavor. The full maturation in oloroso casks provided a starkly different experience than I've had, even with other Islay malts finished in sherry casks. This is an entirely different beast than Kilchoman Sanaig or Ardbeg Uigeadail, for example, both of which spend time in Oloroso casks. Octomore is at a different price point than those other expressions, but in my opinion that's entirely justified. The more I drink of this expression, the more fascinated I become by just how much is going on with it.

Anyone have some suggestions? Ledaig is on my wishlist already (if I can ever get my hands on some). What have you tried?

Bonus points for a good peaty, non-Islay whisky matured in sherry casks.

Distiller: Laphroaig

Product: Cairdeas

Bottle: 2023 - White Port and Madeira

Category: Islay

Aged: Three quarters finished in second fillMadeira, one quarter finished in first fill white port

Nose: Green apples and peach cobbler over the distinctive Laphroaig peat smoke

Body: Harsh peat smoke is quickly tempered with candied oranges, honey, vanilla, and buttery dinner rolls.

Finish: Miles of lingering campfire smoke with a bit of salted caramel underneath.

Activation: Helps to marry the sweet fruits with the oily iodine peat, creating a single coherent flavor where once there were distinct layers. Recommended.

Notes: Laphroaig Cairdeas is one of the longest running special editions in the industry, although apparently this is the very first offering by new master distiller Barry MacAffer. Certainly more distinctive than last year's unimaginative “Warehouse 1” release, this bottle grows on you with time. It doesn’t break much new ground - aging harsh peats in wine casks is a time honored tradition by this point - but it is remarkably well balanced, with none of the chemical or medicinal harshness that you might expect. Things might be looking up at Laphroaig.

Real steal at only $1,999.99, they also have other limited releases for you true Blanton's hounds. Still only 93 proof, though.

Distillery: Compass Box

Product Line: -

Product: Canvas

Aged: Vino naranja and American oak

Category: Blended

Nose: Delicate custards and marmalade. A citrus of bitter sort, with under-ripe figs.

Body: Rich honey over apricots and oranges. A light, English muffin sort of biscuit. As it goes on, a rich dark chocolate encroaches.

Finish: A bold, malty surprise. Loses nearly all the delicate fruit notes in favor of wheats and grains and fresh baked bread.

Activation: Really opens up some of the rich juicy fruits. Oranges, grapes, pears. Recommended.

Notes: I've always been fond of Compass Box, but they went through a phase for a while where seemingly every new limited release was (over) aged in a sherry cask. I'm glad to announce that Canvas breaks this pattern- in fact, there’s no sherry here at all! Just some Spanish orange wine, a beverage I didn’t even know existed until I picked up this bottle. It’s sweet and rich and creamy and endlessly drinkable, without that bitter or medicinal quality that can frequently come through with sherried casks. After such a fruit forward body, the malted finish is a welcome surprise as well. One of the best blended malts I’ve had in a while, though it is on the pricier side at ~$135.