Author Archives: selfbuilt

J.P. Wiser’s 35 Year Old

This is my fourth and final review of the limited-release 2017 Northern Border Collection from Corby – and the oldest release of a Wiser’s whisky to date.

Sporting an impressive 35 year old age statement, this J.P. Wiser’s whisky is composed mainly of double-distilled corn whisky that has been distilled to a high ABV, and aged in reused ex-bourbon barrels. It also includes about 10% column- and pot-distilled rye whisky, aged in virgin oak barrels.

This mix is a fairly standard arrangement for a Canadian whisky – the high-proof corn whisky from reused barrels serves as a “base”, to which a smaller amount of “flavouring” whisky is added (i.e., the low-proof rye whisky aged in new barrels). But it is rare to see something aged this long, and I’m personally curious to see what effect this has on the various components.

Bottled at an impressive 50% ABV, this was released for $165 CAD at the LCBO last month. I’m still seeing a few bottles on shelves at some locations, so you should still have a chance to pick it up if you move quickly.

Here is how it compares to the rest of the NBC group, and other relevant whiskies, in my Meta-Critic Database.

Canadian Club 20yo: 8.63 ± 0.30 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Canadian Club 30yo; 9.00 ± 0.18 on 6 reviews ($$$$$)
Canadian Club 40yo: 9.01 ± 0.48 on 6 reviews ($$$$$)
Canadian Rockies 21yo: 8.96 ± 0.26 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye: 8.55 ± 0.35 on 18 reviews ($$)
Forty Creek Confederation Oak (All Batches): 8.78 ± 0.37 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Gooderham & Worts 17yo Little Trinity Three Grain: 8.63 ± 0.41 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 18yo: 8.58 ± 0.43 on 17 reviews ($$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 35yo: 8.78 ± 0.67 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
J.P. Wiser’s Dissertation: 8.98 ± 0.23 on 7 reviews ($$$)
J.P. Wiser’s Legacy: 8.97 ± 0.36 on 16 reviews ($$)
J.P. Wiser’s Red Letter: 8.79 ± 0.37 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
J.P. Wiser’s Union 52: 8.82 ± 0.34 on 9 reviews ($$$)
Lot 40: 8.90 ± 0.34 on 22 reviews ($$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 Year Old: 9.25 ± 0.09 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Masterson’s Straight Rye 10yo: 8.87 ± 0.40 on 17 reviews ($$$$)
Pike Creek 21yo Speyside Cask Finish: 8.68 ± 0.27 on 5 reviews ($$$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Very sweet, with brown sugar, caramel and maple sugar (I rarely get maple notes, but very pronounced here). Vanilla. Caramel apple, slightly burnt. Orange citrus. A range of soft floral notes. Buttered popcorn. Almost bourbon like, but less woody – it does indeed seem liked it was aged primarily in well-used barrels. Faint acetone at first, but dissipates with time. Great nose overall – appropriately complex for the age, yet not dominated by the wood. Well done!

Palate: Sweet up front, with similar syrupy notes as the nose – definitely some complex sugars. Gently floral. Caramel corn. Caramel apple again. Then pronounced cinnamon and nutmeg hit, with cloves and some light wood spice. Finally, a bit of pepper and some tea notes round it out. Great mouth feel for 50% ABV, syrupy in texture. Some ethanol heat on way down, understandably. Again, this is surprisingly not very oaky for the age.

Finish: ‎Medium short. Caramel sweetness returns and dominates. Caramel corn. Otherwise not much going on here unfortunately, fairly simple on the way out. A bit thin on finish, frankly.

With water, it becomes more aromatic on the nose, with enhanced caramelized sugar notes. Water lightens mouth feel quickly, so I recommend you drink it neat or with only a few drops of water. It certainly doesn’t need the extra caramel flavour, in my view.

Great nose and mouthfeel, really impressed on those fronts. Very decent palate too, but with a shortish finish unfortunately. A bourbon drinker might like this, as it brings in a lot of the traditional bourbon sweetness – but without the heavy oak spice.

The extended aging seems to have really mellowed the palate, while keeping the moderately complex sugars and aromatic esters around. I find myself being drawn back to sample this one repeatedly – it is an easy-to-drink, likeable dram. Elegant is probably how I would best describe it, for the Canadian whisky class. This is my second favourite of the collection after Lot 40 Cask Strength 12yo (although Pike Creek 21yo is a close third).

Among reviewers, Jason of In Search of Elegance and Davin of Canadian Whisky and Whisky Advocate are huge fans – both give this one of their highest scores ever. Among reddit reviewers, TOModera really likes this one, giving it a high score (second highest rating for the group). It gets slightly above average scores from Devoz, muaddib99 and xile_. Sinjun86 and smoked_herring both give it an average score (although their second highest for the NBC group). Finally, Chip the Rum Howler gives it a very low score (due to a moldy note he perceives). So clearly a more variable view on this one – but most quite like it, giving it high marks for the class.

 

 

Gooderham & Worts 17 Year Old Little Trinity Three Grain

This member of the new Northern Border Collection by Corby (part of their Rare Releases for 2017) is released under the Gooderham & Worts line. A stabled name in the history of Toronto whisky distillation, the inaugural Gooderham & Worts whisky was a four-grain blend of wheat, rye, corn and malt whiskies. This new limited release is named Little Trinity (after the church William Gooderham built for his distillery workers), with a 17 year old age statement. They have dropped the malt component of the blend – this is now a three-grain mix.

According to Davin at Canadian Whisky, three types of wood were used to age the base corn spirit for this whisky: new virgin oak barrels, second-fill ex-bourbon barrels, and well-used barrels that had already seen several whiskies previously. The once-distilled rye whisky component was matured in ex-bourbon barrels, and the once-distilled wheat whisky was aged in virgin oak.

Bottled at 45% ABV, this is one of the most affordable members of the NBC, at $80 CAD at the LCBO (and you might still be able to find a bottle in some locations). Here is how it compares to other members of the NBC group, and comparable popular Canadian whiskies in my Meta-Critic Database:

Alberta Premium Dark Horse: 8.62 ± 0.35 on 17 reviews ($)
Canadian Club 100% Rye: 8.29 ± 0.41 on 16 reviews ($)
Canadian Club 20yo: 8.63 ± 0.30 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye: 8.55 ± 0.35 on 18 reviews ($$)
Forty Creek Confederation Oak (All Batches): 8.78 ± 0.37 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Forty Creek Copper Pot Reserve: 8.70 ± 0.36 on 14 reviews ($)
Gooderham & Worts Four Grain: 8.65 ± 0.26 on 13 reviews ($$)
Gooderham & Worts 17yo Little Trinity Three Grain: 8.63 ± 0.41 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 18yo: 8.58 ± 0.43 on 17 reviews ($$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 35yo: 8.78 ± 0.67 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
J.P. Wiser’s Legacy: 8.97 ± 0.36 on 16 reviews ($$)
Lot 40: 8.90 ± 0.34 on 22 reviews ($$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength (Single Cask): 9.17 ± 0.10 on 6 reviews ($$$$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 Year Old: 9.25 ± 0.09 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Masterson’s Straight Rye 10yo: 8.87 ± 0.40 on 17 reviews ($$$$)
Pike Creek 10yo Port-finished: 8.30 ± 0.47 on 13 reviews ($$)
Pike Creek 10yo Rum-finished: 8.56 ± 0.23 on 8 reviews ($$)
Pike Creek 21yo Speyside Cask Finish: 8.68 ± 0.27 on 5 reviews ($$$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet caramel with some honey. Apple juice with a candied/dried mixed fruit concoction – very fragrant. Buttered popcorn. Creamed wheat. Light rye spice, nutmeg mainly. Except for the wheat, this is a very classic “Canadian rye” presentation (with its strong corn notes) – but fruitier than typical. Off notes are reduced from the original G&W, and consist mainly of light varnish.‎ An improvement to be sure, quite a decent nose.

Palate: Lots of rye and corn syrup now. Caramel picks up too, and the buttery flavour. A surprisingly heavy oak spice flares up quickly, packing quite a kick. This woody influence was unexpected, and is surprisingly long-lasting in the mouth. Pepper and cinnamon add to the nutmeg. Mouth feel is a bit weak for 45%, waterier than expected.‎ Not quite as complex as the nose suggested, with heavy wood spice dominating.

Finish‎: Shortish. Once the wood spice dies down (fairly quickly after swallowing), light buttered popcorn remains as the dominant note. It really just sorts of vanishes though, surprisingly quickly. A bit tannic, but no real off notes.

This is is a decent Canadian rye-style whisky, with some wheat notes adding to typical corn-heavy base. Surprisingly heavy wood spice influence, especially mid-palate. A step up from standard Gooderham & Worts, which I found to be a bit young tasting. But the finish is still too quick, and the promised complexity on the nose fails to materialize. Frankly, this is my least favourite of the Northern Border Collection – I would give it only a slightly above average score for the class of Canadian whisky.

Among reviewers, Jason of In Search of Elegance is a big fan – and even though he ranks it third for the collection, he gives it a very high score. Davin of Canadian Whisky and Whisky Advocate gives this his lowest score for the group (but still above average). On Reddit, TOModera is the most positive (although he only gives it his third highest score for the group). This is followed by fairly average scores from muaddib99 and Sinjun86 (lowest of the group for both of them). smoked_herring also gave it his lowest score for the group, with a below average rating. So from these early reviews, it seems most agree with me that while this is a decent whisky, it is not one of the stars of the collection.

Pike Creek 21 Year Old Speyside Cask Finish

Now here is an oddity – a Canadian corn/rye whisky finished in casks that previously held Speyside Scotch single malt.

Pike Creek 21 Year Old Speyside Cask Finish is another member of the just-released Northern Border Collection from Corby – a collection of rare, one-of-a-kind, limited-release Canadian whiskies. Following up on the hugely popular Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 year old, I was most curious to see how this expression compared.

I was always a fan of the original Pike Creek 10 Year Old, finished in Port barrels. The port added a distinctive fruity finish to what was a fairly simple Canadian whisky. Around this time last year, Corby quietly switched to a rum-barrel finish for Pike Creek – but upped the strength slightly. I also speculated at the time they also increased the rye content (which has apparently been confirmed). I could see why some might prefer the new version, but I personally didn’t find the rum-finish very interesting or compelling.

For this release, they apparently had some casks that were aging well, and so they decided to allow them to continue to age longer than usual.  Interestingly, they choose a pretty unique set of casks for final finishing – re-fill ex-bourbon barrels that had been used to mature an unnamed Scotch single malt whisky (from Chivas Brothers). I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before, for a Canadian whisky.

Currently available at the LCBO for $90 CAD. It is bottled at 45% ABV. I have bottle 0558 out of 3900 produced.

Here is how it compares in my whisky Meta-Critic Database to some other recent Canadian specialty releases, and similarly-aged Canadian whiskies:

Canadian Club 20yo: 8.63 ± 0.30 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Canadian Club 40yo: 8.72 ± 0.23 on 4 reviews ($$$$$)
Canadian Rockies 21yo: 8.96 ± 0.26 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Century Reserve 21yo: 8.73 ± 0.20 on 10 reviews ($$)
Collingwood 21yo: 8.55 ± 0.41 on 13 reviews ($$$)
Danfield’s 21yo: 8.51 ± 0.67 on 13 reviews ($$)
Gibson’s Finest Rare 18yo: 8.99 ± 0.32 on 10 reviews ($$$$)
Gooderham & Worts Four Grain: 8.67 ± 0.26 on 13 reviews ($$)
Gooderham & Worts 17yo Little Trinity Three Grain: 8.53 ± 0.41 on 4 reviews ($$$$)
Highwood Ninety Rye 20yo: 8.77 ± 0.32 on 11 reviews ($$)
J.P. Wiser’s 35yo: 8.59 ± 0.77 on 5 reviews ($$$$$+)
J.P. Wiser’s Dissertation: 8.98 ± 0.23 on 7 reviews ($$$)
Lot 40: 8.90 ± 0.34 on 22 reviews ($$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 Year Old: 9.25 ± 0.10 on 6 reviews ($$$$)
Pike Creek 10yo Port-finished: 8.30 ± 0.47 on 13 reviews ($$)
Pike Creek 10yo Rum-finished: 8.57 ± 0.24 on 8 reviews ($$)
Pike Creek 21yo Speyside Cask Finish: 8.64 ± 0.28 on 4 reviews ($$$$)

It is still early for reviews, but Lot 40 Cask Strength is the unquestioned darling the Northern Border Collection.

Let’s see what I find in the glass for this Pike Creek 21yo:

Nose: Ok, that’s a bit different. It is not a very strong nose, but there are unusual characteristics. There’s something vegetal that’s hard to describe (green tobacco leaf?). Whatever it is, it is more reminiscent of something you’d find in malted barley than a corn/rye whisky. That said, I do get corn (fresh corn and corn syrup). Green fruits, including green apple and under-ripe pears. Peanut shells. Woody, like old floor boards. It’s not as sweet and lightly fruity as the original Pike Creek 10 year old Port-finished (or even the newer Rum-finished version). But the extra age shows in that there are no real off notes, beyond a slight sourness (and something that could almost be called smokey).

Palate: Nicer in the mouth, with more flavours coming through now – especially the fruit (orchard fruits) and light caramels (plus brown sugar). Nutty, with just a touch of maltiness. A good balance, with some cinnamon and nutmeg building over time. The extra ABV is very much appreciated (regular Pike Creek was only 40%) – nice mouthfeel here, with a slightly buttery texture. Absolutely no off notes, this is very pleasant to sip. A touch tannic on the way out.

Finish: Medium (although longer than standard Pike Creek). Sticky residue on the lips and gums, with corn syrup and light honey. Pear. Faint tea note. Some cinnamon comes back at the very end.

This is a mild and gentle sipper. Nothing really stands out at any point of the experience – it is just sort of “there”. It’s a whisky that hints at different characters, but none of them ever really take shape. Ultimately, this is a very likeable chameleon – one that dances around a sharp definition, without ever being caught. It will not be hard to polish this bottle off.

There aren’t many reviews of this one, but it gets generally positive assessments from TOModera, muaddib99, and Sinjun86 on Reddit. Davin of Canadian Whisky is very positive. Like the original Pike Creek, I don’t see this whisky garnering a lot of attention from enthusiasts – which means you might actually have a chance to pick a bottle up before they disappear!

Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 Year Old

With the surging popularity of whisky these days, it has been rewarding to see Corby come out with some innovative Canadian products (especially through their Wiser’s brand).  Many of these have been limited releases (often geographically restricted within Canada), but widely appreciated none-the-less by the local enthusiast communities.

Here I have one of the new bottlings from their new Rare Releases series for 2017 – specifically, Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 year old. This is part of what is known as (collectively) the Northern Border Collection, and I’ll be reviewing the other members of this collection shortly.

Lot 40 has always been one of the darlings of the Corby whisky catalog. Not well known outside of Canada, it is invariably the first thing every Canadian whisky nerd points to when asked for a recommendation of a Canadian rye. It is a very reasonably priced and widely available Canadian 100% rye whisky – please see my earlier review above for more info.

Recently, in anticipation of this Northern Border Collection release, a number of Canadian reviewers received access to a small number of single cask samplings of Lot 40.  But this review is of the official bottling now hitting retail shelves in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. It is bottled at 55.0% ABV, and is sold for $70 at the LCBO.

As with regular Lot 40, with is a 100% rye whisky – only now with an explicit age statement and higher cask strength. My bottle is numbered 3754 for this “First Edition” official release (out of 4968).

Here is how it compares to premium Canadian whiskies in my Meta-Critic database. Note that I have separated out reviews for the single cask Lot 40 in its own category.

Canadian Club 20yo: 8.63 ± 0.30 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Canadian Club 30yo: 9.01 ± 0.18 on 6 reviews ($$$$$)
Canadian Rockies 21yo: 8.96 ± 0.26 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Caribou Crossing Single Barrel: 8.55 ± 0.38 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Century Reserve 21yo: 8.73 ± 0.20 on 10 reviews ($$)
Crown Royal Hand Selected Barrel: 8.83 ± 0.25 on 10 reviews ($$$)
Crown Royal Noble Collection Cornerstone Blend: 8.39 ± 0.69 on 5 reviews ($$$)
Crown Royal Noble Collection Wine Barrel Finished: 8.70 ± 0.55 on 5 reviews ($$$)
Forty Creek Confederation Oak (All Batches): 8.79 ± 0.37 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Gibson’s 18yo: 8.99 ± 0.32 on 10 reviews ($$$$)
Highwood Ninety Rye 20yo: 8.77 ± 0.32 on 11 reviews ($$)
J.P. Wiser’s Dissertation: 8.97 ± 0.25 on 6 reviews ($$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 18yo: 8.59 ± 0.44 on 15 reviews ($$$)
J.P. Wiser’s 35yo: 8.55 ± 1.00 on 3 reviews ($$$$$+)
J.P. Wiser’s Legacy: 8.97 ± 0.36 on 16 reviews ($$)
J.P. Wiser’s Red Letter: 8.80 ± 0.37 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Lot 40: 8.90 ± 0.34 on 22 reviews ($$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength (Single Cask): 9.17 ± 0.10 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Lot 40 Cask Strength 12 Year Old: 9.25 ± 0.10 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Masterson’s Straight Rye: 10yo 8.87 ± 0.40 on 17 reviews ($$$$)
Whistlepig 10yo: 8.82 ± 0.42 on 16 reviews ($$$$)

And let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: As expected, Lot 40 on steroids! Heavy doses of rich baking spices – including cloves and cinnamon – plus cardamon, anise and dill. Main fruits are pears and plums (dark-skinned plums, specifically), with some citrus (oranges). Honey, with a touch of caramel. I also get a definite black tea note now. The extra strength can be a bit overwhelming, and drowns out some of the more delicate floral notes of regular Lot 40. There’s also something here that reminds me a bit of the original Pike Creek – likely the sharper rye notes.

Palate:  Thick and syrupy now, this is one you want to hold in your mouth. Cola and milk chocolate add to the honey and caramel from the nose, and cherries join the oranges. Heavy rye spices (cloves, cinnamon), with some actual dusty rye on the way out. A touch of bitterness (not sure if its from the rye or the wood, but I suspect the former). Dried herbs and tobacco, plus some sort of tannic black tea. And very peppery.  A much stronger presence that regular strength Lot 40.

Finish: Longer lasting than regular Lot 40. Spicy cloves and cinnamon (plus pepper) linger the longest, turning a bit candied over time (cinnamon red hots/swedish fish). Some astringency builds (that black tea note in particular). Dark chocolate-like bitterness also creeps in, but never overwhelms. Certainly a more substantial finish than other Canadian ryes, which tend to be a bit anemic. A nice, long-lasting glow.

With water, the nose is tamed a bit, and a breakfast fruit jam on toast note emerges. The caramel sweetness increases in the mouth, as do the more candied rye spices. Mouthfeel lightens quickly, so go easy on it. Seems to help with the bitterness on the finish. Personally, I find this one quite easy to drink to neat – but a bit of water will enhance the sweetness factor.

No doubt about it, this is an enthusiasts’ rye whisky. Much stronger rye presence than anything I can think of, including Masterson’s Straight Rye (which is probably its closest comparable). I don’t think it’s automatic that you will like this if you are a Lot 40 fan – there is an elegant subtlety to regular Lot 40 that is a bit lost here.  But for fans of cask-strength whiskies, this is really a no-brainer – I’m glad to see Corby roll this out (although sadly as only a limited release). There is talk of making some variant of this an annual release, though.

Although this is just now hitting shelves at the LCBO (and won’t last long!), there are a few reviews of the official bottling. See Davin of Canadian Whisky, Mark of Whsky Buzz, and Neversafeforlife, TOModera, Sinjun86 and muaddib99 on Reddit for very positive ones. For the single cask Lot 40 samples Corby circulated prior to release to some reviewers, you will find very positive reviews of one batch (bottled at 55.8%) by Devoz, Lasidar, Ethanized, Boyd86, and kinohead of Reddit, and Jason of In Search of Elegance. Andre of Quebec Whisky also reviewed a single cask sample (not sure if it was the same one as the others above). All agree, this is a top pick Canadian rye whisky.

Highland Park 25 Year Old

The Highland Park 25 Year Old has long been one of the highest-end official expressions available from this Orkney island distiller.

As I noted in my earlier review of the Highland Park 18 Year Old, this distillery has an unusual profile of rich sherry-cask notes and distinctive island peat. The additional aging here should further enhance the wood-derived characteristics, and attenuate the peat presence.

I recently had the chance to sample a 2005 edition bottling. This one was bottled at 50.7% ABV cask strength. The current bottling (48.1% ABV) sells for a rather steep for $900 CAD at the LCBO.

Here is how the 25 yo expression compares to other Highland Parks in my Meta-Critic database:

Highland Park 10yo: 8.52 ± 0.26 on 15 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park 12yo (all reviews): 8.66 ± 0.22 on 25 reviews ($$$)
Highland Park 15yo: 8.70 ± 0.22 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Highland Park 15yo Fire: 8.74 ± 0.37 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 17yo Ice: 8.72 ± 0.28 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 18yo: 9.07 ± 0.22 on 25 reviews ($$$$$)
Highland Park 21yo: 8.90 ± 0.40 on 16 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 25yo: 9.14 ± 0.23 on 14 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 30yo: 9.14 ± 0.41 on 12 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park 40yo: 9.17 ± 0.43 on 10 reviews ($$$$$+)
Highland Park Dark Origins: 8.50 ± 0.47 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Highland Park Valkyrie: 8.74 ± 0.22 on 6 reviews ($$$$)

As you can see, it gets one of the highest scores for this family. Here is what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet, and very fruity – including berries, banana, cantaloupe and grapes. Seems almost port-like in its characteristics. I’ve never gotten this much fruit from a Highland Park before. Honey. Strong wood spice, plus some eucalyptus – kind of reminds me of Old Spice after-shave. Anise. Something vaguely Springbank-like with its sweet peat notes. Only lightly smokey, but very complex, with lots going on here. No real off notes.

Palate: ‎ Initial smoke, but it fades quickly. Caramel, and sort of a burnt toffee sensation joining the honey. Berries and mixed fruit salad. Oranges. Wood spice as expected, slightly bitter. Coffee and a touch of chocolate join the anise. Good mouth feel – though not as strong as I expected for 50.7% ABV (i.e., not as thick, but still coats well). You can really taste the extended wood aging. In the end, this really isn’t very smokey.

Finish: Long. Nice mix of fruit and wood spice. No real bitterness or other impairments.   Again, not much smoke though.

Adding water makes it a touch sweeter (bringing up the honey in particular). It also seems to accentuate the wood spice. Your call of course, but I think it benefits from a few drops.

I can see why this scores so well – it is really a pretty flawless presentation, with no off notes at any point. It’s also very complex – especially on the nose, which I like (I’m a big fan of sniffing my whisky). It is heavily oaked without being bitter, which is impressive. If I were to have any criticism it would be the lower levels of smoke than I’m used to from Highland Park. For the price, I’d personally prefer the Caol Ila 30 Year Old over this, mainly for its extinguished campfire notes. And where I am, I can get the fruity and woody Redbreast 21 Year Old for almost a quarter the price (although of course, it is completely unpeated).

There aren’t many reviewers who have compared multiple editions, but Serge of Whisky Fun gives this edition a very similar score to the earlier and later editions. Ruben of Whisky Notes gave this expression is a very good score, slightly higher than newer expressions. For the various versions, most reviewers are very positive – including Jim Murray, Oliver of Dramming, My Annoying Opinions, and Thomas of Whisky Saga. The guys at Quebec Whisky are the typically moderately positive.

Maker’s Mark Cask Strength

Maker’s Mark Cask Strength is just that – a higher-strength version of this classic Kentucky “wheated” bourbon. Check out my review of standard Maker’s Mark for more info on this bourbon producer (or my review of Maker’s Mark 46 for a competing higher-end product).

Each batch is bottled somewhere in the range of 108-114 proof (i.e., 54-57% ABV). My sample came from a batch that was toward the high end, at 56.7% ABV. You don’t tend to see a lot cask-strength wheaters, but this should really amp up the flavour profile.

Here is how it compares to various competing wheaters in my Meta-Critic database:

Maker’s Mark: 8.24 ± 0.40 on 25 reviews ($$)
Maker’s Mark 46: 8.70 ± 0.32 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Maker’s Mark Cask Strength: 8.80 ± 0.29 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Old Fitzgerald BiB: 7.99 ± 0.35 on 4 reviews ($$$)
Old Fitzgerald Kentucky Straight Bourbon: 8.40 ± 0.49 on 6 reviews ($$)
Old Rip Van Winkle 10yo: 8.90 ± 0.24 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)
Old Weller Antique 107: 8.69 ± 0.34 on 14 reviews ($$)
Larceny Bourbon: 8.35 ± 0.24 on 101 reviews ($$)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 15yo: 9.24 ± 0.24 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 20yo: 9.26 ± 0.34 on 13 reviews ($$$$$+)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 23yo: 8.78 ± 0.49 on 5 reviews ($$$$$+)
Van Winkle Special Reserve 12yo Lot B: 8.68 ± 0.23 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
W.L. Weller 12yo: 8.82 ± 0.17 on 16 reviews ($$$$$)
W.L. Weller Special Reserve: 8.40 ± 0.35 on 13 reviews ($)
William Larue Weller: 9.23 ± 0.25 on 15 reviews ($$$$$+)

My sample came from Redditor Jolarbear. Here is what I find in the glass:

Colour: Dark amber. Can definitely see some darker and richer tones here.

Nose: Some similarity to standard Maker’s Mark, but amped up with more spice (cinnamon and cloves especially), and with added mint now. Ripe dark fruits take over from the more candied experience of standard Maker’s. Citrus, as always. Caramel and vanilla, of course. Nuts. There is still that acetone undertone, unfortunately. More mature than regular Maker’s, but not quite as interesting as the Maker’s 46.

Palate: Not as sweet as regular Maker’s Mark on the initial palate, with new notes of chocolate added to the caramel. More molasses than honey now. Sour cherry added to the fruit cocktail. Mixed nuts (getting some Brazil nuts in particular). Malty. You can taste the higher ABV, it packs more of punch now (although oddly not as creamy as Maker’s Mark 46 – I would describe the texture as buttery here). Those enhanced wood spices from the nose show up here as well.

Finish: Medium long. The sweetness lingers, with additional oaky elements. Not as bitter as standard Maker’s Mark. Cloves and cinnamon red hots – definitely lingers on those spicy notes as well.

With a few drops of water, the fruits pick up on the nose, and I get an almost floral note. In the mouth, the cinnamon spice picks up, and the texture become more fudge-like. A couple more drops brings up even more fruit on the palate, but can also start to accentuate the off-notes. If you bring it down all the way to standard Makers Mark’s 45% ABV, the sweetness increases and an astringent dryness develops – but its still better than regular Maker’s Mark. This is one you are going to want to experiment with the right level of water for your personal taste.

Certainly a much better choice than regular Maker’s Mark – but I still prefer the Maker’s Mark 46 with its heavy cinnamon spiciness and extra mature woodiness. Maker’s Mark Cask Strength is probably best suited to those looking to find more fruit and earth tones. But you will need to experiment with the water level here, as it quickly brings up some of the less pleasant notes as you dilute.

Personally, I would give this a slightly lower score than the Meta-Critic average. Among reviewers, John of Whisky Advocate is a huge fan, followed by Josh the Whiskey Jug,  Eric of Breaking Bourbon, Jason of In Search of Elegance and Andre and Patrick of Quebec Whisky. But it gets an average score from My Annoying Opinions, and a below-average one from Thomas of Whisky Saga.

Maker’s Mark 46

Following on my review of regular Maker’s Mark – a standard-bearer in the “wheated” bourbon class – allow me to introduce one of their premium products: Maker’s Mark 46.

Maker’s Mark 46 is distinctive in that they age it longer than standard Maker’s (10 weeks longer, reported) and inside barrels containing pieces of seared French oak staves. The use of these staves creates more complex flavors, by helping to “season” the whisky further. Maker’s Mark claims this also helps eliminate the bitterness that usually comes with whiskies that are aged longer in virgin oak casks. The name apparently relates to the stave profile use for the inserted chips (“number 46”).

Maker’s Mark 46 is bottled at 47% ABV, which is just a touch higher than standard Maker’s. Note there is a cask strength version of 46 as well, but I haven’t tried it.

Here is how it compares to competing wheaters, in my Meta-Critic database:

Maker’s Mark: 8.24 ± 0.40 on 25 reviews ($$)
Maker’s Mark 46: 8.70 ± 0.32 on 19 reviews ($$$)
Maker’s Mark Cask Strength: 8.80 ± 0.29 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Old Fitzgerald BiB: 7.99 ± 0.35 on 4 reviews ($$$)
Old Fitzgerald Kentucky Straight Bourbon: 8.40 ± 0.49 on 6 reviews ($$)
Old Rip Van Winkle 10yo: 8.90 ± 0.24 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)
Old Weller Antique 107: 8.69 ± 0.34 on 14 reviews ($$)
Larceny Bourbon: 8.35 ± 0.24 on 101 reviews ($$)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 15yo: 9.24 ± 0.24 on 11 reviews ($$$$$+)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 20yo: 9.26 ± 0.34 on 13 reviews ($$$$$+)
Pappy Van Winkle Family Reserve Bourbon 23yo: 8.78 ± 0.49 on 5 reviews ($$$$$+)
Van Winkle Special Reserve 12yo Lot B: 8.68 ± 0.23 on 9 reviews ($$$$$+)
W.L. Weller 12yo: 8.82 ± 0.17 on 16 reviews ($$$$$)
W.L. Weller Special Reserve: 8.40 ± 0.35 on 13 reviews ($)
William Larue Weller: 9.23 ± 0.25 on 15 reviews ($$$$$+)

My sample came from Redditor 89Justin. Here’s what I find in the glass:

Colour: Medium amber, maybe a touch darker than regular Maker’s Mark – but you could only tell if you closely scrutinized them side-by-side.

Nose: While still sweet, less sharp than the regular Maker’s, with a lot more wood notes (including sawdust). Toasted oak. Seems older, more mature. Caramel and vanilla, with less honey now. Slightly spicier nose too, with a touch of pepper joining the cinnamon. Not as fruity as regular Maker’s, but similar fruit cocktail and orange peels dominate. Less off notes, but the main one now is glue (i.e., it’s not as overwhelming sweet as regular Maker’s).

Palate: More balanced presentation. An almost earthy mix of caramel, vanilla and toasted wood spice. Anise and allspice join the cinnamon and cloves. Warming, with a thicker mouthfeel that regular Maker’s Mark – very creamy now (vanilla frosting comes to mind). The wheat is definitely more prominent, but with greater complexity than the simple sweetness of regular Maker’s. I like the more substantial (and spicier) taste – and lack of off notes.

Finish:  Medium-long. I’m not getting the bitterness or the astringency that I noticed on regular Maker’s. Just like how the sweetness is tamed and rendered more complex, you are getting a much more balanced presentation here across the board. A bit malty. Cinnamon red hots and creamy corn linger to the end.

With water, the creaminess of the mouth turns more syrupy (which some many actually prefer). The cinnamon is again enhanced. As always, adjust to your taste – but I think a few drops enhance this whisky.

I’ve always been a fan of hot cinnamon candies (i.e., cinnamon red hots, cinnamon hearts, Swedish fish, etc). So it is no surprise that I greatly prefer this version of Maker’s Mark over the standard version. But beyond the spice, there’s also a more elegant wood presentation – subdued, layered, and mature. An above average bourbon for me, the Meta-Critic average score seems reasonable. A bourbon I’d recommend for scotch drinkers.

Among reviewers, Jim Murray is a big fan, as is Josh the Whiskey Jug and John of Whisky Advocate. Similarly positive are the whole gang at Quebec Whisky, Jan of Best Shot Whisky, and Jason of In Search of Elegance. More moderate is Jordan of Breaking Boubon. Nathan the Scotch Noob is not a fan at all.

 

Paul John Bold

As I mentioned in inaugural review of Paul John Edited, this Indian single malt whisky maker is starting to get wider international exposure. Next up is my review of Paul John Bold – a fully peated Indian whisky.

Apparently, peat is brought over to Goa from Islay for this expression, where it is used to dry their 6-row Indian barley. This differs from the original Edited edition, where imported peated Scottish barley was added to their standard unpeated Indian barley. As a result, I would expect a more heavily peated expression here – but one clearly showcasing the Paul John house-style.

Bottled at 46% ABV, I picked up a full bottle of this one during my travels in Western Canada late last year. I believe I paid ~$85 CAD for it.

Here is how it compares to other Indian whiskies in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Amrut Bourbon Single Cask: 8.74 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Fusion: 8.89 ± 0.25 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Indian Single Malt: 8.26 ± 0.82 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt: 8.69 ± 0.32 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt Cask Strength: 9.14 ± 0.18 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask (all casks): 8.77 ± 0.40 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Two Continents: 8.81 ± 0.44 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Single Cask: 8.90 ± 0.33 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Classic Select Cask: 8.62 ± 0.37 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Brilliance: 8.47 ± 0.37 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Peated Select Cask: 8.78 ± 0.26 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Bold: 8.75 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Edited: 8.46 ± 0.48 on 8 reviews ($$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Definitely a peated malt – phenolic, but more smoke and gasoline exhaust than your typical Islay peated whisky. Almost like toasted barley? Sweet, in an uncomplicated simple syrup sort of way. Some vanilla. Green apples and some citrus (lemon). Cumin seeds. A bit funky, similar to some of the younger Swedish whiskies I’ve reviewed recently.

Palate: Strong honey note now, definitely a sweet one. A bit of caramel. Some red delicious joins the green apple. Lemon drop candies. Scottish oat cakes and arrowroot baby biscuits. Grassy. Not really much peat here. Mouthfeel is a bit light for 46%, would have been better a little higher, I expect. Dare I say it – this is “smooth.” Easy drinking, you could polish this off pretty quickly if you weren’t careful.

Finish‎: Medium length (a bit quick for a peated whisky, though). Surprisingly, a lingering fruity sweetness lasts the longest (plus some vanilla cake frosting). Faint lingering smoke, but not as much you would might have expected from the initial nose.

Water brings up the fruit notes on the nose, but waters down the mouthfeel slightly (and brings up the sweetness even more). I recommend you drink it neat. If you do add water, probably no more than a few drops.

Not a particular complex whisky – but a pleasant enough sipper, and very easy to drink neat. You might even call it elegant. This is one for when you just want to relax with friends (who don’t mind the strong phenolic nose). Certainly better than the Edited I recently tried, but I again would score this slightly lower than the Meta-Critic average.

Among reviewers, Jim Murray is again a huge fan. Fairly positive are Jonny of Whisky Advocate, Serge of Whisky Fun, as well as Unclimbability and Devoz from Reddit. Worth trying out if you get the chance.

 

 

Paul John Edited

Paul John in an Indian single malt whisky maker, based in the southwestern Indian state of Goa. While the Bangalore-based Amrut tends to get all the single malt attention, Paul John has actually been producing whisky since 1992. I’ve noticed Paul John whiskies starting to show up in many countries in the last couple of years (including Canada – Western Canada, at any rate).

Their first unpeated single malt whisky (“Brilliance”) was distilled from Indian 6-row barley. But from what I can find online, this “Edited” second release supposedly uses ~15% peated spirit, made from imported Scottish barley (with malted barley phenol levels of about 20-25 ppm). I don’t know if that is still the case for current releases, or if they have moved to in-house peating yet. In any case, you should a expect a lightly peated expression here.

Like the earlier Brilliance, Edited is matured exclusively in ex-bourbon casks. There is no age statement, but I expect it is fairly young (in keeping with other tropical climate whiskies). Bottled at 46% ABV, it typically retails for around ~$60 USD most places. I actually sampled this at the SWISS Air lounge in Zurich.

Here is how it compares to other Indian whiskies in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Amrut Bourbon Single Cask: 8.74 ± 0.32 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Fusion: 8.89 ± 0.25 on 25 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Indian Single Malt: 8.26 ± 0.82 on 17 reviews ($$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt: 8.69 ± 0.32 on 12 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Peated Single Malt Cask Strength: 9.14 ± 0.18 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Portpipe Peated Single Cask (all casks): 8.77 ± 0.40 on 11 reviews ($$$$)
Amrut Two Continents: 8.81 ± 0.44 on 13 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Single Cask: 8.90 ± 0.33 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Classic Select Cask: 8.62 ± 0.37 on 7 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Brilliance: 8.47 ± 0.37 on 8 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Peated Select Cask: 8.78 ± 0.26 on 9 reviews ($$$$)
Paul John Bold: 8.75 ± 0.21 on 6 reviews ($$$)
Paul John Edited: 8.46 ± 0.48 on 8 reviews ($$$)

Let’s see what I find in the glass:

Nose: Sweet and lightly peated. Getting a lot of ex-bourbon notes – honey, caramel and tons of vanilla. Apple and pear. Green peas (which is distinctive). Not very complex, but pleasant enough. The peat is relatively light – strikes me as something like a lightly peated Speyside scotch. Touch of old sweat socks. Slight ethanol singe on deep inhale.

Palate: Very sweet again, honey and vanilla in particular, plus corn syrup. The sweetness dominates over everything else, honestly. Hint of fruit compote. Slight tongue tingle, on the back and sides of the tongue. A bit of glue, somewhat dry at end. Watery for 46% ABV, would have guessed lower honestly. Disappointing, but not offensive.

Finish‎: Medium. Has a dry finish, evaporates quickly in the mouth. Faint lingering smoke, more like old paper somehow. Aside from the smoke, the flavours just disappears.

Water brings in nothing new on nose, and lightens the mouth feel further.  It also becomes a touch acidic on finish, which wasn’t there before. Simply put, don’t do it – it is better neat.

At the end of the day, this is a relatively unoffensive spirit – it just isn’t very interesting. Personally, I think the Meta-Critic average score is a bit high – I would have rated it a little lower. Among reviewers, Jim Murray is a huge fan of this one. Moderately positive are Joshua of Whiskey Wash, Dominic of Whisky Advocate and Serge of Whisky Fun. Very negative are TOModera of Reddit and Ruben of Whisky Notes.

Hankey Bannister 12 Year Old Regency

I first came across this blended scotch at a beer lounge and restaurant called Easy Beer in Riga, Latvia. Although I had heard of Hankey Bannister scotch blends, I had never actually encountered one in my travels. And to my surprise, it was priced similarly to Bulleit bourbon as the lowest-priced whisky on hand for sampling. After this tasting, I subsequently went out and bought a 700 mL bottle at a nearby Spirits & Wine depot for 27 € (or just under $40 CAD).

In case you were wondering about the brand name, it is actually the combination of two proper surnames – Beaumont Hankey and Hugh Bannister – who came together to form the Hankey Bannister & Co. in 1757. While not as well known as some other blenders, their range of blended scotch whiskies have found favour with many over the years (e.g. Sir Winston Churchill is reported to have been a big fan).

Today, the brand is owned by Inver House, which also owns the malt distilleries Balblair, Pulteney, Speyburn, Balmenach and Knockdhu (AnCnoc) – whose malts, presumably, are used to create this 12 year old blend. Note that this 12 yo “Regency” bottling is different from their no-age-statement offering (also known as “Original”), which typically sells at around the floor price for blended scotch in jurisdictions that carry it (e.g., it is about half-priced in Latvia, at 14 € for a 1 L bottle – or $21 CAD). As an aside, Latvia has generally good prices on spirits – except for premium bottles, which have an even greater mark-up than here in Canada.

Packaging for Hankey Bannister 12 yo is pretty basic, and reminds me a lot of the current entry-level Johnnie Walker bottles (i.e., screw caps, and thin rectangular bottles and boxes to allow easy shelf stocking). Bottled at the industry standard 40% ABV.

Here’s how Hankey Bannister compares to the competition in my Meta-Critic Whisky Database:

Ballantine’s Finest: 7.62 ± 0.61 on 12 reviews ($)
Ballantine’s 17yo: 8.79 ± 0.34 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Compass Box Great King St Artist’s Blend: 8.59 ± 0.36 on 20 reviews ($$$)
Compass Box Great King St Glasgow Blend: 8.56 ± 0.24 on 12 reviews ($$$)
Chivas Regal 12yo: 7.77 ± 0.42 on 22 reviews ($$)
Chivas Regal 18yo: 8.24 ± 0.53 on 14 reviews ($$$$)
Chivas Royal Salute 21yo: 8.53 ± 0.62 on 8 reviews ($$$$$)
Dewar’s White Label: 7.52 ± 0.70 on 14 reviews ($$)
Dewar’s 12yo: 7.87 ± 0.33 on 13 reviews ($$)
Hankey Bannister 12yo Regency: 8.57 ± 0.20 on 6 reviews ($$)
Hankey Bannister 21yo Partner’s Reserve: 8.56 ± 0.43 on 5 reviews ($$$$)
Hankey Bannister Heritage: 8.50 ± 0.10 on 4 reviews ($$)
Hankey Bannister Original: 7.87 ± 0.31 on 6 reviews ($)
Johnnie Walker Black Label: 8.25 ± 0.48 on 24 reviews ($$)
Johnnie Walker Blue Label: 8.53 ± 0.36 on 16 reviews ($$$$$)
Johnnie Walker Green Label: 8.53 ± 0.36 on 20 reviews ($$$$)
Johnnie Walker Platinum Label: 8.42 ± 0.45 on 17 reviews ($$$$)
Johnnie Walker Red Label: 7.37 ± 0.59 on 21 reviews ($)
Té Bheag: 8.47 ± 0.29 on 15 reviews ($$)

That’s a decent Meta-Critic score for what is basically still an entry-level price scotch blend.

Here’s what I find in the glass:

Colour: Standard whisky colouring – pretty sure E150 spirit caramel has been added to this one.

Nose: I get classic honey and caramel on the nose, plus vanilla. Light berries, green grapes. Lemony citrus. Graham crackers. Creamy wheat and a grain sensation. Something spirity, almost mineralized (flint?). Furniture wax (lemon-scented Pledge, in fact). Faint touch of glue. Quite a decent nose for a blend.

Palate: Sweet honey and caramel dominate, with butterscotch and nougat. Very buttery – in both taste and texture. Lemon biscuits. Frosting. No real fruit, beyond typical apple/pear. Light spice. Some minor tongue tingle.  A bit light overall, consistent with low ABV.

Finish: Short. Caramel is the main note that remains. That spirity note from the nose returns – there is a definite minerality here. Has a club soda-like cleansing feel at the end.

This was a great find – one of the better blended Scotch whiskies that I’ve tried. I would put it on par with Johnnie Walker Blue Label (which is nearly 10 times as expensive), with which it shares a similar honeyed style. It rivals the quality of some comparably-aged Japanese blends out there (which are now sadly unavailable, or much more expensive). And it matches or exceeds most entry-level single malts in this age range (e.g., I find it more complex than the similarly honeyed – but more expensive – Singleton of Dufftown 12 year old). If you like this style of whisky, Hankey Bannister 12 yo Regency is pretty hard to beat for the price.

As an aside, my wife (who is not a big scotch drinker) really enjoyed this one – and encouraged me to bring back a bottle. I think it is very well suited to the casual whisky drinker who doesn’t like obvious smoke in their whisky. Among reviewers, the most positive is Ralfy, followed by Serge of Whisky Fun. It gets slightly below average scores from Jim Murray and Jan of Best Shot Whisky.

1 2 3 17