Thanks to /u/Boyd86 for this sample.
More finishes make better whiskies right? And more organs mean more healthy? Not to mention more chefs makes the broth fucking great, right?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If I ever uppercut a dolphin, I’ll both feel successful, silly, and deeply hurt, all at the same time.
Also I’ve said that more casks means more work needed to make something good. I like different finishes, and have had many. Some all at once, some by themselves. I’ve loved some. Hated others. Some call me a joker. Some a midnight toker. That has nothing to do with this one.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say, while using my inability to communicate, is that more casks has not been amazing.
Balvenie Triple Cask 12 is made with traditional refill casks, first-fill bourbon barrels and first-fill oloroso sherry butts. Three parts are split up into those casks, then married together for 6 months.
It was a travel exclusive, however I think you can get this one from other sources now.
Oh well, let’s see how it tastes.
Price: N/A at the LCBO
Colour: 7/5YR 7/10
Nose: Cereal, raspberry, plum, brown sugar
Weak nose. Very weak. Gone is the honey notes that I’m used to, left is some light notes that denote sherry and decent bourbon casks, if muted and without… much.
Taste: Watery, raisin, cherry, wood
There’s not much to this. Kinda rich, in the same way that when I was a kid I thought having $100 made be rich.
Meh. Not great.
Finish: Caramel, marshmallow, wood, ginger, butter
Nice finish at the end, though doesn’t last too long. It’s too little, too late.
Conclusion: Skip this. I’m not saying it’s bad, or you should hate it, or.. whatever. I’m saying that this is all flash and no substance. They could have made something interesting. They could have had a new Portwood 21 or something very different.
Instead it’s watered down and boring, and not worth the money.
World Whisky review #112, Speyside review #102, Whisky Network review #563