A gentle, pleasant dram. Quite floral, too. Soft, creamy vanilla foundation with a hint of marshmallow. Underlying notes of cut grass and linseed oil add texture and intrigue. Rosebank is a classic Lowlander and, given that the distillery closed in 1993, younger expressions will become more difficult to find (not to mention more expensive). Here’s a good whisky at a fair price.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

A pleasure to drink, just like the 12 year old version that preceded it. A foundation of honeyed malt, with background vanilla, subtle cocoa, faint bourbon, salt, and diffuse spice on the palate. Light to medium in body, but fairly viscous in texture. However, a coastal freshness cuts through the viscosity, keeping the whisky lively. Some of the freshness of the previous 12 year old distillery bottling is sacrificed in exchange for more depth and fullness. It is neither better nor worse for this, just different.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Fairly straight-forward but pleasing nonetheless. Creamy on the nose and palate. Nicely malty, too, with interwoven notes of vanilla, caramel custard, and hazelnut, offset nicely by dry oak spices and a hint of peat. A calming whisky best enjoyed after a very stressful day.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

New packaging, new formulation, and even a new strength. The new packaging is more stylish, the new formulation is more approachable, as is the new strength (45% rather than 50.5%). The previous Russell’s Reserve was big and brooding, with huge flavors of chewy toffee, oak, leather, and tobacco. This new expression is more elegant, with lighter sugars (honey, cotton candy, caramel, maple syrup), more fruit (candied orange, pineapple, coconut), and creamy vanilla. A tame expression of Wild Turkey (although the flavors are nicely balanced and seamlessly tied together). Ideally, I would like to see the bourbon with the new formula but bottled at the old strength of 101 proof.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Broodingly thick and syrupy in texture, and quite dry-especially on the finish. Twenty-three years is a long time for bourbon to spend in oak, and this one shows its age. The flavors and complexity of its younger two siblings is evident until mid-palate, but then dwindles slightly as the whisky progresses, replaced by dry, spicy, leathery, sooty-charcoal, tobacco notes.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Fruity on the nose and palate (orange peel, lime, lemon, pineapple). Very smooth and creamy, too, with notes of vanilla and a touch of honey. Underlying brittle mint, delicate floral notes, and even a hint of sandalwood gives the whisky some dimension. Very clean and nicely rounded. The problem with many Canadian whiskies is that they are too harsh when young, but get too woody when aged for ten or more years, because they are too thin in body to stand up to the oak. This one has matured nicely while still maintaining good balance and drinkability.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

An interesting whisky, with flavor notes I wouldn’t normally find together-golden raisins, green grapes, plum, citrus tang, fresh ginger, almonds, and a hint of mint leaves, all wrapped by a pleasing maltiness with underlying notes of vanilla custard. Fairly dry, slightly hot finish. Many of the Glendronachs (especially from the distillery) are sherried. Some of the sherried versions, like the 33 year old, are excellent. However, this is a refreshing change of pace. I’m glad they bottled it when they did though, as any additional oak dryness would be detrimental.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Chewy toffee and nougat, with some dusty corn notes along with minty rye and cinnamon. The whiskey’s fruit is subtle and subdued, finishing boldly dry with oaky vanilla and leather. Not as bright and intensely spicy as the Sazerac Rye 18 year old on the market, and it’s the antithesis of the younger Sazerac Rye 6 year old also reviewed in this Buyer’s Guide. An enjoyable, mature rye whiskey.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Medium-bodied but viscous in texture. Clearly aged in a bourbon cask-there's plenty of honeyed malt and vanilla throughout. Hints of bourbon even peek through occasionally, along with some subtle peat. Soft melon mid-palate yields to dried spice, sea salt, bitter chocolate and herbal notes on the finish. Fairly dry for a 12 year old-particularly on the finish. Best served as an aperitif.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Thick in texture and palate-coating. Ripe peaches and bananas, orange chocolate, English toffee, and a hint of damp oak on the nose. I can also detect brine, seaweed, peat smoke, and spice, but it’s a little clumsy. Same story on the palate. Not a bad whisky, but I expect more from Clynelish.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Surprisingly thick and oily in texture for a Lowlander. There’s plenty of marshmallow, vanilla cream, and ripe barley, with interspersed cut grass, lemon, and mustard seed. Drying oak spice notes on the finish. Not as polished or refined as the distillery bottling of the same age, but it still has many redeeming qualities.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

Dominant notes of citrus (lemon, lime) and other tropical fruits (coconut, mango) on the nose. On the palate, the whisky is simple and uncomplicated. The entry is soft and malty, and then it becomes dry and gently oaky. Not overly inspiring, but those who purchase the whisky for its rarity value (the distillery closed in 1983), shouldn’t be discouraged from actually drinking the stuff some day.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

There are three different Hirsch Canadian Whisky expressions: 8, 10, and 12 years old. The 8 year old is my pick of the three, with some creamy vanilla, biscuit, subtle caramel, and a hint of honey. The alcohol is quite dominant and the finish unrefined with solvent-like notes. The 10 and 12 year olds express less flavor complexity and are somewhat harsh on the finish. They’re not good enough to drink neat or on the rocks and too expensive to drink as a mixer ($38 for the 10 year old; $44 for the 12 year old.). Rating for the 10 year old: 72; rating for the 12 year old: 70.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)

" Straight from them there oak cask barrels to this here bottle," the label reads. Light, gently sweet notes of vanilla and caramel corn are the core of this whiskey. Inter-dispersed notes of mint, charred oak, and candied fruit are also present. The label also states "Sure enough smooth." True, I have had harsher whiskeys, but I’ve also had many that were smoother -and within this price range. In fact, there are several bourbon whiskeys on the market at this price that are at least this smooth and with a lot more flavor.

Reviewed by: John Hansell (Winter 2005)