Compass Box Hedonism

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 96-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES COMPASS BOX HEDONISM BOWMORE 18-YEAR LAPHROAIG 10-YEAR LAPHROAIG 15-YEAR 200TH ANNIVERSARY LAGAVULIN DISTILLER’S EDITION TALISKER 10-YEAR (Caveat lector: somewhat unexpectedly, this became a long-form review.) In my never-ending quest to educate my own palate and attempt to both explore the aesthetics of whisk(e)y and quantify qualitative scoring, I’ve been thinking about different Showdown possibilities. For this one, I decided to rank my collection by the Distiller “expert” score in descending order (@distiller, @stephaniemoreno, why am I able to do this on the app, but not on the website?), and start from there. Currently, I have one 97-point bottle (the Compass Box, which met its emptiness at this tasting), and five 96-pointers, so I grouped them all together. As a result, this Showdown (and others like it that I plan to do in the future) will usually not be an apples-to-apples comparison: first, there are different reviewers providing the official Distiller scores. Second, the scores are given irrespective of type: in this current grouping, all are Scotch whiskies: the Compass Box is a blended grain whisky, and the other five are single malts, and (coincidentally?) happen to be Islay. But as I continue doing this type of Showdown, a group might include Irish and Japanese whiskey, American bourbon, Scotch whisky, and the like. How do high scores stack up against one another as far as different types of whiskies are concerned? A thoughtful tasting of six whiskies is no small challenge. From a combinatorial perspective, this is an “n-choose-k” problem. To simply compare two whiskies side-by-side in a set of six, there are 15 possible combinations. Choosing three from six results in 20 different combinations. Suffice to say, the empirical analysis (or ”work”) behind this Showdown will surely take a few days (I’m aiming for three). I plan to sample three whiskies on consecutive nights, with brief notes on each, and then all six on the final night. Very small pours, I assure you. Let’s get started. COMPASS BOX HEDONISM Pale straw color (Pantone 121); clearly no added coloring. Fruity nose with papaya, a little grapefruit, and tangerines, as well as marzipan, a little tanginess, and vanilla. The mouthfeel shows gobs of glycerin, and oaky vanilla notes become predominant on the palate. There’s the tiniest pinch of white pepper on the back end, and then the finish is more vanilla, with some of that woody tannic bitterness I noticed on my last review. If “hedonism” is just another word for “vanilla bomb,” then Compass Box Hedonism nails it. And in case you couldn’t ferret that out, fear not: the words “RICH—VANILLA—ALLURING” shout it out to you in ALL CAPS right on the front label. This vanilla is exacerbated when tasted following any of the other whiskies in this Showdown. Per my review on 10/11/23, 30% of this whisky is 20 years old, and over 9% is 26 years old, all from first-fill bourbon casks, so the vanilla is perhaps unsurprising given the long wood contact. This Compass Box expression can be found for ~$120. Would I buy it again? No. 2.5 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 11/11/23 review). 43% ABV. Non chill filtered. No added coloring. Series MMXVI-C. BOWMORE 18-YEAR Color is a clear russet mahogany (Pantone 153). Nose shows the sherry influence with dates, rugelach, brown sugar, and cocoa over a foundation of more typical Islay peat, smoke, iodine, salt, band-aid, and seaweed. These same sweet and savory notes continue on the palate, with well-integrated alcohol (not difficult considering the hoi polloi 43% ABV). The medium-length finish continues with a straightforward version of the same sweet and savory elements. Bowmore 18 competes with (and compares to) other sherry-cask-finished Islay scotches like Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition and Ardbeg Uigeadail. But the Lagavulin DE has the B18 beat on the sweet and the peat, and while the Oogie lacks an age statement, it’s in a completely different league in terms of power and complexity, offering a richer, more satisfying experience than the B18. But wait, you might say: what if I prefer less-ostentatious, more gentle whiskies rather than cask strength ones? There’s a difference between a whisky that is elegant and refined versus one which has a not-dissimilar gentleness but lacks complexity. The Laphroaig 15-year 200th Anniversary Edition is an exemplar of the former, whereas the Bowmore 18 is part of the latter group. It’s not a powerful whisky, which is a matter of preference, but it lacks the elegance and complexity of the L15. And you might say: “But the L15 is a special release; it’s not the same thing.” To which I’d reply: “exactly.” And that’s the point. They are scored at 96 points. Ultimately it begs the question: why? I’d certainly drink the Bowmore 18 again, but in my collection, there’s little reason for me to think “Hmm, I think I’ll have that Bowmore 18 tonight” given so many other choices. I do not mean that in a haughty way. But when one has worked their way through literally hundreds of different whiskies—including many in side-by-side Showdown format—the interesting ones become apparent, especially when price is considered. B18 can be purchased for around $150. It’s nice, but not “special” nice. Not 96-point nice. I’m happy to have had a bottle for empirical purposes, but would I buy it again? No. 3.5 on the Distiller scale (up from 3.0 on my 10/3/23 review). 43% ABV. 18-year age statement. Chill-filtered. Coloring added (E150a). LAPHROAIG 10-YEAR Clear and non-adulterated straw color (Pantone 143). Nose shows peat smoke, kelp, iodine, Band Aid, bacon fat, sage, fresh figs, white pepper, apple, speck, and orange marmalade. The palate has a fig and honeyed sweetness, and if you didn’t know better you’d swear that you’d have just licked the slicked seasoning of a cast-iron griddle after years of service. Mild alcohol given the cornucopia of flavors (this needs a higher proof, and the Cask Strength version delivers on that point), and the finish is long with some light fruity elements and both peat smoke and ash. Laphroaig 10 is an iconic Islay whiskey that is readily available for around $50. While the “burning hospital” flavor profile can be somewhat polarizing, this is one of the most complex whiskies out there and represents one of the best values in all of whiskyland. Would I buy it again? Damn right I would. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (up from 4.25 on my 11/17/23 review). Somewhat tangentially: how is it that Laphroaig 10, as good as it is, is ranked by Distiller two to four points higher than various numbered batches of its Cask Strength older brother, which is a purer and inherently more complex form of the junior version? This is in part a rhetorical questions, but it is a question worth asking. I poured some Cask Strength Batch 13 to compare, and if Laphroaig is 96 points, then the Cask Strength should be even higher. 43% ABV. 10-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). LAPHROAIG 15-YEAR 200TH ANNIVERSARY Bright amber (Pantone 123). Nose shows cocoa powder, honey, gardenia, apple crumble, gentle peat, scones with strawberry jam, iodine, kombu, nori, damp cardboard box, smoke. On the palate, it’s light on its feet, with some of the same honeyed sweetness from the nose, followed by white pepper, salt, copious ash, and lingering smoked meat on the finish. L15 is sophisticated, graceful, and wonderfully complex. Because of its scarcity as a limited release, online prices now range from $500 to $1,000. Would I buy it again? Yes, at the price I originally paid (a little more than $100, if memory serves). I’m fortunate (and happy) to have it. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 11/17/23 review). 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). LAGAVULIN DISTILLER’S EDITION Deep orange amber (Pantone 139), darker than the L15. Dates, raisins, prunes, banana baby food, Frangelico, milk chocolate, and a whiff of vanilla on the nose, all covering the typical Lag16 kelp and iodine notes, as well as some Sharpie, like a thin blanket—the Lag16 typicity is there, but underneath the covers. The palate greets you with a hit of brown-sugar simple syrup, and then the blanket is removed, revealing classic Lag16 notes of kelp, iodine, and smoke. Some white pepper, brief brown sugar, and lingering smoke on the finish. From nose to finish, LDE moves from sweet to peat. This is a far more sophisticated and elegant example of marrying Islay malts with sherry casks than either Bowmore 18 or Ardbeg’s Uigeadail (not part of this tasting due to its Distiller score, but I did pour a tiny bit for comparative purposes). Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition can be had for around $110. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (down from 4.5 on my 7/29/22 review). 43% ABV. 16-year age statement. Batch lgv. 4/507. Coloring added (E150a). TALISKER 10-YEAR Clear burnt orange amber (Pantone 138). Cotton-candy-like sweetness. Grape Kool-Aid drink mix. Powdered cocoa. Apple pie and a little smoke. Smoky peat and BBQ sauce. Oily mouthfeel; more viscous than the L15 and LDE. Honey and concentrated pear extract on the palate. White pepper, honeyed biscuits (American, not English), brown-sugared oatmeal, and smoky peat on the finish. Talisker 10 has always been one of my favorite Scotch whiskies. That opinion is reinforced here. It’s more powerful and more youthful than any of the whiskies to this point—yet despite its relative youth, still very complex. Talisker 10 can be purchased for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. I don’t have a choice. Incredible value. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (up from 4.0 on my 10/11/23 review). 45.8% ABV. 10-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). E150a RANT I’m beginning to learn more about E150a, which is caramel coloring that distillers often add to whisky to enhance appearance (see https://whiskipedia.com/fundamentals/spirit-caramel). There is zero—zero—reason why an ostensibly high-end whisky with an age statement should have artificial coloring. On a prior review of Bowmore 18 (10/3/23), I wrote: “the added coloring is for all intents and purposes lying. What is the point? What is there to hide? What is the rationale?” None of these whiskies are bottom-shelf. Their target market is the whisky connoisseur. Tradition and simplicity and rules are what make Scotch whisky what it is: it is made from only cereal grains, water, and yeast; must be matured at least 3 years in oak casks; etc. (specifics: https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/insights/protecting-scotch-whisky/legal-protection-in-the-uk/). Neither extra flavoring nor sweetening is allowed. Why then is coloring? If a whisky is dark (like Edradour 10, which uses no coloring), I want to know that it’s dark because of the natural cask maturation process—NOT because it’s being “faked.” Germany requires full ingredient disclosure for whisky sold there, including whether or not E150a is added. So you can go to a site such as https://www.scoma.de (there is an option to select German or English, but there’s no reason to select English if you don’t know German because the disclosure language is in German); type in a whisky like “Lagavulin”; select the “Produktdetails” (German) or “Product Details” (English), and then the German “Farbstoff” or the English “Coloring”, and then you’ll see (in German, regardless of what language is selected) if coloring is added or not. “Yes” is ” Ja, Zuckerkulör E150a”, and “No” is “Nein.” I believe strongly that serious consumers of high-end whisky want the truth—that is, what is “real.” Springbank whiskies are typically of a light color. Why? Because they do not use coloring. And no serious whisky lover rejects them on that basis. Compass Box also sells expensive whisky that has no added coloring, and no one rejects them on that basis. Why do Bowmore (the 18 is fairly dark) and Laphroaig (less so) and Lagavulin add color in varying degrees? It’s fraudulent. And from an economic perspective: one less ingredient is one less cost. Why are these distillers trying to pull the wool over our eyes? If there’s still one reader who has made it this far, weigh in in the comments! CONCLUSION What’s in a rating? Goodness or beauty or merit are each in the eye of the beholder—to an extent. No scoring system or methodology is perfect; however, many if not most can be improved. For example: Distiller uses something akin to a 0-100 scale for its official scores, whereas users are restricted to zero to five in quarter-point increments, and while the community score can get more granular when averaged across numerous users, it is still not aligned with the Distiller score, and should be (@distiller @stephaniemoreno there’s no reason to have two different scoring systems here). Further, for either system: what’s the rationale and methodology? Most 0-100 scales, like school grades, are inflated; in practice, they typically range from perhaps 60 to 100 (meanwhile, Distiller users do employ the entire range of its separate rating system). And in either system, how are the rankings comprised? There are numerous ways it could be done: 33% for nose, 33% for palate, 33% for finish; or adding something for relative value, etc. While this may sound constricting, it’s superior to the chaos of allowing anyone to do it however they want. The benefit of imposing some structure is that while some will ignore it, others would embrace it, which would facilitate better apples-to-apples comparisons. This isn’t a pedantic point. In this Showdown, two whiskies are outliers relative to the others: the Compass Box Hedonism and the Bowmore 18. The Compass Box is monolithic by its own admission (VANILLA shouted on the label), and I concur. It’s not that the whisky is bad in and of itself. But one-dimensional whisky, or nearly so—especially expensive one-dimensional whisky—isn’t worthy of 96 points. Aside from the quite-old whisky in the blend, there isn’t anything to justify its super-premium price. John Glaser is to be admired for his transparency; the disclosure of the specifics of the blend is amazing, and this forthrightness should be an example for all producers. The same goes for the fact that there’s no added caramel coloring (E150a). But that doesn’t change the way the whisky drinks. The Bowmore 18 is more egregious that the others in this Showdown with its darker artificial coloring. There are better, and cheaper, whiskies in the same style; there’s no “must-have” aspect for a whisky that is rated 96 points by Distiller and retails for $150. The others are exceptional for different reasons. The Laphroaig 10 represents tremendous value for its “burning hospital meets beehive” complexity at a $50 price tag. The Laphroaig 15 200th Anniversary Edition is a fine exemplar of restraint and grace—not simplicity—with the added benefit of a 15-year age statement. The Lagavulin Distiller’s Edition strikes the sweet/peat balance better than the Bowmore 18, with a sophistication above another offering in that same space—Ardbeg Uigeadail (which was sampled in this tasting for comparison, but not reviewed because while I do own it, it is not scored 96 or better by Distiller). And finally, the Talisker 10 also represents tremendous value for a youthful, more powerful Islay that has both sweet and peat characteristics that attack your senses, offering intellectual and hedonistic pleasure. These four are winners in this Showdown for different reasons, and are worthy of a high Distiller score. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass. (N.B.: This review in its entirety is posted for each of the whiskies that are tasted, for the purpose of comparison and context; the reviews are in the same order that the whiskies are listed in at the top.)

N: Rich caramel, vanilla, toffee, baked sweetbreads, menthol, dried herbs, dash of ethanol. Maybe some dried stone fruit. Maybe. P: Straight bourbon corn sweetness - odd. Vanilla, toffee, caramel, cinnamon, some other baking spice, gentle fruit notes if you run air across it. Medium-heavy body with good weight and a mouthcoating feeling. F: Slightly bitter (tannic), medium spicy, woody, sweet vanilla, maybe some orange citrus. Good length. This is a really lovely whisky, but sadly I think it's a bit overpriced. It comes across almost as a Scottish version of bourbon, and therein lies the problem - why not just buy a decent bottle of bourbon for half the price? To be fair, this is definitely different, and seems to show some age (although I'm not sure I've captured that above), but it's hard to justify a C-note for a blended grain Scotch when you could grab a bottle of say Buffalo Trace and Johnnie Walker Green and still have a few bucks leftover. Another way of saying it is that this is probably a niche whisky that's targeted at whisky nerds. Guilty as charged, but I doubt I buy this again any time soon. I don't doubt I buy this again eventually, because it's really tasty, but it'll take a random craving or that opportunity to introduce to someone where I think it will just click. I'm not craving it, in other words. I might feel differently at $50, however unfair that thought may be to this whisky. _______ Please come join an unofficial Distiller community on Discord: https://discord.gg/VSmCvzAQfH. We chat spirits (and other things) in real time while being a great resource to each other for recommendations, finding deals, and generally enjoying the journey together. (If the link is expired, please post a comment and I will provide a new one.)

Very pale clear straw-like Pantone 121. Funky nose: I get soy sauce, some herbaceous quality (green pepper), a whiff of smoked meat, subtle tangy barbecue sauce, and some sweet vanilla. Incredibly unctuous palate, with some sweet vanilla-infused simple syrup, leading to copious white pepper and a long finish with coconut, vanilla, and a little woody tannic bitterness. I last reviewed this bottle on June 28, 2022, and I rated it 2.25—which as I mentioned then is probably due to the very high expectations I had due to the 97 Distiller rating. The palate and finish are massive improvements over the nose. Had I nosed this blind—even looking at its very pale color—I’d not even know where to begin, or what to do with it. There is no tell-tale typicity of anything. A detailed breakdown of this whisky can be downloaded from https://www.compassboxwhisky.com/whiskies/hedonism. The components are as follows: • 31.1% 20-year-old first-fill bourbon barrel single grain from Dumbarton distillery • 29.8% 14-year-old first-fill bourbon barrel single grain from Cameronbridge distillery • 15.2% 13-year-old first-fill bourbon barrel single grain from Cameronbridge distillery • 14.8% 18-year-old first-fill bourbon barrel single grain from Strathclyde distillery • 9.2% 26-year-old first-fill bourbon barrel I don’t get the hype. And as I noted on my aforementioned review, I take issue with marketing that proclaims “RICH-VANILLA-ALLURING” in all caps on the front label. Compass Box can be found for about $130. Would I buy it again? No. No, No, No. I would drink it if offered, though, just to blend in. 2.5 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. Non chill filtered. No added coloring. Series MMXVI-C.

I purchased this bottle a couple years ago based in part on the Distiller rating--97 points from Stephanie Moreno (who I've already learned isn't too correlated with my palate--which is not a knock on her--see my review on Glendronach Allardice 18 Year). Compass Box and John Glaser are iconoclasts in the scotch industry, and do have a quality ethos (this bottle has no added coloring and is non-chill filtered; reports suggest the various distillates are aged from 15 to more than 20 years). I tried Hedonism a couple times immediately after purchasing and recall being unimpressed, although I didn't write a specific note. That opinion is essentially unchanged. Dried hay color. Hedonism is aged in bourbon barrels, and oaky vanilla is present on the nose (the label screams "RICH * VANILLA * ALLURING" in case savorers couldn't notice), as well as Cheerios cereal and milk chocolate. The palate does have a viscous, glycerin-like quality (again, label: "RICH") with more oak and a touch of white pepper (normal scotch-like 43% ABV), finishing with some light, slightly bitter woody tannins. Distiller is massively off-base with this score. The defining characteristics are the label's "RICH" and "VANILLA" minus the "ALLURING." It's not bad; it's just boring. Scotch has such a wide array of styles, smells, and flavors; and there are dozens of them that are far less monolithic, much more complex, and objectively better than this one. And it gets worse when one considers value: prices today range from $100-130 (I paid about $90 as I recall). That's awfully expensive for rich vanilla with a pedestrian ABV. N.B. All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

Rating: 12/23 I've tried Hedonism before and generally not been impressed. It seemed a bit bland with a sort of bitter oiliness, though it was at least reasonably full and rich. N: Oh, yes, this is definitely a grain whisky. I get oil with a bit of alcohol burn, slightly dusty oak, faint over-oaking, a touch of lemon, and I want to say just a little coconut and vanilla. It certainly doesn't smell hedonistic. P: It has less of that youthful burn than most grain whisky. I think that the new American oak barrels might be playing a key role here (also, the low proof). Sweet at first with some vanilla, oil, lemon, and alcohol burn. Maybe a faint milkiness to it. The flavors aren't very distinct, rich or full. Perhaps I can get a tiny bit of coconut. F: The harshness disappears, but the sort of oiliness and new American oak linger faintly. Aside from the wood, there; is some vanilla and maybe coconut. - Conclusion - I'm shocked by the lack of fullness and richness here. What makes this in any way hedonistic? I've tried it side by side with several other drams that I don't consider to be all that hedonistic, such as Compass Box Artist's Blend (13/23) and Knappogue Castle 12 (115/23) and this is positively watery and burn-y in comparison. This has more vanilla than Signatory's Caledonian 29 (12/23) and it's less harsh, but there's also less full, almost sort of malty caramel grain flavor. I wish I could rate this higher, but I don't see it being above a 12 or 13. Between the two, I'm thinking it's most likely a 12.

Short of Artist and Glasgow Blends, Hedonism is one of the final core offerings from Compass Box I've yet to give a thorough, honest taste of. Granted, I once tasted this Whisky years ago, as I was just starting to appreciate good whisky but far before I had the ability to TRULY appreciate good whiskey. The nose certainly conjures up images of sweet, creamy indulgence. Vanilla and Coconut are blended with thick, sweet cream. A bit of baking spice mixes up the aroma as well as slightly bittersweet cacao right at the end. What a deliciously sweet taste! Warm, gooey caramel gets this dessert-like party started. The mouth feel is incredibly creamy as the sweetness pours on, albeit just a hair away from being cloying. ( Heavy peat fans might find this blend way too sweet. ). Vanilla cream with coconut fills your mouth and nose as the taste goes down, absolutely sensational. The finish is medium in length and keeps that creaminess that makes the taste so unique. Coconut macaroons and vanilla ride that creaminess off into the sunset. My God this one is stunning. I hope Compass Box keeps Hedonism in that core lineup for decades to come because it is far and away their best, standard offering.