Dewar's Double Double 21 Year

Dewar’s, to me, has long been a staple of the end-of-year office holiday party. I get in line with my coworkers, wait for the open bar, and the hotel, or bowling alley, or boat, or restaurant will generally offer three whiskies in the holiday party package: Jameson, Jack Daniels Black Label, or Dewar’s White Label. Sometimes I’ll opt for Jameson. I wouldn’t touch Jack Daniels, even in my younger and less discerning years, but most of the time, even now, I’ll order Dewar’s on the rocks. I’m not sure there’s a valid reason why. Perhaps it simply rolls off the tongue more smoothly than saying "Jameson on the rocks," effectively allowing me to order my drink more quickly. Plus of the blended Scotches without an age statement, I’ve never minded Dewar’s. It’s better than Johnnie Walker Red, less expensive than Chivas (which, on further reflection, has a 12-year age statement), and when compared to Cutty Sark…well, Cutty has always struck me as vilely medicinal like a lemon menthol cough drop. Though really, if you let the ice melt in almost any Scotch, you can drink it without noticing as you listen to office gossip and make wise cracks about the latest HR initiatives that obviously aren’t going to have an effect on morale and are just for show. As for having a bottle of Dewar’s in my house, I haven’t purchased White Label, even for mixing, in over a decade. Last year, I copped a bottle of Dewar’s 12 Year for $22, and despite the low community rating here, I quite enjoyed it, especially for that price. And in the middle of 2019, I noticed this Dewar’s Double Double 21 on the shelves at my local FW&GS shop with the nice package, the ornate bottle. It was enticingly presented, and I almost bought it before I realized it was 375 ml. Not that it isn’t an alluring prospect: getting 375 ml of a 21 year old whiskey for $50. After all, in the single malt category, most 21 Year Old varieties are beyond what I’m willing to spend. But at the time, I wanted more bang for my buck. I was already aggregating scores from various whisky websites, then comparing aggregate scores against local pricing before making my decision, and buying this then simply didn’t make sense when there were cheaper whiskies with better ratings to be had. But I never forgot about it, not entirely. Not until it looked like the stores were out of stock, and I’d missed the opportunity. Oh well, I thought, you can’t taste every single whisky you have a slight interest in. You have to pick and choose. Then, of course, Whisky Advocate selected this as their #2 of 2019, and I noticed that a limited quantity had made its way back into my local stores, and my interest was piqued again. I try to get new and interesting whiskies whenever September rolls around. Football season is coming back around. I’ve mentioned this in other reviews, but my dad and I watch the games together, and while we watch, we sip whisky. So, the question was, what do we start the season with? And I figured a 21 Year Old Scotch should do the trick. The community reviews here could be lukewarm to great, but I wouldn’t know until I found out for myself, would I? And so Sunday the 12th came, the Philadelphia Eagles fielded a team we fans had little knowledge and even less expectations of, and my dad and I took our seats on my back porch with the TV set up on the deck table (our post-COVID setup that allows us to socially distance while watching outside to allow the sunlight to hopefully kill any virus that might otherwise pass between us). I cracked the bottle and poured a bit for me, a bit for him, and a bit for my wife, who while not interested in football, had helped me set up the deck for watching and who had cooked Blondies for us to enjoy with our whisky. And the first thing she said, having tasted it, was “Smoky.” Now, I should say, that wasn’t the first of the aromas to hit me, but that might be because of how frequently I sip on Islay Scotch and how muted the smoke is compared to what you’d find in an Islay, but it’s reminiscent of the smoke you’d get from other Highland Scotches such as Highland Park. What stuck out to me was how honeyed the nose is, how sweet. Reading through the Distiller review as I sip again, the touch of brininess noted here is certainly present and enjoyable, but not overwhelming and certainly, again, not of the sort you’d get with an Islay, but overall, it’s got a nice solid aroma, certainly mouthwatering, and I enjoyed a few whiffs, as I watched my team drive down the field and score, much to my surprise. The palate wasn’t quite as smooth as I was expected for a 21 Year Old Scotch, however. I can’t say it’s disappointing. It retains the honeyed sweetness on the tongue, but I suppose I wasn’t expecting the bite that comes with. It’s not the kind of thing where I’d decline the offer of a glass of this based on that, but it is the type of situation where I’m not sure I’d feel the need to buy another bottle based on sheer enjoyment. Drinking this Sunday, comparing notes with my dad, I said that the palate adds berries and chocolate, though having a taste now, a few days after the fact, I’m not sure I taste the chocolate I noted anymore, making me question whether it was there at all or if it faded now that the liquid has had a little exposure to the air. To some extent, to write about a whisky with knowledge, to form an opinion I’ll stand by, I have to live with the whisky a while, taste it a few times and reflect on the experience of various rounds of tasting, and that’s the main drawback of a 375 ml bottle you plan to share with others: there’s simply not enough time to gain more than a passing familiarity with the liquor. My dad and I might have finished it that afternoon even, but I figured that after two pours each—with the Eagles heading into halftime leading 15-6—I’d take the opportunity to switch gears and try out a 375 ml bottle of Woodford Double Oak that I’d also picked up out of curiosity. And while we always need to keep in mind that taste is subjective, I think I appreciated the Woodford more than this bottle of Dewar’s. It might be it was more my speed, or simply because the finish on the Woodford, with its deep flavor of toffee and butterscotch (and might I even say a trace of those packets of Fun Dip I used to love so much as a child), was such a memorable experience. But that’s something I’ll save for my Woodford Double Oak write up. I just figured it’s always helpful to have a comparison whisky to add contrast, even if the comparison whisky is of an entirely different character. Overall, I’m not disappointed. Dewar’s Double Double 21 is tasty, and I’d concur with the community rating of 3.75 here. Worth a shot for the experience, but not a mainstay or regular whisky to stock on your shelves. It’s certainly more interesting than others here that have a similar community rating (I’m thinking Writer’s Tears Copper Pot). But overall, if I’m being offered a choice between the two whiskies I tasted that afternoon, I’m opting for Woodford Double Oak.

N: First impression: this goes deep. Rich, ripe stone fruit soaking in caramel and sweet coffee (with milk even?). Peach and plum stand out. Vanilla cream mixing with caramel and chocolate. Hard swirl brings out tons more chocolate - milk chocolate, hot chocolate (again, with milk?). Then it goes back to the fruit, sour this time. Then a creamy hard candy note that's both vanilla (more) and fruity (less). Tiny bit of earth and maybe petrichor. Feels like there's some generic wood, but it's not totally distinguishable. It keeps going: chocolate covered orange; flashes of honey, almond, and cherry; maybe a hint of smoke, but it's hidden behind the chocolate; chocolate covered flowers (that's a thing, right?). Like I said, deep. P: Peach, pear, cherry. Hot early, but not in an unpleasant way - cinnamon, toasted oak, bit of mint. Ethanol, I suppose - really just enough to remind you it's there. Vanilla, chocolate, light roast coffee, toffee, caramel. Earthy, woody, even a dash of pine. Over time, the fruit at the front end begins to feel stewed, heavy, sugary (although not terribly sweet). The cinnamon, oak, and mint from early on continue long into the finish. The mint develops and becomes more noticeable. There's also dark chocolate, less hot baking spices, different shadings of wood (pine, little bit of sawdust, some funk and moss, etc.), more coffee - getting darker now - and very mild and subtle bbq smoke note. Some tannic bitterness starts to develop about halfway through a second pour, and it merges with the fruit to land at a bitter fruit note that reminds (a little) of a hoppy beer (although far more subtle). The heat of the spice never gets crazy, but also never goes away - one of the longest finishes I've experienced. This is fantastic. It's rich, strong, well-developed, has no obvious weaknesses, and never quits - there's something new in it every time you take a sip. At a subjective level, this is not my personal favorite flavor profile - I've had other drams I "liked" more - but it's easily the best execution of a classic blended Scotch I've ever had, and maybe the best on the market.* VFM is fine, although I wish a full bottle was available. If I could get a 750 of this at $80, I would probably never not have it. The half bottle format is cute for a one-time purchase, but annoying if you really just want to have this dram around. Anyway, minor complaint. This is a phenomenal dram, worthy of its awards and reputation. * Example: I think some of the Compass Box blends are a little more interesting, but also more experimental (i.e. not "classic") and so not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.

This one is a minimum 21 years, NCF(!), and underwent a four stage process (including sherry casks) that, for the purpose of space, Ill describe as interesting for its eye towards consistency -and- depth of flavor. I paid ~$65 w/ tax for a 375ml. Nose: Golden raisins. Kiwi fruit. The best parts of that first sniff of a great red wine. Luxurious, even the smokiness which you can pick up but is at the end. Hides some honeysuckle dryness over herbaceous mint. Opens when neat in the glass to a light brown sugar with more exotic or vine-ripe fruit--blackcurrant jam and nice green tea. A nice one. It uses the sherry to create an excellent depth without being too fussily-layered or elusively complex. Spiciness turns up a tiny little bit everytime you come back to the bottle. Palate: The Dewars signature honey is everywhere but it doesnt ever get in the way of many, many great things going on: apricot, in-shell almonds, delicate oak, tons of lip-smackingly good sherry. Sadly this section was kind of weak overall. It has some great tastes and they are presented amazingly by the nose but it just doesn't do much for me profile-wise that I couldnt get out of the La Santa or something else notably cheaper. It was good tasting, but for the money I'm going Dew12. Mouth: Tries to steal the show from the nose and almost gets away with it. Easily the best I've ever had just in this specific section and for blends. 46% and it exhales like you drank air. Intoxicatingly shifts between smoky and sweet as you sip on it in the very back of your throat. The bottle says 'ultimate smoothness' and they werent kidding. Overall I'm going 3.75* instead of 4* because I truthfully had higher hopes for the tastes here. This isn't exactly ginger beer dram but it doesnt do a whole ton for me outside the easy drinking and amazing nose.

An award winning blend is always suspicious, specially when that category holds some great contestants as the almighty Hibiki 21 or a super high-end Compass Box. Don't get me wrong, i love blended whiskies, but i am a little skeptical of naming them "Best whisky in the world" specially when you are dealing with super brands that are made mostly to please a broad base of consumers rather than true whisky analysts (if such thing even exists). Well, actually i like Dewars a lot. It is a good, affordable blend. And this 21yo expression, has become very famous due to the awards it has won lately. It says in the label that it has been matured in four casks, mostly Oloroso Sherry ones. Bottled at 46%abv it has a very lovely red color. On the nose, quite nice. Bbq sauce, thick maple syrup, glazed ham and peach halves in their syrup. Honey. It screams Craigellachie everywhere. Not too complex. On the palate, it is super smooth, and i don't use "smooth" ever as a whisky term. Velvety soft and incredibly gentle. Vanilla, red fruit syrup, frutilla, maraschino cherries and fruitspice. Aftertaste is elegant. Hay and ginger. Very woody and dry; more sips gave me this feeling of coffee and milk, toffee and almond milk. Overall, this is a very good dram, but way too gentle and safe for my subjective preferences in whisky. Not very complex but incredibly easy to the palate, it achieves what it intends to do, which is a notorious elegance for whisky drinkers who appreciate a well crafted spirit without any crazy flavors or boldness. My score for this fairly enjoyable "juice" is 84 over 100.

A little over a year ago when I started this whisky journey my first budget scotch was Dewars white label. Not the best intro, however since then the 12/15/18 and even Caribbean cask have repaired the relationship. Excited to try the 21 with its almost wine like color and higher ABV. The nose is unsurprisingly rich, with decadent jammy fruit notes. Sweetness is provided from smells of dates and raisins. The grain portion of this dram does show up with some shiny ethanol dominating the middle layer, but if you work through that you find malt and cocoa way in the back. The palate starts off with some funk, which makes sense when thinking about the number of, and type of barrels this liquid went through. The malt that was lacking in the nose shows up here, paired with honey and baking spice. The 21 years also softened all the edges, so the hope of any drama comes from the 46% which this desperately needs. So far so good, except there is a thinness here snatches all this flavour from you before you are finished. I’m not sure if this is due to the blend of grain or age, but it’s noticeable. With that said there isn’t much to share with the finish, some oaky notes and a little dried fruit, but not much else. It’s just over too fast. 39 CAD for a 21 year old anything is pretty good, and that’s how I’d classify this. The flavours are good and it tastes expensive, but only for a flash and then it’s gone. I don’t regret snagging it, but it just isn’t good enough to buy again.

Is it a scam to put a 375 ml bottle in a box twice the size of most 750's? I'm not sure but I felt cheated when I got this home to realize it was a 375. Then again...for 50 bucks, maybe it's on me. Nose - butter scotch, chocolate, and vanilla. Taste - This one really evolves in your mouth. The buttery chocolate and vanilla rises up as the alcohol coats the mouth and there is a rush of oak and vanilla spice. There's a fruity character that starts to come out for me once I acclimate to the dessert notes. A bit of dark fruit...raisins or plums, some classic sherry notes but well back in there. Finish - long and lingering. Mostly butter scotch, oak, and some of that sherry element. I'm torn, I want to be mad about the small bottle, but I can't be upset at all with the insanely high quality whisky in here. I'm still only going with a 2.5 here. There's some off notes in the mix, even a few younger whisky notes in a 21 year, but man for 50 bucks, I know it's a small bottle but it's worth a gamble if you're a fan of blended scotch. I'm still debating the older expressions....I don't rebuy this but I might have to spend the 130 for the 30+ year old just to see. Please note again the 50 bucks was for a 375 which makes this more like a 100 dollar bottle. Not a horrible price for a 21 year old whisky and for the most part you get 21 year old notes on this one.