Johnnie Walker Green Label 15 Year

DISTILLER-SCORE SHOWDOWN: 95-POINT DISTILLER-RATED WHISKIES ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR For this Showdown, I decided to rank order 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. Previously, I reviewed six 97- or 96-point whiskies in my collection. For this Showdown, I’m going to use the 95-point benchmark, of which I own three (I thought I had four; my Collection list indicated that I still had the Maker’s Mark Wood Finishing Series 2021 FAE-01, but apparently I’d forgotten to mark it as already consumed). In this current grouping, there are two bourbons and one blended malt whisky. The different whisk(e)y types that can comprise various Showdowns of this sort beg what I consider an important question: how do identical high scores stack up against one another, irrespective of type? ELIJAH CRAIG BARREL PROOF B520 Clear mahogany color; darkest of the three (Pantone 160). Rich and inviting nose offers classic bourbon notes of brown sugar, coconut, vanilla, oak, and chocolate-covered cherries, a hint of vegetal cilantro, and cool spearmint. Surprisingly (given the 127.2 proof), there is no alcohol burn on the nose. The B520 is effusive on the palate, coating the entire mouth, with nice viscosity. The high proof does make an appearance on the back end, and while this was expected from the very beginning, it comes across as lighter than it is; very well-integrated. The finish is long, with some char, vanilla, and candied marasca cherries. Simply: ECBP B520 is very good. Current releases today can be found for $80-90—if you can find them. This bourbon can hold its own against any other ECBP (I’ve got to have a Showdown between the B517, which was Whisky Advocate’s Whisky of the Year in 2017, as well as the current C923). Would I buy it again? Yes—without question. I consider ECBP in general to be one of the best values in bourbon. I make an effort to buy each triannual release, and I have many of them going back five or six years. 4.5 on the Distiller scale (vs 4.75 on my last review, 6/25/22). 127.2 proof. 12-year age statement. RUSSELL’S RESERVE SINGLE BARREL BOURBON Deep coppered amber color (Pantone 152). Nose shows coconut, like a Mounds candy bar, transitioning to apples, some caramel, sawdust, pumpkin pie, vanilla, and a cooling mint presence. Wonderful palate with leather and pipe tobacco elements. Some oaky char with vanilla and a pleasant rye spiciness on the finish. The alcohol is balanced, and the effect is somewhere between the Kentucky Hug and a “Bardstown Kiss” (though WT is actually closer to Lawrenceburg), though it doesn’t feel 17 proof points below the ECBP B520 (even though it is). Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel can be found for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a bourbon that I always have on hand, and I consider it an even better value than the ECBP. 4.25 on the Distiller scale (unchanged from my 6/21/22 review). 110 proof. NAS. JOHNNIE WALKER GREEN LABEL 15 YEAR Lightest in color of the three, with a golden amber akin to Pantone 143. The fruity nose shows apples, gentle smoky peat, yeast rolls, and a little orange zest. The palate is light in terms of mouthfeel, yet the flavors yet the same flavors are noticeable. The finish begins with some white pepper, then the yeast rolls make a second appearance, and finally the gentle smoke, which is very long—the longest of the three. I first bought this whisky based on several recommendations. Frankly, I didn’t much care for it initially, and it sat for some time. But the more I try it, the more I like it. I would love to have this at cask strength, and while I don’t see anything like that on their website, I do see some special editions online in the $3,000 range, but that won’t happen. JW15 can be purchased (when you can find it) for around $65. Would I buy it again? Yes. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-year age statement. Coloring added (E150a). ON RATINGS (BOILERPLATE) 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. CONCLUSION Each of these whiskies are worthy of their 95-point Distiller score. For this Showdown, my expectation was that the ECBP B520 would overshadow the other two, both in its proof and its intensity. But that wasn’t the case. Not only did the Russell’s Reserve easily stand up to it, but the Johnnie Walker 15 did as well—at a far lower proof. I was frankly shocked. Each of these whiskies occupy different spaces in terms of style and type. The ECBP B520 is “Hazmat level” in terms of proof, with commensurate flavor intensity; the Russell’s Reserve Single Barrel is higher-proofed than typical bourbon, and it’s also a single-barrel offering, so it can experience variation. In my experience over the years, there’s a consistent flavor profile, with an appreciated richness. And the JW15 is of course a blended Scotch whisky. I still can’t get over just how well the JW15 stood up to the other three; it definitely punches above its weight. Further, all three are extremely good values. I ranked the ECBP B520 a quarter point higher than the other two, but not by much. It’s a fuller, richer experience, and everything is integrated with the much higher proof. But that doesn’t mean it’s the “winner”; the different styles are evident, and each is a worthy exemplar of their respective styles. I recently wrote a Showdown review that included Bowmore 18, and I wrote “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.” And that is a key differentiator, and one I should use along with the “Would I buy it again” criteria. For each of these whiskies, I could ask that question, and there would be many times I’d answer in the affirmative, depending on my mood. All three are very good, and also different. 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.)

BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY SHOWDOWN Dewar’s White Label Pig’s Nose Johnnie Walker Green Label Continuing to work through whiskies in my collection that I’ve yet to review. While this trio may appear incongruous—the Dewar’s and Pig’s Nose are bottom-shelf, while the Johnnie Walker 15 is top-shelf—they are the only blended scotch whiskies that I own. Further, the Dewar’s and Pig’s Nose are technically Blended Scotch Whisky, which means that they are comprised of both malt and grain whiskies. The Green Label is a Blended Malt Whisky, which contains only single-malt whiskies. I’ve not had any of these in quite some time (i.e., years). Based on what I recall, I believe the scores will be ranked in ascending order as I sample them alphabetically. Let’s find out. Dewar’s White Label Color is a clear Pantone 129. Very muted nose shows light pear, saline, and hay notes. There’s some surprising viscosity on the palate, which has a sweet honey element, transitioning to gentle white pepper and even a little vanilla on the medium-length finish. I’ve never purchased Dewar’s White Label. I recall that this bottle came as an already-opened party “gift” some years ago and has remained at its current 20% level since then. After tasting it, however, I must say that I’m surprised: there are no intrinsic flaws per se. Rather, the positive attributes that it does have are lightweight, which is merely less positive rather than overtly negative. I did not pour my falsely prejudiced swill down the drain, dear reader; my first of three Glencairn glasses now sits on my desk, empty. Still, Dewar’s White Label should not be considered an “introductory” whisky for the neophyte (Oban 14, while more expensive, is wonderful for both the newbie and connoisseur). This is a whisky intended to be cheap scotch for restaurants and parties, and for that I may one day be thankful if I find myself in a situation with no other alternative. The economics are obvious: 40% ABV is the bare minimum for a whisky designation, and ostensibly the unknown blending elements are secured on the cheap by Bacardi, it’s owner, and watered down as well. Dewar’s White Label is readily available for about $25. Would I buy it (for the first time)? No. But that doesn’t mean that I’d turn my nose up at it at my son’s frat party during Parent’s Weekend. In fact, I’d enjoy it. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 40% ABV. NAS. Pig’s Nose Color is a touch darker than the Dewar’s; Pantone 142. Sweet honey nose, with added apples, hay, salt, and the tiniest bit of peat. Mouthfeel is slightly less viscous than the Dewar’s, but is not devoid of it. The palate exhibits more honeyed sweetness. Very little spiciness, and a short finish. Still, Pig’s Nose comes across as more robust than the Dewar’s: think simple, but at a higher volume. Whence the name? From the box: “’Tis said that our scotch is as soft and as smooth as a pig’s nose.” To continue the alliteration: not only soft and smooth, but also a quite unporcine sweet (which is not a bad thing). Perhaps the marketing department couldn’t conjure a complementary concise commentary. Pig’s Nose is widely available for about $30. Would I buy it again? No, for the same rationale behind my assessment of the Dewar’s. No lipstick on this pig, but the pork still tastes pretty good. 3.0 on the Distiller scale. 40% ABV. 5-Year age statement. Johnnie Walker Green Label Color is deeper than the Pig’s Nose; Pantone 130. Nose, palate, finish: everything about the Green Label is superior to the previous two entrants. Nose emits honey, salt, stewed-apple oatmeal, cured deli ham, a floral gardenia, and the slightest whiff of smoke. Lightly viscous palate explodes with the same flavors, with added intensity (“explodes” is not histrionic here). There’s some white-pepper spiciness, and a long finish with the sweet, salt, and smoke of bacon jam. As a blended malt whisky, Green Label is a blend of Talisker, Linkwood, Cragganmore, and Caol Ila (there may be others). After hearing several online whisky acquaintances sing the praises of Johnnie Walker Green Label, I decided to purchase a bottle (this was a few years ago). It was not an easy task, as I was unable to find one quickly. When I first tasted it some time ago, I was unable to appreciate the enthusiasm. I now rectify that shortcoming. JW Green Label retails for around $60 today, which is about what I paid for it some time ago. Would I buy it again? Yes. This is a complex whisky with a 15-year age statement (there could be older components), and significant value given these attributes. I’d love to experience it at a higher proof; the aromatics and flavor profile could certainly support it. 4.25 on the Distiller scale. 43% ABV. 15-Year age statement. Separately: @stephaniemoreno rates this whisky at 95, and I concur—kind of. Green Label is very good. But it’s also problematic that the “Tasting Notes” by Stephanie and others are on some kind of a 0-100 scale, but the actual users have a 0-5 scale in quarter-point increments. This is bad design, plain and simple: I do know a thing or two about UX, and I say this from the perspective of someone who founded (and sold) a consumer-facing software company. The scales should be the same for both expert and user. There are other ways to improve basic functionality as well, and I’ve emailed these to Distiller with little success. Off my soapbox—for now. N.B.: All spirits tasted neat in a Glencairn glass.

JWG, this is my most anticipated JW liquid. I’ve been being told all manner of good things about this expression. Hopefully it stands up. I may not be correct here but I believe this is the only standard JW that is pure malt, with no grain component. Minimum of fifteen years in European or American oak with Talisker, Cragganmore, Linkwood, and Caol Ila as the backbone, the pedigree is good. Marketing is great here: “serving suggestion, enjoy 30 ml poured into a chilled glass” …OK then. N: Full, rich and viscous. Heaps of rich dark chocolate, coffee, really good oak woodiness, cigar box (I think?), oaky-biscuit and restrained wood smoke. There is also the deftest application of soft peat that laces through it all and that could be easily missed. P: Medium-full body with oily palate coating texture. Malt is crisp and carries notes of more coffee and chocolate but also toffee, nutty-creaminess, a salty maritime vibrancy and vaguely minty-herbal freshness. The flavours are punching hard but nothing is dominant, a wonderful balance. Now then, the peat. The peat is gentle and has a very slight medicinal underpinning with a slightly damp camp fire ashiness. F: Long. Lovely warmth with a lightly honey-cereal sweetness, soft oakiness and perhaps a gnats fart of florals. Crikey, I was not expecting that. So far my JW journey has been underwhelming at best and bewilderingly average at worst. This though just rocked the boat. I don’t think there is anything mind-blowing or breathtaking in the profiles it presents, but what it has done is to strike the most excellent balance between each of the notes. Nose to palate to finish is seamless in both texture and delivery of flavour. The absence of grain spirit filler is now apparent. In the other JWs so far the grain component hasn’t exactly been a negative experience. The JWG shows us though, that the grain spirit holds things back. This JWG has been allowed to really shine. JWG takes some well known individuals and creates something singularly good in its own right through excellent craftsmanship. [Pictured here with a green mineral for a green label. This mineral is a type of feldspar called amazonite, which is itself a type of perthite that contains lead and water impurities. Perthite though is a type of feldspar that is in fact an inter-growth of potassium rich microcline and sodium rich albite. So, single lump of mineral but four distinct mineral names going on in there. Excellent partner for the four malt character of JW Green label]. Distiller whisky taste #148 Johnnie Walker running scores Red: 2.0 Black 12: 2.5 Black Islay Origins: 3.5 Double Black: 3.25 Gold: 3.5 Green 15: 4.25

A malty nose, semisweet with some slight earthiness to it. I detect a hint of sea air, honied barley, some dried apple chips, grassy vetiver, a little vanilla bean, charred cedar wood with an elusive note of peat, a dash of allspice, and even a little sandalwood incense. Sweet to the tongue initially, light barley syrup, almost caramel, then pink peppercorns, a little cayenne, some oak, a drop of iodine, and a bitter citrus tang like Seville orange. More peat is present in the palate as well, a cool ashy peat with a wet mineral note calling to mind a stone wall covered in moss. The body isn’t bad, but definitely on the thin side. Few if any legs present in the glass as the whisky falls without tears like a line graph, leaving behind island chains of tiny droplets. The finish is mild, dry, and long with oiled cedar wood, and a little black tea dominating any lingering sweetness from the malt, and faint white raisins, possibly even peaches, offset by just a bit of brine. Nose: 9 Taste: 9 Body: 6 Finish: 8

Nose: initially all ripe apple. Maybe a hint of maple. As it sat thos dissipate and are replaced by angel food cake and something vegetal. Not peaty, per se, but im guessing thats where the vegetal comes from. Palate: sauteed celery, white cake frosting, earthy, sweet menthol Finish: white pepper, faint juicy fruit gum With water a little sweeter. As it sits in glass the maple returns on the nose. Not nearly as smoky as i remember, or as good. Its not bad at all, but the quality seems to have dipped. I actually prefer the Double Black to this for complexity and intensity of flavor (even though its a blend vs this blended malt). After about five minutes a faint aftertaste of cigarette ash formed on the back of my palate…but otherwise the smoke on this is very subdued.

My cat Onyx passed away on Monday at the age of 15. In her memory, I decided to crack open the JW Green 15 that's been waiting for the right moment. I'm tasting this alongside my already open bottles of Glenlivet 15 and Bowmore 15 for comparison/contrast. Nose: Light peat, caramel, sea breeze. The Talisker influence is really coming through here, but tamed by the other malts. Palate: Briny, dry and a little bit hot. The smoke bursts through with quite a bit of oak and spice. I didn't love it right off the bat, but there is complexity here. Finish: Lengthy, warm and spicy. Fresh apple is the lingering final flavour. This is the highlight of the dram by far.