The Botanist Gin

Rating: 16/23 I recall not being all that impressed with this last time, but I've seen been really happy with Bruichladdich products and my tastes have changed, so since I was running low on London dry gin, I grabbed this as a reasonable substitute. N: The usual gin juniper and sort of papery London dry character. There's a bit of mustiness, some lemon tartness, and also some sweetness. On a tangent, I've never really gotten why London dry is called "dry" when it's so sweet, but this nose fits that profile pretty well. I don't really understand modern gin either. I mean, Monkey 47 and Hendrick's are certainly unusual, but a lot of them could pass as London dry easily. Back on topic, a lot of herbal nuance is going on, but I'm having trouble picking out individual scents. It's a bit rich. I get a touch of meat, but I guess it's not enough to be bad. There's also some slight rich vanilla. I'm getting less aggressively fishy Sipsmith mixed with the mellowness of Plymouth and the herbaceousness of Ford's. It works well, but it certainly isn't blowing me away. Theres a hint of something fruity and a touch floral, but not too much. P: Sweet musty herbal papery vanilla hits me first, along side a spicy kick, and then a junipery bitter bite. Lemon for sure, which mixes well with the other flavors of fruit flowers that flow into the vanilla. Some faint minerality that doesn't disrupt the rest of the profile. There's a lot going on, but I'm struggling to pick out individual flavors a lot of the time. There's some burn here, but it's within reason. This is a very well balanced gin with nice complexity. It really does taste a lot like an amalgamation of various London dry gins though. But it's definitely sweeter and more floral. I get a fruity side to the floral flavor, but the flowery nature is stronger. It's long orange blossoms and lemon blossoms or something. Ah, now the green, freshly cut nature of the botanicals is hitting me. There's a bit of pepper along with that too. I do get a hint of that meat from the nose, but it's like chicken breast cooked until it's, dry without seasonings. It reminds me a little bit of Sipsmith, but it mercifully isn't fishy. To be clear, that flavor is really under control here. F: That papery, meaty, vanilla mustiness really lingers. Some spicy burn. Lots of muddled herbal flavors that veer a bit more toward vegetal now. Floral fruitiness in with that vanilla. - Conclusion - Ford's (15/23) has sharper, more distinct flavors, and more of a bite. The mellower flavors here make this a better sipper, though perhaps not a better mixer. The Ford's is pepperier with more burn than this has. This is definitely fruitier and more floral. This strikes me as the more refined and enjoyable gin, so I'm placing it ahead of the Ford's. The difference isn't immense though and I'm not considering capability as a mixer here, so Ford's is still a real contender, especially at its significantly lower price. Hendrick's Lunar (17/23) is sweeter with a more interesting and fun character. I really like the Hendrick's as a sipper, but it's definitely more situational. This is more versatile, though it does risk being decent at everything, but excellent at none with this balancing of characteristics. Between the two, my inclination is to give the win to the Hendrick's, but it's a weird comparison. I think that this is about a 16. It's quite an enjoyable gin at a solid price, but it's nothing too amazing. I'd be happy to keep it in stock though. Honestly, I might be on the low side of a 15 here, but I'm not sure. The Hendrick's is just so much more refined and elegant, but it's also so much more sweet and weird. It also burns less, but that could be the proof at play. Eh, I think considering the weirdness that this is probably a little closer to the Hendrick's than to the Ford's, but it's kind of a close call.

For all of the die hard Gin fans out there, I am going to go against the grain with this review and my tasting notes. I should also add that I am a bourbon and whiskey man through and through trying to widen my palate. There are a few liquors on my shelf that don't exhibit the "classic" characteristics of their segment. My favorite tequilas and gins are chief amongst those selections. That said, I never fancied Gin much. But, with an open mind and palate I explored the segment and found some truly great examples. However, my first taste of The Botanist was during a social gathering, sipped neat from a Glencairn with friends and I remember distinctly thinking that I was not a fan. But now, in my quiet home on a chilly Friday evening, I'm going to give this a thorough once over. The nose on this Gin smells as classic as you can get. Juniper and lemon host some peppercorn that just slightly tickles the nose. There's a bit of an herbal, earthy smell to it, too. Almost mint leaf in nature. Juniper and citrus bring a floral start to the taste and then peppercorn opens up with a bit of prickle from center tongue out. The back half of the taste is rather dry and herbaceous - some black tea and mint leaf. The finish features citrus, black peppercorn and mint leaf. It continues to be rather dry and a tad bit spicy. I know why this doesn't appeal to me now. As I review this Gin, it is quite clear that the dominant flavors are floral, dry and herbal. None of which feature heavily in Bourbon. So of course, I'm not going to be an immediate fan but it certainly isn't the worst tasting liquor I've had in recent ages. Perhaps: a Gin for Gin drinkers?

Bourbon Snob Tries Gin: Part 7 Part 6: Monkey 47 Dry Gin Part 8, 1/8/25: Roku Gin >>>~~~~~~~~~~<<< I have not had too many gins. It’s been years since I’ve tried one. I don’t really know the language or the flavor profiles that make sense when describing gin. “Something witty.” This is a bourbon snob trying to understand gin. Much thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the pour! >>>~~~~~~~~~~<<< Nose is lemon, pine, cucumber. Fresh rosemary. Body is spiced cake, mild orange. Bit of peaches. The pine is there. Finish is cinnamon, sugar, orange peel. This is shockingly good. When I smelled more lemon and pine, I thought: “well here we go again.” But the body and finish are not dissimilar from many whiskeys that I enjoy. There’s no thick soapy mouth feel that I’ve learned to run from in gins. It’s spicy, flavorful and delicious. The nose is my least favorite part, but that’s more of an inditement of the prior gins than is fair for this guy. If I can forget the pain of the past, I can enjoy those notes too. This is my new favorite gin to date.

Lemon notes absolutely pop from the nose on this gin. Its the first thing you notice, even as its being poured, when you’re not even close to the glass yet. But after the citrus, as you spend time with the nose, all sorts of floral and herbal notes start to reveal themselves as well. There’s a touch of mint, but something like a cross of juniper and camomile comes forward more. That, and fresh lime zest. There’s even a very sneaky bit if thyme hidden in there as well. On the palate, those herbal notes become a bit more prominent, but lemon remains the star of the show. It’s accompanied by a touch of mint and apple, some subtle berry notes, and a very floral quality. Its a very fresh and lively drink. One whiff and you’re drawn in immediately. It makes for an excellent straight drink, one that you’ll spend a good bit of time evaluating. It also serves beautifully in simple cocktails like a dry martini. The bottom line with this gin is that it’s a vibrant, citrus-forward experience that will require a few re-visits.

I'm predominantly a whiskey drinker, but I love a good gin and tonic. When I saw that the masterful Bruichladdich made an Islay botanical gin, I rushed out and bought it immediately. I've only ever mixed this gin into a gin and tonic once. It was a great gin and tonic, but to be honest, I think that The Botanist is so good, that I'd rather drink it neat. Bruichladdich proves that Islay does more than just peat the Hell out of things, though they admitedly do a damn fine job of peating the Hell out of things. The Botanist proves that Islay can produce some of the finest spirits in the world without even needing to put them in a barrel. It's probably my favorite gin, and I even feel guilty mixing it.

Maybe I have myself to blame in part for getting my hopes up so high from The Botanist's reputation, but I found it to have a delicately balanced junipery, fresh, wildflowery, herbal, atlantic nose and get worse from there. Neat impression was more muddled and also unusually stingy. Tonic retains some of the character but also makes too much bittersweetness appear. Usually this could easily be blamed on the tonic but if I try every gin with the same ratio of the same tonic and like or even love a lot of them, I have no choice but to see the gin at fault here.